An Open Letter to U.S./CDN Governments Regarding the U.N.

[Bonam]

The UN made no such statement. What they did was to pass a resolution that took the harshest criticisms of Zionism as objective truth, rather than a contentious opinion.

The fact that many people claim Israel and Zionism to be inseparable--a claim which may well be accurate, for all I know in my ignorance--doesn't demand that the UN "yes" voters all agreed with this, and hence were consciously voting against the very notion of "Israeli self-determination." That's an analysis, and in my view a monumentally oversensitive and wrongheaded one.

Here is the definition:

Zionism (Hebrew: ציונות‎, Tsiyonut) is a Jewish political movement that, in its broadest sense, has supported the self-determination of the Jewish people in a sovereign Jewish national homeland.[1] Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the Zionist movement continues primarily to advocate on behalf of the Jewish state and address threats to its continued existence and security.

Again: Zionism is the political movement that supports the self-determination of the Jewish people in a sovereign national homeland. That is, it is the movement that supports the existence of Israel. To condemn Zionism is to condemn the existence of Israel. To say that Zionism is racism is to say that the existence of Israel is racist.

As for the UN yes voters, for one, look at the map DoP posted. Do you think many of these nations were genuinely concerned about human rights and racism? Secondly, it is the responsibility of people at the UN to know the definitions of terms that they are discussing and passing resolutions about. You cannot claim ignorance for them as an excuse.

The Resolution was a bad one...and we can note well that it's no longer in play.

Only because the US pressured the rabble of the UN to revoke it, in a time when the US enjoyed unparalleled worldwide hegemony, in the very same month as the USSR fell.

But no, it was not a Resolution designed to "condemn Israeli self-determination."

Yes it was. Look at the resolution's sponsors. Mostly nations with a deep hatred of Israel, many of them having tried to wipe it out as well as committing atrocities against their own Jewish communities. The sponsoring nations had only one agenda in regards to Israel: its utter destruction. And the resolution was designed to work towards that goal by attempting to delegitimize Israel's existence.

[GostHacked]

As for the UN yes voters, for one, look at the map DoP posted. Do you think many of these nations were genuinely concerned about human rights and racism? Secondly, it is the responsibility of people at the UN to know the definitions of terms that they are discussing and passing resolutions about. You cannot claim ignorance for them as an excuse.

The UN is definately not interested in human rights either.

[bloodyminded]

Here is the definition:

Zionism (Hebrew: ציונות‎, Tsiyonut) is a Jewish political movement that, in its broadest sense, has supported the self-determination of the Jewish people in a sovereign Jewish national homeland.[1] Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the Zionist movement continues primarily to advocate on behalf of the Jewish state and address threats to its continued existence and security.

Again: Zionism is the political movement that supports the self-determination of the Jewish people in a sovereign national homeland.

Yes. "In its broadest sense," you helpfully quote from your own citation, explicitly underlining the existence of ambiguities.

I should think that you, bonam, at least as much as anyone here, would be aware that denotations of words lack absolute objectivity. This is no "gotcha" moment, however much you wish it were. And when it comes to words that describe a philosophical/political movement, especially....no dice.

That is, it is the movement that supports the existence of Israel. To condemn Zionism is to condemn the existence of Israel. To say that Zionism is racism is to say that the existence of Israel is racist.

No it isn't. It's long been a contested term, and it can and has been contested by people for perfectly sincere and decent reasons, utterly unrelated to bigotry of any kind.

I find it difficult to believe you don't agree. Because it's not a debatable opinion.

As for the UN yes voters, for one, look at the map DoP posted. Do you think many of these nations were genuinely concerned about human rights and racism?

Do you think none of them were?

Secondly, it is the responsibility of people at the UN to know the definitions of terms that they are discussing and passing resolutions about. You cannot claim ignorance for them as an excuse.

Zionism is more than just a word; it is a concept, and a disputed one.

For the record, I have always seen the word in a positive light, personally. But so what?

The idea that a rejection of "Zionism" is hard proof of rampant anti-semitism and the rejection of Israeli national identity is crazy.

And in fact, it is quite cynically used to declare criticism of Israel itelf--never mind Zionism--as questionable.

But only by drooling knuckeldraggers, terrified of honest debate.

Only because the US pressured the rabble of the UN to revoke it, in a time when the US enjoyed unparalleled worldwide hegemony, in the very same month as the USSR fell.

Noble America bravely fighting the "rabble" of the world, huh?

I've heard this myth before (it's recycled continually, actually) but I'm afraid I don't take it seriously.

Yes it was. Look at the resolution's sponsors. Mostly nations with a deep hatred of Israel, many of them having tried to wipe it out as well as committing atrocities against their own Jewish communities. The sponsoring nations had only one agenda in regards to Israel: its utter destruction. And the resolution was designed to work towards that goal by attempting to delegitimize Israel's existence.

This is all speculation, it's all opinion. There's nothing concrete here.

You act as if "everybody knows" that the opinions of Israeli nationalists on matters pertaining to Israel are by definition rock-solid.

I consider this form of argumentation itself, on a fundamental level, to be a form of moral and intellectual lunacy.

[Bob]

The UN made no such statement. What they did was to pass a resolution that took the harshest criticisms of Zionism as objective truth, rather than a contentious opinion.

The fact that many people claim Israel and Zionism to be inseparable--a claim which may well be accurate, for all I know in my ignorance--doesn't demand that the UN "yes" voters all agreed with this, and hence were consciously voting against the very notion of "Israeli self-determination." That's an analysis, and in my view a monumentally oversensitive and wrongheaded one.

The Resolution was a bad one...and we can note well that it's no longer in play.

But no, it was not a Resolution designed to "condemn Israeli self-determination."

It was a resolution that sought to destroy Jewish self-determination. And it took, what, 19 years to get the resolution retracted? It doesn't matter, anyways, the most recent Durban conference was the same thing. The UN and its subsidiaries are still vehemently anti-Zionist. This is a natural function of the massive worldwide Muslim population and the huge number of Arab/Muslim states and their supporters. It's a simple numbers game, with a "tyranny of the majority" consistently attacking the Jewish state.

[Bob]

Yes. "In its broadest sense," you helpfully quote from your own citation, explicitly underlining the existence of ambiguities.

No it isn't. It's long been a contested term, and it can and has been contested by people for perfectly sincere and decent reasons, utterly unrelated to bigotry of any kind.

Zionism's fundamentals aren't really debatable. And let's not pretend even for a second that "critics of Zionism" (basically, anti-Zionists) ever make distinctions about what forms and/or components of Zionism they oppose. Go through statements from the UN representatives of Arab/Muslim countries which mention Zionism, and Zionism is never quantified. They don't say they oppose Zionism that views all of the West Bank as part of the Jewish people's birthright. They don't say they oppose secular Zionism. They don't say they oppose revisionist Zionism. They oppose ZIONISM, period.

Zionism is more than just a word; it is a concept, and a disputed one.

Not really. The best way to go about achieving and preserving its objectives is debatable, but not really the concept itself.

The idea that a rejection of "Zionism" is hard proof of rampant anti-semitism and the rejection of Israeli national identity is crazy.

Are you suggesting that anti-Zionism isn't almost always inextricable from anti-Semitism? It is certainly anti-Semitism when advanced from any one of the plethora of prominent Arab/Muslim intellectuals and/or pundits who do the political rounds and oppose Zionism in one breath (directly or not-so-directly) and then cry out for Palestinian national rights.

And in fact, it is quite cynically used to declare criticism of Israel itelf--never mind Zionism--as questionable.

Depends on the criticism, of course.

[DogOnPorch]

Your link's not working for me.

Maybe you could explain why you disagree?

Time for a new computer.

[bud]

Support U.N. goal of elimination of Israel

lol. nice poll, you schmuck.

[Bob]

I voted for withdraw all funding and remain as members. Perhaps the UN can be reformed, but only if enough pressure is placed on it. Get in line and stay true to the mandate, or don't get any funding. Also, the UN needs much more stringent criteria for membership, and dissolution of many of its politicized subsidiaries.

[Bonam]

Yes. "In its broadest sense," you helpfully quote from your own citation, explicitly underlining the existence of ambiguities.

I should think that you, bonam, at least as much as anyone here, would be aware that denotations of words lack absolute objectivity. This is no "gotcha" moment, however much you wish it were. And when it comes to words that describe a philosophical/political movement, especially....no dice.

Yes, I am aware of that.

No it isn't. It's long been a contested term, and it can and has been contested by people for perfectly sincere and decent reasons, utterly unrelated to bigotry of any kind.

I find it difficult to believe you don't agree. Because it's not a debatable opinion.

Do you have an example? I don't think I've ever encountered an argument for the statement that "zionism is racism" that I would evaluate as sincere or decent while also being informed. Some ignorant people may condemn zionism as racism on the assumption that it somehow relates to Jewish-supremacism. But it doesn't, and though there are disputes over exactly what comprises Zionism, a notion of Jewish supremacy is not among them.

Do you think none of them were?

I think that's certainly possible. Few are the nations on this list that act out of honest concern for human rights:

Sponsored: (25) Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Cuba, Dahomey, Egypt, Guinea, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Republic, Mauritania, Morocco, North Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Yemen, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, and United Arab Emirates.

Voted yes: (72) The 25 sponsoring nations above, and additionally 47 nations: Albania, Bangladesh, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cambodia (formally known as Democratic Kampuchea), Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, People's Republic of China, Congo, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Laos, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

To sum up the [1975] list: Arab and Muslim states which hate Israel, Soviet bloc countries which see Israel as a client of the Americans, and 3rd world African and South American countries which all have terrible human rights abuses and conditions.

Zionism is more than just a word; it is a concept, and a disputed one.

For the record, I have always seen the word in a positive light, personally. But so what?

The idea that a rejection of "Zionism" is hard proof of rampant anti-semitism and the rejection of Israeli national identity is crazy.

Just because the exact meaning of a concept is "disputed" does not mean that the concept is entirely meaningless. People can quibble over the details of what Zionism means, the kinds of Zionism (religious, political/secular, etc), but fundamentally, Zionism means supporting the existence of a sovereign Jewish national homeland. For any "ism", we can debate what it means in detail, but we have a general idea of what it means. Capitalism for example, certainly its precise meaning is contested, and yet we all know it has something to do with free markets, private ownership of the means of production, etc.

Noble America bravely fighting the "rabble" of the world, huh?

On that particular issue and at that particular time, yes. The resolution was a bad one, as you agreed. It was written and sponsored by the 25 nations I listed above, which certainly qualify as rabble. And it was indeed the US that pushed resolution 46/86 which revoked resolution 3379.

You act as if "everybody knows" that the opinions of Israeli nationalists on matters pertaining to Israel are by definition rock-solid.

I consider this form of argumentation itself, on a fundamental level, to be a form of moral and intellectual lunacy.

I don't see how. My argument relies solely on the fact that the word Zionism has a commonly accepted meaning (just like any other word, including "contested" ones), and that those who issue resolutions about it should be expected to know that meaning.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Bonam