...To imply that Zionism is racism is the height of folly. Any attempt at the UN gathering to replicate the blasphemous UN resolution that equated Zionism with racism would support an Israeli view that the world is basically anti-Semitic. More so, such a move would be incredibly cynical, since Jews have been devastated throughout the ages by all forms of racism. Would one declare that Christianity is racist because of the acts of Christian societies against the Jews over the centuries? And what of Islam? Are the Albanian "purification" policy, or the Serbian massacres, or the slow disappearance of Christianity in this part of the globe, an indication that the Muslim world is basically racist? No one would dare make such a claim.

But Israel (and by association all Jews) has become fair game for such labeling. Zionism is not racist. However, that does not mean that our policies and the attitudes of too many of our citizens toward Arabs are not prejudicial in nature. While racism is a loaded word, it is clear that while it cannot be ascribed to the modern State of Israel formally, discriminatory actions toward Arabs - those who are citizens of Israel and those who are Palestinians - are all too present. But let us not relate to the Palestinians, because some would argue, albeit wrongfully, that since we are at war with them, virtually anything goes.

There are some traditions in Judaism that, while not based on Halacha have become mandatory because of minhag (custom). Such is the case with our actions toward Arabs in this country. There is no official policy of discrimination in Israel. But habit and disposition have seen bigotry, prejudice and intolerance become seeming watchwords of the Jewish state when it comes to its Arab minority. As a result, we have committed terrible injustices against Israeli Arabs.

One would have to be blind not to see them and foolish not to admit it. Just take a look at the difference between the Jews and Arabs of Nazareth. The discrepancy between the two sectors should be an embarrassment to us all. Nowhere is it written that the Arabs of the town should have inferior schools, fewer medical facilities, or a dilapidated municipal infrastructure.

But such is the case, and in one Arab town and village after another. Since such discrimination is not random but universal, habit and attitude have effectively become policy. It is subtle, but the results for the Arab community (and I would posit for the Jewish community as well, but on a moral plane) are devastating. We have provided ample justification for the increasingly volatile attacks on the Jewish state by the Israeli-Arab community.

It is not only the horrid treatment that Israeli Arabs received during the demonstrations in the north of the country almost a year ago that indicates something has gone terribly wrong with the Zionist enterprise. Theodor Herzl, the father of modern political Zionism, envisioned in Altneuland a state based on three principles: democracy, technological enlightenment, and social and human equality for the Arabs already in the land.

The shooting deaths of 13 citizens of Arab descent during those rocky October protests should have been ample proof that Herzl's vision had been blurred. But what further marks our unacceptable actions toward the Arab population is that close to 100,000 of them live in "unrecognized" villages, which essentially means that they live without water and electricity. Why? Because one day we may need to expropriate the lands they have lived on for years for Jewish needs.

We have contradicted the tenets of Zionism by introducing discriminatory practices into our body politic. The best way to defend ourselves against international condemnation, despite the world's double standards, is by doing everything to right these wrongs, so that we can realize the Zionist dream which began long before Herzl - after the fall of the Second Temple, when we dreamed of returning to "Zion" and Jerusalem, not only to regain our independence, but to build a state based on the prophetic ideals of social justice and equality.

Those attending the UN conference on racism could serve us well if, instead of condemning us for actions that are less horrific than many nations of the world, and certainly far less condemnable than the governmental policies of the countries in our region, they came out with a statement that urged us to live up to the principles of Zionism and the values of Judaism - principles and values that call on us to be a "light unto the nations."

(The writer is author of Jewish Schizophrenia in the Land of Israel and founding chairman of Rabbis for Human Rights.)

Why Zionism Is Racism

Zionism is a racist and irredeemable movement, like Bolshevism, Nazism, and Apartheid.

By Rabee' Sahyoun
Posted: 11 Rabi-u-Thani 1422, 3 July 2001

(Note: This article is a direct response, using the same format, on a line by line basis, to an editorial that appeared in the Montreal Gazette on April 26, 2001, written by Gil Troy, a Professor of History at McGill University.)

On this, the 53rd anniversary of the Nakbe' (the Catastrophe of the Palestinian people), it is all too tempting for friend and foe alike to define Israel, and zionism, solely by the Americans' proclamations of its enlightened democracy. To do so is to miss the normal atrocities that occur in Israel daily, the millions who are under curfew and blockade, starving and brutalized, in the Middle East's only colonized state. To do so is to feign the reality of zionism, a racist and irredeemable movement, that survived the twentieth centuries' other genocidal and seemingly passing revolutions such as Bolshevism, Nazism, and Apartheid.

A century ago, zionism extended Western colonialism to Palestine.

The sad truth is that over a century after its founding, zionism seems to be grander and more honorable than its reality. Arabs have suffered from Zionism's belligerence and exclusivity, and many have blamed the United States, and the West, for this because of their unshakeable support of zionism. Israeli aggression over the past seven months has finally renewed international recognition that zionism is racism.

On this anniversary of the Nabke', it is now up to all Jews to follow in the footsteps of the brave few, and denounce the racist and separatist nature of zionism, while the world should encourage them to do so. The world should not allow the torchbearers of zionism to silence and quell the idealism of these few. No nationalism is pure, no movement is perfect, no state is ideal, but today, Zionism persists as a menace, a militaristic and dictatory movement to me and to most Palestinians. A century ago, zionism extended Western colonialism to Palestine; today, as in the rest of the world, colonialism must be ideologically purged from Palestine.

I believe that zionism is racism, because 53 years after being exiled from their homeland, in defiance of the four Geneva Conventions, UN Resolutions 181, 194, 242, 338, and others, and other multilateral and international human rights conventions, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the disinherited refugees of Palestine, continue to endure merciless punishment from the Zionist entity, most recently in the bulldozing of makeshift homes in the Khan Younis refugee camp in Gaza.

I believe that zionism is racism, because I am a Palestinian, and without recognizing the colonialist component in zionism, I cannot explain its racist character, a western movement uprooting the native peoples of Palestine, Muslim, Christian, Jew, Samaritan alike, a people bound to their land, through centuries of raising orange groves, and herding sheep, lending grace to the Hills of God, historically, religiously and culturally.

I believe that zionism is racism, because it fails to appreciate or acknowledge the Palestinians' ties to their homeland, their love for their historical capital, Jerusalem, and the 53-yar plight they have endured as refugees worldwide, in Europe, in North America, in camps Dheishe, Shatila, Wehdaat and others, never giving up hope or struggle in yearning to return home.

I believe that zionism is racism, because it fails to admit the reality that the minority indigenous Jewish community in Palestine, that lived there for the last two thousand years, was an undistinguishable people from its Christian and Muslim Palestinian brethren, and that the leader of the Jewish community of the Jewish quarter of Old Jerusalem, Rabbi Lamram Blau, stood on the side of his Palestinian brothers and sisters being exiled in 1948.

I believe that zionism is racism because in modern times, the promise of liberal democracy and justice is a double-edged sword, preached by the Western powers, yet only paid lip-service to in the case of Israel, where Palestinian are continuously expelled, ethnically cleansed, and subjugated, and in the cases where they are assimilated, they are granted, limited, if any, civil rights.

I believe that zionism is racism, because in establishing the racially exclusive state of Israel, in 1948, and expelling the indigenous Palestinians from the land, the zionists severed a relationship that people had to the land for over 4,000 years, uninterrupted, since before Abraham.

I believe that zionism is racism, because in building Israel, the zionists were revising history, embracing the notion of racial superiority, an ideology that has empowered them to discriminate, with all of its associated social ills, injustices, and moral bankruptcy.

I believe that zionism is racism because it fails to distinguish between the nationalism of the American, based on multi-cultural harmony, and the racial exclusivity, separatism, ethnic cleansing, and brutality of zionism, that stands in clear violation of the most basic elements of international law and human rights practices, as most recently highlighted by reports issued by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

I believe that zionism is racism because in our world of post-modern identities, I know that we do not have to be "either-ors", we can be "ands and buts" ö a zionist and a settler, an American citizen of Polish heritage but a soldier in the Israeli army.

I believe that zionism is racism because it self-propagates itself as a democratic movement. However, a democracy, cannot, by definition, only be representative of one community in a bi-national and tri-religious contiguous geographic area. A democracy cannot exist for one people and not for another. This as called Apartheid in South Africa, and is now called zionism in Palestine.

I believe that zionism is racism, because it espouses an independent and sovereign Jewish state, in a land where there is no Jewish majority. It espouses that such a sovereign state be at peace and harmony with its neighbors without allowing the Palestinian refugees dwelling within their borders, who were expelled from their homes in Palestine by zionist militias, as is clearly documented by numerous sources including the memoirs of David-Ben Gurion himself, to return to their homes, which is a basic human right guaranteed by Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I believe that zionism is racism because it is presented by its champions, from Gil Troy to Elie Wiesel, as a romantic movement, which allowed zionists to reclaim the desert and build a model nation-state. This is racism at its most acute, since there was no desert in Palestine, other than the Negev in the South. This is simply a myth that has been propagated by racists who have supported Israel for the last 53 years, and economic data on agricultural exports to Europe from Palestine dating to medieval times easily rejects and exposes this as a blasphemous claim.

Yes, it sounds far-fetched today. But as Vladamir Jabotinsky, father of revisionist zionism said in a racist boast in 1923, "There can be no discussion of a voluntary reconciliation between us and the Arabs· Any native people·view their country as their national home· They will not voluntarily allow, not only a new master, but even a new partner· Colonization can have only one goal. For the Palestinian Arabs this goal is inadmissible. This is in the nature of things. To change that nature is impossible· colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population - an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy."

And thus, Gil Troy and zionists abound are exposed as nothing more than unabashed racists.

[Mr. Rabee' Sahyoun is a economic development policy researcher, human rights activist, and columnist residing in Beirut, Lebanon. He is affiliated with the global grassroots Palestine Right To Return Coalition.]

Is Zionism racism?
Joseph Farah
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

Once again the United Nations prepares to equate Zionism, the movement for a Jewish homeland, with racism.

On Aug. 31, the U.N. is holding a conference on racism in Durban, South Africa, in which there will be calls for labeling Israel as a nation involved in ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

We've been down this road before. One of the most shameful episodes in the U.N.'s shameful history came in 1975 when the General Assembly first adopted a resolution equating Zionism with racism. The U.N. adopted that resolution annually until 1991 when the Madrid "peace process" began.

Is there any validity to the claim?

If you want to understand what real racism is, the question needs to be turned around 180 degrees.

What do Israel's enemies want? Over and over again, we hear, from their own mouths, that they want to destroy the Jewish state and replace it with an Arab state. "Palestine ö from the sea to the river" is the favorite expression of this movement. In other words, there is no room for a Jewish state in the Middle East ö no matter what the borders are, no matter what concessions Jerusalem is willing to consider, no matter what rights Arabs are granted within Israel.

Isn't that racist?

In other words, the conflict in the Middle East between Jews and Arabs ö at least from the Arab point of view ö is not about what kind of government should represent the people who live there. It is about what kind of people should live there.

That has never been Israel's perspective. In fact, as I have stated in previous columns, the Arabs who live in Israel today enjoy more human and civil rights than their neighbors do in any Arab country.

But let's explore this issue further. Was it racist when the people of Kosovo ö ethnic Albanians, mainly Muslims ö wanted independence from Serbia? Evidently not, according to the U.N. In fact, NATO bombed Serbia in an effort to accomplish the objective of an autonomous Kosovo.

Was it racist when mainly Muslim Bosnians wanted to create a separate nation? Evidently not, according to the U.N, which helped ensure the creation and maintenance of such a state.

Was it racist to create a Jewish state in Palestine in 1948? Evidently not, because it was the United Nations that approved the partition that accomplished that action.

I could go on and on, of course. Think of all the national independence movements based on ethnicity and religion that have received the support of the international community in recent years. Why is it that only Israel is now targeted with the "racism" charge?

I have noticed that accusations of racism are most often hurled by racists themselves. And, true to form, those making the allegations against Israel turn out to be the real racists.

I note that those quick to condemn Israel are quiet on the wholesale, government-sponsored, racist land-grabs currently underway in Zimbabwe, for instance. White farmers are being held hostage and murdered in a systematic, orchestrated, forceful and violent campaign of wealth redistribution. Not as much as a whimper of concern is being expressed by the U.N. Conference on Racism.

Nor has the conference expressed outrage at the Sudanese government's systematic and racist campaign of genocide against black Christians and other non-Muslims in the southern region of the country.

As I said, the contradictions are endless. And, more often than not, many of the same proponents of the "Zionism is racism" campaign not only turn a blind eye to official racism perpetrated by their friends, they often apologize for it and support it.

The United States has threatened to reconsider its participation in the conference in South Africa beginning next month. It should stop threatening to do so and drop all plans to engage in the international public-relations lynching of Israel by this U.N.-sponsored kangaroo court.

The only outcome of such political pontificating will be more racism, more anti-Semitism and, of course, more violence.

Zionism is Racism

from an on-line "zionism is racism" petition

To: The World

Zionism is based on the concept of ethnic superiority, of occupation, terrorism, plundering of resources and land, and racism against other religions.

While we wholeheartedly respect Judaism as a monotheistic religion, we know that, for decades, the United Nations, in its famous resolution, had established a parallel between Zionism and racism; Resolution 3379, which, in 1975, determined that "Zionism (sic) is a form of racism and racial discrimination." Acknowledging that the General Assembly later rejected the resolution, we know that that was due to political reasons; the decision was not based on a conceptual position.

Of all the ignored resolutions passed by the UN against Israel, Resolution 3379 is the one that rankles Israel the most, perhaps proving the saying about the hurtfulness of the truth.

Indeed, Resolution 3379 referred back to the 1973 resolution condemning "the unholy alliance between South African racism and zionism, " and to the 1963 resolution which determined that "any doctrine of racial differentiation or superiority is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous."

The Zionist Movement is a pure colonial movement that had used, and is still using, Judaism to serve its unlawful purposes. Zionism is not a representation of Judaism or a fulfillment of a Judicial prophecy. Decades of Zionist propaganda have misrepresented Zionism as a progressive, modern force bringing civilization to an arid, uninhabited wasteland; such an image is an illusion. Zionism is an apartheid philosophy. Its founder, Theodore Herzl, was dismayed by the mass anti-Semitism in France aroused by the Dreyfuss affair. He became convinced that the separation of the Jews from the Gentiles by ingathering all Jews in a separate Jewish nation was the only solution to the age old "Jewish problem."

It was obvious from the beginning of Zionism that dispossession of the Palestinian majority, either politically or physically, would be an inevitable requirement for achieving a Jewish state. It was not only land that was needed to reach Zionism's goal, but land without another people in the majority. Since Palestinian Arabs were by far the majority throughout the period up to Israel's establishment as a Jewish state in 1948, the Zionist state could emerge only by denying the majority its rights or by becoming the majority, either through immigration, or in reducing the number of Palestinians by ethnic cleansing; what is happening now.

The UN General Assembly's December, 1991, made the decision to invalidate Resolution 3379 equating Zionism with racism.

Today, we ask to resurrect the "Zionism is Racism" charge at the United Nations.

What is Zionism?
from the Anti-Defamation League website

Zionism is the Jewish national movement of rebirth and renewal in the land of Israel - the historical birthplace of the Jewish people. The yearning to return to Zion, the biblical term for both the Land of Israel and Jerusalem, has been the cornerstone of Jewish religious life since the Jewish exile from the land two thousand years ago, and is embedded in Jewish prayer, ritual, literature and culture.

Modern Zionism emerged in the late 19th century in response to the violent persecution of Jews in Eastern Europe, anti-Semitism in Western Europe. Modern Zionism fused the ancient Jewish biblical and historical ties to the ancestral homeland with the modern concept of nationalism into a vision of establishing a modern Jewish state in the land of Israel.

The "father" of modern Zionism, Austrian journalist Theodor Herzl, consolidated various strands of Zionist thought into an organized political movement, advocating for international recognition of a "Jewish state" and encouraging Jewish immigration to build the land.

Today, decades after the actual founding of a Jewish state, Zionism continues to be the guiding nationalist movement of the majority of Jews around the world who believe in, support and identify with the State of Israel. Zionism, the national aspiration of the Jewish people to a homeland, is to the Jewish people what the liberation movements of Africa and Asia have been to their peoples.

History has demonstrated the need to ensure Jewish security through such a homeland. The re-establishment of Jewish independence in Israel, after centuries of struggle to overcome foreign conquest and exile, is a vindication of the fundamental concepts of the equality of nations and of self-determination. To question the Jewish people's right to national existence and freedom is not only to deny to the Jewish people the right accorded to every other people on this globe, but it is also to deny the central precepts of the United Nations.

Is Zionism a Form of Racial Discrimination? ÷ Two Views
From the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, November 1991

The Zionism Debate at the UN is Beside the Point

By Rachelle Marshall

November 1991, Page 34

Using one of the murkiest non sequiturs in the history of international discourse, President Bush told the UN General Assembly at its opening session on September 23 that to equate Zionism with racism is to "forget the terrible plight of Jews in World War II and indeed throughout history. " He did not explain why the past suffering of the Jews of Europe entitles the current government of Israel to be beyond criticism for its racial policies. On the other hand, the US position in the UN debate over Zionism has never been based on logic. In 1975, when the General Assembly passed Resolution 3379 that described Zionism as "a form of racism and racial discrimination," the US ambassador to the UN, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, complained that the resolution was unfair to Israel because Israel "was founded to be a Jewish state" (italics in the original). Supporters of apartheid in South Africa might just as logically argue that the Republic of South Africa was founded to be a white nation and therefore should not be accused of racism.

A major reason why supporters of the Israeli government are able to spread a smokescreen over Israel's racist practices is that the two sides in the UN debate over Zionism are arguing at cross purposes. The question that most vitally concerns the survival of the Palestinian people and the nature of Israel's future is not whether Zionism is a racist philosophy but whether Israel is a racist state.

As a concept, Zionism has been endlessly debated among Zionists as well as between Zionists and others. To many Jews Zionism means primarily the movement to establish a homeland where Jewish people could find refuge from persecution. Its founders saw Zionism as providing the only means of escape from the pervasive anti-Semitism of nineteenth-century Europe. Some of the early Zionists, such as Theodore Herzl and Chaim Weizmann, advocated a Jewish state in which the Arabs of Palestine would play only a subordinate role. Weizmann, in fact, recognized that Arabs were in the great majority in that country but hoped most of them could be made to leave.

Others, like Martin Buber and Judah Magnes, believed that since the Arabs of Palestine as well as the Jews had national aspirations, the Zionist movement must be concerned with finding a solution equitable to both peoples. Saying, in Isaiah's words, "Zion will be redeemed with justice," Buber urged that Palestine become a haven for Jews fleeing persecution but with a bi-national political structure. To Buber, Ahad Ha'am, and other advocates of a bi-national state, Zionism meant a chance for Jews to experience spiritual and intellectual renewal, in a society based on justice, equality, and hard work.

Like Magnes himself, their vision of Zionism died in 1948, when Israel became a Jewish state and Palestinian Arabs were forced into exile or into subservience. UN Resolution 2106, adopted in 1965, defines racial discrimination as "any distinction, restriction, or preference based on race, color, descent or national origin. " Under this definition Israel has been a racist state since its beginning.

With 92 percent of Israel's land considered to be the "inalienable property of the Jewish people" (under the Development Authority Law), Arabs are prevented from living in any but limited areas. Although Israeli Arabs theoretically are entitled to equal treatment, their houses are demolished to make way for Israeli Jews. Last June, for instance, the Arab residents of Ramyah, in the Galilee, were ordered to evacuate the town by September 16, when it was to be demolished to make way for the expansion of the Jewish city of Carmel. More than a hundred similar Arab communities in the Galilee are also threatened with obliteration.

For the nearly two million Palestinians in the occupied territories the harshness of Israeli rule recalls the darkest days of South Africa's apartheid regime. Inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza must obtain permits for almost every activity, from traveling to another town to planting a fruit tree. These permits are issued arbitrarily and frequently refused. Through stifling restrictions on movement, land confiscations, and almost constant curfews, Israel has made it almost impossible for most Palestinians to earn a living. Unemployment in the occupied territories is now close to 75 percent.

The Israeli government demonstrates its most blatant racism in the value it places on human lives. The official consensus in Israel is that a Jewish life is far more precious than a Palestinian's. A Palestinian who murders an Israeli Jew is either killed on the spot or disappears into prison forever. Israelis who kill Palestinians are punished lightly if at all. Early in September two members of the security forces were sentenced to six months in prison for the deliberate murder of a Palestinian prisoner in 1989. Rabbi Moshe Levinger served three months in jail after shooting to death a Hebron storekeeper. Israeli settlers who rampage through Palestinian villages terrorizing the inhabitants are almost never punished -indeed, they are armed by the government.

Finally, who can question Israel's official racism when the Law of Return allows anyone in the world born of a Jewish mother to settle permanently in Israel, whereas native-born Palestinians forced into exile are either barred from returning at all or allowed only brief visits?

In his speech to the opening session of the UN, President Bush asked for the "reaffirmation of faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women in nations large and small. " As a starter, the Bush administration should take a hard look at what is happening in the state of Israel today. If the US is to take the lead in promoting a reaffirmation of human rights, it has no option but to withdraw support from a government that systematically and defiantly violates those rights. Such a move would be welcomed not only by Palestinians but also by the many Israelis for whom Zionism still means building a just society, in which Jews can live side by side with their neighbors in peace and security. It isn't Zionism that should be branded as racist, but those who commit oppression in its name.

Rachelle Marshall is a free-lance editor living in Stanford, CA. She is a member of New Jewish Agenda and writes frequently on the Middle East.

Is Zionism a Form of Racial Discrimination? ÷ Two Views

UN Debate Will Necessitate Re-Examination of Resolution 3379

By Joseph Schechla

November 1991, Page 35

In 1952, the UN General Assembly settled a long-standing debate, overruling South Africa's argument that its racist ideology and policies should be excluded from consideration as a matter of South Africa's domestic sovereignty. By its resolution 615 (VIII), the GA concluded that apartheid policies indeed fell well within the jurisdiction of international law because they violate the antiracism provisions of the UN Charter (articles 13, 55 and 56), lead to international friction and endanger world peace and security. The questions surrounding Israel's state ideology and policies are of no lesser consequence.

By 1975, the United Nations had worked for more than two decades to combat racial discrimination in South Africa. Nearly a decade of effort had gone into decolonizing Namibia, and the world's first treaty to eliminate racism and racial discrimination was already ten years old. It was in that year that the General Assembly adopted Resolution 3379, determining Israel's state ideology, Zionism, to be "a form of racism and racial discrimination." Since then, however, the debate has proceeded no further, and no action has been take to sanction Israel (a la South Africa) on the basis of this charge. Though other US opinion makers have publicly scorned it before, not until recently-with Dan Quayle's late-1989 pledge to a Yeshiva University gathering and George Bush's Sept. 23 speech to the General Assembly -has Resolution 3379 been subjected to such serious examination.

One of the inherent problems with this much-maligned resolution is that, upon first reading, it in not particularly instructive. (For instance, it does not distinguish political Zionism-its subject-from "cultural Zionism," which is a movement-by Jewish communities to revitalize their culture and religion in their own countries.) The text of 3379 is rhetorical and lacks specific argument. The substance of its charges will emerge only from the discourse that would inevitably ensue if it were finally challenged from the General Assembly floor. For 3379's opponents, therefore, that debate could prove more damaging than if the resolution were simply to remain on the record in its present somnolent state.

Israel is perhaps more scrutinized today than even in those heady days of the 1970s. Since then, the world has witnessed an unprovoked Israel invading a neighboring state and destroying its capital, and has identified Israel more recently as the systematic breaker of children's bones. But all these negative images and perceptions, in themselves, do not necessarily add up to racism and racial discrimination. As evidence of a deliberate policy or ideology of racism, such instances can still be said to be more or less circumstantial.

Resolution 3379 indisputably applies, however, to the fundamental and institutionalized aspects of Israel's discriminatory policies. In a debate over the validity of 3379, the most useful subject of inquiry, as in the South African case, would likely be Israel's own laws.

Since its proclamation of independence in 1948, Israel's Knesset has applied its state ideology in a series of laws formalizing relations between population groups within Israel's recognized borders. As confirmed by Israel's High Court in 1970, there is no such thing as Israeli nationality. In Israel, "Jewish nationality" is the only status which bestows full rights on a citizen. With this ideological premise incorporated into its domestic law, Israel denies many fundamental rights to more than 800,000 indigenous Palestinian Arabs living within the country, but denied a legal nationality. By applying this ideological distinction to civil status, Israel formally rejects the concept of equal rights for all its citizens.

Sources abound which indicate that Israel's founding ideology calls for the departure of the indigenous people from the land of historic Palestine. The "central task of the state," according to official documents, is to replace these people with settlers whom the state endows with "Jewish nationality." This objective in not to be achieved by some sudden event of history, but by the continuous, incremental process presently underway.

Israel's policy of separateness is not spelled out in any single statute. Instead, a combination of Zionist laws, including irrevocable "basic laws," establish separate classes of citizenship and civil rights based on racial criteria. Some of these "basic laws" which are most commonly discussed in connection with Resolution 3379 include:

* The Law of Citizenship (1948),

whichestablishes eligibility for citizenship status. Citizenship without "Jewish nationality, " however, conveys few fundamental rights;

* The Law of Return (1950),

which creates the exclusive "nationality right" for Jews from anywhere to come to the lands

Israel occupies, in order to claim -as "nationals"-a superior legal status and full rights (including rights to land and housing) which are denied to the indigenous minority of Palestinian citizens;

* The Status Law (1952),

which recognizes as part of the government of Israel certain "national" institutions which operate inside Israel, and extraterritorially, to serve "the Jewish people" exclusively. (These include the World Zionist Organization/Jewish Agency linked to the Jewish National Fund-and its subsidiaries);

* Basic Law: Knesset (Amendment No. 7) (1985),

adopted 10 years after UN Resolution 3379, which prohibits a political candidate from participating in an election on a platform that does not coincide with the exclusivist definition of the state of Israel as "the state of 'the Jewish people. "'

A state's legislation offers some of the most compelling evidence of the intent of its highest authorities. Israel's "basic laws," along with its military forces, are the most effective instruments for implementing the state's ideology, which is to exclude legally and physically the indigenous population from the land of historic Palestine to make way for settlers with "Jewish nationality. " These "basic laws" are the roots of enduring conflict in the Middle East.

Responding to a move to repeal the General Assembly's "Zionism-is-racism" resolution, its proponents may explain once and for all what is meant by this charge. With a view to the principles and purpose of international law, as affirmed in its pivotal decision of 1952, the General Assembly may thus be invited not only to bring fresh scrutiny to a long-dormant document, but also to rule, once again, on a matter vital to world peace and security.

Joseph Schechla, a Washington policy analyst specializing in ethnic conflict, is founding editor of Without Prejudice, a biannual journal on racism and racial discrimination.