A Critical Analysis of Israeli
Foreign Policy: the Zionist Distinction
By:
Tamara Peachy
United
Nations Resolution 3379 (XXX), passed in 1975, contains this operative clause:
“determines that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination” (Resolution
3379 (XXX) 1975). It may be assumed that the revoking of this determination in
1991 cleared the guilt of the whole UN body. One must acknowledge that,
although the majority vote successfully ended this branding, the member states
who voted against this deletion are the pertinent aggressors in this scenario. Israel
can’t rely on the sponsorship of one hundred and eleven countries, when those
member states nearest Israel assert that Zionism is a form of racism. The
Jewish State is a distinct and holy place, and Zionism must be recognized as a unique
and legitimate political expression.
The
World Conference against Racism, Racial
Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance held in Durban,
Africa attempted to dispel and rebuke racism in all forms. The Permanent
Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations was quick to
ridicule the resulting resolution, the Durban Declaration and Programme of
Action, by stating “the final document suffers particularly from the lack of
substantive reference to the racist policies of the Zionist regime exercised
against the Palestinian people” (Note Verbale, 2009). Perhaps, the resolution
failed to address this issue because the UN already addressed the issue by
revoking Zionism as a form of racism.
The resolution that revoked Zionism as a form of
racism must be revisited itself. The resolution was the shortest ever passed.
It simply reads: “the General
Assembly decides to revoke the determination contained in its resolution 3379
(XXX) of 10 November 1975" (Resolution 46/86, 1991). Resolutions normally contain
preambles, but this resolution was an exception. No formal resolution was
constructed that explored the matter further; therefore, ambiguities still
remain. Now able to quote resolution 46/86, Israel continues to believe Zionism
is an appropriate political and religious posture. However, neighboring states
continue to defame Zionism, claiming that it instigates blatant racial bias.
In 2006, the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of
Iran gave a note verbale to the United Nations Office at Geneva,
addressed to the secretariat of the Commission on Human Rights. The note had
these two statements: “The President of the Islamic Republic of Iran has always
unquestionably distinguished between Jewish religion and Zionism” and “Zionism
is an ideology based on hegemonic desires and political ambitions, articulated
by colonial powers and artificially injected in the Middle East for their
purposes” (Note Verbale, 2006). These
two statements undermine the relationship between Zionism and the Jewish
people. This affront to the legitimacy of an ancient political expression may
eventually lead to an illegitimate Jewish State. The Zionist movement
unequivocally led to the return of the exiled and to the forming of a Jewish
State. If Zionism is considered a racist expression, then the Jewish State
could be compromised.
During the 66th Session of the General
Assembly, Benjamin Netanyahu reminds his hearers that the exiled have always
longed to return to an Israeli homeland (Netanyahu, 2011). In a rare boldness,
the current Prime Minister of Israel made little apology for his leanings
toward a Zionist world view. The Prime Minister’s speech even leaned toward a
slightly spiritual Zionism, which offended one of his hearers. During the same session, Chairman of the Executive
Committee of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and President of the
Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, recoiled in response. He stated, “We
now face new conditions that have not previously been raised. Conditions that
will transform the raging conflict in our inflamed region into a religious
conflict” (Abba, 2011). This statement seems laughable; religion has always been a factor in this conflict. In
this statement, Abbas is demoralizing the faith of the Zionist. He is making
the concession that faith and politics can’t mix, which is another way of
delegitimizing Spiritual Zionism.
Furthermore, Zionism can’t be erased from Israeli
foreign policy; to do so would be dangerous. Why dangerous? Israel is connected
to the international super power, the United States, and relies on this relationship
for security. Many Israeli advocacy groups are stationed in America and are
also Zionist, such as the American Zionist Movement and the Zionist
Organization of America. If Zionism is a form of racism, these American
advocacy groups could be delegitimized as well. If the international perception
brands Zionism as racist, it will have far reaching effects. If the American
public is persuaded that Zionism is racist, through Arab propaganda, it will be
a threat to Israel’s existence. Israel must continue to campaign that Arab
States respect the political expression of Zionism.
Religious identity and expression are not
necessarily a form of racism. The international community continues to deny
that religion can be a legitimate governmental force. Secular and democratic
governing bodies will rarely embrace a religious-toned government, and this is
the true racism. Israel attempts to appease its neighbors by downplaying its
religious roots. Israel is forced to disentangling itself from Zionist lobby to
appease Arab states. One could speculate that such a compromise would never have
occurred if other member states did not aggressively seek such separation.
The
philosopher, Leo Strauss, makes some insightful claims that may be beneficial
to Israel’s foreign policy. In the journal, Cultural
Critique, author Klaus J. Milich summarizes Strauss’s beliefs this way: “Strauss
refused political and cultural Zionism, because it replaced divine redemption
by political activism within the secular horizon of liberal democracies.
Judaism, he maintained, cannot be understood in mere political terms or as a
culture.” (Fundamentalism, 2006). Strauss personally disregarded political Zionism,
but held to the view that the Jewish people could not be separated from their
religious roots. Israel can’t be understood without recognizing its spiritual
roots, which is the truest expression of Spiritual Zionism.
In
May 2011, The BADIL Resource Center for
Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights sent a letter to the Secretary
General. In this letter, this claim was made: “The systematic discrimination
and Jewish preference inside Israel and in the OPT meet the definition of a
regime of apartheid” (BADIL 2011). Any government that shows “preference” to a
citizen based on ethnicity is racism; however, due to Israel’s holiness, one
must approach this subject with more care and consideration.
Theodor Hertzl, wrote this in his
famous book, The Jewish State: “Every
man will be as free and undisturbed in his faith or his disbelief as he is in
his nationality. And if it should occur that men of other creeds and different
nationalities come to live amongst us, we should accord them honorable protection
and equality before the law” (The Jewish State, 1896). Even Hertzl, Zionism’s
founder, understood that small discriminations lead to disturbing ends. Hertzl
believed the Jewish faith united the Jewish people, but a theocracy was not
something to be pursued while forming a Jewish State. However, one could argue
that a theocracy might well be the ideal.
Danny Ben-Moshe, in his article on the Oslo Peace
Agreement, describes a sect of Zionism which
“seeks to replace the democratic system with a theocratic one” (The Oslo Peace Process, 2005). His article contends that “the ethno-religious
Israeli political environment, security, borders and international recognition
are…centrally related to the issue of Jewish and Zionist identity” ((The Oslo Peace Process, 2005). Even such a spiritual form of Zionism can’t be
equated with racism because a theocracy is not a racist form of governing.
Theocratic governments are unpopular and rare because the international community
reviles them. However, one could argue that the revilement of theocracy is just
as much a form of racism because it dictates to other governments how to
practice religious faith. Although the majority of Israel does not want a
theocratic government, the principle helps to define a growing religious hatred
in the region.
Israel’s
government has attempted to present itself as a democracy to influence the veto
power of the United States. It has embraced secular governing practices and
distanced itself from its “holiness”. As a result, Israel has relinquished
state sovereignty and right to self-determination. Now Arab states can attempt
to approach peace through the lens of politics without respecting the
distinctiveness of Israel’s historical faith and unique expression.
Israel
security relies on a distinctive Jewish State. The more Israel embraces its
distinctive religious faith and cultural expression, the more it falls under
the protection of its Maker. To turn the holy land, specifically Jerusalem,
into a secular, internationally owned tourist trap would rid it of protection
and distinction. The more Jews embrace their religious heritage, the more they
will find connection to the land. The moment they fully embrace an American-style
democracy is the moment they also put holy sites in jeopardy. This is the
Zionist’s ideal.
Benjamin
Netanyahu made this poignant statement to the General Assembly, “I often hear
them accusing Israel of Judaizing Jerusalem. That’s like accusing America of Americanizing
Washington” (Netanyahu 2011). The Jewish race is not only entrenched in
ethnicity, but also nationality and religion. Zionism is not a form of racism,
but a distinct expression of race and religion displayed as a nationality. As
long as other member states fail to recognize this distinction, they will fail
to negotiate with the Israeli government.
Author
Courtney Smith, while explaining the complexities of United Nation procedures,
stated, “all actors involved in international organizations are forced to make
tradeoffs, often difficult ones, between the policies that they really want to
see adopted and those that realistically can be adopted” (Politics and Process,
2006). One may argue that a politically and religiously motivated lobby should
never have influence and therefore cannot be a realistic “tradeoff”. However,
Israel often does not bow to international norms because of its rich history
and enduring distinction. Can Israel realistically expect the international
community to embrace Zionism as a governmental function? Must Israel
disentangle itself from its religious history and identity to appease the Arab
community? If Israel is to be true to herself and not neglect such a high
calling of distinction, one must hope not.
Zionism
is not a form of racism, but a unique calling that has placed Israel under
persecution from Arab states. Israel is the proverbial kid with braces; a state
with a distinct heritage that disrupts its neighbors. The United Nations must make
provisions for Israel by going beyond Resolution 46/86. It must acknowledge the
historical legitimacy of the Jewish State and how this is expressed through
Zionism.
Bibliography
Abbas, Mahmoud. September 23, 2011, Palestine, General Debate, 66th
Session. Retrieved on November 23, 2011: http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2011/09/palestine-general-debate-66th-session.html
BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights. May
16, 2011. Human Rights Council, Seventeenth session, Agenda item 9 Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia
and Related Forms of Intolerance, follow-up and implementation of the Durban
Declaration and Programme of Action Retrieved on November 23, 2011: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G11/136/21/PDF/G1113621.pdf?OpenElement
Fundamentalism
Hot and Cold: George W. Bush and the "Return of the Sacred". 2006, Klaus
J. Milich. Cultural Critique, No. 62
(Winter, 2006), pp. 92-125 (Quote on Page 105) Retrieved on November 23, 2011: http://www.jstor.org/pss/4489237
Netanyahu,
Benjamin. September
23, 2011, Israel, General Debate, 66th Session.
Retrieved on November 23, 2011: http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2011/09/israel-general-debate-66th-session.html
Note Verbale. March 10, 2006. The
Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Racism, Racial
Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Forms of Discrimnation. Commision on Human Rights, Sixty-second session, Item 6 of the
provisional agenda. Retrieved on November 23, 2011: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/119/00/PDF/G0611900.pdf?OpenElement
Note Verbale. June 25, 2009. The
Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Forms of Intolerance:
Follow-up to and implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of
Action. Human Rights Council, Eleventh session, Agenda item 9. Retrieved
on November 23, 2011: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G09/143/84/PDF/G0914384.pdf?OpenElement
The Oslo Peace Process and Two
Views on Judaism and Zionism, 1992-1996 (2005) Danny Ben-Moshe British
Journal of Middle Eastern Studies , Vol. 32, No. 1 (May, 2005), pp. 13-27 Retrieved
on November 23, 2011: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30037659
Politics and Process at the United
Nations: the global dance (2006). Courtney B. Smith. Lynne Rienner Publishing.
Resolution 3379 (XXX), November 10,
1975, General Assembly, Elimination of
all forms of Racism, pg 83. Retrieved on November 23, 2011: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/000/92/IMG/NR000092.pdf?OpenElement
Resolution 46/86, December 16,
1991, General Assembly, Elimination of
racism and racial discrimination, pg 39. : http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/581/74/IMG/NR058174.pdf?OpenElement
The Jewish State. 1896 Theodor Herzl Retreived on November 23, 2011: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/herzl2e.html
Comments