[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 107 (Friday, July 27, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8341-S8343]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    TRIBUTE TO SENATOR MOYNIHAN AND HIS LEGACY OF DEFENDING ZIONISM

  Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I rise today to honor one of the 
extraordinary legacies of my predecessor, Senator Daniel Patrick 
Moynihan, who served in this body for 24 years representing the people 
of New York.
  With some seeking to insert contentious language regarding Zionism 
into declarations emerging from the upcoming United Nations World 
Conference Against Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related 
Intolerance in Durban, South Africa, I am reminded of Senator 
Moynihan's courageous statesmanship, when he condemned the 1975 U.N. 
resolution 3379 which infamously declared ``Zionism is a form of racism 
and racial discrimination.''
  We should never forget the historic battle my predecessor waged to 
defeat this outrageous effort to de-legitimize the state of Israel and 
defame the Jewish people. Over 25 years ago, Senator Moynihan boldly 
called this hate-filled language ``criminal.'' It was criminal then and 
it's still criminal today.
  On the day the resolution passed, Senator Moynihan declared, ``the 
United States . . . will never acquiesce in this infamous act . . . A 
political lie of a variety well known to the twentieth century and 
scarcely exceeded in all the annals of untruth and outrage. The lie is 
that Zionism is a form of racism. The overwhelming truth is that it is 
not.''
  From the moment he entered the Senate in January 1977, Senator 
Moynihan dedicated much of his energy to repealing this despicable 
attack on Israel and the Jewish people, delivering passionate speeches 
on the Senate floor. As chair of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, Senator Moynihan 
introduced Joint Resolution 246, which called on the U.N. to repeal the 
1975 resolution.
  It took 17 long years to remove this stain from the United Nations' 
reputation. And as we begin this new century, nothing could be more 
damaging to the promise and integrity of the U.N. than to revive to 
this ignominious statement. In order to help prevent the U.N. from 
reviving one of the moments of its greatest shame, Senators Schumer, 
Smith, Lugar and I have written the following letter to Kofi Annan, the 
Secretary General of the United Nations, condemning any attempts to 
include inflammatory anti-Israel language into declarations associated 
with the World Conference Against Racism in Durban.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                    July 27, 2001.
     Hon. Kofi A. Annan,
     Secretary General of the United Nations, The United Nations, 
         New York, NY.
       Dear Secretary General Annan: We are writing to express our 
     serious concern regarding recent efforts to insert 
     contentious language into declarations emerging from the 
     upcoming United Nations World Conference Against Racism in 
     Durban, South Africa. Such language, such as ``the racist 
     practices of Zionism,'' undermines the goals of the 
     conference to eradicate hatred and promote understanding. 
     This meeting of the international community should not be a 
     forum to encourage divisiveness, but a time to foster greater 
     understanding between people of all races, creeds, and 
     ethnicities.
       As you know, on November 10, 1975, the United Nations 
     General Assembly designated Zionism a form of racism. It took 
     sixteen long years for the United Nations to acknowledge that 
     this offensive language had no place at such an important 
     world body. In March of 1998, you appropriately condemned 
     this ugly formulation when you noted that the ``lamentable 
     resolution'' equating Zionism with racism and racial 
     discrimination was ``the low-point'' in Jewish-UN relations. 
     Our former colleague Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan called 
     this designation by the United Nations ``criminal.''
       Though this ``Zionism equals racism'' language was 
     overwhelmingly rescinded in 1991 by the General Assembly, 
     this issue is far from resolved. With the Palestinians and 
     Israelis in the middle of a delicate cease-fire and after 
     months of violence, we believe that gratuitously anti-Israel, 
     anti-Jewish language at a UN forum will serve only to 
     exacerbate existing tensions in the Middle East.
       Mr. Secretary, we in Congress applaud your hard work in 
     restoring the reputation of the UN. We urge you to continue 
     your efforts by advocating to all nations of the world the 
     importance of keeping inflammatory language out of this 
     important conference. It is our hope that the Conference on 
     Racism remains only as an opportunity to promote peace and 
     reconciliation among all people, not one to target Israel or 
     Jews. We

[[Page S8342]]

     share a deep common interest in seeing the conference stay 
     focused and embody a sense of unity in the fight against 
     racism. Thank you for your attention to this matter of great 
     importance.
           Sincerely,
     Charles E. Schumer,
     Hillary Rodham Clinton,
     Gordon Smith,
     Richard G. Lugar,
       United States Senate.

  Mrs. CLINTON. In 1975, Senator Moynihan warned his colleagues at the 
U.N. and the rest of the world that: ``As this day will live in infamy, 
it behooves those who sought to avert it to declare their thoughts so 
that historians will know that we fought here . . . with full knowledge 
of what indeed would be lost.''
  Senator Moynihan recognized then, as we do today, that this language 
only serves to fuel hatred and bigotry throughout the world and has no 
place in international discourse. I am honored to have followed Senator 
Moynihan in the Senate, and I pledge to continue his tradition of 
promoting the principles of decency and human dignity and opposing 
efforts to sow hatred and bigotry, especially when they are cloaked in 
the guise of diplomacy.
  I ask unanimous consent that the attached statement be printed for 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Speech to the United Nations General Assembly, by U.S. Ambassador to 
          the U.N. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, November 10, 1975

       The United States rises to declare before the General 
     Assembly of the United Nations, and before the world, that it 
     does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never 
     acquiesce in this infamous act.
       Not three weeks ago, the United States Representative in 
     the Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural Committee pleaded in 
     measured and fully considered terms for the United Nations 
     not to do this thing. It was, he said, ``obscene.'' It is 
     something more today, for the furtiveness with which this 
     obscenity first appeared among us has been replaced by a 
     shameless openness.
       There will be time enough to contemplate the harm this act 
     will have done the United Nations. Historians will do that 
     for us, and it is sufficient for the moment only to note the 
     foreboding fact. A great evil has been loosed upon the world. 
     The abomination of anti-semitism--as this year's Nobel Peace 
     Laureate Andrei Sakharov observed in Moscow just a few days 
     ago--the Abomination of anti-semitism has been given the 
     appearance of international sanction. The General Assembly 
     today grants symbolic amnesty--and more--to the murderers of 
     the six million European Jews. Evil enough in itself, but 
     more ominous by far is the realization that now presses upon 
     us--the realization that if there were no General Assembly, 
     this could never have happened.
       As this day will live in infamy, it behooves those who 
     sought to avert it to declare their thoughts so that 
     historians will know that we fought here, that we were not 
     small in number--not this time--and that while we lost, we 
     fought with full knowledge of what indeed would be lost.
       Nor should any historian of the event, nor yet any who have 
     participated in it, suppose, that we have fought only as 
     governments, as chancelleries, and on an issue well removed 
     from the concerns of our respective peoples. Others will 
     speak for their nations: I will speak for mine.
       In all our postwar history there had not been another issue 
     which has brought forth such unanimity of American opinion. 
     The President of the United States has from the first been 
     explicit: This must not happen. The Congress of the United 
     States in a measure unanimously adopted in the Senate and 
     sponsored by 436 of 437 Representatives in the House, 
     declared its utter opposition. Following only American Jews 
     themselves, the American trade union movements was first to 
     the fore in denouncing this infamous undertaking. Next, one 
     after another, the great private institutions of American 
     life pronounced anathema in this evil thing--and most 
     particularly, the Christian churches have done so. Reminded 
     that the United Nations was born in struggle against just 
     such abominations as we are committing today--the wartime 
     alliance of the United Nations dates from 1942--the United 
     Nations Association of the United States has for the first 
     time in its history appealed directly to each of the 141 
     other delegations in New York not to do this unspeakable 
     thing.
       The proposition to be sanctioned by a resolution of the 
     General Assembly of the United Nations is that ``Zionism is a 
     form of racism and racial discrimination.'' Now this is a 
     lie. But as it is a lie which the United Nations has now 
     declared to be a truth, the actual truth must be restated.
       The very first point to be made is that the United Nations 
     has declared Zionism to be racism--without ever having 
     defined racism. ``Sentence first--verdict afterwards,'' as 
     the Queen of Hearts said. But this is not wonderland, but a 
     real world, where there are real consequences to folly and to 
     venality. Just on Friday, the President of the General 
     Assembly, speaking on behalf of Luxembourg, warned not only 
     of the trouble which would follow from the adoption of this 
     resolution but of its essential irresponsibility--for, he 
     noted, members have wholly different ideas as to what they 
     are condemning. It seems to me that before a body like this 
     takes a decision they should agree very clearly on what they 
     are approving or condemning, and it takes more time.''
       Lest I be unclear, the United Nations has in fact on 
     several occasions defined ``racial discrimination.'' The 
     definitions have been loose, but recognizable. It is 
     ``racism,'' incomparably the more serious charge--racial 
     discrimination is a practice; racism is a doctrine--which has 
     never been defined. Indeed, the term has only recently 
     appeared in the United Nations General Assembly documents. 
     The one occasion on which we know the meaning to have been 
     discussed was the 1644th meeting of the Third Committee on 
     December 16, 1968, in connection with the report of the 
     Secretary-General on the status of the international 
     convention on the elimination of all racial discrimination. 
     On that occasion--to give some feeling for the intellectual 
     precision with which the matter was being treated--the 
     question arose, as to what should be the relative positioning 
     of the terms ``racism'' and ``Nazism'' in a number of the 
     ``preambular paragraphs.'' The distinguished delegate from 
     Tunisia argued that ``racism'' should go first because 
     ``Nazism was merely a form of racism.'' Not so, said the no 
     less distinguished delegate from the Union Soviet Socialist 
     Republics. For, he explained, ``Nazism contained the main 
     elements of racism within its ambit and should be 
     mentioned first.'' This is to say that racism was merely a 
     form of Nazism.
       The discussion wound to its weary and inconclusive end, and 
     we are left with nothing to guide us for even this one 
     discussion of ``racism'' confined itself to world orders in 
     preambular paragraphs, and did not at all touch on the 
     meaning of the words as such. Still, one cannot but ponder 
     the situation we have made for ourselves in the context of 
     the Soviet statement on that not so distant occasion. If, as 
     the distinguished delegate declared, racism is a form of 
     Nazism--and if, as this resolution declares, Zionism is a 
     form of racism--then we have step to step taken ourselves to 
     the point of proclaiming--the United Nations is solemnly 
     proclaiming--that Zionism is a form of Nazism.
       What we have here is a lie--a political lie of a variety 
     well known to the twentieth century, and scarcely exceeded in 
     all that annal of untruth and outrage. The lie is that 
     Zionism is a form of racism. The overwhelmingly clear truth 
     is that is it not.
       The word ``racism'' is a creation of the English language, 
     and relatively new to it. It is not, for instance, to be 
     found in the Oxford English Dictionary (appears in 1982 
     supplement to Oxford Dictionary). The term derives from 
     relatively new doctrines--all of them discredited--concerning 
     the human population of the world, to the effect that there 
     are significant biological differences among clearly 
     identifiable groups, and that these differences establish, in 
     effect, different levels of humanity. Racism, as defined in 
     Webster's Third New International Dictionary, is ``The 
     Assumption that . . . traits and capacities are determined by 
     biological race and that races differ decisively from one 
     another.'' It further involves ``a belief in the inherent 
     superiority of a particular race and its right to dominate 
     over others.''
       This meaning is clear. It is equally clear that this 
     assumption, this belief, has always been altogether alien to 
     the political and religious movement known as Zionism. As a 
     strictly political movement, Zionism was established only in 
     1897, although there is a clearly legitimate sense in which 
     its origins are indeed ancient. For example, many branches of 
     Christianity have always held that from the standpoint of 
     biblical prophets, Israel would be reborn one day. But the 
     modern Zionism movement arose in Europe in the context of a 
     general upsurge of national consciousness and aspiration that 
     overtook most other people of Central and Eastern Europe 
     after 1848, and that in time spread to all of Africa and 
     Asia. It was, to those persons of the Jewish religion, a 
     Jewish form of what today is called a national liberation 
     movement. Probably a majority of those persons who became 
     active Zionism and sought to emigrate to Palestine were born 
     within the confines of Czarist Russia, and it was only 
     natural for Soviet Prime Minister Andrei Gromyko to deplore, 
     as he did in 1948, in the 299th meeting of the Security 
     Council, the act by Israel's neighbors of ``sending troops 
     into Palestine and carrying out military operations aimed''--
     in Mr. Gromyko's words--at the suppression of the national 
     liberation movement in Palestine.''
       Now it was the singular nature--if, I am not mistaken, it 
     was the unique nature--of this national liberation movement 
     that in contrast with the movements that preceded it, those 
     of that time, and those that have come since, it defined 
     its members in terms not of birth, but of belief. That is 
     to say, it was not a movement of the Irish to free 
     Ireland, or of the Polish to free Poland, not a movement 
     of the Algerians to free Algeria, nor of Indians to free 
     India. It was not a movement of persons connected by 
     historic membership to a genetic pool of the kind that 
     enables us to speak loosely but not meaninglessly, say, of 
     the Chinese people, nor yet of diverse groups occupying 
     the same territory which enables us to speak if the 
     American people with no greater indignity to truth. To the 
     contrary, Zionists defined

[[Page S8343]]

     themselves merely as Jews, and declared to be Jewish 
     anyone born of a Jewish mother or--and this is the 
     absolutely crucial fact--anyone who converted to Judaism. 
     Which is to say, in terms of International Convention on 
     the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 
     adopted by the 20th General Assembly, anyone--regardless 
     of ``race, colour, descent, or nationally or ethnic origin 
     . . .''
       The state of Israel, which in time was the creation of the 
     Zionist Movement, has been extraordinary in nothing so much 
     as the range of ``racial stocks'' from which it Orient and 
     Jew from the West. Most such persons could be said to have 
     been ``born'' Jewish, just as most Presbyterians and most 
     Hindus are ``born'' to their faith, but there are many Jews 
     who are just converts. With a consistency in the matter which 
     surely attests to the importance of this issue to that 
     religions and political culture, Israeli courts have held 
     that a Jew who converts to another religion is no longer a 
     Jew. Inn the meantime the population of Israel also includes 
     large numbers of non-Jews, among them Arabs of both the 
     Muslim and Christian religions and Christians of other 
     national origins. Many of these persons are citizens of 
     Israel, and those who are not can become citizens by legal 
     procedures very much like those which obtain in a typical 
     nation of Western Europe.
       Now I should wish to be understood that I am here making 
     one point, and one point only, which is that whatever else 
     Zionism may be, it is not and cannot be ``a form of racism.'' 
     In logic, the State of Israel could be, or could become, many 
     things, theoretically, including many things undesirable, but 
     it could not be and could not become racism unless it ceased 
     to be Zionist.
       Indeed, the idea that Jews are a ``race'' was invented not 
     by Jews but by those who hated Jews. The idea of Jews as a 
     race was invented by nineteenth century anti-semites such as 
     Houston Steward Chamberlain and Edouard Drumont, who saw that 
     in an increasingly secular age, which is to say an age made 
     for fewer distinctions between people, the old religions 
     grounds for anti-semitism were losing force. New 
     justifications were needed for excluding and persecuting 
     Jews, and so the new idea of Jews as a race--rather than as a 
     religion--was born. It was a contemptible idea at the 
     beginning, and no civilized person would be associated with 
     it. To think that it is an idea now endorsed by the United 
     Nations is to reflect on what civilization has come to.
       It is precisely a concern for civilization, for civilized 
     values that are or should be precious to all mankind, that 
     arouses us at this moment to such special passion. What we 
     have at stake here is not merely the honor and the legitimacy 
     of the State of Israel--although a challenge to the 
     legitimacy of any member nation ought always to arouse the 
     vigilance of all members of the United Nations. For a yet 
     more important matter is at issue, which is the integrity of 
     the whole body of moral and legal precepts which we know 
     as human rights.
       The terrible lie that has been told here today will have 
     terrible consequences. Not only will people begin to say, 
     indeed they have already begun to say that the United Nations 
     is a place where lies are told, but far more serious, grave 
     and perhaps irreparable harm will be done to the cause of 
     human rights itself. The harm will arise first because it 
     will strip from racism the precise and abhorrent meaning that 
     it still precariously holds today. How will the people of the 
     world feel about racism and the need to struggle against it, 
     when they are told that it is an idea as broad as to include 
     the Jewish national liberation movement?
       As the lie spreads, it will do harm in a second way. Many 
     of the members of the United Nations owe their independence 
     in no small part to the notion of human rights, as it has 
     spread from the domestic sphere to the international sphere 
     exercised its influence over the old colonial powers. We are 
     now coming into a time when that independence is likely to be 
     threatened again. There will be new forces, some of them 
     arising now, new prophets and new despots, who will justify 
     their actions with the help of just such distortions of words 
     as we have sanctioned here today. Today we have drained the 
     word ``racism'' of its meaning. Tomorrow, terms like 
     ``national self-determination'' and ``national honor'' will 
     be perverted in the same way to serve the purposes of 
     conquest and exploitation. And when these claims begin to be 
     made--as they already have begun to be made--it is the small 
     nations of the world whose integrity will suffer. And how 
     will the small nations of the world defend themselves, on 
     what grounds will others be moved to defend and protect them, 
     when the language of human rights, the only language by which 
     the small can be defended, is no longer believed and no 
     longer has a power of its own?
       There is this danger, and then a final danger that is the 
     most serious of all. Which is that the damage we now do to 
     the idea of human rights and the language of human rights 
     could well be irreversible.
       The idea of human rights as we know it today is not an idea 
     which has always existed in human affairs, it is an idea 
     which appeared at a specific time in the world, and under 
     very special circumstances. It appeared when European 
     philosophers of the seventeenth century began to argue that 
     man was a being whose existence was independent from that of 
     the State, that he need join a political community only if he 
     did not lose by that association more than he gained. From 
     this very specific political philosophy stemmed the idea of 
     political rights, of claims that the individual could justly 
     make against the state; it was because the individual was 
     seen as so separate from the State that he could make 
     legitimate demands upon it.
       That was the philosophy from which the idea of domestic and 
     international rights sprang. But most of the world does not 
     hold with that philosophy now. Most of the world believes in 
     newer modes of political thought, in philosophies that do not 
     accept the individual as distinct from and prior to the 
     State, in philosophies that therefore do not provide any 
     justification for the idea of human rights and philosophies 
     that have no words by which to explain their value. If we 
     destroy the words that were given to us by past centuries, we 
     will not have words to replace them, for philosophy today has 
     no such words.
       But there are those of us who have not forsaken these older 
     words, still so new to much of the world. Not forsaken them 
     now, not here, not anywhere, not ever.
       The United States of America declares that it does not 
     acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in 
     this infamous act.

                          ____________________