* Editor's Note

1. During the debate at the Third Committee and at the plenary meeting of the General Assemply, some representatives sought refuge in semantic acrobatics as a means of escape from a substantive discussion of the issues. Some attributed to the concept of "Zionism" a very general and wide-ranging meaning; others thought it was an old, indeed, ancient, movement. Perhaps it is appropriate here to cite the definition of "Zionism" which may be found in a very authoritative Zionist reference work. The two-volume Encyclopedia of Zionism and Israel was published in New York by the Herzl Press in 1971. It was edited by Raphael Patai; and the Chairman of its Editorial Advisory Committee was Emanuel Neumann. That both these gentlement are prominent Zionist luminaries is evidenced by the fact that each of them is the subject of an independent, full-length entry in the Encyclopedia itself; and the details of their respective biographies attest to their authoritativeness on matters of Zionism. Furthermore, the Encyclopedia informs its readers that it was prepared "under the distinguished patronage of Zalman Shazar, President of Israel." The Zionist credentials of our source are therefore unassailable. On page 1262 of Volume II, under the heading, "Zionism," we read: "Term coined by Nathan Birnbaum in 1890 for the movement aiming at the return of the Jewish peope to the Land of Israel (Palestine). From 1896 on Zionism referred to the political movement founded by Theodor Herzl, aiming at the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine ..."

2. "We are a people - one people," wrote Herzl in DerJudenstaat (Theodor Herzl, The Jewish State, [tr. by Berl Locker], Tel Aviv, Newman, 1956, p. 38). "We are a people - one people," he repeated in an essay on "The Solution to the Jewish Question" (Theodor Herzl, Zionist Writings: Essays and Addresses, [tr. by Harry Zohn], New York, Herzl Press, 1973, Vol. I, p. 23). "We are a nation... A nation is a historical group of people who recognizably belong together and are held together by a common foe," he wrote in reply to an anti-Zionist essay by Dr. Gudemann, Chief Rabbi of Vienna (Ibid., p. 67). "We are a group, a historical group of people who clearly belong together and have a common enemy; this seems to me an adequate definition of a nation," he wrote in an essay on "Judaism" (Ibid., p. 51; see also p. 146). His chief aide, Max Nordau, put it succintly in an essay entitled, "Zionism," as follows: "The one point which excludes, probably forever, the possibility of understanding between Zionist and non-Zionist Jews is the question of Jewish nationality. Whoever maintains and believes that the Jews are not a nation can indeed not be a Zionist ... He who is convinced to the contrary that the Jews are a people must necessarily become Zionist ... We are a people apart and desire to bring about an unequivocal separation between us and the other nations." (Arthur Hartzberg, The Zionist Idea: A Historical Analayis and Reader, New York, Doubleday and Herzl Press, 1959, p. 243).

3. To illustrate: Much of the first volume of Theodor Herzl: Zionist Writings: Essays and Addresses, op. cit., covering 1896-1898, is devoted to replies to statements and essays by the leading rabbis of the day including Dr. Gudemann, Chief Rabbi of Vienna; Dr. Maybaum, Chairman of the German Rabbinical Association; Dr. Vogelstein, Founder and President of the Association of Liberal Rabbis and Rabbi of Pilsen and Stettin; Chief Rabbi Adler of London; and Rabbi Bloch of Brussels. Considerable space is devoted also to reply to Claude Montefiore, President of the Liberal Jewish Movement in England and President of the Anglo-Jewish Association. There is a reply also to a declaration issued by the Executive Committee of the Association of Rabbis in Germany, and signed by the Rabbis of Berlin, Frankfurt, Breslau, Halberstadt and Munich, contesting the "erroneous notions" about the "tenets of Judaism and the objectives of its adherents" which had been disseminated through the convocation of the First Zionist Congress and the publication of its agenda. And there are com ments on the opposition of the Jewish Religious Community of Munich to the convening of the First Zionist Congress, which compelled the organizers to change the venue of the Congress from Munich to Basle. (See pages 62-70, 89-97, 119-124, 148, and 232-239.) Rufus Learsi sums up the early version of European Jewish organizations to Herzl's message in the following words: "The important Jewish organizations of western Europe the French Alliance Israelite Universelle, its Austrian counterpart, the Israelitische Allianz, the Jewish Colonization Association in London came out in opposition... The Maccabeans, a society of Jewish intellectuals in Lendon, listened to Herzl politely but coldly..." While there was some opposition from Orthodox rabbis, he adds, "the most bitter opponents of all were the Reform rabbis. The Jews, they asserted, were not a nation and must not seek to become one." (Rufus Learsi, Israel: A History of the Jewish People, Cleveland, World Publishing Co., 1966, pp. 521-522.) 4. For the text of the Basle Program, see N. Sokolow, History of Zionism, London, 1919, Vol. I, pp. 268-269. 5. For the text of the Jerusalem Program, see The Jerusalem Post (Weekly Overseas Edition), 6 April 1970.

6. Although Herzl made it quite plain, by the very title and contents of his booklet, Der Judenstaat, and in all his other writings, that the aim of Zionism was the establishment of a "State of Jews," the First Zionist Congress found it expedient to euphemize; it declared: "The aim of Zionism is to create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law." (Even the Baltmore Program of 1942 confined itself to speaking of a "Jewish Commonwealth.") However, in his Diaries, Herzl candidly wrote on 3 September 1897: "Were I to sum up the Basel Congress in a word - which I shall guard against pronouncing publicly - it would be this: At Basel I founded the Jewish State. If I said this out loud today, I would be answered by universal laughter. Perhaps in five years, and certainly in fifty, everyone will know it." (The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl [tr. by Harry Zohn], New York, Herzl Press, 1960, Vol. II, p. 581. Emphasis added). Weizmann reminisces fifty years later: "We, not less that Herzl, regarded it [the Zionist Congress] as the Jewish State in the making" (Trial and Error: TheAutobiography of Chaim Weizmann, New York, Harper and Brothers, 1949, p. 68). And Ben Gurion speaks of the early Zionist immigrants as having "resolved to devote all their energies to the revival of their homeland ... and eventually to establish a State and become a sovereign people" (Ben Gurion Looks Back, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1965, p. 165).

7. During the twenty-seven years which have elapsed since the establishment of Israel, only one out of every ten Jews in the world has immigrated. This modest accomplishment becomes even less impressive when it is viewed in conjunction with three other facts: (1) Since more that 45% of the immigrants arrived during the first few years of euphoria following the establishment of Irsael - some 685,000 arriving between 15 May 1948 and 31 December 1951 - it follows that, during the past twenty-four years, less than 7% of the Jews of the world have immigrated. (2) Since 1948, more than 250,000 Jews have emigrated from Israel, constituting an equivalent of over 16% of the total number of immigrants - notwithstanding the extraordinary difficulties placed in the way of emigration. (3) In the same period, several hundred thousand other Jews emigrated from their countries and chose to go to destinations other than Israel. In all, then the resnlts of the intensive Zionist program of inducing mass- immigration during the past quarter-century have been less than spectacular. 8. See N. Sokolow, History of Zionism, London, 1919, vol. I, pp. 268-269. 9. J. Badi (ed.), Fundamental Laws of the State of Israel, [tr. by Leo Kohn], New York, Twayne, 1961,,pp. 8-11.

10. Ibid., pp. 156-157. 11. Ibid., pp. 254-258. 12. See Jerusalem Post (Weekly Overseas Edition), 6 April 1970, p. 10. 13. Chaim Weizmann: Excerpts from His Statements, Writings and Addresses, New York, The Jewish Agency for Palestine, 1952, p. 48. See also, Chaim Weizmann, Trial and Error: The Autobiography of Chaim Weizmann, op. cit. p. 244; and Palestine Government, The Political History of Palestine Under British Administration, Jerusalem, Government Printer, 1947, p. 3, para. 12.

14. Quoted in: Palestine Government, The Political History, op. cit., p. 3, para. 13. 15. The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 88. 16. Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine, U.N. Document A/ 648 (General Assembly Official Records: Third Session, Supplement No. 11, Part I, Chapter V, paragraphs 6 and 7). 17. James G. McDonald, My Mission in Israel, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1951, p. 176 (Emphasis added). 18. For a Zionist assessment of the area of the Palestinian Arab lands taken over by Zionist authorities, see Jewish National Fund, Jewish Villages in Israel, Jerusalem, Keren Kayemeth Leisrael Head Office, 1949, page xxi: "Of the entire area of the State of Israel [approximately 8,000 square miles] only about 300,000-400,000 dunams [75,000-100,000 acres] - apart from the desolate rocky area of the southern Negev, at present quite unfit for cultivation - are State Domain which the Israel Government took over from the Mandatory regime. The J.N.F. [Jewish National Fund] and private Jewish owners possess under two million dunams [under 500,000 acres]. Almost all the rest belongs at law to Arab owners, many of whom have left the country. The fate of these Arabs will be settled when the terms of peace treaties between Israel and her Arab neighbours are finally drawn up. The J.N.F., however, cannot wait until then

to obtain the land it requires for its pressing needs. It is, therefore, acquiring part of the land abandoned by the Arab owners, through the Government of Israel, the sovereign authority in Israel." (Emphasis and explanations within wall brackets added). 19. David Ben Gurion, Rebirth and Destiny of Israel (tr. by Mordekhai Nurock), New York, Philosophical Library, 1954, p. 504. 20. CBS NEWS, "TRANSCRIPT: FACE THE NATION (as broadcast over the CBS Television Network and the CBS Radio Network)," 11 June 1967, p. 12. 21. Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine, op. cit., Part I, chapter V, para. 6.

22. The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 196. 23. "Zionism," in Ludwig Lewisohn (ed.), Theodor Herzl: A Portrait for This Age, Cleveland, World Publishing Co., 1955, p. 321. 24. In his monumental book, The Balfour Declaration, which is a Zionist classic, Leonard Stein summarizes very neatly the essence of Zionism, as "proclaiming that the Jews were a people or a nation, and not a sect or religious brotherhood." (Leonard Stein, The Balfour Declaration, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1961, p. 73.) This belief remains the essence of Zionism. A few recent illustrations may be useful. William Mehlman, then Editor of the now-defunct, The Times of Israel and World Jewish Review, asserted in 1974: "Historically speaking, the Jews were promised the state long before they ever got the Torah. We are not a religion - let's get that straight right now. We are a people and we began our political existence with the primise of a state. Without that state we are no longer a people or a religion." (The Times of Israel and World Jewish Review, Volume I, No. 3, February 1974, p. 76; emphasis added). An Israeli Zionist professor, Amos Perlmutter, stated in a recent interview: "For me, Judaism is symbiotic. It is both a people and a religion. If you look at

the history of the Jews, you see there could no be Jewish religion without the ethnic group, the Jewish people, and there could not be a Jewish people without the Jewish religion..." (Newsweek, 2 February 1976, p. 39; emphasis added). According to the London Jewish Chronicle, a statement by Dr. Bruno Kreisky, Chancellor of Austria (who is a Jew) to the effect that "there is no Jewish nation, only a Jewish religious community or a community of faith" appeared to have indirectly affected relations with Israel (No. 5560, of 14 November 1975, p. 3). 25. N. Feinberg, "The Recognition of the Jewish People in International Law," in N. Feinberg and J. Stoyanovsky (eds.), The Jewish Yearbook of International Law: 1948, Jerusalem, Rubin Mass, 1949, p. 18.

26. The Times (London), 25 July 1963. Mr. Justice Cohn's views appear to be shared by other Israelis, including some prominent members of the "Establishment.'� Thus, Menachem Israel, Israeli correspondent for the Jewish Press (which reminds its readers three times in every issue that it has "the largest circulation of any Anglo-Jewish weekly newspaper in the world"), wrote recently: "The fact seems to be that there are far more Jews than we are aware of, in Israel as well as in the Diaspora, who not only do not know, but who are also nodding their heads in agreement - some vigorously, some ruefully - with the U.N. resolution" (Jewish Press, 14 November 1975, p. 4). In a later dispatch from Israel he becomes more explicit - referring not only to Cohn but also to Mrs. Shulamit Aloni, then-head of the Ya'ad faction in the Parliament of Israel, Jewish Press, 12 December 1975, pp. 4 and 23). Another article in the same issue, by Mordecai Bar Lavoy, was devoted to an analysis of Mrs. Aloni's statements ("Racist Israel: According to Shulamit Aloni," Jewish Press, 12 December 1975, p. 16).

27. Weeks after the present statement was made at the Third Committee, a prominent Zionist leader who had railed against the General Assembly resolution (Arthur Herxberg, who, among many other things, is president of the American Jewish Congress), described U.S. immigration quotas which had restricted the immigration of Jews to the United States as "avowedly racist." (See Lawrence Mosher, "Five American Backers of Israel," in The National Observer, 10 January 1976).

28. More recently, Joseph Harmatz, Director of ORT-Israel, stated in a report presented to the National Conference of the American ORT Federation: "The gap between the 'two Israels,' those of Western and those of non-European origin, continues to be one of the most anguished sores on the social fabric of Israel." (Jeurish Telegraphic Agency Daily News Bulletin, 30 January 1976, p. 4).

29. Towards the end of its thirtieth session (of 1975) the General Assembly adopted another resolution, again on the recommendation of its Special Political Committee, in which it reaffirmed that "continued collaboration" with the South African regime "impedes the efforts for the eradication of apartheid" and "again condemn[ed] the strengthening of relations and collaboration between the racist regime of South Africa and Israel in the political, military, economic and other fields" (preambular paragraph 7 and operative paragraph 4, respectively, of resolution 3411 G (XXX), adopted by the General Assembly on 10 December 1975.

30. Arnold Toynbee, Experiences, New York, Oxford University Press, 1969, pp. 241-252.

31. The doctrine of Avoda Ivrit', or Hebrew Labor, is an important doctrine in Zionist ideology. The following brief summary of its genesis and rationale appears in Volume I of Encyclopedia of Zionism and Israel, op. cit., p. 213, under the item "Conquest of Labor (Kibbush 'Avoda)," to which the reader is referred under the item, 'Avoda Ivrit (on page 99). "Doctrine developed by the Second 'Aliya (1904-1914) and, in particular, by Ha Pe'el Ha Tza'ir, stressing the importance of Jewish labor as a bas� for a Jewish society in Palestine. By the beginning of the 20th century, the development and consolidation of the Jewish agricultural settlements, especially those in Judaea and Samaria, had reached a stage at which they were in need of hired labor. Most of the laborers employed were Arabs; some worked on a permanent basis, but by far the larger number were seasonal laborers drawn from neighboring Arab villages. Joseph Aronowicz, leader of the Ha Po'el Ha Tza'ir party and editor of its weekly, preached the replacement of Arab labor by Jewish labor, not only because of the need to provide employment for Second Aliya immigrants but because without Jewish hired labor a Jewish majority in Palestine would be unattainable. Palestine would not be made Jewish by the mere possession of title to properties or merely by Jewish management but only by the perfomrance by Jews of their own manual labor, whether on the farm or in the factory; in other words, only the 'Conquest of Labor' by Jews and not the mere conquest of land by purchase would assure the realization of Zionism and the attainment of a Jewish majority." (emphasis added).

32. See above, footnote 3, for information on the opposition of the leading rabbis and Jewish organizations to Zionism in the 1890's. 33. The principal opponent to the issuance of the Balfour Declaration in 1917 was the only Jew in the Cabinet of Lloyd George, namely, Sir Edwin Samuel Montagu. His messages and memoranda to his colleagues on the subject, released after the lapse of the fifty years by the British Government (in particular British Public Record Office, Cab. No. 24/24, 24/27, and 24/28), remain forcefully relevant today. In the United States, a strongly-worded statement, signed by 31 prominent Jewish leaders, was presented to President Wilson by Congressman Jnlius Kahn of California ("Protest to President Wilson Against Zionist State," The New York Times, 5 March 1919, p. 7). A compilation of statements by several prominent Jewish intellectual critical of or hostile to Zionism appeared recently: Gary V. Smith (ed.), Zionism, The Dream and the Reality: A Jewish Critique, New York, Barnes and Noble Books, 1974. 34. In an article on the Jewish community of France, which appeared in the Jewish Chronicle of London, No. 5564, of 12 December 1975, p. 5, it is stated: "A community of some 600,000 supports no fewer than 309 organizations of all kinds... According to a study last month, there are no more than some 75,000 members of the 309 organizations... Of the 309 organizations..., 26 [belong] to

the Zionist movements..." 35. During and after the debate on the resolution on Zionism, many Jews publicly dissociated themselves from the unilateral Zionist declaration that Zionism is synonymous with Judaism and coextensive with the "Jewish people." - The Jewish Chronicle of London (which describes itself on its masthead as "the organ of British Jewry") wrote editorially: "Zionism unquestionably is the political expression of Jewish belief and a Jewish hope nurtured over 2,000 yeras of dispersion. But it is not identical with Judaism, a fact most clearly demonstrated by the many non-believers and even Gentiles who have proudly acclaimed themselves Zionists or by those sincere Jews who, observing all the tenets of religious observance, nevertheless reject political Zionism." (Issue No. 5560 of 14 November 1975, p. 22). The Jewish organization, Neturei Karta of U.S.A., published advertisements in several American newspapers under the heading, "Zionism is not Judaism." " The National Executive Committee of the American Council for Judaism released a statement on 8 December 1975 stating: "The American Council for Judaism is anti-Zionist but not anti-Israel and cannot stand silent at efforts to sanctify Zionism by equating it with Judaism, leading to the false assumption that all Jews are Zionists." (Special Interest Report, American Council for Judaism, Vol. VII, No. 1, January 1976, p. 1). American Jewish Alternatives to Zionism, Inc. devoted one whole issue of its Report (No. 25) to a refutation of the Zionist proposition. A letter to that effect from its President, Rabbi Elmer Berger - an author of several profound books refuting the doctrines of Zionism - appeared as an advertisement placed in several American newspapers by the Arab Information Center under the heading, "A Letter from an American Rabbi to an Arab Ambassador." Dr. Alfred Lilienthal, a leading Jewish anti-Zionist and currently publisher of Middle East Perspective, published a "White Paper on Zionism and Racism" in which, inter alia, he reiterated that "all Jews are not Zionists." Not a few letters have appeared in recent weeks in the American press, in which the writers, indentifying themselves as Jews, have repudiated the contention that Zionism and the "Jewish people" are coextensive. How many similar letters were received by the press but not published, and how many other Jews had the same feelings but did not express them in letters, is anybody's guess.

36. "In a confidential despatch to the Foreign Office which is dated December 1934, this is how Sir F. Humphrys, the then British Ambassador in Baghdad, described the position of the Jewish community in Iraq:

'...Before the [First World] war they probably enjoyed a more favourable position than any other minority in the country. Since 1920, however, Zionism has sown dissension between Jews and Arabs, and a bitterness has grown up between the two peoples which did not previously exist...' (Eastern E 7701/6395/93)." This passage appeared in a letter published in the Manchester Guardian Weekly of 21 December 1975, p. 2. 37. On 11 January 1902, Herzl wrote the following letter for transmission to Rhodes: "...I need you. In fact, all things considered, you are the only man who can help me now... You are being invited to help make history... It is not in your accustomed line; it doesn't involve Africa, but a piece of Asia Minor, not Englishment, but Jews. But had this been on your path, you would have done it yourself by now. How, then, do I happen to turn to you, since this an out-of-the- way matter for you? How indeed? Because it is something colonial... And what I want you to do is not to give me or lend me a few guineas, but to put the stamp of yourauthority on the Zionist plan and to make the following declaration to a few people who swear by you: I, Rhodes, have examined this plan and found it correct and practicable... " (The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, op. cit., pp. 1193-1195. Emphasis added). 38. The first instrument created by the World Zionist Organization to implement the Basle Program was called "The Jewish Colonial Trust, Limited," which was founded by the Second Zionist Congress in 1898 (I. Cohen, The Zionist Movement, London, Muller, 1945, p. 51).

39. The Twelfth Zionist Congress set up a "Colonisation Department" under the direction of a member of the Executive (Ibid., p. 128). 40. "We are a company of conquistadors,'' wrote Ben Gurion in 1917 (David Ben Gurion, Rebirth and Destiny of Israel, op. cit., p. 9). 41. Chaim Weizmann, Trial and Error, op. cit., p. 191 and p. 244. 42. See Fayez A. Sayegh, "The 'Non-Colonial' Zionism of Mr. Abba Eban," in Middle East Forum, Volume XT No. 4, pp. 43-74. 43. See Carl Hermann Voss, Rabbi and Minister, Cleveland, World Publishing Company, 1964, p. 205. See also G.H. Jansen, "The Limits of Lobbying: The Zionist Failure with Mahatma Gandhi" in Middle East Forum, Volume XLII, No. 2, pp. 27-37.

44. It is a matter of record that the United States Delegation accepted those definitions and supported them. In fact no Delegation voted against the Declaration of 1963 or the Convention of 1965. Whether Ambassador Moynihan's description of those definitions as "loose" reflects second thoughts on the part of the United States Government or is merely a rhetorical expression of Mr. Moynihan's individual views is not clear from the statement reproduced above. 45. As Mr. Moynihan correctly observes, the term "racism" has only recently appeared in United Nations documents. At first, the United Nations had used the term "racial discrimination" alone; some years ago, however, it began to couple it with the term "racism." There is no record whatsoever of any attempt by any Delegation (including that of the United States) to make or elicit a distinction between the connotations of the two terms. On the contrary, the record shows that - in every instance in which the two terms appeared together in a United Nations document - they were used synonymously. Occassionally, one of the two terms would appear alone; but it has always been the practice of the United Nations in Such cases to use the terms interchangeably. In short, the two terms have always been used either conjunctively and synonymously or else interchangeably and synonymously but never disjunctively and never differentially!

46. Ambassador Moynihan here present as what purports to be a classical syllogism, formally consisting - like all good syllogisms - of a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion. Unfortunately, however, he overlooks the disparty of the two premises. Whereas the minor premise (that "Zionism is a form of racism") was indeed a formal proclaimation of the General Assembly, the major premise (that "racism was a form of Nazism") was merely a view expressed by one representative; and, as Ambassador Moynihan himself admitted, it was contradicted by another representative and was not endorsed by the General Assembly. In other words, the Moynihan syllogism juxtaposes two propositions, of which only one constitutes a proclamation by the United Nations. Yet Ambassador Moyniham uninhibitedly indeed, triumphantly - professes to deduce from the arbitrary and contrived joining of the two propositions a "conclusion" which he promptly attibutes to the United Nations itself. He even describes it as a "solemn" proclamation of the United Nations! It is very doubtful that Professor Moynihan would approve of that exercise in sophistry in which Ambassador Moyniham has permitted himself to engage.

47. Mr. Moyniham apparently agrees. Exactly a month later (according to the New York Post of 11 December 1975) he said, in reference to another representative. "When you don't have the facts on your side, calling names is a substitute for argument."