December 16, 1991

Source: https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-187564/

The U.N. General Assembly on December 16, 1991, voted 111-25 with 13 abstentions to revoke 1975’s Resolution 3379, which declared Zionism to be a form of racism. The United States introduced the revocation resolution, which simply read: “The General Assembly decides to revoke the determination contained in its resolution 3379 (XXX) of 10 November 1975.”

Resolution 3379 was a product of Soviet propaganda in service of its Arab client states’ political and economic war against Israel and came as the U.S.S.R. sought to strengthen its Arab support even as Anwar Sadat was shifting Egypt toward the United States. The Soviet Communist Party’s Central Committee created a seven-point plan to boost anti-Zionist propaganda in 1974, and the Soviet-instigated U.N. resolution aimed to delegitimize Israel and make it an international pariah, much like apartheid South Africa. The 72-35 majority that enacted the resolution thus included about half of African states along with Arab, Muslim-majority and Communist countries.

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in 1975, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, delivered an angry response to the racism resolution. Hear highlights here and the whole speech here.

Despite Moynihan’s address and the overwhelming support for the revocation 16 years later, the Soviet-generated slurs that Zionism is inherently racist and that Israel thus naturally practices apartheid have stuck. The apartheid accusation gained steam at the 2001 U.N. conference on racism in Durban, South Africa, was popularized by Jimmy Carter in his 2006 book, and has been trumpeted by the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement for 20 years.  

Speaking for the United States during the revocation debate, Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger called Resolution 3379 one of the United Nations’ “most ungenerous acts,” which “demonstrated, like nothing else before or since, to what extent the Cold War had distorted the United Nations’ vision of reality, marginalized its political utility and separated it from its original moral purpose.”

He argued that Resolution 3379 was an obstacle to Middle East peace and undermined the influence and moral authority of the United Nations.

Lebanon, which held the monthly leadership of the Arab Group at the United Nations, led the opposition to revoking Resolution 3379. Representatives of Yemen, Algeria and Sudan also spoke against the proposal.

Representatives of Uruguay and Poland raised a procedural point, arguing that the vote to revoke 3379 should require a simple majority, not a two-thirds majority as proposed by Yemen, because the original resolution was enacted by a simple majority. A vote of 96-34 with 13 abstentions chose to decide the issue by a simple majority.

The 25 countries that voted to keep Resolution 3379 were Muslim-majority Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Brunei, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen; Communist-led Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam; and Sri Lanka.

— Michael Jacobs, November 11, 2025

Read the Full Debate in a Printable PDF

Forty-Sixth Session of the U.N. General Assembly

Provisional Verbatim Record of the 74th Meeting

Held at headquarters, New York, on Monday, 16 December 1991, at 3 p.m.

President: Mr. Flores Bermudez of Honduras, vice president, takes the chair in the absence of the president.

The President (interpretation from Spanish): The Assembly will next consider the draft resolution contained in document A/46/L.47. I call on the representative of the United States of America to introduce the draft resolution.

Lawrence Eagleburger, U.S. deputy secretary of state: The United Nations was founded in 1945 at the close of one of the darkest chapters in recorded history. Two world wars, the massacre of untold millions and a hideous attempt to exterminate an entire people formed the backdrop to the San Francisco Conference. Mankind’s hopes for a different fate in a better future rested almost entirely on the shoulders of the new international body and its potential as a peacemaker and peacekeeper and on its moral authority as a voice for human values. One of the early acts of the United Nations was to assist in the realization of the national aspirations of that people — the Jewish people — who had so recently been the victims of one of the most barbarous acts known to man.

Those hopes for a better future were dashed with the onset of the Cold War. The international landscape was divided right down the middle between East and West. The two blocs stood poised on the brink of thermonuclear war. Totalitarian ideologies spread hatred and turned reality on its head by enslaving men and women in the name of liberating them. And in the United Nations, confrontation replaced cooperation. Paralysis prevailed over action. Ideological conflict eroded the most precious asset of the United Nations — its claim to impartiality and moral honesty. The great parliament of mankind had become a forum for sterile rhetoric, feckless name-calling and the willful distortion of reality.

At no time was this more evident than in 1975 when the General Assembly adopted Resolution 3379 (XXX), which included a determination that Zionism was a form of racism. This determination demonstrated, like nothing else before or since, to what extent the Cold War had distorted the United Nations’ vision of reality, marginalized its political utility and separated it from its original moral purpose.

Resolution 3379 (XXX) was one of this body’s most ungenerous acts. It branded the national aspirations of one people, and one people only, as illegitimate — a people that had been homeless, dispersed and exiled for the better part of two millennia. It labelled as racist the national aspirations of the one people more victimized by racism than any other.

My government rejected this characterization of Zionism in 1975, and it has hoped for and worked for its revocation ever since. Successive United States administrations of Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan and now Bush have been supported in this endeavor by our Congress and by our major political parties. And they have been supported overwhelmingly by the people of the United States, who have never understood how the United Nations could let stand such a blatant repudiation of the call contained in the Charter for member states to practice tolerance and live together as good neighbors. In President Bush’s call for repeal before this Assembly last September, he recognized that the United Nations was at a historic watershed. By repealing this resolution unconditionally, he noted, the United Nations will enhance its credibility and serve the cause of peace.

Now the endeavors of 16 long years are about to come to fruition, not because of the United States — although we have never wavered in our determination — but because the era that produced Resolution 3379 (XXX) has, thank God, passed into history. With that era have gone many of the dictatorships whose repression was based on systematic lying and the distortion of reality. With that era have gone the confrontational ideologies that held much of the world in their thrall. They have been displaced by a revolution in truth-telling and openness, which is truly universal in scope. They have been displaced increasingly by democratic governments committed to the universal human values for which this body, in principle, stands. Indeed, nothing more eloquently demonstrates the passing of the Cold War era than the fact that many governments, whose undemocratic predecessors had supported or voted for the original resolution in 1975, have joined now in sponsoring its revocation.

One of the signal features of the new era we have entered is that the United Nations is ever more frequently being asked to play a central role in making peace between nations and regions in conflict, in consolidating that peace through the deployment of military observers and peacekeeping forces and, when it is necessary, as was so recently the case in the Persian Gulf, in leading the world in response to aggression.

We believe that with the world’s and this body’s passage into a new era, it is more than time to consign one of the last relics of the Cold War to the dustbin of history. That is why we are presenting to this General Assembly today, on behalf of 85 co-sponsors, a resolution revoking the determination that Zionism is racism. We believe it is time to take this step, thereby recovering for the United Nations its reputation for fairness and impartiality and reaffirming its commitment to the vision of San Francisco.

Let me emphasize that the resolution we are submitting is aimed at no one, at no state, at no region and at no group. Its sole and simple aim is to right a wrong and to restore the moral authority of this organization. It is not aimed or linked to the peace process in the Middle East. However, I will say that my government believes that this action can only help, and not hinder, efforts currently under way to bring peace to that region. For 16 years, the existence of the “Zionism is racism” determination has stood in the way of those who wish to see the United Nations play a more significant role in the peace process. It is simply a fact that Resolution 3379 (XXX) contradicted the spirit of Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), which are the continuing basis for a peaceful settlement in the Middle East.

Even more significant, however, was the message that Resolution 3379 (XXX) sent to the people of Israel. It told them that their national aspirations were inspired by racism. It told them that their national existence was illegitimate. It told them that the international community in all its solemn majesty had once again subjected the Jewish people to a singular form of persecution.

It is almost a cliche to say that there can be no true peace without confidence, mutual confidence, on the part of all sides to a conflict. There can be no peace without the recognition by each side of the other’s legitimacy. There can be no true or lasting peace without a spirit of brotherhood.

The resolution we are introducing today would send a different message to the people of Israel from the one this body sent in 1975. But fundamentally it is not Israel that needs this action. It is the United Nations that requires it. Its passage will vindicate the universal principles upon which this organization was founded and redeem the hopes that mankind vested in the United Nations at its inception.

The President (interpretation from Spanish): I now call upon the representative of Lebanon.

Khalil Makkawi, Lebanon’s ambassador to the U.N.: Allow me, on behalf of the Arab Group, over which I have the honor to preside this month, to state our opposition to draft resolution A/46/L.47. The movement by a number of sponsors to revoke General Assembly Resolution 3379 (XXX) of 10 November 1975 cannot be interpreted as a constructive development as long as the problems which led to its adoption obtain.

In fact, the record of the United Nations is replete with evidence of heightened racial discrimination against Palestinians and other populations in the occupied Arab territories. It is the position of the Arab Group that any move by the sponsors to revoke Resolution 3379 (XXX) would indicate a lack of studied analysis or objective judgment on their part.

The United States has been working diligently to revoke Resolution 3379 (XXX) for many years, so its position came as no surprise. What was not anticipated, however, was that the United States, having worked assiduously to convene the Madrid conference and its ongoing peace process, would sponsor this draft resolution at this point in time.

The timing comes in the wake of an understanding — indeed a clear understanding — that no controversial issues would be raised during the forty-sixth session of the General Assembly that might jeopardize or derail the Middle East peace process. The United States argues that the adoption of this draft resolution would restore to the United Nations an active role in the Arab-Israeli conflict, after the organization had been deliberately marginalized, if not paralyzed, by Israel during the ongoing peace process. The sponsors of this draft resolution are under the false impression that its adoption would be an incentive for Israel to be more responsive, if not compliant, with the role and resolutions of the United Nations.

This claim is negated by a record that proves beyond any shadow of doubt that when Israel is placated, it becomes more defiant rather than compliant. We need only remind this Assembly of Israel’s behavior after the peace treaty with Egypt and after the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) recognized Israel’s right to exist in December 1988.

These and other peaceful overtures to Israel were pre-empted by acts of blatant intransigence, such as the annexation of East Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan and the full-scale invasion of Lebanon. Even while United States Secretary of State Baker was seeking to bring the parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict to the negotiating table, Israel was establishing more illegal settlements, expanding existing ones and continuing its bombardment of southern Lebanon.

Only four days ago, as a matter of routine defiance, Jewish settlers moved into six homes in Silwan, in occupied Jerusalem, forcibly removing their inhabitants and throwing their belongings into the streets. Such routine and random aggression directed at Arabs is not only racist, but in violation of the spirit and the letter of every relevant resolution of the Security Council and the General Assembly, as well as of the spirit of the current peace process taking place in Washington, D.C.

To put it mildly, the adoption of this draft resolution would hinder the peace process. Its approval would not only whet the appetite of Israeli extremists wishing to pursue their policy of creeping annexation; it would also serve to fuel the passions of those Arabs who believe that the whole peace process is an exercise in futility which gives Israel more time to expand and achieve its revisionist Zionist project.

More alarming, perhaps, is that the revocation of Resolution 3379 (XXX) would set a dangerous precedent which could render other United Nations resolutions no longer morally and politically binding. A repeal of a General Assembly resolution, in itself, if not achieved through unanimity and by consensus, would carry with it very negative and dangerous implications. It would lead to the undermining of the validity, efficiency and relevance of United Nations resolutions and, for this reason, would be an important issue not only for the future of peace and security in the Middle East, but for the world at large.

If this Assembly chooses to effect a dramatic reversal of its earlier judgment as the means to correct an alleged grievance or respond to a new or evolving situation, then it appears in danger of losing its collective memory. Acquiescence in this case would constitute a sort of collective abdication of judgment, inasmuch as Resolution 3379 (XXX) has heretofore been denounced but never rebutted.

The one-sentence draft resolution is presented as “take it or leave it,” with no attempt at persuasion through rational discourse. Let me emphasize that the Arab Group at the United Nations is eager to avoid a confrontation on this issue. Our position reflects the Arab states’ commitment to a just and comprehensive peace. We are open to alternative options, but the draft resolution was promoted in such a dogmatic manner that it seems to pre-empt any inquiry into the merits of what it seeks to revoke. If successful, the new resolution would serve to insulate Israel from any meaningful accountability for its policies, behavior, practices, its proclaimed expansionist doctrine and its national purpose.

While the sponsors of the draft resolution affirm that the draft resolution is not directed against any Arab state, it conspicuously glosses over the deep wounds suffered by the Christian and Muslim Palestinians, who have been systematically discriminated against, whether under occupation or denied their right to return to their homeland because of their non-Jewishness. At the same time, their rights to self-determination and return are recognized and reconfirmed, year after year, by this Assembly.

Furthermore, Israel does not consider itself the occupying power in the occupied territories, but rather claimant power; consequently, the status of the Arab population has been reduced to a point where it enjoys limited municipal rights and absolutely no national rights. Is this not, Mr. President, discrimination? Is not forcible, unilateral annexation of Jerusalem and the Golan an act of deliberate disrespect for the national dignity of the Syrian and Palestinian populations there? How should one describe the eviction of people from their homes in order to replace them with Soviet immigrants? Does the anguish of one people justify the infliction of tragedy on another?

At this juncture, it is not the intention of the Arab Group to reopen the Palestinian question or to document Israeli trampling on the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) in the south of Lebanon, with all the concomitant abuses to the population. Our purpose is to ensure that the United Nations’ institutional memory of Israel’s practices does not relapse into coma.

To no avail, the Arab Group has demonstrated a willingness to accommodate, adjust and compromise. Our quest is for consistency, and we do not seek to be morally patronizing because of a passing diplomatic setback. Rather, we wish to ensure that the sponsors of the draft resolution to revoke Resolution 3379 (XXX) do not forget or ignore the escalating discrimination and human rights violations endured by Arabs under Israeli occupation, whether in the Palestinian territories, including Jerusalem, the Syrian Golan or southern Lebanon.

The sponsors of this draft resolution are taking a gamble if they believe the revocation of Resolution 3379 (XXX) will induce Israel to comply with international legality. For decades Israel has defied the Fourth Geneva Convention, the United Nations Charter and scores of relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, and its unparalleled track record confirms that it will continue to do so. We in the Arab Group hope that we are wrong in our assessment.

In closing, let us hope that whichever way the vote goes, the United Nations will more vigorously pursue its responsibility to end the tragedy of the Palestinian people, the sustained suffering of the Syrians in the Golan and the Lebanese in the south of my own country.

If the vote today can embolden the sponsors of draft resolution A/46/L.47 to seek Israel’s compliance with outstanding Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973) and 425 (1978), then the Arab Group will revise its assumptions. If the sponsors fail to move to expedite the peace process towards the legitimate rights of all parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict, then let their consciences carry the burden of their inaction. In all circumstances, the Arab Group seeks the peace that is currently being worked on in Washington. If it is achieved in a just manner, then the vote today and the resolution that it seeks to revoke will be footnotes in what has been the agonizing history of the Middle East.