ZIONISM IS NOT A CRIME
July 30, 2001
by David Matas, Senior Legal Counsel, B’nai Brith Canada
The third Preparatory Committee Meeting of the UN-sponsored World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) opens this week in Geneva amidst an orchestrated crescendo of “Zionism is Racism” rhetoric. Countries with openly biased political agendas have been able to table anti-Jewish and anti-Israel accusations, which are themselves racist.
What is the legal basis for the charges currently under discussion that attempt to raise yet again the spectre of the now discredited 1975 UN “Zionism is Racism” Resolution? More than half a century after the creation of the State of Israel, it is apparently still necessary to explain that Zionism, the belief in the need for a Jewish state, is an assertion of human rights. The meaning of Zionism is simple: it asserts the right to the self-determination of the Jewish people and the right to preserve their cultural identity.
The right to self-determination of peoples is the only human right that is to be found in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. Its presence in both Covenants underlines its status as a foundation for all rights. Asserting that “Zionism is Racism” means that the right to self-determination of peoples is to be denied to only one people - the Jewish people.
Current anti-Zionist rhetoric - and preliminary WCAR discussions - take this line of attack one step further by labeling the Israeli Law of Return as racist because it grants citizenship based on Jewish ancestry or affiliation. However, denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination by opposing the Israeli Law of Return is itself racist since it denies the Jewish people the right to determine their own membership. The right to self-determination cannot exist without the right to self-definition, so this accusation is just another way of saying that the right to self-determination should exist for other peoples, but not for the Jews.
Apart from these considerations, it is undeniable that the Israeli Law of Return exists as a protection against the racism that Jews have suffered and continue to suffer. It is a type of “affirmative action”, ensuring that Jews under duress anywhere in the world will never again be denied access to safe haven simply because they are Jews. The Law of Return was, in fact, built on lessons learnt only too well from the failure by countries across the globe to grant refuge to Jews fleeing the Holocaust and its aftermath. It confounds common sense to argue that a law designed to protect targets of racism is itself racist.
The call for a Palestinian “right of return” is an eerie form of mimicry of the language of the Israeli Law of Return. It defies language and logic for states in one breath to label the Israeli Law of Return racist and in the next to endorse a right of return of Palestinians to Israel.
The claimed Palestinian right of return is not a “right”, since it is recognized neither in Israeli nor in international law. Nor is it about “return”, since it is applied to millions of people who have never set foot in Israel. To introduce into Israel millions of Arab Palestinians would mean that the Jewish character of the State of Israel would end through a dramatic shifting of the demographic balance. The preservation of the cultural identity of the Jewish people would be threatened, and their right to self-determination would be defeated. Yet proponents of Palestinian statehood along the lines of a two state solution continue to claim a right of return to Israel, in addition to a state of their own based on their own culture, religion, and language - a state in which Jews would certainly not be welcome.
Although UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (December, 1948) is repeatedly cited to validate the claimed right of return - ironically, most Arabs voted against it - the language of rights was neither used nor intended. The resolution’s recommendation was that “the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date”.
The resolution supports granting permission to return to the refugees alone, but not to their descendants. It cannot be read as an endorsement of the proposition that millions of descendants of the original refugees, who have never set foot in Israel, should be granted permission to “return” to a country to which they have neither religious, cultural, nor language affinity. Nor do they have any affiliation or loyalty to the State of Israel.
The use of the word “permitted” has its own special significance, acknowledging that the right to allow or to deny entry rests solely with Israel. Certainly, no other state would accept that non-nationals have a right of entry into that state’s territory simply because of historic links, but would rather assert that discretion over entry into its own territory is a sovereign right, and not the right of the foreign national. Yet, these same states interpret Resolution 194 as somehow creating a right in non-nationals that only one state - Israel - must respect. Indeed, there is no general practice around the world of giving non-national descendants the right of entry into the country of their ancestors. A custom of this nature simply does not exist, nor is it endorsed by international law.
Clearly, there is no legal basis on which to justify the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish resolutions currently under discussion for the WCAR. One can only attribute them to motivations which are themselves racist. Who would have thought in the new millennium that it would be necessary once again to justify the very raison d’etre for Israel’s existence as the national homeland of the Jewish people and an entirely legitimate expression of their right to self-determination.
You're gunna luv this...http://www.bnaibrith.ca/institute/articles/dm010730a.html
July 30, 2001
by David Matas, Senior Legal Counsel, B’nai Brith Canada
The third Preparatory Committee Meeting of the UN-sponsored World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) opens this week in Geneva amidst an orchestrated crescendo of “Zionism is Racism” rhetoric. Countries with openly biased political agendas have been able to table anti-Jewish and anti-Israel accusations, which are themselves racist.
What is the legal basis for the charges currently under discussion that attempt to raise yet again the spectre of the now discredited 1975 UN “Zionism is Racism” Resolution? More than half a century after the creation of the State of Israel, it is apparently still necessary to explain that Zionism, the belief in the need for a Jewish state, is an assertion of human rights. The meaning of Zionism is simple: it asserts the right to the self-determination of the Jewish people and the right to preserve their cultural identity.
The right to self-determination of peoples is the only human right that is to be found in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. Its presence in both Covenants underlines its status as a foundation for all rights. Asserting that “Zionism is Racism” means that the right to self-determination of peoples is to be denied to only one people - the Jewish people.
Current anti-Zionist rhetoric - and preliminary WCAR discussions - take this line of attack one step further by labeling the Israeli Law of Return as racist because it grants citizenship based on Jewish ancestry or affiliation. However, denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination by opposing the Israeli Law of Return is itself racist since it denies the Jewish people the right to determine their own membership. The right to self-determination cannot exist without the right to self-definition, so this accusation is just another way of saying that the right to self-determination should exist for other peoples, but not for the Jews.
Apart from these considerations, it is undeniable that the Israeli Law of Return exists as a protection against the racism that Jews have suffered and continue to suffer. It is a type of “affirmative action”, ensuring that Jews under duress anywhere in the world will never again be denied access to safe haven simply because they are Jews. The Law of Return was, in fact, built on lessons learnt only too well from the failure by countries across the globe to grant refuge to Jews fleeing the Holocaust and its aftermath. It confounds common sense to argue that a law designed to protect targets of racism is itself racist.
The call for a Palestinian “right of return” is an eerie form of mimicry of the language of the Israeli Law of Return. It defies language and logic for states in one breath to label the Israeli Law of Return racist and in the next to endorse a right of return of Palestinians to Israel.
The claimed Palestinian right of return is not a “right”, since it is recognized neither in Israeli nor in international law. Nor is it about “return”, since it is applied to millions of people who have never set foot in Israel. To introduce into Israel millions of Arab Palestinians would mean that the Jewish character of the State of Israel would end through a dramatic shifting of the demographic balance. The preservation of the cultural identity of the Jewish people would be threatened, and their right to self-determination would be defeated. Yet proponents of Palestinian statehood along the lines of a two state solution continue to claim a right of return to Israel, in addition to a state of their own based on their own culture, religion, and language - a state in which Jews would certainly not be welcome.
Although UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (December, 1948) is repeatedly cited to validate the claimed right of return - ironically, most Arabs voted against it - the language of rights was neither used nor intended. The resolution’s recommendation was that “the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date”.
The resolution supports granting permission to return to the refugees alone, but not to their descendants. It cannot be read as an endorsement of the proposition that millions of descendants of the original refugees, who have never set foot in Israel, should be granted permission to “return” to a country to which they have neither religious, cultural, nor language affinity. Nor do they have any affiliation or loyalty to the State of Israel.
The use of the word “permitted” has its own special significance, acknowledging that the right to allow or to deny entry rests solely with Israel. Certainly, no other state would accept that non-nationals have a right of entry into that state’s territory simply because of historic links, but would rather assert that discretion over entry into its own territory is a sovereign right, and not the right of the foreign national. Yet, these same states interpret Resolution 194 as somehow creating a right in non-nationals that only one state - Israel - must respect. Indeed, there is no general practice around the world of giving non-national descendants the right of entry into the country of their ancestors. A custom of this nature simply does not exist, nor is it endorsed by international law.
Clearly, there is no legal basis on which to justify the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish resolutions currently under discussion for the WCAR. One can only attribute them to motivations which are themselves racist. Who would have thought in the new millennium that it would be necessary once again to justify the very raison d’etre for Israel’s existence as the national homeland of the Jewish people and an entirely legitimate expression of their right to self-determination.
You're gunna luv this...http://www.bnaibrith.ca/institute/articles/dm010730a.html
