by Andrew Tucker, thinc.
Exactly fifty years ago – on 10th November 1975 – the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 3379, stating that “Zionism is a form of racism”.
In his famous speech (definitely worth listening to!), UN Ambassador to the UN Patrick Moynihan condemned this resolution as “an obscenity”. According to Moynihan, by condemning Israel as a racist state “a great evil has been loosed upon the world”.
Although resolution 3379 was repealed in 1991, its hostile tone continues to echo through the halls and corridors of the agencies, organs and instrumentalities of the United Nations. The institutions of the UN – which were created after the Shoah, and were intended, amongst other things, to ensure that elimination of the Jews would never happen again – have become corrupted to the core. The UN needs to be radically reformed. This includes the International Court of Justice.
Why did Moynihan call it “evil” to condemn Zionism as a form of racial discrimination?
The reason is simple: it is a lie – a deliberate and cynical distortion of legal and historical reality, an attack on the sovereignty of a UN member state and thus on the integrity of the United Nations itself.
“Zionism” refers to the reconstitution of the Jewish people as a nation in their historic homeland (“Zion” refers to Jerusalem). Zionism is a liberation movement to restore Jewish nationhood in the land that was stolen from them. For over two thousand years the Jewish people have lived in exile. In returning to the land and building their nation since the mid-1800’s, the Jewish people did not steal the land from the native inhabitants. They consistently held out their hand of peace to the non-Jewish population in the land and the region.
The Jews are not a race, nor are they just a religion – they are a people. In fact, the Jewish people are the native inhabitants who have returned and they have (despite many obstacles, including consistent attacks by their Arab neighbours) created a state in which ALL who live in the land – whatever their race, colour or creed- can live in freedom. Just read Israel’s Declaration of Independence to understand this. According to Freedom House, Israel is the only “free” country in a sea of dictatorships and oppressive regimes.
As the United States stated in 1991
“Zionism is not a policy; it is the idea that led to the creation of a home for the Jewish people, to the State of Israel. And to equate Zionism with the intolerable sin of racism is to twist history and forget the terrible plight of Jews in World War II and, indeed, throughout history. To equate Zionism with racism is to reject Israel itself, a member of good standing of the United Nations. This body cannot claim to seek peace and at the same time challenge Israel’s right to exist.”
The State of Israel, with all its faults and shortcomings, is in fact the opposite of racist. The citizens of Israel – comprising both Jews from many racial backgrounds, as well as Christians, Muslims and others also from many racial backgrounds – constitutes many, many different races. This is in stark contrast to the many Islamic states surrounding it.
Comparing Zionism to racism is blatantly intended to delegitimise the State of Israel, and to rob the Jewish people of their history and identity as a nation. It is also a deliberate attempt to erase from our collective consciousness the fact that the nations that accuse Israel of being racist are themselves often the most racist and oppressive of all – countries such as Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Tunisia which suppress human rights of their populations and in many cases have destroyed, persecuted or simply thrown out their own domestic Jewish populations.
Moynihan brilliantly exposed this attack on the existence of the Jewish people as Jews as a form of antisemitism – and for that reason alone to be condemned and countered at every turn.
But is not only an attack on the Jews. Moynihan also called out “Zionism = racism” as an all-out attack on the very nature of the modern system of human rights. He said that the damage we now do the language of human rights could well be irreversible. The concept of human rights is based on the truth identified by Western philosophers in the 17th century that individual men and women have a unique identity and value separate from the state. Most states today do not accept the identity of the individual as separate from the state; in fact, they seek to annihilate individual identity. And this is why they accuse the only truly non-racist state in the world as racist: by using the language of human rights, they seek to destroy human rights themselves. Moynihan: “[i]f we destroy the words that were given to us centuries ago, we will have no words to replace them”.
Tragically, this attitude of contempt of the Jewish State of Israel has so deeply permeated the UN that it is now even reflected in the opinions and rulings of the highest courts in the world – the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), both of which are based in The Hague, which prides itself as a city of peace and justice.
Instead of exercising judicial independence to get the historical record straight, and failing to acknowledge the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and the human rights of the citizens of Israel, these courts have become instruments in the hands of those who wish to see the destruction of the Jewish State.
In other words, they have become vehicles for antisemitism.
The latest example of this phenomenon is the Advisory Opinion issued by the ICJ in October 2025, concerning Israel’s obligations in the Gaza Strip under international law.
The Advisory Opinion is the Court’s response to a request by about two thirds (137) of the total number of 193 UN member states (General Assembly resolution 79/232), issued on 19 December 2024, after Israel suspended cooperation with the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinians in the Near East (UNRWA). Israel had ceased cooperation with UNRWA due to evidence of its employees’ participation with Hamas in the October 7, 2023 massacre, as well as its longstanding role in enabling terrorism against Israel.
These 137 states asked the Court to opine on Israel’s obligations under international law. The ICJ majority concluded that Israel’s suspension of cooperation with UNRWA was unlawful and that Israel must permit unimpeded access for humanitarian organizations into Gaza.
While on its face this opinion may seem reasonable and “humane”, a closer analysis reveals that the Court basically rejected out of hand all the evidence provided by Israel that it is fighting an existential war against Islamist terror, on many fronts, intended to annihilate it as a Jewish state – and that the United Nations itself has been infiltrated by these terror organisations.
By ignoring the reality of Islamist terror, and by constantly criticising Israel for its failures, and whitewashing credible evidence that UNRWA has been infiltrated by Hamas and other terrorist groups, the Court is failing in its task of administering justice and promoting peace.
In their careful analysis, Prof. Gregory Rose, Michael Pushenko and thinc. associates, conclude that –
- the ICJ Advisory Opinion of 22 October 2025 constituted a misuse of judicial authority that subordinated the rule of international law in the UN to political necessity.
- the majority offered a flawed and incomplete assessment of Israel’s obligations under humanitarian law, the law of occupation, and UNRWA’s governing framework.
- the majority of the ICJ bench disregarded evidence that UNRWA is clearly a partisan actor in the conflict, has long enabled and supported terrorism, and has ceased to act as a neutral humanitarian organization, forfeiting its right to immunities and privileges.
- the separate opinion of Judge Julia Sebutinde outlined these flaws of the majority judgment.
- the majority of the Court circumvented the existing Middle East sub-regional peace negotiation framework. Rather than endorsing a return to the negotiating table, it undermined fundamental principles of international law, such as sovereign state consent and unbiased adjudication.
Coming soon: the full analysis of the latest UN resolution on this matter here.
