![Protestors carrying placards reading 'Zionism isn't racism' and 'Israel is a democracy' the day after the United Nations passed resolution 3379 which determined that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination, during a demonstration in New York City, New York, 11th November 1975. [Photo by Peter Keegan/Keystone/Hulton Archive/Getty Images]](https://i0.wp.com/www.middleeastmonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/image.png?fit=920%2C613&ssl=1)
Newly uncovered British documents have revealed that the United States delayed its efforts to overturn a United Nations resolution equating Zionism with racism for two years to avoid a “highly damaging clash” with Arab nations.
The documents show that the US and the UK were concerned about the diplomatic fallout with the Arab world if it moved too quickly.
On 10 November, 1975, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 3379, which declared that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination. The resolution, proposed by the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) and Cuba, without consulting the Arab group at the UN and served as a substitute for a direct attempt to suspend or expel Israel from the organisation. It passed with 72 votes in favour, including all Arab member states, 35 against (including the US, UK and most Western countries), and 32 abstentions.
Since its adoption, pro-Israel lobbies in the US and Europe have periodically campaigned to have the resolution rescinded. One such campaign began in December 1989, led by US Vice-President Dan Quayle and supported by Assistant Secretary of State for International Organisation Affairs, John Bolton. However, British diplomatic reports from that period, unearthed by MEMO in the National Archives, described Quayle’s initiative as “naked political opportunism”.
The British contacts in the US mission in the UN found that Quayle was looking for an idea “which would go down well with the Jewish audience in New York” and appealing “to Zionist feeling”. “The vice-president’s espousal of this cause is irresistible to right-wing republican sentiment,” contacts added.
The British mission at the UN reported that Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar advised the US against pursuing the issue, suggesting that it was best to “let sleeping dogs lie.” Crispin Tickell, the UK’s head of mission, warned that any attempt to repeal the resolution would likely fail due to the ongoing deadlock in the Middle East peace process and the lack of US recognition of Palestinian statehood. Raising the issue at the time “would provide an opportunity for the extreme Arabs to make mischief”, Tickell argued
Tickell also predicted that a US-led campaign could draw attention to discriminatory Israeli policies, including its immigration laws. He argued that most non-aligned countries would be compelled to support the existing resolution under such circumstances. The British senior diplomat further strongly believed that given the broader context of the peace process “a clash between the Americans and the Arab group (on the issue repealing Zionism/racism resolution) could be highly damaging”.
He advised the UK should find ways of expressing to the Americans “at a high level” the UK”s “deep misgivings about the political damage that any campaign on this issue could do to the UN and to the peace process generally”. So the Americans “should be urged not to pursue” Quayle’s campaign to revoke 1975 resolution “in the near future”.
The report maintained that any new resolution to disavowing the old one “would have to offer something to Arab sensibilities to gain broad consensus.”
The British government advised the US to avoid pushing for the resolution to be repealed unless the effort also addressed Arab concerns, such as Palestinian self-determination. The UK’s Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd echoed this stance, suggesting that a successful repeal would require balancing recognition of Zionism’s legitimacy with a clear acknowledgment of Palestinian rights. While instructing his staff to express to the Americans the UK’s “firm wish that no action will be taken in the near future”, he argued that repealing the resolution “might stand better chance of success if it offered something to the Arabs”.
After bilateral discussions with the British, the US mission became “well aware of the danger that a repealing resolution might well end up like a Christmas tree” as “the hard-line Arab states adding other unacceptable amendments” to any US new draft resolution. The Egyptians also revealed that they were “lobbying the Americans regularly” on the damage that might be done to the peace process if the repeal of the Zionism/Racism resolution were pushed forward in near future.
The US also sought Saudi Arabia’s support for its campaign, but failed. Saudi officials rejected a US proposal to replace the resolution’s wording with a statement describing Zionism as a “movement for the liberation of Jewish people.” In a letter to the UK, the Saudi government condemned any move to repeal the resolution, accusing Israel of systemic abuses against Palestinians.
The strongly-worded letter argued that such a move “would only provide support to the racist measures practiced by Israel.” It highlighted that these measures targeted “the unarmed children” and included “the savage treatment of women and the aged as well as the demolition of homes, the expulsion of the Palestinians from their country and their detention in prisons for long periods of times with their subjection to all sorts of horrifying tortures.” It strongly criticised Israel for “gouging of eyes, the breaking of bones and entombment (of Palestinians) while alive.”
Internal UK government communications showed that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) viewed the timing as unfavourable for a repeal attempt. The FCO feared that a failed attempt “could embarrass moderate Arab states like Egypt and Jordan”, while Saddam Hussein, Muammar Qaddafi and others “would probably have a field day appealing to the Arab popular opinion.”
Moreover, Israel “might also find itself embarrassed” with its new-found East European friends given the escalation of Intifada and the Israeli intransigence. Any failed attempt would be “disastrous” while a guaranteed success “must probably await more propitious political circumstances”, it was concluded.
Recognising the diplomatic risks, the US informed European partners that it would not immediately push for a repeal vote but would continue to “work hard” to build sufficient support.
The US resumed its campaign in 1991 after the Middle East peace process gained momentum following the Madrid Conference. Syria and the PLO involved in talks with Israel which subsequently succeeded in establishing diplomatic relations with Russia, China, India and other countries.
On 16 December, 1991, the UN General Assembly passed a new resolution revoking the 1975 determination that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination”. This time, 111 countries voted in favour, 25 against, and 13 abstained. Notably, the new resolution did not address Palestinian or Arab rights, and Arab states voted against it, but seven states; Egypt, Bahrain, Comoros, Kuwait, Morocco, Oman and Tunisia were absent from the vote.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.
Unless otherwise stated in the article above, this work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. If the image(s) bear our credit, this license also applies to them. What does that mean? For other permissions, please contact us.
