Shame on the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), for proving themselves, ultimately, to be an organization of self-serving bigots.
The ADL is an organization that has been around for a long time, and has long been thought of as a prominent civil rights organization. It has stood up, strong and unafraid, against such hate groups as the KKK and the Christian Identity movement and for the principle of separation of church and state. in this sense, it has been a progressive organization and a key part of the progressive movement, and I, for one, have seen it as a legitimate and necessary organization.
And this is in spite of criticisms by people, whom I greatly respect, like Michael Lerner and Noam Chomsky, who raise some troubling issues with the ADL. Chomsky, for example, writes that
The leading official monitor of anti-Semitism, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith, interprets anti-Semitism as unwillingness to conform to its requirements with regard to support for Israeli authorities. These conceptions were clearly expounded by ADL National Director Nathan Perlmutter, who wrote that while old-fashioned anti-Semitism has declined, there is a new and more dangerous variety on the part of "peacemakers of Vietnam vintage, transmuters of swords into plowshares, championing the terrorist P.L.O.," and those who condemn U.S. policies in Vietnam and Central America while "sniping at American defense budgets." He fears that "nowadays war is getting a bad name and peace too favorable a press" with the rise of this "real anti-Semitism." The logic is straightforward: Anti-Semitism is opposition to the interests of Israel (as the ADL sees them); and these interests are threatened by "the liberals," the churches, and others who do not adhere to the ADL political line.
The ADL has virtually abandoned its earlier role as a civil rights organization, becoming "one of the main pillars" of Israeli propaganda in the U.S., as the Israeli press casually describes it, engaged in surveillance, blacklisting, compilation of FBI-style files circulated to adherents for the purpose of defamation, angry public responses to criticism of Israeli actions, and so on. These efforts, buttressed by insinuations of anti-Semitism or direct accusations, are intended to deflect or undermine opposition to Israeli policies, including Israel's refusal, with U.S. support, to move towards a general political settlement. The ADL was condemned by the Middle East Studies Association after circulation of an ADL blacklist to campus Jewish leaders, stamped "confidential." Practices of this nature have been bitterly condemned by Israeli doves -- in part because they fear the consequences of this hysterical chauvinism for Israel, in part because they have been subjected to the standard procedures themselves, in part simply in natural revulsion.
Anti-Semitism, in short, is not merely conflated with anti-Zionism, but even extended to Zionists who are critical of Israeli practices. Correspondingly, authentic anti-Semitism on the part of those whose services to Israeli power are deemed appropriate is of no account.
Chomsky thus provides some context for showing the ADL's swing to the right in the 1970s, 80s and beyond, and this swing reflecting itself in its unconditional support for Israel, even when Isreal commits blatant human rights violations.
Along with this is the issue of the ADL throwing its weight around so as to attempt to silence critics, such as Jewish historian Tony Judt.
The pattern, Judt says, is unmistakable and chilling.
"This is serious and frightening, and only in America -- not in Israel -- is this a problem," he said. "These are Jewish organizations that believe they should keep people who disagree with them on the Middle East away from anyone who might listen."
The leaders of the Jewish organizations denied asking the consulate to block Judt's speech and accused the professor of retailing "wild conspiracy theories" about their roles. But they applauded the consulate for rescinding Judt's invitation.
"I think they made the right decision," said Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. "He's taken the position that Israel shouldn't exist. That puts him on our radar."
So, this is part of the background for assessing an organization that has been a part of the progressive cause and yet is now reactionary.
In giving in to bigotry and intolerance, and in playing to the stereotype that Islam = terrorism, Mosque = terrorist base, the ADL loses whatever credibility that may have still had. They once defended the principle of separation of church and state, and have obviously forgotten their own history. Shame on them!