The Hypocrisy of the Anti-Defamation League

Now someone tell the ADL

In the wake of this month’s shooting at the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. in which an 88 year-old white supremacist killed an African-American security guard, the Anti-Defamation League and its representatives have been making their rounds in the national media. The ADL is an organization whose stated mission is “to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all.” But in reality a large part of their mission is to smear and stifle public figures who dare criticize the Jewish state of Israel, particularly for its use of aggressive (and sometimes unlawful) tactics against Palestinians.

Take for example, the case of William Robinson, a sociology professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara. In April it was revealed that Abraham Foxman, the old fart who heads the ADL, insisted that the university investigate Robinson because in his class he had distributed photos of Israeli crimes against Palestinians juxtaposed with photos of Jews being brutalized in ghettos by the Germans during World War II. Apparently two students were so offended they withdrew from the course, and shortly thereafter Foxman and company were on the scene demanding that the professor be investigated for anti-Semitism.

Can the ADL really be so daft as to not see the point of the juxtaposed photographs? Crimes are crimes no matter who carries them out, or whom they are carried out against. Of course, the ADL knows this perfectly well, but Foxman et al. will be damned if they let a professor at a public university make such a powerful statement at the expense of the Israeli military. Indeed, that they cannot have; for the ADL may be against “the defamation of the Jewish people,” but they are certainly in favor of defaming those who speak out against the actions of the Jewish state, and they do so by declaring or implying that such people are anti-Semites, which is a social kiss of death in our society, especially for academics.

I could furnish several other instances where the ADL has sought to terrorize academia by targeting professors critical of Israel. Certainly this happened with Noam Chomsky in the infamous Faurisson Affair. While one can learn a lot about the dishonesty of the ADL by examining such cases, the most damning indictment of the organization’s disingenuousness can be found in its position on the Armenian genocide and that event’s relevance to contemporary international affairs.

In 2007, a seemingly uncontroversial resolution was submitted to Congress by Representative Adam Schiff (D-California and a Jew) recognizing the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1918. Then President Bush—that great defender and upholder of the sanctity of human life—urged Congress to reject the resolution. Here’s what he said: “We all deeply regret the tragic suffering of the Armenian people that began in 1915, but this resolution is not the right response to these historic mass killings, and its passage would do great harm to relations with a key ally in NATO, and to the war on terror.” Bush was of course referring to the fact that Turkey—the Ottoman successor state and Muslim ally of the U.S.—would be none too happy with a simple non-binding resolution which would rightfully indict their forebears for perpetrating one of the greatest atrocities in history. From Bush’s incredible statement we are forced to draw the conclusion that he is (was) in favor of recognizing mass killing and genocide only when America’s political and foreign relations are not inconvenienced by doing so.

What does this have to do with the ADL? Well amazingly the ADL—a Jewish organization which knows all too well the horrors of genocide—was behind the president 100% on this. Like the U.S., Israel is also an ally of Turkey, and an even closer ally of the U.S. And so the ADL felt that this resolution represented a threat to this relationship because it would alienate the Turks. In one of the most cowardly statements ever issued, this is what Foxman had to say about the controversy:

We have never negated but have always described the painful events of 1915-1918 perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenians as massacres and atrocities. On reflection, we have come to share the view of Henry Morgenthau, Sr. that the consequences of those actions were indeed tantamount to genocide. If the word genocide had existed then, they would have called it genocide.

I have consulted with my friend and mentor Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel and other respected historians who acknowledge this consensus. I hope that Turkey will understand that it is Turkey’s friends who urge that nation to confront its past and work to reconcile with Armenians over this dark chapter in history.

Having said that, we continue to firmly believe that a Congressional resolution on such matters is a counterproductive diversion and will not foster reconciliation between Turks and Armenians and may put at risk the Turkish Jewish community and the important multilateral relationship between Turkey, Israel and the United States.

Short of maintaining that the genocide never happened, or that it did happen but that it was a good thing, can you imagine a more deplorable statement to issue about such a terrible event? For a moment, imagine that a group of Jews in the United States wants Congress to pass another resolution recognizing the horrors of the Holocaust. Now imagine that the German American National Congress (a nonpolitical group simply seeking to preserve German culture among German-Americans) protests by declaring that they “firmly believe that a [U.S.] Congressional Resolution on such matters is a counterproductive diversion.” We can easily predict what the response would be—something along the lines of nationwide indignation at the suggestion that recognizing the Holocaust would be a “counterproductive diversion.” And yet this is precisely what the ADL said what recognizing the Armenian genocide would amount to. While I understand that the ADL is an organization dedicated primarily to Jewish causes, its mission statement nonetheless declares that it seeks “justice and fair treatment for all.” Furthermore, one would think that the ADL would be a bit touchier when it comes to the subject of genocide and would thus refuse to tolerate any pussyfooting around the issue in any and all instances of it. One would think that, but one would be wrong.

Thankfully some in the ADL broke ranks with Foxman. Among them was Andrew Tarsy, the regional director of the ADL in New England, who was fired after he called Foxman’s position on the issue “morally indefensible.” Additionally in Watertown, Massachusetts, where Armenians comprise a sizeable minority, the town council voted unanimously to withdraw the town from the ADL’s “No Place For Hate” campaign in what was a very appropriate response to the organization’s abhorrent stance.

In short, ladies and gentlemen, the ADL is an organization which cloaks itself in the righteousness that comes with fighting for human and civil rights. But yank away this spurious shroud and we can plainly see the ADL for what it really is: an ugly organization which, though it sometimes legitimately crusades against real forms of anti-Semitism, is at bottom more about preserving political agendas and alliances at the expense of the very ideals it claims to be protecting.

-Max