Talk:Anti-Defamation League/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled

I have removed the following from the article

In the 1980s the ADL co-operated with agents of South Africa´s then Apartheid regime to map students paricipating in pro-Palestinian or Anti-Apartheid activism. Several journalists with supposedly pro-Palstinans viewpoints have been forced to resign after the ADL put pressure on their employers. The ADL views the singling out of Israel for criticism as anti-Semitic.

Really? The ADL has the power to force companies to fire innocent journalists for no valid reason? That is an astonishing claim to make. Please provide some specifics and references to prove this claim. The way it stands, the write makes the ADL out to be some immensely powerful organization that spys on citizens! I have never heard such a thing before in my life. Also, what does it mean when someone claims that ADL is "mapping" them? RK

You have never heard such a thing? Puh-lease. I happened to be driving by the ADL office on Melrose in Los Angeles back in the early 90s, and there were about a dozen, maybe more, LAPD cars there, carrying out the famous raid initiated by San Francisco DA Arlo Smith. It was publicized nationwide. I followed the story for weeks in all major press. --Herschelkrustofsky 22:59, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• • I was living in LA at that time, and I sure didn't hear about it. It may have been publicized nationwide, but it sure wasn't publicized in LA. RickK 23:02, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • The L.A. Times site does not make articles available that far back, but there are websites which archived their articles, including this one. I can't vouch for the accuracy of their transcript, but it certainly jibes with my recollection of what the Times published back then.--Herschelkrustofsky 23:27, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would like to remove the following: "The ADL is also criticized for equating views critical of Israeli policies with anti-semitism, and thereby trying to stifle any discussion about Israeli policies" Why remove this? Because this position is more than false, it borders on forgerye. Check out the ADL press releases for yourself. They say and do no such thing. Certain anti-Semitic critics of ADL falsify statements, and then attack the ADl for things it does not do and has never said. This is a particularly egregious case in point, as the ADL constantly works with groups that have criticised the State of Israel in many areas, and yet the ADL does not attack these groups as anti-Semitic. Even large mainstream Jewish groups that are a part of Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, as well as many Jewish Israeli political parties constantly criticise various aspects Israeli policy. So do many non-Jewish groups. All these groups are not attacked as anti-Semitism. People who make this claim are ignorant of the facts, or worse. In fact, this tactic is an anti-Semitic technique ("Those Jews think are all criticisms of Israel are anti-Semitism") This claim is an anti-Jewish fabrication. If someone wants to make a specific criticism of the ADL, and can back that criticism up with some kind of facts, then fine. I have no problem with this. But making up vague allegations without any content or sources is just slander, and has no place in an encyclopedia. NPOV needs to be maintained. RK

Sorry for taking so long to respond. (You left me only about a minute in order to justify my sentence (The ADL is criticized for equating views critical of Israeli policies with anti-semitism, and thereby trying to stifle any discussion about Israeli policies.) before removing it with the comment that no-one will provide you with proof.). I think that the following press release (ADL Condemns Belgian Decision to Pursue "War Crimes" Charge Against Prime Minister Sharon) from the ADL itself (so that there can be no confusion that someone who has a gripe about the ADL has fabricated material therein) is a perfect example of my critical sentence above. Even though the ADL claims its purpose to be the fight against anti-Semitism, it has criticized the a belgian court for allowing action to be brought against Ariel Sharon after he is no longer in office. The only way that this can be explained is that the ADL regards criticisms of Israeli policies to be anti-Semitic - which it is not necessarily (but I concede that it sometimes is). snoyes 15:38 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

Snoyes, nothing in the above statement relates to the original claim that you made. I can't believe you: You are writing that just because the ADL has criticised one particular event, then it must feel this way about every criticism of Israel. That is irrational and dishonest. The above does nothing to confirm your initial claim. The facts are that the ADL refuses to take the position you claim. Yet you ignore this fact, you find one incident, and then fasely claim that this is how they act in all cases. That is bizarre, unfair, false and paranoid. If I find you criticising some women, does this mean you hate all women? Please, Snoyes, get some control over what appears to be anti-Jewish paranoia. They are not out to get you, or anyone else. RK

My claim is the following: "The ADL equates views critical of Israeli policies with anti-semitism, and thereby stifles discussion about Israeli policies. You have asked me for an example of such behaviour. The press release that I have linked to does in my opinion offer an example of such behaviour. Your subsequent claim that this is but one instance of this is justified. Therefore I shall offer two more: "ADL Condemns Passage of Six Anti-Israel U.N. General Assembly Resolutions" and "ADL to European Commission President: Oppose Duisenbergs' Extreme, Anti-Israel Position", and if you still think that these are isolated instances of such behaviour, here is a category full of press releases like the 3 above. You are right that I can't know how the ADL feels about every criticism of Israel, but I do know how they feel about every criticism of Israel that they publically comment on in press releases like the 3 above. Lastly, and I'm sad that it had to come to this (remember - we are here to collaboratively work on a great project): You insult me by claiming that I believe that someone is out to get me - that I am paranoid. I would ask you to refrain from making such statements about me in public without even knowing me. snoyes 16:20 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

Again, your position is not logical or rational. You prove that the ADL has spoken out against certain anti-Semitic incidents as anti-Semitic. Um, ok, but so what? No one denies that; in fact, that was the primary purpose of the ADL, to combat anti-Semitism. Your problem is that you conclude that they therefore view all criticism of Israeli policy as anti-Semitic. Your conclusion literaly does not follow from its premise. In fact, the ADL is on record (see below) as having precisely the opposite point of view. I don't know how to make this any more clear. RK

Thanks for posting the excerpt from the ADL website concerning its speaking out against anti-Israeli opinions. I think it proves my point about the ADL speaking out against valid anti-Israel opinion. I can find 5 criteria that a political discourse has to fulfill (by the ADL's standards) in order to be a "legitimate political discourse", and that it does not "cross[es] the line into anti-Semitism".

• no traditional anti-Jewish references (eg. references to shape of nose)
• no traditional anti-Jewish accusations (eg. accusations of killing Jesus)
• no traditional anti-Jewish conspiracy theories (eg. accusations of control over States)
• no comparison of Jews to Nazis (No eg. needed)
• no holding Israel "to a different standard than any other country in the world" (eg. questioning the legitimacy of Israels existence)

For example (please don't make me give more examples again) The Belgian court decision to allow Sharon to be prosecuted after leaving office (My first link) fulfills all of the above criteria. And therefore, the only logical conclusion is that the ADL is speaking out against valid political discourse.

You prove that the ADL has spoken out against certain anti-Semitic incidents as anti-Semitic. Um, ok, but so what?

Actually, what I have proven with the 3 links is that the ADL has spoken out against certain anti-Israeli opinions, which are not necessarily anti-Semitic. In this context, it is telling that you can't tell the difference between anti-Israeli opinions and anti-Semitic opinions. snoyes 18:40 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

---

It should be noted, of course, that regardless of whether or not the ADL thinks criticism of Israel is anti-semitic, they are very active in political lobbying around Israel. For example, they publish "Advocating for Israel: An Activist's Guide", mainly for student groups. DanKeshet 16:32 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. This is a non-controversial claim. In support of my previous statements, let me add this remark from the ADL RK

The ADL states that "Criticism of particular Israeli actions or policies in and of itself does not constitute anti-Semitism. Certainly the sovereign State of Israel can be legitimately criticized just like any other country in the world. However, it is undeniable that there are those whose criticism of Israel or of "Zionism" is used to mask anti-Semitism."

"How can one distinguish between criticism of Israel that is within the bounds of legitimate political discourse, and that which crosses the line into anti-Semitism? One way is to recognize when those that criticize Israel invoke traditional anti-Jewish references, accusations and conspiracy theories. For example, when Israelis are depicted using Der Sturmer-like stereotypes: i.e., hooked noses; bent over, dark, ugly, demonic figures. Or when Israelis are accused of crimes that are reminiscent of age-old anti-Jewish conspiracy theories -- i.e., alleged Israeli/Jewish plans for world domination; a Jewish cabal (elders of Zion) behind Israel's strength, or allegations of Israeli actions that are eerily similar to medieval blood libels. Another common theme is when Israelis are compared to Nazis and Hitler. This comparison between the Jewish state and those who perpetrated the greatest and largest act of anti-Semitism in world history is not an impartial or dispassionate accusation. It is a charge that is purposefully directed at Jews in an effort to associate the victims of the Nazi crimes with the Nazi perpetrators, and serves to diminish the significance and uniqueness of the Holocaust. To make such a comparison is such an act of blatant hostility toward Jews and Jewish history, that it clearly bespeaks of a deeper hatred.

Finally, deeper bias against Israel and Jews may be evident when Israel is held to a different standard than any other country in the world. Such an example is when anti-Israel statements question or deny Israel's right to exist. No one questions France's right to exist or Egypt's, simply because there is disagreement with their policies. Only the Jewish state's legitimacy is in question. Similarly, when Israel is singled out for criticism for actions or policies that other nations around the world perform with impunity, questions of motivation arise.

ADl statement that criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism

I think RK, you ask a valid question, and this may be one of policy - the ADL, once a civil rights organization, according to some has switched its focus to being a snitch org, and now, (in light of recent sucessful lawsuits, etc) may have to back off from any hobbyist activity. A change in leadership alone might not be enough to signal a complete turn in policy, but in recent years, theres less info about the ADL spook activity.

I would defer to people with experience in deflecting attacks from the ADL, and Necessary Illusions is web published, and has some detailed contradictions about how the ADL conducted itself in the late eighties. Currently, it seems its political power is waning, from the normal rubberband effect of trying to pull things in one direction - if the org goes a little too far, then bad press, instead of equaling good press, comes not in the form of attention, but represents a group which has discredited itself, by doing things that people dont like.

Below links are from non-political sites. "ADL watch" (they include no info about themselves) strikes me a little too close to the outright racist "Jew watch", and I dont cite any of their sources. The VV articles are recent, and frame some of the issues (that we can know of) about the ADL's record keeping skills, who it hires to maintain those records, who they share them with, etc. -Stevert

Former US Senator James Abourezk from South Dakota released documents that had been secretly issued by the ADL.. looking

http://www.findarticles.com/m1058/18_117/62923904/p1/article.jhtml http://www.counterpunch.org/adlspies.html http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0304/hoberman.php http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0239/solomon.php http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0220/solomon.php http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0214/hentoff.php

---

I have moved this paragraph from the article, for discussion and modification:

Supporters of the ADL hold that Chomsky's claims are baseless, and that the ADL continues to be a leader in the fight for civil rights, and against racism and anti-Semitism, and a strong defender of the American principle of separation between church and state. ADL supporters note that although the ADL has repeatedly spoken out against Anti-Arab discrimination and against anti-black racism, virtually no Arab or Muslim groups reciprocate.

If a particular named commentator could be wheeled out to provide a quotation to counter Uncle Noam, then this would be legitimate; but as it stands it is just an undisguised rant. The second sentence, which states as fact that "virtually no Arab or Muslim groups" speak out against anti-semitism, is simply false. All the pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist lobbying organisations I know of take great pains to make it clear that they oppose racism and anti-Semitism. --GrahamN 22:52 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

A search on ADL for Chomsky's name gave this gem, which I've quoted and linked. That pesky free inquiry, eh? Martin

"...the dangers of free inquiry should be taken seriously". I couldn't stop laughing! --snoyes 23:22 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

Snoyes and Martin, the ADL does not say that historical free inquiry is a bad thing! How can you have reached such a conclusion from Professor Lipstadt's article? In point of fact, she only points out that in the name of free inquiry Neo-Nazis and other anti-Semites are propagating lies and frauds dedicated to Holocaust revisionism, and the rehabilitation of Nazism. She holds that certain scholars have allowed themselves to be duped by these Nazis by falling for their claims that they are only interested in free inquiry in historical issues. This is not at all what you paraphrased her as saying. By taking one sentence totally out of context, you have reversed her message, of solid history-based scholarship. Please don't attack her for a viewpoint she never has had. RK

[http://www.adl.org/braun/dim%5F14%5F1%5Fdeniers.asp Deniers, Relativists and Pseudo-Scholarship]

I disagree. The article reads like a thinly veiled attack against free inquiry and a defense of censorship. If revisionism is not really free inquiry, as Lipstadt argues, it obviously does not have to be protected the same way as free inquiry. By attacking Chomsky, who is hardly an anti-Semite, she has taken a pro-censorship position. --Eloquence 00:17 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Please, Eloquence, restrict yourself to commenting on what Professor Lipstadt actually says, and not what you imagine she says. Also note that she has written entire books on this topic. Please, stop taking one sentence out of context to construct a position that she does not have. Have you read any of her books and articles? I have, and I can assure that you are mistakenly attributing beliefs to her that she rejects. She openly endorses free inquiry and scholarship on the Holocaust, World War II, Nazis, and all historical topics. We can make anyone look like a fool if we ignore everything they have ever worked on in their life, and focus on one sentence out of context. But let us not do so. She is very clear what she is talking about her, and there is no reason to slander her. And frankly, a great many people do view Chomsky as an anti-Semite, even if that is not the best term to describe him. RK

What she writes, in the very first paragraph, is: "Those who argue that the holocaust deniers must be given a fair hearing fail to recognize that the deniers' quest is not a search for truth." In other words, those who argue that are wrong -- ergo the holocaust deniers must not be given a fair hearing.

They deserve the same fair hearing as people promoting Junk science deserve a fair hearing. Danny 00:46 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with you. However, people who oppose holocaust deniers use wholly different methods than the scientific community. If someone is promoting Junk science, scientists simply ignore them because it is obvious that they are wrong. In some cases scientists deem it necessary to respond, and do so in an orderly, scientific fashion. If someone is promoting holocaust revisionism, however, they are sued under hate and libel laws, hardly the same thing as ignoring them or writing a civilized rebuttal. We all know that holocaust revisionists are absolutely incorrect (I myself have been to the sites of 3 former concentration camps), but to claim that they are responded to in the same fashion as pseudo-scientists are is an insult to all of our intelligences. --snoyes 00:54 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Again, you have totally misread her books and articles. She is pointing out that the holocaust deniars themselves are lying and are not being fair to begin with. Obviously, one must not treat proven bald-faced lies (e.g. the Holocaust never happened; the world is flat; all humans have three legs) as debateable facts that may be true. This is an anti-scientific and anti-historical POV, and one which the Neo-Nazis want you to accept as valid. It is the only way that they can win. So yes, if that is what you mean by denying them a fair hearing, then sure. But then that is a trivial point, and one that all scientists and historians agree on. Science and history itself all fail if you take any other stance, and allow bald-faced lies to be given the same respect as actual facts. We might as well empty out all of Wikipedia's articles once we reach that stage, because facts become useless. RK

Has Lipstadt openly opposed censorship laws such as the German §130 StGB? If so, please provide a citation. --Eloquence 00:29 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

RK, I think the dispute arises out of a simple misunderstanding. While some of us think that free enquiry really means _free_ enquiry, others think that certain things should not be allowed, such as hate speach. By some funny linguistic slight-of-hand the people that think things such as hate speech should be excluded still call what they advocate "free enquiry". I think it is not unfair to say that you exhibit this behaviour. For example, I notice that your sentence: "She is very clear what she is talking about her, and there is no reason to slander her." shows exactly the thinking that I'm talking about. You accuse Eloquence of slander because he conveyed his general feel of what the article was about. Slander is another form of justifying the restriction of speech, and yet saying with a straight face that you support free speech, just not "slander", "hate speech" etc. The important thing here is that you define what slander is, and I find it laughable that you define it in this case as summarizing one's reading of an article. --snoyes 00:44 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Please answer my question, RK. Has Lipstadt opposed censorship laws anywhere in her writings? --Eloquence 00:52 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

---

The above discussion doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. The Lipstadt quotation didn't fit the bill as a rebuttal of Chomsky's quotation, and I agree with RK that it was taken out of context purely in order to make the ADL look foolish. All this stuff about holocaust denial is a distraction. Please can we stick to the point. The paragraph that I removed for discussion has now been restored by RK as it was, and nobody has discussed it. Let's start again:

I have moved this paragraph from the article, for discussion and modification:

Supporters of the ADL hold that Chomsky's claims are baseless, and that the ADL continues to be a leader in the fight for civil rights, and against racism and anti-Semitism, and a strong defender of the American principle of separation between church and state. ADL supporters note that although the ADL has repeatedly spoken out against Anti-Arab discrimination and against anti-black racism, virtually no Arab or Muslim groups reciprocate

If a particular named commentator could be wheeled out to provide a quotation to counter Uncle Noam, then this would be legitimate; but as it stands it is just an undisguised rant. The second sentence, which states as fact that "virtually no Arab or Muslim groups" speak out against anti-semitism, is simply false. All the pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist lobbying organisations I know of take great pains to make it clear that they oppose racism and anti-Semitism. GrahamN 01:21 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Really? That is quite a striking claim. Can you back it up? Please give us some examples of Arab and Palestinian Anti-Zionist groups that fight anti-Semitism. I know of none. In contrast, the ADL (and many other Jewish groups) actively and publicly fight Anti-Arab discrimination. Frankly, you don't seem to understand how anti-Semites today work. Almost all anti-Semitic groups deny that they are anti-Semitic. Yet this denial means nothing. The Ku Klux Klan and the Neo-Nazis are openly anti-Semitic groups, yet their spokespeople claim that they oppose racism and anti-Semitism. This is also true of most Palestinian and anti-Zionist groups. Don't confuse an empty claim with an actual agenda to fight anti-Semitism. RK

I'm interested in how you distinguish between an "empty claim" and an "actual agenda"? Are you saying that actions are more important than words? Martin

Of course actions are more important than words. Any Jew-murdering anti-semite can claim to be against anti-Semitism! But how many people actually are against anti-Semitism? How many people make public statements against it, and use their influence with local leaders and politicians to end anti-Semitism? How many encourage groups of people to engage in inter-faith dialogue and cooperation? Unfortunately, I know of no Arab Muslim nor of any Anti-Zionism group that does such things. On the other hand, the ADL and other Jewish groups do engage in such activities both against anti-Semitism, and even against anti-black and anti-Arab bigotry. RK

• public statements
• use of influence with politicians
• engage in inter-faith dialogue

Excellent. However, I note from this article that "the Anti-Defamation League has not worked together with Arab-American and Muslim-American civil rights groups". This would imply that the ADL would fail the requirements that you are setting for Arab civil rights groups. How are they to work with the ADL if the ADL refuses to work with them?

This isn't meant to be a debating point - I understand that the ADL views disagreements over the Israel-Palestine conflict as barriers to co-operation, and many would sympathise with their difficulty. However, we must be fair to all civil rights groups and treat them all equally - not demanding more of one group than another. Martin

Your claim is incorrect. Many people in the ADL, and who are quoted on their website, do engage in all of these activities. I myself have participated in these interfaith activities in two different synagogues, and in two different college Hillel groups, all of which used ADL materials and worked with the ADL. I cannot imagine where you got a contrary impression. I also note that GrahamN has not listed any examples of Arab Muslim and/or anti-Zionist groups that reciprocate. So let's be fair. RK

There is a distinction between a group doing something, and individual members of that group doing something. The question was, does the ADL as an organisation engage with Arab and Muslim civil rights groups? If they do, then we need to fix the article, because right now it says that they do not. Martin