Tweet
Meltzer: Anti-Defamation League reaches beyond purpose
By Rob Meltzer, Local columnist
GHS
http://www.milforddailynews.com/opi nion/x1822649375
Sat Nov 10, 2007, 12:20 AM EST
There has been much criticism of late about the Anti-Defamation League
of B'Nai Brith and its position as to whether the mass murders of
Armenians by Ottoman Turks back in 1915 constitutes genocide.
The criticism is well deserved, but not for the reason usually espoused
- that a Jewish-sponsored organization somehow has the moral obligation
to speak out on this kind of issue. In reality, the ADL's problem is
that it is should not be speaking out on this issue at all, as
addressing this issue is not within the mandate of the ADL.
The ADL was never intended to be a truth and reconciliation
organization, nor does it have the expertise to assess and declare
historical truths. The ADL exists for the purpose of address current
and actual discrimination aimed at American Jews. When the ADL drifts
from its purpose, it invites the criticism it receives.
Here, in part, is what the Charter of the ADL said in 1913: "The
immediate object of the League is to stop, by appeals to reason and
conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the
Jewish people." Back in 1913, and later, the ADL did not expand its
purpose to include international relations, leaving thorny issues of
global discrimination and genocide to other groups.
It is not hard to see how the ADL has wandered from its path, and it's
not hard to see the trouble that its wandering has created.
Notwithstanding that the ADL has always been able to wield political
power through its resources in the Jewish community, the ADL became
enmeshed in coalition politics. In true 1960s style, the ADL believed
that there was safety in numbers, and that joining a coalition of
oppressed peoples provided greater clout in overcoming discrimination.
As always happens with minority power politics, it is evident that
coalition members don't always have synchronized agendas. Joining
coalitions not only prevents you from addressing your own concerns, but
it also compels you to support the concerns of others, with unforeseen
consequences. When the ADL started the No Place for Hate campaign, and
formed coalitions with cities and town to battle discrimination, by way
of example, it climbed in to bed with some of the institutional
anti-semites it should have been criticizing.
There are numerous examples of timidity that have been evident in our
own community. When the Southern Poverty Law Center inadvertently
distributed pro-Palestinian, anti-Jewish rhetoric to hundreds of
elementary schools, including schools in Framingham, the ADL declined
to get involved in criticizing a program of the SPLC. When a law suit
was filed in federal court arising out of institutional anti-semitism,
the ADL declined to support the Jewish plaintiffs who were litigating
against a No Place for Hate Community. The ADL has declined to take a
stand against blatant anti-Jewish and anti-Israel sentiments on NPR,
and has declined to support the rights of Torah observant Jewish
residents under assault from mainstream, left-wing Jewish groups.
A number of years ago, the ADL had a gala opening for its new, enlarged
office space in Boston, missing the irony that larger office space was
proof-positive that the ADL was not effective. A long time ago, and
many miles from here, I applied for a legal position with the ADL. When
I was asked the standard question, "what would be your first act if
hired," I responded by stating that I would put mezuzahs on the
conference room door. As I was informed, defending religious observance
in the work place was not part of the ADL agenda.
Instead of acting according to its charter, the ADL tears itself to
pieces trying to decide what happened in 1915, a historical debate that
has badly tainted the reputation of the listing ADL, and which has
demonstrated the need of the ADL to return to its core values, core
objectives and core policies. At this point in its history, the ADL
should distance itself from programs and policies that do not advance
its Charter, and should reestablish its credibility not only with the
community at large as a group to be respected and emulated, but also
within the Jewish community, which no longer views the ADL as the
watchdog at the door.
Until it does so, it deserves the criticism it is receiving, both
nationally and in columns in this newspaper.
Rob Meltzer practices law in Framingham.
By Rob Meltzer, Local columnist
GHS
http://www.milforddailynews.com/opi nion/x1822649375
Sat Nov 10, 2007, 12:20 AM EST
There has been much criticism of late about the Anti-Defamation League
of B'Nai Brith and its position as to whether the mass murders of
Armenians by Ottoman Turks back in 1915 constitutes genocide.
The criticism is well deserved, but not for the reason usually espoused
- that a Jewish-sponsored organization somehow has the moral obligation
to speak out on this kind of issue. In reality, the ADL's problem is
that it is should not be speaking out on this issue at all, as
addressing this issue is not within the mandate of the ADL.
The ADL was never intended to be a truth and reconciliation
organization, nor does it have the expertise to assess and declare
historical truths. The ADL exists for the purpose of address current
and actual discrimination aimed at American Jews. When the ADL drifts
from its purpose, it invites the criticism it receives.
Here, in part, is what the Charter of the ADL said in 1913: "The
immediate object of the League is to stop, by appeals to reason and
conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the
Jewish people." Back in 1913, and later, the ADL did not expand its
purpose to include international relations, leaving thorny issues of
global discrimination and genocide to other groups.
It is not hard to see how the ADL has wandered from its path, and it's
not hard to see the trouble that its wandering has created.
Notwithstanding that the ADL has always been able to wield political
power through its resources in the Jewish community, the ADL became
enmeshed in coalition politics. In true 1960s style, the ADL believed
that there was safety in numbers, and that joining a coalition of
oppressed peoples provided greater clout in overcoming discrimination.
As always happens with minority power politics, it is evident that
coalition members don't always have synchronized agendas. Joining
coalitions not only prevents you from addressing your own concerns, but
it also compels you to support the concerns of others, with unforeseen
consequences. When the ADL started the No Place for Hate campaign, and
formed coalitions with cities and town to battle discrimination, by way
of example, it climbed in to bed with some of the institutional
anti-semites it should have been criticizing.
There are numerous examples of timidity that have been evident in our
own community. When the Southern Poverty Law Center inadvertently
distributed pro-Palestinian, anti-Jewish rhetoric to hundreds of
elementary schools, including schools in Framingham, the ADL declined
to get involved in criticizing a program of the SPLC. When a law suit
was filed in federal court arising out of institutional anti-semitism,
the ADL declined to support the Jewish plaintiffs who were litigating
against a No Place for Hate Community. The ADL has declined to take a
stand against blatant anti-Jewish and anti-Israel sentiments on NPR,
and has declined to support the rights of Torah observant Jewish
residents under assault from mainstream, left-wing Jewish groups.
A number of years ago, the ADL had a gala opening for its new, enlarged
office space in Boston, missing the irony that larger office space was
proof-positive that the ADL was not effective. A long time ago, and
many miles from here, I applied for a legal position with the ADL. When
I was asked the standard question, "what would be your first act if
hired," I responded by stating that I would put mezuzahs on the
conference room door. As I was informed, defending religious observance
in the work place was not part of the ADL agenda.
Instead of acting according to its charter, the ADL tears itself to
pieces trying to decide what happened in 1915, a historical debate that
has badly tainted the reputation of the listing ADL, and which has
demonstrated the need of the ADL to return to its core values, core
objectives and core policies. At this point in its history, the ADL
should distance itself from programs and policies that do not advance
its Charter, and should reestablish its credibility not only with the
community at large as a group to be respected and emulated, but also
within the Jewish community, which no longer views the ADL as the
watchdog at the door.
Until it does so, it deserves the criticism it is receiving, both
nationally and in columns in this newspaper.
Rob Meltzer practices law in Framingham.