What is the ADL Thinking?
I have mostly stayed out of the to my mind valid criticisms of organizations like AIPAC and the ADL, which were created to serve the very laudable function of standing in opposition to anti-Semitism and to give voice for the defense of Israel in the American political process, but who many now view as becoming increasingly partisan mouthpieces more concerned with stifling debate and advancing a very specific foreign policy paradigm (anti-Arab, neoconservativm) than with rooting out anti-Semitism. But this to me is just inexplicable.
Today, the Anti-Defamation League released a statement coming out against the so-called Ground Zero Mosque. The statement is generally reasonable and well-couched, but more or less it argues that because there has been criticism about the though that something muslim-y might be going on in lower Manhattan, the people behind the proposed Cordoba House ought to back off and find somewhere else to worship. The ADL admits that much of the criticism against the project is founded in bigotry, but nevertheless thinks that it’s just a good idea for all involved if the muslims go away.
My immediate first thought was “what the hell is the ADL weighing in on this for in the first place?” At first blush, nothing about this issue touches, even peripherally, on issues of anti-Semitism or Israel, or even Arabs. My second thought was, “An organization dedicated to fighting bigotry is here arguing that it should be knuckled under to? I wonder how that jibes with their mission statement?” which is, by the way:
The Anti-Defamation League was founded in 1913 “to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all.” Now the nation’s premier civil rights/human relations agency, ADL fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all.
A leader in the development of materials, programs and services, ADL builds bridges of communication, understanding and respect among diverse groups.
Note, of course, that in allowing that much of the criticism of the Cordoba House might be rooted in bigotry, the ADL gets cute and keeps that vague, preferring to not name (mostly pro-Israel Republican) names. And of course my third thought was how interesting it is that the ADL finds themselves giving cover to precisely those people (which, surely, had not occurred to them and in no way drove their decision to weigh in on this matter). As the GOP base is beginning to throw off the veil that they aren’t expressly anti-muslim and anti- the mere existence or expression of Islam, the ADL could take a courageous stand in line with their charter and call that out, but instead they’re advising muslims to retreat because it might hurt the feelings of the people taking a bigoted stand.
But mostly, on the sheer face of it, my last thought is how the ADL would react if the residents of Dearborn, Michigan got up in arms about the planned construction of a Jewish community center because reminding the muslim residents of their oppression at the hands of Israel would be a slap in the face to their community? My guess is the ADL would not advise the planned JCC board to just go somewhere else because they ought to be sensitive to such concerns, even if they may be rooted in bigotry.