The prestigious organization whose original goal was to stop the defamation of the Jewish people is now tolerating and partnering with anti-Semitic progressive organizations.
Politics is a coalition game. In it, one has to decide who is friend and who is foe; who to attack, and who to defend; who to partner with, and who is beyond cooperation. Where one draws his coalition line, there one delineates his political principles and moral values.
Viewed as such, one cannot escape the disturbing reality that the Anti-Defamation-League (ADL) has become a farce by collaborating with anti-Semitic left-wing movements.
It is no secret that Jonathan Greenblatt, the current National Director and CEO of the ADL, promotes a progressive agenda. After all, he served as an advisor to President Obama and headed his administration&#8217;s <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Social_Innovation_and_Civic_Participation">Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation</a>. But one would expect the head of the ADL to do his best to prevent his political and ideological convictions from impeding his professional work. Unfortunately, Greenblatt fails to do so, and thus we witness his biases pervading his work at the ADL.
Different Kinds of Anti-Semitism?
For example, during Obama&#8217;s second term, physical assaults against Jews, certainly the worst form of anti-Semitism, rose sharply from 17 incidents in 2012, to 31 in 2013, 36 in 2014, and 56 in 2015, according to the ADL&#8217;s own reports. This staggering rise of 330% in four years was not met with a proper response by the ADL. To a lesser extent, this rise was evident in all other forms of anti-Semitism throughout the time period. However, only now do we find the ADL campaigning against the growth in anti-Semitism, with Greenblatt <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.757127">comparing</a> the Trump era to the antisemitism of the 30&#8217;s.
A similar bias can be found in the latest ADL report, which expresses a rhetorical difference when addressing right-wing and left-wing antisemitism. Anti-Semitic incidents from the right need to be seen in the context of a general resurgence of white supremacist activity in the United States. Extremists and anti-Semites feel emboldened and are using technology in new ways to spread their hatred and to impact the Jewish community on and off line.
This is a sober and appropriately harsh description of the phenomenon, with no excuses made, and no justifications given. Now look at how anti-Semitism from the left is handled by the ADL.
<blockquote>
We do not consider criticism of Israel to be anti-Semitic.
However, the assumption that American Jews are somehow responsible for the actions of the Israeli government, the stated or implied allegation that American Jews have divided loyalties, and the claim that Jews have a tribal identity that trumps their concern for the human rights of others, evoke classic anti-Semitic tropes that we cannot dismiss as regular political or protest speech.
</blockquote>
The apologetic tone here is astounding. Is there is any excusable difference between neo-Nazi slogans of the alt-right and the extreme Muslim tweets of school teacher Nancy Salem, who back in 2013 tweeted to a friend visiting &#8216;Palestine&#8217;: &#8220;Kill some Jews!&#8221; or her joke: &#8220;How many Jews died in the Holocaust? Not enough.&#8221;
Take another example: the ADL&#8217;s defense of radical anti-Israel Muslim Linda Sarsour&#8217;s right to give a commencement speech at CUNY on <a href="https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-statement-on-controversy-surrounding-linda-sarsour">May 25</a>:
<blockquote>
We profoundly reject Linda Sarsour&#8217;s positions that delegitimize Israel. We have vigorously opposed efforts like the Boycott Divestment and Sanction (BDS) movement, which she supports and we oppose her stance that one cannot be simultaneously a feminist and pro-Israel.
At the same time, we strongly condemn the anti-Muslim bigotry and other invective spouted by speakers at today&#8217;s demonstration against Sarsour in Manhattan. There is no excuse for bigotry.
</blockquote>
If the ADL chooses to support Sarsour&#8217;s right to give the speech, one would expect it to do so while &#8220;condemning&#8221; her own &#8220;spouted&#8221; anti-Semitic &#8220;invective&#8221; and &#8220;bigoted&#8221; ideals &#8211; and &#8220;rejecting&#8221; and &#8220;opposing the stance&#8221; of those who think her hateful discourse should not be given stage. The ADL&#8217;s rhetoric gets it all wrong, and not by accident.
An Anti-Semitic Coalition
Where does this double standard regarding anti-Semitism come from? The answer to this painful question can be found in Greenblatt&#8217;s recent <a href="http://time.com/4839592/anti-semitism-lgbtq-pride/">article</a>: &#8220;Anti-Semitism Is Creeping Into Progressivism,&#8220; published after three Jewish lesbians were disgracefully expelled from a progressive queer parade for carrying pride flags with a star of David.
In his attempt to handle the phenomena, Greenblatt outlines his worldview. He starts by mentioning a few similar anti-Semitic manifestations: one at the &#8220;Celebrate Israel Parade in New York City,&#8221; another in the platform of Black Lives Matter, which accuses Israel of genocide, and again, Sarsour&#8217;s quote that &#8220;Zionism is incompatible with feminism.&#8221;
Greenblatt is worried, he explains, because of the ADL&#8217;s fundamental commitment to the &#8220;the agenda of the civil rights community.&#8221; The ADL, he articulates, shares &#8220;common causes&#8221; with those organizations. For example, the ADL wants to stop &#8220;the use of excessive force and the killing of unarmed African Americans by some in law enforcement,&#8221; &#8220;to combat discriminatory laws such as the Muslim Ban,&#8221; &#8220;to champion marriage equality&#8221;, and &#8220;to resist efforts to turn back the clock under the guise of religious freedom.&#8221;
And so, the ADL and Greenblatt want to partner with those radical organizations. But what does one do, as an organization sworn to fight anti-Semitism, when one&#8217;s partners turn out to be anti-Semitic? Well, here&#8217;s Greenblatt&#8217;s solution:
<blockquote>
We are duty bound to raise our voice &#8230; even as we fight alongside other groups on issues of mutual concern &#8230; we will forcefully denounce those who would slander our community and resort to stereotypes.
</blockquote>
This is utterly ridiculous. This notion of &#8220;we support and collaborate with anti-Semites when they do not specifically engage in anti-Semitic activities, and we reserve the right to denounce their anti-Semitism when they do,&#8221; is not only completely detrimental to the cause of battling anti-Semitism, it is in fact helping anti-Semites to white-wash their hatred.
Here is a thought experiment. Would the ADL accept a Jewish Republican organization openly partnering with a &#8220;white supremacy&#8221; organization &#8211; while &#8220;denouncing&#8221; their anti-Semitism &#8211; because they share a commitment to reduction in renewable energy funding?
Radicalizing Worldviews
In truth, one has to admit that the problem is more fundamental than political or organizational connections between the ADL and the radical left. The crux of the issue lies in the ideological radicalization of the left, a process Greenblatt epitomizes. This is expressed by the promotion of progressive doctrines such as &#8220;intersectionality&#8221; by Greenblatt and the ADL itself, apparently without realizing that lurking under those terms are hateful, divisive and oppressive agendas, which are entirely detrimental to the original cause of the ADL.
For example, Greenblatt <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/are-jews-white/509453/">declared</a> that &#8220;there&#8217;s no doubt that the vast majority of American Jews live with what we would call white privilege.&#8221; And yet the &#8216;privileged&#8217; discourse is the perfect disguise for left-wing anti-Semitism. If being privileged is a sin; and if the more privileged you are, the greater the sin; then the Jews and Israel are clearly culpable, and hatred towards them is not only justified, it is almost morally dutiful.
Greenblatt may not realize it, but he is riding an anti-Semitic tiger. Herbert London recently <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/27/zionism-has-been-replaced-by-anti-semitism-against/">wrote</a> that in the 1950&#8217;s &#8220;a good progressive was a good Zionist,&#8221; but now the left &#8220;is the congenial home of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.&#8221; As the left keeps progressing into oppressive and illiberal domains, the ADL follows suit and is currently less worried about antisemitism per se. By tolerating and partnering with anti-Semitic progressive organizations, the ADL is betraying its raison d&#8217;être.

Dr. Ran Baratz served as Director of Communications for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu between 2016-2017. This artcile published with the permission of <a href="http://en.mida.org.il/2017/07/10/anti-defamation-league-betrayed-cause/">MIDA</a>.

The Anti-Defamation League Has Betrayed Its Cause

Anti-Semitism

Israel

In a fascinating scene from the documentary &#8220;<a href="https://freedocumentaries.org/documentary/the-fog-of-war">The Fog of War</a>,&#8221; Robert McNamara, the American Secretary of Defense in the 1960s, discussed a 1992 meeting with Fidel Castro. During that meeting, McNamara discovered for the first time that during the Cuban Missile Crisis the Soviet Union had already delivered 162 nuclear warheads to Cuba. Shocked to the depths of his soul, McNamara stopped the meeting and asked Castro three questions:
(1) Did you know the nuclear warheads were there? 
(2) Would you have recommended to Khrushchev &#8211; in the face of a U.S. attack &#8211; that he use them? 
(3) If he had used them, what would have happened to Cuba?
The dictator answered immediately:
(1) I knew they were there. 
(2) I would not &#8220;have recommended to Khrushchev&#8221; &#8211; I did recommend to Khrushchev that they&#8217;d be used. 
(3) It [Cuba] would have been totally destroyed.
McNamara, still refusing to believe what he heard, thinking about the nuclear destruction, and with tears of despair, said: &#8220;That&#8217;s how close we were,&#8221; indicating a tiny space between his forefinger and thumb.
History of the Negotiations
There is no doubt that McNamara had mistaken expectations with regard to Castro and his behavior. &#8220;Rationality alone will not save us,&#8221; declared the former Secretary of Defense. But this is a lame excuse that seeks to cover up his failure in understanding the opponent, his thinking and objectives.
The history of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians is also paved with tears of despair. In order to explain why, it is crucial to understand the fundamental beliefs which guide the Left&#8217;s expectations. There are four such convictions:
1. A comprehensive peace deal is good for both sides; 
2. The differences can be bridged; 
3. Prior negotiations came close to an agreement; 
4. Everyone knows what the solution will be.
Peace between Israel and the Palestinians always seems &#8220;so close&#8221; &#8211; but remains elusive. And similar to McNamara, the fault is not with the other side; instead it is the Left&#8217;s mistaken understanding of the Palestinians. The tears of despair are the result of misguided expectations. In order to examine this, the following is a summary of the negotiations led by left-wing governments in Israel.
After it became clear in Israel that agreements such as Oslo, which are not permanent accords, do not achieve the intended results; there were a number of attempts to reach a &#8220;comprehensive peace agreement.&#8221;
Already in the 2000 Camp David summit, Ehud Barak surprised even his Israeli staff with a far-reaching proposal. When President Clinton heard it, his eyes lit up. &#8220;Now&#8221;, he announced, &#8220;we have something to work with.&#8221; Encouraged, Clinton went to convince Arafat, and, according to Dennis Ross, explained to him clearly why the stakes were high and this was the moment, and maybe historically the Palestinians never controlled their own destiny &#8211;but this was the moment. If this failed he (Arafat) couldn&#8217;t blame this on others.
All of the elements of a peace deal were present: a great &#8220;deal,&#8221; plenty of goodwill, a charismatic American president with convincing arguments and a strong desire to leave a legacy of peace, and a determined &#8220;courageous&#8221; left-wing Israeli prime minister. Euphoria swept over Camp David. History was about to be made.
But Arafat said: NO.
Shortly thereafter, Clinton tried to save something from Barak&#8217;s tenure, and suggested his generous &#8220;parameters.&#8221; Clinton thought progress had been made, and still had hope in his heart. He met Arafat again, utilizing all his wit and charm.
But Arafat again said: NO.
One may say, &#8220;Well, that was Arafat.&#8221; But the negotiations between Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) proved that we were (and are) dealing with a deeper issue.
In 2008, the most generous offer ever made was presented to the Palestinians. The concessions were excessive, crossing every Israeli red line: Olmert promised to withdraw all presence of the Israel Defense Forces from Judea and Samaria; he conceded sovereignty over east Jerusalem and the Old City &#8211; including the Western Wall! He offered 94% of the territory of Judea and Samaria, and the remaining 6% would be given to the Palestinians with land swaps in central Israeli areas, including a tunnel that would connect Gaza to the West Bank. Olmert implored Abu Mazen: &#8220;The Palestinians won&#8217;t get an offer like this even in another 50 years!&#8221;
Again, everything was ready. The teams were excited. Abbas himself admitted that such a generous offer was unprecedented. Only one thing was missing to finally end this cursed and unnecessary conflict, one with gaps that could supposedly be bridged and a solution known to all: that Abu Mazen would say: &#8220;Yes!&#8221;
But Abu Mazen said: NO.
Yet, Olmert&#8217;s failure didn&#8217;t discourage the progressive and most pro-Palestinian U.S. administration since the Carter era, led by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry. The staffs were reassembled for negotiation talks, and on July 30, 2013 Kerry announced &#8211; with a latent comic talent &#8211; that he planned to reach a historic agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians &#8220;within nine months!&#8221;
Once more, the stage was set. Kerry oversaw the negotiations and Obama led from behind. The American president even met Abu Mazen and implored him to seize the moment. This was a grace period for the Palestinians: The complete support of an American president who dreamt of a peace legacy in Middle East &#8211; even at the expense of Israel&#8217;s interests.
But even to this duo, Abu Mazen said: NO.
Perpetual Refusal
To better understand the Palestinian refusal, the Palestinians&#8217; conduct during negotiations must also be examined. Here, too, there is a clear pattern that is documented by people on the Left. For example, Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami said to journalist Ari Shavit after the Camp David failure:
Ben-Ami: After a while Clinton became very angry and yelled horrifically. He said to Abu Ala&#8230;that the Palestinians have to present their own positive proposals&#8230;.
Shavit: The Palestinians didn&#8217;t offer a counter-proposal?
Ben-Ami: No. That&#8217;s the heart of the matter. There is never a Palestinian counter offer. There never was one and there never will be. Therefore the Israeli side always finds itself in a dilemma: either I get up and go&#8230;or I make another concession, another squeeze. But at the end, even the most moderate person reaches the point where he says to himself: Wait a minute, the people on the other side have no end goal. Another squeeze and another squeeze, but it&#8217;s never enough for them. It never ends.
The story of the heartbroken dove Ben-Ami is in line with many descriptions of the Palestinian conduct, including from the American team. For example, this is how Dennis Ross described the back and forth between President Clinton and the Palestinian negotiating team at Camp David:
President Clinton said: &#8220;This is the beginning of the negotiations, so I need you to respond to it.&#8221; Abu Ala said: &#8220;I can&#8217;t respond to this.&#8221; Clinton: &#8220;At least point out what were the problems with the Israeli map. Don&#8217;t just reject it. Point out the problems.&#8221; And they wouldn&#8217;t even do that. Every suggestion he made, they simply said no.
In a similar way Ross described the meeting between the President and Arafat about the Clinton Parameters, which were meant to create a framework for future negotiations. Arafat, he says, immediately started to question everything that he&#8217;s asked to do. Every single item in the Clinton Parameters that required something of the Palestinians &#8211; he rejected.
This was not merely a problem with Arafat&#8217;s character or his unwillingness to reach an agreement. As Palestinian staff member Saeb Erekat has revealed, when their team received Ehud Barak&#8217;s far-reaching plan, Abu Mazen himself said to Arafat: &#8220;It&#8217;s a non-starter, and we cannot accept this, it&#8217;s a liquidation sale.&#8221;
Three Monumental Historical Facts
There is an abundance of such testimonies. But the time has come to look at the big picture, from which three determinative facts arise with regard to the Palestinians&#8217; conduct in everything related to negotiations.
1. The Palestinians never initiate negotiations. They are always forced upon them.
2. During the negotiations, the Palestinians never present their own peace plan.
3. The Palestinians end every negotiation, no matter how generous the offer, with a refusal.
These are monumental facts. Three Palestinian resounding NO&#8217;s that repeat themselves again and again.
A Necessary Paradigm Change
When a thinking person discovers that reality repeatedly contradicts his convictions, he must ask himself whether he is holding on to a false set of beliefs. He has to check if there is an alternative theory that explains more facts and that would have predicted occurrences more accurately.
In this case, there is a simple and convincing explanation that covers all the relevant data: the Palestinians do not want to negotiate a permanent agreement.
Let us consider our two competing theories. The first theory states that the Palestinians desire peace, like the Israelis and Americans who negotiated with them, but for some mysterious reason they act as if they are not interested in it.
Consequently, the Left, which espouses this theory, is forced to start making excuses for the Palestinians behavior, instead of explaining it.
The problem is that it isn&#8217;t easy to explain five &#8220;historical opportunities&#8221; that were &#8220;missed&#8221; in just the last 17 years, especially in light of the complete lack of positive evidence for the claim that the Palestinians want a final-status agreement. The best this theory can offer is that the facts and testimonies are evidence of a Palestinian negotiation tactic &#8211; which means that the Palestinians are very poor tacticians, because the negotiations always fail.
On the other hand, the competing theory states that the talks always fail because the Palestinians are not interested in negotiating a permanent agreement. This claim successfully explains Palestinian behavior during the past two decades of negotiations, from signing agreements that were not final to the stubborn refusal to advance in the direction of a permanent and comprehensive peace agreement.
According to this theory it&#8217;s not a negotiation tactic that fails each time, but the exact opposite: it is a successful strategy of abstention from a permanent agreement.
If the new theory sounds strange, it in only because we have become accustomed not only to the idea that everyone always prefers a peace treaty, but also to the paradigm that is rooted on &#8220;missed historical opportunities.&#8221;
The truth is that when there is joint will to reach an agreement, there is no need for unique &#8220;historical opportunities.&#8221; But when there is no such will, there is only an illusion of &#8220;opportunities.&#8221; The bitter joke that &#8220;the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity&#8221; is completely illogical. Since the Palestinians don&#8217;t want the end that these &#8220;opportunities&#8221; present, for them these are not opportunities at all &#8211; more like historical traps. This is why they need to be avoided rather than taken advantage of.
Changing the paradigm has consequences. It turns out that the Left&#8217;s four principles of faith that we opened with are false: (1) the Palestinians don&#8217;t think a &#8220;comprehensive peace deal&#8221; is good for them; (2) from their perspective the gaps can&#8217;t be bridged; (3) no negotiation came close to a successful conclusion; and (4) they don&#8217;t accept the same end of conflict resolution that the Left believes &#8220;everyone knows.&#8221; These are myths based on nothing more than the Left&#8217;s internal discourse.
There Won&#8217;t be a Deal, There Will be Violence
When the 2000 Camp David talks collapsed, President Clinton said in his publicized speech: &#8220;Prime Minister Barak made some very bold decisions, but in the end we were unable to bridge the gaps. I think they will be bridged, because I think the alternative is unthinkable.&#8221;
But not only was the alternative &#8220;thinkable&#8221; for the Palestinians, they chose it in a very real manner. And here we reach the danger in dogmatic thinking about the conflict.
The routine problem of the history of negotiation failures is that they lead to Palestinian escalation and violence. Now we can understand why. Since the Palestinians oppose negotiations, after every round of forced talks, the Palestinian leadership has to prove to their people that they did not concede anything. And so, after the pendulum has swung from the status-quo to the direction of &#8220;peace,&#8221; they have an urgent political need to compensate by diverting the pendulum in the direction of violence.
Such escalations are not only terrible not for the Israelis and the Palestinians. They are also bad for the brokering American president, because both the failure and Israel&#8217;s need to react to the new escalation tend to weaken his stand in the Middle East.
All of this is bad news for President Trump. He is certainly an expert in negotiations and closing deals, but a deal has a prerequisite of two sides thinking it can benefit them &#8211; a condition which doesn&#8217;t exist on the Palestinian side. Even the best mediator cannot bridge the gap of the refusal to bridge gaps.
It is more likely, therefore, that like all of his predecessors, the negotiation that Trump will force upon the Palestinians will end miserably. It is not a lack in mediation skills that will foil Trump&#8217;s efforts, but the mistaken conception that the Palestinians are interested in negotiating a peace agreement at all.
Therefore, were I able to advise him, I would ask President Trump to give up on the attempt to achieve &#8220;a deal.&#8221; This is in sync with what he said in his speech in Saudi Arabia: &#8220;We will make decisions based on real-world outcomes &#8211; not inflexible ideology. We will be guided by the lessons of experience, not the confines of rigid thinking.&#8221;
The Israeli-Palestinian negotiations history is the best example of inflexible ideology, contradicted to its core by the real-world outcomes and lessons of experience.
<blockquote>
&#8220;Since the Palestinians oppose negotiations, after every round of forced talks, the Palestinian leadership has to prove to their people that they did not concede anything. And so, after the pendulum has swung from the status-quo to the direction of &#8216;peace,&#8217; they have an urgent political need to compensate by diverting the pendulum in the direction of violence.&#8221;
Dr. Ran Baratz
</blockquote>
If the President is still unconvinced and wants proof ahead of failure, I would ask him to perform a simple test: before he commits to negotiations, he should ask the Palestinians for their peace plan &#8211; the Israelis&#8217; he has long had. If he receives one, by all means, try another round of negotiations. But if the Palestinians send him &#8211; as Arafat used to say &#8211; &#8220;to drink Gaza&#8217;s sea water,&#8221; it&#8217;s a sign that nothing has changed and failure is looming on the horizon.
This doesn&#8217;t suggest that there is no path forward. With realistic expectations and an understanding of both sides, there are many things that can be done. But, as strange as this may sound to him, his biggest success would be to concede in advance the attempt to reach the &#8220;most difficult deal&#8221; &#8211; because it is a fake deal. The best thing to do is to let the misleading peace dogma finally rest in peace.
Dr. Ran Baratz served as Director of Communications for Prime Minister Netanyahu between 2016-2017.
With the permission of <a href="http://en.mida.org.il/2017/05/22/mr-president-fake-deal/">MIDA</a>.

Menu

Dr. Ran Baratz

The Anti-Defamation League Has Betrayed Its Cause

Note From Israel: President Trump, Don’t Believe The Palestinians