The ADL has absolutely failed Jews worldwide by joining up with Israel in its mission to inextricably link Israel and Judaism. When I was young, I was told that the ADL had my back. I don’t feel that way anymore. They’d be more likely to call me an antisemite, something I’ve been called by other Israel-fanatic Jews before. It makes me laugh when they do it, but I feel like there’s no one on my side when it comes to an organization confronting and documenting actual antisemitism at this point.
It is deliberate. They further antisemitism by conflating Judaism and Zionism. Ironically they themselves consider that an act of antisemitism. The goal is fur Jews to be unsafe outside of Israel and justify the existence of Israel through that. As a fascist ideology Zionism needs people to be in perpetual fear and danger to justify its own barbarism.
In a written statement, the ADL said the decision by Wikipedia was the result of a ”campaign to delegitimize the ADL” and that editors opposing the ban “provided point by point refutations, grounded in factual citations, to every claim made, but apparently facts no longer matter.”
You of all groups should know that the last part of your statement is a common right-wing dog whistle that gets used when someone doubles down after their “facts” get rejected for bigotry and/or inaccuracy. By using that phrase, you’ve automatically cast doubt on the legitimacy of your actions and statements. At best you’re ignorant of a common dog whistle, which is embarrassing for an organization who should be well-versed in this kind of thing; at worst you’ve signaled to everyone that you’re potentially peddling “alternative facts”, which casts doubt on everything you’ve done in the past. Either way, you’re ultimately hurting the Jewish people by making that kind of statement.
Mira Sucharov, a professor of political science at Carleton University, said Wikipedia’s decision represents a major opportunity to reflect on why the ADL is facing scrutiny and rethink communal approaches for fighting antisemitism.
“This is a sign that the Jewish community needs better institutions,” she said.
They really do, and I feel bad for them. The places that should be defending them seem more than happy to ignore them or even throw them under the bus in the name of Zionism.
Like, okay, personal beliefs on Zionism aside, if your organization is tasked with defending a group of people, you should ensure your actions aren’t going to endanger, delegitimize or otherwise encourage bigotry against said group. That means that even if you’re a Zionist Jewish organization, if your task is to fight against bigotry towards Jews, you shouldn’t be ignoring non-Zionist Jews nor should you be dismissing their views. Instead, you should be listening to what they have to say, condensing it and releasing it in an manner easy for non-jews to understand (which means providing political, historical and religious context, because many people, myself included, don’t understand as much as they think they do about Judaism).
In the current context, you should be giving people statements from Zionist and non-Zionist Jews about Palestine, and attempt to include non-biased historical, religious and political backgrounds for events that are occurring.
I think ethnically Jewish people could make an honest argument that they should have some portion of Palestine based on historical origins (I think it’s a weak arguement, but I think you could argue for it). However, that doesn’t excuse the way that the IDF and Israeli government have treated Gaza and the West Bank.
You can criticize the Israeli government while also believing that ethnically Jewish people should be able to have a country they have control over. Other countries do this all the time (get criticized for poor treatment of the “outside” ethnic group(s)), why is this somehow different for Israel? Why aren’t we allowed to criticize Israel? I can talk about how France, a white, French ethnostate, is mistreating Muslims without being a racist bigot; I should be able to talk about Israel the same way.
I can talk about how France, a white, French ethnostate, is mistreating Muslims without being a racist bigot
Oh boy with the French it doesn’t start with Muslims. It starts with the French, it goes back to at least 1500 with the 1900s being particularly nasty regarding language laws, their education policies eradicated a number of regional languages. And, crucially, they still haven’t reversed course. They got rid of the most damaging policies but still haven’t ratified the ECRML. As a European nation they’re supposed to protect minority and regional language against the onslaught of the Dachsprache.
Also French at least on paper is not a white ethnostate. It’s a French ethnostate. They don’t care about the colour of your skin as long as you carry baguettes under your arm, have an accent at least less grating than the Qubecois, your religion doesn’t matter as long as you’re hardcore secular, and you also need to choose a team in the butter vs. olive oil civil war.
Let me guess, Wikipedia is now considered an antisemitic hate group by the ADL, right?
The ADL’s response is included in the article. It’s predictably petulant, but they didn’t go that far.
What is this “ban”?
Maybe I am the clueless one, but Wikipedia has general guidelines and not system enforced “bans” on things like sources. It has this list which recently changed to show the ADL as green for all topics except for the Israel / Palestine conflict, and red for the conflict, and that carries quite a bit of weight but it is at the end of the day still just a guideline document for editors to use when evaluating an absolute Niagara Falls of edits which get made to a whole universe of topics any one of which may or may not adhere to any reliable source standards at all, let alone the ones in that document.
All it’s really saying is, if you put in the ADL and nothing else as the source for a claim, and someone else disputes it, you won’t have a leg to stand on in the ensuing disagreement unless you can also find somewhere else to source your claim. Which, if no other reliable source is saying it, and it concerns the Gaza war or Israel / Palestine issues in general… kind of makes it sound like whoever added that little caveat had a point, and all the emoting that’s happening about a “ban” and how unfair it is, is exactly as good faith as it sounds like it is.
Wikipedia editors/whatever agreed that it was an “unreliable source”, because it pushed linking pro-Palestinian protests with antisemitism, and such like.
Basically you can’t use the ADL as a source for Wikipedia articles. It’s also a big broader than just the conflict- it would appear you wouldn’t be able to cite them on, say, page discussing antisemitism, or similar things. (Basically everything the ADL might be interested in.)
Examples of articles using ADL as a source: this this this and this
Check my explanation and in particular the link I gave, it explains a little bit more. The OP article is just a little confused about how Wikipedia works. Actually, down near the bottom, they get a lot bit closer to how it works:
By deeming the ADL “generally unreliable,” Wikipedia is telling users that “the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person.” Wikipedia is not poised ban the ADL outright; enough editors have argued that some aspects of the ADL’s work, such as its database of hate symbols, should still be considered an acceptable source.
That’s actually a lot closer to what happened than is the headline or the early part of the article.
ADL is a fascist organization that supports mass murder.
deleted by creator
If you follow the link to the article you’ll see it’s Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the ADL.
