Talk:Anti-Defamation League

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

The lede

The lead says the Jewish adl is an NGO, but it isnt. See quote: © 2015 Anti-Defamation League. All rights reserved. The Anti-Defamation League is a not-for-profit organization recognized as tax-exempt under Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3). SissyMendelstein (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

From wikipedia: "A non-governmental organization (NGO) is an organization that is neither a part of a government nor a conventional for-profit business." So there is nothing in that copyright notice that contradicts its being and NGO. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 10:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, SM doesn't understand that NGO simple means non-governmental organisation, without any demand that it be non-profit or a charity, but simply that it's neither a government agency, nor a normal for-profit private business. Hence why, for instance, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, or PEN are all NGOs. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Criticism by anti-Zionists

Curious about what the purpose of the part in parentheses is in the following line: "smearing Israel's political opponents as anti-Semites or worse (as if anything could be worse)." The implication being "what could possibly be worse than being an anti-Semite" which seems disingenuous either way you interpret it. Taken literally, it's saying being an anti-semite is literally the worst thing in the world. Taken sarcastically, it seems to be saying that being an anti-semite is relatively ok. I don't think it was necessarily included to be anti-semitic, but I just don't see what purpose it serves; it seems like a clever quip on the surface that doesn't actually parse to anything good no matter how you take it. I'll leave it to the community to decide if I'm right in my assessment, or if I'm a concern troll, or making a tone argument, or I just really love irony (all concepts I've learned a great deal about on RW). Thoughts? Gringodemaio (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Gringodemaio

1: Definitely remove it.

2: That analysis of the sentence's stupidity is delectable. 10/10. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 13:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to tell if that passage was included in good faith or if it was intentionally anti-Semitic. The person who added it has only made three edits here, and all of them were in October 2013 ([1] [2]).

At best, it's still a tasteless attempt at a joke and doesn't belong here. I agree completely with your assessment and removed it. Thanks for pointing it out, @Gringodemaio. CowHouse (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

It feels like a sincere statement that being anti-Semitic is pretty much the worst thing in the world which, yeah, is hardly accurate. —Kazitor, ^pending 00:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

How ADL views the Israeli military vs Palestinians

I was reading the "excessive force" section at the ADL, and their big picture stance seems to be that their military is precise, avoids conflict at all costs, and if anyone innocent is hurt, it's because they got caught in the crossfire vs Palestinians who they specifically say are "looking to kill the most people possible" https://www.adl.org/resources/fact-sheets/response-to-common-inaccuracy-israel-uses-excessive-force 108.70.12.24 (talk) 07:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I may be starting some feuds here, but I do see comparisons between ADL and the Nazis

ADL want to censor and limit free speech, and so did Hitler. Propaganda is NEVER a good thing. People have been brainwashed for way too long. Of course it are not Jews behind everything. But ADL are taking it too far. 217.128.167.152 (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a very shallow understanding of history and politics. Would you like to discuss it? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

This page doesn't deserve to be in the social justice category

THe aDL is a racist organisation that hates plaestinians and openly calls for them to be murdered! It does NOT deserve to be put in the same category as feminism, social justice, gay, transgender, and black lives matter!! Catgrrl37-0 (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to see evidence of the ADL calling for Palestinians to be murdered. Still, the page probably belongs with the Judaism or Anti-Semitism navbar more than Social Justice. --Annanoon (talk) 07:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

"Israel has a right to exist"

What does that mean, exactly? Does any state have a right to exist? Did the USSR? Now, if you're saying: "Jewish people have a right to defend their existence," yes. But Israel isn't equivalent to Jewry, and there's actually a fairly large anti-Zionist Jewish movement. When people say "Israel has a right to exist" do they mean the current ethno-nationalist project founded on a campaign of ethnic cleansing and terror? One where Arabs are treated like second-class citizens? What's the problem with a Bosnia and Herzegovina style confederation? Israel is still technically "existing," but it's now a state for all of its citizens, and not just the Jewish majority. Carthage (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, I mean Israel as a nation and a homeland for the Jews where they can properly celebrate their own culture as they did in Biblical times, without being everybody's punching bag. Again, running an apartheid state where they're the ones stamping on everyone else's face is the wrong way to go about it, but the Jews have a right to live in their ancestral homeland. Or, basically, Israel has the right to have its own borders and culture, rather than just being a Balkans-style mess. --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

"the Jews have a right to live in their ancestral homeland" But do they? Looking up the Jewish diaspora on Wikipedia we find that they may be the descendants of people who left thousands of years ago - as opposed to the Palestinians in Gaza who may have left what is now Israel within living memory. Is it really reasonable to say you have a right to live in a place because your ancient ancestors once lived there?

For that matter, many Americans are descendants of European settlers. Should modern-day Americans have the right to live in Ireland, the UK, Germany or whatever? (Without even starting on the rights of indigenous peoples in the US.)Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 10:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Homeland? Not all Jews accept Israel as a "homeland" (I've actually been told to my face that Israel is not a "Jewish Vatican" by a Jewish person lol). Also, Palestinians have a deep ancestral root to that land (with high rates of Canaanite ancestry in all Levantines, not just Jews: [3] [4]) Israel as it currently exists is not a nation for all of its citizens. And remember, Israel actively denies a Right of Return to Palestinians. I think you should have a right to self-determination without denying another people their right to self-determination. Which is what Israel actively does. Israel has a "right" to exist, but Palestine doesn't. So, again, why can't they both be in a Belgium or Bosnia and Herzegovina style confederation? Dismissing it as a "Balkan style mess" is not a valid rebuttal, it's a handwave. Carthage (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

A two-state solution would be preferable, since both nations have a right to the area. Still, it's very possible for criticism of Israel to go too far to the point of sounding like a condemnation of Israel's very existence. Let's focus on addressing Israel's flaws rather than dissolving the entire nation. --Luigifan18 (talk) 06:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Would a two-state solution work? And.... does Israel have a "right" to that area? What gives a state any right to an area? A state is not its people, a state is an entity with a monopoly of violence (ie, they're the "law", they have the sanctioned ability to initiate violence that no other group has the "legitimate" right to, but that legitimacy is only maintain through an illusion of authority, if people stopped believing (and therefore stop following its orders) in the authority of the state, the state ceases to function. We saw that happen in the USSR.) in a given area. The people of Israel have a right to existence, certainly, but they're not the state. For an example of this... would you say that modern day Ukrainians are Soviets because Ukraine, the state, was once a member polity of the USSR, and Ukrainians, the people, were a subject people of the USSR? No? That's because the "state" is not the same entity as the people that make up that "state". Carthage (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

To give an example of how arbitrary the distinction between "legitimate" violence and "illegitimate" violence is.... what's the difference between a pirate and a privateer? One's sanctioned by the state, the other's not. They both do the exact same thing otherwise. Morally there's no difference. Legally there is. Morality is not the equivalent of legality. You could claim that states don't do that anymore (they do, they just call them "private military contractors" or, if it's one used by the opposition, "proxy groups", now, it's still the coercive use of force by state-sanctioned actors), then what's the difference between a mafia thug collecting protection fees and a tax collector collecting tax? Both are the usage of coercive force (mafia thug is a sledgehammer to the kneecaps, a tax collector is prison time and prohibitive fines) to extract wealth from the private citizen, both are going to go back into the community (it's part of how they maintain legitimacy, criminal groups do this to. Ever hear of the "neighborhood friendly gangster"? There you go.). You don't have the same visceral reaction to a tax collector, unless you're a libertarian, that you would a thug seeking protection money. Legitimate versus illegitimate violence. Legality vs illegality. Morally they're the same thing. One could have a caveat that a state is any group that maintains a legitimate monopoly on violence, but that's just semantics at this point. Violence is violence no matter how you put it. Every state, no matter the system, uses this to maintain power. Carthage (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, @Carthage, now you’re just devolving into communist/anarchist talk, bordering on the promotion of a stateless one world order. Speaking of which, I recently touched up our page on anarchism, and that article goes into pretty extensive detail on why the concept of the state, as unpleasant as it may seem to be, is actually necessary for civilization (and with it, rationalism and inter-tribal cooperation) to properly exist. Which goes back to my original point — we can and should criticize Israel for its horrific treatment of the Palestinian people and demand that it clean up its act without endorsing Hamas's preferred solution, i.e. the complete dissolution of the state of Israel. Israel has the right to exist. It does not have the right to treat anyone — Jewish, Palestinian, or otherwise — like subhuman trash. Have I made myself clear? Anyways, I'm gonna put my note back up now, because — as much as I hate to throw this accusation at a fellow RW editor — your recent remarks have made me strongly suspect that you removed it in bad faith. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Just to make this clearer; I am not accusing @Carthage of knowingly acting in bad faith. Carthage is an experienced user and has a clear commitment to the values of RationalWiki, and I respect his contributions and overall point of view. I just suspect that in this specific instance, he's speaking more from a position of extreme anarchist sentiment (which is, to put it bluntly, somewhat naive) and/or (admittedly justified) anger at Israel's human rights abuses than of a rational desire for a solution that actually works for everyone at ground zero of the Israel/Palestine conflict. As such, while I was tempted to defer to the judgment of experienced users and drop my contribution (as I did at the Cleanse and Honor killings articles), I have found that my conscience won't allow me to let an implicit demand for Israel's complete and utter destruction, regardless of its consequences for Israel's citizens and the Jewish people as a whole, to go unchallenged. This isn't even really about my edit (I'm not even sure if I should count it as a mini-essay); I'm just not sure if the logic behind Carthage's arguments against what I've said is actually sound. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh boy… (grabs popcorn)

👆Here we go again… --Goatspeed. _{Watch me}CircularRasoning^{Steal my ideas} 16:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I do hope this doesn't lead into Headless Chicken Mode. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

At least this time we have more tools we didn’t have last time, like civility codified into RW:CS, topic bans, and interaction bans. --Goatspeed. _{Watch me}CircularRasoning^{Steal my ideas} 16:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

…This isn't the first time this page was at the center of an HCM squabble? Luigifan18 (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't care enough to actually get involved in what's become mudslinging. I'll just note that I use a fairly standard definition of the state (the Weberian one, if you're curious), and that using a wiki as an authority on anything is a pretty questionable standard. Oh, I'm also not a guy for future reference. That's all I have to say about this. Carthage (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Redirecting to the main topic, my main problem with Luigifan's edit is that it conflates people who want a one-state solution with equal rights for all and a Palestinian right of return with people who just want a genocide of Jews. "Israel doesn't have a right to exist" doesn't mean "kill all Jews", this is obvious if you compare it to statements like "Rhodesia doesn't have a right to exist" and "the Confederate States don't have a right to exist"; in that context it is referring to the ethnonationalist and discriminatory regime of Israel that some people don't think should exist and should be replaced by a fairer system. Plutocow (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I asked Luigi why Israel has to exist in its current form and how that constitutes a complete dissolution of Israel? Carthage (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Removing Israel's current government and replacing it with another system, as you propose, isn't "destroying Israel" IMO if Israel still exists as a nation. In fact, most nations in Europe and quite a few in Asia (and probably more than one on other continents) have made dramatic changes in how they're administrated at some point or another without losing their identity or self-sovereignty to another nation. France is perhaps the best example — it ditched its monarchy for a republic, got turned into a dictatorship, transitioned back into a monarchy, then back into a republic, and went back and forth between those models at least three more times before settling into its current system, and never once stopped being identified as France throughout that period. China went through a similar transition with its current communist (or faux-communist) regime overthrowing its last imperial dynasty. Granted, there have also been times where a nation's government changing does result in a rebranding and/or redrawing of borders. The splitting of Korea into North and South halves and the Russian Revolution turning Russia into the Soviet Union (only for that to eventually collapse and revert back into Russia and multiple smaller states) are two examples that come to mind. So, what I'm balking at is the idea of Israel ceasing to exist as Israel, particularly after all the shit the Jewish people have gone through since the Romans dissolved the original Israel and drove the Jews away; they've been dumped-on foreigners so damn often (culminating in an effort to flat-out drive them out of existence) that it would be deeply unfair to them to take Israel away from them again. On the other hand, dissolving Palestine into Israel would be just as unfair to the Palestinians who've claimed the land as theirs after the Roman Empire collapsed. Hence, I feel that a two-state solution is the optimal outcome that doesn't shit on the Jews or the Arabs — but only if the two states can come to a fair land-sharing agreement, which the current Israeli government appears to be… disinterested in, to put it mildly. --Luigifan18 (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

There's a key distinction here though. Not all Arabs are interchangeable. The Druze are Arab, or have Arab origins, but they largely identify with the state of Israel. The Druze, at least as far as I'm aware, sure as hell don't identify as Palestinian. Carthage (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)