ADL letter to the public editor concerning convicted Palestinian terrorist Marwan Barghouti. Letters to the Editor The New York Times To the Public Editor: We appreciate your comments about the Times failure with regard to the article by Marwan Barghouti. Unfortunately, it did not go far enough nor did the newspaper's clarification. Yes, Mr. Barghouti was not merely a Palestinian parliamentarian. He was convicted of murder by an Israeli court. Also important to note, however, is that Barghouti was deemed to be behind some of the most brutal terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians during the Second Intifada. And that his charges of torture by Israeli security officials are pure fabrication and should have been vetted by the editors before publishing. The Times needs to take these concerns much more seriously to avoid the charge that it is biased against the State of Israel. Sincerely, The Anti-Defamation League Related Content News XX min read 5 Ways ADL is Combatting BDS Aug 11th, 2016

ADL responds to an article in The New York Times titled "Hamas Tempers Extreme Stances in Bid for Power” which appeared on May 2, 2017. Letters to the Editor The New York Times To the Editor: The story of a new Hamas statement of principles, with all the fuss and anticipation, is much ado about nothing. On the core of Hamas’s attitudes and policies toward Israel, nothing has changed. For Hamas, there is only one legitimate authority in the Holy Land. Israel, according to this document, has no rights, no history, no connection and no future. Hamas’s mention of a sovereign state based on the pre-1967 lines would be meaningful if it were accompanied by recognition of Israel and its legitimacy. Instead, Hamas notes that it “rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.” And Hamas still justifies violence, meaning terrorism against the people of Israel. Hamas remains a purveyor of terrorism, rejectionism and anti-Semitism, before and after this document. Sincerely, Jonathan A. Greenblatt CEO & National Director of the Anti-Defamation League Related Content News XX min read Hamas: New Charter, Same Old Anti-Semitism May 3rd, 2017

ADL reacted to an op-ed in The New York Times which "bears no resemblance to the complicated reality" between Israel and the Palestinians. Letters to the Editor The New York Times To the Editor: Re “Israel’s Everlasting Occupation” (Sunday Review, June 4): Nathan Thrall attributes to Israel an early determination to hold on to the territories. In fact, from the outset after the Six-Day War, Israel saw its winning territory as a perfect bargaining chip finally to get the Arabs to accept Israel’s legitimacy and to end their war against the Jewish state. The three no’s at Khartoum later in 1967 by the Arab League — no to peace, no to recognition, no to negotiations — began the stalemate. Mr. Thrall suggests that Israel takes steps toward peace only when pressed, by the United States diplomatically or by Palestinian violence. But Israel took major initiatives in 2000 and 2008 in which Israel offered the Palestinians more than 90 percent of the territories, without any pressure. Mr. Thrall rationalizes Palestinian rejection in both cases on the absurd grounds that Israel did not offer the Palestinians 100 percent of the territory. Among the many things he chose not to speak about were Palestinian incitement against Israel and Jews, the Palestinians’ refusal to negotiate for the last eight years, and their unwillingness to accept Israel as a Jewish state. There is enough blame to go around as to why there is so little progress after 50 years. Mr. Thrall’s version of events bears no resemblance to the complicated reality. Sincerely, Kenneth Jacobson Deputy National Director 

ADL responded to a cover story from The Economist "Why Israel Needs a Palestinian State," which unfairly places the majority of the blame on Israel as the reason why a Palestinian state has not come about. Letters to the Editor The Economist To the Editor: One can agree with the premise of your argument for “Why Israel needs a Palestinian state” (May 20th), while strongly disagreeing with the analysis explaining why a Palestinian state has not come about. The inadequate history you present not only unfairly places the majority of the blame on Israel, but also encourages a Palestinian narrative that continues to be the main obstacle to a solution. Nowhere do you refer to Israeli initiatives—at Camp David in 2000, Gaza in 2005 and Annapolis in 2008—which could long ago have produced that desired state if not for Palestinian rejection and inaction. Add the Palestinian incitement against Israel, its funding of the families of terrorists and its refusal to negotiate throughout Barack Obama’s presidency, and it should be no surprise that peace and a two-state deal remain a distant dream. It takes two parties to make peace and the prospects for any resolution of the conflict have been damaged, delayed over the years by the Palestinian leadership and their continued refusal to accept the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state and their unwillingness to deal reasonably with the substantive issues. When this finally happens, it will have a much greater impact than your skewed history in bringing the parties back to the table and allowing Israel to make the necessary concessions for peace. Sincerely, Jonathan Greenblatt CEO and National Director

Letters to the Editor National Review To the Editor: Re “Remember the Hysteria about Trump-Induced Anti-Semitism” (June 13): Our concerns about anti-Semitism in America are real and based on fact. Dennis Prager, in making his claim of hysteria, ignores the data and chooses to mischaracterize our statements. We made clear, reflecting ADL’s most recent poll of the American people, that the American public at-large was not becoming more anti-Semitic. We also made clear that we did not believe that President Donald Trump was anti-Semitic. What we did say was that anti-Semitic incidents, such as harassment, vandalism and physical assaults, in the United States were dramatically increasing. Statistics, which Prager conveniently omits, bear that out. In 2016, there was a 34 percent rise in anti-Semitic incidents over the year before. And in the first two months of 2017 there was a 31 percent increase (this excludes the many bomb threats against Jewish institutions that so terrorized the community). Hate crimes against Jews in New York City doubled in 2017. We also said that President Trump’s rhetoric during the campaign was a factor in this phenomenon and we stand by that. His comments about Muslims, Latinos, the disabled and women have given license to some hate-filled individuals and groups to now act upon them. Not surprisingly, among them were anti-Semites, who now felt emboldened to express their anti-Semitism. One more thing that Prager ignores: we have long said that anti-Semitism has no ideological monopoly. It comes from the left as well as the right. We work to combat it, such as in our efforts against the anti-Israel boycott movement on campuses, no matter where it comes from. Mr. Prager should not diminish the real concerns about anti-Semitism in America. Sincerely, Kenneth Jacobson Deputy National Director

ADL responded to an op-ed by a Jewish Voice for Peace staffer, who asserted that alt-right leader Richard Spencer was right in his remarks that Zionism is akin to white supremacy. Days after the horrific showcase of American far-right extremism in Charlottesville, America’s leading extremist, white supremacist leader Richard Spencer, appeared on an Israeli television newscast and compared his hate-filled ideology to Jewish nationalism, declaring it “white Zionism.” Riding the waves of extremism and hate, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) staffer Naomi Dann asserted in The Forward that Spencer was right, that Zionism is akin to white supremacy. Let’s unpack the strands of outrage and the manipulation of fact to further political agendas: First Spencer: He seems to be suggesting that in his call for a white state in America, he is articulating an idea that is conceptually similar to the Zionist idea of a Jewish state in the land of Israel. This, of course, is an outrageous comparison and a caricature of what Zionism is. Richard Spencer’s movement is based on hate, racism, negativity and exclusion. Zionism, the national liberation movement of the Jewish people in the Jews historic homeland, is based on providing for equal opportunity for the Jewish people, like others, to have sovereignty in their land while still fully protecting the rights of minorities who live within Israel. At its core, Zionism is a positive movement and is not intended to be “against” anyone. In sharp contrast, the nationalist white groups led by Richard Spencer and his ilk have tried to rebrand themselves as simply standing up for the rights of white people but they are transparently disingenuous in this regard, exposing again and again their hatred of non-whites, Jews and other minorities and their motivation to separate themselves and rise above these elements of American society. In comes Ms. Dann and JVP, whose raison d’etre is to demonize and tar Zionism and the Jewish State of Israel (this is no mere criticism of policy with an aim to be constructive and improve). To further that agenda, there is no hesitation to piggy-back on Spencer, and try to link his base, hate-filled and exclusionary ideology, with the proactive, affirming and empowering of Jewish nationhood. The goal: to have those unfamiliar with Israel reject and vilify the Jewish state in the same manner they reject white supremacy and racism. The reality is the Zionist concept has been the target of Jew haters from both the right and the left for years. The infamous Zionism is Racism resolution of the UN General Assembly in 1975 was an initiative of the Soviet Union. Today we see groups and individuals on the left — recently the Chicago Dyke March and Linda Sarsour — defaming and delegitimizing Zionism. On the far right, there is a long history of ZOG — the accusation that that the US has been captured by the Zionist Occupied Government. And now Richard Spencer and JVP have added their names to the list of those on both sides of the political spectrum who mischaracterize, distort and blaspheme Zionism and do so to further their own perverted political agenda. In this heightened political time, we must have zero tolerance for those who seek to divide and vilify the principles which we hold dear which include living proudly and securely as Jews in America and defending the legitimacy of the Jewish State of Israel. There will always be those on both extremes who seek to attack or undermine those core principles. As proud American pro-Israel Jews, we must continue fighting those hateful voices. Jonathan A. Greenblatt CEO and National Director of the Anti-Defamation League

The following letter was submitted to The New York Times in response to "A Voice of Hate in America's Heartland" (Nov. 25) Letters to the Editor The New York Times To the Editor: Your lengthy profile of Tony Hovater, the Ohio white supremacist who co-founded the Traditionalist Worker Party, portrays him as a fan of NPR who is planning his nuptials and as a person with “Midwestern manners” that “would please anyone’s mother.” While the public needs to understand the growing threat of extremists, your story lacks any of the requisite context and analysis that actually would provide readers with a more clear understanding of the danger posed by this seemingly normal but actively hostile professional hatemonger (“A Voice of Hate in America’s Heartland,” Nov. 25). White supremacists like Hovater want the public to believe that that their ideas about racial separation and white superiority are commonplace. They want to convey the idea that they are part of a growing “alt right” movement that has history on its side. This is, of course, a deception and a false facade. Peel back the layers and you’ll quickly find in Hovater someone who is infected with racism and hate to his very core. Regardless of his radio listening habits, he is the co-founder of one of the most virulently anti-Semitic hate groups in the country. He peddles Holocaust denial as well. Hovater has not stood on the sidelines, but has actively contributed to the rhetoric of hate, leaving no doubt as to the true nature of his views on Internet podcasts and 4Chan discussions. We should make no mistake: such views are dangerous and have fueled real-world acts of hatred and violence, such as those we witnessed in Charlottesville earlier this year. Your story could have been effective for the right reasons if it had stated these facts up front rather than dwelling on irrelevant details of Hovater’s domestic life. Instead, the article has achieved the dubious distinction of serving as a case study in how the mainstream media occasionally perpetuates white supremacist propaganda. Journalism should never soft-pedal bigotry, but, unfortunately, that is exactly what your sympathetic profile has accomplished. Sincerely, Jonathan A. Greenblatt CEO and National Director Anti-Defamation League Related Content Blog XX min read 10 Tips for Journalists Newly Covering Extremists Nov 27th, 2017

The following letter, penned by Brittan Heller, director of the ADL's Center for Technology and Society, and Susan Benesch, executive director of the Dangerous Speech Project, appeared in The New York Times in response to President Trump's speech to the F.B.I. National Academy. To the Editor: Re “Deceit and Confusion in Talk on Law and Order” (Fact Check, Dec. 16): Addressing elite F.B.I. National Academy graduates last week, President Trump utterly mischaracterized the diversity immigration visa program and described people who use it to immigrate legally to our country as “the worst of the worst.” As experts on hateful speech, we know that such words matter. Tarring whole groups of people as terrible and threatening is dangerous rhetoric that is all too familiar from societies where it has been a precursor to violence. In addition, the president is now attacking legal immigrants with the sort of vitriol he previously aimed at the undocumented. He is training Americans to fear and despise other people simply because they are “them” and not “us.” Language that can inspire violent hatred is all the more disturbing in a speech to local law enforcement officers who serve across the country. We must call it out for what it is.

The following letter, penned by National Chair Marvin Nathan, appeared in the Houston Chronicle in response to FEMA's recent policy reversal to permit disaster funding for houses of worship. FEMA vs. First Amendment Regarding "FEMA's new policy on disaster aid to chruches a sound decision" (Page A3, Thursday), contrary to Erica Grieder's assertion, FEMA's recent policy reversal to permit disaster funding for houses of worship is not constitutionally "sound." The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer in no way requires FEMA's policy change. In that decision, the Supreme Court narrowly ruled that a church could not be excluded from a secular aid program for playground resurfacing materials because of its religious identity. Trinity did not overturn longstanding Supreme Court precedent prohibiting direct government funding of religious activities: Playgrounds, the justices reasoned, are not used for religious purposes. Prior to this week's policy change, FEMA would not fund repair or rebuilding of religious sanctuaries with government dollars. Religious institutions, however, could obtain disaster relief for buildings not "primarily used for religious activities." "(T)he separation of church and state" mandated by First Amendment, which Grieder says she supports, safeguards religious freedom in two ways. It ensures that taxpayers are not compelled to financially support religious beliefs to which they do not subscribe. And it guarantees the independence of houses of worship by preventing them from becoming overly dependent on state funding. All Americans are sympathetic to the grave harm suffered by houses of worship in the path of Hurricane Harvey. But it is the most difficult times that test our resolve to abide by the Constitution. Our First Amendment religious freedom protections should not be a casualty of Harvey, as well. Related Content Press Release XX min read ADL Expresses Concern Over Proposed Federal Aid for Religious Institutions Affected by Hurricane Sandy Jan 8th, 2013

On January 18, El Nuevo Dia of Puerto Rico published an editorial apologizing for its anti-Semitic article and removing it from its website. Titled “Lessons Learned,” the editorial acknowledged the anti-Semitic nature of the column and concludes: “The problem of Puerto Rico has nothing to do with the Jews.” ADL appreciates the newspaper’s powerful acknowledgment and looks forward to working with it to counter all forms of hate. Letters to the Editor El Nuevo Dia To the Editor: The article titled, "What does the Jew want with the colony?" written by Wilda Rodriguez and published in your publication on Monday, January 8, 2018 is a collection of classic anti-Semitic assertions. The column falsely charges that the future of Puerto Rico is in the hands of the Jews who control power and wealth from the centers of power in Washington and Wall Street. She alleges that Congress will do what the Jews say, since it is the Jews who control Congress and that their itinerary is "loaded with wars and profits." This is not the first time that confronted with an economic crisis Jews are accused of controlling the power and money. Wilma Rodriguez's column published in your diary follows the worst legacies of anti-Semitic regimes that we would like to have left behind in the 20th century. Both the explanatory note of the leadership of this newspaper and the explanatory note of the author of the column leave much to be desired because publishing an article accusing the Jewish people of controlling governments to the detriment of the future of Puerto Rico is practically the definition of anti-Semitism. Sincerely, Monica Bauer Coordinator, Latino Community Relations Anti-Defamation League En Espanol Al Editor, El artículo titulado ¿Qué quiere “el judío” con la colonia? escrito por Wilda Rodriguez y publicado en su publicación el lunes 8 de enero del 2018 es una colección de aserciones antisemitas clásicas. La columna afirma que el futuro de Puerto Rico está en manos de los judíos que controlan el poder y la riqueza desde las cúpulas de poder en Washington y en Wall Street. Afirma que el Congreso hará lo que el judío le indique, ya que son los judíos los que controlan el Congreso y que su itinerario esta “cargado de guerras y ganancias”. No es la primera vez que ante una crisis económica se les acusa a los judíos de controlar el poder y el dinero. La columna de Wilma Rodriguez publicada en su diario sigue al pie de la letra las peores herencias de regímenes antisemitas que quisiéramos haber dejado atrás en el siglo XX. Tanto la nota aclaratoria de la dirección de este diario como la nota aclaratoria de la autora de la columna dejan mucho que desear ya que publicar un artículo que acusa al pueblo judío de controlar gobiernos en detrimento del futuro de Puerto Rico es prácticamente la definición de antisemitismo.  

The following letter was submitted to The New York Times in response to "White House Tries to Link Immigration and Terrorism" (Jan. 17) Letters to the Editor New York Times To the Editor: Re “White House Tries to Link Immigration and Terrorism” (news article, Jan. 17): The Trump administration’s report trying to link foreign-born immigrants to terrorism muddies the waters by giving an incomplete picture of the sources of extremist violence in America. New data from the Anti-Defamation League confirms that over the last decade, native-born white supremacists and others identifying with far-right movements have been responsible for the vast majority of extremist-related murders in the United States. More than 70 percent of all extremist-related killings in those years were linked to domestic right-wing extremists, while 26 percent of the killings were committed by Islamic extremists. And last year, in the heated political environment that led to Charlottesville, Va., deaths caused by white supremacists doubled year over year. Right-wing extremists were directly responsible for 20 of the total 34 extremist-related murders in 2017. While the federal government builds walls and pours more resources into fighting the violent threat posed by foreign extremists, less attention is being paid to the reality of right-wing violence. Jonathan A. Greenblatt Chief Executive and National Director of the Anti-Defamation League Related Content Report XX min read Murder and Extremism in the United States in 2017 Jan 12th, 2018 Press Release XX min read ADL Report: White Supremacist Murders More Than Doubled in 2017 Jan 17th, 2018

The following letter was submitted to the New York Post in response to "Liberals refuse to face the left's growing anti-Semitism" (March 25, 2018) It was published in the print edition on March 29, 2018. Letters to the Editor New York Post To the Editor: Re "Liberals refuse to face the left's growing anti-Semitism" (Opinion, March 25) The Anti-Defamation League has not been afraid to call out public officials and movement leaders who have met with notorious anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan.  After it was reported this year that Rep. Keith Ellison met with Farrakhan in September 2013, ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt called on Ellison and others to clearly repu­diate Farrakhan, which Ellison did in an open letter. And it was ADL that reported Women’s March co-chair Tamika Mallory attended Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic speech at the Nation of Islam’s convention, prompting a raft of coverage.  ADL has been at the forefront of exposing and criticizing Farrakhan for over 30 years, someone whose 'name has become virtually synonymous with anti-Semitism,' as Greenblatt recently put it. Evan Bernstein New York Regional Director, Anti-Defamation League Related Content Blog XX min read Farrakhan Rails Against Jews, Israel and the U.S. Government in Wide-Ranging Saviours' Day Speech Feb 26th, 2018

The following letter was submitted to The New York Times in response to "Israel Courts Catastrophe in Gaza Protests" (April 2, 2018) Letters to the Editor The New York Times To the Editor: Re "Israel Courts Catastrophe in Gaza Protests" (Editorial, April 2, 2018): There are legitimate issues to be raised concerning Israel's policy vis-a-vis Hamas and Gaza, including the issue of access of the population to the outside world and the extent of the use of force employed last Friday to defend Israel and its population. The Times, however, simply ignores what Hamas is about, what the purpose of the demonstration was and why Israel turned to the use of force. This was by no means a peaceful protest. It was organized with the theme of the “right of return” and featured literal calls by Hamas leaders in the crowds to march “on to Jerusalem,” a theme consistent with the ideology of Hamas, which is to destroy the Jewish state and to reject any efforts at reconciliation or peace. On the ground, groups of demonstrators sought to breach and destroy the fence separating Israel from Gaza. This would have been an important precedent with significant security implications since Israeli civilians live close to the fence and would have been targets of Hamas terrorism, as they’ve been in the past when underground tunnels were the weapon of choice. The simple fact is that no nation would tolerate the breaching of their border by thousands of people, and particularly not so when the ideology of those behind it were a denial of the country's right to exist and who have used terror toward that goal. Improving the life of the residents of Gaza should be not only Israel's responsibility but that of Egypt and the Palestinian Authority. Most of all it should fall on Hamas, which needs to end its holy war against Israel and stop building weapons with which to attack the Jewish state. Sincerely, Jonathan A. Greenblatt Chief Executive and National Director of the Anti-Defamation League Related Content News XX min read Hamas is Enemy, to Israel and Palestinians Aug 4th, 2014

The following letter was submitted to Commentary Magazine in response to "The ADL Smears Mike Pompeo" (April 19, 2018) Letters to the Editor Commentary Magazine To the Editor: Re "The ADL Smears Mike Pompeo" (April 19, 2018): There’s plenty to untangle and criticize in Sohrab Ahmari’s hit piece, which outrageously and falsely claims that Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, is using his position as head of a storied civil rights organization to play partisan politics. Ahmari then goes on a selective cherry picking expedition of past ADL research, reports and writings in a failed attempt to show how our concerns about Mike Pompeo are two-faced. First, to the tired, retread accusation that Greenblatt is a “partisan hack:” That’s a serious accusation and one that leaders and experts never use lightly.  It’s also dead wrong.   Greenblatt was a successful entrepreneur and businessman who felt the call to serve in the Obama Administration, where he and I first met, and for which he led a non-political office on social innovation. Since he has transitioned to ADL, Greenblatt has called out anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry from both the right and the left, and on both sides of the aisle. There is nothing political about hate or bigotry – it is an affront to the founding principles of liberty on which our country was founded. Second, to the charge that ADL has unfairly “smeared” Pompeo. To be clear, our letter to members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee did not dismiss Pompeo’s qualifications and policy positions out of hand.  It said, “While we have some areas of agreement with Mr. Pompeo, we have deep concerns about his nomination based on his stated views and past behaviors.” In other words, we are not saying that Mr. Pompeo does not have the qualifications to serve as Secretary of State. Our concern lies where Pompeo has too frequently seen the propaganda coming from groups like ISIS and conflated their objective – a so-called Islamic state – with unrelated, innocent individual practicing Muslims. That isn’t how the American justice system works. Conflating the views of all Muslims with the erroneous interpretation of Islam by monsters like ISIS, is wrong – and definitely an ineffective strategy in countering terrorism. In fact, Ahmari has gone on a fishing expedition, grabbing at statements and reports the League has issued on specific terrorist events and regarding specific terrorists acting in the name of their own perverse interpretations of Islam. He has attempted to compare these examples to Pompeo’s past generalized statements. But all of the quotes he chooses are apples-to-oranges comparisons that attempt to change the subject and shout down critical debate. Importantly, Ahmari makes no attempts to justify or contextualize Pompeo’s associations with anti-Muslims bigots and their organizations. Sadly, Pompeo himself offered no apology or explanation for those associations in his testimony before the committee. When it comes to terrorism, we at ADL identify the threat of violent extremism and urge the government to counter it – regardless of the ideology that motivates it.  While we call out specific violent extremists who have acted in the name of their false interpretation of Islam, Pompeo casts doubt about the loyalty of Muslims throughout the nation, implying that they may be responsible for acts of terrorism or in some other way of working to undermine our country. That is not only incorrect and bigoted – it undermines our national security by feeding into a perceived war on Islam that extremists use to recruit.  I've only worked at the ADL for seven months, but I have spent over 12 years in the Executive Branch working for both Republicans and Democrats (including the Obama National Security Council for four years). As a former Homeland Security official, I believe that ADL has raised all of the right questions about Pompeo. And I can confirm without a shred of hesitation that Mr. Greenblatt and hundreds of ADL staff across the country do their jobs every day without any considerations to political party. At ADL, we stand for principles, not politics. Sincerely, George Selim Senior Vice President Programs Anti-Defamation League Note: Prior to joining ADL, Mr. Selim most recently served concurrently as Director of Community Partnerships and the Director of the Countering Violent Extremism Task Force at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Related Content Press Release XX min read ADL Urges Senate Foreign Relations Committee to Ask Tough Questions to Pompeo on Policy and Views Toward Muslims Apr 10th, 2018

The following letter was submitted to the Los Angeles Times in response to "Enough already. Not all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism." (June 8, 2018) Letters to the Editor Los Angeles Times To the Editor: Re "Enough already. Not all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism." (June 8, 2018): While we certainly agree that not all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism, the legislation is intended to clarify, not blur, lines between political opinions about Israel and anti-Semitism. Most incidents of anti-Semitism on campus are entirely unrelated to anti-Israel activity. But some are. We are concerned about organized anti-Israel activity that crosses the line into anti-Semitism — conduct that can create an atmosphere in which Jewish students feel intimidated and under siege. The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act [ASAA] uses the State Department-adopted definition of anti-Semitism as a reference point for guidance. The Times is correct that many of the examples in the definition are 1st Amendment-protected speech. But the plain language of the ASAA simply requires the department to “take into consideration” that definition “as part of the Department’s assessment” of whether an investigation is warranted. It does not codify the definition and it does not use it to trigger an investigation or enforcement action. Disagreement with and even harsh criticism of the government of Israel is protected speech. But that’s very different from intentional, targeted conduct that unlawfully threatens, harasses or intimidates particular Jewish students and jeopardizes their equal educational opportunities. The ASAA will not change any substantive rights, obligations or standards of review under Title VI. But its enactment can help administrators and others responsible for keeping Jewish students safe on campus better understand how anti-Semitism can manifest while at the same time protecting the free speech rights of all students. Jonathan A. Greenblatt CEO and National Director of the Anti-Defamation League Related Content Press Release XX min read ADL Welcomes Senate Passage of Anti-Semitism Awareness Act Dec 2nd, 2016 Blog XX min read What is the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act Really All About? Dec 11th, 2019

The following letter was submitted to The Wall Street Journal in response to "Is Brett Kavanaugh Bad for the Jews?" (July 24, 2018) Liel Leibovitz unsurprisingly chooses to paint the Anti-Defamation League and its CEO Jonathan Greenblatt as partisan (“Is Brett Kavanaugh Bad for the Jews?,” op-ed, July 24). Mr. Liebovitz draws selectively from our record of speaking out on issues that are directly connected to our mandate of fighting anti-Semitism and securing justice and fair treatment for all. As he notes, the ADL is addressing the significant rise of anti-Semitism, including emboldened rhetoric and action by neo-Nazis, white supremacists or members of the self-described alt-right movement. However, he chooses to ignore our continuing, active efforts to confront anti-Semitism from people such as Louis Farrakhan and those who curry favor with him, the BDS movement and self-professed “progressives” who refuse to recognize the Jewish people’s right to self-determination or who single out Israel for demonization. We have also strongly criticized Linda Sarsour’s positions on Israel and voiced concern about anti-Semitism on campus. Our positions reflect longstanding values that have motivated the ADL for decades. That we, at times, anger conservatives like Mr. Liebovitz, and liberals, too many to name, is a sign that the ADL is staying true to its mission. Calling for strong questioning of a Supreme Court nominee is entirely consistent with what the ADL always has done. We believe special scrutiny is required for the current nominee because some of his known views conflict with ADL policies—formulated long before Mr. Greenblatt became the ADL’s CEO. It also is important because this is a historic moment and an appointment that could shape the Supreme Court for decades to come. Regardless of the source, the ADL has spoken out against anti-Semitism for more than 100 years, and we will continue to do so. Robert G. Sugarman Former National Chair Anti-Defamation League New York Related Content Press Release XX min read ADL Response to the President's Nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to Serve as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court Jul 9th, 2018

The following letter was submitted to The New York Times in response to "Free Speech Experts Argue Against Infowars Founder" (Aug. 8) To the Editor: The debate over whether Alex Jones should have been removed from Facebook, Apple and other platforms seems almost quaint and academic when one looks closely at his long history of spreading outright lies and appeals to bigotry. After the violent alt-right protest in Charlottesville, Va., a year ago, Mr. Jones announced that he suspected that many of the attendees were actually “leftist Jews” in disguise, there to discredit white supremacists and incite violence. “Literally, they’re just Jewish actors,” he said of the white supremacists. “They all look like Howard Stern.” His conspiracy theories are serious, but one would have thought that his open appeals to bigotry and frequent anti-Semitic dog whistles should have merited his removal from social media and podcasting platforms long ago. We, too, believe strongly in the First Amendment, but social media sites, which are not bound by the First Amendment, have a responsibility to provide safe, respectful and inclusive spaces for their broad community of users. Jonathan A. Greenblatt Chief Executive and National Director of the Anti-Defamation League New York Related Content Backgrounder XX min read Alex Jones: Five Things to Know May 10th, 2017

The following letter was submitted to The New York Times in response to "If We Silence Hate Speech, Will We Silence Resistance?" (Aug. 9) To the Editor: The first flaw in Erik Nielson’s argument is his failure to define hate speech, which clearly means different things to different people.   Speech that harasses, threatens or incites violence  - whether it emanates from the left or the right – contributes nothing to the marketplace of ideas, and engaging with those who spew such invective gives them a legitimacy they do not deserve.  By contrast, hate speech that is ugly but not harassing or threatening is best met by counterspeech.  The best weapon against this kind of hate is identifying it and standing up against it. With regard to the latter, Nielson undermines his argument by understating the ugliness of hate speech coming from the left side of the political spectrum while duly condemning racist, anti-Semitic expressions from the right.  The “value” of the Million Man March cannot rationalize and legitimize Louis Farrakhan’s vile hatred and anti-Semitism any more than concerns about border security can rationalize and legitimize irrational xenophobia. Yes, the First Amendment protects even the most hateful speech. That makes it even more important for all of us consistently to condemn those abuse their “free speech” rights to spew hate, regardless of who the target of their ire may be. Kenneth Jacobson Deputy National Director Anti-Defamation League

The following letter was submitted to The New York Times in response to "Anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitism" (Dec. 7) Letters to the Editor The New York Times To the Editor: It is Michelle Goldberg, not those who assert that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement is anti-Semitic, who engages in sleight of hand ("Anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitism," Dec. 7).  The movement in its conception and origins rejects the legitimacy of the Jewish state. Omar Bargouti, the founder of BDS, refers to the state of Israel as a racist, colonialist state. Its goal is to make Israel disappear, not to make Israel better. Goldberg tries to prettify this ugly movement by saying that it is not anti-Semitic to reject Israel's "ethno-Nationalist state." This is the old saw for denying Israel's right to exist and justification for the 70 year siege against Israel by the Arab world. Israel is the only Jewish state in the world created on the land that was the connection for the Jewish people for three thousand years. At the same time, it is a democracy (the only real one in the Middle East) with rights for its minority populations. And it is necessary to reach a two-state solution to protect Israel as Jewish and democratic and to realize rights of the Palestinians as well. Not everyone who supports BDS is anti-Semitic and distinctions should be made. Unfortunately, Ms. Goldberg, intentionally or not, provides fodder to those worst instincts that lie behind BDS and its aim to delegitimize the Jewish state. Sincerely, The Anti-Defamation League  

The following letter was submitted to The Jerusalem Post in response to "American Jewish Leaders: Where Are You?" (Jan. 31) Good and bad on both sides: Isi Leibler’s latest assault against mainstream US Jewish organizational leaders is misinformed (“American Jewish Leaders: Where Are You?” January 31). Leibler wrongly argues that no Jewish leaders in America are standing up against threats to Israel and the Jewish people from the far Left. As he gets around to attacking his favorite target, the Anti-Defamation League, he lays it on thick with falsehood after falsehood. Let’s set the record straight. ADL, he says, has become “a radical extension of the Democratic party” (False: ADL is strictly nonpartisan, and has been for more than 100 years; we call out antisemitism no matter the political party); openly lobbied against the Senate confirmation of Mike Pompeo (False: Our letter to the Foreign Relations Committee raised concerns about past statements, but never questioned his qualifications); refused to endorse anti-BDS legislation (False: we have endorsed constitutionally sound federal legislation); and supports anti-Israel passages in the Movement for Black Lives platform (False: We spoke out loudly and publicly against those passages). As to his larger argument that American organizations like ADL have soft-pedaled what he characterizes as the “greater threat” of antisemitism, from the Left: That’s also false. We call it as we see it. There’s antisemitism on the Left and Right; we are clear-eyed about both. Leibler sees antisemitism as a “Left-only” problem. It’s not about Left and Right; it’s about right and wrong. Antisemitism comes in many forms. We, as Jews and as responsible citizens in a global community, must fight them all with equal vigor. Carole Nuriel Director, Israel Office Anti-Defamation League