Despite the fact that Black Lives Matter formally endorsed the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement, and accused Israel of genocide, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has refused to cut its ties with the organization. Similarly, when a congressman referred to Jews living in the West Bank as “termites,” the ADL mustered only a weak response. Isi Leibler takes these and other instances as evidence that Jonathan Greenblatt—a former White House staffer who assumed leadership of the ADL last year—has lost sight of its mission:

Greenblatt . . . has behaved as though he ‎remained employed by the Obama administration. He was entirely out of line in his ‎condemnation of the Republican platform as “anti-Zionist” for omitting reference to a two-‎state solution. One can disagree about a two-state policy. But for an American Jewish ‎organization, which must remain bipartisan and should be concentrating on anti-Semitism, to ‎issue such a statement breaches all conventions. It is totally beyond the ADL’s mandate to ‎involve itself in such partisan political issues.‎

Greenblatt is clearly obsessed with the subject of being “open-minded” and tolerant of anti-‎Israeli groups. He made the extraordinary statement that, while disagreeing with the boycott, ‎divestment, and sanctions groups that promote anti-Semitism, he considers that they ‎are “animated by a desire for justice” and we should “acknowledge the earnestness of their ‎motives.” One is tempted to remind him that Islamic fundamentalists are also sincere in their ‎beliefs and equally animated by their perverted concept of justice.‎ . . .

The ADL’s central mandate must be to combat anti-Semitism, which is today largely manifested ‎in the demonization and delegitimization of Israel. If it elects to abandon this objective, it ‎does not warrant Jewish communal support.‎

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.