After receiving much bad publicity over an employee’s eviction of two black men from one of its stores, the Starbucks coffee chain decided to subject its employees to “bias training.” To this end it consulted with various organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The ADL’s presence in turn provoked the ire of the leaders of the Women’s March—still, more than a year after its anti-Trump demonstration in Washington, an influential organization on the left. Jonathan Tobin comments:

[T]o its credit, the ADL has been willing to take on leaders of the march regarding their soft spot for anti-Semitism. . . . Earlier this year, many people who took part in [the march’s] events were shocked to learn that Tamika Mallory, the group’s president, was a supporter of the Nation of Islam’s leader Louis Farrakhan. . . . Others were concerned over the comments of Linda Sarsour, another leader [of the march], in which she demonized the state of Israel and its supporters, and claimed Zionists could not be true feminists. Along with many other people of good will on both the left and the right, the ADL criticized the pair.

So when Starbucks announced that the ADL would be part of its race-education program, Mallory and Sarsour pounced. Mallory denounced the ADL on Twitter for “CONSTANTLY attacking black and brown people.” Sarsour echoed that smear and chimed in with her own indictment of ADL for supporting programs in which U.S. law-enforcement personnel are given training in Israel, as well as for the ADL’s criticisms of the Black Lives Matter movement’s attacks on Israel. . . .

No one with even a cursory understanding of the role that the ADL has played in the civil-rights movement and in promoting bias education in recent decades can possibly take the statements from Mallory and Sarsour seriously. . . . However, in a leftist mindset in which intersectional theories that link worries about lingering racism in the United States with the war to destroy the Jewish state, even a liberal-[leaning] group like the ADL must be considered beyond the pale because of its willingness to stand up against anti-Semitism. . . .

At this point, anyone who chooses to work with Mallory and Sarsour is sanctioning Jew-hatred.

Contributing to the Jewish state’s current controversy over efforts to reform its judicial system, observes Peter Berkowitz, is its lack of a written constitution. Berkowitz encourages Israelis to seek a way out of the present crisis by looking to the founding document they do have: the Declaration of Independence.

The document does not explicitly mention “democracy.” But it commits Israel to democratic institutions not only by insisting on the equality of rights for all citizens and the establishment of representative government but also by stressing that Arab inhabitants would enjoy “full and equal citizenship.”

The Israeli Declaration of Independence no more provides a constitution for Israel than does the U.S. Declaration of Independence furnish a constitution for America. Both documents, however, announced a universal standard. In 1859, as civil war loomed, Abraham Lincoln wrote in a letter, “All honor to Jefferson—to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that to-day, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression.”

Something similar could be said about Ben Gurion’s . . . affirmation that Israel would be based on, ensure, and guarantee basic rights and fundamental freedoms because they are inseparable from our humanity.

Perhaps reconsideration of the precious inheritance enshrined in Israel’s Declaration of Independence could assist both sides in assuaging the rage roiling the country. Bold and conciliatory, the nation’s founding document promises not merely a Jewish state, or a free state, or a democratic state, but that Israel will combine and reconcile its diverse elements to form a Jewish and free and democratic state.