It's simple, ADL: It's either justice for all, or else it's not
Advocating severing ties with the Anti-Defamation League is emotional rhetoric expressing anti-injustice and not anti-Semitism.
In reading the article "Hard to forget: Debate over ADL stance unleashes painful memories" (Globe NorthWest, Nov. 1), I felt sorry that anyone is left with the latter impression.
Any organization that supports universal concepts but for political reasons practices selectivity cannot help but be suspect and have the intent of its programs questioned.
ADL appears to have a distinct bias that speaks against the very program it is advocating. What I believe many Armenian groups and Jewish groups are saying is that either one believes in justice for all, or one doesn't believe in justice for all.
To put on a universal hat and preach selectivity can be construed as promoting injustice; at the least it is dishonest and misleading.
ANN HABLANIAN
Watertown
In dumping No Place for Hate, a rush to judgment
Congratulations to you and your reporter, Penny Schwartz, on the sensitively reported article "Hard to Forget: Debate over ADL stance unleashes painful memories" (Globe NorthWest, Nov. 1).
According to the story, one of your interviewees claims that we are all better for having to face the question of the ADL's position on the Armenian genocide.
I would have agreed several months ago. But since then, communities have destroyed their No Place for Hate programs despite the national ADL's change in policy and decision to take up the matter at its November meeting.
The ADL's prior stand on the Armenian genocide came not from a hatred of Armenians, but from a concern for the welfare of Jewish people living in Israel and Turkey. It is distressing that many activists refused to acknowledge the poignancy of the ADL's motives, however wrong-headed its conclusions.
The dedicated people of Lexington's NPFH steering committee came out loud and clear against the national ADL. Their proven record of profoundly great work entitled them - and our community - to the courtesy of a few more weeks for a final ADL decision.
Instead, we saw activists who were denied access to an NPFH steering committee meeting accusing NPFH of violating open meeting laws - laws which, in fact, did not apply. In this way, they manufactured a phony scandal in an attempt to smear a group of citizens who, for seven years, served Lexington with distinction and undeniable integrity.
The opposite of genocide is reasonableness and compassion. I see neither in the rhetoric of some activists or in the premature decisions of our communities to end their NPFH programs. So how, exactly, are we better off?
JERI ZEDER
Lexington
11/08 Boston Globe: Letters to the Editor
