More Explication on the ADL (posted by DT)

I've had some discussions with friends recently about the "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy, and find myself quite firmly in the minority among my liberal and Jewish cohort. I want to explain a bit about what really gets me ginned up here:

The Anti Defamation League statement (read it here- it's short: http://www.adl.org/PresRele/CvlRt_32/5820_32.htm) is not a racist diatribe. It gives respect to the US Constitution and accepts that Muslims can build their community center wherever they wish. But it concludes that the building of the center is "not right" because it "will cause some victims more pain". OK, so the statement has some balance.

But here's the thing: the ADL is not a disinterested observer. This isn't like talking at a cocktail party about your opinion. The ADL's mission is to combat prejudice. At the top of their website is a line that says, in full: "To Stop the defamation of the Jewish people... to secure justice and fair treatment to all". Now if the American Psychological Association released a statement talking about the damage to victims of trauma, that would be one thing- their mission is about healing people. The ADL's mission is about justice ...for all. It's an organization dedicated to this one thing. When the ADL stands against Muslim Americans in this kind of matter, the organization forfeits its credibility in advocating for Jews. It becomes just another interest group advocating for Jews. It has to base its arguments on what's fair to Jews, but can't speak with credibility about universal themes of freedom and justice. If Abe Foxman wants to give money as a private citizen to an organization that opposes the Park51 project, he can do so, but as Director of the ADL such a stance just doesn't fit the mission.

I'm still seething about this. Why aren't more of us?