The National Interest Foundation Newsletter

Issue 242, June 28, 2024

Welcome to our NIF Newsletter. In this week’s edition, we examine the reasons behind Wikipedia editors labeling the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) as an unreliable source, analyze Congressman Bowman’s (D-NY) primary election loss and the unprecedented pro-Israel dark money spending against him, and explore how tensions in Lebanon have prompted fear of a potential widescale conflict involving the United States, Russia, and others.

---

The Reasons Behind Wikipedia Editors Labeling the Anti-Defamation League as an Unreliable Source

The Reasons Behind Wikipedia Editors Labeling the Anti-Defamation League as an Unreliable Source

A majority of Wikipedia editors have labeled the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) as an unreliable source on Israel and Palestine, as well as the issue of antisemitism. The group claims to be a nonpartisan organization that works to combat antisemitism and extremism without ideological bias. Yet, it has faced pressure from both sides of the political spectrum on an array of issues. Wikipedia’s recent questioning of ADL’s credibility started in April and consisted of over 120 volunteers who took part in debates over the organization’s reporting on matters surrounding Israel and Palestine. The decision by the Wikipedia editors places the ADL on a list of banned sources accompanied by other outlets such as Newsmax, the National Inquirer, and Infowars.

Through an online discussion forum, Wikipedia editors encouraged the notion that the group is deeply prejudiced and favors Israel by labeling valid criticism of the state and its actions as “antisemitism.” Editors noted the ADL’s track record of disparaging and attacking Palestinian civil rights movements, and assisting entities in spying on Arab-American groups. The organization has supported U.S. police training efforts in Israel as well. The ADL’s methodology has been criticized for how it classifies Zionism, the movement to establish a national Jewish homeland. Wikipedia editors also drew on controversial statements by ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt to justify the initiative. Greenblatt has supported the idea that anti-Zionism and credible criticism of Israel is a form of antisemitism. Anti-Zionist chants and slogans displayed at anti-war protests were classified as antisemitic by the ADL, despite the demonstrations and the movements behind it often being led and including the participation of progressive Jews. The ADL CEO previously claimed that student anti-war protests were surrogates of Iran and equated Palestinian keffiyeh head scarfs to the swastika. These statements have led Wikipedia editors to label Greenblatt as a “partisan actor,” instead of a neutral entity on the Israel-Palestine issue.

A leading editor from Wikipedia expressed that “The ADL is heavily biased regarding Israel/Palestine to the point of often acting as a pro-Israel lobbying organization.” A small number of editors argued that those who voted in favor of labeling ADL as unreliable have not provided sufficient evidence that the organization has made inaccurate claims due to its advocacy efforts, but the majority of the website’s editors disagreed with this notion. Greenblatt has attempted to contend that Wikipedia’s review process leading to the decision lacked clarity in a clear effort to undermine it, since the move is potentially extremely consequential to ADL’s reputation. Since the October 7th Hamas attacks, two-thirds of reported antisemitic incidents by the ADL were related to the Gaza War. The organization calculates the number of incidents to be 360% higher than the same period back in 2022. While there has certainly been a spike in antisemitism – in addition to anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hate crimes – since the onset of the Gaza War, this extremely large figure indicates a prejudiced focus on valid criticism of Israel and its actions by the ADL. In fact, the group even publicly acknowledged that it expanded its definition of antisemitism following the October 7th attacks in order to include language that was critical of Israel such as anti-Zionist chants and slogans.

There has been a clear correlation between widescale and growing international disapproval of Israel’s actions in Gaza and a concerted focus on conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism. Many of those who claim to be combatting antisemitism appear to be merely interested in silencing criticism towards Israel for its blatant human rights violations and war crimes. The harmful practice of labeling this as antisemitic can deter awareness regarding the serious injustices that Israeli is committing. This also gives biased defenders of Israel the ability to disempower and disparage peaceful movements aimed at drawing attention to these abuses. Furthermore, the fight against true antisemitism and discrimination is muddied by those who conflate it with valid criticism of Israel and its behavior.

A key challenge is balancing advocacy with trusted and reliable information. The ADL’s role as both an advocate and research organization bring into question its ability to produce fair and unbiased material on Israel or antisemitism. A highlighted problem of the ADL is that the narratives coming from the organization’s leadership do not always align with the messages coming from the research team. James Loeffler, a professor of modern Jewish history at Johns Hopkins University, outlines that the statements coming from the ADL’s leadership are “less disciplined” and challenges how precise their measurements are for detecting alleged instances of antisemitism. Wikipedia’s decision can be seen as a rumination of an evolving environment due to Israel’s destructive and highly-criticized War on Gaza, which the ADL has failed to adapt to. The war has brought about major complications and shifts to the international community’s viewpoints on the issue of Israel and Palestine. The conflict in Gaza has exacerbated the divide between groups, and this polarization over the war has made organizations’ stances potentially harmful to the perception of their fairness and objectivity.

Wikipedia editors’ attempt to distance themselves from the ADL may affect how other academic and advocacy organizations educate their followers on issues such as Israel-Palestine and antisemitism. The ADL has conveyed that it will continue its work, but the decision by Wikipedia will likely impact the ADL’s reputation and the flow of reliable information regarding the issue of Israel and Palestine to scholars, lawmakers, and the general public. This is especially the case since the organization has tried to cultivate a reputation of proficiency in the studying and tracking of antisemitic groups and threats.

Bowman’s Primary Election Loss and the Unprecedented Pro-Israel Dark Money Spending Against Him

Bowman’s Primary Election Loss and the Unprecedented Pro-Israel Dark Money Spending Against Him

United States Congressional primary elections are not typically one of the top stories of the news cycle, however, the race for New York’s 16th district has captured the attention of much of the nation. The Democratic primary between incumbent U.S. Representative Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) and challenger Westchester County Executive George Latimer captivated viewers not because of scandal over election rigging or lies either side had made about the other, but rather due to the record-breaking outside spending for a House primary race. The influx of historic levels of dark money flowing into campaigns by super PACs like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has caused many people to lament the amount of influence they have over our elections, especially considering that a plethora of the most sizable donations were made after a poll earlier this year revealed that Bowman trailed significantly in the polls, indicating a potential ulterior motive to attack a vulnerable candidate on AIPAC’s part. This has led some observers to ask if the unprecedented amount of spending AIPAC did on this election alone is just the beginning of a trend of possible intimidation techniques by these special interest groups towards lawmakers who legitimately criticize Israel’s actions.

Representative Bowman was relatively new to the congressional arena, having been elected in 2020 after beating seasoned AIPAC donor recipient and longtime Representative Eliot Engel. During Bowman’s first election, pro-Israel groups like AIPAC worked together to raise close to $2 million on Engel’s behalf. While the influx of funds certainly aided Engel’s campaign, Bowman had on his side the unrest that swept the United States that year as it dealt with the social justice awakening happening in the aftermath of the George Floyd murder at the hands of police. Endorsements from Congressional Members like U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) served as validators for those unsure of Bowman’s political legitimacy. Ultimately, his 2020 win was remarked as a step forward for the wave of new more progressive leaders within Congress.

This electoral cycle in particular, Israel and Palestine have been a hot-button issue which has given candidates supporters and adversaries on both sides of the aisle. Representative Bowman has not always been as big of a critic of Israeli policy as he is now, having voted to send close to $3.3 billion dollars in aid to Israel’s air defense system and co-sponsoring what many have referred to as the revitalizing bill to the Abraham Accords during his early days in office. However, in February 2022, after a trip to Israel and Palestine, Bowman’s stance changed. During it, Representative Bowman was allotted a glance into the horrors that children living in the illegally-occupied West Bank dealt with on a daily basis. In a post on X, Bowman, pictured with school children, remarked that “There are streets they cannot walk and places they cannot go, simply because they are Palestinian. When I asked about their dreams, their answer was simple: freedom. The occupation must end.” Upon his return, Bowman pulled his sponsorship of the bill supporting the Abraham Accords and helped co-sponsor legislation aimed at recognizing the Nakba. All of this left Bowman in strong standing among more progressive liberal party members, but also put him in a vulnerable spot with pro-Israel lobbying and interest groups, paving the way for pro-Israel PACs to funnel millions of dollars into a candidate to oppose Bowman. Enter AIPAC and George Latimer.

Latimer, a Westchester County native who currently serves as the County Executive, is no stranger to being supported by pro-Israel groups. Last year, the Westchester Jewish Council helped fund a solidarity trip to Israel for Latimer, who has voiced his staunch support for Israel and its efforts. This open support of Israel is what helped garner him the unprecedented and record-breaking House primary contribution from AIPAC. During this primary race cycle, Latimer received a massive close to $15 million in AIPAC funds. His campaign used this outside dark money to run efforts daily that sought to defame Bowman, even going as far as getting Elisha Wiesel – the son of writer and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel – to speak in an ad that implied Bowman was antisemitic. This all resulted in the race being the most expensive House primary election in the nation’s history.

In the end, AIPAC’s enormous injection of money seemed to have had an impact on the outcome of the election. Latimer was declared the winner on Tuesday evening, having captured approximately 58% of votes cast compared to around 42% amassed for Bowman, with 88% of the total votes processed. Following his defeat, Bowman took to the stage to deliver his concession remarks, apologizing for his profanity at an earlier rally in the lead-up to the election and stating that “We should be outraged when a super PAC of dark money gets fed $20 million to brainwash people into believing something that isn’t true…We should be outraged about that.”

The NY-16 Congressional race has drawn international attention, highlighting divisions within the Democratic Party, and the powerful and troublesome influence of dark money and special interest groups. Representative Jamaal Bowman’s shift towards a more critical stance on Israel drew in new pro-human rights supporters but also intensified opposition from pro-Israel factions. In contrast, George Latimer’s unwavering support for Israel garnered him record-breaking AIPAC funds for a House primary race. This election is a glaring example of the regrettable role of dark money in politics, and observers can expect this to continue to be the case so long as PACs and special interest groups are allowed to taint them with exorbitant sums of money.

Tensions in Lebanon Prompt Fear of a Potential Widescale Conflict Involving the U.S., Russia, and Others

Tensions in Lebanon Prompt Fear of a Potential Widescale Conflict Involving the U.S., Russia, and Others

Several nations stand on the precipice of ever-expanding conflict due to ongoing tensions between Israel and Hezbollah. Technological developments of the preceding decades and the evolution of a more globalized world that has tied countries together in intricate ways suggest that a larger-scale war such as this would be particularly devastating. Even without the use of nuclear armaments, a conflict of this nature could be catastrophic. The possible domino that is the Israel-Lebanon situation threatens to bring about a cascade of further escalation. As has been the case with many of the world’s major conflicts, one slight misstep or miscalculation might be all it takes. With Hezbollah making threats to lob missiles at Cyprus, an island nation in Europe’s backyard, Russian mercenaries and their rebel trainees in Syria, and an increase in U.S. naval activity in the area, the circumstances are very close to devolving for the worse.

Iran appears to be caught in the middle of these tensions, much like the U.S., and the outbreak of a full-scale war in southern Lebanon could strain its regional position. Additionally, the increased pressure on the U.S. and its allies that this conflict would cause may benefit Iran’s short-term political goals. Still, the complex network of relationships that Tehran has built up with these proxies would be at much greater risk of being dismantled and could undermine Iran’s own security. Should Hezbollah or Israel escalate their attacks, Russia too would have more interest in the conflict. It has so far been a patient observer content to let this pull U.S. interests and resources away, but this position has the potential to change dramatically. Russia and Hezbollah have reportedly been able to forge some form of a working relationship in Syria. They may have reason to become more overt in their aid to the group in order to oppose the United States’ position in the region.

According to experts and observers, what Israel is defining as “total victory” in Gaza is both unattainable and dangerous. The pursuit of this has been the basis for much of the suffering caused by Israeli forces, and the dire humanitarian circumstances facing so many Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Israeli officials exhibit no desire to halt their operations against Hamas, while at the same time, moving more and more troops to the northern border with Lebanon in preparation for a war with Hezbollah. These troop movements, coupled with Netanyahu’s unfounded claim that the Biden administration is withholding weapons and munitions, make it appear as though Israel is all but daring Hezbollah to confront it so as to fulfill its desire to continue its belligerent and destructive actions in Gaza. As Hezbollah engages in its rocket strikes as a pressure device to try and stop the ongoing Israeli assault on Gaza and reach a lasting ceasefire, continued escalations might lead to the largest expansion in conflict in recent decades. Should this happen, it would likely pull Iran and all of the militant groups that it backs into a loosely united coalition against Israel and, possibly by extension, the United States.

All of this comes at a pivotal moment in global affairs. With upcoming elections happening in both Iran and the United States, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu facing a mountain of legal and criminal woes in addition to civil discord, the situation could tumble out of control very quickly. Should the U.S. be pulled into a wider conflict, whether through a surge of material and economic support or going so far as to deploy combat units in the area, there is an inherent risk of yet another foreign policy failure. Furthermore, North Korea has recently signed a defense pact with Russia. This comes as no surprise, considering their crucial role in supplying the invading nation with the munitions that have been raining down on the Ukrainian countryside for well over two years now. This new pact seems to have emboldened North Korean Dictator Kim Jong Un, as he has issued warnings of “a new world war” over U.S. involvement in Ukraine. This type of saber-rattling is nothing new, and is certainly expected after the new defense agreement between North Korea and Russia, however, new troop movements appear to show North Korean soldiers acting with a new boldness and working in and around the DMZ to lay mines. This development has raised concerns with many South Korean observers, and North Korea’s lack of fear of retaliation, combined with their historical agenda of ‘retaking’ the South, is certainly cause enough for those concerns.

Should the United States become stretched with one or multiple of these many competing agendas, the chances that China will pursue the militaristic capture of Taiwan will increase dramatically. China has been preparing for just such an endeavor for a long time. Between the constant air and sea harassment and the development of three island bases nearby, it has the potential to devastate the island nation in very little time. Even with the support of American naval personnel and the training provided by American special forces, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) dwarfs the Taiwanese military. With all of this, the world is at a tipping point – one that looks all too familiar to the previous ones that led to the world wars of the 20th century. Only this time, the stakes are higher, the weapons are deadlier, and the existential threats of climate change and nuclear war hang over it all. It is not too late to pull it back, but it will take significant commitments to peace and compromise. The United States and its allies must work hard to bridge the divisions that run through today’s quagmire of political unrest and establish a lasting peace that will allow the nations of the world to overcome the many challenges faced without the escalation of the current conflicts.