In a world where anti-Semitism grows with bold impunity—from college campuses to United Nations chambers—one would expect organizations founded to defend Jews to do exactly that: defend Jews. Not just in America, but wherever Jewish life is under threat. Most especially in the only Jewish state, Israel.
Yet, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), once a bastion against anti-Semitism, has evolved—or devolved—into a distinctly American liberal political lobby. Today, it prioritizes progressive ideological crusades over the concrete security of the Jewish people and the ideals of Jewish nationalism.
It has actually named TPUSA, Charlie Kirk's organization, 'extremist', triggering condemnation, with hard words of criticism even from Elon Musk.
The ADL has thus effectively become another mouthpiece of the woke American left, adopting every progressive cause under the sun—from open borders to gun control to intersectional victimhood politics. It has traded Jewish particularism for universalist abstraction. It has substituted strength for apologies. And perhaps most dangerous of all, it is a regular, often and loud critic of Israel’s current government—one that was democratically elected by millions of Israeli Jews—simply because that government refuses to bow to the norms of globalist orthodoxy or New York Times op-eds.
This is not a new betrayal, but it is a deepening one. And it comes from the ADL, headquartered in NYC which is on the verge of electing a pro-Hamas Mayor in their front yard, something they should be fighting and are not.
Liberalism Above Zionism
The modern ADL is not a Zionist organization in any meaningful sense. It may use the word “Zionism” to defend itself against accusations of anti-Israel bias, but in practice, its loyalties lie not with the Jewish people’s sovereign homeland but with the dogmas of the American left. It supports a “two-state solution” not as a theoretical endpoint or a future possibility, but as a moral imperative, even when the facts on the ground—rampant terrorism, jihadist incitement, rejectionism—render it dangerous and delusional. The ADL preaches “compromise” and hosts dialogues with Muslim clerics as they boycott the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and call the Jabotinsky movement radical extremists.
The ADL frequently denounces Israel’s right-wing elected government as “extremist,” “authoritarian,” or even “anti-democratic.” It uses the same lexicon as Israel’s enemies, parroting phrases that delegitimize not only Israeli policies but the very legitimacy of Israeli democracy when it chooses leaders who do not conform to progressive values. This hostility toward Israel's right is not incidental—it is ideological. The ADL supports liberalism first, and Jewish interests second. Its opposition to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government is about the fundamental fact that Israel has embraced a post-liberal identity rooted in Jewish sovereignty, tradition, and strength. To the ADL, this is heresy.
The ADL and the Two-State Mirage
The ADL’s unyielding devotion to the so-called “two-state solution” is the clearest indication that it lives in a fantasy world of the Oslo-era. For decades, Israel has tried to make peace with a Palestinian Arab leadership that has answered every offer with violence. Israel withdrew from Gaza—only to receive October 7th in return. It offered unprecedented concessions—only to be met with rejection. And yet, the ADL continues to speak of “Palestinian statehood” as a noble goal, as if peace is only a matter of Israeli generosity.
This blind commitment is not merely misguided—it is dangerous. A "Palestinian state" under current conditions would not be a peaceful neighbor but a terrorist launching pad. The ADL’s advocacy for this policy seems to trust the goodwill of enemies more than the judgment of fellow Jews.
In promoting the two-state solution as an ideological litmus test, the ADL effectively casts Israel’s security-driven concerns as moral failings. The Jewish state’s refusal to endanger itself for the sake of Western approval is treated as a sin. In the eyes of the ADL, Israel is acceptable only if it is weak, apologetic, and forever on the defensive.
Open Borders, Closed Minds
The ADL’s abandonment of Jewish national interest is not confined to Israel. In America, it champions an open-borders immigration policy that erodes the very national identity it claims to protect. One might expect a Jewish organization—especially one founded in response to antisemitism—to understand the risks of current demographic upheaval, identity loss, and cultural dilution. Yet the ADL has become a leading voice in attacking efforts to enforce immigration laws or protect borders, painting all restriction as xenophobia and bigotry.
Mass immigration from societies steeped in anti-Semitic norms has contributed to the meteoric rise in Jew-hatred in America and Europe. Radical Islamist ideology, not white nationalism, has become the leading source of Jewish-targeted violence in many Western cities. Yet the ADL continues to focus disproportionately on white supremacy—wherever it exists, however marginal—while downplaying or ignoring the ideological threats that emerge from unassimilated immigrant communities.
In the ADL’s world, the greatest threat to Jews comes from the political right, and any facts that contradict that narrative are inconvenient—and thus ignored.
Anti-Gun, Anti-Security
The ADL also proudly supports restrictive gun control policies that leave law-abiding citizens defenseless in the face of growing threats. This position is not just ideologically blind; it is historically illiterate. Jewish history—especially in the Diaspora—is full of examples of helplessness in the face of violence. One would imagine that a people so often persecuted would cherish the right to self-defense.
In the United States, as in Israel, security is not a luxury. It is a necessity. Synagogues have been attacked. Jews have been beaten in the streets of major cities. And yet, the ADL’s answer is not empowerment, not preparedness, but more dependence on the state—on police, on prosecutors, on the same institutions that have often failed Jews in times of need.
In Israel, the right to bear arms is tightly regulated and America would do well to do the same, but when terror strikes, it is often armed civilians who neutralize the threat. The lesson is clear: in a world that increasingly permits violence against Jews, Jews must be capable of defending themselves. The ADL rejects this lesson. Its vision of safety is passive, reliant on the benevolence of others. It offers Jews moral lectures instead of means of protection.
The ADL’s War on the Jewish Right
Make no mistake: the ADL is aggressively hostile to anything or anyone who falls to the right of center. It regularly publishes reports and statements targeting conservative figures, media outlets, and policies as “hateful” or “dangerous.” It conflates opposition to illegal immigration with racism, criticism of Islamism with Islamophobia, and defense of Western civilization with white supremacy.
This is not a defense of Jewish values. It is the policing of political discourse to enforce a narrow ideological orthodoxy.
And increasingly, it has turned its sights on Zionists—those who believe in a strong, sovereign, unapologetic Jewish state. The kind of Zionists who believe that Hebron belongs to the Jewish people. The kind who understand that Jewish self-determination sometimes means saying “no” to the demands of the gentile world.
These are the Jews who are defiant. They will not apologize for their existence. They will not be bullied into silence. They will not trade truth for approval.
The ADL's transformation is not an accident. It is the inevitable result of choosing liberalism over Judaism, of adopting universalism over nationalism. It is the price of chasing relevance in elite circles while abandoning the grassroots concerns of real Jews. It is what happens when Jewish defense is outsourced to those who see Jewish power as an embarrassment, and Jewish assertiveness as extremism.
For the ADL, Jewish safety is acceptable—but Jewish strength is not. A Jewish people that is tolerated is good; a Jewish people that is feared is bad. In this view, the problem is not anti-Semitism—it is the reaction to it. Not terror—but the “settler.” Not the mob—but the soldier.
The organization still claims to fight anti-Semitism, and it sometimes does—but only when it can do so in ways that reinforce its broader progressive narrative. It monitors the “far right” but turns a blind eye to radical leftist anti-Zionism or Islamist hate—unless public pressure forces its hand.
A Call for Clarity
The time has come for the Jewish people to stop confusing liberalism with loyalty. Organizations like the ADL do not represent the future of Jewish security or identity. They represent an era in decline—a time when Jews survived by assimilating, apologizing, and accommodating. That era is over.
Today, Jewish safety depends on strength. Jewish survival depends on sovereignty. And Jewish dignity depends on the refusal to be defined by others. The reborn State of Israel is the embodiment of that principle. The ADL denies that.
If there is one lesson to learn from our history, it is that the world respects Jews who respect themselves—and fears Jews who defend themselves.
Ronn Torossian is an Israeli-American who serves as Vice Chair of Betar Worldwide and a Board Member of the Jabotinsky Institute. He maintains offices in the Metzudat Zeev building, the Tel Aviv based historical site where the Jabotinsky movement is headquartered, including PM Netanyahu’s personal office.