The Decline of B'nai B'rith: From Protector to Persecutor

By Rachelle Marshall

Extremist groups have no monopoly on racist appeals. B'nai B'rith is the world's oldest and largest Jewish service organization. Founded in 1943, it sponsors Hillel chapters on college campuses across the country, and through its Anti-Defamation League has become known as a champion of human rights. This winter, however, B'nai B'rith sent out a letter signed by its president, Seymour D. Reich, that warned of a "well-organized campaign" of anti-Semitism by Arabs, and charged that "the Arab presence on the college campus is poisoning the minds of young people."

When a recipient in Northern California brought the letter to the attention of the Santa Clara County chapter of New Jewish Agenda and the Hillel chapter at Stanford University, both organizations sent letters of protest to B'nai B'rith officials. In response to a phone call, a spokesperson at B'nai B'rith's Washington headquarters said the letter had been a "mistake" and that it had been replaced after 14,000 were sent out.

On Feb. 9 the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee held a press conference in Washington, DC, at which ADC's President Abdeen Jabara said that although the executive vice president of B'nai B'rith had apologized for the letter, ADC wanted a total repudiation of its "anti-Arab thrust." A column in the Stanford Daily by senior student Mitch Steinberger compared the B'nai B'rith letter to hate mail aimed at Jews, blacks, and Asian Americans. He praised B'nai B'rith for its long history of fighting prejudice but concluded that although "we have made tremendous strides in our attempts to eradicate bigotry, still that demon plagues every society on earth." B'nai B'rith's communication director, Art Shulman, dismissed the Stanford Daily column by commenting to a San Francisco Chronicle reporter: "Exams must be over and some students have a lot of time on their hands."

For the past several years B'nai B'rith has shifted its emphasis from protecting the rights of Jews and other minorities to shielding the government of Israel from all criticism. It has become a vigilante group, attempting to stifle legitimate debate and arouse hostility against Arabs.

Shulman's remark suggests how far B'nai B'rith has come from it's days as a defender of human rights. For the past several years B'nai B'rith has shifted its emphasis from protecting the rights of Jews and other minorities to shielding the government of Israel from all criticism. It has become a vigilante group, attempting to stifle legitimate debate and arouse hostility against Arabs.

In November 1978, for instance, when ABC-TV planned to run a documentary on the Palestine Liberation Organization, network officials complained that the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith had launched a campaign to keep the program off the air, even though the documentary included the Israeli point of view and disavowed any sympathy for the PLO. As a result, the network eliminated all references to then Prime Minister Menachem Begin's past activities as a terrorist.

Prominent individuals who criticize Israeli government policies or advocate a compromise settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been special targets of attack by B'nai B'rith. One of these is former Congressman Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey, who has steadfastly supported guarantees of Israel's security but urges recognition of Palestinian national rights as well, a position B'nai B'rith finds intolerable. In March 1983 ADL sent an 11-page memorandum to all its regional directors containing quotations from McCloskey's speeches and letters to constituents. The covering letter referred to his "vituperation" against Jews and asked local ADL branches to let the central office know of any planned visit by McCloskey "so that we may assist you with whatever additional counteraction guidance is required."

Later that year, when McCloskey was invited to teach a course on congressional decision-making at Stanford, a small group of Jewish students in the student government tried to sabotage the course by cutting off funds for his study materials. Their action prompted Stanford Provost Albert Hastorf to apologize publicly to McCloskey for "infringements on your academic freedom," whereupon ADL wrote a letter to Stanford protesting the apology and charging McCloskey with anti-Semitism.

B'nai B'rith made a more sweeping attack on academic freedom in 1984 when it distributed a list of scholars it described as "pro-Arab propagandists" who "use their anti-Zionism as a guise for deeply felt anti-Semitism." The 16-page list caused the Middle East Studies Association to pass a resolution condemning its "false, vague, or unsubstantiated accusations." The MESA resolution also protested B'nai B'rith's "call for boycotting individuals and academic classes, harassment, or ostracism," saying these activities could lead to intimidation.

After Anthony Lewis, who is Jewish, attacked the B'nai B'rith blacklist in his New York Times column, the organization reportedly assigned researchers to comb Lewis' writing for evidence of anti-Israel bias.

Pressure Denies Professor Tenure

Another assaultby B'nai B'rith on academic freedom resulted in the firing of a professor atNew York State University at Stony Brook. When Ernest Dube, a black South African professor of African studies, came up for tenure in 1985 he was approved by all the relevant academic committees but turned down at the administrative level, with no reason given. The reason was clear, however. In 1983 Jewish groups complained about Dube after he listed Zionism as a form of racism in one of his course outlines. The university's academic senate investigated the charges of anti-Semitism against Dube and dismissed them as baseless. But the day after the senate's decision, the regional director of ADL raised the issue with Gov. Mario Cuomo, and two weeks later Cuomo issued a statement condemning Dube for "intellectual dishonesty" in linking Zionism with racism.

Under the Reagan administration, the B'nai B'rith used its position as an opponent of anti-Semitism to further administration policy in Central America. In 1983, in response to a White House campaign to label Nicaragua's Sandinista government as anti-Semitic, ADL came up with a report accusing the Sandinistas of persecuting Jews. The report turned out to be based on testimony by two Jewish exiles from Nicaragua who had worked for the Somoza regime before its overthrow. The report was totally repudiated by observers from the United Nations, Americas Watch, the Organization of American States, and by the US ambassador to Nicaragua.

The ADL also played a key role in attempts to deport seven Palestinian residents of Los Angeles in 1987 on charges they supported the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The arrests were made after the ADL conducted an investigation of the seven and turned the findings over to the FBI. At their trial, the government came up with no evidence of subversive activity, and last Dec. 22 a federal judge ruled in the Palestinians' favor.

It is disquieting that a once-respected human rights organization is now in the business of suppressing dissent. But it is even more disturbing to realize that Seymour D. Reich, the man who signed the letter defaming Arabs, has just moved up from the presidency of B'nai B'rith to become head of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Ironically, Reich's first official act in his new job was to condemn the State Department's recent report criticizing Israel for massive and continuing human rights abuses against Palestinians. "Israel has made every effort to act decently and fairly," deadpanned the man who until recently had headed B'nai B'rith, an organization that once claimed to support human rights for all people.

Rachelle Marshall is a free-lance editor living in Stanford, CA. She is a member of New Jewish Agenda and writes frequently on the Middle East.