ADL Staffers Dissented After CEO Compared Palestinian Rights Groups to Right-Wing Extremists, Leaked Audio Reveals

A special meeting called to answer internal critics shows that the ADL’s vocal opposition to the anti-Zionist left is controversial even within the organization.

Mari Cohen and Alex Kane
March 8, 2023
greenblatt at the adl

ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt at the organization’s National Leadership Summit in 2018.

Michael Brochstein/Sipa via AP Images

The Anti-Defamation League made waves last May when, in a major speech at the organization’s national leadership summit, CEO Jonathan Greenblatt announced that the ADL would devote more energy to combating anti-Zionism. “Anti-Zionism is antisemitism,” he said, promising that the ADL would apply “more concentrated energy toward the threat of radical anti-Zionism” through lawsuits, research, and lobbying. He described Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)—all of which advocate for Palestinian rights—as “extremist” and the “photo inverse of the extreme right,” and implicated them in a rise in antisemitic hate crimes.

But inside the ADL, employees questioned the new approach to anti-Zionist organizations, according to audio recently obtained by Jewish Currents from an internal Zoom meeting held shortly after Greenblatt’s speech. (The transcript is printed below, in full.) Greenblatt’s hosting of a special meeting to pacify internal critics signifies that the organization’s vocal opposition to the anti-Zionist left is controversial even within an organization that has long been committed to Israel advocacy.

In the virtual meeting, held a week after Greenblatt’s speech on anti-Zionism, he appeared to allude to disagreements within the organization, acknowledging that staff had “a lot of questions” about the ADL’s new policies and that some people were “concerned” about his remarks. “If you disagree with something at ADL . . . we want to hear that,” he said. ”This was never intended to be a monolithic entity.” But Greenblatt also stressed throughout the meeting that if employees had major disagreements with his positions on the question of anti-Zionism and antisemitism, the ADL might not be the right place for them to work. “[If] you still feel like you can’t square the fact that anti-Zionism is antisemitism, then maybe this isn’t the place for you,” he said.

During the meeting, Greenblatt answered several questions from staff members. At points, he seemed to slightly temper the assertions he had made in the speech—acknowledging, for example, that calling leftist anti-Zionist groups the “photo inverse” of the white-nationalist right was more of a rhetorical flourish than a statement of fact. But he reiterated his strong condemnation of anti-Zionism: “The impact that [the philosophy of anti-Zionism] generates is one in which Jews are targeted [and] are more vulnerable,” he said.

Greenblatt’s May speech was cheered by Israel advocates. ”I’ve gotten a lot of emails from people and text messages from people [saying] ‘Thank you for what you said . . . that spoke to me,’” Greenblatt said at the meeting. But it also drew significant backlash from progressives, including the publication of an open letter signed by 200 Jewish rabbis, writers, and activists arguing that Greenblatt had “defame[d] grassroots and civil rights organizations committed to Palestinian justice and falsely conflate[d] anti-Zionism with far-right and violent extremism.”

Lara Friedman, president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, said that even if Greenblatt is drawing some distinction between anti-Zionists and violent white nationalists, he is affirming that “because you don’t support the establishment of a Jewish ethno-religious state at the expense of Palestinians, you are ipso facto responsible for what actual antisemites do and say.” Friedman said this is “intellectually dishonest,” as it’s “predicated on the premise that there exist no legitimate reasons for rejection of Zionism that are unrelated to hatred of Jews, and morally indefensible logic because it cheapens and politicizes the very concept of antisemitism, equating legitimate viewpoints and non-violent protest with groups who are motivated by unabashed hatred of Jewish people.” (For his part, Greenblatt insisted during the meeting that “we will always be principled and not political, despite what the critics say.”)

The existence of the meeting and the questions asked suggest that some ADL staffers feel that the organization’s dogged commitment to Zionism and Israel undermines its ability to build coalitions with other groups—a necessity for its civil rights work. One question posed to Greenblatt argued that his “absolutist language” was “hurt[ing]” the ADL’s “natural allies in the fight against antisemitism.” A former senior ADL staffer who requested anonymity to protect their professional standing said that the ADL is “mired in an identity crisis.” It “sees itself as committed to a vision of civil rights,” they said, but also “perhaps predominantly so, as a pro-Israel advocacy organization. These two things are rooted in different values.” In response to a request for comment from Jewish Currents about this argument, an ADL spokesperson said “there’s no identity crisis at ADL . . . There’s nothing inconsistent with being a pro-Israel organization that fights antisemitism and hatred in all forms, while also working ‘to secure justice and fair treatment to all’ by fighting hatred against other marginalized groups. As Jonathan has noted, we believe, strongly, that you cannot separate the fight for civil rights from the fight for the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland.”

The May 2022 meeting is not the first time evidence of internal conflict within the ADL has surfaced. In 2021, Jewish Currents reported on how Greenblatt had come into conflict with the ADL’s civil rights office over legislation targeting criticism of Israel, choosing repeatedly to privilege Israel advocacy over the protection of civil liberties. Internal dissent has also arisen over the ADL’s practice of organizing delegations of law enforcement officials to Israel for meetings with Israeli security forces. Last year, Jewish Currents obtained a memo revealing that senior ADL employees recommended to Greenblatt that the organization end those delegations because of fears that the programs could exacerbate police militarization.

In last year’s staff meeting, Greenblatt acknowledged that “there may be some people who might take their Zionism to a degree that I wouldn’t agree with,” but stressed that “Zionism is a liberation movement” based on the “simple idea” that the “Jewish people have the right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland,” and rejected the idea that it is discriminatory or “privilege[s]” Jewish rights over others. He also said that “you can be pro-Palestinian without being anti-Zionist,” and that he “like[s] to think of myself as someone who is pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian.”

In the meeting, Greenblatt fielded questions—which were submitted via digital chat by employees and then read aloud by a moderator—about whether groups like SJP, JVP, and CAIR could really be equated with right-wing antisemitic white nationalists. Greenblatt doubled down, saying that even though members of those groups don’t have guns and didn’t participate in the January 6th insurrection, they “endanger Jewish people, just like right-wing extremists.” “I hope we can all understand that these movements don’t need to be causing equitable . . . impact . . . for them both to be bad and both to be called out,” he said. Employees challenged Greenblatt to define terms like anti-Zionism and intifada—a reference to Palestinian uprisings against Israeli rule. In response to a question about whether Greenblatt was “diluting” or “changing” what the term “extremism” means, the CEO argued that anti-Zionist slogans like “Globalize the Intifada” should be considered a call for violence against Israelis. Asked whether Jewish anti-Zionists are antisemitic, Greenblatt said that anyone who denies “the rights of Jews to a homeland” was embracing an antisemitic idea, though he added that it was understandable that a Palestinian family “displaced from their village in 1948” would not be “cheering for the State of Israel.” He also said that while he appreciates that those joining JVP or SJP may do so out of a commitment to justice for Palestinians, “that doesn’t relieve someone from responsibility for the impact that anti-Zionism has in the real world,” which he characterized as “Jews being targeted and victimized.”

“Greenblatt intentionally misrepresents what anti-Zionism stands for. [He] pretends to care about the pain of Palestinian refugees, all while pledging to harass and criminalize Palestinians struggling for freedom,” said executive director of JVP Stefanie Fox after reviewing Greenblatt’s comments in the ADL meeting. The National Students for Justice in Palestine Steering Committee, which also reviewed Greenblatt’s comments, said that “rather than combating [authoritarianism and racism] and organizing for genuine social justice, the ADL has leveraged Islamophobia, anti-Arab sentiment, and conservatism to delegitimize the movement for Palestine liberation.” An ADL spokesperson said that the group “draws a distinction between legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies and anti-Zionism,” while adding that “criticism of Israeli government policies is not antisemitic.”

It’s unclear whether Greenblatt’s speech has led to any fundamental changes in the ADL’s policy. “I don’t anticipate the way that we do our jobs day-to-day is going to change because of my speech,” Greenblatt said at the May meeting. An ADL spokesperson told Jewish Currents that condemning anti-Israel rhetoric that “delegitimizes Israel, or crosses into antisemitism” is “not a new policy.” In their questions, employees appeared concerned about how Greenblatt’s anti-Zionism speech might affect policy. Greenblatt was asked about whether his speech meant that the ADL would include anti-Zionist incidents in the group’s annual report on antisemitic incidents in the US. “We already do,” he said, if anti-Zionist rhetoric includes “antisemitic tropes.” Questioned about whether his speech meant that the ADL would call on law enforcement groups to scrutinize JVP and SJP, Greenblatt said “we’re not saying that law enforcement needs to worry about an armed threat from SJP,” and emphasized that white supremacists pose a “singular threat.” Asked whether he was calling for anti-Zionist organizations to be “deplatformed,” the CEO said he doesn’t believe in “cancel culture,” but that if the offending behavior persists despite attempts to stop it, anti-Zionist groups need to face “consequences.” Greenblatt also fielded a question about whether the ADL’s “absolutist language” would harm the organization’s ability to work in coalition with other groups to fight antisemitism. He responded that it wouldn’t help the organization’s allies if “we’re soft stepping this hate,” and that ultimately, the ADL’s “core” mission is more important than coalition-building.

At times during the meeting, Greenblatt appeared frustrated with his staff’s dissension. He said employees “talking to reporters” or leaking documents to the press went against the ADL’s “values” and hurt “our ability to deliver on our mission.” He stressed that he was responding to a segment of the community that was receptive to his approach to anti-Zionism. While there were many questions in the chat, he said, there were also “a lot of other people” among the ADL’s constituency who “have said to me . . . ‘yeah, this is actually what I want to hear.’ . . . Again, our goal here is to serve the community—not to serve ourselves, but to serve them.”

When asked directly if staff who do not believe that anti-Zionism is antisemitism would be “welcome at the ADL,” Greenblatt implied that those unconvinced by his arguments might not be a fit for the organization: “If you’re hearing what I’m saying, and you just don’t agree with it, you think it’s okay to deny Jews their rights, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with saying, ‘You know what, I don’t think this is the right place for me.’” One former ADL executive, who also requested anonymity to protect their professional standing, said Greenblatt’s suggestion that disagreements over Zionism should prompt employees to leave was a new posture for the organization. Previously, “to believe that Zionism was problematic was not a welcome position. But it was a little bit like ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ You could talk about it with other colleagues who you knew felt this way, but it was really clear where you wouldn’t talk about it, and to whom you wouldn’t talk about it,” the former executive said. “It sounds like Jonathan is willing to make it a litmus test. [Before], it was not an official litmus test, or at least it wasn’t one that was invoked.” An ADL spokesperson disagreed, telling Jewish Currents “there is no litmus test and employees were not directed to leave” and the organization provides “ample room for employees’ concerns to be heard.” At the same time, the spokesperson said that “we expect our employees to carry out our mission and positions. If an employee decides they cannot do this, then they should leave.”

Greenblatt stressed in his address to his staff, “the ADL is a Zionist organization. We will never apologize for this. This fact will never change.” Still, the questions asked in the meeting suggests that some ADL staffers remain uneasy with the organization’s insistence on prioritizing Zionism, especially as the Israeli government continues to entrench its repressive rule over Palestinians. “I think there’s a recognition that the [ADL’s] hardline position on Israel is unwilling to accommodate the reality of the changing politics of Israel and the immense strain that Israel’s democracy is under,” said the former senior ADL staffer. “Morale is low—there’s discontent about this particular approach.”


Moderator 1: Terrific. Thank you and good afternoon. Happy Tuesday to everybody. It is a beautiful day here. I hope you’re all having a fine May 10th, wherever you are. This weekend, I had the incredible fortune to celebrate my mother’s 64th Mother’s Day. And I know several people on this call had the indescribable joy of celebrating their very first Mother’s Day this weekend. So, I want to give one more shout out to all the mothers who we celebrated this weekend, whether it was your first, your 64th, or somewhere in between.

All right. Since Jonathan’s speech at NLS [the National Leadership Summit] about anti-Zionism, there’s been a lot of discussion within ADL. Staff have shared opinions, they’ve asked questions, they’ve provided feedback, and they’ve done it in a variety of forums. That’s all good, and it’s healthy. So today, we want to continue the conversation by giving you direct access to Jonathan. He wants to hear from you, he wants to know what you’re thinking, and he wants to answer your questions. Now, we’re going to have a more traditional all-hands meeting after Memorial Day. That will give us an opportunity to discuss other subjects that are on your minds, as well as to acknowledge service anniversaries and share information and updates about ADL, as we always do.

Today, we’ve got a somewhat more limited focus. Now, in the spirit of transparency, I want to explain today’s format. You will be able to ask questions via chat. Only Jonathan and a few members of the senior team will be able to see your comments or your questions. Your colleagues will not see what you write, and we will not identify who asked a question or made a comment when responded to. So why, why did we do that? Why did we select that format? So, first, we wanted everybody to really be able to focus on Jonathan and his responses to your questions and comments and not be distracted by what’s going on in the chat with [the] back and forth. At least I find that very distracting. We also wanted to provide a measure of confidentiality, in case you prefer to comment without identifying yourself to your colleagues. And finally, we wanted to keep things simple and not have to deal with two sources of incoming comments. So we’re not using Slido. We’re just going to focus on the chat. I also want to make sure everybody knows that we are not recording today’s session. And with that, I will pass things back to [Moderator 2], so we can start to hear your questions and your comments.

Moderator 2: All right. Thank you. So I think, uh, with no further ado, I would like to turn things over to Jonathan, Jonathan? There we go.

Jonathan Greenblatt: Okay, great.

Moderator 2: All right.

Greenblatt: So first of all, I want to just thank [Moderator 2] for facilitating this conversation. And for [Moderator 1], those, I think, helpful words that help to frame how we’re going to do the session today. I want to thank everyone for coming together on fairly short notice. And I recognize that all of you have packed days, and all of you are trying to squeeze so much in. Many of you are still working from home and juggling what it means to be a caregiver to children or to elderly parents or to other family and friends. And so I appreciate people making this a priority. And I really . . . You know, this came together because we did have, indeed, this all-hands meeting on deck in a couple of weeks. But in talking to [senior leadership] last week, I said let’s do the all-hands meeting right away. Because I know there are a lot of questions after last week, and I want to make sure I’m able to address them.

So just to set the stage here a little bit today . . . um . . . you know, it’s funny. I was doing a session with a company earlier today. And they said to me, you know, what have been your career choices? How did you, who’ve done different things throughout your career, make your decisions? I think, like many of you, the decisions that I’ve made throughout my career have been to try to change the world. I didn’t come to ADL just to have a job. I committed to a journey, right? I committed to being part of one team. I committed to having world-changing impact at this legacy institution. And so for me, this has been, in many ways, the pinnacle of my career. And we are trying to play a long game here at ADL, focusing on world-changing results, focusing on transformative work.

But let’s be clear, the times we are in are fraught. Our audit that we just released two weeks ago revealed the highest number of antisemitic incidents we have ever tracked ever in our history. That is extraordinary. We know that that happens against the backdrop of a higher number of hate crimes facing other communities at the same time. And we know over these last five, six going on plus years [sic], that our democracy itself . . . The fragility of our democratic system has been exposed, and the vulnerability of our institutions has been revealed. So, these threats of antisemitism, other forms of hate, to our democracy, like . . . This is complicated. And so, this journey that I think we’re all on together is not easy. And sometimes it can be frustrating. And sometimes it happens in fits and starts. It’s definitely exhausting. And it can be exhilarating at times, too. But it’s . . . I want to just acknowledge that I know that it isn’t easy. And I know that creates pressure and stress on all of us. But I think fundamental to the work is we’ve all got to be on the same team. So I want to talk about team and culture today, but I really want to do that through the prism of the remarks—to make sure that I’m clear about why we are where we are.

So first of all, I think it’s just worth appreciating the enormous impact I think we’ve had in recent years, as we really transitioned from being purely about antisemitism to really our positioning about being anti-hate. Being anti-hate doesn’t just encompass antisemitism, but being anti-hate . . . Which you can see from our tagline, from so many of our programs, from so many of our policies, from so much of our advocacy, I mean, this is essential to our integrated mission. But being anti-hate obligates us to center our work on fighting antisemitism and anti-Jewish intolerance. Antisemitism has been, as Eric Ward from Western States Center has written about, it is the beating heart of white nationalism in America and, really, hate throughout the history of Western civilization. So, the integrated mission recognizes that it has never been and never will be only about antisemitism.

Our mission obligates us to pursue justice and fair treatment to all, but fighting antisemitism is what our core constituents need and where the world primarily looks to us for leadership. You know, and to invoke Hillel, if I’m not for myself, who am I? So we will continue to draw the link between the fight against the Jewish minority and the fight against all minorities. We will continue to draw out that link, but our anti-hate work will really be centered in fighting antisemitism. That isn’t new, but I think I need to reaffirm that commitment.

I need to reaffirm for you that we will always be principled and not political, despite what the critics say or the claims that they make. Regardless of how polarized our society is, we will be unapologetically and forcefully nonpartisan. And again, I think that is becoming increasingly unusual. And it’s become even unacceptable in some quarters, who only want you to focus on one side. But I’m proud of our legacy as a nonpartisan organization. Because we don’t believe that either party has a monopoly on morality. And we will continue to call out facts. I mean, I don’t believe in a theory of equivalency. I don’t think, “We’ve said this; therefore, we must say that.” I don’t think that’s true. I don’t focus on balancing our statements. I don’t want to see the communication shop say, “Okay, we did this, we have to do that.” I don’t think there are scales here that we must hold in balance. We need to call it as we see it and follow the facts wherever they take us. Again, even if some individuals or some partisans are aggrieved by doing this, right? We are not going to flinch from the facts as they are. And we will continue to. That’s critical. We’ll call out hate wherever it comes from. No matter how inconvenient it might be. No matter who that might irritate. And we’ll continue to work with an explicit set of values.

I mean, you all know our core values. I’m looking at them in the conference room at the CSC [the Community Support Center, or ADL headquarters] in New York: Courage, respect, accountability, collaboration, credibility, inclusion, integrity, respect. We will relentlessly live by these values and steer the organization in the right direction. They are, if you will, the headings that we use. But I will say that, as we think about these things, you know, when internal documents are leaked to the press, or when people are talking to reporters, like, that goes against our values, and that hurts our ability to deliver on our mission. That doesn’t reflect accountability.

I mean, again, I think we’ve tried to create a very open environment here, where you hopefully can talk to your manager, or you can use EthicsPoint. Or you can even reach out to me if you feel like you need to be heard. And if you disagree with something at ADL, again, we want to hear that. This was never intended to be a monolithic entity. And I think if you go back in recent history, you can see that engaging in this process with people speaking freely and sharing their views led the management team to reevaluate certain things. And we have spoken out where we’ve fallen short. I think we’ve done that internally, where we needed to do better; I think we’ve tried to do it externally, where we needed to do better. So that’s what we’re trying to do.

And, and yet, if you feel like, you know, you tried to engage a manager, or you tried to use EthicsPoint, or you tried to get to me, and you still weren’t heard or you still disagree with organizational choices, then it’s up to you to think about if this is the place you want to be. You are here because we want you here, right? But don’t undermine our values. Accountability doesn’t mean accountability to some external stakeholders. It’s accountability to ourselves first and foremost and to the mission on the walls of our organization and embedded in its kind of chromosomal DNA, if you will. So again, I would ask if you disagree with something, use your channels to say it. Not just complaining on Slack but trying to do it in a constructive way—through your ERG [Employee Resource Group], or again, through other means. And let’s make ADL better together, because we can do that.

But if you feel like you can’t get on with the mission, I respect that. And you might . . . this might not be the place for you. So in the context of that, let’s talk about my . . . the NLS speech. Because I know there’s some people who are concerned about what I said.

You know, first and foremost, it was a speech. It wasn’t a longform article, right? It wasn’t a debate. So it didn’t lend me . . . It’s not a medium that lends itself to the nuance and the detail that I might like to otherwise have delivered. I wish I could [have], but I can tell you, in the weeks and months and years ahead, we will lay out in more detail, with more nuance, where all of this takes us. So I appreciate getting feedback. Because there’s more to say to elaborate on, you know, the paragraphs that I shared . . . Because it wasn’t as prosaic as we might have been.

But let’s . . . Again, reflecting the times we’re in, the historic rise of antisemitism. And I don’t need to tell all of you why we’re there: because of societal pressures, because of social media, because of certain public figures . . . But the truth is, is that our community, our core constituents, uh, are feeling, I think, and I hear this directly from them—and the data, the sentiment analysis that we’ve done, that other organizations have done reflect this—that people are feeling this rise in their daily lives, that people are seeing for themselves antisemitism in ways they never thought before. And I think all of this underscores the urgency of our work, right? And why all of this matters.

I mean, just step back and think about the moment we’re in. I mean, we are, you know, just in the past year: We’re almost literally a year from the attacks, the antisemitic assaults that happened all over the country, prompted by the Hamas-Israel conflict in May of 2021, right, when Jews were getting attacked in broad daylight in Times Square, in Los Angeles, in southern Florida, in other places. Think about the brouhahas that have happened over the past year, like with the Sierra Club, or with the Sunrise Movement, or at colleges and universities like Tufts and Rutgers, and I could go on. Think about just recently, around the spate of terror attacks in Israel. You know, the, the marches, again, the calls to globalize, the Intifada taking place in midtown Manhattan. When innocent people are being killed, stabbed, shot, bludgeoned to death—for no crime other than being from Israel. It could be Jewish, it could be Muslim, it could be Arab, it could be Druze, it could be toddlers, it could be adults, it could be elderly people. None of that . . . None of that matters, uh, in these moments to the people committing these crimes. And literally not a day goes by when I don’t hear some harrowing tale from a college student, to a high school student, to a parent, to ordinary people, who tell me what they’re experiencing. And increasingly, the stories that I’m hearing about—directly from people—are not happening from antisemitism from the extreme right. It’s not people running into kind of [far-right militia] Oath Keepers around the corner—although that is a problem, and we’ll talk about that in the days ahead—but increasingly from what we might characterize as the radical left.

Now, with your work, all of us together are pushing back against this kind of prejudice. We’ve taken brave and strong stances against antisemitism coming from the quote, unquote left—even though I wouldn’t even characterize it that way, because it’s not like this is the traditional left. But I thought it was increasingly important in my speech at the NLS to be crystal clear and very lucid about what we’re seeing. Because we’ve seen the, the emergence of this sort of erase of antisemitism that seeks, again, to eliminate or to wipe out Jewish experience. We’ve seen it on campuses, we’ve seen it in civil society, we’ve seen it in communities, and it requires . . . And by the way, it’s not unique. We saw similar dynamics in Europe, as anyone on the IA [International Affairs] team can tell you about. So what’s happened there, it seems to be coming over here. And we can’t let this happen.

So, so with that being said, let me lay out a core principle for this organization. Make sure everybody gets it, make sure everybody is clear. Throughout these challenging times, I want to make sure . . . And when I say these challenging times, I mean not just now, [but also] long before I got to ADL. I want to make sure everything is . . . Something that has been true will remain true.

ADL is a Zionist organization. We will never apologize for this. This fact will never change. I am a proud, unapologetic Zionist. I was long before I came here, and I always will be, because Zionism is a liberation movement based on the simple premise, a simple idea: that the Jewish people have the right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. That’s it. Zionism isn’t new. In many ways, it’s existed for thousands of years. You can’t pick up a Jewish prayer book and not read about the return to Zion. You can’t participate in a Jewish holiday and not read about. It is not a discriminatory philosophy. It isn’t. It doesn’t privilege Jewish rights over the rights of other minorities. It doesn’t. Again, it’s the culmination of thousands of years of Jewish longing to return from exile . . . And to survive, after centuries of serial marginalization, vicious persecution, and organized systematic genocide, that’s what it is. Now, there may be some people who might take their Zionism to a degree that I wouldn’t agree with—I can tell you there are those people, and I don’t hesitate to call them out. But Zionism in and of itself is a liberation movement that’s about the right of self-determination that’s accorded to all people. Period. That’s it, guys. And so we need to do a good job of making sure we explain that and articulate that. And we will.

Turning [to] the speech itself, I know many of you were concerned that I called groups like CAIR [Council on American-Islamic Relations], or SJP [Students for Justice in Palestine], or JVP [Jewish Voice for Peace]—and I think you guys know the acronyms—extremist. The fact is, I called out their behaviors as extremist, and I called out their rhetoric as extremist, and some of their actions extremist; and I call that out because it is, it is, it is. It is not acceptable to call for a global Intifada. No, that’s not normal discourse. It’s not okay to pursue an agenda of anti-normalization, in other words, making it taboo to engage in any activity with any person with any relationship to the Jewish state. No, that is unequivocally extremist. If a right-wing group, a right-wing extremist group were saying anything of that sort toward any people, we would call it out—and when other groups are saying that toward Jews, we will call that out. Because that language, those activities, they are extremist.

Now, others I know expressed concern that I compared these groups to the right-wing extremists that stormed the Capitol, that marched in Charlottesville, whose acolytes participated in horrible, heinous murderous activities in El Paso, or in Pittsburgh, or in Poway, or in Charlotte, er, Charleston, and so on. Let’s be clear, the speech was way more nuanced than that. And yet, there’s no question—because, I mean, I said it—that these folks are not armed. When I called out the folks like CAIR and JVP and SVP [sic] engaging extremist rhetoric and calling for extremist actions . . . They’re different than the white supremacists and armed militia groups who are armed to the teeth and have a long and ugly history of committing acts of violence against Jews and other minorities. There’s no question they are different. SJP and CAIR and JVP didn’t participate in the insurrection on our capital. And I never said that. And I wouldn’t say that—because it’s not true.

But make no mistake, calling to globalize the Intifada, saying that all of Palestine will be free from the river to the sea: It’s the slogan of Hamas, okay? It’s chanted by Hezbollah supporters. Calls for violence against the Jewish state, whether they’re explicit or it’s a wink-wink: that is extremist. And again, I have called out, you know, the violent nature of right-wing extremism. But if people were to say, that, because they don’t like the policy of the government of Beijing, that, you know, China should be . . . that China should somehow be, uh. . . a movement against China, as a country, or call for violence against Asian American or AAPI people or so on. Like, we would call that out, and we have, and we will do it here, too.

Whether it’s, you know, right-wing extremists or radical anti-Zionist, I hope we can all understand that these movements don’t need to be causing equitable, um, exactly the same impact, okay, doing exactly the same thing, for them both to be bad and both to be called out. Because they are both dangerous and deserve our attention, even if the threats they pose are a little bit different. I just think it’s really crucial to say this, because you can be pro-Palestinian without being anti-Zionist, just, by the way, as you can be pro-Israel without being anti-Palestinian. I would like to think of myself as someone who is pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian. Hope everybody gets that. Because I think you can be pro-Palestinian—that doesn’t mean you have to be an anti-Zionist. And again, you can be, you know, pro-Israel without being anti-Palestinian. I’m sorry, like, I don’t think those things have to be the same. They’ve never been.

Now, look, I don’t anticipate the way that we do our jobs day-to-day is going to change because of my speech, and I hope clarifying these points helps you to understand where I’m coming from. There is a need for more detail; there is a necessity for more nuance. But our core commitment is the same: If you’re expressing intolerance and hate toward a group of people, creating the environment that’s conducive to violent rhetoric mutating into violent action . . . I don’t care if you’re the President of the United States, if you’re the president of the university, the president of the PTA, we will call that out again and again. And calling that out in the groups who traffic in those tropes doesn’t make you anti-Palestinian or anti-Muslim, these things are simply not true.

So why did I say this now? Again, I said this now because words matter. And we’re seeing these words kind of hardened into normal discourse. And it’s not normal. It’s shifting the Overton window, and we can’t let that happen. And there were decades, I think, you know, decades when problematic rhetoric from the extreme right wasn’t always called out. And it shifted from the fringes, like, into the mainstream, and now we’re stuck with this world in which these authoritarian impulses are infecting much of the GOP. And now they’ve become, again, part of public life. And we have to continue to push back on that. And we will do the same thing as these things seem to seep from the fringes of the radical left and seem to seep into our discourse, so I’m not . . . We’re not going to stop doing it.

So, um, I guess I’ll say one last thing. In terms of my Zionism and our institutional position, our Zionism, again, believing that Jews have the right to self-determination—that’s all it means, okay? But it compels us to pursue policies that are supportive of the Jewish and democratic state of Israel. Even when we sometimes will critique those policies, critique the practice of the government or public figures, like we did yesterday, when the Israeli government announced an intent to expand more settlements in the West Bank. We did that because we are Zionist, we will critique the government.

Now, we are not in the full time business of Israel advocacy, even though it’s important to us. There are other groups who are and they will take the lead on that. Our focus is fighting antisemitism and all forms of hate. But our Zionism compels us to be pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian and to argue and advocate the case for a two-state solution. Because we believe that that is the best, most viable way for Palestinians to achieve dignity and equality in a state of their own, even as Israelis have safety and security in a state of their own. It’s not going to be easy—and there are many reasons why it’s imperiled today—but we still believe that is the best hope out there. There may be other people who are Zionists with a different point of view, so be it. But this is what our belief is: a two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians.

And so, I guess the final thing I’ll say before we open it up and I toss back to you, [Moderator 2]. So why did I say that anti-Zionism is antisemitism? Because it is. That’s why I said it. Because it is. Whether by the intent of the people promoting these ideas or the impact that it creates in communities, there is a relationship between dehumanizing language and dehumanizing actions. So, again, we can talk about the nuances. Well, what does it mean, when a professor talks about theories of nationalism in a college seminar and questions Zionism, like said professor might question, I don’t know, other like the, uh, other forms of nationalism—I get that. But in the world in which we operate at ADL, in which Jews are being targeted, in which Jewish people are being victimized, in which antisemitic incidences are undeniably on the rise . . . Those who commit to this philosophy of anti-Zionism—again, whether it’s their intent or not—the impact that it generates is one in which Jews are targeted, they are more vulnerable, and that’s the antisemitism. And that’s what we’re dealing with. And that’s why I said what I said, and why I will continue to say it, even as we add nuance and detail, so I can explain this position, and we can . . . we can develop programs and policies coming from it in a more fulsome way. All right. With that said, um, I guess, yeah, why don’t we just open it up? Why don’t we open it up for questions?

Moderator 2: All right, uh, thank you for that, Jonathan. And we do have a bunch of questions. For transparency, I also want to say that we’re getting a lot of questions that are very similar. And so because of that, I am going to group some of them together. So I recognize that there are certain nuances that folks are asking, but I am going to try and address these in a broader way, so it does answer most of the questions that are being asked.

Alright, so one of the questions we’ve seen is about your comments on the “photo inverse.” So are Students for Justice in Palestine really the “photo inverse” of right-wing extremist groups?

Greenblatt: Well, so . . . So a couple things on that. I think the first thing I would say is, if you look at the language that they use, right, the language we see from these groups, like JVP, uh, like SJP, dehumanizing Jews, I mean, you could consider the “photo inverse” a bit of a rhetorical flourish, but I was crystal clear in my speech. And I said this, I mean, I literally said, if recollection serves me, I literally said like in the next, like, a paragraph or two later, I made the point that, unlike the right-wing, if there are right-wing analogues, right, they might . . . These groups like I said, I think a few minutes ago, they might not have armed themselves. They might not have . . . They might not have participated in a violent attempted coup. But these actors, okay, these groups regularly, indisputably, unabashedly denigrate and dehumanize Jews. So I’m not diminishing the singular threat of white nationalists. No. I think . . . I don’t know how I could be more clear about this. But groups that routinely slander and stereotype endanger Jewish people, just like right-wing extremists with their rhetoric endanger Jewish people. So again, the “photo inverse” may have been, you know, a rhetorical device to make a point. But we’ve seen, like, like water on stone, violent rhetoric leads to violent actions. And we call that out consistently when it comes from the right. And we will call it out consistently, even when it comes from those people who style themselves “Palestine sympathizers,” like their political position doesn’t exempt them from serious examination.

And I got to say, what’s . . . One of the things that’s amazing about this speech is where is there . . . Like, if you can read in the Jewish press, lots of questions and hand wringing . . . You see on Jewish Twitter, some agree, some disagree. Where is the self-reflection on what we said? Where is the, you know, the review about, “Yeah, antisemitic incidents are rising? Yeah, these things happened last May. Yeah, these things . . . The Jewish community at Rutgers is getting egged? Yeah, Jewish students are saying they feel victimized . . . ‚” like, where . . . ? I literally sat with the university president, one of the biggest universities in California last week, who said to me, “What do I do about this on my campus?” I talked to the dean of one of the most prestigious law schools in the United States, who said, “I’ve never—the invective that’s directed at our Jewish students over Israel/Palestine is unlike anything else in our law school. What do I do about this?” Like, this isn’t coming from white nationalists at this law school, or on this college campus. It just isn’t. So when I talk about these things being the “photo inverse,” please don’t get caught up on, like, a two-word phrase. Let’s focus more on what’s actually happening and how do we stop it? And I think we’ve got to call this kind of extremism out. Because if we don’t, we know what will happen. We’ve already seen it. So yeah, we’re going to be more forceful on this. Because that’s what the work demands that we do, even if there are some people who don’t like it.

Moderator 2: Thank you for that. Multiple questions about the term “extremism” and how we’re using it. Is that—are we diluting or changing the term of “extremism” and how ADL uses it?

Greenblatt: It’s a good question. Look, in my opinion, if you call for violence against a group of people, if you normalize violent terms, like “globalize the Intifada,” like that is extremist. Like, I don’t have the definition of “extremism” memorized. But what I recall from our website is that “extremism” is this notion of ideas that are outside the mainstream that often invoke violence against a particular people. I’m sure I’m not getting that exactly right. I don’t have the definition in front of me. Um, but yeah, so I think, for example, like echoing and trying to normalize the Hamas logo is extremist. I do believe that yes, no doubt. And I don’t think that forces us to change our definition to call that out. And again, I don’t think people whose response to terror acts is to call for more terror acts . . . That is extremist.

And if that feels . . . if that feels wrong to you . . . you know, like, I gotta be clear, I don’t expect everyone in this organization to agree with absolutely everything that we do. I understand. There are some things we do that you might not be passionate about, you might not exactly agree with. And we have this, you know, sort of unspoken idea or at ADL of “disagree and commit.” You can voice your opinion, but if the organization is going in a direction, you got to fall in line. But if you can’t fall in line with the idea that is . . . it is extremist to call for violence against people . . . If you don’t think that’s extremist . . . Maybe you need to find work somewhere that’s more aligned with you. Maybe this isn’t the place for you, because we will keep calling that out.

I will keep calling for a two-state solution that respects Israelis and Palestinians. And I will say that those people who call to globalize the intifada, that’s extremist language 101, and it’s not acceptable. It just isn’t. And by the way, I will say one thing. I know we’re getting a lot of questions, and the purpose of this, this session is to answer questions, but I’ve gotten a lot of emails from people and text messages from people that are like, thank you for what you said, like, that spoke to me. And I appreciate that. The point of this session isn’t for people to say, yeah, right on—it’s to talk and dialogue. But I know that I’ve heard that directly. And I want to make sure that if you’re out there watching . . . I don’t know . . . I’m not looking at the questions, [Moderator 2]‘s doing that. I’m just talking. But there may be a bunch of questions. But I know a lot of other people have said to me, like, yeah, this is actually what I want to hear. This is what I’m hearing from my constituents and our local community. And, uh, you know . . . If we can be . . . Again, our goal here is to serve the community—not to serve ourselves, but to serve them. So, I think it’s really important that we put this out there.

Moderator 2: Thank you for that, Jonathan. And I will say that in the chat there are a lot of folks who are also expressing that point of view along with the questions . . . Just for, again, for that same transparency.

Greenblatt: Right.

Moderator 2: Uh, so, to build on what we’re talking about here . . . Can we talk a little bit more about how to answer the question, for example—and there’s been a variety of ways this has been asked—what’s our position at ADL for Jews who are anti-Zionist? Are we saying they are also antisemitic?

Greenblatt: So anti-Zionism as a philosophy, okay? It is . . . as a philosophy . . . that . . . is as a . . . So, look, there can be people, like a Palestinian family that was displaced from their village in 1948. I don’t expect them to be Zionist, like cheering for the State of Israel. I don’t expect that. Um, we certainly know there are some religious Jews who are messianic and believe there should be no political state of Israel until the Messiah arrives—whenever going to happen. I get that too. But the people who proudly embrace anti-Zionism, who proudly deny the rights of Jews to a homeland but would, again, allow for that for other communities—that is an antisemitic idea. Because antisemitism is about bias or discrimination or prejudice against Jews. So if you don’t want to accord Jews the same rights you want for other people—Palestinian people, French people, Bolivian people, whomever—that is inherently discriminatory. That’s problematic.

Now there are again . . . there may be Jewish people who say, well, “I’m proudly anti-Zionist!” Okay. Then your . . . your intent might not be . . . might not be . . . Your intent might not be to be antisemitic. But recognize that doesn’t relieve you of responsibility. It doesn’t. So if you sign up for that, and someone says, “Well, I’m proudly anti-Zionist. That’s who I am.” Okay. That’s . . . you’re entitled to that opinion. Like, there are many people who get involved with JVP or SJP who don’t intend be antisemitic. Lots! Their just view is they think this is a social justice movement. I get that. And I appreciate that. And I understand that. But they need to appreciate and understand . . . I would say to someone . . . As I’ve been . . . As I’ve told donors and other supporters who’ve said to me, “My kid is involved in SJP . . . My son or daughter’s involved in Jewish Voices for Peace” [sic]. I, again, I appreciate it may come from a place of wanting . . . You know, a justice for Palestinians and allow them to realize their national aspirations. But that doesn’t relieve someone from responsibility for the impact that anti-Zionism has in the real world. Because in the real world how it shows up is, again, Jews being targeted and victimized. Violent rhetoric being normalized. And so I don’t care whether the person who says it is Jewish or Israeli. I’m telling you, this is really problematic, and we’re going to call it out. That’s how it works. That’s what we do. And again, it’s not unique to Jewish people, but that . . . We will call it out, this kind of genocidal violent rhetoric no matter who it’s directed to. As we’ve done with Asian Americans, as we done with immigrants and Latino people, as we’ve done with other, uh, we’ve done with the trans people, as we’ve done with other communities.

Moderator 2: So are we going to add anti-Zionism to the audit? Are we asking—

Greenblatt: We already do. We already look at, uh, you know . . . I think just because a rally or an event happens that is anti-Israel doesn’t inherently make it antisemitic. People can criticize Israeli policies. It’s when we see the confluence of antisemitic tropes or explicitly anti-Jewish myths in that rally or manifested in an op-ed or something else, that’s where we would call it out. We already do it today. We’ll continue to do it, and we may even shine a brighter lens on these examples, so people understand why we find them so problematic.

Moderator 2: So are we asking anti-Zionist groups to be kicked off campus, to be deplatformed?

Greenblatt: Look, I think, you know, I’ve talked before publicly about not believing in cancel culture but “counsel culture.” You’ve got to call in people before you call them out. So I think . . . when organizations use violent rhetoric, that needs to be called out. And you need to give organizations or individuals a chance to understand the impact of their words and to account for it and hopefully amend it. So I don’t think you quote unquote deplatform anyone because they are who they are. I think you explain the offense, you use it as an educa—you know, learning opportunity, to educate them. But if they continue to persist in a kind of behavior, yeah, that needs to be interrupted. And then there needs to be consequences. Words have consequences. Right? And again, I don’t care whether it’s Steve King in the House, you know, the former congressman from, uh, I think he was from Idaho, or Iowa? Iowa. Um, or, you know, some other person. Like, people who use a kind of irresponsible rhetoric, [it] needs to be explained to them and be given the opportunity to account for it, and they need to, uh, to deal with it.

Moderator 2: Alright, so let’s switch gears a little bit. I want to talk a little bit about policy and about expertise. Lots of questions about how we use our internal experts, what the process is, both in terms of how you make decisions and how you utilize their expertise; and also about how those decisions and that information is then rolled out to the organization and about how that process works. What can we talk about that [sic]?

Greenblatt: So, you know, this . . . the executives huddle every single day of the week, and I rely on my direct reports, you know, to be directly in touch with their teams. And, and, then their managers are in touch with their teams. I mean, we’d . . . Like any other organization. And so like, in working on this speech, I didn’t do it alone. I consulted with not just the SVPs [Senior Vice Presidents] but with also with the VPs [Vice Presidents] and, like, the divisional vice presidents. And so I’m constantly taking feedback, constantly prioritizing: What do people think? And give me better ideas, and how can we improve this? Like, I don’t have any lock on good ideas at all. Um, and I think the people who work with me on a day-to-day basis can tell you that I’m pretty open to feedback. And I think we’ve tried to create an environment here at ADL, like, with quarterly all-hands meetings and with, you know, other types of sessions where people can, again, share, when we emphasize and people culture for a reason [sic]. All that being said, um, I think we’ve built better processes to inform the organization when we take a position or when we launch a program or when we release some kind of output, a report, or a blog post, or something. There’s still a lot of room for improvement. We can still get better at this.

Moderator 2: Can you give us your definition of anti-Zionism? And can you remind us of the definition of intifada?

Greenblatt: So “intifada” is an Arabic word that means “shaking off.” It’s a term that was popularized in 1987 in the First Intifada, when Palestinians living under the Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip pushed back on the occupation, basically, and publicly rebelled against it not with words but with actions. Specifically, it was, uh, with throwing stones. And that symbol became very, uh, well known of, like, Palestinians throwing stones at Israeli soldiers or Israeli settlers or vehicles or whatnot. And so that First Intifada was this very violent contortion, that . . . I don’t know the numbers, but people died on both sides. The Second Intifada happened after the Palestinian leadership projected the second overture in the post Os—in the Oslo process at [sic] a two-state solution. And that was kind of engineered by . . . who, at the time . . . PA president or PLO Chairman, Yasser Arafat and involved a very violent, ugly, uh, organized set of actions against the State of Israel that included, you know, suicide bombers in restaurants and cafes and in public buses and universities et cetera. And again, many Israelis and Palestinians died as a result. So intifada is, is an Arabic word that, that is used to describe two violent uprisings and violent conflicts that led to many deaths of civilians, as well as, you know, militants and terrorists.

Um, so what’s my definition of anti-Zionism? Anti-Zionism is . . . Zionism, again, is the right of Jewish people to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. Anti-Zionism is the active denial . . . the act of . . . or the endeavor to deny Jewish people the right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. That’s what it is. It is an act . . . it is a philosophy focused on denying Jews that basic right, period. That’s what it is. So I would say to you, again, to be perfectly blunt, there might be people who don’t define themselves as Zionists. I get that. I get that. Like, there might be people who don’t define themselves as enthusiasts of the French Republic. I get that. Or enthusiasts, you know, of, uh, I don’t know, uh, the state of whatever . . . Some other country. I get that. I get it. I get it. But anti-Zionists are people who dedicate . . . it’s a philosophy dedicated to the negation of rights of the Jewish people. And so that’s why we have a problem with it.

Moderator 2: So will we be calling out any pro-Zionist groups as extremist?

Greenblatt: You know, we have called out groups in the past, like Kahanists, which was a segment of the Israeli political spectrum that were fascistic. They defined themselves as Zionists, but they were violent extremists, and we called them out repeatedly. We’ve called out other violent extremists in Israeli society before. Um, and there may be other folks in the far-right who say they are Zionist but are violent extremists. We will call them out, too. Yeah, so just being Zionist doesn’t exempt you from criticism, just like someone who believes in America . . . that doesn’t exempt you from criticism, you know, or who believes in the state of France. But if you would deny others rights, if you would actively promote violence against civilians, yeah, that’s extremism. And we’ll call that out every single time. And if you don’t like that, if you can’t get your arms around that, if you can’t get aligned with that, this isn’t the right place for you. If you have a problem with ADL calling out extremists . . . like, you’re here, everyone, because we want you here. But if you have a problem with . . . if you think it is okay to deny any group of people their rights systematically. If you think . . . and particularly considering our mission, focus on fighting antisemitism and all forms of hate. If you would deny Jewish people their rights, if you would imply hate toward other groups, this probably isn’t the right place for you.

Moderator 2: So setting aside the entire question of right and wrong, is it worth it? There’s important coalitions, friends, all sorts of people who are being hurt by this absolutist kind of language—even some of our more natural allies in the fight against antisemitism. Is this going to erode our reporting, our credibility?

Greenblatt: I don’t know. I don’t know how we have credibility if we’re not calling out this hate. And I don’t know how we’re doing our allies a service if we’re soft stepping this hate. I don’t know how we’re helping the world if we’re not calling out the people who would seek to deny [Greenblatt coughs]—excuse me—who would seek to discriminate, and express bias, and condition the public to, uh . . . condition the public to violence against Jewish people. Like we’re not, we’re not fulfilling our mission. We don’t belong here if we think that somehow it’s more important to be in a coalition than to do our core work. We think somehow it’s more important to have friends than to be true to our mission. Like, mission first. Like, our core work first. And I think, to be frank, we owe it to ourselves and to that mission, and to the legacy that we all are part of here at ADL, to ensure that our allies understand where we’re coming from. Again, I don’t think it’s absolutist to push back against hate. And if you think it’s absolutist to push back on hate, this isn’t the right place for you. It just isn’t. And that’s okay, by the way. Like, that’s all right. But if you can’t get aligned with fighting all forms of hate, this isn’t the right place for you.

Moderator 2: So I want to acknowledge that there’s a lot of folks in the chat who are asking for more detailed talking points, or maybe noting that they didn’t receive more detailed talking points, and asking about like, why didn’t they get more lead time? Can you speak to both of those things?

Greenblatt: I mean, I don’t think we gave less lead time than we normally do. We didn’t. Uh, could we . . . will there . . . again, this was one speech, guys. It happened several days ago. It didn’t happen months ago. It happened last week. So more detail will be following. Again, that’s why we’re doing this town hall. The speech was just the beginning of a longer campaign not unlike the work that we’ve done to call out other forms of extremism over the years, so I think this is entirely consistent.

Moderator 2: Does any of this change how we work with law enforcement? Do we need to ask them to be concerned with JVP and SJP?

Greenblatt: Well, look, again, I think . . . I’ve said it before. If anyone doesn’t get this, I’ll say it again. Like, there’s a single . . . the singular threat of white nationalism cannot be discounted, cannot be ignored. The violence that white supremacists have wrought upon our society is . . . like, I am not denying that in any way, shape, or form. There’s a reason why ADL for years and now the FBI and the federal leadership and law enforcement was saying is the single most significant threat to the homeland. So we’re not equating the two. If the law . . . so we’re not saying that law enforcement needs to worry about an armed threat from SJP. Like, we didn’t say anything like that, and we’re not going to contrive something that isn’t true. But we will call out their rhetoric. We will. We will call out those who normalize antisemitism and hate. We will do that. That doesn’t mean they’re the same, and I don’t think this impinges upon or changes our work with law enforcement in any way.

Moderator 2: All right, last question. Are staff who do not believe that anti-Zionism is always antisemitism welcome at ADL? And what should they do?

Greenblatt: You know what? I think staff . . . again, I think I’ve already explained, but I just want to be crystal clear, okay? There is something different about not being pro-Zionist, not wanting to march in the Israel Independence Day Parade. I mean, again, if your family was displaced, or . . . you have religious reasons, or . . . I understand all that, I appreciate that. I’m not arguing with that. What I’m talking about are those groups who systematically seek to deny this basic right to Jewish people.

So whether by the intent of the people behind these campaigns—and we will call attention to this increasingly in the months and years ahead—or by the impact that these campaigns, anti-Zionist campaigns, create, it endangers, it makes more vulnerable Jewish people, no matter how you identify. And I guess you should ask yourself: Would you be comfortable wearing a kippah, you know, walking to an SJP rally? Ask yourself that question. I mean, there’s a reason why the people who were brutalized in broad daylight, like in Times Square, were attacked. It wasn’t because they expressed in front of these anti-Israel events, like, their views on the two-state solution. They were attacked, typically, because they were wearing something that identified them as Jewish. I mean, this is what happened.

So I say all this to make the case . . . If despite what you’ve heard today, and despite our own research, if you still feel like you can’t square the fact that anti-Zionism is antisemitism, then maybe this isn’t the place for you. Like really, if you’re hearing what I’m saying, and you just don’t agree with it. You think it’s okay to deny Jews their rights? Again, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with saying, “You know what, I don’t think this is the right place for me.” But I can assure you, if we play the long game . . . I can assure you, if you care about justice for all people, for Palestinians and . . . and Muslims, as well as Jews and Israelis, et cetera. You will realize that . . . you will come to see that there’s nothing wrong with opposing policies of the Israeli state, [but] there’s something profoundly wrong with demonizing and delegitimize only one country in the world [sic]. And that it endangers an embattled minority, who again—empirically, our own data shows us—are facing more antisemitic incidents than at any time that we have counted in the last 43 years.

So that’s why we are where we are. That’s why we do the work that we do. And that’s why I will continue to say this. And if you can’t get comfortable with it, I get it. No shame in saying, “You know what? It’s not the place for me.” That’s the God’s honest truth. And um, so I think that’s where we are. And again, we will continue to create forums for conversation. We will continue to encourage debate. We will continue to listen to try to better understand. I’m personally committed to doing this, but . . . don’t believe the bad press that some people are pushing at us. These claims that they’re making, like, I think they are specious. They are wrong. And I’m happy to drill down on this in the follow-up to this in the next all-hands meeting. Maybe we can schedule some, some, some sessions with departments. Like, I’m happy to get to provide more detail, to provide more nuance. And, uh, starting with the next all-hands meeting, which I think is next week or the week after. I actually don’t know the date. But it’s soon, it’s in the next two weeks. I know it’s before the end of the month.

Moderator 2: It is indeed. Um, Jonathan, I want to be conscious of time, and we are out of it. So thank you very much. Thanks to everyone who joined us today for all of your questions, for pushing for answers, for being involved in the process. I mean, I think that’s pretty amazing. The next all-hands is actually going to be after Memorial Day. I think originally it was scheduled the week before but we’re going to go, and we’re going to actually do it the week after Memorial Day, I am being told. Uh, all right everyone. Thank you so much. Take good care and until soon. Thank you, everyone.

Mari Cohen is associate editor at Jewish Currents.

Alex Kane is a senior reporter for Jewish Currents.