In a written statement, the ADL said the decision by Wikipedia was the result of a ”campaign to delegitimize the ADL” and that editors opposing the ban “provided point by point refutations, grounded in factual citations, to every claim made, but apparently facts no longer matter.”
You of all groups should know that the last part of your statement is a common right-wing dog whistle that gets used when someone doubles down after their "facts" get rejected for bigotry and/or inaccuracy. By using that phrase, you've automatically cast doubt on the legitimacy of your actions and statements. At best you're ignorant of a common dog whistle, which is embarrassing for an organization who should be well-versed in this kind of thing; at worst you've signaled to everyone that you're potentially peddling "alternative facts", which casts doubt on everything you've done in the past. Either way, you're ultimately hurting the Jewish people by making that kind of statement.
Mira Sucharov, a professor of political science at Carleton University, said Wikipedia’s decision represents a major opportunity to reflect on why the ADL is facing scrutiny and rethink communal approaches for fighting antisemitism.
“This is a sign that the Jewish community needs better institutions,” she said.
They really do, and I feel bad for them. The places that should be defending them seem more than happy to ignore them or even throw them under the bus in the name of Zionism.
Like, okay, personal beliefs on Zionism aside, if your organization is tasked with defending a group of people, you should ensure your actions aren't going to endanger, delegitimize or otherwise encourage bigotry against said group. That means that even if you're a Zionist Jewish organization, if your task is to fight against bigotry towards Jews, you shouldn't be ignoring non-Zionist Jews nor should you be dismissing their views. Instead, you should be listening to what they have to say, condensing it and releasing it in an manner easy for non-jews to understand (which means providing political, historical and religious context, because many people, myself included, don't understand as much as they think they do about Judaism).
In the current context, you should be giving people statements from Zionist and non-Zionist Jews about Palestine, and attempt to include non-biased historical, religious and political backgrounds for events that are occurring.
I think ethnically Jewish people could make an honest argument that they should have some portion of Palestine based on historical origins (I think it's a weak arguement, but I think you could argue for it). However, that doesn't excuse the way that the IDF and Israeli government have treated Gaza and the West Bank.
You can criticize the Israeli government while also believing that ethnically Jewish people should be able to have a country they have control over. Other countries do this all the time (get criticized for poor treatment of the "outside" ethnic group(s)), why is this somehow different for Israel? Why aren't we allowed to criticize Israel? I can talk about how France, a white, French ethnostate, is mistreating Muslims without being a racist bigot; I should be able to talk about Israel the same way.