|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
In a startling display of anti-Semitism, the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys (UAW Local 2325), the union representing employees of prominent nonprofits such as the Legal Aid Society, Bronx Defenders, and the Center for Reproductive Rights, has adopted a resolution condemning Israel and expressing support for the controversial boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement.
The resolution, in defiance of the Legal Aid Society’s policy on geopolitical neutrality, calls for “an end to Israeli apartheid and the occupation.” Notably, it opposes all U.S. aid to Israel and endorses the BDS movement, widely criticized for its association with anti-Semitic sentiments.
A significant point of contention arises from the resolution’s failure to condemn Hamas for its terrorist activities on October 7, referring to them merely as a “violent tragedy.” This language has been interpreted as an implicit approval of Hamas’ actions, veiled behind ambiguous terms.
The Legal Aid Society itself, traditionally associated with left-wing progressivism, has condemned the resolution, labeling it as “laden with coded anti-Semitic language and thinly veiled calls for the destruction of the State of Israel.” The resolution’s references to the “ethnic cleansing and dispossession of the Palestinian people” since the Nakba in 1948 and the endorsement of the claim that Israel “maintains a colonial apartheid occupation regime” further exacerbate concerns about anti-Semitic undertones.
This divergence from the Legal Aid Society’s mission, which pledges to be “a beacon of hope for New Yorkers” regardless of background or identity, raises serious questions about the atmosphere within the organization. The resolution, which clearly sends a message of vile abhorrence of Jews has sparked sharp criticism and concern.
While Legal Aid has officially disapproved of the resolution, the controversy prompts scrutiny from donors and allies, including major corporations like the NFL, NBA, Microsoft, and AIG. Additionally, the significant funding Legal Aid receives from taxpayers has come under question, with calls for redirecting such funds to alternative indigent defense providers.
The broader question raised by this incident is the unexpected involvement of a public defenders union in the Israel-Hamas conflict, especially taking a stance deemed by many as being on the wrong side. Critics argue that the infusion of political ideologies into the professional sphere risks compromising the core values of organizations dedicated to social justice.
This situation underscores the challenges posed by ideological entanglements within institutions that aim to serve marginalized communities, showcasing the complexities of navigating political and social issues while upholding principles of fairness and inclusivity.
The bottom line is that a public defenders union should, in no way, shape or form insinuate itself in political matters or issues pertaining to global affairs.
This toxic combination is a recipe for disaster.
Rather than fomenting Jew hatred, the woke, progressives that are pulling the strings from behind, ought to cease and desist in their anti-Semitic onslaught while encouraging others that the rule of law really does matter.
