In trying to extricate itself from its recent controversy, Starbucks should be praised for not only holding anti-bias training sessions but also excluding the Jewish Anti-Defamation League from developing the curriculum of those sessions, as was originally planned.

The anti-bias training was prompted by the arrest of two black men at a Philadelphia Starbucks who asked to use the bathroom without making a purchase as they waited to meet a business associate. A video of the arrest went viral, prompting a public backlash and the trending hashtag #BoycottStarbucks.

Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson quickly apologized, calling the situation “reprehensible”. On April 17, the company announced it would close more than 8,000 US locations to conduct mandatory training to prevent racial bias, using a curriculum to be developed by leaders from a number of supposedly anti-bias groups, including Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of ADL. On April 25, Starbucks issued a second statement expanding on its plans, omitting Greenblatt’s name. Now ADL will play only an advisory role in the company’s long-term efforts to combat discrimination.

Starbucks won’t say what happened between its first and second announcements for it to change its mind about ADL. It may be asked why Greenblatt’s name alone was removed from the original group of experts. Activists did criticize Starbucks over the ADL’s involvement in Starbucks’ human relation renovation project, citing the ADL’s support for Israel and its tepid relationship to the Black Lives Matter movement. Activist statements included accusations of ADL “constantly attacking black and brown people”, and that ADL was compromised “given its history and practices of anti-Muslim, anti-Palestinian, and anti-black racism”.

ADL is an organization that prides itself on being one of Israel’s chief cheerleaders. How can it expect to participate in anti-bias training when it itself openly supports a racist, oppressive and brutal colonization of Palestine?

Starbucks is a coffee giant with one of the most high-profile brands in the world, operating 13,275 stores worldwide, 8,000 in US locations with 175,000 employees. Such a mammoth franchise should in no way be linked to a Jewish organization that hails Israel.

In 1989 Noam Chomsky accused ADL, now over 100 years old, of “having lost entirely its focus on civil rights issues in order to become solely an advocate for Israeli policy,” holding that the ADL cast all left-wing opposition to Israeli interests as anti-Semitism. Indeed, the ADL likes to conflate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, although criticism of particular Israeli actions or policies in and of itself does not constitute anti-Semitism. Certainly Israel can be legitimately criticized just like any other country in the world, much more so for an occupation that is in its 70th year.

There is an allegation that through ADL, American police officers learn techniques in Israel that they use to abuse minority communities back home. No wonder American civil rights leaders are up in arms over ADL. It allegedly sends white American police officers to Israel for counter-terrorism training, only for them to return to the US and use what they have learned to shoot dead, over the years, dozens of young, black unarmed men.

If ADL’s ultimate purpose is “to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike, and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens,” that charter is an absolute falsehood with regard to black Americans and Palestinians.

The one-afternoon closure of Starbucks on May 29 for mandatory anti-bias training will cost the company about $12 million in lost revenue. That shows how seriously Starbucks is taking the issue. By cutting loose its ties with ADL, Starbucks is also rightly keeping at arm’s length an organization that completely disregards human rights of the disenfranchised.