Uncategorized
The historian who uncovered the ADL’s secret plot against the far-right John Birch Society
(JTA) — A historian leafing through files in an archive discovered how a Jewish organization helped bring down an influential far-right extremist movement in the United States in the 1960s and ’70s by going undercover and acting as self-appointed spies.
The discovery of the Anti-Defamation League’s covert operation targeting the John Birch Society is the basis of a chapter in a new book by political historian Matthew Dallek of George Washington University. Published in March, “Birchers: How the John Birch Society Radicalized the American Right” is Dallek’s fourth book. It examines the roots of today’s emboldened conservative movement in the United States.
“Birchers” is a history of a group that at its height numbered as many as 100,000 members and “mobilized a loyal army of activists” in a campaign against what it saw as a vast communist conspiracy. He also examines how the Birchers’ mission to defend Christianity and capitalism morphed into a radical anti-civil rights agenda that groups like the ADL saw as an existential threat.
Dallek, who grew up in a Reform Jewish household in Los Angeles, recently sat with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency to discuss the rise of the Birchers, how the ADL infiltrated their ranks and whether such tactics are justified in the name of fighting extremism.
The conversation has been edited for clarity and brevity.
JTA: Before we get into the Jewish aspect of the book, meaning the chapter on the Anti-Defamation League’s relationship with the John Birch Society, let’s take a step back. Who are so-called Birchers? Why do they matter?
Mathew Dallek: The John Birch Society was a household name in the 1960s, becoming the emblem of far-right extremism. It didn’t have huge numbers, but it did penetrate the culture and the national consciousness. Its leader, Robert Welch, had argued at one point that President Dwight Eisenhower was a dedicated agent of a communist conspiracy taking over the United States. Welch formed the John Birch Society to educate the American people about the nature of the communist threat.
In its heyday, the group had about 60,000 to 100,000 members, organized into small chapters. They sent out literature trying to give members roadmaps or ideas for what they could do. They believed a mass education of the public was needed because traditional two-party politics was not going to be very effective at exposing the communist threat. They would form front groups such as Impeach Earl Warren [the Supreme Court’s chief justice] or Support Your Local Police. They tried to ban certain books that they viewed as socialistic from being used in schools. Some Birchers ran for school board seats and protested at libraries.
Critics feared that the Birchers were a growing fascist or authoritarian group and that if they were not sidelined politically and culturally then the country could be overrun. The Nation magazine wrote that Birchers essentially had given their followers an invitation to engage in civil war, guerrilla-style. Those fears sparked a big debate about democracy. How does one sustain democracy and, at the height of the Cold War and in the shadow of World War II, Nazi fascist Germany, and the Holocaust?
As you were researching, you came across a trove of historical internal documents from the ADL in the archives of the American Jewish Historical Society in New York. Why did you devote a chapter to what you found in those documents? What did those files reveal to you about the John Birch Society?
These papers are a goldmine. They’re this incredible and often detailed window into the far-right and, in particular, the John Birch Society. They show the ADL had an extensive, multi-dimensional counterintelligence operation that they were running against the Birch Society.
People knew at the time that the ADL was attending events where Birchers were speaking. But the ADL also had undercover agents with code names, who were able to infiltrate the society’s headquarters in Belmont, Massachusetts, and various chapter officers. They dug up financial and employment information about individual Birchers. And they not only used the material for their own newsletters and press releases, but they also fed information to the media.
Another layer is about a debate that’s been going on: Were the Birchers racist and antisemitic? The Birch Society always insisted that they did not tolerate white supremacy and didn’t want any KKK members. They said they accepted people of all faiths and races. And it’s true that they did have a handful of Jewish and Black members.
But what the ADL found was that a lot of hate was bubbling up from the grassroots and also leaking out from the top. The ADL was able to document this in a systematic way.
Some critics of the ADL today say the organization has strayed from its mission by focusing not just on antisemitism but on a wider array of causes. But from reading your work, it sounds like the ADL even then took an expansive view of its role, examining not just direct attacks on Jews but also how the political environment can jeopardize Jews. Am I getting that right, and why did the ADL devote so many resources to a group like the John Birch Society?
So, a few things: It’s the late ’50s and ’60s, and a civil rights coalition is emerging. Benjamin Epstein, the national director of the ADL, was friendly with Thurgood Marshall, the Supreme Court justice, and Martin Luther King. John F. Kennedy went to an ADL event and praised the ADL for speaking out very strongly in defense of democracy and pushing for the equal treatment of all Americans.
Isadore Zack, who helped lead the spy operation, at one point wrote to his colleagues that it was only in a democracy that the Jewish community has been allowed to flourish and so, if you want to defend Jewish Americans, you also have to defend democracy.
There certainly were other threats at the time, but the Birch Society was seen by liberal critics, including the ADL, as a very secretive group that promoted conspiracy theories about communists who often became conflated with Jews.
Would you consider the ADL successful in its campaign against the Birchers?
They were successful. They used surreptitious and in some cases underhanded means to expose the antisemitism and the racism and also interest in violence or the violent rhetoric of the Birch Society in the 1960s.
The ADL was at the tip of the spear of a liberal coalition that included the White House, sometimes the Department of Justice, depending on the issue, the NAACP, Americans for Democratic Action, labor unions, the union-backed Group Research Inc., which was tracking the far-right as well. The ADL was one of the most, if not the most effective at constraining and discrediting the society.
Clearly, however, the Birchers’ ideas never died. They lived on and made a comeback.
It’s somewhat ironic that you reveal the existence of this spying apparatus devoted to targeting an extremist and antisemitic group in the 1960s given the infamy the ADL would earn in a later era, the 1990s, for allegations that they colluded with police agencies in San Francisco to spy on and harass political activists. They eventually settled with the Arab American, Black and American Indian groups that brought a federal civil suit. I know you didn’t study these revelations, which are outside the scope of your book, but could you perhaps reflect on why undercover tactics were seen as necessary or justified?
It’s important to remember that in the mid-20th century, law enforcement in the United States was often led by antisemites or people who were much more concerned with alleged internal communist threats — the threat from the left.
From the ADL’s vantage point, one could not rely on the government entities that were by law and by design supposed to protect Jewish Americans. There was a sense that this work had to be done, at least in part, outside of the parameters of the government.
When I first discovered the ADL’s spying, I didn’t quite know what to make of it. But I realized they weren’t just spying to spy, they exposed a lot of scary things, with echoes in our own times — like easy access to firearms, a hatred of the government, a denigration and defamation of minority groups. And this was all happening in the shadow of the Holocaust and World War II. I became much more sympathetic; they were very effective, and they had a vision of equality of treatment for all Americans.
It’s obviously controversial. I try not to shy away from it. But they had a lot of good reasons to fight back right and to fight back in this nonviolent way.
That last thought brings to mind another, right-wing Jewish group that existed in this era of taking things into our own hands, that did use violence, explosives even.
You mean the Jewish Defense League, led by Meir Kahane.
Yes, exactly.
He was a Bircher. Toward the end of my book, I mention that he was a member for a while, under his alias Michael King.
Antisemitism is on the rise, and lots of initiatives are being organized to address it, both by existing groups like the ADL and new ones. The ADL’s budget has almost doubled over the past seven years. I am seeing Jews talk of fighting back and taking things into their own hands. And we are in this politically precarious movement in American history, all of which suggests parallels to the era you examined. What kind of wisdom can we glean from examining the ADL’s secret and public fight against the John Birch Society as people who care about the issues affecting Jews today?
A lot of liberals in the 1960s and a lot of the leadership at the ADL grasped the axiom that things can always get worse.
In 2015-2016, you’ll recall, there was Trump’s demonization of Mexican immigrants, and the so-called “alt-right” around him and his campaign and expressions of vitriol by people like Steve Bannon.
There was an assumption among a lot of Americans and among a lot of Jewish Americans that the fringe right — the antisemites, the explicit racists, the white supremacists — that there’s not a majority for them and they can never achieve power.
If you go back and you look at Trump’s closing 2016 campaign ad, it’s textbook antisemitism. He flashes on screen these wealthy Jewish international bankers, and he argues that basically, there’s a conspiracy of these global elites who are stealing the wealth of honest Americans. There’s also 2017, the white supremacists in Charlottesville, who said “Jews will not replace us” and Trump saying there are fine people on both sides.
The sense that democracy is incredibly fragile is not just a theory or a concept: It’s an actuality, the sense as well, that the United States has only been a multiracial democracy for not very long and a haven for Jews for not that long either.
The work that the ADL and the NAACP and other groups did to try to constrain and discredit as fringe and extremist still goes on today. It’s harder to do for all sorts of reasons today including social media and the loss of faith in institutions. But it still goes on. You see the importance of institutional guardrails including the Department of Justice that is prosecuting 1,000 Jan. 6 insurrectionists.
The last thing I’ll say is that one of the admirable things in the 1960s about the ADL and the liberal coalition it belonged to is that it built support for landmark legislation like the Immigration Act of 1965, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of ’65. And a coalition eventually fell apart, but it was powerful, reminding us why Jewish American groups should care about or focus on issues that don’t directly affect Jewish people.
—
The post The historian who uncovered the ADL’s secret plot against the far-right John Birch Society appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Prized Sketchbook at Palace of Versailles Was Stolen by Nazis During WWII, Investigation Reveals
The Palace of Versailles. Photo: Sandrine Marty / Hans Lucas via Reuters Connect
The Palace of Versailles said it will conduct further research into the origins of a sketchbook owned by French painter Jacques-Louis David after a recent investigation revealed that it was stolen by the Nazis during World War II before joining France’s national collection.
Radio France said on Monday that it launched an investigation into the provenance of the prized sketchbook after being contacted by a descendant of its original owner. The broadcaster said just “a few weeks” later, it had compiled enough evidence to support the descendant’s claim about the sketchbook being looted by the Nazis during the war.
The evidence relies on public data accessible online, such as diplomatic archives and the French Holocaust Memorial’s database of Nazi-stolen property. France’s Ministry of Culture admitted that both the ministry and the Palace of Versailles did not know the sketchbook was stolen by Nazis during World War II, but they vowed to “continue research on this notebook and have discussions with the descendants of the owners.”
The Ministry of Culture told Radio France that in the Palace of Versailles, a team of three people are “actively working and reviewing works in the collections to verify their provenance” but the team “had not yet examined this notebook.”
A relative of the sketchbook’s original owner took Radio France he was shocked when he discovered by chance that the Nazi-looted sketchbook was a part of the collection at Versailles. “It’s a key work by David, and the Palace of Versailles does a lot of publicity around these notebooks … So, I’m very surprised that there isn’t more research into their provenance,” he said. “At the moment, there are 100 police officers looking for jewels stolen from the Louvre while to return the works stolen – and there are many at the Louvre and other museums – I find that the means are very, very low.”
The sketchbook dates back to 1790 and includes drawings, sketches, and notes related to one of David’s most famous works, “The Tennis Court Oath” (1790), a painting about the French Revolution that was never finished. The painting belongs to the Palace of Versailles but is currently on display in the Louvre as part of its limited time exhibition that celebrates the 200th anniversary of David’s death. The sketchbook is not part of the exhibit.
German Nazi soldiers stole an entire library, including David’s sketchbook, from Professor Lereboullet in July 1940 when they occupied his home. Lereboullet’s daughter Odile reported the theft in November 1945 to the Commission for Art Recovery (CRA), a French public body responsible for recovering and returning looted pieces of art to their rightful owners or their heirs. She never received a response from the CRA. The sketchbook reappeared in January 1943, when it was sold at auction by the Karl & Faber art gallery in Munich, Germany. It came into the possession of German Jewish art dealer and art historian Otto Wertheimer. A former German professor of art history and curator at the National Museum in Berlin, Wertheimer himself fled Nazi persecution and settled in Paris in 1944. He became a well-known art dealer who provided museums with masterpieces and missing pieces of European art. He sold the David sketchbook to the Palace of Versailles in 1951.
The Palace of Versailles has previously returned only one Nazi-looted item to its original owners: a small Louis XVI era writing table that was returned in 1999.
Uncategorized
Israeli Singer Noa Kirel Blasts Anti-Israel Boycotts of Eurovision Contest: ‘Letting Politics Ruin the Celebration’
Noa Kirel performing “Unicorn” for Israel at the first semifinal at the 2023 Eurovision Song Contest. Photo: ESC/Sarah Louise Bennett
Israeli pop star Noa Kirel lambasted the countries that have decided to boycott the 2026 Eurovision Song Contest because of Israel’s participation, defended her country’s involvement in the competition.
On Wednesday, Iceland joined Ireland, Spain, Slovenia, and The Netherlands in announcing that it will pull out from next year’s Eurovision in protest of Israel’s participation due to its military actions in the Gaza Strip during its war against Hamas terrorists. The war started after Hamas-led terrorists carried out a deadly massacre in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
Ireland, Spain, Slovenia, and The Netherlands made their announcement last week after the European Broadcasting Union, which organizes the competition, decided to allow Israel to participate in the song contest.
Kirel, who represented Israel in the 2023 Eurovision and finished in third place, told the BBC podcast “The World Tonight” on Wednesday she was “deeply disappointed” that countries have decided to withdraw from the 2026 Eurovision, set to take place in Vienna, Austria, in May. She spoke to the podcast before news broke about Iceland’s withdrawal.
“Eurovision is a bridge, not a wall, and the heart of this competition is to connect hearts through music,” she said. “Unfortunately, some countries are letting politics ruin the celebration. Israel has not violated any rules of the Eurovision. Israel is a peace-seeking nation.”
Kirel also clarified key details about the deadly Hamas-led terrorist attack in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, which launched the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza. “On Oct. 7, Israel did not attack anyone,” the singer noted. “Israel was brutally attacked in a way unseen before. Entire families were murdered, including children. Civilians were kidnapped. Israel defended itself like any other nation would do and those countries are choosing to see the opposite, to ignore the reality. And to boycott Israel – that is antisemitism. I think boycotting Israel on political fronts – it’s not just an injury to us; it’s an injury to everything that Eurovision represents.”
Kirel further noted that claims about Israel manipulating votes during the 2025 Eurovision are total “nonsense” and added, “Instead of searching for excuses for [Israel’s] success, let’s focus on music.”
Wednesday was the deadline for countries to confirm whether they will join the 2026 Eurovision or withdraw without being penalized. Eurovision Director Martin Green said, “We respect the decision of all broadcasters who have chosen not to participate in next year’s Eurovision Song Contest and hope to welcome them back soon.”
Iceland’s national broadcaster RÚV said it believes Israel’s participation in the Eurovision has “created disunity among both members of the European Broadcasting Union and the general public.”
“There is no peace or joy connected to this contest as things stand now. On that basis, first and foremost, we are stepping back while the situation is as it is,” added RÚV Director-General Stefan Eiriksson.
Israel has won the Eurovision Song Contest four times, most recently in 2018, and came second in last year’s contest.
Uncategorized
Columbia University Antisemitism Task Force Calls for Viewpoint Diversity on Israel, Zionism
Students walk on campus at Columbia University in New York City, US, Sept. 2, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ryan Murphy
Columbia University’s Antisemitism Task Force on Tuesday implored the school to foster “intellectual diversity” with respect to the subjects of Zionism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, concluding its fourth and final report on the origins of antisemitism on the campus.
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, Columbia University was, until the enactment of recent reforms, the face of anti-Jewish hatred in higher education in the aftermath of the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel. Dozens of reported antisemitic incidents transpired on its grounds, including a student’s proclaiming that Zionist Jews deserve to be murdered and are lucky he is not doing so himself and the participation of administrative officials, outraged at the notion that Jews organized to resist anti-Zionism, in a group chat in which each member took turns sharing antisemitic tropes which described Jews as privileged and grafting.
In its report, the Columbia Task Force on Antisemitism cited ideological conformity — as well as professors’ discussing the Middle East as would politicians framing a narrative which aims for accessibility and the swaying of democratic opinion — as an outsized contributor to the climate which yielded the slew of outrages.
“The [Columbia Faculty Handbook] is clear that [professors] should stick to the subject matter of the course and avoid political advocacy in the classroom,” the report said. “We heard from many students that an academic perspective that treats Zionism as legitimate is underrepresented in Columbia’s course offerings, compared to a perspective that treats it as illegitimate. The university should work quickly to add more intellectual diversity to these offerings.”
The task force also said that it is the university’s responsibility to reconcile viewpoint diversity —which may give voice to ideas which some deem offensive — with an American culture which prizes unfettered free speech, meritocracy, social equality, and racial and ethnic plurality, all at once. The university must not censor ideas, the report said, but it also cannot facilitate discrimination — which the American government, responding to popular outrage over racism perpetrated against African Americans, proscribed by passing the Civil Rights Act in 1964. In the 60 years since the law’s passage, lawmakers and the courts have affirmed the law’s applicability to other protected groups, including, women, sexual minorities, the Jewish people, and, among many others, Arab Muslims.
“When faculty members publish books, studies, articles, or other academic work, drawing on their expertise and using the methodologies of their disciplines, this work generally should be protected, even if it offends other members of our community, so long as it does not violate antidiscrimination laws,” the report continued. “We recommend seeking ways to comply with antidiscrimination laws that do not limit offensive speech. In some cases, for example, the university may be able to respond to offensive speech by condemning it instead of limiting it.”
It added, “Admittedly, condemning speech might at times be in tension with a commitment to institutional neutrality. Yet, when a university is faced with a choice between limiting speech, on the one hand, or condemning it, on the other, the latter strikes us as a less restrictive response.”
Even as it pursues a policy of “no orthodoxies,” the university must also protect itself from “outside influence” which may, for political purposes, demand its adoption of a particular viewpoint, the report continued. Donors, federal and state governments, or American voters, whose agents of action are their representatives in government, all “present challenges to academic freedom.”
In a statement, Columbia University president Claire Shipman thanked the task force for its work and said the university will “work on” translating its recommendations into policy.
“The work of this task force has been an essential part of the university’s efforts to address the challenges faced by our Jewish students, faculty, and staff,” Shipman said. “We have also been working this semester to focus on discrimination and hate more broadly on our campuses — which has long been a strong recommendation of the task force. All of this work must become part of our DNA.”
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, Columbia University agreed in July to pay over $200 million to settle claims that it exposed Jewish students, faculty, and staff to antisemitic discrimination and harassment — a deal which secured the release of billions of dollars in federal grants the Trump administration had impounded to pressure the institution to address the issue.
Claiming a generational achievement for the conservative movement, which has argued for years that progressive bias in higher education is the cause of anti-Zionist antisemitism on college campuses, US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said the agreement included Columbia’s pledging to “discipline student offenders for severe disruptions of campus operations” and “eliminate race preferences from their hiring and admission practices and [diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI] programs that distribute benefits and advantages based on race” — which, if true, could mark the opening of a new era in American higher education.
“Columbia’s reforms are a roadmap for elite universities that wish to retain the confidence of the American public by renting their commitment to truth-seeking, merit, and civil debate,” McMahon added. “I believe they will ripple across the higher education sector and change the course of campus culture for years to come.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.