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
‘Antisemite of the Year’ finalists include Tucker Carlson and Ms. Rachel, but not Nick Fuentes
Nick Fuentes says he feels snubbed by the controversial activist group StopAntisemitism, which neglected to include him among its finalists for “Antisemite of the Year.”
The group’s finalists, announced Sunday, include conservative pundit Tucker Carlson, whose friendly interview with Fuentes has splintered the conservative movement.
Other “nominees” include pro-Palestinian celebrities Ms. Rachel, Cynthia Nixon and Marcia Cross; mixed-martial-arts athlete and Holocaust denier Bryce Mitchell; two personalities associated with left-wing network The Young Turks; and social media personalities on both the far left (Guy Christensen) and far right (Stew Peters). Followers are encouraged to vote for whomever they feel is most deserving.
But Fuentes himself, the openly white nationalist and antisemitic livestreamer whose “groyper” movement has gained a toehold this year among young Republicans, was left off.
“Why wasn’t I nominated for antisemite of the year,” Fuentes posted on X after the finalists were revealed, apparently wounded by the omission.
In a follow-up post, StopAntisemitism said it does not nominate people more than once and has nominated Fuentes in previous years. “While he was a finalist a few years back, his absence from this year’s cycle does not erase his antisemitism. Rather, it allows us to focus attention on other individuals who are spreading hate,” the group wrote.
A watchdog presence with more than 300,000 followers on X, StopAntisemitism regularly mobilizes against activists and social media posts. The group has faced criticism for what some perceive as an inordinate focus on Muslim personalities, pro-Palestinian actions and non-prominent individuals. Its defenders deny that, pointing out that StopAntisemitism also regularly spotlights neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers on the right.
“From downplaying white supremacy to promoting the antisemitic ‘great replacement’ theory, Carlson has built a career turning extremist dog whistles into broadcast-ready talking points, legitimizing voices that traffic in Holocaust revisionism, conspiracy, and hate,” StopAntisemitism wrote in its nomination of Carlson.
The group nominated Ms. Rachel, the children’s YouTube personality who has become an outspoken advocate for children affected by Israeli airstrikes in Gaza, because it said she “has used her massive platform to spread Hamas-aligned propaganda.” A left-wing group, Jews for Racial & Economic Justice, has defended Ms. Rachel, saying StopAntisemitism targeted her for expressing sympathy with Palestinians.
Nixon was nominated for her “BDS activism” (she was listed in a film‑industry petition boycotting Israeli film institutions and has been outspoken about civilian casualties in Gaza); Mitchell and Peters, meanwhile, have embraced open Holocaust denial.
Last year’s “winner,” far-right pundit and conspiracy theorist Candace Owens, was also absent despite her recent resurgence promoting conspiracy theories accusing Israeli of involvement in Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Previous “winners” have included Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, as well as rapper Ye and a board chair of Ben & Jerry’s, the progressive ice cream company founded by Jews.
Since its inception in 2019, the “award” has always gone to a person of color.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post ‘Antisemite of the Year’ finalists include Tucker Carlson and Ms. Rachel, but not Nick Fuentes appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
If Israel reinstates the death penalty, it will betray Jewish values — and Jewish history
The Knesset is considering a bill that would instate the death penalty as a punishment for convicted terrorists in Israel. Passing it would be an enormous mistake.
Allowing executions in the Jewish state — the justice system of which has, since 1954, only issued that punishment to Adolf Eichmann — would only give fodder to Israel’s enemies. Right now, Israel stands apart in the Middle East for its abolishment of the death penalty. Hamas regularly executes Palestinians in Gaza, extrajudicially and otherwise. A court operating under Yemen’s Houthi rebels recently sentenced 17 people to death for allegedly spying on behalf of Israel and others. Iran, which has carried out death sentences against Jews, has executed more than 1,500 people in 2025 alone.
Which means that if Israel violates its moral obligations and ethical standards by undoing its historic commitment to not inflicting the one punishment that can never be undone, it will be giving its enemies a gift.
First, changing the justice system to allow for the death penalty would provide Hamas terrorists incarcerated in Israel with a new platform for their message. Hamas could proclaim them to be martyred heroes — a new layer of disingenuous but effective propaganda.
Terrorists such as the perpetrators of the Oct. 7, 2023 massacre often believe that their spirits will receive rewards upon their physical death. Within that framework, lifetime incarceration is a far harsher punishment, and therefore a more effective one. Plus, the notion that executing terrorists will prevent future hostage-taking for prisoner swaps is shaky. Hamas’ relationship with Israel has long been defined by retaliatory action, which means that the state killing of Hamas prisoners is likely to lead to Hamas reciprocally executing future Israeli hostages and “collaborators.” The endless cycle of violence will continue.
And since Israel seeks to be a transparent democracy that follows the rule of law, particularly within its judiciary, a legal death sentencing scheme also would prove costly in terms of public perception.
Israel’s reputation as a bastion of moral clarity in the Middle East has dramatically changed in the more than two years since the Oct. 7 attack. The devastation of the war in Gaza, and of increasing violence in the West Bank, has led to a substantial drop in positive perceptions of Israel worldwide. And while the Israeli judiciary has long been one of the country’s most trusted institutions, the deleterious effects of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s pre-war proposals for a judicial overhaul mean it is no longer held in the same high regard, in Israel or the rest of the world, as it once was.
This bill has already advanced past a first reading in the Knesset. Moving it any further toward becoming law would only hasten the decline of Israel’s image.
Some of those who have argued in favor of the bill have invoked the fallacy of “deterrence.” Shin Bet security service Chief David Zini even told the Security Cabinet that enacting the death penalty for terrorists who kill Israelis would help prevent future attacks.
That statement doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Recent studies have concluded that when it comes to deterrence, there is no demonstrable link between the presence or absence of the death penalty and murder rates.
But the most profound reason to reject this bill comes from our own painful history as a people. Many Jews, including myself, have long objected to the death penalty in part because of the shadow of the Holocaust.
We believe, in the words of Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, that “death is not the answer.” By the end of his life, Wiesel publicly said that he saw no possible exceptions to this rule:“With every cell of my being and with every fiber of my memory, I oppose the death penalty in all forms,” he said. “I do not believe any civilized society should be at the service of death. I don’t think it’s human to become an agent of the angel of death.”
In this light, it is particularly troubling that the Israeli bill proposes using lethal injection against convicted terrorists. That method of capital punishment is a direct Nazi legacy, first implemented in human history by the Third Reich as part of their infamous Aktion T4 protocol, used to kill people deemed “unworthy of life.” Dr. Karl Brandt, Adolf Hitler’s personal physician, devised the program.
In the wake of the Holocaust and the unparalleled horrors of the 20th century, more than 70% of the nations of the world have recognized the inviolability of the human right to life, and have abolished the death penalty in law or practice.
21st-century Judaism must reflect this evolution, and Israel must never cross this moral Rubicon.
The post If Israel reinstates the death penalty, it will betray Jewish values — and Jewish history appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Israel Sees Momentum in Latin America After Argentina’s Milei Officially Launches Isaac Accords
Argentine President Javier Milei meets with Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar in Buenos Aires during Saar’s diplomatic and economic visit to strengthen ties between the two countries. Photo: Screenshot
With the official launch of the Isaac Accords by Argentina’s President Javier Milei, Israel aims to expand its diplomatic and security ties across Latin America, with the initiative designed to promote government cooperation and fight antisemitism and terrorism.
Milei formally launched the Isaac Accords last week during a meeting in Buenos Aires with Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar, who has been on a regional diplomatic tour.
Modeled after the Abraham Accords — a series of historic US-brokered normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab countries, this new initiative aims to strengthen political, economic, and cultural cooperation between the Jewish state and Latin American governments.
The Argentine leader called his country a “pioneer” alongside the United States in promoting the new framework, emphasizing its role in fostering closer ties between Israel and the region across key strategic fields.
“While the vast majority of the free world decided to turn its back on the Jewish state, we extended a hand to it,” Milei said during a speech at the 90th anniversary of the Delegation of Argentine Israelite Associations (DAIA), the country’s Jewish umbrella organization.
“While the vast majority turned a deaf ear to the growth of antisemitism in their lands, we denounced it with even greater fervor, because evil cannot be met with indifference,” he continued.
Thank you
President @JMilei for your moral clarity & support. You are a true friend.
— Israel Foreign Ministry (@IsraelMFA) November 30, 2025
Shortly after Milei’s announcement, Saar praised him as “a double miracle, for Argentina and for the Jewish people,” describing his connection to Judaism and Israel as “sincere, powerful, and moving.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also praised Milei, describing his “moral clarity, vision, and courage” as signals of “a new era of common sense, mutual interests, and shared values between Israel and Latin America.”
The first phase of the Isaac Accords will focus on Uruguay, Panama, and Costa Rica, where potential projects in technology, security, and economic development are already taking shape as the initiative seeks to deepen cooperation in innovation, commerce, and cultural exchange.
In February, Argentina’s Foreign Minister Pablo Quirno will visit Israel to work with Saar and Netanyahu on advancing the initiative’s operational framework.
Milei also announced plans to relocate the country’s embassy to Jerusalem next spring, fulfilling a promise made last year, as the two allies continue to strengthen their bilateral ties.
The top Israeli diplomat commended Milei, describing his support for Israel on the international stage as “courageous and forceful.”
The Isaac Accords will also aim to encourage partner countries to move their embassies to Jerusalem, formally recognize Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations, and shift longstanding anti-Israel voting patterns at the United Nations.
Less than a year after the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, Argentina became the first Latin American country to designate the Palestinian Islamist group as a terrorist organization, with Paraguay following suit earlier this year.
As Israel moves to strengthen its diplomatic and economic ties in Latin America, Saar announced on Monday that Ecuador has opened an additional diplomatic mission in Jerusalem, further bolstering their bilateral relations.
“Several Latin American countries – Guatemala, Paraguay and Honduras – have already moved their embassies to Jerusalem,” the Israeli diplomat wrote in a post on X.
“The opening of Ecuador’s office in Jerusalem is another milestone on this important path. I commend [Ecuador’s President Daniel Noboa] and the people of Ecuador for this significant decision,” he continued.
Foreign Minister @gidonsaar :
“Another diplomatic mission in our eternal capital, Jerusalem.
Together with Ecuador’s Ambassador to Israel, Cristina Ceballos, and Hebrew University President Prof. Tamir Shefer, I inaugurated Ecuador’s new Innovation Office – granted… pic.twitter.com/a4BeZi9uyN
— Israel Foreign Ministry (@IsraelMFA) December 1, 2025
Saar also announced that Bolivia has lifted visa requirements for Israelis entering the country, signaling closer cooperation between the two countries.
“This decision will allow many Israelis to visit Bolivia again after many years, enjoy its vibrant culture and remarkable scenery, and strengthen the ties between our nations,” Saar posted on X.
תודה לך, נשיא בוליביה רודריגו פז על ביטול דרישת הויזה לישראלים.
החלטה זו תאפשר לישראלים רבים לחזור לבוליביה לאחר שנים רבות, להנות מתרבותה העשירה ומנופיה עוצרי הנשימה ולחזק את הקשרים בין עמינו.
— Gideon Sa’ar | גדעון סער (@gidonsaar) December 1, 2025
President Rodrigo Paz, a center-right politician, took office this year following years of left-wing government in Bolivia during which the country severed relations with Israel. Paz’s election signaled a shift in policy toward the Jewish state.
Last week, Saar kicked off his regional diplomatic trip in Paraguay, signing a security cooperation memorandum and meeting with President Santiago Peña, whom he praised as “one of the most impressive leaders on the international stage today.”
“Paraguay is developing major defense capabilities. Israel’s defense industry has experience and capabilities that we want to share with you,” the Israeli official said during a press conference with Paraguay’s Foreign Minister Rubén Ramírez Lezcano.