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
Ed Sheeran’s support acts bail on Loop Tour after Macklemore dropped
(JTA) —
All of Ed Sheeran’s opening acts and his backing band have withdrawn from his Loop Tour after the pro-Palestinian rapper Macklemore was dropped as an opening act amid pressure from Robert Kraft and other stadium owners.
Kraft, the Jewish and pro-Israel billionaire who owns the Boston-area stadium where one of the tour stops had been scheduled, said on Monday that he had told Sheeran’s team that Macklemore wouldn’t be allowed to perform there.
Macklemore was subsequently dropped from the tour following pushback from unnamed venues that “will not allow a concert to take place with Macklemore on the lineup,” Rolling Stone reported on Monday.
At a Macklemore performance at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J., earlier this month, the rapper declared “Free Palestine” before performing his 2024 song, “Hind’s Hall,” referring to Columbia University’s Hamilton Hall. Pro-Palestinian protesters occupied the building and unofficially renamed it for Hind Rajab, a 6-year-old Palestinian girl who was killed during the war in Gaza. Israel is investigating her killing.
Sheeran said Tuesday that he wasn’t behind the tour promoter’s decision to drop Macklemore.
“I am not complicit,” Sheeran wrote in a statement on Instagram Tuesday, saying that Macklemore leaving the tour “was the promoter’s decision, it was not mine.” It was Sheeran’s first public statement on the controversy.
Hours after Sheeran’s comments, acts began pulling out of the tour.
His backing band, Beoga, said in an Instagram post that it was leaving the tour “following the silencing of Macklemore by zionist lobbies.”
“We believe in dialogue as a means of progressing the plight of the Palestinian people,” they added. Beoga’s management did not immediately respond to requests for further comment.
Kraft’s decision to bar Macklemore from performing at Gillette Stadium in Foxboro, Mass. got the backing of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston.
“Mr. Kraft drew a clear moral line in the sand about the demonization and offensive conduct that he will not allow in ‘his home’,” Jeremy Burton, the JCRC CEO, said, referring to the stadium. “He also showed leadership and complexity … by rejecting those who would diminish the suffering of innocent Palestine people.”
“This decision is not about diminishing the suffering of innocent Palestinians or denying anyone the right to advocate on their behalf,” Kraft had said in his statement. “Their pain and loss are real.”
Other acts scheduled to support Sheeran on the Loop tour, including Aaron Rowe, Finneas and Lukas Graham, also withdrew Tuesday. Rowe and Lukas Graham were supposed to replace Macklemore on the remaining U.S. dates, AP reported.
It’s not yet clear what the fate of the tour is, given the withdrawal of his backing band. At least one Israeli musician joked that he was ready to put together a replacement band for “unlimited beer.”
Sheeran’s own note added, “I am appalled by the conflict between Israel and Palestine.” The British singer-songwriter wrote that he had been “involved in direct talks” between Kraft and various promoters “to try and find a mutual resolution for all.”
Sheeran didn’t mention Jews in his statement, but noted, “I have always used my platform and music to bring people from all backgrounds and cultures together and this won’t ever change.”
He also had some veiled criticism of his tourmate’s methods. “Those who come to my shows do not expect a political forum,” Sheeran wrote. “I respect Macklemore’s strength of purpose to stand up for what he believes. However, there is room for multiple approaches to the same end: peace… If we only focus on shouting the loudest, nothing will ever change.”
The Israeli-American Council, which organized a boycott against Macklemore following his New Jersey show, criticized Sheeran in a statement to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
“It’s time to take responsibility for giving a stage to antisemitic messaging,” the IAC said, of Sheeran. “This isn’t just ‘criticism of Israel.’ It’s a message that crosses the line between legitimate political criticism and antisemitism. This is Ed Sheeran’s stage, it’s the tour that carries his name — and so the responsibility for what happens on it is his too.”
The post Ed Sheeran’s support acts bail on Loop Tour after Macklemore dropped appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Vance: Trump willing to ‘part ways’ with Netanyahu when necessary, and has often opposed him
(JTA) —
President Donald Trump has an unprecedented track record of opposing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when it comes to advancing the interest of the American people, Vice President JD Vance said during a virtual address Tuesday at a Los Angeles-based technology summit.
More than any president in the last 40 years Trump “has shown a willingness to actually part ways with ‘Bibi’ Netanyahu when he feels like the interests of the American people are different from the interests of the government of Israel,” Vance told the All-In Summit on technology.
The claim that Trump is the “one president” who would differ with Netanyahu is one that would surprise many watchers of the U.S.-Israel relationship.
The most significant U.S.-Israel rupture since 2009, when Netanyahu was first elected prime minister, was with President Barack Obama in 2015 over Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.
Vance’s comments were the latest in a series he has made emphasizing the widening gulf between Jerusalem and Washington as November midterm elections approach and at a time when Netanyahu’s popularity in the United States is at a low after three years of Middle East wars.
A Pew poll from the end of March, when the United States was actively at war with Iran, found that 60% of U.S. adults unfavorably view Israel and that 59% lacked confidence in Netanyahu’s handling of world affairs, an increase of 7% in both categories.
Republicans are scrambling to shuck off unpopular policies and associations, fearing the party will lose control of Congress in the midterms, a result that would cripple Trump’s agenda in the final two years of his presidency.
“I find it a little ironic … that you have Democrats criticizing Donald Trump for his relationship with Bibi when Donald Trump is the one president of the last 40 years who’s been willing to say, you know what, yeah, Bibi is a good partner, but also Bibi and I have a different opinion on this, or Bibi’s wrong about this, or maybe Bibi’s right about this from the perspective of Israel. But the American people need us to go in a different direction,” Vance said.
Trump has often touted himself as the president who has done the most for Israel, including relocating his country’s embassy to Jerusalem and rupturing Obama’s Iran deal, during his first term in 2018 and securing the release of the Gaza hostages in 2025 during his second, nonconsecutive term. The war he and Netanyahu launched against Iran in February is the first ever joint U.S.-Israeli military action.
The friendship between the two leaders is a highly public one, with Netanyahu enjoying more White House visits than any other world leader. Each has made the close ties central to their electoral campaigns. Netanyahu pitches himself as the world leader most influential with Trump, while Trump’s evangelical base lauds his closeness with Israel.
Vance, however, has often taken a harsher line, including accusing Israel of trying to manipulate U.S. public opinion on the Iran war.
“Israel has been an important partner when it comes to military technology, when it comes to intelligence sharing, but also sometimes the United States doesn’t always agree with Israel,” Vance said on Tuesday.
Serious differences have emerged since the joint U.S.-Israel goals in the Iran war – to change the regime and end once and for all Iran’s potential to acquire a nuclear weapon – have foundered. Among these has been the U.S. decision to end the Iran war without a clear plan to block the Islamic Republic’s path to nuclear weapons and its agreement to enter into a civilian nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia, without insisting on a normalization deal with the Jewish state.
“We cannot let our Middle Eastern foreign policy be subservient to the state of Israel,” Vance told the All In Summit.
Vance has also ruffled American Jewish feathers by refusing to disavow media personality Tucker Carlson, who has promoted conspiracy theories about Israel and Jews.
Vance’s remarks rankled pro-Israel figures who have otherwise been supportive of Trump’s policies.
“American foreign policy should be subservient to no country,” Jonathan Schanzer, the executive director of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, an influential think tank that backed the Iran war, wrote on X. “Why does the VP feel compelled to call out Israel in this respect? Why not call out the Qataris, or the Saudis, or Ukraine? Odd how this keeps happening.”
Heather Johnston, a Christian evangelical who founded the U.S. Israel Education Association, accused Vance on X of catering to Israel haters.
“Our U.S. foreign policy has never been subservient to Israel’s foreign policy,” she said, attaching a clip of Vance’s remarks. “He knows that. Why would he need to say that unless he’s trying to politically gain some points with Israel haters?”
The accusation hit a nerve. Vance’s communications director Taylor Van Kirk quoted Johnston’s tweet, and posted the entire exchange on X. “Let’s all take a moment to actually watch this exchange in full, where the VP was specifically asked about Israel,” Van Kirk said.
The post Vance: Trump willing to ‘part ways’ with Netanyahu when necessary, and has often opposed him appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
LA Federation sues museum for custody of looted paintings once hoarded by Hermann Göring
(JTA) — The Jewish Federation of Los Angeles and the heirs to a Jewish artist filed suit against a California museum to recover a pair of 16th-century oil paintings seized by the Nazis and held in the private collection of Hermann Göring.
Also on Monday, the daughters of Holocaust survivor Dina Gottliebova Babbitt sued the Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum to recover watercolors of Roma victims she was forced to paint for Josef Mengele, the physician who tormented and experimented on inmates at Auschwitz. The artist died in 2009.
The two lawsuits were filed at the end of the filing window under a 2024 California law that permits claimants in previously dismissed lawsuits to refile for the retrieval of looted artworks. The law permits claimants to recover personal property stolen as the result of “political persecution” when earlier lawsuits were dismissed on procedural grounds.
The federation is suing the Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena for the retrieval of a life-sized oil diptych of Adam and Eve by the German painter Lucas Cranach the Elder. In 1940, the Nazis seized the pair of paintings from their Jewish owner, the art dealer Jacques Goudstikker. The art wound up in the hands of Göring, the Nazi air force commander and convicted war criminal, along with about 800 other pieces from Goudstikker’s collection. The paintings eventually made their way to the Norton Simon in 1971.
In a press release, the Jewish federation said it would use the majority of the proceeds from the sale of the art to care for Los Angeles-based Holocaust survivors living in poverty. (A 2018 study from the Jewish Federations of North America found that one-third of Holocaust survivors in the United States are living below the poverty line.)
“By pursuing the recovery of the Cranachs, we are seeking to reverse a great injustice perpetrated by the Nazi theft of a Jewish family’s property, and securing the resources that will enable us to provide for the many needs of thousands of impoverished Holocaust survivors in the greater Los Angeles area so they can live in dignity for the remainder of their lives,” Rabbi Noah Farkas, president and CEO of the Los Angeles federation, said in a statement.
Goudstikker’s daughter-in-law, Marei von Saher, first sued the Norton Simon Museum in 2007, claiming the paintings belonged to her family. A 2018 ruling determined on procedural grounds that they belong to the museum.
In addition to the 2024 California law, Congress passed a law earlier this year that eliminated “state doctrine,” the principle that acts committed by foreign countries within their territory are immune from lawsuits, strengthening the cases for the heirs of Goudstikker and Babbitt.
Dina Babbitt in 2006, at work on a recreation of the “Snow White” mural that she painted in the children’s barracks at Auschwitz. Her family is seeking the recovery of the portraits she drew of Roma inmates at the concentration camp. (Lawrence Stern for The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies)
Also in 2024, 21 countries agreed to updated guidelines for restituting Nazi-looted art, which specifies that works sold to the Nazis under duress are also considered looted or stolen property.
“I am grateful to the Jewish Federation Los Angeles and its Chairman Daniel Gryczman for taking up this cause and pursuing the recovery of Adam and Eve by Lucas Cranach the Elder,” von Saher said in a statement shared with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “This effort represents a meaningful step toward justice for Holocaust survivors and victims of Nazi era atrocities.”
Jewish federations rarely file lawsuits as the plaintiffs in a Nazi-looted art restitution case. The San Diego Jewish Federation was a co-plaintiff in a lawsuit in 2015.
JTA has reached out to the attorneys for the Jewish federation for comment.
The Pasadena museum held onto the Cranachs even as other works that had been looted from Goudstikker’s collection were restituted by the Dutch government in the decades since their seizure.
“After decades of litigation, court after court including the United States Supreme Court ha confirmed that the Norton Simon Art Foundation has proper title to Adam and Eve by Lucas Cranach the Elder,” a spokesperson for the Norton Simon Museum told JTA in a statement. “We will continue to make these important artworks accessible to the public, as we have since 1971.”
The spokesperson said the museum is reviewing the complaint, and referred to a 2016 court decision that placed the artworks in their possession.
Goudstikker first acquired the paintings at a 1931 Berlin auction hosted by the Soviet authorities, which also included many works previously owned by the Russian Stroganoff family. In 1940, after Jacques Goudstikker’s death, his collection was sold to the Nazis under duress — but no cash ever came to his family.
In the Norton Simon Museum’s online catalogue, provenance cards for the works say they were “[s]aid to have been in the Stroganoff Collection” and describe the transfer from Goudstikker to Göring as “appropriated 1940.”
The quest to restitute Goudstikker’s artwork began in 1946, when his wife Désiree, an opera singer, filed a claim in the Netherlands that was initially rebuffed. Though she was able to retrieve one painting just a few years later, all of the pieces that had been seized by Göring were kept in the Dutch national collections. In later years, more than 200 artworks were returned to von Saher’s possession.
But in 1961, George Stroganoff-Scherbatoff, a descendant of the aristocratic family whose works were sold en masse along with the Cranachs, claimed the diptych from the Dutch government. He later sold the works to the Norton Simon Museum for $800,000.
In the case of the Gottliebova drawings, a spokesperson from the Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum told JTA that the memorial was their appropriate home. “The drawings of Roma victims made in the camp must remain in the Memorial as part of the documentation of the crimes of Mengele,” the spokesperson for the state-run museum said.
“We fully understand the emotional approach of Dina Gottliebova’s family,” said the spokesperson, but “we express the deep conviction that the watercolors should remain at the Memorial.”
“The portraits of Roma victims are the few remaining fragments of the documentation made by Mengele as part of his criminal experiments,” the spokesperson continued. “Therefore, they should be treated as unique documents related to the history of Auschwitz.”
Earlier this month, an Argentine court ordered the restitution to van Saher of a looted painting, after the painting was spotted on a real estate website advertising the sale of a home of the daughter of a former Nazi official. The painting came from Goudstikker’s collection.
Earlier this year, a judge ruled that a painting by Italian artist Amedeo Modigliani, once valued at more than $25 million, must be returned to the descendants of its original owner, who was forced to sell the painting to the Nazis under duress.
The post LA Federation sues museum for custody of looted paintings once hoarded by Hermann Göring appeared first on The Forward.
