{"id":1232,"date":"2017-11-20T20:44:43","date_gmt":"2017-11-20T20:44:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cjhblog.cjh.org\/index.php\/2017\/11\/20\/alternative-loyalty-and-the-american-council-for\/"},"modified":"2017-11-20T20:44:43","modified_gmt":"2017-11-20T20:44:43","slug":"alternative-loyalty-and-the-american-council-for","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.cjh.org\/index.php\/2017\/11\/20\/alternative-loyalty-and-the-american-council-for\/","title":{"rendered":"Alternative Loyalty and the American Council for Judaism"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Steven Trebach, Research Intern<\/p>\n

I am a Research Intern at the Center for Jewish History
\n(CJH) and a recent graduate of Haverford College. My original goal was to
\nresearch dual loyalty, which led me to documents concerning the American
\nCouncil for Judaism <\/a>(ACJ) within the Center\u2019s Partner\u2019s collections,
\nparticularly the American Jewish Historical Society. In the mid-20th<\/sup> century, the
\nACJ accused Zionist Jews of not being loyal to America. <\/p>\n

This blog post intends to explore the nature of the ACJ\u2019s
\nclaims using archival and supplementary materials. In this piece, I will
\nintroduce the ideas of dual and alternative loyalty, the ACJ, illustrate the
\nnature of ACJ\u2019s alternative loyalty charges, and try to understand how these
\ncharges fit into larger patterns of alternative loyalty. The specific AJHS
\narchival materials in question are a series of correspondences from and about
\nthe ACJ.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

First, my research revealed several kinds of alternative
\nloyalty charges that have developed with regard to Jews throughout the world.
\nThe most relevant to the ACJ\u2019s accusations is what can be referred to as polity
\nconflict. Jewish polity conflict is the accusation that Jews are loyal to
\nanother geopolitical entity, especially one whose interests can interfere with
\nthose of the polity in which said Jews live. When the charge acknowledges a Jew\u2019s
\nloyalty to their place of residence alongside the conflicting foreign body, the
\nallegation is dual loyalty<\/i>. For
\nexample, the Iraqi fear that Iraqi Jews supported British consolidation of
\npower in Iraqi, leading to a pogrom, Al-Farhud<\/a>.
\n(Moreh & Yehuda, 2011, p.12). The second major kind of alternative loyalty is
\nideological disloyalty, based on the idea that Jews hold allegiance to a
\nforeign philosophical movement conflicting with society\u2019s values and safety. An
\nAmerican example of this is the disproportionate targeting of Jews for
\nanti-communist loyalty tests by the Postal service during the late 1940s
\n(Spiegler, November 4, 1948).<\/p>\n

These kinds of allegations have precursors in anti-Semitic
\nconspiracies, such as blood libel, and events, such as the Dreyfus affair. The
\nmodern phenomenon, into which the ACJ\u2019s allegations fit, arose with the
\nestablishment of revolutionary resistance politics within Jewish communities,
\nsuch as Zionism, Bundism, and multiple forms of socialism in the late 19th<\/sup>
\nand early 20th<\/sup> centuries. Though these movements were largely
\nconcentrated in Eastern European Jewry and their American progeny, alternative loyalty<\/i> claims related to
\nthese revolutionary resistance movements occurred from Argentina to Hashemite
\nIraq. That these indictments were leveled against diverse, loosely related
\ncommunities might suggest they arise not from a community\u2019s behavior but rather
\nfrom a source within the accusing society. <\/p>\n

\"image\"<\/figure>\n

Image: Judah Magnus Museum via FoundSF<\/a><\/i><\/i><\/p>\n

The ACJ is a Jewish organization that was founded in
\nopposition to Zionism. The group has many of its organizational and ideological
\nroots in the 1942 Atlantic City conference, a meeting of 36 rabbis concerning
\nthe growth of Zionism, which revealed a schism between supporters of
\n\u201cnationalism versus religion\u201d and vice versa, in which the ACJ took a firm
\nstance against Jewish nationalism (Kolsky, 1990, pp.49, 54).[1]<\/a> The
\nACJ\u2019s position, according to correspondences by one of its leading figures Elmer
\nBurger, was that Jews were not \u201cnot a minority group of Americans identified by
\na separate \u2018Jewish\u2019 nationality\u201d but rather a religion; the ACJ\u2019s ultimate
\ndesire was secular integration for Jews in America (Berger, April 21, 1950, pp.
\n2,8) Thus, the ACJ rejected any Zionism or nationalism that contradicted that
\nsentiment. As such, the ACJ was \u201cthe only American Jewish organization ever
\nformed for the specific purpose of fighting Zionism\u201d (Kolsky, 1990, p.ix). This
\ndistinction placed the ACJ outside of mainstream Jewish life. <\/p>\n

It is in this context that the ACJ seems to make two kinds
\nof common alternative loyalty charges. The charges are framed as concern for
\nthe wellbeing of the Jewish community rather than fear of Israeli desires
\ncontradicting American ones. Their dual loyalty claim, the charge that one had
\ndivided one\u2019s loyalties between two polities, is well illustrated in Norman
\nThomas\u2019 \u201cLetter to Maurice Spector.\u201d \u00a0Thomas
\nargues that the American Council puts forward \u201cthe charge that certain
\nstatements by Zionist leaders here and in Israel opened the way to the
\ndevelopment of dual loyalty, and to exaggerated charges of dual loyalty by
\nactual or potential anti-Semites\u201d (Thomas, February 3 1950). \u00a0Just as Iraqis during Al-Farhud may have seen hypothetical
\nJewish allegiance to the British as a potential danger to Iraq\u2019s sovereignty,
\nthe ACJ saw Zionist loyalty to Israel as a potentially dangerous conflict with
\ntheir American citizenship. <\/p>\n

The ACJ\u2019s criticisms also seem to contain an element of
\nideological treason, the accusation that one is committed to ideas deleterious
\nto one\u2019s polity. Elmer Burger, a rabbi and ACJ leader, \u201cconsidered Zionism the
\nlast attempt to maintain any traces of ghetto control over the lives of
\nindividual Jews\u201d (Kolsky, 1990, p.109). This critique of Zionist Jews does not
\nposit Zionism as an allegiance to another polity but rather as an ideology that
\nacts negatively upon Jews. I believe this is comparable to the Argentine fears
\nof Jewish communism and the Soviet fears of Jewish anti-communism.<\/p>\n

There are two key differences between most alternative
\nloyalty charges and those of the ACJ that must be addressed. All of the other rhetoric
\noriginated in a source external<\/i> to
\nthe Jewish community and arguably entailed hostility towards it. The ACJ\u2019s ideas
\narose within<\/i> the Jewish community and
\nsuggest concern for it. Even the direct accusation of dual loyalty is meant to
\nmitigate potential anti-Semitism.<\/p>\n

The clearer of the two is the internal-external division. Though
\non the surface, this may seem major, it is easily resolvable with regards to
\nthe dual loyalty case. The ACJ followed the premise that \u201cwe are Americans\u201d;
\ntherefore, they charged dual loyalty not as Jews but as Americans (Berger,
\nApril 21, 1950, p.1). Thus, they saw themselves as holding no special communal
\nattachment to the Zionists on the plane of nationalism outside of an
\nAmericanism they shared with gentiles. Therefore, from the ACJ\u2019s perspective,
\nthe accusation was against a different community. <\/p>\n

Demographic concerns bolster the above claims. \u201cCouncil
\nmembers were differentiated from the rest of American Jewry on religious,
\nsocial and economic as well as ideological grounds\u201d being primarily
\nupper-class, Reform, German Jews as opposed to poorer, more religious Eastern
\nEuropean Jews (Halperin, 1961, p.454). These two populations inherited two very
\ndifferent relationships with Judaism and nationalism. \u201cGerman Jews\u2026 were barely
\ndistinguishable from other German immigrants\u201d and \u201cwere proud of their German
\nheritage\u2026and retained their German nationalism even after becoming American
\ncitizens,\u201d a mentality that likely informed their \u201cthe opinion that Judaism is
\nprimarily a religion\u201d (Kolsky, 1990, p.18) (Thomas, February 3 1950). Accepting
\nJewish nationalism would intrude upon this treasured German heritage.
\nConversely, Eastern European Jews \u201chad lived in Jewish enclaves in Eastern
\nEurope and \u2026 considered themselves an ethnic group\u201d (Kolsky, 1990, p.22). Thus,
\nstrains of Zionism positing Jews as a separate people would be more attractive
\nto them than to members of the ACJ. Thus, as they had strong social and
\ncultural differences, the ACJ may have felt themselves part of a completely
\ndifferent community than these other Jews.<\/p>\n

The above explanation does not account for the ACJ\u2019s intended
\nbenevolence. Why would an organization attempting to protect the Jewish
\ncommunity use rhetoric reminiscent of more hostile groups? One hypothesis is
\nthat ACJ members such as Norman Thomas can be taken at face value: they fear
\nanti-Semitism being visited upon Jews for their dual loyalty. By providing the
\nsame rhetoric devoid of violence, perhaps they could extinguish alternative
\nloyalties before they draw the ire of more hostile groups. Zionist
\ncounterpropaganda, however, had a different explanation. They argued via the
\nideas of Kurt Lewin that \u201cthe person seeking to enter a higher status group has
\nto be especially careful to disown any connection with the ideas of the group
\nto which he once belonged\u201d (Halperin, 1961, pp. 456-457). As ACJ members mostly
\nof or striving for higher social status than Zionist Jews, Lewin\u2019s idea seems
\napplicable. One could therefore argue that although the ACJ claimed
\nbenevolence, their true motivations were an internalized hostility towards association
\nwith Jews of lower social and economic status. <\/p>\n

Ultimately, the case of the ACJ provides a clear but complicated
\nexample of alternative loyalty charges that demonstrates the intellectual
\ncomplexities surrounding the topic. The libraries and AJHS archives within the
\nCJH contain sufficient archival and supplementary data for the future in-depth evaluation
\nthis topic deserves.<\/p>\n

Works Cited: <\/b><\/p>\n

Archival Materials:<\/b> <\/p>\n

American Council for Judaism. (1947). American
\nCouncil for Judaism Collection, undated, 1943-1991<\/i> .<\/i>
\nAmerican Jewish Historical Society. Call Number: I-344.<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Berger,
\nApril 21, 1950<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Thomas,
\nFebruary 3, 1950<\/p>\n

NJCRAC
\nI-172: Committees- Committee on Overt Anti-Semitism- Loyalty Test \u2013 Postal
\nEmployees- 1948-1951-1&2. American Jewish Historical Society.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Spiegler, November 4, 1948\u00a0
\n\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Published Books: <\/b><\/p>\n

Halperin, S. (1985). The Political World of American Zionism<\/i>.
\nSilver Spring, MD: Information Dynamics Inc.<\/p>\n

Kolsky, T. A. (1990). Jews Against Zionism: The American Council
\nfor Judaism<\/i>. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.<\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> It should be noted that the
\nAtlantic City conference took place after the aforementioned Farhud in Iraq,
\nbut it is not clear whether or not the participants were influenced or aware of
\nsaid events, given the overwhelming cacophony of the contemporaneous World War
\nII.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Steven Trebach, Research Intern I am a Research Intern at the Center for Jewish History (CJH) and a recent graduate of Haverford College. My original goal was to research dual loyalty, which led me to documents concerning the American Council for Judaism (ACJ) within the Center\u2019s Partner\u2019s collections, particularly the American Jewish Historical Society. In the mid-20th century, the ACJ accused Zionist Jews…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[71,69,65,70,66,67,68],"class_list":["post-1232","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blog-post","tag-alternative-loyalty","tag-american-council-for-judaism","tag-american-judaism","tag-dual-loyalty","tag-reform-judaism","tag-research-intern","tag-steven-trebach"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.cjh.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1232","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.cjh.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.cjh.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.cjh.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.cjh.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1232"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.cjh.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1232\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.cjh.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1232"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.cjh.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1232"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.cjh.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1232"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}