Legacies of Jewish Dissent: Rabbi Reichert and the Mid-20th Century Struggle Against Zionism

Background: Social work has long engaged in movements for economic, gender, and racial justice, and in opposition to anti-Semitism and xenophobia. However, the field has been largely silent on the subject of Zionism. This paper explores the life of Rabbi Irving Reichert (1895-1968), an influential and controversial leader whose numerous affiliations included service to the California Council of Social Work.

Rabbi Reichert's stances on a variety of social justice issues—opposing Japanese internment, supporting the rights of striking Mexican migrant workers, and resisting the spread of Zionism through his work with the American Council on Judaism (ACJ)—were criticized during his life (Rosenbaum, 1980). The cost of taking the latter stance was great; the Rabbi was asked to resign from his pulpit the day that the United Nations voted to create a Jewish state in Palestine. Reichert’s legacy as a civic leader and rationale for opposing Zionism have been heretofore underexplored. This paper focuses on the period 1943-1948, and the arguments made by Reichert and the ACJ against establishing a Jewish political state, and the price he paid for resisting Zionism.

Methods: This is a historical study, drawing largely on archival sources (including organizational materials, personal correspondence, sermons, and press clippings), as well as interviews and secondary source material.

Results: Having traveled to Nazi Germany in 1933 and again in 1937 to document worsening conditions for Jews, Reichert was acutely aware of the risks of ethnonationalist movements. In a 1936 sermon, Reichert warned, “There is too dangerous a parallel between the insistence of Zionist spokesmen upon nationality and race and blood, and sinister pronouncements by Fascist leaders in European dictatorships...We may live to regret it.” (Reichert, 1953, p. 132). Reichert understood the fight to be between two contrasting theories of change: the Zionist movement proposed that the sole path to safety for the Jewish people was through the establishment of a Jewish nation and army; the competing theory advocated by Rabbi Reichert and the ACJ was that egalitarianism and democracy were the roads to Jewish safety, and that Jewish people are safest when and where all people are safe. As a result of this position, Reichert faced fierce Zionist backlash, and by the end of his life he was without a pulpit, prominence or sense of purpose.

Conclusions and Implications: Given that the history of Jewish anti-Zionist organizing in the mid-20th century has been largely untold, this paper contributes to social work’s understanding of ideological diversity within Jewish communities. Furthermore, the degree to which Reichert’s life was shaped so profoundly by the rupture between Zionist and anti-Zionist forces in the United States provides insight into one of the lesser understood effects of anti-Semitism: stark ideological divisions among American Jews. This historical study may provide insight for navigating the ongoing rupture between Zionist and anti-Zionist Jewish Americans, and invites social work to consider ways to nuance teaching related to Jewish experience, anti-Semitism and Zionism.