Note: This opinion piece reflects my personal views and not those of any group with which I am affiliated. As a matter of transparency, my application to be a member of the Collaborative of Jewish Psychologists was rejected.
More than two decades ago, when thousands of Muslim men and boys were being abused and tortured in U.S. custody during the “War on Terror,” the American Psychological Association created its “Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security” (PENS). That carefully selected group was predominantly comprised of members of the military-intelligence establishment, including several military psychologists. In short order, this task force did what seemed inevitable from the outset: despite compelling contrary evidence, they concluded that military psychologists played a valuable role in making sure that detention and interrogation operations were “safe, legal, ethical, and effective.”
The APA’s board of directors then quickly approved the PENS Report in an “emergency” vote, preempting the standard review and vote by the APA’s full legislative body, its Council of Representatives. Ultimately, as I’ve described elsewhere in detail, PENS was central to what arguably became the largest scandal the APA has ever faced. For years, the APA — perhaps afraid of losing its standing with U.S. government officials in Washington, DC — failed to join other human rights groups in demanding an end to the Bush Administration’s regime of abuse and torture.
I mention this PENS history now because I fear that APA’s leadership has created another group that may be destined to follow a similarly misguided path. The new “Collaborative of Jewish Psychologists” (CJP) is charged with helping to “design an APA roadmap for addressing antisemitism and uplifting Jewish identity.” When soliciting applications for CJP membership, APA leaders emphasized that they’d “welcome a diversity of voices representing the breadth of Jewish identity” and that they’d be “transparent and inclusive” in forming the group.
But as far as I can tell, that didn’t happen. Instead, it appears that roughly three-quarters of the CJP appointees (see note below) have either condemned criticism of Israel and support for Palestinian rights as antisemitic or are active in groups whose leaders have done so. Doesn’t the APA take seriously the evidence of Israel’s engagement in unlawful occupation, apartheid, war crimes and even genocide, all of which are well-documented? And shouldn’t the APA also be concerned that the perspective of this CJP super-majority is inconsistent with what the American Jewish community as a whole believes and with the analysis of hundreds of scholars who are experts on antisemitism? Let’s briefly consider each of these two groups in turn.
First, here’s some essential polling data from representative samples of American Jews. A Washington Post survey from September 2025 showed that only 24% described themselves as having a strong emotional attachment to Israel, while 20% responded that they didn’t feel attached at all. A February 2024 poll from the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding revealed that more American Jews supported (50%) than opposed (34%) a permanent ceasefire in Gaza. A September 2025 Ipsos survey showed that only 31% of American Jews approved of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza over the past two years. In the same Washington Post poll mentioned above, 61% of American Jews said Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza and 39% said Israel has committed genocide there. And in a Jewish Electorate Institute survey from back in 2021, less than a third of American Jews considered it antisemitic to describe Israel as an apartheid state (28%) or to say Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians (31%).
Second, let’s now turn to what experts say antisemitism is and is not. Hundreds of distinguished scholars in the fields of Holocaust history, Jewish studies, and Middle East studies — many of them Jews — drafted the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism five years ago. It defines antisemitism as “discrimination, prejudice, hostility, or violence against Jews as Jews” (emphasis added). Equally important, it specifically notes that the following are not intrinsically antisemitic: “evidence-based criticism of Israel as a state”; “supporting the Palestinian demand for justice and the full grant of their political, national, civil and human rights, as encapsulated in international law”; “criticizing or opposing Zionism as a form of nationalism;” and “non-violent forms of political protest against states” (including boycotts, divestment, and sanctions).
But did APA leaders choose to create a CJP that meaningfully reflects the views of the diverse American Jewish community and the insights of antisemitism scholars? No, and it’s not even close. Instead, they’ve seemingly stacked the CJP with members who, at least from what I’ve seen, appear to prioritize defending Israel above all else. I could provide details about these individuals — information that was certainly available to APA’s leadership as well — but here I’ll limit myself to briefly summarizing what this super-majority has publicly affirmed:
* Almost half of the CJP are leaders or members of an organization that criticized the APA for opposing the collective punishment of the Palestinian people. Following the horrific Hamas-led attacks of October 7, 2023, and Israel’s assault on Gaza, the APA issued a statement saying, “There can be no justification for cutting off access to basic necessities, such as electricity, food and medicine.” This organization’s leadership called that stance “terribly naïve” — and the following year they opposed an APA resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.
*Several CJP members were involved in drafting or endorsing a letter asserting that the APA suffers from “systemic” and “virulent” antisemitism. That wildly overblown claim was seemingly based on a fundamentally false premise: that criticism of Israel’s actions and expressions of support for Palestinian lives are intrinsically antisemitic.
*Several CJP members have insisted that opposing Zionism is “intrinsically antithetical to Judaism.” This claim ignores the fact that many Jews do not embrace Zionism, especially when it is understood to privilege the rights of Jews over non-Jews.
*In a webinar, a CJP member pronounced college campuses “hotbeds of antisemitism” and, without evidence, claimed that “Jewish students know that for every student who is vocal about their incitement to violence, there are many others who will share the same views but just aren’t saying them out loud.” (A survey by the Jim Joseph Foundation, conducted at the height of the encampments on U.S. campuses, provides us with some actual data. It found that 16% of Jewish students reported having been targeted by what they considered antisemitic comments or threats.)
*Another CJP member, testifying at a public hearing on antisemitism, told the panel of government officials that she was afraid because members of the progressive group Jewish Voice for Peace were seated behind her.
*Several CJP members signed a petition describing as “grotesque” any claim that Israel has engaged in genocidal actions. But the reality of Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza has been widely recognized — by the United Nations, by distinguished international and Israeli human rights groups, and by leading experts on genocide, including Israeli scholars.
*Several CJP members have insisted that APA should adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) “working definition” of antisemitism. That controversial document has been aggressively promoted by the Israeli government and by Israel advocacy groups because it includes examples that equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. It has been used by the Trump Administration to silence supporters of Palestinian rights.
Without any doubt, antisemitism — the targeting of Jews because they’re Jews — is a growing threat, especially on the political right, and it deserves urgent attention from the APA. But the powerful engines of this Jew-hatred aren’t the anti-genocide protesters carrying “Let Gaza Live” placards. Rather, they’re the ideologies of Christian nationalists, white supremacists, members of the Trump Administration, and the Israeli leaders who falsely claim that Israel acts on behalf of all Jews worldwide.
Despite these distressing realities, it seems to me that most members appointed to the CJP are especially eager to prohibit speech within APA forums that criticizes Israel for its horrific treatment of the Palestinian people. Two decades ago, during the PENS meetings, task force members were discouraged from mentioning the credible reports of psychologist involvement in abuse and torture. Will CJP members be similarly advised to avoid topics like Israel’s occupation, apartheid, war crimes, and genocide? Will any CJP member who broaches these topics be called an antisemite or “self-hating” Jew?
I very much hope the concerns I’ve raised here prove unwarranted. But if I’m correct, then the deliberations that unfold within the CJP, as with PENS before it, will be more a matter of pretense than substance. And the small minority of CJP members who disagree with the “Don’t Criticize Israel!” super-majority will be put in an untenably difficult position. They deserve much better than that — and APA leaders didn’t have to create a CJP with such an inappropriate imbalance of perspectives. As I noted at the outset, I was turned down for CJP membership. But I know several other colleagues whose applications were also rejected. And what we all share in common is the conviction that the State of Israel is not central to our Judaism, which instead revolves around sacred Jewish values like welcoming the stranger and repairing the world.
I assume these rejected applicants received the same email I did, emphasizing how “highly competitive” the selection process was. That email also included this: “CJP will notify you directly to ensure that your voice and perspective can inform the Collaborative’s work.” Although I will certainly welcome that invitation if it ever arrives, I’ve opted not to wait for it. Instead, I’m sharing my personal perspective here and now, and I can only hope it’s taken seriously.
Over twenty years ago, APA seemingly tossed aside basic commitments to human rights and human dignity for a chance to become a player in the so-called War on Terror. It then took a decade of dissident outrage and advocacy before APA’s president-elect publicly acknowledged that it was time for the APA “to reset our moral compass.” Yet today, amid the ongoing destruction of the Palestinian people, it appears to me that political calculations may be driving the APA’s choices once again. In my opinion, if APA leaders have decided that it’s in the APA’s best interests to protect Israel from criticism and to forgo support for its victims, they should just say so. And if they think creating this one-sided “Collaborative of Jewish Psychologists” will somehow absolve them of responsibility for that stance, they’re just wrong.
********
Note: When published, the original version of this essay included a hyperlink to the APA’s Board of Directors minutes — for October 24, 2025 and November 4, 2025 — where a list of the CJP members could be found. Upon the request of a CJP member, I removed that link here. It appears that the APA has now removed those minutes entirely, so they are no longer publicly available.