Blog – Roy Eidelson

Big Brother and the Israel Advocacy Machine

Note: This opinion piece reflects my personal views and not those of any group with which I am affiliated.

In George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, Oceania is a totalitarian society where Big Brother demands unquestioning conformity and obedience; where the Thought Police constantly monitor and punish every infraction of the rules; and where the Ministry of Truth proclaims, “War is Peace,” “Freedom is Slavery,” and “Ignorance is Strength.” According to the story’s protagonist, the greatest heresy in Oceania is common sense, and the most essential command is to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. Ultimately, nobody escapes this total surveillance state — “Big Brother Is Watching You!” — because those who rebel in any manner are identified, captured, broken, and often “vaporized” as if they had never existed.

I sometimes find myself recalling Orwell’s Oceania when I read the daily distressing and outraging news from Palestine and the broader region. I think about how, much like Big Brother, today’s Israel Advocacy Machine demands complete allegiance, compliance, and submission. And how it, too, often goes to extraordinary lengths to silence and discipline those who question or reject its deceptive and deceitful propaganda.

For example, Oceania’s ruling Party “freezes history” whenever necessary to fit their preferred narrative, convinced that “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.” Israel advocates attempt something similar when they promote the view that Israel’s relevant history seemingly begins and ends with the horrific Hamas-led attacks of October 7, 2023. Through this distorted lens, they disregard decades of Palestinian suffering and oppression while claiming that, in any moral reckoning, nothing Israel has done since that day can be counted against it. By their account, all Israeli atrocities over the past two-and-a-half years either never happened or are fully justified (Israel’s own version of Oceania’s “doublethink.”) Of course, incontrovertible evidence of Israel’s war crimes and disdain for basic human decency has exposed that fiction. In recent weeks, Israel’s indiscriminate assault on residential neighborhoods and civilian infrastructure in Lebanon and Iran has also laid bare any lingering pretense that “self-defense” is always the sole basis for its acts of mass violence and devastation.

The “American Psychologist” Publishes Another Misleading Article About Antisemitism

Note: This opinion piece reflects my personal views and not those of any group with which I am affiliated. A PDF version is available here.

For reasons I don’t understand, the American Psychologist, the flagship journal of the American Psychological Association (APA), has published another article that appears to misrepresent antisemitism and its prevalence within the mental health professions (this isn’t the first time). The authors who wrote “Is It Really That Bad? Antisemitic Experiences Among Jewish Mental Health Professionals” — Micah Brosbe, Caroline Kaufman, Elizabeth Getzoff Testa, Karen Dimentstein, Danielle Guttman-Lapin, and Tali Rasooli — claim that their online survey revealed widespread antisemitism in these work settings. But based on my review of the article, I don’t believe their findings demonstrate anything of the sort. And I think it’s important to highlight this, because there are individuals and groups that nevertheless will promote and cite this article to support their political agenda. So, let’s take a closer look.

Non-Representative, Biased Sampling

The most fundamental reason to discount this research is that it’s based only on responses from a narrowly selected group of participants. Although the authors state that they collected data “from a wide range of Jewish mental health professionals,” that claim simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Most of the study participants are members of one (or more) of four groups — the Jewish Therapist Collective, the Association of Jewish Psychologists, the Society of Pediatric Psychology Jewish Affinity Group, and Psychologists Against Antisemitism. Leaders of these groups have placed an emphasis on defending Israel, with a focus on defining and approaching antisemitism through that specific lens (the authors do not acknowledge this in their article). For example, one of these groups described APA’s leadership as “terribly naïve” for opposing the collective punishment of Palestinian civilians. Another has publicly accused the APA of “virulent” and “systemic” antisemitism based on members’ expressions of pain and outrage regarding Israel’s actions and concern for Palestinian lives. Two of the groups sponsor solidarity mission trips to Israel. To be clear, if the authors had wanted to do so, they presumably could have made a concerted effort to recruit participants from mental health organizations where Jewish members have a much wider range of perspectives on Israel and antisemitism (e.g., state psychological associations).

Meanwhile, those participants who were not recruited through these four groups were contacted via snowball sampling. With this form of outreach, researchers encourage potential recruits to share information about the study with their social network, to recruit them as well. The methodological problems associated with this approach are well-known. A snowball sample is rarely representative of the broader population of interest. As a result, research findings based on such a sample cannot legitimately be treated as generalizable beyond the specific profile of the self-selected group of participants. Given the overall process by which participants were recruited here, no reasonable claim can be made that their views and experiences — specifically regarding what does or doesn’t count as antisemitism — accurately characterize the much larger community of Jewish mental health professionals. To offer a parallel example, you can’t ask those individuals who attend a midnight showing of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre whether they like horror films and then conclude that their responses reflect the appeal of such films to moviegoers in general.

APA’s Council Meeting: Human Rights Win, Fear Loses

Note: This opinion piece reflects my own personal views and not those of any group with which I am affiliated. I was not present at the meeting I describe below.

Last weekend, the 180-member governing Council of Representatives of the American Psychological Association held its annual midwinter meeting in Washington, DC. In a series of crucial votes, human rights were pitted against fear. Defying the odds, human rights remarkably won out every time. Ultimately, Council approved both a game-changing resolution on antisemitism and a statement reaffirming APA’s commitment to human rights and freedom of expression.

What transpired is a timely reminder that principled and dedicated organizing and coalition building, along with courage and persistence under fire, can carry the day. Perhaps it wasn’t quite David versus Goliath. But on one side was a risk-averse and fear-driven group of powerful APA Board members and executive staff, joined by influential supporters of various Israel advocacy organizations. On the other side was a diverse assortment of much smaller voices — but together they formed a compelling chorus, crying out for the APA to finally oppose the weaponization of antisemitism as the Palestinian people face an ongoing genocidal assault.

My Significant Concerns about the Association of Jewish Psychologists

Note: This opinion piece reflects my own personal views and not those of any group with which I am affiliated.

Several colleagues have asked me recently why I think it would be a very serious mistake for the Association of Jewish Psychologists (AJP) to be awarded a seat on the American Psychological Association’s (APA) governing Council of Representatives later this month. It’s certainly a reasonable question, and I attempt to explain my perspective here.

I want to begin by acknowledging the Jewish history of catastrophic loss and how this shared experience — including the horrors of October 7, 2023 — has understandably led to an abiding concern for safety in an all-too-often hostile world. In part, I know this from my own family’s personal history. As a psychologist, I also recognize that group identification is a powerful force binding members together, especially during times of crisis. And I know that threats — real and perceived — can lead to the tightening of group boundaries, to a heightened focus on how outgroups are different from us rather than similar in their needs and aspirations, and to the outlawing of dissent or divergent views within an ingroup’s own ranks. But like many of my Jewish colleagues, a key lesson I take from our history — and from the core teachings of Judaism — is that “Never Again” must be understood as a commitment to protect disempowered and scapegoated communities at risk of grievous harm wherever they may be.

In broad terms, I believe what’s most important to recognize about AJP is that its priorities reflect the perspective of only a subset of the diverse American Jewish community and of Jewish psychologists as well. Of particular concern is AJP’s insistent defense of Israel’s actions, which often involves treating criticism of Israel and support for Palestinian rights as antisemitic. I think it’s crucial to understand that this stance runs counter to the religious values and moral convictions of many American Jews — and, by extension, many Jewish psychologists. Moreover, AJP’s stance conflicts with the urgent need for the APA to take a firm stand in support of universal human rights — a stand that cannot reasonably exclude condemnation of Israel’s ongoing assault on the Palestinian people. (I want to note here that I don’t know the extent to which AJP’s general membership is aware of the positions and actions that the organization’s leadership has taken.)

Turning now to specifics, AJP’s mission statement emphasizes that identification with the State of Israel is the common bond that unites all Jews as a people. This claim is very problematic. Not only does it suggest an exclusionary litmus test for who truly merits membership in AJP, it also distorts what being Jewish means to many Jews. Consider that a 2020 Pew Research Center poll found that only 25% of American Jews reported feeling “very” emotionally attached to Israel. This figure was even lower — only 6% — among the quarter of American Jews who self-identified as non-religious. Five years later, a Washington Post survey from September 2025 showed comparable results. In that representative sample, only 24% of American Jews described themselves as feeling “very” emotionally attached to Israel, and 20% responded that they didn’t feel attached at all. Clearly, these findings contradict a fundamental component of AJP’s mission statement.

Misguided: APA’s New Collaborative of Jewish Psychologists

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.

The Weaponizers of Antisemitism Have Come for the APA

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”

Those psychologists who’ve seemingly spent the past two years weaponizing false charges of antisemitism in order to silence criticism of Israel and punish supporters of Palestinian rights are probably celebrating now. Thanks to their own misguided but tireless efforts, the Republican-controlled House Committee on Education and Workforce is now officially investigating the American Psychological Association.

That these Israel-right-or-wrong members of our profession actually welcome this investigation by the Trump administration demonstrates just how out of touch they are with the American Jewish community — a community they claim to represent. Consider a May 2025 survey of American Jews by the Jewish Voters Resource Center, which showed that twice as many respondents believed Trump’s actions on college campuses — purportedly aimed at combating antisemitism — were increasing rather than decreasing antisemitism (and over half viewed Trump himself as antisemitic). Going a step further, a September 2025 Ipsos poll found that almost three-quarters of American Jews said the Trump administration is simply using claims of antisemitism as an excuse for its attack on higher education. But here’s a key point: the weaponizers of antisemitism are probably untroubled by this data — because their priority is defending Israel, not Jews.

So then who exactly are the kindred spirits that the weaponizers have encouraged to investigate the APA? Well, in this “Make America Great Again” era of Trump adoration, it’s not as though holding a Republican seat in Congress reflects some elevated stature on matters of justice, human rights, free speech, or democracy. And that’s certainly clear when one looks at the roster of GOP representatives on this particular House committee. By all indications, many of them seemingly don’t care a whit about the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people.

As Authoritarianism Grows, Psychologists Must Not Be Silent

Over two dozen members of the Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, and Violence (Division 48 of the American Psychological Association) have published a statement titled “As Authoritarianism Grows, Psychologists Must Not Be Silent.” It is available online both at Counterpunch and as a PDF here. We welcome its wide dissemination. The following is an excerpt from the introduction:

“We write to share our professional knowledge, so that our colleagues and the public gain a better understanding of the deeply disturbing psychological dimensions of authoritarianism. Its dangerous and destructive repercussions are now unfolding daily throughout this country, threatening the well-being — and the very survival — of individuals, communities, and the foundations of our democratic form of governance.

We are not writing in support of any political party or candidate. Indeed, we recognize that both major political parties have fallen woefully short in establishing and nurturing a society where prosperity, justice, and equal opportunity prevail for all. At the same time, it is clear to us that anti-democratic pressures have now escalated significantly under the Trump administration, and we worry that the gravity of the current situation is not receiving the attention it deserves — from the public or from our profession.

Guided by our ethical and scientific commitments and by our duty to oppose forces that dehumanize, divide, and destroy, we believe that we must not be silent at this time. Authoritarianism thrives on fear, disinformation, and the suppression of truth. Peace psychology compels us to name these threats and to work toward systems grounded in justice, empathy, and democratic participation.

What follows is an overview of what we know about authoritarianism, its psychological underpinnings, its current manifestations, and the urgent need to confront the harm that has already been done and to curtail the suffering that still lies ahead…”

The Anti-Defamation League’s Latest Spurious Attack

There’s an old adage among attorneys: “If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell!” Outside of the courtroom, there’s no better example of this tactic today than the incessant, loud, and misdirected charges of “Antisemitism!” that have become the calling card of the Anti-Defamation League.

Last week the ADL released yet another entry in its ongoing series of reports that should be subtitled “Defending Israel by Weaponizing Antisemitism.” This one accuses over a dozen professional academic associations in the United States of failing to combat antisemitism within their ranks. The American Psychological Association, where I was a member for over a quarter-century, is unfairly maligned as among the very worst offenders.

Over the past two years, Israel has violated too many fundamental principles of international law to count in its genocidal assault on Gaza. And over this period, every feeble justification promoted by the Israeli government and its surrogates, like the ADL, has collapsed under the weight of evidence, much like the hundreds of thousands of homes — along with schools and hospitals — destroyed by the IDF’s massive and indiscriminate bombing.

So only one arrow now remains in the ADL’s quiver for defending the indefensible: accusations of antisemitism aimed at discrediting individuals and groups that denounce Israel’s unconscionable actions and demand justice and freedom for the Palestinian people. That defending Israel rather than protecting Jews is the ADL’s primary agenda couldn’t be clearer. What other explanation is there for its out-of-all-proportion focus on antisemitism from the political left when Christian nationalists, white supremacists, and the Trump administration itself pose the far greater threat to the welfare of American Jews? And how else to explain why the many Jews who do not embrace the ADL’s warped perspective are among those targeted for condemnation?

We Must Not Look Away: Resisting Oppression and Pursuing Justice

Note: This essay is adapted from the author’s August 2025 address at the American Psychological Association annual convention and from a webinar he presented in early September. The webinar includes many visual depictions of the topics discussed here.

Welcome everyone. I’m Roy Eidelson, president of the Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, and Violence — Division 48 of the American Psychological Association (APA). Thank you all for being here. At the outset, I want to emphasize that I am speaking only for myself, and that I’ll be sharing my own perspective and opinions on the issues I’ll be discussing. I am not speaking on behalf of Division 48 or any other individual or group.

We meet today amid an alarming constellation of global trends, including the burgeoning repression of human rights, escalating threats to vulnerable groups, and the rise of authoritarian leaders who seemingly take pleasure in the pain, cruelty, and humiliation they inflict on those they deem to be lesser, disposable, and exploitable for political and financial gain.

Almost 60 years ago, one of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr’s final speeches, just months before his assassination, was at the APA convention in 1967. In part, he told the assembled psychologists this: “On some positions cowardice asks the question, ‘Is it safe?!’ Expediency asks the question, ‘Is it politic?’ Vanity asks the question, ‘Is it popular?’ But conscience must ask the question, ‘Is it right?!’ And there comes a time when one must take a stand that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular. But one must take it because it is right.” Two years earlier, in 1965, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel was among those who marched arm-in-arm with Dr. King from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, advocating for voting rights for Black Americans. Back then, Heschel reminded us that, in a free society, “few are guilty, but all are responsible.”

In my view, we cannot take righteous stands or honor our responsibilities to others — as citizens and as psychologists in this country — if we look away from the devastation unfolding in so many critical areas where psychological principles, research, ethics, and practice apply. Consider these examples:

Two New Polls Reveal Israel Advocacy Falsehoods

Labeling criticism of Israel and expressions of support for Palestinian rights as “antisemitism” has apparently become the primary weapon of Israel advocacy organizations in the United States. These groups — among others, the Anti-Defamation League, Stand With Us, Canary Mission, Betar US and, in my own profession, Psychologists Against Antisemitism — are seemingly committed to denying or defending Israel’s genocidal assault in Gaza. In their efforts, they claim to represent the deepest concerns and convictions of the American Jewish community while promoting the narrative that Israel is a beleaguered bastion of decency and democracy. But two new polls — one of American Jews and the other of Israeli Jews — put the lie to these deceptions.

First consider the poll of a representative sample of self-identified Jewish voters in the U.S., conducted by GBAO Strategies for the Jewish Voter Resource Center. A significant majority of the respondents were indeed very concerned about antisemitism. However, a closer examination reveals an important pattern. American Jews expressed more concern about antisemitism originating on the political right than on the political left. Consistent with that perspective, they were less concerned about antisemitism on college campuses than antisemitism in the country more generally. And by a substantial margin, they viewed the Trump administration’s purported efforts to combat antisemitism — for example, withholding federal funding from universities and deporting pro-Palestinian protesters — as more likely to increase rather than decrease antisemitism.

Other findings from the same poll are also noteworthy. Most respondents described Trump as antisemitic. Less than half expressed a strong emotional attachment to Israel. A substantial majority saw Israel’s ongoing military action in Gaza as driven more by prime minister Netanyahu’s personal political considerations than by Israel’s national security concerns. And finally, an overwhelming percentage agreed that someone can be critical of the Israeli government and still be “pro-Israel.”