The new non-profit “Association of Jewish Psychologists” (AJP) has described its primary purpose as combating antisemitism, and I wholeheartedly support this important commitment to eradicating hate and discrimination. But a closer look at this organization reveals that, despite its broad-brush name, AJP has shown itself equally committed to a specific political ideology, one that’s inconsistent with the perspective of many American Jews and, by extension, many Jewish psychologists. Compounding the problem, I believe AJP’s seemingly uncritical defense of Israel—even in this moment—threatens to warp its fight against antisemitism in ways that are counterproductive and potentially dangerous. For these reasons, as a Jewish psychologist myself, I have serious concerns about AJP. Let me explain further.
AJP’s mission statement asserts that Jews have “a shared identity as a people, rooted in a common identification with its Jewish homeland, now found in modern day Israel.” The organization’s expectation that its members possess a strong and positive sense of rootedness in relation to the State of Israel is exclusionary, perhaps even more so than AJP’s leaders might realize. Consider that a Pew Research poll from just a few years ago found that only slightly more than half of American Jews “Feel very/somewhat attached to Israel” (58%) and less than half “Say caring about Israel is essential to what being Jewish means to them” (45%). And in a Jewish Electorate Institute survey from roughly the same time, 25% of the respondents agreed that “Israel is an apartheid state” (another 22% were unsure) and 34% agreed that “Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is similar to racism in the United States.”
Perhaps the clearest evidence that AJP doesn’t represent me or many of my Jewish colleagues is the organization’s apparent stance toward the ongoing war in Gaza. Last October, shortly after Hamas’s horrific attacks in Israel and the commencement of Israel’s disproportionate retaliatory assault on Gaza, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued a press release. It noted, in part, “There can be no justification for cutting off access to basic necessities, such as electricity, food and medicine.” To my dismay, the official response from AJP’s board of directors described the APA’s condemnation of these acts of collective punishment as “terribly naïve.”
In my opinion, AJP’s perspective here borders on the heartless and the inhumane—and it is inconsistent with values that I, as a Jew, hold dear. Now over six months later, the Israel Defense Forces have killed over 34,000 Gazans—most of them women and children—and many more than that are missing or injured; almost the entire population of Gaza has been displaced from their homes, with most neighborhoods, schools, and medical facilities destroyed; and starvation threatens hundreds of thousands as humanitarian aid is repeatedly blocked from delivery. The International Court of Justice has concluded that the calamitous circumstances unfolding in Gaza plausibly constitute genocide.
It’s hard to imagine that any professional group—let alone an organization of health professionals—could actually condone this utter devastation of a people. Perhaps the initial response from AJP’s board of directors was impulsive and ill-conceived, the result of overwhelming emotions linked to the nightmare of October 7th. That would be understandable, but they have offered no public apology or public retraction of their earlier statement in the many months since. They could do that today. Nor has the leadership joined the call for a ceasefire in Gaza, even though more American Jews now support a ceasefire than oppose one. (Sadly, the APA has remained silent on this urgent humanitarian issue as well.)
I believe AJP’s seemingly unquestioning defense of Israel also threatens to distort its advocacy on the issue that the organization cares most about: antisemitism. More specifically, AJP has partnered with so-called pro-Israel groups that have embraced and weaponized the working definition of antisemitism provided by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). With seven of its eleven examples referencing Israel, the IHRA “definition” clearly and problematically fuses criticism of Zionism and Israel with hatred toward Jews in general. And when Israel’s leaders falsely claim that they represent “the entire Jewish people,” this further exacerbates the problem—and endangers Jews worldwide.
Israeli government officials and others also routinely take advantage of this conflation in order to discredit, demonize, and silence anyone—Jew and non-Jew alike—who speaks out against some of the country’s abhorrent policies or in defense of Palestinian rights. The CEO of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is a particularly striking example of this demagoguery. He has outrageously described progressive Jewish organizations like Jewish Voice for Peace and If Not Now as “hate groups, the photo inverse of white supremacists” due to their criticism of Israel. And he has absurdly called upon university presidents to investigate the group Students for Justice in Palestine for “potential violations of the prohibition against materially supporting a foreign terrorist organization.”
There is an alternative available to AJP’s leaders. They could instead promote wider adoption of the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA). This document—drafted in 2020 and endorsed by hundreds of scholars of the Holocaust, Jewish studies, and Middle East studies—offers a clear definition of antisemitism that doesn’t inordinately target criticism of Israel: “Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish).”
The JDA document also emphasizes that “hostility to Israel could be an expression of an antisemitic animus, or it could be a reaction to a human rights violation, or it could be the emotion that a Palestinian person feels on account of their experience at the hands of the State.” And the guidelines recognize that none of the following is inherently antisemitic: supporting Palestinian demands for equal rights; opposing Zionism as a form of nationalism; evidence-based criticism of Israel’s institutions, founding principles, policies, or practices; non-violent forms of political protest against Israel; and extreme political speech.
This is not a matter of quibbling over semantics. The IHRA working definition focuses on anti-Israel sentiment and activism, whereas the JDA definition returns the spotlight to where it should be: hatred of Jews as Jews. This difference is far from inconsequential because the vastly greater threat to American Jews (and other groups) is found among the fascists and white supremacists on the right, not among anti-Zionist activists on college campuses—many of them Jewish—who support Palestinian rights from the left. But AJP’s apparent oversized attention to the latter draws much needed scrutiny away from the former—and from the virulent antisemitic acts that demand a dedicated and comprehensive response. In short, cries of “Let Gaza Live!” bear no resemblance to neo-Nazi chants of “Jews will not replace us!”
In less than a year, the United States may again have Donald Trump as its President, an individual who hasn’t hidden his racist proclivities and has clearly emboldened his legion of followers who hold similarly noxious prejudices. Though it may be troubling to acknowledge, Israel is at best an unreliable friend when it comes to confronting antisemitism in this country. Consider, for example, the fact that Israelis substantially prefer Trump to Joe Biden (44% to 30%), whereas 62% of American Jews hold a favorable view of Biden and only 21% view Trump favorably. Consider too that Israel’s leaders have embraced and cultivated support from antisemitic Christian Zionist organizations like televangelist John Hagee’s Christians United for Israel, known for its eschatological belief that Jesus will return to the land of Israel and all Jews and other non-believers will perish in the battle of Armageddon.
I don’t know whether AJP’s leadership will respond in some way to the concerns I’ve posed here. But I do hope that any responses resist the commonplace characterization of someone like me as nothing more than a “self-hating Jew.” For several years I was a synagogue board member; my grown children all attended Jewish day schools; my in-laws were rescued from Nazi concentration camps after most of their family members perished in the Holocaust; and many members of my extended family live in Israel today. I share this personal background simply to convey that I appreciate the Jewish experience of catastrophic loss and the abiding pursuit of safety in an all too often hostile world.
But like many of my colleagues, a key lesson I take from the unimaginable horrors in our history—and from the core teachings of Judaism (and other religions as well)—is that “Never Again” must be understood as a universal commitment to protect disempowered and scapegoated communities at risk of grievous harm, wherever they may be. 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.
Ultimately, the Association of Jewish Psychologists is free to adopt whatever guiding principles it wants, and to select its priorities accordingly. But at this perilous time, when the Jewish community is perhaps more divided than ever before, I hope AJP’s leaders will reconsider the choices they’ve made and the direction they’re taking. Embracing an Israel right-or-wrong worldview not only alienates many psychologists whose Jewish identity is built around the pursuit of justice, freedom, and equality. It also prevents AJP from building strong partnerships with non-Jewish marginalized groups that share similar concerns about looming threats to their communities.