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.
But the troubling nature of AJP’s own embrace of Israel goes much further. As I noted earlier, it seems to me that the organization is unwilling to even acknowledge in any meaningful way — let alone actually criticize — the atrocities that Israel has committed against the Palestinian people. Despite the broad recognition and growing consensus, including among Israeli scholars, that Israel’s assault on Gaza constitutes a genocide, AJP’s leadership has apparently remained silent — even though the Washington Post survey mentioned above showed that 61% of American Jews believe Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza and 39% believe Israel has committed genocide there.
Even worse, it appears to me that AJP’s leaders have at times taken steps to support and defend Israel’s unconscionable actions. Shortly after the commencement of Israel’s disproportionate and indiscriminate retaliatory response to the horrific Hamas-led attacks on October 7, 2023, the APA issued a press release. In part it noted, “There can be no justification for cutting off access to basic necessities, such as electricity, food and medicine.” In their dismaying official response to the APA, AJP’s board of directors seemingly rejected this core humanitarian principle of international law, describing the APA’s condemnation of such collective punishment as “terribly naïve.” In sharp contrast, that very same week, groups like Rabbis for Ceasefire were already calling for an end to Israel’s siege of Gaza. As far as I know, AJP’s leadership has never officially apologized for its stance.
Ten months later, at the August 2024 meeting of the APA’s Council of Representatives in Seattle, Washington, AJP had an opportunity to make amends. But instead, an AJP director reportedly stepped to the microphone and spoke in opposition to a resolution that called for an “immediate, permanent, and comprehensive ceasefire in the Israel-Gaza conflict.” Six months earlier, a February 2024 poll from the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding had shown that more American Jews supported (50%) than opposed (34%) a permanent ceasefire in Gaza — but apparently not AJP.
Later, in March 2025, AJP members embarked on a “mission trip” to Israel. The organization’s promotional video of the visit begins with an AJP leader explaining, “We are in solidarity with Israel.” And it ends with the playing of the Israeli national anthem. The ongoing devastation in Gaza receives no mention. Meanwhile, a September 2025 Ipsos survey revealed that only 31% of American Jews approved of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza over the past two years. So how can AJP claim to represent Jewish psychologists? Do AJP’s leaders think we Jewish psychologists are really so different from other American Jews in our values and convictions?
Compounding the problem, I believe AJP’s uncritical defense of Israel has warped its advocacy on the issue the organization purports to care so much about: antisemitism. Evidence indicates that the gravest threat antisemitism poses to the welfare of American Jews comes primarily from the political right, promoted by Christian nationalists, white supremacists, and the Trump administration itself. For example, conservative commentator Tucker Carlson’s October 2025 softball interview with Nick Fuentes — an antisemite, a Holocaust denier, a Hitler admirer, and a believer in a “global Jewish conspiracy” — has been viewed tens of millions of times. Yet instead of directing its efforts at these dangerous sources of Jew-hatred, AJP seems to focus inordinate attention on those who support Palestinian rights.
In my opinion, this choice is indefensible, and I think it makes AJP little different from other pro-Israel advocacy groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), AIPAC, Stand With Us, Stop Antisemitism, Canary Mission, and Betar US (among others) that deny the ugly and unlawful realities of Israeli occupation, apartheid, war crimes, and genocide. As a reminder, the ADL’s “antisemitism” statistics are notoriously distorted because they count anti-genocide and related protests (including by Jews) as antisemitic. In fact, according to the ADL’s absurd methodology, apparently any student who sees an “anti-Zionist flyer” on their college campus can justifiably claim to have been the victim of an antisemitic incident.
Yet AJP seems to rely heavily on such discredited ADL data when it sensationalizes American college campuses as sites of widespread Jewish trauma and danger. For example, during a May 2025 AJP webinar titled “The Crisis of Antisemitism on College Campuses,” the presenter described universities as “hotbeds of antisemitism” and further claimed that “Jewish students know that for every student who is vocal about their incitement of violence, there are many others who share the same views but just aren’t saying them out loud.” None of the attendees expressed disagreement with either claim. For perspective, a survey by the Jim Joseph Foundation, conducted at the height of the encampments on U.S. campuses in the spring of 2024, found that only 16% of Jewish students reported that they had been personally targeted by antisemitic comments or threats. The same survey found that only 13% of Jewish students described their own mental health or emotional well-being as “poor” (compared to 10% of non-Jewish students).
Although these percentages are much lower than AJP’s advocacy would suggest, they are still concerning. I don’t doubt that AJP’s “psychological first aid groups” can be helpful for students experiencing antisemitism. At the same time, however, it appears to me that AJP completely ignores the need for psychological support for the Jewish students whose distress comes from Israel’s genocidal assault and from their personal struggle to make sense of the horrors in Gaza. And what about the Jewish students who’ve faced rejection by mainstream Jewish institutions like Hillel International because their own understanding of and respect for Jewish values has led them to participate in pro-Palestine protests? Does AJP care about the psychological health of these Jewish students as well? (And if so, what interventions would AJP consider appropriate to address this kind of trauma?)
Within this context, it’s important to recognize that Israel is at best an unreliable ally when it comes to confronting antisemitism in the United States. Most obviously, Jews are endangered worldwide when Israel’s leaders falsely claim that they — and by extension, the Israeli military — are acting on behalf of “the entire Jewish people.” These same leaders have also embraced and cultivated support from explicitly antisemitic Christian Zionist organizations like televangelist John Hagee’s huge 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 then perish in the battle of Armageddon.
Consider too this sharp contrast. Whereas a Pew Research Center poll conducted in early 2025 showed that 73% of Israeli Jews had confidence in President Trump’s leadership, a survey of American Jews by the Jewish Voters Resource Center at roughly the same time revealed that 52% actually considered Trump himself to be antisemitic, and 74% disapproved of the job he was doing. Moreover, in the September 2025 Ipsos poll mentioned earlier, almost three-quarters (72%) of American Jews shared the view that the Trump administration is using claims of antisemitism as an excuse for its attack on higher education. Yet as far as I can tell, AJP hasn’t expressed opposition to the White House’s assault on campus free speech and pro-Palestine activism. So here again, AJP certainly doesn’t seem to represent the views of most American Jews (or Jewish psychologists).
My reservations about AJP are further heightened by an article on antisemitism written by six AJP board members that was published in the January 2025 print edition of the APA’s flagship journal, the American Psychologist. In my opinion, despite the authors’ credentials, as a scholarly endeavor the article suffers from numerous shortcomings, distortions, and biases. (I unsuccessfully called for its retraction.) The following are among the issues I find most concerning: the authors dramatically exaggerate the prevalence of anti-Jewish hate crimes; they seemingly endorse the highly controversial IHRA “working definition” of antisemitism, which conflates criticism of Israel and Jew-hatred; they present data and conclusions from pro-Israel advocacy groups without identifying those groups as such; they attribute causality to correlational relationships when explaining increases in antisemitism; they appear to inaccurately present the findings of research studies they cite; and they make multiple provocative assertions with insufficient or inaccurate documentation. (In regard to one such instance, after this article was published online, the journal’s editors issued a rare correction and redaction “because appropriate context was not provided.”)
For all the reasons I’ve shared here, I would vote against a seat for the Association of Jewish Psychologists if I were a member of APA’s Council of Representatives. I’ll note as well that if AJP does obtain a seat on Council, it will effectively block any other organization that might better reflect the diversity and values of the Jewish community from ever serving in that role. In this context, it’s important to emphasize that whether or not there should be a Jewish organization on APA’s Council is a different question from whether that group should be AJP.
It seems to me that AJP’s leaders want everyone to believe that they offer a welcoming home for all Jewish psychologists. But how could this possibly be the case given evidence of their unwavering support for Israel no matter what it does and their apparent conviction that criticism of Israel and support for Palestinian rights are often antisemitic? After all, many Jews — including psychologists — are outraged by Israel’s genocidal actions and have participated in the very protests that AJP’s leadership seems to view as expressions of Jew-hatred. How should they feel welcome within AJP? Again, I too believe antisemitism is a very real and serious problem. But not as AJP’s leaders want us to understand it.
Ultimately, the Association of Jewish Psychologists is free to adopt whatever guiding principles and priorities it wants. But it shouldn’t misrepresent the breadth of its appeal within the Jewish community. (For example, AJP’s own membership survey suggests that fewer than 10% of its members are 40 years old or younger, while more than half are over 60 years old.) 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, especially today, share similar concerns about looming threats to their communities.
In any case, I personally believe one thing should be apparent: it would be a serious mistake to give AJP a seat on APA’s Council as the official representative of the diverse community of Jewish psychologists.
Addendum: Directly relevant to the concerns expressed here, I recently wrote an essay about the APA’s new “Collaborative of Jewish Psychologists” (CJP). In my opinion, the CJP is a highly problematic endeavor that, seemingly by design, does not represent the diversity of the American Jewish community or Jewish psychologists.