Note: This open letter reflects my personal views and not those of any group with which I am affiliated. A PDF version is available here.
July 27, 2026
Dear Members of the American Psychological Association’s Council of Representatives:
It is my strong and informed opinion that the Association of Jewish Psychologists (AJP) should not be awarded an ethnic psychological association seat on APA’s Council of Representatives. I hope you will review the significant concerns I describe below prior to casting your vote at the upcoming August Council meeting in Washington, DC. To offer a concise summary, I believe AJP is wholly unsuited for a Council seat for three compelling reasons. Each of these three is deeply concerning. Taken together, they should be disqualifying:
- 1. Contrary to any claims otherwise, AJP’s values and priorities diverge significantly from those of a very substantial part of the American Jewish community.
- 2. AJP has supported Israel throughout its ongoing devastation and destruction of the Palestinian people — contrary to APA Council’s commitment to “justice, human rights, fairness, and dignity for all.”
- 3. AJP has joined with other Israel advocacy organizations in weaponizing false claims of antisemitism against those who criticize Israel or speak out in defense of Palestinian rights — contrary to APA Council’s opposition to “efforts aimed at silencing or punishing non-violent advocacy directed towards safeguarding human life and upholding human dignity and human rights.”
I recognize that, for some, these may be surprising assertions. I have therefore documented them in depth, including hyperlinks to articles and reports that merit your attention. As you consider the analysis that follows, please bear in mind this important point: whether a Jewish organization should hold a seat on APA’s Council is an entirely separate question from whether that group should be the Association of Jewish Psychologists. My focus is solely on the latter question.
Before proceeding, I want to acknowledge 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. But like many of my Jewish colleagues, a key lesson I take from our history — and from Judaism’s core teachings — is that “Never Again” must be understood as a commitment to protect vulnerable and scapegoated communities at risk of grievous harm wherever they may be.
I also believe these words from Martin Luther King, Jr’s address at the APA’s 1967 convention are worth bearing in mind, especially when pressured toward conformity and compliance:
“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.”
1. AJP’s values and priorities diverge significantly from those of a very substantial part of the American Jewish community
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 false. Moreover, it dramatically distorts and denigrates what being Jewish means to many American Jews (including groups like Jewish Voice for Peace, If Not Now, American Council for Judaism, Jewish Diaspora Movement, Jews for Racial & Economic Justice, National Campus Jewish Alliance, and Jewish Psychologists for Justice, among others).
*AJP misrepresents the American Jewish community’s connection to Israel
AJP’s distorted perspective is apparent in findings from representative surveys of American Jews over the past several years. In a 2020 Pew Research Center survey, only 25% 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. In a Washington Post survey from September 2025, only 24% of American Jews described themselves as feeling very emotionally attached to Israel while 20% responded that they do not feel attached at all. And in a Jewish Voter Resource Center (JVRC) survey earlier this year, 42% of American Jews said they were very emotionally attached to Israel while 17% said they had no attachment whatsoever. (Related, a 2025 survey from the Jewish Federations of North America found that only 37% of American Jews identify as “Zionist.”) Clearly, these survey findings contradict a fundamental claim about American Jews reflected in AJP’s mission.
*AJP’s membership demographics diverge significantly from the broader American Jewish community
But there is another important way in which AJP is not representative of the American Jewish community: demographics. More specifically, data from the Pew Research Center show that approximately one-third of American Jews are 40 years-old or younger, and one-third are over 60. Compare that to AJP’s own membership survey from last year[1]: only 10% are 40 or under and more than half are over 60 years old. That older Jews are significantly over-represented in AJP is far from trivial — and highlighting this has nothing to do with ageism (I am 73) — because there is a profound and well-documented generational divide within the American Jewish community today, especially in regard to Israel.
For example, last fall’s Washington Post survey of American Jews presents some striking contrasts between those 18 to 34 years-old and those 65 and over. Regarding attachment to Israel, 64% of the younger group say they are “not too” or “not at all” emotionally attached, compared to 32% for the older group. Regarding antisemitism, only 10% of the younger group consider it antisemitic to criticize Israel for its actions in Gaza and only 32% consider it antisemitic to oppose university investments in companies that do business in Israel; the corresponding figures for the older group are much higher: 33% and 67% respectively. Almost half (49%) of the younger group believe the U.S. government is too supportive of Israel, compared to only 25% of the older group. And 44% of the younger group blame Israel more than Hamas for the civilian deaths in Gaza, compared to only 21% of the older group. Finally, the JVRC survey from this past spring found that fully 44% of those under 35 are in favor of “Establishing one state that is neither Jewish nor Palestinian, and includes Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza under a single government elected by Israelis and Palestinians”; the corresponding figure for the 65-and-older group is only 16%.
The bottom line here is that any claim that AJP is representative of the broader American Jewish community is without substantiation and unjustified.
2. AJP Has Supported Israel Throughout Its Devastation and Destruction of the Palestinian People
AJP’s embrace of Israel goes much further than its mission statement alone. The organization is seemingly unwilling to even acknowledge — let alone actually criticize or oppose — the atrocities that Israel has committed against the Palestinian people, including the deliberate targeting of Palestinian children. 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 earlier showed that 61% of American Jews believe Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza and 39% believe Israel has committed genocide there. Meanwhile a former prime minister of Israel has warned that Israel is “conducting an organized, systematic, state-funded campaign of ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity” in the West Bank. And in recent months, Israel has perpetrated war crimesin Lebanon, with Israel’s national security minister saying, “All of Lebanon must burn!”
*AJP condemned the APA’s post-10/7 statement opposing collective punishment
AJP’s leadership has taken affirmative steps to support and defend Israel’s unconscionable actions. Two days after the horrific Hamas-led attacks on October 7, 2023, Israel’s defense minister announced, “We are imposing a complete siege on [Gaza]. No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel – everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we must act accordingly.” Shortly thereafter, the APA issued a press release noting, in part, “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.”[2] 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 formally apologized for its stance.
*AJP opposed APA Council’s 2024 resolution calling for a humanitarian ceasefire
Ten months later, at the August 2024 meeting of APA’s Council of Representatives in Seattle, Washington, an AJP director spoke in opposition to a resolution that called for an “immediate, permanent, and comprehensive ceasefire in the Israel-Gaza conflict.” Months earlier, hundreds of organizations — including Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, Oxfam International, Save the Children, UNICEF, the United Nations General Assembly, the World Food Programme, the World Health Organization, and many other human rights groups, faith-based organizations, and labor unions—had already called for a ceasefire. In fact, a February 2024 poll from the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding had shown that more American Jews supported (50%) than opposed (34%) a ceasefire in Gaza — but apparently not AJP.
*AJP’s 2025 “mission trip” to Israel in ignored the suffering in Gaza
As one more example of the organization’s unquestioning allegiance, 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.” It ends with an image of the Israeli flag and the playing of the Israeli national anthem. Gaza receives no mention. But for context, a week before the group arrived, Israel suspended the entry of all humanitarian aid into Gaza; and two days after their trip ended, Israel broke a fragile two-month ceasefire with surprise “gates of hell” air attacks across Gaza that killed over 400 Palestinians, including more than 170 children. Meanwhile, a September 2025 Ipsos survey revealed that, contrary to AJP’s apparent position, only 31% of American Jews approved of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza over the preceding two years.
As these examples demonstrate, AJP’s posture is deeply distressing from a human rights perspective, and it is also inconsistent with the views of a significant portion of the American Jewish community.
3. AJP Has Weaponized False Charges of Antisemitism Against Human Rights Defenders
AJP’s uncritical defense of Israel has also warped its advocacy on the issue the organization purports to care so much about: antisemitism, which scholars broadly understand as discrimination, prejudice, hostility, or violence against Jews as Jews.
*AJP ignores the most dangerous sources of antisemitism
Evidence shows that the gravest threat posed by antisemitism emerges primarily from the political right, where it is promoted by Christian nationalists, by white supremacists, and by the Trump administration itself. For example, consider that 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 online tens of millions of times.
American Jews understand this reality. Polling shows that they are more concerned about antisemitism from the political right than from the political left, and an overwhelming percentage (72%) believe the Trump administration’s claims of antisemitism are merely an excuse to attack higher education. But AJP seemingly rejects this outlook from fellow Jews. Rather than directing its efforts toward the most dangerous purveyors of Jew-hatred, the organization focuses instead on targeting those who support Palestinian rights — on college campuses and within the profession — by portraying them as antisemitic for opposing and calling out Israel’s violence and oppression. At the same time, AJP appears to ignore an uncomfortable truth: American Jews are increasingly imperiled by the genocidal words and actions of Israel’s leaders, who falsely claim that they are representing and defending “the entire Jewish people.”
*AJP promotes a biased and inaccurate account of antisemitism
AJP’s misguided and counterproductive priorities regarding antisemitism are apparent in a range of contexts. For example, the organization’s webinar series regularly feature presenters — many of them AJP members — who apparently view antisemitism and criticism of Israel as nearly indistinguishable. In a session titled “The Crisis of Antisemitism on College Campuses,” the presenter described universities as “hotbeds of antisemitism” and 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.” For another session, titled “Antisemitism in Medical and Mental Health Systems,” the promotional materials explicitly identified anti-Zionism as a form of antisemitism. In a third program, titled “Is It Really That Bad? Antisemitic Experiences Among Jewish Mental Health Professionals,” the presenters promoted their research as a “national study of Jewish mental health professionals” when in fact the data were collected from various pro-Israel organizations (including AJP) and from one of the researcher’s own Facebook and WhatsApp groups. (I’ve written about other serious problems with this research here.) In yet another AJP webinar, titled “The IHRA Definition of Antisemitism: History, Merits, and Debates,” the presenter claimed that “ignorance is the basis” for opposition to the highly controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition, which primarily focuses on limiting criticism of Israel. And AJP recently advertised another webinar titled “Sisterhood Is Antisemitic: How Feminist Ideas about Identity, Power, Feelings, and Belonging Justified October 7th.”
A similar troubling perspective is apparent in an article on antisemitism by six AJP board members that was published last year in the American Psychologist. I believe the article suffers from numerous shortcomings, distortions, and biases. (I unsuccessfully called for its retraction.) Among the issues I consider most concerning are these: the authors dramatically exaggerate the prevalence of anti-Jewish hate crimes; they endorse the IHRA definition of antisemitism even though it 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 inaccurately present the findings of research studies they cite; and they make multiple provocative assertions with insufficient or inaccurate documentation (e.g., “Some [Jews] have supported sanctions against the state of Israel causing great harm to other Jews, especially students.”) In regard to one such instance, after the article was published online, the journal’s editors issued a rare correction and redaction “because appropriate context was not provided.” The article ends with a self-promotional appeal: that the APA should partner with AJP in combatting antisemitism.
*AJP partners with Israel advocacy groups that weaponize false claims of antisemitism
More generally, AJP routinely collaborates with other Israel advocacy organizations that insist criticism of Israel’s actions, institutions, or founding principles is intrinsically antisemitic. As one example, the organization has created a partnership with the Anti-Defamation League. The ADL’s CEO Jonathan Greenblatt has called progressive Jewish organizations “hate groups, the photo inverse of white supremacists” and has equated anti-Zionism with antisemitism. And yet when trillionaire Elon Musk — who has allowed pro-Nazi accounts to flourish on X — gave a Nazi salute at Trump’s inauguration celebration last year, Greenblatt described it as merely an “awkward gesture.”
Beyond Greenblatt’s irresponsible statements, the ADL’s data that sensationalize the spread and extent of antisemitism in the U.S. have been thoroughly discredited. Their statistics are absurdly distorted because they count anti-genocide and related protests (including by Jews) as antisemitic. In fact, according to their preposterous 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. For a more serious perspective, a survey by the Jim Joseph Foundation, conducted at the height of the encampments in the spring of 2024, found that 16% of Jewish students reported that they had been personally targeted by antisemitic comments or threats. The same survey found that 13% of Jewish students described their own mental health or emotional well-being as “poor” (compared to 10% of non-Jewish students). Figures like these certainly shouldn’t be ignored. But they are far from the epidemic levels of trauma that the ADL and AJP claim.
Taken as a whole, and much like other Israel advocacy groups, AJP’s stance toward antisemitism seems to prioritize defending Israel over protecting Jewish Americans.
Conclusion: AJP Should Not Be Awarded an APA Council Seat
AJP’s leaders may insist that their history of offering unwavering support to Israel and equating criticism of Israel with antisemitism represents the perspective of the American Jewish community.[3] But as I have documented here, this is untrue. Indeed for many American Jews, including Jewish psychologists, our religious and moral convictions compel us to demand justice for Palestinians and oppose the ugly realities of occupation, apartheid, war crimes, and genocide. To be very clear, defending Israel and protecting Jews from antisemitism are not at all the same thing — and, in important ways, they conflict with each other. Moreover, AJP’s positions on these core issues prevent it from building partnerships with non-Jewish marginalized groups that, especially today, share similar concerns about looming threats to their communities.
It should also be noted that key elements of AJP’s perspective and agenda appear to be inconsistent with two important resolutions that were overwhelmingly adopted at your Council meeting this past February. The policy statement on Reaffirming APA’s Commitment to Human Rights and Freedom of Expression emphasizes that APA rejects “the claim that criticism of any government’s policies or actions is intrinsically racist, xenophobic, antisemitic, transphobic, anti-Muslim, misogynistic, ableist, or prejudiced” and opposes “efforts aimed at silencing or punishing non-violent advocacy directed towards safeguarding human life and upholding human dignity and human rights.” And the 2026 Resolution on Antisemitism highlights that “the weaponization of antisemitism…creates significant adverse consequences for Jews and non-Jews who oppose the state of Israel’s actions and support Palestinian rights.”
In sum, the grounds for rejecting AJP’s efforts to obtain an APA Council seat are clear, strong, and abundant. As noted earlier, whether there should be a Jewish organization represented on APA’s Council is an entirely different question. However, if AJP does obtain a seat, it will effectively block any other organization that might better reflect the values and priorities of the American Jewish community from ever serving in that role.
I recognize that my letter will not be well-received by some, but I believe it is necessary, and I share my opinions here in good faith. I also expect that AJP leaders, and perhaps others, may contest my analysis. If so, I encourage you to evaluate their contrary claims carefully — as you should my own. Thank you.
Roy Eidelson, PhD
Past President, Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, and Violence (APA Division 48)
Former President, Psychologists for Social Responsibility
Member, Coalition for an Ethical Psychology
[1] Perhaps because these demographics are not favorable to AJP’s claims of representation, the membership survey report is no longer readily accessible on the AJP website. But it is available here via the Internet Archive’s “Wayback Machine.”
[2] Perhaps recognizing that the statement raises significant questions about AJP’s suitability for an APA Council seat, AJP has removed the statement from its website, as though it never existed. But it remains available here via the Internet Archive’s “Wayback Machine.”
[3] The “Collaborative of Jewish Psychologists” (CJP) has apparently voted to endorse the awarding of an APA Council seat to AJP. I question the value of this vote given that at least two-thirds of CJP members are also members of AJP (in fact, several of them are leaders in AJP). I have previously shared my broader concerns about CJP, including its lack of diversity, here.