My View: A Partnership Betrayed at the American Psychological Association

Note: This opinion piece represents my personal views and not those of any group with which I am affiliated. It reflects a good faith effort to present all facts, context, and data accurately and fairly.

Update: Since publishing this opinion piece, I’ve learned that some people are claiming that the five members of the APA’s Collaborative of Jewish Psychologists mentioned here did not want APA’s accreditation status to be suspended or terminated. I don’t find that claim credible, and I now offer further evidence here.

Last week, the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) overrode guidance from Department of Education staff and recommended that the federal recognition of the American Psychological Association Commission on Accreditation (APA-CoA) be suspended for one year, over alleged failures to address antisemitism.[1] A statement from the APA-CoA noted that, if this suspension is upheld, it could have “real and lasting consequences for psychology programs, future psychologists, and the nation’s mental health,” including current psychology graduate students whose training depends on federal grants.

This is clearly a very disturbing development on multiple fronts. But here I want to focus on one significant concern in particular: the fact that the committee’s decision reportedly turned on brief condemnatory third-party testimonies from several psychologists, including Miri Bar-Halpern, Cassie Feldman, Daniel Hoffman, Dean McKay, and Joshua Simmons. 

Most of these individuals had previously signed a letter accusing the APA of “virulent” and “systemic” antisemitism, based predominantly on some members’ criticisms of Israel and expressions of distress and outrage over the genocide in Gaza. Nevertheless, despite this and other actions that appear to involve their weaponization of antisemitism,[2] last year they were appointed to a new group — the “Collaborative of Jewish Psychologists” (CJP).[3] — by the APA Board of Directors. In announcing CJP’s launch in July 2025, APA’s Office of Psychology in the Public Interest specifically highlighted that the group would “work in partnership with APA leadership to co-develop meaningful strategies for combating antisemitism and elevate Jewish identity” (emphasis added).[4]

But given their decision to testify publicly in a government hearing in support of highly consequential punitive action against the APA, in my view these five CJP members have betrayed any semblance of “partnership” with APA’s leadership. And in light of this shattered trust, I don’t see how the CJP can credibly continue its work if these individuals remain among its members.

Continue reading “My View: A Partnership Betrayed at the American Psychological Association”

Israel-Defending Healthcare Professionals Find Their Latest Target: A Continuing Education Webinar About…Antisemitism!

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

Israel-defending extremists in the healthcare professions are at it again, and their growing desperation couldn’t be more apparent. It seems they’ve finally come to the realization that they simply have no persuasive arguments to offer for supporting Israel’s ethnic cleansing in the West Bank and its genocide in Gaza. And so, with increasing fervor, they’re turning to their only remaining propaganda tactic: namely, feeble assertions that criticism of Israel — or solidarity with the Palestinian people — is the hallmark of dangerous, unrepentant antisemites.

Here’s the latest bizarre twist in this deceitful campaign. These healthcare professionals have now successfully targeted for erasure a scheduled continuing education webinar about antisemitism! The American Psychological Association (APA) adopted a new Resolution on Antisemitism earlier this year, approved by over three-quarters of its Council of Representatives. One might think that there’s considerable value in providing an opportunity for clinicians to learn how this APA policy may be relevant to their practices. That’s what the four presenters (two of them Jewish, one of them Muslim) intended to do in their presentation titled “(Un)Safe Speech: Applying the 2026 APA Resolution on Antisemitism in Clinical Practice.”

But Israel’s propagandists apparently couldn’t bear the prospect of attendees learning that APA’s new antisemitism policy focuses on “hostility, prejudice, discrimination, harassment, hatred, or violence against Jews as Jews” — as it should — and avoids conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Ironically too, the extremists’ actions here demonstrate first-hand another important truth contained in the APA’s new policy: a warning about the illegitimate “weaponization of antisemitism,” described as “the manipulative or bad faith invocation of accusations to silence legitimate criticism, scholarship, or activism.” 

Is there a better example of this ugly weaponization than a dehumanizing Instagram post by Israel advocates that described the scheduled webinar presenters as “wolves in sheeps’ clothing”? I think it’s worth emphasizing as well that one of the individuals who collaborated on this appalling post is a member of both the APA’s own “Collaborative of Jewish Psychologists” (CJP) and the “Jewish Trauma and Resiliency Curriculum Committee” of the “Association of Jewish Psychologists.”

Continue reading “Israel-Defending Healthcare Professionals Find Their Latest Target: A Continuing Education Webinar About…Antisemitism!”

On Conscience and Conviction as a Psychologist Today

Dear Colleagues,

Last month, at the American Psychological Association annual convention in Washington, DC, I had the privilege of offering a five-minute “TED Talk” titled “On Conscience and Conviction as a Psychologist Today.” I was one of eight honorees as part of APA president Wendi Williams’s new “100 Psychologists Rising” initiative, and I am very grateful.

Over the past few weeks, colleagues have asked whether and where they can watch my brief presentation. As of this week, my talk is now part of APA’s post-convention “On Demand” programming. If you attended the convention, you can access the “100 Psychologists Rising” session here. My talk begins at the 10:20 mark, but I think the presentations by the other awardees — Alberta Arviso, Gilberte Bastien, Huong T. Diep, Irene Jacobs, Hareder T. McDowell, James McLeary, and Rahul Sharma — are all quite valuable and I recommend them highly.

However, I know that many of you did not attend the convention and are therefore unable to access the video directly. So, minus the bells and whistles of the APA stage and live audience, I’ve created an almost identical version — with the same slides — that can be watched above and here. I’ve also pasted the text of my brief remarks below.

Thanks in advance for your interest, and please share if you find it worthwhile!

In Solidarity and Community,

   Roy Eidelson

TRANSCRIPT

Good morning, everyone. Well, I never imagined I’d be up here today. And it now makes me wonder: can I also become the starting shortstop for the Philadelphia Phillies someday? More seriously, for years I’ve been a thorn in the side of APA’s leadership. So I am humbled by this honor, and truly grateful to President Wendi Williams and colleagues who’ve given me this opportunity. 

Honestly, I cannot say my career path is one worth emulating. That’s because it took me decades to realize something I wish I had figured out much earlier: that introversion and self-doubt — along with the pursuit of professional success — are poor excuses for remaining on the sidelines when the world is falling apart for so many. That’s certainly true today, with the ascent of authoritarian leaders who seemingly enjoy the cruelty and humiliation they inflict on those they deem exploitable and disposable.

Eventually I discovered that professional growth comes in fits and starts, and that community is often where you can find your voice and purpose. I learned this first at Penn’s Solomon Asch Center where international colleagues opened my eyes to the horrors of militarism and oppression, and the challenges of peacebuilding. And then next, with dear companions at the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology where, for over a decade, we waged a campaign against psychologist involvement in war-on-terror abuses. And now, with newer friends and colleagues, many much younger, who are committed to speaking out against the dehumanization and genocide of the Palestinian people. For me, their courage and persistence are daily reminders that we can be heartbroken and hopeful at the same time.

These experiences have convinced me that our profession calls upon us to pursue justice, to cherish human dignity, and to support those whose voices have been muffled or silenced. And I believe psychological research, practice, and ethics all have something important to say about pretty much every outrage we face today, including the assaults on immigrants, on people of color, on LGBTQ+ communities, on reproductive rights, on academic freedom, on voting rights, and much more. For me, when it all seems overwhelming, I remind myself what experts on tyranny tell us: “Be outraged,” “Believe in truth,” “Be as courageous as you can be,” and “Do not obey in advance.”

Above all, I know we cannot afford to fall into the trap of feeling helpless. That’s what authoritarian forces want. At times like these, I believe those of us less burdened by personal or career perils must embrace the heightened responsibilities that come with our privilege. As individuals, we can’t do everything. But we can all do something, and perhaps — certainly myself included — something more than what we’re doing now. So, I encourage you to identify the area that concerns you most, or where you believe you can make the biggest difference, or where you think your participation is most urgently needed.

Professional associations and other civil society organizations have an essential role to play here. We give these groups power, privileges, and the public trust. In exchange, we count on them to oppose government abuses. When they fall short, history shows it can have dire consequences.

My message certainly isn’t new. Over forty years ago, psychologist Carolyn Payton wrote an essay titled “Who Must Do the Hard Things?” She argued that psychology as a science devoid of social responsibilities will lead to our profession’s demise. Her answer to the question “Who must do the hard things?” was “Those who can.” And she followed up with another question: “Who must do the impossible things?” Her answer: “Those who care.” 

I’ll conclude with this. My late father-in-law — of blessed memory — was a prisoner at the Dachau concentration camp. Much later in his life, when asked how he survived, he explained that he always believed that once the world found out, rescue was inevitable. Today, I believe we must become the ones we’re waiting for. And this too: Never again is now, and for all people. Thank you.

The Mask Comes Off: The Psychologists Protecting Israel, Not Jews

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

Update (August 14, 2026): It has now become apparent that Gesher Community Care has misrepresented organizations listed as endorsers of its letter. Among the most prominent examples are Bristol Myers Squibb (yes, the global Fortune 100 biopharmaceutical company), the Columbia University Irving Medical Center, and the California Psychological Association. In fact, following letters of inquiry from concerned parties sent to several of the listed organizations, almost three-dozen organizations have now been removed from the GCC endorsement list. I don’t know the extent to which negligence, untrustworthiness, arrogance or some other factor explain these misrepresentations, and I don’t know whether all have now been corrected. I’ll leave it to the reader to judge the extent to which these misrepresentations further call into question the credibility of other claims made by GCC in its letter to the American Psychological Association.

Sometimes the mask comes off. That seems to be what happened last week, just before the American Psychological Association (APA) held its annual convention in Washington, DC. A group called Gesher Community Care (GCC) published an online open letter to APA leaders demanding that they do more to ensure the “safety” of Jewish attendees. The letter was introduced with this photo:

To be clear, that is not the “Jewish flag,” as some want you to believe. No, it’s something very different: the official flag of the state of Israel which, according to leading human rights organizations and scholars, is engaged in the ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Palestinian people. 

Overall, there’s a distorting hall-of-mirrors quality to the GCC letter’s elevation of concerns about the “psychological safety” of Israel-defending convention attendees. Despite the fact that over 20,000 Palestinian children have been slaughtered in Gaza (with several times that number injured or orphaned), APA is told that expressions of distress and outrage over Israel’s documented war crimes must be suppressed. Why? Because otherwise some Jewish conference-goers may feel uncomfortable. Consider too that the open letter promotes the importance of “viewpoint diversity” while simultaneously calling for the APA to silence voices of opposition to Israel’s actions. This all sounds a lot like traumatic invalidation to me.

It’s worth noting as well that several members of GCC’s advisory board are among those who’ve contributed in various ways to weaponizing antisemitism charges against the APA, leading to unwarranted government investigations of the Association. Antisemitism is indeed a very serious problem, but support for Palestinian rights and freedom is not antisemitic.

Continue reading “The Mask Comes Off: The Psychologists Protecting Israel, Not Jews”

Why I Believe the Association of Jewish Psychologists Should NOT Be Awarded a Seat on APA’s Council of Representatives

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. 

Continue reading “Why I Believe the Association of Jewish Psychologists Should NOT Be Awarded a Seat on APA’s Council of Representatives”

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.

Continue reading “Big Brother and the Israel Advocacy Machine”

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.

Continue reading “The “American Psychologist” Publishes Another Misleading Article About Antisemitism”

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.

Continue reading “APA’s Council Meeting: Human Rights Win, Fear Loses”

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.

Continue reading “My Significant Concerns about the Association of Jewish Psychologists”