Jewish Psychologists for Justice Supports APA NBI 15D

Dear Members of the American Psychological Association Council of Representatives:

On behalf of Jewish Psychologists for Justice (JPJ), we are writing to express our strong support for NBI 15D. We consider this resolution a valuable and urgently needed effort to clarify the APA’s perspective on combating antisemitism at a time characterized by tremendous political upheaval and dire threats to human rights. Here we would like to briefly highlight three reasons we encourage you to vote in favor of NBI 15D.

First, NBI 15D emphasizes that antisemitism is a very serious and growing threat, one that demands the APA’s dedicated attention. It does so while protecting freedom of speech so there can be dialogue and debate about how to address antisemitism and other human rights concerns. We know all too well the horrors that have unfolded in the history of the Jewish people — and other vulnerable groups — when oppressive forces have silenced voices of protest and despair.

Second, in order to advance social justice for all, including Jews, it is important not to mistake criticism of Israel or support for the human rights of Palestinians as antisemitism. This stance is consistent with the view of the American Jewish community. Polling has shown that less than a third of American Jews consider it antisemitic to describe Israel as an apartheid state or to say Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians. From JPJ’s perspective, conflating antisemitism with political speech is misguided and harmful. NBI 15D avoids this problematic conflation, which characterizes APA’s existing 2007 resolution. That earlier resolution describes antisemitism as “difficult for its perpetrators to identify and challenge” and states that it “may be asserted in the context of discourse regarding the actions of the Government of Israel, thus further disguising the anti-Semitic nature of the discourse.” This type of imprecise language leads to the unwarranted silencing and targeting of individuals, including Jews, who speak out against Israel’s actions.

Third, NBI 15D has been criticized by some because the resolution does not embrace the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. JPJ, however, sees this as a strength. That controversial definition, heavily promoted by the Israeli government and other pro-Israel groups, focuses primarily on protecting Israel from criticism. Kenneth Stern, a lead drafter of the IHRA definition, has noted with regret that the primary use of the definition has been to punish pro-Palestinian speech. NBI 15D addresses this reality by eschewing the IHRA definition and instead emphasizing what multiple contemporary definitions of antisemitism (including IHRA) all share in common: that antisemitism involves hostility, prejudice, or violence against Jews for being Jewish.

We also oppose the substitute motion to send NBI 15D to the newly formed Collaborative of Jewish Psychologists, in part because six members of the CJP have already publicly expressed opposition to 15D, and also because we support APA’s democratic process, which should occur through the vote of elected Council members.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Moshe Brownstein, Lizabeth Roemer, Judith Gulko, and Lynne Layton, on behalf of JPJ

Feb 10, 2026

Note: As a matter of full disclosure, Dr. Jordan Dunn, one of the movers of NBI 15D, is a member of JPJ’s organizing committee. JPJ’s mission statement is available online here.