APA’s Council Meeting: Human Rights Win, Fear Loses

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 2 Mar 2026

Roy Eidelson – TRANSCEND Media Service

 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.

27 Feb 2026 – 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.

The new antisemitism resolution — which was endorsed by fully 75% of Council members — updates and replaces the APA’s corresponding 2007 resolution. This 2026 version, now APA’s official policy, includes language emphasizing that antisemitism is about the treatment of Jews as Jews — and is not about criticism of Israel:

 Multiple contemporary definitions of antisemitism all share the recognition that antisemitism involves hostility, prejudice, discrimination, harassment, hatred, or violence against Jews as Jews.

This new resolution also directly acknowledges the false claims of antisemitism from defenders of Israel and the harm that they cause:

 The weaponization of antisemitism — the manipulative or bad faith invocation of accusations to silence legitimate criticism, scholarship, or activism — creates significant adverse consequences for Jews and non-Jews who oppose the state of Israel’s actions and support Palestinian rights.”

In addition, the APA’s new resolution on antisemitism removes these two deeply problematic sentences that were part of the earlier 2007 version:

 Anti-Semitism 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.

The link between extreme anti-Israel rhetoric and deeds directed against Jewish individuals and communities has become an observable global trend and has at times unleashed demonization and dehumanization of Jews.

Finally, the APA’s 2026 Resolution on Antisemitism is also entirely free of any citation of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). This represents a significant step away from relying on that Israel advocacy organization’s discredited “statistics,” which count anti-genocide protests as antisemitic. At the same time, the resolution highlights the critical importance of actively combatting the very serious threat posed by real antisemitism.

In its original form, this new antisemitism resolution included the following text which, presumably due to push-back on the Council floor, does not appear in the final version:

Scholars in the fields of Holocaust history, Jewish studies, and Middle East studies have emphasized that the following do not constitute antisemitic acts: support for Palestinian demands consistent with international law; support for full equality for everyone in Israel/Palestine; evidence-based criticism of Israel’s institutions, founding principles, practices, policies, and actions; and non-violent forms of political protest.

This omission is disappointing and frustrating, especially because full equality for Palestinians in Israel/Palestine is so important — and so far from becoming a reality today. But I find some measure of consolation in knowing that APA’s new policies no longer give any suggestion that calls for equality — including through support for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions tied to Israel — are antisemitic.

Turning to the statement on reaffirming the APA’s commitment to human rights and freedom of expression, it was endorsed by a stunning 95% of Council. The statement includes this key section:

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…We thereforeoppose efforts aimed at silencing or punishing non-violent advocacy directed towards safeguarding human life and upholding human dignity and human rights. We call for APA to safeguard psychologists’ rights to engage in non-violent political speech without professional retaliation.

This section does more than reinforce the legitimacy of criticizing Israel and raising concerns about the profound suffering inflicted on the Palestinian people. It also directs the APA to actively support, protect, and defend the rights of those within our community who choose to speak out against these horrors. Hopefully, this is a step toward the APA more fully recognizing and addressing Palestinian and SWANA pain and trauma.^[1]

Significant hurdles had to be overcome during the Council meeting to achieve these historic outcomes. Indeed, as noted above, certain significant text passages were regrettably revised or removed as part of the process of debate and deliberation. But consider that APA’s Board of Directors tried to postpone — at least for months, and perhaps forever — any consideration by Council of this new antisemitism resolution. The Board instead wanted the proposed resolution to be reviewed — and perhaps dramatically reshaped or even discarded — by the “Collaborative of Jewish Psychologists” (CJP), a group that they themselves had recently created.

The CJP was supposed to be “a diversity of voices representing the breadth of Jewish identity,” selected through a “transparent and inclusive” process. But that did not happen. For example, it appears that three-quarters of CJP appointees have either condemned criticism of Israel and support for Palestinian rights as antisemitic or are active in groups whose leaders have done so. In fact, almost half of CJP’s members belong to an organization that criticized the APA for opposing the collective punishment of Palestinian civilians and spoke against a 2024 APA resolution calling for a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza. In addition, before the CJP was even formed, a half-dozen members who were appointed to the group were already on record as having attacked the original text of the new antisemitism resolution as “antisemitic.”

In an essay I wrote last month expressing my serious concerns about the CJP, I included a link to a document on the APA’s own website that listed the names of the CJP’s twenty members. My doing so was apparently met with outrage from some CJP members, who evidently believed that the group was entitled to anonymity — for their own safety. APA quickly obliged by removing all information about them. Nevertheless, APA’s Board of Directors continued to insist that Council members should completely defer to the CJP and give that group sole responsibility for evaluating the antisemitism resolution — without Council even knowing the names of these individuals! Thankfully, Council rejected this plan and then proceeded to adopt the 2026 Resolution on Antisemitism.

In similar ways, the statement reaffirming APA’s commitment to human rights and freedom of expression almost never reached the Council for consideration. Ironically, APA senior staff had argued that the statement could not be adopted because it purportedly would contradict APA’s 2007 antisemitism resolution in place at the time. But by overwhelming numbers, Council members insisted that it be added to the agenda anyway. And by the time the statement was brought forward and approved by Council, that 2007 resolution had already been archived and replaced by the new antisemitism resolution.

I think it’s important to highlight the political context in which APA’s Council of Representatives held their recent meeting, just blocks from Capitol Hill. Since late last year, the APA has been under investigation by the U.S. House Committee on Education and Workforce, for alleged rampant antisemitism. Not surprisingly, these unwarranted accusations came from zealous Israel defenders within the psychology community, and they were amplified by Israel advocacy groups like the ADL. APA’s leadership was seemingly very quick to accommodate the Committee’s request for all documents, listserv posts, and other materials “from October 7, 2023 to the present referring or relating to ‘antisemitism,’ ‘Jews,’ ‘Judaism,’ ‘Israel,’ ‘Israeli,’ ‘Palestine,’ or ‘Palestinian.’” Whether or not names were redacted from those documents is information the APA has chosen not to share in its member updates.

This anticipatory obedience is disturbing in its own right. But even more so when one considers the dim prospect of somehow satisfying the Trump Administration’s appetite for vengeance without abandoning APA’s mission to “benefit society and improve lives.” Consider who is overseeing the current investigation. House Committee chair Tim Walberg (R-MI), a religious-right zealot, told his constituents, “We shouldn’t be spending a dime on humanitarian aid” for Gaza and “It should be like Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Get it over quick.” Virginia Foxx (R-NC) has equated criticism of Israel with antisemitism based on her paraphrased biblical injunction, “If you bless the Jewish people, you will be blessed. If you curse the Jewish people, you will be cursed.” Elise Stefanik (R-NY) affirmed her belief that “Israel has a biblical right to the entire West Bank” during her confirmation hearing for the position of ambassador to the United Nations. Mark Harris (R-NC), a former evangelical pastor, has claimed that Islam is “dangerous” and “counterfeit,” and that peace in the Middle East will require Muslims and Jews to convert to Christianity. Mary Miller (R-IL) quoted Adolph Hitler approvingly in a speech at a rally in Washington, DC, the day before Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol. And Randy Fine (R-FL) is on record with these comments: “‘Palestinian’ is just another word for demon” and Palestinians in desperate need of humanitarian aid should just “starve away.”

To conclude, through their historic votes, APA Council members lifted their commitments to ethics and human rights beyond the reach of those pushing instead for expediency, compliance, and the preservation of a misguided and destructive status quo. These members of Council were undoubtedly heartened and fortified by the many impassioned messages of support from colleagues who’ve witnessed and experienced first-hand the brunt of APA’s past failures to meet the moment when difficult choices must be made. But this progress is fragile, because angry and disingenuous attacks from groups that oppose APA’s new policies on antisemitism, human rights, and freedom of expression seem almost inevitable. And this means we must — collectively and in broad and broadening coalition —continue to defend these fundamental principles and those who advocate for them.

NOTE:

^[1] SWANA is a decolonial and geographical term that represents the various communities located in Southwest Asia and North Africa.

_______________________________________________

Roy Eidelson is a member of the TRANSCEND Network and was a member of the American Psychological Association for over 25 years, prior to his resignation. He is a clinical psychologist and the president of Eidelson Consulting, where he studies, writes about, and consults on the role of psychological issues in political, organizational, and group conflict settings. He is a past president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, former executive director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict, and a member of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology. Roy is the author of Political Mind Games: How the 1% Manipulate Our Understanding of What’s Happening, What’s Right, and What’s Possible and can be reached at reidelson@eidelsonconsulting.com.

This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 2 Mar 2026.

Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: APA’s Council Meeting: Human Rights Win, Fear Loses, is included. Thank you.

If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.

There are no comments so far.