September 8, 2005

Norman B. Anderson, PhD
Chief Executive Officer,
American Psychological Association
750 First Street, NE
Washington DC 20002-4242

Dear Dr. Anderson,

On Sunday, August 21, at the American Psychological Association Annual Convention, we attended the Invited Panel Discussion: Different Type of Dialogue-The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict sponsored by Division 48 [Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict and Violence: Peace Psychology Division].

The “Different Type of Dialogue” offered was, essentially, a “monologue” in which only the Palestinian viewpoint was presented. The miniscule amount of psychological knowledge, theory or scientific learning to be applied to this important topic was largely confined to Dr. Krippner’s comments concluding the presentation. Given that the “The purpose of the division is to increase and apply psychological knowledge in the pursuit of peace,”[1] we expected to be informed, perhaps even enlightened, regarding psychological contributions to the aforementioned phenomena. Instead, we were served up a warmed-over ideological [anti-Israeli] diatribe apparently sponsored and condoned by an Association of which we have each been dues paying members for over 30 years. We are writing to make APA aware of what occurred at this meeting in hope that you will take action to assure it does not recur.

To begin with, the titles of some of the participants’ talks did not at all reflect their actual content. For example, Donna Nassur’s topic was “End to the Violence: A Restorative Approach,” however no approach, restorative or otherwise, to the end of violence was offered. Ms Nassur showed pictures of the security barrier Israel has been erecting which, in some places, bisects Arab villages and streets, saying in dismay, “We all cried it was so disturbing”. We all know that the occupants of these villages are hurting. However, the topic of the panel, The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, by definition implies a duality. There are two sides to this conflict.

Wouldn’t it have been more useful, as well as more balanced, to present the antecedents and consequences of the security barrier for both sides of the situation? Ms Nassur made no mention of the legitimate need of Israelis to obstruct the movement of those who would commit murderous assaults on its civilians. She also neglected to present the actual data demonstrating the reduction in these terrorist assaults as a result of the very fence she found so upsetting. [2] She did not mention or discuss any other system for restoring nonviolence.

Ms. Nassur described visiting the Western Wall in Jerusalem and seeing some kind of ceremony that the Israeli Defense Forces were having there on that day. She considered this “a very disturbing mixture of religion, patriotism, nationalism…I felt like I was hit over the head…” What is her implication here? We have all witnessed mixtures of religion, patriotism and nationalism in Palestinian demonstrations. What is shocking about Israelis participating in a Jewish religious ceremony? Is this psychology or propaganda masked as scientific paper at a meeting of behavioral scientists?

Obviously, these kinds of comments reflect the speaker’s bias. We would think that someone who purports to engage in a “restorative approach to ending violence” would, at the very least, want to understand something about the culture and history of the parties whose conflict she wishes to resolve.[3] No effort was made to understand or show compassion for the Israeli side of the conflict. This is hardly a promising approach to conflict mediation.

Dr. Mubarak Awad spoke on “Psychological Ramifications of Nonviolence in the Palestinian-Israeli Situation.” He opened with the comment that “Most psychologists are afraid to discuss the issue of the Middle East…and you don’t want to [lose] your job if you sided with Palestinians…” He went on to say, “They brought all Jews to Palestine to live there free.” Is this psychology? Later, that remark was followed by “Israelis have power, money, guns but fail because Palestinians are not willing to give up their culture.” Is this a discussion of “psychological ramifications of nonviolence?” These kinds of comments sound pretty political as well as anti-Semitic to us. We challenge anyone to find a “psychological ramification of nonviolence” in anything presented by Dr. Awad.

Adam Shapiro, representing the International Solidarity Movement, spoke on “Nonviolent Resistance in Palestine: Prospects, Experience, and Solidarity.” We fail to understand why a person of Mr. Shapiro’s background was offered a forum at APA. Although Mr. Shapiro professes to be an advocate of nonviolence, in an article by Ghassan Joha appearing in the Jordanian Star [July 06, 2003], the author states, “Nevertheless, he justifies the Palestinian armed resistance against Israel as long as it is targeting Israeli soldiers and Jewish settlers…Otherwise, he is not in favor of suicide bombings.”[4] The American Jewish Congress, a very distinguished organization with an impeccable reputation for defending human rights, has said, “Adam Shapiro and the group he helps lead hold a poisonous view of Israel and Jewish interests.[5]”[6]

There were two other presentations. The first was an excellent first-person account by Dr. Jodi Shems Prinzivalli of her friendship with a Palestinian Sufi Imam and his family. There was also an unscheduled presentation by two psychologists from New Jersey, whose names were not on the printed material, describing a program to combat bias in the public schools.

Unfortunately, this interesting and useful material was overshadowed by the one-sided, propagandist nature of the rest of the program. Despite the use of the word “Dialogue” in the title of the panel, there was no “Dialogue.” Indeed, efforts by members of the audience to correct mis-information, to provide additional facts and otherwise create a more balanced perspective, were rejected by the co-chair, Dr. Tobach, who insisted in permitting only questions to the panel and did not allow comments or discussion.

As psychologists and Jews, we must protest the thinly veiled anti-Semitism, ideologically slanted and propagandist nature of this panel, and the fact that minimal objectively scientific psychological information was presented. In the future, we hope that APA will be more vigilant about the possibility of its venues being co-opted for overtly biased, political purposes.

Sincerely,

Dr Judith Davis
Dr. Mort Kissen

cc. Dr. Norman Anderson; Anti-Defamation League; American Jewish Congress; Hadassah; Hillel

---

[1] www.peacepsych.org: About the Division

[2] In fact, the data comparing the number of terrorist assaults before and after the erection of the fence demonstrates that the fence itself has provided a better restoration to nonviolence than anything else: Gillerman, Dan, Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations, Testimony before the United Nations General Assembly: “…one thing has become abundantly clear: the fence works. In those places where the fence has been erected it has succeeded in making it far more difficult for terrorists to take innocent life and sabotage the peace process. Scores of suicide attacks have been thwarted the latest just two days ago. Hundreds of lives have been saved. There has been a dramatic reduction of over 90% in successful terrorist attacks, a 70% reduction in citizens killed, and an 85% reduction in the number of wounded - all of which can be attributed directly to the security fence. "

[3] For example, since the fundamental tenet of Judaism is that humans are made in the image of God, Israeli soldiers are regularly reminded of the sanctity of human life by participating in religious ceremonies. And, since such a reminder can only benefit an army, we do not understand Ms Nassur’s objections. It would certainly benefit suicide bombers who appear to be lacking in respect for human life.

Hadassah: It’s a Fact: Israel Safeguards Human Rights,: “All soldiers must complete ethics courses and must follow strict rules of engagement, even when their own lives are at risk.”

[4] Joha, Ghassan: Jordanian Star [April 30, 2003] “Adam Shapiro Calls for Palestinian Civil Resistance”

[5] AJ Congress Condemns Jewish Award to Adam Shapiro

[6] Radosh, Ronald. FrontPageMagazine.com [April 5, 2002] “Those Phony ‘Peace Advocates’”.: “In particular, they [the ISM] sponsor what they call “non-violent” actions to reinforce the Palestinian resistance, which of course, is not expected to be non-violent….Nowhere do their members even seek to address the issue of suicide bombing…”