Additional Resources
Top Commentators:
- Elliott Abrams
- Fouad Ajami
- Shlomo Avineri
- Benny Avni
- Alan Dershowitz
- Jackson Diehl
- Dore Gold
- Daniel Gordis
- Tom Gross
- Jonathan Halevy
- David Ignatius
- Pinchas Inbari
- Jeff Jacoby
- Efraim Karsh
- Mordechai Kedar
- Charles Krauthammer
- Emily Landau
- David Makovsky
- Aaron David Miller
- Benny Morris
- Jacques Neriah
- Marty Peretz
- Melanie Phillips
- Daniel Pipes
- Harold Rhode
- Gary Rosenblatt
- Jennifer Rubin
- David Schenkar
- Shimon Shapira
- Jonathan Spyer
- Gerald Steinberg
- Bret Stephens
- Amir Taheri
- Josh Teitelbaum
- Khaled Abu Toameh
- Jonathan Tobin
- Michael Totten
- Michael Young
- Mort Zuckerman
Think Tanks:
- American Enterprise Institute
- Brookings Institution
- Center for Security Policy
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Heritage Foundation
- Hudson Institute
- Institute for Contemporary Affairs
- Institute for Counter-Terrorism
- Institute for Global Jewish Affairs
- Institute for National Security Studies
- Institute for Science and Intl. Security
- Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center
- Investigative Project
- Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
- RAND Corporation
- Saban Center for Middle East Policy
- Shalem Center
- Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Media:
- CAMERA
- Daily Alert
- Jewish Political Studies Review
- MEMRI
- NGO Monitor
- Palestinian Media Watch
- The Israel Project
- YouTube
Government:
Back
(Times of Israel) Irwin J. Mansdorf - Is every anti-Israel slogan an expression of antisemitism? Recent attitudinal research has found that a sizable slice of anti-Israel sentiment softens once reliable information is introduced. Another slice does not budge. The difference between those two groups tells us much about prejudice, persuasion, and the power of peer culture. A significant minority of Americans (especially younger ones) express anti-Israel positions and support for a Palestinian state. In today's social climate, identity and solidarity often drive political expression; online networks reward conformity; and many respondents admit they have "no opinion" until a survey forces a choice. In other words, some people aren't hostile; they're unprepared. In multiple surveys, when respondents were given concrete information - about incentives for terror, about the denial of Jewish history and rights, about the real-world implications of slogans - stated support for maximalist anti-Israel positions dropped, sometimes by double digits. One study saw support for a Palestinian state fall by 24 percentage points after clarifying what kind of state was being imagined. Another found that 67.8% of students shifted their view of "from the river to the sea" once they learned what the phrase means in practice. Roughly 1/5 of respondents remain committed even after factual correction. They tend to display confirmation bias: when evidence contradicts their prior views, they double down. We are no longer in the realm of idealism. We are staring at ideological antisemitism. If a third of respondents are "don't know" and another large tranche is swayed by clear information, then the public square isn't a battlefield of entrenched enemies - it's a noisy classroom with too few teachers. The antidote is not more shouting; it's structured exposure to facts that make evasions uncomfortable. The writer is a clinical psychologist and a fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs specializing in political psychology. 2025-08-12 00:00:00Full Article
Anti-Israel Sentiments Soften when Confronted with Facts
(Times of Israel) Irwin J. Mansdorf - Is every anti-Israel slogan an expression of antisemitism? Recent attitudinal research has found that a sizable slice of anti-Israel sentiment softens once reliable information is introduced. Another slice does not budge. The difference between those two groups tells us much about prejudice, persuasion, and the power of peer culture. A significant minority of Americans (especially younger ones) express anti-Israel positions and support for a Palestinian state. In today's social climate, identity and solidarity often drive political expression; online networks reward conformity; and many respondents admit they have "no opinion" until a survey forces a choice. In other words, some people aren't hostile; they're unprepared. In multiple surveys, when respondents were given concrete information - about incentives for terror, about the denial of Jewish history and rights, about the real-world implications of slogans - stated support for maximalist anti-Israel positions dropped, sometimes by double digits. One study saw support for a Palestinian state fall by 24 percentage points after clarifying what kind of state was being imagined. Another found that 67.8% of students shifted their view of "from the river to the sea" once they learned what the phrase means in practice. Roughly 1/5 of respondents remain committed even after factual correction. They tend to display confirmation bias: when evidence contradicts their prior views, they double down. We are no longer in the realm of idealism. We are staring at ideological antisemitism. If a third of respondents are "don't know" and another large tranche is swayed by clear information, then the public square isn't a battlefield of entrenched enemies - it's a noisy classroom with too few teachers. The antidote is not more shouting; it's structured exposure to facts that make evasions uncomfortable. The writer is a clinical psychologist and a fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs specializing in political psychology. 2025-08-12 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|