Why So Many Jews Support the Israeli Government Without Question
Source: CNN
The Facebook Exchange That Sparked This
Recently, I posted this on Facebook about the war in Gaza:
“It’s hard to say who wants a ceasefire less, Bibi or Hamas.”
A Jewish friend — warm, likable, and someone I’ve known for 25 years — fired back:
“It’s not hard to say at all. Israel does want peace. It’s not Bibi, it’s Israel. Bibi was democratically elected. Hamas doesn’t want a ceasefire. They want death. And you, through your false negative anti-Israel comments and your spreading of anti-Semitic libelous blood libels, are aiding murderous, barbaric jihadists. Great job, Otis!”
I replied:
“Antisemitism is real, dangerous, and rising in many places. What I posted was not an endorsement of Hamas — far from it. It was about how neither side’s leadership seems invested in the kind of de-escalation that would protect innocent lives. If we can’t hold our own leaders accountable, then what are we doing?”
It didn’t get calmer from there. At one point, he rattled off every hostile actor from Hamas to Iran and insisted I “stop blaming Israel."
The Psychology Behind the Reaction
What I was seeing wasn’t just disagreement — it was “ingroup/outgroup psychology” at work. For many Jews, Israel isn’t simply a nation-state; it’s the embodiment of collective survival after centuries of persecution. That identity is sacred.
And here’s the key: research shows the more central your group identity is to your sense of self, the more critical you become of the outgroup — and the more likely you are to interpret criticism of your group as an attack on you personally.
Identity Policing and the Black Sheep Effect
This is why Jews who openly criticize the Israeli government are so often branded as “not real Jews.” Social psychologists call this “identity policing”: when someone inside the group questions the consensus, it creates anxiety. The fastest way to resolve that discomfort is to question the dissenter’s belonging.
The same phenomenon appears in politics — Republicans critical of Trump get labeled “RINOs,” or Democrats who question leadership are “not true progressives.” It’s the “black sheep effect”: we judge members of our own group who deviate more harshly than outsiders because they threaten the group’s image.
Why Perspective-Taking Matters
One of the best antidotes to this bias is deceptively simple: ask yourself, “What would someone on the other side of the argument say? Why would they feel that way?”
My friend — for all his intelligence — seemed unable to do that. His ingroup loyalty was so strong that he could only filter my words through a lens of “ally” or “enemy.” Once I was sorted into the enemy camp, curiosity evaporated.
That’s the cost of over-identification with the ingroup: it preserves cohesion but kills dialogue. The question stops being “Could we be wrong?” and becomes “Are you even one of us?” And when belonging is at stake, most people will choose loyalty over truth.
Moral of the Story
If we want to break this cycle, we must deliberately practice perspective-taking — asking ourselves what the other side might say and why. It doesn’t mean agreeing with them. It means remembering that our humanity isn’t diminished by listening, but by refusing to do so.
If we can resist the instinct to treat disagreement as a betrayal, we create space for honest conversation — and perhaps even the kind of solutions that protect both our individual identity and our shared humanity.
Is there hope? How else can we engage across political and identity lines without instantly turning it into an “us versus them” test?
What Social Psychology Says About Ingroup Bias
Identity Centrality & Outgroup Hostility
Research: Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) shows the more central a group is to someone’s self-concept, the stronger the emotional reaction to criticism of that group.
Effect: People high in identity centrality interpret even mild criticism as hostile and respond with greater hostility toward the outgroup.
Identity Policing
Research: The “black sheep effect” (Marques & Paez, 1994) finds that ingroups judge deviant members more harshly than outsiders because they threaten the group’s image.
Effect: This is why dissenters are often branded as “traitors” or “not real” members.
Perspective-Taking as an Antidote
Research: Perspective-taking (Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000) reduces stereotyping and increases empathy, even across strong political or ideological divides.
Effect: Asking, “What would someone on the other side say, and why?” interrupts the automatic ally/enemy split.