Risk-resilience dynamics of ideological factors in distress after the evacuation from Gush Katif.

Abstract

Ideological commitment was found to be positively associated with stress (␤ ϭ .33, p Ͻ .01) and depression (␤ ϭ .25, p Ͻ .05). On the other hand, national attachment was found to be negatively associated with stress (␤ ϭ Ϫ.24, p Ͻ .05) and depression (␤ ϭ Ϫ.43, p Ͻ .001). A statistically significant interaction was found between national attachment and ideological commitment such that when ideological commitment was high, national attachment was associated with lower levels of depression, but when national attachment was low, ideological commitment was associated with higher levels of depression. Our findings are consistent with the conceptualization of a complex vulnerability-resilience dynamic in which different facets of political ideology may have complex and sometimes contradicting effects on psychological well-being.

A Cross‐Cultural Study on a Resilience–Stress Path Model for College Students

“…An examination of such interactions led Shahar, Elad-Strenger, and Henrich (2012) to propose that "most, if not all, psychosocial factors include elements of both risk and resilience" (p. 620). This proposal was supported by a recent study (Elad-Strenger, Fajerman, Schiller, Besser & Shahar, 2013), which validated ideology as "a variable that embeds vulnerability-and resilience-related elements" (p. 69). Because trait resilience, self-efficacy, and secure attachment are developed in the process of person-environment interactions (i.e., a part of psychosocial development), they have the potential to carry both resilience and vulnerability elements.…”

‘Pinkwashing’ the radical‐right: Gender and the mainstreaming of radical‐right policies and actions

“…It has a nativist, Jewish supremacist agenda and views liberal institutions, such as the Supreme Court, and human rights organizations, as a hindrance to Jewish majoritarian supremacy (Pedahzur 2012;Zertal & Eldar 2009). While they have certain characteristics that make them unique to Israel, such as religious nationalism and preoccupation with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, parties on the Israeli radical-right have been identified as similar to other radical-right parties in Europe, the United States and India, among others -particularly in their emphasis on nativist ethno-nationalism and authoritarian majoritarianism in discourse, activism and legislation efforts (Elad-Strenger et al 2013;Hirsch-Hoefler & Mudde 2020;Mudde 2019;Perliger & Pedahzur 2018). In fact, Hirsch-Hoefler and Mudde (2020) conclude that studying the Israeli radical-right provides highly useful insights to the study and theorizing of radical-right politics in Europe.…”

Does personalization of officeholders undermine the legitimacy of the office? On perceptions of objectivity in legal decisionmaking

“…More specific to the present context, it is likely the result of the directed discrediting campaign waged by Netanyahu and members of his party with respect to the AG and his office, in the wake of the investigations and indictments (Caspit, 2020). This finding strongly attests to the polarizing nature of the Netanyahu trial, in a context which was already highly polarized between the political left and right (Ben‐Shitrit et al, 2022; Elad‐Strenger et al, 2013, 2019, 2020).…”