Features
Helen Nadel is about to assume the presidency of an important world-wide body: The Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
And while Helen Nadel has had a distinguished career in medicine as a pediatric radiologist and nuclear medicine physician – Winnipeg will always be near and dear to her
By BERNIE BELLAN Quite often this newspaper has published articles about former Winnipeggers who have gone on to great careers once they’ve left Winnipeg. If there’s one thing our Jewish community here has been especially proficient at doing, it’s been serving as a springboard for outstanding students to launch successful careers elsewhere.
In some ways, while we may lament that so many of our “best and brightest” have sought to further their careers by leaving Manitoba, almost all those expatriates have something in common, and that’s a deep affection for their hometown – also for the bonds that they formed growing up in Winnipeg.
A few months ago I happened to be in conversation with one of our out-of-town readers: Diane Unrode-Ackley. Diane mentioned that a good friend of hers, Helen Nadel, had recently been elected to serve as the upcoming president of a rarified body: The Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.
Now, I should also explain that Helen has been an online subscriber to this paper for many years but, like many other online subscribers, I really didn’t have a clue where Helen lived – or what Helen’s background was.
I told Diane that I would definitely want to interview Helen to ask her about her career and what led up to her assuming the presidency of such an important body. But, as you might expect, Helen Nadel is one very busy woman. Try as we might to find a time that would work for both of us to conduct an in-depth interview, it wasn’t until earlier this past month that we were able to speak – face to face so to speak, via Zoom.
What follows are excerpts from that interview, but first here is Helen Nadel’s bio as given on the Stanford University School of Medicine website:
“Dr. Nadel is a dual board -certified Pediatric Radiologist and Nuclear Medicine Physician in both the USA and Canada. She holds certifications from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada in Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, The American Board of Radiology (ABR) with certificate of added qualification in Pediatric Radiology and the American Board of Nuclear Medicine (ABNM). Dr. Nadel was an Associate Professor of Radiology at University of British Columbia and had been practicing as a pediatric radiologist and pediatric nuclear medicine physician at British Columbia Children’s Hospital in Vancouver, British Columbia since 1983 after medical school at University of Manitoba (1977, Winnipeg, Manitoba), internship and residency at University of Toronto (1978-1982) and Pediatric Radiology fellowship (Chief Fellow) at Hospital for Sick Children (1982-1983, Toronto, Ont.) She has been working with the entire breadth of general and hybrid nuclear medicine studies in children in a fully integrated department of Pediatric Radiology and lecturing to promote this field for her entire career. Dr. Nadel currently uses PET/MRI exclusively for PET imaging at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford University (LPCH) and co-directs the clinical PET/MRI program at LPCH. Dr. Nadel has been inducted as a Fellow of the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (FSNMMI). Dr. Nadel is the 2022-2023 President-Elect of the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.”
And here is the interview:
JP&N: ¨Nice to meet you – finally.”
Nadel: “You too.
JP&N: “We actually met seven years ago at the Jewish Schools Reunion. You’ve had a very illustrious career – and worn many hats, but tell me something about your growing up in Winnipeg.”
Nadel: “I’m a north ender – an only child. My mother came to Winnipeg in 1921 – she was born near Kiev.
“My father came after the war. He had had a military career in the Polish Army. He was captured by the Russians in 1939 and sent to the Gulag. Then when he was repatriated he walked back over the Ural mountains to then fight in the free Polish division of the Russian army.”
JP&N: “Wow!” (Ed. note: That would have been over 2,000 kilometres! At this point I’m including a later part of the interview in which Helen elaborated upon what happened to her father.)
JP&N: “Did you say he had to walk from the Gulag?”
Nadel: “Yes, he walked. It took him two years. He lived in the Ural Mountains, he lived in Uzbekistan.”
JP&N: ¨I just wrote about a book by another doctor – Meyer Kreger. It was the memoir of his mother, Rose. She was also from Poland and survived the war after being sent to Siberia, then Uzbekistan, then Kazakhstan. The stories of how some people were able to survive when others couldn’t endure are endlessly fascinating.”
Nadel: “You know Francie Winograd, don’t you? My father was in the same DP camp as Francie’s mother (Gertrude) after the war. It was near Munich.
“When my father came to Winnipeg, he met the Grosh family – and they had a sister-in-law who was in her thirties and not married. She was introduced to my father and as they say, the rest is history.” (I had to tell Helen that Gerry Posner uses that line in every story he writes.)
“They were married in 1949 and I was born in ’52.”
“I went to Peretz School in Winnipeg and then to Jefferson and Garden City Collegiate. I graduated and did undergrad and med school in Winnipeg. After that‚ I went to a Toronto to do my specialty training in radiology. I’m a radiologist‚ and I have two specialties – actually. three specialties. I’m a radiologist‚ but I sub specialize in pediatric radiology, and I also have a secondary qualification in nuclear medicine, both of which are diagnostic tools.
“One uses what you would think of as conventional X rays and now, ultrasound. MRI is general radiology. Nuclear medicine uses a small amount of radioactive material to also look at how the body works, how it functions. The new thing about nuclear medicine – it’s not so new really, is we can also use it for therapy. So, if you’ve heard of people having thyroid disease, sometimes we give them radioactivity to treat thyroid cancer.
“And now, the big thing‚ of course‚ is we can treat prostate cancer in men; we can treat other cancers as well. But the new kid on the block is treating prostate cancer with radioactive material. We’ve had very good success. But I’m a pediatric person‚ so that’s not actually my purview at the moment.
“But part of the reason I think Diane wanted you to talk to me is I’m about to become the President of the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.”
JP&N: ¨You haven’t assumed the throne yet, have you?”
Nadel: “My presidential year starts in June of this year. But I’ve been in the leadership (of the Society) for three years. I was elected in June 2021.”
JP&N: ¨You’re going to become head of a worldwide organization – right, or is it just American?”
Nadel: “It’s a worldwide organization, based in the US‚ but it is global. We are the largest organization (in the field of nuclear medicine). We have a membership that includes physicians‚ technologists‚ scientists and industry. And it has about 14,000 (members). There are some other organizations (in the field). There are regional – sort of country-based organizations. There are continental-based organizations – like the European Association of Nuclear Medicine – but we’re much bigger.”
JP&N: “You said your specialty is pediatric radiology. Is that right?”
Helen: “Yes‚ ¨I’m a pediatric radiologist.”
JP&N: “So, up to what age would you be treating patients?”
Nadel: Well‚ that’s a good question – usually to age 18. However‚ here at Stanford‚ we have a lot of children that have had diseases as infants‚ and we keep seeing them as they become adults. We still see them. So, it’s a movable barrier. But usually pediatrics is to 18.”
JP&N: ¨I assume you know Ted Lyons.”
Nadel: “I do. Ted was instrumental in bringing ultrasound to Winnipeg and to Canada and as such he came to teach us in our radiology training program at the University of Toronto.”
(At that moment Helen’s phone rang and she had to take a short call. When Helen resumed our Zoom call I noticed a male figure had wandered into the background.)
JP&N: “Who’s that wandering into the background now? Is that your husband?”
Nadel: “Yes, that’s my husband.”
JP&N: “What’s your husband’s name?”
Nadel: “Tevy Goodman. ‘Tevy, say hi to Bernie Bellan‚ the editor of the Jewish Post.’ ”
JP&N: “Are you in Palo Alto? Is that where I’m reaching you now?”
Nadel: “We’re in Palo Alto. We’re in the heart of Silicon Valley. I came to Stanford five years ago. I was recruited here. Actually‚ I was sort of retiring from my job. I had been 35 years at Children’s Hospital – at British Columbia Children’s Hospital in Vancouver – as a pediatric radiologist and the head of their pediatric nuclear medicine department, and I was going to sort of retire – slow down, at least.
“But there was a new hospital at Stanford – a new children’s hospital. I have a lot of friends in the community all over and one of them here convinced me that I should at least look at this job. And you know what it was? It was an opportunity that not many people would get. And, so, instead of retiring‚ I decided to come here – and I’m moving – going ‘uphill’ to go ‘downhill’.”
JP&N: Are most of your duties teaching or clinical? How does it break down?”
Nadel: “I am a clinical physician. I’m in charge of a new division – brand new at this hospital‚ which is called Pediatric Nuclear Medicine. I am also a full service pediatric radiologist. And so I have two hats – two big hats.
“We have some unique equipment here that not many places in the world have – and I’m kind of a leader. I don’t want to blow my own horn‚ but I’m a leader in a field called PET/MRI (Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging).
“Winnipeg has a PET/CT scanner. There are two in Vancouver. There are two down the street from here, where I live. So‚ you know‚ it’s just a different world, it’s a different focus‚ a different way of doing things. I’ve been very fortunate that I’ve been able to use these exceptional tools for over 20 years now in my practice, both in Canada and the US. And pediatric lags behind adults in this area – just because we’re smaller. You know, there are fewer kids, but 25% of the world population is pediatric. It will increase as the Boomers get older and die off . Some Third World countries have mostly young people, so it will take a while to build up another Boomer type age group once we’re out of the picture. And disease will get younger in the medical field.”
JP&N: ¨ There are all sorts of scary news reports about cancer, saying it’s increasing – depending on who you talk to. Yesterday‚ I think I saw in Time Magazine, that 50% of people will have cancer in their lifetimes. Someone else told me‚ 70% – but she’s really into conspiracy theories. Can you give a more specific figure or is it hard to do that?”
Nadel: “I don’t have an answer to that. But there are some reports that suggest that the ages at which some people are getting certain diseases are getting younger. There was a big report this week on colon cancer – saying people are getting it younger. It’s being picked up at younger ages. I think that’s in part due to the fact that we have better techniques to pick these diseases up. We are taking more interest in preventative health‚ and that’s okay.
“One of the things that attracted me to Stanford was the physician who recruited me. His name was Sam Gambhir. He was an absolute giant in the field. Unfortunately, he died two years ago of cancer – a very horrible story. You could look him up. He was brilliant. But he basically was on track and his lab -which is still here‚ was on track to promote precision health and preventative health. And precision medicine includes wearable technology, you know.
“One of the last things he wrote about – a great article‚ was about the ‘smart toilet’ And it exists, basically. Your toilet can determine if you have disease by your feces. But nobody knows that’s the case. There’s so much going on in the world. I mean‚ this is beyond me‚ but I’m just saying that there’s a lot of stuff going on.
“So, the statistics are enabling us to pick up more diseases‚ and we’re picking it up earlier. We’re finding ways to treat it. But, have we moved the dial? I’m not sure yet. We don’t know yet. We don’t have enough information yet to determine if we’ve moved the dial in the right direction. I think we will, but I think it’s going to take a little longer to actually prove that.
JP&N: “Okay‚ I want to talk about your new position, but I also want to put a little bit of a ‘haimish’ touch to this. You said you left Winnipeg – when?. Were you in your twenties?”
Nadel: I left Winnipeg after I graduated from med school. I was 24.”
JP&N: “And you went to Toronto for postgraduate?”
Nadel: “Basically, you have to do a year of postgraduate training to get a medical license. I actually did what was called in those days a rotating internship. So I did twelve months of a bunch of everything – all different parts of medicine. I actually thought I would become a family physician and come back to Winnipeg. Then I met my husband. We actually met in Winnipeg. He’s from Vancouver‚ but we met in Winnipeg‚ and he followed me to Toronto. He didn’t want to come back to Winnipeg – put it that way.”
JP&N: “Sounds familiar.”
Nadel: “We thought we would end up in Toronto. And, after 14 years of postgraduate education – which included all my radiology training…I also did specialty training; after a year of internship; after four years of radiology residency and a one year pediatric radiology fellowship – I didn’t have a job! I needed a job. And I got offered to do much like what I’m doing here: start up a new program at a brand new hospital in Vancouver – British Columbia Children’s Hospital. I was 30 years old.
¨And my husband being from Vancouver‚ that seemed like a reasonable thing to do for what we thought would be five years. We ended up having two daughters in those first five years – and we never left.”
JP&N: “Can I ask: What did your husband do?”
Nadel: “My husband is a retired professional engineer – a civil engineer and, in an interesting twist‚ he helped build some of the nuclear generating stations in Ontario. He worked in construction development and then in power group development. He worked for Ontario Hydro for all the years that we were in Ontario. And then he basically retired.”
“He took care of me and the kids and it just worked out that way. Coming back to Vancouver turned out to be a good thing and a bad thing when we came back. We came for my job because I did not have another job, and it looked like he would get a similar job in civil engineering, but that had dried up in the 80s (when nuclear plants stopped being built).
“And, our first child was premature But, you know what? The decision to have one parent at home was the right decision. And so it was him. I was young; he was a great father. He is a great father. So he was a forerunner then. And he was not Mr. Mom. He was everything. He is everything still. I couldn’t have done anything I did – and still do if I didn’t have that kind of support.”
JP&N: “So, as far as your Winnipeg roots go‚ I know that you’re friends with Diane Unrode-Ackley. Do you still have many friends from that time?”
Nadel: “Well Diane is like a sister me. I really had a close circle of three. Mindy (Unrode, Diane’s younger sister, who sadly died in 1986) was my best friend. We met when we were seven or eight years old. We were friends forever. She moved to Toronto as well after she got divorced.
“My second close friend was Cheryl Schwartz, who’s now (Dr.) Cheryl Minuk – also in Toronto.
JP&N: “She’s a subscriber, too. I talk to her occasionally.”
Nadel: And my other close friend was (Madame Justice) Robyn (Moglove) Diamond (who also passed away – in 2018). The four of us (Helen, Mindy, Cheryl, and Robyn) were best friends.
JP&N: “What street did you grow up on?”
Nadel: “I grew up on Scotia Street‚ between Smithfield and McAdam. My cousins are the Grosh family. I should mention that my family were also long time shul goers at Rosh Pina.”
JP&N: I just heard from Joel (Grosh). His mother (Tesse) just passed and we had her obituary in the paper. This is really a little Jewish geography we’re doing.”
Nadel: “Totally. So, Tesse’s husband, Abe, and I were first cousins. Our mothers were sisters‚ but I’m almost the same age as Joel; he’s one year older than me. So, even though I’m one generation older than him we grew up together. We grew up in a compound almost. Joel’s family lived next door to us until they built their really nice house on Smithfield. His grandparents lived next door to him – half a block away
“What happened is two brothers – named Grosh, married two sisters my aunts – whose name was Chmelnitsky – and they lived across the street from each other. In a real twist of fate, someone else you know, Osher (Archie) Kraut, is also my cousin.
“They’re cousins on my father’s side – which is how my father came to Winnipeg after the war. Archie’s parents actually brought him to Winnipeg. He was only planning to pass through Winnipeg on his way to Israel. He’d been in a DP camp for four years. He had had typhus; he wasn’t that well. And then he came to Winnipeg. He wasn’t even 40.”
JP&N: “By the way, we’re only a year apart in age. Well, let’s turn to the position you’re about to assume. What will be your actual title?”
Nadel: “I’ll be President of the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. When you’re first elected‚ you are vice-president elect‚ then you become president elect‚ then you become president, and then you become past president. What happens is you’re part of the leadership, basically. So, as president elect you travel together with the president. You deal with all of the sort of day to day problems that such an organization might have. We deal with the US federal government, for the most part. We deal with international governments related to the supply of radiopharmaceuticals that we use in our medical careers. And we also have international organizations. We deal with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which I’ve been involved with for 20 years as well, on a consultancy basis.
“How did I get to where I am in this organization? Well‚ as a pediatric radiologist and nuclear medicine physician‚ I was always interested in promoting the interests of children. They’re different than adults. There’s a saying that children are not small adults, and that’s true. And so, in some things, kids do get left behind. They don’t get some of the drugs. They don’t get some of the treatments that are available, some of the diagnostic things that you could do, some things you don’t want to do, etc.
“But it’s important to promote pediatrics. I’ve been a strong proponent of educating people about my field, my particular area of interest. I met people along the way who were interested in how I do things. I was interested in the organization that I belong to. I’m promoting the fact that there are new techniques that we can utilize. I’ve just been vocal. I teach, I give a lot of lectures, I’m not shy. Well‚ I guess you could say I’m an ‘introverted extrovert.’
“I got known in my field as a speaker, somebody who was interesting. I worked as a solo practitioner in my area – in Vancouver, even here (at Stanford). It’s usually never more than one person that does pediatric nuclear medicine in any hospital department.
“I suppose the reason I got to where I got was I volunteered to get involved in different parts of the organization, but I wasn’t aspiring to do this (become president of the nuclear medicine association). But again, much like coming to Stanford, somebody asked if I would consider doing it. My reaction was, given that I was new at Stanford and that I’m trying to grow a brand new program, (the administrators at Stanford) would say, ‘Are you crazy? We’re not giving you that time.’
“But, instead, they were delighted. But when you say you’re willing to put your name forward for election, you actually have to run an election. I ran an election. I sent out 10,000 emails.”
JP&N: “Were there other candidates running?”
Nadel: “There was another candidate that ran, but I won the election in June 2021. I’m going to be the seventy-first president of this organization. I’ll also be the fifth woman, the fifth pediatric person, and the third Canadian.”
JP&N: “Are you an American citizen now, too (in addition to being a Canadian citizen?”
Nadel: “No, no, I am a Canadian citizen. I do have a green card. My husband and I both have green cards, but we’ll always be Canadian.”
JP&N: “Okay, Helen, this has been terrific. It was very nice meeting you – finally. This was a long time in coming. It was hard to pin you down, but I’m glad we did this.
Nadel: “Okay, I hate talking about myself, but thanks for this. It was great.”
Following our interview I asked Helen to provide some information about her two daughters. Here’s what she wrote:
“My husband and I have two daughters. Frani is a cantor, having graduated from the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in NYC as a cantor in the Conservative movement. She is currently completing a fellowship in Vancouver to be a chaplain. She has Master Degrees in Sacred Music and Jewish Education and also teaches in the Jewish education system in Vancouver.
“Daniella has a Masters Degree in Early Childhood Special Education from Hunter College in NYC. She is currently teaching kindergarten in a charter school in Brooklyn, also completing a second Masters degree in Speech Therapy.”
Mahler the Jew: A futuristic fantasy (Part II)
David Topper
Features
What Attachment Styles Can Reveal About Dating Habits
How many evenings with a stranger does it take before anything reliable is known about them? Most people answer with a number and then ignore their own answer. What actually gets measured across those evenings is the pattern each person carries into every new pairing, and that pattern has been studied under one name since 1987.
Attachment research began with infants and moved into adult romance almost by accident. It now supplies the best available vocabulary for a question most people ask eventually, which is why their dating life keeps taking the same shape.
A Newspaper Quiz in 1987
Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver tested a hunch in 1987 by publishing a quiz in the Rocky Mountain News asking readers about their romantic history. They received 620 replies. Roughly 56% of respondents described themselves in secure terms, about 25% in avoidant terms and around 19% in anxious terms.
Those proportions were close to what Mary Ainsworth had recorded in infants decades earlier. A distribution found in toddlers separated from a parent for 3 minutes in a laboratory had turned up again in adults describing love affairs, and that correspondence is what made the field take notice.
The method had obvious weaknesses. Newspaper readers who answer a quiz about their love lives are not a random sample, and every answer was self-reported by people describing their own behavior in the most favorable terms available. Later work with better samples moved the numbers around without dislodging the structure, and the structure is what has lasted.
Two Axes and Four Positions
Two questions turned out to organize the whole field. Does a person hold a positive or negative view of themselves, and do they hold a positive or negative view of other people? Kim Bartholomew and Leonard Horowitz built their 1991 model on exactly that pair.
Crossing those axes produces 4 positions. Secure covers positive views of both. Preoccupied means a negative view of self with a positive view of others, which produces someone who wants closeness and doubts they deserve it. Dismissing means the reverse, a positive self-view paired with low expectations of anyone else. Fearful covers negative views on both axes, which produces wanting closeness and distrusting it at the same time.
Two axes beat a list of 3 types, because the axes explain why 2 people who both avoid intimacy can look nothing alike in practice.
Pacing and the First Month
There is no fixed amount of dates that settles the question of compatibility, and attachment position changes how quickly a person believes they have settled it. Secure people tend to form an assessment gradually and revise it when new information arrives.
Preoccupied people often decide fast and commit to the decision before it is warranted. Dismissing people frequently take longer and still leave with less, since their default is to withhold the information that would let anyone assess them back.
Separating the decision from the feeling by a fixed interval helps the first group. Deciding after a set number of meetings rather than after a strong evening will not make the assessment more accurate. It removes the largest single source of error, which is a conclusion reached inside the honeymoon phase while everything still looks promising.
Hyperactivation and Deactivation
The mechanism underneath all of this has 2 modes. Anxious patterns run on hyperactivation, which means turning up the volume on distress to draw a partner closer. Avoidant patterns run on deactivation, which means suppressing the signal entirely to keep distance manageable.
In early dating this shows up in small behaviors. Hyperactivation shows up as checking your phone every few minutes after an unanswered message, and as the escalation of a minor scheduling conflict into something larger. Researchers call the wider category protest behavior, and it covers everything from pointed silence to deliberately provoking a reaction. Deactivation produces the pleasant evening that goes nowhere and the topic changed each time a real question arrives.
Both patterns are attempts to manage the same discomfort, pointed in opposite directions. The deactivating version accounts for most of what people mean when they call someone emotionally unavailable.
The Anxious-Avoidant Loop
The most documented pairing in the literature puts a hyperactivating person with a deactivating one. Fearful-avoidant attachment complicates the picture further, since one person can run both strategies in sequence and produce the same loop without a partner’s help. Each strategy strengthens the other. Pursuit triggers withdrawal, withdrawal triggers more pursuit, and the loop holds steady for years because neither person is doing anything the other did not provoke.
The reason this pairing is so common is easy to miss. To someone whose nervous system learned early to associate intensity with love, a secure partner can feel flat. The anxious-avoidant cycle produces intensity on demand.
Positions Move
Attachment position is a tendency, and tendencies move. Positions change across the lifespan with relationships, therapy and circumstance, and a single difficult partner can push someone temporarily toward a pattern that is not their baseline.
That matters for how any of this gets applied. A person behaving in a preoccupied way with one partner may be entirely secure with the next, so the category describes the current pairing as much as the individual in it.
It also rules out the most common misuse of the framework, which is deciding early that a new person is avoidant and treating every subsequent behavior as confirmation. Two quiet weeks can mean an avoidant pattern, a demanding job, a sick parent or ordinary early caution, and the categories offer no way to tell those apart from the outside.
Reading the Categories Correctly
There is one more thing the framework cannot do, and it is the thing people most want from it. Nothing in attachment theory tells anyone which partner to choose. It describes how a person is likely to behave once the choosing is over and the uncertainty starts, which is a different and much smaller claim than the one made by most of the writing built on top of it.
An attachment style is a description of a habit. It names what someone tends to do when closeness is on offer and they are uncertain about it, and nothing in the framework predicts what any specific person will do on any specific evening.
Used that way the idea is genuinely worth having. A person who knows their own pattern can catch it while it is running, and a pattern caught mid-run is the only kind that can be interrupted. Noticing that you commit early and regret it a month later teaches you more than any number of verdicts about the people you committed to.
Uncategorized
Four Seats or No Seats? Why Israel’s Final Polls Disagree Over Amcha Yisrael
Conflicting projections for Ofer Winter’s party illustrate the uncertainty of measuring public support near an electoral threshold.
A Channel 12 poll gives Ofer Winter’s Amcha Yisrael four parliamentary seats.
An i24NEWS survey reaches the same seat total.
Other final polls find that the party does not qualify for representation.
How can surveys conducted close to the same election produce such different results?
The answer lies partly in the difference between measuring a vote share and converting it into parliamentary seats.
A Statistical Boundary
Israel’s electoral threshold is 3.25 percent.
For a party receiving substantially more than that percentage, modest sampling fluctuations may change its expected number of seats without calling its parliamentary presence into question.
For a party whose support lies near 3.25 percent, the same type of fluctuation may change its projected representation from several seats to zero.
This does not necessarily mean the polls are measuring completely different political realities.
They may be producing estimates close to the same threshold but on opposite sides of it.
Sample Size Is Only One Factor
The i24NEWS survey conducted on October 22 included 5,124 adult respondents and reported a sampling error of plus or minus 1.4 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level.
That is a substantial sample by conventional political polling standards.
But a larger sample does not eliminate every source of uncertainty.
Different pollsters may employ different recruitment methods, weighting systems and procedures for estimating turnout.
They may also differ in how they handle respondents who are undecided or reluctant to state their preferences.
These choices can matter particularly for smaller parties.
The Problem of Turnout
Opinion polls generally estimate voting preferences before actual voting takes place.
Election results reflect the ballots cast by people who participate.
Differences between intended and actual turnout can affect parties in different ways.
Analysts must therefore consider not only how many respondents express support for a party, but also whether the poll’s turnout model accurately reflects the eventual electorate.
Without transparent, comparable information about the methods used by each polling organization, it is difficult to identify which methodological difference is responsible for a particular disagreement.
Reading the Final Surveys
The appropriate interpretation of Amcha Yisrael’s polling is neither that its parliamentary representation is guaranteed nor that exclusion is certain.
The available surveys demonstrate uncertainty around a legally decisive boundary.
The four-seat projections reported by Channel 12 and i24NEWS are meaningful observations.
So are the below-threshold findings published by Channel 13, Maariv and Zman Yisrael.
Each survey is a measurement of electoral intentions under a particular methodology, not a count of actual votes.
For readers following Israel’s election, this makes Amcha Yisrael an instructive case study in how polling uncertainty interacts with electoral law.
The final result will provide the definitive seat allocation. The polls explain why the outcome was difficult to measure in advance.
Features
What Constitutes Genocide, and is Israel Guilty?
By HENRY SREBRNIK Genocide is a grave and exceptional violation of international law, defined and prohibited by the Genocide Convention of 1948. But maybe Raphael Lemkin did us no favour in coining the word during the Holocaust. It is now used by antisemites against Israel.
Raphael Lemkin was a Polish-Jewish jurist who escaped from Europe when the Nazis occupied Poland. He moved to Washington, DC, in the summer of 1942, and went on to document Nazi atrocities in his 1944 book, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. In this text, he introduced the word “genocide,” the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group. This new word is made from the ancient Greek word genos (race, ethnicity or tribe) and the Latin cide (killing).
But it’s not that cut and dried. Even before the antisemites accused Israel of genocide in Gaza, as a way of ridding themselves of any residual guilt about the destruction of European Jewry, the word had become little more than a term used by states and “human rights” groups who for one reason or another want to punish their adversaries.
Most of the time they really are talking about “ethnic cleansing,” pogroms, massacres and war crimes. By such criteria, every participant in World War II committed “genocide.” The mass killings of civilians in Hiroshima and Dresden in 1945 would today qualify. But these were acts against even far worse perpetrators of what we now call genocide, designed to speedily end the war.
What about the American war in Vietnam, and of course the almost numberless conflicts across Africa? The wars that dismembered Yugoslavia involved terrible massacres, particularly in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, but did they really meet the criterion for genocide? The numbers killed needn’t be huge. About 8,000 Bosniak Muslims were murdered in Srebrenica by Bosnian Serb militias in 1995 during the Bosnian war. In the Western Hemisphere it would — and lately does — refer to the cultural and also physical extinction of pre-contact peoples from the Arctic down to Patagonia.
Are ideological attempts to kill groups of identifiable people within a state — the Holodomor in Ukraine, but also elsewhere in Stalin’s USSR — genocide? What about the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia? Should we call this an “auto-genocide,” since it was perpetrated by the nation’s own mad Maoist regime? Was China’s Cultural Revolution a genocide? Millions probably died. Rwanda is an interesting case — obviously a mass murder by one class-cum-ethnic group against another, a giant pogrom involving intertwined peoples, but where the victims have now turned the tables.
Actually, there have been very few ideologically intentional attempts to destroy a powerless and helpless people, in whole or in part. Only a few qualify by that definition, the Holocaust being an obvious one, as well as the Turkish mass murders of Armenians in World War I. The allegations that Israel committed this crime do not meet the established definition and standards of genocide, are unsupported by established facts, nor do they stand up to common sense scrutiny.
A finding of genocide requires evidence of acts that are intended to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, in whole or in part. Israel has neither intended to, nor destroyed, Palestinians as a group in Gaza. Israel’s accusers allege genocide mostly because of the supposed number of civilians killed in Gaza. Such claims are rife with flaws. Genocide is not a quantitative crime; there is no specific number of civilian casualties that constitutes genocide.
Israel set a high bar for how to conduct urban warfare against an enemy who will stop at nothing, including the death of its own civilians. What kind of genocide is it when the population of Gaza is larger today than it was three years ago? And how could it be that Israel is trying to kill innocents when the ratio of civilian-to-combatant casualties is lower than that of other urban wars fought in even less-difficult conditions?
Dave Rich, an Associate Research Fellow at the Pears Institute for the Study of Anti-Semitism, writes extensively about the intersection of anti-Israel activism, far-left politics, and modern antisemitism. He observes that people respond to the genocide charge through facts and data: Israel’s supporters take the charge of genocide on its face, as an evidence-based allegation of a crime, and try to construct the case for the defence. But there is no defence, because the charge is not made on that basis, or for that purpose, he states.
The term “genocide,” he notes in “From Be’eri to Bondi: Global Antisemitism After October 7, published in Fathom, October 2026, has shed its legal meaning and become a political label, whose antithesis is “resistance.” These two terms represent two states of being: in a colonial setting, either you are engaging in genocide or you are resisting it. There is no middle ground. “Israel is condemned as genocidal, not by observation, but through logical deduction: Israel is colonial, therefore by definition it is genocidal. It cannot be otherwise. And Gaza represents resistance against the entire Western colonial and capitalist power structure.”
Maia Zelkha, editor-in-chief of Yad Mizrah, a Sephardi and Mizrahi cultural magazine, also contends that the left employs the word “genocide” as an ideological weapon. “Before Israel had even launched its ground invasion of Gaza, and before there was any evidentiary record of Israel’s military campaign,” she writes, in her article “Genocide and Its Jurors,” in Quillette, Sept. 24, 2026, many leftist groups “were already describing Israel’s response as genocide.”
On Oct. 8, just a day after Hamas’s massacre and kidnappings, thousands of demonstrators gathered in New York’s Times Square in an “All Out for Palestine” rally to support “Palestinian resistance.” Within days, other organizations were issuing statements describing Israel’s unfolding military response as genocide, situated within a pre-existing theory of Israel as a colonial project that had produced genocidal dehumanisation. Prominent academics, human-rights organisations, activists, journalists, and public intellectuals described Israel’s conduct as genocidal.
Although the conviction that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians is not new, it has garnered ever more strength since the beginning of this war. In March 2024, the UN special rapporteur on the Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, published a report alleging that the Israeli war in Gaza constituted a genocide. In December of the same year, both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch did the same. Then in July 2025 came both Physicians for Human Rights and B’Tselem, followed almost immediately by the International Association of Genocide Scholars. A resolution from the latter organization requires a two-thirds vote of its members, academics in the field of genocide studies, to pass. One would be hard-pressed to find a more reputable source for the libel.
On Sept. 16, 2025, a UN Commission of Inquiry concluded that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza; other prominent left-wing organisations and scholars have reached the same conclusion. And finally, on Oct. 9, the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced that it awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2026 to South African judge Navanethem “Navi” Pillay, who led the 2025 UN commission that found Israel guilty of genocide against the Palestinians while completely ignoring many of the world’s worst human rights abusers, including, of course, Hamas. Pillay’s commission found that Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes. Yet it accused Israel of genocide. This is a staggering moral inversion. And now the award of the Nobel; this appears to be the greatest possible legitimization of the now-established consensus about Israel’s war in Gaza. The icing on the cake!
But remember this: When a jihadist terrorist organization like Hamas applauds a Nobel Peace Prize, the moral judgment of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee should rightly be called into question.
Henry Srebrnik is a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island.
