Historians Have a Duty to Condemn Scholasticide in Gaza
An overwhelming majority of American Historical Association members voted earlier this month to condemn scholasticide in Gaza. AHA leaders overruled members to block the measure, opting for cowardice over ethical clarity.
By refusing even a symbolic defense of academic freedom in Gaza, the AHA aligns itself not with its most vulnerable colleagues but with the structures that seek to silence us. (Omar Ishaq / picture alliance via Getty Images)
Earlier this month, the American Historical Association’s (AHA) leadership once again overruled its own members, blocking a resolution on scholasticide in Gaza and vetoing a second resolution concerning the escalating repression of scholars in the United States — particularly those who have spoken out about this destruction.
The votes were not close. Nearly 80 percent of attendees to the AHA’s annual conference on January 8–11 supported these measures after debate and direct appeals from Palestinian colleagues whose universities, archives, and libraries have been reduced to rubble.
This decision is not merely disappointing. It is antidemocratic and morally evasive, and it reflects a racist viewpoint: the AHA’s defense of historical inquiry weakens when the subjects are Palestinian and the politics are therefore deemed too dangerous.
This article is for subscribers only. Please login or subscribe to access our full archives and beautiful print and digital magazine starting at just $3 a month.