The tension and energy were palpable in the Mercury Ballroom of the Hilton in midtown New York on the evening of Sunday, Jan. 5. Although usually a demure affair, the business meeting of the American Historical Association (AHA) was standing room only ahead of what was expected to be a heated debate and tight vote on a resolution opposing Israeli scholasticide in Gaza. As the speakers for each side took the platform to exhort membership to vote in favor or against the measure, attendees responded with applause, standing ovations, and even vocal sounds of disapproval. It was an opportunity for the oldest and largest professional organization of historians in the U.S. to make a statement on the relentless destruction of educational resources, infrastructure, personnel, and futures in Gaza.
The resolution was drafted and introduced by the Historians for Peace and Democracy (H-PAD), an organization that started as Historians Against War in 2003 to oppose the U.S. invasion of Iraq, now advocating for “peace and diplomacy internationally, and for democracy and human rights at home.” According to H-PAD, the U.S.-funded Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) campaign in Gaza amounts to scholasticide due to its killing of hundreds of educators, the destruction of 80 percent of schools, bombing of all 12 universities, devastation of “195 heritage sites, 227 mosques, three churches, and the Al-Aqsa University library, which preserved crucial documents and other materials related to the history and culture of Gaza.” The resolution called for the condemnation of Israeli violence prohibiting Palestinians’ right to education in Gaza, an immediate and permanent ceasefire, and the formation of a committee to help rebuild Gaza’s educational infrastructure.
Despite early indicators of a close vote, members were resoundingly in favor of the resolution by a vote of 428-88. Supporters attributed this victory to the months of organizing ahead of the conference as well as energized historians who mobilized awareness throughout, including at the Historians for Palestine rally, H-PAD caucus, and the distribution of information at panels. Many remarked on the “notably young and diverse” attendance at the business meeting. Among this demographic was Jeremy Randall, a postdoctoral scholar in Middle East history, who suggests this can be attributed to “the desire to weigh in on the political issues that our discipline grapples with academically on a day-to-day basis.”
Indeed, it seemed that politics was the issue of the referendum for the guild. The public statements delivered at the meeting (five speakers for each side) and commentary online by members via X (formerly Twitter) vigorously debated the resolution based on the association taking a unified public stance on political matters. Speakers in opposition to the resolution claimed that voting in favor would politicize the AHA and endanger its future, ironically, as an advocacy organization. Although claiming to avoid politicization, some speakers, such as historians Suzannah Heschel and Natalia Petrzela, appealed to political reasons for voting against the resolution, arguing it would affirm and further agitate the incoming Trump Administration’s assumptions of academia as a hub for disseminating radical political agendas.
Yet as many pointed out in the meeting and online, the organization has voted and passed political resolutions in the past.
Sherene Seikaly, Associate Professor of History at UC Santa Barbara, was the first speaker at the meeting in support of the resolution, highlighting this discrepancy of what is considered ‘political’ for the AHA: “Historians who opposed the resolution also insisted that the AHA is ‘not political.’ We know that knowledge production is political. We also know that on Feb. 28, 2022, the AHA issued a statement ‘condemn[ing] in the strongest possible terms Russia’s recent invasion of Ukraine and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s abuse of history as justification for the attack.’ Opposition to the scholasticide thus deems the question of Palestine as “political” and Palestinian lives as less valuable.”
During her statement, AHA President-Elect Suzanne Marchand spoke against the resolution claiming, as relayed by attendees, that those in Gaza have not asked for this support. Historian Mezna Qato pointed out on X that the sole professor of history remaining in Gaza was pleased to hear the news of the vote and sent “his greetings to the 428.” As it turns out, scholars and historians in Gaza have specifically asked for the kind of support the AHA resolution offers. The Emergency Committee of Universities in Gaza issued a statement with over 200 signatories asking for international solidarity to stop the scholasticide and support the reconstruction and sustainability of their institutions.
Echoing thousands of student and faculty protesters across the United States during the 2023-24 academic year, conference attendee and PhD Candidate in History Samar Saeed said that U.S. complicity in genocide should be enough to mobilize action across academic organizations and institutions: “Palestinians in Gaza have been demanding a ceasefire and an end to U.S. unconditional support to Israel since the beginning of the genocide… [but]Palestinians should not need to ask for help – Americans should not want their money and government involved in genocide, period.”
Following the vote, the resolution went to the association’s leadership to determine whether it would be accepted, vetoed, or voted on by the full membership. On Thursday, Jan. 16 the AHA Council voted 11-4 with one abstention to veto the resolution on the basis that it was beyond the scope of the association’s constitutionally defined purview as “the promotion of historical studies through the encouragement of research, teaching, and publication; the collection and preservation of historical documents and artifacts; the dissemination of historical records and information; the broadening of historical knowledge among the general public; and the pursuit of kindred activities in the interest of history.” The Council did not clarify what part of the resolution did not fall under this scope as scholasticide clearly makes many of these aspects — including the teaching, writing, and sharing of history — impossible.
The decision drew wide and sharp criticism from scholars who viewed the veto as suppressing an important democratic channel for membership to participate in the policies of the association. Historians for Peace and Democracy issued a powerful response highlighting the contradictions of this decision considering former resolutions and called the veto in bad faith: “If Council believes this resolution violates the AHA’s Constitution, it should not have let it come to a vote in the first place.” Academics online expressed their outrage over what they viewed as blatant disregard for an overwhelming consensus at the business meeting but especially in the choice to not open the resolution to the full membership of approximately 10,000 members. They also called out some of the council members who went public with their vote such as Anne Hyde, professor of history at the University of Oklahoma, who voted against the resolution. When asked why she didn’t support a full vote, she told Inside Higher Ed, “You could imagine all kinds of scenarios” where a full membership vote “still wasn’t representative.”
The AHA resolution comes at an urgent time as repression for speaking out against Israel’s war on Gaza accelerates on U.S. university campuses. Just since the AHA’s business meeting two weeks ago, New York University students who participated in last year’s campus demonstrations received one-year suspensions from the university, and tenured Columbia law professor Katherine Franke was forced into early retirement due to her comments in the media about the war. Historians are among those facing similar restrictions to freedom of speech and assembly. While no organizational resolution can single-handedly resolve these issues, it can provide an important source of moral and institutional support. Most importantly, as Seikaly underscored in her statement, it is a public declaration of the responsibility of the historian “to ask the hard questions, to take the difficult positions, not when the dust settles, but as the fire rains down.”
