Largest U.S. Historians Organization Condemns Israel’s ‘Deliberate’ Destruction of Gaza Education System
The largest professional organization for historians in the United States has adopted a resolution condemning Israel's "scholasticide" in Gaza and criticizing U.S. military aid to Israel.
TThe American Historical Association overwhelmingly voted in favor of the resolution, which states that "the U.S. government has underwritten the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) campaign in Gaza with over $12.5 billion in military aid between October 2023 and June 2024."
Scholasticide is defined as the deliberate destruction of an education system. The resolution, which passed by 428 votes to 88, says that the IDF has destroyed 80 percent of Gaza's schools, leaving over 625,000 children without access to education, and has also destroyed all 12 university campuses in Gaza.
It also accuses Israel of targeting libraries, museums, cultural centers, and religious sites, including the al-Aqsa University library and hundreds of heritage sites. These actions, the resolution asserts, have erased crucial resources tied to Gaza's history and culture.
Margaret M. Power, emerita professor of history at the Illinois Institute of Technology, and Van Gosse, emeritus professor of history at Franklin and Marshall college, serve as co-chairs of Historians for Peace and Democracy, the group that put the motion forward. In a statement to Haaretz, they explained their motivation.
"As historians, we are compelled to decry these outrages and to stand in solidarity with Palestinians," they said. "We first attempted to pass a resolution supporting Palestinians' right to education 10 years ago. The utter urgency of the current situation compelled us – and the overwhelming majority of historians at the AHA business meeting – to support our resolution."
The resolution calls for a permanent ceasefire and urges the AHA to form a committee to explore ways of aiding the reconstruction of Gaza's education and cultural institutions, aligning the association with other scholarly groups that have taken positions on the conflict.
The resolution debate, held in a crowded Midtown hotel on Monday, was closed to recording. However, Haaretz spoke with attendees who argued both for and against the measure.
Barbara Weinstein, a professor of history at New York University, who spoke in favor of the motion, summarized her remarks for Haaretz after the vote. "The obliteration of institutions, along with the destruction of archives and libraries, threatens to sever the Palestinians of Gaza from their history. Under these circumstances, I cannot see how the AHA could refuse to take a stand," she said.
She also spoke about what this resolution means to the field of history. "I think it emphasizes the relevance of our research and the recognition that preserving history and historical memory is not a luxury, but a necessity."
Mary Nolan, Professor Emerita of History at New York University and a member of the steering committee that proposed the resolution, expressed surprise at the overwhelming support for the measure. "It was encouraging to see younger scholars and graduate students turning out in force, taking Palestine seriously, and engaging critically with the Israel-Palestine issue," she said.
'Politicizing the mission'
Opponents argued that the resolution undermines the AHA's credibility by politicizing its mission and omitting references to Hamas' October 7 attack that ignited the war. They criticized it for ignoring the complexities of combating a terrorist organization that exploits civilian casualties for propaganda and for adopting language from the UN Human Rights Council they consider biased.
Jeffrey Herf, Emeritus Professor in the Department of History at the University of Maryland, who spoke against the measure, told Haaretz, "By ignoring the above, the resolution amounts to effective propaganda for Hamas but falls below the standards one expects from professional historians."
"By making these accusations and ignoring the realities of the war Hamas began and the way it is fighting, it will foster the mixture of antisemitism and hatred of Israel that was evident on American campuses. It will contribute to the politicization of the AHA, and will make it very difficult for more and more universities and colleges to hire faculty that show any support for the continued existence and well-being for the state of Israel," he added.
Susannah Heschel, professor of history at Dartmouth, who also spoke against the resolution, told Haaretz that while she is just as appalled and horrified as her colleagues by destruction of educational institutions, "strategically, passing the resolution isn't helpful in the current U.S. political climate."
Heschel recalled that right after the attacks of October 7, some academics said they felt "exhilarated" by what happened. "I found that response sadistic. Our role is to foster dialogue – not necessarily to agree, but to listen with openness and empathy. As academics, we are not here to condemn but to learn," she said.
"Many are concerned about academic freedom, but what I've heard is that campus polarization is worsening the issue itself. We need to find a way to talk to one another," she argued. "We're not going to stop the war, but as scholars and peacemakers, how can we make a meaningful contribution?" she added.
More debates to come
The resolution now moves to the AHA's elected council, which will decide whether to approve, veto, or send it to the full membership of over 10,000 historians for a vote.
Heschel expressed confidence that the resolution would not pass. "I don't see this as representative of the AHA or the broader historical community," she said. "It's a small group leveraging the AHA to push through this resolution."
"The council isn't in favor, as the president-elect has made clear," Nolan said. "They claim the AHA has never taken a political stand, but that's not true. The leadership has issued public letters opposing the Iraq War and criticizing academics in universities in India and Sierra Leone. More recently, they made a public statement against Russia."
Nolan acknowledged that even if the resolution passes the initial hurdle, further efforts are needed. "If they distribute it, we will continue to educate the broader AHA membership," she said and added she's optimistic by the feedback she got after the vote.
The decision reflects broader debates over the role of academic associations in political controversies.
The Modern Language Association (MLA), set to hold its annual meeting later this week, faced similar debates over resolutions accusing Israel of targeting educational institutions and supporting boycotts. Ultimately, the MLA declined to advance these measures, citing concerns about partisanship and divisiveness – a decision that drew sharp criticism from many.
The timeline for a decision on the resolution remains uncertain, but both sides express optimism about the outcome, while polarization stays high.