The council of historians opposes the condemnation of the school massacre in Gaza

The top elected body of the American Historical Association has rejected a resolution opposing the Gaza school massacre, after members attending the annual meeting approved the statement earlier this month by a vote of 428 to 88.

The elected body of this organization, which has 16 voting members, could accept this decision or send it to the approximately 10,450 members of this organization to vote. Instead, the council dismissed it as an official position of the association.

Jim Grossman, the association’s chief executive officer and a non-voting council member, said the vote Thursday afternoon was 11 to 4, with one abstention. He said the meeting was over Zoom.

The rejected resolution criticized the US government for funding Israel, saying it “provided Israel with the weapons used to carry out this school massacre” and that Israel “successfully sabotaged the education system in Gaza.” Scholasticide is defined as the deliberate destruction of an educational system.

The resolution also called for a permanent ceasefire and for the association to form a committee to help rebuild the “educational infrastructure” of Gaza.

In a written explanation of the veto, the council said it “abhors any deliberate destruction of Palestinian educational institutions, libraries, universities and archives in Gaza.”

However, it considers the decision to be in violation of “the AHA constitution and bylaws because it is outside the scope of the organization’s mission and purpose.” The constitution, the council noted, defines that goal and purpose as “the promotion of historical studies by encouraging research, teaching and publishing; collection and preservation of historical documents and antiquities; dissemination of historical records and information; the expansion of historical knowledge among the general public; and to pursue the works of relatives for the sake of history.”

Grossman said the vote to approve the definition was 10 to zero with three abstentions, after some members walked out of the meeting following the veto vote. He said he could not disclose who voted in which way in both of these figures because the discussion was confidential.

“We consider it important that council members be able to speak freely and freely during the meeting, that’s why it can’t be written down and that’s why we don’t quote any council member,” said Grossman. “And they speak freely and freely.”

Van Gosse, who is the chairman and founder of Historians for Peace and Democracy, which wrote the decision, said that “we are very shocked by this decision, and we are disappointed.” He said, “It destroys the democratic decision in such a big way [conference] a business meeting and a good vote.”

Anne Hyde, a council member and University of Oklahoma history professor, said she voted to vote “to protect the AHA’s reputation as an impartial historical actor,” noting that the organization conducts conference proceedings. He also said that the current war in Gaza “is not a complete history, so it is not yet clear what happened and who is to blame or when it started, so it is not something that a professional organization should comment on yet.”

Asked why he didn’t support sending the resolution to the full membership for a vote, Hyde said, “As a council member, you’re really thinking about 10,000 people, and that includes high school teachers, people who teach really hard. conditions and those who do not support this issue.” He said, “You can think of all kinds of situations” where a full membership vote “wasn’t representative.”

This is the second time this academic year that the top body of a major academic body has voted down a resolution in favor of Palestine before the full membership of the body has voted on it. In the fall, the executive board of the Modern Language Association rejected a resolution that would have again accused Israel of killing the school—and that would have gone further by authorizing an international boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel’s policies.

Unlike the American Historical Association, the Modern Language Association Executive Council, which has separate rules, withdrew that decision before its meeting began this month.

In February 2022, the AHA council approved a statement on another current battle. It condemned “in the strongest terms Russia’s latest attack on Ukraine” and said, “This act of blatant military aggression violates the sovereignty of independent Ukraine, threatening the stability of the wider region and the world.”

The statement criticized Russian president Vladimir Putin’s historical justification for the attack, saying, “Putin is simplifying and distorting the history of Ukraine, essentially erasing a different history and making it invisible to Russia.” The statement concluded: “We strongly support the nation of Ukraine and its people in resisting Russian military aggression and the twisted myth created by President Putin to justify his violation of international norms.”

Grossman said Within Higher Ed On Friday that “the Ukrainian statement was just historical. It was good for our place.” He said, “No serious historian in the United States considers Putin’s interpretation of history to be anything close to accurate history, so the war itself was based on the misuse of history, and that’s what our statement was about.” There is no “such consensus” among US historians on the situation in Gaza, he said.

Two pro-Israel organizations, the American Jewish Committee and the Academic Engagement Network, said they sent a joint letter to the council on Thursday urging a ban. The letter calls the allegations of scholasticcide “absurd.”

“There is no evidence to suggest that Israel deliberately and systematically targeted the Palestinian education system for destruction,” the letter said. “The decision ignores the fact that Hamas regularly launches rockets, and places its weapons and fighters, on buildings and public centers.”

The organizations wrote that “as an institution, the AHA should avoid focusing on political conflicts, especially when many members are in great opposition.” They said such decisions “would create a hostile and unwelcoming environment for academics and students who identify as Zionists and those who have strong personal, academic and professional ties to Israel.” They also said that “the organization will be better served by taking a position of political neutrality in the affairs of the country.”

This story has been updated.