39 Summer 2025 n January 5, 2025, the members of the American Historical Association (AHA) voted 428 to 88 in favor of “a resolution to oppose scholasticide in Gaza.”1 The resolution had been proposed by an organization of leftist historians called Historians for Peace and Democracy (H-PAD).2 This was their first victory, after failing in 2015 and 20163 to pass resolutions promoting a political agenda of antagonism to the State of Israel based on claims made by Hamas.4 This time, H-PAD took advantage of the convention’s locale in left-leaning New York City to mobilize an assembly overwhelmingly hostile to Israel and willing to support the “scholasticide” resolution. According to the bylaws of the AHA, the resolution had to be approved by the organization’s Council in order to take effect, and on January 17, that body, consisting of representatives elected by the full membership, vetoed the resolution. The Council did not address the substance of the accusation of “scholasticide.” Rather, it deemed the resolution to contravene the Association’s Constitution and Bylaws, because it lies outside the scope of the Association’s mission and purpose, defined in its Constitution 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historical studies through the encouragement of research, teaching, and publication; the collection and preservation of historical documents and artifacts; the dissemination of historical records and information; the broadening of historical knowledge among the general public; and the pursuit of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.”5 The Council’s veto drew on a set of arguments that had convinced the AHA in 2015 and 2016 to reject previous boycott, divest and sanction (BDS) type resolutions that were brought by many of the same historians, who then called their group Historians Against War (HAW). First, the AHA Council veto essentially asserted that the American Historical Association is a scholarly rather than a political organization and that, as a legal matter, adoption of such resolutions would place its tax-exempt status at risk. Additionally, adoption would divide membership based on differing political views. It would also be making the presumption that historians, whose professional expertise rests on examination of evidence regarding events in the past, would have the ability to render judgments on ongoing, current, events. To that end, as one member phrased it in 2015, the AHA did not and should not have a foreign policy. Finally, members of the AHA enjoyed the benefits of living in a free society, and therefore had opportunities to engage in political activities outside the framework of the AHA. The AHA Council veto of January 2025 drew on arguments that had carried the day when opponents of previous BDS resolutions won a majority of the votes at the annual business meetings in 2015 and 2016.6 Rule of Law vs Politicization: Confronting Assaults on Israel in the American Historical Association, 2015-2025 Jeffrey Herf 1. “Resolution to Oppose Scholasticide in Gaza,” AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION (Nov. 25, 2024), available at https://www.historians.org/perspectives-article/resolutionfor-consideration-at-the-january-2025-business-meeting/ 2. Historians for Peace and Democracy, available at https:// www.historiansforpeace.org/ 3. Jeffrey Herf, “Yet Again: The American Historical Association Rejects a Resolution Denouncing Israel,” HISTORY NEWS NETWORK (Jan. 15, 2016), available at https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/yet-againthe-american-historical-association-reje 4. Jeffrey Herf, “How BDS Failed in the American Historical Association,” TIMES OF ISRAEL (Jan. 26, 2015), available at http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/how-bds-failed-in-theamerican-historical-association/; Herf, supra note 3. 5. “Business Meeting Resolution Update,” AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION (Jan. 17, 2025), available at https://www.historians.org/news/business-meetingresolution-update/ 6. Jeffrey Herf, “Historians Reject Anti-Israel Resolutions,” THE AMERICAN INTEREST (Jan. 19, 2015), available at http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/01/19/ historians-reject-anti-israel-resolutions/; Herf, supra notes 3 and 4. O
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=