43 Summer 2025 The mini-conferences of H-PAD were the only ones in 2025 and in recent years to describe themselves as explicitly political in orientation. There was nothing comparable at those meetings devoted explicitly to making the case for Israel, no mini conferences from an explicitly liberal – and certainly not a conservative – outlook. Hopefully most members of the AHA would have regarded participation on a panel with an explicit political outlook to be a violation of their commitment to the norms of objectivity at the core of a historian’s craft. Whether due to leftist arguments that it was the “moral responsibility” of professors to speak out on the issues of the day, or post-modernist claims that objectivity is simply a myth of existing structures and discourse of power, a contingent within the historical profession seems to have concluded that there is no legitimate distinction between scholarship and politics. Moreover, in recent years, the AHA leadership, by allowing H-PAD to organize explicitly political mini-conferences, has contributed to a kind of boring-from-within sensibility that legitimized the politicization of the annual meetings. For over a decade, H-PAD had been fostering a gradual politicization of the AHA from within before the political rally at the business meeting of January 5, 2025. Debating “Scholasticide” at the AHA in New York on January 5, 2025 Because H-PAD had introduced its resolution, Israel was immediately on the defensive; its supporters were compelled to demonstrate that it was not guilty of the crime. It did not occur to those of us who opposed the resolution to introduce our own resolution at the AHA meeting in New York on January 5, 2023 that would, perhaps, have read as follows: resolved that the AHA denounces the antisemitism and the terrorism of Hamas, and condemns its cynical and barbaric strategy of sacrificing the lives of people it claims to represent. We originally abstained because we do not view the AHA business meeting as an opportunity to hijack the AHA members’ attention for our political purposes. However, five of us ultimately rose in defense. I was one of those members who spoke in opposition to the “scholasticide” resolution, arguing that it imported the biased, partisan views of a political institution, the United Nations Human Rights Council, into a scholarly organization. Additionally, its contents did not meet the standards of historical scholarship or, for that matter, of fair and balanced journalistic and political analysis. As such, it constituted an assault on truth and on the skills and insights one should expect from professional historians.25 On January 17, 2025, the leadership of the AHA vetoed the scholasticide resolution, though it did not challenge the substance of the resolution.26 The statement read: The AHA Council deplores any intentional destruction of Palestinian educational institutions, libraries, universities, and archives in Gaza. The Council considers the “Resolution to Oppose Scholasticide in Gaza,” however, 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.” After careful deliberation and consideration, the AHA Council vetoes the resolution. The AHA Council appreciates the work of Historians for Peace and Democracy and recognizes the diversity of perspectives, concerns, and commitments among AHA members. make staffing or editorial decisions based solely on political viewpoints is false.” Charlotte Klein, “Pamela Paul Is Out at the Times Opinion Section,” INTELLIGENCER (April 3, 2025), available at https:// nymag.com/intelligencer/article/pamela-paul-is-out-atthe-times-opinion-section.html 25. For a discussion of the arguments against the scholasticide resolution, see Jeffrey Herf, “Agitprop at the AHA,” QUILLETTE (Jan. 15, 2025), available at https://quillette. com/2025/01/15/agitprop-at-the-aha-scholasticide-hamasantisemitism/; For a detailed report on the events of October 7-9, 2023, see “7 October Parliamentary Commission Report: Chaired by Lord Roberts of Belgravia,” THE ALL-PARTY PARLIAMENTARY GROUP FOR UK-ISRAEL (March 2025), available at https:// www.7octparliamentarycommission.co.uk/ 26. “Business Meeting Resolution Update,” AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION (Jan. 17, 2025), available at https://www.historians.org/news/business-meetingresolution-update/
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=