The nation’s largest professional historians’ organization again rejected anti-Israel resolutions passed by members at its annual meeting — blocking them from advancing to a full vote of the association’s more than 10,000 members. This marks a repeat of last year’s conflict between rank-and-file historians and leadership over political activism within the field.
At the American Historical Association’s annual conference in Chicago, members voted overwhelmingly — by roughly 80 percent — to approve two resolutions criticizing Israel’s conduct in the Gaza conflict and condemning attacks on academic freedom on U.S. campuses. Despite that support, the association’s executive council voted against forwarding them to the full membership for consideration.
The first resolution described what proponents termed “scholasticide” in Gaza — claiming Israel’s actions had damaged or destroyed the enclave’s educational infrastructure, including universities. The second condemned what organizers called “ongoing attacks on academic freedom,” including efforts to suppress criticism of U.S. policy toward Israel. Both were adopted by members attending the meeting but then blocked by leadership.
In a statement, the AHA executive leadership said approving the measures on behalf of the entire organization would pose “institutional risk” and extend beyond the association’s mission, echoing its rationale from last year when it vetoed a similar anti-Israel resolution. Critics inside the profession argue the leadership is suppressing dissent and denying democratic processes.
Supporters of the resolutions said the leadership should have allowed the full membership to vote. They contend that many historians see no conflict between the discipline of history and speaking out on major geopolitical events that affect education and scholarship. Opponents argue that taking such political stances jeopardizes the association’s reputation for nonpartisan scholarly inquiry.
Some defenders of the council’s decision expressed concern that endorsing these policies could invite political backlash — including scrutiny from the federal government under the Trump administration. They argue that a professional association should limit its actions to issues directly related to the support and study of history, not international politics.
The dispute mirrors broader tensions on college campuses and within academic associations over free speech, academic freedom, and the boundaries of professional engagement in political controversies. Similar debates have played out in other scholarly organizations, including the Modern Language Association, where member-passed anti-Israel resolutions have faced procedural hurdles before potential ratification.
