Pretending to ‘Grapple with Genocide’: The Anti-Israel Fad in Academia

This article was co-authored by Rachel Suggs and Joachim Sciamma. 

The latest trend in academia has arrived. Universities across the United States and the Western world have begun hosting “academic conferences” of scholars, researchers, and career professionals to wax rhapsodic about the grave realities of war in the Middle East, without first attempting to acknowledge and disclose, much less question, the limiting perspective of their anti-Israel silo. 

The University of Chicago hosted such an event on Monday, April 21st, billed as “Grappling with Genocide”—  organized by the Center for East European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies, the Center for Latin American Studies, and the Center for Middle Eastern Studies. The conference was advertised as an attempt to “shed light on the horrors happening today in Palestine, Sudan, and elsewhere,” according to the event’s promotional poster. 

The conference consisted of two panels, with the first featuring guest speakers Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur, Omar Shakir of Human Rights watch, and James Yap, Acting Director of the International Human Rights Program. Professor Darryl Li from the Department of Anthropology moderated the discussion, which approximately fifty people attended in person— though only a few appeared to be students.

The discussion focused largely on transcending the need to ascertain whether certain violent acts fit the “narrow and highly technical realm of criminal law” and the legal definition of genocide— a task which the panel argued can at times be limiting. It quickly became evident that this advocacy for the liberal use of the term “genocide” was only applied in one direction, as the panelists suddenly championed the importance of strict legalese once accusations were made against Hamas. 

Professor Li began by referencing a picture of the most important Holocaust museum in the world, Yad Vashem, on the projector screen next to the dais. He calmly explained that this museum is a prime example of erasure of violence, due to its close proximity to the village of Deir Yassin. He referred to the village as the site of a massacre, for which we have great sympathy and mourn the tragic loss of civilian life. We just wonder why he would later refrain from using this same term in reference to the October 7th terrorist attacks.

The professor’s cherry-picked historical analysis was hard to miss considering that he failed to mention the reprisal attack on the Hadassah medical convoy. Four days after the events at Deir Yassin, Arab forces massacred Israeli medical personnel and burned their bodies beyond recognition. Ironic that he should fail to mention this important piece of historical context, considering the topic at hand was intentional erasure of violence. 

This hypocrisy proved to be a recurring theme throughout the conference. Mr. Yap cautioned against the cultural obsession with categorization, and argued that debating whether or not certain acts were, strictly speaking, “acts of genocide” or merely “war crimes” or “crimes against humanity” served little discursive value, as it implied that some charges were less serious than others. This cautioning seemed odd, as we would argue that some charges are unequivocally more serious than others. The entire purpose of diluting the legal technicalities of the term “genocide,” it became evident, was to be able to levy the most serious charge possible against Israel.

Following this framework, Ms. Albanese immediately began recounting all the events which she believed to be Israeli acts of genocide, according to the strict legal definition. She did not bother to delve into specifics, satisfying herself with vague references to “oppression,” “violence,” and “mass incarceration.” Details as to who was being incarcerated, and why, appeared to be beyond the scope of the conversation. 

When it came time for the question and answer portion of the event, live questions were not permitted, and instead inquiries were submitted via digital form. Our question was the first to be read, which stated: “When terrorists kidnapped Israeli children into Gaza with the clear intent to destroy a specific national group, did this constitute an act of genocide? And, if so, are signatories to the Genocide Convention obligated to retrieve these children from Gaza?” 

Professor Li audaciously announced himself to be “in true UChicago fashion” by selecting the most difficult question first, but read aloud only the first half of our inquiry, thereby censoring and evading the true heart of the issue. (And why, pray tell, was condemning the kidnapping of children so “challenging”?). Of note, he also referred to October 7th as a “military operation” instead of a terrorist attack against Jews— once again participating in the very same erasure of violence of which he accused Israel.

And so ensued the cascade of cowardly academic equivocating from our panel of so-called experts. 

The first speaker replied that it was “very possible” that acts of genocide may have been committed, but, truthfully, this was not his area of expertise. Why he nonetheless chose to join the panel in light of that admission remains unclear. 

Another speaker offered that while these acts may have been war crimes, they were not acts of genocide— strictly speaking— as the kidnapping of children is legally ambiguous. When it comes to violence committed against Israel, audience members are encouraged to revert back to the original restraints of legal definitions. Mr. Yap said, “The forcible transfer is very hard because it’s one element of the definition of genocide [that] hasn’t been as well developed legally.” We defer to his expertise on this matter, and he may genuinely be correct. We do, however, object to his inconsistent framework. 

Evidently, the approach of not restricting ourselves to legal technicalities disappeared once the words “October 7th” were uttered— once these esteemed scholars were forced to acknowledge Israelis as victims of terrorism. “It’s not worth getting bogged down in these legal debates,” Mr. Yap stated. “It’s difficult to comment on specific instances on whether something is a genocide or not, and I’m not an authority on the matter.” When prompted with the same question, Ms. Albanese offered that she, too, was no expert on October 7th. She then reported that her “Jewish friends” have told her that non-Jews and non-Israelis were also killed on October 7th, which meant that the massacre could not possibly have been an attack on one specific ethnic or religious group. Never mind the fact that the Arabs and Muslims killed on that day were murdered specifically for fraternizing with Jews. 

For a panel of experts on genocide, it is surprising that they all shared this same convenient gap in knowledge— and it is hard to perceive this ignorance as anything other than willful. Shouldn’t a scholar of this field be at least somewhat academically curious about one of the most significant attempts of genocide in the last decade? 

It might therefore be reasonably suggested that these individuals were not academics interested in advancing a new legal or social understanding of the term “genocide.” Rather, they were activists interested in disseminating their pre-existing radical views, cloaked under the guise of academia and serious inquiry. Due to the glaring one-sided ignorance of these ideologue scholars and UN Rapporteur, without any academic humility or affirmation to educate themselves on the information they lacked, it was difficult for us not to feel subjected to an exercise in propaganda and scholarly malpractice— an ahistorical anti-Israel diatribe masquerading as erudition. 

The truly revelatory moment arrived when Ms. Albanese was asked about the war in Ukraine, to which she exclaimed “can we talk about Palestine, for once?!” Nothing in the description of the event suggested that the conversation would be limited to this topic. When asked if there would be “justice” following the war in Gaza, Ms. Albanese replied that it was our responsibility to go forth and seek justice in the courts of our own countries.

And there’s the rub: these conferences pretend to be interested in academic inquiry, but in reality, these people are activist professors exploiting academic events as recruiting grounds. Such aspirations were made evident by the repeated statement of Ms. Albanese: “Courts are not equipped to deal with justice for our people… Popular mobilization is what’s critical.” These individuals have no scholarly curiosity, only a desire to use their credentials to speak as authorities and push their one-sided views on unsuspecting students. 

As concerned students, we demand that universities commit to political balance and academic rigor in sponsored events related to Israel and Palestine. We request proper transparency of academic events, with university departments clearly disclosing when a conference is centered around political advocacy rather than scholarly debate— including who organized it, how panelists were selected, and whether alternative viewpoints will be sought. Such transparency should ideally include self-provided positionality statements from each speaker. We seek to prevent future “academic” panels from succeeding in disguising activism as scholarship. 

Additionally, we encourage students who harbor similar concerns, or are subjected to similar indoctrination attempts at the hands of university scholars, to file bias or professionalism complaints through their university’s official channels— typically through the Office of Academic Affairs or Diversity and Equity offices. These complaints must not be focused on the scholars’ opinions, as they have the constitutional right to freedom of thought and speech and the academic right to freedom of expression. Rather, these complaints must be levied against their abuse of institutional resources for political ends and failure to promote diverse viewpoints— a violation of many universities’ mission statements.

While exiting the event, we looked at each other and asked, “Do you think we should ask everyone leaving the room if they know what the Hamas charter says about Jews? After all, they claim to concern themselves with preventing genocide.” We paused for a moment and then resolved: our rebuttal can not take place face-to-face with those hellbent on denying our right to exist while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge and disclose their relevant anti-Israel bias. Rather, we will fight back by putting pen to paper and taking to the battleground of the newspaper. This article is our contribution towards that goal.

Joachim Sciamma and Rachel Suggs are the President and Vice President, respectively, of Maroons For Israel— the pro-Israel student organization at the University of Chicago. Mr. Sciamma is a third-year undergraduate double majoring in Economics and English Literature. He has previously been published in the Chicago Maroon and the Algemeiner Journal.