The American Association of Geographers (AAG) Faces Reckoning Over Proposed Israel Boycott

By:  Ariella Haviv

The American Association of Geographers (AAG), one of the most influential scholarly organizations devoted to geographic research and education, is confronting an internal crisis after a faction of its membership introduced a petition urging the body to formally endorse an academic boycott of Israel. The proposal, spearheaded by a group calling itself ‘Geographers for Justice in Palestine’ has already gathered sufficient support to trigger a special meeting scheduled for October 3 — setting the stage for a contentious debate over the boundaries of academic freedom, institutional ethics, and the politicization of higher education.

As The Jewish News Syndicate (JNS) reported on Tuesday, the petition demands that the AAG not only back the academic boycott of Israeli universities but also disclose and divest its funds from “corporations or state institutions profiting from the ongoing oppression of the Palestinian people.” By reaching the 10% threshold of member signatures, the resolution has moved beyond the realm of symbolic protest and into the formal decision-making apparatus of the AAG.

The implications are far-reaching. If adopted, the resolution would align the AAG with the broader Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, a campaign long accused by Jewish leaders and civil rights watchdogs of fostering antisemitism under the veneer of social justice activism.

In an interview with JNS, Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, co-founder and director of the AMCHA Initiative, issued a stark warning about the dangers of such measures. “Academic boycotts of Israel don’t just target Israeli institutions,” she emphasized. “They directly harm American Jewish students and faculty by severing research ties, canceling programs and restricting academic freedom.”

Her comments highlight what has become a recurring pattern on American campuses: attempts to isolate Israel inevitably reverberate within the academic environment in ways that constrain open inquiry, polarize classrooms, and stigmatize Jewish faculty and students. JNS has consistently documented how academic boycotts undermine the foundational principle of the university — the free and unimpeded exchange of ideas.

Rossman-Benjamin also stressed that measures like those proposed by the AAG introduce a “climate of fear and discrimination” that erodes institutional integrity. For Jewish academics, the chilling effect is not theoretical but immediate: colleagues distance themselves, joint research projects collapse, and professional networks fracture.

The controversy is not new within the AAG, which has long been a forum for debates about the intersection of geography, politics, and human rights. But according to multiple accounts, the tenor of recent discussions has shifted from critical inquiry to political activism.

Israeli-American geospatial expert Liora Sahar, herself an AAG member, described to Jewish Insider how the association’s 2024 annual meeting in Detroit was punctuated by sessions orchestrated by Geographers for Justice in Palestine. These gatherings, she explained, were “centered not on scholarly exploration, but on academic boycott and divestment campaigns.”

“These are political actions, not scientific ones, and they directly undermine the values of academic freedom and open discourse,” Sahar noted, underscoring a growing concern that the AAG risks being transformed into a platform for ideological activism rather than a forum for empirical scholarship.

JNS has chronicled similar developments in other academic organizations, where internal factions have attempted to commandeer disciplinary platforms to advance BDS resolutions. In nearly every case, the outcome has been increased division, reputational damage, and a diminishment of scholarly independence.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has also intervened in the debate, pointing out that the resolution contravenes the AAG’s own ethical guidelines. As reported by Jewish Insider, the ADL has stated it is “ready to help AAG understand the potential harm of this resolution before the meeting.”

For organizations such as the AAG, which rely on credibility and professional reputation, such violations are not trivial. Endorsing a boycott could call into question the association’s neutrality, alienate members, and potentially jeopardize funding streams. More critically, as JNS has frequently noted in its coverage of academia, boycotts cast doubt on the legitimacy of scholarship emerging from politicized organizations, creating ripple effects that erode trust in entire fields of study.

The debate within the AAG mirrors broader struggles across the academy, where disciplines once presumed to be dedicated to objective research have become battlegrounds for political agendas. Geography, with its inherent intersections with land, borders, and populations, has proven especially susceptible to ideological incursions.

As the JNS report observed, the move to weaponize geography against Israel is part of a larger campaign to delegitimize the Jewish state’s existence through the language of occupation and oppression. Yet critics argue that such frameworks distort complex realities and obscure the historical and political contexts that underlie the conflict.

More fundamentally, the adoption of such a resolution risks transforming geography departments into echo chambers, where dissenting voices are silenced and scholarly integrity is sacrificed for ideological conformity.

Rossman-Benjamin’s warning resonates with many Jewish students who have witnessed firsthand the impact of boycott resolutions. JNS has documented how campus climates have deteriorated following BDS votes, with Jewish students reporting heightened harassment, exclusion from progressive coalitions, and open hostility toward their identities.

In this sense, the AAG debate is not confined to professional geographers. Its outcome will reverberate into classrooms, lecture halls, and research collaborations nationwide, signaling to young scholars whether their discipline values inclusivity and inquiry, or whether it has succumbed to political pressure.

There remains, however, significant resistance to the boycott proposal. Many AAG members, like Sahar, argue that the mission of the association is inherently compromised when political activism replaces scientific rigor. By aligning itself with BDS, the AAG would risk alienating not only Israeli academics but also their American collaborators, jeopardizing grants, joint research, and institutional partnerships.

JNS reports have frequently pointed out that academic collaborations between the United States and Israel have yielded breakthroughs in fields as varied as climate science, renewable energy, artificial intelligence, and medical research. Severing these ties would represent not only a political statement but also a loss to the global scientific community.

The October 3 special meeting will likely serve as a watershed moment for the AAG. If the boycott resolution is passed, the organization would join a growing list of professional bodies that have formally aligned with BDS — a move that critics say isolates Jewish academics, undermines scientific freedom, and damages the credibility of scholarship.

If defeated, however, the vote could reaffirm the association’s commitment to academic independence and serve as a rebuke to those who seek to impose political agendas on scholarly organizations.

The stakes are nothing less than the integrity of the academy itself. What happens at the AAG could set a precedent for other professional associations grappling with similar pressures, shaping the trajectory of academic freedom for years to come.

The controversy roiling the American Association of Geographers encapsulates a broader struggle unfolding across academia: whether professional and scholarly organizations can remain devoted to truth-seeking and inquiry, or whether they will be swept into the current of ideological politics.

By calling for a boycott of Israel, the AAG risks undermining not only Israeli institutions but also the very values it claims to uphold — openness, dialogue, and the pursuit of knowledge without prejudice.

As voices like Rossman-Benjamin, Sahar, and the ADL remind us, boycotts masquerading as moral imperatives often mask a deeper hostility that erodes the foundations of higher education. The AAG is not simply debating Israel but deciding its own future: whether it remains a bastion of scholarship or becomes another instrument of political activism.