Accusations of Israeli genocide at US universities linked to BDS supporters, AMCHA report finds

A recent study by the AMCHA Initiative reveals that accusations of Israeli genocide in academic settings are largely driven by individuals with a history of supporting the boycott of Israel. Between October 10 and October 24, 2023, prior to Israel's ground invasion of Gaza, 14 U.S. universities hosted events or issued statements claiming genocide against Israel. All 14 institutions were led by senior officials who had previously backed an academic boycott of Israel before October 7th.

The study analyzed 278 events across 51 U.S. campuses, examining whether the speakers had pre-October 7 support for boycotting or sanctioning Israel or the BDS movement. Out of the total, 93 events featured BDS-supporting speakers, while 185 did not. Events with BDS-supporting speakers were 40 times more likely to accuse Israel of genocide, with 85% of those events containing the accusation versus 2% of non-BDS events.

Furthermore, these events were nearly nine times more likely to be sponsored by academic units led by officials who had previously advocated for an Israeli boycott. The presence of the genocide accusation in event titles or promotional materials was almost always associated with sponsoring units led by boycott supporters. This report aligns with the BDS movement's anti-normalization framework, which aims to isolate academic engagement with Israel by portraying it in a morally unacceptable light.

The consequences of this phenomenon extend beyond foreign policy debates, potentially creating a stigma that affects Jewish and pro-Israel students. These students may be treated as defenders of a "moral crime," leading to exclusion, harassment, and campus hostility. To address these concerns, the report recommends implementing content-neutral safeguards prohibiting academic departments from using institutional resources to advance political positions or campaigns while establishing independent enforcement mechanisms.

Additionally, it suggests that governments condition public funding on the enforcement of such safeguards and prohibit public universities from implementing politically motivated academic boycotts.