In July, Sara Aronowitz and Reza Hadisi authored a petition calling on the American Philosophical Association (APA) to condemn the war crimes and atrocities in Gaza, express solidarity with Palestinian scholars, and honor the APA’s commitment to the mission of Scholars at Risk (SAR). The petition currently has almost 500 signatures. 

A few weeks later, the APA board announced that, after “a thorough, lengthy, and probing discussion” of the petition, it had decided that it “should not presume to speak for the association as a whole” on divisive issues; in sum, “the board concluded that no board statement on the substance of the current war in Gaza or its effects would be appropriate.” 

This is an abdication of responsibly on the part of the APA, and an affront to its disabled, racialized, and migrant members, who are hamred by its silence on the Palestinian genocide. 

First of all, the APA misrepresents the issue by calling it a “war in Gaza” instead of a genocide against Palestinians. There is no “other side” to the question of genocide. Genocide is bad. There are no “pros” to the mass disablement, displacement, and slaughter of Palestinians. There is no “upside” to the scholasticide of schools, libraries, archives, and research centers in Gaza, almost all of which have been razed. There are no “positives” to the flattening of nearly all hospitals in Gaza, resulting in the mass murder of disabled, injured, and chronically ill Gazans. The APA deliberately misrepresents the genocide to present a veneer of neutrality. 

The genocide is clearly ableist, as I argued on this blog in 2024, and continued to maintain throughout 2025, ignoring my immigration lawyer’s advice and putting myself at risk of being fired, disciplined, harassed, and perhaps even sent to an immigration detention center. 

That post pointed out that the Palestinian genocide is, to quote Alice Wong of the Disability Visibility Project, “a mass disabling event and a form of eugenics.” Why won’t the APA call it that? As Wong noted, “naming injustice is crucial to claiming justice…. The fact that people are denying the genocide happening right before us and justifying it…is difficult to fathom. If this isn’t genocide it is something far worse that is yet to be named.” The APA’s attempt to rebrand the genocide as a “war in Gaza” is an example of the denialism that Wong identifies as ableist. The philosophical term for this sort of revisionary language is epistemic injustice: the APA is dismissing the consensus opinion of the disabled community, and, by extension, discrediting Wong, me, and other disabled activists. They are making our testimony seem unreasonable, unbalanced, and “delusional,” contributing to its pathologization and criminalization. Liat Ben-Mosh calls this the “racial criminal pathologization of dissent.” 

Another word for this type of epistemic injustice is gaslighting – specifically, structural ableist gaslighting. According to Sarah Berenstain, structural gaslighting occurs when social systems, institutions, and discourses distort, erase, or delegitimize the experiences of oppressed people. Tremain calls it “structural ableist gaslighting” when people perpetuate the “magical thinking” that Canada is a post-racist society. Similarly, when the APA describes the Palestinian genocide as a “war” rather than a mass disabling event with global eugenic implications, they are engaging in structural ableist gaslighting.

Structural gaslighting encompasses “racecraft,” a mystifying technique that naturalizes and depoliticizes racism. By labeling the Palestinian genocide as a “war” rather than a eugenic, racist occupation, the APA whitewashes the colonial dimensions of the genocide. As Kieron Turner puts it, “the genocidal assault on Gaza must be understood as the clearest expression of the logic of racial capitalism,” which aims to “capture… newly disposed lands and convert them into property.” For Donald Trump, Gaza is real estate. His “peace plan” includes “redeveloping” Gaza as a “Riviera of the Middle East.” The Palestinian genocide aims to “transform the Palestinians into a disposable population,” steal their land, and colonize it. 

The colonization of Palestine is, at the same time, ableist, as it “disposes of” Palestinians by exposing them to “premature death [and mass disablement] for the reproduction of settler capitalist patterns of accumulation.” In other words, colonizers are killing and disabling Palestinians for profit. Mass murder and colonization are eugenic techniques, not “warfare.” 

Palestinian solidarity has become a target for militaristic policing, discipline, and punishment. To defend Palestinian liberation is taboo in Trump’s America. Pro-Palestine activists have been silenced, arrested, and beaten to a bloody pulp on university campuses. A professor was “bodyslammed” and “crushed” by police for peacefully protesting at Washington University in St. Louis, where I used to work before fleeing the country. Professors have been fired for speaking on Palestine. Last year, I was invited to participate in a panel on Palestine, but it was canceled under mysterious circumstances. Other events, publications, and research positions related to Palestine have also been suppressed.  

Where is the APA to protect our freedom of speech on Palestine? Why isn’t is condemning the onslaught of epistemic violence against philosophers advocating for Palestinian liberation? 

Some may object that I’m being too harsh on the APA board. They did, after all, express “dismay at the violence that has erupted in Israel/Palestine,” as well as having “a probing discussion.” Doesn’t that show that they care about their members’ thoughts and feelings?

Nick Nicola describes this kind of response as “performative blame avoidance.” Performative blame avoidance “is a specific type of blame avoidance strategy that avoids or minimizes criticism of one’s failings (e.g., moral or epistemic) by merely performing a symbolic act without any further follow-up actions.” By saying something while doing nothing, the APA is trying to avoid blame, save face, and protect the organization’s reputation. Their letter amounts to little more than thoughts and prayers. Without a concrete policy, it’s a meaningless gesture. When Republicans offer “thoughts and prayers” after a mass shooting, they deny Americans the resources needed to prevent further gun violence – a problem that disproportionally affects disabled, racialized, queer, and young Americans. Similarly, by offering a mere symbolic gesture, the APA denies us the resources needed to better address the Palestinian genocide, and by extension, eugenic and colonial violence everywhere. 

Even if the APA eventually publishes a statement on Palestine, it will be too little, too late. White moderates and their professional organizations have been saying “wait” for centuries. I am tired of waiting. I have served the APA selflessly for years. I have published in its journal. I have posted on its blog more than once. I have served on one of its committees. When will it serve me? When will it acknowledge that disabled philosophers are being harmed by the genocide in Gaza – a genocide that perpetuates a global system of eugenic racial capitalism? I have been effaced, humiliated, and gaslighted by the APA’s inaction on Gaza, and I refuse to remain silent.