The genocide historian Dirk Moses’ recent book The Problem of Genocide has powerfully argued that the talk of ‘genocide’ as an international crime defined as the crime of all crimes, detracts from “other types of humanly caused civilian death, like bombing cities and the “collateral damage” of missile and drone strikes, blockades, and sanctions” that are the outcome of “‘permanent security’ imperatives,” namely the desire and strife of states and militant groups seeking to eliminate threats, making “themselves invulnerable.” Introducing what Moses’s calls genocidal moments and the greater Middle East as a broad space of investigation, this roundtable seeks to investigate how we might introduce new methods and discussions of teaching about genocide. For some decades, "comparative genocide" studies has developed into its own, not uncontroversial, field of inquiry. Rather than evaluating various genocides to determine which one was the worst or judge the degree of horror based on a pornography of pain, comparative genocide studies examines modern genocides through larger themes such as modernity, memory, representation, denial, and reconciliation to study and delineate common conditions that lead to genocide. Postsecondary educational methodologies of teaching "comparative genocide" often adhere to an archetypical framing (i.e., teaching one genocide in detail and then bringing in other cases to compare). The Genocide and Human Rights University Program of the Zoryan Institute in Toronto, for example, teaches the Armenian case in detail and then invites comparisons of other cases after students have mastered the history of the Armenian case. The recent shift in the study of genocide explores massacres, mass atrocities, and ethnic cleansing together with humanitarian interventions and human rights studies. This is a welcome development, but it also presents several problems, from the selection of materials for such a course, the framing, the student’s emotive responses, and most importantly, how to teach thematically without losing historical depth and specificity. Recent scholarship has introduced approaches that are not simply historical in the strict sense but cultural and critical (informed by theoretical frameworks and new pedagogies). For example, theories of memory, embodiment and affect, in particular, have broadened the interpretive field of knowledge formation about mass atrocity. The roundtable aims to discuss the positive implementation of such approaches in the classroom and for the development of the field.