Expert Academic Skewers the Genocide Scholars Association for Accusing Israel of Genocide in Gaza

Most nations recognize the IAGS as the most authoritative group on genocide in the world. The 500 genocide scholars who make up the organization's membership are respected academics.

But only 125 of the 500 member scholars voted on the conclusions published in the resolution. This was after the group's leaders had promised  a "townhall" to discuss the proposal.

No such meeting took place. The IAGS also changed the definition of "genocide" to encompass actions Israel is accused of committing in Gaza.

“It’s completely eroding international law and standards. Words no longer matter, laws no longer matter. What’s the point of having laws on the books and definitions that you can change whenever you want?” said Mark Goldfeder of the National Jewish Advocacy Center legal group. “From a more sinister perspective, if you apply the law everywhere in one way, but differently when it comes to the Jewish state, there’s a word for that.”

It gets more bizarre. Generally, to prove genocide, the prosecution must supply evidence of a genocide plan. The Wannsee Conference of 1942, where the German government planned out the Holocaust, is one such example.

Failing to provide evidence of a "genocide plan," the prosecutor has to show that genocidal intent must be “the only inference that could reasonably be drawn from the acts in question.” 

Israel killing Hamas fighters and destroying the rockets, guns, and bullets that are killing Israeli citizens is apparently an "unreasonable" motive for attacking Gaza.

Amnesty International said the definition of genocide was “an overly cramped interpretation of international jurisprudence and one that would effectively preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict.” Amnesty suggested that the definition of "genocide" be changed to more accurately reflect the situation in Gaza. 

Sara Brown, Ph.D. in comparative genocide studies and a member of the association for more than 10 years, bitterly lashed out at the IAGS for its resolution. She "called the use of outside groups’ findings to underpin genocide determinations a form of 'citation washing,'" according to the Times of Israel.

New York Sun:

“It includes many unsubstantiated claims, is poorly cited (using deeply biased, questionable sources), and perpetuates an intentionally distorted analysis of the Israel Hamas War,” she added. 

Ms. Brown said that only 129 out of some 500 association members voted on the resolution, and that the process was a “disaster from start to finish. Those of us against the resolution tried to submit our concerns for discussion but were blocked by the leadership.”

Times of Israel disclosed that internal emails showed how the group’s leadership promised to hold a town hall discussion “as with previous resolutions,” only to backtrack a few days later and cancel the discussion. 

The leaders also refused to allow dissenting opinions to be published and wouldn’t disclose who drafted the resolution.

“The content of the resolution and the way it was forced through speak to an embarrassing absence of professionalism,” said Brown.

Brown was angry at the way the vote was conducted and believes that the leadership of the association had ulterior motives for ramming through the genocide resolution.

“The appearance is that this was a unanimous vote on behalf of the entirety of the association. It was not, and they refused to have a transparent, critical discussion. The leadership, in my opinion, had an agenda,” she added.

Brown pointed out the obvious in noting why Israel acted the way it did. 

“Acting in self-defense by engaging in a war against an existential threat is not the same as the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the Palestinian people. Anyone who considers themself a genocide scholar should feel embarrassed by this vote,” she said. 

Unfortunately, that's not likely.