Only 28% of Scholars Association’s Members Voted on Gaza Genocide Resolution, but Global Media Missed the Story
Critics say the IAGS decision, backed by just a quarter of its members, was presented as a consensus of genocide scholars
Only 28 percent of the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) cast a ballot in the resolution declaring Israel guilty of genocide in Gaza. Of those who voted, 108 supported the measure—less than a quarter of the association’s total membership. Yet international outlets, including The Guardian, AP, Reuters, The Washington Post, and the Financial Times reported the outcome as if it were a sweeping consensus of the world’s foremost genocide experts. Critics inside and outside the association now argue that the process was unrepresentative and that the coverage misled the public into believing in unanimity where none existed.
When you charge Israel with genocide, you are justifying Hamas … this is not just rhetorical, it is an outright incitement to violence
“When you charge Israel with genocide, you are justifying Hamas … this is not just rhetorical, it is an outright incitement to violence,” Professor Norman J. W. Goda of the University of Florida told The Media Line. His words highlight the tension between the headlines and the deeper reality of a process many scholars describe as flawed, opaque and even reckless. Goda explained that framing Israel as a genocidal state gives moral cover to Hamas’s strategy: “You’re justifying their continued defense. You’re justifying the continuation of the war. You’re justifying the tunnels. You’re justifying booby traps, because when you’re fighting a state that is fundamentally genocidal, one resists this state by any means necessary. And this has a tail (consequences).”
The IAGS, founded in 1994, has approximately 500 members. To vote on the Gaza resolution, the threshold required was 20 percent plus one member in good standing—a status achieved simply by paying an annual fee of 30 dollars. No academic credentials are required. When the ballots were counted, 129 members had participated: 108 in favor, 18 against and three abstentions. The association presented the result as an 86 percent majority, but that figure refers only to those who cast ballots, not the entire membership.
Dr. Sara Brown, regional director of the American Jewish Committee in San Diego and a scholar who has served on the IAGS advisory board, told The Media Line: “I was silenced. And the resolution was forced through. What really troubled me was the way that it was presented to mainstream media, that 86 percent of the association had unanimously agreed to condemn Israel for genocide. That’s inaccurate. And to be perfectly honest, it lacks academic integrity, basic integrity to falsely represent the association and falsely cite statistics.”
We need transparent review and discussion of this deeply problematic resolution. And I was silenced.
Brown described how attempts to raise dissent on the association’s listserv were blocked. Leadership had promised a virtual town hall to allow debate, a mechanism used in the past for controversial issues, but the promise was quietly dropped. “Weeks passed and I reached out to the leadership yet again to say, ‘When is this going to be published?’ And I was told, ‘There is no need for a town hall. We will not be hosting one,’” she explained. “We need transparent review and discussion of this deeply problematic resolution. And I was silenced.”
They cite U.N. sources … and if you look at the citation, it says data that has not yet been verified by the United Nations, and then in footnote five it says Ministry of Health Gaza—the Hamas-run Ministry of Health
For her, the flaws went beyond procedure. “They cite U.N. sources … and if you look at the citation, it says data that has not yet been verified by the United Nations, and then in footnote five it says Ministry of Health Gaza—the Hamas-run Ministry of Health,” she pointed out. “The fact that those are the statistics that they had to cite and it’s in the first paragraph immediately speaks to a lack of academic integrity … It’s not even academically lazy. It’s reckless. And the harm is real.”
The IAGS leadership has remained silent since the vote was held. Its website is restricted, membership enrollment has been frozen and official social media accounts are inactive. No officer has responded to requests for comment or agreed to speak publicly.
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
This particular vote was held on a listserv. No real discussion was allowed. No dissenting comments were posted. The thing was sort of rammed through. In fact, it’s not even clear who wrote this particular resolution.
From his perspective, Goda said the voting process itself raised red flags. “From what I hear, the organization has about 500 members and 129 actually voted, 108 in favor. From what I hear, it was something of an irregular vote. Usually, academic organizations like this hold their votes in person at the actual meetings so that people can actually attend. There’s debate. There is a vote after that. Generally speaking, the president of the academic association has to approve the vote. From what I understand, this particular vote was held on a listserv. No real discussion was allowed. No dissenting comments were posted. The thing was sort of rammed through. In fact, it’s not even clear who wrote this particular resolution.”
Coverage by major media, however, conveyed a very different impression. The Guardian titled its report: “Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, world’s top genocide scholars say.” The Washington Post ran with: “Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, genocide scholars say.” Reuters chose: “Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, genocide scholars association says.” None of these headlines noted that only 28 percent of members had voted. Instead, the emphasis on 86 percent approval created the impression of consensus.
Millions viewed those headlines, and unfortunately, that lie traveled around the world much faster than the truth we’re trying to get out now
“The headlines are false and misleading, and the association really abused their standing,” Brown said. “Millions viewed those headlines, and unfortunately, that lie traveled around the world much faster than the truth we’re trying to get out now.”
The first scholar of which I’m aware who made a genocide accusation against Israel did so on Oct. 12, just days after the Hamas massacres, before an Israeli offensive ever really got underway
In Goda’s view, the “appeal to expertise” was being manipulated. “The first scholar of which I’m aware who made a genocide accusation against Israel did so on Oct. 12, just days after the Hamas massacres, before an Israeli offensive ever really got underway. What is going on with all of this is this appeal to expertise, this appeal to authority. But you peel back the layers and what you see is that not all of the people claiming to be authorities are actually authorities,” he noted. “One open letter had 800 or 900 self-proclaimed experts in genocide studies. You start looking them up and you see maybe 40 graduate students, I found a veterinarian, an expert in medieval Islamic art, an expert in forestry in India. A lot of the people claiming expertise are simply activists.”
He warned that such appeals, when echoed uncritically, alter the perception of reality. “This resolution actually made headlines on platforms that would never in a million years under normal circumstances cover a vote in an academic organization. Someone who isn’t following this very closely would probably say to themselves, well, if all the experts say it’s a genocide, it must therefore be a genocide. The entire picture of the state, the entire picture of its security, the entire picture of this war would be altered in a sense in the court of public opinion.”
Both Brown and Goda agree that misuse of the word “genocide” is not only an academic problem. “Taking an emotional response and using it to declare what, you know, the G-word—genocide—that’s reckless,” Brown said. “So far, what we have seen instead is really some unprecedented measures undertaken by the Israeli government in order to prevent civilian casualties, which isn’t to say that civilians haven’t died. Innocent civilians have died in this war. It is tragic and it is horrible. But taking that tragedy and turning it into genocide without clear evidence of intent, that does not meet the definition under the 1948 convention.”
A genocide accusation carries almost infinite moral weight. It has been called the crime of crimes, and once it is made, it becomes very difficult to outrun or erase.
Goda emphasized the gravity of the accusation. “A genocide accusation carries almost infinite moral weight. It has been called the crime of crimes, and once it is made, it becomes very difficult to outrun or erase. That is why this particular word has been used so insistently against Israel since the war began in October 2023.”
Most of the things they’re alleging actually fit under different statutes and not necessarily genocide.
He pointed to the case brought by South Africa before the International Court of Justice earlier this year. “When the South Africans filed their case before the International Court of Justice, they filed the case about genocide and only genocide. Even the court was wondering, you know, why are they doing genocide and only genocide? The Israeli defense team pointed this out, that most of the things they’re alleging actually fit under different statutes and not necessarily genocide. But they did it for a purpose, because it carried a certain stigma. And of course, they thought it might lead to a ceasefire.”
The consequences, he argued, extend beyond legal forums. Goda noted that by portraying Israel as a genocidal state, resolutions like this give Hamas a form of moral cover, legitimizing its ongoing fight and methods of warfare under the banner of resistance.
The consequences, he explained, have reached Jewish communities worldwide. “What’s especially anti-Semitic about the genocide charge is that the diaspora Jews are assumed to be in on it. Jews have been targeted in Australia. They’ve been targeted in the Netherlands. They’ve been targeted in France. They’ve been targeted in Canada. They’ve been targeted in the United States as well,” he said, explaining that in the eyes of those spreading the accusation, Jews everywhere are treated as aiders and abettors of genocide.
Brown said the IAGS has already lost its moral compass. “I think that the integrity of the association is already gone. With the forcing through of this resolution, the absence of transparency mechanisms, we don’t even know who authored this resolution. I would say the integrity is already quite compromised, which hurts my heart. I’ve been a member since my graduate school days. And for me, this was a really important forum. And now it’s a space for silencing and advancing anti-Israel rhetoric.”
In the end, both scholars insist that the debate is not about silencing criticism of Israel, but about preserving academic standards and resisting the politicization of the most powerful word in international law. As Goda put it, “Genocide is recognized as the crime of crimes … Activists use this term, maybe not knowing what genocide actually is, but knowing the weight of the accusation, and that that weight can be absolutely crushing.”
