Rigged: Genocide Scholar Blows Whistle on Anti-Israel Association
A recent vote by a group calling itself the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS), which accused Israel of “genocide,” was manipulated to secure a predetermined outcome, according to one of the association’s members.
On Monday, international outlets reported that the IAGS had voted overwhelmingly—86% in favor—to conclude that Israel was guilty of “genocide” in its campaign against Hamas in Gaza.
Israel immediately condemned the resolution, saying it falsely portrayed the aggressors as the victims. Israeli officials stressed that Hamas launched an attack on Israel with the intent to massacre civilians, and that Israel’s actions are in self-defense.
Now, criticism of the vote has intensified after one association member revealed major problems with the process. According to this account, the resolution was rushed through without open debate, no opposing views were permitted, the identities of those who drafted it were concealed, and even non-scholars were allowed to cast ballots. Moreover, only about a quarter of the membership participated in the vote, meaning the result represented the will of an activist minority rather than the entire body.
The Times of Israel quoted Sara Brown, a Jewish genocide scholar, who condemned the process: “The content of the resolution and the way it was forced through speak to an embarrassing absence of professionalism,” she said. Brown noted that the resolution cited organizations like Amnesty International that had altered the definition of genocide to fit Israel’s conduct.
Emails also showed that the association barred dissenting perspectives from being shared on its listserv, claiming that the platform was not intended for debate, and refused to identify the individuals who authored the 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,” Brown explained. “The leadership, in my opinion, had an agenda.”
Brown further criticized the organization for granting voting rights to individuals who were not scholars—such as political activists and artists—arguing that while this might provide “diversity,” it did not contribute to genuine academic expertise or analysis.
{Matzav.com}