The International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) recently passed a resolution declaring that “Israel’s policies and actions in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide”, with the measure reportedly supported by 86% of those who voted. However, this seemingly decisive outcome has been marred by significant procedural concerns and internal criticism.
A member of the IAGS revealed that the group pushed through a resolution accusing Israel of genocide without holding a debate. This procedural irregularity raises serious questions about the legitimacy and academic rigor of the resolution, particularly given the gravity of genocide accusations and their implications under international law.
It’s crucial to clarify what the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has and has not determined regarding genocide allegations against Israel. Contrary to widespread mischaracterization in media and political discourse, the ICJ has not ruled that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
The ICJ case, brought by South Africa, resulted in provisional measures being ordered in January 2024. However, these provisional measures do not constitute a finding of genocide. Instead, “What the Court essentially ordered was that Israel comply with the Genocide Convention and cease any operations in Rafah that may breach its obligations under this convention. Israel has been clear that it is continuing to abide by its duties under the Convention”, as explained by international law expert Natasha Hausdorff.
The provisional measures are precautionary and are issued when the Court determines there’s a plausible case to be examined—a significantly lower threshold than proving actual genocide. The Court explicitly stated that these measures do not prejudge the final outcome of the case, which could take years to resolve.
Natasha Hausdorff: Challenging the Legal Framework
British barrister Natasha Hausdorff, who “has provided strong and articulate defenses against these allegations” of genocide and ethnic cleansing, has become one of the most prominent legal voices challenging these accusations. In her analysis, Hausdorff “breaks down complex legal frameworks, debunks myths about genocide allegations and proportionality in war”.
Since October 7, Hausdorff has been “tirelessly advocating for Israel in media outlets and academic forums”, providing detailed legal analysis that challenges the genocide narrative. Her credentials are substantial—she “holds law degrees from Oxford and Tel Aviv Universities and was a Fellow in the National Security Law Programme at Columbia Law School” and previously clerked for the President of the Israeli Supreme Court.
Hausdorff’s central argument is that “this analysis—or even this discussion—is being conducted on a false premise, which is that Israel is breaking international law”. She emphasizes that genocide requires specific intent (dolus specialis) to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, which she argues has not been demonstrated in Israel’s case.
The genocide allegation has not gone unchallenged in academic circles. German social theorist Jürgen Habermas and three colleagues at Goethe University Frankfurt published a statement in which they said that “attributing genocidal intent to Israel’s actions in Gaza was a misjudgement, triggering public debate in Germany”.
Additionally, there have been counter-statements from Holocaust and genocide scholars. “A number of Holocaust and genocide scholars and centers followed suit in condemning Hamas. This included a group of more than 150 Holocaust scholars, who signed a statement following the October 7 attacks.
Procedural Concerns with IAGS Resolution
The revelation that the IAGS resolution was pushed through without proper debate raises serious questions about academic integrity. Brown detailed several concerning aspects of the process:
Emails shared with The Times of Israel showed that the association’s leadership initially promised a town hall discussion in late July “as with previous resolutions,” but backtracked days later, citing a vote by the association’s executive board. “It wasn’t rushed, it was just forced through without the usual transparency,” Brown explained.
The association refused to allow dissenting opinions to be published on its listserv, claiming it was not a forum for such discussions. They also declined to release the names of the members who drafted the resolution.
Only 129 association members voted on the resolution out of an estimated membership of around 500. Many members chose not to weigh in, likely because they did not feel qualified to address the issue, according to Brown. “That favors those activists who are seeking to advance a false narrative about Israel,” she said.
Brown criticized the resolution for citing organizations that have “reinterpreted the definition of genocide so that it applies to Israel, such as Amnesty International.” The group also cited UN special investigator Francesca Albanese, who Brown noted “has a history of antisemitism and extremist rhetoric, such as denying Israel’s right to self-defense.”
The association has expanded beyond scholars to include activists and artists. Brown pointed to Nidal Jboor, founder of Doctors Against Genocide, as an example of a member who recently said at a pro-Palestinian conference that the movement needed to “take out” and “neutralize” its “child murderer” opponents.
Brown emphasized the misleading nature of the outcome: “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.” She concluded that “The leadership, in my opinion, had an agenda,” and warned that “The public is going to see, ‘Genocide experts agree.’ No, we don’t, and we were deliberately silenced.”
Emily Sample, the association’s communications officer, disputed Brown’s account, claiming bylaws do not require town hall discussions and haven’t happened for all resolutions. She argued that “there was sufficient contextual information for all of the scholars in the community to make their own informed decision before the vote” and that the 86% support among voting members “represents a much larger percentage of the organization that did support this.” Sample also stated that while the association accepts non-scholars, “We are not accepting large swaths of activists who are anti-Israel.”
Israel rejects the accusation, calling the resolution an “embarrassment to the legal profession”. The Israeli government has consistently argued that its operations in Gaza are conducted in accordance with international humanitarian law and are aimed at legitimate military targets associated with Hamas and other terrorist organizations.
“Israel: ‘Based on Hamas lies'” reflects the Israeli position that genocide allegations are founded on misinformation propagated by Hamas, an organization with a vested interest in portraying Israeli military actions as illegitimate.
Hausdorff discusses “the challenges of lawfare in the modern world”, referring to the strategic use of legal claims to delegitimize Israel’s right to self-defense. This concept of lawfare—the weaponization of international legal institutions and concepts for political ends—has become increasingly relevant in analyzing accusations against Israel.
Legal Standards for Genocide
Understanding why many legal experts reject genocide allegations against Israel requires examining the legal definition itself. The 1948 Genocide Convention defines genocide as acts “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”
The key element is specific intent (dolus specialis)—the perpetrator must specifically intend to destroy the protected group. This is an extremely high legal bar, and critics argue that:
- Military Objectives: Israel’s stated objectives focus on eliminating Hamas’s military capabilities and rescuing hostages, not destroying Palestinian civilians as a group.
- Proportionality Measures: Despite high civilian casualties, Israel has implemented various measures to minimize civilian harm, including warnings, evacuation corridors, and precision targeting.
- Humanitarian Aid: Israel has facilitated humanitarian aid delivery to Gaza, which would be inconsistent with genocidal intent.
The recent IAGS resolution, while supported by 86% of voting members, represents only a portion of the global academic community studying genocide. The lack of debate before the vote suggests that dissenting views were not properly considered, potentially skewing the result.
Moreover, “over 55 scholars of the Holocaust, genocide, and mass violence deplore the atrocity crimes against civilians committed by Hamas and Islamic Jihad on 7 October,” while also addressing Israeli actions, suggesting a more nuanced view exists within the scholarly community than the IAGS resolution suggests.
Zioniast Organization of America National President Morton “Mort” Klein, noted that it is extraordinary that the International Association of Genocide Scholars ignores the fact that Hamas is actively pursuing genocide.
“It is extraordinary that the International Association of Genocide Scholars ignores the fact that Hamas is actively pursuing genocide and is not even hiding it,” Klein said. “Hamas’ founding charter explicitly calls for the murder of every Jew on earth and on October 7, 2023, the group demonstrated that intent with horrifying clarity. Alongside Gaza civilians, Hamas launched an unprovoked attack, sending 6,000 Gaza Arab terrorists into Israel with the aim of murdering, raping, maiming, and kidnapping every Jew they could find. That brutal assault was not an aberration: it was a calculated act of genocide and part of Hamas’ stated mission, which its leaders continue to call for in public statements.”
Klein noted that, Hamas co-founder Mahmoud al-Zahar recently reiterated that their goal is to murder every Jew and then every Christian, an explicit threat of Nazi-like mass murder.
“That is the textbook definition of genocide,” Klein emphasized. Israel, in contrast, is engaged in a defensive war aimed at destroying a terrorist organization that openly seeks its destruction. As West Point professor John Spencer has stated, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) operate with a moral code unparalleled in the history of warfare, especially in urban combat, where enemy fighters deliberately embed themselves among civilians. Israel has taken extraordinary measures to minimize civilian harm. Israel issues evacuation warnings, drops leaflets, calls Arab cell phones, and urges civilians to leave combat zones, at the expense of strategic advantage and the safety of its own soldiers.”
“Military experts consistently affirm that Israel maintains the lowest civilian-to-combatant casualty ratios in the history of warfare. Yet, instead of acknowledging this, the Association’s statement lends credibility to Hamas propaganda and undermines the ethical complexity of Israel’s efforts to defend itself.
“Ultimately, such declarations don’t bring the war’s end closer; they embolden Hamas and prolong a war that will only end when Hamas and its genocidal agenda are defeated.”
The genocide allegations against Israel represent one of the most serious charges in international law. However, as legal expert Natasha Hausdorff and other scholars have demonstrated, these allegations must be subjected to rigorous legal analysis rather than political activism.
The procedural irregularities in the IAGS resolution, combined with the ICJ’s actual (limited) findings versus widespread mischaracterization of those findings, suggest that genocide allegations against Israel are being advanced through questionable academic and legal processes.
For pro-Israel audiences, it’s essential to understand that:
- The ICJ has not ruled that Israel is committing genocide
- Legal experts like Natasha Hausdorff provide compelling arguments against genocide allegations
- The recent IAGS resolution was passed without proper academic debate
- The legal standard for genocide requires specific intent to destroy a protected group, which has not been demonstrated
While there are civilian casualties in Gaza, the legal threshold for genocide remains extremely high, and the evidence for specific genocidal intent against Palestinians as a group has not been established, according to numerous legal experts and the careful analysis of international law standards.