ɫɫ��

That is the verdict adopted by the , a non-partisan group of about 500 academics, educators, activists, psychologists, lawyers and artists dedicated to research and teaching about genocide and genocide prevention.

The association’s Aug. 31  was adopted overwhelmingly by those who voted, with 109 for the resolution and 20 against, said Onur Uraz, the chair of the association’s resolution committee and an assistant professor of law at Turkey’s Hacettepe University. About 30 per cent of the association’s membership cast a ballot, he said.

But interviews with several association members involved in the vote reveal a more cautious and conflicted approach to condemning Israel, a state that was founded after the genocide that killed six million European Jews during the Second World War.

“So many of us got our beginning in Holocaust studies and are very sensitive to the massive scope of that world historical event and its impact,” said Andrew Woolford, a sociology and criminology professor at the University of Manitoba and a former president of the association.

“I don’t think it’s a resolution that anyone goes too easily into and I trust my colleagues reflected on it very seriously.”

‘Anti-Israel agenda’

The passing of the resolution — which cited United Nations estimates (that are based on Palestinian Health Ministry statistics) of the killing of more than 59,000 adults and children, the forced displacement of more than two million Gazans, and the vast destruction of housing, schools, hospitals, archives and agricultural fields and food warehouses — has prompted fierce condemnation.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry called the genocide finding “disgraceful” and “an embarrassment to the legal profession and to any academic standard.”

“For the first time, ‘genocide scholars’ accuse the very victim of genocide, despite Hamas’s attempted genocide against the Jewish people” .

Israeli opposition leader Benny Gantz, a former defence minister and military chief of staff, said Israel’s attempts to avoid civilian casualties, deliver humanitarian aid and create humanitarian zones in Gaza serve as a powerful defence against the charge of genocide.

A military that takes such steps “might be the most ‘incompetent’ perpetrators of genocide in history,” .

“The cheapening and weaponization of the term ‘genocide’ to suit a shameless anti-Israel agenda must stop.”

To denigrate and ridicule the association, one social media user signed himself up as a member using as a photo the image of a muscular man flexing in a skimpy pink bikini.

Someone took out a membership in the name of the Nazi leader Adolf Hitler — the most prominent practitioner of genocide in modern history — with the accompanying image of a masked Hamas militant.

Public opinion war

The intensity of the reaction points to the resolution’s impact in the public-relations battle pitting defenders of Israel against those voicing their support and concern for the plight of Palestinians.

The draft resolution was circulated among association members several weeks before the vote. But the results were announced shortly after a confirming the existence of famine conditions in Gaza.

At the United Nations General Assembly meetings next week, Canada, France, Britain and several other countries are expected to formally recognize Palestinian statehood in a diplomatic push to resolve the conflict through a two-state solution.

And while the declaration of 129 scholars may seem small in comparison, some see it as an important step in the campaign to condemn and isolate Israel’s government over its handling of the war.

“Global public opinion is certainly influenced by something like this,” said William Schabas, a Canadian professor of international law at London’s Middlesex University.

A past president of the scholarly association, but no longer a member, Schabas said the resolution will also help broaden the debate over the war in Gaza, allowing discussion of positions that had been taboo and potentially career-ending not so long ago.

“A year and a half ago, it was not a simple thing to talk about genocide being committed by Israel, and there were academics who lost their job for doing that. We were regularly accused of antisemitism,” he said.

“It’s pretty hard to claim that someone’s an antisemite because they criticized Israel when an organization like the International Association of Genocide Scholars — by a very large majority, apparently — voted in favour of this resolution.”

‘Historians don’t act quickly’

Woolford, of the University of Manitoba, voted in favour of the resolution, but his thinking on the matter has evolved over the course of the two-year war.

Just eight days after the attack by Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023 that killed 1,200 people in southern Israel and sparked the war, Woolford signed an  in which nearly 900 academics and legal scholars warned of “the possibility of the crime of genocide being perpetrated by Israeli forces against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.”

In December 2023, he backed another statement by concerned academics saying that “the starvation, mass killing and forced displacement of Palestinian civilians in Gaza is ongoing, raising the question of genocide, especially in view of the intentions expressed by Israeli leaders.”

As a sociologist, he said that his professional approach to genocide is different than that of an expert in international humanitarian law, but his belief that Israel was in fact engaged in a genocidal campaign against Palestinians was shaped by arguments presented before the International Court of Justice, where South Africa has alleged that Israel is in breach of the 1948 genocide convention.

The ICJ, which is the principal legal forum for the United Nations, has not yet ruled on the allegations.

Uraz, the chair of the association’s resolution committee, said that most initiatives are voted on by between 30 and 50 per cent of the membership.

Alyssa Loggie, a communications instructor at Vancouver’s Columbia College, wrote in response to questions that she hoped the resolution would “add to the voices of those already speaking out” about the war in Gaza.

Some scholars don’t participate in resolution votes because they feel they lack the expertise, Uraz said. Others decline due to a lack of interest or a sense of inevitability, thinking that one additional vote for or against will hardly matter.

Ahead of this resolution, though, some members complained to Uraz that the wording and condemnation was “not … strong enough, which could be another reason for some to be absent.”

Hilary Earl, an assistant professor of history at Nipissing University in North Bay, abstained for a different reason.

“Historians don’t act quickly,” she said, while insisting that it was clear in her mind that war crimes and crimes against humanity had been committed by Israel against the Palestinians.

“I’m just not ready to say that it’s a genocide,” she said. “That doesn’t mean it’s not going to be, and it doesn’t mean that it isn’t.”

Earl said that Raphael Lemkin, the Polish law professor and Holocaust survivor who , cast it not in terms of the impact on a victimized group, but on the intent of the perpetrator.

“What is their intention? Do they want to destroy the group, or is the continuation of the group OK?” Earl said. “It’s an awful, fraught definition, the result of a compromise.”

She said there was no question in her mind about the horrific suffering and impact upon Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip.

“But outcome is not what genocide is about. It’s about intent. If it’s about outcome, then every war is a genocide, right?”

Scholars or activists?

Every conflict is, thankfully, not a genocide. But the association of genocide scholars has weighed in on numerous conflicts in which, in their opinion, warring parties have crossed that horrible line — even if it is sometimes decades after the fact.

It has issued resolutions accusing the Islamic State of genocidal acts against religious minorities in Syria and Iraq; accusing Myanmar of genocide against its Rohingya minority; and accusing Pakistan of committing genocide against its Bengal minority during Bangladesh’s 1971 war of independence.

The association also condemned the threat by former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005 to wipe Israel off the map and for denying the Holocaust. It called the comments an incitement to genocide and said that the Jewish state would be at “imminent” risk of genocide if ever Iran obtains nuclear weapons.

The risky business of taking political positions has been at the heart of the scholarly association, something that sets it apart and which its members seem to appreciate.

“This has been at the core of the organization for a long time: are we a scholarly organization or are we an activist organization?” said Earl, a member since 1996.

“I think we’re both, and I think the organization is well within its rights, and I think we should have these discussions and debates regularly. The world is full of violence against civilians, so I would never want to silence that.”

No nuance

Shortly before his death in December 2024, Israel Charny, an Israeli psychologist who co-founded the association, to a journal article that accused Israel of engaging in genocide in Gaza.

In it, Charny admitted there had been “excessive” bombing in Gaza and that too many Palestinians had been killed. But he defended Israel’s actions as a legitimate response to Hamas aggression.

Israel should stop the war as soon as possible, Charny insisted, but not before its legitimate war aims — particularly the release of the remaining Israeli hostages — had been achieved.

This is the difficult nuance of the Israel-Hamas conflict that, in the opinion of Hily Moodrick-Even Khen, the genocide resolution failed to consider.

“I don’t think that the association should avoid expressing academic views about what’s going on in the world — definitely it’s part of our mission as genocide scholars,” said Khen, a professor of international law and chair of the Center for the Research and Study of Genocide at Ariel University, which is located in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

“The problem is that I think that our case is much more nuanced … and the very fact that Israel is fighting against the terrorist organization must be recognized.”

Khen, who voted against the resolution, said that it failed to fully acknowledge this fact, while also relying on disputed figures about the injured and dead that are supplied by the Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza and circulated by the UN.

“It just speaks against any academic integrity, to my mind.”

But this does not mean that she and many other Israelis unconditionally support the right-wing coalition government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, or that they agree with every aspect of how the war has been prosecuted.

“I have my own criticisms about what’s going on,” she said. “But using the term ‘genocide,’ and using it in such an inaccurate and unprofessional way, is very destructive.”