A prominent genocide researcher has accused the International Association of Genocide Scholars of rushing a controversial resolution that labels Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide, without the usual debate among members. Sara Brown, a long-time member and former advisory board participant, claims the process lacked transparency, sparking wider questions about the group’s decision-making in this heated 2025 case.
What the Resolution Says
The International Association of Genocide Scholars passed the resolution on August 31, 2025, during its annual meeting. It states that Israel’s policies and actions in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide under international law.
This includes claims of deliberate starvation, blocking humanitarian aid, and forced displacement of Palestinians. The group called on Israel to stop all acts seen as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. They also urged countries signed to the Genocide Convention, like Australia, to halt arms sales to Israel and uphold global rules.
The resolution points to evidence such as statements from Israeli leaders and reports from United Nations experts. It draws on data showing high civilian deaths and destruction in Gaza since the conflict escalated in late 2023.
Key elements from the resolution include:
- Accusations of intentional harm to Palestinian civilians.
- References to blocked aid leading to famine-like conditions.
- Calls for immediate international action to prevent further harm.
Brown’s Claims of Flawed Process
Sara Brown, who works as the American Jewish Committee’s regional director in San Diego, has spoken out against how the resolution was handled. She says the association broke from its normal practice by skipping a virtual town hall debate for members.
Brown notes she has been part of the group for over a decade and served on its advisory board for eight years total. In her view, the leadership blocked dissenting voices from sharing concerns on the group’s communication channels. Emails she shared show plans for a discussion were announced in late July 2025 but then canceled after an executive board vote.
She argues the resolution uses biased sources, like reports from Amnesty International that redefine genocide to fit Israel’s case. Brown also criticizes citations of UN investigator Francesca Albanese, known for strong anti-Israel views.
Only about 129 members voted out of roughly 500, according to Brown. She believes many skipped the vote because they felt unqualified on the topic. This low turnout, she says, questions the resolution’s true support within the group.
Brown warns that the rushed process and content could harm the association’s credibility. She fears it might fuel anti-Jewish sentiment by loosely applying the term genocide to the Israel-Hamas war.
How the Association Responded
The International Association of Genocide Scholars defended its actions in statements released on September 1, 2025. They insist the vote followed all bylaws and standard procedures, with members informed in advance.
A spokesperson said the resolution passed with strong support, around 86 percent of those who voted. They noted no rule requires a town hall for every measure, especially if the executive board decides otherwise.
The group emphasized its role as the world’s largest body of genocide experts. They stand by the resolution’s findings, based on legal definitions and evidence from the ongoing Gaza conflict.
In response to Brown’s claims, the association said it welcomes member input but maintains list serves are not for debates. They declined to name the drafters, citing privacy.
This defense comes amid growing scrutiny, as the association recently expanded membership to include activists and artists beyond traditional scholars.
Israel’s Strong Rejection
Israeli officials quickly condemned the resolution as baseless and harmful. On September 1, 2025, the Foreign Ministry called it disgraceful and an embarrassment to legal professionals.
They accused the scholars of relying on lies spread by Hamas and biased sources. Israel maintains its actions in Gaza target Hamas militants, not civilians, and comply with international law.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office echoed this, saying the claim ignores Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attacks that killed over 1,200 Israelis and took hostages. Israel reports over 40,000 deaths in Gaza, mostly militants, while Palestinian officials cite higher civilian tolls.
This fits a pattern of Israel facing genocide accusations, including a case at the International Court of Justice in 2024. The court found plausible risks but did not order a full stop to operations.
Reactions from Around the World
The resolution has drawn mixed responses globally. Palestinian groups, including Hamas, welcomed it on September 1, 2025, as new legal proof of their claims.
In contrast, Jewish organizations and some scholars criticized it. The American Jewish Committee, where Brown works, called the process corrupt and the content distorted.
Media outlets worldwide covered the story, with some noting the association’s shift toward broader membership. This change, made in recent years, allows non-academics to join, potentially influencing votes.
Public sentiment on social media shows division. Supporters see it as a bold stand against injustice, while critics argue it politicizes genocide studies.
A quick look at key global reactions:
| Group or Country | Response | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Hamas | Hailed as “new legal documentation” | September 1, 2025 |
| Israel Foreign Ministry | Labeled “disgraceful” and based on lies | September 1, 2025 |
| Australia (via scholars’ call) | Urged to prevent arms sales | September 2, 2025 |
| American Jewish Committee | Backed Brown’s criticism of process | September 1, 2025 |
| UN Experts (cited in resolution) | Supported claims of genocide risks | Ongoing since 2024 |
Why This Matters Now
This controversy highlights tensions in academic circles over the Israel-Palestine conflict, especially as the Gaza war enters its second year. With over 40,000 reported deaths and ongoing humanitarian crises, global bodies face pressure to act.
Experts say such resolutions could influence international policy, like arms embargoes or court cases. For the association, the backlash might lead to internal reforms on voting.
It also raises questions about defining genocide in modern wars. The UN defines it as acts to destroy a group, in whole or part, which the scholars applied here.
As debates continue, this case shows how scholarly groups navigate politics in 2025’s divided world.
What do you think about this resolution and the process behind it? Share your thoughts in the comments below, and pass this article along to spark discussion among your network.
