The IAGS- looks legit. They have a board, various events, various publications. Hosted and attended in many countries by many academic institutions. You can see who the board are, previous events, topics and participants etc. Academic, structured- All looks good! 2/n genocidescholars.org/about-us/
Now surely scholars for truth about genocide sounds like a comparable organisation- right? Wrong. Go on their website. There is a statement, and signatories. Who exactly is behind this org? Who came up with the statement? Any academic underpinning?3/n www.scholarsfortruthaboutgenocide.com
Nothing, not a sausage. Nada. So, the Times of Israel the quotes statements from some faceless representative of this probably recently created website address, which uses a name to lent itself some sort of academic parity with a long established, real academic group. 4/n
“Ah, but sure it has all these signatories of, like, really professional people who have really studied genocide, and like, have no explicit bias, and they wouldn’t make names up, would they.” Well, that’s the question I plan to look into next. I think I know the end of this story… watch this space.
Ah, well now, what have we here! Signatories added without their knowledge!?! And, crucially, a couple of names behind the writing and publishing of statement/petition- will look into them. With respect (and hope), believing these orgs are equivalent is odd. www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty...
Oh, the writer of the statement / petition- yes, definitely a seasoned genocide scholar, and definitely NOT a political shill. I won’t hear of it!
I proffer this not for its comments on substance, which are debatable, but for its statements re process, toward the end. In the Rush to Vilify Israel, Genocide Scholars Ignore the Truth | AJC share.google/1dR5Gd3NmoBh...
'Every civilian death in this war is a tragedy, but the data cited in the IAGS resolution not only fails to differentiate between civilians and combatants, but also relies entirely on Hamas-produced statistics.' www.theguardian.com/world/ng-int...
www.vice.com/en/article/i...
Listen, I love this game of “throw another bone before consuming the current one”, but can we conclude the current, before starting on the next?
Sure. I thought I was responding to a completed presentation. In any event, for my money we can stop the whole "whose experts are more compelling" shtik, because (as I *think* we've agreed) what matters is the conduct, not what it's labeled.
Hey, listen, Im only responding to your pov which was, effectively, and please correct me if I’m wrong, “the Times Of Israel article has provided me with compelling evidence to undermine the integrity of the IAGS.” My hope is to show you that the evidence comes from a v v bad place (in love/ hope)
We have, imho, been fencing over a side issue. I said, as an aside, that neither the IAGS statement nor the UN statement--which you proferred on the basis of wondering whether they and other developments had changed my perspective--had induced me to label Israel's conduct "genocide". cont'd
My point, as I've made clear, is that applying a disputed label to the conduct had no impact on *my* labeling the conduct wrongful, even criminal--which I do. Arguing over whether the conduct is also technically "genocide" (as opposed, say, to "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity") wastes time.
I put no more stock in one group than the other--~0. As I have said, that's not where I come from. The groups that assert either "genocide" or "no genocide" both leave me cold, except to note that there are experts--self-annointed and otherwise--on both sides. I call actions out, not "genocide".
You wouldn't expect a sham group (to be extreme) to advertise itself as such on its webpage. Its open-enrollment policy was so broad as as to make the term "Scholars" meaningless. The orocess aound its adoption of its position was, to be generous, sketchy.