By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following the International Association of Genocide Scholars’ accusation of genocide against Israel, pro-Israel activists revealed the group’s open membership policy. This policy allows anyone to join by paying a small fee, which prompted activists to create parody accounts and expose the lack of qualifications required for membership. Media outlets initially portrayed the group as a body of leading experts, but the open membership casts doubt on the credibility of its findings. This has raised questions about the validity of the resolution and the peer review process, especially as some of the evidence used by the association has faced criticism.
Read the original article here
Pro-Israel activists joining a group self-identifying as genocide scholars has, unsurprisingly, sparked quite a conversation, and rightfully so. The core issue here is that the group appears to have incredibly low barriers to entry. You pay a relatively small fee, and – boom – you’re in. This open-door policy is a critical factor, as it raises serious questions about the group’s legitimacy, especially when its pronouncements are then treated as expert opinions by the media.
The fact that anyone can join, without any verification of expertise or credentials, is not a hidden flaw but a deliberate design feature of the group. The website even features a profile for “Adolf Hitler” as a member. This alone should be enough to raise eyebrows and question the serious credibility of the group. Consider the implications: anyone, regardless of their knowledge or background, can sign up.
Between 2023 and 2025, the group’s membership appears to have tripled. And yet, when it came time for a vote on a particularly sensitive issue, only a small fraction of the members participated – around 120 people. This small number further undermines the weight of any pronouncements made by the group, especially when compared to the size of the membership, which is the true indicator of the groups’ validity.
The issue here is that media outlets have reported the group’s pronouncements as expert opinions, as if they’re the result of rigorous academic scrutiny. It begs the question of whether these news outlets are even doing basic fact-checking anymore, or simply relying on the group’s self-proclaimed status. It’s a worrying trend if the media is not doing its due diligence.
The existence of a member calling himself “Adolf Hitler” should be a red flag for anyone assessing the group’s credibility. This isn’t just a case of a member being able to enter, it also speaks to what the group values, or perhaps, what they don’t value in their members. It suggests a lack of concern for the kind of image or reputational impact that would make a group of this nature a serious one.
The incredibly open membership process raises concerns about the potential for deliberate manipulation and the injection of biased voices. The fact that there was no debate before the vote underscores the lack of rigor and the potential for a rushed, ill-informed decision. The fact that a pro-Israel leaning group is joining does not necessarily undermine the validity of the group, unless the group itself, is also a member of these same issues.
One of the main arguments put forth by detractors is that the media is not doing its job. The media should be doing its due diligence and properly vetting any group before reporting its pronouncements as fact. It is true that joining the group will give a platform that otherwise they would not have. But it should not go unmentioned that the media are already very active in the topic and will most likely report something, regardless of how factual or not the information that is given.
The very nature of this type of organization – one where you simply pay a fee to be a member – is often at odds with the idea of genuine expertise or authority. It’s similar to the scenario of the climate-change denier mentioned in the original prompt, who created a list of scientists who disagreed with climate change by simply accepting anyone who self-identified that way. The lack of any real vetting process makes it far too easy for biased or unqualified individuals to gain a platform and potentially influence public opinion.
The bylaws of the group, as found on their website, seem to indicate that anyone can vote, which raises serious questions.
The media’s apparent willingness to accept the group’s pronouncements without critical assessment shows a fundamental failure of journalistic standards. The lack of transparency surrounding the vote itself, with no public roll call, further adds to the sense of impropriety.
Ultimately, the story of pro-Israel activists joining this group is less about the activists themselves and more about the group’s lack of credibility. It highlights the dangers of relying on self-proclaimed “experts” without proper verification, and the importance of critical thinking and thorough investigation. It is important to do your own research.