When the BBC revealed that “leading scholars” declared Israel guilty of genocide, it sparked parliamentary debate and helped shape the nation’s views.
But the verdict presented to the British audience was actually Opinion For around a fifth of a club membership you can join for the price of a trip to the cinema – with no qualifications required. And now, after a global backlash, the subscription list has quietly disappeared.
On September 1 last year, a single press release shocked newsrooms around the world.
The International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) voted that Israel’s actions in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide.
The BBC immediately ran with it.
Their headline stated: “Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, world’s leading experts say.”
the star is destroyed
Lineker says he was fired after comparing Israel supporters to RATS in pro-Gaza video
BBC criticized
Israel’s ambassador to Britain has ‘no confidence’ in BBC after Hamas comments
The Guardian followed. Reuters also did the same. In the UK, the framing hit hard, fueling parliamentary debates, shaping public opinion and handing ammunition to campaigners calling for sanctions against Israel.
But no one bothered to check who these “world’s leading experts” were.
Answer: Anyone willing to hand over $30.
Despite clarifying that we were journalists and had no expertise in genocide, The Sun was able to enroll with the organization.
IAGS was founded in 1994 by serious academics who wanted genocide to be taken seriously as a field of study.
Its founders, including sociologist Helen Fein and Holocaust survivor Robert Melson, are names of real weight.
The organization also publishes a peer-reviewed academic journal.
But IAGS today operates an open-door membership model – with no credentials required, no background checks and no verification of expertise.
You choose an income bracket, fill in your card details and you’re in.
The cheapest rate is $30 a year for those making less than $4,999, and no one checks what you earn.
When media watchdog Salo Eisenberg revealed open Membership Policy in September 2025, others increasingly tested its limits.
Within a few hours, new members joined under the names “Adolf Hitler”, “Emperor Palpatine”, and “Cookie Monster”.
The dogs were registered and none were turned away. Website stopped due to load.
Aizenberg had already found something even more disturbing – of the nearly 600 members, at least 80 came from Iraq, a country with virtually no tradition of genocide scholarship and little representation in any serious academic body.
The proposal was passed on August 31 last year with a claimed 86 percent support.
It feels strong. But if we look at the data, the picture changes dramatically.
Only 28 percent of the approximately 500 members eligible to vote participated, which is about 140 people.
86 percent of them voted yes, that is, about 120 persons.
The remaining 360 members did not participate, did not vote, or were unaware.
What the BBC presented to British audiences as the considered judgment of “the world’s leading genocide scholars” was, in fact, the opinion of about a fifth of the membership of a club you could join for the price of a trip to the cinema.
The vote was anonymous and the names of the authors of the proposal were never disclosed.
A planned member meeting to discuss the dispute was canceled and dissenting voices were blocked on an internal mailing list.
Lead IAGS member Sarah Brown holds a PhD in Comparative Genocide Studies from the Strassler Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Clark University.
She has researched the genocide in Rwanda since 2004, authored a book on gender and the Rwandan genocide, and also sits on the IAGS advisory board.
His decision on the Gaza resolution was disappointing. He described it as sloppy, poorly documented and based on deliberately distorted analysis.
Anyone who considers themselves a genocide scholar should be ashamed of this vote, he said.
Notably, the resolution barely mentions Hamas.
The October 7, 2023 attacks, in which more than 1,200 people were killed and 250 taken hostage, are dismissed as “horrible” in the same subordinate section – without any analysis or condemnation.
The same body that passed a detailed resolution on ISIS’s genocidal crimes in 2016 could spare only a word for Hamas.
None of this appeared in the BBC’s coverage. The title of the corporation presented an institutional decision as established fact.
Israeli diplomat Alex Gandler told The Sun: “The decision by outlets like the BBC and others to amplify claims based on a highly dubious organization during an ongoing war was reckless and deeply damaging.
“By presenting these claims with inadequate scrutiny, major news organizations helped to legitimize and spread the baseless and scandalous allegation of genocide as if it were an established scholarly consensus. Given the BBC’s reputation as an impartial and neutral source of information, this had a massive impact on international media coverage.
“This contributed to the continued spread of false and highly inflammatory narratives during a time of conflict. The failure to fully and prominently correct or retract such reporting raises serious concerns regarding journalistic objectivity, neutrality and editorial responsibility.”
Eight months later, the IAGS website is fully operational.
The membership page is back. Subscribe buttons work. Fees are the same: $30 for the lowest earners, $125 at the top.
There is no credential check and no verification process.
One thing that has changed: The public subscription list is gone. Now, no one can check who is a member of the organization, how membership has shifted since October 7, 2023, or whether the increase of new members has affected the vote.
IAGS has listened to criticism, given up transparency and kept the model intact.
The declaration of genocide by a scholarly body has real-world consequences.
It is cited in International Court of Justice proceedings, in United Nations reports, in parliamentary debates, and by NGOs whose findings shape government policy.
In Britain, the BBC’s headline shaped how millions of people understood the conflict.
It was used in Commons debates. It was cited by activists and politicians alike.
The chain of authority that drove it all started with an open $30 subscription to Cookie Monster.
Whether Israel is committing genocide in Gaza is a question for historians, lawyers, etc. the courts And the International Court of Justice is considering this.
But whether the IAGS has the authority to adjudicate on behalf of the scholarly community has been questioned.
And the BBC failed its audience at the most basic level by taking that claim at face value without checking the subscription page that clearly existed.
The Sun has contacted the BBC and IAGS for comment.
