The International Association of Genocide Scholars has issued a landmark resolution defining Israel’s actions in Gaza as a genocide. RFI spoke to the organisation's Tim Williams about the evidence behind the move and its global implications.
The International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) – the world’s leading professional body dedicated to the study of genocide – this week passed a resolution declaring that Israel’s actions against the Palestinians in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide.
Backed by 86 percent of the members who voted, the resolution details acts that the Association says fall squarely within the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide: the killing of tens of thousands of civilians, the deliberate targeting of children, the destruction of agricultural land and homes, and the systematic dismantling of health, education and cultural institutions.
It also points to explicit statements by Israeli leaders suggesting an intent to destroy the Palestinian nation in Gaza. Genocide scholars say that this amounts to the destruction of a people’s future and their ability to regenerate.
RFI spoke to Tim Williams, second vice president of the IAGS and Professor of Insecurity and Social Order at the Bundeswehr University in Munich.
He outlines how the resolution was drafted, why it highlights children as proof of genocidal intent and how the recognition of a Palestinian state by countries – including France – could reshape the global perception of Israel’s actions.
'Nowhere in Gaza is safe' says RFI correspondent amid call for global media access
Recognition of genocide 'brings obligations'
One of the striking issues is why so many governments and institutions are reluctant to use the word genocide, despite mounting evidence. Williams is clear: hesitation is often a political stance.
“I wouldn’t say that international courts hesitate to use the term,” he told RFI. “They do when it is applicable in cases. States, on the other hand, do hesitate because in the UN Convention, there is an obligation under international law on states to prevent and punish genocide.
"So by recognising genocide, it obliges states to engage in prevention efforts, which would mean that if a state recognises it, they have to exert pressure on Israel. They would have to cease all arms delivery to Israel, and ultimately intervene in the situation to try and prevent the genocide from occurring.”
Naming genocide is more than a moral gesture – it carries heavy legal and political implications. Williams describes the paradox at the heart of the Genocide Convention: to declare it compels action, but that obligation can also delay acknowledgement until long after atrocities have unfolded.
Why children matter in proving intent
The IAGS resolution gives particular weight to the killing and maiming of children, a focus Williams sees as critical. He argues that targeting children is one of the clearest signals of genocidal intent under international law.
“Children are seen as a protected part of a group, and they are particularly important because they are also the future of the group,” he said. “By destroying the children of a nation, you’re precluding any possibility to regenerate the group and strengthen it. So it’s a particularly keen indicator of intent.”
He adds that children offer an unmistakable measure of civilian harm in conflicts often clouded by disputes over combatant status. “With children, it’s particularly clear that they are not combatants. And this is even more indicative of civilian status ... it doesn’t mean that all adults are combatants, but with children, it’s particularly clear.”
By highlighting the plight of children, the resolution not only underscores the human tragedy in Gaza but also strengthens the legal case for genocide.
Beyond the death toll
While media coverage often focuses on casualty figures – with more than 63,000 Palestinians killed in the conflict, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry – Williams stresses that genocide is not just about killings. It is also about creating conditions of life that make a group’s survival impossible.
“The core of genocide is, when we talk about it in public discourse, very much focused on the killing part,” he explained. “But really it’s about the destruction of the group in and of itself. And so the forced displacement of people and the removal of the conditions of life necessary are part and parcel of that destruction of a nation.”
The resolution cites the destruction of farmland, desalination plants and bakeries, along with the near-total destruction of Gaza’s housing and healthcare systems, as evidence that Israel has deliberately created unliveable conditions.
Williams warns that political plans to relocate Gazans permanently outside Gaza – once a fringe idea, now openly endorsed by Israeli leaders – could be read as further evidence of genocidal intent.
Defining famine: the complex process behind Gaza's hunger crisis
Recognition of Palestine
The political landscape is also changing. In recent months, France, Canada and Belgium have joined a growing number of states in recognising Palestinian statehood. For Williams, these moves matter both symbolically and practically speaking.
“I think these are very important moves that have been happening in the last weeks and months,” he said. “On the one hand, a strengthening of the legitimacy of the Palestinian nation and an attempt to push forward with, possibly, a two-state solution. But also, I think it’s important symbolically, because it departs from Israel’s interests, and it’s a sign that Western countries are increasingly withdrawing their support from Israel.”
Williams argues that recognition of Palestine forms part of a larger “mosaic” of pressure that could eventually compel change.
He cautions, however, that symbolic steps must be matched with legal obligations: halting arms transfers that could be used in war crimes and enforcing rulings by international courts.
Ultimately, the IAGS has no powers of enforcement, but Williams hopes the resolution will add weight to the global debate.
“We’re a large organisation of genocide scholars, but we have no political clout,” he said. “What I do hope this resolution means is that we can say that the International Association of Genocide Scholars recognises this as a genocide, and I hope that gives political credibility also to those in the political arena who are claiming that it’s genocide and would like to exert more pressure.”
For Williams, this is also about more than Gaza: it is a test of whether the world is willing to confront genocide while it is happening, rather than decades later.
Full Interview: How declaring genocide could reshape war in Gaza - Dr. Tim Williams
