As Jewish students juggled their abundant schoolwork before the high holiday season, a resolution “demanding the University acknowledge the genocide in Gaza” passed. This report, void of a single mention of October 7 or the 48 hostages that were still in captivity, was passed with only one dissent, a harsh reminder of the reality of hatred and conformity at the University of Maryland. Now, a second resolution has been introduced banning IDF soldiers from coming, and Jews on this college campus are forced to go on the defensive as supporters of terrorism have suddenly obtained some moral high ground.
These SGA resolutions don’t exist in a vacuum. Their moral and factual authority rests on international institutions whose credibility is far from certain. Understanding how these sources have been misrepresented is essential to understanding why the SGA’s actions are dangerous and discriminatory. Both resolutions rely heavily on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Association of Genocide Scholars — organizations they treat as neutral arbiters of truth. But when examined closely, these bodies are far from impartial, and their misuse in campus policy debates reveals how misinformation filters from global politics into student governance.
Neither resolution notes that the presider of the ICJ case for all the provisional measures (before leaving to become Prime Minister of Lebanon) was ICJ President Nawaf Salam, a proud Bashar al Assad enthusiast. As the former Lebanese Ambassador the the U.N, he votes 210 times to condemn Israel. This rendered him “legally disqualified from sitting in judgment on the two cases related to Israel.” Salam persisted in the trial, drawing criticism from many, including the US Congress.
Considering the likelihood of bias, it’s important to examine the specific details of the genocide claims made against Israel. The trial did not conclude that South Africa’s claim was correct. Joan Donoghue told the BBC that the media has misrepresented the issue, clarifying that “the court did not make a ruling on whether the claim of genocide was plausible, but it did emphasise in its order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide.”
This is an important distinction because reaching a verdict on a case of genocide would require much more evidence and proof. Donoghue reiterates, “the shorthand that often appears, which is that there’s a plausible case of genocide, isn’t what the court decided.”
Another striking flaw in the accusations cited by the SGA is the lack of credibility among supposed “genocide experts.” The only entry requirement for the International Association of Genocide Scholars a fee of $30, not a law degree or proof of scholarship. A notable member who mustered up the prerequisite $30 is “Adolf Hitler,” listing Gaza city as his residence, with a profile picture of a Hamas terrorist. Many such cases of ‘experts’ declaring Israel’s war with Hamas a genocide can be found on the list of members on the organization’s website.
Though only hinted to in the first resolution, the second resolution explicitly supported genocide claims through a report by Francesca Albanese, a Hamas supporter, and somebody so discredited, she is sanctioned from the US. In August of this year she described Hamas as a “political force”. When asked if she supported October 7th she responded “people who are under oppression and under foreign domination have a right to resist.” In a June report she used the word “genocide” 57 times without mentioning Hamas or terrorism once. She is the first UN expert in history to be condemned by United States, France, Germany, and Canada. It is no surprise Hamas terrorists continuously cite her.
Intent is the most important criteria to meet when labeling genocide as the United Nations resolution declares “genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” Determining intent is already a tricky thing to do in a legal sense, and death toll counts are highly disputed. Israel’s figures suggest a remarkably low combatant to civilian ratio for urban warfare, while the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health is known to include combatant deaths in the civilian toll. In December of 2023, a report from the Gaza Ministry of Health came out claiming the impossible; 1,041 new deaths, 1,353 of which were women and children.
International news outlets are either ill-equipped or not incentivized to report with more scrutiny.
For example, the Guardian published a front page headlining asserting that 83% of the deaths in Gaza have been civilians, yet omitted in the article an important paragraph. Their calculation would show far more combatant deaths than civilians if it included “Hamas or PIJ operatives who were killed but could not be identified by name, Gazans who took part in fighting but were not officially members of Hamas or PIJ, nor political figures in Hamas such as mayors and government ministers whom Israel also considers legitimate targets (in violation of international law).”
Throughout the course of the war, the Gaza Ministry of Health have removed a total of 3,952 names from the Gaza death toll, all of which were raised from outside sources. Despite these figures constantly changing, news outlets rarely admit to publicizing their errors.
Yet these are the same flawed numbers and discredited sources the SGA resolutions rely upon. The second resolution, aiming to ban IDF soldiers from coming to campus, cites the potential for Muslim students to feel unsafe and traumatized if they were to see soldiers. Considering the Israeli policy of mandatory conscription, the resolution effectively characterizes every Israeli citizen as violent and threatening, including those who choose to study at this university after their years of service. In the past couple of years, the SGA has become a hateful echo-chamber, only focusing on issues having to do with Israel and its current war. This bill ushers in an unprecedented willingness to impose standards for ‘approved campus visitors’ based on race and nationality.
Both SGA resolutions rely on selective, biased, and misrepresented evidence to vilify Israel. These bills advocate for a hostile environment under the guise of human rights advocacy. Jewish students are left to defend not only Israel’s actions but also their own presence and safety on campus, while Hamas supporters and anti-Israel voices are implicitly granted moral authority. The University of Maryland must recognize the dangers of passing resolutions rooted in misinformation and prejudice and ensure that all students can engage in academic and social life without fear of discrimination or false accusations.
