In recent days, lawyers acting for the European Jewish Association and members of Raphael Lemkin’s family petitioned Pennsylvania officials to review allegations of misappropriation of the late jurist’s name by the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention (LIPG), as asserted by the Lemkin family and the EJA.
Their contention is simple: appropriating “Lemkin” to brand Israel a perpetrator of genocide misleads the public and trades on a legacy that did not authorize such use.
Whether one agrees or not, the underlying problem is bigger than one NGO. It is the systematic dilution of expertise to give political advocacy a legal halo.
At the end of August, the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) adopted a resolution asserting that Israel’s actions in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide. Headlines presented this as the verdict of “the world’s leading experts.”
The association’s own numbers tell a narrower story: Roughly 28% of members voted; 86% of those supported the text—about 120 people in a body of roughly 500. That is not the same as a clear majority of the membership.
Lemkin Institute back in the public discourse
Whatever one’s politics, this should trouble anyone who values scholarly standards. Membership in a professional association is not an accreditation of expertise, and a headline that converts a small turnout into “what the experts say” undermines public trust.
The Lemkin Institute presents itself as a genocide-prevention think tank and publishes frequent statements accusing Israel of genocide. Lemkin’s relatives and the EJA argue that the organization never sought permission to use Raphael Lemkin’s name and that the choice creates a misleading impression that its positions reflect his legacy.
LIPG’s leaders say the name was chosen to bring Lemkin “back into public discourse." That is a legitimate aim - until the name becomes a reputational shortcut for sweeping legal conclusions.
The content matters too. LIPG has consistently cast Israel’s campaign as genocide while giving markedly less attention to Hamas’s atrocities.
Some early language acknowledged “genocidal dimensions” in the October 7 attack, only to be reframed later as an “unprecedented military operation,” without any reference to the fact that Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization in the US, EU, UK, Canada, and others.
Regardless of one’s view of the war, this pattern shows how branding can crowd out balanced legal analysis.
The UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, amplifies many of these contested narratives, which, in my view, are factually unsupported, particularly given Hamas’s terrorist designation by the international community.
In July 2025, the United States sanctioned her, accusing her of political “lawfare.” The point here is not to police opinions. It is to insist on transparent standards for claims that carry life-and-death legal weight.
Israel must take action
What should Israel and its partners do? First, stand with Lemkin’s family in their petition, and pursue targeted legal remedies where names and legacies are misappropriated, and where fundraising or advertising is misleading.
Second, press associations, journals, and conferences to disclose membership criteria, funding sources, conflicts of interest, and vetting practices.
Third, support independent public registries that distinguish credentialed scholars - peer-reviewed output, graduate training, fieldwork - from pay-to-join fronts.
Fourth, demand prompt media corrections when a low-turnout vote is inflated into “what experts say.” Finally, equip courts and regulators with amicus briefs and independent methodology reviews that separate legal argument from rhetorical branding.
History warns what happens when propaganda cloaks itself in the language of law. Julius Streicher, editor of Der Stürmer, was convicted at Nuremberg and hanged in 1946 solely for incitement through printed propaganda.
No one alleges today’s NGOs are Nazis.
The lesson is narrower and urgent: words with legal consequences must be anchored to standards. Those who launder activism as scholarship should face proportionate legal, professional, and financial accountability.
Protecting the rigor of genocide scholarship protects victims in need of justice, researchers who labor for truth, and the public trying to navigate claims dressed up as expertise. That is how we honor Raphael Lemkin’s legacy - not by waving his name, but by meeting his standards.