Listen to the article

0:00
0:00

Rabbis and Lemkin Family Challenge Institute for Alleged Misuse of Genocide Scholar’s Name

A coalition of prominent U.S. rabbis is calling on Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and state officials to investigate the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, claiming the organization has distorted the legacy of Raphael Lemkin, the Polish Jewish jurist who coined the term “genocide” in 1944.

At the center of the controversy is the institute’s October 13, 2023 “active genocide alert” accusing Israel of committing genocide just days after the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel. This alert has drawn particular criticism from Lemkin’s family members, who argue it fundamentally misrepresents the scholar’s life work and intentions.

Joseph Lemkin, a New Jersey attorney and nephew of Raphael Lemkin, explained that his family felt compelled to take action after observing the institute’s growing influence among younger generations.

“A combination of factors led us to take formal steps,” Lemkin told Fox News Digital. “When my 16-year-old son asked me if I knew about the institute and what they were espousing on social media, I became more concerned about the impact the institution’s conduct would have on the next generation.”

Raphael Lemkin, who studied the destruction of European Jewry during the Holocaust, developed the concept of “genocide” and helped craft the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention. His family contends that using his name to accuse the Jewish state of genocide inverts his life’s mission and scholarly legacy.

The timing of the institute’s alert particularly troubled the family. “Merely days after Israelis were killed, raped, tortured and taken hostage and with no action yet taken by Israel to defend itself, the alert was issued,” Joseph Lemkin noted. “This makes it clear that the institute has an anti-Israel agenda and is not genuinely concerned about human rights and certainly not concerned about attacks on Jews.”

Several prominent Jewish leaders have joined the effort, submitting letters to Pennsylvania officials expressing concern over the institute’s use of the Lemkin name. Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, questioned whether the group’s use of “Lemkin” misleads the public about Raphael Lemkin’s historical mission. Rabbi Aryeh Ralbag, chief justice of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada, called the genocide label applied to Israel a distortion of historical truth.

“In terms of rabbis taking a position, I think this is extremely important,” Lemkin said. “If an organization uses Raphael’s name to distort or invert his legacy, religious and moral leaders have a duty to defend historical truth.”

This controversy emerges against a backdrop of rising antisemitism in the United States. According to the Anti-Defamation League, antisemitic incidents have reached record highs across the country in recent months, particularly following the October 7 attack and subsequent Israel-Hamas conflict.

Joseph Lemkin sees a direct connection between the genocide accusations against Israel and increased antisemitism. “From my perspective, using the ‘genocide’ trope against Israel doesn’t advance peace or justice. It just brings back antisemitic patterns,” he said. “It turns the memory of Jewish victimhood into an accusation against the Jewish people and corrupts a word coined to prevent another Holocaust.”

He further noted that the selective application of the genocide label reveals underlying biases: “Candidly using the word genocide against Israel while ignoring Darfur, Rwanda and Syria and others erodes the moral credibility of human rights activists, spotlighting their true antisemitic motivations.”

The dispute highlights growing concerns about anti-Zionist rhetoric becoming increasingly mainstream, with Jewish communities expressing alarm about language once confined to fringe extremists now appearing in legislative chambers and political rallies. While Lemkin acknowledges the legitimacy of criticizing specific Israeli policies, he firmly rejects efforts to delegitimize Israel’s fundamental right to exist.

Asked how his uncle would respond to today’s situation, Joseph Lemkin reflected, “I think he would be truly pained to see his name or life’s work used to distort his mission. He stood for the protection of all people and especially understood the Jewish people’s right to live in safety and self-determination.”

The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention did not respond to requests for comment on the allegations.

Fact Checker

Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.

8 Comments

  1. This is a complex and contentious topic. I appreciate the Lemkin family’s desire to protect the legacy of their relative. However, the Lemkin Institute’s work also merits consideration, even if one disagrees with their specific conclusions. Thoughtful, nuanced dialogue will be essential going forward.

  2. Allegations of genocide are extremely serious and deserve rigorous scrutiny. I’m curious to learn more about the specific evidence and reasoning behind the Lemkin Institute’s claims. However, the family’s concerns about potential misuse of Lemkin’s name also warrant consideration.

  3. Invoking the genocide label is extremely serious and should not be done lightly. I can understand the family’s concerns about potential misuse or distortion of Lemkin’s legacy. At the same time, we should be open to diverse interpretations and applications of the genocide concept within academic and policy discourse.

  4. This is a sensitive and complex issue. While I understand the concerns of Lemkin’s family, the Lemkin Institute’s work also deserves a fair hearing. We should aim for a nuanced, evidence-based discussion on the definition and application of genocide rather than rushing to judgment.

  5. The use of the genocide label is highly consequential. I can understand the Lemkin family’s concerns about potential misappropriation of the scholar’s name and ideas. At the same time, the institute’s analysis should be evaluated on its own terms rather than dismissed outright. A balanced, evidence-based discussion is needed.

  6. Emma Z. Rodriguez on

    The Lemkin family’s objections raise valid points about honoring the scholar’s original intent. At the same time, the institute’s analysis deserves a fair hearing on its own merits. An open, evidence-based discussion seems the best way to navigate this sensitive issue.

  7. This is a complex geopolitical issue with deep historical roots. I’m not sure taking sides is productive at this stage. The best path forward may be for all parties to engage in respectful, fact-based dialogue to better understand each other’s perspectives and concerns.

  8. The use of Lemkin’s name is certainly controversial. However, the institute’s claims deserve scrutiny on their own merits, not simply dismissed due to perceived misappropriation. I’m curious to learn more about the specifics of their analysis and reasoning behind the genocide alert.

Leave A Reply

A professional organisation dedicated to combating disinformation through cutting-edge research, advanced monitoring tools, and coordinated response strategies.

Company

Disinformation Commission LLC
30 N Gould ST STE R
Sheridan, WY 82801
USA

© 2026 Disinformation Commission LLC. All rights reserved.