By Ofira Seliktar, Professor Emerita, Gratz College
In recent decades, Qatar—and before it, Saudi Arabia—have emerged as two of the most significant foreign financiers of American universities, channeling hundreds of millions of dollars into academic programs, research centers, endowed chairs, and cultural initiatives. While universities present these funds as benign contributions to global education, critics argue that such largesse is part of a broader soft-power strategy designed to shape academic narratives, influence Middle East scholarship, and indirectly bolster the geopolitical interests of the donor states. As a result, the scale and intent of Gulf funding have become a major point of debate, raising questions about transparency, academic independence, and the growing role of foreign influence within U.S. higher education. As a result, as IAM noted, anti-Israel academics were constantly recruited while pro-Israel academics pushed away.
For instance, Columbia University Task Force on Antisemitism recommended that the university should hire more pro-Israel professors (or at least not explicitly anti-Zionist) to add ideological diversity to the faculty.
However, Iran—despite channeling substantial sums into Western academic and cultural institutions, often through obscure organizations, diaspora networks, or state-linked foundations—has managed to remain largely under the radar. Its financial footprint is less visible, more diffuse, and frequently embedded in research partnerships, cultural exchanges, and individual academic appointments rather than headline-grabbing endowments. This lower profile has allowed Tehran’s influence efforts to attract far less scrutiny than those of Qatar or Saudi Arabia, even as they quietly advance the regime’s ideological narratives and foreign-policy objectives within segments of the American academic landscape.
A recent example of Iranian influence is Dr. Vahid Abedini, an Iranian national and assistant professor at the University of Oklahoma. On November 22, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained Abedeini for three days, exposing his employment at the Farzaneh Family Center forIranian & Persian Gulf Studies. The Farzaneh Family Center coordinates teaching, research, and outreach on the history, language, culture, society, and politics of Iran and the Persian Gulf. It runs lecture series, conferences, prizes, language instruction (Persian), student awards, and other academic programming in Iranian/Persian-Gulf studies. The funding is a major gift from the Farzaneh family, which supports faculty appointments, visiting scholars, and political programs. The Farzaneh Center is among the institutions supported by the Iranian Foreign Ministry and wealthy bonyads [charitable foundations] abroad. They influence the research agenda and, by embedding themselves in a reputable Western academic institution, seek to shape pro-Iranian foreign diplomacy.
A more troubling aspect of this scenario is the alleged connection between Abadeni, who is the son-in-law of Mohsen Armin, a controversial political figure with early-career ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Although Armin has denied these claims, critics have long accused him of having held a supervisory role over parts of the notorious Evin Prison during the 1980s. Some exile and opposition sources further allege that he bore indirect responsibility for conditions surrounding the 1988 mass executions, or at the very least, failed to oppose the killings.
The anti-Israel credentials attributed to Abedini are further underscored by his academic connection to Joshua Landis, a prominent Middle East scholar at the University of Oklahoma and a non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft—an organization frequently called out for its sharply critical stance toward Israeli policy. Quincy was co-founded by Trita Parsi, a longtime pro-Iran activist in the United States and the former head of the National Iranian American Council, accused of being a pro-Iran lobby. Quincy Institute advocates a U.S. foreign policy doctrine of “restraint” and often contends that Washington’s close alignment with Israel contributes to a deeper American entanglement in Middle Eastern conflicts. Landis represents the standard Quincy Institute position on Israel, namely, highly critical of American support for Israel while taking a lenient view toward Iran. For example, he acknowledges that Iran has a destabilizing effect on the Middle East but blames it on American and Israeli pressure.
Prof. Shirin Saeidi is another scholar with an attachment to Iran. She is a political scientist at the University of Arkansas and the head of its Middle East Studies program, who allegedly supported a convicted Iranian regime war criminal, Hamid Nouri. Nouri, who was convicted by a Swedish court in 2022 of ordering the execution of thousands of political prisoners at Gohardasht Prison in 1988, served as the assistant deputy prosecutor at the Karaj prison, outside of Tehran. He was released in a prisoner swap between Iran and Sweden last year. Saeidi used the school’s letterhead to appeal for his release in a post shared on X in November. Saeidi praised Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, offering prayers for his protection and stating he is “the leader who kept Iran intact during the Israeli attack, May god protect you,” and called Israel on X a “terrorist state” and a “genocidal state. Saeidi also endorsed two petitions in 2023 and 2025 against Israel.
The University spokesman disclosed that Saeidi is no longer in the Middle East Studies Department and that the school is investigating “in accordance with university policies” Saeidi’s apparent use of the department’s letterhead.
Whatever the ultimate disposition of the cases against Abedini and Saeidi will be, the episodes once again demonstrate Tehran’s considerable efforts to position “regime-friendly” professors in the American academy.
********
Ofira Seliktar is a Professor Emerita of Political Science at Gratz College. Her upcoming book, Unintended Consequences: How Iran’s War on Israel Destroyed the Axis of Resistance, will be published next year.
US immigration officials have detained Iranian national and University of Oklahoma assistant professor Vahid Abedini even though he holds a valid visa allowing him to stay in the United States.
US immigration authorities detain Iranian academic with valid visa
TEHRAN (Iran News) Abedini, the Farzaneh Family Assistant Professor of Iranian Studies at the Boren College of International Studies, was detained on November 22 while traveling to an academic conference in Washington, DC, HuffPost reported. He is currently in the custody of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
According to an official at the Logan County Sheriff’s Office, Abedini was booked into the facility on Saturday and transferred to ICE custody at the Oklahoma City field office on Monday morning, HuffPost reported. No details were provided on why he was detained or handed over to ICE.
ICE and the Department of Homeland Security have made no official comments, and Abedini’s current whereabouts have not been disclosed.
Vali Nasr, an Iranian-American political scientist and professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, posted on X late Monday calling for Abedini’s immediate release.
“He is a respected scholar and teacher, and according to his employer, the University of Oklahoma, his visa is valid. I and all his friends, colleagues, and students call for his immediate release and his return to his work at the university,” Nasr wrote.
Wrongful detention
Joshua Landis, Director of the Center for Middle East Studies and the Farzaneh Family Center for Iranian and Persian Gulf Studies at the University of Oklahoma, described Abedini’s detention as wrongful, noting that he holds a visa issued to individuals in specialized occupations.
“Dr. Abedini was boarding a flight on his way to attend the Middle East Studies Association conference in Washington, D.C., when he was detained and put in jail on Nov. 22,” Landis wrote on X.
“He has been wrongfully detained because he has a valid H-1B visa — a non-immigrant work visa granted to individuals in ‘specialty occupations,’ including higher education faculty. We are praying for his swift release,” he added.
U.S. immigration crackdown
The administration of President Donald Trump is pressing ahead with plans to deport what it calls undocumented immigrants as part of the Republicans’ hardline immigration agenda. The plan, in full force since Trump returned to office in January this year, has drawn widespread criticism over heavy-handed tactics and the detention of individuals who have legal rights to remain in the United States.
On November 22, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents detained Vahid Abedini, an Iranian national and assistant professor of Iranian Studies at the University of Oklahoma; he was released three days later.
Abedini’s commentary is pro-regime. Within the context of the Islamic Republic, Abedini positions himself as a reformist who criticizes the hardliners and praises his own camp. He spoke of former President Hassan Rouhani’s “expanding internet freedom” and criticized then-President Ebrahim Raisi’s reversal of that “accomplishment.” In reality, Freedom House assessed Iran’s internet freedom as “not free” throughout Rouhani’s term. Abedini’s Persian writings similarly defend the reform movement. In 2024, he endorsed Masoud Pezeshkian for president.
Within the context of the Islamic Republic, Abedini positions himself as a reformist who criticizes the hardliners and praises his own camp.
Hardliners and reformists set aside their disputes when it comes to Israel, and Abedini fits the mold. In a 2024 interview with an Iranian newspaper, Ensaf News, he accused Israel of genocide. In a separate Persian interview on May 9, 2025, he emphasized Iran’s right to conduct uranium enrichment. His English academic activism promotes the idea that the Islamic Republic is liberalizing, but U.S. pressure on the regime impedes progress, and Iranians prefer participating in elections to effect slow change rather than regime change. Polls contradict this claim. He has been silent on the 2022 protests.
Most telling is a 2019 essay he published for the regime’s official Islamic Republic News Agency, in which he condemned the anticipated Middle East Peace and Security Conference in Warsaw for attempting to contain Iran’s regional influence. He attacked Saudi Arabia for participating in a conference together with Israel, calling the Jewish state “the first-degree enemy in the Islamic world and the Arab world.” Ironically, he mocked President Donald Trump’s base for being “backwards” and “religious,” while excusing Iran’s literal clerical regime. Most importantly, he called the Islamic Revolution of 1979 “a popular revolution and undoubtedly a progress … toward modern republicanism.”
Abedini’s family connections raise further questions about his presence in the United States to begin with. His father-in-law is Mohsen Armin, a reformist figure who co-founded the Islamist-Marxist Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization. After a schism within the organization, he joined its pro-Islamic Republic wing. According to Fars News, a website affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Armin was a manager at the Evin prison during the 1988 massacres, an allegation he denies. Hossein Fadayi, currently an adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, recounts, “Managing the main part of the prison’s Ward 209, which was the [Mojahedin’s] ward, belonged to the attorney general and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps … and I and Mr. Armin and Mr. [Mohammad-Baqer] Zolghadr, and other guys [managed it] together,” adding that Armin advocated for reintegration of the prisoners who repented but was unpersuasive. One of the prisoners was his brother, Mahmoud Armin; the regime executed him, but his body remains missing. Some allege that Mohsen Armin personally tortured his brother.
Armin was a member of the Sixth Parliament, dominated by the reformists. He was sidelined during the presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and detained in the aftermath of the 2009 fraudulent election. He was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and a five-year ban from politics. After signing a letter objecting to violence against protesters in 2019, he was sentenced to one year in prison. Despite these, in a recent speech to the Reform Front, he proposed reforms within the system to preserve the regime and again condemned advocates of regime change.
If Abedini failed to disclose his family ties in his visa application, the United States should deport him.
Abedini’s views and family raise two questions—one on the state of the U.S. academy and the other on his visa admission. First, his appointment is at Oklahoma’s Farzaneh Family Center for Iranian and Persian Gulf Studies, supported by two Iranian American brothers. Iranian studies are under-resourced, and too often the diaspora, whose interests are advocacy and not necessarily honest scholarship, supports them. The center is run by Joshua Landis, a fellow at the isolationist Quincy Institute, and an apologist for Bashar al-Assad. Someone so partisan and without a scholarly approach should not teach American students about Iran.
Second, if Abedini failed to disclose his family ties in his visa application, the United States should deport him. If he did, it is a scandal worthy of congressional investigation that someone with close and continuing family ties to an enemy regime was allowed entry to the United States.
During the Cold War, it would have been unacceptable that a supporter of Nikita Khrushchev or even Mikhail Gorbachev, whose father-in-law was an adviser to the Soviet leader, would teach Russian studies at an American university. Abedini is exactly such a person, and that the University of Oklahoma is not embarrassed by his employment is scandalous. Then again, perhaps the money behind the Farzaneh Family Center trumps the democratic and liberal values that the University of Oklahoma publicly expresses.
The Middle East Studies Association (MESA) was disturbed to learn of the detention of Dr. Vahid Abedini, the Farzaneh Family Assistant Professor of Iranian Studies at the University of Oklahoma (OU). Dr. Abedini was detained on November 22 by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) before boarding a flight to attend the MESA Annual Meeting in Washington, DC.
Dr. Abedini is a political scientist working in the U.S. under an H-1B visa. He earned his Ph.D. in Political Science from Florida International University and served as a Visiting Assistant Professor at the University of Arkansas prior to his employment at OU, where he currently teaches.
MESA remains deeply concerned about the circumstances of the detention of Dr. Abedini, a MESA member.
Update: Dr. Abedini has been released from detention.
A political science professor at the University of Arkansas stands accused of praising Iran’s Supreme Leader using the school’s letterhead and attacking Israel, The Post has learned.
Shirin Saeidi, head of the school’s Middle East Studies program, also allegedly supported a convicted Iranian regime war criminal, evidence shows.
Now, lawmakers and a group of Iranian dissidents are demanding administrators at the university further discipline Saeidi, who was removed from her position as director of the Middle Eastern Studies department Friday, although she has retained her position as a professor at the school, according to a spokesman.
Shirin Saeidi, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Arkansas is under probe by the school for using their letterhead to support a convicted Iranian war criminal.University of Arkansas
Saeidi used the school’s letterhead to appeal for the release of Hamid Nouri, who was convicted by a Swedish court in 2022 of ordering the execution of thousands of political prisoners at Gohardasht Prison in 1988, according to the US-based Alliance Against Islamic Regime of Iran Apologists (AAIRIA), which provided a copy to The Post.
Nouri served as the assistant deputy prosecutor at the Karaj prison, outside of Tehran. He was released in a prisoner swap between Iran and Sweden last year.
In posts shared on X in November Saeidi praised ayatollah Ali Khamenei, offering prayers for his protection and noting that he is “the leader who kept Iran intact during the Israeli attack, May god protect you,” referencing the attack against Israel on Oct. 7, 2023 by Hamas terrorists.
She has called Israel a “terrorist state” and a “genocidal state” on X. Saeidi did not respond to a request for comment from The Post.
On Friday, Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador to Israel, denounced Saeidi’s “hate-filled antisemitic venom” in an email to The Post.
“Whether Shirin Saeidi should be fired is a decision for the administration and the UA board. But praising the Iranian leader — who calls not only for the slaughter of Jews but also calls for the destruction of America — makes me think this deranged professor would probably be better suited to being given a one-way ticket to Tehran and taking a job of teaching in their hate-infested schools,” he said.
A spokesman for the university told The Post Friday Saeidi is no longer at the Middle East Studies department and the school is investigating her apparent use of the letterhead “in accordance with university policies.”
Shirin Saeidi used University of Arkansas letterhead to back Hamid Nouri, who presided over the execution of thousands of political prisoners in Iran in 1988.
Before then, AAIRIA activists collected 3,782 signatures on a Change.org petition, urging the university to take action.
“For forty-six years, Iranians have resisted this erasure of their memories, their testimonies, and their courage,” said Lawdan Bazargan, a former political prisoner in Iran and a human rights activist.
“That is why the regime relies on ideologues and useful idiots in Western institutions to launder its image.
Shirin Saeidi praised Iran’s Supreme leader Ali Khameini in social media posts.ZUMAPRESS.com
“Dr. Saeidi’s work is part of that machinery, an academic façade built on falsified narratives to soften the truth about Iran’s prisons and the resistance that takes place inside them.”
Bazargan told The Post the FBI had contacted her in May regarding allegations against Saeidi, which made her and the AAIRIA look into her more closely.
Republican Arkansas State Rep. Mary Bentley told The Post that she was “deeply disturbed” by the allegations against Saeidi.
Iranian human rights activist Masih Alinejad was targeted for death by Iran’s Supreme leader, Ali Khameini. She recently compared Saeidi to Hezbollah terrorists on X.Gabriella Bass
“I can assure you that my constituents do not want their tax dollars being used to support unethical and antisemitic behavior from professors at our public universities,” she said.
Masih Alinejad, an Iranian dissident based in Brooklyn, who was a target of the regime in 2021, called on President Trump to stop the “infiltration” of Iranian regime apologists.
“She regularly attacks me and other human rights activists who dare to stand up to the same dictator,” said Alinejad in a post on X, referring to Saeidi.
Saeidi also endorsement two petitions in 2023 and 2025 against Israel, according to the AAIRA.
“You can’t get any more antisemitic that,” said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, the associate dean of the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center. Only a week after the horrors on Oct 7, Saeidi chose to whitewash the terrorist crimes of Hamas.”
For a number of years now, Finland has promoted various anti-Israel BDS organizations. Just to name a few – BDS Finland, ICAHD Finland, the Finish Palestine Network, Boykotoi apardheidia, Student for Palestine Finland, Finland Against Apartheid, etc.
Recently, the Tampere University Academics Association (TATTE), the trade union for academic employees, published a statement on its website titled “Statement on ending institutional cooperation with Israeli universities and other complicit organizations.” The statement was approved by the TATTE autumn assembly on November 20, 2025.
The statement claims that Israel’s destructive actions in Gaza have been “recognized as a genocide.” And that “the longstanding patterns of colonization, occupation, dispossession, blockade, and apartheid that preceded the genocide in Gaza continue across the Palestinian territories, including within the 1948 borders of the Israeli state where Palestinian citizens face political repression and ‘second-class’ citizenship status. In such conditions, research and higher education cannot continue as normal. All universities in Gaza have been destroyed, and many academics and students have been killed. Palestinian universities and academics in the West Bank operate under repression, surveillance, forced closures, restricted mobility, and military raids, and Palestinian students and academics within the state of Israel’s 1948 borders face unequal treatment and the risk of imprisonment when speaking out.”
It argued that “Israeli universities are tightly woven into the Israeli state’s settler colonial project, including through research on military and dual use technologies, the development of legal and technical expertise needed for state projects, the training of military personnel, the production of ideological justifications and rationales, and the policing of dissent, especially by Palestinian students and academics. At this point, the authors of this statement added a note saying, “For a detailed account, see Maya Wind (2024) Towers of Ivory and Steel. Verso.” Maya Wind was discredited by IAM in 2024. Similarly, her book was discredited by Prof. Barak Medina of the Hebrew University, who wrote, “Wind completely ignores basic relevant historical and normative aspects. For instance, she provides a partial and hence misleading description of the background to Israel’s foundation… Wind deliberately fails to mention the relevant facts, namely that in 1947, a UN committee, which conducted a thorough investigation, has recommended that two states, one Jewish and one Arab…. Wind strongly opposes to the idea of a Jewish and democratic state, neglecting to offer any argument why only the Palestinian people are entitled to the collective right to self-determination but not the Jewish people.”
According to the TATTE statement, “Palestinian civil society, including scholarly associations and trade unions, have called for international solidarity, especially in the form of boycotts and disinvestment campaigns that would pressure the Israeli state to end its colonial and genocidal actions and create the conditions in which genocide, occupation, blockade, and apartheid would end, political prisoners would be set free, and Palestinian refugees would be able to return to their land as full political equals.”
TATTE “joins the call for an academic boycott of complicit Israeli universities and urges Tampere University to end cooperation with complicit Israeli academic institutions, incorporate human rights criteria into its institutional partnership decisions, take a stand against the inclusion of Israeli institutions in EU-funded initiatives, and to divest from companies complicit in human rights violations.”
The statement calls on Tampere University to, “Incorporate substantive human rights criteria into the due diligence process for all institutional partnership decisions, and, accordingly, to refrain from establishing any institutional partnerships with Israeli universities and other complicit organizations. Cease institutional research cooperation with Israeli universities, including by suspending cooperation in future projects. There should be clear guidelines discouraging institutional research cooperation, and no new Horizon Europe projects that include Israeli academic institutions should be started. Following the example of Ghent University, any such ongoing projects should be reviewed with a priority to discontinue the cooperation with the complicit Israeli institutions, i.e., restructuring cooperation, rather than ending or leaving the project if possible. Tampere University should ensure a fair transition and take responsibility for any costs involved in changing the projects and compensate for researchers’ losses. Advocate that the European Commission exclude Israeli partners from European Union-funded programmes and projects. We hope that Tampere University will follow the example of the University of Helsinki and endorse the Belgian universities’ call for the suspension of the Association Agreement between Israel and the European Union.”
The call requests a full suspension of Israel from Horizon Europe research programs.
The call urges the University to “Facilitate and advocate for the freedom of movement and the continued study and research of Palestinian students and academics, including through encouraging cooperation with Palestinian institutions, enabling mobility to Tampere University, and developing substantive and accessible online learning opportunities. Also, we urge the university to consider offering tuition fee scholarships or waivers for students of Palestinian universities and further supporting and developing the protection actions of programs like Scholars at Risk.”
According to the statement, the call aligns with Tampere University’s values of building “a sustainable world” and “developing solutions to improve human health and wellbeing, societal resilience, and environmental sustainability” (Strategy of Tampere University 2030), and its aim “to address global challenges, such as the ecological crisis and threats to democracy” (Tampere University’s International strategy 2030).
For the statement’s authors, “upholding the university’s stated values of societal responsibility and courage to tackle the world’s vicious problems has to mean advocating for human rights and refusing complicity in the colonial and genocidal actions of the Israeli state that are attacking the fundamental conditions of Palestinian life and of Palestinian research and higher education.”
TATTE published a similar statement last September, titled “Statement in Support of Ending Institutional Collaboration with Israeli Academic Institutions.”
TATTE also published a statement in May 2024, titled “TATTE’s statement of support for the Palestine solidarity camp at Tampere University,” where they thanked the students for erecting solidarity camps on campus and urged colleagues and the entire university community to visit the encampment, to learn from the students and to “find ways to respond to their call for action and their example of solidarity.”
IAM noted before that Palestinians and pro-Palestinians are taking over professional academic institutions.
The statement’s requests are indicative of this, when it urges to “Facilitate and advocate for the freedom of movement and the continued study and research of Palestinian students and academics, including through encouraging cooperation with Palestinian institutions” and “urge the university to consider offering tuition fee scholarships or waivers for students of Palestinian universities.”
Another example is when the statement contains claims that while the University holds values of building “a sustainable world” and “developing solutions to improve human health… and environmental sustainability,” or the “global challenges, such as the ecological crisis and threats to democracy,” however, for the authors, it “has to mean advocating for human rights and refusing complicity in the colonial and genocidal actions of the Israeli state that are attacking the fundamental conditions of Palestinian life and of Palestinian research and higher education.”
Without acknowledging the brutality of Hamas in Gaza and the “pay to slay” policy of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, the TATTE statement provides a twisted reality of what Israel is facing.
The growing tendency of some academic groups—such as TATTE and similar collectives—to adopt sharply anti-Israel positions requires a response that is both principled and grounded in academic norms. The first step is to emphasize the distinction between legitimate scholarly criticism and ideologically driven activism that singles out Israel in ways inconsistent with how other states are treated.
When academic organizations adopt resolutions, statements, or syllabi that portray Israel as uniquely malevolent while ignoring regional context, internal plurality, or comparable human-rights concerns elsewhere, they risk abandoning scholarly rigor for advocacy.
The various resolutions are based on selective framing and a lack of comparative standards.
Many anti-Israel academic statements rely on selective historical narratives, excluding key facts such as the regional security environments, internal Israeli political diversity, or the role of non-state armed actors. A critical reply should underscore that serious academic inquiry requires comparative analysis and methodological consistency, not exceptionalism applied only to Israel.
When academic groups adopt activist positions as institutional stances, they risk undermining academic freedom. Scholars who dissent may feel marginalized or professionally threatened. A balanced response should assert that universities and scholarly associations exist to uphold the purity of ideas, not to enforce a single ideological line on complex international conflicts.
Strong anti-Israeli postures often create a hostile climate for Israeli scholars, students, and Jewish students and faculty who hold mainstream or centrist views. Responses should foreground that academic spaces must be inclusive and safe for all members, regardless of nationality or identity, and that one-sided statements can unintentionally fuel bias or social pressure.
Statement on ending institutional cooperation with Israeli universities and other complicit organizations
Tampereen yliopiston tieteentekijät – TATTE
25.11.2025
The current situation in Palestine demands action. The Israeli state’s destructive actions in Gaza since October 2023, in which more than 68,000 Palestinians have been killed, have been recognized as a genocide by the UN Human Rights Council’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as well recognized as a plausible genocide by the International Court of Justice and has resulted in war crimes charges from the International Criminal Court. It has also been condemned as a genocide by leading international civil society organizations from Amnesty International to B’Tselum to the International Association of Genocide Scholars. The current ‘ceasefire’ has not ended the killing, and starvation due to the Israeli refusals to allow aid to enter Gaza continues. More broadly, the longstanding patterns of colonization, occupation, dispossession, blockade, and apartheid that preceded the genocide in Gaza continue across the Palestinian territories, including within the 1948 borders of the Israeli state where Palestinian citizens face political repression and ‘second-class’ citizenship status.
In such conditions, research and higher education cannot continue as normal. All universities in Gaza have been destroyed, and many academics and students have been killed. Palestinian universities and academics in the West Bank operate under repression, surveillance, forced closures, restricted mobility, and military raids, and Palestinian students and academics within the state of Israel’s 1948 borders face unequal treatment and the risk of imprisonment when speaking out.Israeli universities are tightly woven into the Israeli state’s settler colonial project, including through research on military and dual use technologies, the development of legal and technical expertise needed for state projects, the training of military personnel, the production of ideological justifications and rationales, and the policing of dissent, especially by Palestinian students and academics.¹
In response, Palestinian civil society, including scholarly associations and trade unions, have called for international solidarity, especially in the form of boycotts and disinvestment campaigns that would pressure the Israeli state to end its colonial and genocidal actions and create the conditions in which genocide, occupation, blockade, and apartheid would end, political prisoners would be set free, and Palestinian refugees would be able to return to their land as full political equals.
In this statement, Tatte joins the call for an academic boycott of complicit Israeli universities and urges Tampere University to end cooperation with complicit Israeli academic institutions, incorporate human rights criteria into its institutional partnership decisions, take a stand against the inclusion of Israeli institutions in EU-funded initiatives, and to divest from companies complicit in human rights violations. In joining this call, we are following the important leadership of so many students and academic colleagues here in Tampere and around Finland who have been demanding a response to the genocide in Gaza. We join with our Tieteentekijät colleagues at the Helsinki University Association of Researchers and Teachers (HUART) who took an important stand earlier this fall, as well as the calls for the academic boycott within the student union organizations, including by the National Union of University Students in Finland (SYL), the Student Union of the University of Helsinki (HYY), and the Student Union of Tampere University (TREY). We also join academic unions around the world who have taken similar stands, such as the Teachers Union of Ireland, NTL at the University of Oslo, UCU Cambridge, and the National Tertiary Education Union in Australia.
Specifically, we call on Tampere University to:
Incorporate substantive human rights criteria into the due diligence process for all institutional partnership decisions, and, accordingly, to refrain from establishing any institutional partnerships with Israeli universities and other complicit organizations.
Cease institutional research cooperation with Israeli universities, including by suspending cooperation in future projects. There should be clear guidelines discouraging institutional research cooperation, and no new Horizon Europe projects that include Israeli academic institutions should be started. Following the example of Ghent University, any such ongoing projects should be reviewed with a priority to discontinue the cooperation with the complicit Israeli institutions, i.e., restructuring cooperation, rather than ending or leaving the project if possible. Tampere University should ensure a fair transition and take responsibility for any costs involved in changing the projects and compensate for researchers’ losses.
Create clear guidelines banning investments in companies that are complicit in human rights violations (in Palestine, as well as in any other territory or conflict). These guidelines should also cover indirect investments made through equity funds.
Facilitate and advocate for the freedom of movement and the continued study and research of Palestinian students and academics, including through encouraging cooperation with Palestinian institutions, enabling mobility to Tampere University, and developing substantive and accessible online learning opportunities. Also, we urge the university to consider offering tuition fee scholarships or waivers for students of Palestinian universities and further supporting and developing the protection actions of programs like Scholars at Risk.
Our call focuses on institutions, not individuals. Nothing in this call should be interpreted to prevent individual-level scientific cooperation with academics who are based at Israeli institutions, unless those individuals hold positions officially representing the institution, such as a Dean or Rector.
This call aligns with Tampere University’s own values, and taking these steps could strengthen the university’s credibility as it pursues its strategic goals of building “a sustainable world” and “developing solutions to improve human health and wellbeing, societal resilience, and environmental sustainability” (Strategy of Tampere University 2030), as well as its aim “to address global challenges, such as the ecological crisis and threats to democracy” (Tampere University’s International strategy 2030). In our view, upholding the university’s stated values of societal responsibility and courage to tackle the world’s vicious problems has to mean advocating for human rights and refusing complicity in the colonial and genocidal actions of the Israeli state that are attacking the fundamental conditions of Palestinian life and of Palestinian research and higher education.
In making this call, Tatte also commits to taking the following steps:
Undertake a review of our investments to ensure we are not currently investing money in companies that are complicit in human rights violations, including especially those companies that are complicit in illegal Israeli settlement activity in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as listed in the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights database. We have no direct investments in such companies, and the review will focus on indirect investments.
Create guidelines for the investment of our funds that prohibit investment in companies complicit in human rights violations and support ethical and sustainable investment.
Explore further possibilities for solidarity and direct support for Palestinian scholars and academics, as well as support for Palestinian-led initiatives in strengthening the conditions for academic research and higher education.
Encourage other unions and local associations to undertake similar processes with their own actions and investments.
Approved by Tatte’s 2025 Autumn Assembly, November 20
¹For a detailed account, see Maya Wind (2024) Towers of Ivory and Steel. Verso.
Statement in Support of Ending Institutional Collaboration with Israeli Academic Institutions
Helsingin yliopiston tieteentekijät – HYT
03.09.2025
Statement approved in HUART additional general meeting on Sep 2 2025.
The current situation in Palestine is critical and demands action from all sectors. Since October 2023, tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed, hundreds of thousands injured, and vast swaths of Gaza’s infrastructure have been destroyed. Israel has blocked humanitarian aid and basic goods distribution to the Gaza Strip, creating a man-made famine.
We believe the University of Helsinki has both the responsibility and opportunity to meaningfully contribute to diplomatic efforts to force the Israeli government to end the war now, and bring an end to the genocide, blockade and occupation of Palestine, by joining the rapidly growing calls at an EU level for an academic boycott of Israeli academic institutions. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the University to uphold and implement its own ethical guidelines, rather than shifting responsibility to individual researchers.
The situation facing academics and universities in Palestine
In recent months, every university and college in the Gaza Strip has been demolished by Israeli airstrikes. Most academic staff and students have been displaced, and many have been killed. The UN has described this as “scholasticide” – an intentional effort to comprehensively destroy the Palestinian education system.
In the West Bank, universities operate under a constant state of siege, facing closures and military raids. Entry for international students and staff is strictly controlled by Israeli authorities, and the ability of Palestinian academics to travel abroad or participate in international collaborations is subject to Israeli approval.
Israeli academic institution’s involvement in war
Israeli institutions of higher education have long been complicit in sustaining the occupation and enabling war crimes. Many maintain close ties with the Israeli military, contributing to the development of weapons, legal frameworks, and strategic doctrines that support the ongoing colonization and violence. Several universities offer special programs for active-duty soldiers and collaborate directly with the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). For detailed documentation on this point, we refer to the work of scholar Maya Wind, author of the book Towers of Ivory and Steel: How Israeli Universities Deny Palestinian Freedom.
University of Helsinki’s Ethical Guidelines and academic freedom
As members of the University of Helsinki community, we all commit to the University’s Ethical Guidelines, which emphasise the promotion of universal human rights and the defense of academic freedom in all university operations. On the basis of these guidelines, certain aspects of work with institutions from Russia and China have been restricted.
The University of Helsinki has numerous connections to Israeli universities that are deeply and inextricably embedded in Israel’s acts of war in Gaza. Maintaining such links amounts to being complicit in the ongoing genocide and innumerable war crimes in Gaza. We believe the higher education sector has a moral responsibility to abstain from and actively reject complicity in such abuses. In line with this ethical obligation, HUART calls on the University of Helsinki to support the BDS 1-led academic boycott campaign, which seeks an institutional boycott of Israeli universities..
Support for staff members and researchers at University of Helsinki
Recently, 740 staff members and researchers at the University of Helsinki signed a petition in support of an academic boycott of Israeli institutions. We believe there is an even greater number of staff at the University who support such action, and as a trade union representing over 1600 members of our staff community, we are adding our voice to the campaign.
The university leadership’s response failed to take the demands seriously and avoids any responsibility or commitment to action. Moreover, it is worrying how university leaders have responded to members of the university community (both staff and students) who have raised this issue during the past year and a half. As a trade union, we are concerned by the claims that those who share information about the academic boycott or the situation in Palestine have faced threats and intimidation, and that requests to meet and engage in dialogue have been ignored, and peaceful protests have been shut down. Even more worrying are the reports that staff members’ attempts to communicate information about the boycott have been met with invitations to disciplinary hearings under the threat of a written warning, and the leadership has attempted to isolate the employees by aggressively scheduling the hearings and by limiting the representation the employee is allowed to bring with them. This pattern of repression is deeply troubling and undermines the values of academic freedom, open discussion, and democratic participation within the university.
Therefore, we reiterate that the University of Helsinki should:
Immediately revoke the two existing exchange agreements with Tel Aviv University and Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and not establish others;
Cease research cooperation with Israeli universities, including:
Suspend cooperation in future projects. New Horizon Europe projects that include Israeli institutions should not be started 2;
Review ongoing projects case-by-case. The priority would be to exclude the Israeli institution rather than ending or leaving the project, and UH should bear the responsibility of the costs that changing/editing projects might imply and compensate for researchers’ losses. See an example of this from Ghent University;
Develop clear guidelines discouraging cooperation, in support of a fair transition, and urge the European Commission to exclude Israeli partners from EU-funded programmes and projects. In line with this, UH should endorse the Belgian universities’ call for the suspension of the Association Agreement between Israel and the European Union.
Create clear guidelines banning UH investments in companies that are complicit in human rights violations (currently in Palestine, as well as in any other territory or conflict). These guidelines should also cover indirect investments made through equity funds.
Facilitate and advocate the freedom movement of Palestinian students and academics between the Palestinian territories (Gaza, West Bank) and the University of Helsinki.
As a trade union, we view it as a moral, political, and professional obligation to stand in full solidarity with fellow academic workers and the Palestinian people who are victims of genocide. In calling for an institutional academic boycott, we join other unions who have taken a stand, including the Teachers’ Union of Ireland, the University and College Union (UCU) in the UK, and NTL at the University of Oslo.
We emphasize that this boycott targets institutions, not individuals. Academic collaboration with individuals who openly oppose Israel’s occupation and war policies will not be affected. However, individuals acting in official institutional capacities, such as rectors and deans, may still fall under the scope of the boycott.
HUART Commitments
While calling on the University of Helsinki to take steps to undertake an academic boycott of Israeli institutions, HUART also commits to ensuring our own operations meet the standards we demand from the University. Therefore, HUART is undertaking the following steps:
Undertake a review of our investment portfolio to ensure we are not currently investing money in companies that are complicit in human rights violations. As a guide, we refer to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights database. A first review of our investments has found no investments in companies listed in the OHCHR’s database.
We will create guidelines for the investment of our funds that prohibit investment in companies complicit in human rights violations and support ethical and sustainable investment.
We will encourage other unions and local associations to undertake similar processes with their own investments.
Finally, HUART reaffirms its opposition to all forms of discrimination, including antisemitism and Islamophobia. Criticism of the State of Israel is not antisemitism.
1 The Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement is a Palestinian-led global campaign that seeks to apply non-violent pressure on Israel to comply with international law and respect Palestinian rights. It calls for the end of Israeli occupation, equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel, and the right of return for Palestinian refugees. Inspired by the South African anti-apartheid movement, BDS advocates for institutional boycotts, divestment from companies complicit in human rights abuses, and sanctions against the Israeli state.
2 Recently, the European Commission voted on a proposal for the partial suspension of Israel’s participation in Horizon Europe, specifically under the Accelerator program of the European Innovation Council (EIC). The EIC Accelerator is a funding programme aimed at start-ups and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). This partial suspension targets start-ups and small businesses working on disruptive innovations and emerging technologies with potential dual-use applications. It would not impact the participation of Israeli universities and researchers in collaborative projects and research activities under Horizon Europe. Therefore, the proposal appears insufficient, and it would not even affect UH-related Horizon projects directly. However, to the date (2nd Sep) the proposal has not yet been approved.
TATTE’s statement of support for the Palestine solidarity camp at Tampere University
Tampereen yliopiston tieteentekijät – TATTE
15.05.2024
In recent weeks, students around the world have been raising their voices to demand an end to the violence being inflicted on Palestinians in Gaza and calling on universities to understand and to end their complicity with genocide and occupation in Palestine. Here in Tampere, students have set up a Palestine solidarity camp in front of the Main Building on the city center campus.
Responding to calls from Palestinian academics and unions last fall, TATTE has called for a ceasefire and for an end to occupation and apartheid in Palestine, and we welcome the students’ continued action and leadership in this moment, when so much is at stake.
This kind of activism is an important part of university life that deserves protection and support. We thank the students for leading the way in pushing the university community to reckon with our responsibilities, and for being the critical voices that many of us as researchers and teachers seek to support in our work. We urge our members and the entire university community to visit the encampment, to learn from and about what the students are doing, and to find ways to respond to their call for action and their example of solidarity. You can also find out more about the camp, current donation needs, etc. from their instagram account: @tuni_leikkauksiavastaan.
Last week, the University College London (UCL) Faculty of Laws hosted a lecture by Professor Ralph Wilde, titled: “As Bad as it Gets for the Palestinian People in International Law: Aggression, genocide, apartheid and other racism, denial of self-determination, crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture perpetrated against the Palestinian people through the existence and actions of Israel.”
According to the event invitation, Wilde is presented as “one of the foremost experts on international law and Palestine,” with experience advising the PLO and Palestinian human rights organizations, and serving as Counsel before the ICJ and ICC in cases concerning Palestine, including the South Africa v. Israel genocide allegation.
Pro-Palestinian media outlet Middle East Eye similarly describes Wilde as having argued “in academic publications and before the ICJ, on behalf of the Arab League, that the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank is illegal.”
In an April interview with Al-Jazeera, Wilde went further, asserting that Israel has used force “since 1967 continuously,” and that on October 6, 2023, Israel was “already exercising military authority over Gaza… illegally.” Therefore, “In that situation, when a state is using force illegally, if there is violent resistance to that illegal use of force, the state’s use of force does not somehow then become lawful as a means of defence to that defence. There is no defence against defence.” – This is Wilde’s formulation that denies Israel the right to respond militarily to attacks originating from Gaza.
Wilde also submitted written evidence to the UK Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee during its inquiry into the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. His December 2024 document, titled “Palestine, Israel and International Law,” reintroduces his familiar narrative: that Israel’s presence in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem is “illegal in its very existence;” that the ICJ’s July 2024 Advisory Opinion represents an authoritative determination of this illegality; and that all states, including the UK, are legally obligated to end and avoid assisting Israel’s presence.
Wilde stresses that his submissions to the ICJ on behalf of the Arab League are based on his academic writings, which he claims formed “the basis for the determination of existential illegality made by the ICJ and UNGA.” He also points to a legal opinion he authored for the Palestinian NGO Al-Haq Europe, arguing that states must not recognize or support Israel’s presence in the territories.
Wilde goes beyond legal analysis and ventures into historical revisionism. He argues that a “more-than-century-long colonial, racist effort to establish a Jewish state in Palestine” necessarily involved the “extermination or forced displacement” of non-Jewish communities. He describes Zionism as inherently racist, asserts that demographic realities in the Mandate period made Jewish statehood illegitimate, and labels the creation of Israel in 1948 an “illegal secession” and a violation of Palestinian self-determination.
He claims that the Palestinian people enjoyed a legally recognized right of self-determination under Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, that the Balfour Declaration was incorporated into the Mandate “ultra vires,” that the 1947 Partition Plan violated international law, and that “the Shoah did not justify the Nakba.”
According to Wilde, “Palestine was, legally, a single territory with a single population enjoying a right of self-determination on a unitary basis” before 1948.
Wilde further argues that Israel’s failure to end the occupation gives the Palestinians a legal “right to resist,” describing Israel’s current military operations in Gaza not as a response to the Oct. 7 massacres but as a continuation of force allegedly used since 1967.
Wilde’s historical assertions collapse under scrutiny. He misrepresents Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, which does not mention Palestine. It states only that certain former Ottoman communities could be provisionally recognized as independent nations. Wilde’s sweeping interpretation has no basis in the text and ignores the political realities of the Mandate system.
Wilde’s anachronistic claims about a distinct “Palestinian People” are false. In the early Mandate era, there was no recognized political entity or nation-state known as “Palestine” representing a unified “Palestinian people” in the modern national sense Wilde applies. According to his logic, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Jordan—also Mandate creations—should likewise be deemed illegitimate.
Wilde’s treatment of the Holocaust is selective and misleading. He overlooks the fact that Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem and leader of the Arabs in Mandatory Palestine, was a Nazi collaborator who directly contributed to Jewish persecution during the Holocaust. Erasing this history amounts to Holocaust distortion and is itself a form of antisemitism. So, too, is denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination.
Strikingly, Wilde’s narrative does not mention Hamas at all. He ignores that Hamas is a recognized terrorist organization that rules Gaza by force, openly calls for Israel’s destruction, and carries out mass atrocities against Israeli civilians. By dismissing or excusing the actions of Hamas—while framing the Israeli force as unlawful—Wilde aligns himself with a terrorist organization rather than engage in balanced legal analysis.
Professor Wilde’s lecture and writings present a legally unsound and historically distorted narrative that reframes Israel’s very existence as a violation of international law. His omissions, selective citations, and political affiliations reveal not a neutral legal scholar but a partisan advocate whose arguments undermine academic integrity. By rewriting the history of the Mandate, distorting the context of the Holocaust, and ignoring the role of Hamas, Wilde advances a polemical agenda that serves Palestinian political interests and those of the Arab League—not objective international law.
University College London (UCL) is set to host a major academic talk by Professor Ralph Wilde, Professor of International Law at UCL, titled “As Bad as it Gets for the Palestinian People in International Law: Aggression, genocide, apartheid and other racism, denial of self-determination, crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture perpetrated against the Palestinian people through the existence and actions of Israel,” which will take place on 27 November 2025 from 18:00 to 20:00 (London time).
Professor Wilde is one of the foremost experts on international law and Palestine, having held senior roles in major international law associations, taught at leading institutions such as Harvard, Yale, NYU, Georgetown-Qatar and Al Quds University, received the American Society of International Law’s book prize, advised the PLO and key Palestinian human rights organisations, and served as Counsel before the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice in major cases concerning Palestine, including the ongoing South Africa v Israel genocide case.
The event will be introduced by Professor Izzat Darwazeh, Professor of Communications Engineering at UCL, and chaired by Professor Maria Aristodemou, Professor of Law Emerita at Birkbeck, University of London.
This talk offers an in-depth legal analysis of the ongoing crimes committed against the Palestinian people, situating them within the framework of international law, and highlighting the responsibilities of states, global institutions, and civil society in confronting and responding to these violations.
About this talk As Bad as it Gets for the Palestinian People in International Law: Aggression, genocide, apartheid and other racism, denial of self-determination, crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture perpetrated against the Palestinian people through the existence and actions of Israel.
Speaker: Ralph Wilde, Professor of International law, UCL
Introduction: Izzat Darwazeh, Professor of Communications Engineering, UCL
Chair: Maria Aristodemou, Professor of Law Emerita, Birkbeck, University of London
About the speaker: Ralph Wilde is Professor of International Law at UCL. He has served on the Executive bodies of the American and European Societies of International Law and the International Law Association, and held visiting posts at Al Quds University in Palestine, Georgetown-Qatar, Harvard, NYU and Yale, and was the Peace Fellow at the Åland Islands Peace Institute. His OUP book on international territorial administration and international trusteeship over people was awarded the book prize of the American Society of International Law; his publications on international law and the Palestinian people include articles in the Palestine Yearbook of International Law and the Journal of the History of International Law. He served as a legal advisor on international law to the PLO during the peace negotiations with Israel, and to the Palestinian human rights NGOs Al-Haq and the Jerusalem Human Rights Consortium; as Counsel before the International Criminal Court concerning Palestine for the Palestine Independent Commission on Human Rights and the Arab League; and as Counsel before the International Court of Justice for the Arab League in the 2024 Advisory Opinion case on the illegality of Israel’s presence in the occupied Palestinian territory (OPT), for Bolivia in the 2025 Advisory Opinion case on Israel’s duties to the UN and States in the OPT, and for the Gaza-based Palestine Centre for Human Rights NGO in the current South Africa v Israel case concerning the Genocide Convention.
Written evidence, UK Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee Inquiry, ‘The Israeli-Palestinian conflict’
Written evidence submitted by Dr Ralph Wilde, Professor of International Law, University College London (IPC0022)
1. Introduction
I am a university academic and legal practitioner before international courts. My expertise is in international law, including as it relates to Palestine and Israel. I acted as Senior Counsel and Legal Advisor to the League of Arab States in the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East JerusalemAdvisory Opinion case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The landmark 19 July 2024 ruling in that case is one of the most, if not the most, significant judicial decisions ever rendered in international law. Although not itself a legally-binding judgment, it is an authoritative determination of what international law—which is binding—means. Its main findings were endorsed, and supplemented, by the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in its resolution of 13 September 2024. The ICJ and UNGA affirmed a profound shift of focus, compared to certain existing approaches, notably by most western States including the UK, on the question of the occupation’s legality: the Israeli presence in the Palestinian Gaza Strip and West Bank, including East Jerusalem—the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT)—is illegal in not only its conduct, but also its very existence, as a violation of the legal right of self-determination of the Palestinian people, and the prohibition of annexation through the use of force in the law on the use of force. Consequently, in the words of the ICJ, it must be brought to an end “as rapidly as possible”.
The submissions I made for the League of Arab States in the case (see here, here, and here) were based on ideas in my academic writing (see here, here, here, here, here, and here). These academic ideas were adopted by many of the other participants in the proceedings, and, ultimately, formed the basis for the determination of existential illegality made by the ICJ and the UNGA. I subsequently published an expert legal opinion for the Palestinian NGO Al Haq Europe, explaining the significance of this determination, and the consequential legal obligations that all states, including the UK, have to bring the illegality to an end, and not to recognize or aid or assist Israel in maintaining it.
In what follows, I draw on the foregoing to explain the international law aspects of the Palestine-Israel situation, writing in my personal capacity only.
2. More than century-long denial of self-determination of, and war against, the Palestinian people, on the basis of racism
The Palestinian people have been denied the exercise of their legal right to self-determination through the more-than century-long violent, colonial, racist effort to establish a nation-state exclusively for the Jewish people in the land of Mandatory Palestine.
When this began in earnest after the First World War, the Jewish population there was 11 per cent. Forcibly implementing Zionism in this demographic context has necessarily involved the extermination, or forced displacement, of some of the non-Jewish Palestinian population; the exercise of domination over, and subjugation, dispossession and immiseration of, remaining non-Jewish Palestinians; the emigration to that land of Jewish people, regardless of any direct personal link; and the denial of Palestinian refugees the right to return. All operating through a racist distinction privileging Jewish people over non-Jewish Palestinian people.
This has necessitated serious violations of all the fundamentalrules of international law: the right of self-determination; the prohibitions of aggression, genocide, crimes against humanity, racial discrimination, apartheid, and torture; and the core protections of international humanitarian law.
3. Palestinian self-determination under Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant
The legal right of self-determination of the Palestinian people originates in the “sacred trust” obligations of Article 22 of the League Covenant, part of the Versailles Treaty. Palestine, an ‘A’ class Mandate under British colonial rule, was, after the First World War, supposed to have its existence as an independent state “provisionally recognized”: A sui generis legal right of self-determination.
The UK and other members of the League Council attempted to bypass this, incorporating the 1917 Balfour Declaration commitment to establishing a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine into the instrument stipulating how the Mandate would operate. However, the Council had no legal power to bypass the Covenant in this way. It acted ultra vires, and the relevant provisions were, legally, void. There was and is no legal basis in that Mandate instrument for either a specifically Jewish state in Palestine, or the UK’s failure to discharge the “sacred trust” obligation to implement Palestinian self-determination.
4. Self-determination in international law after the Second World War—an additional right
After the Second World War, a self-determination right applicable to colonial peoples generally crystallized in international law.
For the Palestinian people, this essentially corresponded to, and supplemented, the pre-existing Covenant right, regarding the same, single, territorial unit. The 1947 proposal to partition Palestine into two states was contrary to this; the Arab rejection an affirmation of the legal status quo.
In 1948, then, Palestine was, legally, a single territory with a single population enjoying a right of self-determination on a unitary basis.
5. Nakba in 1948—violation of self-determination, and creation of a regime involving an ongoing violation of this right, as well as racial discrimination and apartheid, and a denial of the right to return
Despite the foregoing, a State of Israel, specifically for Jewish people, was proclaimed in 1948 by those controlling 78%—more than three quarters—of Palestine, accompanied by the killing and forced displacement of a significant number of the non-Jewish Palestinian population—the Nakba, catastrophe.
There was no international legal basis for the creation of a state exclusively for one racial and religious group—the Jewish people—on land populated not only by members of this group, but also non-Jewish Palestinian people. In particular, there was no legal basis for creating this state to protect the Jewish people from discrimination, displacement and extermination, in the light of the Holocaust, if this necessitated discrimination, displacement and extermination of the non-Jewish Palestinian population of the land in question. The Shoah did not justify the Nakba. There was and is no international legal rule requiring a non-European people, the Palestinian people, not responsible for the discrimination, displacement and extermination of the Jewish people of Europe by other Europeans, to pay the price for that through their own discrimination, displacement and extermination.
The illegal secession involved in the proclamation of Israeli statehood was an egregious violation of Palestinian self-determination. This statehood was recognized, and Israel admitted as a UN member, despite this illegality. Israel is not the legal continuation or successor of the Mandate.
This violation of Palestinian self-determination is ongoing, and unresolved. Two key elements are as follows. In the first place, Palestinian people not displaced from the land proclaimed to be of Israel in 1948, and their descendants, have been forced to live as citizens—presently they constitute 17.2 per cent—of a state conceived to be of and for another racial group, under the domination of that group, necessarily treated as second-class, because of their race. In the second place, Palestinian people displaced from that land, and their descendants, are prevented from returning.
These are serious breaches of the right of self-determination, the prohibitions of racial discrimination and apartheid, and the right of return. These serious violations must end, immediately.
6. 1967 Israeli capture of the Palestinian Gaza Strip and West Bank
As if the ongoing Nakba was not catastrophic enough, in 1967, Israel captured the remaining 22% of historic Palestine—the Gaza Strip and West Bank, including East Jerusalem—the Naksa. It has maintained that use of force to remain in control for the 57-year period since.
7. Illegal racial domination—apartheid—from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea
For more than half a century, therefore, a state defined to be of and for Jewish people exclusively has governed the entire land of Palestine and the Palestinian people there. And the regime of racial domination—apartheid—and denying the right of return, has been extended throughout. In the case of Palestinians living in the occupied territory, this has involved the same serious violations of international law, supplemented by serious violations of norms applicable in occupied territory.
Indeed, these people are subject to an even more extreme form of racist domination, as they aren’t even citizens of the state exercising authority over them. Even in East Jerusalem, which Israel has purported to annex, the majority non-Jewish Palestinian residents do not have citizenship, whereas Jewish residents, including illegal settlers, are citizens.
Just as in territorial Israel, in occupied territory, these serious violations concerning how Israel exercises authority over the Palestinian people must end immediately.
However, here, a more fundamental matter must also be addressed. The illegality of the exercise of authority itself.
8. Gaza Strip and West Bank as Palestinian territory—consequently, Israel’s purported annexation, and attempted colonization, are illegal
The enduring Palestinian legal right of self-determination means that the Palestinian people, and the State of Palestine, not Israel, are sovereign over the territory Israel captured in 1967. For Israel, this land is extraterritorial, and, given what was said about the Mandate, territory over which it has no legal sovereign entitlement.
Despite this, Israel has purported to annex East Jerusalem, and taken various actions there and in the rest of the West Bank constituting purported annexation, including implanting Jewish settlements. It is Israeli policy that Israel should be, not only the exclusive authority over the entire land between the river and the sea, but also the exclusive sovereignauthority there.
This constitutes a complete repudiation of the existence of Palestinian self-determination as a legal right, since it empties the right entirely of any territorial content.
Actualizing it through purported annexation, is, first, a serious violation of Palestinian self-determination and, second, a serious violation of the prohibition on the purported acquisition of territory through force in the law on the use of force, and so an aggression.Serious violations of further areas of the law regulating the conduct of the occupation are also being perpetrated, notably the prohibitions on implanting settlements and altering, unless absolutely prevented, the economic, legal, political, social and religious status quo.
The occupation is, therefore, existentially illegal because of its use to actualize purported annexation. To end this serious illegality, it must be terminated, Israel must renounce all sovereignty claims, and all settlements must be removed. Immediately.
However, this is not the only basis on which the occupation’s existential legality must be assessed. It is also necessary to account for the law of self-determination, and the law on the use of force.
9. Self-determination as a right to be self-governing, requiring the occupation to end immediately
The right of self-determination, when applied to the Palestinian people in the territory Israel captured in 1967, is a right to be entirely self-governing, free from Israeli domination.
Consequently, the Palestinian people have a legal right to the immediate end of the occupation. And Israel has a corelative legal duty to immediately terminate the occupation.
This right exists and operates simply and exclusively because the Palestinian people are entitled to it. It does not depend on others agreeing to its realization. It is a right.
It is a repudiation of ‘trusteeship’, whereby colonial peoples were ostensibly to be granted freedom only if and when they were deemed ‘ready’, because of their stage of ‘development’ determined by the racist standard of civilization. The anti-colonial self-determination rule replaced this with a right based on the automatic, immediate entitlement of all people to freedom, without preconditions. In the words of UN General Assembly Resolution 1514, “inadequacy of preparedness should never serve as a pretext for denying independence”.
Some suggest that the Palestinian people were offered, and rejected, deals that could have ended the occupation. And, therefore, Israel can maintain it, pending a settlement. Even assuming, arguendo, the veracity of this account, the ‘deals’ involved a further loss of the sovereign territory of the Palestinian people.
Israel cannot lawfully demand concessions on Palestinian rights as the price for ending its impediment to Palestinian freedom. This would mean Israel using force to coerce the Palestinian people to give up some of their fundamental legal rights: illegal in the law on the use of force, and, necessarily, voiding the relevant terms of any agreement reached. The Palestinian people are legally entitled to reject a further loss of land over which they have an exclusive, fundamental legal right. Any such rejection makes no difference to Israel’s immediate legal obligation to end the occupation.
10. The occupation as an illegal use of force in the law on the use of force
Israel’s exercise of control over the Palestinian territory since 1967, as a military occupation, is an ongoing use of force. As such, its existential legality is determined by the law on the use of force, as a general matter, beyond the specific issue of annexation.
Israel captured the Gaza Strip and West Bank from, respectively, Egypt and Jordan, in the war it launched against these two states and Syria. It claimed to be acting in self-defence, anticipating a non-immediately-imminent attack. The war was over after six days. Peace treaties between Israel and Egypt and Jordan were subsequently adopted.
Despite this, Israel maintained control of the territory—a continuation of the use of force enabling its capture.
Israel’s 1967 war was illegal in the law on the use of force—even assuming, arguendo, its claim of a feared attack, states cannot lawfully use force in non-immediately-imminent anticipatory self-defence.
Moreover, assuming, again arguendo, that the war was lawful, the justification ended after six days. However, therequirements of the law on the use of force continued to apply to the occupation as itself a continuing use of force. In 1967, with self-determination well established in international law, states could not lawfully use force to retain control over a self-determination unit captured in war, unless the legal test justifying the initial use of force also justified, on the same basis, the use of force in retaining control. Moreover, this justification would need to continue, not only in the immediate aftermath, but for more than half a century. Manifestly, this legal test has not been met.
Israel’s exercise of control over the Gaza Strip and West Bank through the use of force has been illegal in the law on the use of forcesince the capture of the territory itself, or, at least, very soon afterwards.
The occupation is, therefore, again existentially illegal in the law on the use of force—an aggression—this time, as a general matter, beyond illegality specific to purported annexation. To terminate this serious violation, the occupation must, likewise, end immediately.
11. Legal right to resist vested in the Palestinian people
Israel’s failure to end the occupation gives rise to a right to resist in international law on the part of the Palestinian people. This is equivalent to the right the Ukrainian people have to resist, and the right the Ukrainian state has to use force in self-defence against, Russia’s current war, including its occupation and purported annexation of certain areas, in Ukraine. The right does not justify the intentional targeting of civilians, or indiscriminate attacks that risk harming civilians, or the kidnapping of civilians, all of which are illegal as outside of what is permitted by the right itself, and also as violations of international humanitarian law, international human rights law, and international criminal law.
Israel’s current military action in Gaza is not a war that began in October 2023. It is a drastic scaling-up of the force exercised there, and in the West Bank, on a continual basis, since 1967. A justification for a new phase in an ongoing illegal use of force cannot be constructed solely out of the consequences of violent resistance to that illegal use of force, even when resistance goes beyond what is legally justified and is, therefore, itself unlawful. Otherwise, an illegal use of force would be rendered lawful because those subject to it violently resisted—circular logic, with a perverse outcome.
More generally, Israel cannot lawfully use force to control the Palestinian territory for security purposes pending an agreement providing security guarantees. States can only lawfully use force outside their borders in extremely narrow circumstances. Beyond that, they must address security threats non-forcibly.
Likewise, there is no rule of international law justifying the continuation of the occupation until there is a peace agreement meeting Israeli security needs. Such a rule would actually do away with the very operation of the fundamental legal rules of international law concerning self-determination and the limits on lawful force as outlined above. As a result, the matters these rules conceive as rights vested in the Palestinian people would be realized only if agreement is reached, and only on the basis of such an agreement. At best, if an agreement is forthcoming, this would mean that it would not need to be compatible with Palestinian fundamental rights. It could be determined only by the acute power imbalance in Israel’s favour. At worst, if no agreement is forthcoming, this would mean that the indefinite continuation of Israeli rule over the Palestinian people in the OPT, on the basis of racist supremacy and a claim to sovereignty, would be lawful. In sum, the ‘Israel must agree before the occupation must end’ approach is an affront to the international rule of law, and the UN Charter imperative that disputes are settled in conformity with international law.
The German Middle East Studies Association for Contemporary Research and Documentation (DAVO), founded in 1993, is a “nonpolitical, nonprofit scholarly association dedicated to advancing research and public understanding of North Africa, the Middle East, and West Asia.” The 1300 or so members teach, research, and engage critically and also “address pressing issues within Germany and Europe, including antisemitism, anti-Muslim sentiment, and migration.” DAVO also “maintains and promotes exchange with thematically related professional associations such as the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies (BRISMES), the US-based Middle East Studies Association (MESA), and the Italian SeSaMO.”
Worth noting that MESA joined the BDS movement in 2022, and earlier, in 2019, BRISMES adopted a boycott resolution. In the same year, however, the German Bundestag condemned the “argumentation patterns and methods” of the BDS campaign and described it as anti-Semitic.
Recently, DAVO has turned into a political activist group against Israel. According to the new Board, DAVO opposes its own “colonial thought patterns” and wants to “overcome Orientalism.” Christine Binzel, Professor of Economics at Friedrich-Alexander-University Nuremberg-Erlangen, the chairperson who has been in office since September, said that science should not be neutral. DAVO stands “against genocide, colonialism and racism” and wants to show “visible solidarity with Palestine”. Binzel calls for an academic boycott of Israel. Scientific cooperation with local institutions that have been “complicit” in crimes such as “occupation, apartheid and genocide in Palestine” must be ended, as stated by the European Uppsala Declaration from September, which DAVO also signed.
In an open letter to the German government in June, Binzel called for an “immediate review of all diplomatic, political and economic relations with Israel.” She further accused, with the Gaza War, that Germany supported the “extermination and expulsion of the Palestinian population” and thus “one of the greatest crimes of our time.”
A recent example of how German Middle Eastern Studies are taking a political stance against Israel can be seen when, on November 28, 2025, a seminar titled “The Targeting of the Palestinian Academia” was due to take place at Ludwig-Maximilian University Munich (LMU). The speakers were as follows:
2:00 pm: “Carceral Regime and Prisoners Resistance” by Dr. Basel Farraj (Birzeit University, Philosophy & Cultural Studies).
3:00 pm: “Scholasticide in Gaza: Challenges and Resilience of Academic Institutions” by Dr. Ahmed Abu Shaban (Al-Azhar University, Gaza).
4:00 pm: “Scholasticide by Law” by Dr. Osama Risheq (Al-Quds University, Human Rights Clinic).
5:00 pm: “Israel’s Carceral Regime and Relentless Violence” by Ghaid Hijaz (student, Right to Education Campaign, Birzeit University).
The scheduled seminar was met with opposition. On November 17, 2025, the University Board published a statement explaining that it was engaged in discussions with the organizer of the planned seminar, Professor Andreas Kaplony, the Chair of Arabic and Islamic Studies, addressing “both the academic character of the event and security concerns.” They all agreed that “The event scheduled for 28 November 2025 will not take place.”
Yet, they agreed that, “In the near future, Professor Kaplony, members of the university leadership, and Faculty members will begin developing suitable academic formats for topics of this sensitivity.” Further explaining that in this seminar, “there were doubts as to whether the event met the necessary academic standards… we will design academically grounded event formats that may serve as models for how LMU will address similar topics in the future.”
DAVO was furious. It published a public letter addressing LMU, stating, “There is no reason to assume that the planned event will not meet established standards of academic discourse. On the contrary, it addresses a contemporary historical topic and offers participants the opportunity to hear Palestinian scholars, including colleagues from Gaza, and their academic expertise. Universities have a mandate to engage in scholarly discussion of controversial, sensitive, and politically charged topics. Academic debates about conflicts or human rights situations must take place, especially when societal tensions are high. We are observing with growing concern attempts by political and state actors to influence academic debates through predefined terms and assessments, to defame researchers, and, on this basis, to criminalize them. Preventing individual events creates a climate of self-censorship and contradicts the principle of an open university. A cancellation would set a precedent where political pressure or public sentiment determines which academic perspectives are permitted. This jeopardizes not only this event but also future research and teaching. Students have a right to encounter diverse perspectives during their studies. A cancellation deprives them of access to knowledge and prevents critical learning experiences.”
They ended with a request that the university “clearly and unequivocally oppose the politically motivated instrumentalization of accusations of anti-Semitism.”
Two student organizations published a harsh statement concerning the scheduled seminar, stating they “condemn the selection of speakers for the seminar.” Adding that the Institute for Near and Middle Eastern Studies and the Chair of Arabic and Islamic Studies should have “recognized the ideologies these speakers represented. Such public statements and their impact are unacceptable in a university setting. We firmly believe that there is no place at LMU for speakers who downplay terrorist organizations. We expect those responsible to critically review their selection of speakers and exercise the utmost care in the future.”
Andreas Kaplony, the organizer of the seminar, published his response, stating that “the university administration received 25 statements from professors of Arabic and Islamic Studies from across Germany, including the president of the European Association for Middle Eastern Studies (EURAMES). All of them emphasized the academic rigor of the workshop and its urgent necessity. On Monday afternoon, the university administration assured me that, should the workshop be cancelled in its currently planned form, they would actively participate in developing a second version. The university administration wants to develop formats to demonstrate ‘that it is possible in the university environment to combine heated debates with respectful discourse and to reconcile engagement with academic detachment.’ My goal remains to inform, reflect upon, and deeply understand the situation at Palestinian universities (especially in Gaza), and thus contribute to improving this situation.”
In response, the Network of Jewish University Lecturers (NJH) published its reservations of the scheduled seminar in an open letter, requesting “immediate review of content and security aspects,” stating, “We have compiled a range of publicly available information, screenshots, quotes, and social media posts that point to significant problems regarding the scientific rigor, security, and potential antisemitic content.”
NJH argued that “This clearly fails to meet the minimum academic standard of a multi-perspective discourse… There is evidence of public contributions from individual speakers in which Hamas or the PFLP are mentioned positively or portrayed as legitimate actors… We urge you to review the content and wording of the event [to be] consistent with the IHRA working definition of antisemitism.” Adding, “Several titles and statements already meet formal criteria for anti-Israel forms of antisemitism according to the IHRA.” The group stressed that “LMU’s duty of care towards Jewish students and employees. We are receiving increasing feedback from Jewish students and faculty who experience events of this kind as threatening and intimidating. Given the current security situation, LMU is obligated to ensure an environment that does not contribute to the normalization of extremist narratives or the delegitimization of Jewish life.”
As IAM reported before, Palestinian and pro-Palestinian activists are taking over professional academic institutions. IAM will report further on this issue when it unfolds.
In German Middle Eastern science, a turn to political activism is taking place – and against Israel. According to the program, the new board of the Vorderer Orient (Davo), which has around 1300 members, is opposed to its own “colonial thought patterns”, wants to “overcome Orientalism” and give the most important association in the area a new name. Science should not be neutral, writes Christine Binzel, Professor of Economics at Friedrich-Alexander-University Nuremberg-Erlangen, who has been in office since September. They stand “against genocide and genocide, colonialism and racism” and want to show “visible solidarity with Palestine”.
Binzel’s political admissions show what this could mean. The economist calls for an academic boycott of Israel. Scientific cooperation with local institutions that have been “complicit” in crimes such as “ocpation, apartheid and genocide in Palestine” must be ended, according to the European Uppsala Declaration from September this year, which it also signed.
In an open letter to the German government in June, Binzel called for an “immediate review of all diplomatic, political and economic relations with Israel”. With the Gaza War, Germany supported the “extermination and expulsion of the Palestinian population” and thus “one of the greatest crimes of our time”. In addition to Binzel, Hanna Kienzler, professor of global health at King’s College London and also on the Davo board, appeared as co-initiator.
The anti-Israeli orientation is already manifested internationally. The US umbrella organization Middle East Studies Association (Mesa) joined the BDS movement in 2022, which wants to isolate the Jewish state by boycotting. In 2019, the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies (Brismes) also decided on a boycott. In the same year, however, the Bundestag condemned the “argumentation patterns and methods” of the BDS campaign as anti-Semitic.
The new Davo Vice President Hanna Al-Taher writes about the Hamas attack on Israel on 7. October 2023: “Paraglides over the Gaza border fence. A bulldozer breaks through the border fence that surrounds Gaza. The symbolic power of these images is enormous: breakout, return, freedom.” A bulldozer, according to the political scientist from the TU Dresden, who previously destroyed Palestinian houses, tore down the border fence: “In this short moment, an idea becomes possible: liberation.” This applies “regardless of the strategic, military or political position of the operation carried out by different groups”.
Reminder: On the 7th In October, about 1,200 Israelis were murdered, thousands were injured, tortured, raped. Al-Taher writes: “The fact that the 7th October not only stands for death, but is also associated with freedom, cannot simply be ignored, even if the German reason for state cannot allow such an interpretation.
From the Davo comes isolated contradiction. An Islamic scholar who wants to remain anonymous for fear of professional consequences criticizes a “monothematic” orientation. A position for Palestine is a consensus, he says, referring to the approximately 60,000 Palestinians killed in the Gaza war. However, the board does not explain to whom “solidarity” applies: “For the country, the people in Palestine, local organizations – or the Palestinian oppressors of the Palestinians?” An Israel boycott is wrong, it also affects government-critical and Arab Israelis.
“Transformation into ideological echo chamber”
Johannes Becke, Professor of Israel Studies at the University of Jewish Studies Heidelberg and himself a member of Davo, promotes close cooperation between Islamic studies and its discipline after the 7th “With the transformation of the Davo into an ideological echo chamber led by BDS supporters, such a conversation is no longer possible there,” says the researcher. “Research on Arab-Israeli relations, in which not one or the other side is marked as a political enemy in advance, must therefore seek other spaces – outside the Davo.”
The Network of Jewish University Lecturers also expresses criticism: “Statements that the 7. October, esthetic, relativizing or translating into a ‘liberation’ narrative, perpetrators and victims, negate the suffering of those affected and reproduce anti-Semitic patterns of interpretation, “says Director Julia Bernstein, Professor of Social Work at the Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences. Instead of “romantization”, the terrorist massacre must be condemned.
The academic boycott of Israel undermines scientific freedom and credibility of research. “For Jewish and Israeli researchers in Germany, such an orientation leads to experiences of exclusion, self-censorship, invitation and cooperation losses, increased security pressure and real career losses,” says Bernstein. In addition, there is the psychological burden of increasing threats.
The Central Council of Jews considers boycott calls against Israel in science to be an “expression of historical forgetfulness”. A spokesman says: “It is not German professors who have to interrupt their lectures because of a missile alarm. This is common in Israel.” Davo has a special responsibility to “promote the ideals and potential of science: exchange, understanding across national and cultural borders as well as mutual understanding”. With boycott calls, “any constructive work is torpedoed”.
In response to a request, the head of the association Binzel emphasized that the Uppsala Declaration and its open letter are about cooperation with Israeli institutions, not about individual scientists. “Both are in no way related to my function as chairman of Davo and are protected by freedom of science and expression.” Deputy Al-Taher only refers to the board program, according to which the working group should be a place for “critical, interdisciplinary, international and committed science”.
Political editor Kevin Culina reports for WELT on health policy, the Left Party and the alliance Sahra Wagenknecht. He also regularly reports on anti-Semitism, criminal trials and crime.
Statement on the Planned Event “The Targeting of the Palestinian Academia” at LMU Munich
The LMU board has engaged in discussions with the organizer of the planned seminar “The Targeting of the Palestinian Academia,” Professor Andreas Kaplony, Chair of Arabic and Islamic Studies. These discussions addressed both the academic character of the event and security concerns. The following mutually agreed approach resulted:
The event scheduled for 28 November 2025 will not take place.
In the near future, Professor Kaplony, members of the university leadership, and Faculty members will begin developing suitable academic formats for topics of this sensitivity.
Such a format will be implemented in the foreseeable future.
LMU did not take this decision lightly and weighed all relevant academic and legal considerations. Academic freedom is of paramount importance; in this case, however, there were doubts as to whether the event met the necessary academic standards. LMU is committed to upholding academic freedom, free speech, constructive conflict resolution, and respect for differing viewpoints.
Because LMU stands for providing opportunities rather than imposing prohibitions, we will use this occasion to develop an integrative strategy. Beyond this specific case, we will design academically grounded event formats that may serve as models for how LMU will address similar topics in the future.
With these formats, we aim to demonstrate that within the university setting it is possible to combine intense controversy with respectful dialogue, and to reconcile personal engagement with scholarly distance. If we succeed, we will come closer to the true idea of the university—one in which the scientific process is what ultimately matters.
Public statement by DAVO-GfW regarding the potential cancellation of the event “The Targeting of the Palestinian Academia” at LMU
To Vice President Dr. Margit Weber To Dean Prof. Dr. Irene Götz
Sent via email
November 17, 2025
Dear Vice President Dr. Weber, dear Dean Prof. Dr. Götz, we are writing to you with great concern regarding the potential cancellation of the event “The Targeting of the Palestinian Academia” at Ludwig-Maximilian University Munich.
We are the Committee for Academic Freedom of the German Association for Middle Eastern Studies (DAVO). The committee’s mission is to monitor and defend academic freedom in research, study, and teaching related to contemporary Middle Eastern and North Africa in German-speaking countries and beyond, including institutions in the Middle East.
The event planned for November 28, 2025, is clearly protected by academic freedom. This is based on Article 5, Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law and the 1997 UNESCO Recommendation on the Status of University Teaching Staff, which defines academic freedom as “the right to teach and debate freely, to conduct research and disseminate and publish the results, and to express one’s opinion about the institution or system without restriction by a prescribed doctrine.”
There is no reason to assume that the planned event will not meet established standards of academic discourse. On the contrary, it addresses a contemporary historical topic and offers participants the opportunity to hear Palestinian scholars, including colleagues from Gaza, and their academic expertise.
Universities have a mandate to engage in scholarly discussion of controversial, sensitive, and politically charged topics. Academic debates about conflicts or human rights situations must take place, especially when societal tensions are high. We are observing with growing concern attempts by political and state actors to influence academic debates through predefined terms and assessments, to defame researchers, and, on this basis, to criminalize them.
Preventing individual events creates a climate of self-censorship and contradicts the principle of an open university. A cancellation would set a precedent where political pressure or public sentiment determines which academic perspectives are permitted. This jeopardizes not only this event but also future research and teaching. Students have a right to encounter diverse perspectives during their studies. A cancellation deprives them of access to knowledge and prevents critical learning experiences.
We therefore kindly request that you:
to advocate for the implementation of the aforementioned course and thereby protect the freedom of academic teaching and research;
to take decisive action against disruptions to the workflows of scientific operations;
to clearly and unequivocally oppose the politically motivated instrumentalization of accusations of anti-Semitism.
Thank you for your attention. We look forward to your feedback with great interest. We are also happy to answer any questions and discuss the matter further. As is our usual practice, we will publish this letter on our website.
Best regards
Dr. Sevil Çakır, Spokesperson of the DAVO Committee for Academic Freedom
Dr. Nils Riecken, Spokesperson of the DAVO Committee for Academic Freedom
On the cancellation of the workshop “The Targeting of the Palestinian Academia” (November 28, 2025)
November 19, 2025
In short:
Last Monday morning, the university administration received 25 statements from professors of Arabic and Islamic Studies from across Germany, including the president of the European Association for Middle Eastern Studies (EURAMES). All of them emphasized the academic rigor of the workshop and its urgent necessity.
On Monday afternoon, the university administration assured me that, should the workshop be cancelled in its currently planned form, they would actively participate in developing a second version. The university administration wants to develop formats to demonstrate “that it is possible in the university environment to combine heated debates with respectful discourse and to reconcile engagement with academic detachment.”
My goal remains to inform, reflect upon, and deeply understand the situation at Palestinian universities (especially in Gaza), and thus contribute to improving this situation. To achieve this even more effectively, I am willing to take an intermediate step.
Munich, November 20, 2025
Andreas Kaplony, Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies, LMU Munich
The RCDS at LMU e.V. and the VJSB e.V. condemn the selection of speakers for the seminar “The Targeting of the Palestinian Academia” at LMU.
The Institute for Near and Middle Eastern Studies and the Chair of Arabic and Islamic Studies should have recognized the ideologies these speakers represented. Such public statements and their impact are unacceptable in a university setting. We firmly believe that there is no place at LMU for speakers who downplay terrorist organizations.
We expect those responsible to critically review their selection of speakers and exercise the utmost care in the future.
Open letter regarding the planned event “The Targeting of the Palestinian Academia” on November 28th.
To Dr. Ludwig Spaenle, Commissioner for Antisemitism at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich; Prof. Dr. Markus Maier, Commissioner of the Bavarian State Government for Jewish Life and against Antisemitism; Prof. Dr. Matthias Tschöp, President of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich
November 13, 2025
Open letter regarding the planned event “The Targeting of the Palestinian Academia” on November 28 – request for immediate review of content and security aspects
Gentlemen,
As the Network of Jewish University Lecturers (NJH), we urgently request that you thoroughly review and postpone the event “The Targeting of the Palestinian Academia”, scheduled for November 28th at the Institute for Near and Middle East Studies, until then.
We have compiled a range of publicly available information, screenshots, quotes, and social media posts that point to significant problems regarding the scientific rigor, security, and potential antisemitic content.
The attached examples represent only a selection; further evidence can be provided at any time.
1. Problematic orientation of the event
The very title of the seminar (“The Targeting of the Palestinian Academia”) establishes a clear political framing and formulates an assertion, not a scientific question. The announced lectures also bear distinctly activist or legally charged titles, including:
“ Carceral Regime and Prisoners”
“ Scholasticide in Gaza: Challenges and Resilience of Academic Institutions”
“ Scholaricide by Law”
“ Israel’s Carceral Regime and Relentless Violence”
This terminology is emotionally charged, used in some extremist campaigns, and is not established as a scientific term. It assigns blame in a one-sided manner (“relentless violence,” “scholasticide”) and precludes a balanced analysis from the outset.
2. Lack of scientific balance
The entire event features exclusively Palestinian speakers, some with an overtly political agenda. Any other Israeli or international research-based perspective is completely absent. This clearly fails to meet the minimum academic standard of a multi-perspective discourse.
3. Public statements by invited speakers
There is evidence of public contributions from individual speakers in which:
Hamas or the PFLP are mentioned positively or portrayed as legitimate actors,
Israel is repeatedly accused of “genocide”,
Israeli citizens and Jewish people are collectively addressed as perpetrators.
We would like to point out that Hamas and PFLP are classified as terrorist organizations in the EU. Sympathy for or trivialization of these organizations may be a criminal offense (see Sections 129a/b of the German Criminal Code).
4. Compatibility with applicable law and the IHRA definition
We urge you to review the content and wording of the event:
are consistent with the IHRA working definition of antisemitism,
comply with the BayHIG (in particular the mandate to ensure a non-discriminatory, security-conscious university environment),
possess a possible relevance under the Bavarian Assembly Act (BayVersG) or other public safety law norms.
Several titles and statements already meet formal criteria for anti-Israel forms of antisemitism according to the IHRA.
5. LMU’s duty of care towards Jewish students and employees
We are receiving increasing feedback from Jewish students and faculty who experience events of this kind as threatening and intimidating. Given the current security situation, LMU is obligated to ensure an environment that does not contribute to the normalization of extremist narratives or the delegitimization of Jewish life.
6. Security Relevance
Events featuring speakers who spread extremist content or share it on social media are known to attract problematic groups. Particularly at universities across Germany, there have been massive antisemitic incidents in recent months – therefore, an assessment by security authorities is essential.
Our requests and demands:
Postpone the event until a thorough review by antisemitism-critical, legal, and security authorities has been completed.
Carefully examine the public statements of the invited speakers for links to terrorism, anti-Semitism-related content, and violations of academic ethics.
Should the impression of extremist, one-sided or delegitimizing content be confirmed, we request that the event be prohibited.
Attached examples (excerpt):
Official announcement of the LMU event
Screenshots and links to public statements by the speakers (Hamas/PFLP references, genocide rhetoric)
Article passages about connections between individual speakers and politically extremist student groups
Social media posts that document an activist or extremist orientation
We are available at any time for questions, a short-notice meeting, and to provide further documentation.
Prof. Dr. Julia Bernstein, Board of the Network of Jewish University Lecturers
Prof. Dr. Julia Bernstein Prof. Roglit Ishay Dr. Ilya Kogan
The 7th Global Mental Health Summit was held from November 10 to 12, 2025, in Cape Town, South Africa. The Summit aims to “bring together renowned experts and thought leaders from around the world to engage in critical discussions on the current state of mental health and chart a course for the future. With a focus on addressing challenges and exploring innovative solutions, this Summit promises to be a catalyst for meaningful change.”
An Israeli speaker, Prof. Galia Moran, a Social Work scholar from Ben-Gurion University, intended to speak about “Multicultural perspectives and experiences of peer support workers providing peer support in mental health services.”
Moran’s research is unique and innovative in the field of mental health. In a personal article in 2017, titled “Why Am I Researching New Approaches in Mental Health?” she explained she comes “from a family that knows the issue of mental health intimately and also the social challenge of the stigma barrier. Therefore, I was driven to contribute to a change in the approach to people with psychiatric disorders. I believe that if a person with a psychiatric disorder is treated first and foremost as a person and not as a symptom, in many cases it is possible to achieve recovery and a full life in the community while coping with the illness. I went on to do a postdoctoral fellowship at Boston University, where the Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation and Recovery was founded in collaboration with professionals, family members and people dealing with psychiatric disorders. There I was greatly inspired when I met peer providers – people diagnosed with a serious psychiatric disorder who work to provide help to others dealing with a psychiatric disorder.”
She also explained that “These people support the processes of personal recovery based on knowledge from their own experience. The peers are role models and enable open, mutual dialogue at eye level, and the atmosphere is respectful without the feelings of neglect and stigma that accompany many psychiatric institutions… recovery colleges have now developed around the world, especially in England, where there are over 70 colleges, and in Australia, where there are about 40 colleges, where courses are given to those dealing with mental disorders by peer service providers on topics related to recovery. In Israel, there are already buds for the development of peer service in psychiatric hospitals, for example at Mazor Hospital in Acre and the Mental Health Center in Beersheba. But there is a lack of peer services that would support these people in their daily lives outside of psychiatric institutions.”
“Therefore,” she continued, “I am excited that I will soon be starting an international project with seven countries from Europe, Africa and Asia, to develop and implement a peer service in the community. The development of the peer intervention is planned to provide a service to those dealing with psychiatric disorders, expose professionals to the value of experiential knowledge, and complement and improve existing services based mainly on clinical knowledge. In this international study, we will have the opportunity to discuss with colleagues and professionals from different countries ways to integrate peers into mental health services, and to develop the field through an international peer internet infrastructure.”
She then explains, “Together with my students, I try to understand and promote personal recovery processes and help people achieve meaningful and functioning lives in the community. Because the problem of deep stigma in the context of mental disorders constitutes a social challenge of the highest order, I use approaches and concepts from positive psychology. My research deals with all levels: the individual, rehabilitation services, and understanding the entire system.”
However, the group Health Care Workers for Palestine–South Africa (HCW4P-SA) objected to the inclusion of an Israeli academic in the conference program.
Her presentation was withdrawn following their objection.
A statement by HCW4P-SA argued that Moran’s participation was “inappropriate” in light of the ongoing genocide in Gaza and “the brutal apartheid policies inflicted on Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and other occupied territories.” Also claiming, “While Gaza’s mental health system lies in ruins and Palestinians endure genocide, Israeli academics from complicit institutions are given platforms at mental health conferences.” The HCW4P-SA also stated that “This normalization contradicts the very principles of mental health advocacy.”
HCW4P-SA stated it had requested that the organizers ask Moran to “publicly condemn the genocide and its catastrophic mental health impacts on Gaza’s people,” as well as Israel’s “occupation policies.” The summit organizers declined, explaining that it would be “neither their duty nor just to force speakers to denounce their own country’s actions.”
As reported, Moran refused to issue a condemnation and subsequently withdrew from the summit. The HCW4P-SA maintained that Israeli universities are “part of the state apparatus, support the military establishment, and are complicit in denying Palestinian rights.” Adding that allowing an Israeli delegate to speak without addressing the situation in Gaza was “immoral and unethical.”
The HCW4P-SA statement also referred to South Africa’s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), accusing Israel of committing genocide in violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention. It says, “Going forward, if Israeli delegates are to attend or present at conferences in South Africa, we demand they condemn their government’s genocide and present without institutional affiliation,” the HCW4P-SA stated. It also framed its demands within the context of the BDS movement, comparing it to the international academic and cultural boycott of apartheid South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s. It concluded by stating, “Such a request is not a violation of academic freedom… It is a question of human rights, social justice, and freedom from oppression.”
But the case of South Africa is significant. South Africa established extremely close ties with the Islamic regime in Iran and played an important part in its anti-Israeli propaganda.
By now, there is a long history in this path. In August 2001, in parallel with the Durban Conference, pro-Iranian groups infiltrated the NGOs Forum, an event attended by representatives of some 3000 NGOs, which passed a resolution describing Israel as a racist, apartheid state, guilty of “racist crimes, including war crimes, acts of genocide, and ethnic cleansing.” Iran shaped, amplified, and radicalized parts of the movement through sustained political alliances, ideological outreach, Shia community networks, and propaganda messaging—turning South Africa into one of Tehran’s most valuable global partners in the anti-Israel campaign.
The problem with the anti-Israel campaign of South Africa runs very deep. A virtually wholly-owned subsidiary of the Islamic regime, South Africa plays a large part in delegitimizing Israel in the international arena in general and the International Court of Justice in particular.
Academia is yet another platform. To recall, the BDS movement falsely claimed that it does not target individual Israeli scholars, only Israeli institutions.
Controversy erupted at the 7th Global Mental Health Summit in Cape Town after Health Care Workers for Palestine–South Africa (HCW4P-SA) objected to the inclusion of an Israeli academic in the conference programme.
The summit, held from November 10 to 12 at Cape Town City Hall, was set to feature Dr. Galia Moran, a social work academic from Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Israel.
Her presentation, titled “Multicultural perspectives and experiences of peer support workers providing peer support in mental health services,” was withdrawn following the objection.
In a statement issued by HCW4P-SA, the group argued that Dr. Moran’s participation was “inappropriate” in light of the ongoing genocide in Gaza and “the brutal apartheid policies inflicted on Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and other occupied territories.”
“While Gaza’s mental health system lies in ruins and Palestinians endure genocide, Israeli academics from complicit institutions are given platforms at mental health conferences,” HCW4P-SA said. “This normalisation contradicts the very principles of mental health advocacy.”
The organisation said it had requested that summit organisers ask Dr. Moran to “publicly condemn the genocide and its catastrophic mental health impacts on Gaza’s people,” as well as Israel’s occupation policies.
However, according to the statement, summit organisers declined, stating that it would be “neither their duty nor just to force speakers to denounce their own country’s actions.”
Additionally, Dr. Moran reportedly refused to issue a condemnation and subsequently withdrew from the event.
HCW4P-SA maintained that Israeli universities are “part of the state apparatus, support the military establishment, and are complicit in denying Palestinian rights.”
The group added that allowing Israeli delegates to present without addressing the situation in Gaza was “immoral and unethical.”
The statement also referenced South Africa’s ongoing case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which accuses Israel of committing genocide in violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention.
“Going forward, if Israeli delegates are to attend or present at conferences in South Africa, we demand they condemn their government’s genocide and present without institutional affiliation,” HCW4P-SA said.
The organisation framed its demand within the context of the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, comparing it to the international academic and cultural boycott of apartheid South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s.
“Such a request is not a violation of academic freedom,” the group concluded. “It is a question of human rights, social justice, and freedom from oppression.”
Join us in protest this Wednesday, 12 November 8:30 am at the City Hall of Cape Town, as we stand against the participation of Dr. Galia Moran, an Israeli speaker, at the 7th Global Mental Health Summit.
Dr. Moran is scheduled to speak on Wednesday at the Summit — and this raises a serious ethical concern.
It is deeply ironic and profoundly hypocritical to host an Israeli academic to speak about mental health while Israel continues to inflict trauma, collective punishment, and psychological devastation on Palestinians through decades of military occupation, systemic violence, and today, a genocide in Gaza.
Inviting an Israeli representative to discuss mental health without acknowledging her state’s role in producing trauma is not neutrality — it is complicity.
We therefore call on Dr. Moran to: Publicly condemn the genocide in Gaza Acknowledge Israel’s decades-long colonial violence against Palestinians Recognize the psychological and generational trauma caused by Israeli policies And we call on the Summit organizers to ensure that mental health discourse does not whitewash oppression, but centers the voices of those subjected to violence.
Mental health without justice is hypocrisy. Mental health without decolonization is empty rhetoric.
While Gaza’s mental health system collapses under the weight of bombs and displacement, an academic from Ben-Gurion University, an institution complicit in apartheid and military research, was invited to speak at South Africa’s 7th Global Mental Health Summit.
She remained silent on the genocide and the psychological torment inflicted on millions of Palestinians.
We cannot separate mental health from justice. We cannot speak of healing while ignoring those denied humanity.
Mental health is not neutral, it exists within systems of power. To talk about trauma without naming its cause is to side with the oppressor.
As the 7th Global Mental Health Summit unfolds in Cape Town, we call on South African institutions, practitioners, and advocates to stand on the right side of history. To centre Gaza’s suffering. To reject complicity in genocide and apartheid.
The Gaza Community Mental Health Programme warns that Palestinians face one of the world’s most severe mental health crises, children, mothers, and elders living through daily trauma, loss, and displacement.
No mental well-being is possible under occupation, siege, genocide, or apartheid. Mental health begins with dignity, safety, and justice.
She has since withdrawn from the summit after being asked to condemn genocide and apartheid.
At least 80 Jewish doctors and healthcare professionals have resigned from the South African Medical Association (SAMA) after it suspended all ties with the Israel Medical Association (IMA) last month and called for the IMA’s expulsion from the World Medical Association (WMA).
The move, which many medical professionals describe as deeply divisive and politically motivated, has intensified concerns over rising anti-Israel sentiment and, increasingly, antisemitism within the global medical fraternity.
For many Jewish doctors in South Africa, SAMA’s announcement created discomfort and a sense of alienation. Several have already resigned, while others are withholding decisions as discussions between stakeholders continue. A number of non-Jewish doctors have also voiced disquiet, saying the association’s stance risks damaging collegiality and professionalism in the medical field.
Wendy Kahn, the national director of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD), said the Board had been approached on this issue by a number of doctors from different faith backgrounds, many of whom have been members of SAMA for many decades.
“They have expressed concern, not just with the resolutions, but with SAMA’s lack of broad consultation,” she said.
“We reached out to SAMA chief executive, Dr Mzulungile Nodikida, who agreed to meet us. We felt that he and his colleagues were genuinely concerned by the impact that these resolutions have had on members. We highlighted how this was at variance with the SAMA guiding principle of ‘uniting doctors for the health of the nation’,” she said.
Nodikida undertook to take the issue urgently back to the Board with a view to revisiting these decisions, she said. “We have urged members to wait for the outcome of this meeting before considering any further action,” Kahn said.
“It’s discouraging when medical associations like SAMA openly display unethical behaviour by promoting biased positions relating to Israel,” said Dr Martin Strous, the chairperson of the South African Association of Jewish Mental Health and Allied Practitioners (SAJMAP). “SAMA’s decision prompted significant backlash from Jewish medical professionals. Several doctors have resigned, while others are seeking reform within SAMA. It’s hoped that SAMA will reconsider its position.”
Strous said SAJMAP’s membership almost doubled following SAMA’s 4 October statement, a reflection of health professionals’ desire to align themselves with an organisation that rejects bias and advocates for professional integrity.
The repercussions of SAMA’s stance come amid growing hostility towards Jewish and Israeli professionals globally. This week, Israeli academic Dr Galia Moran of Ben-Gurion University withdrew from speaking at the 7th Global Mental Health Summit, held in Cape Town from 10 to 12 November, after pressure and threats of protest from anti-Israel activists, including a planned demonstration outside the Cape Town City Hall.
In response, the SAJBD said, “This bullying behaviour does nothing more than silence academic discourse and stifle engagement on critical topics such as mental health. It’s regrettable that the conference organisers permitted narrow political grandstanding to obstruct legitimate scholarly exploration.”
Strous added: “The deliberate singling out of Dr Moran, not for her ideas but for her Israeli identity, exemplifies precisely the kind of prejudice our association seeks to address.”
The episode has been condemned in academic and medical circles as yet another example of how anti-Israel activism increasingly spills into professional and humanitarian spaces.
In its statement on 4 October, SAMA said it had resolved to suspend immediately all professional and bilateral relations with the IMA and to call for its suspension from the WMA. It cited grave concern regarding the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and what it described as the IMA’s failure to uphold international medical ethics and humanitarian obligations.
The association said the resolution would remain in force until the IMA took verifiable action to demand the release of detained Palestinian medical personnel, condemn the destruction of Gaza’s healthcare system, and advocate for the free flow of medical supplies.
Despite SAMA’s lobbying, the WMA didn’t suspend the IMA. Instead, on 13 October, the WMA adopted a new resolution urging the Israeli government to uphold humanitarian law and protect healthcare in Gaza, while simultaneously reaffirming its prior call for the immediate and safe release of all hostages.
The WMA emphasised that the protection of healthcare and respect for medical neutrality must remain fundamental, even in times of conflict.
Strous said SAMA’s actions appeared to have been influenced by union alliances; advocacy by the British Medical Association; and calls from the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement.
He warned that it aligned with South Africa’s broader pattern of political and institutional support for actions against Israel, including its referral of Israel to the International Court of Justice.
In a detailed position statement issued on 5 October, SAJMAP accused SAMA of procedural irregularities and ideological bias, demanding that it publish full details of its so-called extensive consultation. SAJMAP questioned who was consulted; whether members with opposing views – particularly Jewish members – were invited to participate; and whether votes were recorded or counted.
The organisation also highlighted what it called ideologically skewed editorial gatekeeping within SAMA’s structures, citing recent controversies at the South African Medical Journal, which declined to publish rebuttals to anti-Israel commentary.
“Recent editorial and policy decisions, together with SAMA’s latest move, have created a reasonable perception of ideological bias within the association’s leadership,” the statement said. “It’s unclear whether this stance reflects the views of the broader SAMA membership.”
“Medical boycotts harm patients, slow down innovation, and erode the humanitarian space medicine must protect,” said Strous. SAJMAP referenced the Global Jewish Health Alliance’s January 2025 letter to the United Nations Human Rights Council opposing medical boycotts, arguing that severing scientific co-operation delays treatment, disrupts research, and ultimately injures patients globally.
The association also noted SAMA’s silence on Hamas’s use of hospitals as military bases and its failure to call for the release of hostages held in Gaza, saying that this selective activism raises serious concerns about discrimination.
“If SAMA’s objective is genuinely to protect patients and uphold humanitarian law,” SAJMAP said, “there are constructive, non-boycott approaches fully consistent with medical ethics. Constructive engagement grounded in dialogue rather than disengagement would strengthen ethical accountability and promote tangible health benefits across divides.”
SAMA’s move follows similar initiatives in parts of Europe, North America, and the United Kingdom, where medical bodies and journals have issued statements harshly critical of Israel, often with little or no reference to the 7 October 2023 Hamas attacks that triggered the ongoing war.
SAMA had not responded to questions by the time of publication.
האמנתי שאם מתייחסים לאדם עם הפרעה פסיכיאטרית קודם כל כאדם ולא כאל סימפטום, ניתן להגיע במקרים רבים להחלמה וחיים מלאים בקהילה לצד ההתמודדות עם המחלה
ד”ר גליה מורן פורסם: 22.12.17, 09:03
לאחר שילדתי את בתי הראשונה, מצאתי עצמי בצומת דרכים בחיי – האם להמשיך בנתיב המקצועי המתבקש כפסיכולוגית קלינית מומחית או לעשות משהו נוסף מחוץ לחדר הקליניקה, שישפיע גם על העולם הרחב. אני בת למשפחה שמכירה את נושא בריאות הנפש מקרוב וגם את האתגר החברתי של מחסום הסטיגמה. לכן בער בי הדחף לתרום לשינוי בגישה לאנשים עם הפרעות פסיכיאטריות.
האמנתי שאם מתייחסים לאדם עם הפרעה פסיכיאטרית קודם כל כאדם ולא כאל סימפטום, ניתן להגיע במקרים רבים להחלמה וחיים מלאים בקהילה לצד ההתמודדות עם המחלה.
יצאתי לפוסט דוקטורט באוניברסיטת בוסטון, שבה נוסד המרכז לשיקום פסיכיאטרי והחלמה תוך שיתוף פעולה של אנשי מקצוע, בני משפחה ואנשים המתמודדים עם הפרעות פסיכיאטריות. שם קיבלתי השראה רבה כאשר פגשתי בעמיתים (peer providers) – אנשים המאובחנים עם הפרעה פסיכיאטרית חמורה אשר עובדים במתן עזרה לאחרים המתמודדים עם הפרעה פסיכיאטרית.
אנשים אלו תומכים בתהליכי ההחלמה האישית מתוך התבססות על ידע מניסיונם. העמיתים מהווים מודל חיקוי ומאפשרים שיח פתוח הדדי בגובה עיניים, והאווירה מכבדת ללא תחושות ההזנחה והסטיגמה שמלווים מוסדות פסיכיאטרים רבים. בתמונה שבחרתי להציג כאן רואים דמויות פליימוביל אוחזות ידיים יחדיו מעלה, דבר שמסמל את ההדדיות והתקווה שגלומה בקשר בין עמיתים. כהשראה ממודל זה התפתחו כיום מכללות החלמה recovery colleges ברחבי העולם ובמיוחד באנגליה בה פועלות למעלה מ-70 מכללות, ובאוסטרליה בה פועלות כ-40 מכללות בהן ניתנים קורסים למתמודדים עם הפרעות נפשיות על ידי עמיתים נותני שירות בנושאים הקשורים להחלמה.
בישראל קיימים ניצנים לפיתוח שירות עמיתים כבר כיום בבתי החולים הפסיכיאטרים, למשל בבית החולים מזור בעכו ובמרכז לבריאות הנפש בבאר שבע. אך חסרים שירותי עמיתים שיתמכו באנשים אלו גם במסגרת חייהם היומיומיים מחוץ למוסדות הפסיכיאטריים.
לכן, אני נרגשת מכך שבקרוב מאוד אתחיל בפרויקט בינלאומי עם שבע מדינות מאירופה, אפריקה ואסיה, כדי לפתח וליישם שירות עמיתים בקהילה. פיתוח התערבות העמיתים מתוכננת לתת שירות למתמודדים עם הפרעות פסיכיאטריות, לחשוף אנשי מקצוע לערך שטמון בידע מניסיון, ולהשלים ולשפר את השירותים הקיימים המבוססים בעיקר על ידע קליני. במחקר בינלאומי זה תהיה לנו הזדמנות לדון עם עמיתים ואנשי מקצוע ממדינות שונות על דרכים לשילוב עמיתים בתוך שירותי בריאות נפש, ולפתח את התחום באמצעות תשתית אינטרנטית בינלאומית של עמיתים.
יחד עם הסטודנטים שלי אני מנסה להבין ולקדם תהליכי החלמה אישית ולסייע לאנשים להגיע לחיים בעלי משמעות ותפקוד בקהילה. מפני שבעיית הסטיגמה העמוקה בהקשר להפרעות נפשיות מהווה אתגר חברתי ממעלה ראשונה, אני משתמשת בגישות ומושגים מפסיכולוגיה חיובית. המחקרים שלי עוסקים בכל הרמות: באדם, בשירותי השיקום, ובהבנה של המערכת כולה. מאז אותה החלטה להשפיע על העולם ולא להישאר בתוך הקליניקה, נולדו לי עוד שתי בנות. וגם היום, למרות כל השנים שעברו, אני מרגישה זכות לעסוק עשייה האקדמית והפרקטית שבה בחרתי.
ד”ר גליה מורן, ראש המגמה לבריאות הנפש, המחלקה לעבודה סוציאלית, אוניברסיטת בן-גוריון.
Fifty years ago, on November 10, 1975, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 3379, which “Determines that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination,” with 72 votes in favor, 35 votes against, and 32 abstentions.
Before the vote, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, warned that “The United Nations is about to make anti-Semitism international law.” After the vote, Moynihan said, “The United States rises to declare before the General Assembly of the United Nations and before the world that it does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act.” And that “A great evil has been loosed upon the world.”
Leonard Garment, counselor to the US Mission at the United Nations, denounced this resolution as an “obscene act,” and said the language of the Resolution “distorts and perverts. It changes words with precise meanings into purveyors of confusion. It destroys the moral force of the concept of racism, making it nothing more than an epithet to be flung arbitrarily at one’s adversary Zionism is a movement which has as its contemporary thrust the preservation of the small remnant of the Jewish people that survived the horrors of a racial holocaust. By equating Zionism with racism, this resolution discredits the good faith of our joint efforts to fight actual racism. It discredits these efforts morally and it cripples them politically.”
On December 16, 1991, Resolution 3379 was revoked by Resolution 46/86, and was adopted with 111 votes in favor, 25 votes against, and 13 abstentions.
This week, on November 13, 2025, the Consortium for Palestine Studies at UCLA is hosting the event “Revisiting Zionism as a Form of Racism and Racial Discrimination.” The invitation reads, “50 years later, Professor Noura Erakat revisits UNGA Resolution 3379 that declared Zionism as a form of racism and racial discrimination. Revisiting Zionism as a Form of Racism and Racial Discrimination.”
Adding that the presentation by Prof. Erakat “will be followed by a panel discussion with Professor Robin D.G. Kelley (Distinguished Professor and Gary B. Nash Endowed Chair in U.S. History, UCLA Department of History) and Professor Nour Joudah (Assistant Professor, UCLA Department of Asian American Studies). Location (at the UCLA campus) will be shared with registrants the morning of the event.”
According to the invitation, “On November 10, 1975, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 3379 declaring Zionism as a form of racism and racial discrimination. A coalition of states introduced the resolution at the start of the 30th session of the General Assembly as an amendment to the Decade Against Racism in the context of Third World Revolt against imperialism; Palestinian liberation was central to this agenda. This lecture will explore the historical context that led to the introduction of this resolution, its drafting history, including racial theories of Zionism that were introduced during the deliberations as well as the intense procedural maneuvers that aimed to subvert it all together.”
The invitation even stated that “Though a hard-won victory, the PLO rescinded the resolution in 1991 as a precondition for entering the Oslo Accords.”
This event will discuss “the 50th year anniversary of the resolution as well as its contemporary relevance.”
The About Us page of the host, the Consortium for Palestine Studies at UCLA, states that it was “founded in 2024 by faculty across campus. The history of scholarship and activism about Palestine on the UCLA campus spans decades. The UCLA chapter of Students for Justice was founded in 2005. The UCLA chapter of Faculty for Justice in Palestine was founded in late 2023. Most recently, UCLA became a focal site for Palestine activism after the formation of the Palestine Solidarity Encampment on April 25, 2024, and its violent clearing by police. The Consortium builds on this long tradition of student organizing to create a focal point for research, creative activities, teaching, and activism on Palestine.”
The Consortium is led by an advisory board of Saree Makdisi (co-chair), Sherene Razack (co-chair), Chris Jadallah, Nour Joudah, and Robin D.G. Kelley.
An examination of the Consortium’s past activities and publications reveals that there is no in-depth study of Palestine. For example, the last three events in October 2025, “Rememberment: Palestine in Real Time,” is a lecture performance by Jasbir K. Puar and Dima Srouji. describing it as “Scenes of bodily humiliation and mutilation have been screaming from our screens for more than two years. Working through and against the grain of this obvious, ubiquitous archive, Puar and Srouji excavate the longue durée of debilitation in Gaza and conversely, also foreground the praxis of “re-member-ment” that highlight Palestinian determination to become differently whole;” another event led by Mejdulene Bernard Shomali presented “Sahq, Dirt, Shaheed: Queer Poetics and Palestinian Resistance;” and the third event hosted a “Dabke Workshop with El-Funoun Popular Dance Troupe.”
In July, the film “Bye Bye Tiberias” (2023) was screened, described as “Through present-day footage and family VHS archives, filmmaker Lina Soualem paints a lyrical, deeply personal portrait of four generations of women shaped by exile and longing. Soualem returns with her mother, actor Hiam Abbass (Succession), to their Palestinian village, where Abbass once took her swimming in Lake Tiberias ‘as if to bathe me in her story.’ The film captures how its Arab women subjects carry history within them, even as the meaning of home constantly shifts beneath their feet.”
In April, a panel discussion was held on “Jewish Critiques of Zionism and the Weaponization of Antisemitism” between progressive and left-wing Jews about their relationships to Palestine and Israel, critical perspectives on the recent arrest of Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, and interpretations and responses to charges of antisemitism deployed in opposition to racial justice work by the Trump administration, the UCLA administration, and the political right. Featuring: Izzy Cortes, Michal David, Benjamin Kersten, Beth Ribet, and Noah Zatz. Chaired by Hannah Appel.”
Universities should be more vigilant about anti-Israel activities on their campuses. As a result of a lawsuit, UCLA reached a $6 million settlement in July 2025 with three Jewish students and a Jewish professor. The lawsuit argued the university violated their civil rights by allowing pro-Palestinian protesters to block their access to classes and other areas on campus in 2024.
Hosting an event that presents Zionism as a form of racism and racial discrimination should not be permitted anywhere on the campus.
On November 10, 1975, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 3379 declaring Zionism as a form of racism and racial discrimination. A coalition of states introduced the resolution at the start of the 30th session of the General Assembly as an amendment to the Decade Against Racism in the context of Third World revolt against imperialism; Palestinian liberation was central to this agenda. This lecture will explore the historical context that led to the introduction of this resolution, its drafting history, including racial theories of Zionism that were introduced during the deliberations as well as the intense procedural maneuvers that aimed to subvert it all together. Though a hard won victory, the PLO rescinded the resolution in 1991 as a precondition for entering the Oslo Accords. This discussion will both mark the 50th year anniversary of the resolution as well as its contemporary relevance.
Professor Erakat’s talk will be followed by a panel discussion with Professor Nour Joudah (Asian American Studies) and Professor Robin D.G. Kelley (History).
Bio: Noura Erakat is Professor of Africana Studies and Criminal Justice at Rutgers University, New Brunswick. She is the author of Justice for Some: Law and the Question of Palestine (Stanford University Press, 2019), which received the Palestine Book Award and the Bronze Medal for the Independent Publishers Book Award in Current Events/Foreign Affairs. In 2023, Noura co-chaired an Independent Task Force on the Application of National Security Memorandum-20 to Israel, a report documenting how U.S. arms to Israel have been used in violation of U.S. and international law and which was submitted to the White House. She is co-founding editor of Jadaliyya and an editorial board member of the Journal of Palestine Studies as well as Human Geography. She is a co-founding board member of the DC Palestinian Film and Arts Festival. She has served as Legal Counsel for a Congressional Subcommittee in the US House of Representatives, as Legal Advocate for the Badil Resource Center for Palestinian Refugee and Residency Rights, and as National Organizer and Legal Advocate of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. Noura has also produced video documentaries, including “Gaza In Context” and “Black Palestinian Solidarity.” Noura completed a non-resident fellowship of the Religious Literacy Project at Harvard Divinity School as well as a Mahmoud Darwish Visiting Professorship at Brown University. In 2022, she was selected as a Freedom Fellow by the Marguerite Casey Foundation. In 2025, the University of Ghent awarded the Amnesty International Chair in recognition of her contribution to human rights and scholarship.
Revisiting Zionism as a Form of Racism and Racial Discrimination
Location TBD
Nov 13 from 5:30pm to 7pm PST
Overview
50 years later, Professor Noura Erakat revisits UNGA Resolution 3379 that declared Zionism as a form of racism and racial discrimination
Revisiting Zionism as a Form of Racism and Racial Discrimination- UNGA Resolution 3379 50 Years Later
Join us on Thursday, November 13, 2025 at 5:30 pm for a presentation by Professor Noura Erakat, followed by a panel discussion with Professor Robin D.G. Kelley (Distinguished Professor and Gary B. Nash Endowed Chair in U.S. History, UCLA Department of History) and Professor Nour Joudah (Assistant Professor, UCLA Department of Asian American Studies).
Location (at the UCLA campus) will be shared with registrants the morning of the event.
On November 10, 1975, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 3379 declaring Zionism as a form of racism and racial discrimination. A coalition of states introduced the resolution at the start of the 30th session of the General Assembly as an amendment to the Decade Against Racism in the context of Third World Revolt against imperialism; Palestinian liberation was central to this agenda. This lecture will explore the historical context that led to the introduction of this resolution, its drafting history, including racial theories of Zionism that were introduced during the deliberations as well as the intense procedural maneuvers that aimed to subvert it all together. Though a hard won victory, the PLO rescinded the resolution in 1991 as a precondition for entering the Oslo Accords. This discussion will both mark the 50th year anniversary of the resolution as well as its contemporary relevance.
Elimination of all forms of racial discrimination: Zionism as racism – GA resolution
RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
[on the report of the Third Committee (A/10320)]
3379 (XXX). Elimination of all forms of racial discrimination
The General Assembly,
Recalling its resolution 1904 (XVIII) of 20 November 1963, proclaiming the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and in particular its affirmation that “any doctrine of racial differentiation or superiority is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous” and its expression of alarm at “the manifestations of racial discrimination still in evidence in some areas in the world, some of which are imposed by certain Governments by means of legislative, administrative or other measures”,
Recalling also that, in its resolution 3151 G (XXVIII) of 14 December 1973, the General Assembly condemned, inter alia, the unholy alliance between South African racism and zionism,
Taking note of the Declaration of Mexico on the Equality of Women and Their Contribution to Development and Peace, 1/ proclaimed by the World Conference of the International Women’s Year, held at Mexico City from 19 June to 2 July 1975, which promulgated the principle that “international co-operation and peace require the achievement of national liberation and independence, the elimination of colonialism and neo-colonialism, foreign occupation, zionism, apartheid and racial discrimination in all its forms, as well as the recognition of the dignity of peoples and their right to self-determination”,
Taking note also of resolution 77 (XII) adopted by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity at its twelfth ordinary session,2/ hold at Kampala from 28 July to 1 August 1975, which considered “that the racist regime in occupied Palestine and the racist regimes in Zimbabwe and South Africa have a common imperialist origin, forming a whole and having the same racist structure and being organically linked in their policy aimed at repression of the dignity and integrity of the human being“,
Taking note also of the Political Declaration and Strategy to Strengthen International Peace and Security and to Intensify Solidarity and Mutual Assistance among Non-Aligned Countries,3/ adopted at the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries held at Lima from 25 to 30 August 1975, which most severely condemned zionism as a threat to world peace and security and called upon all countries to oppose this racist and imperialist ideology,
Determines that zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.
October 14 – Sahq, Dirt, Shaheed in 1500 Public Affairs Building (12:30 to 2 pm) with Mejdulene Bernard Shomali hosted by the Center for the Study of Women October 16 – Dabke Workshop with El-Funoun Popular Dance Troupe in John Wooden Center Legacy Room (3 to 5 pm) hosted by PSU and PCRF October 24 – Rememberment: Palestine in Real Time in Lani Hall – Herb Alpert School of Music (4 pm) with Jasbir K. Puar and Dima Sjrouji hosted by the Department of English
July 2025
July 19 – Bye Bye Tiberias at the Billy Wilder Theater (7:30pm) hosted by the UCLA Film and Television Archive
May 2025
May 1 – Maura Finkelstein Talk in Haines Hall, Room 352 (12:00pm – 1:30pm) hosted by Anthropology May 7 – Distinguished Lecture in Ideas and Organizing: Naomi Klein (6:30pm – 8:00pm) hosted by the UCLA Luskin Institute on Inequality and Democracy May 8 – Lara Deeb Talk in Haines Hall, Room 352 (12:00pm – 1:30pm) hosted by Anthropology May 9 – From Ground Zero in Kinsey Pavillion, Room 1220B (2:00pm) hosted by the Center for the Study of Women | Streisand Center May 15 – Jennifer Mogannam Talk in Haines Hall, Room 352 (12:00pm – 1:30pm) hosted by Anthropology
March 4 – Listening to the Dead: Methods of Studying Genocide in Kaufman Hall, Room 200 (12:00pm – 1:30pm) hosted by the Center for the Study of Woman | Streisand Center POSTPONED – Diana Greenwald Talk hosted by Political Science
The SOAS University of London, also known as the School of Oriental and African Studies, is involved in two recent scandals. The first involves the SOAS Senate position on the so-called “Scholasticide in Gaza, Palestine.”
The Senate’s statement begins with mentioning an earlier statement from December 2023, expressing its horror over “the near total destruction of the higher educational sector in the Gaza Strip” and “calling for an immediate ceasefire to prevent any further loss of civilian life.” The Senate noted that the UN Special Rapporteurs expressed “grave concern over scholasticide in Gaza, defined as the systemic obliteration of education through the arrest, detention or killing of teachers, students and staff, and the destruction of educational infrastructure” in April 2024.
SOAS quotes several reports, such as the UN Independence Commission of Inquiry, Amnesty International, B’Tselem, and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, to conclude that a vast majority of schools in Gaza were damaged or destroyed, and numerous teachers and students were killed.
SOAS also cited the presidents of three universities in Gaza who, in July 2025, called on the international academic community to show solidarity with Gaza and recognize Israel’s “scholasticide as a systematic war on education.”
SOAS emphasized a call from May 2025 by the Israeli Black Flag Action Group, signed by over 1400 academic staff of Israeli higher education institutions who “recognized academics’ own role in crimes against humanity and insisted on making Palestinian suffering central to its objections to the war.”
To make sure that SOAS was on the right side of history, it noted that in “some countries (including Norway, Belgium, Spain, Ireland, Netherlands, Italy and Brazil), some universities and scholarly bodies (including the European Association of Social Anthropologists, the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies, and the Middle East Studies Association) have called for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.”
Trying to avert criticism for Israel bashing, SOAS emphasized that as a higher education institution, it is “committed to social justice and opposed to all forms of racism and discrimination, such as Anti-semitism and Islamophobia, as stated in our Charter on Racism, Antisemitism and All Forms of Cultural, Ethnic and Religious Chauvinism. The university has held events and released statements that challenge both Islamophobia and Anti-semitism and has expressed shock and extreme sadness at the terrorist attack at the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation Synagogue in Greater Manchester on 2 October 2025.”
Yet, SOAS noted that “genocide has been denied by the Israeli government,” and that “The (UK) Government has not concluded that Israel is acting with that intent.”
Still, the Senate resolved: “To protect those academics who teach about genocide, and who name scholasticide in Gaza, in line with scholarly and legal evidence; To call for substantial international support for maintaining the ceasefire; To call on the UK government to impose a full arms embargo on Israel as a form of meaningful material pressure to promote an enduring ceasefire; To commit to developing initiatives and partnerships to support the continuation and rebuilding of the higher education sector in Gaza; To express solidarity with academics and universities in Palestine, who have all been affected by scholasticide; To call upon Israeli academic institutions to support the international rule of law, to speak up against scholasticide in Gaza, and to allow free speech for voices opposing genocide in Gaza; To commit to refraining from partnerships with academic institutions that are instrumental to the commission, or support, or enablement of scholasticide.”
While the main goal was to push the absurdist charge of “scholasticide, SOAS was all too happy to point out that Israel had also committed “genocide,” quoting the infamous and discredited opinon of the International Association of Genocide Scholars. For good measure SOAS noted “legitimate” concerns that “Israeli universities may be contributing to the violation of Palestinian rights by cooperating with the Israeli military industrial complex, and thereby supporting apartheid.”
SOAS did not mention Hamas’s brutal rule in Gaza, effectively turning universities and schools into launchpads for missiles and shielding armed fighters.
The second case involves the alleged breaking of the rule of free speech as reported by The Times. The issue surfaced when, next June,SOAS will host the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies (BRISMES) conference, and it was decided that Israeli academics must declare that their institutions are built on land taken from Palestinians.
These demands appeared in the new policy titled “BRISMES Mandatory Policy on Territorial or Land Acknowledgement,” dated September 22, 2025. It describes a policy that sets out the mandatory requirements for land and territorial acknowledgement for all individuals submitting papers, if their institution is “located on land appropriated from Indigenous peoples by settler colonial regimes, including (but not limited to) the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel (1948 Palestine); or Based at institutions established on land appropriated by a foreign occupying power, in contravention of international law, such as in Occupied Palestinian Territory; Any individual whose research was conducted on such appropriated or occupied land.”
According to BRISMES, authors are required to acknowledge “the traditional owners of the land on which the institution to which they are affiliated is located, and/or, in the case of military occupation, acknowledge the status of the land under international law.”
BRISMES explained why such a policy matters: “Acknowledging the land is not a symbolic act but a critical ethical and political gesture. It recognizes: The historical and ongoing dispossession of Indigenous and colonized peoples; The role of institutions in upholding or challenging colonial structures; The imperative to conduct scholarship that is accountable, contextualized, and conscious of power dynamics in knowledge production. This policy affirms BRISMES’s commitment to decolonial scholarship, human rights, and international legal norms.”
The “BRISMES Mandatory Policy on Ethical Publishing and Participation Standards” states that “In line with BRISMES’s commitment to human rights, anti-racism, and decolonial scholarship, submissions and participation in BRISMES activities are subject to the following ethical standards. A paper/proposal will be excluded if it: Glorifies or justifies gross human rights violations, including war crimes, crimes against humanity (including apartheid), or genocide in any context. Incites racial discrimination, hostility, or violence… Engages in advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination.”
The anti-Israel requirement created a public relations problem for SOAS. Aletter from the Committee for Academic Freedom, the London Universities’ Council for Academic Freedom, Alumni for Free Speech, and Academics for Academic Freedom, addressed to Bridget Phillipson, the Secretary of State for Education, and Baroness Smith of Malvern, the Minister of State for Skills and Minister for Women and Equalities, claims that the policy contravenes free speech regulations.
If land acknowledgement is important to BRISMES, it should note that Jews originate from Judea, as mentioned in the Bible and in the Quran, they are referred to as the Sons of Israel.
SOAS has a long anti-Israel and anti-Jewish policy. It was founded to study Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Its teaching and research are dominated by Edward Said’s Orientalism and neo-Marxist, critical theories that cast Israel as a colonial oppressor. Over time, the dominance of these perspectives has created what critics describe as an ideological echo chamber — a self-reinforcing environment in which dissenting or pro-Israel voices are marginalized. This has led to accusations of academic bias and intimidation of students or lecturers who challenge the prevailing narrative. SOAS has an unusually high level of political activism, particularly around Middle East issues, with the Students’ Union repeatedly endorsing BDS. SOAS has historically received funding from the Middle East and developed research partnerships that align it closely with Arab and Palestinian institutions. This is evidenced by initiatives such as the SOAS Middle East Institute (SMEI) and the Centre for Palestine Studies (CPS), as well as collaborations with regional scholars and institutions
SOAS needs to be reminded that the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917, was incorporated into the League of Nations’ Palestine Mandate, which was adopted on July 22, 1922. This mandate entrusted Great Britain with administering Palestine and included the Balfour Declaration’s provision for establishing a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine.
IAM will further report on the developments of these issues.
SOAS University of London (School of Oriental and African Studies)30 October 2025
Senate statement on Gaza, Palestine
The Senate at SOAS is responsible for advising the Board of Trustees on the strategic development and future direction of the university’s academic activities.
It is part of the academic governance structure at SOAS that seeks to bring together the academic voice at SOAS to address matters affecting the academic scope, academic structure and academic standards of the university.
To protect those academics who teach about genocide, and who name scholasticide in Gaza, in line with scholarly and legal evidence.
To call for substantial international support for maintaining the ceasefire.
To call on the UK government to impose a full arms embargo on Israel as a form of meaningful material pressure to promote an enduring ceasefire.
To commit to developing initiatives and partnerships to support the continuation and rebuilding of the higher education sector in Gaza.
To express solidarity with academics and universities in Palestine, who have all been affected by scholasticide.
To call upon Israeli academic institutions to support the international rule of law, to speak up against scholasticide in Gaza, and to allow free speech for voices opposing genocide in Gaza.
To commit to refraining from partnerships with academic institutions that are instrumental to the commission, or support, or enablement of scholasticide.
The full statement and notes are available to download:
Senate Statement on Scholasticide in Gaza, Palestine:
Senate notes
1. That SOAS issued, on 15 December 2023, a statement expressing horror over “the near total destruction of the higher educational sector in the Gaza Strip” and “calling for an immediate ceasefire to prevent any further loss of civilian life.”[1] The ceasefire of October 2025 is hugely welcomed, even if it is only the beginning and not the end of negotiation and rebuilding.
2. That UN Special Rapporteurs expressed in April 2024 grave concern over scholasticide in Gaza, defined as the systemic obliteration of education through the arrest, detention or killing of teachers, students and staff, and the destruction of educational infrastructure. ‘It may be reasonable to ask if there is an intentional effort to comprehensively destroy the Palestinian education system, an action known as “scholasticide”.’[2] Since then all of Gaza’s universities’ facilities have been destroyed,[3] and more than 97% of Gaza’s schools were damaged ot destroyed.[4] More than 17,085 school students, 739 schoolteachers and staff, 1,261 university students and 226 academics and university staff were killed in Gaza between October 2023 and August 2025.[5]
3. That the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry released, on 10 June 2025, a report on the Israel military’s deliberate and systematic destruction of cultural, religious, and educational institutions and sites in Gaza.[6]
4. That the systematic destruction of the educational sector in Gaza has been repeatedly cited as evidence that Israel has been committing a genocide in Gaza, including by Amnesty International (December 2024);[7] B’Tselem (July 2025);[8] the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (August 2025); [9] and the UN Commission of Inquiry’s genocide report (16 September 2025).[10] Indeed, the Commission stated that attacks on education “were aimed at causing irreversible harm to Palestinians in Gaza by destroying elements of the
Palestinian people’s identity and erasing Palestinian culture from Gaza”.[11]
5. That in July 2025 the Presidents of three universities in Gaza called upon the international academic community to show effective forms of solidarity including, working for “a sustainable and lasting ceasefire” and “an end to all complicity with this genocide”; “mobilisation to support and protect Gaza’s higher education institutions”; the “recognition of scholasticide as a systematic war on education”; and supporting the efforts of Palestinian academics in Gaza “to continue teaching and conducting research”.[12]
6. That there has been a legitimate concern that Israeli universities may be contributing to the violation of Palestinian rights by cooperating with the Israeli military industrial complex, and thereby supporting apartheid.13
7. That genocide has been denied by the Israeli government, while the UK government’s former Foreign Secretary stated on 1 September 2025: ‘Israel must do much more to prevent and alleviate the suffering that this conflict is causing. As per the Genocide Convention, the crime of genocide occurs only where there is specific “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.” The (UK) Government has not concluded that Israel is acting with that intent.’[13]
8. But that the International Association of Genocide Scholars resolved on 31 August 2025 that Israel’s policies and actions in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide in Article II of the United Nations Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948).[14] Likewise, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry determined on 16 September 2025 that Israel has committed a genocide in Gaza.[15]
9. That a call was issued in May 2025 by the Black Flag Action Group and signed by over 1400 academic staff of Israeli HEIs, recognised academics’ own role in crimes against humanity and insisted on making Palestinian suffering central to its objections to the war.[16]
10. That in May 2024, Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel released a report on “Repression of Palestinian Students in [36] Israeli Universities and Colleges”.[17]
11. That in some countries (including Norway, Belgium, Spain, Ireland, Netherlands, Italy and Brazil), some universities and scholarly bodies (including the European Association of Social Anthropologists, the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies, and the Middle East Studies Association) have called for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.[18]
12. That organisations in the cultural and artistic sphere have also called for a boycott of Israeli institutions that are “implicated in genocide and apartheid against the Palestinian people”;[19] and several European states have argued for exclusion of Israel from the Eurovision contest.
13. That the European Commission recently proposed to the Council of Europe a suspension of certain trade-related provisions of the Association Agreement between the EU and Israel.[20]
14. That SOAS, as a higher education institution, is committed to social justice and opposed to all forms of racism and discrimination, such as Anti-semitism and Islamophobia, as stated in our Charter on Racism, Antisemitism and All Forms of Cultural, Ethnic and Religious Chauvinism.[21] The university has held events and released statements that challenge both Islamophobia and Anti-semitism[22] and has expressed shock and extreme sadness at the terrorist attack at the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation Synagogue in Greater Manchester on 2 October 2025.[23]
15. That the implication of the values in our new 2026-2030 strategy dictate that in our teaching and research, we seek to understand the root causes of long-standing injustice and recognise the contextual factors that give rise to it; that there is a need to apply a universal standard to all war crimes and crimes against humanity; and that as an academic body we share a responsibility to show unequivocal and meaningful solidarity with academics and universities internationally.
16. That this responsibility is heightened in the context of Palestine after the International Court of Justice’s ruling on 19 July 2024 that Israel’s occupation since 1967 is “unlawful”; that it violates the Palestinian people’s fundamental right to self-determination; that Israel’s policies “amount to annexation” and have violated the fundamental prohibition on acquisition of territory by force; and that Israel has breached Article 3 of the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which prohibits apartheid and racial segregation.[24]
17. That this responsibility is further heightened in the context of Palestine after three orders of provisional measures by the International Court of Justice, in January, March, and May 2024, warning of the risk of genocide and requiring action to prevent this risk of genocide.26
Senate resolves
1. To protect those academics who teach about genocide, and who name scholasticide in Gaza, in line with scholarly and legal evidence.
2. To call for substantial international support for maintaining the ceasefire.
3. To call on the UK government to impose a full arms embargo on Israel as a form of meaningful material pressure to promote an enduring ceasefire.
4. To commit to developing initiatives and partnerships to support the continuation and rebuilding of the higher education sector in Gaza.
5. To express solidarity with academics and universities in Palestine, who have all been affected by scholasticide.
6. To call upon Israeli academic institutions to support the international rule of law, to speak up against scholasticide in Gaza, and to allow free speech for voices opposing genocide in Gaza.
7. To commit to refraining from partnerships with academic institutions that are instrumental to the commission, or support, or enablement of scholasticide.
[5] Chandni Desai, Sundos Hammad, Ahmed Abu Shaban & Abdel Razzaq Takriti, “Scholasticide and resilience: The Gaza Genocide and the struggle for Palestinian higher education”, Curriculum Inquiry, 9 October 2025, DOI: 10.1080/03626784.2025.2558520
BRISMES Mandatory Policy on Territorial or Land Acknowledgement
Updated 22 September 2025.
This policy sets out the mandatory requirements for land and territorial acknowledgement for all individuals submitting to the British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies (BJMES) and/or participating in the annual BRISMES conference.
1. Scope of the Policy
This policy applies to:
All authors submitting articles to the British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies (BJMES);
All individuals submitting proposals or participating in the BRISMES Annual Conference;
All authors or participants who are:
Working or studying at an institution located on land appropriated from Indigenous peoples by settler colonial regimes, including (but not limited to) the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel (1948 Palestine); or
Based at institutions established on land appropriated by a foreign occupying power, in contravention of international law, such as in Occupied Palestinian Territory;
Any individual whose research was conducted on such appropriated or occupied land.
2. Policy Requirements
In alignment with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP, 2007) and BRISMES’s commitment to anti-colonial, anti-racist, and international legal principles, authors and conference participants are required to:
A. Institutional Acknowledgement
Acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which the institution to which they are affiliated is located, and/or, in the case of military occupation, acknowledge the status of the land under international law.
B. Research Location Acknowledgement
If the research underpinning the article or paper was conducted on land that is:
Traditionally owned by Indigenous peoples (in settler colonial contexts), or
Under foreign military occupation in violation of international law,
Then this must also be acknowledged in the manuscript or presentation materials.
3. Guidelines for Implementation
To comply with this policy, authors and presenters must:
Include a land acknowledgement in:
The author affiliation section (when submitting a manuscript/paper abstract/conference registration/conference visual presentation materials)
The acknowledgements section (providing further details, in final manuscript submission/conference paper)
When applicable, reference the relevant legal instruments or UN resolutions recognizing the status of the land (e.g., UNSC Resolution 2334 (2016) for Occupied Palestinian Territory; UNSC 550 (1984) for occupied northern Cyprus).
When referring to Indigenous peoples, use Indigenous place names or language terms, accompanied by an English translation where necessary.
Where relevant, document partnerships with Indigenous communities or stakeholders involved in the research process.
Land acknowledgement in the case of settler colonies
Example 1:
Author affiliation: Author name, Department of History, The University of British Columbia (Vancouver Campus), situated on the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territory of the xwməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam), Canada
Acknowledgements: The University of British Columbia (Vancouver Campus) is situated on the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territory of the xwməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam) people. I acknowledge the enduring connection of Indigenous peoples to this land and the ongoing legacy of settler colonialism.
Example 2:
Author affiliation: Author name, Department of Middle Eastern and African History, Tel Aviv University, built on the site of the Palestinian village of Sheikh Muwanis, Israel.
Acknowledgements: Tel Aviv University is located on the site of the Palestinian village of Sheikh Muwanis, which was depopulated during the Nakba of 1948.
Land acknowledgement in the case of Occupied Territory
Example 1:
Author affiliation: Name of Author, Department of Middle Eastern Studies, Ariel University, Occupied Palestinian Territory (United Nations designation)
Acknowledgements: Ariel University is located in an Israeli settlement in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 (2016) affirms is illegal under international law.
Example 2:
Author affiliation: Name of Author, Department of Political Science and International Relations, Middle East Technical University-Northern Cyprus Campus, Republic of Cyprus under Turkish military occupation (United Nations designation)
Acknowledgements: Middle East Technical University-Northern Cyprus Campus is located in the Republic of Cyprus, in an area under Turkish military occupation. The campus was established by the Government of Turkey and is not recognised by the Government of the Republic of Cyprus. UN Security Council Resolution 550 (1984) affirms that the UN does not recognise Turkish sovereignty over northern Cyprus.
Land acknowledgement in the case of research taking place in Occupied Territory
Example 1
Author affiliation: Name of Author, XX University (that does not fall under the land acknowledgement policy).
Acknowledgements: This research was conducted in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which, according to the International Court of Justice advisory opinion of 19 July 2024 is under unlawful Israeli occupation. See ICJ Summary 2024/8 and UN General Assembly Resolution A/78/968.
4. Why This Policy Matters
Acknowledging the land is not a symbolic act but a critical ethical and political gesture. It recognizes:
The historical and ongoing dispossession of Indigenous and colonized peoples;
The role of institutions in upholding or challenging colonial structures;
The imperative to conduct scholarship that is accountable, contextualized, and conscious of power dynamics in knowledge production.
This policy affirms BRISMES’s commitment to decolonial scholarship, human rights, and international legal norms.
5. Additional Resources
Native Land Interactive Map – https://native-land.ca (Identifies Indigenous territories globally — especially useful for those in settler colonial states.)
This is a mandatory policy. Submissions to BJMES and proposals to the BRISMES conference that do not comply with the land or territorial acknowledgement requirements will be returned. Continued non-compliance will result in the rejection of the submission or withdrawal of participation.
BRISMES reserves the right to request clarification or additional information from authors or presenters regarding their institutional or research locations to ensure compliance.
7. Assistance and Contact
For further clarification or assistance in preparing a land acknowledgement, please contact:
Dr Lloyd Ridgeon, Editor, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies: lvjr@ioc.u-tokyo.ac.jp
This policy reflects the position of BRISMES only. It does not represent the views of the publisher, Editor, or any other third parties associated with this Journal, nor those of any institution hosting the BRISMES conference.
United Nations. (2024). Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. 19 July. A/78/968, https://docs.un.org/en/A/78/968
BRISMES Mandatory Policy on Ethical Publishing and Participation Standards
In line with BRISMES’s commitment to human rights, anti-racism, and decolonial scholarship, submissions and participation in BRISMES activities are subject to the following ethical standards.
A paper/proposal will be excluded if it:
Glorifies or justifies gross human rights violations, including war crimes, crimes against humanity (including apartheid), or genocide in any context.
Incites racial discrimination, hostility, or violence.
Is submitted by an academic who:
a. Has served in the military forces (including logistical and intelligence units) of a state charged in international courts with war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide, where such service took place during the period in which those crimes occurred.
b. Is reasonably suspected of involvement in public incitement to war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide.
c. Engages in advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence, as prohibited under international human rights law and recognised as among the severest forms of hate speech.
The above stipulations also apply to reviewers, editors, editorial board members, committee members, employees and other individuals involved in BRISMES activities.
Compliance and Enforcement
This is a mandatory policy. Submissions to BJMES, proposals to the BRISMES conference or registration to the conference by individuals that violate BRISMES’s ethical publishing and participation standards will be rejected.
BRISMES reserves the right to request clarification or additional information from authors or presenters regarding their involvement in activities that are prohibited under international law.
For further clarification or assistance in relation to this policy, please contact:
Dr Lloyd Ridgeon, Editor, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies: lvjr@ioc.u-tokyo.ac.jp
This policy reflects the position of BRISMES only. It does not represent the views of the publisher, Editor, or any other third parties associated with this Journal, nor those of any institution hosting the BRISMES conference.
SOAS Senate condemns Israel’s scholasticide in Gaza, urges UK arms embargo
The Senate advises SOAS’s Board of Trustees on the institution’s direction, including its academic activities
The New Arab Staff & Agencies 31 October, 2025
The Senate of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) has issued a statement condemning scholasticide in Gaza and is seeking a refrainment of partnerships that enable it.
In the statement published on Thursday, the Senate issued seven separate policy resolutions on the issue of Israel’s war on Gaza, including a commitment “to refrain from partnership with academic institutions that are instrumental to the commission, or support, or enablement of scholasticide”.
The statement also called for Israeli academic institutions to “speak up against scholasticide in Gaza,” and expressed solidarity with institutions and academics in Palestine affected by scholasticide.
The Senate advises SOAS’s Board of Trustees on the institution’s direction, including its academic activities.
The statement also calls on the university to protect academics teaching about genocide, including those who label Israel’s war on Gaza a scholasticide, as well as calling for the maintenance of the ongoing ceasefire in Gaza.
Additionally, the statement calls on the UK government to impose a unilateral arms embargo against Israel, and to develop partnerships with Gaza’s higher education sector.
Since the beginning of Israel’s war on Gaza in October 2023, the enclave’s education sector has been battered by Israeli airstrikes, which have also killed over 68,000 Palestinians.
The statements cite numerous reports accusing Israel of committing scholasticide as part of a genocide in Gaza, including Amnesty International, B’Tselem, and a UN commission of inquiry.
The statement defines scholasticide as “the systematic obliteration of education through the arrest, detention or killing of teachers, students and staff, and the destruction of educational infrastructure.”
The new calls come amid claims that universities across the UK have repressed pro-Palestine students, including SOAS, which removed a pro-Palestine encampment from campus.
In August, the university took action against Haya Adam, a second-year law and international relations student and leader of the school’s Palestine Society, on account of breaking the university’s code of conduct, an accusation Adam denied.
Earlier this month, the Yale Daily Newsreported on a petition initiated by a student protesting a course on Iranian-American relations taught by Robert Malley, a former U.S. special envoy to Iran.
The petition is titled “No Safe Haven for Fascist Regimes at Yale,” and takes issue with four people who are on the course syllabus while having “long-standing ties to the Islamic Republic.”
Malley, who was a special envoy for Iran during the Biden administration, was investigated in 2023 and placed on leave by the State Department due to concerns over his alleged mishandling of classified documents. In 2024, the Jackson School of Global Affairs at Yale offered him a position.
Malley’s Yale course is titled “Adversaries by Design: Deconstructing the Iran-US Relationship.” The course offers an “in-depth look at relations between the United States and Iran from the 1979 Islamic revolution to today. The course does not purport to offer a comprehensive history of the bilateral relationship, but rather to examine the past in order to better appreciate the two governments’ worldviews and the reasons behind a more than 40 year-old antagonism that remains one of the world’s most dangerous. Our goal is to try to put ourselves in the shoes of US and Iranian decision-makers, internalize their respective narratives and assessments of the past, and seek to understand why each sees acts toward the other as they do. We focus in particular on the two nations’ sense of (in)security, Iran’s and the US’s regional roles and ties to Mideast state and non-state actors, the nuclear question and nuclear negotiations, as well as the role and impact of US sanctions. The course will closely follow unfolding events and examine possible future scenarios in light of these historical lessons. Guest lecturers will join to offer Iranian and US perspectives.”
Hadi Mahdeyan, the student behind the petition, told the Yale Daily that Malley’s syllabus features Iranian individuals with long-standing ties to the Islamic Republic, such as: “Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Islamic Republic’s longtime foreign minister, now sanctioned by the U.S. government for enabling repression and supporting terrorist proxies; Hossein Mousavian, a former regime diplomat associated with the 1990s Mykonos assassinations in Berlin and known for promoting antisemitic and pro-terrorist narratives; Ali Vaez, a figure documented to have coordinated commentary with regime officials, amplifying propaganda during nuclear negotiations; Trita Parsi, known for promoting positions favorable to the Islamic Republic and downplaying its human rights abuses, has also been seen numerous times in private meetings with regime officials.” Mahdeyan also published an article, “Tehran’s unofficial embassy at Yale,” where he discussed these issues.
Malley has an extensive role in shaping American policy towards Iran and its Axis of Resistance. This role complicated American and Israeli efforts to stop Tehran’s strategy of regional domination.
Malley’s father, Simon, was aJewish-Egyptiancommunist-aligned journalist and activist based in Paris, whose Cold War views on American alleged imperialism and subjugation of the Third World influenced Malley’s worldview, favoring dialogue with adversaries, emphasizing negotiation over coercion, and displaying a deep skepticism toward U.S. military intervention.
Malley found an outlet for his views while serving in the Clinton administration, where he oversaw the Israeli-Palestinian portfolio. He participated in the 2000 Camp David Summit, where Yasser Arafat, a close friend of his father, rejected what was widely regarded as a generous peace proposal and walked away from the negotiations.
Malley co-authored influential articles that assigned significant responsibility for the summit’s failure to Israel, by stating “Blaming Arafat for the failure of the peace process is a dangerous mistake” – a position that generated considerable controversy and shaped perceptions of his later diplomatic approach.
Malley’s anti-Israel position increased after he became the director of the Middle East project at the International Crisis Group (ICG) in 2002. He was known for advocating dialogue with groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran’s regional proxies, arguing that a durable peace required understanding their motivations rather than isolating them. This approach drew heavy criticism from U.S. and Israeli officials, who viewed it as legitimizing extremist movements. However, it appealed to President Obama, who appointed Malley to lead the nuclear negotiations with Iran.
Tehran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif credited Robert Malley with helping to shape the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in a manner favorable to the Iranian regime. Conservative American observers and the Israeli government, in particular, were sharply critical of Malley’s influential role in crafting the agreement.
After returning to the ICG, Malley focused much of his attention on protecting the Houthis, the increasingly crucial Iranian ally who controlled a strategically critical position on the Bab al-Mandab strait at the southern entrance to the Red Sea. The Iranian regime supplied the Houthis with a substantial arsenal of missiles and drones. These advanced weapons enabled the militants to operate far beyond Yemen, striking targets in southern Israel and disrupting maritime traffic through the Red Sea. By providing both strategic guidance and material support, Iran ensured that the Houthis furthered Tehran’s regional ambitions while complicating U.S. and Israeli efforts to contain the threats.
Ignoring the Iranian influence, Malley argued in a February 2021 Foreign Affairsarticle that the Trump administration’s decision to designate the Houthis as a Foreign Terrorist Organization exacerbated the humanitarian crisis in Yemen by obstructing aid delivery and complicating ongoing diplomatic efforts. The humanitarian crisis “initiative” was to be repeated in Gaza later.
Once back in the Biden administration as Special Envoy for Iran, Malley oversaw the delisting of the Houthis as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and resisted subsequent efforts to reinstate the designation, even as the group’s actions since the onset of the Gaza War virtually paralyzed maritime traffic in the Red Sea.
Militarily, the Houthis employed their increasingly sophisticated Iranian-supplied missiles and drones to launch direct attacks against Israel, underscoring their transformation from a marginal Yemeni insurgent movement into the most assertive and successful member of the Axis of Resistance.
Malley’s persistent defense of the Houthis, consistent with his broader strategy of accommodating the Islamist regime in Tehran, puzzled many observers. An investigative report, “Inside Iran’s Influence Operation,” published by Semafor, an American news website, offered possible explanations for this stance. The article revealed that Malley was one of the top names in Iran Expert Initiative (IEI), essentially an influence operation to promote Iran’s interests in the United States and Europe. The article, based on a trove of leaked documents from Iran’s Foreign Ministry, indicates that Malley was instrumental in hiring some of the academics and think-tankers on the IEI list for the Pentagon.
Malley has never been accused of providing information to the Iranian regime.
The issue of deep-rooted Iranian influence in American universities such as Yale is clear.
The Iranian legal scholar, Helyeh Doutaghi, the deputy director of a liberal project at Yale Law School, was fired from Yale University following allegations that she was directly connected to Samidoun, a designated terrorist organization.
Iran follows Yale closely. For example, the Iranian media,Tasnim, reported in April that “Yale Students Stage Overnight Protest against Visit by Israeli Minister,” by announcing that “More than 200 students at Yale University held an overnight demonstration on Tuesday to protest a planned visit by Israeli national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. The protest began around 6 p.m. (22:00 GMT) with about 25 participants. By 9:30 p.m. (01:30 GMT), eight tents had been set up, and the number of demonstrators had grown significantly.” Such detailed reporting raises the question of whether Iran was involved in organizing the protest behind the scenes.
The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) takes the Malley affair further. A published report in August 2023, questioned “The Robert Malley affair: Did the President’s Top Negotiator Effectively Spy for Iran?”
According to the IPT report, Malley was among several Biden administration members who met in Washington with pro-Iranian propagandists.
IPT states that “The details of Malley’s suspension remain murky, just as the extent of the damage he may have done during his job as an envoy to Iran.” Murky indeed. In October 2024, media reported that the “FBI probes whether Iran envoy Malley committed crimes in handling of classified info.”
Malley’s anti-Israel position is glaring. Last July, he co-authored an article for the Guardian, “France and Britain’s recognition of a Palestinian state won’t stop Israel’s onslaught,” arguing that “Israel will continue to bomb, starve and seek to ethnically cleanse Gaza; it will carry on land grabs, home demolitions, displacement of Palestinians, and will further entrench its presence in the West Bank.”
The Iran-Yale-Malley triangle should be exposed. To recall, IAM repeatedly reported how Jews or Israelis are recruited to serve an anti-Israel agenda. Yale University provides the platform.
Student’s petition objects to authors in Iran course’s syllabus
An Iranian student who started an online petition takes issue with authors included in the syllabus for former U.S. diplomat Robert Malley’s course on U.S.-Iran relations.
A student petition is protesting the syllabus of a course about Iranian-American relations taught by Robert Malley, a former U.S. special envoy to the country.
The petition, titled “No Safe Haven for Fascist Regimes at Yale,” which had achieved over 140 signatures by Thursday night, takes issue with four people it describes as being on the course syllabus and having “long-standing ties to the Islamic Republic.”
Malley, formerly the U.S special envoy for Iran during the Biden administration, was first investigated and placed on leave in 2023 due to concerns over his alleged mishandling of classified documents. Malley has denied wrongdoing.
Malley’s course “Adversaries by Design: Deconstructing the Iran-US Relationship” is the only course he is teaching this fall. He was hired in 2023, months after he was put on leave by the State Department.
Hadi Mahdeyan ’27, an Iranian student who started the petition, described his shock at reading the syllabus for Malley’s course.
“Growing up in Iran and being in the middle of all the nuclear negotiations and the protests and the government oppression, this has always been something that I’ve been familiar with,” Mahdeyan said in an interview with the News.
The course syllabus, available on Canvas, lists three of the four people cited in the petition. Articles by former Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, former Iranian diplomat and Princeton researcher Seyed Hossein Mousavian, as well as four by scholar Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group, are all assigned. Malley was formerly the president and CEO of the International Crisis Group.
The News was not able to independently verify that the fourth person listed on the petition, Trita Parsi — the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft — was on any version of the syllabus. Outside of this course, Parsi is listed on the website of the Jackson School’s Grand Strategy Program as a guest “involved in the program.”
In an email to the News, Malley wrote that “the syllabus includes a wide array of voices. In this class, for example, we will be joined remotely by a former Trump administration official, a former Biden administration official, a former Iranian official, as well as several analysts and experts on issues affecting U.S./Iran relations.”
“Similar to all the courses I teach at Yale, my objective in this class is to give students the tools to look at the world through multiple perspectives,” Malley wrote.
Mahdeyan’s petition advocates for Yale to audit instances in which individuals associated with the Iranian government are “platformed.”
A University spokesperson did not respond to the News’ request for comment.
Siena Galesi-Grant ’28, a student in the course on Iran, described it as her favorite of the “quite a few foreign policy and Middle East courses” she had taken at Yale. She said she had no qualms about the content of the syllabus or Malley’s security clearance.
Mahdeyan, who is not in the course, said he took issue not just with the syllabus, but with Malley himself teaching the class, adding that he doesn’t believe that there can be a “productive discussion” given what he described as Malley’s connections to the Iranian government.
“I am always more than willing to engage with any student on campus who wishes to discuss the class, my perspective, my background, or any substantive issue — including of course members of the Yale community who disagree with my views,” Malley wrote to the News.
Mahdeyan admitted that he had declined an invitation to meet with Malley.
“He’s being given institutional authority that I don’t agree with,” he said. Mahdeyan added that speaking with Malley would “just legitimize this class.”
In the fall of 2023, Malley taught his first course at Yale — “International Politics of the Middle East: Perception and Misperception in Four Crises.”
Korosh Menitar and 19 others have signed recently.
The Issue
Petition to Yale University Leadership and Relevant U.S. Government Authorities
We, the undersigned students, alumni, Iranian-Americans, and concerned allies, call on Yale University and the U.S. government to urgently review the platforming of sanctioned and regime-affiliated figures tied to the Islamic Republic in Iran in U.S. academic institutions.
At Yale, former U.S. diplomat Robert Malley, whose security clearance has been suspended and who is under FBI investigation, is teaching while assigning a syllabus that features individuals with long-standing ties to the Islamic Republic, including but not limited to:
Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Islamic Republic’s longtime foreign minister, now sanctioned by the U.S. government for enabling repression and supporting terrorist proxies.
Hossein Mousavian, a former regime diplomat associated with the 1990s Mykonos assassinations in Berlin and known for promoting antisemitic and pro-terrorist narratives.
Ali Vaez, a figure documented to have coordinated commentary with regime officials, amplifying propaganda during nuclear negotiations.
Trita Parsi, known for promoting positions favorable to the Islamic Republic and downplaying its human rights abuses, has also been seen numerous times in private meetings with regime officials.
These individuals are not neutral scholars. They are functionaries, propagandists, or advocates for the Islamic Republic. Their presence in U.S. classrooms risks legitimizing an authoritarian system that persecutes women, minorities, and political prisoners, and endangers Iranian refugees and dissidents studying in America.
We respectfully call on Yale University to:
Audit courses and events that the platform sanctioned or regime-affiliated individuals.
Publicly disclose whether funding linked to Qatar or the Islamic Republic is subsidizing these activities.
Establish safeguards to prevent Yale’s name from being used to launder authoritarian propaganda directly linked to designated state sponsors of terrorism, such as the Islamic Republic in Iran.
We also call on the U.S. government, including the Department of Education, the Department of Treasury (OFAC), and the FBI, to:
Review Yale’s activities for compliance with sanctions law and foreign influence regulations.
Ensure that federal funds are not indirectly supporting projects tied to the Islamic Republic.
Protect the safety of Iranian refugee and dissident students from exposure to regime agents on U.S. campuses.
Academic freedom is a pillar of higher education, but it cannot be used as cover to normalize the narratives of sanctioned officials and advocates of the Islamic Republic. Both Yale University and the U.S. government have a duty to safeguard truth, integrity, and the security of students.
Robert Malley, who negotiated the JCPOA, will teach a course on the U.S.-Iranian relationship that feature speakers with ties to the Iranian regime.
U.S. Special Envoy for Iran Robert Malley speaks to “VOA Persian” at the State Department in Washington, March 7, 2021. Credit: VOA Persian via Wikimedia Commons.
The excitement I once felt arriving at Yale University from Tehran in 2023 for my studies quickly turned into concerns about my safety as an anti-regime Iranian. At school, I witnessed the unchallenged authority of Islamic Republic sympathizers in American universities. Faculty tied to the regime have long presented themselves as presumptive Iranian voices, normalizing the regime’s illegitimate rule by erasing the realities of Iranians living in Iran.
Yale’s fall 2025 course catalogue, for instance, features a class by now-disgraced U.S. diplomat Robert Malley, who led negotiations for the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear deal, under former President Barack Obama.
Malley’s class will “examine the past in order to better appreciate the two governments’ worldviews” and place students “in the shoes of U.S. and Iranian decision-makers.”
Course assignments for “Adversaries by Design: Deconstructing the Iran-U.S. Relationship” have students cosplaying as diplomats for the regime, as if this is some benign Model U.N.-like exercise rather than a calculated attempt to humanize the theocratic, colonizing dictatorship responsible for the majority of crimes against humanity in the region since 1979.
The course revolves around defending Malley’s failed magnum opus, the JCPOA, and his syllabus mentions having guest lecturers such as Ali Vaez, Hossein Mousavian and Mohammad Javad Zarif, all of whom have acted on behalf of the regime at one time or another. Malley purports to offer “Iranian perspectives,” but the class will likely only feature Islamic Republic officials and supporters.
One might wonder how it’s possible for a former U.S. government official who lost his security clearance and had close contact with Islamic Republic agents to lecture at an elite American university. But fear not! This is Yale, a Western institution where enabling the ideologies of designated terrorist groups is appropriate under the pretense of academia. And this isn’t an isolated incident for Yale.
In a prior semester, Yale offered “Shi’i Islam, History and Legal Thought,” which mirrored a typical Iranian university course, uncritically featuring works by Ali, the first Shia imam, and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The instructor was Latifeh Aavani, whose signature appears on a 2017 letter endorsing former Iranian Regime president Hassan Rouhani, the butcher responsible for the 2020 “Bloody November” massacre in Iran. Her father is a scholar of the Basij, a part of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a close friend of the Khomeini family and board member of the “Institute of Wisdom and Philosophy” alongside Ayatollah Khamenei’s brother.
While teaching about Sharia law, the JCPOA and U.S.-Islamic Republic relations won’t necessarily spread the regime’s ideology, uncritically platforming Islamic Republic sympathizers certainly will.
This tradition of laundering the regime’s propaganda goes back years. A glowing Yale Daily Newsarticle from 1979, “Yale Student Leads Forces of Khomeini in Washington,” reports on doctoral candidate and Muslim fundamentalist, Shariar Rouhani, who left his studies to become the ayatollah’s official spokesman in Washington.
Aside from national security concernsassociated with indoctrinating the next generation of leaders into treating the regime favorably, Malley’s “advocacy” has brushed aside the suffering of my people.
I remember forming my earliest memories in the summer of 2009, the summer of the Green Movementprotests in Iran, jumping over pieces of glass. Streets were filled with green worn by anti-regime protesters. The air was heavy with the smell of gunpowder and tear gas, a smell that lingered as I grew up in Tehran.
After the “Bloody November” protests in Iran in 2019, Malley suggested in The New York Times that the massive public protests were reason enough for the Islamic Regime’s paranoia of an “Israeli-Saudi-U.S. plot,” seemingly justifying the regime’s mass murder of peaceful protesters. Members of the International Crisis Group, of which Malley is the former president and CEO, further distorted reality, asserting that Iranians are “not demanding a radical shift.”
I didn’t hear about these lies until much later. Nor did any other Iranians in Iran. We were experiencing a total shutdown of the internet, cell service and electricity. What we heard were gunshots from the regime and the chants of protesters: “We don’t want, we don’t want, the Islamic Republic.”
While Malley and his think-tank employees desperately falsified the reality in Iran, the Islamic Republic murdered at least 1,500 innocent Iranians in less than three days.
For the past 46 years, virtually all Iranian academics have been killed, banned or silenced by the regime for committing thought crimes, which means that regime sympathizers are the ones teaching policymakers and academics. The Iran that Malley and his cohorts present is a facade, the Islamic Republic’s fading illusion of ideological unity and control.
During the genocide of Iranians in the 1980s, Malley was a Yale student and said nothing. In 2021, as Hamas terrorists were preparing for the Oct. 7 massacre, Malley said that he speaks with Hezbollah and Hamas, and that “They have their own rationality … none of them are crazy,” as if having an internal logic justifies their genocidal actions and aspirations.
In 2023, it was reported that Malley helped “fund, support and direct an Iranian intelligence operation designed to influence the United States and allied governments.” And now he’s been given free rein to spread his dangerous rhetoric at Yale. This alone should disqualify him from his post.
The Islamic Republic is evil, but it is not competent. Like all failing dictatorships, violence and deceitful strategies are used to maintain legitimacy. That’s why the regime’s main “soft power” is manipulating the world’s ignorance. Unfortunately, it is succeeding with classes like the one being taught by Malley.
Unlike Iranian students who face imprisonment and death for demanding academic freedom, students in the West have the privilege to demand accountability and transparency from their institutions without fear.
Past and present Yalies need to reach out and demand an explanation for their school’s hiring policies. The school should impose an audit on Malley’s class and put more effort into supporting diverse views on Iran. Additionally, all community members interested in maintaining Yale’s reputation as an elite institution should protest this blatant attempt to indoctrinate students.
A former Yale University professor who was previously terminated for allegations of being linked to a terrorist organization has encouraged Iran to target U.S. military bases.
Helyeh Doutaghi, a former educator at Yale University, recently made the comments about a potential Iranian attack on X.
Internet personality Eyal Yakoby published a screenshot of Doutaghi’s June 12 X post.
“[A]ll US military bases in the region, the occupied Palestinian territories, and any state that enables aggression by allowing its airspace or territory to be used for attacks against Iran,” said Doutaghi, commenting on a separate post that stated that Iran has the right to defend itself.
Yale News reported that Doutaghi was placed on administrative leave from her position at Yale on March 6 after she was accused of being connected to the international Samidoun network—a designated terrorist organization.
Doutaghi reportedly refused to cooperate with the university, resulting in her contract being terminated. According to The New Haven Register, Doutaghi later claimed that she was experiencing retaliation for her support for Palestine.
Many of Doutaghi’s X posts reflect anti-West and anti-American sentiments.
“The West will not remain untouched by the barbaric violence it is inflicting upon our homelands,” Doutaghi said in a June 15 X post. “A deepening energy security crisis is coming. Global trade routes and energy flows will suffer. The cost of complicity will be felt.”
Regarding the United States, specifically, Doutaghi posted on Saturday that, “America’s direct military assault on Iran will conclude its decline as an empire-just as Israel’s aggression on Iran has put an end to its military illusion and exposed the fragility of its settler-colonial project.”
In another post on Monday, Doutaghi commented on the intercepted Iranian attack on U.S. bases in Qatar, saying “Morning: Iran hits a US proxy. Afternoon: Iran hits a US base. And some still can’t see the empire crumbling.”
Campus Reform contacted Yale University for comment but has not received a response by publication. This article will be updated accordingly.
TEHRAN – USA’s Yale University has suspended Iranian scholar Helyeh Doutaghi, Deputy Director of the Law and Political Economy (LPE) Project, following a smear campaign by the AI-powered Israeli outlet Jewish Onliner.
The case underscores the escalating use of technology and state power to silence pro-Palestine voices during Trump’s second administration, exposing the hypocrisy of U.S. claims to defend free speech while weaponizing McCarthyist tactics against dissenters.
Doutaghi, an Iranian-born international law expert and associate research scholar at Yale Law School, was placed on administrative leave within 24 hours of Jewish Onliner’s March 3 article accusing her of ties to Samidoun, a pro-Palestine group sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury.
The Zionist outlet, exposed by Haaretz as an AI-driven bot network with ties to Israeli military entities, labeled Doutaghi a “terrorist” for her outspoken criticism of the Israeli regime’s war crimes in Gaza.
Yale conducted no independent investigation, instead relying on AI-generated disinformation to justify interrogating Doutaghi under conditions she described as a “predetermined guilty verdict.”
Denied religious accommodations during Ramadan and access to campus, Doutaghi condemned the university’s actions as “retaliation against Palestinian solidarity” and a “blatant act of Zionist McCarthyism.”
Yale’s links to war profiteers and Zionist donors
Yale’s appointment of David Ring from Wiggin and Dana for Doutaghi’s interrogation hints at a possible conflict of interest.
Ring, a State Department appointee and advocate for defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, profits from F-35 jets used by the Israeli regime in Gaza.
Doutaghi noted Yale’s financial ties to these firms, stating the university “prioritized Zionist donors over fairness.”
Eric Lee, Doutaghi’s lawyer, accused Yale of “bending the knee to Trump’s dictatorship,” linking her suspension to the administration’s “Catch and Revoke” policy.
This initiative, led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, uses AI to revoke visas of international students accused of supporting Palestinian rights—a policy that entangled Mahmoud Khalil, a green-card-holding Columbia graduate detained by ICE for leading pro-Gaza protests.
Double standards in free speech
The U.S. government’s selective enforcement of free speech is striking. While platforms such as Jewish Onliner are allowed to spread AI-generated disinformation unchecked, Iranian and Palestinian advocates face censorship, deportation, and even death threats for expressing their ideas.
The Trump administration’s designation of 60 universities under investigation for “antisemitism”—a pretext to criminalize pro-Palestine speech—highlights this hypocrisy.
Doutaghi warned that “Zionist McCarthyism treats solidarity with Palestine as a crime,” drawing parallels to Cold War purges in the U.S.
Khalil’s detention, she noted, exemplifies the criminalization of dissent: “This is not about national security—it’s about silencing resistance to U.S. imperialism and Zionist settler-colonialism.”
Her case has galvanized demands to defend academic freedom and Palestinian rights as legal battles continue.
“This is the last refuge of a crumbling empire,” she asserted, urging resistance against “brute repression masquerading as law.”
TEHRAN (Tasnim) – More than 200 students at Yale University held an overnight demonstration on Tuesday to protest a planned visit by Israeli national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.
The protest began around 6 p.m. (22:00 GMT) with about 25 participants.
By 9:30 p.m. (01:30 GMT), eight tents had been set up, and the number of demonstrators had grown significantly.
“We’re here, and we’re staying the night,” a protest organizer said through a megaphone.
Ben-Gvir is currently on his first tour of the United States, with stops in New Haven and New York.
Shabtai, a Jewish organization at Yale, invited Ben-Gvir to speak.
In comments to the student newspaper, Shabtai founder Shmully Hecht said: “At a personal level I believe it is specifically unapologetic events such as this one that has preserved Yale as a more moderate safe haven for Jews in the current toxic Ivy community of extremism.”
The Sumud Coalition, a pro-Palestinian student group at Yale, said the demonstration was led by independent students opposed to Ben-Gvir’s visit and Yale’s silence on the matter.
The protest comes in the wake of April 2024 demonstrations, during which students urged Yale to sever financial ties with weapons manufacturers over Israel’s war in Gaza.
During those protests, US police arrested 48 people, including 44 Yale students, while clearing the first of two encampments.
Israel launched the US-backed war on the Gaza Strip in October 2023 after a retaliatory operation by the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas. At least 51,266 people have been killed in the brutal war so far.
Netanyahu’s government will be emboldened by what amounts to a distraction. The priority must be ending the butchery in Gaza
Wed 30 Jul 2025 11.00
Almost two years into a conflict that has cost tens of thousands of lives, amid an Israeli military campaign and humanitarian blockade that have reached apocalyptic proportions, and faced with their own powerlessness as they bear witness to what growing numbers of experts call a genocide, Emmanuel Macron has announced France’s dramatic next step: it will recognize a Palestinian state in September.
Keir Starmer quickly followed suit, stating that the UK would do likewise unless Israel took actions – including ending the appalling situation in Gaza and committing to a process leading to a two-state solution – he surely knows it will not. Palestinians rejoice; Israelis seethe; the Trump administration denounces the move and issues dire warnings. It is all profoundly pointless. The step is utterly disconnected from reality and at odds with its purported goals. It will do nothing to end Israel’s onslaught. It will not bring the parties any closer to a two-state solution. It will boost Benjamin Netanyahu’s political fortunes. The Palestinian people will end up the biggest losers.
For Palestinians, the day after France’s announcement will be much like the day prior. Israel will continue to bomb, starve and seek to ethnically cleanse Gaza; it will carry on land grabs, home demolitions, displacement of Palestinians, and will further entrench its presence in the West Bank. Already, close to 150 countries recognize the State of Palestine, barely 20 fewer than the number that recognize Israel. The entity so recognized has no defined territory, no effective government, no sovereignty. It has, in short, none of the attributes that define a state. To the Palestinians will go empty statements and diplomatic gimmickry. To Israelis, the land, the resources, the wealth. Some deal.
If anything, the situation will worsen. The Israeli government feigns fury, but the fury will fade fast. Far from feeling embattled, Netanyahu’s government will be emboldened, grateful for anything that distracts attention from the slaughter it is conducting in Gaza and that, under cover of its anger, it will redouble. Domestically, Israel’s opposition may blame the prime minister for putting the country in this position, but it feels compelled to close ranks, unanimous in its condemnation of anything that hints at a Palestinian state. Hostility to Palestinian statehood is not the province of the current Israeli government alone. On the eve of 7 October, it pervaded Israeli society; in the wake of the bloodiest attack in the nation’s history, it has become an article of faith. A year ago, presented with a bill rejecting the establishment of a Palestinian state, 68 members of the Knesset voted in favor; only the Arab parties voted against.
The damage may run deeper still. Having defied Israel, ignored its protestations, alienated its people, offered a prize to its foes, France and European governments that follow in its lead – as France hopes they might at a UN conference this week – might conclude that, for now, their work on behalf of the Palestinians is done. They will expect from them deep gratitude. They might feel relieved of any obligation to exert pressure on Israel where it really hurts and really matters – to impose tangible consequences, demand accountability, or enforce sanctions if it does not stop the war, end the siege, halt its settlement enterprise. Instead, the pressure will turn on the Palestinians to prove they are worthy of this munificent offering.
All this for what? The most absurd part of this endeavor is that it is taking place on behalf of what has become an imaginary goal. Worthy as it was, the quest for a two-state solution has come to an end. It succumbed to Israeli intransigence, Palestinian ambivalence, American fecklessness, and the rest of the world’s impotence. It failed under far more auspicious circumstances – when settlements were significantly fewer, Israel’s territorial encroachment less intrusive, Palestinian and Israeli politics more promising, popular backing on both sides greater. It failed when it might have had a chance and today it has none. Starmer illustrated the nonsense of his position even as he argued for it, justifying recognition of a Palestinian state by pointing to dwindling prospects of its coming about. The recurrent recitation of support for two states, whether by Joe Biden yesterday, Macron and other European officials today, Arab leaders at all times, is an empty lie that will not become truth by virtue of repetition.
The lie is a distraction. The priority today is to end the butchery in Gaza, which will not be done without imposing material costs on the Israeli government that is perpetrating it and depriving it of the weapons with which it does so. Beyond that is a need to reimagine creative approaches to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that renounce deceit and pretense, put aside the illusory goal of hard partition between two states, and seek a different pathway to dignified coexistence between the two peoples.
The irony is that recognizing a Palestinian state is of no interest to its purported audience: the Israeli and Palestinian people. They have a long and painful experience of such symbolic statements. The gains will be made by others, whose bitter verbal disagreements conceal a more cynical alignment of interests: recognition suits the Israeli government, which will not have to suffer from more punitive actions; the French and UK governments, which will not have to take them; and the Palestinian political system, which will cover its evident weakness with this futile victory. For the Palestinian victims of this most unimaginable of tragedies, it will end up doing nothing in the costliest of ways.
The FBI is investigating whether the Biden administration’s Iran envoy, Rob Malley, moved classified information onto his personal email, where it may have fallen into the hands of a foreign actor, according to a person briefed on the case and a letter from Republican lawmakers.
Investigators are trying to determine if any crimes were committed, according to the person briefed on the case and another person familiar with the matter. But it is not yet clear if the Department of Justice will bring any charges against Malley or what the scope of any charges might be. The people were granted anonymity to discuss a highly sensitive issue.
Malley, who declined to comment, has denied any wrongdoing. The insights from the letter and from the people with whom POLITICO spoke — including that a criminal inquiry is underway — add new details to prior reports that Malley’s handling of classified information was at issue.
Such cases are frequently murky and can take months, even years, to sort through, with the targets themselves often kept in the dark about what investigators are looking for or have found. And the question of whether Malley acted intentionally or mistakenly, if he is found to have done anything inappropriate, could also make a difference in what the Department of Justice decides.
The FBI declined to comment, saying it could “neither confirm nor deny conducting specific investigations.” The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment.
Malley’s security clearance was suspended roughly a year ago, and he later went on full-time leave. As President Joe Biden’s envoy for Iran issues, Malley’s position included trying to revive the nuclear deal the United States and other nations had struck with Tehran. Iran hawks, many of whom view Malley as too soft on Tehran, have used the investigation into him to attack Biden’s policies toward Iran.
In response to queries from POLITICO, a State Department spokesperson said Malley was still on leave and defended its approach to questions about the situation from members of Congress, where Republicans in particular have been demanding more details. But the spokesperson also made clear the department would have little to say overall.
“Under long-standing policy, the department does not comment on individual security clearances. Nevertheless, the department has provided Congress with relevant information on personnel inquiries relating to Iran policy,” said the spokesperson, who was granted anonymity to discuss internal personnel issues. “We have been and will continue to be in frequent contact with Congress on issues pertaining to Iran.”
Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Texas), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Sen. Jim Risch of Idaho, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wrote a letter this week to Secretary of State Antony Blinken seeking more information.
In the letter, the pair wrote that they have come to “understand” that Malley “allegedly transferred classified documents to his personal email account and downloaded these documents to his personal cellphone.” The letter continues: “It is unclear to whom he intended to provide these documents, but it is believed that a hostile cyber actor was able to gain access to his email and/or phone and obtain the downloaded information.”
McCaul and Risch did not detail how they’d learned about the allegations they laid out other than to say it was through “our own investigations.”
Classified information systems are kept separate from regular systems in the State Department, where Malley was based, and the letter did not describe what method Malley allegedly would have used to transfer classified information.
The person briefed on the case and the person familiar with the matter confirmed that authorities have been investigating allegations including whether Malley transmitted classified information to his personal email. The person briefed said the probe is also looking into whether Malley provided classified information to foreign officials, intentionally or unintentionally.
It is not clear whether those foreign officials were Iranians. But leaked documents involving Malley have appeared in the Tehran Times, a publication aligned with the Islamist regime in Tehran, so Iran may have made Malley a target of its hacks.
In their letter, McCaul and Risch reiterated their frustrations with how little the State Department has shared with them and their aides about the case and why it took weeks to put Malley on full-time leave after his security clearance was suspended.
The letter included 19 questions for the secretary of State about the situation. They included asking about the status of the FBI investigation and whether Blinken or other senior Biden administration officials had played “any role in advocating for or against any criminal charges”.
In accounts of the July 2000 Camp David summit and the following months of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, we often hear about Ehud Barak’s unprecedented offer and Yasser Arafat’s uncompromising “no”. Israel is said to have made a historic proposal, which the Palestinians, once again seizing the opportunity to miss an opportunity, turned down. The failure to reach a final agreement is attributed, without notable dissent, to Yasser Arafat.
As orthodoxies go, this is a dangerous one. Broader conclusions take hold. That there is no peace partner is one. That there is no possible end to the conflict with Arafat is another. For a process of such complexity, the diagnosis is remarkably shallow. It ignores history, the dynamics of the negotiations, and the relationships among the three parties. It fails to capture why what so many viewed as a generous Israeli offer, the Palestinians viewed as neither generous, nor Israeli, nor, indeed, as an offer. Worse, it acts as a harmful constraint on American policy by offering up a single, convenient culprit (Arafat) rather than a more nuanced and realistic analysis.
Each side came to Camp David with very different perspectives. Ehud Barak was guided by a deep antipathy toward the concept of gradual steps that lay at the heart of the 1993 Oslo agreement. He discarded a number of interim steps, even those to which Israel was formally committed – including a third partial redeployment of troops from the West Bank, the transfer to Palestinian control of three villages abutting Jerusalem and the release of Palestinian prisoners. Concessions to the Palestinians would cost Barak precious political capital that he was determined to husband until the final, climactic moment.
Seen from Gaza and the West Bank, Oslo’s legacy read like a litany of promises deferred or unfulfilled. Six years after the agreement, there were more Israeli settlements, less freedom of movement, and worse economic conditions. Behind almost all of Barak’s moves, Arafat believed he could discern the objective of either forcing him to swallow an unconscionable deal, or mobilising the world to isolate and weaken the Palestinians. Those who claim that Arafat lacked interest in a permanent deal miss the point. Like Barak, the Palestinian leader felt that permanent status negotiations were long overdue; unlike Barak, he did not think that this justified doing away with the interim obligations. In many ways, Barak’s actions led to a classic case of misaddressed messages.
When Barak reneged on his commitment to transfer the three Jerusalem villages – a commitment he had specifically authorised Clinton to convey to Arafat – Clinton was furious. In the end, though, and on almost all these questionable tactical judgments, the US either gave up or gave in, reluctantly acquiescing out of respect for the things Barak was trying to do. If there is one issue that Israelis agree on, it is that Barak broke every conceivable taboo and went as far as any Israeli prime minister had gone or could go. Even so, it is hard to state with confidence how far Barak was actually prepared to go. Strictly speaking, there never was an Israeli offer. Determined to preserve Israel’s position in the event of failure, the Israelis always stopped one, if not several, steps short of a proposal.
The ideas put forward at Camp David were never stated in writing, but orally conveyed. In the Palestinians’ eyes, they were the ones who made the principal concessions. Arafat was persuaded that the Israelis were setting a trap. His primary objective thus became to cut his losses rather than maximise his gains. That did not mean that he ruled out reaching a final deal; but Palestinian negotiators, with one eye on the summit and another back home, could not accept the ambiguous formulations that had served to bridge differences between the parties in the past and that later, in their view, had been interpreted to Israel’s advantage; this time around, only clear and unequivocal understandings would do.
The Camp David proposals were viewed as inadequate: they were silent on the question of refugees, the land exchange was unbalanced, and much of Arab East Jerusalem was to remain under Israeli sovereignty. To accept these proposals in the hope that Barak would then move further risked diluting the Palestinian position in a fundamental way. Meanwhile, America’s political and cultural affinity with Israel translated into an acute sensitivity to Israeli domestic concerns and an exaggerated appreciation of Israel’s substantive moves. The US team often pondered whether Barak could sell a given proposal to his people, including some he himself had made. The question rarely, if ever, was asked about Arafat.
Designed to preserve his assets for the “moment of truth”, Barak’s tactics helped to ensure that the parties never got there. Many inclined to blame Arafat alone for the collapse of the negotiations, point to his inability to accept the ideas for a settlement put forward by Clinton on December 23, five months after the Camp David talks ended. The president’s proposals showed that the distance travelled since Camp David was indeed considerable, and almost all in the Palestinians’ direction. Arafat thought hard before providing his response. But Clinton was not presenting the terms of a final deal – rather “parameters” within which accelerated, final negotiations were to take place. With only thirty days left in Clinton’s presidency, the likelihood of reaching a deal was remote at best.
Offer or no offer, the negotiations that took place between July 2000 and February 2001 make up an indelible chapter in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Taboos were shattered, the unspoken got spoken, and, during that period, Israelis and Palestinians reached an unprecedented level of understanding of what it will take to end their struggle. When the two sides resume their path toward a permanent agreement – and eventually, they will – they will come to it with the memory of those remarkable eight months, the experience of how far they had come and how far they had yet to go, and with the sobering wisdom of an opportunity that was missed by all, less by design than by mistake, more through miscalculation than through mischief.
The full version of this article appears in the August issue of the New York Review of Books. Robert Malley was adviser to President Clinton on Arab-Israeli affairs; Hussein Agha is senior associate member of St Antony’s College, Oxford
who then is today being treated as an inferior race who i cannot resist asking are the jews of the jews
by robert malley
the recent anti-semitic attack on a synagogue in france led to an outcry against the so-called close relations between the french government and the p.l.o anti-zionism and anti semitism were being once again confused
my claim is that any human being who opposed the nazi era in europe and who did so not only because jews were being massacred but mainly because people were being massacred can only if he wants to be con sistent support the palestinians in their struggle for a homeland and a state
no this is not to say that one must automatically support palestinian terrorism which one might do one the basis that it was their sole means of making their cause publicized but simply that any sense of justice calls for a recognition of palestinian rights
the zionists base their claims on the historical connection of
jewry with palestine a claim which they say entitles jews to return to israel but can we honestly take a historical con nection as synonymous to a title to possession how many fron tiers would have to be redefined especially when it relates to an inhabited country
the obvious question here is whether or not the palestinians as a people existed before the creation of israel menachem
begin once said when you recognize the concept of palestine you demolish your right to live in em hahoresh ( israel if this is palestine . . . then you are conquerors and not tillers of the land you are in vaders if this is palestine then it belongs to a people who lived here before you came . . . you came to another peoples homeland as they claim you expelled them and you have taken their land
and that is exactly what happened at the beginning of this century hundreds of thousands of arabs lived in the territory which was going to be given to the british mandate in 1922 under the name of palestine in 1919 the jews constituted only 9.7 percent of the population and the arabs 91.3 percent later in 1936 the ratio was 29.5 percent for the jewish population and 70.5 percent for the palestinian arabs
obviously central to the zionist argument is the fact that
whatever the number of arabs living in palestine might have been jews bought the land in a very legal manner fur thermore another prevailing view in the western world is as the first prime minister of israel david ben gurion asserted that in 1948 the arabs fled the country and it was virtually emptied of its former owners
unfortunately the reality was quite different rumors con
cerning real or alleged acts of terrorism or expulsion lying and false promises psychological warfare these were in fact the weapons used by the jewish community to drive the arabs out of their country
both the u.n mediator count bernadotte and an early jewish settler nathan chofshi recognized this says nathan chofshi : we old jewish settlers in palestine who witnessed the flight could tell . . . how and in what manner we jews forced the arabs to leave cities and villages which they did not want to leave of their own free will wherein therefore lies the terrorism
there is also a lot to be said about the israeli treatment of arabs shameful on the part of a people who suffered more than any other from the injustices and horrors of racism and the fact must be faced that the resort to violence by the palestinians is the inevitable corollary of the
violence done to them how can one rationally expect it to cease unless the moral and physical violence of the state of israel also cease
let us look at some examples first in israel 90 percent of the agricultural laud is owned by the jewish national fund ( j.n.f on this land under the con stitution of the j.n.f no arab is permitted to dwell or rent or be employed
second in the economic field injustices are flagrant many thousands of palestinian laborers from the occupied territories are employed in israel
and yet the salary they receive is not equal to that received by an israeli for the same work
third collective punishment is also a feature of the israeli state blowing-up of houses taking of hostages expulsion of palestinian leaders and notables curfews and so on are absolutely not uncommon even now who then is today being
treated as an inferior race who i cannot resist asking are the jews of the jews
ultimately all this injustice all this racism yes racism stems from the fact that the state of israel was created on the basis of such statements as the following one made by arthur balfour the man who promised that england would give away palestine to jews hesaid the four great powers are committed to zionism and zionism be it right or wrong good or bad is rooted in age-old tradition
present needs … of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 arabs who now inhabit that ancient land
as noam chomsky com menting on this declaration in his book peace in the middle east put it the arabs of palestine may be pardoned for not sharing this sense of priorities
VRT, a Belgian newspaper, reported that “Florida blacklists Belgian universities due to their position on Gaza.” The article reveals that the University of Ghent, the Brussels’ French-medium Free University, and the University of Liège are among the universities the US state of Florida has put on a blacklist for scrutiny. These universities have been blacklisted for participating in a boycott of Israel. The decision to scrutinize these universities was announced on September 30, 2025, by the State Board of Administration (SBA) of Florida.
The decision prohibits public institutions in Florida from cooperating with or investing in organizations “that engage in discriminatory or anti-Semitic boycott campaigns against Israel or territories under Israeli control.” This also affects student exchange programs, joint scientific work and academic cooperation between universities.
The SBA published a document titled “Scrutinized Companies that Boycott Israel,” which explains that “In 2016, the SBA was directed to create a ‘scrutinized companies’ list composed of companies that participate in a boycott of Israel, including actions that limit commercial relations with Israel or Israeli-controlled territories.”
As a result of this scrutiny, “The SBA is prohibited from acquiring direct holdings of the companies on this list.”
The SBA explained that “The law requires the SBA to use best efforts in identifying companies that boycott Israel, publish the list on a quarterly basis, send written notice to the companies, engage with the SBA’s external managers concerning holdings of the companies on the list, and publish a list of the SBA’s directly held securities. As required by statute, SBA will review publicly available information, including from NGOs, non-profits, government entities and research firms, and/or contact asset managers or other institutional investors.”
For this, the “SBA staff will contract with external research providers to obtain preliminary lists of potential scrutinized companies and evaluate the evidence to make a final determination of scrutinized status.”
The SBA added that “This list is updated as part of the Global Governance Mandates and Florida Statutes Quarterly Report, upon review and approval by the Trustees of the State Board of Administration.”
The entities on the list have one year to drop the boycott and be removed from the list.
The document, “Scrutinized Companies OR Other Entities that Boycott Israel,” lists 109 boycotting entities – 91 of which were added in the current quarter.
Out of the 109 listed as boycotters, there are 54 universities and academic associations, listed below:
American Anthropological Association United States; Amsterdam School for Cultural Analysis Netherlands; Bergen School of Architecture Norway; Boğaziçi University Turkey; Çankırı Karatekin University Turkey; Daystar University Kenya; Eindhoven University of Technology Netherlands; Erasmus University Rotterdam Netherlands; Gerrit Rietveld Academie Netherlands; Ghent University Belgium; International Sociological Association International; Mardin Artuklu University Turkey; Middle East Studies Association United States; National Tertiary Education Union Australia; Nelson Mandela University South Africa; Nord University Norway; Oslo Metropolitan University Norway; Pompeu Fabra University Spain; Public University of Navarra Spain; Radboud University Netherlands; Rotterdam School of Management (Erasmus) Netherlands; Royal Academy of Arts (Netherlands) Netherlands; San Jorge University Spain; Sciences Po Strasbourg France; Seattle Education Association United States (Washington); Stavanger University Norway; Technical University Delft Netherlands; The Western Black Sea Universities Assoc. Turkey; Tilburg University Netherlands; Trinity College Dublin Ireland; United Educators of San Francisco, United States (California); Universidad de La Laguna Spain; Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) Spain; Université Libre de Bruxelles Belgium; University College Cork Ireland; University of Amsterdam Netherlands; University of Barcelona Spain; University of Bergen Norway; University of Cape Town South Africa; University of Fort Hare South Africa; University of Granada Spain; University of Johannesburg South Africa; University of León Spain; University of Liège Belgium; University of Oviedo Spain; University of Pompeu Fabra Spain; University of South Eastern Norway Norway; University of the Basque Country Spain; University of the Western Cape South Africa; University of Tilburg Netherlands; University of Utrecht Netherlands; University of Valencia Spain; University of Venda South Africa; University of Zaragoza Spain.
Since 2004, IAM has documented the growing academic trend toward boycotting Israel. As the analysis made clear, academic institutions have legitimized the academic boycott. Over the years, billions of dollars have been invested in Western universities by Islamic regimes, who used their influence to block pro-Israel voices.
The Florida initiative is the first serious attempt by Israel’s allies to combat the BDS movement. Supporters of Israel abroad should take note and learn.
Florida blacklists Belgian universities due to their position on Gaza
The University of Ghent (UGent), the Brussels’ French-medium Free University (ULB) and the University of Liège (ULiège) are among a number of universities that the US state of Florida has put on to a blacklist. The Sunday freesheet 7/7 reports that the universities have been blacklisted as they participated in a boycott of Isreal due to the country’s actions in Gaza.
Published: Mon 20 Oct. 10:46
The newspaper reports that the decision to blacklist the universities was announced on 30 September by Florida’s State Board of Administration (SBA). The decision prohibits public institutions in Florida from cooperating with or investing in organisations “that engage in discriminatory or anti-Semitic boycott campaigns against Israel or territories under Israeli control”.
This also affects student exchange programmes, joint scientific work and academic cooperation between universities. Directly affected are Ghent University, the French-Medium Free University of Brussels and the University of Liège, as well as the Brussels municipality of Elsene.
Ralf Pais, Vice-President of the Jewish Information and Documentation Centre (JID) in Belgium, believes that Florida’s stance represents a moral turning point: “Florida is demonstrating a moral clarity that Europe has lost. Where the “old continent” is changing its perspective, Florida is drawing a red line: hatred, even when hidden behind academic discourse, will no longer be tolerated. This is not a political debate, but a question of justice. Boycotting Israel is a very simple form of discrimination.”
“Claims to the contrary are hypocritical” Mr Pais continued. Florida had the courage to say this loud and clear, while Europe remains silent. Miami’s decision will have repercussions in Brussels, Paris and elsewhere in Europe. The era of unpunished academic boycotts is over.”
STATE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATIONRON DESANTIS GOVERNOR
OF FLORIDA CHAIR
BLAISE INGOGLIA
1801 HERMITAGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 100 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32308
JAMES UTHMEIER
(850) 488-4406 ATTORNEY GENERAL
POST OFFICE BOX 13300 CHRIS SPENCER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 32317-3300
Scrutinized Companies that Boycott Israel
Chapter 215.4725, Florida Statutes
In 2016, the SBA was directed to create a “scrutinized companies” list composed of companies that participate in a boycott of Israel, including actions that limit commercial relations with Israel or Israelicontrolled territories. The SBA is prohibited from acquiring direct holdings of the companies on this list. The law requires the SBA to use best efforts in identifying companies that boycott Israel, publish the list on a quarterly basis, send written notice to the companies, engage with the SBA’s external managers concerning holdings of the companies on the list, and publish a list of the SBA’s directly held securities.
As required by statute, SBA will review publicly available information, including from NGOs, non-profits, government entities and research firms, and/or contact asset managers or other institutional investors. SBA staff will contract with external research providers to obtain preliminary lists of potential scrutinized companies and evaluate the evidence to make a final determination of scrutinized status.
This list is updated as part of the Global Governance Mandates and Florida Statutes Quarterly Report, upon review and approval by the Trustees of the State Board of Administration.
Table 9: Scrutinized Companies OR Other Entities that Boycott Israel
New companies on the list are shaded and in bold. 91 new entities were added this quarter.
Scrutinized Company or Other Entity
Country of Incorporation
Date of Initial Scrutinized Classification
Full Divestment
American Anthropological Association
United States
30-Sep-25
12 months
Amsterdam School for Cultural Analysis
Netherlands
30-Sep-25
12 months
Anglican Church of Southern Africa
South Africa
30-Sep-25
12 months
Barcelona City Council (Spain)
Spain
30-Sep-25
12 months
Bergen School of Architecture
Norway
30-Sep-25
12 months
Betsah Invest SA
Luxembourg
2-Aug-16
Yes
Betsah SA
Luxembourg
2-Aug-16
Yes
Boğaziçi University
Turkey
30-Sep-25
12 months
Cactus SA
Luxembourg
2-Aug-16
Yes
Çankırı Karatekin University
Turkey
30-Sep-25
12 months
City of Antalya (Turkey)
Turkey
30-Sep-25
12 months
City of Belfast (Maine)
United States (Maine)
30-Sep-25
12 months
City of Dearborn (Michigan)
United States (Michigan)
30-Sep-25
12 months
City of Ghent (Belgium)
Belgium
30-Sep-25
12 months
City of Hayward (California)
United States (California)
30-Sep-25
12 months
Scrutinized Company or Other Entity
Country of Incorporation
Date of Initial Scrutinized Classification
Full Divestment
City of Iowa City (Iowa)
United States (Iowa)
30-Sep-25
12 months
City of Ixelles (Belgium)
Belgium
30-Sep-25
12 months
City of Liège (Belgium)
Belgium
30-Sep-25
12 months
City of Nelson City (New Zealand)
New Zealand
30-Sep-25
12 months
City of Oslo (Norway)
Norway
30-Sep-25
12 months
City of Portland (Maine)
United States (Maine)
30-Sep-25
12 months
City of Richmond (California)
United States (California)
30-Sep-25
12 months
Colegio de México
Mexico
30-Sep-25
12 months
Co-operative Group Limited
United Kingdom
26-Sep-17
Yes
Daystar University
Kenya
30-Sep-25
12 months
Derry City and Strabane District (N. Ireland)
United Kingdom (N. Ireland)
30-Sep-25
12 months
Eindhoven University of Technology
Netherlands
30-Sep-25
12 months
Erasmus University Rotterdam
Netherlands
30-Sep-25
12 months
Gerrit Rietveld Academie
Netherlands
30-Sep-25
12 months
Ghent University
Belgium
30-Sep-25
12 months
Government of Colombia
Colombia
30-Sep-25
12 months
Government of Iran
Iran
30-Sep-25
12 months
Government of Iraq
Iraq
30-Sep-25
12 months
Government of Kuwait
Kuwait
30-Sep-25
12 months
Government of Lebanon
Lebanon
30-Sep-25
12 months
Government of Libya
Libya
30-Sep-25
12 months
Government of Qatar
Qatar
30-Sep-25
12 months
Government of Scotland
United Kingdom (Scotland)
30-Sep-25
12 months
Government of Slovenia
Slovenia
30-Sep-25
12 months
Government of Syria
Syria
30-Sep-25
12 months
Government of Turkey
Turkey
30-Sep-25
12 months
Government of Yemen
Yemen
30-Sep-25
12 months
Guloguz Dis Deposu Ticaret Ve Pazarlama
Turkey
2-Aug-16
Yes
Hindustan Unilever Ltd
India
29-Jul-21
Yes
International Olympiad in Informatics
International
30-Sep-25
12 months
International Sociological Association
International
30-Sep-25
12 months
Isle of Eigg (Scotland)
United Kingdom (Scotland)
30-Sep-25
12 months
Mardin Artuklu University
Turkey
30-Sep-25
12 months
Middle East Studies Association
United States
30-Sep-25
12 months
National Tertiary Education Union
Australia
30-Sep-25
12 months
Nelson Mandela University
South Africa
30-Sep-25
12 months
Nord University
Norway
30-Sep-25
12 months
Scrutinized Company or Other Entity
Country of Incorporation
Date of Initial Scrutinized Classification
Full Divestment
Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions
Norway
30-Sep-25
12 months
Oslo Metropolitan University
Norway
30-Sep-25
12 months
Pompeu Fabra University
Spain
30-Sep-25
12 months
PT Unilever Indonesia Tbk
Indonesia
29-Jul-21
Yes
Public University of Navarra
Spain
30-Sep-25
12 months
Quakers in Britain
United Kingdom
30-Sep-25
12 months
Radboud University
Netherlands
30-Sep-25
12 months
Region of Apulia (Italy)
Italy
30-Sep-25
12 months
Region of Catalonia
Spain
30-Sep-25
12 months
Region of Tuscany (Italy)
Italy
30-Sep-25
12 months
Regional Council of Environment Canterbury
New Zealand
30-Sep-25
12 months
Rotterdam School of Management (Erasmus)
Netherlands
30-Sep-25
12 months
Royal Academy of Arts (Netherlands)
Netherlands
30-Sep-25
12 months
San Jorge University
Spain
30-Sep-25
12 months
Sciences Po Strasbourg
France
30-Sep-25
12 months
Seattle Education Association
United States (Washington)
30-Sep-25
12 months
Stavanger University
Norway
30-Sep-25
12 months
Storebrand ASA
Norway
17-Dec-24
Yes
Technical University Delft
Netherlands
30-Sep-25
12 months
The United Church of Canada
Canada
30-Sep-25
12 months
The Western Black Sea Universities Assoc.
Turkey
30-Sep-25
12 months
Tilburg University
Netherlands
30-Sep-25
12 months
Trinity College Dublin
Ireland
30-Sep-25
12 months
Unilever Bangladesh Ltd
Bangladesh
29-Jul-21
Yes
Unilever Capital Corp
United States
29-Jul-21
Yes
Unilever Caribbean Ltd
Trinidad and Tobago
29-Jul-21
Yes
Unilever Consumer Care Ltd
Bangladesh
29-Jul-21
Yes
Unilever Côte d’Ivoire
Ivory Coast
29-Jul-21
Yes
Unilever Finance Netherlands BV
Netherlands
29-Jul-21
Yes
Unilever Ghana Ltd
Ghana
29-Jul-21
Yes
Unilever Nigeria Plc
Nigeria
29-Jul-21
Yes
Unilever Pakistan Foods Ltd
Pakistan
29-Jul-21
Yes
Unilever PLC (Ben & Jerry’s parent co)
United Kingdom
29-Jul-21
Yes
United Educators of San Francisco
United States (California)
30-Sep-25
12 months
Universidad de La Laguna
Spain
30-Sep-25
12 months
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB)
Spain
30-Sep-25
12 months
Université Libre de Bruxelles
Belgium
30-Sep-25
12 months
Scrutinized Company or Other Entity
Country of Incorporation
Date of Initial Scrutinized Classification
Full Divestment
University College Cork
Ireland
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of Amsterdam
Netherlands
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of Barcelona
Spain
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of Bergen
Norway
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of Cape Town
South Africa
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of Fort Hare
South Africa
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of Granada
Spain
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of Johannesburg
South Africa
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of León
Spain
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of Liège
Belgium
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of Oviedo
Spain
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of Pompeu Fabra
Spain
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of South Eastern Norway
Norway
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of the Basque Country
Spain
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of the Western Cape
South Africa
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of Tilburg
Netherlands
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of Utrecht
Netherlands
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of Valencia
Spain
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of Venda
South Africa
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of Zaragoza
Spain
30-Sep-25
12 months
# of Companies or Entities that Boycott Israel
109
The following companies were removed from the Scrutinized Companies that Boycott Israel List.
On September 25, 2025, Science/Business published an article about the success of BDS in isolating Israeli universities from the academic mainstream in the West.
Although not well known in Israel, Science|Business – a network of universities, companies, and research and policy organizations – is one of the most influential media of its kind in Europe. Founded in 2004, the Brussels-based media & networking group focuses on research and innovation policy. It provides news and analysis on issues related to the EU’s R&I, organizes public and closed-door events, and, with its over 25000 contacts, policy makers, and media followers, has an extensive outreach.
The decision to publish this and other articles relating to Israel and the Gaza War should have come as a surprise because the group praises itself for being nonpolitical and neutral; as far as it is possible to ascertain, it has not published on BDS or the links between universities and military research in any other country, including Russia.
The article noted that global research collaboration with Israel has declined as measured by the number of preprints. Preprints are a leading indicator of scientific trends, as they are posted online by the researchers rather than having to wait months or years for publication. Preprints are a version of a scholarly manuscript that has been openly shared but not yet undergone peer review and/or been published in a traditional academic journal.
According to the data that Science|Business analyzed, the BDS campaign has been hurting Israel’s joint publications of preprints with the rest of the world, in particular, with Spain and South Africa, where criticism of the Gaza War is the strongest. The journal argued that even in “less outspoken countries, collaboration with Israel has seriously dipped this year. The proportion of Israeli preprints with co-authors based in the Netherlands, Canada and Japan has fallen by a third or more. There have also been significant dips in collaboration with the UK, France, Italy and Switzerland.”
A second article by Science/Business, titled “Amid Gaza war, debate intensifies: is it wrong to collaborate with Israeli universities?” was published on September 18, 2025. The journal discussed how “pressure is building on Israeli universities to reconsider military R&D and training programs for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).” According to the article, the “Israeli universities are staying quiet on whether they will review their military links.” But then, in a contradictory note, it went on to state that “they’re no different from campus military ties in other countries. Indeed, hundreds of US and European universities are deeply entwined with their own governments’ defense programs.”
Science|Business questions whether collaboration with Israeli universities is ethical.
All this confusing writing reflects the Science|Business goal to appear neutral in what is clearly a politically loaded debate. Misrepresenting assorted topics is another way in which the journal tries to obfuscate its failure to stay neutral.
Its discussion of Maya Wind’s book, Towers of Ivory and Steel: How Israeli Universities Deny Palestinian Freedom, is a case in point. Science|Business describes Wind as a Jewish-Israeli researcher based at the University of California, Berkeley, who set out to challenge the liberal image of the Israeli academy. Science|Business noted that “unsurprisingly, her book isn’t uncontroversial within Israel, and has attracted academic critics and defenders.”
Again, this rather convoluted statement minimizes the stormy reaction to Wind’s book, so that Science|Business would not have to explain why it chose to review a highly controversial book by this highly controversial activist.
IAM reported in May last year on “The Making of Professional Anti-Israel Scholar-Activist: Maya Wind as a Case in Point.” IAM noted the amount of lies and fabrications that Wind was spreading, as a professional anti-Israel activist since the age of seventeen. She admitted in an interview, “I myself was an active member of Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine over a decade ago. And it was really hard to organize on that campus then, and it is impossible now, with Columbia University suspending both Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace.” Indeed, she has a long history of anti-Israel activism. In 2009, the Israeli Communist Party (MAKI) published an invitation to a “Demonstration of support for conscientious objectors Maya Yechiali-Wind and Raz Bar David Varon.” Wind was one of the signatories of the 2008 letter as a high school pupil who refused to enlist in the army. In 2010, Wind was one of two Israeli women who went on a North American speaking tour, organized by CODEPINK and Jewish Voice for Peace, to the University of California, Hastings, University of Maryland, Cornell, Columbia, New York University, Brown, Brandeis, and more.
IAM was not the only critic of Wind. Professor Barak Medina from the faculty of Law at the Hebrew University, a highly respected scholar and a leader in progressive causes, offered a rebuttal to Wind’s book, titled “Maya Wind’s Towers of Manipulations.”
The third Science|Business article titled “Belgian universities renew call to suspend Israel from Horizon Europe,” published on Aug 21, 2025, discussed the latest call by Belgian rectors as saying, “We cannot remain silent in the face of the inhumane conditions and deep humanitarian crisis in Gaza… What has been unfolding in Gaza over the past months violates every principle of human dignity: more than 60,000 civilian casualties, the blocking of humanitarian aid, and a worsening famine.” Again, the language of the petition is highly inflammatory, reflecting the extreme animosity towards Israel.
IAM has repeatedly warned that there has been little pushback to the various academic petitions that besmeared the name of Israel by misrepresenting Iran’s role in setting up Hamas as one of its premier links in the Axis of Resistance/Ring of Fire, as well as the massive Qatari funding. Hamas has used the Gaza population as human shields and cannon fodder.
As well known, what happens in academia does not stay in academia, and the anti-Israel and antisemitic scholarly venom has been propagated by the hugely influential Science/Business platform. Those who are in charge of defending Israel’s reputation and salvaging its standing in the international academic community need to take heed.
Significantly fewer academics, particularly in Europe, are authoring preprints with researchers in Israel this year, a sign that academic boycotts could be starting to scientifically isolate the country.
Israel is facing a growing wave of academic boycotts over its war on and food blockade of Gaza. This latest data, analysed by Science|Business, appears to be the first evidence that the campaign is hurting its joint publications with the rest of the world, in particular with countries such as Spain and South Africa, where criticism of the Gaza war has been strongest.
“We see a dramatic increase in the number and severity of boycott cases” this year, said Emmanuel Nahshon, who is in charge of combatting boycotts at Israel’s Association of University Heads.
Preprints are a leading indicator of scientific trends, because they are posted immediately online by researchers, rather than having to wait months or years for publication in a journal.
Data from the Scopus database shows a sharp fall this year in the proportion of Israeli preprints that have overseas co-authors.
For example, last year, 9.2% of Israeli preprints had a co-author based in Spain. But this year, that figure has dropped to 5.9%. Spain’s government has been one of the most critical of Israel’s Gaza war, and its universities took a lead in 2024 in reviewing their ties.
Last year, 3.4% of Israel’s preprints were co-authored with South Africa. Now, the proportion is just 1%. South Africa was one of the earliest critics of the Gaza campaign, launching a genocide case against Israel in the International Court of Justice in December 2023.
But even in less outspoken countries, collaboration with Israel has seriously dipped this year. The proportion of Israeli preprints with co-authors based in the Netherlands, Canada and Japan has fallen by a third or more.
There have also been significant dips in collaboration with the UK, France, Italy and Switzerland.
Proportion of Israeli preprints with international co-authors
Even with Germany, where university heads have strongly opposed a boycott, collaboration has fallen off. Last year, 16% of Israeli preprints had a German collaborator. But so far this year, that proportion is down to 12.7%.
The US remains by far Israel’s biggest collaborator, and that research partnership seems to have only slightly weakened this year.
Many US states have passed laws to prevent boycotts while, in May this year, the US National Science Foundation made receiving grants conditional on not boycotting Israel.
Harvard University has also recently expanded its links with Israeli universities as it negotiates with the US government, which has threatened to withhold billions of dollars in funding over claims of antisemitism.
Not just boycotts
There are some caveats to the data. First of all, preprints make up only a small fraction of research output. The Scopus data is dominated by arXiv, which focuses on areas such as physics, mathematics and computer science.
What’s more, other countries, such as Germany and the UK, have also seen small dips this year in international collaboration on preprints with some countries. However, these falls are far less significant than those for Israel.
There’s no evidence yet of the drop in Israeli collaboration in data on published journal articles or conference papers, but this might take longer to filter through.
A further caveat is that growing Israeli isolation might not just be down to boycotts. Following the Hamas attacks of October 2023, flights were disrupted, travel warnings issued, and Israeli researchers drafted into the army, making international collaboration more difficult.
However, in cases such as South Africa and Spain, the falls in collaboration map onto political stances towards Israel, suggesting the boycotts play some role.
Over 1,000 incidents
Within Israel, universities are finding that boycotts are on the rise. A year ago, the country’s universities had tracked around 200-300 incidents, ranging from article rejections to full institutional boycotts, Nahshon told Science|Business. But now, there are over 1,000, he said.
Globally, Europe appears to be leading the boycott movement. According to a report in February by Israel’s Association of University Heads, around 60% of boycotts reported between 23 October and 24 December 2024 were from Europe. Most of the rest came from North America.
At least 60 universities globally have either suspended ties with Israeli universities or divested from certain Israeli companies implicated in the Gaza war, said a spokeswoman for the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel.
Israel’s participation in the EU’s Horizon Europe research programme hit a record low this year, according to data in May.
Asia too?
Worryingly for Israel, the preprint data shows a drop in collaboration with China and Japan, as well as Europe.
The China dip isn’t as big as with some European countries, and could end up being a one-off, of course.
However, it might suggest that Israel can’t rely on increasing links with China to partially offset falling collaboration with Europe, as Russia has done following its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Although academic boycotts of Israel remain a largely European and North American discussion, there are some signs that the Gaza war has angered Chinese academics too.
Earlier this month, Yan Xuetong, a prominent international relations researcher at Tsinghua University, confronted an Israel Defence Forces attaché at a forum in Beijing, accusing the country of killing more than 70,000 civilians, according to a viral clip.
China’s government, meanwhile, has criticised Israel’s bombing campaign in Gaza and the blocking of humanitarian aid. There’s some evidence that Chinese social media users tend to sympathise with Palestinians over Israelis.
And last year, the University of International Business and Economics, the only Chinese branch campus in Israel, shut down. While it’s not clear why, it came in the context of deteriorating relations between the two states.
For European academia, there’s perhaps no more burning and divisive question than whether to continue collaborating with Israel.
This summer, as pictures from Gaza of starving children and shattered cities increasingly filtered through European media, even the EU’s own diplomatic service concluded that Israel was collectively punishing Palestinians, displacing the vast majority of civilians, attacking hospitals, and maybe even using starvation as a weapon of war.
Germany, long a staunch supporter of Israel, last month suspended arms exports that could be used in Gaza. And this week, as the war escalated, a special United Nations commission branded Israel’s campaign as “genocide.”
As condemnation of the war rises, pressure is building on Israeli universities to reconsider military R&D and training programmes for the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) and domestic weapons companies. The head of the Israel’s scientific academy is calling for a review. European universities are demanding this too: Erasmus University Rotterdam, for example, recently cut ties to two Israeli universities because of their IDF links.
Israeli universities are staying quiet on whether they will review their military links. But some have defended their R&D and training programmes, arguing they’re no different from campus military ties in other countries. Indeed, hundreds of US and European universities are deeply entwined with their own governments’ defence programmes.
The question of collaboration continues to split the continent. Individual universities in countries including the Netherlands, Spain and Sloveniahave said they will refuse to work with Israeli institutions as part of Horizon Europe, the EU’s €93.5 billion research programme. Israel is a full member of the programme, and has received €876 million in funding since 2021.
The European Commission has proposed suspending Israeli access to European Innovation Council Accelerator grants, which typically back start-ups. But it hasn’t yet been able to get EU countries to agree, with Germany among the states blocking such scientific sanctions.
German university heads, meanwhile, have repeatedly backed Israeli universities, describing them as a “strong liberal, democratic force” that shouldn’t be weakened with boycotts. But critics question whether they are as thoroughly liberal as claimed, and there’s now debate in Israel over whether universities have been too quiet or too slow to come out against the war.
In an August speech, David Harel, president of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, called out “all those who have the power to cry out and make a difference, but choose to remain silent, or at most to whisper,” including “heads of academic and high-tech institutions.”
But anti-war academics say they are hitting the streets in protest multiple times a week, and are keen to show overseas colleagues they are not standing idly by.
As debate over Israel’s place in European science and technology picks up, Science|Business runs through some of the key arguments – without claiming these are exhaustive – about whether collaboration with Israeli universities is ethical.
Criticism 1: Israeli universities conduct R&D for the country’s military
One chief criticism of Israeli universities is that some work hand-in-glove on R&D with the country’s military and weapons industry and, crucially, don’t appear to have reassessed these partnerships, even in light of Israel’s military conduct in Gaza.
To European collaborators, Israeli universities present a liberal face, argues Maya Wind, a Jewish Israeli researcher based at the University of California, Riverside, who last year published Towers of Ivory and Steel: How Israeli Universities Deny Palestinian Freedom, which sets out to challenge this image.
Within Israel, she told Science|Business, universities “narrate themselves as loyal to the state and to its project. They celebrate openly these partnerships with the Israeli military and military industries.” Unsurprisingly, her book isn’t uncontroversial within Israel, and has attracted academic critics and defenders.
Horizon Europe funding to Israeli universities (€ million)
“Woven into DNA”
Wind’s book, written largely before the Gaza war, catalogues these R&D links in detail. For example, it recounts an incident in 2008, when the chairman of Elbit Systems, one of the country’s biggest weapons manufacturers, said that “the Technion is woven into Elbit’s DNA,” referring to one of the country’s leading technical universities, based in Haifa.
In its 2025 annual report, the Technion listed Elbit as one of its “guardians,” meaning that the company has “made the highest level of commitment to the Institute.”
According to reports in the Guardian and Haaretz, it was one of Elbit’s Hermes drones that in 2024 was used in an attack on aid workers for World Central Kitchen, sparking international condemnation. Elbit did not respond to a request for comment.
Meanwhile, Elbit and other Israeli weapons firms have become increasingly unwelcome in Europe. Earlier this year the company was reportedly barred from the Netherlands’ largest military trade show, along with two other major Israeli weapons firms, Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) and Rafael.
“Forefront of defence industry”
The Technion’s links go beyond Elbit. In an interview in the university’s 2025 annual report, the chief executive of IAI, Boaz Levy, said that more than a third of the company’s engineers are Technion alumni, and the company recruited on campus.
IAI has “been collaborating with the Technion for many years, most recently on projects related to AI and space activities, and has invested in Technion laboratories and joint research,” the report explained. An image taken from the Technion’s 2025 report
In the same report, the Technion boasts of having Israel’s only faculty of aerospace engineering, which has “always been at the forefront of Israel’s worldclass aerospace and defence industry.” The Technion did not respond to requests for comment.
Beyond the Technion
Other Israeli universities besides the Technion also have military R&D links. In 2022, for example, Tel Aviv University established a joint research centre with the Israeli Air Force to “harness the world of civilian research.” The centre should “ensure the position of the Israeli Air Force as one of the leading forces in the world,” said a commander in a statement announcing the deal.
The collaboration with weapons companies goes beyond aerospace. The Weizmann Institute of Science, recently damaged by Iranian missile strikes, last October agreed a collaboration with Elbit to develop “groundbreaking bio-inspired materials for defence applications.”
Since Science|Business noted this collaboration in June, the institute appears to have taken the announcement down from its website. It did not respond to queries asking why.
The Israeli rebuttal
Although it didn’t respond to Science|Business queries about whether it would review its military links, Tel Aviv University did point out that universities all over the world have military R&D ventures, not just those in Israel.
“It is true that, as with many universities around the world, TAU’s researchers do collaborate across a wide range of industries—including defence—just as Stanford runs its Technology for Defense Program and MIT partners with the Pentagon on AI research,” it said in a statement. “The reality is that defence research is not unique to Israel, but a sad reflection that we are in an increasingly unstable global landscape.”
In 2024, Israeli universities argued military R&D was only a “small percentage” of their research and “such projects do not turn our universities into military agencies.”
Some of these collaborations with the military may also contribute to defensive rather than offensive technologies, such as Israel’s Iron Dome system, pointed out Barak Medina, a former rector of Hebrew University, in a critical review of Wind’s book. “One must evaluate these projects on a case-by-case basis,” he said.
Reassess links
Yet even if working with the military on research isn’t unusual for universities, some senior figures in Israel itself argue that, given the country’s actions in Gaza, it’s time for Israeli universities to review their military links.
“If I were a university head, I would definitely very carefully reassess all of these programmes” to make sure they are used purely defensively, rather than in Gaza, Harel, Israel’s academy president, told Science|Business, referring to military R&D and training programmes for the IDF detailed below.
Of course, disentangling offensive from defensive training and R&D is incredibly difficult, he said. “I don’t envy them, the university heads,” he added. Nonetheless, Harel maintains Israeli universities should probably evaluate their links.
Criticism 2: Israeli universities train the IDF
A second, related criticism, which Wind also details in her book, is that Israeli universities train IDF soldiers and continue to do so despite the force’s conduct in Gaza.
For example, the Technion runs a special mechanical engineering programme called Brakim, designed to train “technological pioneers in the IDF and spearhead Israel’s defence establishment.”
Meanwhile, Haifa University hosts the IDF’s Military Academic Complex, combining three military colleges which “form the backbone of the IDF’s elite training programmes”, according to the university in 2018, when it was selected by the IDF.
“We are proud to open our doors to IDF forces and provide an academic home for members of the security services,” said Haifa’s president at the time. The university did not respond to a request for comment.
Uniforms on campus
Some of these programmes, which critics say amount to military bases on campus, have aroused controversy in Israel itself. One of the most contested examples is the IDF’s Havatzalot programme, since 2019 based at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, which each year trains around 50 future intelligence officers, who attend campus in uniform, in fields such as Middle Eastern studies, political science or mathematics.
The presence of uniformed soldiers on campus is so contentious than in 2020 a student group filmed the soldiers in a campus cafeteria, releasing a video that argued it made students, particularly Arabs, feel unsafe. Students have also complained about armed trainee soldiers on Tel Aviv’s campus, who attend as part of its Erez programme, which allows military cadets to earn a bachelor’s degree.
Ben Artzi, head of the Military Academic Complex at Haifa University, addresses students and lecturers in 2018. Source
Hebrew University also runs the IDF’s Talpiot programme, which trains around 50 soldiers annually for an undergraduate degree in physics, mathematics or computer sciences, with some going on to become faculty. These students also attend in uniform, and live in special accommodation on campus. The university did not respond to requests for comment on these programmes.
Israeli universities continue to offer academic and financial benefits to students who have returned from fighting in the country’s various wars, including in Gaza, Wind points out. Last month, for example, Tel Aviv announced that new students who served “significant time” as reservists would receive special scholarships.
Erez programme
Israeli universities argue that they have a “duty” to support the “reintegration” and mental health of students who have come back from war.
In a statement to Science|Business, Tel Aviv said that its Erez programme was “largely” an initiative of its humanities faculty, and was “designed to equip young soldiers with a broader humanistic education.”
Teaching soldiers on a diverse campus allows universities to “educate future military personnel on the values of liberalism, human rights, and the importance of striving for peace,” said Medina, the former rector of Hebrew University, in a 2024 blog post.
As with defence R&D, Israel is hardly the only country that uses universities to train soldiers. But, as Harel suggests, the question now is whether these IDF university training programmes are appropriate given the force’s conduct in Gaza.
It’s not unheard of for universities to eject the military from campus to distance themselves from war. More than 70 German universities instituted so-called civil clauses, prohibiting work with the military, following the Second World War. And following protests against the Vietnam war, Harvard University threw out the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, although welcomed it back in 2011.
Yet so far, no Israeli universities appear to be reviewing their ties in response to the Gaza war. Science|Business contacted all the Israeli universities mentioned above to ask if they would review their IDF training programmes or military R&D, but none answered the question.
Criticism 3: Israeli universities are not as liberal as claimed
One key argument against scientific sanctions is that Israel’s universities are some of the country’s most powerful liberal voices. Thus, they might help the county change course, and so shouldn’t be weakened and isolated by boycotts.
This is an argument repeatedly made by German university rectors, who have called Israeli universities a “strong liberal, democratic force.”
“Weakening Israeli academia” would “affect precisely those who raise their voices for democracy, pluralism and humanity,” said the body’s president, Walter Rosenthal, in a statement to Science|Business. A spokesman said the body was not aware of Wind’s book.
“Treated as a terrorist”
However, while there are, indeed, many liberal academics on campus in Israel, there are also at least some who have called for the expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza, or the territory’s occupation.
Uzi Rabi, a prominent scholar of the Middle East at Tel Aviv University whose career Wind’s book examines, was reported in Israeli media as sayingin September last year that to defeat Hamas, the civilian population of Gaza should be removed from the north of the territory, and “whoever remains there will be treated as a terrorist.”
In a subsequently deleted article published in October 2023, Eviatar Matania, a cyber security researcher also based at Tel Aviv, was quoted as saying that the Gazan population should be “transported southwards,” and the north completely destroyed.
In another reaction to the Hamas attacks of October 2023, Avi Barali, a historian of Israel at Ben Gurion University, wrote that Gazans “should be called upon to flee” as Israel began its assault on the territory. None of these three academics responded to requests for comment.
In September last year, Eyal Zisser, vice rector at Tel Aviv, penned an op-ed entitled “Occupy Gaza now,” although this was not an official university position. Moves to occupy Gaza were condemnedlast month by European leaders.
Zisser told Science|Business that he had argued it is “better militarily and morally to fully occupy the territory and govern it,” but only temporarily, and provide Gazans with food and medicine. Any attempts at deportation would be a “war crime,” he said.
Roof knocking
The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), a think tank affiliated with Tel Aviv University, has also come under fire for publishing a “strategic assessment” in 2021 condoning the practice of “roof knocking,” in which the IDF justifies strikes on residential buildings by hitting them with smaller munitions first, supposedly giving civilians the chance to flee. The UN’s human rights council has found the practice ineffectiveand in breach of international law.
In a statement to Science|Business, Tel Aviv distanced itself from the INSS, saying it was “not part of TAU” but rather “an independent think tank that maintains an affiliation with the university.”
Criticism of the INSS are “based on selective and reductive interpretations of its work, disproportionately focusing on the views of a small, unrepresentative group of contributors,” the university said, pointing to work the INSS has done on regional peace initiatives, for example.
Academics against the war
It’s hard to know with any precision what Israeli academics think about the war. Science|Business was unable to find any polling. However, it’s also clear that many are horrified at what the Gaza campaign has become, and are increasingly speaking out.
Protest images featured in a recent report by Academics for Israeli Democracy. Source
Harel, Israel’s academy president, has been particularly outspoken. In a speech on August 23, he said that the war in Gaza was “no longer a war against an enemy” and instead “reeks of blind revenge, delusional messianic madness, and cruelty for its own sake,” above all driven by Benjamin Netenyahu’s attempt to stay in power as prime minister.
Protesting in the streets
To focus just on Israeli academics calling for the expulsion of Gazans would be “completely unfair,” Ruth Scherz-Shouval, until recently president of the Israeli Young Academy, told Science|Business.
“Finding the handful of academics who are calling for the war, for transfer [expulsion of Gazans], is almost like searching for the 1% of neo-Nazis in a European university,” she said. These kinds of example get “blown up” representation in the media because they are “flashy,” she said.
“Every weekend, and now in the past few months, usually two, three times a week, I’m in the streets protesting [against the war],” she said. Earlier this month, a group called Academics for Israeli Democracy published a collection of essays condemning the Gaza war, “to show the international community that we are not standing idly by.”
Institutionally, some Israeli universities have begun to raise their voices too. On July 28, the presidents of the Technion, Weizmann, Hebrew University, Tel Aviv and the Open University of Israel published an open letter in English to Netanyahu, saying “we observe with shock the harrowing scenes emerging daily from Gaza.”
“‘Could have come out earlier’”
However, the presidents of five of Israel’s ten universities – Bar-Illan, Haifa, Ben-Gurion, Reichman and Ariel – did not sign the letter.
And for Scherz-Shouval, the university presidents’ letter “could have come out earlier, and there have been discussions about that.”
Tel Aviv, however, pointed out in a statement to Science|Business that its president, Ariel Porat, has been publicly calling for attention to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza since at least early 2024. Earlier this year, he organised a symposium on the situation in Gaza, earning him the wrath of right-wing lobby groups.
For Wind, though, statements or protests by Israeli academics or institutions are “meaningless” if Israeli universities continue to offer material support to the war, through military training or R&D. “Words are not as important as actions,” she told Science|Business.
Other arguments for boycott
Other reasons, aside from Wind’s arguments about Israeli university complicity in the Gaza war, are advanced to support an academic boycott.
Some critics have argued the EU should suspend Israel from Horizon Europe primarily as a lever to pressure the Netanyahu government to change course, even if this means collateral damage for innocent Israeli academics.
Or there’s the legal argument, made by Belgian university rectors, that Israel has violated human rights clauses in its wider association agreement with the EU, which underpins the country’s association to Horizon Europe. It’s this wider breach of the agreement by Israel as a state, regardless of universities’ complicity, that’s the basis for the Commission’s proposal to suspend access to EIC Accelerator grants.
Institutional complicity?
Still, the question of institutional complicity that Wind raises remains an important question. It affects whether European academics and universities boycott entire institutions, or just steer clear of individual research projects or academics that might feed into Israel’s military.
Harel, despite his fierce criticisms of the war on Gaza, still argues that a blanket boycott of Israeli universities is wrong. Instead, European academics should decide case-by-case on whether a research project might trickle through into a military application, he told Science|Business.
The Netanyahu government will not be moved by academic boycotts, said Scherz-Shouval, quite the reverse. “Killing Israeli academia by boycotting us may actually help the judicial reform the government is driving,” she said, referring to attempts by Netanyahu to weaken the country’s supreme court.
But for Wind, including Israeli universities in Horizon Europe, academic exchanges, and other collaborations “offers legitimacy to the institution, it helps increase its ranking, which in turn begets more funding and more prestige and enables their enduring complicity,” she said.
Even as the EU remains divided on suspending the country from parts of Horizon Europe, Israeli participation hit a record low this year, which could indicate that boycotts from some parts of Europe might be having an effect. As Israel begins a fresh assault on Gaza City, the country’s future in European science hangs in the balance.
Belgian university rectors have repeated their call to suspend Israel from the EU’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme.
In its war in Gaza, Israel has failed to honour its association agreement with the EU, the rectors argue, which states that both parties must respect human rights.
“If this foundation is systematically undermined, consequences must follow. Otherwise, our European values risk becoming hollow words,” they said in a statement on August 9.
On August 18, the University of Ljubljana also called on the EU to suspend Israel from the programme, citing “reports of genocidal acts against the population” in Gaza. It said it would not join Horizon Europe project consortia with Israeli institutions.
Europe is currently mulling whether to launch scientific sanctions against Israel in response to the country’s war on and blockade of Gaza. The EU-Israel association agreement underpins Israel’s association to Horizon Europe, from which the country has received €856 million so far.
The World Health Organization has warned that starvation is unfolding in Gaza, and has documented 21 children under five dying of hunger so far this year. Israel is blocking food trucks from entering the territory, the UN said earlier this month and, since May, at least 1,373 Palestinians have been killed while seeking food, largely by Israeli forces.
While EU leaders have upped their condemnation of Israel in recent months, this has not yet translated into any scientific sanctions, one tool the bloc can use to pressure Israel to change course.
Last month, the European Commission proposed excluding Israeli entities from receiving new European Innovation Council Accelerator grants, which typically fund start-ups. Israeli firms have already received €170 million in Accelerator grants, including for work in dual-use fields such as drones.
This latest call by Belgian rectors will increase pressure on EU states to act when officials return from their holidays next week.
“We cannot remain silent in the face of the inhumane conditions and deep humanitarian crisis in Gaza,” say the rectors in their statement.
“What has been unfolding in Gaza over the past months violates every principle of human dignity: more than 60,000 civilian casualties, the blocking of humanitarian aid, and a worsening famine,” they say.
Some European governments have started airdrops to alleviate hunger in the territory. But the UN has said they will not reverse the unfolding famine. For that to happen, Israel must allow more aid in by land.
Airdrops, including by Belgium, “should not distract from the immense scale of this food and health crisis, which can only be alleviated through a complete ceasefire and unconditional humanitarian aid delivered by land,” say the rectors.
ALLEA, an umbrella body for scientific academies across Europe, also put out a statement earlier this month in which it said that allowing unimpeded aid into Gaza was a “strategic necessity for Israel’s future international cooperation in science and research.”
While the ALLEA statement stops short of calling for Israel to be suspended from Horizon Europe, the body said it gave “full support” to comments made in July by David Harel, president of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, who said that Israel’s conduct in Gaza risks “its economic and scientific standing, and the future of its regional and international cooperation.”
Publicly condemn the genocide in Gaza
An image taken from the 
israel-academia-monitor.com 