04.02.25
Editorial Note
Last September, Israel Academia Monitor reported on the European Society of Criminology (ESC) conference, under the title “The European Society of Criminology Conference in Athens Targeted by BDS,” which took place in Greece on September 3-6, 2025. Our post noted that the topics in the conference were diverse, including panels on crimes committed during times of war; the psychological impact of the October 7 Hamas attack, and others.
Many were critical of Israel. For example, a roundtable titled “Types of Offending/Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes” discussed how “Israel’s war on Gaza has continued unabated for many months, killing over 60,000 Palestinians, the majority of whom are women and children,” among others.
A total of 16 Israeli academics took part in the event, of whom at least 7 were affiliated with Ariel University.
IAM stated that ahead of the conference, the Palestinian BDS movement (PACBI) issued a statement accusing the ECS of “normalizing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.”
One Israeli attendant observed that during the General Assembly, the ESC Board declared that an academic boycott of Israel was unconstitutional and could not be put to a vote, yet, BDS activists were given a vast space to operate inside and outside the conference halls. Israeli scholars were targeted by attempts to interrupt their presentations.
Applying pressure on the organizers were Criminologists for Palestine, a collective of members of the ESC who “oppose Israel’s genocide, crimes against humanity and human rights violations in Palestine.” The group started its activities just before the conference. During the conference, the group tried to push for a resolution to boycott Israel, without success.
After the conference, the group announced an upcoming conference titled “Criminological Perspectives on Palestine: Legal Responses and Academic Complicity in Times of Genocide,” to take place in Ljubljana on April 9th and 10th. Stating that this conference “seeks to explore the ways in which criminologists can, and should, address state criminality; to consider how criminological scholarship may contribute critical analyses of violations committed by Israel in Palestine, including genocide; and to examine how the discipline might engage with ongoing debates concerning academic complicity and calls to boycott institutions implicated in such violations.”
The anti-Israel group was unhappy with the Athens conference organizers for refusing to accept the proposed boycott vote. Its members complained that the response by the ESC “to the genocide and atrocity crimes in Palestine overshadowed the annual conference. Our motion won overwhelming support, but the ESC Board denied the membership a democratic vote.”
In response to the Criminologists for Palestine attempt to boycott Israeli participants, the ESC Executive Board (EB) recently published a report, on January 29, 2025, explaining their rationale, saying that the ESC Conference had brought forward a range of views concerning the war in Gaza and the broader Israel/Palestine conflict, arguing that the EB “views this debate as a manifestation of a more general discussion about the role of social sciences. A considerable portion of our membership believes imposing a particular normative or moral perspective on scholarly activity is inherently unscientific, censorial and political; while another substantial contingent is uncomfortable with a criminology that does not proclaim and condemn injustices—not only within scientific discourse but also in the public domain. Social science is by nature pluralistic and thrives on controversy rather than consensus. The role of the EB, therefore, is not to serve as final arbiter in these debates, but rather to guide the Society through current events in a manner that allows both camps to continue feeling at home within the ESC.”
The pressure mounted by Criminologists for Palestine included a petition titled “Petition Against Complicity,” stating that, as “Criminologists and Criminal Justice scholars, we “have initiated a petition addressing a number of decisions taken by the ESC in support of complicity in Israel’s atrocity crimes in Gaza and other parts of the Occupied Palestinian territories.” Published on October 5, 2025, the petition demands that the ESC should “adopt a robust due diligence screening process to examine, when a clear risk arises whether prospective participants are directly involved in undertaking or inciting atrocity crimes.” The petition discussed “the responsibility of the conference organizers to investigate all participants in contexts of heightened risk, for example, when there are pending ICJ investigations, to ensure that they have not been directly or indirectly involved—including through incitement or dehumanizing justification—in grave violations of human rights, particularly war crimes, crimes against humanity (including apartheid), or genocide. No such screening process took place ahead of Eurocrim 2025. Since the International Court of Justice ruling is unequivocal on the illegality of settlement entities such as Ariel University and the legal requirement not to recognize such illegality, working at and conducting research for a settlement entity means giving legitimacy and support to war crimes. The only possibility of legal compliance for the ESC is therefore to exclude participants willingly partaking in a war crime, including those from Ariel University.”
The petition attempted to “Enable a democratic vote on a proposed motion concerning collaborations with complicit Israeli academic institutions. We expect the ESC board to substantively respond to these demands. If not, we will have no choice but to reevaluate our participation in this institution and collaborate in establishing alternative academic spaces that uphold principles of justice and integrity.”
Interestingly, an Israeli academic is a key activist with the group Criminologists for Palestine, pushing for BDS. His name is Dr. Lior Volinz, a researcher at the Institute of Criminology at the Faculty of Law in Ljubljana, and also a research fellow at the Crime and Society (CRiS) research group and a member of the Brussels Centre for Urban Studies at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Volinz is a longtime anti-Israel activist. As the media reported in 2006, at the age of 18, Volinz was a member of a group of youngsters refusing to enlist in the Israeli army. Supportive of Volinz’s refusal to enlist in 2006 was Dr. Ishai Menuchin, the spokesperson of Yesh Gvul, a movement of army refusers. He said in an interview that he is convinced that 18-year-old Lior Volinz and his friend, who announced that they are refusing to enlist in the IDF, are heroes.
In 2019, Volinz was among the signatories of an “[Open Letter] Criticizing Israeli policy is not anti-Semitism!” Stating that the director of Human Rights Watch was expelled from Israel because of his alleged call for a boycott. “This is part of a broader trend of silencing voices critical of Israeli policy. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, in particular, is often labeled antisemitic. This is a worrying development.”
In August 2025, Volinz participated in a conference where he spoke “about how Israel uses privatization and digitization of surveillance to deepen its occupation and control over the lives of Palestinians.”
Given the activist background of Volitz and his group, there is probably not much hope that the conference “Criminological Perspectives on Palestine: Legal Responses and Academic Complicity in Times of Genocide,” in Ljubljana would accept papers by academics who seek to explore the ways in which criminologists can, and should, address non-state criminality; to consider how criminological scholarship may contribute critical analyses of violations committed by Hamas against the Palestinians in Gaza. But perhaps future ESC conferences would.
To begin with, Hamas practiced extreme embedding among the civilian population. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards, who trained and supported the Gaza terrorists with money and weapons, devised this strategy, which turned civilians into human shields, making the IDF’s fighting harder. International Humanitarian Law states that combatants on both sides should be clearly separated from civilians, a principle that Hamas totally ignored. For instance, the terrorists deliberately based themselves in densely populated areas with a special preference for hospitals, schools, mosques, and other public spaces. Hamas also prevented civilians from escaping the warzone, causing a much higher number of casualties. Hamas has also contributed to food insecurity in the Gaza Strip by seizing food from aid trucks. Documents recovered from tunnels, along with drone imagery, support these claims. These strategies delegitimized Israel with claims of committing genocide.
To maintain scholarly rigor, it is necessary to examine Hamas’s unlawful and unethical practices.
REFERENCES:
ESC A scientific association established under
Articles 60 et seq. of the Swiss Civil Code
European Society of Criminology
University of Lausanne
School of Criminal Sciences
Quartier Sorge- BCH CH-1015
Lausanne Switzerland
UID Register: CHE-168.699.063
Website: http://www.esc-eurocrim.orgESC Voting Document: Questions, Context and Actionable Plans (2025 General Assembly Matters)
Adopted by the Executive Board of the European Society of Criminology
29 January 2026.
The 2025 ESC Conference in Athens brought forward a range of views from ESC members on the Society’s stance towards international conflicts within and beyond Europe, especially in relation to war in Gaza and the broader Israel/Palestine conflict. The Executive Board (EB) views this debate as a manifestation of a more general discussion about the role of social sciences. A considerable portion of our membership believes imposing a particular normative or moral perspective on scholarly activity is inherently unscientific, censorial and political; while another substantial contingent is uncomfortable with a criminology that does not proclaim and condemn injustices—not only within scientific discourse but also in the public domain.
Social science is by nature pluralistic and thrives on controversy rather than consensus. The role of the EB, therefore, is not to serve as final arbiter in these debates, but rather to guide the Society through current events in a manner that allows both camps to continue feeling at home within the ESC.
The motion that initiated a discussion at the General Assembly (GA), as well as petitions, statements and messages from other members and groups within the Society, communicate diverse views, and have served as a catalyst for reflection on the roles and responsibilities of the Society in response to international events.
The EB has listened carefully to these different viewpoints and, as stated at the GA, received legal guidance. This has affirmed the EB’s position, communicated in Athens, that exclusionary measures—such as denying membership or conference participation based on a person’s nationality or their link to a particular state, territory, or institution—run contrary to the ESC’s constitution. This guidance also outlined why such measures would be legally risky under Swiss law and could expose the ESC to civil and even criminal liability.
Mindful of this guidance, applicable international and domestic laws, and fundamental human rights principles, the EB has distilled the central issues raised by ESC members in this debate into 2 a set of concrete, legally compliant questions for members to vote on, along with actionable plans explaining what steps would be taken as a result of each voting outcome. For clarity, this vote is being conducted as a membership-wide consultation initiated by the EB. It is not a formal “referendum” as described in Section 6(6) of the ESC Constitution, but a structured consultation designed to guide the EB in the discharge of its responsibilities under Section 7 of the ESC Constitution. The EB will treat the outcome as binding on itself, implementing it in good faith through the relevant policies, procedures, and practical arrangements.
In addition to the 369 members registered as of 29 January 2026 (301 of whom were already members in 2025), the consultation is open to the 2025 members (2,100), because this cohort raised and debated these issues both online and at the 2025 General Assembly.
The key issues are summarised in these questions:
1) Should the EB issue public statements on behalf of the Society about international conflicts (a) within Europe, (b) beyond Europe, and (c) specifically relating to the war in Gaza?
2) How should the Society handle attendance at ESC conferences by scholars from institutions located in legally disputed or occupied territories?
Voting will be conducted with three options: Yes, No, or Abstain / No opinion. The result will be calculated only from Yes/No votes; abstentions will be recorded separately.
The rest of this document has two sections:
1) In Section A (Questions, Context and Actionable Plans), you will find the full questions, a brief explanation of the context for each, and a clear description of the steps that will follow from each voting outcome.
2) In Section B (Guidelines/Protocols), you will find the relevant legal references and the proposed guidelines/protocols to be applied.
The consultation will be conducted via a secure online voting platform. Before you proceed to cast your vote, please read this document carefully. For technical reasons, voting sessions cannot remain open for an extended period, so reading this Voting Document first will help you cast an informed vote efficiently.
Your vote is important. The ESC is a member-led academic society that brings criminologists together and encourages scholarly exchange and cooperation. It is therefore important that you communicate your position on these issues and consider your choices with care as these questions have implications that may impact how the Society is perceived and operates in the future.
A. Questions, context and actionable plans Q1.
Statements on international conflicts
Context
The EB issued a statement in April 2022 condemning Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. In November 2024, it issued a statement that the ESC does not support the institutional boycott of academic establishments based on their country of operation and refrains from issuing statements on international conflicts outside Europe.
Some ESC members have questioned this stance, especially in relation to the war in Gaza and the broader Israel/Palestine conflict, arguing that a scholarly society devoted to the study of crime and justice cannot remain impartial regarding mass atrocities, irrespective of where they occur. Other ESC members feel that issuing such statements (including the one on Ukraine) reflects political rather than scholarly engagement with these events, and therefore conflicts with the ESC’s core mission to foster scholarly exchange and serve as an inclusive forum for academic discourse.
If the ESC membership were to opt for issuing statements on international conflicts, clear guidelines would need to be adopted to ensure transparency and equity, specifying under what conditions such statements would be issued, what form such statements would take and how they would be informed, and what important limitations must be considered. The legal guidance received advises that any public statement the ESC makes should remain closely aligned with the Society’s constitutional aims to bring criminological scholars together, encourage scholarly exchange and cooperation, and foster criminological scholarship, and be written so it cannot reasonably be seen as taking a partisan political side.
Quesbons:
1a. Do you want the EB to issue public statements about interna8onal conflicts characterized by mass atrocities and serious human rights abuses within Europe in line with the guidelines proposed below?
Effects of the voting outcome:
If the answer is no, the EB will refrain from issuing statements relating to international conflicts within Europe in the future. If the answer is yes, the EB will enact guidelines (see section B) for issuing statements about conflicts within Europe. If the answer is abstain/no opinion: Your vote will be recorded but will not be counted toward the Yes/No result. 4
1b. Do you want the EB to issue public statements about international conflicts characterized by mass atrocities and serious human rights abuses outside Europe in line with the guidelines proposed below?
Effects of the voting outcome:
If the answer is no, the EB will refrain from issuing statements relating to international conflicts outside Europe in the future. If the answer is yes, the EB will enact guidelines (see section B) for issuing statements about conflicts outside Europe. If the answer is abstain/no opinion: Your vote will be recorded but will not be counted toward the Yes/No result.
1c. Do you want the EB to issue a public statement about the war in Gaza and the broader Israel/Palestine conflict in line with the guidelines proposed below?
Effects of the voting outcome:
If the answer is no, the EB will refrain from issuing a statement on this conflict. If the answer is yes, the EB will issue a statement following the guidelines in section B. If the answer is abstain/no opinion: Your vote will be recorded but will not be counted toward the Yes/No result. If the answer to question 1b is no and 1c is yes, the EB will publish and implement the guidelines set out in Section B and will issue a statement on the war in Gaza, explicitly framing it as an exception.
Q2. Scholars at insbtubons based in disputed or occupied territories
Context
The ESC has been asked to consider whether international conflicts should impact decisions regarding attendance at its annual meetings, and in particular, whether the ESC should accept conference papers and registration from scholars from institutions based in legally disputed or occupied territories.
Consistent with the position endorsed by other international scholarly forums and sound academic practice, the ESC continues to welcome to its conferences all scholars irrespective of their nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion. This precludes the exclusion of participants from ESC activities based on the policies and activities of their country’s government or the institution to which they are affiliated. According to legal guidance, to do so would violate the ESC Constitution and expose the ESC to legal risks in Switzerland where it is incorporated. This raises the issue of how the geographical location of institutions should be represented in cases where there are territorial disputes—for example, institutions located in territories with disputed sovereignty or in areas considered illegally occupied under international law. This issue is especially sensitive for a Society devoted to the study of crime as moving the occupier’s population into the occupied territories might constitute a war crime.
At present the ESC allows attendees at its conferences to self-designate the geographical location of their affiliated institutions. However, if attendees list affiliations in geographical locations 5 where there are disputed sovereignty claims, or claims not recognized under international law, this may imply the ESC recognizes those claims.
Quesbons:
2. Do you want the ESC – while continuing to welcome all scholars to its annual conferences in line with its Constitution – to include, in Eurocrim publications and alongside self-designated institutional affiliations, the geographical location of institutions as specified under international law?
Effects of the voting outcome:
– If the answer is no, the EB will uphold its current policy of self-designation of affiliation information. Affiliations (including the nationality of the institution) will not be checked or modified. Conference information would include a disclaimer that the geographical location of the institution to which scholars are affiliated is specified by the scholar and the ESC and conference organisers do not endorse any sovereignty claims implied in the self-designation.
– If the answer is yes, the EB will enact clear rules for specifying geographical locations for institutions located in disputed/occupied territories —including the authoritative international legal sources the determination is based on. See section B. These rules will apply at the 2026 conference in Warsaw. This would mean, for example, that affiliations stating ‘Ariel University, Israel’ would be extended to ‘Ariel University, Israel (West Bank-Occupied Palestinian Territories)’ or Sevastopol State University, Russia to Sevastopol State University, Russia (Sevastopol, Ukraine — temporarily occupied; annexation not recognized) in Eurocrim publications. This would be a general policy applying to all locations in which there are territorial disputes.
– If the answer is abstain/no opinion: Your vote will be recorded but will not be counted toward the Yes/No result. B. DraH guidelines/protocols This section provides further information on guidelines and protocols in relation to each of the questions. These are included here for transparency so that you can make a more informed choice in your vote. These will be living documents, available on the ESC website, that the EB will curate in line with international legal sources. Q1. Statements on internabonal conflicts The ESC is a member-led society that brings criminologists together and encourages scholarly exchange and cooperation, based on the principles of academic freedom and freedom of expression. Making partisan political statements goes against these core principles, as it can create internal strife in a community that reasonably holds diverse views on policy, politics, and values. 6 Therefore, statements by the EB in the name of the Society should be reserved for exceptional cases, and only when the issues are directly related to the ESC’s core concern: the study of crime and societal reactions to crime. A statement may be issued in the following cases, where: 1. The statement concerns the crime of aggression, international or domestic conflicts with mass atrocities and large-scale human rights abuses; and 2. The claim that an aggression, mass atrocities and/or human rights abuses are taking place is supported by strong and converging evidence (ICJ judgements and advisory opinions, judgements by the ICC and other widely recognized international courts, domestic courts, decisions by UN bodies such as Security Council and General Assembly Resolutions, reports and decisions by other UN bodies, reports by other intergovernmental organizations such as the ICRC, reputable NGOs, peer-reviewed academic research, etc.). To avoid legal risks, the statement must comply with the following requirements: 1. The language of the statement must explicitly tie it to the core mission of the Society as per its Constitution. 2. Making claims about specific crimes being committed even without a final legal determination by a court of law is in line with established scholarly practice within criminology; however, extra care is needed when such claims are made in a statement. Such extra care might include, for example, a careful review of evidence from reputable sources as well as of scholarly opinions both in general and within the Society in particular. 3. Ongoing litigation before international or domestic courts of the said mass atrocities and human rights abuses shall not per se prevent a statement from being issued. However, extra care must be exercised in such circumstances to avoid the impression that the ESC is endorsing concrete litigation outcomes. 4. The statement must be supported by references to reputable sources outlined above. 5. The statement must not accuse identifiable individuals and/or organizations of specific offences. 6. The statement must not include claims made by a single source, claims that are widely disputed by a wide range of reputable actors, or claims supported only by vague or questionable evidence. 7. The statement must not call for political action, or endorse political parties, concrete advocacy groups or campaigns. Any statement on the situation in Gaza should reflect similar wording to the EB’s statement on the war in Ukraine and reflect the following: 1. The ESC condemns atrocities, war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and grave violations of human rights wherever they occur, without distinction as to place, people, or circumstance. 2. The ESC reaffirms its constitutional mandate as a scientific society, not a political actor, while upholding fundamental human rights principles and safeguarding inclusivity and collegiality. 3. Strong and converging evidence to support the claim that an aggression, mass atrocities and human rights abuses are taking place. 7 4. The language of the statement must explicitly tie it to the core mission of the Society as per its Constitution. 5. Claims about specific crimes being committed are possible even without a final legal determination by a court of law, but extra care is needed. 6. The statement must not accuse identifiable individuals and/or organizations of specific offences. 7. The statement must not include claims made by a single source, or which are disputed, or are only supported by vague or questionable evidence. 8. The statement must not call for political action, or endorse political parties, concrete advocacy groups or campaigns. Q2. Insbtubons involved in legal and/or territorial disputes Affiliabon Designabon Guide Background Following the members’ vote to standardize how affiliations are displayed in cases involving disputed sovereignty or territories under occupation, the ESC will apply the objective, international-law–based rules below. These amendments affect country/territory designations only in Eurocrim publications (e.g., programme, book of abstracts, badges) and will not affect conference participation. They are intended to avoid any impression that the ESC supports, recognizes, or rejects particular sovereignty claims. Amendments will not erase or replace selfidentified country/territory designations, but will add, in parentheses, the geographical location as specified in international law. Participants remain free to determine and use their chosen national identity in all ESC fora. Purpose and Scope, General Rules 1. Amendments affect country/territory designations in official ESC conference publications only (such as the programme, badges, and book of abstracts). Conference participation is not affected. 2. The European Journal of Criminology retains its own independent policies concerning affiliation designations, aligned with industry practice and publisher policies. 3. Amendments follow objective international-law sources; they do not express the ESC’s political views. 4. Attribution is determined by the campus’s physical location, not by the nationality or jurisdiction of any accrediting authority. This is an objective criterion; accreditation by state organs may itself be part of a disputed sovereignty claim. Using this criterion also helps clarify the university’s status in case of contested claims to the same university name (this might be the case when university staff and faculty flee an occupying force and establish themselves in temporary buildings in unoccupied territories of their state). 5. For universities with multiple campuses, use the territory of the institution’s official seat as the basis for attribution. 8 6. For contesting claims involving the same university name (e.g., when staff and faculty flee an occupying force and operate temporarily in unoccupied territory within their state), apply the rule above (determine physical location). If a university is temporarily relocated within the same country, the denomination will not change, as we specify the country only (e.g., Mariupol University may be temporarily relocated to Kyiv, but the denomination remains “Mariupol University, Ukraine”). Authoritative sources (in order of weight) 1. UN Security Council / General Assembly decisions and UN Secretariat cartographic/terminology usage 2. ICJ judgments/advisory opinions; other widely recognized international-court decisions; pertinent domestic-court judgments 3. ICRC usage for occupation terminology 4. ISO 3166 codes for naming consistency (recognition guided by 1–3) Priority rules (apply in order) Rule 1 — UN-recognized occupation or non-recognized annexation • Sevastopol State University — Sevastopol, Russia (Sevastopol, Ukraine — territory temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation; annexation not recognized). Ref: UNGA 68/262 (2014). • Al-Quds University (Abu Dis/East Jerusalem area) — East Jerusalem, Palestine (Occupied Palestinian Territory – East Jerusalem). Refs: UNSC 476 & 478 (1980); ICJ Wall AO (2004); ICJ AO (2024). • Islamic University of Gaza — Gaza City, Gaza Strip, Palestine (Occupied Palestinian Territory-Gaza Strip). Refs: UN usage “oPt”; ICJ Wall AO (2004); ICJ AO (2024). • Ariel University — Ariel, Israel (Ariel, Occupied Palestinian Territory-West Bank). Refs: ICJ Wall AO (2004); ICJ AO (2024); UNSC 2334 (2016). Rule 2 — UN treats the area as a distinct territory without settled sovereignty • Ibn Zohr University — École Supérieure de Technologie Laâyoune (branch) — Laayoune, Western Sahara (Non-Self-Governing Territory). Refs: ICJ Western Sahara AO (1975); UN NSGT practice. Rule 3 — Disputed region; UN affirms territorial integrity of a specific state • Abkhazian State University – Sukhumi, Abkhazia (Georgia). Refs: UNGA 62/249 (2008); 63/307 (2009); 78/283 (2024); 79/292 (2025). • Taras Shevchenko Transnistria State University – Tiraspol, Transnistria (Moldova). Refs: UNGA 72/282 (2018), OSCE practice. 9 • Eastern Mediterranean University -Famagusta, Cyprus (area not under effective control of the Government of Cyprus). Refs: UNSC 541 (1983); 550 (1984); 789 (1992). Rule 4 — Mixed/unresolved status with special UN framework • University of Prishtina – Pristina, Kosovo. † † Designation without prejudice to status; see UNSCR 1244 (1999). Rule 5 — No dispute/occupation per sources above (examples of “no change”) • Utrecht University — Utrecht, Netherlands. • Lund University — Lund, Sweden. Procedure of applica8on 1. Creation of a list of disputed/occupied territories based on the guidelines above. 2. Screen Allacademic system for submissions with problematic affiliations. 3. Notify the affected scholars of the intended addition to their affiliation, outlining the detailed reasoning. 4. Allow 7 days for response. 5. In cases where the proposed amendment is contested, a 3-member panel decides the appeal. Panel members will be appointed by the EB to a term of 2 years and will include at least one member of the EB. Members may include experts on public international law, atrocity crimes (e.g., working group members with legal qualifications). The panel shall only consider whether the guidelines have been applied correctly. The panel shall not relitigate sovereignty claims. 6. Participants are entitled to a full refund of conference fees if they opt for withdrawal from the conference in light of the decision. 7. Affiliations must be confirmed by a predetermined deadline prior to publication of the book of abstracts. Changes to geopolitical status after this cut-off cannot be reflected in affiliations. Procedure of adop8on 1. The current guidelines are adopted by the EB. 2. The EB shall seek further legal advice from a public international law expert before its decision. 3. The EB may revisit and amend the guidelines any time. The EB shall hear legal advice before any further amendment. Adopted by the Executive Board of the European Society of Criminology on 29 January 2026.
======================================================
Read our full motion below
Response to the ESC’s Call for Vote – 30.1.2026
The Board of the European Society of Criminology has published, with a delay of many months, a set of questions to the ESC membership on the Society’s response to Israel’s atrocity crimes. This set of questions seeks to replace the democratic will of the ESC membership, including their right to vote on a motion against complicity in atrocity crimes – a motion that won overwhelming support at the ESC 2025 General Assembly. We acknowledge that the set of questions does put to a vote one of the motion’s demands – that the ESC makes a statement on Israel’s atrocity crimes. However, we are alarmed that this set of questions continues to prevent a vote on our main demand – that the ESC should call on members not to provide material support to academic institutions complicit in Israel’s crimes. We extend further on the violations of members’ rights by the ESC Board at the end of this statement.
We call on ESC members to vote on the questions posed by the ESC Board while continuing to act for the ESC to fullfil its democratic mission by enabling a vote on complicity in atrocity crimes. We support colleagues who choose to boycott the ESC, who publish on the topic, who organize activities on complicity at ESC events and who convey their concerns to the ESC Board.
We call on ESC members to vote, using their personal invitation link, as following:
Section A:
1a. Yes (for the ESC to issue statements on atrocity crimes in Europe)
1b. Yes (for the ESC to issue statements on atrocity crimes outside Europe)
1c. Yes (for the ESC to issue statements on atrocity crimes committed by Israel in Gaza)
2. Yes (for the ESC to correctly register conference participants from illegal Israeli institutions based in the Occupied Palestinian territories).
Why we believe the ESC Board continues to provide impunity to complicity in Israeli atrocity crimes
- The European Society of Criminology is a Society of its members; the Executive Board is appointed to execute the will of the membership, represented under Swiss law by the General Assembly. To deny a vote on an agenda item placed in front of the membership, to which overwhelming support was shown, is a subversion of the democratic workings of the Society. This violation has been post-factum explained by the Board’s recent request for a ‘legal opinion’: however, the Board continues to block information on the content of the legal advice it sought on the Society’s expense, whom it was sought from, or what were the parameters of its request. Specifically, the continuous choice to prevent the membership from exercising their right to a vote on the Motion’s central demand – accountability for the complicity of Israeli academic institutions in atrocity crimes – is a violation of the rights of the membership. No legal reasoning was given to explain this violation; instead, the Board falsely claims that our motion targets individual scholars. To make it clear – for the ESC to call on its members not to provide material support for legal entities found by UNHRC to be complicit in grave atrocity crimes is matter of compliance with international law, not an unconstitutional act nor a violation of academic freedom.
The ESC Board subversion of the democratic workings of the Society is not unique to the ESC. It is a part of a wider assault on academic freedom, centred in Trump’s America where a number of scholarly associations similarly blocked a democratic vote on Israel’s atrocity crimes. - We are appalled by the message of the ESC President, a message that opposes action on complicity in atrocity crimes and decrying our work for accountability and transparency as a violation of academic freedom. We do not agree with this assertion: we believe that as a discipline studying crime we are professionally and morally obliged to address atrocity crimes, and speak publicly even when those crimes are supported, facilitated, funded or tolerated through silence by European governments and institutions. The message by the ESC President further asserts that the true victims are Israeli scholars, who are confronted with legitimate discussions on the role of their institutions in advancing atrocity crimes. In this discussion there is no space foreseen to our Palestinian colleagues, whose universities have been bombed to rubble by Israeli forces; whose families have been killed, maimed, tortured or held in illegal detention; or who’ve lost their livelihood for speaking out on Israel’s crimes. The choice of words by prof. Anna-Maria Getoš Kalac is significant in explaining not only her own, but also the ESC Board lack of moral order and its continuous support for normalization of and complicity in Israel’s atrocity crimes.
Criminologists for Palestine, 30.1.2026
—————————
Do you want to discuss these topics, and more, in a setting where voices critical to atrocity crimes and academic complicity are provided appropriate, safe and supportive space? Join many of us at the conference Criminological Perspectives on Palestine: Legal Responses and Academic Complicity in Times of Genocide in Ljubljana on April 9th and 10th. The Call for Papers is open until February 10th.
What happened at the Eurocrim 2025 conference in Athens? The issue of the response by the European Society of Criminology (ESC) to the genocide and atrocity crimes in Palestine overshadowed the annual conference. Our motion won overwhelming support, but the ESC Board denied the membership a democratic vote. Read our full report here.
Vote of support for Criminologists for Palestine’s motion, ESC General Assembly 2025
Motion of the European Society of Criminology concerning collaborations with Israeli academic institutions in light of the ongoing genocide committed by Israel in Gaza and other systematic human rights violations in Palestine
Considering that the European Society of Criminology has on numerous occasions manifested its commitment to academic freedom and human rights;
Considering that international intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations, have documented and verified Israel’s systematic annexation and colonization of Palestinian territories, massive violations of the human rights of Palestinians, including the right to self-determination, a 18-year blockade of the Gaza strip, segregationist and discriminating policies and laws, the ongoing massacres and deliberate starvation of civilians in Gaza which all major international, Palestinian and Israeli human rights organisations consider a genocide, and the International Court of Justice consider plausible a genocide; and the International Criminal Court Prosecutor acknowledges Israel’s responsibility in war crimes and crimes against humanity; and the International Court of Justice ruling that Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal, amounts to annexation and violates the prohibition against apartheid;
considering the systematic violations reported, which include the relentless killing of teachers, students, researchers, journalists, and cultural workers, and its systematic destruction of schools, universities, libraries, archives, heritage sites, and cultural institutions, which effectively have obliterated the entire sector of education and research in Gaza, also characterized as ‘scholasticide’;
Considering that these systematic violations also include restricting freedom of movement for Palestinians; isolating, undermining, or otherwise attacking Palestinian educational institutions; harassing Palestinian professors, teachers, and students; harassing Israeli professors and students criticizing Israeli policies; destroying, confiscating, or otherwise rendering Palestinian archival material inaccessible; and maintaining inequality in educational resources between Palestinians and Israelis;
Considering that Israeli academic institutions are reported to be imbricated in these systematic violations through their provision of direct assistance to the Israeli military and intelligence establishments, that they (among others – Technion, Hebrew University, Ben Gurion University, Tel Aviv University) are reported to hold joint programs with arms industries, and conduct specialized training program for soldiers; and that some Israeli academic institutions are located in the Occupied Palestinian territories, in violation of international law;
Considering that European governments and public institutions have systematically shielded successive Israeli governments from being held accountable for the aforementioned violations and facilitated them through unprecedented diplomatic, military, and economic support; and considering that complicit Israeli academic institutions continue to enjoy access to European Union research funds and resources;
Considering that in order for UN member states to meet their obligations as triggered by the International Court of Justice ruling, they must “[c]ancel or suspend economic relationships, trade agreements and academic relations with Israel that may contribute to its unlawful presence and apartheid regime in the occupied Palestinian territory”;
Considering that the European Society of Criminology is committed to academic freedom, including by continuing to welcome to its conferences and any activities all scholars, irrespective of their nationality or background, who accept the values the Society ascribes to, as laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights and other key Council of Europe Conventions and Recommendations; and that the need for immediate action using peaceful means has never been greater; be it
Resolved, that the ESC:
- Does not and will not collaborate with complicit Israeli institutions, as identified by the UN HRC, UN OHCHR, or other relevant UN bodies, until Israel complies with International Law and International Humanitarian Law; does not publicise, promote, or encourage such collaborations or any related activities.
- Calls on ESC members not to enter into institutional arrangements, e.g. through common research projects and grants, with such complicit Israeli academic institutions, until Israel complies with International Law and International Humanitarian Law.
- Recognizes and condemns the genocidal acts committed by Israel in Gaza, and the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Israel in all parts of Palestine, as found by the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court Prosecutor’s office.
- Supports the work of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court in tackling, without fear of retaliation, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, and the work of all human rights organisations and of researchers to uncover, examine and report these crimes, and resists any attempts to stigmatise or silence staff and students at European universities engaged in research, speech, and actions on Palestine.
- Builds academic links with Palestinian universities and academics; speaks out against the destruction of the educational sector and restrictions on academic freedom in Palestine; demand an end to limitations on travel, research, and expression for Palestinian scholars and students; advocates for the removal of barriers, such as checkpoints and travel restrictions, that impede academics’ and students’ ability to attend classes, participate in research, and engage in academic activities.
- Directs the ESC Executive Board to work to give effect to the spirit and intent of this motion, including through the publication of implementation guidelines, in a manner consistent with ESC’s bylaws as well as the relevant national laws.
=============================================================
https://criminologists4palestine.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/criminologists-4-palestine-eurocrim-report-2025.pdf Criminologists for Palestine report on the Eurocrim 2025 Conference
A report on the European Society of Criminology’s Board response to Israel’s atrocity crimes in Palestine and the Complicity of Israeli Academic Institutions This report is by Criminologists for Palestine, a collective of members of the European Society of Criminology who oppose Israel’s genocide, crimes against humanity and human rights violations in Palestine Contact: criminologists4palestine@protonmail.com
Date: 04.11.2025
Introduction The European Society of Criminology (ESC) is the largest European professional association for criminologists, bringing together academic researchers, practitioners, and policymakers from across the globe in its annual conference, Eurocrim. The ESC positions itself as a democratic and inclusive society committed to academic freedom and the advancement of knowledge on crime, justice, and social harm. Nevertheless, in stark contrast to its values, it ignores the numerous voices of concerned criminologists, who form the collective Criminologists for Palestine, and have been calling out the ESC for failing to acknowledge the ongoing genocide in Gaza and refusing to tackle the complicity of Israeli academic institutions in atrocity crimes. After many attempts and disappointments, the ESC Board subverted the democratic workings of the Society by denying a vote on a motion regarding the complicity of Israeli institutions during the Eurocrim conference of 2025. This course of action has highlighted the failings of the Society’s leadership, which is why this report is necessary. In this report we aim to provide a chronological account of the ESC Board response to the Gaza genocide and the demands of its membership to act against complicity. By systematically documenting these developments, it aims to create a transparent record. Furthermore, it aims to inform discussions within the Society itself and the broader academic community about accountability and the moral and ethical responsibilities of our discipline.
Table of Contents
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2
The ESC and the Question of Palestine – Early Considerations ………………………………………… 3
The Motion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
Towards the Eurocrim conference ………………………………………………………………………………… 5
EUROCRIM 2025 in Athens …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 6
The General Assembly ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7
Conclusion and Next Steps …………………………………………………………………………………………… 8
3 The ESC and the Question of Palestine – Early Considerations Eurocrim, the annual conference of the ESC, is the largest criminology conference in Europe. Its programme has for a long time included a large number of participants from Israeli academic institutions, and few (or no) participants from Palestinian academic institutions. Israel’s latest war on the Palestinians of Gaza has brought these entanglements, and the complicity of Israeli academic institutions, starkly into view. At the Eurocrim 2024 conference in Bucharest (Romania), a number of ESC members have publicly demanded the ESC to take a stand on Israel’s ongoing atrocity crimes. Members have also demanded that the ESC cease endorsing Israeli war crimes by misrepresenting Israeli academic institutions based in the Occupied Palestinian Territories as based ‘in Israel’, in contravention of International Court of Justice (ICJ) rulings. When ESC members were engaging their peers in this discussion at the hallways of the Eurocrim 2024 conference, the local organising committee has responded with anger, announcing to the ESC members involved in discussion that ‘No politics are allowed in the conference’. Other board members have then entered into discussion with the local organizing committee and allowed continued engagement on the issue. The ESC Executive secretary, Marcelo Aebi, informed ESC members on-site that the board intends to issue a statement on Israel’s crimes ‘similarly as we did with the statement on Russia’s war in Ukraine’, a statement that strongly opposed the war. In subsequent communication with the Board, some board members expressed strong opposition to a condemnation of Israel’s crimes, and ultimately no statement was issued on the matter. Instead, in November 2024, the Board issued the ‘Statement of the Executive Board of the European Society of Criminology on international conflicts outside Europe’, where it declares that the ESC would refrain from issuing positions on conflicts “outside of Europe”, while stating that we are ‘deeply affected by the violence and suffering caused by conflicts around the world, including in the Middle East, Africa, the Americas, and elsewhere’. No mention was made of Israel, Palestine or Gaza, nor were the decisions by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and ICJ addressed. This statement effectively attempted to silence calls for a position by our Society on Israel’s atrocity crimes in Gaza. The refusal by the ESC Board to address complicity in Israel’s atrocity crimes, and the continuous endorsement of breaches of international law and war crimes by misrepresenting illegally-operated Israeli academic institutions based in the Occupied Palestinian territories, led us to establish a new collective – Criminologists for Palestine. 4 The motion On July 2025, A formal motion for the ESC General Assembly was submitted to the ESC Board by five members in the name of Criminologists for Palestine. Among others, the motion calls for the ESC to recognize and condemns Israel’s atrocity crimes in Palestine, including the genocide in Gaza; it calls on ESC members not to undertake structural cooperation with Israeli institutions deemed complicit in atrocity crimes; and it calls for increased cooperation with Palestinian scholars. The ESC Board reached out soon thereafter and asked for a virtual meeting of those who submitted the motion with ESC Board members. The meeting was held on August 1st, 2025, and was led by the ESC President, Michele Burman, and ESC Executive secretary, Marcelo Aebi. The meeting was constructive and respectful. The ESC highlighted the need to specify in the motion that individual scholars, as proclaimed in a previous statement on Ukraine, are not boycotted and invited to participate in the activities of the ESC regardless of nationality, and that the motion should emphasize more the need for the ESC to comply with the relevant rulings of the ICJ. The decision reached in the meeting was that members of Criminologists for Palestine would amend the motion in line with the constructive suggestions made – and that we would work jointly so that the motion would be brought to a ballot vote by ESC members in the month after the Eurocrim conference of 2025. Such an outcome, was argued in the meeting, would ensure the maximal democratic participation of ESC members while reducing tensions and supporting a constructive dialogue on the Society’s response to Israel’s atrocity crimes. An amended version of the motion, in line with the Board’s suggestions, was submitted to the ESC Board on August 3rd, 2025, ahead of the publication of the Agenda for the ESC General Assembly; the motion was further shared on Criminologists for Palestine’s website. The agenda of the ESC General Assembly was sent to the membership on August 5th, and included an item on the ESC response to ‘conflicts outside of Europe’, to include a discussion and a vote on our motion. What happened next took us by surprise. On the same day, August 5th, we received a message from the ESC President, Michele Burman, announcing that instead of facilitating a democratic vote on the proposed motion, the Board has decided to block a democratic vote based on unspecified ‘constitutional’ and ‘legal’ grounds. This contradicts the ESC constitution (Section 6), which grants the membership the right to vote on any item placed on the agenda, as well as Swiss civil law (Articles 64 and 66), under which the ESC operates and which establishes the General Assembly as its highest decision-making authority of the Society. We are not aware of what made the Board decide on such a drastic step in such a short time period. There are no indications that any legal opinion was received in the 48 hours from the time the revised motion was submitted until the Board’s controversial decision to block a vote. Despite later suggestions made by the Board that ‘legal’ or ‘economic’ pressure was behind this decision, no further information was provided. 5 Following our request for clarification, the ESC president informed us on August 12th that the motion was deemed unconstitutional, as the call for members to refrain from providing material support to academic institutions complicit in atrocity crimes was considered inconsistent with the ESC’s principles of ‘scientific endeavour, inclusivity, the fostering of scholarly cooperation and scholarly exchange’. The mail later states that undertaking a position on the well-documented complicity of Israeli institutions poses legal and economic risks to the Society. This position, which in effect provides impunity to institutions complicit in atrocity crimes, remains unacceptable to us. Members of Criminologists for Palestine, together with other criminologists and criminal justice scholars, decided to take further action by authoring a Petition against Complicity in Israel’s atrocity crimes. The petition demands a democratic vote on the motion placed on the agenda, and proposes ethical guidelines on the inclusion of academics reasonably suspected of participation in what the ICJ considers grave war crimes. The petition also questions the Eurocrim’s choice of conference venue, the American College of Greece, which has a long-lasting partnership with Israel, including in the areas of security police and intelligence, involving educational and research activities. The petition had significant success, with over 650 signatories, Including notable scholars in our discipline, keynote speakers, department heads and institutional directors, including a member of the ESC Board. Towards the Eurocrim conference The Eurocrim 2025 conference was organized by Panteion University, the local host organization, at the premises of the American College of Greece, a gated establishment in Athens’ outskirts. Shortly before the conference, local activists from Greece were made aware of the complicity of the ESC through its support of illegal (e.g., Ariel University) and complicit Israeli institutions in atrocity crimes. A number of postgraduate students of Panteion University, the host institution, brought a motion to the Senate for Panteion University to withdraw its sponsorship from the conference to avoid complicity with atrocity crimes, after the ESC Board, including the local conference organizer, refused to take action on the matter. The motion was passed by large majority vote, and Panteion withdrew its aegis on 29/08/2025. Their decision makes a clear point that ‘neutrality in the face of war crimes cannot be justified.’ Quickly following suit and under the same rationale, the Municipality of Athens and the development company of the Municipality withdrew their aegis from the conference on 31/08/2025. The choice of the conference host institution to withdraw their participation is unprecedented in ESC history, and was covered extensively by media outlets. It led to the withdrawal of up to a third of the student volunteers from the conference, with significant consequences to the organization of the yearly conference. The ESC Board responded with an unapologetic statement. While the Board, for the first time, condemned Israeli atrocity 6 crimes by name, it also defended its support for complicity in atrocity crimes by invoking ‘academic freedom and dialogue’, and blaming members active for Palestinian rights of ‘spreading misinformation’. In the same statement, the Board also announced that they will collaborate with the deployment of local law enforcement authorities, setting the stage for the contested conference to come. The ESC membership was not sufficiently informed of these significant developments, nor was it consulted about the Board’s lack of response to the demands raised by the host institute and local partners. Instead, ESC members received a message from the ESC Board that aims to justify the Board’s subversion of the democratic workings of the ESC by blocking a vote on the proposed motion. The Board’s message further circulated several documents, including the original version of the motion submitted to the Board — not the amended version that incorporated the Board’s suggestions from the initial constructive meeting. The submitters of the motion requested a correction so that the membership would have access to the updated document, but this request was repeatedly denied by the ESC Executive Secretary. EUROCRIM 2025 in Athens The Eurocrim 2025 conference took place in the shadow of the ESC Board’s decision to block any meaningful action by our society in response to Israel’s grave crimes, by refusing measures such as non-collaboration with, non-recognition of, and non-normalization of complicit Israeli institutions until international law is respected, and by declining to encourage members to do the same. On the opening evening of the conference, conference participants were welcomed by dozens of heavily armed (riot) police officers, undercover police, a police drone and checkpoints. Participants were required to hand over their passports for identification, while local Greek groups (including Mothers against Genocide and a group from the local municipality of Agia Paraskevi) were present and organized a protest against the ESC Board stance. Members of the Criminologists for Palestine collective began a series of daily activities aimed at informing and discussing with the ESC membership on the Society’s position on Israel’s atrocity crimes. The collective was visible throughout the whole event: distributing flyers, holding discussion circles and a sit-in, while drawing attention to the upcoming General Assembly and the motion placed on the agenda. At the same time, a large number of ESC members expressed their anger at the Board’s stance by withdrawing their paper presentations, resigning from their role as chairs or holding their panel discussion outside the venue premises. Criminologists for Palestine’s activities at the Eurocrim conference 7 On the morning of September 5th, the day of the General Assembly, the Board sent a push alarm on the conference mobile application, warning participants of unspecified ‘intimidation’ and ‘harassment’ against Israeli participants. This can only be understood as a further attempt to delegitimize the wish of the ESC membership for meaningful action by the Society on Israel’s atrocity crimes ahead of the General Assembly. The General Assembly The General Assembly of the ESC took place on September 5th 2025, at the Pierce Theatre of the American College of Greece. The Theatre was packed full, with unprecedented participation by ESC members. The ESC President, Michele Burman, and Executive Secretary, Marcelo Aebi, took the stage, announcing in advance that they will ‘not allow more than one hour’ for the entire proceedings of the General Assembly. In comparison, the 2024 General Assembly in Bucharest had lasted 100 minutes, despite not including a single point of discussion. The assembly began; the first 13 points on the Agenda were discussed in the first 30 minutes. The Criminologists for Palestine motion was presented by two members of the collective. In the five minutes allocated, they reiterated the urgent need for a position on the complicity of Israeli academic institutions, and emphasized that the motion targets legal entities, not individual scholars. At the end of the presentation, the ESC members present were asked to informally indicate their support for the motion by a raise of hands: over 80% of those present raised their hands in solidarity, showing overwhelming support. Show of hands in support of the motion, ESC GA 2025 Next, a curious thing happened. The membership was not asked to participate in an open debate. Instead, a pre-arranged number of invited guests by the ESC Board filed to the side of the stage and were given a stage, including a disproportionate number of Israeli academics and former ESC functionaries. The limited debate that ensued revealed significant fault lines between the former and current leadership of the Society, and the vast majority of its membership, on their perspective on Israeli atrocity crimes. One renowned member of the Society opposed the motion, arguing that ‘Even in Nazi times, German scientists had connections to America […] we should not throw out whole universities under 8 the bus’. Another, a former ESC president, claimed that as criminologists we never adopted a motion the Rwandan genocide or on Srebrenica – and that there is no reason to start now. A number of speakers posed questions on the merit of the Motion to Criminologists for Palestine’s members, but none of the collective’s members were allowed to reply. After only a small number of other ESC members were given the floor and consistently interrupted, the ESC President announced that she denies a vote on the motion due to constitutional, economic and legal grounds, and proceeded to prematurely and abruptly end the General Assembly, cutting the microphones and left the stage. Attempts to pursue a compromise vote by members of Criminologists for Palestine were dismissed out of hand. The ESC membership were further denied the possibility to address any outstanding issues under item 15 in the agenda – ‘any other business’ – in contravention of Section 6 of the ESC constitution and applicable Swiss law. The effect of this subversion of democracy by the ESC Board has been profound, drawing condemnation from a large number of ESC members. It has harmed the reputation of the Society and the integrity of its scholarly and ethical purpose. At the same time, it has also inspired many ESC members to continue their work towards an accountable and democratic Society that values human rights and does not abdicate from its professional and scholarly mission.
Conclusion and Next Steps
On September 10th, 2025, the Board announced it would unilaterally design “a set of questions and actionable plans” of its own choosing for a vote in December. This prospect risks again our Society’s democratic character, as it is not within the Board’s mandate to alter, fragment, or substitute the wish of its membership with alternative questions or proposals of its own choosing. Despite repeated requests for clarification from numerous members — including questions about the economic and legal justifications for denying a vote, the transparency of the decision-making process, and the status of our motion which we continue to request to bring to a vote – the ESC Board has yet to provide a reply on this course of action. Criminologists for Palestine will continue to organize, plan, and work towards an ESC that addresses Israel’s atrocity crimes and the complicity of those who enable them. We will continue our actions towards an accountable and democratic Society that upholds its commitment to the law, to the rights of its members, and to an understanding of crime that goes beyond a perfunctory perspective towards recognizing atrocity crimes in Palestine and beyond.
==================================================
Petition against complicity
Criminologists and Criminal Justice scholars, both members and non-members of the European Society of Criminology (ESC), have initiated a petition addressing a number of decisions taken by the ESC in support of complicity in Israel’s atrocity crimes in Gaza and other parts of the Occupied Palestinian territories.
The petition can be signed here
Demand action from the ESC: petition to end complicity
We, criminologists and criminal justice scholars, are alarmed by several recent decisions by the European Society of Criminology Executive Board and Eurocrim local organizing and scientific committee regarding complicity in Israel’s atrocity crimes against Palestinians, including its ongoing genocide in Gaza.
In a time of ongoing massacres, relentless bombing and forced starvation of Palestinians in Gaza, which the vast majority of scholars from relevant fields, including genocide and holocaust studies, and all major international, Palestinian and Israeli human rights organisations consider a genocide, and the International Court of Justice has ruled to be a plausible genocide; in a time when Israel has destroyed or damaged each and every one of Gaza’s universities, and over 16,300 Palestinian students have been killed by Israel;
in this time the ESC executive board has made a number of deplorable decisions in support of complicity in these atrocity crimes, while silencing those who oppose it:
ESC board’s support for complicity in Israel’s atrocity crimes
We are alarmed by the decision of the ESC executive board to continue to support complicity in Israel’s atrocity crimes, despite a strong opposition from its members. This is exemplified by the attempts to deny a democratic vote on a proposed motion concerning collaborations with complicit Israeli academic institutions. Although the motion had already been placed on the agenda, the ESC executive board subsequently claimed that they consider it to be in conflict with the ESC constitution. This raises uncertainty whether they are agreeing to hold a democratic vote on the motion during the General Assembly this September. The ESC is made up of its members, and its constitution explicitly allows members to propose motions on behalf of the Society. Any undemocratic attempt to silence members or deny their vote constitutes further complicity in atrocity crimes.
Host institution complicity
Eurocrim 2025 is hosted by the University of Panteion, as prominently displayed on the website. However, the venue was later announced to be the American College of Greece (ACG) – a private U.S. institution with strong ties to Israel. ACG was recently planning an ‘educational trip’ to Israel in collaboration with the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which faced strong student opposition and was ultimately canceled. Earlier this year, as in previous years, the ACG educational program featured Brigadier General (Ret.) Itai Brun, former head of the IDF Intelligence Analysis Division, who was recalled to lead intelligence efforts during the Israel’s 2023 Gaza genocide and masacres in Lebanon. This choice of location for the Eurocrim reinforces support and legitimacy for complicity with grave crimes, in a time when they have reached unprecedented dimensions.
Research integrity considerations in abstracts by academics from complicit Israeli institutions
The ESC has always been welcoming to scholars of different persuasions, beliefs and backgrounds. Yet, as in any academic setting, there is no space for blatant violations of academic principles of integrity as well as a commitment to an ethical academic conduct. Neither is there room for those espousing and supporting racism or hate within our community. However, it is evident that the ESC has no mechanism in place to prevent the participation or presentation of research by individuals involved in war crimes and other atrocity crimes, or whose work builds on data collected through violations of international laws and a complete disregard for minimal ethical standards.
We call upon the ESC to implement a robust screening process to examine whether prospective participants are directly complicit or knowingly participating in undertaking or inciting to atrocity crimes, especially when there is such an obvious risk of grave violations of international law. It is especially disturbing to learn that a number of academics from Israel have been directly involved in such crimes. Whether in a personal capacity, as officers in the Israeli army mobilization efforts; in incitement to genocide, or in disregarding ethical norms by collecting data from an occupied population, for the applied purpose of their own subjugation.
Ariel university and the endorsement of war crimes
More than ten academics from Ariel University are attending the Eurocrim, with several listing their affiliation as ‘Ariel University, Israel.’ Ariel University is not situated in Israel; it is illegally situated in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, constituting a clear violation of international law, causing it to be explicitly excluded from EU grants and joint research programs. To represent this institution as “based in Israel” is an endorsement and normalization of Israel’s illegal occupation by the ESC. Furthermore, in light of the previous point, any participant associated with Ariel University is knowingly partaking in a war crime under the Fourth Geneva convention, and in clear violation of a number of ICJ rulings. Consequently, they should be subject without exception to the evaluation procedure advocated above.
We call on the ESC not to participate in or normalize Israel’s war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, and therefore, to take immediate action:
1. Adopt a robust due diligence screening process to examine, when a clear risk arises whether prospective participants are directly involved in undertaking or inciting atrocity crimes.The guidelines should include the responsibility of the conference organizers to investigate all participants in contexts of heightened risk, for example, when there are pending ICJ investigations, to ensure that they have not been directly or indirectly involved—including through incitement or dehumanizing justification—in grave violations of human rights, particularly war crimes, crimes against humanity (including apartheid), or genocide.
No such screening process took place ahead of Eurocrim 2025. Since the International Court of Justice ruling is unequivocal on the illegality of settlement entities such as Ariel University and the legal requirement not to recognize such illegality, working at and conducting research for a settlement entity means giving legitimacy and support to war crimes. The only possibility of legal compliance for the ESC is therefore to exclude participants willingly partaking in a war crime, including those from Ariel University, from Eurocrim 2025.
2. Examine the involvement of the Eurocrim 2025 venue institution in violations of international law and atrocity crimes, and report to the members on the result of such inquiry.
3. Enable a democratic vote on a proposed motion concerning collaborations with complicit Israeli academic institutions.
We expect the ESC board to substantively respond to these demands. If not, we will have no choice but to reevaluate our participation in this institution and collaborate in establishing alternative academic spaces that uphold principles of justice and integrity.
Signatures (as of 05.10.2025): Theo Kindynis, City St George’s, University of London Kristel Beyens, Vrije Universiteit Brussel Fergus McNeill, University of Glasgow Frank Crispino, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Forensic Science curriculum Maartje van der Woude, Leiden Law School, the Netherlands Sybille Smeets, Université Libre de Bruxelles José A. Brandariz, University of A Coruna Mattias De Backer, Vrije Universiteit Brussel Hannah Wilkinson, University of Nottingham Katja Franko, University of Oslo André Kuhn, University of Neuchâtel Chris Cunneen, Jumbunna Indigenous Resarch Institute, University of Technology Sydney Renata Salecl, Institute of Criminology at Faculty of Law, Ljubljana Özgün Topak, Associate Professor, York University Jonas Weber, University Berne Elieze Termot, Vrije Universiteit Brussel Claire Raissian, University College Cork Mary Corcoran, Keele University Orlaith Rice, University of Limerick Jessica Evans, Toronto Metropolitan University Valeria Ferraris, University of Turin, Italy Catherine Naughton, University of Limerick Ireland Damir Banović, University of Sarajevo – Faculty of Law Penny Travlou, Senior Lecture in Cultural Geography & Theory, University of Edinburgh Muzammil Quraishi, Professor of Criminology & Criminal Justice, University of Salford, U.K. Nicholas Anastasopoulos, School of Architecture National Technical University of Athens Leanne Weber, University of Canberra Laura Piacentini, University of Strathclyde David Murakami Wood, Canada Research Chair in Critical Surveillance & Security Studies, Department of Criminology, University of Ottawa Ian Marder, Maynooth University Kanupriya Sharma, University of Nottingham, UK Paula Bowles, University of Northampton Jing Hiah, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam Ross Gibson, University of Strathclyde Asma Cherigui, Lille Iva Ramuš Cvetkovič, Institute of Criminology at the Faculty of Law in Ljubljana Ruby Sciberras, Monash University Maria João, FCSH – CICS.NOVA, Portugal Shalini Nair, University of Glasgow Sarah Armstrong, University of Glasgow Lisa White, Liverpool John Moores University Elise Maes, Erasmus University Rotterdam Natacha Brunelle, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières Helen Fitzgerald, University of Limerick Ciara Bracken-Roche, Maynooth University Andrée-Ann Deschênes, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières Tanya Pompilio, University of Waterloo – Canada Roxana, Pessoa Cavalcanti, University of Bristol Nahla Abdo, Carleton University Mohammad Fadel, University of Toronto Faculty of Law Pieter Hertens, Ghent University Ruari, McBride, Independent Criminal Justice Scholar Ibrahim Bechrouri, University of Ottawa David Moffette, Dept of Criminology, University of Ottawa Yasmin Jiwani, Professor Emeritus, Concordia University Jill Stigter, Erasmus University Rotterdam Ariadne Fischer, University of Cambridge Abdessamad Bouabid, Erasmus University of Rotterdam Floris Liekens, Vrije Universiteit Brussel Aude Fieuw, Vrije Universiteit Brussel Manuel Maroto-Calatayud, Universidad Complutense de Madrid Laurenne Ajayi, University of Sussex Elif Demirbas, University of Chichester Conor Wilson, University of the West of Scotland Dan Petrosian, University of Westminster Almina Selimbašić, Faculty of Law, University of Sarajevo Dr Cian Ó Concubhair, School of Law & Criminology, Maynooth University Sien Dalemans, VUB Keith Adams, Leuven Institute of Criminology, KU Leuven Ione Geerts, Vrije Universiteit Brussel Julie Caluwaerts, Vrije Universiteit Brussel Rachele Girardi, University of Greenwich Amanda Glasbeek York University (Toronto, Canada) Živa Šketa Institute of Criminology at the Faculty of Law Ljubljana Sharon Hartles Alumna, Social Policy and Criminology, The Open University Ingrid Matthews University of New South Wales Jennifer Fleetwood City St George’s University of London Simone Rowe, UNSW, Sydney Steve Tombs, The Open University Rosamunde Van Brakel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel Lana Tatour, Senior Lecturer in Global Development, University of New South Wales Kev Dertadian, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, UNSW Penny Green, Queen Mary University of London Caterina Peroni, Italian national research Council Nina Žnidaršič, Institute of Criminology at the Faculty of Law – Ljubljana Ashley Rogers, University of Stirling Simone Santorso, University of Sussex Eleni Dimou, Open University UK Miha Marcenko, University of Ljubljana, Institute for Criminology Ella Simpson, University of Greenwich Elizabeth Agnew, Queen’s University Belfast Lorenz Pardon, Vrije Universiteit Brussel Amy Cortvriend, Loughborough University Tracey Davanna, London South Bank University Emilie Gossye, Vrije Universiteit Brussel Maria Giannacopoulos, UNSW, Sydney Phil Scraton, School of Law, Queen’s University Belfast Kevin Walby, University of Winnipeg Les Levidow, Open University, UK Marijke Van Buggenhout, Vrije Universiteit Brussel Kate Murphy, KU Leuven Jasmine de Backer, Vrije Universiteit Brussel Elias Woodbridge, Vrije Universiteit Brussel Dr Richard Wild, University of Greenwich Stephanie Fohring, Northumbria University Giuseppe Mosconi, University of Padua Julie Van Hoorenbeeck, Vrije Universiteit Brussel Colm Walsh, Queen’s University Belfast Jenneke Christiaens, Vrije Universiteit Brussel Mary-Louise Corr, Queen’s University Belfast Paddy Hillyard, Professor Emeritus, Queen’s University, Belfast Josefina Castro, Lusíada University Porto Lovrena Jeromelj, Institue of Criminology at the Law Faculty in Ljubljana Katharina Swirak, University College Cork Shadd Maruna, University of Liverpool Vasja Badalič, Institute of Criminology at the Faculty of Law, Ljubljana, Slovenia Giuseppe Maglione, University of Kent Jossian Zoutendijk, Inholland University of Applied Sciences Colette Barry, University College Dublin Giulia Fabini, University of Bologna Lisa Mary Armstrong, University of Glasgow Noam Peleg, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law and Justice, University of New South Wales Alice Ievins, University of Liverpool Kevin Hearty, QUB Carole McCartney, Leicester university Tanya Serisier, Birkbeck, University of London Rhiannon Bandiera, Maynooth University, Ireland Vicky Nagy, University of Tasmanis Brunilda Pali, University of Amsterdam Jason Warr, University of Nottingham Dr. Marina Bell, University College Cork Rob White, University of Tasmania, Australia Alba Díaz, Miguel Hernández University of Elche, Spain Andy Aydın-Aitchison, University of Edinburgh Anna Vansteenkiste, Free university Brussels Thalia Anthony, University of Technology Sydney Gemma Lousley, Birkbeck, University of London Alina Bezlaj, Institute of criminology at the Faculty of Law, Ljubljana Giuseppe Campesi, University of Bari (Italy) Maja van der Velden, University of Oslo Dr Monish Bhatia University of York Katrien Vanlerberghe, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) Steven Debbaut, Vrije Universiteit Brussel Lambros Fatsis, City St. George’s University of London Madalena Santos, Carleton University Lara Karaian, Criminology, Carleton University Arushi, Garg, Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge Natasha Tusikov, York University, Toronto Massimiliano Mulone, University of Montreal Lennert De Boe, Vrije Universiteit Brussel David Scott, The Open University Elian Weizman, London South Bank University Ella De Munck, Vrije Universiteit Brussel Aurore Vanliefde De Keyser, Leuven Institute of Criminology Sofie De Kimpe, Free university of Brussels Claudia Mantovan, University of Padua Gillian McNaull, Ulster University Molly ackhurst, University of Greenwich Els Dumortier, Vrije Universiteit Brussel Teresa Degenhardt, Queen’s University Belfast Naved Bakali, University of Windsor Omid, Firouzi Tabar, University of Padova Anastasia Siomou, TEI of Athens Jeane Gerard, University of Westminster, UK Kathleen White, UCC Elena Vasiliou, University of Warwick Sinem Bozkurt, University of Westminster Wendy Fitzgibbon, University of Westminster Matias Bailone, Universidad de Buenos Aires Eva Giannakopoulou, Athens School of Fine Arts Konstantinos Panagiotopoulos, Politecnico di Torino Les Levidow, Open University, UK Colette Barry, University College Dublin Miha Hafner, University of Ljubljana Hana Hawlina, Institute of Criminology at the Faculty of Law Ljubljana Pablo Pinochet, Phd student Universitat de Barcelona Wendy Fitzgibbon, University of Westminster Vasilis Fakourelis, Independent Clara, Paul, University of Manchester Klodiana Camati, University of Aegean Nadia Hindi, University of Granada Seán Redmond, University of Limerick, Ireland Valeria Verdolini, University of Milan Alba Abdel fatah, Universidad de Granada José Antonio Martín Pérez, UGR Cristina Fernandez-Bessa, University of A Coruna Elena Algaba González, University of Barcelona Marijke Roosen, Oslo Metropolitan University Alexandros Ramiotis, National & Kapodistrian of Athens and American College of Greece-Deree Dáire McGill, Ulster University Nora Milch, University of Oslo Silvio Cuneo, Universidad Central de Chile Luca Sterchele, Università di Padova Bram Visser, Vrije universiteit brussel Jasmina Arnež, Institute of Criminology at the Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana Manja Skočir, Institut of Criminology at the Faculty of Law, Ljubljana Natalia Torres-Cadavid, University of Vigo Dr. Michelle Rouse, Ulster University Katrina Morrison, Edinburgh Napier University Alejandro Forero, Universitat de Barcelona Nughmana mirza, University of glasgow Ioanna Gerou, National Kapodistrian University of Athens Marion Vannier, University of Manchester Ana Ballesteros Pena, University of A Coruña Jo-Anne Wemmers, Université de Montréal Ismehen Melouka, Université de Montréal Anna Sergi, University of Essex – soon University of Bologna Alberto Vannucci, University of Pisa Ahmed Ajil, University of Lucerne Petr Kupka, University of Ostrava David Mühlemann, University of Bern Violette Prignac, Université de Montréal Dyango Bonsignore University of Alicante Maximo Sozzo University of A Coruña Sneha Makadia Dr Subhash University, India. Anastasia Chamberlen University of Warwick Henrique Carvalho University of Warwick Dr Kate West King’s College London Brendan Coyle Ulster University Christophe, Mincke, UCLouvain (Belgium) Max Morris, Oxford Brookes University Alison Phipps, Newcastle University Victoria Canning, Lancaster University Joanna Gilmore, University of York Federica Rossi, London South Bank University Jorinde Schulz, Kein Generalverdacht Initiative Catalina Ortuzar, University of Bristol Mathilde Lara Marendaz, PhD Student on Prison Degrowth, University of Geneva John Duncan, University of London Mira Björkegren, Asylum rights network Malmö Misha Mir, University of Oxford Raine Pataki, University of Cambridge Daniel Jiménez Franco, University of Zaragoza Shona Minson, University of Oxford Merethe Gjørding, Aarhus University Lucy Cathcart Frödén, University of Oslo María Santiago, Complutense University of Madrid John Moore, Institute of Historical Research, University of London David Soto, University of A Corunna (Spain) Alishya Dhir, Honorary Research Fellow, Durham University Dr. Shane O’Mahony, Criminology & Student Engagement, Munster Technological University Chris Waugh, Lecturer in Criminology and Sociology, Manchester Metropolitan University Anette Bringedal, Houge University of Oslo Lynn Hancock, Department of Sociology, Social Policy and Criminology, University of Liverpool Maude, Pérusse-Roy, School of Criminology, Université de Montréal Phil Crockett Thomas, University of Stirling Georgios Papanicolaou, Northumbria University, UK Jean-Sébastien Blanc, University of Geneva Nicola Carr, Trinity College Dublin Antony Pemberton, KU Leuven; NSCR, Amsterdam Dr Tahaney Alghrani, Hugh baird University Centre Omar, Khan, University of Bath Andrew Percy, Queen’s University Belfast Athena, Mosenthal, Deree – American College of Greece Richard Staring, Erasmus University Rotterdam Sam Lewis, University of Leeds, UK Carla Nagels, Université libre de Bruxelles Bertrand RENARD, UCLouvain (Belgium) Murray Lee, University of Sydney Alex Simpson, Macquarie University Rimona Afana, Independent researcher Jane Ngan, University of Manchester Stefano Porfido, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies Adam Kluge, Centre for Criminology, University of Oxford Federica Montanaro, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies Margaux Carron, Universite catholique de louvain la neuve UCL Lucy Dunkling, Cardiff University Margarita Gasparinatou, Democritus University of Thrace Hannah Ferris Blair, Queen’s University Belfast Eva Dermati, University of Crete Serge Gutwirth, VUB (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) Mylène Jaccoud, University of Montreal Valentin Pereda, Université de Montréal David Castro-Liñares, University of Vigo Jonathan Allen, University of Surrey Stephanie Brancaforte, Rinascimento Green Dominique De Fraene, Université Libre de Bruxelles Megan McElhone, Monash University Andrea Beckmann, European Group for the Study of deviance and Social Control Andrew M. Jefferson, DIGNITY Isotta Rossoni, Leiden University Hannah Marshall, University of Warwick Ramis Örlü, OsloMet, Norway/KTH, Sweden Dan Godshaw, University of Bristol Amy Sage, University of Bristol Eirini Stamouli, Dr. of Criminology Peter Hodgkinson, Emeritus University of Westminster, London Maria Roussaki, University of west Attica Sofia Spyrea, Panteion University Carolyn McKay, University of Sydney Cristina Sobrino Garcés, Institut Metròpoli Sofia Vidali, Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences Cormac Behan, Maynooth University Václav, Walach, University of Ostrava Marieke de Hoon, Associate Professor International Criminal Law, University of Amsterdam Οlga Themeli, University of Crete (Greece) Margo De Koster, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Silvia Gomes, University of Warwick Amund Børdahl, University of Bergen Agata Dziuban, Jagiellonian University Maria Lalou, CREAM, Westminster University London Diego Ruedas Torres, Unidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia Rachael APLIN, Leeds Beckett University Louise Williams, University of Lancashire Irena Fercikova, Konecna ESWA- European Sex Workers Rights Alliance Clara Rigoni, University of Lausanne Bianca Fileborn, Associate Professor in Criminology, University of Melbourne Mónica Sánchez, University of Bristol David Goyes, University of Oslo Olof Bäckman, Stockholm Uni James Heydon, University of Nottingham Isabella Regan, Erasmus University Rotterdam Damián Zaitch, Utrecht University, NL Marta Pinto da Cruz, Amsterdam Center for Criminal Justice, University of Amsterdam Alison Young, University of Melbourne Apriel Jolliffe Simpson, University of Waikato Simone Schwab, University of Amsterdam Megan Hadfield, University of Manchester Ian Mahoney, Nottingham Trent University Annika van Baar, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Liz Aston, Edinburgh Napier University Maria Jesus Valenzuela Suarez, University of Oxford Tim Boekhout van Solinge, Freelance and fellow EUR & UFOPA Mieke Kox, Erasmus University Rotterdam Conor Mangold, University of Bern Ana Aliverti, University of Warwick Natalia Cabrera-Morales, Cambridge University Cristhie Mella, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso Yasmine Juhoor, EUR and Ghent university christos Boukalas, Northumbria University Sarah Carlo, University of Cambridge Alba Zambrano Constanzo, Universidad de La Frontera Annelies Vredeveldt, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Carlo Nicoli Aldini, Sociology of Law Department, Lund University, Sweden Joyce Albrecht, VUB Gonzalo Garcia Campo, University of Oxford Pablo Fuentealba-Carrasco, University of Concepción, Chile & University of Edinburgh, UK Aron Akkerman, Erasmus University Stratos Georgoulas, University of the Aegean Mark Yin, University of Cambridge Inga Maria, G. Evang, UiT – Norges arktiske Universitet An-Sofie Vanhouche, VUB Yarin Eski, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Triona Kenny, Maynooth University Maria Cleary, Maynooth University Andrea Pownall, Maynooth University Daniel Fink, University of Lausanne Samuel Kirwan, University of Bristol John McDaniel, Lancaster University Romina Ramos, Universidad de Tarapacá Sabine Kildea, Australian national University Alejandra Mohor, Universidad de Chile Nora Elaies, The norwegian center for violence and traumatic stress/ university of Oslo Andriani Fili, University of Oxford Naomi Theinert, Ghent University Jonathan Hobson, Gloucestershire María Verónica, Jimeno Jiménez, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain Jana Todorovic, Erasmus University Rotterdam Theodora Stavroula Eleftheraki, Panteion University Nicola Montagna, University of Salerno Giuseppe Serrantino, Middlesex University London Emma McNulty, Utrecht University Alumni Stephanie Fanfan, Université Paris Cité Anna Kahlmeter, Department of criminology, Stockholm University Maria A Vogel, Stockholm university Julia Sandahl, Department of Criminology, Stockholm University Isabel Schoultz, Lund University Madeline Petrillo, University of Greenwich Rose Lunde, University of Oslo Katarina Winter, Department of Criminology, Stockholm University Camilla Løvschall Langeland, University of Oslo Thea Myrvang, University of Oslo Matjaz Jager, Institute of Criminology at the Faculty of Law Ljubljana Eivind Elverum, UiT – The Arctic University of Norway Felipe Estrada, Stockholm university Eva Bertok, Inštitut za kriminologijo pri PF Emad Alrozzi, Oslo Metropolitan University Zoha, Waseem, University of Warwick Roberto Dufraix, University of Tarapacá Frederike Oberheim, NSCR and University of Leiden Jane Healy, Bournemouth University, UK Calvin John Smiley, Hunter College-CUNY Kylie Gill, University of Limerick Edel Kelly, University of Limerick Rebecca Foster, Edinburgh Napier University Deborah García-Magna, University of Málaga Ana Ivasiuc, University College Dublin Dr Dave McDonald, Criminology, University of Melbourne Julie Erber, Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement Tina, Magazzini, Czech Academy of Sciences Billie Baetens, Ghent University Leighann Spencer, La Trobe University Målin Grünberg, University of Hamburg (UHH) Tony Platt, University of California, Berkeley Adriano Martufi, University of Pavia Tine Vangroenweghe, Independent Lizzie Hughes, Birkbeck Sappho Xenakis, Birkbeck, University of London Cheyenne Dunk, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Tom Kemp, University of Nottingham Marloes van Noorloos, Leiden University Conor O’Reilly, University of Leeds Patrick, Cacicedo, University of São Paulo Mojca, Plesnicar, Institute of criminology, Ljubljana Joseph van Buuren, RMIT University Louise Frey, Universität Bern Anders Nilsson, Stockholm University Anna Karl Leiden university Katerina Gachevska Leeds Beckett University Emma Williams Anglian Ruskin University Dimitris Tachmatzidis University of Western Macedonia Megan Ryan University of Limerick Clarissa Meerts Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Emily Rose Hay University of Oxford Diana Batchelor University of Sheffield Junia Bergers Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Tess Engelander Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Fiore Geelhoed Erasmus University Rotterdam Dimitra, Kalampaliki, MA graduate, Panteion University of social & Political sciences Lynzi Armstrong, Victoria University of Wellington Naomi Griffin, Newcastle University Annette Hübschle, University of Cape Town Emiline Smith, University of Glasgow Sofía Dupré, London School of Economics and Political Science Julie Berg, University of Glasgow Alexis Marcoux Rouleau, Ph.D., Université de Montréal Magnus Hörnqvist, Stockholm University janne flyghed, Stockholm university Anette Storgaard, Aarhus University, Denmark Francisco Vidal-Castro, Universidad de Jaén Asbjørn Storgaard, University of Southern Denmark Elena Urech, Universität Bern Karin van Wingerde, Erasmus University Rotterdam Abdullah Enes Özel, Faculty of Law, Yalova University Janne Flyghed, Department of Criminology, Stockholm University Claire Fitzpatrick, Lancaster University Alistair Fraser, University of Glasgow Ashleigh, Burnside, University of Manchester Emeli Lönnqvist, Department of Criminology, Stockholm University Anna, Saito, University of Hamburg, Greenpeace Germany Lieselot Bisschop, Erasmus University Rotterdam Jennifer O’Mahoney, South East Technological University Elin Jönsson, Lund University Brogan Pritchard, University of Manchester Liv Henningsen, University of Southern Denmark Merel Driessen, Erasmus University Rotterdam Jelmar Meester, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Jordan Anderson, Swansea University Morwenna Bennallick, University of Westminster Bethan Davies, Cardiff University Joel Scanlan, University of Tasmania Jann Schaub, Universität Bern Nora Scheidegger, Post Doctoral researcher Erika Hedlund, Stockholm university Gideon Calder, Swansea University Jamie Buchan, Edinburgh Napier University Tom van den Berg, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Marina Richter, HES-SO Valais/Wallis Synnøve Jahnsen, Fafo Margaux Coquet, UcLouvain Imranali Panjwani, Anglia Ruskin University Lucrezia Selva Curreri, University of Ottawa Sally Day, Exeter University Alessandro Maculan, University of Padua Linda Kjær Minke, University of Southern Denmark Maria Krani, Panteion University of Social and Political Science, Athens, Greece Abu Ullah, London Borough of Brent James Rischbieth, Leuven Institute of Criminology, KU Leuven Sophie Beaumont, Te Herenga Waka – Victoria University of Wellington Emma Conti, University of Hamburg Nathalie Denie, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Laura Pascual, Universidad de Barcelona Elisa Begnis, University of Bologna Elisabeth Enhus, departement criminology, VUB Martin Böhnel, HES-SO Valais-Wallis Katy Snell, University of Hull Jordi Bonshoms, Pompeu Fabra University Alejandra, De La Fuente Vilar, University of Portsmouth Nathalie Berger, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Claire, Hanrahan, University of Glasgoe Kjell Anderson, University of Manitoba Madisen, Placzkowski, University of Maryland Katrine Barnekow Rasmussen, University of Copenhagen Wim Huisman, Vrije Universiteit Øystein, Ericson, Norwegian centre for violence and traumatic stress studies Paula Surgenor, Ulster Tara Søderholm, VID Specialized University Damien Cassan, University of Portsmouth (UK) Ciara, Molloy, University College Dublin Markus Buderath, Bielefeld University Inés Marín López, Universidad Pontificia de Comillas Nawaz Hanif, Birmingham City University Annie Kirby, University of Portsmouth Simone Tuzza, University of Bologna Halima Guelai, Ghent University Dakota Ward, Aberystwyth University Alberto violante, ISTAT Juanjo Medina, Universidad de Sevilla Lorea Arenas, University of Extremadura Évelyne Corriveau, Université Laval Sofia Fiore, Università di Salerno Selda Dagistanli, Western Sydney University Martina Feilzer, Bangor University, UK Anne-Marie Singh, Criminology, Toronto Metropolitan University Rachelle Chadwick, University of Bristol Melissa Laurent, I.Care (milieu carcéral) Jo Wheeler, Leeds Beckett University UK Tove, Pettersson Stockholm university Gabriele Baratto, University of Trento Dusan Stankovic, Department of Criminology, Malmö University.
===================================
הפגנה מול הקריה: “סרבו להיות חיילי הכיבוש”
קומץ צעירים התומכים בסרבנות גיוס ניסו לשכנע חיילים בקריה ללכת בדרכם. ליאור ווליניץ, בן 18: “הגענו לקריה, סמל הכיבוש הישראלי, כדי למחות על הכיבוש המתמשך של העם הפלסטיני”
מורן זליקוביץ’ פורסם: 21.09.06, 20:50
“סרבו להיות חיילים של הכיבוש”. כך קראו היום (ה’) שמונה פעילים החתומים על מכתב השמיניסטים סרבני הגיוס, בהפגנה שערכו בבסיס הקרייה בתל אביב.
כ-300 אנשים חתמו עד כה על מכתב השמיניסטים הקורא לסרב להתגייס לצה”ל. מרביתם של החתומים אינם כלל שמיניסטים, אלא פעילי שמאל שונים. בין המפגינים היו גם שני סרבנים עתידיים – עומרי עברון, בן 19, וליאור ווליניץ, בן 18, שאמורים להתגייס בחודש הבא.
“אני מוכן לשבת בכלא ורק לא לשרת בצבא הכיבוש”, אומר עברון. “אני מקווה שהצעד שלי יעורר את המודעות של הציבור בישראל נגד העוולות שאנו מוחים נגדן היום”.
ווליניץ הוסיף כי “הגענו היום לקריה, סמל הכיבוש הישראלי במרכז תל אביב, כדי למחות נגד הכיבוש הישראלי המתמשך על העם הפלסטיני. להתגייס לצבא לא יעזור לביטחון אזרחי ישראל אלא רק יוסיף למעגל הדמים האיום והנורא בין העמים”. לדברי ווליניץ, לו היו שתי מדינות לשני עמים, הוא לא היה מגיע להפגין ובהחלט שוקל גם את צעד הסרבנות.
המפגינים המעטים ציטטו את דברי הביקורת של הרמטכ”ל לשעבר משה (בוגי) יעלון בראיונות שהעניק לאחרונה לאמצעי תקשורת שונים בהם אמר כי “היציאה למלחמה היתה שערורייתית”, וגם “אין מהלך צבאי אשר יביא לכתישת החיזבאללה או לריסוקו”.
==============================================================================================================
“לחקור גם את פשעי המלחמה של צה”ל”
דובר תנועת “יש גבול”, ד”ר ישי מנוחין, מסביר בספר שיצא לאחרונה מדוע דווקא הסרבנים הם “גיבורים”, ומצהיר כי “הכיבוש הוא הגורם מספר 1 לפיגועים”
איתמר ענברי | 18/10/2006 11:05
ההודעה אתמול על מינויו של הרמטכ”ל לשעבר, רב-אלוף במיל’ דן שומרון, לבדיקת התנהלותו של המטכ”ל במלחמת לבנון השנייה והתנהלותו של מי שעומד בראש הפירמידה הצבאית, רב-אלוף דן חלוץ, לא הרשימה במיוחד את ד”ר ישי מנוחין, דובר תנועת “יש גבול”. מנוחין, הרוח החיה מאחורי ארגון הסרבנים הוותיק שהוקם באורח סמלי לאחר מלחמת לבנון הראשונה, טוען בראיון ל-nrg מעריב כי במקביל לבדיקת התנהלות צה”ל בהיבט הצבאי הטהור, יש צורך לבדוק את פשעי המלחמה שביצע, לדבריו, הצבא במהלך המלחמה.
ד”ר מנוחין משבח את סרבני המצפון ואת אלו שמסרבים לקחת חלק “בכיבוש ובדיכוי”, ואף מכנה אותם “גיבורים”, וטוען כי “הגורם מספר אחת להמשך הסכסוך הישראלי-פלשתיני ולפיגועים הוא הכיבוש”.
הוא בן 48 מירושלים, מרצה למדע המדינה, ומוכר מאוד בחוגי השמאל בזכות פעילותו בתנועת “יש גבול”, שהוקמה ב-1982, עם תחילתה של מלחמת לבנון הראשונה. מנוחין, ששירת בחטיבת הצנחנים ואף הגיע לדרגת רב-סרן, סירב להתייצב לשירות מילואים במהלך המלחמה ונידון במרס 1983 ל-35 ימי מחבוש, שאותם ריצה בכלא 6.
מעבר לפעילותו בשורות “יש גבול”, ערך מנוחין שלושה ספרים שעוסקים כולם בנושא הסירוב. הספר הראשון שערך יחד עם רעייתו, דינה, יצא לאור ב-1985 תחת השם “גבול הציות”, והספר השני שאותו ערך, “על דמוקרטיה וציות”, יצא לאור ב-1991. לאחרונה, יצא לאור ספר נוסף שערך תחת השם “כיבוש וסירוב”.
“סרבן סלקטיבי”
הספר, שכולל בין השאר מאמרים פרי עטם של פרופ’ יהודה שנהב, פרופ’ ישעיהו ליבוביץ’ ז”ל, וס. יזהר ז”ל, עוסק לדברי מנוחין בניסיון לומר “מה הוא הכיבוש כיום, וכיצד הוא מחלחל לתוך החברה והתרבות הישראלית, וגם בדרכים להתמודד עמו”. הוא מציג שתי דרכים להתמודד עם הכיבוש – הכאה על חטא, או דרך נוספת, קלה יותר לדבריו, היא הפכתו ל’נאור’ ככל האפשר. “בספר אני משתדל להראות, בניגוד לשתי הדרכים הקודמות, שכשאתה חי בחברה דמוקרטית, והחברה הזו מחזיקה תחת כיבוש
קרוב ל-40 שנה אנשים אחרים, מוטלת עליך החובה האזרחית כדמוקרט לומר ‘לא'”, מסביר מנוחין.
בפרפראזה על השיר המפורסם, כשמנוחין אומר ‘לא’, הוא מתכוון לכך ש”חייל טוב הוא חייל שמעל לכל הוא אזרח דמוקרטי, וככזה עליו לומר שהוא מסרב לקחת חלק בצדדים הכיבושיים והדיכויים של צה”ל”.
מנוחין, שמעיד על עצמו כעל “סרבן סלקטיבי” וכמי ששירת בצה”ל עד גיל 45 מתוך מחשבה ש”במזרח התיכון צריך צבא”, משוכנע שעמרי עברון בן ה-19 וחברו ליאור וולניץ בן ה-18, שהודיעו השבוע כי הם מסרבים להתגייס לצה”ל, הם גיבורים. “כיבוש הוא אקט אנטי-דמוקרטי ברוטאלי, וכאשר עמרי עברון מסרב לקחת חלק בכיבוש ובדיכוי ומצהיר שלקחת חלק בצבא זה לקחת חלק ב’צבא כיבוש’ – מבצע מעשה גבורה בנכונותו להיכנס לכלא”, הוא אומר. “הוא מוכן לפגוע בחירותו האישית כדי לא לפגוע בחירותם של אחרים. הסרבנים הם אנשים שמוכנים לסכן את חירותם האישית, כדי להוביל את החברה הישראלית למקום צודק יותר, נכון יותר וראוי יותר”.
שוב חוזר הסירוב
מנוחין שואב עידוד גם מכך שרעיון הסירוב הולך וצובר אהדה במשך השנים בחברה הישראלית. “כשאני התחלתי לעסוק בנושא, הוא היה ממש מחוץ לקונצנזוס, והשירות בצה”ל היה עדיין בבחינת פרה קדושה”, הוא נזכר. “היום אתה מסתכל סביבך ויש חמש או שש תנועות סירוב בשמאל, וקרוב ל-40% מבני הנוער לא מוכנים להתגייס לצבא. נכון שלא כל אלו שמצהירים על אי-נכונות להתגייס עושים זאת ממניעים אידיאולוגיים, אבל אמירת ה’לא’ נעשית הרבה יותר לגיטימית”.
בעוד שהסרבנים זוכים מפיו של מנוחין למילות שבח, עבור צה”ל ומפקדיו יש בפיו מילות גנאי. “אם מסתכלים על עזה, אפשר להבחין בכך שישראל מחסלת עשרות אנשים כל חודש בפצצות, בטילים ובצלפים, ולדעתי הגורם מספר אחת להמשך הקונפליקט הישראלי-פלשתיני ולפיגועים שמבצעים פלשתינים בישראל ולפיגועים שישראל מבצעת בפלשתינים, הוא הכיבוש. כל הצדדים בסכסוך הזה – החמאס, חיזבאללה וצה”ל – עושים שימוש באזרחים ככלי מיקוח פוליטי. אם פעם צבאות היו נלחמים זה בזה ואזרחים היו נשארים בעורף, היום יותר ויותר נעשה שימוש באזרחים ככלי”.
מנוחין אמנם אינו סבור שישראל מבקשת לפגוע במכוון באזרחים, אך לדבריו “הימנעות מפגיעה באזרחים פלשתינים או לבנונים לא עומדת במקום חשוב במסגרת קבלת ההחלטות איך לפגוע ובמי לפגוע. הרמטכ”ל, שאמר בזמנו כי הוא חש מכה קלה בכנף כשהוא מנחית פצצה במשקל טון, הוא זה שנותן את הטון המוסרי בצה”ל. בהקשר הזה ראוי לציין כי כמות הפגיעה באזרחים פלשתינים מאז תחילת האינתיפאדה מראה על אובדן ערכים מוחלט”.
“פגיעה באזרחים = פשע מלחמה”
לדובר “יש גבול” אין כל ספק שהמערכת הצבאית על דרגיה השונים ביצעה פשעי מלחמה במהלך המלחמה האחרונה, והוא מצר על כך שבסופו של דבר אף לא ועדת בדיקה אחת תחקור מעשים אלו. “כשדנים במלחמה מסוימת, עולות כמה שאלות לדיון”, הוא סבור. “השאלה הראשונה היא האם היה מוצדק לצאת למלחמה, ואת זה שום ועדת בדיקה לא תבדוק. השאלה השנייה, שמתחלקת לשני חלקים, עוסקת באופן התפעולי ובשאלה האם בוצעו פשעי מלחמה. גם בשאלה זו, איש לא יבדוק האם האופן שבו התנהלה המלחמה פגע בזכויות אדם והפר את החוק ההומניטארי הבינלאומי, ולא יבדקו למה היה שימוש בפצצות מצרר בשלושת הימים האחרונים של המלחמה, או למה צריך היה לפגוע בתשתית אזרחית, במיכלי דלק, בתחנות חשמל וכוח או באזרחים בצורה לא מבוקרת”.
מנוחין מאמין, לצערו, כי אף אחד לא ייתן את הדין על כך שביצוע המלחמה כלל פגיעה באזרחים. “פגיעה באזרחים מוגדרת כפשע מלחמה, באמנות שגם ישראל חתומה עליהן”, הוא אומר. “אם בוצעו פשעי מלחמה, ויש חשד לכך, יש להעמיד לדין את כל מי שלקח בהם חלק, החל מהרמטכ”ל, שנתן את ההוראה, דרך אלוף הפיקוד ועד מפקד הסוללה שירה פצצות מצרר לעבר ריכוזי אוכלוסייה אזרחית”.
מנוחין אמנם קורא למערכת המשפט להעמיד לדין את הרמטכ”ל ואת מפקדי הצבא, אך לא תולה תקוות רבות בבית המשפט הישראלי. להערכתו, הישועה – לפחות מבחינתו – תצמח מבתי דין בינלאומיים, כפי שתנועת “יש גבול” הייתה מעורבת בזמנו בהוצאת צו מעצר בבית משפט בבריטניה נגד אלוף פיקוד דרום לשעבר, אלוף במיל’ דורון אלמוג. “אני חושב שמערכת המשפט הישראלית, שאכזבה אותנו קשות, צריכה לשפוט ולהורות על חקירה של פשעי המלחמה”, טוען מנוחין. “אם מערכת המשפט תמשיך להתעקש לא לשפוט אנשים שחשודים בביצוע פשעי המלחמה, המשפט הבינלאומי ומדינות אחרות צריכים לעשות בשבילנו את העבודה המלוכלכת הזו”.
מלבד עשיית הצדק עם מי שאחראים לדבריו לפשעי המלחמה, מבקש מנוחין מהחברה הישראלית להפיק את הלקחים ממלחמת לבנון השנייה. “אנחנו צריכים ללמוד איפה הכשילו אותנו היהירות שלנו, חוסר המחויבות לערכים דמוקרטיים והנכונות לפגוע באזרחים ללא הבחנה, וכיצד כל זה הוביל אותנו לנהל מלחמת עוול כמו שניהלנו בלבנון”.
======================================================================================
2016
מחקר, התנגדות ופעילות ציבורית כנגד הסחר הישראלי בנשק, כנגד התעשיות הצבאיות והרווח שלהן משיווק כיבוש ודיכוי לדיקטטורות ורצחי עם.
Details
Event by חמושים Hamushim حموشيم
קואליציית נשים לשלום, יגיע כפיים 3, תל אביב
Duration: 2 hr
Public · Anyone on or off Facebook
5/12,19:30, קוליאציית נשים לשלום- יגיע כפיים 3, ת”א.
50 שנה אחרי כיבוש וסיפוח מזרח העיר, ירושלים ממשיכה להציב אתגרים רבים לשולטים בה. עיר שאת איחודה חוגגים ביום חג שנתי, בחיי היום-יום ירושלים היא עיר מחולקת שבה מערכות ממשל, חינוך, תשתיות ותחבורה נפרדות משרתות ציבורים נפרדים , תוך כדי חיכוך מתמיד שמגיע לכותרות רק בהתלקחויות אלימות, אך ממשיך יום-יום בחיי העיר. האתגרים הבטחוניים בשליטה על עיר כבושה שסופחה במלואה (ושהיושבים בה סופחו חלקית בלבד), הפכו את ירושלים לבמה, ואף מעבדה, לטכנולוגיות, פרקטיקות, ושת”פים בטחוניים חדשים.
במפגש נארח את ליאור ווליניץ, דוקטורנט באוניברסיטת אמסטרדם שחוקר תהליכי הפרטה וביזור של אבטחה ובטחון בירושלים. נדבר על כיצד סמכויות ותפקידים משטרתיים וצבאיים עוברים לקשת רחבה של גופים ציבוריים ופרטיים אחרים, שפועלים במזרח העיר כבשטח לו חוקים משלו. נתמקד בהפרטת אבטחת מתחמי המתנחלים, בתפקידי חברות אבטחה פרטיות במחסומים מסביב לעיר ובמשטור המבוזר דרכו הרשויות הישראליות מפעילות לחץ על תושבי העיר.
כמו כן, רכזת פרויקט חמושים, שחף ויסבין, תדבר בקצרה על שיתופי הפעולה של משטרת ישראל עם יחידות משטרה ברחבי העולם ובעיקר בארה”ב.נבחן כיצד פרקטיקות שיטור על האוכלוסיה הפלסטינית (גם ב)מזרח ירושלים עוזרות למצב את ישראל כ-“הרווארד של לוחמה בטרור” ומועתקות לאסטרטגיות השיטור על מיעוטים ברחבי העולם ולכלי יעיל לדיכוי הפגנות ומחאות אזרחיות.
israel-academia-monitor.com 