21.10.26

Editorial Note

On 15 September 2026, the Netherlands Center for Information and Documentation Israel (CIDI) hosted a panel titled “Academic Freedom as a Foundation for Peace between Israel and Palestine” featuring Sari Hanafi, the Palestinian sociologist, and Barak Medina, the former rector of the Hebrew University.

CIDI stated in the invitation that “In the current polarized climate surrounding Israel, it is of great importance to continue seeking connection. However difficult this may sometimes be: precisely when we (seem to) stand diagonally opposite each other, we must keep the conversation going.”

The debate covered topics such as “academic freedom and institutional boycotts, the Gaza War, the issue of genocide, occupation, and perspectives for peaceful coexistence.” The organizers promised that the speakers will “express diverse opinions but engage in debate with one another respectfully.”

Professor Medina holds the Landecker-Ferencz Chair for the Protection of Minorities and Vulnerable Groups at the Faculty of Law of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where he previously served as the rector. He was also a visiting professor at the law faculties of Columbia University and UC Berkeley.

Professor Sari Hanafi is Professor of Sociology and Director of the Center for Arab and Middle Eastern Studies at the American University of Beirut. He is also Chair of the Islamic Studies Program. He received an honorary doctorate from the National University of San Marcos in Peru, is an International Fellow of the British Academy, and is currently a Theme Group Fellow at the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study, (NIAS, KNAW).

In the panel, Medina shared a story about how, at the Hebrew University, “I was among those who acted on the basis of the idea that we have a role in changing reality. I was among those, of course, with many others, that established the program; we call it Sadara. It’s a program of progress that invited Palestinians from East Jerusalem to study at the Hebrew University. Hebrew University is located in East Jerusalem geographically. It is not part of the occupied East Jerusalem because it was an enclave that remained under Israeli control, but the Palestinians ignore the Hebrew University, and we invited them to be there as part of the university, and what happened is that we offered 500 Palestinian East Jerusalemites to study at the Hebrew University each year free of charge, based on money that we receive from the government. We are a public university. And then the government of Israel, the current government, they said, well, Hebrew University nurtures, helps grow up terrorists. These students are terrorists, you should stop doing that. And they cut the money. And we replied by saying, we disregard you, the Israeli government, our sponsor. We continue this program based on funds that we collect abroad, and I think this is something that shows that sometimes you have to stand up against your own government.”

Hanafi insisted that Israeli universities should be boycotted, “because I read Maya Wind’s book, an Israeli anthropologist who wrote about Israeli universities and their complicity with all Hasbara, with all this AI war, killing indiscriminately civilians and militant Palestinians. So, we have so many grounds that there is a need to give a strong statement to Israeli society, which, in one week after the ceasefire, the so-called ceasefire in Gaza, which is a joke, of course, 78% of Israelis said they are satisfied with the Israeli army, so they, it means, according to international law, so it’s not my opinion, according to the major human rights organization, it means that they defend genocide. “

In response, Medina discussed the effects of the academic boycott. “We are isolated in Europe. The only two exceptions are Germany and the United States. And no one here they do not read this, I don’t know, bylaws of the BDS. They act as they see fit. And they think that everything Israeli is toxic. You should avoid any confrontation, any connection with Israelis, and if you refer to institutions, and this I want to say lastly, yeah, universities here, and I served as rector, and I tried to contact them. They decided to cut ties with Israeli universities based exclusively on this book written by Maya Wind. They did not find it relevant to ask us if it is right what is written there. I published a response to this book showing that, at least, again, I’m not saying that my perspective is the right one, but there are other perspectives about what the university is doing. They did not bother to ask whether what we are doing is overall positive or wrong. I’m not saying that what we are doing is perfect; we have to improve, we have to do better. But the idea that a university that is committed to values, of both liberalism and rule of law, decides to cut all ties with an Israeli university based on a unilateral approach, just reading a book by one scholar with her own interests, and not bothering to invite us, to talk to us, to write us a letter, even to inform us that they decided to cut ties, even that they are not doing, and I think this is something that is at least unprofessional. It also raises questions about motivation, about why do they do that? They don’t even want to hear our side before making a decision, and this is something that should bother us regardless of whether the decision is right or wrong. The very process of ignoring us.”

Hanafi stated that a boycott would pressure Israeli society, which is “of course necessary because I think for my children and the children of and the grandchildren of Professor Medina, this settler colonial apartheid project should stop killing… So this is collaboration exactly… It’s institutional… You can pressure two sides, but there is a side where according to international law, again, it’s occupied territories… I don’t know what we can do exactly in order to live together, in order that my children to play with the children of Professor Medina. We need to put the Israeli society and their settler colonial project into halt, not society no, to convince them, sorry, to convince them that they cannot continue like this and in the history. Let me make it clear. I think in a history of conflict resolution without external pressure, I mean, I don’t see this bloody conflict can be stopped. You need the pressure, and I don’t know, pressure not to sell arms to perpetuate the genocide, a pressure to boycott institution, they are doing research for this army, this is the basic things, you don’t ask more and in the same time you call for for meetings, you call for dialogue, you convene. I am convening in one month, you are most welcome to NIAS, you will see Israeli from your university, professor Medina, are there, are two, okay? The head of the Israeli sociological association, she is invited because we don’t ban an individual, it is frozen for international sociological association but Orly Benjamin, she is most welcome. She is from Israel.”

One month after the panel in the Netherlands, in early October, the Palestinian Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) condemned the event in a statement titled “Why Boycotting Israel-Lobby Events Is a Moral Obligation,” particularly condemning the participation of Hanafi, a Palestinian scholar, in an event organized by CIDI, “the main lobby group there for Israel’s regime of settler-colonialism, apartheid, illegal military occupation, and genocide.” According to PACBI, the Palestinian scholar was brought in, “to legitimize the illegitimate and normalize the abnormal. It is morally unconscionable and indefensible for scholars to provide a fig leaf to an Israel lobby group, particularly in the midst of an ongoing Israeli genocide. What makes this worse is that the event is desperately trying to rehabilitate Israel’s image in the Netherlands” while “several Dutch universities have cut ties with complicit Israeli universities.” For PACBI, “This event clearly violated the BDS movement’s international academic boycott guidelines and anti-normalization guidelines” of PACBI, which were approved and adopted by the Palestinian Council for Higher Education and the Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees.

Since both Hanafi and Medina mentioned Dr. Maya Wind’s book, which Medina reviewed, it is important to note that Israel Academia Monitor (IAM) reported on her in 2024. IAM noted that Wind has been a professional anti-Israel activist for many years. She told Democracy Now, “I myself was an active member of Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine over a decade ago.” Indeed, she has a long history of anti-Israel activism. In 2009, the Israeli Communist Party (MAKI) published an invitation to a “Demonstration of support for conscientious objectors Maya Yechiali-Wind” and others. MAKI informed its followers that Yechiali-Wind was one of the signatories of the 2008 letter of high school refusers to enlist in the army. Later in 2009, the media reported how “IDF draft dodgers speak at US colleges,” detailing how Wind was one of two Israeli women who refused mandatory army service and went on a North America speaking tour to more than a dozen college campuses, organized by CODEPINK and Jewish Voice for Peace. In 2010, Wind was part of a group of activists in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, Jerusalem. As media reported: “This is just another case of fighting occupation, racism and discrimination,” the group said. In 2011, Wind organized “Israeli Apartheid Week” in New York.  At the time, she was a student at Columbia University. Israeli TV reported and Wind explained, “As soon as the occupation ends and we start respecting human rights and international law, I will stop my performances.” IAM noted that Wind is one of the scores of Israeli “peace activists” becoming academics who adopted the dominant neo-Marxist, critical theory paradigm. This new paradigm disregards empirical facts to fit a narrative that the Palestinians are the eternal victims of Israeli aggression.

As Medina said, she has an interest. Palestinian and pro-Palestinian scholars recruit Wind and her ilk to demonize Israel.

Worth noting that during the Netherlands’ panel, Hanafi kept insisting that Israel has committed genocide, while Medina, a legal scholar, strongly contested this notion. The genocide accusation against Israel has become so pervasive that it is now difficult to escape its influence.

Still, holding academic debates is highly important.

REFERENCES:

https://www.cidi.nl/events/debat-academic-freedom-as-a-foundation-for-peace-between-israel-and-palestine/Debate: Academic Freedom as a Foundation for Peace between Israel and Palestine

Tuesday, September 15, 2026

In the current polarized climate surrounding Israel, it is of great importance to continue seeking connection. However difficult this may sometimes be: precisely when we (seem to) stand diagonally opposite each other, we must keep the conversation going.
CIDI is therefore organizing a special debate between two renowned academics: Israeli Prof. Barak Medina and Syrian-Palestinian Prof. Sari Hanafi . The debate will be moderated by Geerten Waling , historian, author, and journalist at EW.
The debate will cover important issues such as academic freedom and institutional boycotts, the Gaza War, the issue of genocide, occupation, and perspectives for peaceful coexistence. The speakers will express diverse opinions but engage in debate with one another respectfully.
Professor Barak Medina holds the Landecker-Ferencz Chair for the Protection of Minorities and Vulnerable Groups at the Faculty of Law of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where he previously served as Rector. He was also a visiting professor at the law faculties of Columbia University and UC Berkeley.
Professor Sari Hanafi is Professor of Sociology and Director of the Center for Arab and Middle Eastern Studies. He is also Chair of the Islamic Studies Program. He received an honorary doctorate from the National University of San Marcos in Peru, is an International Fellow of the British Academy, and is currently a Theme Group Fellow at the NIAS (KNAW).
*********************************
 Date: Tuesday, September 15
Time: 19:30 (doors open from 19:00)
Location: The Hague, exact location will be announced a few days in advance
REGISTRATION CLOSED

===============================================================

Academic Freedom as a Foundation for Peace between Israel and Palestine – Prof. Medina en Hanafi

Sep 18, 2026

CIDI organized a special debate on academic freedom featuring two renowned academics: Israeli Professor Barak Medina and Syrian-Palestinian Professor Sari Hanafi.

Professor Barak Medina holds the Landecker-Ferencz Chair for the Protection of Minorities and Vulnerable Groups at the Faculty of Law of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where he previously served as Rector. He has also been a visiting professor at the law schools of Columbia University and UC Berkeley.

Professor Sari Hanafi is a Professor of Sociology and Director of the Center for Arab and Middle Eastern Studies at the American University of Beirut, where he also chairs the Islamic Studies program. He has received an honorary doctorate from the National University of San Marcos in Peru, is an International Fellow of the British Academy, and served as a Theme Group Fellow at the NIAS (KNAW) for one semester.

00:00:00 – Introductions
00:17:48 – Start of the debate
01:10:00 – Q&A
01:39:44 – Closing remarks

YouTube Transcript
Natan: 0:02 Welcome. 0:09 A special welcome to the speakers of tonight, Professor Sari Hanafi and 0:14 Professor Barak Medina. We are also pleased to welcome representatives from 0:19 the Israeli embassy. My name is Natan Usher. 0:44 Shalom. 0:50 for academic 1:16 and polit. voices 1:27 and individual professor is an international 1:35 theme group by Institute in Amsterdam. Davis is a director from the 1:40 center for Arab and Middle Eastern Studies. 1:58 over Israel, Palestine 2:06 and the B 2:13 Boycott 2:31 for the oak. 2:41 and conflict and 2:47 to come for the CIDI. 3:12 Israel and Zambia Israel. Professor 3:23 Professor Medina, 3:28 Professor Medina. Professor 3:49 journalist. 3:56 Parliament. 4:17 [applause]

Host: Thank you. Natan 4:32 I will continue in English. I just want to state that if it’s very 4:38 difficult for you to understand it, I think most of you will be able to understand English. But do there will 4:43 also be a room for debate for discussion with the room with you with the audience. We will actually take quite 4:49 some time for that because we think as your the organization thinks it’s very important to engage in a discourse civil 4:55 discourse about the matters that we discussed tonight. if you want to speak up in Dutch I can help you 5:01 translate your question or your your statement if you would like to do 5:07 that. So just tell me that’s no should be no problem. We should not be lost in translation here tonight. 5:15 yes, I’m very honored also to be here especially at this occasion. this 5:20 location is of course quite for the people who haven’t been here before quite special and beautiful and the the 5:27 synagogue who’s be which is behind this door is is quite stunning to see from the inside. I had the honor to be there 5:33 during a service but it was not a very happy service because it was shortly after the attacks of 7 October. 5:39 I was there for an article I wrote for EW magazine which I write for as a journalist and I talked to people here 5:45 and it was a tangible a tangible feeling of of terror of of of of sadness of 5:53 desperation but also about what happened happened in Israel and what was 5:59 going to happen in Gaza. But I think also there was a feeling of how do we deal with this here today in the country 6:07 of the Netherlands so far away from the Middle East. we Dutch Jews living 6:12 here but Dutch people in general living here. a feeling that this this this 6:18 conflict enters into our lives into our daily lives our professional lives our personal lives. mostly also of course 6:26 for academics people who work in academia, universities or in schools 6:31 because it’s such a heavy subject there but I think more in general in society and I remember a conversation I 6:36 had with the the president of the synagogue who told me that he was walking his 6:42 dog in this beautiful place here in the Hage very green area of the hake and he 6:49 was actually addressed by a local by one of his neighbors for being Jew and being 6:54 held responsible for the attacks and how visible and how how how personal it became so quickly with his neighbor just 7:01 in the street while I was walking his dog. And I think I still remember that now suddenly it springs to mind when I’m standing in the same room that he told 7:07 me the story in. And I think now we are 3 years later and I think it’s if if if 7:14 anything it has only become more heavy as a subject in our societies and I’ve 7:20 been writing a lot about academic freedom and academic debate. which is heavily touched, heavily changed also 7:28 by what happened on October 7 and the aftermath the war in Gaza. But I think 7:34 I’m not the only one who sees what’s happening and we’ve all been able to see what’s happening in the Netherlands when 7:40 universities were occupied when protests were held. millions of euros of damage of course were caused, but also 7:47 there were a lot of articles and documentaries and messages 7:53 testimonies by Jewish Netherland Jewish Dutch people who felt unsafe in 7:58 universities, staff and faculty and students who felt unsafe there for being 8:04 Jewish let alone the Israeli members of the community there but also the 8:09 Muslim and Arab and other people from the region of the Middle east or people with very strong pro Palestinian beliefs 8:16 felt that they weren’t heard. So I think it should be our message today and I 8:22 know that we are in a room with people that every time we have these kind of events we try to have a mixed audience 8:29 lot of viewpoints and I hope that tonight there will be different viewpoints but it is practically 8:35 impossible to have this balance in in your audience and I think your organization went at length to to 8:41 organize this and to and to have at least on stage a nice and civil discussion between different viewpoints 8:47 and I hope that there will be in the room as well. And please stand up, please speak up. let’s make this a 8:52 not a safe space but a brave space for everybody to to feel free to address their own or to express their own views. 9:01 The program of tonight will be as follows. after my short speech, I 9:07 will say a few things and ask also the the two speakers on to come and sit here 9:12 on the stage. It is a bit low, but I hope people will be able to see at least hear us. And if you don’t please raise 9:18 your hand if you don’t hear us well. I will we have already discussed 9:24 beforehand we’ve you will have both have seven minutes to make sort of 9:29 introductory statements and then we have a debate based on three propositions 9:35 linked to the to the theme of tonight academic freedom the boycotts how institutions should behave how 9:42 institutions should should address the the issues in the war in Gaza but also maybe other conflicts worldwide. 9:51 and what we can expect of academia. the two professors are very outspoken 9:57 and I think it’s very important to state that they are individuals speaking mostly for themselves. and especially 10:04 for I think I promise both of them to to give them the floor as and and 10:09 also to to have their individual opinions not represent any institution. Um, professor Sari Hanafi of 10:17 course works at the University of Beirut, but he is now here speaking as a capacity in fellow at the Netherlands 10:23 Institute of Advanced Studies. You’ll see that he has a brace on his arm, but 10:28 he was not harmed in the preparation of this debate. Nor was he harmed by bikes 10:33 in Amsterdam, but by falling off a bike in Beirut. Um, and we wish him well in his recovery, of course. 10:40 I would add to the introduction that Natan gave to to to you. and maybe 10:45 also I give you I would ask you to sit on one of these chairs I think in the middle. Mr. Sari Hanafi please give 10:52 another applause for right now. [applause] welcome 10:59 a very warm welcome and and for both of you I think it’s very courageous and very nice but I think also 11:06 courageous to to be here and to share your views on this these 11:12 sensitive subjects. I’d like to actually make some commercial some marketing for you as well because you 11:18 wrote a book and that was published last you wrote many books many books but last year the last book was published at 11:25 Liverpool University Press called against symbolic liberalism a plea for 11:30 dialogical sociology and you are a sociologist and I listened to a wonderful podcast look up his name Sari 11:36 Hanafi on your podcast app and you’ll find it a nice interview about this book and what was so striking to me is 11:43 actually you were from a liberal standpoint criticizing liberalism and I think I like as a as a as a great fan of 11:48 public debate I like those people those kind of people who are free thinkers and and do that. So those 11:55 compliments are already given. I would like to first ask you 12:00 a question before I I I announce your your your counterpart. Um, how are the 12:06 Netherlands treating you? And have you had a chance already to compare the Dutch academic life and the Dutch 12:13 academia to what you known in Lebanon? You’ve worked in France, uh, in Paris, 12:18 uh, other places. What what what’s your first impression? And there’s a microphone here next to you.

Hanafi: 12:25 I’m I’m so impressed by uh, Dutch academia. I mean I have been 12:32 collaborating I with many scholars and I’m I’m so happy to be 12:40 here now two weeks I I gain 1 kilo 12:46 and a half. So it’s just to show you that it’s not only academia treat me 12:52 well but the atmosphere.

Host: So, so but you’re in a very international 12:57 environment at the NIAS in Amsterdam.

Hanafi: Um, yeah, absolutely. I mean, NIAS is a 13:02 wonderful place of of really this cosmopolitan 13:09 place and the image of Jewish diaspora. I mean, how historically 13:15 cosmopolitan and NIAS is a cosmopolitan 13:21 place. And I I think there is of course a rooting of humbultian 13:28 model of universities not only in Netherland but everywhere in in in 13:34 Europe. So but nevertheless I mean Dutch academia still strongly autonomous 13:43 from its founder the states.

Host: Yeah. Okay. We we’ll get back to the level of autonomy of Dutch universities in a bit. 13:50 thank you and welcome again. another warm welcome please for professor Barak Medina [applause] 14:01 and being a lawyer yourself of course a sociologist and a lawyer you 14:08 have different ethnic and national backgrounds the two of you but also 14:14 there’s a difference because you Sari has been 14:19 professor and also an administrator in a in a smaller department I think but you 14:24 were quite humble about it but you have been the director the provost of Hebrew University for 5 years before that you 14:31 were also dean of your law faculty can you express a little bit very 14:37 shortly just what kind of dilemmas an administrator has and universities these 14:43 days if you look at what’s happening or is it is it if is it very different in 14:49 at the Hebrew University than for example Dutch universities.

Medina: 14:54 Yeah. Again, first I would say thank you for the opportunity to be here and I’m grateful to Sari for his willingness to 15:02 share the stage and for you to be here with us. 15:08 I mean the the main dilemma that we face now in Israeli academia 15:14 is an is about an issue that we will discuss about the issue of neutrality. 15:20 what is the role of universities when there is 15:27 social turmoil there are growing tensions within the country 15:34 polarization. What is the role of administration of academia when you confront a society 15:41 that is to some at the verge of becoming 15:49 non-democratic and to others facing existential threat and this is a 15:57 dilemma that I think other universities in the world in the 16:02 democratic world at least do not case and the dilemma about our role in 16:08 society is is a real one. So and of course there are all the other issues 16:14 many of them we will discuss in a minute about [clears throat] how do you address the the fact that within the university 16:22 there are different perspectives different viewpoints. There are about 20% of Israeli academia are Palestinians 16:31 who are Israeli citizens and 80% are Jews. there are people with different 16:37 viewpoints and fears and imaginations and and and and it’s I think it’s a 16:44 challenge to work there but at the same time I think it’s a lot of responsibility so we’ll 16:52 have the opportunity to talk about these issues and we will have the opportunity to learn from you how it is what what 16:58 kind of lessons that Dutch university and Dutch audience can learn from from your experience. we agreed to have a 17:05 civil discourse. that means that there will be arguments. You don’t agree with each other. But at the same time, 17:11 you also you both strongly felt that this was the moment to demonstrate to people how you actually engage into a 17:18 debate nowadays when it’s very difficult for people to speak up and also to 17:23 step outside of their echo chambers, their social media bubbles, their 17:29 maybe their work environment or their personal environments that you tend to surround yourself with people who think 17:35 the same. And tonight we have the opportunity to actually see how this happens. And I hope this will be a great 17:41 inspiration also for the discussion with the audience which will be at the end for about 30 minutes. So in order to Begin debat 17:48 have enough time for that let’s get started.

Host: Professor Hanafi the floor is yours for the first seven minutes and 17:54 I promised myself and I will promise the audience to clock you to time you. So 18:00 please yours.

Hanafi: Yeah. well actually I I brought 18:06 this book. is not propaganda for the book be but I I work on it as if 18:14 you like where my thesis that today if you like campuses that rationalized 18:22 debate is not necessarily of of of society is not is not anymore 18:31 we are in this situation and so So 18:36 I I argue that to understand acade 18:42 polarization within academia you you need to go to the society and I argue in 18:48 our late modernity and in order to understand why people move to the right 18:54 and to populist right, you should see how we liberals behave and whether 19:01 there is something wrong with us. And I think yes we have a real problem of 19:10 academic freedom not started in from 7 October much 19:18 I would say in the in in the last quarter of century and it’s related 19:24 to cancel culture intolerance to listen to the other but it’s not true 19:30 that cancel culture is is something related to the left is also related to 19:36 the right. I mean I’m I’m very precise. I look to to disinvitation who is not 19:43 allowed to talk in the campus. and it’s in the last quarter of century 19:48 you see this before I mean you 19:53 have two three four incidents in for instance in United States you have 19:59 around around 200 incidents of disinvitation in in 2023-2024. So 20:10 so it means that about gender about politics about foreign policy 20:18 about institution, higher education is terribly 20:24 comedifies the role of donors in the in in the board of the university. All this 20:29 is changing and let me come because of the setting of of that theme of this. 20:37 I think what h what what what we saw in cons cancelling 20:45 culture particularly against those 20:50 who who are anticolonial in campuses in liberal democracy is 20:57 terrible and I would say today first how I describe academia academia it’s is 21:05 those who who who are really 21:12 believe on human right organizations. Amnesty International, human rights watch. B’tselem, the Israeli one 21:22 Israeli physician for human rights who declared what happened in Gaza as 21:28 genocide. declare what Israel is doing today is a 21:33 settler colonialism is not about Bengfir and Smotrich is a 21:39 policy of a state is is so so 21:45 so there is a social movement of the student and faculty say this is 21:52 inacceptable and and academia cannot cannot go 21:58 silent on that what happened? Look who has been cancelled since 7th October. 22:05 Give me a case where a pro colonial 22:11 voices was cancelled in the France, apology to terrorism. You have 22:19 four 4,200 cases since 7 October 22:25 or show me one abolition of terrorism. for those who not only defend 22:33 Bengvir and this matter but to bring them or or their representative to 22:38 France to fundraise to colonalize more wispan. So, so, so this is what if you 22:45 like 7 October, it was a moment to to reveal the the situation of of 22:54 of of of cancel culture and violation of academic freedom. And I 23:00 think now we have a rift a huge rift in in academia between those who are 23:08 pro- settler colonialism and those who are against those who are for the apartheid and and who are against and no 23:16 matter and you have a lot of Israelis declaring Israel as a apartheid state 23:22 and setller colonialism. There is a and and and there is a lot of Palestinians 23:28 silent and so so I know the fault line is not anymore who is Jews who is not 23:34 Jews but really who would respect the 23:39 human rights and those who don’t want to respect the human rights and I think now 23:45 we should accept it that academia is into money 23:51 especially in in United States, UK, I mean how how donor how 24:00 money is a playing role, how I mean money sex thinks about Epstein. I mean 24:08 who abstein compromise whom? Who who are the friend of abstine? This is the word. 24:14 You have the word of abstensines and you have the word of those who are let’s say no and we will resist and among these 24:22 students, faculty and and and and other in the world and I think this fault line 24:28 30 seconds is is extremely interesting for understanding 24:35 whether our university in the future will be influential or just just is 24:43 producing business for students and and leaving the things for military and 24:51 corrupted politicians. Thank you.

Host: Thank you. as I said, [laughter] 24:59 there’s room for everybody’s opinion. and my alarm is going off. I’d like to 25:05 ask some few more questions, but that’s not fair to to Mr. Medina, Professor Medina. first I’ll give you the floor 25:11 and then I have some follow-up questions for both of you. and also I’ll ask you as far as we get to talk about 25:18 academic freedom what do you understand by it the definition of it so that we can also talk about the 25:24 general hot topic and then we’ll go into also some of the more the content that 25:29 you said but please the floor is yours also for seven minutes.

Medina: Okay, thank you. Um, yeah, there is a lot to say about 25:38 different perspectives, but I think that even at the outset, it this discussion 25:44 proves the importance of holding these kind of events in in in the sense of 25:50 realizing that different people have different perspectives, not only about 25:57 policies or what is right and wrong, but also about the facts. And it’s it it’s 26:03 sometimes we call it narratives. And I’m not arguing that I have all the truth in 26:09 my pocket. I’m just saying that the very fact that people base their position on 26:15 different factual background is important to understand to realize and take it into account when we conduct 26:22 discussions. And I I I’ll start with you know the 26:27 the way I perceive the situation out there and this is and I I’m I’m not 26:32 arguing that Sari is wrong in suggesting that there is this cancel 26:39 culture in which certain positions which criticize Israel are canceled 26:48 people are not allowed to say these kind of things but at the same time I have 26:54 something to say about it morally speaking or even legally speaking. But before that, I think I I I will not 27:02 reveal any secret by saying that the experience that we have as Israelis 27:09 in the academia is that in the last three years and it’s even becoming more 27:18 intense in recent times, Israelis are canceled regardless of their 27:25 positions. It’s not whether you are in favor of so-called colonialism or 27:32 genocide or whatever or what have you. It is irrelevant what your position is, 27:39 what your viewpoint is. The very fact that you’re an Israeli, you might be an 27:44 Israeli hospital, you might be a physician, you might be a physicist, the 27:49 very fact that you’re an Israeli is enough to cancel you in many parts of 27:56 the academia. And I and I think that this reality is something that we should 28:01 be aware of and at least to tackle it. And I think that in some circles 28:07 including here in the Netherlands there is this denial of this reality. The 28:13 formal policies of many of the universities here is that no no we are 28:20 not canceling or boycotting individuals 28:26 but only institutions but in practice this is what we experience. All student 28:33 exchange programs, all opportunities for students to interact to present 28:40 different viewpoints were cancelled. it is impermissible for many faculty 28:47 members to conduct joint projects research projects regardless of the 28:53 subject matter with someone who is affiliated with Israel. And this is true 28:58 not only for the Netherlands but to many other countries. Now one may of 29:03 course complain about this reality from 29:09 an personal perspective. You know it harms 29:14 the possibility of Israeli academics to to do the research to 29:22 maintain the leading position of Israeli academia in the world. Israel has been 29:29 fifth in the world in per capita terms in in terms of academic production and 29:35 15 in the world in absolute terms and and there is this concern about what’s 29:42 going on with academia with culture with the economics and and other aspects of Israel but I am more concerned 29:51 in in this respect from this reality of of boycott by the missed opportunity I 29:56 and I think this this should be at the heart of our current discussion. I think there is a missed opportunity by the 30:03 fact that universities around the world and 30:09 specific faculty members decide to use just slogans to classify people general 30:16 groups. You are the bad guys. You are the good guys. You are perfect. You are 30:22 completely wrong. You are genocidal. So what can we say about you? You have no 30:28 right to exist. No need to talk to you. And I think this approach is not only a 30:34 reflection of herd mentality of avoiding thinking independently about what is 30:41 right and what is wrong. But it is a missed opportunity to fulfill the 30:47 mission of universities. And this is not only the mission of exploring the truth, 30:53 of exploring different perspectives, of trying to better understand what’s going on, but also the mission of bringing 31:00 people together and try to 31:05 give them the opportunity to rethink their own views. and the fact that we do 31:12 not have this experience of bringing even students to here to the Netherlands 31:18 and and as I said in Israel about 20% of the students are Palestinians and I do 31:26 not ignore the fact that many of these students in Israel the Palestinian 31:32 students are silenced it’s not that they are formally silenced but they are 31:38 sometimes afraid to express their views not because they are afraid from formal 31:43 sanctions by the university but because of peer pressure and things like that. And the opportunity this that these 31:49 students had when they participated in student exchange programs in in the 31:54 Netherlands and in other places was invaluable. It’s in it’s it’s an opportunity for them and for students 32:01 from the local place to express their views in a more secure way in a in a an 32:09 open forum. I think it it’s an opportunity that that we miss and and this is something that I 32:15 I I really am am frustrated about in the fact that universities do not fulfill 32:21 this role of serving as as a safe public forum for discussion. And I’m not 32:27 looking for them to say that Israel is right and the Palestinians are wrong. I think both sides are wrong. Both sides 32:33 commit terrible things, but to look at the future about possible ways to move 32:40 forward, but we’ll talk about it. Thank you very much. [applause]

Host: 32:48 Um, I’m completely neutral. I’m not going to judge by the applause whether the audience is or not. thank 32:56 you both for your statements. I was actually supposed to go to the first proposition but I think it we need to 33:02 elaborate a little bit on what has been said and also to find maybe this first question to you professor Hanafi is there 33:12 first question is you you were mentioning genocide settler colonialism apartheid people who say this who who 33:18 say that Israel is committing these things are they canceled in academia is that really what you wanted to say or 33:24 did I misunderstand you

Hanafi: There there is a huge huge gap between 33:30 human rights organization where they take a clear position very documented 33:36 about Israel committing a genocide on Gaza and about settler 33:44 colonial project particularly in West Bank and Gaza and all according to international 33:52 laws. It’s not it’s not a a subjective opinion. No one’s in academia. Okay. And and and this is is very 33:59 different from academia and academia pushing you not to talk about that. I 34:04 mean I I can I I can my my book has a three case studies United States, 34:12 Britain and France and then France very clear the directive from the 34:18 minister that that you cannot use this words there is faculty in the 34:27 university sacked for that you have from researcher. So if you like this is 34:34 this is the issue the cancel culture

Host: and and and but then we heard your colleague u say that 34:43 professor Medina said that the there is a cancel culture also for Israeli 34:49 students. Can you reflect on that just very briefly? Yeah. and can you show us whether 34:55 there’s common ground between your complaint of cancelling in academia and your 35:00 longing for academic freedom and we’ll get to the topic.

Hanafi: Yeah. first when I was president 35:06 of the international strategic association, it was the invasion to Ukraine and I envisage one one 35:15 hour and a half a debate and the executive committee online and we we 35:22 took a decision to to freeze the Russian sociological association within 35:28 how many minute? 13 minutes not more. when later on I was not the president 35:36 when this association took a decision to ban to freeze the same 35:43 thing the Israeli strategical association as as association and not 35:51 all the boycott I mean if if you look to the platform of BDS 35:57 it’s very clear there is no individual by court against any student 36:05 against any scholar we can talk the contrary this is part of of dialogical process 36:12 that we we should talk so so so if you like what happened in in Isa it take 36:18 them three weeks of discussion and and despite despite it’s not the same 36:26 casualties the Ukrainian and and and and the Ukraine by Russia. So, so, so why I 36:33 I want to pose the question why why why we don’t why why we don’t why why there 36:40 is no consistency and and more 36:46 yeah yeah yeah why why there is no consistency and again I’m talking about that look look as simple as that I 36:57 South Africa it was the only possible way to end the apartheid is is the by 37:04 boycott. The boycott when when I am not in favor of of any violence act 37:13 particularly against the the the civilians. So, so and and now 37:21 Palestinian recognized by international law as occupied territories, occupied people, 37:29 they are not allowed to to resist. So I think there is no way is to save is to 37:37 save this this region is to say you need to pressure the Israeli side and the 37:44 only way of pressuring them is institutional

Host: but professor Hanafi and now I’ll I’ll now 37:50 give forward to professor Medina but you didn’t answer my question so I’ll give you more time to reflect on it about 37:56 the common ground between the kinds of culture that you are addressing and that you are observing and the kinds of culture that he was addressing but now 38:03 it’s a floor to to professor Medina to to reflect to to to maybe reflect on 38:09 this and and also to answer my question if if no wait if he sees common ground with the things that you’ve been saying 38:16 was because I think your position

Hanafi:  academia 38:21 ac academia should should have liberal art liberal art is based on 38:29 criticism we’ll get to this because I’ve got to I got At the same time we are proposing peace model. I am I am organizing in one 38:37 month.

Medina: I wanted to address just very briefly this issue of genocide 38:51 because I think it again it’s it’s not the title of our discussion. No. But since 38:58 professor Hanafi mentioned it several times and since it is mentioned it is part of of the discussion of boycott I 39:06 think it’s important to say a word about that and again I repeat what I already said at the 39:12 beginning I do not argue that what I’m saying is necessarily the only right way 39:17 to approach this issue but I want to say something about genocide and to my view 39:25 the reference to Israel as genocidal. The the argument that Israel 39:31 committed genocide in Gaza is wrong on three counts. 39:37 First, simply on legal grounds. It is factually wrong 39:43 to suggest or to claim that Israel committed genocide in Gaza. I think that 39:49 Israel acted wrongly in Gaza. It killed too many civilians there. It caused 39:57 excessive destruction of infrastructure there. And there is a lot to say and 40:04 many people in Israel including myself say so and so and pay the price. But 40:11 I think it’s not genocide because legally speaking, but I I want to emphasize the two other points. It’s no 40:16 genocide because there was no intentional killing of civilians and of 40:22 course there was no intentional killing of civilians in the intent of of destruction the entire people. So 40:29 legally speaking there is no genocide there but I we are we are not in the business of discussing legalize. 40:36

Host: You are a law you are a lawyer but many of us not. Yeah.

Medina: But I want to mention the two other aspects. Second, when you when you 40:42 refer to the war as genocide, you cause a a stop of the conversation. 40:51 People in Israel, you want to bring them in. And I referred in this respect to the idea of professor Hanafi about the 40:58 only way to bring about the change by boycotting Israel. We have the South 41:03 African precedent. I think this position is 41:09 is not the only way to approach the issue. I think it will be very hard to to achieve a change if we close the 41:18 ears of Israelis when they are blamed of this most horrible crime possible. There 41:25 is no right to Israel for Israel to exist if it had committed genocide. And 41:31 this is why I say the third thing, Palestinians to my view committed genocide on October 41:39 7th. And I and I think that and again I I I would not go into the argument why I 41:45 think legally speaking that was the case. October 7th was an act of genocide 41:52 by Palestine. At the same time, I think it is wrong to depict the situation in 41:59 this way because just as I think we should avoid this 42:04 language of genocide regarding Israel because it is something that prevents us 42:11 from reaching any agreement from having a conversation about how we can solve 42:17 the conflict. The same is true about Palestine. I think it is wrong to refer 42:22 to what happened there as genocide because it will it means just as it 42:29 would mean for Israel that Palestinians do not have the right for a state if they are a state that committed 42:35 genocide. A people does not have a right to a state if they commit genocide. And I think both peoples have the right for 42:43 statehood. Both people should have their own state. And I think that our role as 42:49 academics is to find ways to convince people out there that there is hope, 42:54 that there is way to to reach an agreement. And if we insist on this genocide, genocide, genocide or 43:00 colonialism and other aspects that their only meaning is you do not have the 43:05 right, the collective, you the people do not have the right. I think this is something that is a conversation 43:10 stopper. It prevents us from holding a deal. Then I thank you.

Host: I would like to ask Professor Hanafi to reflect on this and 43:16 and and by that I mean specifically the issue that you cannot you should not 43:22 use that word or those words if you want to have an open debate if you want to have a good academic debate as well and 43:27 we’ll get to what we’ll get to what that means in a minute I promise. Can you reflect on this and say 43:34 say why you are doing this?

Hanafi: Yes. in in early 2023 43:44 I organized u a a small workshop at the American 43:52 University of Beirut. about 30 years of Oslo process. 43:59 I think also process Palestinian extend their hand. Israelis extend their 44:06 hand. Peace process in Oslo. Yeah. Peace process. I mean it’s very important. Yeah. And I mean the 44:14 date when it was 9th September sorry 9 October 2023 two two days by the 44:24 Horribel act on 7 October. 44:30 I refer particularly about killing Israeli civilians otherwise part of the 44:37 universal declaration of a human rights the rights of people to resist against 44:43 what recognized as colonial. So what is very interesting? 44:49 What? Okay. What is very interesting that all I mean all the 44:54 scholar come from from Norway more than the Palestinian was 45:01 extremely critical how how Israeli failed the opportunity of Oslo 45:10 process and how in seven years from 1993 to 45:18 2000 number of settler in West Bank 45:23 increase eight times. This is this is exactly this 45:29 is exactly I think why use the word genocide in the debate. Yeah. Yes. Yes. I think I think I 45:36 think Palestinian those who seek justice they use so vocabulary 45:45 mild vocabulary. But what happened 45:50 more and more settle settlement more and more killing this is and and the the 45:56 question if we we say Israel commit a genocide it it mean it doesn’t have a 46:03 right to exist who said that I mean, Rwanda commit a genocide in Germany 46:10 okay that’s that’s very. This is what I come. I think this is what I said. 46:22 Academia have a very important mission of critical thinking and and and and let 46:30 people think and have social responsibility when there is a bloodshed 46:36 is to to talk. And this is why I I didn’t stop for one minutes during 46:43 the the Israeli genocide on Gaza to call for Palestinian /Israeli 46:49 confederation to call and what is confederation is to recognize that 46:55 that paid people there. I wish I mean my 47:01 option is one state solution one man one vote we are together etc. but with the 47:06 failure. So it’s not but I think I think what we should do I mean today is Israel 47:15 is invading Lebanon and and Syria today is a continuous genocide in in in in 47:24 you have thousand thou,200 civilians in Gaza killed what we can do 47:31 more you Israel destroyed all universities in Gaza They they what we 47:39 can do what we can do I mean at least speak up speak up 47:45 so you so so you did

Host: and now I’m going to ask you to to just briefly hold your speaking up for a moment professor 47:52 Medina we have coming to this subject I feel very slowly but steadily of 47:58 academic freedom and maybe in your brief brief response please to to to professor 48:04 Hanafi professor Medina you would like to ask also So or explain what what academic freedom is and why it’s so 48:10 important to you because you both are experts in your own way of academic 48:15 freedom not only as academics but also it’s your material it’s your field of study in a way. 48:21

Medina: yeah I think that well what academic freedom is I think it’s easier to 48:28 define in negative terms. It means that the state and the administrators of 48:36 the university should not intervene with the choices of subject matter by 48:44 faculty with the content of teaching with expressions by the students and so 48:51 forth. This is the easier part and there isn’t that much of a difference between academic freedom and freedom of speech 48:58 in this respect. Maybe it’s a in universities you have greater freedom 49:04 but it’s not that much of importance. I think that the more challenging aspect 49:10 of academic freedom is the positive aspect and it means what obligation it 49:15 imposes on scholars on those who are part of academia. It’s not that society 49:23 awards members of the academic community this 49:29 privilege of freedom that it does not award others just because they have 49:36 their you know greater influence or they are elite or something like that. Society provides the academic community 49:44 this privilege of greater freedoms than other citizens because it put it puts it 49:52 its trust on academia. It realizes that academia and and here I share Sari’s 49:58 position. Academia has a role in protecting 50:04 liberal democracy, in protecting this ideal of 50:10 abstract justice, in acting against this realism of the masses of of of people 50:17 that this populism, this herd mentality and and there is an obligation that 50:23 comes with freedom, academic freedom. This is the obligation to be committed 50:29 to the methodology of rational thinking of fact finding of hearing different 50:35 positions of critically thinking of avoiding doubt or respecting hierarchies 50:41 or traditions and and in this respect I think that and here I disagree with what 50:48 professor hanafi has said about what else can we do me as academia as 50:54 academics I think that something in the world is wrong. someone commits evil 51:02 and and and now I ask myself what can I do to correct this wrong to rectify it 51:09 and I think that there are cases and Russia is one of them in which we should 51:17 indeed give up on hope that a change can come from within and the only thing that 51:23 we can do as academics is just to to state our position that this is wrong 51:29 and we call upon those who have the power to put greater pressure there 51:34 because the academia in places like Russia is 51:39 not independent is controlled by authorities and so and so forth. But I 51:46 think that when we have a case like the Israeli one, when academia is completely 51:52 independent, it still enjoys I hope it in the future it will continue to enjoy 51:57 but of course no one can tell but at least currently it enjoys autonomy and 52:02 it’s not only the the potential but you see Israeli academia as a pos plays a 52:09 positive role in enhancing protecting liberal democracy both in terms of 52:15 activities of faculty members willing to pay price and in terms of holding a safe 52:23 forum for different viewpoints within university. I think what can be done is 52:30 to help Israeli academia to bring about a positive change to bring about a 52:35 change in positions within Israeli society.

Host: So you do so you do think that universities because we’re going there 52:42 you do think that universities have an obligation to bring about positive change outside of their own academic 52:48 realm?

Medina: Well again it [laughter] I’m what I’m saying is that they can assist in 52:54 achieving this aim. They can assist in achieving this aim by 53:00 strengthening the academia in the other place not by weakening it. Because if you realize that the academia for 53:06 instance in Israel plays a positive role, if you do not follow the the 53:12 propaganda of those who say well Israeli academia is complicit is is in is charge 53:18 of of crimes if you believe that. So and then you have to assist it and mostly what you can do if you are abroad you 53:25 can as I said you can serve as an honest broker. you can bring in Palestinians 53:31 and Jews to sit together because of the animosity, because of the difficulties of sitting together in the region. If 53:39 you do that here, you can you can assist in achieving some progress of better 53:45 understanding.

Host: I think there is a role just briefly because as excuse me profan but I think I’m asking the question that 53:51 you wanted to ask him as well as an administrator as a director of Hebrew 53:56 University have you yourself been an activist administrator have you tried to 54:02 influence the society political situation in Israel or other parts of 54:07 the world for the better or or do you do you think that maybe neutrality is also 54:13 a good thing for institutions just very briefly then we

Medina: First I would say I say three brief 54:20 things. First, President Zalinski appeared before the Hebrew University Senate. He asked them he came to us. It 54:28 was via Zoom and he called upon Hebrew University Senate to put the pressure on 54:33 the Israeli government to provide weapons or you know kind of assistance to Ukraine. And we decided that it is outside of our 54:41 role. Of course we criticize Russia. We identify Russia as the aggressor. But 54:47 the issue of what is the correct policy of the Israeli government visa v Ukraine, we thought that this is outside 54:54 of our realm. So in this respect, we were neutral. On the other hand, in 55:00 terms of what happened within Israel, I was among those who 55:07 acted on the basis of the idea that we have a 55:12 role in changing reality. I was among those of course with many others that 55:18 established the program. We call it Sadara. It’s a program of progress. that 55:25 invited Palestinians from East Jerusalem to study at Hebrew University. Hebrew University is located in East Jerusalem 55:31 geographically. It is not part of the occupied East Jerusalem because it is was an enclave remained under Israeli 55:38 control and but the Palestinians ignored Hebrew University and we invited 55:44 them to be there as part of the university and then so and because 55:52 it’s relevant what happened is that the we offered 500 Palestinian East 55:58 Jerusalem to study at Hebrew University each here free of charge based on money 56:04 that we receive from government. We are public university. And then the government of Israel, the current 56:10 government, they said, well, Hebrew University nurtures helps grow up terrorists. What these 56:17 students are terrorists, you should stop doing that. And they cut the money. And we replied by saying, we disregard you, 56:24 the Israeli government, our sponsor. We continue this program based on funds 56:29 that we collect abroad and and I think this is something that shows that sometimes you have to stand up against 56:35 your own government.

That’s a good example. Professor Hanafi to reflect on for you maybe, this is the university that you want to boycott? 56:42

Hanafi: Yeah. So can you no let me and that you want anything that you want Dutch university to boycott as well. 56:48 Yeah. So so first I I agree 56:53 with you professor Medina about your definition of academic freedom. It’s a 56:59 freedom of expression but plus social responsibility 57:05 and intellectual integrity. What really you formulated on on that? I mean we we 57:12 don’t have the right to present one one point of view without the other 57:18 without problematizing showing complexity of the history of geography 57:24 etc. so so here again again I I I think 57:32 the BDS is a is a is a civil 57:41 a civic social actions 57:47 in a front of a mighty project who 57:53 longer who continue everyday settler colonial and apartheite practices 58:01 and this in no meaning meaning that you 58:06 don’t talk with the Israelis you don’t invite Israelis we we I 58:12

Host: do you want to boycott Hebrew University?

Hanafi: as a institution yes yes 58:20 like any because simply I No, I I I will I I will tell you I will 58:26 tell you why. because I read Maya Wind book an Israeli anthropologist who 58:34 wrote about Israeli university and their complicity with the with with with 58:41 with all Hasbara with all this AI war killing indiscriminately 58:49 civilians and and and militant 58:55 Palestinian. No wait. [laughter] So, so we have Yeah. 59:02 So, so, so I I we have so many ground 59:08 that that there there is a a need to give a strong statement to the 59:18 Israeli society which in 59:23 one week after the ceasefire the the so-called ceasfire in Gaza which is a a 59:30 joke of course that 78% of the Israelis said they are 59:39 satisfied with the Isra with the Israeli army. 59:44 so so they it means according to the international law so it’s not my 59:50 opinion inter according to the major 59:57 human right organization it means that they defend genocide so when you have a 1:00:03 situation where there is consistency but no this is this this is why this is what 1:00:12 I mean look Look, life before genocide is never a life after 1:00:19 genocide. This is this is I mean this is where I see complence of of European. I 1:00:26 mean you saw somebody blood next to you but you don’t see the 100,000. You 1:00:33 didn’t see 80. You didn’t see 52,000 kids and women. 1:00:39 Okay.

Host: Your point is your point is clear. But now I want to now I want this is and now now I want to hear 1:00:44  no mean it means we don’t want a dialogue of course and I am convening a 1:00:51 meeting with Can I ask you wait is gentlemen I’ll open the floor in a 1:00:56 minute but I want to give professor Medina question to re react to this because 1:01:01 actually this is quite interesting because what we see happening here is that we try to have a debate about how 1:01:06 the debate should be held. we try to go in you as you were the one professor Medina who asked like can we go into the 1:01:12 content of the matter so here you have it but I think it’s also interesting 1:01:17 to see like is is this is this for you if you if 1:01:23 professor Hanafi really is is apparently very clear about how he 1:01:29 feels about the subject of the the violence in Gaza calling it genocide etc etc we’ve all 1:01:36 heard this I and I think your point is clear your point. No, I’m not selling I’m not I’m 1:01:42 not I’m not I’m not arguing against you. I’m not arguing against you. I am only asking a question to Professor 1:01:49 Medina to say how can we have a proper debate about this if one side calls it a genocide and keeps on calling it and 1:01:55 your your position is completely different.

Medina: Well, I’ll say two things. First, I 1:02:03 think that I think that every person including 1:02:09 professor Hanafi has the right to describe the situation as he thinks is 1:02:15 the right way to protect it. I don’t think that it should be prohibited to suggest that it was genocide. I I think 1:02:21 it is wrong. It is completely wrong. And I I still wait to hear Professor 1:02:27 Hanafi’s position whether or why if it is the case what the Palestinians did on 1:02:34 October 7th is no genocide. And this is something that one should explore. But 1:02:40 but as I said the the more interesting issue is about how to go forward, how to 1:02:47 bring about a change. I’m not saying that it is irrelevant to explore what 1:02:53 happened in the past to establish each side’s narrative. It is 1:03:00 highly important. But in order to do these things, I think that we need a 1:03:05 dialogue and and the this distinction between and this is the second thing I wanted to say between institutions and 1:03:12 individuals is something that cannot hold. It doesn’t hold in practice. As I 1:03:18 said, I live in Israel. I’m part of Israeli academia. We are completely 1:03:23 isolated. We as individuals. We are isolated in Europe. The only two 1:03:29 exceptions are Germany and the United States. And no one here, they do not 1:03:34 read this, I don’t know, bylaws of the BDS. They 1:03:40 act as as they see fit. And they think that everything Israeli is toxic. You 1:03:47 should avoid any confrontation, any connection with Israelis and if you refer to institutions and this I I I I 1:03:54 want to say lastly, yeah, universities here and I served as recctor and I tried to contact them. 1:04:02 They decided to cut ties with Israeli universities based exclusively on this 1:04:09 book written by Maya Wind. they did not find it relevant to ask us is it right what 1:04:16 is written there I published response to this book showing that at least again 1:04:23 I’m not saying that my perspective is the right one but there are other perspective about what the university is 1:04:29 doing they did not bother to ask whether what we are doing whether what we are 1:04:34 doing is in overall positive or wrong I’m not saying that what we are doing is perfect we have to improve we have to do 1:04:41 better. But the idea that a university that is committed to values of both 1:04:48 liberalism and rule of law decides to cut all ties with an Israeli university 1:04:55 based on a unilateral approach, just reading a book by one scholar with her 1:05:01 own interest and not bothering to invite us, to talk to us, to write us a letter, 1:05:07 even to inform us that they decided to cut ties. even that they are not doing and I think this is something that is at 1:05:14 least unprofessional. It also raises questions about motivation about why do 1:05:19 they do that? They don’t even want to hear our side before making decision and this is something that should bother us 1:05:26 regardless of whether the decision is right or wrong. The very process of of ignoring us.

Host: Thank you. I would like to ask sorry for 1:05:33 the audience just for last time for to reflect but then to look at the future and to answer this question over dinner. 1:05:40 We had dinner together a lovely Syrian dinner with the organization. the two of you and me were at the table talking 1:05:47 about issues how you develop your political views and I think it was 1:05:53 professor either of you was quoting Camus, Medina, I think yes of course, Medina 1:05:59 was quoting Alber Camus about Algeria whether his political views he would choose for his political views or the 1:06:05 life of his mother. Um, in your case, uh, I will ask you about what if one of 1:06:11 your children or your wife would fall very ill and would depend on Israeli medication, Israeli collaborations with 1:06:18 Israeli universities that you want to boycott to survive, would you still hold this position that a boycott is 1:06:24 absolutely necessary?

Hanafi: of course necessary because I 1:06:30 think for my children and the children of and the grandchildren of professor 1:06:35 Medina this settler colonial apartheid 1:06:40 project should stop to stop killing if you want. 1:06:46 So this is collaboration exactly. Exactly. No, no. It’s institutional 1:06:53 collabor you need, I mean you need to bring to bring both side. I would say 1:07:00 you need to pressure both sides exactly like now how you deal with Russian 1:07:06 Ukrainian war. You can pressure two side but there is a side where according to 1:07:13 international law again it’s occupied territories and it’s every day look to 1:07:20 look to the British position last what what they took now now if you like it’s 1:07:26 unbelievable I don’t know what we can do exactly in order to live together in 1:07:33 order my children to play with the children of of Professor Medina. We 1:07:39 need we need to to to put the Israeli 1:07:46 society and and and their settler colonial project into 1:07:53 halt not society no to to to convince them sorry to convince these that they 1:08:01 cannot continue like this and in the history look.  Let let me let let me make it clear. I think 1:08:13 really this is this is I think in a history of conflict resolution without 1:08:20 external pressure I I mean I I don’t see this this bloody 1:08:26 conflict can be stopped. You need the pressure and I don’t know pressure 1:08:32 is not a pressure not to sell arm to uh to to perpetuate the 1:08:39 genocide a pressure to boycott institution they are doing research research for 1:08:46 this army this is the basic things you don’t you don’t ask more and in the same 1:08:51 time you call for for meetings you call for dialogue you convene I am 1:08:58 convening in in in one month you are most welcome to NIAS you will see Israel from 1:09:05 your university professor Medina, are there is two okay 1:09:11 the head wait the head of Israeli sociological association she is invited 1:09:18 because we don’t ban an an an individual it it frozen in for international 1:09:25 sociological association but Orly Benjamin she is most welcome. She is 1:09:30 from Israel.

Host: So, and now for your distinction on medical advice of your doctor, I want to ask you to stop 1:09:37 talking and moving your arm because it’s very bad for your recovery. It’s very important that and I want to state that it is 1:09:43 courageous that you are here talking to Professor Medina and to the audience 1:09:48 despite the the ideas that that that you just that are quite contra contrary to 1:09:54 most of the ideas I think in the in the room here. So my congratulations on that and my gratitude about that. I also Q&A 1:10:00 promised something myself to the audience which is to give the floor to the audience. And I heard some people 1:10:06 without the microphone talking and I think it’s easier and better for everybody if there’s a microphone around. I think Frank is going to oh and 1:10:13 and are going to walk around. and please keep it short, civilized and 1:10:20 preferably end it with a question mark.

Q: 1:10:25 thank you both for being here. I do have two questions if there’s time for it. one for the both of you, one for 1:10:31 you, Professor Hanafi. for both of you, if the position of the ICJ case comes out to be say in 1:10:39 favor that there is genocide occurred or it did not, does that change either of your opinions on how this debate should 1:10:45 go forward? Say for example, you dis it was noted last, 1:10:51 excuse me, the ICJ. If the ICJ court ruled there was genocide, uh, Professor Medina, would you change 1:10:58 your position on how you would engage in this debate? And similarly, would yours change if the ICJ ruled that it was not, 1:11:04 but say excessive excessive violence and loss of life? The second question I have is about academic freedom specifically. 1:11:11 If you both agree on the terms of academic freedom, then do you believe that there’s a way 1:11:17 in which we can encourage understanding via academic freedom and collaboration 1:11:22 instead of saying that we should boycott it?

Host: Two questions I’d like to ask you to 1:11:29 answer. The first one just briefly. Would it change your position if the ruling was no genocide?

Hanafi: well 1:11:39 it’s it’s a very interesting to to give a context how judge are treated 1:11:48 to influence them. I mean we consider like this organization. Okay. But then there’s no option at all 1:11:55 that there is a legal legal binding. No, no. I think I statement by a judge of if 1:12:01 the ICJ take absolutely I will I will consider this in my narrative 1:12:09 but but I will give the context you know okay okay 1:12:16 just that’s true but you will consider and and and look the the the 1:12:23 Israeli genocide in Gaza is one episode I mean every day you have a a a settler 1:12:29 colonial going on in West Bank. If this is stopped and there is a process 1:12:36 for two-state solution, one state solution, confederation, definitely I 1:12:44 will I will be the first the first outside factor change, not yourself of 1:12:50 of definitely

Host: professor Madina. Yeah, maybe we’ll collect several questions. It will that’s a good idea but maybe 1:12:56

Medina: so Of course if when the ICJ hands down its decision in in in few years it will 1:13:04 be of course relevant for the discussion. it whether you know regardless of the content whether it 1:13:09 will be say yes or no we should take it into account there is this issue of 1:13:15 what are the reasoning there what are the facts that are presented I’m not arguing that I know all the facts so if 1:13:22 new facts emerge in this decision this is something to take into account there is of course the concern that this 1:13:28 tribunal is somewhat political it is somewhat biased 1:13:34 I’m not arguing that the decisions are irrelevant should be ignored. But I can 1:13:39 give you the example of the other decision that professor Hanafi mentioned of the ICJ calling upon the occupation 1:13:47 of Israel of the West Bank illegal and therefore requiring Israel to 1:13:53 unilaterally withdraw or end bring an end to the occupation 1:13:58 in the immediate immediately or as soon as possible. And I think this type of 1:14:04 decision is something that on one hand should be praised. I think that the critique that the ICJ presented 1:14:12 regarding the actual policies of Israel in the occupied territories is right and 1:14:18 Israel should take into account this critique and act differently. At the same time, they call upon Israel to 1:14:26 unilaterally withdraw the occupied territories without an agreement, just 1:14:31 as it did in the disengagement plan in Gaza in 2005, is something that might be 1:14:39 more harmful than beneficial. It it ignores October 7th. It ignores what are 1:14:46 the risks that are out there. And and this relates to the other question and and and I I be very brief regarding 1:14:53 Professor Hanafi’s idea that the only way out of this issue is to put 1:14:58 more pressure on Israel. And I think maybe it will surprise you that if Professor Hanafi and I would be 1:15:06 authorized to make decisions for the two peoples, I believe that we will be able 1:15:12 to find the solution and reach an agreement. But I think it is wrong to 1:15:17 assume that I know better from the entire Israeli people. There are people 1:15:23 in Israel that believe that reaching an agreement or establishing a Palestinian state is risky to the lives of Israelis. 1:15:30 I think they are wrong, but I don’t think that they don’t have the right to think this way. And the whole idea of democracy is convincing other. It’s not 1:15:36 putting pressure, putting them in a position that they have no other choice but accepting this 1:15:43 idea. What we need to do and this is the whole idea of academic freedom is to use 1:15:48 leverages in order to convince people that they their position is not the only 1:15:53 one possible. So in this respect our role is to try to change public opinion. 1:15:59 It’s not to enforce coers them into something else. It feels quite attractive not to state 1:16:04 but to professor solution. I I support that. There’s the woman over there 1:16:09

who was ask having a follow-up question I think about this. Thank you. 1:16:14 Please. Hey,

Q: I have a I have a question. You have a fair academic. I I hear only one 1:16:19 thing from you and you are only against trade but haven’t you ever think 1:16:26 about proxies and terrorism? because because of proxies because of 1:16:31 hams it’s going to something happened in Gaza and Palestina and they they does 1:16:38 that all every year so many years do you have ever think who can you stop 1:16:45 terrorism how to stop and then and then you can: can I phrase it this way that this is a 1:16:52 war with proxies by Iran I think you mean proxies proxies also in Gaza and 1:16:58 Palestina Because because the brown is proxies. The brown is proxies. Hamas 1:17:05 and they use people as a shield and Git in 7 October. 1:17:11 Yes, they did it because they want to kill people. But what Israel did is defending 1:17:18 defending because they do they attack the Hamas and they use 1:17:26 hospitals they use schools they use every place it’s asymmetrical asymmetrical warfare. 1:17:34

Hanafi: Thank you so much. But you you omit a a major point that Israel is continuing 1:17:41 occupying according to international law West Bank.

Host: Okay, but I think we’re done with this discussion. 1:17:47 Is every two years waging war. Allow allow allow me to to continue this discussion because I think it’s 1:17:52 important for for this moment. There’s there’s drinks for this in a few minutes to be served. Bless you. to be served 1:17:59 and then we can discuss the contents of what’s discussed now about the legitimacy of the war in Gaza and what 1:18:04 happened on 7th October. I think for now it’s for the collective discussion I think it’s more valuable to focus on 1:18:11 what academic freedom has to do with this issue how a university should act 1:18:16 or not and how for example also individual academics and students 1:18:23 should compose themselves and act and I think it might be interesting if you have a question about that topic to 1:18:29 raise your hand and I I I’m not looking this way but after you sir I’ll collect a few questions 1:18:35 from this side as well and then I’ll pose them to you collectively.

Q: Thanks. I was a director in the 1:18:41 central staff of the University of Amsterdam for the past 10 years. So been like in the middle of this for quite a 1:18:48 while. I think my question is to professor Medina because it is about what you should do as a recctor in a 1:18:55 university in a contentious situation and I think looking back at the last 10 1:19:01 years of the University of Amsterdam what happened was that university administrators tried very desperately 1:19:07 very desperately to stay neutral but didn’t manage didn’t manage not because 1:19:12 they didn’t want to but didn’t manage because of the pressure from within from within factions inside the university 1:19:18 which pressured them unlike what Mr. Hanafi actually suggested. The pressure really was to cancel anything 1:19:25 pro-Israel, not the other way around. Um, there have been countless debates, 1:19:32 invitations, people cancelled who are pro- Israel. CIDI could at this very moment never hold a discussion like this 1:19:39 in the university. Any pro Palestinian debate would be welcomed, has a has a 1:19:44 room, it will be reserved, it will be protected. It’s the other way of what you suggested. But that’s not really my point. My point is 1:19:54 the administrators when faced with the question whether to cancel student exchange very very knowingly knew that 1:20:00 this would actually only have a positive effect in the exchange of ideas. Students going back and forth. It’s a 1:20:05 positive thing. Everybody knows that. They knew it. Everybody knew it. They canceled it only because they were 1:20:11 afraid. We can be quite clear about that. My question to Mr. in Medina is what could they do given the fact that 1:20:18 this pressure from within is real. They’re afraid. They don’t know what to do. What could they have done in a 1:20:25 situation like that where they knew maybe what they decided was not the right way, but the pressure from within 1:20:30 is very serious, very real and very physical sometimes leading as said at 1:20:36 the beginning to massive destructions of the university.

Host:A clear question. Thank you. We’ll collect this one and as with priority 1:20:42 number one for after I collect a few questions. There was one here flake. Yes. Sir, could you please stand up? 1:20:49

Q: Yes. Thank you. okay. I have a question for 1:20:54 professor Hanafi about the Palestinian educational system. what I view the 1:21:00 average Palestinian like from kids education up till university level. I 1:21:07 think the average Palestinian really clings to the refuge refugee status 1:21:14 and yeah clinging to their old old keys of of their of of the of the house 1:21:20 of their parents once in once in Jaffa the whole refugee story. What what is 1:21:25 your view on that? because I feel very strongly that that was a big obstruction in the peace for for the 1:21:32 failing peace negotiations both with Arafat and with Abbas in 1:21:39 2007. What is your view on that?

Host: Okay, thank you. We’ll keep that one as well. Academic freedom only. sir, on 1:21:48 this side flake, sorry you have to run around and then we go to the lady in the back. 1:21:57 Yeah.

Q: Okay. A question to both professors. I 1:22:04 don’t understand how academic freedom can be a condition to arrive coexistence 1:22:13 of two parties because anyone who’s rich can start a university can pay a 1:22:22 professor to tell what he wants to tell him and there is 1:22:28 as long as he is paid he will tell okay what is told to be told 1:22:36 well at the other end there’s no possibility to influence that person and 1:22:43 an example from another field in the Netherlands is we have very briefly yes 1:22:49 we have two officers here who have the opinion there is a global carbon cycle 1:22:56 well it doesn’t exist but as long as they are paid for that they will Okay. 1:23:03 To tell answers. I I will note this question as a question about academic neutrality and 1:23:09 and and and being influenced by outside factors and money. when we 1:23:15 get to that the lady over there was also was the I think she was first fake. So 1:23:25 and keep it a bit shorter please ladies and gentlemen. Then we have a lot 1:23:32 of voices. collect.

Q: Yes. I I have a short question for Professor Hanafi. you told us at the 1:23:39 beginning that you had a warm bath when you came at university that you had 1:23:45 gained weight from all the the the food and the people. And now I want want you 1:23:51 to refer to if if that was your colleague there, the Israeli one, not 1:23:56 the Palestinian. Do you think he had also a warm bath? 1:24:02

Host: Okay, that’s a good question about if if Professor Medina would have had the same 1:24:08 reception at the NIAS than Professor Hanafi had in Amsterdam over 1:24:15 here. Yes.

Q: Short question. from an academic point should you boycott Russian 1:24:24 universities? Why would you or why would you not? That is a question. Russia was mentioned 1:24:30 but I think it’s good maybe to go into this discussion a bit further if there’s time. 1:24:36

Q: Well, thank thank you professors for your statement but I have a question as well. and I’m asking both of you 1:24:44 where what is the absolute end of academic freedom? I mean freedom of speech is pretty clear. It’s incitement 1:24:50 to violence, it’s slander etc. Is there a difference to academic freedom? This is also apart from like a Israeli 1:24:58 Palestine conflict like what is the absolute end of it. And my second 1:25:04 question is do universities have like a moral responsibility to to engage in 1:25:10 in yeah activism or moral discussions apart from their academic work. So I 1:25:16 would like to hear both your visions. It’s very interesting you ask it because it was actually one of the propositions that I didn’t even get to because it was 1:25:22 such a lively and heated discussion here on the floor.

Host: So thank you for asking that question about the moral 1:25:28 responsibility. maybe a final one and then we go around. Gentleman in the back 1:25:34 was very very quick with this with hand. Oh with the microphone please. 1:25:42

Q: For professor Medina, do you see a difference behavior with respect to academic 1:25:49 cooperation between different fields in academia? So you are in law in sociology 1:25:55 versus physics, mathematics. I’m a geologist. Is there any difference? 1:26:00

Host: And also interesting maybe to if there’s time to ask if the sociologist thinks he 1:26:05 differently than the lawyer in this case or that that’s maybe the least important difference between the two of our our 1:26:11 guests tonight. thank you for your questions. I think considering the time I’ll I’ll leave it to this with the 1:26:17 question and and and give give the gentleman opportunity to answer starting I think with the question by the 1:26:23 gentleman on the corner over there who said yeah okay staying neutral as as 1:26:28 as an institution there is no debate there isn’t such a debate as tonight wouldn’t even be possible at the 1:26:34 University of Amsterdam for example it was a question directed by professor Medina I remember

Medina: yeah the question was what can be 1:26:42 done if I were director of investor what I would have done and of course I I’m 1:26:47 not in a position to answer that I’m I realize that you know there are 1:26:54 conflicting views and and many aspects that should be taken into account that I’m not aware of but I’ll say just 1:27:00 generally that we should always remember that as academics our role is not only 1:27:07 to teach but also to educate and we should take the burden of educating students And as you said the 1:27:16 freedom of speech and academic freedom including is important but we should 1:27:22 remember the this international convention of civil and political rights 1:27:27 the United Nations convention. This is the the Bible of human rights and it says there article 19 says freedom 1:27:35 of speech is very important and so forth but article 20 says it should be 1:27:41 prohibited by law to incite for hatred or racism and and and for war. It it’s 1:27:48 not only permissible for a state but it is required and this is a human right convention. a human right convention 1:27:55 that not only gives power, legitimacy for a state to curtail freedom of speech 1:28:01 but requires it to and and we can take inspiration from this respect and and 1:28:08 it’s sometimes the the responsibility of administrators in a university to try to 1:28:16 educate to say to put a a a stop and say I do not accept this kind of activity or 1:28:24 this pressure. Again, I’m not in a position to say that they were wrong. I I do not know all the details there, 1:28:34 but I think that at least in principle, one should 1:28:39 show, you know, educate by giving example. 1:28:44 And sometimes we forget that we educate by giving example, serving as an as a 1:28:51 role model for others. And this is an issue that we should always remind oureselve 1:28:57 and it it relates to the question about the the role of universities in terms of 1:29:02 moral responsibility. I think universities do have moral responsibility but moral responsibility 1:29:09 is also to form your opinion about morality about activities on an informed 1:29:16 way in a way that collects information carefully that realize that there are 1:29:22 different perspectives and and based on the fact that sometimes it’s hard to 1:29:27 reach a conclusion that is definite. The moral obligation is 1:29:34 sometimes to serve as a an open forum for a discussion. This is part of the 1:29:40 obligation and it also relates to the question of well anyone can establish a university and now enjoys this academic 1:29:47 freedom and and therefore we should not have this power. I think that the idea 1:29:52 of academic freedom is based exclusively on the social 1:29:59 impact that university has or have because we do not have any power. I 1:30:07 do not hold any official power. My only influence is based on my reputation on 1:30:13 my the reputation of the institution. So if the university abuses its power, it just 1:30:20 looks like a university but it’s not really a university then who cares what they say. So the the the idea of 1:30:27 academic freedom is based on the unique social status of universities that they 1:30:34 should gain. And this is why I said that I’m frustrated by this attempt to weaken 1:30:41 academic universities in Israel because when you weaken them, they do not do not 1:30:47 hold this social status that they can use to influence better.

Host: Just to give thank you for your 1:30:53 combining three questions at once. That’s that’s very efficient. Thank you. Given that we only have 5 minutes left or so, I think I’m very happy with that. 1:30:59 Um, Professor Medina, thank you for that. Um, Professor Hanafi, would you please respond to the gentleman over 1:31:05 there and and please let’s let’s let’s not discuss Israel or the boycott of institutions, but just the fact that in 1:31:12 the Netherlands there’s universities where this this this gentleman has been high up in the board of the 1:31:17 University of of Amsterdam, but there from my experience as a journalist I can say there’s more universities basically 1:31:23 all of them which such a debate would be very problematic and individuals Jewish 1:31:28 individuals, Israeli individuals in the Netherlands would be a very reluctant 1:31:33 pro-Israeli voices in that will be very reluctant to speak out. That’s that should worry you as well. That should 1:31:39 also depress you because you love academic debate.

Hanafi: yeah, you repeated it twice, three 1:31:45 times the safety safety of the student. I mean in United State this is a 1:31:52 language you say safety of of Jewish students but in fact you sack you 1:31:59 you you you you remove the students from the other side 1:32:06 their scholarship you sack faculty and in the Netherlands. Yeah. No, no, no, 1:32:12 no, no, no. I we’re talking about Dutch. I am I’m talking about about you need you need to see safety for what? And 1:32:19 safety for whom? I mean, when you have a genocide and you No, no, for all individuals. 1:32:24 This is the point for all individuals. You mean I I will I will give a concrete example. 1:32:30 mic. Yeah. Okay. 1:32:35 Can  we please focus focus on the issue of individual freedom

Hanafi: and Eva, 1:32:42 Eva, Eva is a friend. Eva, Eva, Eva Elus 1:32:49 and she was canceled here. Yes, this is why I’m talking about it. She’s in the book. Eva Elus is a friend 1:32:57 and I invite her for a plenary for the International Socical Association just 1:33:02 to show you that that how I admire her work since 2023 1:33:10 7 October she and actually a little bit earlier 1:33:16 I I took her last book about Israeli populism and I was shocked to see that 1:33:24 Eva she is bothered by Israeli system just because it’s allow religious 1:33:32 religious people to to bother the secular but she she doesn’t give a 1:33:39 damn about the Palestinian and the colonial. So I so to to save our 1:33:46 friendship I didn’t review her book. So she should be but but but what is very I mean the the 1:33:52 mass of declaration she did complicant 1:33:57 declarations with Israeli actions in Gaza. I mean 1:34:05 I mean I wonder whether really people are don’t like to hear something in 1:34:14 Amsterdam. Look if I came

and can you just make a brief statement about what is your position on academic 1:34:21 freedom? Do you want it for everybody or for nobody or for some people?

We are we bring complexity with this. 1:34:27 We don’t have time for complexity anymore. And I I will I will I will 1:34:33 so if I come and I tell you that women should be bitten by their husbands 1:34:40 from time to time if I 1:34:45 say this would you would you host me in Mr. University? Of course not. So why 1:34:54 why people are allowed why here is not allowed to talk and other not allowed to 1:35:01 do I’m going to stand here otherwise Russian I am for Russian boycott of 1:35:06 universities because they are complicit with this dictatorial regime exactly 1:35:11 like the Russian sociological association and they are the same so I am consistent in my position 1:35:18

okay well that’s very clear can you now for a last question answer the the the the this is the last opportunity for you 1:35:24 to to answer a question I would say and then I give the floor for Medina for the last answer because you were the one who 1:35:29 started the discussion and so I’ll give the the opportunity to finish the debate 1:35:34 but for you one question was asked that I want to raise if the the by the woman in the back you were very happy with 1:35:41 your with your reception here in in the Netherlands in Amsterdam at NIAS people were very treating you well and 1:35:47 you even gained some weight from the good food would you be happy for Professor Professor Medina or any other 1:35:53 Israeli colleague to enjoy the same hospitality in a Dutch institution.

Hanafi: Of course, no one should be 1:35:59 discriminated in the basis of of nationality 1:36:05 ethnicity, race, gender in in in hospitality and work. As individual, 1:36:12 of course, he should have exactly the same hospitality like me. But I will 1:36:18 tell you me as a Palestinian since 7 October until now I was 1:36:24 cancelled 21 times. 21 times. It’s not 1:36:29 warm and hospitality. a AmsterDam I will see is exceptional. 1:36:35 I am canceled in France and I am French. I am canceled in UK. I am canceled in 1:36:40 Germany. Okay. So it’s not about warmness. there is there is complicity that they wanted 1:36:48 to be sure that my position is mild. I don’t talk about genocide. I was asked 1:36:54 etc.

Host: And now and and and now and now I’m going to 1:37:00 I think I suggest to ask questions after the the the final talk that we receiving the the final words that we’re going to 1:37:07 receive in a minute after Professor Medina. But just briefly maybe just I 1:37:13 think with most of the questions that you wanted to answer have already been answered but the last word of yours now 1:37:18 can I ask you a last word on do you still did was this the debate 1:37:24 that you were hoping for and was it what you were expecting and what do we learn from this a few closing remarks for 1:37:31 for for tonight maybe just briefly what do we learn about how to have this debate and I think again it’s very 1:37:38 courageous of the both of you to be here and to talk about this issue. But what do we carry on when we go into the 1:37:43 night?

Medina: Yeah, I learned the microphone. Yeah, I I learned a lot from this discussion and I’m really grateful for 1:37:50 professor Hanafi for I am learn a lot. Thank you so much. I think it’s it’s important to realize the perspective of 1:37:59 Palestinians or those who are pro Palestinians that they feel that they 1:38:06 are canceled and that the position is not heard of although other people 1:38:12 believe differently. I think the position that professor Hanafi presented here is sincere. this is the way he 1:38:21 experienced the the issue and and he represents a certain viewpoint and I think that we should take it into 1:38:27 account. We should not ignore this way of of of living here and and in 1:38:34 other places even if one disagrees with the positions in certain aspect that he 1:38:41 presents and and from my perspective I think this 1:38:47 type of dialogue is not only essential but there is no other way. I don’t think 1:38:53 that our business is to put pressure on others to coersse them to a position 1:38:59 that they do not believe. There are thanks God armies out there and 1:39:05 people that their work is to put pressure to try to bring about other 1:39:12 people to surrender. Our business is different. Our business is to talk to 1:39:18 reason to try to better understand each other. And I think that we could demonstrate here this is the the way to 1:39:26 go forward and leave the issue of putting pressure to other institutions. 1:39:31 So thank you very much again for this opportunity. Thank you [applause]

Host: 1:39:37 professor professor both of you. Thank you again. I would 1:39:42 like to conclude by thanking the audience from my part but there’s going to be a few closing remarks by a wonderful remarkable lady. She was Closing remark 1:39:49 already mentioned in the introduction words of of Natan, Vedras. 1:39:54 She’s actually the one who is responsible for this get together and who is in academia and thank you very 1:40:00 much for organizing [applause] this together with CIDI of course but to taking the initiative and please it’s up to 1:40:06 you the floor is yours to finish this evening.

Concluding Remarks: Yeah I’m going h to give closing words. start starting by saying this 1:40:15 is the second debate in two days that we are doing on academic freedom. Thank you 1:40:20 Natan. the one was yesterday in 1:40:26 Leiden University was actually moderated by Yan Collins sitting here and the 1:40:34 some of the people have been there they they notice very different debate 1:40:40 indeed. I should start by introducing myself. I 1:40:47 was born in Israel and I am fully 1:40:52 Dutch. I am actually doing a biomedical research in at the university in Leiden. 1:41:01 And for those want to know more about what happened in for example the 1:41:08 medical school with respect to boycott Israel I’m happy to say later on 1:41:16 since 7 October I became fully devoted 1:41:24 for keeping academic freedom with Israel in Dutch. 1:41:31 universities. I don’t see any room for academic 1:41:37 boycott. I actually think that academic boycott is discrimination. 1:41:43 As a person who was born in Israel, being Dutch, I’m guilty by association 1:41:50 every day. Every single day. Whenever I’m raising my voice, it’s on 1:41:56 my private title. I’m not sit standing here 1:42:02 representing any universities or my academic title. 1:42:10 Saying that my approach is very simple. Instead of talking about the conflict 1:42:18 here in the Netherlands, we should talk with people from the war area, from the 1:42:25 conflict zone. And for this reason we are having today and I’m very grateful 1:42:31 for Sari and and Barack for agreeing to 1:42:36 talk one each other. It’s not obvious. I think it’s the first time that we 1:42:42 accomplished that but it’s not the first time I’m organizing those events. I 1:42:48 actually counted before the event. It’s a ninth time I’m doing it. And seeing 1:42:54 the the flames that came here, I actually 1:43:01 thought to share with you, some of you have been in previous events. some 1:43:07 of the anecdotes that I briefly collected. Now, one of the events was 1:43:14 with a Palestinian from Israel and journalists from Gaza, two Palestinians. 1:43:23 The first event was at Del University. It was organized by my colleague 1:43:29 sitting here, Isak. and that was a pretty 1:43:35 pretty quiet event. The second one was in Leiden was pretty good. Then we came 1:43:41 to Amsterdam fire tight and I had to 1:43:49 intervene because the two Palestinians they started shouting one each other and 1:43:56 I saw myself like a Dutch person that would be my role 1:44:03 sitting or trying to come down to Palestinians. It was one of the very few 1:44:09 times that two Palestinians, one from Israel and one from Gaza, 1:44:15 spoke together. So today it was not as bad as it was back 1:44:22 then. The other experience that I would like 1:44:27 to share with you is the vis the visit of David Hassan. David Hassan is a a 1:44:34 Palestinian doctor who started the 1:44:39 Gaza children visit village sorry and it was very very difficult to organize 1:44:49 him a talk in Dutch universities or let’s say Dutch hospital for the sake 1:44:56 because he’s a a clinician just because not because he’s from Israel because 1:45:03 he’s working from Israel because he says that to save children’s life in Gaza 1:45:11 to work with Israel but Dutch academics in general and hospital 1:45:19 they didn’t accept it and they don’t want to work with him till this day as 1:45:25 hard as I try. and the last experience that I 1:45:34 would like to share with you was visit of Dutch delegations 1:45:41 academics to Israel. those were not 1:45:47 Jews. They were just people who believe that that collaboration should contain. 1:45:54 And that visit I also organized together with Isak sitting here and we didn’t see 1:46:02 any apartheid in Israeli universities not a single one we talked with a vice 1:46:10 president I believe at Hebrew University she’s Arab director of Kifi University 1:46:17 she’s Arab in the technon they made special programs after 7 October to 1:46:25 bring the Palestinian students and the Israeli students together because of the 1:46:31 tension and what I thought Dutch universities should learn from Israel 1:46:38 how to reduce polarization, how to bring the people together. 1:46:44 But Isak reminds me that his most incredible impression was a lab at 1:46:53 which university was it? Barilan, right? It was a lab where you had in one lab a 1:47:01 droo from the Golan Heights, a religious 1:47:06 woman from the West Bank, 1:47:12 Jewish, a Palestinian girl from somewhere in the Galillee and 1:47:18 then a secular guy from the center. and they together celebrated all of their 1:47:26 birthdays, all of her their they shared life together and we have seen it and I 1:47:35 just I cannot imagine seeing it here at the moment and probably because what 1:47:43 this gentleman said that we don’t see much example of that. 1:47:50 I really would like to thank you all. We are going to continue. We are not going to stop. We just talk now. our 1:48:00 we in lighten university we are very determined that this is the only way to go and we need to have all of you to 1:48:08 come and support those events so more people would know this is the as a 1:48:15 solution forward. Thank you very much. [applause]

=====================================================================

https://bdsmovement.net/news/why-boycotting-israel-lobby-events-moral-obligation

WHY BOYCOTTING ISRAEL-LOBBY EVENTS IS A MORAL OBLIGATION

• • Published2-10-2026
  • Author infoPalestinian Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI)

The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) condemns the participation of a Palestinian scholar in an event recently organized in the Netherlands by the Center for Information and Documentation Israel (CIDI), the main lobby group there for Israel’s regime of settler-colonialism, apartheid, illegal military occupation, and genocide.

On 15 September 2026, CIDI hosted a panel titled “Academic Freedom as a Foundation for Peace between Israel and Palestine,” pairing Palestinian sociologist Sari Hanafi with the former rector of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Barak Medina, who denied the genocide in this dialog. In October 2023, after Israel’s genocide in Gaza had already killed thousands of Palestinian civilians, Medina co-authored a “legal opinion” defending Israel’s mass killing of Palestinians. He argued that, while intentional wholesale targeting of Palestinian civilians is forbidden ethically and legally, there is room for Israel to “take steps that involve widespread harm to those not involved” for the purposes of “prevention” and “deterrence.”

CIDI was founded after the 1973 war to keep the Netherlands firmly on Israel’s side, and it openly describes its work as lobbying for Israel. It co-hosted with the Israeli Embassy Benjamin Netanyahu’s 2012 appearance in Amsterdam.

CIDI won from this recent normalizing Palestinian-Israeli event what it came for: a photograph, a recording, and a talking point that Israeli academia is engaged in “dialogue.” A pro-Israel commentator who covered the event said as much. For him, the fact that the evening took place at all was a victory, because CIDI is widely boycotted, including by Dutch universities, venue owners and civil society groups. A Palestinian scholar has been brought in, it seems, to legitimize the illegitimate and normalize the abnormal.

It is morally unconscionable and indefensible for scholars to provide a fig leaf to an Israel lobby group, particularly in the midst of an ongoing Israeli genocide. What makes this worse is that the event is desperately trying to rehabilitate Israel’s image in the Netherlands, where 76% view Israel unfavorably or very unfavorably and where support for BDS is growing at an inspiring rate. After mass solidarity efforts by students, academics, trade unions, activists, and civil society, several Dutch universities have cut ties with complicit Israeli universities; hundreds of cultural institutions have endorsed the cultural boycott of Israel; and even the Dutch government was compelled to declare sanctions against Israel’s illegal colonies in the occupied Palestinian territory.

This event clearly violated the BDS movement’s international academic boycott guidelines and anti-normalization guidelines set by the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) and approved and adopted by the Palestinian Council for Higher Education and the Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees (PFUUPE). It is worth mentioning that PACBI rejects, on principle, boycotts of individuals based on identity or opinion.

The PACBI Guidelines for the International Academic Boycott of Israel state:

Academic events … convened or co-sponsored by Israel, complicit Israeli institutions or their support and lobby groups in various countries [are boycottable]. All such academic events, whether held in Israel or abroad, deserve to be boycotted on institutional grounds. …

The general principle is that an event or project carried out under the sponsorship/aegis of or in affiliation with or funding by an official Israeli body or a complicit institution (including lobby groups) constitutes complicity and therefore is deserving of boycott.  The same may apply to support or sponsorship from non-Israeli institutions that serve Israeli propaganda purposes.

Even if someone ignores the above and tries to defend this event as a “debate,” that would not hold. The BDS movement’s international academic boycott guidelines and anti-normalization guidelines state that “public debates, in international venues, between Palestinians/Arabs and Israelis do not constitute boycottable normalization, if organized without any cooperation with or official representation from Israel, its lobby groups, or its complicit institutions” [emphasis added].

We call on academics, students, cultural workers and institutions, and especially those in the Arab world, to:

1. Decline invitations to events, debates, lectures or trips convened, sponsored or funded by Israel, its lobby groups or its complicit institutions.
2. Withdraw from programs once such sponsorship becomes known, and state publicly why, if feasible.
3. Hold to account those who cross the BDS picket line and fail to admit wrongdoing and apologize to their community for violating the BDS guidelines that are supported by a near consensus in Palestinian civil society.