The SOAS University of London, also known as the School of Oriental and African Studies, is involved in two recent scandals. The first involves the SOAS Senate position on the so-called “Scholasticide in Gaza, Palestine.”
The Senate’s statement begins with mentioning an earlier statement from December 2023, expressing its horror over “the near total destruction of the higher educational sector in the Gaza Strip” and “calling for an immediate ceasefire to prevent any further loss of civilian life.” The Senate noted that the UN Special Rapporteurs expressed “grave concern over scholasticide in Gaza, defined as the systemic obliteration of education through the arrest, detention or killing of teachers, students and staff, and the destruction of educational infrastructure” in April 2024.
SOAS quotes several reports, such as the UN Independence Commission of Inquiry, Amnesty International, B’Tselem, and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, to conclude that a vast majority of schools in Gaza were damaged or destroyed, and numerous teachers and students were killed.
SOAS also cited the presidents of three universities in Gaza who, in July 2025, called on the international academic community to show solidarity with Gaza and recognize Israel’s “scholasticide as a systematic war on education.”
SOAS emphasized a call from May 2025 by the Israeli Black Flag Action Group, signed by over 1400 academic staff of Israeli higher education institutions who “recognized academics’ own role in crimes against humanity and insisted on making Palestinian suffering central to its objections to the war.”
To make sure that SOAS was on the right side of history, it noted that in “some countries (including Norway, Belgium, Spain, Ireland, Netherlands, Italy and Brazil), some universities and scholarly bodies (including the European Association of Social Anthropologists, the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies, and the Middle East Studies Association) have called for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.”
Trying to avert criticism for Israel bashing, SOAS emphasized that as a higher education institution, it is “committed to social justice and opposed to all forms of racism and discrimination, such as Anti-semitism and Islamophobia, as stated in our Charter on Racism, Antisemitism and All Forms of Cultural, Ethnic and Religious Chauvinism. The university has held events and released statements that challenge both Islamophobia and Anti-semitism and has expressed shock and extreme sadness at the terrorist attack at the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation Synagogue in Greater Manchester on 2 October 2025.”
Yet, SOAS noted that “genocide has been denied by the Israeli government,” and that “The (UK) Government has not concluded that Israel is acting with that intent.”
Still, the Senate resolved: “To protect those academics who teach about genocide, and who name scholasticide in Gaza, in line with scholarly and legal evidence; To call for substantial international support for maintaining the ceasefire; To call on the UK government to impose a full arms embargo on Israel as a form of meaningful material pressure to promote an enduring ceasefire; To commit to developing initiatives and partnerships to support the continuation and rebuilding of the higher education sector in Gaza; To express solidarity with academics and universities in Palestine, who have all been affected by scholasticide; To call upon Israeli academic institutions to support the international rule of law, to speak up against scholasticide in Gaza, and to allow free speech for voices opposing genocide in Gaza; To commit to refraining from partnerships with academic institutions that are instrumental to the commission, or support, or enablement of scholasticide.”
While the main goal was to push the absurdist charge of “scholasticide, SOAS was all too happy to point out that Israel had also committed “genocide,” quoting the infamous and discredited opinon of the International Association of Genocide Scholars. For good measure SOAS noted “legitimate” concerns that “Israeli universities may be contributing to the violation of Palestinian rights by cooperating with the Israeli military industrial complex, and thereby supporting apartheid.”
SOAS did not mention Hamas’s brutal rule in Gaza, effectively turning universities and schools into launchpads for missiles and shielding armed fighters.
The second case involves the alleged breaking of the rule of free speech as reported by The Times. The issue surfaced when, next June,SOAS will host the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies (BRISMES) conference, and it was decided that Israeli academics must declare that their institutions are built on land taken from Palestinians.
These demands appeared in the new policy titled “BRISMES Mandatory Policy on Territorial or Land Acknowledgement,” dated September 22, 2025. It describes a policy that sets out the mandatory requirements for land and territorial acknowledgement for all individuals submitting papers, if their institution is “located on land appropriated from Indigenous peoples by settler colonial regimes, including (but not limited to) the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel (1948 Palestine); or Based at institutions established on land appropriated by a foreign occupying power, in contravention of international law, such as in Occupied Palestinian Territory; Any individual whose research was conducted on such appropriated or occupied land.”
According to BRISMES, authors are required to acknowledge “the traditional owners of the land on which the institution to which they are affiliated is located, and/or, in the case of military occupation, acknowledge the status of the land under international law.”
BRISMES explained why such a policy matters: “Acknowledging the land is not a symbolic act but a critical ethical and political gesture. It recognizes: The historical and ongoing dispossession of Indigenous and colonized peoples; The role of institutions in upholding or challenging colonial structures; The imperative to conduct scholarship that is accountable, contextualized, and conscious of power dynamics in knowledge production. This policy affirms BRISMES’s commitment to decolonial scholarship, human rights, and international legal norms.”
The “BRISMES Mandatory Policy on Ethical Publishing and Participation Standards” states that “In line with BRISMES’s commitment to human rights, anti-racism, and decolonial scholarship, submissions and participation in BRISMES activities are subject to the following ethical standards. A paper/proposal will be excluded if it: Glorifies or justifies gross human rights violations, including war crimes, crimes against humanity (including apartheid), or genocide in any context. Incites racial discrimination, hostility, or violence… Engages in advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination.”
The anti-Israel requirement created a public relations problem for SOAS. Aletter from the Committee for Academic Freedom, the London Universities’ Council for Academic Freedom, Alumni for Free Speech, and Academics for Academic Freedom, addressed to Bridget Phillipson, the Secretary of State for Education, and Baroness Smith of Malvern, the Minister of State for Skills and Minister for Women and Equalities, claims that the policy contravenes free speech regulations.
If land acknowledgement is important to BRISMES, it should note that Jews originate from Judea, as mentioned in the Bible and in the Quran, they are referred to as the Sons of Israel.
SOAS has a long anti-Israel and anti-Jewish policy. It was founded to study Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Its teaching and research are dominated by Edward Said’s Orientalism and neo-Marxist, critical theories that cast Israel as a colonial oppressor. Over time, the dominance of these perspectives has created what critics describe as an ideological echo chamber — a self-reinforcing environment in which dissenting or pro-Israel voices are marginalized. This has led to accusations of academic bias and intimidation of students or lecturers who challenge the prevailing narrative. SOAS has an unusually high level of political activism, particularly around Middle East issues, with the Students’ Union repeatedly endorsing BDS. SOAS has historically received funding from the Middle East and developed research partnerships that align it closely with Arab and Palestinian institutions. This is evidenced by initiatives such as the SOAS Middle East Institute (SMEI) and the Centre for Palestine Studies (CPS), as well as collaborations with regional scholars and institutions
SOAS needs to be reminded that the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917, was incorporated into the League of Nations’ Palestine Mandate, which was adopted on July 22, 1922. This mandate entrusted Great Britain with administering Palestine and included the Balfour Declaration’s provision for establishing a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine.
IAM will further report on the developments of these issues.
SOAS University of London (School of Oriental and African Studies)30 October 2025
Senate statement on Gaza, Palestine
The Senate at SOAS is responsible for advising the Board of Trustees on the strategic development and future direction of the university’s academic activities.
It is part of the academic governance structure at SOAS that seeks to bring together the academic voice at SOAS to address matters affecting the academic scope, academic structure and academic standards of the university.
To protect those academics who teach about genocide, and who name scholasticide in Gaza, in line with scholarly and legal evidence.
To call for substantial international support for maintaining the ceasefire.
To call on the UK government to impose a full arms embargo on Israel as a form of meaningful material pressure to promote an enduring ceasefire.
To commit to developing initiatives and partnerships to support the continuation and rebuilding of the higher education sector in Gaza.
To express solidarity with academics and universities in Palestine, who have all been affected by scholasticide.
To call upon Israeli academic institutions to support the international rule of law, to speak up against scholasticide in Gaza, and to allow free speech for voices opposing genocide in Gaza.
To commit to refraining from partnerships with academic institutions that are instrumental to the commission, or support, or enablement of scholasticide.
The full statement and notes are available to download:
Senate Statement on Scholasticide in Gaza, Palestine:
Senate notes
1. That SOAS issued, on 15 December 2023, a statement expressing horror over “the near total destruction of the higher educational sector in the Gaza Strip” and “calling for an immediate ceasefire to prevent any further loss of civilian life.”[1] The ceasefire of October 2025 is hugely welcomed, even if it is only the beginning and not the end of negotiation and rebuilding.
2. That UN Special Rapporteurs expressed in April 2024 grave concern over scholasticide in Gaza, defined as the systemic obliteration of education through the arrest, detention or killing of teachers, students and staff, and the destruction of educational infrastructure. ‘It may be reasonable to ask if there is an intentional effort to comprehensively destroy the Palestinian education system, an action known as “scholasticide”.’[2] Since then all of Gaza’s universities’ facilities have been destroyed,[3] and more than 97% of Gaza’s schools were damaged ot destroyed.[4] More than 17,085 school students, 739 schoolteachers and staff, 1,261 university students and 226 academics and university staff were killed in Gaza between October 2023 and August 2025.[5]
3. That the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry released, on 10 June 2025, a report on the Israel military’s deliberate and systematic destruction of cultural, religious, and educational institutions and sites in Gaza.[6]
4. That the systematic destruction of the educational sector in Gaza has been repeatedly cited as evidence that Israel has been committing a genocide in Gaza, including by Amnesty International (December 2024);[7] B’Tselem (July 2025);[8] the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (August 2025); [9] and the UN Commission of Inquiry’s genocide report (16 September 2025).[10] Indeed, the Commission stated that attacks on education “were aimed at causing irreversible harm to Palestinians in Gaza by destroying elements of the
Palestinian people’s identity and erasing Palestinian culture from Gaza”.[11]
5. That in July 2025 the Presidents of three universities in Gaza called upon the international academic community to show effective forms of solidarity including, working for “a sustainable and lasting ceasefire” and “an end to all complicity with this genocide”; “mobilisation to support and protect Gaza’s higher education institutions”; the “recognition of scholasticide as a systematic war on education”; and supporting the efforts of Palestinian academics in Gaza “to continue teaching and conducting research”.[12]
6. That there has been a legitimate concern that Israeli universities may be contributing to the violation of Palestinian rights by cooperating with the Israeli military industrial complex, and thereby supporting apartheid.13
7. That genocide has been denied by the Israeli government, while the UK government’s former Foreign Secretary stated on 1 September 2025: ‘Israel must do much more to prevent and alleviate the suffering that this conflict is causing. As per the Genocide Convention, the crime of genocide occurs only where there is specific “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.” The (UK) Government has not concluded that Israel is acting with that intent.’[13]
8. But that the International Association of Genocide Scholars resolved on 31 August 2025 that Israel’s policies and actions in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide in Article II of the United Nations Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948).[14] Likewise, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry determined on 16 September 2025 that Israel has committed a genocide in Gaza.[15]
9. That a call was issued in May 2025 by the Black Flag Action Group and signed by over 1400 academic staff of Israeli HEIs, recognised academics’ own role in crimes against humanity and insisted on making Palestinian suffering central to its objections to the war.[16]
10. That in May 2024, Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel released a report on “Repression of Palestinian Students in [36] Israeli Universities and Colleges”.[17]
11. That in some countries (including Norway, Belgium, Spain, Ireland, Netherlands, Italy and Brazil), some universities and scholarly bodies (including the European Association of Social Anthropologists, the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies, and the Middle East Studies Association) have called for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.[18]
12. That organisations in the cultural and artistic sphere have also called for a boycott of Israeli institutions that are “implicated in genocide and apartheid against the Palestinian people”;[19] and several European states have argued for exclusion of Israel from the Eurovision contest.
13. That the European Commission recently proposed to the Council of Europe a suspension of certain trade-related provisions of the Association Agreement between the EU and Israel.[20]
14. That SOAS, as a higher education institution, is committed to social justice and opposed to all forms of racism and discrimination, such as Anti-semitism and Islamophobia, as stated in our Charter on Racism, Antisemitism and All Forms of Cultural, Ethnic and Religious Chauvinism.[21] The university has held events and released statements that challenge both Islamophobia and Anti-semitism[22] and has expressed shock and extreme sadness at the terrorist attack at the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation Synagogue in Greater Manchester on 2 October 2025.[23]
15. That the implication of the values in our new 2026-2030 strategy dictate that in our teaching and research, we seek to understand the root causes of long-standing injustice and recognise the contextual factors that give rise to it; that there is a need to apply a universal standard to all war crimes and crimes against humanity; and that as an academic body we share a responsibility to show unequivocal and meaningful solidarity with academics and universities internationally.
16. That this responsibility is heightened in the context of Palestine after the International Court of Justice’s ruling on 19 July 2024 that Israel’s occupation since 1967 is “unlawful”; that it violates the Palestinian people’s fundamental right to self-determination; that Israel’s policies “amount to annexation” and have violated the fundamental prohibition on acquisition of territory by force; and that Israel has breached Article 3 of the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which prohibits apartheid and racial segregation.[24]
17. That this responsibility is further heightened in the context of Palestine after three orders of provisional measures by the International Court of Justice, in January, March, and May 2024, warning of the risk of genocide and requiring action to prevent this risk of genocide.26
Senate resolves
1. To protect those academics who teach about genocide, and who name scholasticide in Gaza, in line with scholarly and legal evidence.
2. To call for substantial international support for maintaining the ceasefire.
3. To call on the UK government to impose a full arms embargo on Israel as a form of meaningful material pressure to promote an enduring ceasefire.
4. To commit to developing initiatives and partnerships to support the continuation and rebuilding of the higher education sector in Gaza.
5. To express solidarity with academics and universities in Palestine, who have all been affected by scholasticide.
6. To call upon Israeli academic institutions to support the international rule of law, to speak up against scholasticide in Gaza, and to allow free speech for voices opposing genocide in Gaza.
7. To commit to refraining from partnerships with academic institutions that are instrumental to the commission, or support, or enablement of scholasticide.
[5] Chandni Desai, Sundos Hammad, Ahmed Abu Shaban & Abdel Razzaq Takriti, “Scholasticide and resilience: The Gaza Genocide and the struggle for Palestinian higher education”, Curriculum Inquiry, 9 October 2025, DOI: 10.1080/03626784.2025.2558520
BRISMES Mandatory Policy on Territorial or Land Acknowledgement
Updated 22 September 2025.
This policy sets out the mandatory requirements for land and territorial acknowledgement for all individuals submitting to the British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies (BJMES) and/or participating in the annual BRISMES conference.
1. Scope of the Policy
This policy applies to:
All authors submitting articles to the British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies (BJMES);
All individuals submitting proposals or participating in the BRISMES Annual Conference;
All authors or participants who are:
Working or studying at an institution located on land appropriated from Indigenous peoples by settler colonial regimes, including (but not limited to) the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel (1948 Palestine); or
Based at institutions established on land appropriated by a foreign occupying power, in contravention of international law, such as in Occupied Palestinian Territory;
Any individual whose research was conducted on such appropriated or occupied land.
2. Policy Requirements
In alignment with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP, 2007) and BRISMES’s commitment to anti-colonial, anti-racist, and international legal principles, authors and conference participants are required to:
A. Institutional Acknowledgement
Acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which the institution to which they are affiliated is located, and/or, in the case of military occupation, acknowledge the status of the land under international law.
B. Research Location Acknowledgement
If the research underpinning the article or paper was conducted on land that is:
Traditionally owned by Indigenous peoples (in settler colonial contexts), or
Under foreign military occupation in violation of international law,
Then this must also be acknowledged in the manuscript or presentation materials.
3. Guidelines for Implementation
To comply with this policy, authors and presenters must:
Include a land acknowledgement in:
The author affiliation section (when submitting a manuscript/paper abstract/conference registration/conference visual presentation materials)
The acknowledgements section (providing further details, in final manuscript submission/conference paper)
When applicable, reference the relevant legal instruments or UN resolutions recognizing the status of the land (e.g., UNSC Resolution 2334 (2016) for Occupied Palestinian Territory; UNSC 550 (1984) for occupied northern Cyprus).
When referring to Indigenous peoples, use Indigenous place names or language terms, accompanied by an English translation where necessary.
Where relevant, document partnerships with Indigenous communities or stakeholders involved in the research process.
Land acknowledgement in the case of settler colonies
Example 1:
Author affiliation: Author name, Department of History, The University of British Columbia (Vancouver Campus), situated on the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territory of the xwməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam), Canada
Acknowledgements: The University of British Columbia (Vancouver Campus) is situated on the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territory of the xwməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam) people. I acknowledge the enduring connection of Indigenous peoples to this land and the ongoing legacy of settler colonialism.
Example 2:
Author affiliation: Author name, Department of Middle Eastern and African History, Tel Aviv University, built on the site of the Palestinian village of Sheikh Muwanis, Israel.
Acknowledgements: Tel Aviv University is located on the site of the Palestinian village of Sheikh Muwanis, which was depopulated during the Nakba of 1948.
Land acknowledgement in the case of Occupied Territory
Example 1:
Author affiliation: Name of Author, Department of Middle Eastern Studies, Ariel University, Occupied Palestinian Territory (United Nations designation)
Acknowledgements: Ariel University is located in an Israeli settlement in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 (2016) affirms is illegal under international law.
Example 2:
Author affiliation: Name of Author, Department of Political Science and International Relations, Middle East Technical University-Northern Cyprus Campus, Republic of Cyprus under Turkish military occupation (United Nations designation)
Acknowledgements: Middle East Technical University-Northern Cyprus Campus is located in the Republic of Cyprus, in an area under Turkish military occupation. The campus was established by the Government of Turkey and is not recognised by the Government of the Republic of Cyprus. UN Security Council Resolution 550 (1984) affirms that the UN does not recognise Turkish sovereignty over northern Cyprus.
Land acknowledgement in the case of research taking place in Occupied Territory
Example 1
Author affiliation: Name of Author, XX University (that does not fall under the land acknowledgement policy).
Acknowledgements: This research was conducted in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which, according to the International Court of Justice advisory opinion of 19 July 2024 is under unlawful Israeli occupation. See ICJ Summary 2024/8 and UN General Assembly Resolution A/78/968.
4. Why This Policy Matters
Acknowledging the land is not a symbolic act but a critical ethical and political gesture. It recognizes:
The historical and ongoing dispossession of Indigenous and colonized peoples;
The role of institutions in upholding or challenging colonial structures;
The imperative to conduct scholarship that is accountable, contextualized, and conscious of power dynamics in knowledge production.
This policy affirms BRISMES’s commitment to decolonial scholarship, human rights, and international legal norms.
5. Additional Resources
Native Land Interactive Map – https://native-land.ca (Identifies Indigenous territories globally — especially useful for those in settler colonial states.)
This is a mandatory policy. Submissions to BJMES and proposals to the BRISMES conference that do not comply with the land or territorial acknowledgement requirements will be returned. Continued non-compliance will result in the rejection of the submission or withdrawal of participation.
BRISMES reserves the right to request clarification or additional information from authors or presenters regarding their institutional or research locations to ensure compliance.
7. Assistance and Contact
For further clarification or assistance in preparing a land acknowledgement, please contact:
Dr Lloyd Ridgeon, Editor, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies: lvjr@ioc.u-tokyo.ac.jp
This policy reflects the position of BRISMES only. It does not represent the views of the publisher, Editor, or any other third parties associated with this Journal, nor those of any institution hosting the BRISMES conference.
United Nations. (2024). Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. 19 July. A/78/968, https://docs.un.org/en/A/78/968
BRISMES Mandatory Policy on Ethical Publishing and Participation Standards
In line with BRISMES’s commitment to human rights, anti-racism, and decolonial scholarship, submissions and participation in BRISMES activities are subject to the following ethical standards.
A paper/proposal will be excluded if it:
Glorifies or justifies gross human rights violations, including war crimes, crimes against humanity (including apartheid), or genocide in any context.
Incites racial discrimination, hostility, or violence.
Is submitted by an academic who:
a. Has served in the military forces (including logistical and intelligence units) of a state charged in international courts with war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide, where such service took place during the period in which those crimes occurred.
b. Is reasonably suspected of involvement in public incitement to war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide.
c. Engages in advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence, as prohibited under international human rights law and recognised as among the severest forms of hate speech.
The above stipulations also apply to reviewers, editors, editorial board members, committee members, employees and other individuals involved in BRISMES activities.
Compliance and Enforcement
This is a mandatory policy. Submissions to BJMES, proposals to the BRISMES conference or registration to the conference by individuals that violate BRISMES’s ethical publishing and participation standards will be rejected.
BRISMES reserves the right to request clarification or additional information from authors or presenters regarding their involvement in activities that are prohibited under international law.
For further clarification or assistance in relation to this policy, please contact:
Dr Lloyd Ridgeon, Editor, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies: lvjr@ioc.u-tokyo.ac.jp
This policy reflects the position of BRISMES only. It does not represent the views of the publisher, Editor, or any other third parties associated with this Journal, nor those of any institution hosting the BRISMES conference.
SOAS Senate condemns Israel’s scholasticide in Gaza, urges UK arms embargo
The Senate advises SOAS’s Board of Trustees on the institution’s direction, including its academic activities
The New Arab Staff & Agencies 31 October, 2025
The Senate of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) has issued a statement condemning scholasticide in Gaza and is seeking a refrainment of partnerships that enable it.
In the statement published on Thursday, the Senate issued seven separate policy resolutions on the issue of Israel’s war on Gaza, including a commitment “to refrain from partnership with academic institutions that are instrumental to the commission, or support, or enablement of scholasticide”.
The statement also called for Israeli academic institutions to “speak up against scholasticide in Gaza,” and expressed solidarity with institutions and academics in Palestine affected by scholasticide.
The Senate advises SOAS’s Board of Trustees on the institution’s direction, including its academic activities.
The statement also calls on the university to protect academics teaching about genocide, including those who label Israel’s war on Gaza a scholasticide, as well as calling for the maintenance of the ongoing ceasefire in Gaza.
Additionally, the statement calls on the UK government to impose a unilateral arms embargo against Israel, and to develop partnerships with Gaza’s higher education sector.
Since the beginning of Israel’s war on Gaza in October 2023, the enclave’s education sector has been battered by Israeli airstrikes, which have also killed over 68,000 Palestinians.
The statements cite numerous reports accusing Israel of committing scholasticide as part of a genocide in Gaza, including Amnesty International, B’Tselem, and a UN commission of inquiry.
The statement defines scholasticide as “the systematic obliteration of education through the arrest, detention or killing of teachers, students and staff, and the destruction of educational infrastructure.”
The new calls come amid claims that universities across the UK have repressed pro-Palestine students, including SOAS, which removed a pro-Palestine encampment from campus.
In August, the university took action against Haya Adam, a second-year law and international relations student and leader of the school’s Palestine Society, on account of breaking the university’s code of conduct, an accusation Adam denied.
Earlier this month, the Yale Daily Newsreported on a petition initiated by a student protesting a course on Iranian-American relations taught by Robert Malley, a former U.S. special envoy to Iran.
The petition is titled “No Safe Haven for Fascist Regimes at Yale,” and takes issue with four people who are on the course syllabus while having “long-standing ties to the Islamic Republic.”
Malley, who was a special envoy for Iran during the Biden administration, was investigated in 2023 and placed on leave by the State Department due to concerns over his alleged mishandling of classified documents. In 2024, the Jackson School of Global Affairs at Yale offered him a position.
Malley’s Yale course is titled “Adversaries by Design: Deconstructing the Iran-US Relationship.” The course offers an “in-depth look at relations between the United States and Iran from the 1979 Islamic revolution to today. The course does not purport to offer a comprehensive history of the bilateral relationship, but rather to examine the past in order to better appreciate the two governments’ worldviews and the reasons behind a more than 40 year-old antagonism that remains one of the world’s most dangerous. Our goal is to try to put ourselves in the shoes of US and Iranian decision-makers, internalize their respective narratives and assessments of the past, and seek to understand why each sees acts toward the other as they do. We focus in particular on the two nations’ sense of (in)security, Iran’s and the US’s regional roles and ties to Mideast state and non-state actors, the nuclear question and nuclear negotiations, as well as the role and impact of US sanctions. The course will closely follow unfolding events and examine possible future scenarios in light of these historical lessons. Guest lecturers will join to offer Iranian and US perspectives.”
Hadi Mahdeyan, the student behind the petition, told the Yale Daily that Malley’s syllabus features Iranian individuals with long-standing ties to the Islamic Republic, such as: “Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Islamic Republic’s longtime foreign minister, now sanctioned by the U.S. government for enabling repression and supporting terrorist proxies; Hossein Mousavian, a former regime diplomat associated with the 1990s Mykonos assassinations in Berlin and known for promoting antisemitic and pro-terrorist narratives; Ali Vaez, a figure documented to have coordinated commentary with regime officials, amplifying propaganda during nuclear negotiations; Trita Parsi, known for promoting positions favorable to the Islamic Republic and downplaying its human rights abuses, has also been seen numerous times in private meetings with regime officials.” Mahdeyan also published an article, “Tehran’s unofficial embassy at Yale,” where he discussed these issues.
Malley has an extensive role in shaping American policy towards Iran and its Axis of Resistance. This role complicated American and Israeli efforts to stop Tehran’s strategy of regional domination.
Malley’s father, Simon, was aJewish-Egyptiancommunist-aligned journalist and activist based in Paris, whose Cold War views on American alleged imperialism and subjugation of the Third World influenced Malley’s worldview, favoring dialogue with adversaries, emphasizing negotiation over coercion, and displaying a deep skepticism toward U.S. military intervention.
Malley found an outlet for his views while serving in the Clinton administration, where he oversaw the Israeli-Palestinian portfolio. He participated in the 2000 Camp David Summit, where Yasser Arafat, a close friend of his father, rejected what was widely regarded as a generous peace proposal and walked away from the negotiations.
Malley co-authored influential articles that assigned significant responsibility for the summit’s failure to Israel, by stating “Blaming Arafat for the failure of the peace process is a dangerous mistake” – a position that generated considerable controversy and shaped perceptions of his later diplomatic approach.
Malley’s anti-Israel position increased after he became the director of the Middle East project at the International Crisis Group (ICG) in 2002. He was known for advocating dialogue with groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran’s regional proxies, arguing that a durable peace required understanding their motivations rather than isolating them. This approach drew heavy criticism from U.S. and Israeli officials, who viewed it as legitimizing extremist movements. However, it appealed to President Obama, who appointed Malley to lead the nuclear negotiations with Iran.
Tehran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif credited Robert Malley with helping to shape the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in a manner favorable to the Iranian regime. Conservative American observers and the Israeli government, in particular, were sharply critical of Malley’s influential role in crafting the agreement.
After returning to the ICG, Malley focused much of his attention on protecting the Houthis, the increasingly crucial Iranian ally who controlled a strategically critical position on the Bab al-Mandab strait at the southern entrance to the Red Sea. The Iranian regime supplied the Houthis with a substantial arsenal of missiles and drones. These advanced weapons enabled the militants to operate far beyond Yemen, striking targets in southern Israel and disrupting maritime traffic through the Red Sea. By providing both strategic guidance and material support, Iran ensured that the Houthis furthered Tehran’s regional ambitions while complicating U.S. and Israeli efforts to contain the threats.
Ignoring the Iranian influence, Malley argued in a February 2021 Foreign Affairsarticle that the Trump administration’s decision to designate the Houthis as a Foreign Terrorist Organization exacerbated the humanitarian crisis in Yemen by obstructing aid delivery and complicating ongoing diplomatic efforts. The humanitarian crisis “initiative” was to be repeated in Gaza later.
Once back in the Biden administration as Special Envoy for Iran, Malley oversaw the delisting of the Houthis as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and resisted subsequent efforts to reinstate the designation, even as the group’s actions since the onset of the Gaza War virtually paralyzed maritime traffic in the Red Sea.
Militarily, the Houthis employed their increasingly sophisticated Iranian-supplied missiles and drones to launch direct attacks against Israel, underscoring their transformation from a marginal Yemeni insurgent movement into the most assertive and successful member of the Axis of Resistance.
Malley’s persistent defense of the Houthis, consistent with his broader strategy of accommodating the Islamist regime in Tehran, puzzled many observers. An investigative report, “Inside Iran’s Influence Operation,” published by Semafor, an American news website, offered possible explanations for this stance. The article revealed that Malley was one of the top names in Iran Expert Initiative (IEI), essentially an influence operation to promote Iran’s interests in the United States and Europe. The article, based on a trove of leaked documents from Iran’s Foreign Ministry, indicates that Malley was instrumental in hiring some of the academics and think-tankers on the IEI list for the Pentagon.
Malley has never been accused of providing information to the Iranian regime.
The issue of deep-rooted Iranian influence in American universities such as Yale is clear.
The Iranian legal scholar, Helyeh Doutaghi, the deputy director of a liberal project at Yale Law School, was fired from Yale University following allegations that she was directly connected to Samidoun, a designated terrorist organization.
Iran follows Yale closely. For example, the Iranian media,Tasnim, reported in April that “Yale Students Stage Overnight Protest against Visit by Israeli Minister,” by announcing that “More than 200 students at Yale University held an overnight demonstration on Tuesday to protest a planned visit by Israeli national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. The protest began around 6 p.m. (22:00 GMT) with about 25 participants. By 9:30 p.m. (01:30 GMT), eight tents had been set up, and the number of demonstrators had grown significantly.” Such detailed reporting raises the question of whether Iran was involved in organizing the protest behind the scenes.
The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) takes the Malley affair further. A published report in August 2023, questioned “The Robert Malley affair: Did the President’s Top Negotiator Effectively Spy for Iran?”
According to the IPT report, Malley was among several Biden administration members who met in Washington with pro-Iranian propagandists.
IPT states that “The details of Malley’s suspension remain murky, just as the extent of the damage he may have done during his job as an envoy to Iran.” Murky indeed. In October 2024, media reported that the “FBI probes whether Iran envoy Malley committed crimes in handling of classified info.”
Malley’s anti-Israel position is glaring. Last July, he co-authored an article for the Guardian, “France and Britain’s recognition of a Palestinian state won’t stop Israel’s onslaught,” arguing that “Israel will continue to bomb, starve and seek to ethnically cleanse Gaza; it will carry on land grabs, home demolitions, displacement of Palestinians, and will further entrench its presence in the West Bank.”
The Iran-Yale-Malley triangle should be exposed. To recall, IAM repeatedly reported how Jews or Israelis are recruited to serve an anti-Israel agenda. Yale University provides the platform.
Student’s petition objects to authors in Iran course’s syllabus
An Iranian student who started an online petition takes issue with authors included in the syllabus for former U.S. diplomat Robert Malley’s course on U.S.-Iran relations.
A student petition is protesting the syllabus of a course about Iranian-American relations taught by Robert Malley, a former U.S. special envoy to the country.
The petition, titled “No Safe Haven for Fascist Regimes at Yale,” which had achieved over 140 signatures by Thursday night, takes issue with four people it describes as being on the course syllabus and having “long-standing ties to the Islamic Republic.”
Malley, formerly the U.S special envoy for Iran during the Biden administration, was first investigated and placed on leave in 2023 due to concerns over his alleged mishandling of classified documents. Malley has denied wrongdoing.
Malley’s course “Adversaries by Design: Deconstructing the Iran-US Relationship” is the only course he is teaching this fall. He was hired in 2023, months after he was put on leave by the State Department.
Hadi Mahdeyan ’27, an Iranian student who started the petition, described his shock at reading the syllabus for Malley’s course.
“Growing up in Iran and being in the middle of all the nuclear negotiations and the protests and the government oppression, this has always been something that I’ve been familiar with,” Mahdeyan said in an interview with the News.
The course syllabus, available on Canvas, lists three of the four people cited in the petition. Articles by former Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, former Iranian diplomat and Princeton researcher Seyed Hossein Mousavian, as well as four by scholar Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group, are all assigned. Malley was formerly the president and CEO of the International Crisis Group.
The News was not able to independently verify that the fourth person listed on the petition, Trita Parsi — the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft — was on any version of the syllabus. Outside of this course, Parsi is listed on the website of the Jackson School’s Grand Strategy Program as a guest “involved in the program.”
In an email to the News, Malley wrote that “the syllabus includes a wide array of voices. In this class, for example, we will be joined remotely by a former Trump administration official, a former Biden administration official, a former Iranian official, as well as several analysts and experts on issues affecting U.S./Iran relations.”
“Similar to all the courses I teach at Yale, my objective in this class is to give students the tools to look at the world through multiple perspectives,” Malley wrote.
Mahdeyan’s petition advocates for Yale to audit instances in which individuals associated with the Iranian government are “platformed.”
A University spokesperson did not respond to the News’ request for comment.
Siena Galesi-Grant ’28, a student in the course on Iran, described it as her favorite of the “quite a few foreign policy and Middle East courses” she had taken at Yale. She said she had no qualms about the content of the syllabus or Malley’s security clearance.
Mahdeyan, who is not in the course, said he took issue not just with the syllabus, but with Malley himself teaching the class, adding that he doesn’t believe that there can be a “productive discussion” given what he described as Malley’s connections to the Iranian government.
“I am always more than willing to engage with any student on campus who wishes to discuss the class, my perspective, my background, or any substantive issue — including of course members of the Yale community who disagree with my views,” Malley wrote to the News.
Mahdeyan admitted that he had declined an invitation to meet with Malley.
“He’s being given institutional authority that I don’t agree with,” he said. Mahdeyan added that speaking with Malley would “just legitimize this class.”
In the fall of 2023, Malley taught his first course at Yale — “International Politics of the Middle East: Perception and Misperception in Four Crises.”
Korosh Menitar and 19 others have signed recently.
The Issue
Petition to Yale University Leadership and Relevant U.S. Government Authorities
We, the undersigned students, alumni, Iranian-Americans, and concerned allies, call on Yale University and the U.S. government to urgently review the platforming of sanctioned and regime-affiliated figures tied to the Islamic Republic in Iran in U.S. academic institutions.
At Yale, former U.S. diplomat Robert Malley, whose security clearance has been suspended and who is under FBI investigation, is teaching while assigning a syllabus that features individuals with long-standing ties to the Islamic Republic, including but not limited to:
Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Islamic Republic’s longtime foreign minister, now sanctioned by the U.S. government for enabling repression and supporting terrorist proxies.
Hossein Mousavian, a former regime diplomat associated with the 1990s Mykonos assassinations in Berlin and known for promoting antisemitic and pro-terrorist narratives.
Ali Vaez, a figure documented to have coordinated commentary with regime officials, amplifying propaganda during nuclear negotiations.
Trita Parsi, known for promoting positions favorable to the Islamic Republic and downplaying its human rights abuses, has also been seen numerous times in private meetings with regime officials.
These individuals are not neutral scholars. They are functionaries, propagandists, or advocates for the Islamic Republic. Their presence in U.S. classrooms risks legitimizing an authoritarian system that persecutes women, minorities, and political prisoners, and endangers Iranian refugees and dissidents studying in America.
We respectfully call on Yale University to:
Audit courses and events that the platform sanctioned or regime-affiliated individuals.
Publicly disclose whether funding linked to Qatar or the Islamic Republic is subsidizing these activities.
Establish safeguards to prevent Yale’s name from being used to launder authoritarian propaganda directly linked to designated state sponsors of terrorism, such as the Islamic Republic in Iran.
We also call on the U.S. government, including the Department of Education, the Department of Treasury (OFAC), and the FBI, to:
Review Yale’s activities for compliance with sanctions law and foreign influence regulations.
Ensure that federal funds are not indirectly supporting projects tied to the Islamic Republic.
Protect the safety of Iranian refugee and dissident students from exposure to regime agents on U.S. campuses.
Academic freedom is a pillar of higher education, but it cannot be used as cover to normalize the narratives of sanctioned officials and advocates of the Islamic Republic. Both Yale University and the U.S. government have a duty to safeguard truth, integrity, and the security of students.
Robert Malley, who negotiated the JCPOA, will teach a course on the U.S.-Iranian relationship that feature speakers with ties to the Iranian regime.
U.S. Special Envoy for Iran Robert Malley speaks to “VOA Persian” at the State Department in Washington, March 7, 2021. Credit: VOA Persian via Wikimedia Commons.
The excitement I once felt arriving at Yale University from Tehran in 2023 for my studies quickly turned into concerns about my safety as an anti-regime Iranian. At school, I witnessed the unchallenged authority of Islamic Republic sympathizers in American universities. Faculty tied to the regime have long presented themselves as presumptive Iranian voices, normalizing the regime’s illegitimate rule by erasing the realities of Iranians living in Iran.
Yale’s fall 2025 course catalogue, for instance, features a class by now-disgraced U.S. diplomat Robert Malley, who led negotiations for the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear deal, under former President Barack Obama.
Malley’s class will “examine the past in order to better appreciate the two governments’ worldviews” and place students “in the shoes of U.S. and Iranian decision-makers.”
Course assignments for “Adversaries by Design: Deconstructing the Iran-U.S. Relationship” have students cosplaying as diplomats for the regime, as if this is some benign Model U.N.-like exercise rather than a calculated attempt to humanize the theocratic, colonizing dictatorship responsible for the majority of crimes against humanity in the region since 1979.
The course revolves around defending Malley’s failed magnum opus, the JCPOA, and his syllabus mentions having guest lecturers such as Ali Vaez, Hossein Mousavian and Mohammad Javad Zarif, all of whom have acted on behalf of the regime at one time or another. Malley purports to offer “Iranian perspectives,” but the class will likely only feature Islamic Republic officials and supporters.
One might wonder how it’s possible for a former U.S. government official who lost his security clearance and had close contact with Islamic Republic agents to lecture at an elite American university. But fear not! This is Yale, a Western institution where enabling the ideologies of designated terrorist groups is appropriate under the pretense of academia. And this isn’t an isolated incident for Yale.
In a prior semester, Yale offered “Shi’i Islam, History and Legal Thought,” which mirrored a typical Iranian university course, uncritically featuring works by Ali, the first Shia imam, and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The instructor was Latifeh Aavani, whose signature appears on a 2017 letter endorsing former Iranian Regime president Hassan Rouhani, the butcher responsible for the 2020 “Bloody November” massacre in Iran. Her father is a scholar of the Basij, a part of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a close friend of the Khomeini family and board member of the “Institute of Wisdom and Philosophy” alongside Ayatollah Khamenei’s brother.
While teaching about Sharia law, the JCPOA and U.S.-Islamic Republic relations won’t necessarily spread the regime’s ideology, uncritically platforming Islamic Republic sympathizers certainly will.
This tradition of laundering the regime’s propaganda goes back years. A glowing Yale Daily Newsarticle from 1979, “Yale Student Leads Forces of Khomeini in Washington,” reports on doctoral candidate and Muslim fundamentalist, Shariar Rouhani, who left his studies to become the ayatollah’s official spokesman in Washington.
Aside from national security concernsassociated with indoctrinating the next generation of leaders into treating the regime favorably, Malley’s “advocacy” has brushed aside the suffering of my people.
I remember forming my earliest memories in the summer of 2009, the summer of the Green Movementprotests in Iran, jumping over pieces of glass. Streets were filled with green worn by anti-regime protesters. The air was heavy with the smell of gunpowder and tear gas, a smell that lingered as I grew up in Tehran.
After the “Bloody November” protests in Iran in 2019, Malley suggested in The New York Times that the massive public protests were reason enough for the Islamic Regime’s paranoia of an “Israeli-Saudi-U.S. plot,” seemingly justifying the regime’s mass murder of peaceful protesters. Members of the International Crisis Group, of which Malley is the former president and CEO, further distorted reality, asserting that Iranians are “not demanding a radical shift.”
I didn’t hear about these lies until much later. Nor did any other Iranians in Iran. We were experiencing a total shutdown of the internet, cell service and electricity. What we heard were gunshots from the regime and the chants of protesters: “We don’t want, we don’t want, the Islamic Republic.”
While Malley and his think-tank employees desperately falsified the reality in Iran, the Islamic Republic murdered at least 1,500 innocent Iranians in less than three days.
For the past 46 years, virtually all Iranian academics have been killed, banned or silenced by the regime for committing thought crimes, which means that regime sympathizers are the ones teaching policymakers and academics. The Iran that Malley and his cohorts present is a facade, the Islamic Republic’s fading illusion of ideological unity and control.
During the genocide of Iranians in the 1980s, Malley was a Yale student and said nothing. In 2021, as Hamas terrorists were preparing for the Oct. 7 massacre, Malley said that he speaks with Hezbollah and Hamas, and that “They have their own rationality … none of them are crazy,” as if having an internal logic justifies their genocidal actions and aspirations.
In 2023, it was reported that Malley helped “fund, support and direct an Iranian intelligence operation designed to influence the United States and allied governments.” And now he’s been given free rein to spread his dangerous rhetoric at Yale. This alone should disqualify him from his post.
The Islamic Republic is evil, but it is not competent. Like all failing dictatorships, violence and deceitful strategies are used to maintain legitimacy. That’s why the regime’s main “soft power” is manipulating the world’s ignorance. Unfortunately, it is succeeding with classes like the one being taught by Malley.
Unlike Iranian students who face imprisonment and death for demanding academic freedom, students in the West have the privilege to demand accountability and transparency from their institutions without fear.
Past and present Yalies need to reach out and demand an explanation for their school’s hiring policies. The school should impose an audit on Malley’s class and put more effort into supporting diverse views on Iran. Additionally, all community members interested in maintaining Yale’s reputation as an elite institution should protest this blatant attempt to indoctrinate students.
A former Yale University professor who was previously terminated for allegations of being linked to a terrorist organization has encouraged Iran to target U.S. military bases.
Helyeh Doutaghi, a former educator at Yale University, recently made the comments about a potential Iranian attack on X.
Internet personality Eyal Yakoby published a screenshot of Doutaghi’s June 12 X post.
“[A]ll US military bases in the region, the occupied Palestinian territories, and any state that enables aggression by allowing its airspace or territory to be used for attacks against Iran,” said Doutaghi, commenting on a separate post that stated that Iran has the right to defend itself.
Yale News reported that Doutaghi was placed on administrative leave from her position at Yale on March 6 after she was accused of being connected to the international Samidoun network—a designated terrorist organization.
Doutaghi reportedly refused to cooperate with the university, resulting in her contract being terminated. According to The New Haven Register, Doutaghi later claimed that she was experiencing retaliation for her support for Palestine.
Many of Doutaghi’s X posts reflect anti-West and anti-American sentiments.
“The West will not remain untouched by the barbaric violence it is inflicting upon our homelands,” Doutaghi said in a June 15 X post. “A deepening energy security crisis is coming. Global trade routes and energy flows will suffer. The cost of complicity will be felt.”
Regarding the United States, specifically, Doutaghi posted on Saturday that, “America’s direct military assault on Iran will conclude its decline as an empire-just as Israel’s aggression on Iran has put an end to its military illusion and exposed the fragility of its settler-colonial project.”
In another post on Monday, Doutaghi commented on the intercepted Iranian attack on U.S. bases in Qatar, saying “Morning: Iran hits a US proxy. Afternoon: Iran hits a US base. And some still can’t see the empire crumbling.”
Campus Reform contacted Yale University for comment but has not received a response by publication. This article will be updated accordingly.
TEHRAN – USA’s Yale University has suspended Iranian scholar Helyeh Doutaghi, Deputy Director of the Law and Political Economy (LPE) Project, following a smear campaign by the AI-powered Israeli outlet Jewish Onliner.
The case underscores the escalating use of technology and state power to silence pro-Palestine voices during Trump’s second administration, exposing the hypocrisy of U.S. claims to defend free speech while weaponizing McCarthyist tactics against dissenters.
Doutaghi, an Iranian-born international law expert and associate research scholar at Yale Law School, was placed on administrative leave within 24 hours of Jewish Onliner’s March 3 article accusing her of ties to Samidoun, a pro-Palestine group sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury.
The Zionist outlet, exposed by Haaretz as an AI-driven bot network with ties to Israeli military entities, labeled Doutaghi a “terrorist” for her outspoken criticism of the Israeli regime’s war crimes in Gaza.
Yale conducted no independent investigation, instead relying on AI-generated disinformation to justify interrogating Doutaghi under conditions she described as a “predetermined guilty verdict.”
Denied religious accommodations during Ramadan and access to campus, Doutaghi condemned the university’s actions as “retaliation against Palestinian solidarity” and a “blatant act of Zionist McCarthyism.”
Yale’s links to war profiteers and Zionist donors
Yale’s appointment of David Ring from Wiggin and Dana for Doutaghi’s interrogation hints at a possible conflict of interest.
Ring, a State Department appointee and advocate for defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, profits from F-35 jets used by the Israeli regime in Gaza.
Doutaghi noted Yale’s financial ties to these firms, stating the university “prioritized Zionist donors over fairness.”
Eric Lee, Doutaghi’s lawyer, accused Yale of “bending the knee to Trump’s dictatorship,” linking her suspension to the administration’s “Catch and Revoke” policy.
This initiative, led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, uses AI to revoke visas of international students accused of supporting Palestinian rights—a policy that entangled Mahmoud Khalil, a green-card-holding Columbia graduate detained by ICE for leading pro-Gaza protests.
Double standards in free speech
The U.S. government’s selective enforcement of free speech is striking. While platforms such as Jewish Onliner are allowed to spread AI-generated disinformation unchecked, Iranian and Palestinian advocates face censorship, deportation, and even death threats for expressing their ideas.
The Trump administration’s designation of 60 universities under investigation for “antisemitism”—a pretext to criminalize pro-Palestine speech—highlights this hypocrisy.
Doutaghi warned that “Zionist McCarthyism treats solidarity with Palestine as a crime,” drawing parallels to Cold War purges in the U.S.
Khalil’s detention, she noted, exemplifies the criminalization of dissent: “This is not about national security—it’s about silencing resistance to U.S. imperialism and Zionist settler-colonialism.”
Her case has galvanized demands to defend academic freedom and Palestinian rights as legal battles continue.
“This is the last refuge of a crumbling empire,” she asserted, urging resistance against “brute repression masquerading as law.”
TEHRAN (Tasnim) – More than 200 students at Yale University held an overnight demonstration on Tuesday to protest a planned visit by Israeli national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.
The protest began around 6 p.m. (22:00 GMT) with about 25 participants.
By 9:30 p.m. (01:30 GMT), eight tents had been set up, and the number of demonstrators had grown significantly.
“We’re here, and we’re staying the night,” a protest organizer said through a megaphone.
Ben-Gvir is currently on his first tour of the United States, with stops in New Haven and New York.
Shabtai, a Jewish organization at Yale, invited Ben-Gvir to speak.
In comments to the student newspaper, Shabtai founder Shmully Hecht said: “At a personal level I believe it is specifically unapologetic events such as this one that has preserved Yale as a more moderate safe haven for Jews in the current toxic Ivy community of extremism.”
The Sumud Coalition, a pro-Palestinian student group at Yale, said the demonstration was led by independent students opposed to Ben-Gvir’s visit and Yale’s silence on the matter.
The protest comes in the wake of April 2024 demonstrations, during which students urged Yale to sever financial ties with weapons manufacturers over Israel’s war in Gaza.
During those protests, US police arrested 48 people, including 44 Yale students, while clearing the first of two encampments.
Israel launched the US-backed war on the Gaza Strip in October 2023 after a retaliatory operation by the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas. At least 51,266 people have been killed in the brutal war so far.
Netanyahu’s government will be emboldened by what amounts to a distraction. The priority must be ending the butchery in Gaza
Wed 30 Jul 2025 11.00
Almost two years into a conflict that has cost tens of thousands of lives, amid an Israeli military campaign and humanitarian blockade that have reached apocalyptic proportions, and faced with their own powerlessness as they bear witness to what growing numbers of experts call a genocide, Emmanuel Macron has announced France’s dramatic next step: it will recognize a Palestinian state in September.
Keir Starmer quickly followed suit, stating that the UK would do likewise unless Israel took actions – including ending the appalling situation in Gaza and committing to a process leading to a two-state solution – he surely knows it will not. Palestinians rejoice; Israelis seethe; the Trump administration denounces the move and issues dire warnings. It is all profoundly pointless. The step is utterly disconnected from reality and at odds with its purported goals. It will do nothing to end Israel’s onslaught. It will not bring the parties any closer to a two-state solution. It will boost Benjamin Netanyahu’s political fortunes. The Palestinian people will end up the biggest losers.
For Palestinians, the day after France’s announcement will be much like the day prior. Israel will continue to bomb, starve and seek to ethnically cleanse Gaza; it will carry on land grabs, home demolitions, displacement of Palestinians, and will further entrench its presence in the West Bank. Already, close to 150 countries recognize the State of Palestine, barely 20 fewer than the number that recognize Israel. The entity so recognized has no defined territory, no effective government, no sovereignty. It has, in short, none of the attributes that define a state. To the Palestinians will go empty statements and diplomatic gimmickry. To Israelis, the land, the resources, the wealth. Some deal.
If anything, the situation will worsen. The Israeli government feigns fury, but the fury will fade fast. Far from feeling embattled, Netanyahu’s government will be emboldened, grateful for anything that distracts attention from the slaughter it is conducting in Gaza and that, under cover of its anger, it will redouble. Domestically, Israel’s opposition may blame the prime minister for putting the country in this position, but it feels compelled to close ranks, unanimous in its condemnation of anything that hints at a Palestinian state. Hostility to Palestinian statehood is not the province of the current Israeli government alone. On the eve of 7 October, it pervaded Israeli society; in the wake of the bloodiest attack in the nation’s history, it has become an article of faith. A year ago, presented with a bill rejecting the establishment of a Palestinian state, 68 members of the Knesset voted in favor; only the Arab parties voted against.
The damage may run deeper still. Having defied Israel, ignored its protestations, alienated its people, offered a prize to its foes, France and European governments that follow in its lead – as France hopes they might at a UN conference this week – might conclude that, for now, their work on behalf of the Palestinians is done. They will expect from them deep gratitude. They might feel relieved of any obligation to exert pressure on Israel where it really hurts and really matters – to impose tangible consequences, demand accountability, or enforce sanctions if it does not stop the war, end the siege, halt its settlement enterprise. Instead, the pressure will turn on the Palestinians to prove they are worthy of this munificent offering.
All this for what? The most absurd part of this endeavor is that it is taking place on behalf of what has become an imaginary goal. Worthy as it was, the quest for a two-state solution has come to an end. It succumbed to Israeli intransigence, Palestinian ambivalence, American fecklessness, and the rest of the world’s impotence. It failed under far more auspicious circumstances – when settlements were significantly fewer, Israel’s territorial encroachment less intrusive, Palestinian and Israeli politics more promising, popular backing on both sides greater. It failed when it might have had a chance and today it has none. Starmer illustrated the nonsense of his position even as he argued for it, justifying recognition of a Palestinian state by pointing to dwindling prospects of its coming about. The recurrent recitation of support for two states, whether by Joe Biden yesterday, Macron and other European officials today, Arab leaders at all times, is an empty lie that will not become truth by virtue of repetition.
The lie is a distraction. The priority today is to end the butchery in Gaza, which will not be done without imposing material costs on the Israeli government that is perpetrating it and depriving it of the weapons with which it does so. Beyond that is a need to reimagine creative approaches to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that renounce deceit and pretense, put aside the illusory goal of hard partition between two states, and seek a different pathway to dignified coexistence between the two peoples.
The irony is that recognizing a Palestinian state is of no interest to its purported audience: the Israeli and Palestinian people. They have a long and painful experience of such symbolic statements. The gains will be made by others, whose bitter verbal disagreements conceal a more cynical alignment of interests: recognition suits the Israeli government, which will not have to suffer from more punitive actions; the French and UK governments, which will not have to take them; and the Palestinian political system, which will cover its evident weakness with this futile victory. For the Palestinian victims of this most unimaginable of tragedies, it will end up doing nothing in the costliest of ways.
The FBI is investigating whether the Biden administration’s Iran envoy, Rob Malley, moved classified information onto his personal email, where it may have fallen into the hands of a foreign actor, according to a person briefed on the case and a letter from Republican lawmakers.
Investigators are trying to determine if any crimes were committed, according to the person briefed on the case and another person familiar with the matter. But it is not yet clear if the Department of Justice will bring any charges against Malley or what the scope of any charges might be. The people were granted anonymity to discuss a highly sensitive issue.
Malley, who declined to comment, has denied any wrongdoing. The insights from the letter and from the people with whom POLITICO spoke — including that a criminal inquiry is underway — add new details to prior reports that Malley’s handling of classified information was at issue.
Such cases are frequently murky and can take months, even years, to sort through, with the targets themselves often kept in the dark about what investigators are looking for or have found. And the question of whether Malley acted intentionally or mistakenly, if he is found to have done anything inappropriate, could also make a difference in what the Department of Justice decides.
The FBI declined to comment, saying it could “neither confirm nor deny conducting specific investigations.” The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment.
Malley’s security clearance was suspended roughly a year ago, and he later went on full-time leave. As President Joe Biden’s envoy for Iran issues, Malley’s position included trying to revive the nuclear deal the United States and other nations had struck with Tehran. Iran hawks, many of whom view Malley as too soft on Tehran, have used the investigation into him to attack Biden’s policies toward Iran.
In response to queries from POLITICO, a State Department spokesperson said Malley was still on leave and defended its approach to questions about the situation from members of Congress, where Republicans in particular have been demanding more details. But the spokesperson also made clear the department would have little to say overall.
“Under long-standing policy, the department does not comment on individual security clearances. Nevertheless, the department has provided Congress with relevant information on personnel inquiries relating to Iran policy,” said the spokesperson, who was granted anonymity to discuss internal personnel issues. “We have been and will continue to be in frequent contact with Congress on issues pertaining to Iran.”
Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Texas), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Sen. Jim Risch of Idaho, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wrote a letter this week to Secretary of State Antony Blinken seeking more information.
In the letter, the pair wrote that they have come to “understand” that Malley “allegedly transferred classified documents to his personal email account and downloaded these documents to his personal cellphone.” The letter continues: “It is unclear to whom he intended to provide these documents, but it is believed that a hostile cyber actor was able to gain access to his email and/or phone and obtain the downloaded information.”
McCaul and Risch did not detail how they’d learned about the allegations they laid out other than to say it was through “our own investigations.”
Classified information systems are kept separate from regular systems in the State Department, where Malley was based, and the letter did not describe what method Malley allegedly would have used to transfer classified information.
The person briefed on the case and the person familiar with the matter confirmed that authorities have been investigating allegations including whether Malley transmitted classified information to his personal email. The person briefed said the probe is also looking into whether Malley provided classified information to foreign officials, intentionally or unintentionally.
It is not clear whether those foreign officials were Iranians. But leaked documents involving Malley have appeared in the Tehran Times, a publication aligned with the Islamist regime in Tehran, so Iran may have made Malley a target of its hacks.
In their letter, McCaul and Risch reiterated their frustrations with how little the State Department has shared with them and their aides about the case and why it took weeks to put Malley on full-time leave after his security clearance was suspended.
The letter included 19 questions for the secretary of State about the situation. They included asking about the status of the FBI investigation and whether Blinken or other senior Biden administration officials had played “any role in advocating for or against any criminal charges”.
In accounts of the July 2000 Camp David summit and the following months of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, we often hear about Ehud Barak’s unprecedented offer and Yasser Arafat’s uncompromising “no”. Israel is said to have made a historic proposal, which the Palestinians, once again seizing the opportunity to miss an opportunity, turned down. The failure to reach a final agreement is attributed, without notable dissent, to Yasser Arafat.
As orthodoxies go, this is a dangerous one. Broader conclusions take hold. That there is no peace partner is one. That there is no possible end to the conflict with Arafat is another. For a process of such complexity, the diagnosis is remarkably shallow. It ignores history, the dynamics of the negotiations, and the relationships among the three parties. It fails to capture why what so many viewed as a generous Israeli offer, the Palestinians viewed as neither generous, nor Israeli, nor, indeed, as an offer. Worse, it acts as a harmful constraint on American policy by offering up a single, convenient culprit (Arafat) rather than a more nuanced and realistic analysis.
Each side came to Camp David with very different perspectives. Ehud Barak was guided by a deep antipathy toward the concept of gradual steps that lay at the heart of the 1993 Oslo agreement. He discarded a number of interim steps, even those to which Israel was formally committed – including a third partial redeployment of troops from the West Bank, the transfer to Palestinian control of three villages abutting Jerusalem and the release of Palestinian prisoners. Concessions to the Palestinians would cost Barak precious political capital that he was determined to husband until the final, climactic moment.
Seen from Gaza and the West Bank, Oslo’s legacy read like a litany of promises deferred or unfulfilled. Six years after the agreement, there were more Israeli settlements, less freedom of movement, and worse economic conditions. Behind almost all of Barak’s moves, Arafat believed he could discern the objective of either forcing him to swallow an unconscionable deal, or mobilising the world to isolate and weaken the Palestinians. Those who claim that Arafat lacked interest in a permanent deal miss the point. Like Barak, the Palestinian leader felt that permanent status negotiations were long overdue; unlike Barak, he did not think that this justified doing away with the interim obligations. In many ways, Barak’s actions led to a classic case of misaddressed messages.
When Barak reneged on his commitment to transfer the three Jerusalem villages – a commitment he had specifically authorised Clinton to convey to Arafat – Clinton was furious. In the end, though, and on almost all these questionable tactical judgments, the US either gave up or gave in, reluctantly acquiescing out of respect for the things Barak was trying to do. If there is one issue that Israelis agree on, it is that Barak broke every conceivable taboo and went as far as any Israeli prime minister had gone or could go. Even so, it is hard to state with confidence how far Barak was actually prepared to go. Strictly speaking, there never was an Israeli offer. Determined to preserve Israel’s position in the event of failure, the Israelis always stopped one, if not several, steps short of a proposal.
The ideas put forward at Camp David were never stated in writing, but orally conveyed. In the Palestinians’ eyes, they were the ones who made the principal concessions. Arafat was persuaded that the Israelis were setting a trap. His primary objective thus became to cut his losses rather than maximise his gains. That did not mean that he ruled out reaching a final deal; but Palestinian negotiators, with one eye on the summit and another back home, could not accept the ambiguous formulations that had served to bridge differences between the parties in the past and that later, in their view, had been interpreted to Israel’s advantage; this time around, only clear and unequivocal understandings would do.
The Camp David proposals were viewed as inadequate: they were silent on the question of refugees, the land exchange was unbalanced, and much of Arab East Jerusalem was to remain under Israeli sovereignty. To accept these proposals in the hope that Barak would then move further risked diluting the Palestinian position in a fundamental way. Meanwhile, America’s political and cultural affinity with Israel translated into an acute sensitivity to Israeli domestic concerns and an exaggerated appreciation of Israel’s substantive moves. The US team often pondered whether Barak could sell a given proposal to his people, including some he himself had made. The question rarely, if ever, was asked about Arafat.
Designed to preserve his assets for the “moment of truth”, Barak’s tactics helped to ensure that the parties never got there. Many inclined to blame Arafat alone for the collapse of the negotiations, point to his inability to accept the ideas for a settlement put forward by Clinton on December 23, five months after the Camp David talks ended. The president’s proposals showed that the distance travelled since Camp David was indeed considerable, and almost all in the Palestinians’ direction. Arafat thought hard before providing his response. But Clinton was not presenting the terms of a final deal – rather “parameters” within which accelerated, final negotiations were to take place. With only thirty days left in Clinton’s presidency, the likelihood of reaching a deal was remote at best.
Offer or no offer, the negotiations that took place between July 2000 and February 2001 make up an indelible chapter in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Taboos were shattered, the unspoken got spoken, and, during that period, Israelis and Palestinians reached an unprecedented level of understanding of what it will take to end their struggle. When the two sides resume their path toward a permanent agreement – and eventually, they will – they will come to it with the memory of those remarkable eight months, the experience of how far they had come and how far they had yet to go, and with the sobering wisdom of an opportunity that was missed by all, less by design than by mistake, more through miscalculation than through mischief.
The full version of this article appears in the August issue of the New York Review of Books. Robert Malley was adviser to President Clinton on Arab-Israeli affairs; Hussein Agha is senior associate member of St Antony’s College, Oxford
who then is today being treated as an inferior race who i cannot resist asking are the jews of the jews
by robert malley
the recent anti-semitic attack on a synagogue in france led to an outcry against the so-called close relations between the french government and the p.l.o anti-zionism and anti semitism were being once again confused
my claim is that any human being who opposed the nazi era in europe and who did so not only because jews were being massacred but mainly because people were being massacred can only if he wants to be con sistent support the palestinians in their struggle for a homeland and a state
no this is not to say that one must automatically support palestinian terrorism which one might do one the basis that it was their sole means of making their cause publicized but simply that any sense of justice calls for a recognition of palestinian rights
the zionists base their claims on the historical connection of
jewry with palestine a claim which they say entitles jews to return to israel but can we honestly take a historical con nection as synonymous to a title to possession how many fron tiers would have to be redefined especially when it relates to an inhabited country
the obvious question here is whether or not the palestinians as a people existed before the creation of israel menachem
begin once said when you recognize the concept of palestine you demolish your right to live in em hahoresh ( israel if this is palestine . . . then you are conquerors and not tillers of the land you are in vaders if this is palestine then it belongs to a people who lived here before you came . . . you came to another peoples homeland as they claim you expelled them and you have taken their land
and that is exactly what happened at the beginning of this century hundreds of thousands of arabs lived in the territory which was going to be given to the british mandate in 1922 under the name of palestine in 1919 the jews constituted only 9.7 percent of the population and the arabs 91.3 percent later in 1936 the ratio was 29.5 percent for the jewish population and 70.5 percent for the palestinian arabs
obviously central to the zionist argument is the fact that
whatever the number of arabs living in palestine might have been jews bought the land in a very legal manner fur thermore another prevailing view in the western world is as the first prime minister of israel david ben gurion asserted that in 1948 the arabs fled the country and it was virtually emptied of its former owners
unfortunately the reality was quite different rumors con
cerning real or alleged acts of terrorism or expulsion lying and false promises psychological warfare these were in fact the weapons used by the jewish community to drive the arabs out of their country
both the u.n mediator count bernadotte and an early jewish settler nathan chofshi recognized this says nathan chofshi : we old jewish settlers in palestine who witnessed the flight could tell . . . how and in what manner we jews forced the arabs to leave cities and villages which they did not want to leave of their own free will wherein therefore lies the terrorism
there is also a lot to be said about the israeli treatment of arabs shameful on the part of a people who suffered more than any other from the injustices and horrors of racism and the fact must be faced that the resort to violence by the palestinians is the inevitable corollary of the
violence done to them how can one rationally expect it to cease unless the moral and physical violence of the state of israel also cease
let us look at some examples first in israel 90 percent of the agricultural laud is owned by the jewish national fund ( j.n.f on this land under the con stitution of the j.n.f no arab is permitted to dwell or rent or be employed
second in the economic field injustices are flagrant many thousands of palestinian laborers from the occupied territories are employed in israel
and yet the salary they receive is not equal to that received by an israeli for the same work
third collective punishment is also a feature of the israeli state blowing-up of houses taking of hostages expulsion of palestinian leaders and notables curfews and so on are absolutely not uncommon even now who then is today being
treated as an inferior race who i cannot resist asking are the jews of the jews
ultimately all this injustice all this racism yes racism stems from the fact that the state of israel was created on the basis of such statements as the following one made by arthur balfour the man who promised that england would give away palestine to jews hesaid the four great powers are committed to zionism and zionism be it right or wrong good or bad is rooted in age-old tradition
present needs … of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 arabs who now inhabit that ancient land
as noam chomsky com menting on this declaration in his book peace in the middle east put it the arabs of palestine may be pardoned for not sharing this sense of priorities
VRT, a Belgian newspaper, reported that “Florida blacklists Belgian universities due to their position on Gaza.” The article reveals that the University of Ghent, the Brussels’ French-medium Free University, and the University of Liège are among the universities the US state of Florida has put on a blacklist for scrutiny. These universities have been blacklisted for participating in a boycott of Israel. The decision to scrutinize these universities was announced on September 30, 2025, by the State Board of Administration (SBA) of Florida.
The decision prohibits public institutions in Florida from cooperating with or investing in organizations “that engage in discriminatory or anti-Semitic boycott campaigns against Israel or territories under Israeli control.” This also affects student exchange programs, joint scientific work and academic cooperation between universities.
The SBA published a document titled “Scrutinized Companies that Boycott Israel,” which explains that “In 2016, the SBA was directed to create a ‘scrutinized companies’ list composed of companies that participate in a boycott of Israel, including actions that limit commercial relations with Israel or Israeli-controlled territories.”
As a result of this scrutiny, “The SBA is prohibited from acquiring direct holdings of the companies on this list.”
The SBA explained that “The law requires the SBA to use best efforts in identifying companies that boycott Israel, publish the list on a quarterly basis, send written notice to the companies, engage with the SBA’s external managers concerning holdings of the companies on the list, and publish a list of the SBA’s directly held securities. As required by statute, SBA will review publicly available information, including from NGOs, non-profits, government entities and research firms, and/or contact asset managers or other institutional investors.”
For this, the “SBA staff will contract with external research providers to obtain preliminary lists of potential scrutinized companies and evaluate the evidence to make a final determination of scrutinized status.”
The SBA added that “This list is updated as part of the Global Governance Mandates and Florida Statutes Quarterly Report, upon review and approval by the Trustees of the State Board of Administration.”
The entities on the list have one year to drop the boycott and be removed from the list.
The document, “Scrutinized Companies OR Other Entities that Boycott Israel,” lists 109 boycotting entities – 91 of which were added in the current quarter.
Out of the 109 listed as boycotters, there are 54 universities and academic associations, listed below:
American Anthropological Association United States; Amsterdam School for Cultural Analysis Netherlands; Bergen School of Architecture Norway; Boğaziçi University Turkey; Çankırı Karatekin University Turkey; Daystar University Kenya; Eindhoven University of Technology Netherlands; Erasmus University Rotterdam Netherlands; Gerrit Rietveld Academie Netherlands; Ghent University Belgium; International Sociological Association International; Mardin Artuklu University Turkey; Middle East Studies Association United States; National Tertiary Education Union Australia; Nelson Mandela University South Africa; Nord University Norway; Oslo Metropolitan University Norway; Pompeu Fabra University Spain; Public University of Navarra Spain; Radboud University Netherlands; Rotterdam School of Management (Erasmus) Netherlands; Royal Academy of Arts (Netherlands) Netherlands; San Jorge University Spain; Sciences Po Strasbourg France; Seattle Education Association United States (Washington); Stavanger University Norway; Technical University Delft Netherlands; The Western Black Sea Universities Assoc. Turkey; Tilburg University Netherlands; Trinity College Dublin Ireland; United Educators of San Francisco, United States (California); Universidad de La Laguna Spain; Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) Spain; Université Libre de Bruxelles Belgium; University College Cork Ireland; University of Amsterdam Netherlands; University of Barcelona Spain; University of Bergen Norway; University of Cape Town South Africa; University of Fort Hare South Africa; University of Granada Spain; University of Johannesburg South Africa; University of León Spain; University of Liège Belgium; University of Oviedo Spain; University of Pompeu Fabra Spain; University of South Eastern Norway Norway; University of the Basque Country Spain; University of the Western Cape South Africa; University of Tilburg Netherlands; University of Utrecht Netherlands; University of Valencia Spain; University of Venda South Africa; University of Zaragoza Spain.
Since 2004, IAM has documented the growing academic trend toward boycotting Israel. As the analysis made clear, academic institutions have legitimized the academic boycott. Over the years, billions of dollars have been invested in Western universities by Islamic regimes, who used their influence to block pro-Israel voices.
The Florida initiative is the first serious attempt by Israel’s allies to combat the BDS movement. Supporters of Israel abroad should take note and learn.
Florida blacklists Belgian universities due to their position on Gaza
The University of Ghent (UGent), the Brussels’ French-medium Free University (ULB) and the University of Liège (ULiège) are among a number of universities that the US state of Florida has put on to a blacklist. The Sunday freesheet 7/7 reports that the universities have been blacklisted as they participated in a boycott of Isreal due to the country’s actions in Gaza.
Published: Mon 20 Oct. 10:46
The newspaper reports that the decision to blacklist the universities was announced on 30 September by Florida’s State Board of Administration (SBA). The decision prohibits public institutions in Florida from cooperating with or investing in organisations “that engage in discriminatory or anti-Semitic boycott campaigns against Israel or territories under Israeli control”.
This also affects student exchange programmes, joint scientific work and academic cooperation between universities. Directly affected are Ghent University, the French-Medium Free University of Brussels and the University of Liège, as well as the Brussels municipality of Elsene.
Ralf Pais, Vice-President of the Jewish Information and Documentation Centre (JID) in Belgium, believes that Florida’s stance represents a moral turning point: “Florida is demonstrating a moral clarity that Europe has lost. Where the “old continent” is changing its perspective, Florida is drawing a red line: hatred, even when hidden behind academic discourse, will no longer be tolerated. This is not a political debate, but a question of justice. Boycotting Israel is a very simple form of discrimination.”
“Claims to the contrary are hypocritical” Mr Pais continued. Florida had the courage to say this loud and clear, while Europe remains silent. Miami’s decision will have repercussions in Brussels, Paris and elsewhere in Europe. The era of unpunished academic boycotts is over.”
STATE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATIONRON DESANTIS GOVERNOR
OF FLORIDA CHAIR
BLAISE INGOGLIA
1801 HERMITAGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 100 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32308
JAMES UTHMEIER
(850) 488-4406 ATTORNEY GENERAL
POST OFFICE BOX 13300 CHRIS SPENCER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 32317-3300
Scrutinized Companies that Boycott Israel
Chapter 215.4725, Florida Statutes
In 2016, the SBA was directed to create a “scrutinized companies” list composed of companies that participate in a boycott of Israel, including actions that limit commercial relations with Israel or Israelicontrolled territories. The SBA is prohibited from acquiring direct holdings of the companies on this list. The law requires the SBA to use best efforts in identifying companies that boycott Israel, publish the list on a quarterly basis, send written notice to the companies, engage with the SBA’s external managers concerning holdings of the companies on the list, and publish a list of the SBA’s directly held securities.
As required by statute, SBA will review publicly available information, including from NGOs, non-profits, government entities and research firms, and/or contact asset managers or other institutional investors. SBA staff will contract with external research providers to obtain preliminary lists of potential scrutinized companies and evaluate the evidence to make a final determination of scrutinized status.
This list is updated as part of the Global Governance Mandates and Florida Statutes Quarterly Report, upon review and approval by the Trustees of the State Board of Administration.
Table 9: Scrutinized Companies OR Other Entities that Boycott Israel
New companies on the list are shaded and in bold. 91 new entities were added this quarter.
Scrutinized Company or Other Entity
Country of Incorporation
Date of Initial Scrutinized Classification
Full Divestment
American Anthropological Association
United States
30-Sep-25
12 months
Amsterdam School for Cultural Analysis
Netherlands
30-Sep-25
12 months
Anglican Church of Southern Africa
South Africa
30-Sep-25
12 months
Barcelona City Council (Spain)
Spain
30-Sep-25
12 months
Bergen School of Architecture
Norway
30-Sep-25
12 months
Betsah Invest SA
Luxembourg
2-Aug-16
Yes
Betsah SA
Luxembourg
2-Aug-16
Yes
Boğaziçi University
Turkey
30-Sep-25
12 months
Cactus SA
Luxembourg
2-Aug-16
Yes
Çankırı Karatekin University
Turkey
30-Sep-25
12 months
City of Antalya (Turkey)
Turkey
30-Sep-25
12 months
City of Belfast (Maine)
United States (Maine)
30-Sep-25
12 months
City of Dearborn (Michigan)
United States (Michigan)
30-Sep-25
12 months
City of Ghent (Belgium)
Belgium
30-Sep-25
12 months
City of Hayward (California)
United States (California)
30-Sep-25
12 months
Scrutinized Company or Other Entity
Country of Incorporation
Date of Initial Scrutinized Classification
Full Divestment
City of Iowa City (Iowa)
United States (Iowa)
30-Sep-25
12 months
City of Ixelles (Belgium)
Belgium
30-Sep-25
12 months
City of Liège (Belgium)
Belgium
30-Sep-25
12 months
City of Nelson City (New Zealand)
New Zealand
30-Sep-25
12 months
City of Oslo (Norway)
Norway
30-Sep-25
12 months
City of Portland (Maine)
United States (Maine)
30-Sep-25
12 months
City of Richmond (California)
United States (California)
30-Sep-25
12 months
Colegio de México
Mexico
30-Sep-25
12 months
Co-operative Group Limited
United Kingdom
26-Sep-17
Yes
Daystar University
Kenya
30-Sep-25
12 months
Derry City and Strabane District (N. Ireland)
United Kingdom (N. Ireland)
30-Sep-25
12 months
Eindhoven University of Technology
Netherlands
30-Sep-25
12 months
Erasmus University Rotterdam
Netherlands
30-Sep-25
12 months
Gerrit Rietveld Academie
Netherlands
30-Sep-25
12 months
Ghent University
Belgium
30-Sep-25
12 months
Government of Colombia
Colombia
30-Sep-25
12 months
Government of Iran
Iran
30-Sep-25
12 months
Government of Iraq
Iraq
30-Sep-25
12 months
Government of Kuwait
Kuwait
30-Sep-25
12 months
Government of Lebanon
Lebanon
30-Sep-25
12 months
Government of Libya
Libya
30-Sep-25
12 months
Government of Qatar
Qatar
30-Sep-25
12 months
Government of Scotland
United Kingdom (Scotland)
30-Sep-25
12 months
Government of Slovenia
Slovenia
30-Sep-25
12 months
Government of Syria
Syria
30-Sep-25
12 months
Government of Turkey
Turkey
30-Sep-25
12 months
Government of Yemen
Yemen
30-Sep-25
12 months
Guloguz Dis Deposu Ticaret Ve Pazarlama
Turkey
2-Aug-16
Yes
Hindustan Unilever Ltd
India
29-Jul-21
Yes
International Olympiad in Informatics
International
30-Sep-25
12 months
International Sociological Association
International
30-Sep-25
12 months
Isle of Eigg (Scotland)
United Kingdom (Scotland)
30-Sep-25
12 months
Mardin Artuklu University
Turkey
30-Sep-25
12 months
Middle East Studies Association
United States
30-Sep-25
12 months
National Tertiary Education Union
Australia
30-Sep-25
12 months
Nelson Mandela University
South Africa
30-Sep-25
12 months
Nord University
Norway
30-Sep-25
12 months
Scrutinized Company or Other Entity
Country of Incorporation
Date of Initial Scrutinized Classification
Full Divestment
Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions
Norway
30-Sep-25
12 months
Oslo Metropolitan University
Norway
30-Sep-25
12 months
Pompeu Fabra University
Spain
30-Sep-25
12 months
PT Unilever Indonesia Tbk
Indonesia
29-Jul-21
Yes
Public University of Navarra
Spain
30-Sep-25
12 months
Quakers in Britain
United Kingdom
30-Sep-25
12 months
Radboud University
Netherlands
30-Sep-25
12 months
Region of Apulia (Italy)
Italy
30-Sep-25
12 months
Region of Catalonia
Spain
30-Sep-25
12 months
Region of Tuscany (Italy)
Italy
30-Sep-25
12 months
Regional Council of Environment Canterbury
New Zealand
30-Sep-25
12 months
Rotterdam School of Management (Erasmus)
Netherlands
30-Sep-25
12 months
Royal Academy of Arts (Netherlands)
Netherlands
30-Sep-25
12 months
San Jorge University
Spain
30-Sep-25
12 months
Sciences Po Strasbourg
France
30-Sep-25
12 months
Seattle Education Association
United States (Washington)
30-Sep-25
12 months
Stavanger University
Norway
30-Sep-25
12 months
Storebrand ASA
Norway
17-Dec-24
Yes
Technical University Delft
Netherlands
30-Sep-25
12 months
The United Church of Canada
Canada
30-Sep-25
12 months
The Western Black Sea Universities Assoc.
Turkey
30-Sep-25
12 months
Tilburg University
Netherlands
30-Sep-25
12 months
Trinity College Dublin
Ireland
30-Sep-25
12 months
Unilever Bangladesh Ltd
Bangladesh
29-Jul-21
Yes
Unilever Capital Corp
United States
29-Jul-21
Yes
Unilever Caribbean Ltd
Trinidad and Tobago
29-Jul-21
Yes
Unilever Consumer Care Ltd
Bangladesh
29-Jul-21
Yes
Unilever Côte d’Ivoire
Ivory Coast
29-Jul-21
Yes
Unilever Finance Netherlands BV
Netherlands
29-Jul-21
Yes
Unilever Ghana Ltd
Ghana
29-Jul-21
Yes
Unilever Nigeria Plc
Nigeria
29-Jul-21
Yes
Unilever Pakistan Foods Ltd
Pakistan
29-Jul-21
Yes
Unilever PLC (Ben & Jerry’s parent co)
United Kingdom
29-Jul-21
Yes
United Educators of San Francisco
United States (California)
30-Sep-25
12 months
Universidad de La Laguna
Spain
30-Sep-25
12 months
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB)
Spain
30-Sep-25
12 months
Université Libre de Bruxelles
Belgium
30-Sep-25
12 months
Scrutinized Company or Other Entity
Country of Incorporation
Date of Initial Scrutinized Classification
Full Divestment
University College Cork
Ireland
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of Amsterdam
Netherlands
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of Barcelona
Spain
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of Bergen
Norway
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of Cape Town
South Africa
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of Fort Hare
South Africa
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of Granada
Spain
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of Johannesburg
South Africa
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of León
Spain
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of Liège
Belgium
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of Oviedo
Spain
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of Pompeu Fabra
Spain
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of South Eastern Norway
Norway
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of the Basque Country
Spain
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of the Western Cape
South Africa
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of Tilburg
Netherlands
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of Utrecht
Netherlands
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of Valencia
Spain
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of Venda
South Africa
30-Sep-25
12 months
University of Zaragoza
Spain
30-Sep-25
12 months
# of Companies or Entities that Boycott Israel
109
The following companies were removed from the Scrutinized Companies that Boycott Israel List.
On September 25, 2025, Science/Business published an article about the success of BDS in isolating Israeli universities from the academic mainstream in the West.
Although not well known in Israel, Science|Business – a network of universities, companies, and research and policy organizations – is one of the most influential media of its kind in Europe. Founded in 2004, the Brussels-based media & networking group focuses on research and innovation policy. It provides news and analysis on issues related to the EU’s R&I, organizes public and closed-door events, and, with its over 25000 contacts, policy makers, and media followers, has an extensive outreach.
The decision to publish this and other articles relating to Israel and the Gaza War should have come as a surprise because the group praises itself for being nonpolitical and neutral; as far as it is possible to ascertain, it has not published on BDS or the links between universities and military research in any other country, including Russia.
The article noted that global research collaboration with Israel has declined as measured by the number of preprints. Preprints are a leading indicator of scientific trends, as they are posted online by the researchers rather than having to wait months or years for publication. Preprints are a version of a scholarly manuscript that has been openly shared but not yet undergone peer review and/or been published in a traditional academic journal.
According to the data that Science|Business analyzed, the BDS campaign has been hurting Israel’s joint publications of preprints with the rest of the world, in particular, with Spain and South Africa, where criticism of the Gaza War is the strongest. The journal argued that even in “less outspoken countries, collaboration with Israel has seriously dipped this year. The proportion of Israeli preprints with co-authors based in the Netherlands, Canada and Japan has fallen by a third or more. There have also been significant dips in collaboration with the UK, France, Italy and Switzerland.”
A second article by Science/Business, titled “Amid Gaza war, debate intensifies: is it wrong to collaborate with Israeli universities?” was published on September 18, 2025. The journal discussed how “pressure is building on Israeli universities to reconsider military R&D and training programs for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).” According to the article, the “Israeli universities are staying quiet on whether they will review their military links.” But then, in a contradictory note, it went on to state that “they’re no different from campus military ties in other countries. Indeed, hundreds of US and European universities are deeply entwined with their own governments’ defense programs.”
Science|Business questions whether collaboration with Israeli universities is ethical.
All this confusing writing reflects the Science|Business goal to appear neutral in what is clearly a politically loaded debate. Misrepresenting assorted topics is another way in which the journal tries to obfuscate its failure to stay neutral.
Its discussion of Maya Wind’s book, Towers of Ivory and Steel: How Israeli Universities Deny Palestinian Freedom, is a case in point. Science|Business describes Wind as a Jewish-Israeli researcher based at the University of California, Berkeley, who set out to challenge the liberal image of the Israeli academy. Science|Business noted that “unsurprisingly, her book isn’t uncontroversial within Israel, and has attracted academic critics and defenders.”
Again, this rather convoluted statement minimizes the stormy reaction to Wind’s book, so that Science|Business would not have to explain why it chose to review a highly controversial book by this highly controversial activist.
IAM reported in May last year on “The Making of Professional Anti-Israel Scholar-Activist: Maya Wind as a Case in Point.” IAM noted the amount of lies and fabrications that Wind was spreading, as a professional anti-Israel activist since the age of seventeen. She admitted in an interview, “I myself was an active member of Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine over a decade ago. And it was really hard to organize on that campus then, and it is impossible now, with Columbia University suspending both Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace.” Indeed, she has a long history of anti-Israel activism. In 2009, the Israeli Communist Party (MAKI) published an invitation to a “Demonstration of support for conscientious objectors Maya Yechiali-Wind and Raz Bar David Varon.” Wind was one of the signatories of the 2008 letter as a high school pupil who refused to enlist in the army. In 2010, Wind was one of two Israeli women who went on a North American speaking tour, organized by CODEPINK and Jewish Voice for Peace, to the University of California, Hastings, University of Maryland, Cornell, Columbia, New York University, Brown, Brandeis, and more.
IAM was not the only critic of Wind. Professor Barak Medina from the faculty of Law at the Hebrew University, a highly respected scholar and a leader in progressive causes, offered a rebuttal to Wind’s book, titled “Maya Wind’s Towers of Manipulations.”
The third Science|Business article titled “Belgian universities renew call to suspend Israel from Horizon Europe,” published on Aug 21, 2025, discussed the latest call by Belgian rectors as saying, “We cannot remain silent in the face of the inhumane conditions and deep humanitarian crisis in Gaza… What has been unfolding in Gaza over the past months violates every principle of human dignity: more than 60,000 civilian casualties, the blocking of humanitarian aid, and a worsening famine.” Again, the language of the petition is highly inflammatory, reflecting the extreme animosity towards Israel.
IAM has repeatedly warned that there has been little pushback to the various academic petitions that besmeared the name of Israel by misrepresenting Iran’s role in setting up Hamas as one of its premier links in the Axis of Resistance/Ring of Fire, as well as the massive Qatari funding. Hamas has used the Gaza population as human shields and cannon fodder.
As well known, what happens in academia does not stay in academia, and the anti-Israel and antisemitic scholarly venom has been propagated by the hugely influential Science/Business platform. Those who are in charge of defending Israel’s reputation and salvaging its standing in the international academic community need to take heed.
Significantly fewer academics, particularly in Europe, are authoring preprints with researchers in Israel this year, a sign that academic boycotts could be starting to scientifically isolate the country.
Israel is facing a growing wave of academic boycotts over its war on and food blockade of Gaza. This latest data, analysed by Science|Business, appears to be the first evidence that the campaign is hurting its joint publications with the rest of the world, in particular with countries such as Spain and South Africa, where criticism of the Gaza war has been strongest.
“We see a dramatic increase in the number and severity of boycott cases” this year, said Emmanuel Nahshon, who is in charge of combatting boycotts at Israel’s Association of University Heads.
Preprints are a leading indicator of scientific trends, because they are posted immediately online by researchers, rather than having to wait months or years for publication in a journal.
Data from the Scopus database shows a sharp fall this year in the proportion of Israeli preprints that have overseas co-authors.
For example, last year, 9.2% of Israeli preprints had a co-author based in Spain. But this year, that figure has dropped to 5.9%. Spain’s government has been one of the most critical of Israel’s Gaza war, and its universities took a lead in 2024 in reviewing their ties.
Last year, 3.4% of Israel’s preprints were co-authored with South Africa. Now, the proportion is just 1%. South Africa was one of the earliest critics of the Gaza campaign, launching a genocide case against Israel in the International Court of Justice in December 2023.
But even in less outspoken countries, collaboration with Israel has seriously dipped this year. The proportion of Israeli preprints with co-authors based in the Netherlands, Canada and Japan has fallen by a third or more.
There have also been significant dips in collaboration with the UK, France, Italy and Switzerland.
Proportion of Israeli preprints with international co-authors
Even with Germany, where university heads have strongly opposed a boycott, collaboration has fallen off. Last year, 16% of Israeli preprints had a German collaborator. But so far this year, that proportion is down to 12.7%.
The US remains by far Israel’s biggest collaborator, and that research partnership seems to have only slightly weakened this year.
Many US states have passed laws to prevent boycotts while, in May this year, the US National Science Foundation made receiving grants conditional on not boycotting Israel.
Harvard University has also recently expanded its links with Israeli universities as it negotiates with the US government, which has threatened to withhold billions of dollars in funding over claims of antisemitism.
Not just boycotts
There are some caveats to the data. First of all, preprints make up only a small fraction of research output. The Scopus data is dominated by arXiv, which focuses on areas such as physics, mathematics and computer science.
What’s more, other countries, such as Germany and the UK, have also seen small dips this year in international collaboration on preprints with some countries. However, these falls are far less significant than those for Israel.
There’s no evidence yet of the drop in Israeli collaboration in data on published journal articles or conference papers, but this might take longer to filter through.
A further caveat is that growing Israeli isolation might not just be down to boycotts. Following the Hamas attacks of October 2023, flights were disrupted, travel warnings issued, and Israeli researchers drafted into the army, making international collaboration more difficult.
However, in cases such as South Africa and Spain, the falls in collaboration map onto political stances towards Israel, suggesting the boycotts play some role.
Over 1,000 incidents
Within Israel, universities are finding that boycotts are on the rise. A year ago, the country’s universities had tracked around 200-300 incidents, ranging from article rejections to full institutional boycotts, Nahshon told Science|Business. But now, there are over 1,000, he said.
Globally, Europe appears to be leading the boycott movement. According to a report in February by Israel’s Association of University Heads, around 60% of boycotts reported between 23 October and 24 December 2024 were from Europe. Most of the rest came from North America.
At least 60 universities globally have either suspended ties with Israeli universities or divested from certain Israeli companies implicated in the Gaza war, said a spokeswoman for the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel.
Israel’s participation in the EU’s Horizon Europe research programme hit a record low this year, according to data in May.
Asia too?
Worryingly for Israel, the preprint data shows a drop in collaboration with China and Japan, as well as Europe.
The China dip isn’t as big as with some European countries, and could end up being a one-off, of course.
However, it might suggest that Israel can’t rely on increasing links with China to partially offset falling collaboration with Europe, as Russia has done following its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Although academic boycotts of Israel remain a largely European and North American discussion, there are some signs that the Gaza war has angered Chinese academics too.
Earlier this month, Yan Xuetong, a prominent international relations researcher at Tsinghua University, confronted an Israel Defence Forces attaché at a forum in Beijing, accusing the country of killing more than 70,000 civilians, according to a viral clip.
China’s government, meanwhile, has criticised Israel’s bombing campaign in Gaza and the blocking of humanitarian aid. There’s some evidence that Chinese social media users tend to sympathise with Palestinians over Israelis.
And last year, the University of International Business and Economics, the only Chinese branch campus in Israel, shut down. While it’s not clear why, it came in the context of deteriorating relations between the two states.
For European academia, there’s perhaps no more burning and divisive question than whether to continue collaborating with Israel.
This summer, as pictures from Gaza of starving children and shattered cities increasingly filtered through European media, even the EU’s own diplomatic service concluded that Israel was collectively punishing Palestinians, displacing the vast majority of civilians, attacking hospitals, and maybe even using starvation as a weapon of war.
Germany, long a staunch supporter of Israel, last month suspended arms exports that could be used in Gaza. And this week, as the war escalated, a special United Nations commission branded Israel’s campaign as “genocide.”
As condemnation of the war rises, pressure is building on Israeli universities to reconsider military R&D and training programmes for the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) and domestic weapons companies. The head of the Israel’s scientific academy is calling for a review. European universities are demanding this too: Erasmus University Rotterdam, for example, recently cut ties to two Israeli universities because of their IDF links.
Israeli universities are staying quiet on whether they will review their military links. But some have defended their R&D and training programmes, arguing they’re no different from campus military ties in other countries. Indeed, hundreds of US and European universities are deeply entwined with their own governments’ defence programmes.
The question of collaboration continues to split the continent. Individual universities in countries including the Netherlands, Spain and Sloveniahave said they will refuse to work with Israeli institutions as part of Horizon Europe, the EU’s €93.5 billion research programme. Israel is a full member of the programme, and has received €876 million in funding since 2021.
The European Commission has proposed suspending Israeli access to European Innovation Council Accelerator grants, which typically back start-ups. But it hasn’t yet been able to get EU countries to agree, with Germany among the states blocking such scientific sanctions.
German university heads, meanwhile, have repeatedly backed Israeli universities, describing them as a “strong liberal, democratic force” that shouldn’t be weakened with boycotts. But critics question whether they are as thoroughly liberal as claimed, and there’s now debate in Israel over whether universities have been too quiet or too slow to come out against the war.
In an August speech, David Harel, president of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, called out “all those who have the power to cry out and make a difference, but choose to remain silent, or at most to whisper,” including “heads of academic and high-tech institutions.”
But anti-war academics say they are hitting the streets in protest multiple times a week, and are keen to show overseas colleagues they are not standing idly by.
As debate over Israel’s place in European science and technology picks up, Science|Business runs through some of the key arguments – without claiming these are exhaustive – about whether collaboration with Israeli universities is ethical.
Criticism 1: Israeli universities conduct R&D for the country’s military
One chief criticism of Israeli universities is that some work hand-in-glove on R&D with the country’s military and weapons industry and, crucially, don’t appear to have reassessed these partnerships, even in light of Israel’s military conduct in Gaza.
To European collaborators, Israeli universities present a liberal face, argues Maya Wind, a Jewish Israeli researcher based at the University of California, Riverside, who last year published Towers of Ivory and Steel: How Israeli Universities Deny Palestinian Freedom, which sets out to challenge this image.
Within Israel, she told Science|Business, universities “narrate themselves as loyal to the state and to its project. They celebrate openly these partnerships with the Israeli military and military industries.” Unsurprisingly, her book isn’t uncontroversial within Israel, and has attracted academic critics and defenders.
Horizon Europe funding to Israeli universities (€ million)
“Woven into DNA”
Wind’s book, written largely before the Gaza war, catalogues these R&D links in detail. For example, it recounts an incident in 2008, when the chairman of Elbit Systems, one of the country’s biggest weapons manufacturers, said that “the Technion is woven into Elbit’s DNA,” referring to one of the country’s leading technical universities, based in Haifa.
In its 2025 annual report, the Technion listed Elbit as one of its “guardians,” meaning that the company has “made the highest level of commitment to the Institute.”
According to reports in the Guardian and Haaretz, it was one of Elbit’s Hermes drones that in 2024 was used in an attack on aid workers for World Central Kitchen, sparking international condemnation. Elbit did not respond to a request for comment.
Meanwhile, Elbit and other Israeli weapons firms have become increasingly unwelcome in Europe. Earlier this year the company was reportedly barred from the Netherlands’ largest military trade show, along with two other major Israeli weapons firms, Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) and Rafael.
“Forefront of defence industry”
The Technion’s links go beyond Elbit. In an interview in the university’s 2025 annual report, the chief executive of IAI, Boaz Levy, said that more than a third of the company’s engineers are Technion alumni, and the company recruited on campus.
IAI has “been collaborating with the Technion for many years, most recently on projects related to AI and space activities, and has invested in Technion laboratories and joint research,” the report explained. An image taken from the Technion’s 2025 report
In the same report, the Technion boasts of having Israel’s only faculty of aerospace engineering, which has “always been at the forefront of Israel’s worldclass aerospace and defence industry.” The Technion did not respond to requests for comment.
Beyond the Technion
Other Israeli universities besides the Technion also have military R&D links. In 2022, for example, Tel Aviv University established a joint research centre with the Israeli Air Force to “harness the world of civilian research.” The centre should “ensure the position of the Israeli Air Force as one of the leading forces in the world,” said a commander in a statement announcing the deal.
The collaboration with weapons companies goes beyond aerospace. The Weizmann Institute of Science, recently damaged by Iranian missile strikes, last October agreed a collaboration with Elbit to develop “groundbreaking bio-inspired materials for defence applications.”
Since Science|Business noted this collaboration in June, the institute appears to have taken the announcement down from its website. It did not respond to queries asking why.
The Israeli rebuttal
Although it didn’t respond to Science|Business queries about whether it would review its military links, Tel Aviv University did point out that universities all over the world have military R&D ventures, not just those in Israel.
“It is true that, as with many universities around the world, TAU’s researchers do collaborate across a wide range of industries—including defence—just as Stanford runs its Technology for Defense Program and MIT partners with the Pentagon on AI research,” it said in a statement. “The reality is that defence research is not unique to Israel, but a sad reflection that we are in an increasingly unstable global landscape.”
In 2024, Israeli universities argued military R&D was only a “small percentage” of their research and “such projects do not turn our universities into military agencies.”
Some of these collaborations with the military may also contribute to defensive rather than offensive technologies, such as Israel’s Iron Dome system, pointed out Barak Medina, a former rector of Hebrew University, in a critical review of Wind’s book. “One must evaluate these projects on a case-by-case basis,” he said.
Reassess links
Yet even if working with the military on research isn’t unusual for universities, some senior figures in Israel itself argue that, given the country’s actions in Gaza, it’s time for Israeli universities to review their military links.
“If I were a university head, I would definitely very carefully reassess all of these programmes” to make sure they are used purely defensively, rather than in Gaza, Harel, Israel’s academy president, told Science|Business, referring to military R&D and training programmes for the IDF detailed below.
Of course, disentangling offensive from defensive training and R&D is incredibly difficult, he said. “I don’t envy them, the university heads,” he added. Nonetheless, Harel maintains Israeli universities should probably evaluate their links.
Criticism 2: Israeli universities train the IDF
A second, related criticism, which Wind also details in her book, is that Israeli universities train IDF soldiers and continue to do so despite the force’s conduct in Gaza.
For example, the Technion runs a special mechanical engineering programme called Brakim, designed to train “technological pioneers in the IDF and spearhead Israel’s defence establishment.”
Meanwhile, Haifa University hosts the IDF’s Military Academic Complex, combining three military colleges which “form the backbone of the IDF’s elite training programmes”, according to the university in 2018, when it was selected by the IDF.
“We are proud to open our doors to IDF forces and provide an academic home for members of the security services,” said Haifa’s president at the time. The university did not respond to a request for comment.
Uniforms on campus
Some of these programmes, which critics say amount to military bases on campus, have aroused controversy in Israel itself. One of the most contested examples is the IDF’s Havatzalot programme, since 2019 based at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, which each year trains around 50 future intelligence officers, who attend campus in uniform, in fields such as Middle Eastern studies, political science or mathematics.
The presence of uniformed soldiers on campus is so contentious than in 2020 a student group filmed the soldiers in a campus cafeteria, releasing a video that argued it made students, particularly Arabs, feel unsafe. Students have also complained about armed trainee soldiers on Tel Aviv’s campus, who attend as part of its Erez programme, which allows military cadets to earn a bachelor’s degree.
Ben Artzi, head of the Military Academic Complex at Haifa University, addresses students and lecturers in 2018. Source
Hebrew University also runs the IDF’s Talpiot programme, which trains around 50 soldiers annually for an undergraduate degree in physics, mathematics or computer sciences, with some going on to become faculty. These students also attend in uniform, and live in special accommodation on campus. The university did not respond to requests for comment on these programmes.
Israeli universities continue to offer academic and financial benefits to students who have returned from fighting in the country’s various wars, including in Gaza, Wind points out. Last month, for example, Tel Aviv announced that new students who served “significant time” as reservists would receive special scholarships.
Erez programme
Israeli universities argue that they have a “duty” to support the “reintegration” and mental health of students who have come back from war.
In a statement to Science|Business, Tel Aviv said that its Erez programme was “largely” an initiative of its humanities faculty, and was “designed to equip young soldiers with a broader humanistic education.”
Teaching soldiers on a diverse campus allows universities to “educate future military personnel on the values of liberalism, human rights, and the importance of striving for peace,” said Medina, the former rector of Hebrew University, in a 2024 blog post.
As with defence R&D, Israel is hardly the only country that uses universities to train soldiers. But, as Harel suggests, the question now is whether these IDF university training programmes are appropriate given the force’s conduct in Gaza.
It’s not unheard of for universities to eject the military from campus to distance themselves from war. More than 70 German universities instituted so-called civil clauses, prohibiting work with the military, following the Second World War. And following protests against the Vietnam war, Harvard University threw out the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, although welcomed it back in 2011.
Yet so far, no Israeli universities appear to be reviewing their ties in response to the Gaza war. Science|Business contacted all the Israeli universities mentioned above to ask if they would review their IDF training programmes or military R&D, but none answered the question.
Criticism 3: Israeli universities are not as liberal as claimed
One key argument against scientific sanctions is that Israel’s universities are some of the country’s most powerful liberal voices. Thus, they might help the county change course, and so shouldn’t be weakened and isolated by boycotts.
This is an argument repeatedly made by German university rectors, who have called Israeli universities a “strong liberal, democratic force.”
“Weakening Israeli academia” would “affect precisely those who raise their voices for democracy, pluralism and humanity,” said the body’s president, Walter Rosenthal, in a statement to Science|Business. A spokesman said the body was not aware of Wind’s book.
“Treated as a terrorist”
However, while there are, indeed, many liberal academics on campus in Israel, there are also at least some who have called for the expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza, or the territory’s occupation.
Uzi Rabi, a prominent scholar of the Middle East at Tel Aviv University whose career Wind’s book examines, was reported in Israeli media as sayingin September last year that to defeat Hamas, the civilian population of Gaza should be removed from the north of the territory, and “whoever remains there will be treated as a terrorist.”
In a subsequently deleted article published in October 2023, Eviatar Matania, a cyber security researcher also based at Tel Aviv, was quoted as saying that the Gazan population should be “transported southwards,” and the north completely destroyed.
In another reaction to the Hamas attacks of October 2023, Avi Barali, a historian of Israel at Ben Gurion University, wrote that Gazans “should be called upon to flee” as Israel began its assault on the territory. None of these three academics responded to requests for comment.
In September last year, Eyal Zisser, vice rector at Tel Aviv, penned an op-ed entitled “Occupy Gaza now,” although this was not an official university position. Moves to occupy Gaza were condemnedlast month by European leaders.
Zisser told Science|Business that he had argued it is “better militarily and morally to fully occupy the territory and govern it,” but only temporarily, and provide Gazans with food and medicine. Any attempts at deportation would be a “war crime,” he said.
Roof knocking
The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), a think tank affiliated with Tel Aviv University, has also come under fire for publishing a “strategic assessment” in 2021 condoning the practice of “roof knocking,” in which the IDF justifies strikes on residential buildings by hitting them with smaller munitions first, supposedly giving civilians the chance to flee. The UN’s human rights council has found the practice ineffectiveand in breach of international law.
In a statement to Science|Business, Tel Aviv distanced itself from the INSS, saying it was “not part of TAU” but rather “an independent think tank that maintains an affiliation with the university.”
Criticism of the INSS are “based on selective and reductive interpretations of its work, disproportionately focusing on the views of a small, unrepresentative group of contributors,” the university said, pointing to work the INSS has done on regional peace initiatives, for example.
Academics against the war
It’s hard to know with any precision what Israeli academics think about the war. Science|Business was unable to find any polling. However, it’s also clear that many are horrified at what the Gaza campaign has become, and are increasingly speaking out.
Protest images featured in a recent report by Academics for Israeli Democracy. Source
Harel, Israel’s academy president, has been particularly outspoken. In a speech on August 23, he said that the war in Gaza was “no longer a war against an enemy” and instead “reeks of blind revenge, delusional messianic madness, and cruelty for its own sake,” above all driven by Benjamin Netenyahu’s attempt to stay in power as prime minister.
Protesting in the streets
To focus just on Israeli academics calling for the expulsion of Gazans would be “completely unfair,” Ruth Scherz-Shouval, until recently president of the Israeli Young Academy, told Science|Business.
“Finding the handful of academics who are calling for the war, for transfer [expulsion of Gazans], is almost like searching for the 1% of neo-Nazis in a European university,” she said. These kinds of example get “blown up” representation in the media because they are “flashy,” she said.
“Every weekend, and now in the past few months, usually two, three times a week, I’m in the streets protesting [against the war],” she said. Earlier this month, a group called Academics for Israeli Democracy published a collection of essays condemning the Gaza war, “to show the international community that we are not standing idly by.”
Institutionally, some Israeli universities have begun to raise their voices too. On July 28, the presidents of the Technion, Weizmann, Hebrew University, Tel Aviv and the Open University of Israel published an open letter in English to Netanyahu, saying “we observe with shock the harrowing scenes emerging daily from Gaza.”
“‘Could have come out earlier’”
However, the presidents of five of Israel’s ten universities – Bar-Illan, Haifa, Ben-Gurion, Reichman and Ariel – did not sign the letter.
And for Scherz-Shouval, the university presidents’ letter “could have come out earlier, and there have been discussions about that.”
Tel Aviv, however, pointed out in a statement to Science|Business that its president, Ariel Porat, has been publicly calling for attention to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza since at least early 2024. Earlier this year, he organised a symposium on the situation in Gaza, earning him the wrath of right-wing lobby groups.
For Wind, though, statements or protests by Israeli academics or institutions are “meaningless” if Israeli universities continue to offer material support to the war, through military training or R&D. “Words are not as important as actions,” she told Science|Business.
Other arguments for boycott
Other reasons, aside from Wind’s arguments about Israeli university complicity in the Gaza war, are advanced to support an academic boycott.
Some critics have argued the EU should suspend Israel from Horizon Europe primarily as a lever to pressure the Netanyahu government to change course, even if this means collateral damage for innocent Israeli academics.
Or there’s the legal argument, made by Belgian university rectors, that Israel has violated human rights clauses in its wider association agreement with the EU, which underpins the country’s association to Horizon Europe. It’s this wider breach of the agreement by Israel as a state, regardless of universities’ complicity, that’s the basis for the Commission’s proposal to suspend access to EIC Accelerator grants.
Institutional complicity?
Still, the question of institutional complicity that Wind raises remains an important question. It affects whether European academics and universities boycott entire institutions, or just steer clear of individual research projects or academics that might feed into Israel’s military.
Harel, despite his fierce criticisms of the war on Gaza, still argues that a blanket boycott of Israeli universities is wrong. Instead, European academics should decide case-by-case on whether a research project might trickle through into a military application, he told Science|Business.
The Netanyahu government will not be moved by academic boycotts, said Scherz-Shouval, quite the reverse. “Killing Israeli academia by boycotting us may actually help the judicial reform the government is driving,” she said, referring to attempts by Netanyahu to weaken the country’s supreme court.
But for Wind, including Israeli universities in Horizon Europe, academic exchanges, and other collaborations “offers legitimacy to the institution, it helps increase its ranking, which in turn begets more funding and more prestige and enables their enduring complicity,” she said.
Even as the EU remains divided on suspending the country from parts of Horizon Europe, Israeli participation hit a record low this year, which could indicate that boycotts from some parts of Europe might be having an effect. As Israel begins a fresh assault on Gaza City, the country’s future in European science hangs in the balance.
Belgian university rectors have repeated their call to suspend Israel from the EU’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme.
In its war in Gaza, Israel has failed to honour its association agreement with the EU, the rectors argue, which states that both parties must respect human rights.
“If this foundation is systematically undermined, consequences must follow. Otherwise, our European values risk becoming hollow words,” they said in a statement on August 9.
On August 18, the University of Ljubljana also called on the EU to suspend Israel from the programme, citing “reports of genocidal acts against the population” in Gaza. It said it would not join Horizon Europe project consortia with Israeli institutions.
Europe is currently mulling whether to launch scientific sanctions against Israel in response to the country’s war on and blockade of Gaza. The EU-Israel association agreement underpins Israel’s association to Horizon Europe, from which the country has received €856 million so far.
The World Health Organization has warned that starvation is unfolding in Gaza, and has documented 21 children under five dying of hunger so far this year. Israel is blocking food trucks from entering the territory, the UN said earlier this month and, since May, at least 1,373 Palestinians have been killed while seeking food, largely by Israeli forces.
While EU leaders have upped their condemnation of Israel in recent months, this has not yet translated into any scientific sanctions, one tool the bloc can use to pressure Israel to change course.
Last month, the European Commission proposed excluding Israeli entities from receiving new European Innovation Council Accelerator grants, which typically fund start-ups. Israeli firms have already received €170 million in Accelerator grants, including for work in dual-use fields such as drones.
This latest call by Belgian rectors will increase pressure on EU states to act when officials return from their holidays next week.
“We cannot remain silent in the face of the inhumane conditions and deep humanitarian crisis in Gaza,” say the rectors in their statement.
“What has been unfolding in Gaza over the past months violates every principle of human dignity: more than 60,000 civilian casualties, the blocking of humanitarian aid, and a worsening famine,” they say.
Some European governments have started airdrops to alleviate hunger in the territory. But the UN has said they will not reverse the unfolding famine. For that to happen, Israel must allow more aid in by land.
Airdrops, including by Belgium, “should not distract from the immense scale of this food and health crisis, which can only be alleviated through a complete ceasefire and unconditional humanitarian aid delivered by land,” say the rectors.
ALLEA, an umbrella body for scientific academies across Europe, also put out a statement earlier this month in which it said that allowing unimpeded aid into Gaza was a “strategic necessity for Israel’s future international cooperation in science and research.”
While the ALLEA statement stops short of calling for Israel to be suspended from Horizon Europe, the body said it gave “full support” to comments made in July by David Harel, president of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, who said that Israel’s conduct in Gaza risks “its economic and scientific standing, and the future of its regional and international cooperation.”
The European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) is urged to bar Israel from scientific collaboration. Founded in 1954, CERN has a laboratory where physicists and engineers use the world’s largest and most complex scientific instruments to study the “basic constituents of matter – fundamental particles. Subatomic particles are made to collide together at close to the speed of light.” This process provides clues about how the particles interact and insights into the fundamental laws of nature.
Israel has been a full member of the CERN Council since 2014, as one of the 25-member states. Currently, over 100 Israeli scientists are actively involved in the field of particle accelerators.
According to media reports, including Le Monde,more than 1,000 scientists signed a petition calling on CERN to suspend cooperation with Israel.
One of the organizers of the petition is Dr. Giacomo Ortona, an Italian physicist from Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet in France. He stated, “We all are very clear that the Israeli academia is very tightly connected to the Israeli defense forces. And that they are carrying out a genocide in Gaza,” adding that the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) ruling of “plausible grounds” for genocide obliges CERN to act.
The petition was published on June 15, 2025, urging, “support the appeal by CERN scientists to reconsider relations with Israel.” The petition addresses the CERN council and the CERN directorate, stating, “The ongoing Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza does not justify the attacks on civilians in Israel on October 7th, 2023 nor does the October 7th attack justify the criminal campaign the government of Israel has waged against Gaza’s population for the past twenty months. As widely documented, since March 2nd, 2025, the government of Israel has blocked all aid, food, water, and fuel deliveries to the Gaza strip, imposing a total siege on an enclave of 2 million people. On the night of March 18th, 2025, the government of Israel resumed its military campaign in Gaza, killing over 400 people overnight, including at least 170 children, thus shattering a fragile truce between Israel and Hamas.”
The appeal accuses Israel alone: “With this act, the Israeli government made it clear it is not seeking for a peaceful solution of this conflict, nor does it care for the life of Palestinians and of the hostages still being held in Gaza.”
The signatories argue, “As scientists, we firmly believe that international collaboration, the sharing of knowledge and the free movement of ideas are great drivers of human progress and peace. Middle Eastern scientists have remained steadfast in upholding these principles despite decades of regional tensions and conflict. Among many examples, we note the establishment of the SESAME laboratory and the support by Israeli physicists for the participation of Palestinian scientists at CERN – a collaboration that culminated in Palestine’s cooperation agreement with CERN. As scientists, we cannot tolerate that the current state of war imposed by the Israeli government on Palestinians, alongside the unacceptable toll of lives and affront to human dignity, also compromises the continued peaceful collaboration of Israeli and Palestinian scientists between themselves, and with the rest of the community.”
The petition states that the CERN Code of Conduct mandates that all CERN Collaborators must “behave ethically, with intellectual honesty and being accountable for one’s own actions”. Therefore, “We believe that this extends to member states too and implies that membership in CERN requires adherence to international law, respect to the international institutions, and most of all respect for human rights.” Adding that Resolution CERN/3626 from March 8th, 2022, the CERN Council stated that “aggression of one country by another runs against the values for which the Organization stands”.
According to the petitioners, “the aggression is perpetrated by a State recognized as an unlawful occupying power by the International Court of Justice. We therefore urgently call on the CERN management and CERN Council to ensure compliance with the principles outlined above, particularly in view of the Convention mandate to ‘have no concern with work for military requirements.’ Such compliance must be actively monitored and guaranteed, thus safeguarding the peaceful collaboration among physicists.”
The petition demands, “Continued access to CERN by all scientists from the region committed to peace and to the peaceful resolution of the conflict should likewise be guaranteed. Specific support must be provided whenever possible to colleagues whose life and freedom are endangered by the conflict, and all necessary measures must be taken to ensure that none of the CERN collaborators becomes directly or indirectly complicit of the military and terroristic campaigns in the Middle East.”
The document included conclusions of a “Legal Opinion on CERN Duties Under International Law: Due Diligence Engagement,” stating, “CERN should formally request that all current and future partners located in Israel – including companies, academic and research institutions – demonstrate a clear commitment to refrain from entering into, maintaining, or supporting any form of collaboration with Israeli authorities, institutions, or companies that contribute – directly or indirectly – to the unlawful occupation of the Palestinian territory or to the commission of other serious violations of international law, including genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.”
The conclusions also discuss the “Suspension of Institutional Relations in Case of Non-Compliance,” stating, “Should any partner fail to provide such assurances or continue to engage in collaborations with entities involved in these serious violations, CERN should suspend all forms of institutional cooperation with that partner. This includes but is not limited to participation in joint research projects, funding schemes, academic exchanges, access to CERN infrastructure, and any other form of scientific collaboration. These measures are essential to fulfill CERN’s obligations under customary international law and to ensure that the Organization does not, even inadvertently, contribute to the maintenance of an internationally unlawful situation entailing grave breaches of peremptory norms, or to the perpetration of international crimes. Moreover, such actions would reinforce CERN’s identity as a global symbol of ethical scientific collaboration and its steadfast commitment to peace, justice, and human dignity.”
However, the claim that Israel has been committing genocide in Gaza has been propagated by a wide coalition of pro-Palestinian advocates and was uncritically adopted by the general media.
Two issues stand out in this respect. Hamas controls all the branches of government in the Gaza Strip, including the Ministry of Health. Hamas members took over the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and its services. Using this dominant position, the terror group managed to falsify metrics such as mortality rate among civilians, rates of malnutrition, etc. Indeed, the health authorities have refused to provide a breakdown between combatants and civilians, which suggests that the Hamas government inflated civilian deaths and noncombatants.
Second, the discussions about “genocide” in Gaza have failed to point out that Hamas has been heavily embedded among civilian populations, in public spaces, such as mosques, schools, and hospitals. As a result, the Gaza Strip has more hospitals per capita than Israel and Switzerland. As is well known, using civilians as human shields is illegal according to the Geneva Convention and humanitarian law.
The Islamist regime in Iran, which runs its own operation to delegitimize Israel, has often used South Africa to push spurious accusations in international legal forums, including the UN’s International Court of Justice (ICJ). Indeed, in 2024, South Africa submitted an application to the Court to consider a case of genocide against Israel. However, according to the then-President of the ICJ, Judge Joan Donoghue, the Court never ruled that Israel had committed genocide.
The petition is backed by the group Science4Peace Forum, run by Dr. Hannes Jung, a professor emeritus at the DESY Institute in Hamburg. Jung started the group at the beginning of the war in Ukraine to protect Russian scientists from being suspended from CERN because of the politics of their government. This shift reflects a stark double standard – the hallmark of antisemitism – while political affiliation with Russia was excused, association with Israel is treated as disqualifying.
Israeli academic institutions are bracing for an unprecedented wave of boycotts, with nearly 1,000 scientists calling on the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) to suspend cooperation with Israel, Le Monde reported on 29 September.
The petition argues that Israel’s universities are tightly bound to the army carrying out genocide in Gaza, and urges CERN to follow its precedent of severing ties with Russia after the invasion of Ukraine.
Italian physicist Giacomo Ortona, one of the petition’s initiators, said, “We all are very clear that the Israeli academia is very tightly connected to the Israeli defense forces. And that they are carrying out a genocide in Gaza.” He added that the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) ruling of “plausible grounds” for genocide obliges CERN to act.
At present, more than 100 Israeli scientists are active in the particle accelerator field. Emmanuel Nahshon, a diplomat tasked with supporting universities abroad, warned lawmakers that losing CERN would cause “very severe” damage to Israeli research.
The boycott campaign has expanded rapidly across Europe. Over 30 universities in the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, and Spain have ended partnerships with Israeli institutions.
Invitations for Israeli researchers to seminars have been canceled, conference presentations postponed, and professional associations have debated expelling Israeli colleagues.
Previously, Trinity College Dublin, the University of Amsterdam, and institutions in Belgium, Spain, and Brazil all suspended cooperation with Israeli partners, while the European Association of Social Anthropologists (EASA) urged its members to follow suit, saying Israeli universities are complicit in apartheid and genocide.
Israeli historian Ilan Pappe rejected claims that many academics support Palestinians, noting that universities provide courses and degrees for security and police agencies that enforce occupation.
British-Palestinian surgeon Ghassan Abu Sitta added that personal boycotts are spreading across the UK despite official resistance, compounding Tel Aviv’s fears of a brain drain.
“This is a virus that spreads from one campus to the next, mainly in Europe but also worldwide,” said Daniel Chamovitz, president of Ben-Gurion University and head of the Conference of University Presidents.
A June report by the Samuel Neaman Institute at Technion noted growing refusals to publish Israeli research, rejections from conferences, and mounting difficulties in attracting foreign students.
While overall output has not yet collapsed, the study found a slowdown compared to other countries.
University leaders have also turned against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In July, the presidents of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Haifa universities signed an open letter condemning insufficient food aid to Gaza, warning of “immense harm to innocent civilians.”
Economist Itai Ater said, “We are anti-government. We are doing whatever we can to stop the war and to make this government disappear.”
Israeli officials have already felt the pressure building as fears of a brain drain rise, attempting to counter it by offering scholarships of up to $200,000 per year to reattract Jewish academics from abroad.
Knowledge workers — journalists, writers, booksellers, librarians, publishers, authors and illustrators, museum and theatre staff, actors and directors, musicians, dancers, university professors, educators and directors of cultural institutions — support the appeal by CERN scientists to reconsider relations with Israel.
The international community must affirm that freedom and security must be guaranteed to Israelis and Palestinians alike, and that this can only be achieved through an immediate and unconditional ceasefire, the unhindered flow of humanitarian aid and a just peace negotiated and agreed between both parties within the framework of UN resolutions.
Petition to the CERN council and Directorate Petition to the CERN council and the CERN directorate
We believe two wrongs do not make one right. The ongoing Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza does not justify the attacks on civilians in Israel on October 7th, 2023 nor does the October 7th attack justify the criminal campaign the government of Israel has waged against Gaza’s population for the past twenty months.
As widely documented, since March 2nd, 2025, the government of Israel has blocked all aid, food, water, and fuel deliveries to the Gaza strip, imposing a total siege on an enclave of 2 million people.
On the night of March 18th, 2025, the government of Israel resumed its military campaign in Gaza, killing over 400 people overnight, including at least 170 children, thus shattering a fragile truce between Israel and Hamas. With this act, the Israeli government made it clear it is not seeking for a peaceful solution of this conflict, nor does it care for the life of Palestinians and of the hostages still being held in Gaza.
Josep Borrell, the former EU foreign policy chief stated on May 8th, 2025: “We all know what’s going on there, and we’ve all heard the objectives stated by Netanyahu’s ministers, which are clear declarations of genocidal intent. Seldom have I heard the leader of a state so clearly outline a plan that fits the legal definition of genocide.”
Such actions are indefensible under any human, moral, or even practical reasoning. As declared by Mirjana Spoljaric, Head of the International Red Cross Committee and guardian of the Geneva Convention: “No state, no party to a conflict […] can be exempt from the obligation not to commit war crimes, not to commit genocide, not to commit ethnic cleansing”.
The international community must affirm that freedom and security must be guaranteed to Israelis and Palestinians alike, and that this can only be achieved through an immediate and unconditional ceasefire, the unhindered flow of humanitarian aid and a just peace negotiated and agreed between both parties within the framework of UN resolutions.
As scientists, we firmly believe that international collaboration, the sharing of knowledge and the free movement of ideas are great drivers of human progress and peace. Middle Eastern scientists have remained steadfast in upholding these principles despite decades of regional tensions and conflict. Among many examples, we note the establishment of the SESAME laboratory and the support by Israeli physicists for the participation of Palestinian scientists at CERN – a collaboration that culminated in Palestine’s cooperation agreement with CERN.
As scientists, we cannot tolerate that the current state of war imposed by the Israeli government on Palestinians, alongside the unacceptable toll of lives and affront to human dignity, also compromises the continued peaceful collaboration of Israeli and Palestinian scientists between themselves, and with the rest of the community.
CERN Code of Conduct mandates that CERN Collaborators must “behave ethically, with intellectual honesty and being accountable for one’s own actions”. We believe that this extends to member states too and implies that membership in CERN requires adherence to international law, respect to the international institutions, and most of all respect for human rights. In Resolution CERN/3626 (dated March 8th, 2022) the CERN Council stated that “aggression of one country by another runs against the values for which the Organization stands”. This principle is even more urgent when the aggression is perpetrated by a State recognized as an unlawful occupying power by the International Court of Justice.
We therefore urgently call on the CERN management and CERN Council to ensure compliance with the principles outlined above, particularly in view of the Convention mandate to “have no concern with work for military requirements”. Such compliance must be actively monitored and guaranteed, thus safeguarding the peaceful collaboration among physicists. Continued access to CERN by all scientists from the region committed to peace and to the peaceful resolution of the conflict should likewise be guaranteed. Specific support must be provided whenever possible to colleagues whose life and freedom are endangered by the conflict, and all necessary measures must be taken to ensure that none of the CERN collaborators becomes directly or indirectly complicit of the military and terroristic campaigns in the Middle East.
Geneva, June 15th, 2025
Full list of signatories is available below LEGAL OPINION ON CERN DUTIES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
Due Diligence Engagement CERN should formally request that all current and future partners located in Israel – including companies, academic and research institutions – demonstrate a clear commitment to refrain from entering into, maintaining, or supporting any form of collaboration with Israeli authorities, institutions, or companies that contribute – directly or indirectly – to the unlawful occupation of the Palestinian territory or to the commission of other serious violations of international law, including genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Suspension of Institutional Relations in Case of Non-Compliance Should any partner fail to provide such assurances or continue to engage in collaborations with entities involved in these serious violations, CERN should suspend all forms of institutional cooperation with that partner. This includes but is not limited to participation in joint research projects, funding schemes, academic exchanges, access to CERN infrastructure, and any other form of scientific collaboration. These measures are essential to fulfill CERN’s obligations under customary international law and to ensure that the Organization does not, even inadvertently, contribute to the maintenance of an internationally unlawful situation entailing grave breaches of peremptory norms, or to the perpetration of international crimes. Moreover, such actions would reinforce CERN’s identity as a global symbol of ethical scientific collaboration and its steadfast commitment to peace, justice, and human dignity.Report a policy violation
Gli operatori della Conoscenza a sostegno dell’appello degli scienziati del CERN
Sign petition
2,263
Verified signatures
Recent signers: Giuseppe Sansoni•1 minute ago Alessandra Del Vesco•3 hours ago Miriam Salvatoni•3 hours ago Vania Buiatti•5 hours ago Patrizia Camarillo•11 hours ago Renzo Storti•15 hours ago Massimo Ragni•16 hours ago christine wood•1 day ago Angela D Alessandro•4 days ago Carlos juan Valletta•4 days ago Orianna Micheli•5 days ago Eva Ceseri•5 days ago Barbara Tamburro•5 days ago Matteo Girardi•5 days ago Denis Novello•5 days ago Cristiano Orlandini•5 days ago Renato Marco Martorelli•6 days ago Guido D’alessandro•7 days ago Anna Maria Capasso•1 week ago Valeria Dotto•1 week ago Giuseppe Sansoni and 19 others have signed recently.
The Issue
Gli operatori della conoscenza, giornalisti, scrittori, librai, bibliotecari, editori, autori e illustratori, personale museale e teatrale, attori e registi, musicisti, danzatori, professori universitari, docenti e direttori di istituzioni culturali, sostengono l’appello degli scienziati del Cern per rivedere i rapporti con Israele.
Gli operatori della conoscenza chiedono alla comunità internazionale di affermare che la libertà e la sicurezza devono essere garantite sia agli israeliani che ai palestinesi e che ciò può essere ottenuto solo attraverso un cessate il fuoco immediato e incondizionato, il flusso senza ostacoli di aiuti umanitari e una pace giusta negoziata e concordata tra entrambe le parti nel quadro delle risoluzioni delle Nazioni Unite.
Petizione al Consiglio e alla Direzione del CERN Petizione al Consiglio del CERN e alla Direzione del CERN
Crediamo che due torti non facciano una ragione. L’occupazione israeliana in corso della Cisgiordania e di Gaza non giustifica gli attacchi ai civili in Israele del 7 ottobre 2023, né l’attacco del 7 ottobre giustifica la campagna criminale che il governo israeliano ha condotto contro la popolazione di Gaza negli ultimi venti mesi. Come ampiamente documentato, dal 2 marzo 2025, il governo israeliano ha bloccato ogni forma di aiuto, cibo, acqua e carburante alla Striscia di Gaza, imponendo un assedio totale a un’enclave di 2 milioni di persone. La notte del 18 marzo 2025, il governo israeliano ha ripreso la sua campagna militare a Gaza, uccidendo oltre 400 persone in una sola notte, tra cui almeno 170 bambini, infrangendo così una fragile tregua tra Israele e Hamas. Con questo atto, il governo israeliano ha reso evidente di non cercare una soluzione pacifica al conflitto, né di avere riguardo per la vita dei palestinesi e degli ostaggi ancora trattenuti a Gaza. Josep Borrell, ex Alto rappresentante dell’UE per la politica estera, ha dichiarato l’8 maggio 2025: “Sappiamo tutti cosa sta succedendo lì, e abbiamo tutti sentito gli obiettivi dichiarati dai ministri di Netanyahu, che sono chiare dichiarazioni di intento genocida. Raramente ho sentito il leader di uno Stato delineare così chiaramente un piano che rientra nella definizione legale di genocidio.” Tali azioni sono indifendibili sotto ogni punto di vista umano, morale o anche solo pratico. Come ha dichiarato Mirjana Spoljaric, Presidente del Comitato Internazionale della Croce Rossa e garante della Convenzione di Ginevra: “Nessuno Stato, nessuna parte in conflitto […] può essere esentata dall’obbligo di non commettere crimini di guerra, genocidi o pulizia etnica.” La comunità internazionale deve affermare che libertà e sicurezza devono essere garantite sia agli israeliani che ai palestinesi, e che ciò può essere ottenuto solo attraverso un cessate il fuoco immediato e incondizionato, il flusso libero degli aiuti umanitari e una pace giusta negoziata e concordata da entrambe le parti, nel quadro delle risoluzioni ONU. In quanto scienziati, crediamo fermamente che la collaborazione internazionale, la condivisione delle conoscenze e il libero scambio di idee siano potenti motori del progresso umano e della pace. Gli scienziati del Medio Oriente hanno mantenuto questi principi saldi nonostante decenni di tensioni e conflitti regionali. Tra i molti esempi, citiamo la creazione del laboratorio SESAME e il sostegno dei fisici israeliani alla partecipazione dei colleghi palestinesi al CERN – una collaborazione culminata nell’accordo di cooperazione tra la Palestina e il CERN. Come scienziati, non possiamo tollerare che l’attuale stato di guerra imposto dal governo israeliano ai palestinesi, con l’inaccettabile bilancio di vittime e l’oltraggio alla dignità umana, comprometta anche la collaborazione pacifica tra scienziati israeliani e palestinesi e con il resto della comunità cientifica. Il Codice di Condotta del CERN prevede che i collaboratori del CERN debbano “comportarsi in modo etico, con onestà intellettuale e assumendosi la responsabilità delle proprie azioni”. Crediamo che questo principio si estenda anche agli Stati membri e implichi che la partecipazione al CERN richieda l’adesione al diritto internazionale, il rispetto delle istituzioni internazionali e, soprattutto, il rispetto dei diritti umani. Nella Risoluzione CERN/3626 (datata 8 marzo 2022) il Consiglio del CERN ha dichiarato che “l’aggressione di un Paese ai danni di un altro è contraria ai valori per i quali l’Organizzazione è stata fondata”. Questo principio è ancor più urgente quando l’aggressione è perpetrata da uno Stato riconosciuto come potenza occupante illegale dalla Corte Internazionale di Giustizia. Chiediamo quindi con urgenza alla Direzione del CERN e al Consiglio del CERN di garantire il rispetto dei principi sopra indicati, soprattutto in considerazione del mandato della Convenzione del CERN che impone di “non avere alcuna relazione con attività a fini militari”. Tale rispetto deve essere monitorato e garantito attivamente, salvaguardando così la collaborazione pacifica tra i fisici. Deve essere garantito anche l’accesso continuo al CERN da parte di tutti gli scienziati della regione impegnati per la pace e per la risoluzione pacifica del conflitto. Occorre offrire un sostegno concreto, ove possibile, ai colleghi la cui vita e libertà siano messe in pericolo dal conflitto, e vanno adottate tutte le misure necessarie per garantire che nessun collaboratore del CERN diventi, direttamente o indirettamente, complice delle campagne militari o terroristiche in Medio Oriente.
Ginevra, 15 giugno 2025
Parere legale sui doveri del CERN secondo il diritto internazionale Importanti esperti di diritto internazionale hanno condiviso con noi un parere legale sui doveri del CERN secondo il diritto internazionale. Riportiamo qui le conclusioni. Il testo completo è disponibile qui: https://cryptpad.fr/file/#/2/file/QPmzAo-qzbbrwaxLQF+ZXuG2/ Diligenza dovuta Il CERN dovrebbe richiedere formalmente che tutti i partner attuali e futuri situati in Israele – incluse aziende, istituzioni accademiche e di ricerca – dimostrino un impegno chiaro a non entrare in collaborazione con, mantenere o supportare in alcun modo autorità israeliane, istituzioni o aziende che contribuiscano – direttamente o indirettamente – all’occupazione illegale del territorio palestinese o alla commissione di altre gravi violazioni del diritto internazionale, incluso genocidio, crimini di guerra e crimini contro l’umanità. Sospensione dei rapporti istituzionali in caso di mancata conformità Qualora un partner non fornisca tali garanzie o continui a collaborare con entità coinvolte in gravi violazioni, il CERN dovrebbe sospendere ogni forma di cooperazione istituzionale con quel partner. Questo include, ma non si limita a: partecipazione a progetti di ricerca congiunti, programmi di finanziamento, scambi accademici, accesso alle infrastrutture del CERN e qualsiasi altra forma di collaborazione scientifica. Queste misure sono essenziali per adempiere agli obblighi del CERN secondo il diritto internazionale consuetudinario e per assicurare che l’Organizzazione non contribuisca, neppure in modo involontario, al mantenimento di una situazione illegale a livello internazionale che implichi gravi violazioni di norme imperative, o alla perpetrazione di crimini internazionali. Inoltre, tali azioni rafforzerebbero l’identità del CERN come simbolo globale di collaborazione scientifica etica e del suo impegno fermo per la pace, la giustizia e la dignità umana.
August 12, 2025GROWING CALLS TO CUT TIES WITH ISRAEL REACH CERN
As the genocide in Gaza continues, the movement to boycott the Israeli state is gaining traction across multiple sectors. Now, the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN)—one of the world’s most prestigious scientific institutions—is facing mounting pressure to reassess its partnership with Israel.
On August 4, 2025, Tribune de Genève reported a surge in calls to re-evaluate CERN’s collaboration with Israel in light of the Gaza conflict. In Meyrin, Switzerland, activists drew media attention by removing the Israeli flag from CERN’s premises during a protest. The action coincided with a petition signed by more than a thousand scientists, urging the CERN Council to determine whether ongoing cooperation complies with the institution’s own ethical principles—notably its commitment to human rights and international law, as outlined in CERN’s Code of Conduct.
The petition draws on precedent: in 2022, CERN suspended collaboration with Russia following its invasion of Ukraine. Many see this as a model for how the organization should respond to Israel’s actions today.
Israel has been a full member of the CERN Council since 2014, one of 25 member states. Petitioners, backed by the Science4Peace Forum, are calling for a thorough review of the partnership to ensure that all shared scientific knowledge is used for civilian—not military—purposes.
The push to sever ties with Israel at CERN is part of a broader wave of global boycotts, divestments, and sanctions. Since the start of the genocide in Gaza, an increasing number of academic and professional bodies have cut institutional links with Israel. Recent examples include the European Association of Social Anthropology and the International Sociological Association.
As history shows, sustained grassroots pressure works. To end the genocide in Gaza, campaigners argue, European institutions must cut all ties—ideological, academic, political, and military—with the Israeli apartheid state.
Massacres in GazaPressure mounts on CERN and its cooperation with Israel
A petition signed by a thousand scientists, NGOs mobilizing, a symbolic action in front of the institution: the CERN Council is summoned to examine its cooperation agreements.
Research at CERN is intended to serve civilian purposes. Cooperation with Israel, as with Russia in 2022, is now being questioned.CERN
In short :
Activists removed the Israeli flag from the entrance to CERN in Meyrin.
More than 1,000 scientists are petitioning to reassess cooperation with Israel.
The organization had already suspended its agreements with Russia in 2022.
The action is symbolic, but it reflects a growing mobilization regarding the cooperation of the European Organization for Nuclear Research ( CERN ) with Israel, in the context of the massacres committed in Gaza: Friday, August 1 , a small group of activists filmed themselves in front of the entrance to the institution, in Meyrin, taking down the Israeli flag from its mast, then throwing it in a trash can.
“Our action was peaceful, we acted openly, because as Genevans, we believe that CERN represents important values for our city. It must stop all collaboration with Israel,” one of the activists told us by phone. “The security service became nervous, and CERN filed a complaint against us,” she said.
Removing the Israeli flag from CERN: On Friday, August 1, the Israeli flag was removed and thrown into the trash on the CERN esplanade by activists.
Petition from scientists
The incident in Meyrin, although isolated, reflects growing pressure on the institution. As revealed last Wednesday by “Le Courrier” , a petition signed by more than a thousand scientists working on the site or in partnership with CERN is currently circulating. It calls on the CERN Council, the supreme authority made up of its member states, to re-evaluate cooperation with Israel and its compliance with the institution’s values in light of the numerous abuses committed by that state in Gaza.
“According to the CERN Code of Conduct, employees must behave ethically, demonstrate intellectual honesty, and be accountable for their actions. We believe this also applies to Member States and implies that membership in CERN requires respect for international law, international institutions, and, above all, respect for human rights,” the scientists write in the text.
The Russian precedent at CERN
Since 2014, Israel has been one of the 25 member states of the CERN Council, and is therefore part of its governance. The scientists who signed the petition do not challenge this status. But in fact, they question it, noting that in March 2022, the Council ruled that “aggression against one country by another runs counter to the values defended by the organization,” which led it to suspend its cooperation agreements with Russia, which had observer status.
This suspension formally took shape in November 2024, although it maintained a highly contested link with the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research near Moscow.
Just as it was led to do with Russia, will the CERN Council, so far silent on the situation in the Middle East, be pushed to examine its relations with Israel?
When contacted, the communications department responded formally: “The CERN Council generally meets four times a year. The Council’s agenda is prepared by the President of the Council and adopted by the Council itself. During this adoption, Member States may also request amendments.” It also points out that “CERN is, at its very foundation, an institution of peace that unites nations across borders.”
Contacted, a Palestinian scientist who collaborates with CERN wonders whether the Council would have the courage to take up this issue, but says he is convinced that it would be important. “Israeli scientists should start by denouncing this war,” he says. He also has no doubt that CERN must cut off cooperation with Israel, given that “this state is using scientific knowledge to wage its war in Gaza.”
“CERN must review cooperation agreements”
Other voices are joining this petition, including that of the Science4Peace Forum . This association, created in the context of the war in Ukraine to defend fundamental research that remains separate from armed conflicts, is also putting forward demands .
“We are calling in particular for an investigation into the cooperation agreements with Israel so that CERN can ensure that they are not used for military activities, in accordance with its conventions and values,” explains Hannes Jung, a member of this organization. “If institutes were to be directly involved in war, crimes against humanity, and violations of international law, this cooperation could not continue.” A position also defended by the petitioners.
Science4Peace Forum clarifies that “it is not a question of demanding the exclusion of Israel from the CERN Council; civil cooperation must be maintained, because fundamental research must bring peace.”
In the Middle East, the International Synchrotron-Light Centre for Experimental and Applied Sciences ( SESAME ) has long carried this message. This programme , based in Jordan and supported by UNESCO, brings together in its governance Iran, Israel, Palestine, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Turkey and Cyprus. Will it withstand geopolitics and suffering?
This article was supplemented on August 5 with the testimony of a Palestinian scientist.
People in Gaza are facing an unbelievable humanitarian catastrophe, where food and aid support is hindered, leading to hunger and starvation to death,…
In November 2022, the Science4Peace Forum, together with other organizations, has launched an appeal “No First Use, Never Any Use of Nuclear Weapons”,…
The red line has been crossed – this horror must stop NOW !
We have been silent for too long! We can no longer close our eyes on what is happening in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The government and the army of Israel are waging a horrific war against the population of Gaza, bombing hospitals, killing people waiting for food delivery, using starvation as weapons and now attacking staff residence and main warehouseof the WHO in Gaza.
The population in West Bank and East Jerusalem is facing brutal attacks from right-wing settlers, and Israeli Defense Force (IDF) is not protecting and even sometime participating in the attacks.
The government of Israel is permanently violating international laws, there is an arrest warrantagainst
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant issued by the
International Criminal Court (ICC) – all states who signed the Rome Statue are obliged to execute such warrants, including countries like Germany and Italy. Orders from the International Court of Justice from Jan 2024 and May 2024must be respected. We see it as a positive move, that 30 European and international partners have launched an urgent demand to end this war, while it is a shame, that countries like Germany are not among the signees.
The red line has been crossed – immediate actions are required.
The Science4Peace Forum was founded to promote international scientific civilian and non-military exchange across all borders. We have protested strongly against exclusion of Russian and
Belorussian scientists from international cooperations as a reaction to the war against Ukraine, which we strongly condemn. We insisted the cooperation in non-military, civilian areas must continue, in respect to international rules. However, if institutes are directly involved in the war, crimes against humanity and the violation of international law, the cooperation cannot continue as is.
• We urge to immediately stop the war against Gaza and West Bank, immediately lift the blockade of food delivery to Gaza and supply the population with all the necessary food and humanitarian aid by UN. We insist to stop all weapon deliveries to Israel.
• We insist that governments fulfill their obligations respecting international laws and that these laws are applied in all cooperations.
• We insist on a long-term solution and a recognition of a Palestinian state.
• We request that agreements with Israeli academic institutions and companies be subject to investigation regarding their direct involvement in the war against Gaza, Iran, Lebanon, Syria and call to halt cooperation with institutions, programs and individuals who are directly involved in the wars. Scientific cooperation can only continue on the base of respect of international law and in a non-military field – civil clauses must be applied to avoid any complicity in crimes against humanity or against the Geneva Conventions.
• We leverage our international contacts, including those with our Israeli colleagues, to build a unified and international protest action against the war on Gaza and the continuing assaults on
and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian communities. We fully support protests[1] from inside the Israeli academia against the inhuman and criminal, nationalistic behavior of the Israeli government and Israeli army.
• We, as Science4Peace Forum, call to support students and scientists from Palestine with special fellowship programs (short and longer-term support) in order to guarantee their and the Palestinian society’s future prospects.
Initiated by the Science4Peace Forum and endorsed by:
1. Academic Solidarity with Palestine
2. Jung, Hannes, Emeritus researcher, DESY
3. Brentjes, Sonja, Professor, retired
4. Käfer, Daniela, Scientist Systems Engineer, DESY
5. Bargheer, Till, Research Staff, DESY Hamburg
6. Scrinzi, Donato, short-term researcher, research and innovation center at Fondazione Edmund Mach (Italy)
7. Ferrari, Roberto, Director of Research, INFN Pavia
8. Bassalat Ahmed, An-Najah National University
9. Mößner, Nicola, visiting professor, Leibniz University of Hannover
10. Ciulli Vitaliano, Full Professor, University of Florence, Italy
11. Schmidt, Malte Maximilian, PhD Student, University of Hamburg
12. Ortona, Giacomo, Primo Ricercatore, INFN
13. Mirizzi, Alessandro, Full Professor, Bari University
Earlier this year, the Palestinian Academy for Science and Technology (PalAST) and the Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees (PFUUPE) sent the following letter to the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR). The Palestinian scholarly organizations urged them to relocate the European School of High-Energy Physics, now planned for November 30 – December 13, 2022, away from apartheid Israel due to Israel’s well-documented decades-long denial of Palestinian rights, including the right to education.
The reply that the Palestinian organizations received failed to address their concerns at all. It instead touted a belief in “science as a common goal” to bring people together and the school’s mission of “fostering dialogue” and being “as inclusive as possible,” alluding to the frequently used justification for inaction that science is above politics.
Since sending that reply, CERN has suspended Russia’s observer status and all collaborations over its illegal invasion of Ukraine, stating that “the aggression of one country by another runs against the values for which the Organization stands.” CERN has shown that it is prepared to take accountability measures in the case of international law violations, however, in a hypocritical, selective manner. CERN must end its hypocrisy and hold Israel accountable to the same standards. Relocating its High Energy Physics School would be a modest first step in this direction.
Background
Scientists in Palestine pursue their scholarly work amidst nontrivial contextual challenges and hardship, most of which derive from Israel’s prolonged, sustained military occupation of their homeland: closures, travel and inward and outward mobility restrictions, incursions, as well as a range of disruptive measures that create a climate of precarious uncertainty and vulnerability.
Over time, Israel’s measures have taken their toll on Palestinian higher education and scientific research. It has deprived our universities and university communities from their defining features of being beacons of multicultural diversity and universality. In the 18 Palestinian universities, which count a student body of over a quarter of a million, you can hardly find any foreign students or faculty members due to Israeli restrictions. This has been quite impoverishing in more ways than one. A multicultural environment is an a priori enriching, engaging, and challenging environment that allows students to widen their perspectives and appreciate alternative ways of being and living. Being deprived of such an experience means students are missing out on a very precious part of academic immersion.
Israel’s impediments have led a huge number of Palestinian academics and technologists to reside and pursue their careers abroad, resulting in a significant brain drain.
This has made it even more imperative for us to vigorously pursue international scientific outreach and collaboration. To do so, we have worked hard to organize and consolidate science in Palestine through the formation of disciplinary and multidisciplinary scientific societies and clusters that will have the critical mass to undertake effective scientific activities and reach out to counterparts around the world: societies in mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry, Agriculture and Environment, ICT, … and more have been established.
Despite the challenges of Israel’s military occupation, we have also pursued the establishment of science bridges between Palestine and other countries: Germany, Canada, Czechia, France, and Russia. These bridges have created opportunities for student and faculty mobility, exchange, collaborative research, and more.
We have been reaching out to Palestinian scientists forced to pursue their careers abroad, hoping to effectively engage them in our efforts to advance learning and research in their homeland through summer and winter schools, short visits, scientific consulting work, and more.
We do not use the term apartheid lightly. Palestinian scholars have for decades documented how Israel’s regime of racial domination and systematic oppression of Palestinians constitutes a regime of apartheid as defined under international law. Earlier this year, the notable international organization Human Rights Watch and Israel’s most prominent human rights organization , B’Tselem , both issued detailed reports concluding that Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid.
Most recently, in February 2022, the Israeli government published a new ‘Procedure for entry and residence of foreigners in the Judea and Samaria area’, Israel’s term for the occupied Palestinian West Bank. This latest Israeli regulation gives Israel the absolute right to select which international academics and students may be present at Palestinian universities, as well as to set arbitrary criteria on which fields of study are permissible and what qualifications are acceptable. Israel’s sweeping draconian measures attack Palestinians’ right to education and academic freedom and the autonomy of Palestinian universities. Birzeit University’s statement calls on all academics and academic organizations to join in their struggle against this proposed procedure and for their sovereign right to be an autonomous university.
As Palestinian scholars and scientists, we are often confronted with calls not to mix politics and science. However, there is no separating the two for us as we live, teach and carry out research under Israeli apartheid and colonial rule. We trust that you will recognize that holding the CERN and JINR European School of High-Energy Physics in apartheid Israel and partnering with complicit Israeli institutions despite Israel’s ongoing oppression of millions of Palestinians are profoundly political choices. They directly harm us, our academic work, and our people’s struggle for freedom and self-determination.
We call on CERN and JINR to relocate the HEP school from apartheid Israel and refrain from organizing future events there until Israel ends its decades-long denial of fundamental Palestinian human rights and its blatant disregard for international law.
We urge students who have been accepted to renounce their participation unless CERN and JINR relocate the HEP school, thereby complying with their respective mission and charter to “push the frontiers of science and technology, for the benefit of all” and to use research “for peaceful purposes for the benefit of the whole mankind.”
Our Recommendation
Fellow scientists, it is our sincere hope that your deliberations will lead to innovative ways to carve a science bridge between Palestine and fellow scientists all over the world. Building a science bridge when other bridges are undermined may be the right answer. Such a bridge will be a visionary long-term investment in young talent and hope when hope becomes scarce.
Kind regards,
Signatories:
The Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees (PFUUPE), representing more than 6,000 Palestinian university staff at 13 institutions of higher education in the occupied Palestinian territory.
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology (PALAST), a national institution that functions as an umbrella for a number of projects and innovations aiming at the advancement of science, technology and innovation in Palestine, including:
Palestinian Mathematical Society
Palestinian Physics Society (PPS)
Palestinian Chemical Society
Palestinian Biological Society
Palestinian Plant Production and Protection Society
Palestinian Communications and Informatics Society
A few days ago, the Iranian regime’s media in Tehran announced that a “group of prominent Israeli and international archaeologists, researchers [and others] has issued a stark open letter condemning the widespread destruction of cultural heritage in Gaza and the West Bank, accusing the Israeli government and military of violating international law and engaging in a policy of ‘annihilation’.”
According to Iranian media, this letter was signed by “scholars including Tel Aviv University’s Prof. Rafi Greenberg.” The Iranian regime cites the letter, which discusses the “total destruction of a building housing the archaeological storerooms of the prestigious École Biblique in Gaza as a triggering event. The incident necessitated the urgent, partial relocation of tens of thousands of archaeological items, with the full extent of the damage still unknown.”
The Iranians cited the letter as saying, “This is a continuation of the policy of destruction and annihilation in the Gaza Strip that has also targeted heritage sites.”
The Iranian media added that the letter “broadens its criticism beyond the current conflict in Gaza to address the long-standing situation in the West Bank,” describing the “ongoing Israeli violation of international law in the occupied territories” and constraints on Palestinian archaeological authorities, which have led to the “neglect of many cultural properties, their appropriation by nationalist elements, and their partial or complete destruction.”
The Iranians noted that “the signatories issue a three-point call to action to the Israeli government and military: Immediately stop the demolition of the Gaza Strip, the destruction of its cultural treasures, and the attempt to cleanse it of any presence other than Jewish. Resume adherence to international law, particularly conventions dictating the treatment of cultural heritage during armed conflict and occupation. End the rule of settler gangs and the ongoing annexation of heritage sites in the West Bank and enable Palestinian archaeological enforcement in areas under the Palestinian Authority’s control.”
The letter, according to the Iranians, concludes “by framing the heritage of the region as a shared responsibility… The heritage of Palestine/the Land of Israel belongs to all the natives of the land [where] Muslims, Christians, and Jews have lived in this land and sustained it for centuries and millennia: It is our duty to maintain the heritage of the land in all its diversity.”
The Iranians ended their announcement by stating that the open letter also “adds a significant voice from the academic and heritage community to the growing international concern over the preservation of cultural history amidst the ongoing conflict.”
It is worth noting that the open letter was initially published by the group “Emek Shaveh” and is titled “Open letter from archaeologists, antiquities researchers, and museum curators against cultural destruction in Gaza and the West Bank.” The letter is signed by Prof. Rafi Greenberg, Dr Tawfiq Da’adli, Dr Dotan Halevy, Dr Chemi Shiff, and Alon Arad.
IAM reported on Greenberg multiple times. He is a longtime political activist masquerading as an academic. Greenberg is the co-founder and one of the directors of “Emek Shaveh,” which was founded in 2008. Emek Shaveh declares it is “working to prevent the politicization of archaeology in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” Its latest annual report reveals that in 2024, its budget was NIS 1,184,890, with 98.1 percent of donations coming from overseas. Their donors are FDFA, HEKS, Cordaid, The Royal Norwegian Embassy Tel-Aviv, Irish Foreign Ministry, Oxfam GB, CCFD-Terre Solidaire, Oxfam Novib, European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), EU Peacebuilding Initiative, New Israel Fund, Foundation for Middle East Peace, and Beller Moses Family Foundation.
Emek Shaveh’s “about us” page says, “The archaeological artefact tells a complex story which is independent of religious dictates and traditions. Listening to this story and bringing it to the wider public can enrich our culture and promote values of tolerance and pluralism. We believe that the cultural wealth of this land belongs to the members of all its communities, nations and faiths. An archaeological site is comprised not only of its excavated layers, but also its present-day attributes – the people living in or near it, their culture, their daily lives and their needs.”
Emek Shaveh also states, “We monitor archaeological activities in these areas including infringement of Palestinian property rights and cultural heritage rights…. We are not interested in proving links between modern ethnic identities (e.g. Israeli, Palestinian, or European) and ancient peoples (e.g. Phoenician, Judean or Crusader). Because archaeology offers an independent view of human and social origins, it is inherently critical of all historical narratives.”
Interestingly, Greenberg was mentioned in a 2021 article, which stated that “Academics critical of Israeli settlement are more blunt. Raphael Greenberg, an archaeologist at Tel Aviv University who is publicly opposed to Ariel receiving EU funds, said that the ‘depth of Israeli EU cooperation in things like biomedicine and AI trumps any attempt to hold Israel politically accountable’.”
More recently, Greenberg was mentioned in another article titled “Israel’s Biblical myth is burying the West Bank alive,” which notes that “even within Israeli academic circles, this ideological claim faces serious scrutiny. Renowned Israeli archaeologist Professor Rafi Greenberg of Tel Aviv University harshly criticizes what he calls ‘the weaponization of archaeology’.” Greenberg “notes that the archaeological record in Palestine offers no exclusive evidence of a single group’s historical claim. On the contrary, it reveals a layered tapestry of civilizations and cultures – Canaanite, Roman, Byzantine, Christian, and Islamic – that have succeeded and coexisted on this land.” For Greenberg, “Archaeology in its essence does not provide that kind of certainty and purity that ethnocratic right-wing government ministers might want. So they have to invent it.”
The case of Raphael Greenberg raises a recurring question—one that IAM has often posed—why do Israeli universities, as public institutions, so readily accommodate faculty who engage in overt political activism? Greenberg was hired to teach Bronze Age archaeology and indeed has a solid academic record in that field. Yet, he claims on his Tel Aviv University faculty page, his secondary field of teaching and research is “critical archaeology,” with a particular focus on how Israel has allegedly politicized the discipline to serve national goals. He has argued, for example, that archaeological projects have been deployed to bolster Jewish claims in the West Bank. Unsurprisingly, such positions have earned Greenberg international visibility among those eager to question or deny Israel’s biblical connection to the land.
On top of this, Greenberg has declared a “work break” at the main entrance to Tel Aviv University, where he protests daily against the killings in Gaza. In a recorded encounter, Greenberg described himself as a non-Zionist and strongly implied that Jews have no historical right to the Land of Israel. He made statements about the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948 while denying that Jews had the right to create a state.
The leaders of Tel Aviv University should not force the taxpayers to support political activism masquerading as scholarship, in the service of Iran.
Intl. scholars urge action as Gaza, West Bank archaeological collections face unprecedented loss
September 27, 2025 – 10:5
TEHRAN – A group of prominent Israeli and international archaeologists, researchers, and museum curators has issued a stark open letter condemning the widespread destruction of cultural heritage in Gaza and the West Bank, accusing the Israeli government and military of violating international law and engaging in a policy of “annihilation.”
The letter, signed by scholars including Tel Aviv University’s Prof. Rafi Greenberg and others, cites the recent total destruction of a building housing the archaeological storerooms of the prestigious École Biblique in Gaza as a triggering event. The incident necessitated the urgent, partial relocation of tens of thousands of archaeological items, with the full extent of the damage still unknown.
“This is a continuation of the policy of destruction and annihilation in the Gaza Strip that has also targeted heritage sites,” the letter states. It references reports indicating that approximately 110 historical buildings, archaeological sites, and other cultural properties have been severely damaged or completely destroyed in Gaza, “mostly with no known connection to military needs.”
The scholars assert that such actions contravene the rules of warfare as set forth in international conventions, including the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, which Israel has ratified.
The letter broadens its criticism beyond the current conflict in Gaza to address the long-standing situation in the West Bank. It describes “ongoing Israeli violation of international law in the occupied territories” and constraints on Palestinian archaeological authorities, which have led to the “neglect of many cultural properties, their appropriation by nationalist elements, and their partial or complete destruction.”
In view of what they call the “imminent planned destruction of Gaza city,” the signatories issue a three-point call to action to the Israeli government and military:
Immediately stop the demolition of the Gaza Strip, the destruction of its cultural treasures, and the attempt to cleanse it of any presence other than Jewish.
Resume adherence to international law, particularly conventions dictating the treatment of cultural heritage during armed conflict and occupation.
End the rule of settler gangs and the ongoing annexation of heritage sites in the West Bank and enable Palestinian archaeological enforcement in areas under the Palestinian Authority’s control.
The letter concludes by framing the heritage of the region as a shared responsibility, stating, “The heritage of Palestine/the Land of Israel belongs to all the natives of the land… Muslims, Christians, and Jews have lived in this land and sustained it for centuries and millennia: It is our duty to maintain the heritage of the land in all its diversity.” The open letter adds a significant voice from the academic and heritage community to the growing international concern over the preservation of cultural history amidst the ongoing conflict.
מאז תחילת המלחמה עמק שווה פועלת לעקוב ולתעד את ההרס של נכסי התרבות בעזה. לאור המתקפה המתגברת על העיר עזה, ביקשנו לפרסם את גילוי דעת זה. אנו מזמינים את כל מי שמעוניין או מעוניינת להצטרף לגילוי הדעת לפנות אלינו.
מכתב פתוח של ארכיאולוגים, חוקרי עתיקות ואוצרי מוזיאונים נגד ההשמדה התרבותית בעזה ובגדה המערבית
בימים אלה נתבשרנו על פיצוץ בניין שבו שכן מחסן הממצאים הארכיאולוגיים של מכון המקרא הצרפתי בעזה, פעולה אשר חייבה פינוי בהול וחלקי של עשרות אלפי פריטים, תוך גרימת נזק שהיקפו אינו ידוע. זהו המשך למסכת פעולות הרס והשמדה ברצועת עזה המופנית גם אל אתרי מורשת (על פי הדיווח האחרון, כ-110 מבנים היסטוריים, אתרי עתיקות ונכסי תרבות אחרים נפגעו קשות או נהרסו כליל), לרוב ללא שום קשר ידוע לצרכים צבאיים.
פעולה זו, הנוגדת את דיני המלחמה כפי שנוסחו באמנות בינלאומיות, מצטרפת להפרה הישראלית המתמשכת של החוק הבינלאומי בשטחים הכבושים (יהודה ושומרון) ולהצרת צעדיהם של גורמי אכיפה ארכיאולוגיים פלסטיניים בשטחי הרשות (שטחי A, B). אלה מביאים להפקרת נכסי תרבות רבים, ניכוסם על ידי גורמים לאומניים ולהריסתם החלקית או המלאה.
לנוכח ההכנות להחרבת העיר עזה כולה והפגיעה באתרי מורשת בעלי חשיבות מקומית ועולמית ברחבי הרצועה, המהווים המשך לעשורים של השמדה והפקרה של מורשת תרבותית פלסטינית בתוך מדינת ישראל ובגדה המערבית, אנו, אנשי מקצוע בתחומי מורשת, קוראים לממשלת ישראל והצבא:
להפסיק לאלתר את ההשמדה של רצועת עזה, על אוצרות התרבות שבה, ואת הניסיון לטהרה מכל נוכחות פרט ליהודית.
לשוב ולקיים את כללי החוק הבינלאומי, ובפרט את אלה הקובעים את היחס הנאות למורשת תרבותית בזמן מלחמה ובשטחים הנתונים לאחיזה צבאית – אמנות שאושרו על ידי מדינת ישראל.
לשים קץ לשלטון כנופיות המתנחלים ולתהליך הסיפוח של אתרי מורשת בגדה המערבית, ולאפשר אכיפה ארכיאולוגית פלסטינית בשטחים שבשליטת הרשות.
המורשת של פלסטין/ארץ ישראל משותפת לכל ילידי הארץ, כמו גם לכל מי שקבעו בה את ביתם ורואים בה את עתידם. מוסלמים, נוצרים ויהודים חיו בארץ והחיו אותה במשך מאות ואלפי שנים; חובתנו להגן על מורשת הארץ על כל גווניה, למען עתידנו ועתיד צאצאינו.
על החתום,
פרופ׳ רפי גרינברג ד״ר תאופיק דעדללה ד״ר דותן הלוי ד״ר חמי שיף אלון ארד
Open letter from archaeologists, antiquities researchers, and museum curators against cultural destruction in Gaza and the West Bank
In recent days we have learnt of the total destruction of a building housing the archaeological store-rooms of the École Biblique in Gaza, an act that necessitated the urgent and apparently partial relocation of tens of thousands of items, causing damage whose extent is still unknown. This is a continuation of the policy of destruction and annihilation in the Gaza Strip that has also targeted heritage sites (according to the latest reports, about 110 historical buildings, archaeological sites, and other cultural properties have been severely damaged or completely destroyed), mostly with no known connection to military needs.
Such actions, which contravene the rules of warfare as set forth in international conventions, add to the ongoing Israeli violation of international law in the occupied territories (Judea and Samaria), and to the constraint on the activities of Palestinian archaeological authorities in areas under the Palestinian Authority’s control (Areas A and B). These circumstances have resulted in the neglect of many cultural properties, their appropriation by nationalist elements, and their partial or complete destruction.
In view of the imminent planned destruction of Gaza city and the damage to heritage sites of local and global significance throughout the Gaza Strip, which continues decades of destruction and neglect of Palestinian cultural heritage within the State of Israel and the West Bank, we, professionals in the fields of heritage, call upon the Government of Israel and the military to:
– Immediately stop the demolition of the Gaza Strip, the destruction of its cultural treasures, and the attempt to cleanse it of any presence other than Jewish.
– Resume adherence to international law, particularly those conventions that dictate the proper treatment of cultural heritage during armed conflicts and occupation —treaties that have been ratified by the State of Israel.
– End the rule of settler gangs and the ongoing annexation of heritage sites in the West Bank and enable Palestinian archaeological enforcement in areas under the Palestinian Authority’s control.
The heritage of Palestine/the Land of Israel belongs to all the natives of the land, as well as to all who have made it their home and have a stake in its future. Muslims, Christians, and Jews have lived in this land and sustained it for centuries and millennia: It is our duty to maintain the heritage of the land in all its diversity, for the sake of our future and that of our descendants.
Singed
Prof. Rafi Greenberg Dr Tawfiq Da’adli Dr Dotan Halevy Dr Chemi Shiff Alon Arad
رسالة مفتوحة من علماء الآثار وباحثي الآثار وأمناء المتاحف ضد التدمير الثقافي في غزة والضفة الغربية
شهدنا مؤخرا انفجار برج سكني يضم مستودع المقتنيات الأثرية التابع للمعهد الفرنسي التوراتي في غزة، وهو ما استدعى إخلاء عشرات الآلاف من المحتويات بشكل طارئ وجزئي، مسبباً أضراراً لا يزال حجمها مجهولاً. ويُعدّ هذا التفجير استمراراً لسياسة التدمير والإبادة في قطاع غزة التي استهدفت أيضاً مواقع تراثية (وفقاً لأحدث التقارير، تضرر حوالي 110 مبانٍ تاريخية ومواقع أثرية وغيرها من مركبات الإرث الثقافي بشكل بالغ أو دُمرت بالكامل)، ومعظمها لا علاقة له بالحجج العسكرية.
هذه الأعمال، التي تخالف قواعد الحرب المنصوص عليها في الاتفاقيات الدولية، تُضاف إلى الانتهاكات الإسرائيلية المستمرة للقانون الدولي في الأراضي المحتلة (الضفة الغربية)، وتُعيق أنشطة السلطات الأثرية الفلسطينية في المناطق الخاضعة لسيطرة السلطة الفلسطينية (المنطقتان أ و ب). أدت هذه الظروف إلى إهمال العديد من المواقع الثقافية، واستيلاء عناصر قومية عليها، وتدميرها جزئيًا أو كليًا.
في ضوء التدمير المخطط له لمدينة غزة، والضرر الذي يلحق بالمواقع التراثية ذات الأهمية المحلية والعالمية في جميع أنحاء قطاع غزة، والذي يستمر لعقود من تدمير وإهمال التراث الثقافي الفلسطيني داخل دولة إسرائيل والضفة الغربية، ندعو نحن، المختصون في مجالات التراث، حكومة إسرائيل وجيش الدفاع الإسرائيلي إلى:
التوقف فورًا عن هدم قطاع غزة، وتدمير كنوزه الثقافية، ومحاولة تطهيره من أي وجود غير يهودي.
استئناف الالتزام بالقانون الدولي، وخاصةً الاتفاقيات التي تُملي المعاملة السليمة للتراث الثقافي أثناء الحرب – وهي المعاهدات التي صادقت عليها دولة إسرائيل.
إنهاء حكم عصابات المستوطنين والضم الفعلي المستمر للمواقع التراثية في الضفة الغربية، وتمكين إنقاذ التراث الأثري الفلسطيني في المناطق الخاضعة لسيطرة السلطة الفلسطينية.
إن ارث فلسطين/ إسرائيل ملكٌ لجميع سكانها الأصليين، ولكل من اتخذها وطنًا له، وله نصيبٌ في مستقبلها. لقد عاش المسلمون والمسيحيون واليهود على هذه الأرض وحافظوا عليها لقرونٍ وآلاف السنين، ومن واجبنا الحفاظ على ارث هذا الوطن باختلاف الوانه من أجل مستقبلنا ومستقبل ذريتنا.
البروفيسور رافي خرينبرخ الدكتور توفيق دعادله الدكتور دوتان هليفي الدكتور حمي شيف الون اراد
A recent statement from the US ambassador to Tel Aviv laid bare Washington’s deep ideological alignment with Israel’s colonial project.
Mike Huckabee dismissed the term “West Bank” as “imprecise” and “modern,” insisting the territory should be called “Judea and Samaria” – biblical names used in Israel’s foundational mythology. He further declared Jerusalem to be “the undisputed and indivisible capital of the Jewish state.”
How ‘Judea and Samaria’ became state doctrine
Such remarks are part of a wider strategy adopted by Israel and its western allies to impose new facts on the ground, legitimized through religious and historical narratives to justify the gradual annexation of the occupied West Bank. For years, Tel Aviv has pursued an aggressive expansionist policy built on illegal settlement construction, creeping annexation, and the erasure of the Palestinian land’s geographic and political identity. Most recently, Israeli authorities approved a new settlement project in the heart of Hebron (Al-Khalil), consisting of hundreds of housing units next to the Ibrahimi Mosque, which is now mostly a synagogue under Israeli control.
Israel’s strategy in the occupied West Bank is a complex, multi-layered one that far exceeds the parameters of temporary military administration. It is a long-term blueprint for de facto annexation – what could be termed “creeping annexation.” Through legal warfare, archaeology, settlement expansion, and political engineering, Tel Aviv is redrawing the region’s geography and demography to erase any possibility of Palestinian sovereignty. The aim is to impose irreversible facts on the ground and absorb the territory into the so-called “Biblical Land of Israel” – a supremacist strategy that works toward dismembering the Palestinian national project and the consolidation of permanent Jewish-Israeli control.
At the heart of Israel’s colonization strategy lies the foundational myth that “Judea and Samaria” are the ancient birthright of the Jewish people. This religious-nationalist narrative, central to the Zionist project and championed by settler and far-right factions, is the ideological engine driving Israel’s land theft. In this warped worldview, the seizure of Palestinian territory is seen as a righteous reclamation rather than an occupation, justified as a divinely sanctioned ‘return’ that cloaks a settler-colonial enterprise in biblical language and fabricated heritage.
However, even within Israeli academic circles, this ideological claim faces serious scrutiny. Renowned Israeli archaeologist Professor Rafi Greenberg of Tel Aviv University harshly criticizes what he calls “the weaponization of archaeology.” He notes that the archaeological record in Palestine offers no exclusive evidence of a single group’s historical claim.
On the contrary, it reveals a layered tapestry of civilizations and cultures – Canaanite, Roman, Byzantine, Christian, and Islamic – that have succeeded and coexisted on this land. Greenberg affirms that “Archaeology in its essence does not provide that kind of certainty and purity that ethnocratic right-wing government ministers might want. So they have to invent it.” According to him, the idea of a homogenous culture during any historical period is pure fabrication.
This contradiction exposes the real function of the biblical narrative – an excuse to legitimize a political settlement project. It transforms the conflict from a political struggle over land and resources into an existential battle waged through mythology, history, and memory, allowing Palestinians to be depicted as outsiders with no historical connection or national rights to the land.
The evolution of Israeli control
Israel’s strategy toward the occupied West Bank has evolved through distinct phases in response to political and security developments on the ground.
From 1948 until the Oslo Accords in the 1990s, Israeli policy shifted from cautious observation to direct control, and later to attempts to create a new political reality that secures its long-term security and demographic interests. This trajectory can be broken down into key stages, each with its own strategy and tools.
Following the Nakba in 1948 and the subsequent partition of Palestine, the occupied West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem came under Jordanian control. During this period, Israeli strategy toward the area was primarily defensive, driven by security anxieties. Israel viewed the occupied West Bank as a potential launchpad for attacks from the east, and the narrow coastal strip separating the occupied West Bank from the Mediterranean Sea, Israel’s so-called “narrow waist,” was seen as a major strategic vulnerability.
The 1967 war marked a dramatic turning point. With the “Naksa” (Setback), which saw the occupation of the West Bank, Israel suddenly found itself ruling over one million Palestinians, posing a fundamental dilemma regarding how to control the land without fully absorbing its population into the Jewish state while maintaining security.
The architect of Israeli policy at the time was Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, who developed a dual strategy known as the “open bridges policy.” This approach aimed for limited intervention or invisible occupation where possible.
Israel allowed the continued movement of people and goods across the Jordan River via the Allenby and Damia bridges. The goal was to prevent the collapse of the Palestinian economy, avoid assuming the burden of managing daily life, and allow Palestinians to maintain familial, social, and economic ties with the Arab world via Jordan. The aim was to normalize life under occupation while quietly encouraging “voluntary” Palestinian emigration as a long-term demographic solution. Parallel to this, a cautious settlement project began, initially focusing on areas of strategic security interest, such as the Jordan Valley and the Jerusalem perimeter, in line with the “Allon Plan,” which called for annexing these regions while returning densely populated areas to Jordan under a future settlement.
Map of the proposed Israeli annexation plan in the occupied West Bank (“Allon Plan”).
With the rise of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Arab League’s recognition of it in 1974 as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, Israel grew increasingly anxious. Its attempts to work with traditional municipal leaders, elected in the 1976 local elections and largely affiliated with the PLO, had failed. In response, the Israeli Likud government under Menachem Begin in the late 1970s adopted a new strategy – the creation of “Village Leagues.” These were local administrative bodies composed of tribal and rural Palestinian figures.
The Palestinian leaders were selected, armed, and supported by Israel’s civil administration to serve as an alternative “moderate” leadership willing to cooperate with Tel Aviv. The idea was to bypass the PLO and its urban nationalist leadership and to promote a limited “self-rule” model proposed under the Camp David Accords, which granted Palestinians civil administrative control while security and land remained under Israeli authority. However, the Village Leagues experiment failed miserably. Most Palestinians saw their members as collaborators and traitors, and the bodies lacked any popular legitimacy before collapsing entirely with the outbreak of the First Intifada in 1987.
The collapse of this strategy, combined with international shifts such as the end of the Cold War and the First Persian Gulf War, pushed both Israeli and Palestinian actors toward secret negotiations in Oslo. The Oslo Accords, signed between 1993 and 1995, marked the culmination of this phase and reflected Israel’s new strategy of separation and redeployment. Rather than exercising direct control over every inch of land and every aspect of Palestinian life, Israel sought to offload the burden of managing Palestinian population centers while retaining comprehensive control over security, borders, settlements, and resources.
Lawfare and bulldozers
The occupied West Bank was divided administratively and security-wise into three zones.
Area A, about 18 percent of the West Bank and encompassing major cities, was placed under full Palestinian civil and security control.
Area B, around 21 percent and covering towns and villages surrounding the cities, came under Palestinian civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security oversight, though Israel retained ultimate authority.
Area C, more than 60 percent of the West Bank, included Israeli settlements, border zones such as the Jordan Valley, bypass roads, most agricultural lands, and water resources. This area remained under full Israeli civil and security control.
The Oslo Accords created a new reality. Israel’s focus shifted from managing Palestinian population centers to cementing permanent control over vast swathes of land, especially Area C. To achieve this, Israel began using more legal and scientific means to impose its will and Judaize the territory. Perhaps the most alarming development is Israel’s use of legal instruments to formally extend its sovereignty over the occupied West Bank. This is exemplified by the proposed amendment to the 1978 Antiquities Law introducedby Likud Knesset member Amit Halevi.
The amendment seeks to extend the jurisdiction of the Israel Antiquities Authority to Area C. Though framed as a technical measure, it is a blatant step toward formal annexation and the imposition of Israeli civil law over occupied land, in direct violation of international law, which limits occupying powers to preserving heritage for the benefit of local populations. Israel promotes this law under the pretext of protecting Jewish heritage from alleged systematic destruction, creating a false sense of archaeological emergency. But on the ground, this law becomes a powerful tool for land seizure.
Once a site is declared archaeological, military protection is imposed, barring Palestinians from accessing or using the land, halting development, and forcibly displacing residents, paving the way for land and property confiscation.
This approach is a replica of the Elad model used in Silwan, occupied East Jerusalem, where the Elad settler organization combined house takeovers with archaeological excavations to erase Palestinian presence. This model is now being exported deep into the occupied West Bank, as in the case of Sebastia, north of Nablus, where excavations aim to sever the site from its Palestinian town and convert it into an Israeli national park.
Crushing the alternative: Why the Palestinian Authority was never meant to govern
Land control is incomplete without control, or more precisely, removal, of its population. Israel uses a multi-layered pressure strategy to force Palestinians, especially in Area C, to leave.
In recent months, Israeli military raids have intensified on Palestinian villages, towns, and refugee camps, particularly in the northern occupied West Bank triangle, accompanied by a wide-scale destruction of infrastructure. At the same time, settlers have been unleashed to wreak havoc in Palestinian villages and towns, often under Israeli army protection. This creates a climate of terror designed to make Palestinian life unbearable, and has already led to the displacement of thousands.
The annexation strategy is completed by systematically weakening any unified Palestinian political leadership capable of representing the national project. Israel works to disable the Palestinian Authority (PA) without allowing its total collapse, to avoid having to administer the population directly. This is done by withholding tax revenues to financially cripple the PA, obstructing the movement of its officials, and undermining any semblance of sovereignty, consequently reducing the PA to a subcontractor for security and administrative coordination in isolated Palestinian pockets, devoid of real political authority or territorial control.
In its bid to bypass and dismantle unified Palestinian representation, Israel is revisiting its old strategy of creating local proxy leadership. This includes direct dealings with traditional structures like clan leaders, village councils, and tribal elders, aimed at establishing independent bodies subordinate to the occupation. Reminiscent of the failed Village Leagues project of the 1980s, the goal is to fragment Palestinian society and establish local partners through whom the population can be managed without engaging with a national leadership. Recent proposals, such as the Hebron Emirate or plans to impose warlord-led administrations on Gaza post-war, are experiments in this direction. Israel frames these policies in the occupied West Bank as a series of reactive security measures, when in fact they are they are interlocking components of a deliberate, long-term strategy of creeping annexation.
By weaponizing the law, archaeology, settlements, demographic pressure, political suppression, and social fragmentation, Israel is systematically dismantling the possibility of a viable Palestinian state, at a time of growing momentum for international recognition. The outcome is a one-state reality between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, one not founded on equality or citizenship but on an entrenched system of domination by one group over another. A reality that numerous analysts and human rights organizations, including Israeli ones, have described as apartheid. The near future promises deeper entrenchment of this tragic status quo, rendering the so-called two-state solution practically unworkable amid relentless settlement expansion, land fragmentation, and the transformation of the occupied West Bank into isolated cantons stripped of any semblance of sovereignty.
‘It comes with the territory’: How Israel’s archaeologists legitimize annexation
Weaponizing antiquities is part of Israel’s colonial legacy, says Rafi Greenberg, whose colleagues have largely remained silent about Gaza’s destruction.
On April 2, the Israel Exploration Society abruptly canceled what would have been the country’s largest and most prestigious annual gathering of archaeologists. The Archaeological Congress, an annual fixture for nearly 50 years, was called off by its organizers following pressure from far-right Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu to exclude Tel Aviv University professor Raphael (Rafi) Greenberg. “I will not let the wild weeds of academia who are working to promote boycotts of their fellow archaeologists spit into the well of the heritage from which the people of Israel drink,” the minister wrote on X.
In the eyes of Eliyahu and the right-wing NGOs who agitated for Greenberg’s ousting, the professor’s most immediate offense was an open letter he penned a month prior. There, he had urged Israeli and international colleagues to boycott the “First International Conference on Archaeology and Site Conservation of Judea and Samaria” at the luxury Dan Jerusalem Hotel in the city’s eastern half — the first of its kind held in internationally-recognized occupied territory.
Though the Archaeological Congress ultimately took place online last week with Greenberg’s participation, the controversies surrounding both conferences raise deeper moral and political questions about the role of Israel’s archaeology community, as Israel deepens its assault on Palestinian cultural heritage and religious sites in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, and the government moves toward annexing the West Bank — in part through the weaponization of archaeology itself.
In May, Israel’s Heritage Ministry officially commenced the excavation of Sebastia, north of Nablus in the West Bank, with plans to turn the site into the “Shomron national park” — severing the acropolis and ancient village from the Palestinian town to which it is connected.
But the more consequential development began in July 2024, when MK Amit Halevi from Netanyahu’s Likud party advanced a legislative amendment that seeks to apply Israeli antiquities laws to the West Bank. Specifically, the proposed legislation would extend the jurisdiction of Israel’s Antiquity Authority (IAA) from Israel proper to Area C of the West Bank — around 60 percent of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory.
The bill represents the culmination of a five-year campaign by settler regional councils and far-right groups to portray Palestinians as an existential threat to so-called “national” (i.e. Jewish) heritage sites in the West Bank. The left-wing Israeli NGO Emek Shaveh called the legislation an “experiment at achieving annexation through antiquities.”
Graffiti spray-painted by extremist Jews, in the ancient archaeological site of Sebastia, near the West Bank city of Nablus, May 12, 2025. (Nasser Ishtayeh/Flash90)
The IAA’s resistance to extending its reach into the West Bank may have slowed momentum, but it hasn’t derailed the larger goal. In what appears to be a strategic pivot, lawmakers in recent committee meetings proposed forming a new body under the Heritage Ministry to manage activities across the West Bank, not just in Area C. This move skirts the controversy while still aiming at the same outcome: imposing Israeli civilian law over West Bank antiquities.
Indeed, the workaround has faced considerably less blowback from the archaeological establishment. With the exception of Emek Shaveh, cofounded by Greenberg, resistance within the archaeology community to the proposed legislation has largely centered on its implications for Israeli archaeology and Israel’s international reputation.
+972 Magazine sat down with Greenberg to discuss what this latest legislation would mean for Palestinians in the West Bank — which some of the most public opposition entirely failed to mention — who are already suffering from unprecedented levels of state-backed settler violence. Among other things, we explored the fraught relationship between Israeli archaeologists and Palestinians, the “politicization” of Israeli archaeology, liberal appeals to academic freedom, and why Israeli archaeology has little to say about the destruction of Gaza.
The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
To start, do you view the postponement of the Archaeological Congress in April, after the heritage minister agitated to block your participation, as a positive development or a negative one?
I have had a complicated relationship with the archaeological community for decades because I’ve been very critical of what I call the colonial heritage of Israeli archaeology. But this conference was organized by a younger set of archaeologists. It was actually a chance to talk — at least for a few minutes — about some sensitive issues in a fully archaeological setting.
I was going to talk about what [Greek archaeologist and Brown University professor] Yanis Hamilakis and I call the “archaeologization” of Greece and Israel. These are two countries that have been valued by the West since the 18th and 19th centuries almost entirely for their past. And historically, this caused the West, and later the Zionist movement, to undervalue whoever was living in the country — who supposedly had no proper understanding of the past.
Palestinians gather around a winepress in Ain Karem, January 1, 1920. (Library of Congress)
My claim in the paper I was going to read at the conference was that archaeology has played a role in this [dehumanization of Palestinians] and it began not with Israeli archaeology but with proper colonial archaeology of the 19th century — British, German, French archaeology. Israelis then inherited that [legacy], and as a settler colony, it was convenient to continue to hold that point of view.
This sort of primitive approach to archaeology is the one that animates the settler groups and people like Israel’s Heritage Minister. [In their view], only people who connect to specific antiquities from specific times and specific cultures have a right to the country, whereas the rest have no right to the land, to its antiquities, to anything.
So, on the one hand, I was pleasantly surprised that my paper was accepted; this was a chance to present it to the archaeological community, which by and large does not want to talk about this issue. And at the same time, it set up this clash between the conference organizers and the right-wing agitators, who had me on their blacklist for a long time.
But the context of the clash between the Heritage Minister and conference organizers was such that it reverberated with a broader struggle in Israel between so-called pro-democratic forces and the so-called authoritarian or ethnocratic forces in Israel. And a very significant plurality of archaeologists belong to the liberal democratic camp, so for them, the conference became an issue about academic freedom and freedom of expression.
For that reason, it was easy for most of my archaeology colleagues [and the conference organizers] to take my side. Or — as one of my former students wrote to me on WhatsApp — “they insist on having the right not to listen to you, to be able to make the choice to ignore you.” They were not going to let the heritage minister make that choice for them.
While the session in which I ultimately presented last week was well-attended, with over 120 participants, it was a brief 15 minute interlude in what was otherwise an insulated bubble. There were about 12 papers read on West Bank and East Jerusalem excavations by Tel Aviv University and other researchers or by scholars from Ariel University [in the West Bank settlement of Ariel] — papers that would be excluded from most international venues. An Ariel University scholar was disinvited from the World Archaeological Conference during the same week.
Palestinian girls and their father visit and pose by antiquities vandalized by settlers in Zanuta, a South Hebron Hills village where such sites have been used as a pretext to evict residents, March 9, 2024. (Omri Eran-Vardi)
In their arguments for expanding the IAAs jurisdiction to the West Bank, the right-wing settler NGOs allege that Palestinians in the West Bank not only have no idea how to take care of the antiquities in their midst but are actively destroying them, vandalizing them, and stealing them. Can you discuss the legislative moves being taken right now in the Knesset to expand the IAA’s jurisdiction? How does it relate to annexation?
The trope that you mentioned of the local people not taking care of antiquities or destroying antiquities is as old as archaeology itself. And then here in Israel, you have that extra layer of what the settler colonialists see as a divine and historic right to the land.
But the actual move itself to broaden the IAA’s jurisdiction to the West Bank is very much a political move, because the settlers don’t have a true interest in archaeology. In fact, Zionism was quite slow to adopt archaeology in Israel as a vehicle of [establishing a Jewish connection to the land] because the [Jewish] antiquities here in Israel are not too impressive or obvious, and there are only a handful of them.
It’s not like Greek temples that, as my colleague Yanis Hamilakis says, are like skeletons all over Greece; you can see and point out white marble and columns everywhere. In Israel, most of the antiquities that you see are probably not Jewish. If you walk through the countryside and see a ruined building or a castle, it’s likely to be Islamic, Christian or something else.
So archaeology doesn’t give settlers a very obvious point of attachment to the landscape. And yet the settlers claim that all of the West Bank, beneath the surface, is fundamental to Jewish history — that it is where the Bible was written.
When I was actually engaged in cataloging all the known, surveyed, and excavated antiquities sites in the West Bank and subsequently tried to translate that into a map of heritage points, only a tiny minority of sites could really be ascribed with little doubt to a specific ethnic or religious group. Most sites are eclectic; they have stuff predating Judaism by thousands of years. They have stuff after the times of Jewish independence in [ancient] Palestine, from different Islamic dynasties and Christian control.
Settlers, under the protection of Israeli security forces, hold a Tisha B’av prayer service in the middle of a private garden which they claim is an ancient synagogue, in the Palestinian village of Al-Tuwani, South Hebron Hills, August 7, 2022. (Omri Eran-Vardi)
If you take any slice of the history of Israel-Palestine, at any point in time, you will not find a single homogenous culture across the landscape. There’s no time in which everyone in this country was Jewish, Islamic, Christian or anything else. Archaeology in its essence does not provide that kind of certainty and purity that ethnocratic right-wing government ministers might want. So they have to invent it. And then they say the Palestinians are damaging that [exclusively Jewish heritage] and then we will use this as a way of grabbing more land.
So [the settlers] have this very instrumental view of what archaeology can give them. It’s not about antiquities at all — it is about effectively using antiquities as another way of acquiring real estate. At Emek Shaveh, we call it the weaponization of archaeology, or the “Elad model,” after what happened in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan. There, Jewish settlers not only acquired [Palestinian] homes but large tracts of empty archaeological space. And by connecting the houses they acquired with the archaeological space, they’ve come to control all of Silwan, or at least the Wadi Hilweh neighborhood. The Elad model is what the settlers are trying to imprint in the West Bank.
It sounds like archaeology is being instrumentalized in much the same way that firing zones, nature reserves, and declarations of state land have been weaponized against Palestinians in the West Bank in the decades following the 1967 War and Israel’s ensuing occupation of the West Bank.
Exactly.
Emek Sheveh frames these legislative moves as another step toward annexation of the West Bank. To push back on this a bit, hasn’t Israel de facto annexed the West Bank already? The archaeological sites in the West Bank today are under the purview of the Civil Administration (a branch of the Israeli military), so there is already an Israeli body that’s dealing with antiquities in the West Bank. And the IAA, which is supposed to only operate in Israel proper, has itself waded into the West Bank. Is this legislative push mostly symbolic? How does it represent a material change from the status quo?
The way things have functioned up until now — that Israel’s Civil Administration has its own archaeological set up in Area C of the West Bank, separate from Israel — has been super convenient for my [liberal] Israeli academic friends. All Israeli archaeological work in the occupied West Bank is done under a legal framework that has occasionally received the stamp of approval from the Israeli High Court, saying Israel’s occupation is a temporary situation and the Civil Administration is in place just to further the interests of people living in that territory until a final status agreement is reached. So scholars from Hebrew University, Tel Aviv University, Haifa University, can maintain that their work in the West Bank is legal because it is compliant with the constraints that Israel’s Civil Administration has put upon them.
Now, this initiative to hand over the West Bank to the IAA is blowing their cover. The Israel Antiquities Authority is basically annexing the antiquities of the West Bank to Israel, and then Israeli law will apply at those sites and then anything that you do [in the West Bank], you will basically be recognizing this annexationist law. That puts the academics and the IAA in a very uncomfortable situation.
Nir Hasson wrote in Haaretz that the current bill to extend the jurisdiction of the IAA “officially turns Israeli archaeology into a pickaxe with which to dig for the sake of furthering apartheid.” You’ve written extensively about Israeli archaeology in the West Bank since 1967. How did Israeli archaeology relate to this occupied territory before the last few decades?
I think that this [view of Israeli archaeology] actually belongs to the colonial underpinnings of Zionism, and of Israel itself. One of the things taken for granted in this colonial worldview is [its notion that], “if we love antiquities, and all we want to do is uncover the past 3,000 years or 10,000 years, then why shouldn’t we be allowed to do that? We represent science, culture, progress.”
I insist on saying this because [during the 18th and 19th centuries,] the incoming scholars or excavators were equally contemptuous of Muslim, Christian, or Jewish inhabitants that they encountered here, representatives of a past that had to be overcome by science. [For them,] excavating the antiquities [was simply] the right thing to do — everywhere.
Workers at the City of David archaeological site, near Jerusalem’s Old City, on July 22, 2019. (Hadas Parush/Flash90)
I want to emphasize that [Palestinian dispossession at the hands of Israeli archaeology] is too often presented as Israeli archaeologists excavating Jewish stuff to support Jewish appropriation of land. But it is deeper than that; any work that we do, whether on a Bronze age or neolithic era site, is considered good because we are doing it for the sake of science.
The recent legislation is embarrassing to those who subscribe to this view because now suddenly archaeology is being “politicized,” as if up until now it was not political. I’ve increasingly tried to demonstrate to my colleagues, and in general, that this entitled, supposedly apolitical stance is political. It’s not that you wake up thinking, how am I going to instrumentalize archaeology to take over this hilltop or this valley? It’s more like: if the border with Syria is now opened up and there’s a wonderful early Bronze Age site to be excavated, then the archaeologist is just going over the border on the weekend to see the antiquities near Quneitra. I’m speaking hypothetically, but I would not be surprised if it has happened already.
In Hebrew you say, po’al yotseh — “it comes with the territory.” That’s what happens: when Israel occupies some place, archaeologists will soon follow, sometimes within days.
So it seems like what we’re seeing now is a very brazen kind of settler strategy for acquiring more territory in the West Bank.
Yes — if you zoom in to the Jordan Valley, for example, you will find archaeology implicated there. Now again, those archaeologists, they’re just there to do science. It just is convenient that the science is right next to a settler outpost. So it becomes part of the enclosure [of Palestinian land]— of surrounding these Palestinian shepherds and small villages with things that represent the Israeli authorities.
There are some staked-out archaeological sites in the Jordan Valley, and I’m sure that if you ask the excavator, they’ll say, “Oh, this site was surveyed 20 years ago, and they picked up some Iron Age pottery. This is exactly what I’m interested in. And I happen to be from Ariel University [located in the occupied West Bank], but we’re not political, we’re just investigating antiquities.”
At some point, I can understand that my colleague at Tel Aviv University who studies the Roman period and doesn’t read social or political theory might not understand the role of his everyday Roman archaeology in colonialism, but can a person teaching at Ariel University and excavating in the West Bank misunderstand their role? I think you have to be willfully ignorant.
Chancellor of the Ariel University Center of Samaria Yigal Cohen Orgad (L) and Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz seen at a cornerstone ceremony for the new Faculty of Science, January 15, 2013. (Gideon Markowicz/Flas90)
Given that the colonial element of Israeli archaeology predates its occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, can you speak a little bit about archaeology inside of Israel proper and how Israeli archaeologists have engaged with Palestinian history from the last few hundred years?
Hebrew University in Jerusalem had a monopoly on archaeology until 1967. At this point, there was an established curriculum which divided archaeology into prehistoric, biblical, and classical archaeology. All Israeli archaeologists accepted and studied within this framework, and when the new research universities were established in the 1970s, they adopted the same basic curriculum, which brings you up to more or less the Byzantine Age. Any student could choose two specializations, one of which had to be the biblical period.
This meant that biblical archaeology was the raison d’être of Israeli archaeology. There was no Islamic archaeology; at Hebrew University, there was [only] a small cottage industry in Islamic art.
This focus on biblical archaeology — biblical tales, sites mentioned in the bible, and biblical geography — renders the present and past few hundred years unimportant. Up until 30 to 40 years ago, this meant that when excavations were undertaken at ancient sites, you either went quickly through the uppermost layers, or sometimes you just removed them entirely without documentation. That’s no longer considered good practice.
I always understood this [omission of recent history from the archaeological record] in a theoretical way, but in two projects that I was recently engaged in, I came to a much more tactile understanding of what that means. The first was a project I worked on with Hebrew University art historian and archaeologist Tawfiq Da’adli at Beit Yerach, or Asinabra [near the Sea of Galillee]. The site had been excavated and repeatedly misidentified as Roman or Jewish, but Tawfiq and I managed to re-identify it as an Umayyad palace from the 7th–8th centuries CE. Only the foundations of the palace had been preserved, so there were objective barriers to understanding what the site was.
Hebrew University archaeologist and art historian Tawfiq Da’adli gives a tour of Palestinian Arab Ramla, a historic city located in Israel between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The Al-Taji House, one of the few surviving homes in the Al-Mufti neighborhood south of the Great Mosque, showcases the architectural style of Ramla’s notable families during the Ottoman era. (Hanoch Sheinman)
We spent two short seasons excavating. All of the paid labor were Arabic-speaking Palestinians from the Galilee, so Arabic was the working language at the site, and my Arabic is very basic. But together with Tawfiq and another archaeologist from Chicago, Donald Whitcomb, I studied up on the Umayyad period and what a mosque from this time might look like. That was my first attempt to go out of my comfort zone.
The more recent attempt is the work I’ve been doing in Qadas, a Palestinian village depopulated in 1948 when it was occupied intermittently by the Israeli army and Arab Liberation Army troops. The inhabitants fled and became refugees in Lebanon. In order to understand what I’m doing there at Qadas, I had to engage with a large number of people that I had never spoken to before: scholars of the Middle East, Shi’i residents of that area of the Galilee, and people who could tell me about the battles of 1948 and the Arab Liberation Army. We opened up [the Israeli] archives, so it became a very extensive study of the whole context of this excavation.
This was a very long-winded explanation of why when you don’t have an academic curriculum or intellectual basis for the excavating, it will have no meaning. Only when I turn it into a focus of study does it become archaeologically significant.
On top of that, Israel’s antiquity laws only apply to sites or objects dating back before 1700. Anything from more recent periods, even if it was excavated ethically, was never interpreted or curated in a significant way.
The ruin-scape of Qadas, located near the Galilee city of Safad/Tsfat, after cleaning, August 2023. (Sasha Flit)
To pull us back to the present, how do you understand the dissonance between being opposed to the legislation extending IAA authority to the West Bank and then taking part in the conference at the Dan Jerusalem Hotel in the occupied part of the city?
When someone from my university speaks at that conference, perhaps they’re promoting a graduate student who did some excavation there, or they want to get ahead and to get [their research] published. Or they’ve gotten money from the government and they want to show the government that they’re not antagonistic to it — so that they’ll continue getting support.
Archaeology is an expensive business. It needs outside support and people are reluctant to go against the government. Look no further than what is happening in North America. We in the Israeli left are gobsmacked by the rapidity of the collapse of the liberal front in the Ivy League universities — the rapidity with which people jettison all of their beliefs and try to cozy up to [the U.S.] government. It’s really the same mechanism [in Israel]. It’s where the power is.
And people triangulate and they say, “Ok, my name will be on the lecture, but I won’t deliver it. I won’t actually show up at the conference, but I will give it my tacit approval by being part of it. It’s for the good of science.” I think only a tiny minority would say, yes, we are in favor of annexation and illegal Jewish settlement.
I don’t think the conference in occupied East Jerusalem is so important. I was more so shocked by the participation of people from the Austrian Academy of Sciences and from Manitoba than the participation of Israelis.
How has Israel’s archaeology community responded to the destruction of Gaza over the past year and a half? And now that, at least among Israeli liberals, the narrative has shifted from one of uncritical support to one of a war of choice — a war for Netanyahu’s political survival — has the tune changed?
It hasn’t responded at all. There has been no official response by any group except Emek Shaveh. At the beginning of the war, we set up a response group, which included some people from Emek Shaveh, and Dotan Halevy and Tawfiq Da’adli, and we tried to monitor the destruction of cultural heritage. And then my co-director at Emek Shaveh, Alon Arad, and I published an op-ed on the whole phenomenon of destruction and how we, as archaeologists, see the pursuit of maximum destruction of Palestinian heritage everywhere since 1948.
The damage in the vicinity of the Church of Saint Porphyrius, locally referred to as the “Greek Orthodox Church”, February 12, 2024. (Omar El Qattaa)
Certain archaeologists did participate in a very public way in the forensic retrieval of human remains in the kibbutzim, in the places that were attacked on October 7. That was part of a kind of civil society effort in the absence of any kind of government response. So it was archaeologists using their expertise to help in a positive way, but it was also manipulated by some members of the community to support the Israeli position and anti-Hamas war propaganda.
People who I had worked with — who had participated in scholarly discussion of Yanis Hamilakis’ and my book — withdrew and became part of this group of Israeli academics that were really upset by the response of the global left and the pro-Palestinian response to October 7. These archaeologists were sort of in this Eva Illouz camp, if I can use her as a typecast: they said, “We thought we were leftist, but now that we’ve seen what the left is, we’re no longer leftist.” They were pretty upset with me for being outspoken, but never said anything out loud, which is par for the course.
Last November — a few weeks into the fall semester at Tel Aviv University — I initiated a daily strike where I and a few other people would stand on the lawn of the university and hold signs against the war. Eventually others joined, but there were never more than 20 or 30 of us there. This was against university regulations. I was approached by security and by counter-demonstrators. It created a small but vociferous resistance.
A couple of graduate students told me what I was doing was terrible — that some of my students serve in the military, in the reserves, and that I am accusing them of war crimes. I often wondered: Who do you represent? Why are you so confident that you represent all of the reserve officers?
But the tune has changed with the recent renewal of bombings [in mid-March]. I think that’s the inflection point here — the fact that Israel didn’t see through the ceasefire agreement. And I think from that point on, the academic response has grown exponentially. People are willing to identify as being against the war. So until the ceasefire, you could not publicly on campus call for an end to the war. That was considered a violation of university regulations.
So the tune has changed, but does opposition to the war at all center Palestinians and the destruction of Gaza? And among your archaeology colleagues — what about the utter destruction of all the mosques and many churches in Gaza?
It’s a question I have for my colleagues: You’re upset about the dismantling of some ancient wall in the West Bank, and yet you said nothing about hundreds of sites that were wiped out in Gaza.
I recently received a book from a German colleague, a biblical archaeologist who is about my age. I don’t think he made any public statements about the war on Gaza but he wrote an 850-page monograph collating everything that’s known about the antiquities of Gaza. It has no statement at the beginning except we don’t know what has happened to all these sites, and expresses some general hope for the well-being of everyone involved. And this in Germany [where anti-Palestinian repression has intensified].
This type of humanistic response, it’s a great thing to do. It’s a resource, a service to the community. It illustrates the importance of that tract of land, its history, its depth, everything that Israelis want to ignore. But the German guy did it, not an Israeli guy.
Dikla Taylor-Sheinman is a NIF/Shatil Social Justice Fellow at +972 Magazine. Currently based in Haifa, she spent last year in Amman and the previous six years in Chicago.
Emek Shaveh is an Israeli NGO working to prevent the politicization of archaeology in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Emek Shaveh is an Israeli NGO working to defend cultural heritage rights and to protect ancient sites as public assets that belong to members of all communities, faiths and peoples. We object to the fact that the ruins of the past have become a political tool in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and work to challenge those who use archaeological sites to dispossess disenfranchised communities. We view heritage site as resources for building bridges and strengthening bonds between peoples and cultures and believe that archaeological sites cannot constitute proof of precedence or ownership by any one nation, ethnic group or religion over a given place.
The archaeological artefact tells a complex story which is independent of religious dictates and traditions. Listening to this story and bringing it to the wider public can enrich our culture and promote values of tolerance and pluralism. We believe that the cultural wealth of this land belongs to the members of all its communities, nations and faiths. An archaeological site is comprised not only of its excavated layers, but also its present-day attributes – the people living in or near it, their culture, their daily lives and their needs.
We view the practice of archaeology as an endeavor that can benefit the common good. The various means of involving local communities in work on the site in or near which they live, whether it is managing its heritage, engaging in joint excavations, developing the site, or devising tours that combine visits to the site with an introduction to the local community — strengthen a community’s relationship to its wider environment, yield economic dividends and can bring about significant social change.
We believe that becoming familiar with the complex and diverse history revealed through archaeological research can teach us something essential about ourselves, and cultivate an appreciation of this country’s vast cultural diversity, in the past and present.
Our work:
Maintaining regular contact with communities living in or near sensitive archaeological sites in Jerusalem, the West Bank and Israel. We monitor archaeological activities in these areas including infringement of Palestinian property rights and cultural heritage rights. We document these issues in reports, press releases and position papers for policy makers and the general public.
Protecting heritage sites from development and construction plans for the benefit of the public. We file objections with planning and construction committees and launch public campaigns and take legal measures against the transference of ancient sites to private foundations with economic, religious or nationalist agendas who exploit archaeology in the service of these interests.
Public advocacy with decision-makers, the media and the general public thorough tours, lectures, meetings and conferences to help raise awareness to the political use of archaeology as a means for taking over lands and historical narratives. We promote a pluralistic discourse that reveals the diversity of the cultural heritage of this country, and Jerusalem in particular, and work to cultivate a perspective that considers archaeological sites as the shared heritage of all the communities and peoples living in this land.
We conduct community excavations designed to strengthen a local community’s relationship to an archaeological site and to their local heritage. Community excavations increase environmental and social awareness and can strengthen cooperation between different communities living side by side within or near cultural heritage sites.
Professional and Ethical Principles that guide our work as Archaeologists and Heritage Professionals:
We believe that heritage sites can be used to promote understanding between members of different nations, cultures and groups, and should not be used as a means to claim ownership or historical rights over a given site.
Archaeology in general, and in Jerusalem in particular, reveals the rich and diverse fabric of human history, which has universal appeal.
Archaeology tells an independent story about human existence, culture and achievements. It is not selective nor is it subservient to sacred texts.
Each archaeological stratum contributes to the understanding of history. Archaeology does not rank cultures hierarchically.
An archaeological site is comprised not only of historical layers, but is significant in the present-day lives of people who live in or near it, and may form a central part of their culture and daily lives.
We are not interested in proving links between modern ethnic identities (e.g. Israeli, Palestinian, or European) and ancient peoples (e.g. Phoenician, Judean or Crusader).
Because archaeology offers an independent view of human and social origins, it is inherently critical of all historical narratives.
When the archaeological and textual narratives overlap, each serves to illuminate the other: both are interpretive and neither one represents an absolute truth.
As archaeologists expropriate public property, the use they make of this property must be justified, particularly to the public whose property was expropriated.
The walled city as we know it was established by the Romans as ‘Aelia Capitolina’ in the second century CE, after they had destroyed the great capital city of Judea. Since its foundation, this city was destroyed and reconstructed several times, but maintained, more or less, its external outline. The visible city, then, is comprised mainly of buildings constructed in the period of Ottoman (16th-20th centuries) and Mamluk (13th to 16th centuries) rule, but it incorporates buildings of the Crusader, Early Islamic and, in its foundations, of the Byzantine and even Roman periods.
Where, then, is the original Jerusalem?
If ‘original’ means the earliest town to bear the name Jerusalem, it can be found outside the Old City walls, on the southeast spur of the Temple Mount. There, within the mound of Ancient Jerusalem (the ‘City of David’) lie the remains of the first town, built by Canaanites in about 1800 BCE, nearly a millennium before the city was established as capital of Israel and Judah. If ‘original’ refers to the city described in the Bible and sacked by the Babylonians, it lies partly on the ancient mound, partly on the Temple Mount ridge, and partly within the southern quarters of the Old City. If ‘original’ refers to the city that reached its greatest extent under Herod and his descendants, the city destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE – it extends beneath the entire Old City and well to its north. Its remains, however, can hardly be seen on the surface, with the exception of the retaining walls of the temple enclosure.
So the real Jerusalem lies beneath the surface?
For those of us who live in the real world, the real Jerusalem is that which exists today: old and new, Palestinian and Israeli, religious and secular. But ‘real’ Jerusalem is also composed of memory and identity. We are free to choose the personal or historical memories, the religious or national, communal or familial identities that provide meaning to our lives. Jerusalem is very much an artifact of longing, faith and passion. Who could say that such images of Jerusalem are less real than the buried remains?
To be sure, archaeologists cannot impose memory on anyone. But their work is not subject to an imaginary Jerusalem: It can and should provide new and unexpected perspectives on various aspects of reality, and its discoveries should influence the stories that we tell about the city.
But surely the main archaeological periods are Jewish? David and Solomon? The First Temple? Herod’s temple?
Jerusalem’ history begins 7000 years ago, and runs on to the present. In between, there are certainly remains of Biblical Jerusalem, especially from the time of the later kings of Judah, but we should really avoid using religious terminologies for archaeological periods. There is, in fact, no physical evidence for the temple of Solomon and his successors. There is no evidence for rituals such as sacrifices or for the existence of priests, or of anything that we might associate with Jewish religious practice. Given the limited possibilities for excavation, it is not too likely that such remains will ever be found. We can’t even pinpoint the actual location of the temple, and have no attestation of its existence outside of the Bible. In archaeological terms, therefore, the material culture that characterizes Jerusalem between about 1000 and 550 BCE is best characterized as Iron Age, and it is quite similar to that found well beyond the borders of Jerusalem and Judah.
As for the period of Herod and Jesus, the remains of the Temple enclosure are more impressive, but these remains – which may have been in use only for a few decades before their destruction – do not determine the cultural character of the rest of Jerusalem, let alone that of the region. The dominant material culture of the time was Roman, and the greater proportion of all archaeological finds in Jerusalem reflects the cultures of the dominant empires: Hellenistic (from the conquest of Alexander to the Roman conquest), Roman (until the conversion to Christianity), Byzantine (Roman-Christian) and of course, Islamic (with a Crusader interlude).
Are you saying that David and Solomon never existed? That they and the temple are myths? That there is no evidence for Jews in Jerusalem?
Not at all! We are saying that there is a gap between people’s expectations from archaeology and what it can deliver. Pushing the archaeological envelope and transforming ruins into political flash-points should not be the solution. Archaeology can support different historical scenarios, but it neither conclusively proves nor absolutely disproves them.
Are there rules in archaeology? Is there archaeological truth?
If history is imagined as a broken pot, of which only a few sherds remain, archaeology can offer a reconstruction of the pot, based on a preconceived notion of its shape, on reason, and on plausibility. Each additional piece that is recovered improves the reconstruction: allowing certain possibilities and ruling out others. This is an endless process: there always remain alternate versions of events. But each find reduces the number of plausible alternatives, and may sometimes rule out a reconstruction that had been popular before it was found.
The search for the most plausible story, like the attempt to get at the truth in a court of law, is conducted by following multiple lines of evidence. Reconstructions based on multiple lines of evidence enjoy greater scientific credibility. Nonetheless, scientific plausibility often comes into conflict with beliefs and preconceptions. In such cases, there is disagreement on the very rules of engagement, and it cannot always be resolved.
Still, you can dig objectively, can’t you?
To allow archaeologists to compare the results of one dig to another, they have developed rules of ‘good practice’. These rules establish, for example, a proper way of excavating (from top to bottom, or from later to earlier), recording standards (planning, photography, and narrative), standards for conservation and description of finds, and so on. A fundamental precondition of good practice is the full disclosure of excavation methods and of the finds, whether remarkable or run-of-the-mill.
Still, good practice does not create objectivity. There is no way of neutralizing the personal and social context of the excavators, and these influence the manner in which they collect their evidence. Moreover, many things happen in and around an excavation that require contact with the outside world: choosing a location, negotiating with other stake-holders, the extent of the work carried out. And then we have the interpretations of the excavation and its results. All these are no longer codified by ‘good practice’; they require individual decisions based on personal values. And so, ‘objective’ rules are always subject to ‘non-objective’ realities.
Why shouldn’t the Israelis be allowed to run their excavations as they see fit? Surely they’re highly professional?
Jerusalem is contested ground, and the past has become hostage to this contest, with each side trying to tell a story that excludes the other. Historically, archaeology has been used in such situations by interested parties – in 20th century Europe, in the post.Soviet bloc, and elsewhere. In Jerusalem, the influence of ideological sponsors on archaeology has been strongly felt, causing many doubts about the veracity of the finds presented and the degree to which all periods receive equal treatment. Therefore, we think that Israeli archaeology should be closely scrutinized and held to account.
A free and professional archaeology should be measured by its independence; by its ability to reveal something new about ourselves, our forebears, and the people around us. It should help dispel ignorance, preconceptions and myths about the past. It should give voice to those forgotten by history, and tell us about human engagement with changing environments, about the development of technology and human imagination, culture and community. The archaeology of Jerusalem, spanning 7000 years, should tell a far more complex, diverse, interesting and broadly relevant tale than that created to support a particular political creed.
Surely you are not comparing the Israeli excavations to what the Islamic Waqf inflicted on the Temple Mount!
Unfortunately, there is a degree of symmetry between the activities of the Jewish religious authorities in the Western Wall area and the Muslim religious authorities on the Haram el-Sharif (Temple Mount). Both removed many tons of earth and fill from subterranean chambers, in one case – along the entire length of the western retaining wall of the Temple Mount (the Western Wall Tunnels), and in the other – from the ancient vaults beneath the el-Aqsa mosque. In both cases, the Israel Antiquities Authority could offer only token resistance.
Viewed in quantitative terms, Israel has in fact inflicted the greater damage on historic buildings in the Old City. In 1967, while clearing the Western Wall plaza, the entire historic Mughrabi neighborhood, including a mosque, was razed to the ground after the eviction of its residents. The renovation of the Jewish quarter entailed the destruction of many centuries-old buildings before archaeologists arrived on the scene.
But the issue is not, after all, one of quantity or even of quality. Scientific precision has little value where deeply held religious and political convictions hold sway, and comparisons are rendered meaningless when each side can see only its own interests.
Why do you say that archaeology lies at the heart of the conflict?
Archaeology is central to the conflict because it is a field of confrontation between two competing attitudes to the past, and the past is central to the collective identity of each side. Without the belief in Jewish national continuity, there would be no Israeli-Zionist consciousness. Without a belief in their attachment to the land, there would be no Palestinian consciousness. Archaeology is directly relevant to the identities of both sides.
Israel was founded on principles of modernism and development. Archaeology itself was born within modernity, in the context of increasing interest by the West in the Orient. Modernism established a gap between past and present. While the present was devoted to progress and industry, the past was designated as something to be studied, protected, fenced off or put in museums. In the Orient itself, however, people lived their lives within a landscape that was itself a product of thousands of years of human settlement. The past was not fenced off and set apart, but was part of the fabric of life – sometimes revered and protected, and sometimes used as a material or symbolic resource.
When the West arrived in Palestine, its entry was experienced, among other things, through the demand by the British authorities to stop using the past as a local resource, even leading in some cases to the removal of ancient objects and structures and their relocation in museums in Palestine or overseas. Moreover, Zionists began to make the claim that the land itself, and sometimes the very houses in which Palestinian Arabs lived, actually held proof of Jewish priority that trumped the rights of the inhabitants. Archaeology began to be experienced as a wedge driven between the Palestinians, their landscape, and even their homes. Nowadays, with each instance of archaeological “proof” of Jewish presence that is championed by Israeli media, archaeology becomes more deeply implicated in the attempt to separate Palestinians from their homeland.
If Palestinians and Israelis are ever to enter a serious dialogue on a future of coexistence and mutual respect, Israeli archaeology must end its involvement in the battle of identities, promoting understanding between cultures rather than ethnic exceptionalism. It must broaden its horizons and become much more than a prop to given histories.
Why not have each religion – Jewish, Christian, and Muslim – care for its own heritage?
As in every historical city, periods and cultures in the Old City of Jerusalem are intertwined, above the surface as well as below. There are those who would wish to promote the existence of an authentic Jewish Jerusalem hidden beneath the Muslim city; one that can be accessed in the tunnels of the ‘City of David’ and the Western Wall. But that is an illusion: the vaults and tunnels are not all of the same time, and most are modern creations, made up of Ottoman period cisterns, Mamluk vaults, and rock-cut installations of Roman date or earlier.
A denominational division might work for religious buildings (and even those are often shared). But archaeology needs, on the one hand, the protection of ‘color-blind’ legislation (which doesn’t value one culture over another), and on the other – the protection afforded by a mutual respect for heritage based on the understanding that buildings and ancient remains might have different significance for different people, and that their mere age does not determine their value.
What, then, is the solution? What archaeology can be done in Jerusalem?
The solution is to stop treating the past as an extension of faith and national mythology, and to reinstate the archaeological past as a universal human narrative; to conserve significant remains from every period in the city’s history and to allow all those living in and visiting Jerusalem to discover the memories most meaningful to them. Archaeologists will tell of the people of Jerusalem throughout its history: their houses and streets, what brought them together and what kept them apart, the languages in which they spoke, their economic life, their domestic animals, their decorative and artistic creations, their wealth and poverty, their names, their food and even their musical instruments. They will tell of the beginnings of Jerusalem, thousands of years before the great religions came into being, of the history of its waterworks since the days of the Canaanites, of the people of Judah, who showed far more interest in the fertility of their women than in the relations between priests and kings (neither the one or the other have left any material trace), of the lead coffin makers of the Roman period, who decorated their caskets with ropes in order to keep the dead in their place, and of the artisans who filled Islamic Jerusalem with their unique architectural treasures. They will also tell of Jerusalem’s dead and of their graves and tombs that surround the city on every side, and which contain thousands of individual tales of people who lived here or who came from the four corners of the earth to be buried here. This archaeology will not confine itself to antiquity: archaeologists, as students of material culture, will record contemporary Jerusalem and discover, along with the people themselves, the truths embedded in its diverse physical reality.
Everyone, whether Jewish, Muslim or Christian, believer or agnostic, nationalist or cosmopolitan, will be able to find something in these stories that speaks to them or to their community, or that surprises and even angers them. But no one will be able to say that “archaeology proves” one thing or another, because it is as diverse as life itself.
גלבוע אשר ויספיש, (בן דוד שלוי קופ ושות’ רואי חשבון (בי.די.אס.קי)), רואה חשבון
גדעון סולימני, חבר וועדת ביקורת
גלבוע אשר ויספיש, רואה חשבון
נוי-ישראל ברינט, עו”ד נוסף
שירה ויזל, מנהל כספים/גזבר
שלמה זכריה, עו”ד/יועץ משפטי
ארגונים נוספים בהם מכהנים נושאי משרה
המערכת זיהתה ארגונים נוספים ללא כוונת רווח שעל פי הדיווח המקוון האחרון שנמסר על ידם, מכהנים בהם אחד או יותר מנושאי המשרה/חברי ועד. יתכן שקיים מידע נוסף בדוח המילולי במסמכים ודיווחי עמותה.
Five academics withdrew their participation from a Colloquium on the History of French Jews at the Musée d’Art et d’Histoire du Judaïsme (MAHJ) in Paris because of the war in Gaza.
The museum deplored this argument as an “unprecedented boycott.”
The Colloquium, “Jewish Histories of Paris (Middle Ages and Modern Era),” took place on September 15-16, 2025. The Colloquium intended to bring together 25 French and Israeli historians. One of the intended participants was a doctoral student from the Department of Medieval History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
The five researchers who declined to participate cited the fact that the Hebrew University of Jerusalem funded the student. Some researchers argued that participation in the Colloquium ”amounted to support for the Israeli government.” Others referred to the war in Gaza to question the organizational involvement.
MAHJ published a strong statement arguing that the conference, “directed by Liliane Hilaire-Pérez and Évelyne Oliel-Grausz, in preparation since 2024 in collaboration with Israeli and French researchers, was initially scheduled to bring together 25 historians specializing in the medieval and modern periods. Five researchers recently canceled their participation, on the pretext that a medieval history research program at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (HUJ)—directed by Elisheva Baumgarten, a prominent medievalist and Dean of Humanities at the HUJ—was funding the participation of a doctoral student, as is customary. Some argued that their participation amounted to support for the Israeli government. Others paradoxically justified their withdrawal with a motion (in November 2024, adopted by 35 of the institution’s 250 EHESS researchers) rejecting institutional partnerships while rejecting the researchers’ boycott. Others simply cited the war in Gaza to question the organization of the conference. Still others withdrew without giving an explicit reason. In total, out of 25 speakers, five are now missing.”
Adding that, “Even during the Cold War, universities have always welcomed researchers from all countries. This boycott is unprecedented in the long history of academic relations between French and Israeli researchers. It compromises the progress of knowledge in a field that is still poorly taught—the history of the Jewish presence in France—in which Israeli academics play an important role. It absurdly harms Israeli academia, some of whose representatives are among the most opposed to the continuation of the war in Gaza. It confuses researchers with political leaders, on the pretext that their research, like that of their French colleagues, is funded by the state. It denotes a complete misunderstanding of the academic situation in Israel.”
The Association of European Jewish Museums (AEJM) likewise condemned the five academics. The organization stressed that the “Jewish Museums have always been collaborating with researchers of Jewish history, culture, and religion, regardless of where they were born or where they conduct their research. It goes without saying that this includes collaborations with academic institutions and universities in Israel and with Israeli citizens.” Therefore, the Board of AEJM “strongly condemns the withdrawal of five French scholars from participation in the colloquium… We consider the explanation for their decision, justified by the participation of a PhD student from Israel whose travel costs are being covered by the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, as a flagrant violation of the scientific principle that the relevance of research does not depend on the country in which it takes place. Hostility toward Israeli academic or cultural institutions is gaining more and more momentum in the field of Jewish Studies and Jewish Museums. The AEJM Board observes this development with great concern. We strongly reject any attempt to boycott individuals who are affiliated with Israeli universities or cultural institutions.”
Prof. Évelyne Oliel-Grausz, a history professor at Paris-Cité University, currently on delegation to the French Research Center in Jerusalem (CRFJ), part of the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), is a co-organizer of the Colloquium. In response, she stated that “The increase in boycotts in our circles reveals an amalgamation, a dangerous confusion.” The successive withdrawals of the five speakers occurred gradually after the program was published in July, she said. “They argued that the extremely limited financial support from an Israeli university was unacceptable, while it is customary for a laboratory to pay for a doctoral student’s plane ticket. In our opinion, this participation has nothing political about it and cannot be linked to the war in Gaza.” She insisted that “This is not a partnership. And many Israeli researchers are committed to opposing this war; it’s a false accusation,” she said.
She added, “Israeli researchers are automatically accused of being complicit and responsible for the suffering of the war, and are marginalized because they are Israelis.” She called for “protecting scientific and cultural cooperation.”
Oliel-Grausz also stated that she was “shocked by this political manipulation” but rejected “the references to anti-Semitism… We do not wish to make any personal denunciations; we respect the choice of these perfectly estimable and respectable colleagues, who have every right to withdraw.” The museum decided not to disclose the names of the researchers in its press release.
Pierre Gervais, a professor from the English Department at Sorbonne-Nouvelle University, one of the speakers who withdrew from the Colloquium, explained, “The problem was neither the presence of colleagues from Israel, nor their funding, but the display of Israeli governmental or para-governmental institutions as partners in the conference – and not just a university, but also the Israel Science Foundation, whose funding covers all fields, including those with military applications.” Gervais, stated that he “wrote it out in full” in emails announcing his withdrawal from the event. He denounces a “deliberate lie” from the museum in its press release. He emphasizes that his withdrawal is not a “pretext” linked to the travel expenses of a doctoral student, but “the decision to display, on the French side, the support of Israeli institutions, with all the political implications that this entails,” with the mention of the Israel Science Foundation on the Colloquium program in July, making Israeli participation institutional. “I asked the organizers for a correction, which they refused,” he regrets.
Oliel-Grausz confirmed that the Colloquium was going ahead, with the aim of “a scientific approach to shedding light on the history of the Jews of France, many aspects of which remain opaque in the national narrative.”
Interestingly, the identities of the historians are disclosed on social media.
It is worth reiterating that even at the height of the Cold War, Western scholars welcomed colleagues from communist regimes to academic forums, and today, researchers from authoritarian and totalitarian states continue to be included in international panels. For example, despite Iran’s brutal human rights record – more than a thousand people have been hanged so far this year and its war by proxy against Israel – Iranian scholars have participated in international gatherings. To single out Israeli Jewish scholars for exclusion is not only a violation of academic freedom, but also a stark example of double standards that undermines the very principles of scholarly exchange that such boycotts claim to defend.
Colloque organisé par Liliane Hilaire-Pérez (Université Paris Cité, ECHELLES / EHESS, CAK) et Evelyne Oliel-Grausz (CRFJ-CNRS / Université Paris Cité, ECHELLES)
À l’exception de quelques figures ou événements, souvent liés à l’émancipation, l’histoire des juifs à Paris avant 1800 demeure méconnue. Elle est pourtant riche et complexe, et demande à être explorée, tant sur le plan de l’espace urbain, que sur celui du rôle économique et culturel des juifs.
Dès l’époque médiévale, des archives notariales, policières, ou carcérales ont été produites au sujet des juifs parisiens. Ce colloque reviendra sur leur histoire en mettant en perspective ces sources, et en s’intéressant à des périodes de la vie juive parisienne peu étudiées comme la fin du XVIIIe siècle et la Révolution.
Les histoires juives de Paris. Historiographies, sources et recherches en cours (Moyen Âge – Époque moderne) Lundi 15 et mardi 16 septembre 2025 Paris Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal Musée d’art et d’histoire du Judaïsme (mahJ) Organisatrices Liliane Hilaire-Pérez (Université Paris Cité, ECHELLES / EHESS, CAK) Evelyne Oliel-Grausz (CRFJ-CNRS / Université Paris Cité, ECHELLES) Carte de commerce de Samuel Wolf Openheim (British Museum : Heal 126.13) Entrée libre mais inscription obligatoire Lundi 15 septembre à la Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal : liliane.hilaire-perez@u-paris.frevelyne.oliel-grausz@u-paris.fr Mardi 16 septembre au mahJ : mahj.org 15 septembre 2025 BnF – Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal 1 rue Sully 75004 Paris Accueil 10h00 10h15 Introduction Traces et présences des Juifs à Paris avant 1800 10h30 Session 1 – Vies juives à Paris au Moyen Âge Claire Soussen (Sorbonne Université, Centre Roland Mousnier), discutante 10h30-11h00 Manon Banoun (Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, ARSCAN) Les communautés juives parisiennes et leurs quartiers (XIIe -XIVe s.), entre mobilités et (dis)continuités. 11h00-11h30 Hannah Teddy Schachter (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Contending with Crises) The Queen of France and the Talmud Trial of Paris, 1240. 11h30-12h00 Pinchas Roth (Bar Ilan University) From Judah Sirleon to Yehiel of Paris: The Thirteenth-Century Rabbinic Center in Paris. 12h00-12h30 Discussion Pause déjeuner 14h00 Session 2 – Les Juifs et l’emprisonnement à Paris (Époque moderne) Natalia Muchnik (EHESS, CRH), discutante 14h00-14h30 Claire Lesage (Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal) Les ressources sur l’histoire des juifs à Paris aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles dans les archives de la Bastille et des autres prisons parisiennes. 14h30-15h00 Ulrike Krampl (Université de Tours, CeTHiS) La police de Paris face aux écrits en « hébreu moderne » des prisonniers juifs au XVIIIe siècle. 15h00-15h15 – Discussion Pause Session 3- Les grandes enquêtes et la fabrique de l’histoire des Juifs à Paris au XVIIIe siècle Michael Gasperoni (CNRS, IHMC), discutant 15h45-16h15 Mathias Dreyfuss (CRH, EHESS) Enquête sur l’enquête. Autour des Documents sur les Juifs de Paris au XVIIIe siècle (1913) de Paul Hildenfinger. 16h15-16h45 – Discussion 16 septembre 2025 Musée d’art et d’histoire du Judaïsme (mahJ) Hôtel de Saint-Aignan, 71 rue du Temple 75003 Paris 9h30 Accueil 9h45-13h00 Session 4 – Vivre et travailler avec les Juifs à Paris aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles Guillaume Calafat (Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, IUF, IHMC), Catherine Lanoë (Université Versailles Saint-Quentin, DYPAC), discutant.e.s 9h45-10h15 Simona Crosta (Université Paris Cité – Université de Bologne) Juifs et nouveaux chrétiens à Paris au début du XVIIe siècle : Élie de Montalto et l’entourage de Leonora Galigaï. 10h15-10h45 Isabelle Bretthauer (Archives nationales) Au croisement des archives judiciaires et des archives privées : l’apport des fonds des institutions d’Ancien Régime sur la présence juive à Paris au XVIIIe siècle. Pause 11h00-11h30 Nicolas Lyon-Caen (CNRS, IHMC) Nouvelles perspectives sur les juifs avignonnais à Paris au XVIIIe siècle. 11h30-12h00 Liliane Hilaire-Pérez (Université Paris Cité, ECHELLES/EHESS, CAK), Bernard Vaisbrot (Centre Medem) Juifs et non juifs à Paris au XVIIIe siècle : analyser les continuités. 12h00-12h30 Discussion Pause déjeuner 14h00 Session 5 – Les Juifs et la Révolution : une histoire en chantier 14h00-14h30 Evelyne Oliel-Grausz (CRFJ-CNRS / Université Paris Cité, ECHELLES) Agentivité, savoir du politique et espace parisien : la députation des juifs de Bordeaux à Paris sous la Constituante. 14h30-15h00 Sylvie-Anne Goldberg (CRH, EHESS) Entre ce que l’on sait déjà et ce que l’on ignore encore : de la clandestinité à la citoyenneté, que faire des Juifs dans l’histoire de la Revolution ? Discussion 15h30-16h30 Session 6 – Conférence de clôture Jay Berkovitz (University of Massachusetts Amherst, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem) Piecing Together a History of Jewish Paris in the Aftermath of the Revolution: Echoes of the Exceptional and the Everyday. Avec le soutien du laboratoire ECHELLES UMR 8264, de la BnF-Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal et du musée d’art et d’histoire du Judaïsme (mahJ), de la Fondation du Judaïsme Français et de la Fondation Rothschild – Institut Alain de Rothschild Nous remercions le programme de recherche Contending with Crises (Israel Science Foundation/ The Hebrew University of Jerusalem) pour sa participation aux frais de mission.
Google Translate https://www.leparisien.fr/societe/cinq-universitaires-annulent-leur-venue-a-un-colloque-sur-lhistoire-des-juifs-de-france-lorganisateur-denonce-un-boycott-11-09-2025-MWA43ZGVWZGUTPJGULV2244HSU.php
Five academics cancel their attendance at a conference on the history of French Jews; the organizer denounces a “boycott”
According to the organizer, the Museum of Jewish Art and History (Mahj), these researchers notably affirmed that “their participation was equivalent to supporting the Israeli government.”By Le Parisien with AFP September 11 , 2025 at 3:26 p.m.
Several academics have cancelled their participation in a conference on the history of French Jews , citing reasons linked to the war in Gaza , the Museum of Jewish Art and History (Mahj) announced on Thursday, deploring an “unprecedented boycott”.
“Five French researchers recently canceled their participation” in the conference “Jewish History of Paris (Middle Ages and Modern Era)” organized on September 15 and 16 in the capital, the museum stated in a press release . This is “the first time since its creation in 1998” that such an event has occurred, it added, without citing the names of the researchers concerned.
The war in Gaza is the cause
The researchers canceled the conference “on the grounds that a research program” at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem “was funding the participation of a doctoral student,” according to the statement. Some “argued that their participation amounted to support for the Israeli government (…). Others simply referred to the war in Gaza to question the organizational arrangements,” added the museum, which maintained the conference but revised it.
“This boycott (…) absurdly serves the Israeli academic world, some of whose representatives are among those most opposed to the continuation of the war in Gaza” and “confuses researchers and political leaders,” he adds.
“This must call for sanctions,” Yonathan Arfi, president of the CRIF (Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France), told AFP, saying he was “unfortunately not surprised, because we are in a period where a kind of lead blanket is being imposed everywhere with a cultural hegemony of obsession and hatred of Israel.”
For its part, the Licra denounced X as an “ideological spit” which “undermines the very principle of research by calling into question its autonomy.”
“Making participation in this event conditional on the Gaza conflict constitutes a dangerous confusion between unrelated realities, and an amalgamation that weakens academic freedom,” said Ariel Goldmann, president of the Fondation du Judaïsme Français, in a statement.
Faced with the withdrawal of five researchers from a conference on “Jewish History in Paris,” the Museum of Jewish Art and History has denounced this “boycott.” Pierre Gervais, one of the speakers who canceled his participation, explains his approach.
This is a first in its history, according to the Museum of Jewish Art and History (mahJ). In a statement released Wednesday, the institution located in the Marais deplores the ” boycott ” of a scientific conference it is co-organizing. Scheduled for Monday, September 15 and Tuesday, September 16, this event dedicated to ” Jewish history of Paris ” in the Middle Ages and the modern era was to bring together 25 French and Israeli historians. But ” five French researchers recently canceled their participation, on the pretext that a research program in medieval history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (…) was funding the participation of a doctoral student ,” according to the text.
” Some argued that their participation amounted to supporting the Israeli government. Others paradoxically justified this withdrawal with a motion [adopted by members of the School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences (EHESS), Editor’s note] refusing institutional partnerships while rejecting the boycott of researchers. Others simply referred to the war in Gaza to question the organization of the conference. Still others withdrew without explicit reason ,” the mahJ states.
The increase in boycotts in our circles reveals an amalgamation, a dangerous confusion.Évelyne Oliel-Grausz, co-organizer of the conference
The successive withdrawals of the five speakers occurred gradually after the program was broadcast in July, explains Évelyne Oliel-Grausz, co-organizer of the conference, to France 3 Paris Île-de-France. ” They argued that the extremely limited financial support from an Israeli university was unacceptable, while it is customary for a laboratory to pay for a doctoral student’s plane ticket. In our opinion, this participation has nothing political about it and cannot be linked to the war in Gaza. As in France, the research of Israeli colleagues is funded by the state ,” argues this history professor at Paris-Cité University, currently on delegation to the French Research Center in Jerusalem (CRFJ), which is part of the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS).
” This is not a partnership. And many Israeli researchers are committed to opposing this war; it’s a false accusation ,” argues Évelyne Oliel-Grausz. ” The proliferation of boycotts in our circles reveals a confusion, a dangerous amalgam. Israeli researchers are automatically accused of being complicit and responsible for the suffering of the war, and are marginalized because they are Israeli ,” denounces the historian, who calls for ” protecting scientific and cultural cooperation .”
Accusations of “anti-Semitism” and “political exploitation”
The press release sparked numerous reactions in support of the museum from associations such as the International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism (Licra), which denounced an ” ideological spit ” that ” undermines the very principle of research by calling into question its autonomy ,” as well as the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France (CRIF), whose president Yonathan Arfi called for ” sanctions ” in the face of ” a cultural hegemony of obsession and hatred of Israel ,” according to AFP .
Several elected officials also reacted. On the right, Rachida Dati (LR), Minister of Culture and Mayor of the 7th arrondissement, declared that ” these repeated calls for boycotts of artists, shows, conferences, and blockades of establishments are becoming pretexts for outright and assumed anti-Semitism .”
On the Socialist Party side, Emmanuel Grégoire described the boycott as ” shameful ” while Karen Taïeb , the deputy mayor of Paris in charge of heritage, history and relations with religions, wrote on X: ” How long are we going to let this fester? “
Évelyne Oliel-Grausz stated that she was ” shocked by this political manipulation ” and rejected ” the references to anti-Semitism .” ” We do not wish to make any personal denunciations; we respect the choice of these perfectly estimable and respectable colleagues, who have every right to withdraw, ” the historian emphasized, recalling that the museum decided not to disclose the names of the researchers concerned in the press release.
Researcher denounces museum’s “deliberate lie”
When contacted, Pierre Gervais, one of the speakers who withdrew from the conference, fears that ” cyberbullying is inevitable .” While an article in Le Point has already made the speakers easily identifiable, this professor from the English-speaking world department at Sorbonne-Nouvelle University has authorized us to publish his name, to tell the story of his approach.
” The problem was neither the presence of colleagues from Israel, nor their funding, but the display of Israeli governmental or para-governmental institutions as partners in the conference – and not just a university, but also the Israel Science Foundation, whose funding covers all fields, including those with military applications ,” replies Pierre Gervais, who specifies that he ” wrote it out in full ” in emails announcing his withdrawal from the event.
He denounces a ” deliberate lie ” from the museum in his press release. He emphasizes that his withdrawal is not a ” pretext ” linked to the travel expenses of a doctoral student, but explains it by ” the decision to display, on the French side, the support of Israeli institutions, with all the political implications that this entails ,” with the mention of the Israel Science Foundation on the conference program in July, making Israeli participation ” institutional .” ” I asked the organizers for a correction, which they refused ,” he regrets.
For her part, Évelyne Oliel-Grausz confirmed that the conference will indeed take place, with the aim of ” a scientific approach to shedding light on the history of the Jews of France, many aspects of which remain opaque in the national narrative .”
Google Translate Statement of the AEJM Board with regard to the decision of five French academics to boycott the Colloquium “Jewish histories of Paris”
Posted on:September 14th, 2025By:AEJM
Jewish Museums have always been collaborating with researchers of Jewish history, culture and religion, regardless of where they were born or where they conduct their research. It goes without saying that this includes collaborations with academic institutions and universities in Israel and with Israeli citizens.
Therefore, the Board of the Association of European Jewish Museums (AEJM) strongly condemns the withdrawal of five French scholars from participation in the colloquium “Jewish Histories of Paris” which the Musée de l’Art et de l’Histoire du Judaisme (mahJ) plans to hold on 15-16 September. We consider the explanation for their decision, justified by the participation of a PhD student from Israel whose travel costs are being covered by the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, as a flagrant violation of the scientific principle that the relevance of research does not depend on the country in which it takes place.
Hostility toward Israeli academic or cultural institutions is gaining more and more momentum in the field of Jewish Studies and Jewish Museums. The AEJM Board observes this development with great concern. We strongly reject any attempt to boycott individuals who are affiliated with Israeli universities or cultural institutions.
Furore after researchers boycott Paris Jewish history conference
By James Brooks
Scholars’ withdrawal draws petition and is labelled “antisemitic” by culture minister
The decision by five researchers to withdraw from a conference on Jewish history in Paris, on the grounds that it was supported by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has stirred controversy in France.
In a statement on 10 September, the Museum of Jewish Art and History (MAHJ) in Paris said the five researchers, who have not been named, would no longer participate in a two-day conference on Jewish history in Paris on 15 and 16 September.
Researchers cancel their attendance at a conference on the history of French Jews, regrets the Museum of Judaism in Paris
Article from LIBERATION, AFP•
1s•
2 min readThis is
“the first time since its creation in 1998” that such an event has occurred, the Museum of Jewish Art and History (Mahj) in Paris emphasized in a press release published Wednesday, September 10. Five academics have canceled their participation in a conference on the history of French Jews, scheduled for September 15 and 16 in Paris.
The researchers, whose names were not cited, partly canceled their attendance because a research program at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem is funding “the participation of a doctoral student. […] Some argued that their participation amounted to support for the Israeli government. Others simply referred to the war in Gaza to question the organization of the conference. Still others withdrew without giving an explicit reason,” the press release states.
As a result, the institution deplores a decision which “absurdly serves the Israeli academic world, some of whose representatives are among those most opposed to the continuation of the war in Gaza . “
“Anti-Zionist McCarthyism”
The announcement provoked a strong reaction, even from the outgoing Minister of Culture, Rachida Dati. “These repeated calls for boycotts of artists, shows, conferences, and blockades of establishments are becoming pretexts for blatant and assumed anti-Semitism,” she said in a message on X. “It’s no longer a question of opinion, it’s a question of justice and criminal policy,” she added.
For his part, the president of the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France (CRIF), Yonathan Arfi, believes that these academics “must be punished.” He continued: “This anti-Zionist McCarthyism is a danger for French Jews, but also for the pluralism of our public debate.” He considers this event to be one more “list of cases of intimidation […] against a backdrop of permanent assignment to the conflict in Gaza,” including the exclusion—ultimately reversed—of Raphaël Enthoven from a literary festival in Besançon. The philosopher stated ahead of the event that “there are NO journalists in Gaza. Only killers, fighters, or hostage-takers with press cards.”
The International League Against Racism and Antisemitism (Licra) denounced the X-rated article as an “ideological spit” that “undermines the very principle of research by calling into question its autonomy,” and offered its “support” to the museum. The president of the Fondation du Judaïsme Français, Ariel Goldmann, considers that “making participation in this event conditional on the Gaza conflict constitutes a dangerous confusion between unrelated realities, and an conflation that undermines academic freedom.”
For now, the Museum of Jewish Art and History has maintained the conference scheduled for next week, although it has been revised to accommodate the cancellations.
L AFFAIRE du MAHJ avec ces 5 universitaires français qui boycottent un colloque sur le judaisme du moyen âge avec comme prétexte la guerre à Gaza. En fait de simple ANTISEMITE bien que le MAHJ ne prononce pas ses termes Après une enquête assez simple je vous donne les résultats de mes recherches Ces cinq noms ont disparu de la liste des intervenants entre celle publiée en juillet et celle de septembre Présents en juillet → absents en septembre : Julie Claustre, Vincent Denis, Davide Mano, Simon Castanié, Pierre Gervais. Tous les autres noms figurent dans les deux versions. Julie Claustre (Université Paris Cité) – intervention prévue sur les sources médiévales. Ancienne eleve de l’école Normale supérieure Vincent Denis (Université de Rouen / EHESS) – intervention sur l’histoire moderne. Davide Mano (CNRS / Université de Strasbourg) – intervention sur les réseaux juifs. Maître de conférence Universitaire Simon Castanié (Université Rennes II, mentionné comme agrégé d’histoire). Agrégé d’histoire Pierre Gervais (Université Sorbonne Nouvelle) – table ronde. Professeur du monde anglophone —26347?lang=frLes photos par ordre Julie claustre Vincent Denis Davide Mano Simon Castanie Pierre Gervais
Google Translate
THE MAHJ AFFAIR with these five French academics boycotting a conference on medieval Judaism using the war in Gaza as a pretext. In fact, it’s simply ANTISEMITIC, although the MAHJ doesn’t use these terms. After a fairly simple investigation, I present the results of my research. These five names disappeared from the list of speakers between the one published in July and the one published in September. Present in July → absent in September: Julie Claustre, Vincent Denis, Davide Mano, Simon Castanié, Pierre Gervais. All other names appear in both versions. Julie Claustre (Université Paris Cité) – planned presentation on medieval sources. Former student of the École Normale Supérieure https://www.linkedin.com/in/claustre-julie-758b3356?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_app Vincent Denis (University of Rouen / EHESS) – talk on modern history. https://x.com/denisvi04434346?s=21 Davide Mano (CNRS / University of Strasbourg) – talk on Jewish networks. University Lecturer https://x.com/davide_mano?s=21 Simon Castanié (University of Rennes II, listed as an agrégé in history). History Professor https://centrerolandmousnier.cnrs.fr/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/cv_castenie_032024.pdf Pierre Gervais (Sorbonne Nouvelle University) – Roundtable. Professor of the English-speaking world https://shs.cairn.info/publications-de-pierre-gervais—26347?lang=fr Photos in order Julie Cloustre Vincent Denis Davide Mano Simon Castanie Pierre Gervais
Recently, IAM posted two reports on the German Law Blog, Völkerrechtsblog. One (March 19, 2025) was titled “Pro-Palestinians Take Over German Academic Blog of International Law,” and the second (August 12, 2025) was titled “German Academic Blog of International Law Promotes Iranian Regime’s Interests.”
The first report discussed a symposium that Völkerrechtsblog promoted on academic freedom and “its erosion amidst the heightened climate of restrictions and constraints imposed upon Palestinian advocacy, a situation that has become increasingly evident in the wake of developments having occurred across the globe since 7 October 2023.” Völkerrechtsblog published a call for contributors (CfC) to the symposium.
The German Law blog has published a rebuttal to the IAM claims.
According to Völkerrechtsblog, IAM presents itself as supporting “the universal tradition of academic freedom that is an indispensable characteristic of higher education in Israel,” and that IAM is also “concerned by the activities of a small group of academics – sometimes described as revisionist historians or post-Zionists, among other labels – who go beyond the ‘Free search for truth and its free exposition… that is the hallmark of academic freedom”. Völkerrechtsblog also noted that for IAM, the revisionist historians and post-Zionists are “[e]xploiting the prestige (and security) of their positions, such individuals often propound unsubstantiated and, frequently, demonstrably false arguments that defame Israel and call into question its right to existence.”
Völkerrechtsblog found in IAM’s work, “threefold betrayal of their proclaimed mission.” The first IAM betrayal is where IAM provided “academic profiling,” which is a “brief mug-shot-like introduction” of the three promoters of the symposium, as well as a “vaguely articulated and unsubstantiated criticism of the quality of our scholarship.”
Völkerrechtsblog argued that IAM inferred from a single CfC that there is a “take-over.” To prove a point of variety, Völkerrechtsblog brought up three other topics it discussed.
Völkerrechtsblog argued that upon noting who the people behind the Völkerrechtsblog symposium are, and upon emphasizing Khaled El Mahmoud’s Palestinian origin, IAM further marked as worth noting that “the organizers adopted the critical, neo-Marxist paradigm” and recalled that IAM “often discusses the critical, neo-Marxist scholarship …, lack[ing]… academic rigor,” without raising any specific points of criticism about the CfC.
For Völkerrechtsblog, IAM “Delegitimised academics as biased” due to their “Palestinian origin,” or “as lacking academic rigor,” due to their “engagement with critical perspectives clearly exhibits a complete lack of understanding for academic work.”
Völkerrechtsblog argued that the “insinuation” here is that Palestinians are not supposed to speak since they are “presumed to be disqualified” by “emotional involvement,” which “operates precisely through membership in the socially constructed category” of Palestinians, and like other racialized identities, it is “produced externally through processes of domination.” Therefore, “Palestinian scholars are racialized” as “biased”, “irrational”, or “too emotional” through the very “practices that silence and delegitimize their voices in academic and political discourse.”
For Völkerrechtsblog, such a gesture is “emblematic of what Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak has termedepistemic violence: the silencing of marginalized voices by construing their knowledge as illegitimate or irrational. It simultaneously delegitimizes the speaker and discredits the very possibility of Palestinian scholarly authority.”
Völkerrechtsblog borrowed Miranda Fricker’s terms, that this “constitutes a form of testimonial injustice, where credibility is unjustly withheld because of who the speaker is rather than the substance of what is said. The effect is to erase the line between lived experience and intellectual contribution, treating the former as a contaminant rather than, as scholars like Linda Tuhiwai Smith have argued, a vital resource for critical inquiry and decolonial knowledge production.”
Völkerrechtsblog added that “Such an approach undermines the very premise of academic engagement, which – far from demanding agreement – depends on rigorous confrontation with different premises, arguments, and conclusions in order to test and refine one’s own thinking.”
Völkerrechtsblog concluded that “IAM’s response to our CfC did not even attempt substantive critique or engagement according to academic standards. Instead, it relied on unsubstantiated assertions and ad hominem insinuations, functioning less as scholarly commentary than as a deliberate strategy of delegitimization. This raises the question of what truly puts the ‘A’ in IAM? It is surely not the monitoring of academic work, but the monitoring and targeting of academics.”
Völkerrechtsblog criticized IAM’s statement that “since October 7, 2023, Palestinian academics have been emboldened to criticize the Western democracies in which they reside,” while IAM is “disregarding the continuous work of Palestinian and non-Palestinian academics criticizing Israel’s wrongful acts in the region throughout the past decades.”
Furthermore, Völkerrechtsblog lamented that IAM provided a link to the names of the Völkerrechtsblog’s partners and sponsors.
When IAM ended its post by stating “IAM has repeatedly pointed out that the academy is the main platform for disseminating the Palestinian narrative on the global stage and bashing Israel,” and warned that “[t]he German sponsors and partners of Völkerrechtsblog should be vigilant,” for Völkerrechtsblog, “The target was clear;” an “attack” to “restrict our freedom as a predominantly volunteer project by questioning if supporting us was legitimate at all… offering a convenient tool to those who disagree with our positions and see silencing as easier than engaging in debate.”
However, in a personal blog, under the sub-heading of Politics, Khaled El Mahmoud referred to the IAM post and stated clearly: “Indeed, we are in the process of taking over; and this is only the beginning. Our agenda extends beyond institutions; it reaches into the very foundations of the German academic system, where narratives have long been controlled and voices like that of Palestine have been silenced or distorted.”
Furthermore, when Völkerrechtsblog discussed academic engagement, as “far from demanding agreement – depends on rigorous confrontation with different premises, arguments, and conclusions in order to test and refine one’s own thinking.” It is precisely what IAM has criticized Völkerrechtsblog for: The one-sided anti-Israel bias. Missing totally from the discussion is a presentation of the Israeli perspective, which is how it is fighting a murderous organization that has controlled the Gaza Strip for two decades, effectively turning inhabitants into human shields. As IAM pointed out, the terrorist group turned the hospitals, mosques, and schools into a network of army bases full of weaponry connected by an elaborate 500 km tunnel system. What is more, Hamas robbed the public coffers of vast sums of money to pay for its military infrastructure. A legal blog like Völkerrechtsblog should have been aware of the Geneva Conventions that forbid turning civilians into human shields.
As part of the symposium, Völkerrechtsblog published an article by Dr. Itamar Mann, Professor of Law (on leave) at the University of Haifa, titled “Who Gets to Speak in the Israeli University?” (September 13, 2025). Mann stated, “Universities often claim to be bastions of free inquiry, including in research and in the classroom. But in Israel today, that claim rings increasingly hollow,” tracking the “lines of Jewish supremacy, protecting some while punishing others.” For Mann, “Since October 2023, campuses have reproduced the state’s broader regime of silencing.” He calls it “speech apartheid” and “apartheid of knowledge.” In Mann’s view, for Palestinian students, the “costs of criticizing the state have in the last two years become significantly more immediate and severe… I have been preoccupied with the question of whether and how universities such as my own can preserve spaces of equality. Equality in the classroom is not only a fundamental moral and political principle the university must uphold. It is also an epistemic precondition for higher learning.”
Mann discussed a 2024 report published by “Academia for Equality” titled “Silencing in Academia Since the Start of the War,” exposing the “scale of persecution directed at Palestinian students, citizens of Israel who have been silenced between October 2023 and June 2024. Expressions of dissent, or even basic empathy for the Palestinians in Gaza have been swiftly and unfairly punished.” He added that “faculty should not accept that solidarity with Palestinian students by definition threatens Jewish peers.”
Mann stated that in “Israeli universities, and elsewhere, we must remember that the measure of academic freedom is not comfort but the possibility of intellectual confrontation. If the university cannot sustain both sharp criticism and mutual respect, it is not only complicit in the hierarchies that silence those who most need to be heard. It can no longer be a place in which knowledge is produced.” Mann also disclosed he recently served as a legal advisor to the NGO Physicians for Human Rights Israel (PHRI) and helped to write the report “Health Analysis of the Gaza Genocide.”
He ended by stating, “This post may seem like it tries to serve a portion of naïve liberalism at a time when liberalism seems to be collapsing globally, let alone in Israel.”
He then thanked Prof. Orna Ben-Naftali, and others for helpful comments. To recall, Ben-Naftali influenced Judge Goldstone in his 2009 Goldstone Report; he later retracted his accusations against Israel.
Israeli academics are working hand in hand with Palestinians and pro-Palestinians in their war against Israel. Mann’s “naive liberalism” provides a glimpse into the decades-long expansive form of academic freedom in Israel.
Indeed, in 2013, IAM commissioned research titled “Academic Freedom in Israel: A Comparative Perspective.” The study examined the rise of the critical, neo-Marxist scholarship in Israeli universities, exploring its substantial following in the humanities and social sciences. Known as post-Zionism, it asserts that Zionism is a colonial-imperialist movement and that its progeny, the State of Israel, is a colonial-apartheid country. In addition, Israel is presented as a Nazi-like state, and the Israel Defense Force (IDF) is accused of Nazi-like behavior. Courses offered by self-described post-Zionist faculty have been heavily weighted toward this critical, neo-Marxist paradigm, with little or no effort expended to provide any different perspective. Combining academic research and political work, post-Zionist academics have engaged in a robust attempt to compel Israel to withdraw from the territories. Even some Israeli scholars have adopted the trend and acquired a leadership role in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and launched international petition drives condemning the IDF for war crimes.
The study found that government and university authorities have been slow to respond to this threat, due to the prevalent notion that academic freedom protects faculty speech and action, both intramurally and extramurally. Radical scholars and their liberal defenders have warned that imposing any limits would injure Israel’s standing in the academic world and place it at odds with standards of academic freedom practiced in other democratic countries.
The report concluded that Israeli universities—compared to those in Germany, Great Britain, and public universities in the United States—enjoy a high level of institutional autonomy and their faculties benefit from an exceptionally broad definition of individual freedom.
Mann and his peers have profited from the reticence of the academic authorities to take steps to bring the academic freedoms in Israel in line with what is customary in the West. As a result, liberal arts are a bastion of left-wing activist scholars who also legitimize the likes of Völkerrechtsblog and a variety of similar anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish platforms.
IAM has repeatedly pointed out that this has become a troubling pattern in certain academic and intellectual circles: the deliberate use of Israeli scholars as a figleaf to legitimize platforms that are openly hostile to Jews and Israel. By inviting or showcasing these scholars, such circles attempt to neutralize criticism of their own prejudice while advancing an agenda rooted in exclusion and bias.
This practice does not represent genuine intellectual engagement. Rather, it instrumentalizes individuals—casting them as “useful idiots”—to provide cover for rhetoric and projects that are deeply antagonistic to Jewish life and to the State of Israel. True scholarship demands honesty, independence, and integrity. Exploiting Israeli academics in order to launder antisemitic or anti-Israeli discourse is a betrayal of academic values and a manipulation of those who participate, knowingly or not, in this charade.
On Strategies of Silencing a Symposium against Silencing
11.09.2025
When a group of (early-career) scholars decides to organize a symposium on the alarming global restrictions of academic freedom – set against the backdrop of the “unfolding Genocide“ in Gaza and the egregious violations of core international law norms against the Palestinian people – it would surely be naïve to expect no backlash. After all, in our Call for Contributions(hereinafter “CfC”), we outlined a series of measures aiming to silence critical (academic) voices speaking up against the grave human rights violations and the illegality of Israel’s military actions and presence in the occupied Palestinian territories (“oPt”). Against this silencing – and the deafening silence of some – the project was born out of a deep conviction that we really, truly need to talk. That conviction has not diminished; if anything, it has grown louder and more urgent in light of our experiences since the publication of the CfC in March 2025.
The strategies pursued by different groups aiming to prevent the publication of this symposium do not only speak to the necessity to provide space to talk about the situation in Palestine but also to a general misconception of the role of academics and academic debate. One recent manifestation of such a blatant misapprehension is reflected in the attempt of advocacy groups to push the Freie Universität Berlin to (again) cancel a workshop with Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and Eyal Weizmann, the Founder of Forensic Architecture, on “Forensic and Counter- Forensic Approaches to Reconstructing International Law – Cartography and Anatomy of Genocide”, courageously organised and curated by the Interest Group on International Law and Technology as a pre-conference workshop to the annual conference of the European Society of International Law.
Since we do believe in the power of sharing personal experiences and in solidarity, we decided to share ours through this symposium as they highlight the different shapes and forms that silencing attempts and chilling effects can take as well as the salience of solidarity in academia. They further unearth the hidden costs associated with pursuing publication projects that resist topical normalization and try instead to re-open space for important – yet often uncomfortable – conversations in a highly polarized political environment. At the same time, these experiences contribute to a wider discussion about the systemic difficulties that public academic funding institutions, such as the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, hereinafter “DFG”) are facing when silencing campaigns exploit a misconstrued notion of Germany’s “Staatsräson” and rely on false allegations of antisemitism and deliberate detorsions of academic work.
The Irony of “Academic Profiling”
Shortly after the publication of the CfC, we were informed by concerned colleagues about a blogpost published by the so-called “Israel Academia Monitor” (“IAM”). On its website, this organization presents itself as supporting “the universal tradition of academic freedom that is an indispensable characteristic of higher education in Israel.” As the website further states, the organisation is also concerned by the activities of a small group of academics – sometimes described as revisionist historians or post-Zionists, among other labels – who go beyond the “free search for truth and its free exposition […] that is the hallmark of academic freedom”. According to the organisation, “[e]xploiting the prestige (and security) of their positions, such individuals often propound unsubstantiated and, frequently, demonstrably false arguments that defame Israel and call into question its right to existence”.
In what proved to be a threefold betrayal of their proclaimed mission, the IAM published the blogpost, “Pro-Palestinians Take Over German Academic Blog of International Law”, in which it provided what could be described as “academic profiling”, i.e. a brief mug-shot-like introduction of the three of us as authors of the CfC, as well as a vaguely articulated and unsubstantiated criticism of the quality of our scholarship and a warning about the potential implications of funding the Völkerrechtsblog, due to our engagement therein. Inferring from one CfC that there is something akin to a “take-over” is already bold, considering the number and range of topics discussed and projects realized on Völkerrechtsblog (see only recently here,here and here). Yet, such an allegation would also require more in-depth engagement with the CfC itself, which brings us to our next point.
Upon noting who “the people behind the Völkerrechtsblog symposium are” (and upon emphasising Khaled’s Palestinian origin), the organisation’s blog reiterated some parts of our CfC ad verbatim. It further marked as worth noting that “the organizers adopted the critical, neo-Marxist paradigm” and recalled that the organization “often discusses the critical, neo-Marxist scholarship […], lack[ing] […] academic rigor”, without however raising any specific points of criticism about the CfC. Delegitimising academics “as biased” due to their Palestinian origin or “as lacking academic rigor”, due to their engagement with critical perspectives clearly exhibits a complete lack of understanding for academic work by the self-proclaimed “Israel Academia (!) Monitor”. The insinuation is that, as a Palestinian, one is not supposed to speak on this subject, since one’s voice is presumed to be disqualified by “emotional involvement”. This disqualification operates precisely through membership in the socially constructed category of “the Palestinian”, which – much like other racialized identities – is produced externally through processes of domination. Thus, Palestinian scholars are racialized as “biased”, “irrational”, or “too emotional” through the very practices that silence and delegitimize their voices in academic and political discourse. This gesture is emblematic of what Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak has termedepistemic violence: the silencing of marginalized voices by construing their knowledge as illegitimate or irrational. It simultaneously delegitimizes the speaker and discredits the very possibility of Palestinian scholarly authority. In Miranda Fricker’s terms, this constitutes a form of testimonial injustice, where credibility is unjustly withheld because of who the speaker is rather than the substance of what is said. The effect is to erase the line between lived experience and intellectual contribution, treating the former as a contaminant rather than, as scholars like Linda Tuhiwai Smith have argued, a vital resource for critical inquiry and decolonial knowledge production.
Such an approach undermines the very premise of academic engagement, which – far from demanding agreement – depends on rigorous confrontation with different premises, arguments, and conclusions in order to test and refine one’s own thinking. The IAM’s response to our CfC did not even attempt substantive critique or engagement according to academic standards. Instead, it relied on unsubstantiated assertions and ad homineminsinuations, functioning less as scholarly commentary than as a deliberate strategy of delegitimization. This raises the question of what truly puts the “A” in IAM? It is surely not the monitoring of academic work, but the monitoring and targeting of academics.
Furthermore, the IAM provided a link of the names of the Völkerrechtsblog’s partners and sponsors. Upon consulting Wikipedia, it stated additional institutions supporting the blog and collaborating with it. Ultimately, the IAM blogpost argued that “since October 7, 2023, Palestinian academics have been emboldened to criticize the Western democracies in which they reside”, disregarding the continuous work of Palestinian and non-Palestinian academics criticising Israel’s wrongful acts in the region throughout the past decades. The blogpost concluded stressing that “IAM has repeatedly pointed out that the academy is the main platform for disseminating the Palestinian narrative on the global stage and bashing Israel”, warning that “[t]he German sponsors and partners of Völkerrechtsblog should be vigilant”. The target was clear. This time, the attack was not directed at us as individual academics, but at restricting our freedom as a predominantly volunteer project by questioning if supporting us was legitimate at all. Soon, we learned that such a strategy should prove attractive to others as well, offering a convenient tool to those who disagree with our positions and see silencing as easier than engaging in debate.
The Irony of Denigration
In early June, we were informed by the DFG that an advocacy group submitted a complaint in the form of a draft press statement to the Federal Ministry of Research, Technology and Space (hereinafter “BMFTR”) and the DFG, accusing the Völkerrechtsblog of promoting anti-semitism and hatred of Israel. It further called the DFG to seek “a noticeable reorientation of the blog” or to subject the blog’s funding to a renewed and comprehensive review so that “the publication of antisemitic or antizionist content is not financed by public funds”. We share the full text of the allegations here in German but redacted the authors of the draft press statement because we do not want them to become a target of some misunderstood acts of solidarity. For reasons of transparency, however, we think there is merit in making the text available to our readers since it displays the pursued strategy.
The allegations were either based on a deliberately distorted representation of our CfC, on a willful misunderstanding of the purpose of academic debate and the specific function of a “Call for Contributions”. Further on a lack of knowledge about the regular (yet, necessarily ex post) judicial scrutiny of restrictive executive measures by the administrative courts (with the abbreviation “FFK” ringing familiar for every German-trained legal professional) and/or on elusive “guilty by association”-type accusations that betray ignorance of the difference between authorship and scholarship. Therefore, we see little that requires substantive rebuttal. Given the space restrains of this contribution, and since both, the accusations of the advocacy group, as well as our CfC are now available online for our readers to consult directly, we will refrain from detailed debunking of each individual accusation. However, we welcome questions and a conversation on specific allegations at any time. In this contribution, we will turn to examine in more depth the details and, indeed, the irony of the advocacy group’s strategy: in its eagerness to discredit and silence, it ends up proving our very point about the mechanisms of distortion and suppression that threaten academic freedom today.
The complaint of the advocacy group, framed as a “press statement”, thus already adopting a “threatening gesture” of being ready to “go public”, concluded by declaring that they “have no expectations of those responsible for the symposium and other problematic articles and statements due to their clearly expressed attitudes”. Instead, the association called the DFG to subject the DFG funding that the Völkerrechtsblog has secured to review so that “the publication of anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist content is not financed by public funds”. It further reminded the professors listed as the blog’s sponsors on our website that “Jewish and Israeli students should also have the right to move around the universities without fear and without being forced to hide their own identity”. Accordingly, they called on the DFG to “either aim for a noticeable realignment of the blog or reconsider the funding”. They also expressed their shock that “not a single member of the [blog’s] ‘Scientific Advisory Board’ […] took offense at such an anti-Israeli thrust of the blog.” The way the advocacy group drafted its “press statement” suggests that it considered all options exhausted and expressed frustration not only with Völkerrechtsblog but also with the Scientific Advisory Board, which supports the blog by conducting peer reviews, thereby ensuring the high quality and adherence to the standards of good scientific practices of all of our publications.
Yet, crucially, the advocacy group had never contacted – nor attempted to contact – Völkerrechtsblog itself, Prof. Riegner or Prof. Thielbörger (our cooperation partners in the DFG-funded project: “Expansion of the Project ‘Völkerrechtsblog’ into an Open-Science-Hub”), or any members of our Scientific Advisory Board before sending the draft press statement to the BMFTR and the DFG. This reinforces the impression of a profound misunderstanding on the part of the advocacy group of what academia and Völkerrechtsblog as an academic blog (no quotation marks required) is about, and what the right to academic freedom under the German Constitution protects. Völkerrechtsblog has long established robust procedures to ensure the academic quality of its publications, a fact transparently set out on our website. The advocacy group’s conduct therefore does not reflect a willingness to engage in dialogue or contest ideas and arguments, but rather a deliberate attempt to delegitimize alternative voices and erase them from academic discourse altogether.
It further speaks volumes about their intentions to target us “through the backdoor” that we have not been contacted since mid-July, even after the DFG sent its response to the advocacy group making it clear that we are open to discussing concerns they may have about the CfC and the symposium, provided that our academic freedom is not jeopardized. There is a bitter irony involved in an advocacy group claiming to represent students demonstrating such ignorance for academic freedom. By invoking the language of protection while working to suppress it, they risk hollowing out the very principle they claim to defend. At the same time, this serves a significant reminder for every one of us that our curricula must embed a robust understanding of academic freedom – not only as an abstract right but as a lived safeguard of open, plural, and critical scholarship. That we do not only have to teach students about law but also on what grounds academic work is conducted and why it is important to protect it, especially in cases where there may be political polarization. The level of misunderstanding (and at times deliberate misconstruction) of the purpose and intricacies of academic work and discourse was only recently displayed in the failed elections of judges for the Federal Constitutional Court.
The Irony of Receiving Public Funding
The second important detail we would like to highlight is the role of the DFG as a public funding institution. Public funding in academia has proven to be more and more a mixed blessing, especially when liberal democracies, such as the United States become more and more polarized. On the one hand, it is intended to ensure high quality and independence of research from capitalist logics; on the other hand, precisely because resources remain public, they sit in closer proximity to political agenda, and in the German case, to the notion of “Staatsräson”. Until now the DFG has taken a strong stance in affirming that their funding will be awarded exclusively on the basis of academic excellence – even after the German Parliament passed a non-binding resolution embracing the IHRA definition for antisemitism and discussions about integrating them in funding guidelines gained more traction. Notably, the DFG has not asked us to change either the substantive orientation of the blog, the organization of this symposium, or our internal workflow. Their support for the project was, in fact, recently reaffirmed in the face of yet another round of (anonymous) allegations directed against us. We cannot stress how important that is.
At the same time, these developments call for critical scrutiny. The very debate about whether political definitions, such as the IHRA, should guide funding criteria demonstrates the fragility of the line between quality-based assessment and political litmus tests. Conflating academic excellence with conformity to political consensus risks instrumentalizing funding decisions in ways that undermine the independence they are meant to protect. Once funding is perceived as contingent on alignment with contested political resolutions – rather than on scholarly rigor and innovation – the space for plural, critical, and dissenting research narrows. The danger is that public funding, designed to shield research from private or partisan influence, becomes a tool for enforcing political orthodoxy, thereby chilling academic freedom instead of safeguarding it. These dangers do not only arise in theory; they also manifest in more subtle, practical ways. Even where an institution such as the DFG reaffirms its commitment to academic excellence as the sole funding criterion, the handling of politically motivated allegations can produce indirect pressures that risk chilling effects.
Despite the DFG’s explicit assurances, closing the gateway to over-restrictions and paternalism and protecting the autonomy of universities and academic freedom, we learned in the context of the advocacy group’s allegation against us that chilling can occur in more subtle forms. That is by agenda setting and vague communication. When the DFG asked us for a meeting, they highlighted that apart from wanting to discuss the allegations, which we understand and think is reasonable, their goal was to arrive at binding solutions that rule out any violations of the law as far as possible. Without talking to us first they seemed to have already decided that it would be necessary to reach “binding solutions.” While this may just have been an unfortunate choice of wording, it put us into an unwarranted defensive position. From their e-mail it remained unclear what stance they would ultimately take. This uncertainty was compounded by the fact that, in the same e-mail and again without awaiting the outcome of our meeting, the DFG requested to be removed from our website as a “partner” – a designation that had been in place for five years – and to be named only as a “funding institution.” While we readily complied, the gesture conveyed a sense of distancing on the part of the DFG before the matter had even been clarified. Such anticipatory distancing, even if intended as a precautionary step, risks contributing to chilling effects. Scholars, especially early-career scholars, may internalize signals of such caution and may begin to self-censor or self-silence, shying away from projects that deserve to be pursued with the full measure of academic rigor, particularly in a politically polarized atmosphere.
Here, Hannah Arendt’s reflections on oppression provide a useful lens. Arendt warned that oppression rarely begins with overt prohibitions, but with more subtle signals that instil fear, encourage conformity, and erode the willingness to speak and act freely. It is precisely this anticipatory obedience, i.e., the internalization of expected boundaries before they are formally imposed, that corrodes public spaces of freedom. Seen through this lens, the DFG’s request may not have been intended as censorship, but its effect risks aligning with what Arendt described as the gradual narrowing of the space for free action and speech. To stand firm in protecting academic freedom, the DFG could send a strong signal by establishing a robust internal procedure that sets out how to respond to such allegations in a transparent, consistent, and principled manner.
Self-censorship and self-silencing are not just hypothetical, but real and growing. As editors at Völkerrechtsblog we can attest having received an alarming number of requests for the retraction of academic publications critical of certain states’s conduct, as well as requests for the removal of academics’ names from our website due to their fear of being denied visas or entry to certain countries, where they had previously decided to continue their academic careers. Under such constant threats to academic freedom, survival instincts would almost inevitably push scholars toward self-censorship than toward speaking openly about restrictions on academic freedom.
This brings us to another layer of the sad irony of the whole matter.
The Irony of Silence
When subjected to such (often personal) allegations, scholars are deliberately singled out as targets. This is an uncomfortable position to be placed in. It is a situation in which one quickly learns who is willing to share that discomfort in solidarity, and who is either unwilling or unequipped to do so. Colleagues, whether more senior academics or institutional hosts, tend to pursue two main strategies to maintain a safe distance from the particularly unsavoury allegation of antisemitism. The first strategy, contrary to our usual commitment to intra- and interdisciplinarity, is a sudden retreat into a narrowly defined expertise. Statements such as “I am not an expert on this, and therefore I do not want to get involved” are increasingly common. Yet this posture sits in stark contrast to the inexhaustible intellectual curiosity that normally drives academic work, where questions outside one’s own immediate area of expertise are treated as opportunities for dialogue and shared inquiry, not as boundaries of silence.
The second strategy bears an uncomfortable resemblance to victim-shaming. Confronted with the harsh and dense allegations voiced by the advocacy group, yet unable (or unwilling) to dedicate the necessary (time) resources to verify them, some colleagues instead sought to discipline us – always with the best of intentions, of course. There have been, admittedly, only a handful of such cases, but they are nonetheless telling. Among them were curious demands that we distance ourselves from Hamas (as if we had ever endorsed it), requests to alter the framing or remove specific sentences in the CfC, accusations that we had been “too political” or “not balanced enough” in our choice of language, and insinuations of a lack of reflexivity on our part. This pattern raises difficult questions. Might such reactions be connected to the fact that we are early-career researchers – and, on top of that, two women and a BIPoC? Would the outcome, and the degree of solidarity shown, have been different if we were already more established, male and white? Would it then appear more plausible that the CfC was indeed the outcome of a lengthy process of collective reflexivity trying to strike precisely the right balance.
It is difficult to shake the impression that trust and credibility are not distributed equally: some voices are automatically granted the benefit of the doubt and the luxury of the most favourable interpretation possible, while others are burdened with suspicion, forced to prove legitimacy (or worse, preach to some elusive idea of neutrality) before they can even be heard. Allegations, in such a climate, do not merely challenge arguments, they also expose those who make them to unequal scrutiny, amplifying vulnerabilities rather than fostering open debate. These dynamics are reinforced by structural imbalances in academia. Senior scholars often enjoy the security of tenure, reputational capital, and institutional backing, which make it easier for them to weather controversy. Early-career researchers, by contrast, depend on precarious contracts, recommendations, and institutional goodwill, factors that can make solidarity more fragile and silence more tempting. The result is a double bind: those who are most vulnerable in academic hierarchies are also the ones most exposed to reputational attacks, and thus more easily disciplined into silence. While those who are (arguably) more powerful seem to have given into an elusive sense of defeat, telling us that we should not overestimate their (or our own) individual power and sometimes even ridiculing our efforts for collective action as illusive.
We find both strategies not only ironic but, in a way, cynical, because both rest on the illusion that there is a “safe place” to occupy or to retreat to, a vantage point shielded from attacks on academic freedom. Such a place does not exist. Defending academic freedom is the collective responsibility of all academics. Some, because of the discipline they work in or because their research touches on politicized issues, may be relatively more exposed or more vulnerable than others at a given moment. For others, strategies of self-censorship may seem to work better, perhaps because of their background or bodily features, which make them less immediate or obvious targets. But who can say what will become the next focus of scrutiny, or whose scholarship will be placed under suspicion in the future? And how can we reconcile the DFG’s general principles set out in the “Guidelines for safeguarding good research practice – Code of Conduct“ with practices of self-censorship? After all, they require all of us to remain committed to “permitting and promoting critical discourse within the research community.” (p.9). To remain silent now may appear to be a pragmatic interim solution, but, in reality, it undermines the very conditions that make academic freedom possible in the first place. Silence, in this sense, risks becoming a form of complicity because every instance in which repression goes unchallenged makes it easier for the next restriction to be imposed. Defending academic freedom has become political, and precisely because of this, solidarity is what we need. Silence cannot be our strategy; only collective resistance and mutual support can preserve the space for critical inquiry and safeguard the future of academic debate.
The Significance of Academic Solidarity
For us the solidarity we received from the vast majority of colleagues played a significant role. In this context, we felt a heartwarming support from the “Alliance for Critical Scholarship in Solidarity“ (“Krisol”) and are deeply grateful for their guidance in navigating the matter. Having extensive experience in managing the support for academics targeted by silencing campaigns in the past, they shared with us their knowledge and encouraged us to create a strong academic network that could support and protect us against such attacks.
Indeed, although we are early career scholars, we have the privilege of having worked within Völkerrechtsblog for quite some time, which has allowed us to build a strong network reflected also in our Scientific Advisory Board. Moreover, our colleagues at the Verfassungsblog, alarmed about the allegations raised against us and the potential impact that such attempts can have on academic freedom and knowledge production more generally, shared our concerns and organised an academic solidarity campaign to support us. Through a letter signed by numerous German and international senior in only 24 hours and shared with the DFG, the Verfassungsblog urged the DFG to not comply with the demands of the advocacy group and to uphold our academic freedom, while clarifying that they would do everything they can to ensure that the symposium will take place as planned, in case the Völkerrechtsblog was prevented from holding it. Through this profound academic solidarity, we were able to stay vocal, to stand strong against (self-)censorship and to continue working on the symposium that is more topical than ever.
Where does this leave us? We hope that other colleagues facing similar struggles with silencing attempts will be provided with alternatives to self-censorship and that the academic community will surround them with individual and institutional support. We also hope that these dark times for academic development will soon be over, although we are sober enough to recognize that with the rise of political polarization, populism, and the popularization of quick accusations over careful debate, these struggles will likely remain with us. Until then, we express our solidarity to scholars who have been targeted because they take up space in the narrow academic room for critical perspectives and who speak up to address inconvenient truths. We share the view that academics who are lucky enough to have acquired expertise in certain matters, have an obligation to problematise and to share with the broader public aspects that may not always be easy for them to consider, understand or to question by themselves. And we deem the Völkerrechtsblog a safe space for academic rigor, where this can be done and as a space where the academic responsibility to protect academic freedom is fulfilled.
At the same time, these recent experiences have shown us that academic freedom, just like any other fundamental right or liberty, is more fragile than ever. This fragility underscores the urgent need to rethink the role and structure of universities, academic institutes, and public funding systems. We must develop stronger mechanisms that shield these spaces from political repression and ideological conformity. Of course, this work begins at the individual level, with acts of solidarity. But more broadly, it requires a structural shift, moving beyond traditional frameworks toward institutional models capable of withstanding the pressures of a polarized world and safeguarding critical inquiry for the future.
Cite as Khaled El Mahmoud, Sissy Katsoni & Anna Sophia Tiedeke, Isn’t it Ironic?: On Strategies of Silencing a Symposium against Silencing,Völkerrechtsblog, 11.09.2025.
Authors
Khaled El Mahmoud Khaled is working as a law clerk at the Higher Regional Court of Berlin. Prior to this, he worked as a research assistant at the Chair of European and International Law at the University of Potsdam. His research interests focus on international environmental law, the law of the sea, and the procedural law of international courts and tribunals. He is also a Managing Editor at Völkerrechtsblog. Sissy Katsoni Spyridoula (Sissy) Katsoni is a Postdoctoral Researcher at Tilburg University. She is a Co-Editor-in-Chief at Völkerrechtsblog.
Anna Sophia Tiedeke Anna is a PhD candidate at Humboldt University Berlin and holds a scholarship from the Heinrich Böll Foundation. She is currently working as a Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law with the humanet3 research project, which is based in Berlin at the Centre for Human and Machines at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development. She is a Co-Editor-in-Chief at Völkerrechtsblog.
Universities often claim to be bastions of free inquiry, including in research and in the classroom. But in Israel today, that claim rings increasingly hollow. While pockets of academic freedom exist, these often track the lines of Jewish supremacy, protecting some while punishing others. Since October 2023, campuses have reproduced the state’s broader regime of silencing. This unequal distribution generates a kind of speech apartheid, or – as Adi Mansour calls it in his contribution to this symposium – an “apartheid of knowledge”.
Below, I start from my own experience. To be a tenured Jewish Israeli scholar at an Israeli research university still provides a shield for free speech. And yet, for those who are not as protected, including non-tenured and non-Jewish faculty, the situation may be entirely different. Most importantly, for Palestinian students, the costs of criticizing the state have in the last two years become significantly more immediate and severe.
With some distance from my home institution, I have been preoccupied with the question of whether and how universities such as my own can preserve spaces of equality. Equality in the classroom is not only a fundamental moral and political principle the university must uphold. It is also an epistemic precondition for higher learning.
Relative Shelter
Since August 2024 I’m in Berlin, first on sabbatical and now on leave from my University, the University of Haifa. Recently, I served as a legal adviser to the NGO “Physicians for Human Rights” in Israel (PHRI) and helped in writing their recent “Health Analysis of the Gaza Genocide.” When I realized that the report was scheduled to be published during a family visit to Israel, I had a moment of cold feet.
The Israeli Knesset is currently in the process of voting on legislation that will make any such work a criminal offense. According to the Bill, a maximal five-year sentence is attached to providing information that can serve international or foreign courts and tribunals. While the Bill has not yet been adopted, I was afraid of being questioned or perhaps even arrested by Israeli authorities, perhaps at the airport, perhaps elsewhere. As I have argued elsewhere, the new legislation is a potential death blow to the independence of international legal research in Israeli universities. Against this backdrop, I suspected that the report could test the limits of my academic freedom.
Contrary to the scenarios I had imagined, my visit to Israel went smoothly. No administrator at my university questioned my activity. The fact that my academic freedom is protecting me for now, despite a generally very hostile environment towards the underlying position, is to the credit of the university which provided me with an academic home since 2016. Outside the university, of course, ramifications against PHRI, and other organizations, remain likely.
Speech Apartheid
This seemingly happily-ending personal anecdote is to be contrasted with stories from other, less protected parts of Israeli academia. Such stories populate the report published by “Academia for Equality” in June 2024 titled “Silencing in Academia Since the Start of the War”. The report exposes the scale of persecution directed at Palestinian students, citizens of Israel who have been silenced between October 2023 and June 2024. Expressions of dissent, or even basic empathy for the Palestinians in Gaza have been swiftly and unfairly punished.
At Bezalel Academy of Arts, seven Arab Palestinian students were suspended and fourteen brought before disciplinary committees over social media posts. Fifty-seven others sought psychological support in the wake of an atmosphere of fear. At the Technion and at Ben-Gurion University, Palestinian students were suspended or expelled for comments on Facebook. At Haifa University, entire groups of students were summoned for disciplinary hearings after posting critical remarks online. While I don’t have all the necessary information about every case, the pattern is alarming, and surely raises significant concerns about due process.
One Palestinian student described being suspended after stating, in a classroom discussion, that rape is an atrocity committed by both Hamas and Israeli soldiers. Jewish classmates apparently reported her directly to the dean, illustrating “a permissive atmosphere in which informing on others is encouraged…”. Within twenty-four hours she was facing disciplinary proceedings, and reinstated only after intervention by Adalah lawyers. The experience left its mark. “I will no longer express my opinions,” she said, “because I understand what could happen to me and to other Palestinian students here” (p. 9).
Survey data set out in the report confirm what the case files show. Ninety-seven percent of Palestinian students report that their universities are hostile to them. Eighty-seven percent believe they are under surveillance. Seventy percent of young Palestinians have stopped posting or engaging on social media altogether, fearing arrest or disciplinary action (pp. 4-5). Palestinian students in Israel are being taught that their identity and political voice are liabilities. They learn that empathy can be criminalised, that grief can be framed as treason, and that their presence on campus is tolerated only on condition of silence.
What ties my own experience to these stories is the structural distribution of speech rights – be it freedom of expression, or academic freedom – along the lines of Jewish supremacy. I can (still) speak freely. I can (still) provide legal advice on a sensitive matter to PHRI. Palestinian students, by contrast, have come to believe that they can be suspended, interrogated, or expelled for a social media post, for a single sentence in a classroom, or even for an expression of grief.
The asymmetry produces a paradox, familiar to Palestinians for generations, but recently brought into even starker relief. On the one hand, it risks recentring critique in the voices of Jews, who can speak with relative safety and thus become the “legitimate” conduits of dissent. Here in Germany, it is certainly the case that Jewish-Israeli scholars often become the more legitimate critics of Israel, in dynamics that overshadow and marginalize the most important Palestinian voices. Sami Kahtib commented on this clearly and sharply at the launch of the “Association of Palestinian and Jewish Academics” in Berlin in February.
On the other hand, it is precisely because of that asymmetry that Jewish scholars and students have a duty to speak: to refuse to let a system that criminalises Palestinian expression persist unchallenged, and to create a space in which Palestinians who choose to speak are not alone. To remain silent in the name of academic neutrality is to collude with the legal and institutional architecture that enforces this hierarchy.
To be sure, in the two years since October 2023, Palestinian students have also spoken for themselves on campus, often with enormous courage. To paint a picture of their successful silencing would therefore be misleading. Here too, relatively protected faculty can have a crucial role in responding to their expressions, creating conditions in which they can be heard, and meeting them where they are. The project “Eyes on Gaza”, organized by colleagues, has been one remarkable way of doing so.
Methodological Equality in the Classroom
Some may believe that actively supporting the speech of Palestinian students may disadvantage Jewish students. That should not be the case.
The university classroom must be committed to methodological equality. If the task is to advance the knowledge of all those sitting in the classroom, no particular viewpoint or positionality should have an a priori preference. Indeed, equality among students is not only a moral, political, or legal requirement; it is a precondition for the basic mandate of higher learning, especially in the humanities and social sciences, where we seek to examine social phenomena. When the “outside world” is structured around Jewish supremacy, protecting such bubbles of methodological equality can be radical in and of itself.
But is that even possible within an Israeli university? Over the past two years, many Jewish students have been serving in reserve units of the Israeli Military, including in Gaza. They have returned to classrooms straight from the battlefield – a battlefield that, in my judgment, has become a site of genocide. And as Nahed Samour recently explained, Israeli universities have supported them, for example through alternative and easier examination, indirectly supporting Israel’s actions in Gaza.
Can Palestinian students seriously be expected to speak their minds in front of reserve soldiers fresh from the battlefield? Can faculty even be expected to facilitate an open discussion among these different groups? Israeli student bodies are often far to the right of law school faculties. The latter may therefore feel a kind of bottom-up pressure to shut up. The risk is to be recorded or reported on by right wing organizations such as “Im Tirtzu”, and possibly suffer shaming on traditional or social media.
Jewish students have often expressed discomfort and dismay when sharp criticism of Israel has been voiced in classrooms. At times they may experience such discomfort as discrimination, demanding that the discussion be shut down. When a professor voices criticism, they may often feel that they cannot challenge the professor’s viewpoint because of the underlying institutional hierarchy. These are all understandable concerns. Yet, faculty should not accept that solidarity with Palestinian students by definition threatens Jewish peers.
The task is to meet Jewish students, too, where they are: not by softening criticism, but by extending an invitation to dialog. In such a dialog in the classroom setting, students who come fresh from roles as soldiers on a genocidal battlefield are always to be held innocent. It is contrary to the role of a university to incriminate anyone. Their viewpoints too should be encouraged and supported. At the same time, students from all backgrounds should be expected to hear viewpoints that cause them discomfort, and participate in their reasoned examination.
In Israeli universities, and elsewhere, we must remember that the measure of academic freedom is not comfort but the possibility of intellectual confrontation. If the university cannot sustain both sharp criticism and mutual respect, it is not only complicit in the hierarchies that silence those who most need to be heard. It can no longer be a place in which knowledge is produced.
This post may seem like it tries to serve a portion of naïve liberalism at a time when liberalism seems to be collapsing globally, let alone in Israel. What I have learned in my time abroad, is that even the seemingly most solid centres of liberalism may compromise methodological classroom equality. Conversely, even when the social surroundings seem to be particularly unamenable, pockets of methodological equality may emerge.
Preserving them as part of our universities can nowhere be taken for granted, and the task nowadays requires effort and determination, wherever you are.
I thank Orna Ben-Naftali, Gil Rotschild Elyassi, Lihi Yona, and the editors of this symposium for their helpful comments on a previous draft of this post.
Cite as
Itamar Mann, Who Gets to Speak in the Israeli University?,Völkerrechtsblog,13.09.2025.
Itamar Mann is a Humboldt Fellow at Humboldt University and Professor of Law (on leave) at the University of Haifa. His work spans international law, human rights, migration, climate, and international criminal law, approached through legal and political theory. He is currently writing Liferaft Manifesto: Democratic Survivalism and the Sea (Cambridge Elements) and has served as President of Border Forensics since 2021.
Founded in 2000, the European Society of Criminology (ESC) aims to bring together persons actively engaged in research, teaching, and/or practice in the field of Criminology. The 2025 conference of the EUROCRIM took place in Deree in Agia Paraskevi, Greece, (September 3-6, 2025).
This year’s topics were diverse, including crimes committed during times of war; the psychological impact of the October 7 Hamas attack; sentencing of Palestinian defendants in military courts’ terrorism cases; collective war trauma, the effects of extreme terror events on children; and, the memorialization of the Supernova Trance Festival; among others. A total of sixteen Israeli academics took part in the event, of whom at least seven were affiliated with Ariel University.
Ahead of the conference, PACBI—the founding body of the Palestinian BDS movement—issued a statement on August 20, 2025, accusing the ECS of “normalizing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.” PACBI protested against the fact that the conference included Israeli scholars affiliated with what it called “complicit Israeli universities,” including those from the “illegal, settlement-based Ariel University.” For PACBI, “it is shockingly immoral for a conference that has among its topics ‘Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes’ to welcome scholars and an institution participating in, justifying, and whitewashing the very same crimes.” The statement concluded by endorsing the work of Criminologists for Palestine and their motion urging the conference organizers to “end complicity in Israel’s crimes.” PACBI further issued a warning: “Should ESC fail to exclude from its EUROCRIM 2025 conference the Israeli scholars knowingly participating in war crimes and crimes against humanity, and the illegal, genocide-supporting institution to which they are affiliated, we urge keynote speakers, panelists, presenters, and participants to boycott the conference.”
On the opening day of the conference, a group of pro-Palestinian activists gathered outside Deree to protest what they described as “cultural cleansing” facilitated by Israeli participation. The demonstrators were affiliated with organizations such as Agia Paraskevi Blows Against, BDS Greece, Mothers Against Genocide, and other pro-Palestinian groups.
An Israeli attendant, Dr. Yosef Zohar, shared his observations in an article titled “Boycott in the Guise of Academic Freedom.” Zohar wrote that during the General Assembly, the ESC board declared that an academic boycott of Israel was unconstitutional and could not be put to a vote, yet, BDS activists were given a vast space to operate inside and outside the conference halls. Flyers and brochures were distributed, filled with accusations of “genocide,” “apartheid,” and “war crimes.” “Discussion circles” were organized, demonstrations staged, and Israeli scholars targeted by attempts to interrupt their presentations.
One of the scholars from Ariel University said that “Israeli scholars are being rejected not because of their ideas, but because of who they are.”
Among the organizers of the BDS campaign was an Israeli academic.
As expected, quite a few sessions were devoted to criticizing Israel. In a roundtable titled “Types of Offending/Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes” participants discussed how “Israel’s war on Gaza has continued unabated for many months, killing over 60,000 Palestinians, the majority of whom are women and children.” The roundtable stressed that “Israel has pursued a deliberate policy of starvation, aimed at causing a famine among the Palestinian population, and undertaken a systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure, including educational and medical facilities.” And how the International Court of Justice in 2024, the UN special rapporteur, Amnesty International and HRW that confirmed the charge of genocide. “This roundtable seeks to begin a criminological conversation on Israel’s genocide in Gaza, the myriad crimes involved, the means used to perpetrate them and our discipline’s response to its unfolding. We then discuss the criminalization of those who oppose Israel’s genocide. States parties to the UN 1948 Genocide Convention have a legal obligation to prevent and punish acts of genocide.”
The roundtable also discussed how over the last two years, “we witnessed the spectre of state repression of voices against the Israeli genocide worldwide,” including the “criminalization of protests, firing and ‘cancelling’ individual scholars and activists, violent police dispersion of students’ encampments, and blocking experts from public speaking, among others.”
Anti-Israel Israeli academics teaching in European universities participated as well. Dr. Erella Grassiani, an anthropologist from the University of Amsterdam, who has been covered on several occasions by IAM, presented a paper, “Security Narratives: the Seductive Politics of the Israeli Security Industry.” She discussed “how Israeli security actors sell their products and spread their knowledge through security narratives,” calling it a “product of seduction.” She investigates how “processes of translation are part of this ‘seduction’, as it consists of a legitimization of Israel’s military, its violent operations and, subsequently, the industry itself.” She finds “translations of violence into security, Human Rights violations into protection, traumatized soldiers into heroes, and people under occupation or civilian non-violent protestors as a (terror) threat.”
Another anti-Israel Israeli academic, Dr. Revital Madar, a political theorist at the European University Institute, has been previously featured by IAM. In her paper “When States Try Their Own: A Reductive Approach to State Criminality,” she examines in Israel/Palestine the “potential of reductive models of state criminality.” She analyzes “trials that adjudicate acts of physical violence committed by Israeli state security agents against Palestinians as those the state has long considered its emblematic enemies.” Her “focus on physical violence stems from the understanding that it is this kind of violence which challenges the sovereign right to kill and as such can shed light on other forms of state criminality.”
Zohar concluded that “For academia to remain true to its mission, it must go beyond principled declarations. It must also ensure that conferences are safe spaces where all voices can be heard without fear. Only then can it truly choose light over darkness.”
This conference exemplifies a long-standing pattern in which radical critics of Israel manipulate not only historical facts but also established legal and scholarly definitions, such as “genocide” or “crimes against humanity,” to serve political agendas. A striking recent example is the case of the so-called “Genocide Scholars,” whose claims about Israel’s conduct in Gaza disregard both the IHRA and UN frameworks, effectively weaponizing academic authority to distort reality and delegitimize Israel. These critics need to recognize that their manipulations not only distort reality but also fundamentally delegitimize their own scholarship and the disciplines they claim to represent.
The Institute for Safety in the Criminal Justice System
The Contradiction at the European Society of Criminology Conference in Athens
The European Society of Criminology (ESC) deserves recognition for the principled effort it has made to uphold academic freedom under extremely challenging circumstances. The Executive Board has consistently affirmed that institutional boycotts contradict the Society’s constitution and its mission to foster scholarly cooperation. In today’s climate of polarization, such a reaffirmation is itself an act of courage.
And yet, what unfolded last week at the Eurocrim 2025 conference in Athens revealed the gap between principle and practice. On September 5, during the General Assembly, the Board once again declared that an academic boycott of Israel was unconstitutional and could not be put to a vote. This decision was significant: it was taken despite an aggressive, highly organized campaign by BDS groups and allied organizations, supported by Greek institutions, student unions, and a petition signed by more than 300 criminologists.
A Tense Atmosphere
Despite the Board’s formal rejection of boycott, BDS activists were given wide space to operate inside and outside the conference halls. Flyers and brochures were distributed, filled with accusations of “genocide,” “apartheid,” and “war crimes.” “Discussion circles” were organized, demonstrations staged, and Israeli scholars found themselves targeted by attempts to interrupt their presentations.
What was particularly painful was the discovery that among the organizers of this campaign stood an Israeli academic. When colleagues attempted to approach him and speak, he refused to use Hebrew. Yet when he was pressed to respond to what had been said, he suddenly “remembered” his Hebrew and shouted: “Lehu mipo!” , “Get out of here!”
The paradox was unmistakable: on the one hand, the ESC stood by its constitution, refusing to institutionalize collective punishment. On the other hand, it could not protect its members from the intimidation and harassment that pervaded the conference space.
The Plenary Speech of Beatrice Coscas Williams
Against this backdrop, Dr. Beatrice Coscas Williams – a dual Israeli-French citizen and lecturer at the Western Galilee College in Akko – addressed the General Assembly. She began with a deeply personal note: her family has paid a heavy price in the war, and her niece survived the Nova massacre of October 7, 2023. Yet, as she emphasized, she did not rise to tell her personal story, but to highlight a broader truth – that Israeli scholars are being rejected not because of their ideas, but because of who they are.
“By doing so, you transform this conference from a place of academic dialogue and reflection into a place of hatred, intimidation, and silencing,” she said. “Boycott is not a tool of transitional justice. Boycott is not a tool for criminologists or victimologists. Our work is based on dialogue, on the exchange of ideas, and on the ability to listen.”
She illustrated her point with the example of her own classroom in Akko, where Jewish and Arab students engage in heated debates but then sit together in the cafeteria – proof that disagreement need not mean division. She noted that in Hebrew, the word for “boycott” is the same as the word for “bullying”: silencing, exclusion, rejection.
Finally, she shared her experience as a doctoral student in France, where a joint program brought together French universities, Israeli scholars, and Al-Quds University. When one French university withdrew in protest at Israeli participation, it was not the Israelis but the Palestinian students who lost their scholarships and were forced to abandon their studies. “Today, I can stand before you as a scholar,” she said, “but my Palestinian colleagues cannot. And the reason is simple: because of a boycott against Israeli academia.”
She concluded with an old saying: “It is better to light a small candle than to curse the darkness.”
Closing Thoughts
The events in Athens exposed a deep contradiction. On the one hand, the ESC Executive Board acted with integrity, rejecting an unconstitutional motion despite enormous pressure. On the other, the very space of the conference was overtaken by brochures, slogans, and activist messaging that created an atmosphere of exclusion and threats.
The speech of Beatrice Coscas Williams was a powerful reminder of the true costs of boycotts: they harm both Israelis and Palestinians, undermine the foundations of academic life, and deepen divides rather than build bridges.
For academia to remain true to its mission, it must go beyond principled declarations. It must also ensure that conferences are safe spaces where all voices can be heard without fear. Only then can it truly choose light over darkness.
About the Author: Dr. Yosef Zohar. Researcher and Lecturer, Department of Criminology at Western Galilee College. Managing Director, The Institute for Safety in the Criminal Justice System. Research Fellow, Judicial Conflict Resolution (JCR) project at the Faculty of Law, Bar Ilan University.
The European Society of Criminology (ESC) is normalizing a war crime, crimes against humanity and genocide.
The EUROCRIM 2025 annual conference includes in its program sixteen scholars affiliated with complicit Israeli universities, at least seven of whom work at illegal Israeli settlement-based Ariel University. This is not the first time that ESC has included scholars working at Ariel University in the EUROCRIM program.
The scholars affiliated with illegal Israeli settlement-based Ariel University, as those who work in an illegal Israeli colonial settlement in the occupied Palestinian territory (OPT), are knowingly participating in a war crime and crime against humanity and should therefore be held accountable for that.
Ariel University also boasts that it has 4,000 student soldiers “fighting on the frontlines,” including in Israel’s Gaza genocide, the crime of all crimes, its military occupation, a war crime, and its apartheid system, a crime against humanity. Ariel University is providing special scholarships for these genocide-implicated student soldiers.
In addition to the legal obligations not to facilitate such grave crimes, it is shockingly immoral for a conference that has among its topics “Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes” to welcome scholars and an institution participating in, justifying, and whitewashing the very same crimes.
The scholars’ affiliations are furthermore falsely listed as “Ariel University, Israel” in the EUROCRIM 2025 program, as in past years.
Ariel University is not located within Israel’s UN-recognized borders. Ariel University is located in the illegal Israeli settlement of Ariel in the occupied Palestinian territory. Israeli colonial settlements constitute a war crimeunder the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
ESC is in breach of the legal requirements arising from the July 2024 ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ found that Israel is violating the prohibition against apartheid and that its military occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza is illegal and must be brought to an end. The ruling triggers the legal obligation not to recognize, aid or assist in maintaining Israel’s illegal military presence in the occupied Palestinian territory.
By allowing multiple scholars knowingly participating in a war crime and crimes against humanity, especially from an illegal institution that openly supports a genocide, to participate in at least 6 panels at its conference, ESC is normalizing these crimes. This is a biased and deeply complicit political decision, not an academic one.
In accordance with international law, UN Security Council resolutions, and the ICJ ruling and the legal requirements above, and as a duty to its members and conference participants, ESC must:
Not recognize Ariel University, whether directly or indirectly, and exclude it from the conference and from all ESC activities and committees;
Hold the scholars knowingly participating in a war crime and crimes against humanity accountable by excluding their participation from the conference;
Acknowledge its failure in performing even superficial due diligence on participants from countries accused by authoritative international bodies of atrocity crimes, including Israel’s ongoing genocide;
Remedy this failure by instituting a comprehensive ethical policy to ensure no complicity in grave crimes, wherever they should occur.
This is not about mere affiliation, but about these scholars knowingly participating in a war crime.
Furthermore, the EUROCRIM 2025 program includes a number of scholars from other complicit Israeli academic institutions, such as Bar Ilan University, which works closely with the Shin Bet, Israel’s notorious security services that has been condemned by the UN Committee Against Torture for its use of torture and other illegal violent interrogation tactics, and the University of Haifa, which hosts three Israeli military colleges comprising the Israeli Military Academic Complex and holds courses at the Israeli military base of Glilot, considered to be an extension of the university. The University of Haifa has also provided “tactical equipment” to the Israeli military carrying out the genocide in Gaza.
The ICJ earlier ruled that Israel is plausibly committing genocide against 2.3 million Palestinian in Gaza. The ICJ ruling requires action “to prevent and to punish” the crime of genocide.
While we do not call to exclude scholars based on mere affiliation, in order to uphold basic ethical principles, ESC conference organizers should also:
Ensure that conference programs include a concise and accurate description of the complicity of any institution listed in affiliations that has a record of persistent involvement in grave human rights violations (particularly war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide);
Include aLand Acknowledgement statement, upholding the United Nations’ 2007 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which acknowledges Indigenous peoples’ inalienable rights to “the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired” (Article 26), acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which the institution to which its authors are affiliated is located and/or on which the research was conducted;
Perform due diligence on participants reasonably suspected of being or having been involved in serious violations of the fundamental human rights, in particular war crimes, crimes against humanity (including apartheid), or genocide.
We appeal to the values of criminologists and the urgent need to take effective measures in the face of such grave crimes, including genocide, the crime of all crimes. While there is a tendency to focus on individual criminality within criminology, state criminality, which is far more lethal and affects masses, must not be given a pass.
We welcome the work of Criminologists for Palestine and their principled motion calling for ESC to end complicity in Israel’s crimes in order to make ESC a more ethical organization.
Should ESC fail to exclude from its EUROCRIM 2025 conference the Israeli scholars knowingly participating in war crimes and crimes against humanity, and the illegal, genocide-supporting institution to which they are affiliated, we urge keynote speakers, panelists, presenters and participants to boycott the conference. We further call on Panteion University to withdraw as sponsor.
Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees (PFUUPE)
Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI)
PFUUPE represents 10,000 university faculty and staff members at 18 Palestinian universities.
PACBI is a founding member of the global, nonviolent, Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian rights, which enjoys a near consensus in Palestinian society.
Actions against EUROCRIM25 and Israeli participation in progress While the EUROCRIM 2025 criminology conference is taking place in Deree in Agia Paraskevi from September 3 to 6, in which 16 Israeli academics are participating, at least seven of whom work at Ariel University, an institution built in the homonymous illegal settlement in the West Bank, in violation of International Law, the local community and anti-genocide organizations are reacting strongly. On Wednesday, the opening day, a mobilization was held with the presence of repressive forces particularly noticeable, while the actions continue.
On Wednesday, the opening day of the conference, the municipal group of Agia Paraskevi Blows Against, BDS Greece, Mothers Against Genocide and other organizations and solidarity groups in Palestine gathered outside Deree to protest the cultural cleansing being attempted with Israeli participation.
It is recalled, in fact, that the even more blatant and provocative element is that the conference has themes such as “Genocide, Crimes against Humanity, War Crimes”.
“The gathering was also attended by a group of conference participants who refused to take part in the EuroCrim25 conference and are asking the European Society of Criminology to cease cooperation with institutions that support genocide, such as Ariel University (and others),” the municipal group wrote, among other things, in a post on social media.
In the video below, a participant in the Criminology conference reads a statement from a group of participants who refused to take part in the conference:
In its text, Fysae Kontra calls on the public today, Friday, September 5, at 4:00 PM, to support “every effort to sever relations with Israeli institutions within the conference.”
“Fysae Kontra continues to oppose Deree’s decision to hold the conference with the presence of these speakers, despite the withdrawal of Panteion University and the Municipality of Athens. And it supports the brave effort of the conference participants who raised the issue from within and are fighting for practical solidarity, with riot police surrounding them from outside.”
Την Τετάρτη ημέρα έναρξης των εργασιών του συνεδρίου το δημοτικό σχήμα της Αγίας Παρασκευής Φυσάει Κόντρα, το BDS Greece, οι Μητέρες Ενάντια στη Γενοκτονία και άλλοι φορείς και συλλογικότητες αλληλεγγύης στην Παλαιστίνη βρέθηκαν έξω από το Deree για να διαμαρτυρηθούν για το πολιτισμικό ξέπλυμα που επιχειρείται με την ισραηλινή συμμετοχή.
Υπενθυμίζεται, μάλιστα, ότι το ακόμα πιο κραυγαλέο και προκλητικό στοιχείο είναι πως το συνέδριο έχει θεματικές όπως «Γενοκτονία, Εγκλήματα κατά της Ανθρωπότητας, Εγκλήματα Πολέμου».
«Στη συγκέντρωση συμμετείχαν και ομάδα συνέδρων που αρνήθηκαν να πάρουν μέρος στο συνέδριο του EuroCrim25 και ζητούν από την Ευρωπαϊκή Εταιρεία Εγκληματολογίας να διακόψει τη συνεργασία με ιδρύματα που στηρίζουν τη γενοκτονία, όπως αυτό του Πανεπιστημίου Ariel (και άλλων).» έγραψε μεταξύ άλλων το δημοτικό σχήμα σε ανάρτησή του στα μέσα κοινωνικής δικτύωσης.
Στο παρακάτω βίντεο, συμμετέχουσα στο συνέδριο Εγκληματολογίας διαβάζει ανακοίνωση από ομάδα συμμετεχόντων/συμμετεχουσών που αρνήθηκαν να πάρουν μέρος στο συνέδριο:
Στο κείμενο του το Φυσάει Κόντρα καλεί τον κόσμο σήμερα Παρασκευή 5 Σεπτεμβρίου, στις 16.00, να στηρίξει «κάθε προσπάθεια να διακοπούν οι σχέσεις με τα ισραηλινά ιδρύματα εντός του συνεδρίου».
«Το Φυσάει Κόντρα συνεχίζει να αντιτίθεται στην απόφαση του Deree να διεξαγάγει το συνέδριο με την παρουσία των συγκεκριμένων ομιλητών, παρά την απόσυρση του Παντείου Πανεπιστημίου και του Δήμου Αθηναίων. Και στηρίζει τη γενναία προσπάθεια των συνέδρων που άνοιξαν το ζήτημα από μέσα και δίνουν τη μάχη τους για έμπρακτη αλληλεγγύη, με τα ΜΑΤ να τους περικυκλώνουν απέξω».
In late August, Al-Quds, the Palestinian most widely circulated newspaper, published an article titled, “Two Israeli Researchers: The Accusation of anti-Semitism is a ‘Iron Dome’ Against Critics of the Gaza War.” The article discussed two Israeli researchers, Shimon Stein and Prof. Emeritus Moshe Zimmermann, who had claimed earlier in
Haaretzthat “Inflating Antisemitism: Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ Against All Gaza War Criticism Endangers Jews.”
Al-Quds noted these two “Israeli researchers warned that the accusation of ‘anti-Semitism’ has become a kind of ‘verbal iron dome’ used by Israel to deflect any criticism directed at it, especially in the context of the ongoing war on the Gaza Strip. The researchers noted that this verbal dome replaces objective discussion about Israel’s behavior, allowing Israeli politicians and diplomats to avoid re-evaluating their policies or apologizing for them when necessary. The excessive use of the accusation of anti-Semitism not only does not serve Israeli interests but also harms them.” According to Al-Quds, Stein and Zimmermann “pointed out that the increasing use of the accusations of anti-Semitism and the Holocaust harms the struggle against real anti-Semitism and undermines the memory of the Holocaust.”
Al-Quds added that “the researchers mentioned that this tactic is not limited to the Israeli government but also includes the public and the media, where it is frequently used whenever they face criticism. The researchers considered that Israel’s portrayal of itself as a representative of all Jews makes Jews around the world more vulnerable and turns them into hostages of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” Al-Quds concluded that Stein and Zimmermann “called for a reconsideration of the use of these accusations, emphasizing that they do not serve Israeli interests but rather harm them.”
Over twenty years, IAM reported on Zimmermann’s anti-Israel bias.For example,in 2014, Zimmermann gave an interview to Deutsche Welle (DW), a German international news broadcaster. Having discussed the wave of Gazans protesting on the border, Zimmermann declared that the Israeli government benefits from the unrest and did not want it to cease. He also called on the German government to be “more critical” of Israeli actions.
In 2023, IAM reported that Zimmermann co-authored a book, Trinity: Germany-Israel-Palestine, that pushed the narrative that “the establishment of the state as an act of emancipation for the Jews took place at the same time as the collective disaster of the Palestinian people.” According to Zimmermann, Israel arose “out of the disaster of the Jewish people, but it sacrificed, in the process of its establishment, the Palestinian people… it is not for nothing that many Palestinians still see themselves as the ‘victims of the victims.’ There is a kernel of truth in this Palestinian encoding of the conflict, and it must not be denied.”
In July 2024, IAM published a post titled “Moshe Zimmermann Empowers Antisemites.” The post looked at his book, Niemals Frieden? Israel am Scheideweg (Never Peace? Israel at the Crossroads), written to impact public opinion in Germany. The German press reviewed, stating that Zimmermann does not want Germany’s Federal Government to unambiguously support the Government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, not even after the atrocious terror attacks of 7 October; That Zimmermann insists that the German Government must confront Israel’s current leadership in ways that help to bring about the two-state solution; and that Zimmermann discussed how the Israeli policymakers bear some responsibility for what happened in October. According to Zimmermann, in 2023, provocations of “aggressive and escalating settler activism” in the West Bank amounted to “fuel poured onto the fire.” Zimmermann’s core argument was that right-wing parties have been sabotaging peace efforts for decades. Zimmermann called the Israeli cabinet “Kakistocracy.”
The current Haaretz interview– together with Shimon Stein – which attracted the attention of Al- Quds, ups his game. Stein, a Senior Fellow at Tel Aviv University’s INSS and a former deputy director general of Israel’s Foreign Ministry and ambassador to Germany,has offered Zimmermann additional legitimacy.
In 2019, journalist Eldad Beck published a scathing opinion piece about Stein and Zimmermann, titled “The BDS Advocates among the Israeli Left.” He wrote, “Stein befriended Moshe Zimmermann, an academic whose controversial views have already been the subject of legal proceedings, and together they publish venomous libel columns in German newspapers.” Beck illustrated this point by citing an example of propaganda-style writing in a German article by Stein and Zimmermann. In their piece, the authors asked who has the authority to define Judaism and anti-Semitism, particularly in relation to Israel. Their response was polemical: “The official Israeli position is: We determine what anti-Semitism is and what a Jew is. Jews who oppose the boycott because of the occupation and settlements are no longer Jews.” Beck further noted that Stein and Zimmermann, “wonder whether BDS can be defined as an anti-Semitic movement and, in retrospect, accuse the Israeli government of exercising political censorship in Germany as well.” Beck went on to charge Stein with acting in opposition to the Bundestag resolution that explicitly defined BDS as an antisemitic movement.
Stein and Zimmermann’s current claim—that accusations of antisemitism are exaggerated to encompass critics of Israel—is untenable. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism explicitly states that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
What Stein and Zimmermann advance, however, is not a legitimate critique of Israeli policy but a distorted narrative that portrays Israel as perpetually guilty and the Palestinians as blameless victims. As IAM has repeatedly documented, this narrative is sustained through a series of ontological and epistemological maneuvers based on postmodern jargon: refusing to acknowledge the Jewish historical right to Palestine as recognized in the UN Partition Plan; avoiding any contextualization of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict that would highlight the Palestinians’ role in shaping their own misfortunes; ignoring Palestinian violence; and, overlooking the fact that a substantial segment of Palestinian society embraces the Islamist doctrine, supported by Iran in both rhetoric and practice, that Israel must be ultimately eradicated.
Only by suppressing these inconvenient truths can Stein and Zimmermann maintain their constructed version of reality, to which Al-Quds and other anti-Israel media outlets often cite.
In a joint article, Israeli researchers Shimon Stein and Moshe Zimmerman warned that the accusation of “anti-Semitism” has become a kind of “verbal iron dome” used by Israel to deflect any criticism directed at it, especially in the context of the ongoing war on the Gaza Strip.
The researchers noted that this verbal dome replaces objective discussion about Israel’s behavior, allowing Israeli politicians and diplomats to avoid re-evaluating their policies or apologizing for them when necessary.
The excessive use of the accusation of anti-Semitism not only does not serve Israeli interests but also harms them.
These statements come at a time when Israel is facing widespread criticism from the international community for what human rights organizations describe as genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, where Israeli airstrikes have resulted in the deaths of more than 62,000 Palestinians.
Stein and Zimmerman also pointed out that the increasing use of the accusations of anti-Semitism and the Holocaust harms the struggle against real anti-Semitism and undermines the memory of the Holocaust.
The researchers mentioned that this tactic is not limited to the Israeli government but also includes the public and the media, where it is frequently used whenever they face criticism.
The researchers considered that Israel’s portrayal of itself as a representative of all Jews makes Jews around the world more vulnerable and turns them into hostages of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
As the war continues, the Israeli claim that Palestinians started the war loses its strength, as the world recognizes that Israel contributes to prolonging the conflict.
In conclusion, Stein and Zimmerman called for a reconsideration of the use of these accusations, emphasizing that they do not serve Israeli interests but rather harm them.
“Antisemitic!” For a long time now, official Israel has employed a verbal “Iron Dome” to ward off any criticism directed at it: the “gevalt” cry that it’s antisemitism. If that is not enough, the toolbox also produces the word “Holocaust,” or references related to it.
This automatic response system replaces substantive discussion of legitimate claims against Israel’s conduct. Thus, Israeli politicians, diplomats and other spokespersons feel they have been freed from ever rethinking policies, from reconsidering the actions taken in their wake, or apologizing for them when necessary.
Official Israel is making increasingly inflationary use of these two diversionary tactics, expressed as ‘antisemitism’ and ‘Holocaust.’ But not only do these tactics fail to weaken criticism of Israeli policies, it harms the struggle against real antisemitism to the point that it squanders the memory of the Holocaust, a memory that was supposed to protect Jews from antisemitism.
The overuse of the charge of antisemitism not only fails to serve Israeli interests but harms them. And it’s not only official Israel that uses this tactic, but also the Israeli public and the media (AND MANY PEOPLE AND ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE ISRAEL.) Whenever they encounter criticism of Israel’s conduct, or hostility toward Israelis, they turn immediately to accusations of antisemitism and analogies to the Holocaust. The result is, first and foremost, a devaluation of these weighty terms.
In doing so, people ignore – out of ignorance, convenience or laziness – what really defines antisemitism: prejudice against Jews as Jews, leading to their discrimination and persecution as Jews. The Nazi regime was the most extreme form of antisemitism, assessing that Jews were an “eternal enemy” that had to be exterminated.
When Herzl envisioned the Jewish state, he thought precisely of solving this problem: Jews would live in their own state and not among populations whose behavior was influenced by antisemitism and led to discrimination and persecution. (YEAH. BUT ABOUT THOSE PESKY PALESTINIANS WHO HAPPENED TO LIVE THERE, HE DIDN’T MUCH THINK. THEY WEREN’T “ANTISEMITIC” BUT THEY DID COME TO HATE THE RUSSIAN S AND OTHER EUROPEANS WHO WENT ON TO BRUTALLY MASSACRE, ETHNICALLY CLEANSE, AND OCCUPY THEM.)
Against this background, from the moment Israel claims that antisemitism is directed specifically against it, it admits that the Zionist mission for which it was established has not yet been achieved. More than that, Herzl did not foresee that Israel itself would become what is called a “projection-surface” for antisemites.
Since antisemitism is officially condemned today all over most of the world, antisemites employ their prejudices (“Jews are exploiters,” “Jews are child murderers,” “Jews see themselves as a superior race,” etc.) less against Jews in the diaspora, but far more against Israel and Israelis. One could even go so far as to say that Israel’s policies allow the outside world to counter-attack well-founded charges of antisemitism with the admonition that Israel look to its own faults first.
Several recent incidents exemplify how official Israel and the Israeli public cry “antisemitism” in response to any criticism of Israeli behavior, even though anyone who knows what antisemitism really is would not use this claim.
The Australian government cancels the entry visa for far-right MK Simcha Rothman because he spreads messages of hate. The response: “antisemitism.”
France supports the recognition of a Palestinian state: “antisemitism.”
Reminding Israel of the thousands of Palestinian dead and confronting it with the humanitarian disaster in Gaza: also “antisemitism.”
The (disputed) arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant issued by the International Criminal Court in The Hague: sheer antisemitism.
The German foreign minister supports a process that will lead to a two-state solution: Far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir sees this as proof that Germany has returned to supporting the Nazis (Hamas or the Palestinians being the new Nazis, in his eyes).
Sometimes Israelis use the charge of antisemitism pre-emptively. When the Maccabi Haifa soccer team played a Polish club, its fans displayed a banner saying “Murderers since 1939,” as if Poles, and not Germans, were responsible for the Holocaust. When the European Football Association, UEFA, permits the display of a banner reading “Stop killing children – Stop killing civilians,” referencing the Gaza war, Israeli fans responded by calling for the elimination of UEFA together with Hamas.
No one hurls the accusation of “antisemitism” more than Netanyahu, who blasts it at anyone who disagrees with him. Israelis who oppose him become, for him and his entourage, shills for antisemitism.
But Israel’s conduct toward the Palestinians is triggering reactions all over the world. In Israel, people remember only October 7 and wonder why there is so much international attention on what has happened since. The Israeli claim that “they started it” loses its force the longer the war continues, as the world realizes that Israel contributes to prolonging it.
What we are seeing is an increasing spillover of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into global discourse, leading to sharp reactions against Israel, even in the United States. There, too, President Donald Trump uses the claim of “antisemitism” instrumentally, but to promote his battle against liberal universities.
In this situation, as in others, the critical question is avoided: Where does criticism of Israeli policy actually become antisemitism, and where not? Anyone who deals with antisemitism knows that this element does sometimes exist in negative attitudes toward Israel. Prejudices defined as antisemitism do sometimes play a role in criticism of Israel, and increasingly so whenever there is violent conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.
Two years of war have allowed antisemitic prejudices to surface to a degree not seen in earlier, shorter rounds of conflict. But this does not strengthen the claim that all criticism of Israel’s conduct is indeed antisemitism.
There is another damaging result of the false cry of “antisemitism”: When Israel presents itself as the exclusive representative of the Jewish people, and its leader crowns himself as the representative of all Jews, it appears to give legitimacy to those responding to its actions to phrase their response with the term “the Jews” instead of “Israelis.” Moreover, it allows antisemites to charge “Israelis” with prejudices from the historical arsenal of antisemitism.
And here lies the height of absurdity: Israel’s conduct, in casting itself as the representative of all Jews, makes the Jews of the world more vulnerable, not more protected. Jews around the world have thus become hostages of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and of viral Israel-bashing.
Some Diaspora Jews have not yet understood their captive position, misusing the same cry of “antisemitism” whenever they encounter criticism of Israel’s actions. The same State of Israel that failed to prevent a pogrom of more than a thousand Israelis and the kidnapping of 251 people, most of them Jews, on its own soil, is supposed to be the ultimate sanctuary and refuge for them?
Shimon Stein, who served as Israeli Ambassador to Germany, is a Senior Fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS). Moshe Zimmermann is Emeritus Professor of German History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.>
05/16/2018Little optimism in Middle East conflict, Israeli historian says
The deadly protests on the Gaza border may have died down, but Moshe Zimmermann doesn’t have much hope for peace. He told DW that Israel’s government benefits from the situation and called on Germany to be more critical.
Deutsche Welle: Around 60 Palestinians were killed and about 2,800 injured in clashes between Palestinians and the Israeli army. What does this latest development mean for the fragile peace process?
Moshe Zimmermann: The peace process has little to do with the number of dead and wounded. It’s about the willingness on both sides to negotiate. It seems in the background, there are efforts at a rapprochement between Israel and Hamas [the militant Palestinian group that runs Gaza]. There is no other way to explain the sudden falloff of the demonstrations, as well as the drop in the Israeli military’s trigger-happiness.
You say there have been efforts at rapprochement. Who is mediating between the parties?
Rapprochement takes mediators, but also the willingness by both conflict parties to approach one another. Hamas has little wiggle room, also due to pressure from its own people in Gaza. And Israel is trying not to escalate the situation in the south of the country. Most likely, the Israeli towns along the border with Gaza will also be putting pressure on the Israeli government. That means both sides have an interest in coming up with a new arrangement.
Fires broke out on the border between Gaza and Israel as part of the recent Palestinian protests
In addition, Arab states are also involved, in particular the Egyptians. Then of course the United States, the Europeans and the Russians are trying to help calm the situation. All in all, there is more interest in pacifying the situation than letting it escalate further.
Does Germany also play a role?
As a member of the European Union, but not so much as an individual state.
Do you think the German government is being too cautious?
Because of the Holocaust, Germany’s line on foreign policy is that it must refrain from criticizing Israeli politics. That’s a mistaken conclusion. Our history teaches us that you should stand up for something. If the current government is not as liberal, democratic and willing to find a peaceful solution, Germany must make an even greater effort to pave the way for peace and openness. If German policy discerns between Israel’s true interests and the interests of the current Israeli government and its policies, it can certainly get away with constructive criticism.
Would anyone listen?
I am an Israeli, and I know that there’s not much we can reach with this government. It is stubborn, one-dimensional and nationalist, and it doesn’t react to international criticism. It only listens to praise and support. All the same, you have to try to take countermeasures.
Have the developments over the past weeks strengthened Hamas?
Not regarding Israel, no. Compared to Israel, from a purely military point of view, Hamas is a dwarf. But if you look at Hamas and the officials in the autonomous Palestinian territories, Hamas has gained strength.
The clashes come at a time when Israel is involved in the Syrian conflict. Doesn’t that make a complex situation even more complex?
The situation is complex because the war in Syria is still undecided and because Iran is establishing itself as part of the constellation of power in Syria. For Israel, the situation is complicated in any case: One real challenge is Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite political party and militant group backed by Iran. Add to that the dispute with Turkey.
But it must be said that this complicated situation is very favorable for the Israeli government. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suspects that attitudes hostile to Israel come from every direction anyway, and now he’s been handed confirmation. The more enemies, the better. That’s something they can live with because the Israeli military is strong enough, and so they shirk — and this is very important to Netanyahu — peace talks with the Palestinians as well as withdrawal from the occupied territories. That is Netanyahu’s goal.
Did the fact that the US moved its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem play a role in the clashes?
The protests were mainly linked to the commemoration of Israel’s founding 70 years ago, which is also 70 years of the Palestinian catastrophe, called the “Nakba.” That was the reason for the demonstrations and clashes.
Moving the US embassy to Jerusalem was an additional aspect. The city is an important symbol in the Muslim world and beyond. Trump is an arsonist, and if he can fan the flames, he will.
Are you optimistic for the future?
No. How can I be optimistic? If you know the Israeli government, the Palestinians and the situation in the region, you have to be pessimistic, at least for the short and medium term. But I am willing to take an optimistic outlook: things will be better in 100 years!
Moshe Zimmermann is an Israeli historian with German roots. In 1937, his parents fled the port city of Hamburg for the British Mandate for Palestine. Zimmermann, who specializes in German social history, was Director of the Richard Koebner Center for German History at Hebrew University in Jerusalem until 2012. He has also taught in Germany.
An image taken from the 
By
Dominique Schnapper, présidente du mahJ 
israel-academia-monitor.com 