By Nico Göricke
One year ago, the biggest massacre against the Jewish people since the Holocaust took place. While most Europeans reacted with shock and sorrow, some celebrated the act of terror on the streets of Europe with a gruesome light-heartedness. Quickly it became clear that the epicentres of much of anti-Israeli hate lay at our universities. Scenes of violent manifestations in front of university buildings calling for the boycott of Israel or, as is often revealed in chants, the destruction of the Jewish people, became an almost daily reminder of this radical and destructive sentiment.
The Political Climate at Universities
Facing this, universities often surrendered. Even when university buildings were occupied for weeks and were left covered in anti-Semitic slogans, officials didn’t seem to see the need for action, often explicitly prohibiting law enforcement to clear the buildings and prosecute the extremists. University administrators argued that their actions were due to tolerating different opinions and guaranteeing the absence of discrimination, regardless of political leaning or background of the students. Besides the fact that considering the support of terrorism as a tolerable opinion is vile, this practice excludes the participation of fellow Jewish students in universities. Often enough, Jewish students were physically or verbally attacked by students who are protected by university leadership. Universities seem to accept the assault of Jewish students as a small price to pay for the protection of students who see the beheading of children as a form of legitimate “resistance”.
This is not what a university, as a place of open discourse and scholarly diversity, should be. As conservatives, we have for far too long felt that freedom of opinion at university not often extends to political issues. I cannot count the times I or fellow students have been called “Nazis” due to our engagement against the radical left. This climate, preceded by October 7th and ignored by most, came into full effect after the massacre, where it became clear that a small minority can freely dictate their anti-Semitic views to other members of the university. Only a few students had the courage to organise counterdemonstrations and provide an alternative to the hateful prattling of the radical left.
Most students, however, are either indifferent to the incidents at our universities or engage in self-censorship, veiling their sympathy towards moderate perspectives. This is caused not only due to the risk of being subjected to discrimination by fellow students, but also due to the fact that many professors choke off diverse opinions in their ideological delusions. It is well established that university professors overwhelmingly support the (far-)left and exercise intolerance towards people with different opinions. In the same way many students did not raise their voice about identity politics or migration in fear of a worse grade or obstructed career, the self-censorship continues in regard with this horrific antisemitism. This renders real discussions about this issue impossible, and false beliefs or missing knowledge about the issue, very common in the pro-“Palestinian” movement, cannot be tackled.
These issues need to be addressed in the wider context of the political climate at universities. Nevertheless, there is one measure that has to be directly implemented by political actors, namely that extremists need to be removed from the university. The right to education does not trump the need to guarantee a safe university, where physical and verbal assault, such as Jewish students experience regularly, is absolutely prevented. It would also be the first step towards having universities where a free discourse becomes in reach again.
Boycott and the Lack of Discourse
While demonstrations and occupations often are the tools of the crowd, professors in the universities express their Israeli hate through a boycott. Boycotts against Israel take many forms. In European universities, many individual researchers, research departments or whole universities reject working together with Israeli researchers or institutions. This often entails cancelling existing research agreements, not allowing new agreements or not allowing Israel researchers and colleagues to come to events. Students are similarly affected due to certain universities cancelling exchange agreements.
Again, is it important to highlight that most of “pro-Palestine” activism hides behind the veal of legitimate critique against Israel, while actually pursuing an anti-Semitic goal. That all Jews, as Jews, or “Zionists”, are collectively to blame for the supposed wrongful actions of the State of Israel and are therefore also to be collectively boycotted is an expression of such people’s true attitudes. Accordingly, are many Jewish researchers affected by the boycott even if they do not have a connection to Israel.
A common argument in favour of such a boycott is the fact that Israeli universities might have some connection to the Israeli military. Even if this might suffice as a legitimate reason in favour of a boycott, it would still be very limited in scope on who is affected. Namely, would it include parts of university or certain departments but surely not the whole Israeli research community. Even if the assumption was correct, we might ask why all departments who work with the IDF should be excluded? Why should a professor of philosophy who, for instance, teaches IDF students about the ethics of war be excluded from the international community? Is this professor not actually advancing justice in the conflict?
Ironically, a boycott of Israeli scientists and students goes against the parts of the Israeli society which might agree with many critics of Israel and are part of the diverse political landscape of that country. In contrast with neighbouring regimes, Israel is a liberal democracy capable of overcoming differences through political discourse. Cutting off the many diverse and oftentimes distinguished views of Israeli scholars hurts the discourse and the long-term problem solving on pressing issues in the Middle East.
Overall, this indicates that many of those pushing for a boycott have not considered the full force of counterarguments, being often self-imprisoned in their political bubble. Although, universities who cut ties with Israel claimed that the verdict was reached through a fair process, which often included an investigation by a respective committee, the overall political climate in the professoriate makes the inclusion of diverse standpoints in any process impossible. Here, again we see how quick university officials surrendered in sight of conflict and are susceptible of extortion. It was often in reaction to riots and occupations by radical students that boycott of Israeli institutions was announced
The Place of the European Union
Over the last year, many European university campuses have become a lawless place. Hate has been expressed unhindered in seminar rooms, student clubs and staff offices. When law enforcement or politicians wanted to intervene, university officials claimed their right to autonomy and academic freedom, negligent and blind of the power of the fires of anti-Semitism they were stoking. Additionally, not every government in Europe has been keen on fighting against the prejudices of the new left or has even emboldened them for political reasons, such as the Spanish Sánchez regime.
The European Union needs to become more involved in this matter. The EU has major influence on universities, both in research through their funding of projects such as Horizon Europe, as well as through the organising of Erasmus+. It is imperative that the EU uses their possibility and takes countermeasures against the discrimination of our Jewish friends and colleagues.
It is time that Israel, the only real democracy in the Middle East, becomes fully associated with the Erasmus+ programme. According to current customs, by which only EU countries, EFTA countries as well as acceding, candidate and potential candidate countries can become full members of the programme, this is prohibited. However, if a state like Turkey can be fully associated in Erasmus+, Israel certainly needs too. This would be a clear symbol of hope for the Israeli youth that the EU continues to believe in their place in the Western world, even in times of barbaric terror.
Furthermore, we hold that if universities stop Erasmus agreements with Israel for discriminatory reasons, the EU should cancel all funds for this university. The same must be true if there is explicit discrimination of Israeli or Jewish researchers and the associated project is funded through the EU, such as through Horizon Europe funds. These measures would not only be the right thing to do but would push university officials to reconsider their dogmatic views.
It is good that Josep Borrell will no longer serve as Higher Representative for Foreign Affairs, but it is now up to Kaja Kallas to speak in clear terms about Israel and the Middle East. The EU needs also the make a complete reassessment of any current research cooperation between Europe and Iran, considering Iran’s central role in advancing international terror and their use of researched technologies to do so.
Finally, the European People’s Party in the European Parliament needs to be more conscious of the developments at the universities in their critique of anti-Semitic forces in Europe. Ideas and ideologies who succeed in universities, will shape our society in the near and distant future. It is up to all citizens to prevent this and protect Jewish life at home, in Israel and in the wide world.
Nico Göricke
Deputy Chairman and Political Coordinator