What should the university do? Questions and emotions at university conversation on Israel-Palestine
Should we cut our ties with Israel or maintain them? The event ‘A university conversation on Israel/Palestine’ on 1 July revealed the depth of feeling about the conflict, with students and staff grappling with academic values and moral dilemmas.
Despite the sweltering heat, the Telders Auditorium in the Academy Building was packed as students and staff gathered in large numbers to discuss the university’s stance on the conflict in the Middle East. This and previous meetings was designed to encourage an open, university-wide conversation with as many students and staff as possible. The meeting was organised with input from the Faculty of Humanities and the Executive Board.
What has already been done?
The discussion highlighted the sharp divide in opinion. The university suspended all student exchange programmes with Israeli universities in May last year and temporarily halted new institutional partnerships. But existing partnerships have remained in place. Should these partnerships continue? And if they are severed, who will be affected most? The university’s Committee on Human Rights and Conflict Zones is preparing a recommendation and is actively seeking input from the university community.
Profound tragedy
Rector Hester Bijl opened the evening by acknowledging the gravity of the situation. ‘Decades of conflict have escalated into extreme violence. Following the horrific terrorist attacks by Hamas, we are now witnessing the ongoing slaughter of innocent Palestinian men, women and children in Gaza. I think we all agree that this war is a profound tragedy, though opinions differ on how we should respond.’
Call to action
Four academics from the university then shared their perspectives. Professor Jan Aart Scholte warned against letting indifference and inaction colour our response to the war in Gaza. Explaining how the university has a moral duty to exert pressure, he suggested four possible measures it could take, including issuing a public statement for peace and justice for Israel-Palestine and severing institutional ties with universities in Israel until a reconstruction programme for higher education in Gaza has begun.
Lecturer Christian Henderson was the most outspoken. We are witnessing a genocidal war, he said, and current political leaders are ‘fascist’. Warning of the perils of saying nothing, he added, ‘We owe it to Cleveringa’s legacy to speak out against injustice. If we remain silent, we are complicit in genocide.’
Genocide
Larissa van den Herik, Professor of Public International Law, addressed the reluctance many feel in using the term genocide without a formal court judgement. She stressed that there is no legal basis for that view. States, institutions and individuals can and should use the term genocide. ‘Even if there is no court ruling.’ She referred to the Genocide Convention from 1948, which obligates countries to act to prevent genocide. In addition to countries, consideration can also be given to the responsibilities of other involved parties.
However, that does not mean that individual academics should speak out, said Van den Herik ‘Whether you speak out as an academic also depends on your discipline and how you view the role of academia in society .’ She concluded her remarks with a note of regret. ‘As a university, we could at least have spoken out against the destruction of universities in Gaza.’
Heated discussions in the classroom
The war in Gaza and the decades of conflict often spark intense debate in the classroom, said Noa Schonmann, an assistant professor of Middle Eastern Studies. Of Israeli descent, she expressed deep sorrow over the current situation. She launched a podcast with Palestinian journalist Rajaa Natour to help students engage with each other’s perspectives. The university is a ‘pluralistic community’, said Schonmann, rejecting the notion that the university should speak out ‘with one voice’ on this issue. Later she asked if we expect the university to speak out on conflicts in other countries and whether that would mean adopting a kind of foreign policy.
Questions from the audience
Moderator Mark Rutgers then opened the floor to questions. Several students and staff members, some visibly emotional, asked why it is taking so long for the committee to issue its advice. They pointed out that, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, partnerships with Russian universities were swiftly severed.
Rector Hester Bijl acknowledged the frustration. She explained that while the university had already taken initial measures last year, the committee’s investigation needed to be thorough. That would take time because breaking ties could have unintended consequences. She also noted a key difference: the decision to end collaborations with Russian universities came in response to a directive from former Minister of Education Robbert Dijkgraaf and applied across all Dutch universities.
Who will be punished?
One audience member in the room asked, ‘Who will be punished if we break ties? The colonisers or, for example, Palestinians and critical voices within universities?’ Henderson replied that he couldn’t see much in the way of a critical perspective within Israeli universities. A student then asked Noa Schonmann for her views. She replied that, as an academic, she prefers not to be an activist in the classroom, but encourages her students to form their own opinions instead. Scholte added that activism can take many forms.
Student initiative
Three medical students shared a special initiative: they are selling homemade lanyards and donating the proceeds to Gaza and the Doctors of the world medical organisation. Their announcement was met with loud applause. As the meeting progressed, emotions ran high. A Palestinian student whose family in Gaza has been directly affected by the war said they couldn’t understand why the world has watched the repression of Palestinians for decades without intervening. An Israeli student, with friends taken hostage by Hamas, responded with equal intensity, saying they felt that recent discourse had focused on the Palestinian perspective.
Further collaboration
To close the evening, Vice-President Timo Kos reflected on the emotions. ‘Many of us here have friends and family in the region. I understand the emotions and the difficult questions being raised.’ He acknowledged the slow pace of the process and new advice, and that the war raises fundamental questions about the role of academics and universities in conflicts. He also expressed support for closer collaboration with other Dutch universities and noted that initial recommendations about exchange programmes are expected before the summer break. The formal meeting concluded, but the conversations continued into the evening at the reception.