UvA’s boycott of Israel leads to polarisation instead of dialogue
The recent decision by the Board and deans of the UvA to temporarily suspend institutional collaborations with Israeli partners and to investigate the termination of ongoing Horizon projects raises serious concerns, argues law student Feike Otto van der Zee. “This decision reflects a university in crisis.”
One of the concerns raised by the decision is that it undermines core university values such as open debate, academic freedom and inclusivity. Although the pursuit of ethical responsibility is understandable, the boycott rests on shaky foundations. This decision has been taken without factual and thorough preliminary research. It raises more questions than it answers and divides the academic community rather than uniting it.
One-sided ethics
The UvA justifies the boycott by stating that there is “increasing (scientific) evidence of genocide in Gaza”, referring to a report by the UN Human Rights Council. But where are the details? What specific findings necessitate such a drastic measure? The term “genocide” carries significant legal weight and requires evidence of actions with the specific intent to exterminate an ethnic, religious, racial or national group.
This is also emphasised by Professor of Military Law Zwanenburg in the context of the case brought by South Africa against Israel at the International Court of Justice. Even widespread violations of the laws of war, such as restricting humanitarian aid to Gaza, are not necessarily genocidal without this “special intent”. By presenting this as a growing consensus without counterarguments or nuance, the UvA falls short in its academic rigour: precisely the principle it claims to cherish. Such a lack of concrete academic substantiation makes the decision speculative and open to criticism that it is more of a political gesture than a well-considered policy line.
Selective focus
Even more worrying is the selective focus. While the letter focuses on Israel and Gaza, it makes no mention of other conflict areas such as Sudan, Yemen or Myanmar, where human rights violations are just as prevalent, see ICC Darfur. Nevertheless, the UvA has opted exclusively for a boycott of Israeli institutions. This inconsistency suggests a biased agenda, which undermines the credibility of the decision and gives the impression that the board is responding more to internal pressure than to universal ethical principles.
Speculative
The letter states that collaborations with Israeli institutions may contribute to human rights violations due to their ties to the Israeli government. The UvA acknowledges that these institutions are not directly responsible for government policy. Nevertheless, it believes that their connection to the government poses a risk. This connection remains speculative: there are no concrete examples or mechanisms to substantiate the claim, such as specific collaborations that facilitate violations. Without evidence, the boycott remains a hypothesis, not a fact. This makes the decision arbitrary. Moreover, the UvA is not taking similar measures against institutions in countries with similarly problematic governments. This symbolic gesture damages academic dialogue, which can provide a platform for critical reflection – without impacting the situation in Gaza.
Isolation
The UvA emphasises academic freedom as a core value, but in fact limits the opportunities for Israeli academics and students. Many of them are critical of their government. Maintaining individual contacts while severing institutional ties is inconsistent. Academic freedom is about the free exchange of ideas, regardless of national borders or political contexts. By discontinuing institutional cooperation, the UvA is closing the door to research projects and exchanges that could promote dialogue and understanding. Instead of providing a platform for peace, the UvA has opted for isolation. This reinforces polarisation and makes the campus less inclusive.
Lack of autonomy and reflection
The letter cites the lack of response from the Minister of Education, Culture and Science (OCW) as context. This is not used as justification, but the decision seems dependent on external validation. This undermines the autonomy of the UvA. A university that upholds academic integrity should conduct its own research or seek dialogue with relevant parties, such as Israeli and Palestinian academics. Instead, the UvA has opted for a unilateral boycott. This gives the impression of hasty decision-making. An independent investigation into the ethical implications of collaborations would be more in line with the academic mission.
Internal divisions
The UvA acknowledges that this decision will not bring about change in Gaza and that its influence is limited. This raises the question of why this step is being taken. The boycott may increase internal divisions among students and academics, without making a constructive contribution. This is worrying, given the tensions on campus. In 2024, Folia reported an unsafe atmosphere due to protests since October 2023. Students experience feelings of insecurity due to this polarisation. A boycott could further fuel these tensions and fragment the academic community.
Legal and academic risks
The intention to terminate Horizon collaborations – funded by the EU – points to legal and reputational risks. Breaking research contracts could lead to disputes or reputational damage. This undermines the UvA’s position as a reliable academic partner. At a time of financial and organisational challenges, this decision could cause further instability. This damages students' trust in the institution.
Revision
In the interests of all students, I call on the UvA to refrain from this boycott. The UvA must return to its core mission: facilitating open debate and international cooperation. An inclusive campus requires nuance and dialogue, not unilateral exclusion. Students could advocate for an independent commission to address tensions and polarisation. An open dialogue with the academic community will enable the UvA to examine ethical considerations without restricting academic freedom. Let us work together to build a campus where dialogue and inclusivity flourish, rather than sowing division.
