At the beginning of December, policymakers, academics, civil society leaders, and student representatives gathered in the European Parliament for the annual conference “Facing the Academic Front Against Israel.” Hosted by MEP Bert-Jan Ruissen and MEP Henrik Dahl, and organized in cooperation with the Israel Allies Foundation Europe, the conference addressed the growing politicization of European universities, the erosion of academic freedom, and the normalization of antisemitism on campus following 7 October 2023.

Universities as an ideological battleground

Leo van Doesburg, Executive Director of Israel Allies Foundation Europe, warned that universities across Europe are increasingly becoming platforms for ideological activism rather than open academic inquiry. He noted that more than 80 European universities have partially or fully severed ties with Israeli institutions, undermining academic freedom and punishing scholars who have no connection to government policy or military actions.

The “October 7 Effect” and the Academic breakdown

Amanda Kluveld, Assistant Professor at Maastricht University, presented her research on the so-called “October 7 Effect.” She argued that, in parts of European academia, the Hamas massacre was rapidly reframed through activist narratives rather than met with moral clarity. According to her analysis, unverified data from activist NGOs circulates through UN bodies, media, and academic publications in a closed loop, replacing methodological rigor with repetition. This process, she warned, turns legal concepts such as genocide into political slogans and reframes the remembrance of Israeli hostages as alleged political bias.

Israeli academia as a target

Member of the Knesset Moshe Tur-Paz strongly rejected the portrayal of Israeli universities as complicit actors. He emphasized that Israeli academic institutions are global leaders in fields such as artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, medicine, and climate innovation. Boycotts of institutions like the Technion, Hebrew University, Weizmann Institute, and Tel Aviv University, he argued, are discriminatory and harmful to Europe’s own scientific and academic interests. Academic boycotts punish students and researchers, not governments, and erode essential international cooperation.

Voices of Jewish Students

Dutch Jewish students Yaël Cohen and Cristine Bennen shared personal testimonies illustrating the deteriorating safety of Jewish students on Dutch campuses. Bennen highlighted her involvement in the StandWithUs Emerson Fellowship, which provides safe spaces and community for Jewish students, enabling them to express their identity despite growing hostility. Cohen described facing severe antisemitic harassment, threats, and doxing after speaking publicly, and explained that she was forced to conceal Jewish symbols, even in her healthcare workplace, to feel safe. Both students questioned how European institutions expect Jewish students to speak out when doing so exposes them to serious personal risk.

Discrimination and Policy Responses

Ralph Pais, Vice-President of the Jewish Information and Documentation Centre (JID) in Belgium, testified that Jewish and Israeli students increasingly feel unsafe, silenced, or excluded. Events featuring Israeli or Jewish speakers often face disproportionate security requirements or cancellation, while openly hostile activism encounters little resistance. He stressed that institutional neutrality in the face of intimidation amounts to abandonment and constitutes discrimination under European ethical standards.

Pais presented concrete policy recommendations, including conditioning EU research funding on non-discrimination, mandatory adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism, transparent reporting of antisemitic incidents, independent monitoring of campus conduct, scrutiny of foreign and NGO funding linked to extremism, and sanctions for institutions enforcing academic boycotts against Israel.

Conclusion: A defining test for Europe

The conference concluded with a clear warning from Leo van Doesburg: what begins with the exclusion of Jews never ends with Jews. He expressed deep concern after hearing a Jewish student state that being Jewish has made her life unsafe in the Netherlands, questioning whether this reflects the kind of Europe society is becoming. The remarks highlighted a central theme of the conference: radicalization does not begin with extremism, but with normalization when intimidation is tolerated, unverified claims become institutional positions, and hostility is accepted as routine.

This dynamic, described as the “October 7 Effect,” demonstrates how narratives spread from media into universities, turning normalization into radicalization. While the European Parliament has a responsibility to act, the responsibility also lies with individuals, civil society, and opinion leaders. Public discourse and media shape political action, making collective engagement essential.

Concrete measures are necessary, including making the adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism a condition for European funding, embedding it in national legislation, strengthening monitoring and control mechanisms within universities, and ensuring transparency around funding, particularly funding linked to extremist organizations.

 Universities that become ideological tribunals risk undermining the integrity of Europe’s academic system. However, speakers emphasized that restoration remains possible through political resolve, civil society engagement, and a renewed commitment to truth, academic rigor, and equal protection for all students.

The academic front against Israel, the conference concluded, is not a marginal issue. It is a defining test of Europe’s commitment to freedom, reason, and the rule of law.