The Israel-Palestine Dilemma: UK Universities at the Crossroads of Dialogue and Dissent
This article was written by Blerton Gerguri, Policy Fellow 2023-2024, and is original analysis published by the Pinsker Centre. The views in this article are the authors own.
Geopolitics, identity, and human rights in the Middle East have been loudly discussed topics on UK university campuses in recent years. At the heart of many such heated debates lies the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine, a subject that transcends geographical boundaries to find fervent echo in the intellectual arenas of the UK. Discussion of Israel's existence and actions has burgeoned into a significant campus dialogue, often veering into antisemitism. The nuances of this discourse reflect not only on the global consciousness of the student body but on broader societal attitudes towards antisemitism, freedom of speech, and the quest for social justice. Campus dialogue does not take place in a vacuum; it mirrors wider societal and political currents.
The cauldron of dialogue concerning Israel on UK university campuses is part of a larger global narrative, albeit with a unique blend of academic rigour and youthful activism. Student bodies, academics, and external speakers often spearhead discussions, each bringing a distinct perspective to the table. On occasion, these debates can illustrate the fine line between freedom of speech and the potential to incite hatred in academic settings. They highlight the complexities of responding to international conflicts from within the microcosm of a university campus, where diverse opinions and the principles of academic freedom must be balanced with community safety.
The Community Security Trust (CST) reported a 22% increase in university-related antisemitic incidents over two academic years (2020/21 and 2021/22), with a significant spike in May 2021. 3 This surge was not isolated, but reflective of a national uptick in anti-Jewish hate crimes. At University College London in 2021, a student received a death threat with a disturbingly photoshopped image of her under a guillotine. Meanwhile, at Royal Holloway University, an Israeli flag defaced with a swastika was displayed. The University of Glasgow even reported a reprehensible comment directed at a former Jewish Society president, who was told to "go gas herself."1
In October, a proposed solidarity motion by members of the University and College Union (UCU) at Oxford, one of several relating to the Israel-Hamas war, called for "intifada until victory".2 This phraseology, advocating for a mass uprising across the Middle East to liberate the Palestinian people, stirred significant alarm among student bodies and was seen by critics as a call for violent upheaval, even by some as an incitement to terrorism. The Oxford Israel Society expressed profound dismay, interpreting the call for "intifada" as support for the "violent destruction of the sole Jewish state" and potentially the "violent deaths, ethnic cleansing, and genocide of seven million Jews." Their reaction underscored deep concern for the safety and wellbeing of Jewish students and staff, questioning whether it was appropriate for those involved to maintain their affiliations with the university.
The motion was ultimately cancelled after the University raised "serious legal concerns" around potential breaches of its harassment policy. The Oxford UCU branch committee clarified that the motion did not represent the committee's views but was a member-submitted proposal. They emphasised that the democratic processes of the union allow for debate and voting on such motions. However, the institutional action taken to cancel the motion reflected the broader commitment of Oxford University to a community that is supportive and protective of all its members, asserting its stance against antisemitism, Islamophobia, or hate towards any faith. 3 4 5
The line between critiquing Israeli policies and perpetuating antisemitism has long been blurred. For example, the disproportionate focus and condemnation that Israel receives in international forums like the United Nations, where Israel has been censured more often than all other countries combined, raises questions about the underlying motivations of such criticisms. This lopsided scrutiny does not align with the actions of a state that, like any other, is fallible and deserving of fair critique but not of singular vilification. Likewise, the line between anti-Zionism as an academic stance and antisemitism is often equally blurred, especially when criticism extends into denying the right of the Jewish people to self-determination or delegitimizing the State of Israel in a manner not applied to other countries.
The historical intricacies of this conflict resonate deeply within UK academic circles. The rise of national movements such as Zionism and Arab nationalism during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as well as the ensuing geopolitical developments, serve as a foundational basis for many of the stances taken by academics.7 For example, the works of Benny Morris and Norman Finklestein (among others), whatever you may think of them, are known to galvanise both sides of the political spectrum for challenging conventional views. It is interesting to wonder how well-read these (and other) authors are amongst the current UK undergraduate body. One is inclined to consider strongly partisan and un-nuanced reactions from students as a sign of their, at best, ignorance.
The attacks on October 7, 2023, orchestrated by Hamas against Israel, elicited a variety of reactions across university campuses. Responses ranged from expressions of solidarity to outright praise of the atrocities. Some left-wing student groups at various British universities were accused of ‘glorifying’ the Hamas attack on Israel, despite the warning by then-Home Secretary Suella Braverman against supporting the banned terrorist group. Societies at the University of Warwick, University College London, and the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) notably appeared to express praise on social media post-attack, describing the scenes as a ‘heroic fight’ by ‘the martyrs’ against ‘fascist and criminal settlers’.8 The Union of Jewish Students (UJS) vehemently condemned these expressions, urging university and students’ union chiefs to take strong action against what they termed as a ‘despicable celebration of violence’.
The broader university community, represented by Universities UK, acknowledged the deep impact of the terrorist attacks by Hamas and Israel's military response on campus communities across the UK. They emphasised the priority to ensure the safety and well-being of students and staff on campuses amidst these unsettling global events.9 Educational institutions, like the University of Oxford, also provided information, advice, and support to those impacted by the events in Israel, Gaza, and the broader Middle East, indicating a structured response to address concerns and provide support amid turbulent geopolitical developments.10
The visit of Ben Shapiro to the Oxford Union stands out as a personal experience, easily extrapolated into a larger noticeable pattern. Shapiro, known for his forthright and contentious perspectives, naturally invites criticism and opposition—a principle he himself supports. However, the protest that unfolded outside the Oxford Union during his visit unveiled a disturbing conflation of his personal views with broader, geopolitical stances, particularly regarding Israel. Critics of Shapiro leveraged his support for Israel's right to self-determination to label both him and the state of Israel as 'terrorist' entities. This alarming jump from individual critique of debatable opinions to broad geopolitical and existential condemnation was accompanied by calls for intifada, signaling a troubling incitement to violence.
The protests took another turn as some demonstrators shifted their focus to Shapiro's anti-transgender remarks. This sudden pivot caused noticeable confusion among some protesters, highlighting differences in views within the same crowd. Such selective indignation raises questions about the basis and integrity of their criticisms, especially when juxtaposed against the reception of other controversial figures by the same audience. One certainly champions free speech and the visit of all, but the visits of Israel-associated figures are certainly subject to a specific kind of negative treatment. Far before Israel's response to the terrorism of October 7th was the surprise visit of the Israeli ambassador - her visit had to be largely shielded from public student knowledge out of fears for her safety. Other individuals, who were not neutral officials like her, were not subject to this treatment. Notably, past invitees to the Union, some with contentious views, some even responsible for deaths, did not face the same level of public outcry, suggesting a peculiar scrutiny reserved for figures associated with Israel.
This pattern of selective criticism extends beyond individual events, mirroring a broader trend of disproportionate scrutiny of Israel, especially among young student populations in the West. While critique of any nation, including Israel, is valid and necessary, the intensity and narrow focus of this critique stand out. There appears a palpable reluctance (or ignorance) to engage with the complexities of Middle Eastern geopolitics, including the normalisation of relations between Israel and several Arab states—a development that promises a more positive path forward. Similarly, other conflicts and crises often go unnoticed or under-discussed, revealing a skewed perspective that unduly magnifies Israel while ignoring comparable issues elsewhere (in the Middle-East, in the Arab world, and beyond). The recent stringent border policies of Egypt under President El-Sisi, driven by his desire to consolidate power against religious fundamentalists, receive scant attention despite significant implications for Palestinian refugees and regional stability. This selective outrage and the accompanying oversimplification of geopolitical dynamics does a disservice to informed discourse, presenting a binary worldview that neglects the nuanced reality of international relations and internal politics within Arab states. One should demand more from the students of our most prominent universities.
These examples underscore a troubling trend of selective scrutiny and simplified narratives. While figures like Shapiro may indeed attract attention due to their pop-cultural relevance, it is critical to recognise and question the underlying biases that inform such disproportionate responses. As we strive for a more balanced and nuanced understanding of global issues, it is imperative to challenge these biases and engage with the complex realities that shape our world.
The reactions among students to the Israel-Palestine conflict reflect a dichotomy of opinions, emphasising the difficulty in maintaining respectful dialogue on such issues in academic settings. Amidst a rise in antisemitic incidents, there is a pressing need for universities to support Jewish students and uphold a safe environment for all, balancing free and hate speech.
