"Let’s be honest: this entire process is designed to target one country and one country only—Israel." - Dr. Eliyahu Sapir

Dr. Eliyahu Sapir spoke at the Speakers’ Quarter of the Maastricht University Council about the Human Rights Due Diligence Committee, which the university intended to establish following protests against Israel by groups such as Free Palestine Maastricht.

Addressing the Maastricht University Council at Speaker’s Quarter

Eliyahu Sapir

22 January, 2025

Dear members of the members of the University Council, dear colleagues and guests,

Today’s meeting is not just about debating a policy; you are deciding whether this university will uphold its foundational values of Academic freedom, Fairness, and Integrity, or whether we will abandon them in favor of political expediency.

The HRDD framework represents a voluntary restriction of our own academic freedom—without any mandate from a regulator or statute. It oversteps UM’s legal authority, lacks the necessary expertise, and relies on input from individuals who are openly biased. Let’s be honest: this entire process is designed to target one country and one country only—Israel.

You may notice that Mr. Benoit Wesly, the Honorary Consul of the State of Israel, is with us today. Are there any other diplomats present? If this framework were truly intended to sever ties with institutions in other countries, wouldn’t this room be filled with diplomats and speakers like me? The absence of such voices underscores the singular focus of this policy.

In reality, this framework is not about addressing global human rights violations. It is a policy tailored specifically to Israel. It will never be implemented against China, Iran, or any other major violator of human rights. Let’s be candid: what we are discussing is a mechanism for cutting ties with Israeli institutions, and by extension, Israeli researchers and students.

This proposal seeks to push beyond the powers vested in us as a university. It attempts to bypass government decisions and create a self-appointed platform of international law where universities position themselves as arbiters of alleged violations by external actors. This is an overreach that undermines our mission and our credibility.

The proposal to establish committees targeting Israeli academic institutions under the pretense of ethical review is Legally questionable, Ethically troubling, and pragmatically unwise.

Implementing this measure would Damage the university’s reputation, Harm students and staff, And erode trust in its leadership, including the University Council, which is tasked with making this recommendation today.

My advice to the Council is simple: reject this proposal in its entirety. It is a framework that cannot be salvaged, as its very premise is misguided and divisive. If, despite the risks and lack of substantiated reasoning, the Council feels pressured to avoid issuing a negative recommendation – I strongly urge you to send the proposal back to the drawing board.

A transparent, inclusive process that truly engages the university community is essential for developing a framework that aligns with our shared values.

I must stress that the development of the HRDD framework was fundamentally flawed. The process lacked transparency, excluded meaningful input from colleagues and stakeholders, failed to document critical decisions, eld meetings without follow-ups, no minutes were produced despite requests, and the current document is presented as a take-it-or-leave-it proposition.

Such an approach undermines the legitimacy of the process and its outcomes. To support my recommendation, within the timeframe granted to me, I will present my key arguments, organized into the three categories: Non-legal concerns, Legal unlawfulness, and legal risks associated with boycotting Israeli institutions

As members of the Council, your responsibility today is to ensure that this framework does not compromise UM’s core values. I urge you to reject this proposal decisively and protect the principles upon which this institution stands.

So why should the council make a negative recommendation?

Non-legal Concerns

First, maintaining a plurality of views is essential to a university's mission. Rushed, politically-driven decisions that fail to incorporate all relevant perspectives—such as the one under discussion today—narrow academic inquiry and undermine the quality of research.

This is because research thrives on intellectual diversity and the freedom to challenge assumptions. When universities politicize policies, they stifle open inquiry, leading to biased results and diminishing their credibility. In short: Politically motivated decisions risk prioritizing ideology over evidence-based inquiry.

Even setting aside the clear bias against Israel: silencing Israeli voices—voices often at the forefront of peace efforts—remains counterproductive.

Israel’s academic institutions promote liberal democratic values, provide a platform for diverse opinions, and protect the rule of law in a region where it is sorely needed. This is in stark contrast to the very goals the proposal seeks to achieve.

The Israeli academy plays a crucial role in promoting equality and democracy, and in fostering discussions that are vital for progress. By silencing these voices, we would be closing doors to critical perspectives that are necessary for fostering constructive dialogue and meaningful change.

The framework proposed here will stifle these perspectives, undermining the university’s role in promoting a diverse array of ideas that contribute to a greater understanding of the complex issues at play.

Legal Concerns

Now, let’s turn to the legal implications, which are no-less alarming. First, I urge you to consider the discriminatory nature of this proposal. Discrimination can take two forms:

1. Treating similar situations differently, and
2. Treating different situations similarly.

In this case, both forms of discrimination are present. Israel is being singled out, despite Maastricht’s ongoing collaborations with countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey—countries with far worse human rights records. Additionally, the proposal seeks to treat Israel in the same way as Russia, which is legally and factually flawed. In the case of Russia, there are final decisions by international tribunals, a UN Security Council resolution, and a Dutch government decree to sever ties. This comparison with Israel is not only inaccurate but also unjust.

Legal Risks

International treaties, EU laws, and policy statements from the highest levels consistently reject such discriminatory measures.

A recent ruling in the Administrative Court of Granada, Spain, emphasized that such measures directly affect principles of non-discrimination, personal dignity, and academic freedom. Any weighing of interests must prioritize these fundamental rights over ideological considerations.

The EU's legal framework also establishes that entities managing public funds, like Maastricht University, cannot engage in discriminatory actions under the guise of promoting ethical review. The mere risk of excluding Israeli institutions could trigger legal scrutiny, as EU regulations require transparency and non-discrimination when managing public funds.

Beyond the EU-level risks, there are additional legal risks that may affect UM’s collaborations and funding opportunities.

For instance, at another Dutch university, a consortium that is EU-funded is under investigation due to actions taken by a boycott committee. One of the key reasons is that an American partner in the consortium stated that supporting a boycott against Israeli academia would violate anti-BDS laws in their state.

The University of Ghent, also a partner in the consortium, faced the risk of being excluded from the project for their decision to participate in the boycott.

This demonstrates that such policies not only jeopardize EU funding but also fracture important academic collaborations, ultimately putting Maastricht University’s position in vital academic consortia at risk.

Moreover, the European Commission has consistently emphasized that Israeli entities must not be excluded from EU programs. Any policy that restricts Israeli participation could put Maastricht University’s future eligibility for EU funding in jeopardy, as EU officials have expressed opposition to nationality-based exclusion.

Even if the risks are not immediate, adopting such a policy could have significant implications for the university’s long-term funding and international partnerships.

Conclusion

As I said at the outset, I propose that the Council make a negative recommendation on the HRDD framework. While the intent behind the framework may be to temporarily pacify tensions on campus, it comes at a significant cost to Maastricht University’s core values—academic freedom, open dialogue, and collaboration. Such policies not only risk violating fundamental rights but also threaten our international academic relationships, legal compliance, and long-term institutional integrity.

Furthermore, it is important to recognize that the geopolitical situation has shifted. Just last week, a ceasefire was achieved between Israel and Hamas, signaling a potential change in the dynamics of the conflict. Despite this development, the HRDD framework development did not pause and no reassessment was made. Instead, we are here today to push forward with this proposal, demonstrating that the instrument of academic boycotts has taken on a life of its own. This reflects that the proposal has become something more than a tool for advancing peace or ethical review—it has evolved into an ideological stance that risks overshadowing the university's commitment to academic freedom and neutrality.

To replace this divisive approach, I am submitting a motion to promote academic freedom and establish a clear opposition to academic boycotts. This motion reaffirms Maastricht University’s commitment to an academic environment free from political pressures and discrimination, ensuring that we continue to uphold the values of inclusion, equality, and collaboration.

I urge you to carefully consider the far-reaching implications of the current proposal and adopt a policy that upholds the fundamental values of academic freedom, equality, and transparency. UM must remain focused on its mission to promote education, research, and dialogue—free from political pressure or discrimination.

Thank you.

Read also an op-ed written in Dutch in NIW here.