University Council divided about Israel-Palestine question

Is the University Council going to publish a statement about the protests? What does the University Council think about the protest rules introduced by the university? What about the police deployment and the violence used against the demonstrators? Do council members believe that ties with Israeli universities and institutions should be broken? Many students and staff have been asking themselves these questions. 

Last week, the University Council finally published a statement clarifying all this. In an e-mail to all students and employees, which was also published on the student site and the employee site, they say that the 24 council members do not all think the same way about the conflict and the way the university board dealt with the demonstrations. They also diverge regarding whether or not UU should sever ties with universities in Israel, as the activists demand. The only thing they can all agree with is “a thorough evaluation” of police actions and more transparency from the university board about that.

“As council members, we are different people with different points of view and it has proven very difficult for us to come up with a unified message,” the e-mail said. The council members emphasise that they will continue to talk to each other, the Executive Board, employees and students. “We hope that no matter who you are or what you think, you will find someone who represents you in the council.”

In addition, the council members write that they have noticed tensions have increased significantly and the debate has become extremely heated. Since October 7, the day when Hamas attacked Israel with rockets and took hostages, to which Israel responded by invading and bombing Gaza, a retaliation that is still ongoing, the University Council has been in discussions with groups that have been affected by the situation. “We share the pain and fear of our Jewish and Israeli communities and our thoughts remain with the remaining hostages. Our concerns and thoughts go equally out to the victims of the horrific and sickening amount of death, hunger and injury in Gaza and the West Bank. For us, both are part of a gray, undeniable reality.”

The council members say they have asked the Executive Board how it intends to reverse polarisation and restore dialogue within the university community. However, their letter asks the same question to all students and employees: “What are you doing to de-escalate?”

Unwise and almost unforgivable
Three members of the University Council wanted to comment further, namely student member Saban Caliskan and staff members Elvan Ibicoglu and Gerhard Blab. They sent a letter to the Executive Board, which has also been published on the UU Council website. The three council members strongly oppose the deployment of riot police and would like to see the Executive Board adjust the house rules according to the Dutch Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights, which they say is not the case now.

In addition, they demand “the use of force or violence against demonstrators be limited to cases where it is necessary to prevent a direct and imminent danger to demonstrators, visitors, students or employees of the University.”

They call the Executive Board's response to the demonstrations and occupations unwise and “in retrospect, almost unforgivable”. According to these three council members, by “silencing the demonstrators during their occupation” they have given the impression that the government has already chosen a side and shown that it has no respect “for their democratic rights and freedoms”. They also demand an investigation into police brutality.

Internal division
The University Council is concerned about the issue. The first confrontation between the University Council and the Executive Board happened in the meeting held on December 11, which had to be interrupted because of a demonstration outside the window. The protestors were calling on the Executive Board to revise its neutral attitude towards the Israel-Palestine conflict. A few members walked over to talk to the protesters. The meeting was resumed after the protesters were asked to leave. Student member Saban Caliskan made a statement at the end of the meeting, saying he knew nothing about the demonstration but he couldn't "be silent any longer as that would mean throwing away my norms and values ​​and supporting colonialism." A few other members supported his message.

At the next public meeting, held in February, questions were asked about how the university deals with dialogues about the conflict. In March, they were asked about the state of public disclosure regarding UU's ties with Israeli universities and institutes. In the subsequent meeting, which took place on April 22, the board was asked what it plans to do for people who feel unsafe or threatened by the protests. They attributed the responsibility to managers.

In private
More questions about the conflict between Israel and Palestine followed at the end of the meeting. Why did the university close the library's courtyard on Thursday, May 30, and why it was necessary to close all university buildings in the city centre that same day at 3:00 pm? They have agreed to discuss the new house rules in the next meeting.

Finally, student member Matias Edelstein, who is a spokesperson for the student section, also asked a question on this issue. “I will ask the question in the public meeting, but you can answer in our closed session afterwards.” He said: “We have major concerns about tensions between students and staff and the university community as a whole. We believe it is the role board's role to do something about this. How does the Executive Board intend to stimulate a dialogue?” On behalf of the student members, he also said that they are concerned because students and employees feel unsafe to discuss the conflict in class. “We heard that lectures and workshops have been cancelled for this reason.”

Asked after the public meeting, Edelstein said that the questions would be answered in private because the council believes that board members would feel more at ease to talk about it in a setting where the press isn't present or in a live-streamed meeting. “We will take the answers with us to form an opinion for the next debate,” he said.

The fact that the follow-up meeting happened behind closed doors does not mean it will be confidential. The student delegation would like to start a debate based on the answers they receive. They will also come up with a proposal on how the university could reduce tensions in the organisation.