Press conference from the time of the announcement of the 5th student demand. The students stand before the Institute of Culture Studies with banners and text content of the demand. Above them hangs a flag of Palestine.

🇵🇸 Peaceful Student Encampment of the University of Wrocław

المقاومة أعمق أنواع الحب

Our articles

Western manifestations of lack of solidarity with protesting students - the crisis of dialogue [response to Kowalski]

Article published in Gazeta Wyborcza.

Translated by Malwina Matkowska.

Hubert Hanisz

This text is a response to prof. Sergiusz Kowalski’s article “Student demonstrations of solidarity with Hamas - global intifada”. As one of the protesting students of Wrocław University I would like to thoroughly analyse the article, since we - the students - are its main topic. Although, it is hard to have a substantive discussion, when there are no real arguments, the examples are based on distorting facts from quoted articles, hurtful and detrimental generalisations are made and the opinion stated in the article itself seems to not have been confronted with reality.

Let’s start with the title - “Student demonstrations of solidarity with Hamas - global intifada”, which is already inaccurate. As students protesting against breaching of human rights, we aim our actions at showing solidarity with the civil population of Palestine, not specific political groups. Our efforts fit into the academic idea of open dialogue, because they connect to the basic humanitarian values, which, in their nature, are apolitical.

We don’t know how our protest will be judged by history but we are sure that, right here and now, we have to defend the rights of those whose voices have been taken away. We also know that today there are only a few people who openly support us. Maybe that’s something that protesting students have to get used to? But then, maybe it’s a “far reaching generalisation”.

We would like to recapitulate some of the information that you brought up, about interrupting lectures in 2013. Indeed, the Independent Student Association of UW (Uniwersytet Warszawski) was displeased with the fact that their panel discussion couldn’t happen. However, as we can read in newspapers, the lectures of Adam Michnik, Magdalena Środa and Zygmunt Bauman were interrupted by members of far-right groups, such as “near hundred members and sympathisers of NOP (Narodowe Odrodzenie Polski eng. National Rebirth of Poland) and WKS Śląsk Wrocław hooligans”. In the light of this, how accurate is the claim that “history students with friends” interrupted the lectures? In our opinion the lectures were interrupted by masked nationalist, not the members of the specifically student movement, fighting for the betterment of the Academia. We categorically disagree with their actions, because we think that the university is not a place for spreading hateful views nor furthering political agendas. Both comparing the “global intifada” to events connected to sudden revival of nationalist extremism and suggesting that students protesting for Palestine agree with such actions are unfair, untrue and overly hasty. Especially considering the opinions of one of the interrupted lecturers, Zygmunt Bauman. This lecture took place at UWr (Uniwersytet Wrocławski), to be precise, not UW as prof. Kowalski’s article claims. It is difficult now to tell how many hooligans and NOP sympathisers had a student ID at the time. Anyway, we can assure that at our Peaceful Occupational Protest there are no members of nationalist groups, fascists or masked sympathisers of the far-right, who were presented by the author as “students” to the reader.

Furthermore, we would very much like to listen to Zygmunt Bauman’s lecture, since his conclusions seem to be close to ours. In his interview with Polityka the interviewer, Artur Domosławski, in his question brings up “Another memory of Mrs. Janina: ‘Zygmunt forswore with bitterness the country, in which the military nationalism and religious fanaticism were gaining popularity. He didn’t want to go there [to visit one of his daughters that settled in Israel] to not feel, even for two weeks, responsible for this state of reality.’ Did you come back after?”. Zygmunt Bauman responded “I went back three times. Once, to see my newborn grandson. Second time - in the 90s, after the electoral victory of Icchak Rabin, when for a moment I was under the illusion that the nation opened its eyes and finally (better late than never) woke up from the sleep or charm it was under; unfortunately, right after my visit, Rabin was assassinated [in 1995] and the illusions disappeared. And the third time, right after Jasia’s death, so she could see her grandchildren and great grandchildren… All three times under special circumstances. Because again Jasia was right, saying that I was reluctant to visit ‘to not feel, even for two weeks, responsible for this state of reality’. To cite Judt once again, since you introduced him into our conversation and invoked his authority, ‘There is a significant difference between people who happened to be Jews, but are citizens of other countries and Israeli citizens who happened to be Jews…’.” He spoke out many times about his doubts about Israel’s imperialist and colonialist policy. We wish he could speak out now.

However, another person mentioned by Kowalski, Magdalena Środa, can and did speak out. In her text published 17th of June 2024 the filosofer writes: “I decided to take a close look at the students, to compare their protest to many others that I was an active part of. In my assessment the protest was dynamic, noisy, firm and peaceful. I fully agree with the urgency to manifest a heartfelt, strong resistance against the extermination of Palestinians, carried out by Netanyahu and his crew, although I disagree with the demand to end all partnership with Israeli academics, just as I disagree with full boycott of Russian culture, connected to Putin’s attack on Ukraine”. Her approach, firstly, gives us hope that there are academics who understand students’ desire to express their dissent and start a constructive dialogue with the Head of the University which could result in finally taking action. As for our demands, we understand that there might be disagreements. We would just like to emphasise that our demand to cut the ties with Israeli academia is aimed at the institutions not people. We would like to take this opportunity to invite prof. Środa to take a closer look at us - Wrocław’s students. Admittedly, we haven’t been met with the argument of force from the Head. But we also haven’t met with the Head at all, since for 64 days now he hasn’t decided to talk to us. Maybe the issue is that (as hard as it is to admit) there are no Jedi knights amongst us (like the author himself states).

We think we can risk the claim that our actions are in exact opposition to the interruption of the lectures. We want a dialogue - we want to talk, encourage a discussion, not to stop it. An encampment interfering with University’s work is just a tool of pressure to start negotiations, which, as of now, still haven’t happened. We are being accused of trying to hinder the international exchange of ideas, through our demand to stop the collaboration with Israeli institutions. However, we think that the dialogue cannot exist when one side doesn't respect others’ right to freedom, is using fascist, nationalist rhetoric, when the police enter the university. Analogically, when a government is showing signs of fascism ans is committing crimes against humanity and carrying out a genocide, there is no space for a coversation. It is crucial to reassess every type of collaboration, including academic ones, to not be accused of idly standing by when all lines were being crossed.

It seems that the university authorities hold a completely different belief.There’s no end to the dialogue, there’s no beginning either. It’s a mere concept, used only for empty declarations about what the university is - “a space for a conversation”. Dialogue in this context is not a verb, there are only acts, resolutions and provision. There is no actual space for discussion or the exchange of ideas. There is no academic community - there is an authority and its subordinates. Conversations don’t happen - or at least not with us- the students of Wrocław university.

But let’s get back to the article. The author mentions the United Nations General Assembly resolution from the year 1975, which determined that zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination. It’s worth mentioning that what he didn’t add is that in 1991 the Assembly revoked this declaration. Kowalski also mentions the peculiar 112 resolutions condemning the actions of Israel. We agree that such a number of denunciations and, furthermore, is an evidence of effectiveness of the UN, since all the adopted resolutions didn’t result in any change of reality. However, we hope that this will change and the decisions of the International Court of Justice will start to actually matter. Especially that on 19th of July 2024 it clearly stated that the Israeli occupation of Palestine is illegal and has to end immediately and the policies of the Israeli government are in fact systematic discrimination, segregation and apartheid.

Kowalski calls on Marek Matusiak’s article as a part of his argument. It’s a shame though that he only cites one paragraph, because in the other parts of this article we can read “paradoxically, [the great number of resolutions] enables Israel to ignore the critique, claiming that it is never free of prejudice and antisemitism and the UN is a biassed, politically compromised and unimportant organisation.” For the full picture it’s also worth mentioning the conclusion of the aforementioned journalist, when he writes about the results of this ridiculous situation, which in his words “is undoubtedly advantageous for Israel. At the same time the countries who want to use the UN forums to lead an anti-Israeli politics are able to do so without any issues. It hurts the UN’s authority and its ability to protect the ones that truly need it - in this case the Palestinian people.”

I don’t want to accuse the author of being selective while writing the article but one sentence by Leszek Kołakowski - cited by Kowalski as well - comes to mind: “Let’s not be under the illusion that we don’t make a decision when we simply state the facts.”

Sergiusz Kowalski places the roots of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement at the sittings of the World Conference Against Racism in 2001, which were left by Israeli representatives after receiving criticism. This led to the boycott of the2011 Conference in New York by Israel, USA, Poland and 10 other countries. Then in a superficial rant he suggests that one cannot defend human rights, while fighting for the liberation of Palestine. On a side note, we wonder, how does the name Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions suggest fighting specifically for the Palestinian liberation. We also don’t understand why the author rejects the possibility of actively boycotting a country while invoking the humanitarian values. Maybe it's important to realise that the boycotted country is breaking basic human rights while occupying another country’s territory. It might clear a lot of things up.

Kowalski also constantly interchanges terms anti-zionism and antisemitism, which is not only a formal fallacy but a problematic statement regarding Jews who also identify as anti-zionists. Writing “what is Israeli - de facto Jewish” Kowalski through generalisation and lack of precision creates an illusion that all Jewish culture is connected to the state of Israel. As if Jewish diasporas didn’t create autonomous cultures but only the creation of the Israeli state allowed them to do that. But what is Jewish doesn’t have to be Israeli and what is Israeli is not inherently Jewish. This distinction is especially important now, to show the differences between Zionism and Jewishness. Therefore anti-zionism is criticism of the political actions of a specific government and antisemitism - a hateful ideology, unacceptable, in general and also specifically on our protest.

We would like to emphasise that we, unlike the author, don't consider Palestinians the new Proletariat and Israel the embodiment of capitalism. Mental shortcuts, biases and mockingly describing current events are, in our opinion, in incredibly bad taste. This grotesque paragraph, speaking of cognitive horizon of the BDS, if written accurately and based on merit, could look something like this: “the Israeli government is committing a crime of apartheid towards the Palestinians in every aspect of the UN definition from 1973 and the current news reaching the western world show that the Israeli army “kills with an unfathomable cruelty” Palestinians, including women and small children.

This is why the emotions among us are so high, so strong. Every attempt at whistleblowing, every reaction to breaking of human rights is quickly interrupted. It doesn't matter if we are being silenced through police interventions or straight up ignoring. It doesn’t matter if the violence is physical or symbolic. It doesn’t matter if someone else’s words are being put in our mouths or if - as it is done in Sergiusz Kowalski’s article - our agentship in public discourse is being taken away. This situation brings up strong emotions because in front of the post-colonial world has been put a mirror which reflects a complete lack of change, all quiet on the western front. Turns out that everything that we, as humanity, wanted to bury in the past, is still very much present. The 21st century doesn’t differ much from the 20th, systemic dehumanisation is still alive and well, humanitarian aid is being blocked from reaching people in need, the rockets are being fired into humanitarian workers, journalists, medical stuff, women and children, hospitals, universities, schools are being destroyed and the world is silent. “Never again, for anyone” - is one of our main slogans. Never again. For anyone.

Emotions that this article caused stem primarily from being once again denied subjectivity. It’s easy to dress the students up in carnival costumes and write about their “make-believe activism” in a patronising manner. It’s harder to listen, even more to make a dialogue. So the bottom-up movement is being pacified, before it could speak its truths. We are denied a voice in case we could actually make a change. Even in situations where it seems impossible to keep silent it’s better not to speak up, not to disturb the status quo. In his attempt to get rid of our presence in the public space the author uses arabophobia, which is, sadly, well accepted in Polish society. By making a connection between us and fundamentalist followers of a foreign to us religion he creates in his reader a fear of “the Other”. Then he puts himself in the role of Jesus during the Sermon on the Mount and speaks to the obtuse leftist mob. He assumes that with its black and white thinking it will be susceptible to the suggestion that it is only right to defend a suffering people if those people are without any fault.

We never will and never did support any acts of violence, including the 7th of November attack. Even so, according to the author, we - the Polish students - “went to fight with Hamas slogans on our banners”. Kowalski again uses very specific words to describe a broader phenomenon - in this case by “Hamas” he seems to mean “pro-palestinian”. Therefore he associates a fundamentalist political-militant islamic organisation with an international movement for free Palestine. As a member of the Peaceful Occupational Protest of Wrocław University I can assure you that on our protest there will never be slogans such as: “Hamas Hamas we love you, we support your rockets too!”, “Red, green black and white, we support Hamas’ fight!” or “There is only one solution, intifada revolution!”. Truth be told, it's the first time I even see these slogans. Probably because, as a source, the author only used one article, about one student protest - the one happening at Columbia University in the United States. But he wrote it in a way suggesting that we - the Polish students - chant these aggressive and immoral slogans. The only exception is one of them, only with a subtle change, we chant: “From the river to the sea, Palestine WILL be free”, not “must be free” which, in my opinion, was supposed to make us seem more aggressive. It’s the only one from the clearly biassed list, that can be heard in Wrocław during our protests.

We further read: “the defenders of peace transformed into the fighters of jihad”. I wonder which part of our actions seemed like a “jihad fight” to Kowalski? How have we declared any form of religious fanaticism? By showing solidarity with an occupied nation, displaying its flag? By wearing their characteristic clothing? By educating about their history? During our occupation we learned a lot about Palestinian culture and history. We held workshops on traditional embroidery, dance and food, we read Edward Said, Illan Papé and Raja Shehadeh, we listened to lectures on Palestinian history. We are also “covered” in Palestinian colours and have “put on” kuffiyeh, symbolising Palestinian fight for independence, justice and freedom. In kuffiyeh’s patterns we can find olive leaves, symbolising endurance, fishing net, a symbol of Palestinian fishers and their connection to the mediterranean sea, and lines, symbolising trade routes going through Palestine. It became a symbol of the fight against colonial order during the Arab revolt against British occupation in the 1930s. Then, we also eat a lot of watermelon and learn arabic. Which one of the aforementioned activities means the promise of violent fight?

“Global intifada has started” - intifada in Arabic means rebellion, uprising. This uprising has been going on for over a 100 years. Palestine fights for its independence and has the right to do so. The same right to fight for independence as Poland had for 123 years. Because of the events of 7th of October the world took notice of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian “conflict”. Why do so many students want to defend Palestine? Right now the attempts to answer this question in the public space bring two conclusions:

  1. All protesting students are antisemites.
  2. All protesting students are manipulated idiots.

New articles are being written, all using these same, ready answers. When these texts finally start to seem all too similar we propose a new solution - talking to the students or at least researching the topic and not writing with a ready conclusion in mind. But “the Global Intifada” has started - that means we are to be feared! The movement fighting for basic human rights - the right to live, to access water and food, to education and self-determination. It’s true that a conscious criticism of the western world is a fairly new phenomenon, maybe even shocking to some - but maybe we should examine it more thoroughly before calling it antisemitic extremism that cannot be negotiated with?

As for our demands, Kowalski claims to be baffled by “the drive of the “protesting persons” to attack potential allies - Israeli universities and scientists, mostly progressive, willing to support Palestinian liberation”. We’d like to dispel the author's doubts as to who’s protesting - we are in fact “persons”, meaning - people. Secondly, the supposed “allies” do not exist. Most progressive Israeli academics were either removed from the universities, left Israel or are forbidden from criticising their government’s action and forced to denounce their own research. It’s all described in detail in Maya Wind’s book “Towers of Ivory and Steel. How Israeli Universities Deny Palestinian Freedom”.

Still, there are some aspects in which we fully agree with prof. Kowalski. His interpretation of the KRUP’s (Konferencja Rektorów Uniwersytetów Polskich - the Conference of Heads of Polish Universities) letter is right on point! We share his indignation at the state of Polish Academia, which instead of negotiating, is sending the police to deal with the protesting students, hoping that “lacklustre, avoidant statements” can replace the dialogue. We, however, don’t believe that students are “generally smarter than common members of the society”. This is, in our opinion, a classist outlook. We only believe that they are smart enough to convince the Head of our university to change his mind, with substantive arguments. Furthermore, not everyone on the left is silent about Palestine. In her article in Krytyka Polityczna, with a very indicative title “Misinformation, biassed articles and demonisation of the grassroots movements”, Kaja Kędzioł reminds about current situation in the Gaza Strip:

“According to the newest data published by “The Lancet” science journal the number of victims in the Gaza Strip could be up to 186 000 [2]. Considering the approximate number of people in the Gaza Strip in 2022, it would translate to 7-9% of its overall population. As claimed by OCHA 96% of people in Gaza will be faced with famine [3]. More than 96% of women and children already cannot fulfil their nutritional needs, almost 50 thousand of children will probably require treatment for extreme malnutrition. Almost 2 millions of Palestinians were forcefully relocated. At least 278 workers of charity organisations, 500 healthcare workers, 75 of civil defence staff, 158 journalists were murdered. 23 of 36 hospitals in Gaza are completely out of order due to the damages dealt, the remaining 13 are only partially functional. More than 60% of residential buildings and 80% of utility buildings were destroyed.”

Kędzioł, addressing Jakub Woroncow’s article, mentioned by Kowalski, points out that it “fits the overall trend of suppressing the protests to sustain the hegemony of western intellectual communities. Author, while warning about our supposed propaganda and overall disinformation, is uncritical of information and narrative fed to him. Out of context fragments of information, based on faulty interpretation created by the mainstream media seem sensible only if put into theses that appear to be made even before the start of the investigation and not as its result. In our opinion, the article is not what the author wanted it to be - a complex and nuanced description of reality - but rather a projection of Woroncow’s own fears and doubts, which are impossible to substantiate due to their emotional nature.”

I am overjoyed that Krytyka Polityczna is also aware of that. Still, there is no answer as to whether the systematic dehumanisation and the humanitarian crisis will be put to an end and how to prevent it from ever happening again. As for now, we are all losing.

Hubert Hanisz on behalf of the protesting students of the Wrocław University.

Disinformation, confirmation bias and demonizing grassroots protests [reply to Woroncow]

Kaja Kędzioł

Published in Krytyka Polityczna.

Translation by Malwina Matkowska.

Academic boycott is targeted at academic institutions, not at individuals. It is intended to counter the Israeli colonial effort; it is not revenge aimed at individual persons.

We - the protesting students of the Wrocław University - feel deeply appalled by Jakub Woroncow’s article, published in Krytyka Polityczna journal. An investigation, consisting of seeing who was photographed with whom, frivolous misinterpretation of the slogans on the transparents, instead of actually focusing on the reported case is, in our opinion, a complete lack of journalistic and analytical professionalism. Jakub Woroncow’s text denies us - the protesters - any kind of subjectivity, using us as a rhetorical device in a manipulative game aimed to incite in the reader a fear of a, supposedly rising, extremism against the Jewish community. Linking our protest to antisemitism is not only a lie but also an effect of an incredibly wrong deduction, based on an overwhelmingly non-substantive analysis. The lack of verification of the actual proceedings of the Israeli academic institutions, denying the protesting students the right to speak on the matter and on top of that ignoring the texts they have already published on their social media, makes the article “Misinformation, conspiracy theories and romanticisation of terrorism. Which direction is polish antizionsm going in?” a populist parody of what left-wing journalism should concern itself with.

It’s a shame that at no point of the writing process has the author tried to contact us or at least read the statements that we have sent to Krytyka Polityczna’s editorial office a number of times. We would gladly explain our motives for occupying the university, the reasons for the demands, presented during the protests. We would prove that the accusations against us are unfounded and unfair. We would try to dispel any concerns and fears that can be seen even in the title and prove that “Misinformation, conspiracy theories and romanticisation of terrorism” are not a trinity that could describe us - the protesting students in Wrocław, Poland and all around the world. We are disappointed that Woroncow didn’t allow us to address the theses, which he published as undeniable interpretations. It is further concerning that the article was printed in a journal “working for a societal change”, which “wants to know, understand and inspire the change in the world for more equal, fairer and friendlier towards people and other living beings” and is proud of “supporting activism” [1]. In our response we would like to reassure the readers of Krytyka Polityczna, politics sharing the article and Jakub Woroncow himself, that the current situation has nothing to do with the events of March ‘68 and is not a sign of rising antisemitic extremism, does not pervert the idea of leftism itself and the students taking part in the protests are not influenced by psychological mechanisms aimed to consolidate their feeling of safety in their own social bubble.

According to the newest data published by “The Lancet” science journal the number of victims in the Gaza Strip could be up to 186 000 [2]. Considering the approximate number of people in the Gaza Strip in 2022, it would translate to 7-9% of its overall population. As claimed by OCHA 96% of people in Gaza will be faced with famine [3]. More than 96% of women and children already cannot fulfil their nutritional needs, almost 50 thousand of children will probably require treatment for extreme malnutrition. Almost 2 millions of Palestinians were forcefully relocated. At least 278 workers of charity organisations, 500 healthcare workers, 75 of civil defence staff, 158 journalists were murdered. 23 of 36 hospitals in Gaza are completely out of order due to the damages dealt, the remaining 13 are only partially functional. More than 60% of residential buildings and 80% of utility buildings were destroyed [4]. In his article, Jakub Woroncow suggests that after this information there should be a disclaimer saying “however, the main purpose of the war is destruction of Hamas and freeing the hostages” [5]. We’re wondering how the supposedly best intelligence in the world, the army with huge international support cannot achieve these goals without, for example, murdering over 14 thousand children [6]. Why, if this entire operation is supposed to be anti terrorist and not genocidal in nature, Israel doesn’t allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza [7]? What is the reason for bombing hospitals, universities, schools, refugee camps and residential buildings? Why, if the Israeli government cares only about freeing the hostages and dealing with Hamas, does Netanyahu successfully sabotage any chances for an agreement (?) and end of the negotiations [8]. Faced with these questions, we are not surprised that the proceedings of Israel in Gaza are, ever more frequently, being called a genocide (apparently so difficult to prove in the light of the international law) and not only “a response to the attack”. It is noticeable in the statements of Aryeh Neier, who, at the beginning, claimed Israel’s right to self-defence, now highlights israeli cynical and coordinated policy of blocking the humanitarian aid pursued almost non stop from the beginning of the invasion and not improving with time and supposed realisation of the operation’s goals [9]. There are also no doubts in the report of the leading law departments of american universities, which states that Israel commits crimes, murdering and creating living conditions aimed at total eradication of Palestinians in Gaza in a purposeful way, not leaving any doubts about their intent of carrying out a genocide [10]. Building and upholding the narrative about presumed self-defence against terrorist attacks doesn’t help Netanyahu’s open admission that, irrespective of the International Court’s decision, Israel will continue the invasion [11]. Furthermore, as reported by the french journal “Les Echos”, in 2018 Nentanyahu sent to Qatar a request for its government to financially support Hamas with 30 million dollars a month to “ensure region’s stability”, therefore weakening the position of the Palestinian Authority, which actually led to the resignation of Israeli Defence Minister of that time, Awigdor Liberman. He explained this decision by stating that “with one hand they block the funding for the Palestinian Authority, accusing it of financing terrorism, while with the other - let the money flow directly to Hamas terrorists in Gaza” [12].

In his text Woroncow criticises us - the protesting students - for silence about Hamas, the November 7th attack and the trauma it caused amongst the Israeli community. We are convinced that understanding our silence is not difficult, if one understands the very nature of our protest, who it is directed to and what we, as students, can demand from the academic community. The head of Wrocław University - prof. Robert Olkiewicz - has already condemned the actions of Hamas and the university doesn’t have any collaborations with institutions connected to Hamas, which might support systemic and institutionalised forms of oppression. Our protest is aimed, indirectly, at the ongoing genocide, systemic dehumanisation of the Palestinian people, destruction of education performed by israeli army in the Gaza Strip, breaking the international law and treaties, directly on the other hand, it concerns the societal responsibility of the academic community, the necessity to act according to the ethics of the academic workers, preventing the work of the reseachers from Wrocław form being used to enforce the colonial, military policies of Israel.

It can be inferred from the article, that it is the demand to “break any ties to israeli institutions and other entities connected to the occupation of Palestine and the ongoing genocide in Gaza and boycott of the israeli institutions on the national and international level until the end of the occupation” brings the most concerns and doubts. Therefore, we would like to explain the motives for this demand and the reasoning that leads us to believe that its fulfilment is the university’s responsibility, why it is in no way directed against the Jewish community and does not bear any marks of antisemitism. Let’s start with the fact that the student protests are aimed at academic institutions, not scientists and other academic workers. It is intended to disturb Israel’s colonial efforts and is not a revenge against individual people. In other words, it weakens the dominant Israeli doctrine without drowning out the voices that are critical of it. For instance, people with Israeli citizenship would still be able to take part in research projects and scientific conferences held by Wrocław University. Any connections would be broken, however, with projects, conferences and research that directly (both materially and symbolically) benefit Israeli academic institutions. It is worth emphasising that these institutions, since their very beginning, directly support Israel’s colonial efforts and have connections to its military. The University of Tel Aviv invests in Xtend - a startup manufacturing combat drones, used in the occupied Gaza Strip, and helps setting guidelines for combating terrorism and finding new interpretations of laws, protecting Israel from responsibility in front of the International Court. The Archeology Department at the University in Haifa cooperated with the Israeli military authorities to conduct excavations in occupied territories, which is a clear violation of international law [16]. Hebrew University in Jerusalem consistently supports Israeli Defence Forces’ repressions against the Palestinian community in Al-Issawiya [17]. Israeli universities largely contributed to creation of the “failproof” artificial intelligence systems (eg. currently used Lavender) utilised by the israeli army as an excuse for bombing non-military targets classifying certain people, including independent journalists, as “targets” and authorising killing 20 to 100 civilians as a “side effect” of hitting those so called “targets” [18]. The board of the Reichmann University consists partially of the people involved with Israeli weapon manufacturers [19]. Some of the older professors from Weizmann Institute stood in favour of Israeli science as a base of Israeli military power through developing extremely dangerous and highly advanced experimental weapons. About the transgressions of Israeli academic institutions it can be even further read in “Towers of Ivory and Steel. How Israeli Universities Deny Palestinian Freedom” by Maya Wind.

We believe that partnership with such institutions is not only morally questionable but also in direct violation of the rules of international academic collaboration - which should happen in accordance with international agreements - and against the fundamental value of the Academia, which is its apoliticality. The Conference of Academic Heads of Polish Schools (Konferencja Rektorów Akademickich Szkół Polskich) seems to agree, since, in 2022 they stated that “international academic cooperation should be global and apolitical. Therefore, it cannot be used in aid of military pursuits of states that are a threat to the survival of independent countries” [21]. The Head of Wrocław University of the time - prof. Przemysław Wiszewski - held the same belief. On 28th of February 2022 he committed to immediate pause of any collaboration with Russian universities and other academic institutions until further notice. Back then there weren’t any concerns regarding the boycott nor the fear that it would cause the silencing of the critical voices. Fast and appropriate reaction of the European academic, political and cultural institutions of course didn’t require any (including student) protests and has shown that solutions we demand are possible and necessary.

The possibility to criticise the government and the dominant narrative in Israel is also unclear. In most cases its educational system sets clear rules: what is and isn’t allowed to be said. Most artists, journalists and academics, who decide to speak out against the official narrative face repressions. In consequence, those who “propose a different perspective or bring attention to injustices done by Israel are being punished or choose to censor themselves and give up further activity” [23]. An example of this could be the story of Ilan Pappé - a prominent Israeli academic and a co-author of “Gaza in Crisis. Reflections on Israel’s War Against the Palestinians” written alongside Noah Chomsky) and his postgraduate student Theodore Katz. When Katz’s research in 1988 confirmed previous (ignored) Palestinian research, uncovering a massacre carried out by Israel on unarmed Palestinians in 1948 in Tantura and Umm Zaynat villages (near the current location of the Haifa University), in response, Israeli veterans immediately sued for defamation. The university denied him any legal help and swore off any responsibility for the results of his research. Instead, they forced Katz to sign a statement, in which he discredited the conclusions of his own work. They also rescinded his scientific title and allowed his public humiliation and threatening. In result, Ilan Pappé was also disciplinarily interrogated and there were calls for his discharge on the basis of “breach of duty” and “defamation”. Only after international outrage and voices in support of him from all over the world did the university close the case [24]. Out of the small group of “new historians”, which Pappé was a part of, only one member was not driven (cast?) out of Israel. This one exception is Benny Morris - Ben-Gurion University professor - who had forsworn his previous work and became a dedicated supporter of Israel’s nationalist, colonial policy [25]. In the meantime, the government re-classified hundreds of important documents previously prepared by opposing researchers. As a consequence less than 0.5% of the files in the Israeli Defence Forces and Defence Institutions Archive is currently publicly available [26]. Plenty of Israeli universities also discriminate against Palestinian students, threaten the students who criticise the government, brutally repress Palestinian students protesting against Israeli oppression or de facto forbids public activity in and outside the university [27].

For these, among other reasons, we think it is necessary to precisely analyse the activity of Israeli institutions, which Wrocław University collaborates with. We - the students - want to clearly stand up against supporting (even symbolically) military and colonial strategies, which very often the Israeli universities are (directly or indirectly) a part of. Our demands and actions are not and never have been directed against Jewish academics, Jewish culture and actions meant to spread and further analyse it. However, like Eduardo Halfon, who recently spoke out in Krytyka Polityczna, we are aware that our words can easily be taken out of context, put as headlines and we could be accused of antisemitism [28]. That's why, from the very beginning, we keep denying these accusations. It’s reflected in the rules of our occupation as well as speeches we make during protests, conversations and discussions we hold on the patio on Szewska 50/51. We know that some of the members of the Jewish community do not agree with our demands. We engage in a dialogue with them, show them our perspective and some facts that, in our opinion, are hard to ignore. In short, we try to do everything in our power to prevent further dismissal of the Palestinian history, which was obscured for centuries to upkeep western geopolitical “order” for which the most effective strategy is to find some easily identifiable Other. We would like to ask the author if during writing his article, despite completely omitting the topic, he never once thought that it clearly demonstrates the issue of islamophobia.

At the end, we would also like to describe in short our local point of view on pro-palestinian protests. The text we are responding to left no place for description of the Academia’s connection to the topic of Palestinian liberation. Since 3rd of June 2024 we are occupying two University buildings, from the beginning of the protest we have a hold of three (situation has changed since writing of this article, we now have four) rooms and a patio. On the first day we have signed “The Rules of the Peaceful Occupational Protest” (Zasady Pokojowego Strajku Okupacyjnego) alongside the representatives of the university authorities, which legalise our occupation of the Institutes of Ethnology and Cultural Anthropology. For 42 days we have sent invitations to start negotiations to the Head of the university and we believe that every day of his lack of response is a silent compliance in the genocide. Professor Robert Olkiewicz refuses to talk to us and calls our encampment “illegal” both breaking the mutually signed agreement and making his agency susceptible to scepticism - how is it that for 42 days several students have slept in the Wrocław University’s building if they are doing so illegally? Furthermore, the legislative scrimmage about the legality of our protest seems, in the light of the reasons for our protest, at least inappropriate. Denying students the right to voice their concerns to criticise the authorities, excluding them from the academic dialogue and ignoring the ongoing 42 days long occupation of the public building also seems unbecoming of Academia. We would like to ask the expert on this matter how the lack of dialogue might impact the radicalisation and forming extremist beliefs?

Jakub Woroncow’s article fits the overall trend of suppressing the protests to sustain the hegemony of western intellectual communities. Author, while warning about our supposed propaganda and overall disinformation, is uncritical of information and narrative fed to him. Out of context fragments of information, based on faulty interpretation created by the mainstream media seem sensible only if put into theses that appear to be made even before the start of the investigation and not as its result. In our opinion, the article is not what the author wanted it to be - a complex and nuanced description of reality - but rather a projection of Woroncow’s own fears and doubts, which are impossible to substantiate due to their emotional nature. We hope that Krytyka Polityczna will allow us the dialogue with this misguided piece of journalism and publish our response. And as for Jakub Woroncow, we invite him to Wrocław, Szewska 50/51 to talk about the exasperation caused by a couple of pictures of students published on the internet and help him put his mind at ease.