Ghent University in Belgium has launched a formal withdrawal from five Horizon Europe projects that involve Israeli research institutions, citing its own human‑rights policy and the ongoing war in Gaza. The move marks one of the few instances where a European university has successfully exited a €95 billion EU research programme on ethical grounds.

The withdrawal follows a 14‑page legal letter dated 12 November 2024 from the Brussels‑based law firm Kesher, which represents Tel Aviv University and the Weizmann Institute of Science. In the letter, Kesher's founder Yohan Benizri argued that there are "no grounds to exclude Israeli research institutions on the basis of the ethics of the specific action being funded or…human‑rights principles." The correspondence, obtained by Investigate Europe, was a direct response to Ghent's attempt to block the Israeli partners from Horizon projects.

How the campaign is organised

Investigative journalists from Investigate Europe and Reporters United have traced a coordinated network that links Israeli university leaders, a specialised legal firm, and a lobbying association known as VERA, the Association of Israeli University Heads. VERA, whose members include presidents and rectors from Israel's nine leading research universities, has positioned itself as the chief defender of Israeli academia against what it describes as an "academic boycott" that threatens scientific collaboration.

Documents uncovered by the investigation reveal that VERA has spent roughly €687 000 ($800 000) on legal services over the past two years. Its anti‑boycott taskforce, chaired by Emmanuel Nahshon, argues that participation in Horizon Europe not only provides essential funding but also allows Israeli scientists to shape the European research agenda.

In a spreadsheet titled "VERA State of Affairs" found on the association's website, Kesher lists 27 universities across nine EU member states that it has contacted about boycott‑related incidents. The firm's actions range from sending formal legal letters to coordinating with local counsel and lobbying national authorities to intervene on behalf of Israeli partners.

Legal tactics and narrative building

Kesher's internal "interim report" from January 2025 outlines a strategy that treats university decisions to cut ties as coordinated attacks. The report notes that universities are increasingly framing their actions in terms of international law and ethical standards, which the firm sees as an attempt to pre‑empt discrimination arguments.

To counter this, VERA's legal advisers have drafted a "robust counter‑narrative" that portrays boycotts as violations of academic freedom and EU anti‑discrimination norms. The narrative is reinforced by a series of social‑media monitoring reports stored in a publicly accessible Google Drive folder, which track critical statements and campaigns against Israeli institutions.

One VERA member, Netta Barak‑Corren of the Hebrew University, summed up the approach in a 2024 interview: "The battlefields of Israel's eighth front extend from the halls and yards of universities to regulatory commissions and courts charged with enforcing these laws. The soldiers we need to fight this battle are lawyers."

State support for the anti‑boycott effort

Minutes from an Israeli government meeting in January 2024 show that the Council for Higher Education plans to allocate six million shekels (€1.7 million) in 2026 to a new office dedicated to combating the academic boycott. The council's statement described the initiative as a shift from "reactive policy to offensive and proactive conduct," with a particular focus on the "Western European arena."

While the Israeli embassy in France denied any direct communication with Kesher or VERA regarding a motion at the Sorbonne, the embassy confirmed that its diplomatic staff are "actively engaged in initiatives to prevent academic boycotts in Europe and elsewhere."

University responses across Europe

Beyond Ghent, several other institutions have faced pressure. The University of Granada in Spain is embroiled in a legal dispute with the pro‑Israel lobbying group ACOM, which claims the university's decision to suspend ties with Israeli partners is discriminatory. The case has already produced contradictory rulings in lower courts and now awaits a Supreme Court judgment that could set a precedent for future academic collaborations.

In France, the historic Sorbonne has seen multiple motions to terminate partnerships with Israeli universities. Internal documents obtained by Investigate Europe indicate that Kesher cited close cooperation with Israel's ambassador to France, Joshua Zarka, and support from prominent French political figures to derail the proposals. The Sorbonne, however, maintains that it has not been subject to external influence and that no communication occurred with Kesher or the Israeli embassy.

In Belgium, Ghent's Committee on Human Rights Policy and Dual‑Use Research recommended ending all collaborations with "problematic Israeli partners" after the escalation of the Gaza war. The university's spokesperson reaffirmed a "full commitment to implementing its policy on institutional Israeli collaborations without exception."

EU legal framework and political debate

The European Commission's stance on the issue is anchored in the Horizon Europe Association Agreement signed with Israel in 2021, which places Israeli entities on an equal footing with EU members for research funding. The Commission has repeatedly argued that terminating participation solely on the basis of nationality would breach EU anti‑discrimination rules.

Former research commissioner Iliana Ivanova wrote to VERA in July 2024, stating that "termination solely on the basis of nationality would be improper and would amount to discrimination prohibited under the Association Agreement." Her successor, Ekaterina Zaharieva, reiterated in late 2025 that actions of the Israeli state cannot be automatically attributed to Israeli research institutions participating in Horizon Europe.

Critics, including Professor Yiorgos Vassalos of the Free University of Brussels, argue that the Commission is using "legalistic excuses" to avoid confronting evidence of human‑rights violations. Vassalos points out that the EU suspended all payments for 29 Russian research projects in early 2022 after the invasion of Ukraine, a move that required a qualified majority vote. By contrast, suspending Israeli participation would need unanimity among member states, a hurdle that has so far prevented decisive action.

In July 2025, the Commission proposed limiting Israel's involvement in certain Horizon schemes linked to the European Innovation Council, but the proposal stalled in the Council due to lack of consensus. A leaked memo from 2017 revealed that the Commission's legal service had advised that it possessed the authority to freeze Israeli participation without a formal vote, a point the Commission now downplays.

Implications for European research and workers

The debate touches on broader concerns about the balance between academic freedom, ethical responsibility, and the commercial interests of the research sector. Horizon Europe funds thousands of projects that involve universities, private firms, and public research institutes across the continent. Cutting ties with Israeli partners could affect the flow of €95 billion in research money, potentially reshaping collaborative networks in fields such as artificial intelligence, cyber security, and biomedical engineering.

Trade unions representing research staff have voiced unease about the pressure on universities to maintain partnerships that may be linked to defence research. The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) has called for a transparent assessment of the ethical implications of Horizon projects, urging the Commission to enforce Article 14 of the Horizon Europe Grant Agreement, which requires compliance with the highest ethical standards.

For students, the issue also raises questions about mobility programmes such as Erasmus+, which facilitate exchanges between EU and Israeli institutions. While the Commission maintains that each case is assessed individually, the lack of a clear policy could create uncertainty for thousands of students planning to study abroad.

Future of Horizon Europe and the next funding round

Negotiations for the next Horizon Europe framework (2028‑2034) are underway. Some MEPs, notably Lina Galvez of the Socialists & Democrats group, are pushing for a stronger ethical clause that would allow the EU to exclude partners from the outset if they are linked to violations of international law.

VERA's Emmanuel Nahshon warned that "the real danger is the next Horizon," suggesting that without a decisive policy shift, Israeli institutions could continue to participate in future programmes. The outcome of the ongoing debates will likely influence not only the scientific landscape but also the broader discourse on how Europe reconciles its commitment to human‑rights standards with its strategic research interests.

Conclusion

The investigation reveals a sophisticated campaign that blends legal expertise, diplomatic outreach, and narrative management to protect Israeli academic participation in EU research. While universities like Ghent are pushing back on ethical grounds, the lack of a unified EU response leaves the issue unresolved, leaving researchers, students, and staff across the continent to navigate an increasingly politicised research environment.