Universities as the enemy within: Populist attacks on Israeli Universities

• In Event: Highlighted Session: Speech, Power, and Governance in Global Higher Education

Proposal

Objectives
This paper examines how right-wing populism in Israel has transformed the relationship between universities and the state. Once integral to the Zionist project, higher education institutions are increasingly depicted elitist and disloyal. The aim of this paper is to map the discursive, structural, and legal strategies used by populist actors to weaken academic autonomy and reframe HE as a sphere requiring ideological control. We also analyze universities’ leadership responses, showing their complex balancing act between demonstrating commitment to Zionism and defending democratic norms and freedom of expression.
Theoretical Framework
Our analysis draws on several interrelated frameworks. Theories of populism (Mudde 2007; Brubaker 2017; Bevelander & Wodak 2019) illuminate how the populist dichotomy between “the people” and “the elite” is mobilized to delegitimize universities. Gillford’s work on civil society clarifies the role of conservative NGOs in shaping the state-university relationship, while Scheppele’s notion of “autocratic legalism” (2018) explains how legalistic measures undermine institutional autonomy under democratic cover. We also situate Israel within global patterns of populist assault on academia, particularly in Hungary and Poland (Pető 2021; Szadkowski 2019). Finally, Israeli scholarship on populist discourse (Berda 2015; Filc 2009; Ram 2024) and on higher education (Cohen & Leon 2025; Gigi 2023; Pinson 2022) provides a local grounding.
Background and Context
Israeli universities have historically played a nation-building role. HE institutions were envisioned not only as sites of knowledge production but as central to economic development and civic formation. After 1948, universities became deeply tied to the state, advising ministries and contributing to military and infrastructural projects. The 1958 Council for Higher Education (CHE) Law, however, established universities’ formal independence, shielding them from direct political interference.
This model began to erode in the 1980s and 1990s with neoliberal reforms and demands for equitable access. The 1994 CHE amendment allowed new academic colleges to grant degrees, expanding access but entrenching a stratified system. Elite universities retained resources and prestige, while underfunded colleges served marginalized populations. This structural bifurcation fueled resentment and framed universities as elite institutions detached from broader society, laying the groundwork for populist mobilization against academia.
Organizations such as Im Tirtzu capitalized on this rift. Since 2010, the group has orchestrated high-profile campaigns to expose and blacklist “anti-Zionist” academics. These initiatives portray students as victims of indoctrination and professors as radical elites, narrowing the boundaries of permissible discourse. Their tactics - naming and shaming, and media campaigns - created a climate of fear.
Two recent developments intensified this trend. The 2023 judicial overhaul sparked unprecedented academic mobilization. Faculty and university leaders joined mass protests under the banner “There is No Academia Without Democracy,” organizing strikes, teach-ins, and demonstrations. Meanwhile, the October 7 Hamas attacks and the ensuing war further fueled state repression including arrests and disciplinary action mostly against Palestinian students and faculty. Coalition lawmakers advanced proposals to defund universities employing staff deemed ‘disloyal’, signaling an effort to transform campuses into tightly regulated ideological spaces.
Methods and Data
We use qualitative case study methodology, combining document and discourse analysis with media review. Sources include Knesset legislative records, Council of Higher Education (CHE) communications, press releases and protest letters from VERA (the association of university heads), NGO campaigns, and coverage in mainstream Israeli outlets. We focus on two case studies: (1) the government’s attempt to install a coalition-aligned vice-chair at the CHE, and (2) campaigns against faculty such as Professor Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian and Dr. Sebastian Ben-David. These cases exemplify how populist rhetoric and legal instruments converge to undermine academic autonomy.
Findings
Our findings indicate that Israeli universities are undergoing both symbolic and administrative redefinition. The judicial overhaul crisis marked a pivotal moment, with university leaders entering the public arena as defenders of democracy. Right-wing actors reframed this activism as disloyalty, portraying universities as politicized elites.
The education minister’s attempt to appoint a loyalist vice-chair to the CHE illustrates a long-term strategy of politicizing governance structures. Resistance from VERA delayed the appointment, but the effort revealed a systematic attempt to replace professional oversight with ideological control. This mirrors the “slow capture” processes seen in Hungary and Poland, where populist regimes gradually reshape institutional governance to consolidate power.
The October 7 attacks provided further justification for repression. Public campaigns such as Im Tirtzu’s “Know Your Professor” intensified surveillance and harassment. Prof. Shalhoub-Kevorkian’s suspension at the Hebrew University demonstrated how trauma politics can be weaponized to delegitimize dissent. Ben-David’s case, where criticism of the war was framed as emotionally harmful to students, highlights the use of emotionalized discourse to restrict academic critique.
This climate enabled the introduction of the 2024 “Silencing Law,” which proposed stripping funding from universities that refused to dismiss staff allegedly supporting terrorism. The vague definition of supporting terrorism leave wide scope to equate criticism of state policies with terrorism. Although the law has not yet been fully enacted, its symbolic function is powerful: institutions are pressured into self-censorship to avoid political retaliation. The chilling effect has been most severe for Palestinian scholars, junior faculty, and those engaged in critical theoretical work.
University leaders, caught between demonstrating loyalty to the Zionist project and defending democratic values, have struggled to sustain coherent resistance. At times, their concessions to political pressure have weakened internal defenses of academic freedom, further narrowing the boundaries of permissible discourse.
The Israeli case contributes to broader debates on democratic backsliding and the politicization of higher education. It shows that populist regimes need not resort to outright authoritarianism to undermine academic freedom. Instead, legal, discursive, and administrative strategies can achieve similar results while maintaining the veneer of democratic norms. What makes Israel distinctive is the intersection of ongoing armed conflict, ethnonationalist divides, and structural inequalities within higher education.
Defending academic freedom in such contexts requires more than legal protections. It demands collective action, solidarity across institutions, and expanded commitments to inclusivity. Israeli universities have become central battlegrounds in struggles over democracy, civic identity, and the boundaries of dissent. Their survival as autonomous institutions depend not only on internal cohesion but also on their capacity to embody and articulate democratic commitments.

Author

• Halleli Pinson, Ben-Gurion University