International Boycott Enters the Internal Political Debate
On October 27, 2026, Israel will return to the polls for the first time since October 7, 2023, and the wars that followed. The election campaign is dominated primarily by security concerns, the responsibility of Netanyahu’s government, and the deep divisions within Israeli society. However, another issue deserves attention: Israel’s growing international isolation, which is increasingly affecting the academic world as well. As an Israeli professor, I am personally concerned about the consequences of this isolation for scientific collaboration and the future of Israeli academia.
Although most Western countries have not imposed formal academic boycotts on Israel, the atmosphere within many universities has become increasingly hostile to academic cooperation with Israeli institutions. Researchers may face institutional or social pressure to avoid collaborating with Israeli colleagues, even in the absence of any official restrictions. In practice, this informal pressure can be enough to prevent an invitation to an international conference, a joint grant application, or the continuation of a scientific collaboration through a follow-up publication. Such decisions are often difficult to identify as acts of boycott, but their cumulative effect can be significant.
The issue of Israel’s growing international isolation has increasingly made headlines in Israel, and political parties are beginning to address it. One example is the recent entry into politics of Yosef Haddad, an Arab-Israeli Christian, military veteran, and well-known pro-Israel activist. Haddad is running in second place on the Amcha Yisrael party list, led by former general Ofer Winter, to the right of Netanyahu. His stated goal is to become Minister of Hasbara, Israel’s public diplomacy, which he considers an integral part of national security.
Netanyahu’s government focuses primarily on military strength, strategic alliances, and the ability to withstand international pressure. The political center, represented among others by Gadi Eisenkot, instead proposes rebuilding trust with Western allies while maintaining a firm stance on security. Eisenkot criticizes the diplomatic isolation resulting from government policies and argues that Israel cannot afford to live isolated from the rest of the world.
The position of the Zionist left is more critical. Yair Golan, leader of the Democrats, a party formed through the merger of the Labor Party and Meretz, believes that the loss of international credibility cannot be addressed through better communication alone. His political platform calls for halting the annexation of the West Bank, combating settler violence, reviving regional diplomatic agreements, and strengthening democratic institutions. For this segment of the left, therefore, improving Israel’s image also requires a change in government policies.
For the international academic community, these elections raise important questions. What will be the future of collaborations with Israeli universities? How can legitimate criticism of government policies be distinguished from the boycott of scientific institutions? And what role can Israeli and European academics play in keeping channels of dialogue open, even during periods of heightened conflict?
