Palestine Activism at Ghent University: Experiences from the Refaat Alareer Encampment

This text provides an account of several students and staff who participated in the forty-day occupation of the Refaat Alareer building, previously known as the UFO, at Ghent University in Belgium. The UFO, short for “University Forum,” hosts the university's largest auditorium and is centrally located in Ghent. It is also the university's main venue for receptions, networking events, proclamations and the like. The occupation was initiated on May 6, 2024, by Ghent Students for Palestine and End Fossil Ghent, highlighting their interconnected fights against the genocide in Gaza and climate injustice. The formation, dynamics, and actions of this joint occupation, as well as its organizational structure, intersectional approach, and the impact it had within and beyond the university, will be explained. This impact cannot be underestimated, as we achieved a commitment to a de facto academic boycott—de facto, because all ties with Israeli academic institutions were cut on a case-by-case basis, instead of a blanket ban boycott. Additionally, six of the known ties with Israeli companies still remain and eleven more ties with both companies and academic institutions have been hidden from public scrutiny. Moreover, since promising to cut the ties, there have been no communications about the steps taken or the procedure to withdraw from the projects. Recently, a leak even suggested that the administration has been exploring options to keep cooperation going by subcontracting through “affiliated entities,” although when confronted, the rector denied seriously considering this option. This highlights the importance of a continued evaluation and scrutiny, as well as sustained pressure by the students to ensure that the university be made transparent and held accountable. Nonetheless, pressuring the university into committing to cutting all academic ties already can be considered an important win. A pathway toward cutting these ties will be sketched. Through this text we aim to illuminate the power of collective action and the potential for solidarity across diverse movements to challenge and dismantle entrenched systems of injustice.

Intersecting Struggles

Ghent Students for Palestine had been striving for solidarity with the struggle for Palestinian liberation since the beginning of the genocide in Gaza, targeting Ghent University, organizing sit-ins, learn-ins, die-ins, protests, and much more. Their focal demand was a boycott of Israeli institutions. Meanwhile, End Fossil Ghent had built substantial expertise in activism, mainly protesting the lack of action of our governments and universities with regard to climate change. End Fossil Ghent had also organized an occupation of Ghent University a year prior to the current one, thus bringing much know-how and experience to the table.

Although this cooperation might have seemed unlikely to the untrained eye, in fact the struggles could not have been more intertwined. The crimes being systematically and purposefully committed against the Palestinian people on Palestinian land in the last century and the steering of our planet toward climate disaster have a lot of common denominators, including colonialism, rampant industrial capitalism, imperialism, racism, xenophobia, patriarchy, and divide-and-conquer strategies, creating the conditions for and perpetuating these man-made horrors. Discussing action against climate change and Israel alike, decision-makers such as the university's rector and the board of governors, as well as various Belgian and European politicians, are mostly concerned with cost-effectiveness, international status, and stakeholders’ interests.

Another similarity is the disdain for peer-reviewed literature and evidence. Climate scientists have been warning about climate change since the 1970s, while the Israeli apartheid regime, oppression, and systematic killing of Palestinians and occupation of their land have been substantially documented from the founding of the Zionist project. However, all this is reduced to “opinions,” in stark contrast with the lack of critical assessment of the propaganda being spewed by the lobby groups of the Zionist entity and the industrial capitalists and oil industry alike.

Another obvious link between the two struggles is that war is a massive polluter. The governments’ cynically imploring their constituents to take shorter showers and drive electric cars, while sending airplanes, tanks, and bombs to the global South, would be almost humorous were it not for the terrible implications this has for the whole world.

The intersection of the struggles resulted in the cooperation between these two organizations. This in turn resulted in broad support within the student population, with students involved in one of the causes beginning to engage with the other, and many students who had not been previously active on campus flocking to the joint mobilization.

Horizontal Power Dynamics and Organization

The coalition that initiated the occupation employed a horizontal organizational structure, which was maintained throughout the occupation. During the preparatory phase, careful consideration was given to how such a structure could be implemented with a large group of people. Significant inspiration was drawn from the climate movement. This led to the use of spokes councils, skill-sharing sessions, and various working groups. The spokes council, a structured, horizontal democratic process also used by the climate movement, the Zapatistas, and other protest organizations, served as the decision-making body. A typical spokes council functions like the spokes of a wheel, with rotating central participants, but the Ghent encampment used a “light” version, rendering the analogy with the wheel unsuitable. In this way, we aimed to create a space where everyone participating in the occupation had the opportunity to actively contribute an equal voice to the decision-making process.

Three overarching branches constituted the activity of the occupation: Analytics, Community, and Action. Within each of these branches were working groups that were tightly intertwined. They collaborated both within and outside their respective branch, and individuals participated in multiple working groups. This ensured an efficient flow of communication and collaboration within the horizontal and rhizomatic organization, challenging false assumptions about inefficiency in nonhierarchical structures.

The Analytical branch consisted of four working groups. The first, the intellectual working group, focused on the theoretical roots of the Palestinian struggle. They organized reading groups, panel talks, and lectures and set up a library to provide students and visitors with information on Palestinian history and the liberation movement.

The narrative working group developed the strategy and narrative of the occupation. They wrote open letters and press releases, prepared speakers for interviews with the press, and communicated with institutional powers. Their main task was twofold: maintain the attention on the occupation and frame it to sustain pressure on the university.

The social media team ensured communication with the supporting community. They translated long and academic open letters into formats suitable for social media, shaped public opinion, and mobilized support when needed. This steadily built broad support proved essential when the encampment quickly rallied hundreds of community members to prevent a looming eviction.

The last working group of this branch was the “human rights commission 2.0.” This working group was founded as a student version of the university's human rights commission, which evaluates all academic ties. The “2.0” commission combed through vast data to prove the direct genocidal complicity of Israeli universities and companies. This led to the construction of a thorough database that was shared with the university's human rights commission, who then used the work to substantiate their decision to cut all ties with Israeli universities. It also inspired other (inter)national encampments to do the same, and many used our database to start building this for their university.

The Community branch managed day-to-day logistics of the occupation. This included organizing arrangements for sleeping, studying, and praying; welcoming visitors; hosting discussions; and making art installations. Volunteers worked together with students to ensure the provision of three meals a day and a continuous supply of coffee, tea, and snacks, by coordinating the kitchen tasks and overseeing the copious food donations.

This branch assured the safety of our occupation externally with a twenty-four-hour steward watch, safeguarding the occupation from harassment by Zionists and far-right groups. The care team protected the community internally with a care space, mental health meetings, and several care persons on each spokes council.

This also included managing outreach and coordinating support from outsiders and other organizations, while holding the principles high. The encampment received contributions from external supporters ranging from the Palestinian community to unions and the university staff. A strict no-logo policy prevented co-optation.

Although it was not the most visible branch, the importance of the Community branch cannot be exaggerated. Maintaining the occupation during the exam period was a radical gesture defying all institutional givens within the neoliberal university. A period normally characterized by isolation, anxiety, and stress was replaced with one of comradeship, inclusivity, and care. This was made possible by the community branch. Moreover, the visible achievements from the other branches were built on the fundamental community branch. This reflects society at large, where essential workers—often overlooked and inadequately credited—are the backbone.

The Action branch provided organizational and practical support for the occupation and its actions. It roughly consisted of three working groups: the Action Team, Spokes Council Team, and Legal Team.

The Action Team had a fluid stream of members without central leaders who planned, supported, and/or executed actions ranging on a scale of radicality and social disruptiveness. The action team also ensured compliance with our action consensus and the escalation level at hand, which could be adjusted as needed. When deciding to escalate by moving up a level, the consequences and risks were always cautiously weighed. This conscious approach allowed gradual upscaling during the occupation, focusing on specific targets while keeping individual legal risks to a minimum. These gradually upscaled actions were essential in pressuring the university and keeping public attention. The muffled voices of a few students grew to a roaring movement not afraid to show its teeth.

The Spokes Council Team prepared the spokes councils, set the agenda, provided facilitators, and followed up on previous discussions. The councils were fueled by democratic principles, such as the “WAIT” principle, an acronym for “Why am I talking?” This required everyone to reflect on whether they had something to add to the discussion, thus preventing personal ownership of communal ideas. Another principle, the “step up, step down” principle, encouraged more silent people to step up and actively engage, while encouraging talkative people to step down and give other people space. To be able to efficiently share ideas in big groups while maintaining a horizontal structure, we employed a list of hand gestures and principles inspired by climate activist groups.

Finally, the legal team was in contact with human rights lawyers experienced in civil disobedience. They provided the legal expertise needed to plan actions and deal with the threats of arrest and eviction. They also conducted action trainings concerning safety, legal risks, and interacting with police.

To summarize, encampment members worked at different levels of risk, intensity, and tactics. Some felt more comfortable with physical and radical actions, others felt more drawn to research, diplomacy, and social media. Sometimes discord arose as to what people believed to be the best actions and tactics. This resulted in tensions within the larger group, of which some have remained throughout. We tried to confront them and find ways to combine tactics and create enough material pressure and public support to force the university to comply with our demands. This synergy led to achievements that initially seemed impossible, including winning a de facto academic boycott. On May 31, Ghent University, under pressure from our movement, decided to break all ties with Israeli universities, including the Horizon Europe project.

How We Achieved an Academic Boycott

Prior to this encampment, we had previously undertaken numerous other actions, such as sit-ins and a climate-focused occupation of the Blandijn campus of Ghent University. These experiences provided valuable insights into the university's vulnerabilities and effective strategies for exploiting them. Below we highlight several key moments that demonstrate how a combination of tactics effectively applied pressure.

On April 24, over a week before the occupation, an open letter was sent to the rector and the board of governors, outlining two specific demands with a clear ultimatum: “If our demands are not met during the board meeting on May 3, we will be compelled to occupy the university starting May 6.” This ultimatum effectively intensified the pressure on the university and contributed to escalating tensions. On May 3 a large-scale protest was held during the board meeting, followed by a video message that night affirming our intention to occupy the university and calling on students to participate. During this period, similar student encampments with comparable goals emerged worldwide, creating a powerful momentum. This led to a significant increase in public interest and media attention. This momentum and the sequence of actions generated a surge of interest and sign-ups for the planned occupation, enabling us to mobilize many students to enter and occupy the building on May 6.

On May 12 students and staff joined forces to send a joint open letter to the rector, inviting him to engage in dialogue and setting a deadline of May 14. When the rector agreed only to a closed-door meeting with a select group, we resolutely rejected this proposal. We publicly demanded an open, transparent discussion accessible to all stakeholders. We made it clear that failure to meet our invitation and demands would necessitate more radical actions on our part. The collaboration with faculty and staff who supported the occupation was significant, either by participating during the day or staying overnight. This added visibility and increased the pressure on the rector to respond to our demands.

Under pressure of the occupation, the rector felt compelled to sever ties with three Israeli institutions on May 16. This action came belatedly, as the human rights commission had advised months earlier to terminate these affiliations—a recommendation the rector and board of governors had rejected. This move appeared to be a clear attempt to salvage his position. However, we outmaneuvered him by revealing to the media that he had long been aware of this advice, highlighting his dishonesty and lack of genuine dialogue with the university community. This portrayal in the media further increased the pressure on him, ultimately forcing him to participate in one of our spokes councils on May 16, attended by approximately three hundred people. This event provided us with the opportunity to demonstrate to the university community that alternative, transparent decision-making processes are possible. However, the rector still refused to sever all ties with Israeli academic institutions.

On May 24 we occupied the rectorate, setting up barricades in the parking lot and chanting slogans inside. The rector's response was disproportionate: he called in the police, resulting in the arrest of eight students, and threatened to evict us from the building. This overreaction sparked a large support rally and widespread public condemnation, including support from politicians. The action forced him to listen to our demands and revealed the Ghent community's lack of support for evicting us. Four days later, on May 28, he announced in a spokes council that all ties between the university and Israeli institutions would be reevaluated. Subsequently, on May 31, the ties with Israeli universities were permanently severed. Through our actions and the strategic sharing of information, we positioned the human rights commission to effectively advocate for breaking these ties.

Winning the academic boycott was the result of a combination of tactics and strategic pressure. This case demonstrates that collective action and persistence can lead to academic changes, even in the face of powerful opposition. It exemplifies what a group of activists can achieve, despite numerous obstacles. The Ghent University boycott is only a local win as part of a global movement, but it can and should serve as a precedent for other universities all over the world.

Vision for the Future

The hope this occupation inspired serves as fertile soil for new movements. It is increasingly difficult to imagine anything being done outside the etched paths of the status quo. This occupation has shown that it is possible to decide collectively, without depending on one leader or group of representatives. It has shown that people will act on incentives other than self-interest, that there are people who will not be preoccupied with “business as usual” and are willing to make sacrifices.

Whereas much theory on alternative forms of living together and decision-making exists, the occupation exposed people to these alternatives in a palpable way. It is one thing not to feel represented by current party politics and to reject the system; it is something else entirely to actually do it differently.

This also applies to the university community internally. This movement provided isolated progressive academics with a network of colleagues and strengthened the position of the Human Rights Committee within the university. It sharpened the discussion about the societal role and positionality of a university. Whereas the university had been hiding behind arguments of objectivity and neutrality, it is now clear that a university has the duty to not merely remain a passive observer of the societal evolutions that it studies.

Activism and intellectualism go hand in hand. This connection should be more broadly acknowledged and implemented in our academic and movement worlds. Scholars should not look down on people that dare to take actions, and activists can employ strong theoretical backgrounds to justify their organizing. Our experience illustrates that a successful strategy relies on a dynamic interplay of various tactics, including direct action, analytical research, and community engagement: a fruitful synergy of theory and praxis. Without any of these factors, pressuring the university management into committing to an academic boycott would not have been possible. Academics should not preserve their ivory towers but construct a different infrastructure where they can always have their ear to the ground. The academic boycott is a first step in increasing the pressure on the Zionist entity, but the struggle for a free Palestine continues. The students have shown time and time again that we will not stop until the university stands on the right side of history.

From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!

Note