Dear University of Helsinki,

I read with great interest about your suspension of exchanges involving Israeli students. I assume that’s in response to the great humanitarian tragedy associated with the Israeli military’s bombing campaign in Gaza. I assume that is because of student protests. Or maybe you are concerned with the United Nations commission that investigated the October 7 attacks on Israel and the subsequent conflict in Gaza and then “accused both Palestinian armed groups and Israel of committing war crimes,” with “the panel said that Israel’s conduct of the war included crimes against humanity” according to a report published in The New York Times. One such concern is “the use of starvation as a weapon of war through a total siege of Gaza.”

I read more about your ban. A report says that the university, its board and rector were “shocked by the civilian victims of the Israel and Hamas war.” The university correctly “called the parties involved in the conflict to prevent genocide in accordance with the decisions of the International Court of Justice and refrain immediately from using violence against non-military parties.” One source quoted the university’s official statement as follows: “The University of Helsinki is also deeply concerned about the destruction of universities in Gaza and the fate of their students and staff. The University is committed to contributing actively to rebuilding higher education and research infrastructures, once this is possible.”

Israeli student exchanges are framed as problematic, but products are not. Why? Finland imported $104 million dollars worth of goods from Israel in 2022, but you can’t “import” students. Why? Does this rationale make sense. You can’t convince a product to support and fight for peace, but you might convince a student.

I understand that Israeli policies are problematic and many aspects of the war campaign are horrific. What I don’t understand is the following. First, I don’t understand why you feel that Israelis’ exposure to your university might not lead such persons to be better citizens within their own country with respect to such problems. Isn’t an alternative to gratuitous violence and the support of a just and equitable relationship among people part of your mission as a university or not? If you are not “political,” then how can you ban student exchanges? The answer must be that you are now “political.” You do have according to the university’s own home page a “new multidisciplinary research center” on “Re­li­gion, Con­flict and Dia­logue” which “focuses on aspects of gender in peace, conflict, and religion,” do you not? Your write up fails to use the word “disarmament” even once, but whatever. A few critics even suggest that Finland itself is engaged in militarism.

Second, I wonder if the question at hand concerns that Israelis should suffer from collective guilt? If Israelis should suffer such collective guilt, should Finns as well? Guilt about what? If we go far back enough, we know that Finnish troops participated in mass murder of Jews. I assume the expiration date on your collective guilt for that episode has passed long ago. But, what about some new developments. A recent summary of a report, published in May 2024, suggests rising anti-Semitism in Finland (with the original report found here). The report notes: “that the majority of people who identify as Jews feel that anti-Semitism has risen in Finland in recent years.” The report says “respondents expressed that they have experienced anti-Semitism from the right wing, the extreme left and in Islamist contexts, among others.” In addition, “only eight per cent of the people who had experienced discrimination had reported their case to the police or a supervisory authority.” One person contacted for this study stated: “I am tired of the fact that politicians are not held accountable for their actions, neither in the extreme right nor on the extreme left. The war changed many things. I am very left-wing and very critical of Israel, but I feel like my own people are turning on me and other Jews like a public prosecutor. They look at things completely without context, with huge double standards.” I would like to follow up on this idea of “double standards.”

Criticism of Israel is not necessarily anti-Semitic and such criticism of anti-Semitism has been “weaponized” to condone Israeli’s policies associated with gratuitous killing. This fact does not mitigate the fact that critics of Israel can in fact be anti-Semitic. More importantly, Finland itself is not far removed from similar but not identical weaponized violence. Who does Finland export weapons to? Here is a report for 2021 circulated by the peace research group SIPRI, based in Sweden. The report (Plate 1) tells us that Finland exports weapons to United Arab Emirates (UAE), Egypt, Israel, Nigeria, India and South Sudan. Let us do a quick run down on those countries.

Plate 1: Finnish Arms Export Report

Source: Translation by author of Finnish arms export report, accessible at: https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2022-10/puolustusministerion_raportti_puolustustarvikkeiden_viennista_2021.pdf

When it comes to UAE, Amnesty International states: “Authorities continued to unduly restrict the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) failed to meet its commitments on policies to combat climate change. Migrant outdoor workers still lacked adequate protection from extreme summer heat. Authorities continued to arbitrarily detain 26 prisoners of conscience, and denied or severely restricted some prisoners’ communication with their families. Authorities launched a new mass trial of over 80 Emiratis.”

Wen it comes to Egypt, Amnesty International stated the following situation in 2023, two years after you had the forethought to export weapons to that country: “Presidential elections took place in a repressive environment, with genuine opposition candidates prevented from running and the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly severely suppressed. Authorities released 834 prisoners held for political reasons but arrested over triple that number during 2023. Thousands of actual or perceived government critics remained arbitrarily detained and/or unjustly prosecuted. Enforced disappearances and torture and other ill-treatment remained rampant. Death sentences were handed down after grossly unfair trials but the rate of executions dropped. Impunity prevailed for grave human rights violations committed in 2023 and previous years. Women and girls, religious minorities and LGBTI individuals were subjected to discrimination, violence and prosecution for exercising their human rights.”

When it comes to Israel, you’ve already indicated that there is something problematic about the country, but not enough to have you stop weapons exports to it in 2021. We know that the bad stuff preceded 2023 and 2024. We also know that you recently purchased Israeli weapons and don’t merely sell weapons to Israel. In November 2023, we know that Israel signed a “landmark deal to sell David’s Sling air defense system to Finland,” according to a report in The Times of Israel. Could you explain why Finland imports weapons but not students from Israel? Are you worried about how you strengthen Israeli defense firms or does banning students from studying at your university take care of the problem? Are students inferior to weapons in your moral code? Or do you just adjust morality to student demands? The report said “Israel’s Defense Ministry signed an agreement for the sale of the David’s Sling air defense system to Finland…in a first-of-its-kind deal estimated at 317 million euros.” At the same time, your university cooperates with NATO and of course the Finnish military establishment. I assume that is for self-defense purposes. But that does implicate you in their decisions with respect to the Israeli military. Do you assume Israel has self-defense purposes as well? How does banning students relate to this question? Is Finland’s sustaining Israeli military firms a moral good, but banning Israeli students a moral bad? I have a hard time understanding and require more information about your moral compass.

When it comes to Nigeria, Amnesty International reported that in 2023 (two years after the weapons report): “Defence and security forces used excessive force, mainly to disperse protests. People were tortured during police interrogation. Authorities continued to carry out forced evictions. Authorities failed to put in place measures to mitigate the impact of climate change. All parties to the armed conflict committed violations of international law. Cases of enforced disappearances were documented. Sexual and gender-based violence remained rife. Men were charged under the Same-Sex Marriage Prohibition Act. Resettled internally displaced people lacked sufficient food and access to basic amenities.”

When it comes to India, in 2023 Amnesty International reported: “National financial and investigation agencies were weaponized against civil society, human rights defenders, activists, journalists and critics, further shrinking civic space. Government officials, political leaders, and supporters of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) – the ruling political party at the federal level – advocated hatred and violence against religious minorities with impunity, particularly Muslims, marking a rise in hate crimes. Punitive demolitions of largely Muslim properties – including homes, businesses and places of worship – resulting in mass forced evictions after episodes of communal violence, were commonplace and went unpunished. India continued to impose arbitrary and blanket internet restrictions including internet shutdowns. The government withheld the Twitter (now known as X) accounts of journalists and civil society organizations without due process. Dalits, Adivasis and other marginalized groups continued to face violence and entrenched discrimination, with women and girls facing specific attacks on their right to bodily autonomy.”

When it comes to South Sudan (Plate 2), in 2020, Amnesty International reported the following information on April 30th of that year: “The UN Security Council must renew and strengthen enforcement of the arms embargo on South Sudan, Amnesty International said today, exposing new evidence that multiple security forces are breaching it and concealing weapons amid a volatile security situation. Next month the Security Council is set to vote on a resolution that would renew the embargo, which currently expires on 31 May 2020. Earlier this year, the organization’s investigators gained access to 12 military training and cantonment sites across the country run by members of formerly opposed forces including the South Sudan People’s Defence Forces (SSPDF), Sudan People’s Liberation Army-In Opposition (SPLA-IO) and South Sudan Opposition Alliance (SSOA), as well as the so-called “Organized Forces” of the police, fire brigade, and wildlife service.” A report that the Finnish government funded does study weapons flows into Sudan and South Sudan, however. Strangely, it says nothing about Finnish weapons exports. I will assume that these weapons related to this report on “Restrictive measures in respect of the situation in South Sudan.” There it states, that “the bans do not apply to financing and financial assistance, technical assistance and brokering services related to”:

• “arms intended solely to support or for use by UN personnel, including the UN Mission in the Republic of South Sudan and the UN Interim Security Force for Abyei;
• protective clothing, including flak jackets and military helmets, temporarily exported to South Sudan by UN personnel, representatives of the media and humanitarian and development workers and associated personnel, for their personal use only.”

Plate 2: Finland Supplies South Sudan with Weapons in 2021

Source: Print screen image of Finnish report on arms exports, accessible at: https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2022-10/puolustusministerion_raportti_puolustustarvikkeiden_viennista_2021.pdf. The report states these export sales as realized in 2021.

To summarize, the original report that discussed Finnish exports to Sudan did not mention the word “United Nations,” so we need more information. If we forget about South Sudan, that still leaves puzzles about arms exports to human rights violating countries: UAR, Egypt, Israel, Nigeria, and India. Do you ban students from or links to (a) UAR, Egypt, India and Nigeria, (b) only countries linked to student protests or (c) “genocidal” countries?

When it comes to (a), I found that “The Helsinki International Schools Group (HEI Schools)” was “proud to announce its expansion to the United Arab Emirates through a strategic partnership with Ghobash Group.” This move represents a significant milestone in bringing the acclaimed Finnish approach to early childhood education to the UAE.” Yet, HEI schools cooperate with the University of Helsinki. Have you communicated to HEI schools about this cooperation with UAE?

Turning to item (c), an April 8, 2020 report says that when it comes to UAR, a “military coalition led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in Yemen…killed thousands of civilians in airstrikes, tortured detainees, raped civilians and used child soldiers as young as 8 — actions that may amount to war crimes,” according to United Nations investigators. In 2020, Yemen war dead were 233,000 according to one UN report. But, Finland authorized arms exports to UAE in 2021. So your university cooperates with entities like HEI that cooperate with UAE, with UAE linked to killing of hundreds of thousands of persons, with some of the weapons in UAE’s possession coming from Finland. Has UAE been involved in genocide? One complaint suggests that UAE is linked to genocide in Sudan, with that echoed by other sources. Then, we have the UAE linked potentially to genocide in Yemen. Yet, your university has indirect links to the UAE.

Noam Chomsky, a leading Israeli critic, has argued that the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) was “a tactic, not a principle.” One consideration is whether the principle is consistent. Chomsky argued: “Why boycott Israel and not boycott the United States? The U.S. has a much worse record. Apart from Israel, the United States is by far the world’s major arm supplier.” He also argued that Harvard University’s contributions to war crimes “vastly exceed University of Tel Aviv’s contributions to war crimes.” In tactical terms, Chomsky argued that universities were low priority targets: “Universities are probably the least malign of all the actors in this conflict. “If we want to boycott those directly involved in atrocities let us go after the corporate system, the governments, and the citizens who pay taxes, etc.” (see: Semra E. Sevi, “Chomsky’s Boycott,” Harvard Crimson, December 13, 2010. Accessible at: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/12/13/israel-chomsky-boycott-academic/).  He later argued that “an academic boycott on Israel is one of the least effective tactics that one could think of” and shifted “attention from the oppression of the Palestinians, and in particular our crucial role in it as Americans, to the question of academic freedom” (see: Joel Bleifuss, “Chomsky, Learns and Elia Debate Whether an Academic Boycott of Israel Can Work: Is the tactic the best way to pressure Israel?,” In These Times, February 23, 2015. Accessible at: https://inthesetimes.com/article/do-academic-boycotts-of-israel-work).

Thank you for your consideration.

Regards,

Jonathan Michael Feldman, June 13, 2024, Stockholm