Maarten Boudry, a Belgian philosopher at the University of Ghent, is not a timorous man. You’ve met him before when he wrote this recent post defending our anthology, edited by Lawrence Krauss, against claims that we should not be criticizing the Left’s intrusion into science when the Right is doing it more vigorously. You may also recall that both he and I were deplatformed when we were supposed to hold a discussion on science and ideology at the University of Amsterdam, and this cancelation was done for a completely irrelevant reason: we were “too sympathetic to Israel.” Having visited both Belgium and the Netherlands in recent years, I have become depressingly aware of how anti-Israel, if not anti-Semitic, these countries are, perhaps because of a large influx of Muslim immigrants.
(I should mention by way of self-aggrandizement that Maarten and I also co-wrote a paper in Philosophical Psychology on the cognitive status of supernatural beliefs: my only philosophy paper, and one that gives me a soupçon of credibility in philosophy.)
But I digress. The point of this post is to show how anti-Semitic academia really is in the Low Countries, to the extent that Boudry has been threatened with being sanctioned (and certainly with having his speech chilled and repressed) simply for defending Israel in published interviews. And he’s standing up to some of his colleagues who would take away his professorship.
I reproduce some of the history of to this conflict, putting Maarten’s background explanation as well as the exchange of emails in indented text. Bold headings are mine, as are the words that are flush left.
Introduction from Maarten:
A few words on the context of the letter bellow. What “triggered” my colleagues was a joint interview I gave to a Flemish magazine alongside a rabidly anti-Zionist MP (interestingly, he was from the Right), who stormed out after 20 minutes because he couldn’t take it anymore. You can read it here in the archive (right-click “translate” in Google).
This MP actually subscribes to the antisemitic conspiracy theory that Netanyahu knew about the October 7 pogrom in advance and deliberately let it happen, sacrificing 1,200 of his own citizens—women, men, and children. The fact that such a figure sits in our parliament says everything about the state of Belgian politics.
During that interview I made remarks they deemed so offensive that they urged the Board of Directors to discipline me. As an aside: I dislike these double interviews and hesitated to agree, since the result is always an extremely condensed, truncated transcript that strips away nuance, context, and sources. You’re at the mercy of the journalist—not that he did a bad job, but such reduction is inevitable. And it’s always weak to attack a sound-bite interview rather than engage with what I’ve actually written in my book or opinion pieces, where the arguments are properly developed and sourced.
When I asked Maarten who the author of the letter below (Herman Mielants) was, Martin replied,
Herman Mielants is a professor emeritus (UGent) and physician, specialized in rheumatology.
And when I asked why Mielants wrote the letter below, Maarten replied:
Why did Mielants write the letter? Because he’s fervently anti-zionist, like many people on the Left, and he’s so dogmatic that he cannot tolerate a colleague dissenting with his own “correct” view. In general, public opinion in Belgium on Israel is an echo chamber: many people are completely shocked to hear about Israel’s disengagement from Gaza in 2005, or about Arabs in high positions in the Israeli parliament and in the courts. They have no idea.
Here’s Mielants’s Letter to Ghent professors about Boudry’s “impure views”, demanding some kind of punishment. (The rector is the head of the University).
From: Herman Mielants
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2025 9:06 PMTo: rector; Petra De Sutter
Cc: Jean Jacques AMY; Marleen Temmerman; Marc DeMeere Jan Tavernier <
Subject: FW: Double interview Jean-Marie Dedecker vs. Maarten Boudry
Importance: High
Dear Rector and dear future rector
The undersigned, professors emeritus of Ghent University (Marleen Temmerman, Jan Tavernier, Mark Demeyer, and Herman Mielants), are deeply concerned about the Zionist-tinged opinions of philosopher Prof. Maarten Boudry. While Boudry certainly has the right to freedom of expression, he coldly distorts the truth regarding the Gaza issue. He defends outspoken Zionist ideas regarding the apartheid regime since the beginning of the state of Israel, as well as the illegal occupations of the Palestinian territories and the genocide currently being committed in Gaza. In a recent publication in De Morgen, Omer Bartov, professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Brown University USA, himself a Jew and former Zionist, concludes that Israel is undoubtedly committing genocide in Gaza. The denial of this genocide is all the more cynical now that starvation, especially of children, is also being used as a weapon of war. Maarten Boudry’s ideas reflect extremely negatively on the objectivity of Ghent University. Given Maarten Boudry’s authority and charisma as Professor of Philosophy, who inherited the chair from Prof. Etienne Vermeersch, we ask the Board of Governors of Ghent University to make it clear to Prof. Maarten Boudry that Ghent University attaches importance to an objective approach to humanitarian problems and to promote this in his academic teaching and publications.
Below you will find the letter from Prof. Em. Jean-Jacques Amy, Professor Em. VUB, which he sent to Knack, following a conversation between Jean Marie DeDecker and Maarten Boudry, with the approval of JJ Amy [JAC: those letters aren’t attached here]
Kind regards
Prof. Em. Rheumatology, Herman Mielants, U Gent
More from Boudry about his job at Ghent:
About my current position: I don’t have tenure, only a part-time (50%) research position until the end of the year. Even the Etienne Vermeersch Chair which they mention, which I held for four years, was not a tenured position. By the way, it would be virtually impossible for me to get such a position in the academic climate post-7/10. Even before that I was already a controversial figure (for my views on islam & migration, climate policy, etc.), and there was an outcry about the appointment in the Flemish media. But today it would be a non-starter, and my rector would never risk it.
And, as he notes, “Here is my reply to the miscreants.” It is bold and unapologetic:
From: Maarten Boudry
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2025 at 19:15
Subject: Re: Dubbelinterview Jean-Marie Dedecker vs. Maarten Boudry
To: Jean Jacques AMY
Cc: Rik Van de Walle, rector, Petra De Sutter, Marc De Meyere, Marleen Temmerman, Jan Tavernier, M.Galand Pierre, Maarten BoudryIt is disheartening that some academics, even after decades-long careers at universities, still fail to grasp the meaning and value of academic freedom. The debate over the war in Gaza is still raging among scholars and experts. I have never denied that the Israeli army has committed war crimes in Gaza—such crimes occur in nearly every war—and I have myself often voiced sharp criticism of Netanyahu and his far-right allies (see my book and previous articles, which are naturally more detailed and substantiated than a condensed interview transcript).
What I emphatically deny is that a “genocide” is taking place in Gaza, and I am far from alone in this view. Holocaust scholars such as Norman Goda and Jeffrey Herf, historians like Benny Morris, legal experts including Julia Sebutinde of the ICJ, and specialists in urban warfare like John Spencer share this position.
Your letter, by contrast, contains almost no argumentation; it simply repeats, in indignant tones, the familiar accusations of “genocide,” “apartheid,” and “open-air prison.” Anyone who seeks to prematurely shut down scholarly debate, even calling for sanctions against dissenting voices before the ICJ has issued a ruling, betrays a complete lack of understanding of academic freedom and of the UGent motto Dare to Think. Even Omar Bartov’s article in The New York Times, which you cite, acknowledges the intense debate among experts over whether genocide is the right term. What is particularly cowardly is that you demand disciplinary measures behind the back of the person targeted.
Most troubling, however, is your repeated pejorative use of the term “Zionist.” That I supposedly hold “Zionist-tinged views” is, in your eyes, sufficient reason to urge the Board of Directors to sanction me. Yet “Zionism,” at its core, is simply the pursuit of self-determination of the Jewish people. Unless you deny that same right to every other people in the world, your argument is therefore guilty of antisemitism.
But by all means, feel free to engage in antisemitism—that, too, is part of the academic freedom I cherish. I can recommend it highly to all of you.
Cheers
M.
I fear that Maarten’s day as a scholar at Ghent University—or any university—are numbered. Yes, we have our haters and antisemites in American universities, but it is much, much worse in Belgium and the Netherlands. I should add that he is not Jewish.
Much respect, Maarten.
Re. ” … the antisemitic conspiracy theory that Netanyahu knew about the October 7 pogrom in advance and deliberately let it happen.”
I’m not sure I get what he means here. Why would this conspiracy theory, as silly as it is, be antisemitic?
It’s just another in the long line of antisemitic conspiracy theories that blames Jews for the murderous actions of others. Started with the blood libels centuries ago, and continues in a similar vein.
In the past week, we even have Ana Kasparian indulging in antisemitic 9/11 conspiracy theories that attempt to do exactly the same thing – blame Jews for the actions of others. She is literally parroting the conspiracy crap that InfoWars spewed out 20 years ago.
Oh, and the “Israel allowed it to happen” conspiracy theory was repeatedly pumped out over at the comments at Pharyngula, especially in the days after 10/7. I think the most prominent poster of that crap, “WMDKitty”, was eventually banned from there.
This quote is now 67 years old yet the concept remains. The weirdest thing is that this quote itself has been turned against the Jews. You’ll find it in many discussions about Gaza today. Folks will say something along the lines of, “whatever the Zionists say they are guilty of themselves.” Inception?
Ignorance on the part of Boudry’s esteemed colleagues? Or is it malice?
Why is antisemitism on the rampage in Europe? It may in part be because “of a large influx of Muslim immigrants,” as you suggest. I would also add that it could be the sad re-emergence—due to the Gaza war and other factors—of latent antisemitism that has been endemic to Europe for 2000 years. “I’m not antisemitic, I’m anti-Zionist” is a convenient way for antisemites to express their antisemitism openly. It’s an almost irresistible temptation to the Jew-hater.
Re “Anyone who seeks to prematurely shut down scholarly debate, even calling for sanctions against dissenting voices …, betrays a complete lack of understanding of academic freedom.”, I disagree: they understand it alright; they just despise it.
I don’t see how a letter signed by three retired professors indicates that his job is under threat. To me, the letter holds the weight of a letter to the editor in the student newspaper.
Oh, but it is. What the article recounts is only a small part of the opprobrium that Boudry has faced at Ghent. There is no space to write about it all. The fact is that if you write about Israel without the usual accusations of genocide, apartheid, etc., you’re doomed there. Wait and see.
Worse still, they want to criminalize my views on Gaza, by proposing to expand the Belgian law banning Holocaust denialism. Here from a separate letter the same professors sent to the editor of that magazine that ran the interview:
“It is regrettable that Belgian legislation regarding denialism pertains exclusively to the Holocaust. In our country, anyone is permitted to publicly and loudly deny the genocides of the Congolese, the Amerindians, the Armenians, the Rwandans, the Palestinians, and others.
Jean-Jacques AMY, em. professor at the VUB,
Co-signed by
Pierre GALAND, president of the Belgo-Palestinienne Association,
Marc DE MEYERE, em. associate professor at Ghent University,
Herman MIELANTS, em. professor at Ghent University,
Marleen TEMMERMAN, em. professor at Ghent University,
Jan TAVERNIER, em. professor at Ghent University.”
See here: https://x.com/mboudry/status/1951610936290091343
[Throat-clearing]: I don’t think Holocaust “denial” (which is defined explicitly in Canadian Holocaust-denial law; don’t know about Belgian) should be a crime, even if it is a crime in Canada only if it is used to foster antisemitism.
That said, what Canadian law, and by your post, Belgian law, prohibits is denying the historicity of a specific event: the Holocaust. For other events that your opponents have cited there are historical controversies about what they actually entailed. The argument about whether they “rose to” genocide in their enormity or were only “tantamount” to it or weren’t “really” genocide at all is a sterile one. When Raphael Lemkin was trying to get the newly minted UN General Assembly to adopt his genocide convention in 1948, he had to reassure nervous governments around the world that their national leaders would not be punished retroactively and vicariously for an international crime that didn’t exist when the specific acts happened. The Convention on Genocide doesn’t care whether what the Ottomans did to the Armenians was “really” genocide, or what the United States did to suppress Amerindian opposition to its westward expansion was genocide. It doesn’t even care, strictly, if the Holocaust itself was genocide, even though Lemkin coined the term while it was happening to his family and fellow Jews. The senior German and Japanese leaders, Eichmann a notable exception, had already been tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity by then. Cases closed. The Convention would only have made criminal Germany’s state-legislated actions against its own people, Jews and others but Jews particularly, within its pre-Sept. 1939 sovereign borders. Then Britain and France would have had a causus belli, had they been willing, to invade Germany in, say, 1938, and arrest Adolph Hitler. The Rwandan genocide could not have been prosecuted as a crime under international law without the Convention, as the state theretofore could do anything it wanted to its own people inside its own borders. (It remains a crime in Rwanda to deny that Hutus committed genocide against Tutsis, but at least President Kagama has an international judgement of fact on his side.)
If there is a move to criminalize “denial” that other events were or are genocide, then that is a powerful argument for the repeal of Holocaust-denial laws, not their expansion to other more conjectural events. (Some Canadian parliamentarians, fortunately only Greens and socialists, want to criminalize Indian residential-school “denialism”.) Ultimately, a charge of conducting genocide is either proved or not, by a verdict of a Court. It cannot ever be illegal to hold that a specific unadjudicated event, even one on-going, is not a genocide, even under an aggressive hate-speech regime as we have in Canada and, fearfully for you, you seem to have at least in some quarters in Belgium.
I humbly offer these arguments for your use if things get hot for you in Belgium.
If you are claiming that in Belgium and in the Netherlands the universities are full of antisemites (and that this will prevent Maarten Boudry from holding a position at UGent—or any university) then that will require much stronger arguments than one letter from a handful of (retired) academicians, which is not even antisemitic in nature (unless, of course, you consider any opposition to zionism as antisemitic).
Your response “There is no space to write about it all” is a rather weak one, I’d say–but that’s merely the opinion of a Belgian academic.
None of these “incidents” prove anything individually, but if you don’t see that they add up to a climate that is extremely inhospitable to pro-Israel views, then you’re just being blind. Letters to the rector demanding sanctions, deplatformings and cancellations, university-wide boycotts and official statements from the rectors denouncing Israel (https://maartenboudry.be/2025/08/les-recteurs-peuvent-ils-rester-silencieux.html), aggressive student protests, antizionist petitions that are signed by half of the university (some even glorifying teh “resistance” on 7 Oct), almost daily messages from colleagues who tell me that they agree with me but are too afraid to speak up… It would be impossible for me to get the Etienne Vermeersch Chair now (as my supervisor openly admitted).
Now you’re weakening the claim to there being a ‘climate inhospitable to pro-Israel views’. The claim made above which I was responding to was that there’s a widespread antisemitism among Belgian and Dutch academics (“Yes, we have our haters and antisemites in American universities, but it is much, much worse in Belgium and the Netherlands.”), and that this fact might make it impossible for you (and, I presume, anyone else speaking out loudly in favour of Israel) to hold a position at any university.
That’s a very strong claim. Yet only one argument was given. But alright, you added a few more. Alas, they do not add up to such a strong claim—at all.
Bluntly, if you consider a letter complaining about you (which I do not support btw), the statements of the rectors against Israel’s actions, the boycotts, a petition which you call ‘antizionist’, cancellations, etc., as sufficient proof for the claimed widespread antisemitism then you’re not being blind—you’re hallucinating. 😉
These ‘incidents’ are evidence of considerable animosity towards Israel’s actions (including, sometimes, an unwillingness to accept that others take a different viewpoint). However, they are evidence of that alone.
Of course, if it were true that a large portion of the academics at UGent (and elsewhere in Belgium and the Netherlands) were antisemites then that would obviously imply that there’d be quite some animosity towards Israel’s actions. And it might be tempting to turn that around. However, as I’m sure you’re well aware of, if A implies B that doesn’t mean that B implies A.
Am I saying that your outspokenness concerning Israel could not possibly have any implications for future academic positions? No, of course not. People are people; they let emotions interfere where they shouldn’t. And there are strong emotions involved in the ‘Israel-Gaza-debate’. So yes, some people might speak out against you that would have supported you in the past (or the other way around). Denying this possibility would be foolish.
However, the claim that our universities are, bluntly put, taken over by antisemites, and that this fact is moreover making it impossible for you to hold any academic position absolutely anywhere—that claim, unless some overwhelming evidence shows up—belongs on the shelf next to the conspiracy theories.
Terrible. I’ve seen two of his talks (one with PCCE) – excellent.
See? THIS is why PCC(E)’s efforts in this “bigger than evolution/creationism war” – against the woke, Pawethtine and genderwang are so important. PCC(E) is high status, famous and… importantly.. bulletproof.
Onwards unwoke heroes.
D.A.
NYC
It is scary that free speech is being limited, especially by ‘academics’. People are rarely either all evil or all saintly, so we must accept that people have different views on things and we should be free to debate those openly even if we disagree vehemently.
There is a quote (WRONGLY attributed to Dostoyevsky) that says “Tolerance will reach such a level that intelligent people will be forbidden to think so as not to offend idiots.” I wish I knew who actually said that because it rings very true.
If we allow certain topics to be proscribed by law, or by peer pressure, who knows where it will end? If we make laws banning criticism of certain religions, then the next government may extend that law to include criticism of vegans, or evolution, or anything else that those with pitchforks, decide is ‘wrong’.
As always, be careful what you wish for.
There is no talk of making “laws banning criticisms of certain religionS”, there is only talk of making laws banning criticism of ONE religion – the most intolerant, oppressive, and barbaric one of them all. And such talk is motivated only by fear. Those who make such suggestions have only themselves to blame for letting in en masse primitive people with hair-trigger tempers who are intolerant of criticism.
Different subsets are attacking criticisms of different religions. You only need to go on X and try criticize any religion to receive abuse from religious people who disagree with you. I remember even getting abuse when I criticised buddhism 🤦♀️
It also depends on which country you are in. Some countries even protest about christianity.
But I agree with you that one religion stands head and shoulders above the rest when it comes to abusing non believers.
I was referring to your comment about introducing blasphemy laws (as is being proposed by some in the current UK government specifically to protect Islam from criticism), not online abusive responses from religionists.
I wasn’t referring to the UK, although the reintroduction of blasphemy laws in the 3 UK nations that repealed them is a huge concern.
Many countries already have blasphemy laws, including some in Europe. They are not all about islam. My concern is that having these laws for any religion could lead.
to extending those laws to other religions or categories of people.
Re “idiots”, using this term clearly shows oppressive bias against the entire Stupid community. (But lucky for the offender, the community is not very well organised,)
Sadly we have a similar situation in Italy.
Hopefully there are more dissenting voices
As a community, academics seem to believe they are liberal and open. And yet, given an opportunity, many seem to exhibit the same exclusionary behaviors toward “the other” as any clueless primate. If you love irony and aren’t either in our crosshairs or emotionally sensitive, we humans are endlessly amusing.
It’s certainly ironic that many in higher education seem to be incapable of rational thinking.
Everyone has their own strong beliefs which are unjustified. No amount of rationality can fix this; indeed, adept reasoners are all the more capable of constructing elaborate self-serving rationalisations when needed. GIGO.
🎯
Agree, none of us is perfect, and none of us knows everything. The problem is, the educators are pushing their imperfections more widely than the average person.
Beware of false knowledge: it is more dangerous than ignorance. [George Bernard Shaw]
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
(usually attributed to Mark Twain)
“While Boudry certainly has the right to freedom of expression” we the undersigned want to shut him up. The hypocrisy, the illiberal position of folks who believe themselves liberal. It is frightening if such people have the power to impact Professor Boudry’s career. I hope they fail in their efforts to silence him in his university position. Look forward to hearing how this plays out. Cowards all, who signed that letter.
One by one, they’re mostly harmless. As a mob, however, ….
What shoddy argumentation on Mielants’ part! As evidence that Israel is committing genocide, he cites ”this guy” (Bartov, I never heard of him, how about you?). ”This guy” is supposedly credible because he’s Jewish. Apparently that trumps any other Jewish opinions or any other kind of evidence.
“Given Maarten Boudry’s authority and charisma…” Ah, they’re worried about the impressionable students whose minds he might warp with his “zionist tinged opinions”. God forbid there be a student on campus who stills their cries of “from the river to the sea”. What a tender bunch these profs. They must be protected from Maarten’s rot. They have important inculcating to do and it must be of the acceptable sort. “Objective”, my ass. Sorry this is happening to you.
Surely they mean “objective” in the Marxist sense: supporting the True ideology. Like the science of Scientologists, or the progress being made by todays Progressives. I could go on….
“But by all means, feel free to engage in antisemitism—that, too, is part of the academic freedom I cherish. I can recommend it highly to all of you. Cheers M.”
Succinct, clever and brave. I have respected Maarten Boudry for his work on pseudoscience for quite some time and this only strengthens my admiration, for him.
Bonus: they don’t just want to discipline me at UGent, they literally want to criminalize my views on Gaza, by expanding the Belgian law banning Holocaust denialism. From a separate letter they sent to the editor of the magazine that ran the interview:
“It is regrettable that Belgian legislation regarding denialism pertains exclusively to the Holocaust. In our country, anyone is permitted to publicly and loudly deny the genocides of the Congolese, the Amerindians, the Armenians, the Rwandans, the Palestinians, and others.
Jean-Jacques AMY, em. professor at the VUB,
Co-signed by
Pierre GALAND, president of the Belgo-Palestinienne Association,
Marc DE MEYERE, em. associate professor at Ghent University,
Herman MIELANTS, em. professor at Ghent University,
Marleen TEMMERMAN, em. professor at Ghent University,
Jan TAVERNIER, em. professor at Ghent University.”
See here: https://x.com/mboudry/status/1951610936290091343
It’s unsurprising to me that a 2000 year hatred of Jews didn’t just disappear into the woodwork.
Perhaps your esteemed colleagues are able to document the Final Solution that Israel has in mind for the Gazans and compare that to the documented Final Solution that Hamas has in mind for the Jews?
“The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible.” [Salman Rushdie]
We must be free to criticise, satirise, deride, or have contempt for every single thing. Every other person must also be free to criticise, satirise, deride, or have contempt for every single thing we say too. We can only progress to solutions by exchanging views.
The way that this Mielants character uses the term “Zionist” as if it were a self-evidently condemnatory term makes him sound like a Soviet apparatchik using the word “cosmopolitan,” or even like a Nazi official using the word “Jewish.”