City University antisemitic attack reported, police investigating

At a London university, a professor’s past military service has become the focal point of a student-led campaign — not because of his teaching or published work, but simply because he is an Israeli Jew. The episode has sparked fierce debate about what counts as legitimate political protest on campus and where criticism of a state ends and discrimination against a people begins.

The controversy centers on Michael Ben-Gad, an economics professor, whose mandatory service in Israel decades ago has been raised by protesters as cause for dismissal. Demonstrators carried placards naming and shaming him, declaring that Zionism should have no place at the university — language that many observers say crosses from political critique into exclusionary targeting of Jewish identity.

How the campaign unfolded at City: facts and claims

Students organized rallies that prominently featured Ben-Gad’s image and accused him of being complicit in wrongdoing solely because of his history of military conscription. City Action for Palestine, a student group involved in campus activism, helped coordinate social-media posts and protests. Footage from some demonstrations shows chants that many found inflammatory; the group also reposted material from controversial figures alleging institutional biases linked to Jewish organizations on campus.

• Signs at protests included messages such as “Zionism off campus” and pointed references to alleged violence.
• Some posts amplified by the activists echoed calls for direct action and used highly charged language that critics call dehumanizing.
• A claim circulated on social platforms that the Union of Jewish Students is institutionally racist, a charge traceable to a widely discredited academic commentator.

Supporters of the protests say they are opposing political ideology; critics argue the tactics single out Jewish staff and students because of their nationality and identity.

Why targeting Zionism often equates to targeting Jewish people

For many Jews around the world, Zionism is inseparable from Jewish self-determination. When activists call for Zionism to be banned from campus, the practical effect can be to exclude Jewish viewpoints and Jewish people themselves from university life.

Consider these parallels:

1. Would a campaign to remove belief in Kurdish self-rule from campus be tolerated? Likely not — it would be quickly recognized as ethnic targeting.
2. Many countries have mandatory military service. If past conscription were a legitimate basis for dismissal, academics from Turkey, Russia, Israel, and elsewhere would all be vulnerable.
3. Veterans or former service members in the U.S. or the U.K. could be similarly stigmatized if nationality or past service were treated as disqualifying.

Labeling someone entirely by their nationality or by a decades-old act of compliance with domestic law is a blunt instrument that risks turning political debate into discrimination.

Campus culture and the language of protest: when rhetoric becomes harassment

Some students who champion anti-Zionist positions adopt a rhetoric that treats disagreement as harm and labels opponents morally beyond the pale. University environments that have emphasized identity-based frameworks and “speech equals violence” thinking can create conditions where targeted campaigns gain momentum unchecked.

How tactics escalate

• Personalizing criticism by circulating photographs and naming individuals on placards.
• Framing ideological opposition as proof of criminality without clear evidence.
• Amplifying divisive commentators who call for the closure of student groups that represent minority communities.

These methods can intimidate the very students universities are supposed to protect. Student representatives and campus equity officers who remain silent in the face of such campaigns risk signaling that some forms of harassment are acceptable when dressed in political language.

Responses from academics and the wider community

More than a hundred scholars have published a public letter condemning the harassment directed at Ben-Gad and warning about the chilling effect on Jewish students and staff. The signatories stressed that campaigns that single out people because of national origin or religious identity are unacceptable and set concerning precedents.

The letter highlighted recent attacks on senior university figures of Jewish background as part of a broader pattern. Those making these complaints argue that at minimum, institutions should denounce intimidation and protect the safety and inclusion of all students.

Broader consequences: precedent, policy, and institutional responsibility

Allowing a campaign that targets an individual mainly because of their nationality to proceed without robust institutional pushback creates a template for future exclusions. Once the principle is accepted that belonging to a nation or holding a particular national identity can be grounds for professional censure, that logic is easily extended.

Universities face difficult choices. They must balance the protection of free speech and robust debate with the obligation to prevent harassment and discrimination. That tension raises practical questions for campus leaders, including:

• How should student groups be regulated when their activities single out individuals by identity?
• What mechanisms can ensure protests do not cross into direct intimidation or defamation?
• Which policies will preserve open discussion without allowing the targeting of minority communities?

Failing to answer those questions leaves universities vulnerable to internal strife and undermines trust among students and faculty from targeted backgrounds.

You might also like:

• UK universities face surge in antisemitism allegations
• Antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment are spreading in classrooms
• Students back Iran’s ayatollah in show of support
• Greens under fire after lawmaker calls party lunatic, deranged and evil
• Charlie Kirk’s apocalyptic rhetoric about trans rights sparks backlash

Robert Johnson

Robert Johnson is a dedicated columnist focusing on political and social debates. With twelve years in editorial writing, he provides nuanced, well‑argued perspectives. His commentaries invite you to form your own views and engage in critical issues.