PSCRP-BESA Reports No 109 (Jan 13, 2025)
In December 2024, Mart Kalm, the rector of the Estonian Academy of Arts (Eesti Kunstiakadeemia, EKA), announced that this university would not continue its cooperation with Dr. Jonathan Ventura from Shenkar College in Ramat Gan (Israel), whose course had been in the EKA curriculum since 2019 and was scheduled to take place again in February 2025. Prof. Kalm added that EKA was “no longer open” to cooperation with Israeli universities. There was no clear reasoning behind this: the rector said that the move was in line with what other European universities were doing, and that Israeli colleagues (without names or institutions mentioned) understood his decision.
The situation was not uncommon among European universities in recent years, with several institutions in Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and others having severed ties with Israeli higher education. However, in Estonia, the art academy decision became the “biggest academic scandal” in 2024, as I may quote Priit Hõbemägi, one of the most renowned Estonian journalists. After the refusal to work with Israeli academics was made public, many Estonian politicians openly disagreed with this controversial move. Among them were Riina Solman (ex-Minister of Public Administration) and Urmas Paet (ex-Minister of Foreign Affairs and current Member of the European Parliament). Eerik-Niiles Kross (chair of the Estonian-Israeli parliament group, Reform Party) called Kalm’s decision “dim-witted antisemitism” and asked rhetorically if Estonian public universities should instead cooperate with universities led by Hamas. Marti Aavik, a prominent journalist, stated that it was a result of a “left-radical and Islamist alliance.” The country’s Prime Minister, Kristen Michal, along with Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Margus Tsahkna, and Education, Kristiina Kallas, asked Kalm to reconsider the decision’s utility and necessity. That recommendation was echoed by Maria Mägi-Rohtmets, the EKA’s Council chair, who reported that the Council had recommended Prof. Kalm reconsider the earlier move (which demonstrates, inter alia, that the rector’s demarche was rather spontaneous and uncoordinated). Sass Henno, a famous writer, demonstratively left his professorial position at EKA, and the Estonian Jewish Community unequivocally condemned Mart Kalm’s initiative.
It seems that the opponents of EKA’s anti-Israeli move numerically and influentially outweigh its supporters. Namely, the latter include some journalists from Eesti Päevaleht, one of the country’s leading newspapers (while another major newspaper, Postimees, seems to assume a more moderate, and sometimes even pro-Israeli, position), and some academic activists, mainly from Tallinn University. Two other big public universities, Tartu and TalTech, did not support the refusal to cooperate with Israel: the rector of Tartu University said that, if there were any institutionalized cooperation with Israeli institutions, TU wouldn’t cancel it, and the rector of TalTech stated that Kalm’s initiative “had a political air.” Tallinn University’s officials remained silent, and three lecturers from this institution, who self-represent as active members of “BDS in International Studies” (BDS – Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions, an international anti-Israeli influence group), published an open letter in support of an even broader anti-Israeli academic boycott. This had been their long-held and consistent position, judging by previous publications in the same Eesti Päevaleht newspaper; the latter’s opinion editor, Krister Paris, made his point of view crystal clear by stating that “first – Netanyahu to the Hague, then – normal relationships [with Israel].” The contrast with the attitude of some leading Postimees journalists is striking.
The division between the media structures seems to be more evident than the divide between the political parties on the issue of the Arab-Israeli conflict. However, the latter is also present, as in most other European democracies. While Isamaa (“Fatherland”), the Christian democratic party of national conservative orientation, criticizes all anti-Israeli demarches, the position of the center-left “Estonia 200” is more ambiguous. The conservative parties try to use the scandal to their advantage, criticizing the liberals for an “anti-Israeli turn”: in 2024, the Estonian MFA, controlled by “Estonia 200,” supported two anti-Israeli votes in the UN, which caused harsh critique from nearly all major parties in the country. In November, Margus Tsahkna (Minister for Foreign Affairs) said that Estonia would “take into account” the ICC arrest warrant against Benjamin Netanyahu. However, at least on the surface (and if we put aside the UN votes), the position of Tsahkna seems quite moderate, and he condemned the EKA decision as a “move in the wrong direction.”
Naturally, since Russia, as a neighbor of Estonia, remains a significant Other in public discourse, the issue of parallels with the war in Ukraine arises. Is Estonian policy consistent enough? The anti-Zionist critics compare Israel to Russia (and Gaza – to Ukraine) and ask rhetorically if the strict standards of international law should be applied differently to Moscow and Jerusalem. “If Estonia wanted Russia to be sanctioned for its crimes, it would be utmost hypocritical for us to think differently now in the case of Israel,” claims Kristi Ockba, an Estonian Middle East expert educated in Yemen, in her Eesti Päevaleht column. At the same time, the pro-Israeli public compares Israel to Ukraine, and Russia – to Hamas (as does, for instance, journalist Olga Štraube). Interestingly, the linguistic divide between Estonian-speaking and Russian-speaking communities has not affected the debate: the discussions are equally vivid in both language “camps,” with Russian-speaking journalists, academics, and artists actively participating.
After the unexpected (to him) public outrage, Prof. Kalm tried to explain the decision to cease any collaboration with Israeli institutions (actually, Shenkar College was the only one with which EKA still cooperated, as some other bilateral agreements peacefully “died” during the COVID pandemic). He said that the decision was “purely technical and not political” (ironically, the technical aspect is extremely unclear; for instance, some commentators cannot understand if the move affects cooperation in the Erasmus+ framework or just the bilateral ties). According to Kalm, the demarche was meant to “retain a secure working climate” at the Academy (Does the presence of Israeli professors or students make the working climate insecure?). He claims to be sorry for his “unclear wording that led to false interpretations.” However, the Estonian Academy of Arts has been known for its support of the Palestinian cause even before the scandal, in the format of public discussions, movie screenings, and a student-led Instagram account “EKA community for Palestine”; in the spring of 2024, Gaspar Šabad (Tallinn city assembly member) noticed a Palestinian flag waving on the Academy’s campus. The uncoordinated and unfounded (with any previous discussions and declarations) demarche of Mart Kalm makes it even more complicated for his potential successors in the rectoral position: he leaves his chair in April 2025, either to Kirke Kangro or to Hilkka Hiiop, and now there is no way for them to avoid tackling the Palestinian issue. Notably, both of them have by now refused to comment on the scandal.
As scholars of antisemitism and other types of biased hate, we should remind countries and institutions that double standards, demonization, and delegitimization of the State of Israel may easily turn a legitimate critique of a country’s government into manifestations of antisemitism (the famous 3D formula by Nathan Sharansky). Also, “holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel” is an inherent part of IHRA’s Working Definition of Antisemitism, which was adopted, in various forms, by many European institutions and countries (including Estonia in 2021). At the same time, we should not forget the immense support that Estonian politicians and the broader public have expressed towards Israel after October 7th. With Estonia remaining one of the most “non-anti-Zionist” countries in the European Union (judging by the parliamentary declarations and statements by the government officials), one should view the Estonian Academy of Arts’ decision as nothing more than an isolated and uncoordinated action that goes contrary to public opinion and official discourse. Nevertheless, the EKA scandal has finally turned the Middle Eastern conflict into a fully-fledged and widely discussed issue in Estonian society, and it is now not only (and not so much) about Israel but also about the intra-party divisions and media struggles, with the ghosts of Russia (as the – still – significant Other) and left-wing divide wandering over the debate.