Dr. Shani de la Zerda, head of the EU-European Union section at the Research Authority at the University of Haifa, warns that Israel's exclusion from the Horizon Europe program could cause serious damage to Israeli science, harm international collaborations, and undermine Israel's democratic image.
By: Dr. Shani de la Zerda, Head of the European Union SectionResearch Authority at Haifa University
The growing debate in Europe about Israel's exclusion from the Horizon Europe research program is causing deep concern in the academic community. This is the European Union's flagship program for research and innovation, with an unprecedented budget of approximately 95 billion euros. At the same time, the Horizon program is not just a funding mechanism. It is an ecosystem of collaborations, of scientific excellence, of infrastructures and of connections between people, institutions and ideas. Many of the greatest achievements in science have been made in collaboration in response to global challenges, and this is what the Horizon program is based on.
Israel has been a participant in the program since the 90s and is considered a success story. Horizon provides Israeli researchers not only with extensive resources but also access to world-class research infrastructure, partnerships with leading European institutions, and advances academic careers. It solidifies Israel's place as part of the global scientific community and contributes to groundbreaking multidisciplinary research.
Israel's participation in the program is done within the framework of an association agreement. An association agreement is a legal agreement that defines the economic, political and cultural ties between the parties. This agreement grants Israel almost full status in European research programs, but also obliges it to comply with the fundamental principles of the European Union – democracy, human rights, the rule of law and equality. These obligations are set out in Article 2 of the agreement. By virtue of this article, the Commission, the body that serves as the executive government of the Union, may recommend the suspension of Israel in the event of a serious violation of these values.
Several countries, including the Netherlands, Spain, Ireland and Slovenia, called for the cancellation of the Association Agreement, claiming that Israel had violated Article 2 of the Agreement. Following this appeal, the Commission recommended suspending Israel from the program that deals with technological innovation, the EIC-Accelerator. This program is relevant mainly to Israeli companies that engage in technological developments that can also be used for military purposes, what is known as dual use, and less so to academia.
The Council of the European Union (Council of Ministers) is the one that actually makes the decisions on this issue. The Council is made up of all EU member states. Some decisions, such as the full suspension of a country from the program, can only be made unanimously, but there are decisions for which a qualified majority (QMV) is sufficient – of at least 15 countries with 65% of the EU population. At present, such a qualified majority has not been achieved, thanks to large countries that support Israel, such as Germany and Italy, and therefore the suspension has been blocked. However, discussions on the issue continue, and are affected by the ongoing deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Gaza.
It is important to emphasize that even if the full or partial suspension mechanism is not activated, there is a concern that the pressures will lead to a “quiet boycott,” that is, to a sharp decline in the number of grants won by Israeli researchers, a decline in the number of partnerships with Israeli institutions, avoidance of integrating Israeli researchers into European consortiums, and a decline in the publication of articles in journals. In fact, these phenomena are already occurring to an unknown extent. Recently, the results of Israeli researchers winning ERC grants for young researchers were published, and the rate of wins there dropped from about 30% to 9%. There were several factors behind this decline, for example, a decline in the number of submissions from universities that are record holders of ERC grants, but it is certainly possible that the war also contributed to this decline.
The deterioration of Israel's status in Europe could also have an impact on the next Horizon research framework program. Work on the tenth Horizon program, which is scheduled to begin in 2028, is still underway, and it is possible that Israeli researchers will not be allowed to apply for some of the grants under this program, and the EU may even not include Israel in this program at all. Until this year, Israel was earning between €1.1 and €1.3 in winnings for every €1 Israel pays for participation. It is clear that science cannot remain only within Israel and also lead to groundbreaking developments, so we need to make efforts so that we can join the next program.
Suspending or expelling Israel from the program could be a devastating move for the Israeli academic community, many of whose members oppose and criticize the government's actions. It would mean a disconnection from the scientific world to which Israel belongs, a weakening of the academy's power to influence policy, and, no less importantly, damage to Israel's image as a democratic state.
Editor's note
The boycott of Israel did not come out of nowhere, it is in fact a doomsday weapon activated by Iran and Qatar in the wake of the October 7 attack, after many years of preparation on campuses around the world. It does not make sense that a country that has been attacked with pogroms on a scale reminiscent of the Holocaust should be forced to apologize for its existence because some wrongly claim that it is historically a product of European colonial activity.
The Jewish settlement in the State of Israel existed for many centuries, albeit without independence, after the Romans deliberately suppressed a thousand-year-old independence and even renamed the region after the Philistines, a people of Aegean origin who had ceased to exist since the destruction of the First Temple, centuries BC. In the 20th century, Britain received the mandate to restore this sovereignty (just as European countries received sovereignty over their historical territories since Roman times). However, the British betrayed their mandate almost from the very beginning, a resistance that reached its peak during the period when they forbade Jews from immigrating to the country but allowed Arabs to come freely. Finally, there was a UN resolution on the establishment of two states. The Jewish state was established by David Ben-Gurion immediately after the end of the British mandate, not so the Arabs who sent five armies to subdue the newborn state. In other words, anyone who claims that this was a British decision does not know the history of resistance to the British.
Unfortunately, the new form of anti-Semitism that has been cultivated for years has penetrated the hearts of many in the West, who have formed a simplistic view and in many cases ignored or even rejoiced over the events of October 11. This is particularly damaging to the liberal-democratic wing of Israel, whose members found themselves faced with unreasonable demands to dismantle Israel and hand over its territory to the aggressor (Hamas) on campuses and in the international arena. The criticism that we liberals have of the government's policy and actions is important and it is hoped that it will be heard, especially in everything related to ending the war, which at this stage is no longer necessary, but between this and a call for Israel to commit suicide by liberal-democratic elements, there is a huge distance. Iranian money blinds the eyes of wise people in the West.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
20 תגובות
Fortunately for Israel, Europe is no longer alone in the glory of research; one can always turn right, to the Far East.
Hi Abby,
Thanks for the comment, it's a nice change that you can talk directly to the editor. It would be good if the author could also respond. I'll try to explain more clearly.
1) ERC and similar bodies are a method for distributing research budgets. I will explain from my experience – since I am only an academic and not a journalist, I am not an expert in everything but only one thing, and it may be different in other fields.
A certain scientist plans a research project, writes a beautiful document explaining why it is the most important topic in science, why she is the most suitable person in the world to conduct the research, how much money she needs, and what she intends to do with the money (equipment, travel, salary, conferences, publications, research expeditions, etc.).
Then it sends the proposal to the funding body – it could be ERC or ISF or other bodies. During the following year, the body makes one of two decisions:
A) They decide to fund the project, and then our scientist is happy because she can do the research she wanted and her department head is happy because the university also receives part of the budget.
B) They decide not to fund the project, and then our scientist doesn't give up and sends the proposal to another body or to the same body a year later, after a series of improvements.
No one, not the head of the department, not the scientist, not the State of Israel, not the editor of the journal, should care whether the funding body is called ERC, or NSF, or BSF, or ISF. What should be important is: to fund as much good science as possible, for everyone in a field that they care about. If the best way to do it is ERC – so be it; if it is ISF – so be it. It doesn’t matter! That’s why the only figure that matters is what the author of the article gave: for every euro that Israel puts in, it gets back 1.1 euros, meaning that 10% more science in Israel is funded through this method.
Now, in Germany they have decided that they agree (let's say) to receive less in return than they pay, because they have an interest in fostering science in Romania (let's say). Their right. Does Israel have an interest in subsidizing science in Portugal (let's say)? I see no reason. Therefore, in my opinion, there is a point for Israel to participate in the program if and only if it receives an excess return to an extent that justifies replacing the ISF's scientific priorities with those of the ERC.
What is irrelevant in any way and indicates a lack of understanding of the essence of the program is whether or not it allows for international cooperation. An Israeli scientist and an Italian scientist can talk, write articles, share data, be guests in each other's labs, send students to do internships with each other, etc., whether or not there is an agreement between the countries. Beyond that, there doesn't even need to be diplomatic relations between the countries for a certain level of cooperation: there are scientists at Iranian universities who have written joint articles with scientists at Israeli universities. The ERC question is only (or 99%) a question of funding.
2) The Israeli taxpayer is not obligated to fund my research. I need to convince him to do it. If, say, the Knesset decides to close the ISF and transfer the money to subsidize flights to Uman – what can I do? Contact the Hague?
Fortunately, it is not difficult to convince the public that public investment in science is a worthwhile investment – because it is true. Therefore, my responsibility as a scientist, and that of the press in general and science journalism in particular, is to explain to the public why it is worthwhile. Our colleagues in the US have tried a different method: shouting at the public to vote for Democrats. Unfortunately, it currently appears that this mistake will cost them serious damage to American science. We should learn from their mistake.
Don't trust our government with anything. It will take the money from the Haredim. Besides, there is still the problem that the projects today are multidisciplinary and not all the wisdom is in one place.
Nimrod – Thanks for the comment, indeed, it was some kind of blackmail attempt by the EU (as it sometimes does to us); I don’t think it’s interesting to go into details and I have no special insight into the subject. My point was that they took the money they gave to the ERC and distributed it through the SNF instead. I assume that if Israel leaves the ERC, then that same budget will be distributed through the ISF instead; maybe I’m wrong and it will move to another section in the budget, but that’s a discussion that’s not relevant to this article. Regarding your comment about Ariel, it’s also an example of why distributing the money through the ISF would allow it to be done more fairly than through the ERC.
Father – If you answered me, then I would be happy if you would clarify your claim.
A note about one of the comments:
Switzerland did not withdraw from the Horizon program, but was removed from it due to frictions regarding immigration policy and other laws within the framework of the Schengen Agreement. The European Union punished Switzerland for its conduct.
The researchers in Switzerland were supported by the NSNF during that "dry period" with unique funds that replaced the ERC. There is a difference between the research budgets in Switzerland and those in Israel for obvious reasons, and therefore it was possible to "compensate" the researchers in Switzerland with local funds. It is not certain that this would be possible in Israel based solely on the ISF research budgets (on the order of 1 million NIS for 4 years compared to a factor of 4 in the amount of funding in the ERC track) and the budgets of the Ministry of Science (oriented towards applied rather than basic science).
Participation in Horizon is important not only for funding but also in general for establishing academic collaborations and advancing Israeli science. The issue of collaboration is generally true for science in general, as it is very difficult today to produce quality work that is also purely independent, that is, only within your research group (at least in the natural sciences).
The State of Israel without science means a state without economic independence, and then there will be no money to buy weapons and the enemies will win.
Not everything is short-term.
Maoz. If it was a year and a half ago, you would be right. But you have to be blind not to see that the government is prolonging the war just to survive politically long enough until they manage to complete the coup and then they will be elected forever even if their voters make up 10% of the people.
I've enjoyed reading the responses so far, which are Jewish and nationalistic.
The conclusion is, we must not and there is no point in being afraid of some Gentile who threatens us. We are at war against our will. And the Gentiles, who like to quickly forget what they did to the Jews throughout the generations, should not make us worry about the justice of the path. The whole story of economic threats is reminiscent of the parable of the horse who was given a basket full of tasty hay so that they could later slaughter him and the meat would be fattening.
So if there is unification and unity, why not demand that Ariel University be part of the plan?
The university's location is not the fault of the institution and the law, but rather a validation of the university's policy. If a new contract is signed, there will be discrimination against an Israeli institution that is recognized as such by the Council of State, supported by national budgets by the Ministry of Education and Science, and by national foundations such as ISF and Paz.
If we're together, then until the end.
It is better to have the State of Israel and no science than science without a state.
Although it's not like she shouted. Everything is political, today we'll leave, tomorrow we'll be back, see the example of Switzerland.
Today, Hamas must be destroyed so that a country remains for the future generation, so that science can flourish.
Note to the editor: I don't know if you are more closed-minded or more stupid. Every attempt to flatter the world has always cost us dearly. That's right, the war must be ended - when there is not a single Nazi left in Gaza!! Your call to end the war (while leaving Hamas in power) so that, God forbid, our relations with the world are not damaged stems from stupidity and sickening myopia. The war must be ended in complete victory, and then we will renew all relations with the world. The world will very quickly forget Gaza when there are no more Gazans there. For now, take a deep breath and finish the job!
Father, pay attention to who we are talking about, whom we are required to kill. We are not talking about anti-Semites who defend us, or even those who boycott us. We are talking about a war – that our enemies have chosen – in which they seek to *murder* us unjustly! People who, if they were allowed to – would kill for no real reason! People like that need to (take a breath) – *kill*.
Indeed, we should not be as cruel as the nations of the world have been cruel to us, but on the other hand, we must not be merciful to the point of suicide in the face of evil. We must know that there are cases in which it is necessary to kill, even though we do not want to do so. Only in this way will we achieve true peace.
Those who emphasize nationalism forget that there is also a real goal for participation, and that is for Israel to continue to be at the forefront of science and not a third- or fourth-tier scientific country.
People with nationalism don't go to the grocery store.
In Switzerland, they were on Horizon, left the program, and now they're returning to it. And look, what a miracle, Swiss science didn't collapse when they left the program.
1) Enough with the hysteria: As the author wrote, Israel pays for the program and gets back about 10% more than it pays. A 9% cut is not the end of Israeli science.
2) If what the author fears, that Israelis will be discriminated against on grant committees, is true – then it is even likely that they will receive less than they give, and then there is certainly no reason to be in this program. Why should Israel subsidize European scientists who are less good than our scientists?!
3) Already today, the many grants received in Israel are incomparably more in the natural and life sciences. This indicates that there is already Horizon discrimination against the social sciences and humanities in Israel. In my opinion, this is intolerable even if the overall budget for science increases slightly because of this.
4) Anyone who thinks that Israel's national honor depends on participation in one or another EU program is deeply confused. Science in Israel is a source of national pride – not the EU's funding mechanisms.
5) Despite her concerns, which I think are exaggerated, the author's conclusion is correct: European money is not a reason for national suicide. Mrs. Callas can be answered with General Koenig's answer.
It's a shame, actually.
As clear as it is
There is no choice here.
Just a gaping abyss
Cancer research should not differentiate between anti-Semites and philosophies. It is important for everyone.
Shlomo, we are in the 21st century, it is true that the world is in a murky wave of "conservatism" - a return to some period that never existed but is used to discriminate against anyone who is not like you, but we as Jews who went through the Holocaust and the deportations and pogroms that preceded it should not be like them.
PS: All of Chapter 20 of Deuteronomy deals with instructions for war, and is found at the end of the weekly Torah portion (Torah portion of Judges).
My father, I disagree with you. Even if there is criticism and attacks on us from our enemies – we do not need to justify ourselves in any way. We act according to God's morals! "When you approach a city to fight against it, and you proclaim peace to it, and it makes peace with you and opens to you, and all the people who are found therein shall be tribute and servants to you. But if it makes no peace with you, and makes war with you, and afflicts you, then the Lord your God will deliver you into your hand, and you shall strike all its inhabitants with the sword." (Deuteronomy, Chapter 20, verses 10-13) In war, it is forbidden to make "humanitarian" calculations, war is not humanitarian by definition. When we fight – we strive to eliminate the enemy's fighters, without considering whether he suffers from it.
As for those who harass us because we stand our ground – we need to explain to them that they are wrong. If we give in to their dictates – it will only strengthen their position in their eyes, and encourage them to hinder us further.
It's a choice between the Holocaust and research with the anti-Semitic European Nazis. Wow, what a tough choice.