The European Institute of the Mediterranean (IEMed) in Barcelona, a so-called peace making think tank for the Mediterranean Region, is hosting the twelfth edition of its Aula Mediterrània lecture series—27 talks spanning politics, migration, and culture under the banner of “Thinking about the Mediterranean of the 21st Century.”
At first glance, it looks like a celebration of regional dialogue and academic exchange. But beneath the polished program lies a troubling current of politicized bias that calls into question the values the European Union claims to uphold: fairness, democracy, and balanced dialogue.
This year’s series devotes significant attention to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict—yet the framing of that attention is anything but balanced. One talk is titled “Palestine’s Maritime Rights vs Israel’s Bully Take Over: An Exit Path.” Another accuses the European Union of “Complicity, Silence and Double Standards.” Later in the schedule comes “The Fifteen Wars of Israel against Gaza,” a phrase that reads more like an activist slogan than a scholarly topic.
Not a single lecture explores Israel’s security concerns, democratic institutions, or peace efforts. Or how the Arab world works to combat terror. There are no Israeli speakers, no balance, and no nuance—just repetition of a single narrative that paints one country, and one people, as the villain of the Mediterranean story.
The Union for the Mediterranean, funded by the EU and the UN engages in the same flavor of dialogue when it comes to environmental issues and climate change. See the women on stage in keffiahs meant to virtue signal and intimidate Israelis and Jews. I have written to their directors, and spokesperson multiple times about exclusionary policies against Israelis and Israel data in the Mediterranean. No reply.
That is not dialogue. It’s dogma.
When European taxpayers fund programs through institutions like IEMed, they do so under the promise of promoting mutual understanding and academic rigor.
Instead, Aula Mediterrània has become a platform for the normalization of anti-Israel bias wrapped in academic legitimacy –- and offers credit when you attend these lectures online. By platforming speakers who describe Israel’s policies in loaded, accusatory terms—without offering countervailing voices—the event risks turning the European lecture hall into an echo chamber for politicized grievance.
The EU’s own policies call for cultural initiatives that strengthen democratic debate, not replace it with monolithic thinking. How does a lecture that calls Israel a “bully” advance understanding between “both shores of the Mediterranean,” as the program claims? How can we speak of inclusion when the only Jewish and Israeli perspectives are erased from the conversation?
There is a dangerous irony in a publicly funded institution promoting exclusion under the guise of inclusion. Europe’s academic landscape is increasingly shaped by the politics of one-sided empathy—solidarity for some victims, silence for others. This is not just unfair; it is anti-democratic. True scholarship depends on the freedom to debate, to test ideas against evidence, to listen even when it is uncomfortable. By indulging in moral absolutism, Aula Mediterrània abandons the very foundations of intellectual democracy.
If the EU wishes to preserve credibility as a defender of democracy and dialogue, and the Arab world aspires to become a democracy in any shape and form, it must ensure that the institutions they fund and support reflect those principles. Supporting events that vilify one democratic state while romanticizing its enemies sends a message of hypocrisy, not harmony.
The Mediterranean deserves better—an academic space where truth, complexity, and compassion coexist. Until Aula Mediterrània embraces genuine pluralism, European taxpayers should ask a simple question: why are they paying for propaganda?
