Oct. 08, 2026
Opli Editorial Team
Delft University of Technology (TU Delft) recently released a deeply biased and antisemitic statement, announcing in an official policy statement that it "would no longer enter into new institutional partnerships with Israeli universities and organisations." In this shameful pamphlet—riddled with misrepresentations—they spew the usual rhetoric regarding "occupied Palestinian territories" and other baseless assertions.
Let me make one thing clear: I do not care that TU Delft is halting its relations and cooperation with Israel. Israel has nothing to lose from ending partnerships with a mediocre, declining institution. The sole beneficiary of any academic ties was TU Delft itself, gaining access to world-leading Israeli research and innovation. My issue is purely with the falsehoods this mid-tier university actively spreads—and it is crucial to expose them.
Let us begin with the primary lie in this misleading announcement: "given the ongoing serious concerns regarding the occupied Palestinian territories."
What exactly does TU Delft mean by "occupied Palestinian territories"? Should we assume that because it is a "technology" university, its faculty and administration possess zero understanding of international law and history?
Allow me to ask the "enlightened" academics at TU Delft a few basic questions:
From whom were these "territories" occupied?
When were they occupied, and in which war?
Where does the name "Palestinian" originate?
Has international law ever recognized a sovereign "Palestinian" state prior to these events?
Has the United Nations recognized such a state in a way that establishes legal sovereignty over these specific territories? If so, when? And at what point after such recognition were they supposedly "occupied"?
TU Delft even published "assessment criteria" to evaluate individual ongoing projects. One of their criteria asks: "Is the partner involved with human rights abuses or breaches of international (humanitarian) law?"
To those hypocrisy-blinded academics: Israel operates under strict adherence to international law. In fact, Israel often goes well beyond the requirements of international humanitarian law to safeguard civilian lives during wartime, frequently risking its own soldiers' lives to minimize civilian harm. Israel is perhaps the only nation in modern history that has consistently facilitated humanitarian aid into enemy-controlled territory during an active war—even after Hamas launched a brutal massacre, slaughtering, abusing, and kidnapping Israeli men, women, children, and infants. Show me another country in the history of warfare that acted this way toward an enemy entity. Did the Netherlands receive humanitarian aid from its occupiers during World War II?
Speaking of World War II, if TU Delft wishes to preach about human rights and complicity, perhaps they should look into their own national history. As documented historically, the Netherlands had the highest percentage of Jews deported and murdered in Western Europe (over 80%). The Dutch historian Jacques Presser concluded in his extensive research that widespread local collaboration significantly enabled this destruction. Did Dutch academic institutions back then show the same moral zeal?
Let us examine another clause in their criteria: "To what extent / how close is the collaboration with the Israeli partner?" It seems they are concerned about getting "too close" to Israeli scholars—perhaps fearing that academic excellence might be contagious, a trait their own administration seems sorely lacking.
And another clause: "Can the contribution from the Israeli party be replaced?" By all means, try to replace research partnerships with world-leading institutions like the Technion, Tel Aviv University, or the Hebrew University. Perhaps TU Delft can seek replacements from authoritarian regimes or radical institutions—I am sure they would be delighted to collaborate. One wonders if they considered adding a clause requiring a yellow star on any joint scientific paper.
The underlying motivation behind this policy is obvious. It stems from political pressure, appeasement, and fear. Rather than standing up for objective academic principles, institutions surrender to ideological trends and political intimidation.
Finally, I have one simple request for the leadership and faculty at TU Delft: If you truly believe your own rhetoric, be consistent. Stop using Israeli technology. Stop relying on Israeli patents, medical breakthroughs, and scientific discoveries. If Israel is as irredeemable as your policy implies, demonstrate your conviction by completely disengaging from Israeli innovation across all your labs and departments.
Of course, we all know that will not happen. It is far easier to publish virtuous-sounding statements than to forgo the groundbreaking science and technology that Israeli academia brings to the world.
If TU Delft truly believes its own political rhetoric, let them be consistent and completely disengage from Israeli patents, medical innovations, and scientific breakthroughs. But until this discriminatory policy is rescinded, the international community must respond in kind. I call upon universities, research institutes, and industrial partners worldwide to halt all new collaborations and joint ventures with TU Delft. An institution that surrenders academic integrity to bias does not deserve the benefits of global academic partnership.
Publisher’s Note: Opli.net regularly monitors press rooms of global academic institutions—including TU Delft—to report on physics, optics, and technological advances. While we remain committed to covering objective scientific breakthroughs, we will not remain silent when academic institutions weaponize their platforms against Israeli scholarship.
