The LAIC has of course engaged in a reflection on this colloquium which was to be held at the Collège de France and which was finally relocated to private premises, the headquarters of the Carep (Arab Center for Research and Political Studies in Paris).
We were of course all in agreement to denounce the holding of this colloquium in a major academic venue, but we did not agree on the attitude to take, some thinking that we should support the decision to cancel by the administrator of the Collège de France, Professor Thomas Römer, at the request of the Minister of Higher Education and Research, others on the contrary not associating themselves with this cancellation in order to respect academic freedom.
Now that silence has returned, we are publishing below two short articles reflecting these two points of view, the first by Patrick Henriet.[1], published in the weekly magazine The PointThe second, by Jacques Robert, is unpublished. We also invite you to read an article by Denis Charbit.[2] who analyzes, in CommentsThe work and commitments of Henri Laurens, professor at the Collège de France and organizer of the colloquium, an article by Omar Youssef Souleimane[3] published in the weekly magazine Marianne, as well as an article[4] appeared in the magazine The Right to Live.
Colloquium on Palestine at the Collège de France:
"Don't cancel, but criticize" by Patrick Henriet
On November 9, Thomas Römer, administrator of the Collège de France, announced the cancellation of the symposium "Palestine and Europe: The Weight of the Past and Contemporary Dynamics," scheduled to take place at the prestigious institution and organized by Henry Laurens in collaboration with his former doctoral student François Ceccaldi and two members of the Arab Center for Research and Political Studies in Paris (CAREP), including its director. Philippe Baptiste, Minister of Higher Education, welcomed this decision.
This demonstration had been heavily criticized for several days by various media outlets categorized as right-wing or far-right. Let us hasten to add that, factually speaking, the arguments put forward are, for the most part, correct. The Carep, the French branch of the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, a Qatari research center based in Doha, is obviously anti-Israel on principle. Its board of directors was chaired until a few years ago by François Burgat, who is still a member of its scientific council. A close associate of Tariq Ramadan, the same François Burgat declared after the Samuel Paty trial, "We are all terrorists," and then, after the October 7th attacks, "I have infinitely, I repeat, infinitely..." infinitely "More respect and consideration for the leaders of Hamas than for those of the State of Israel." Carep has never hidden its sympathy for this Hamas sympathizer and published a message of support in April 2025, noting that he had "contributed, with rigor and independence, to the critical analysis of the political dynamics of the Arab world." Leila Seurat, one of the co-organizers of the symposium, wrote a thesis on Hamas's "foreign policy" ("foreign policy": isn't that an expression normally reserved for a type of state action?). In an interview for the association France Palestine Solidarité (which, among other things, calls for the cancellation of Enrico Macias's concerts) entitled "Hamas Beyond the Rhetoric" (quite a program…), she speaks of "armed struggle" without ever using the word "terrorism." One of the moderators, Muzna Shihabi (Carep), declared on X that "Israel is a Nazi state, even worse." This small selection is enough to show that the conference's orientation was fundamentally anti-Israeli, fundamentally pro-Palestinian, directly influenced by Qatar, which finances Hamas, and undoubtedly, for at least some of the participants, anti-Semitic and pro-Islamist. For example, those among them who might have noticed, without being offended, that the conference was scheduled for November 13, the anniversary of the attacks perpetrated in 2015 by a number of "armed resistance fighters." Of course, no historian holding a different viewpoint had been invited (Georges Bensoussan was probably unavailable on the proposed dates).
Should this conference have been cancelled altogether, or rather, should it have been banned at the last minute, citing security concerns (“guaranteeing the safety of the staff of the Collège de France, as well as its attendees, and avoiding any risk to public order,” wrote Thomas Römer), or the need for a pluralistic debate (“the responsible decision of an institution that must (…) be the forum for debate in all its plurality,” wrote the minister)? The first reason smacks of a tired old argument: security and the risk of public disorder are invoked every time an event is banned. If pro-Palestinian demonstrators were to disrupt every meeting devoted to Judaism or Israel, should all events devoted to Judaism or Israel then be cancelled? The notion of “pluralistic debate” is more pernicious because it is unclear how it can be reconciled with that of academic freedom. Henry Laurens is a professor at the Collège de France. He chose to organize a conference that was undoubtedly highly questionable from a moral standpoint, but which did not violate the law. Was it not "pluralistic"? Yet numerous events are organized in a closed circle that generally doesn't raise any eyebrows, simply because they address less sensitive topics. And who will decide, from a legal perspective, whether an event is pluralistic or not? Will we have to create some kind of academic Arcom (a French acronym for a specific organization) that will count, in a conference devoted to the ancient or medieval Church, the Catholics, Protestants, and atheists? In a conference devoted to slavery, the Blacks, the Whites, and the others? In a conference devoted to a particular moment in political life, the speakers from the right, the left, the center, etc.?
Scientists have a responsibility to organize conferences that are scientific and non-partisan, at least if they use public funds. If they fail to do so, they deserve to be criticized without any leniency. This is precisely what should have happened in this case. Wokism has elevated cancel culture to a principle of action, in the name of a moral rectitude of which it claims to be the sole arbiter. Thus, by prohibiting a conference on the never clearly stated grounds that it emitted highly suspicious anti-Israeli undertones, the administrator of the Collège de France and the Minister of Higher Education did a great disservice to those who advocate for a strict separation between scientific activity and activism. They acted like the activists they claim to denounce; they became the champions of a reverse cancel culture.
The Collège de France would do itself credit by rescheduling this conference and suggesting to the organizers that they invite several of their opponents to offer a counterpoint. And if the organizers were to refuse this proposal, the Collège de France would do itself credit by financially supporting an alternative conference that would give voice to those who claim that Israel "is a Nazi state, even worse." Naturally, Henry Laurens and some of his associates should also be invited to this event.
Colloquium on Palestine at the Collège de France: "Cancellation of a scientific colloquium or a political meeting?" by Jacques Robert
We will always stand against cancel culture, this bleeding wound on the face of free speech. Banning a meeting is never the answer. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," the English writer Evelyn Beatrice Hall has Voltaire say.[5]This is our motto, and it will remain so. Freedom of expression is one of the pillars of our Constitution, along with the freedom of association, assembly, and demonstration. "The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious rights of man," states Article 11 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789. Except in cases of manifest disturbances to public order that the police cannot contain, except incitement to hatred and murder, except in cases of glorification of crime and terrorism (spreading terror is a crime), every opinion must be able to be expressed, every meeting, every demonstration must be able to take place and not be subject to prior prohibition, even if the organizers are subsequently prosecuted if the law has not been respected.
Among their many tasks, law enforcement agencies have the responsibility of effectively protecting those who might be threatened by adversaries during these gatherings. They must protect concertgoers from being disrupted by dangerous protesters. They must proactively prevent those who would seek to ban a meeting or demonstration for any reason other than maintaining public order. Everything must be able to be said, within the limits set by law. In a democratic country, these gatherings can take place in public or private spaces, even in public squares: we see this clearly when large forums are held in the Place de la République, where speakers address an already convinced and cheering crowd. Apart from the possible presence of vandals and looters, these demonstrations are perfectly normal in a democracy. They can also be held in more private venues, various public or private halls, which organizers rent to host and listen to opinion leaders.
The university setting presents a unique case: academic freedom. The ability to choose one's research topic and collaborations, to publish results, and to debate, debate, and debate some more with those who see things differently, are fundamental rights that the university grants to all those entrusted with a mission of research and higher education. A scientific conference must be able to take place on university premises without political interference, without the topic being subject to prior authorization other than that granted by university leaders—presidents, directors, administrators—without activists preventing the conference from taking place, and without protesters disrupting its proceedings.
The key word in the preceding sentence is "scientific colloquium." Could this meeting, scheduled for the Collège de France on November 13th and 14th, truly be called a scientific colloquium? Etymologically, a colloquium is a place where one "talks with," where one debates, where every analysis of a question can be presented or discussed. If I organize a colloquium on oncogenesis, we will, of course, discuss the authoritative theory of somatic mutations, which I support and which enjoys near-consensual acceptance. But I would be failing in intellectual honesty, academic rigor, and scientific ethics if I did not invite colleagues who disagree with this theory—perfectly honorable researchers who, in my opinion, are mistaken in having proposed an alternative theory that I consider flawed.[6]If this conference were organized solely to gather convinced scholars who would present only one facet of a complex problem, it would miss its mark, and the president of the university or academic institution hosting it would rightly criticize me and strongly advise me to balance the panel of speakers before authorizing it. But if I were organizing a conference on the theory of evolution, I would not feel compelled to invite creationists who, likewise, have placed themselves outside the bounds of science.
A scientific conference cannot be a place where speakers take turns proclaiming a single truth: their own. There is a name for this type of gathering: a meeting. Under the usurped name of "scientific conference," activists convinced of the righteousness of their cause wished to organize such a meeting at the Collège de France. It was indeed a political meeting, and not of a scientific symposiumIn at least three respects: (i) all the scheduled speakers conveyed the same opinion, and no counterweight was provided by researchers from other backgrounds; (ii) one of the organizations behind this meeting was funded by a foreign country that can be described as "illiberal," namely Qatar; (iii) three political figures engaged in avowed activism were scheduled to conclude the meeting. Let's examine these three points below:
- All the invited speakers, all the panels, conveyed the same opinion: anti-Zionism, not to say anti-Semitism. Here are the titles: "Zionism as a European Project of Colonial Expansion"; "On the Instrumentalization of the Holocaust"[7] in denial of Palestinian suffering”; “Networks of influence[8] and economic interests”; “From rhetoric to complicity: Europe and the crisis of international law in Gaza.” No one was invited to offer a different perspective on Palestine, Israel, and their 60-year-long conflict. Notably absent were Gilles Kepel, Georges Bensoussan, Denis Charbit, Pierre Vermeren, and many other specialists in Islam and the Arab world.
- One of the organizers and sponsors, CAREP (Arab Center for Research and Political Studies in Paris), is not an independent academic institution: it is the French branch of a Qatari network headed by Azmi Bishara, a pan-Arab activist close to the Doha regime, who left Israel in 2007 under accusations of spying for Hezbollah during the Lebanon War. Its director, Salam Kawakibi, is a close associate of Bishara. Several CAREP texts come directly from the Doha Political Analysis Unit: "The genocidal war that Israel is waging against the Palestinians of Gaza is accompanied by a progressive reoccupation of the strip of land"; "Hamas facing Israel's colonial expansionism," were thus published in May 2025.
- The political figures invited included Dominique de Villepin, former Prime Minister, who makes no secret of his pro-Palestinian stance, as well as another guest, Josep Borrell, former Vice-President of the European Commission. As for Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur, she has been explicitly accused of antisemitism by the French authorities: the Ministry of Foreign Affairs officially denounced, in March 2024, her remarks about "the Jewish lobby" and "Western guilt," deeming them incompatible with the values of the United Nations.
The cancellation of this meeting may have been perceived as an attack on academic freedom. This is not the case: the Collège de France is not meant to host—or endorse—a monolithic gathering that presents itself as a scientific conference but is not one. No university site has the right to house places of worship or places where terrorism is applauded; nor places where terms are perverted and where mere propaganda replaces scientific debate. The administrator of the Collège de France, Professor Thomas Römer, was right to cancel the meeting in premises forbidden to activism but designed for science. It is regrettable that he did not do so sooner, when he became aware of the program proposed to him by Professor Henry Laurens, holder of a chair at the institution he directs. It is also regrettable that he did so by invoking the risk of public disorder: we do not believe that hostile demonstrations could have taken place in front of the esplanade where the building stands; we do not believe that a single individual would have pretended to be an audience member while carrying smoke bombs in his bag.
The cancellation of this meeting may have been perceived by some as an attack on freedom of expression. This is not the case: there are ample public and private spaces in Paris capable of hosting it in excellent conditions. Given these circumstances, it would not have been the Minister of Higher Education and Research who could have offered an opinion or advice regarding holding this meeting, but rather the Minister of the Interior, should his department have alerted him to a potential risk of public disorder. Between November 9th, the date on which the decision by the administrator of the Collège de France was made, and November 13th, a date unfortunately laden with symbolism—which the organizers of the meeting may not have chosen at random—a suitable space could have been found and rented to host the meeting. Failing that, a postponement of a few weeks would have made it possible. But didn't they want to play the provocation to the very end to make people believe that, as long as this "colloquium" was held at the Collège de France, it received the blessing of the scientific world?
In conclusion, we cannot equate the cancellation of this meeting with the repeated cancellations of conferences and symposia, which are clear attacks on academic freedom because they are genuinely scientific and accept the open debate that activists involved in a political movement deny them. This meeting was ultimately able to take place in Carep's own premises, in accordance with the constitutional right to assembly, and no intrusion by pro-Israeli activists occurred to endanger the attendees or speakers.
