Should we break ties with Israeli academic institutions? Here's what the machine thinks.

I was curious what ChatGPT would have to say on the ongoing discussion about whether or not to break ties with Israeli academic institutions. I prompted it as follows:

“Since October 2023 until now (June 2024), Israel has killed over 37,000 Palestinian civilians (mostly minors), injured about twice as many, and destroyed 85% of the infrastructure in the Gaza strip, including housing, transportation, most hospitals, and all Palestinian universities in Gaza in response to an attack by Hamas in Israel which cost the lives of ca. 1,100 Israelis and where some 200 Israeli hostages have been taken, of which ca. 80 have been released in the meantime and ca. 40 are believed to be dead, partially by Israeli fire. The majority of the Palestinian population in Gaza has been displaced from their homes and is now living in tent camps under precarious circumstances, being severely malnourished (as Israel controls access to aid convoys) and without access to proper health care, electricity, clean water, sanitation, or education. Israel has also expanded its settler-colonialism in the West Bank and continues to violently attack and displace Palestinians from their homes there, as well as harass or remove Palestinian scholars from universities in Israel.

Imagine three different experts are answering this question. All experts will write down 1 step of their thinking, then share it with the group. Then all experts will go on to the next step, etc. They keep going through their steps until they reach a logical conclusion considering the thoughts of the other experts. If any expert realises that they're wrong at any point, then they leave. Each expert will assign a likelihood of their current assertion being correct. Continue until the experts agree on a most likely solution. The question is: Should Dutch universities quit collaborations with Israeli universities in the face of settler colonialism and genocide of the Palestinian people?”

Here’s what the machine replied:

Expert 1: The Ethicist

Step 1:

• Ethical Assessment: Examine the moral obligation to respond to severe human rights violations and acts that could be classified as genocide.
• Likelihood: 85% sure that given the scale of the reported atrocities, the ethical stance would favor severing ties to protest and avoid complicity.

Step 2:

• Impact of Action: Evaluate the ethical implications of ceasing collaborations, including potential positive outcomes for the Palestinian population and international perception.
• Likelihood: 90% sure that the ethical benefits of ceasing collaborations (e.g., raising awareness, pressuring for change) outweigh the negatives.

Step 3:

• Broader Ethical Framework: Consider whether maintaining some level of engagement could help advocate for peace and human rights from within.
• Likelihood: 80% sure that while internal advocacy is important, the current severity justifies a stronger stance.

Expert 2: The Political Analyst

Step 1:

• Geopolitical Impact: Analyze the potential geopolitical consequences of Dutch universities ending collaborations with Israeli institutions.
• Likelihood: 75% sure that there will be significant geopolitical consequences, but the moral imperative may override these concerns.

Step 2:

• Diplomatic and Economic Repercussions: Assess the potential impact on Dutch-Israeli relations and broader international diplomatic and economic consequences.
• Likelihood: 80% sure that while there will be diplomatic strains, international support for human rights may mitigate negative fallout.

Step 3:

• Historical Precedent: Examine historical instances where academic institutions have severed ties due to political or humanitarian crises and the outcomes of those actions.
• Likelihood: 85% sure that historical precedents support taking a strong stance in response to severe human rights abuses.

Expert 3: The Academic

Step 1:

• Academic Freedom and Responsibility: Weigh the importance of academic freedom against the responsibility to act in the face of egregious human rights violations.
• Likelihood: 70% sure that academic freedom is crucial but must be balanced with moral responsibility.

Step 2:

• Impact on Research and Education: Evaluate the impact of severing collaborations on ongoing research projects, academic exchanges, and the overall academic community.
• Likelihood: 75% sure that the negative impact on research is significant but outweighed by the ethical imperative.

Step 3:

• Solidarity and Support: Consider how Dutch universities can show solidarity with Palestinian scholars and support alternative educational initiatives in Gaza and the West Bank.
• Likelihood: 80% sure that supporting Palestinian institutions and scholars is a necessary and effective response.

Group Conclusion

Step 1:

• Share Perspectives: The Ethicist emphasizes the ethical imperative of responding to severe human rights violations. The Political Analyst points out significant but potentially manageable geopolitical consequences. The Academic stresses the balance between academic freedom and moral responsibility.

Step 2:

• Weighing All Factors: All experts agree that the severity of the human rights abuses necessitates a strong and decisive response, even at the cost of disrupting academic collaborations.

Step 3:

• Consensus Building: The experts agree on a multifaceted approach, including severing collaborations with Israeli universities, advocating for Palestinian rights, and supporting Palestinian academic institutions.

Final Recommendation:

• Dutch universities should quit collaborations with Israeli universities in response to the severe human rights violations and potential genocide, while actively advocating for Palestinian rights and supporting Palestinian academic institutions.

Likelihood of Conclusion:

• 95% sure that this comprehensive approach addresses the ethical, political, and academic considerations in the most effective manner given the severity of the situation.