Why Banning Israel From Science Olympiad In India Is Plain Anti-Semitism, Not Humanism

The 18th International Olympiad on Astronomy and Astrophysics was hosted in Mumbai, India, by the Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education (HBCSE), a national centre of the prestigious Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR).

The event, held from 11 to 21 August 2025, was positioned as a flagship moment for India's growing leadership and global engagement in science education. It achieved record-breaking participation, bringing together nearly 300 of the world's most talented high school students and approximately 140 mentors from 64 countries, including several first-time participants.

The significance of the event was underscored by its high-level government endorsement. The opening ceremony on 12 August featured a virtual address from Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who emphasised India's commitment to nurturing scientific curiosity and the power of global collaboration.

This prominent national backing made the subsequent political controversy particularly acute. A group of over 300 Indian scientists later wrote to the Prime Minister's Office, stating that the event had been misused to "embarrass the Government of India" and undermine its diplomatic stance.

The Shame

On 18 August 2025, the International Olympiad on Astronomy and Astrophysics (IOAA) international board voted to suspend the State of Israel's status as a recognised national team for future competitions.

The publicly stated rationale for this decision was rooted in humanitarian concerns over Israel's military campaign in Gaza, prompted by a petition from members of the international scientific community.

The resolution passed with what was described as a "significant majority", with fewer than 10 members voting against the proposal.

The practical effect of the suspension is that Israel is barred from participating in future Olympiads as a national team and cannot have its flag displayed at official events. However, the resolution did permit individual Israeli students to compete, although under the neutral IOAA flag rather than their own.

A critical and procedurally bizarre fact, central to understanding the political nature of this act, is that Israel had never participated in any of the previous seventeen editions of the IOAA since the competition's inception in 2007. The state had merely pre-registered for the 2025 Mumbai event, a preliminary step towards potential future participation.

This context is vital. The IOAA's action was not a sanction against an active member for a breach of rules, but a pre-emptive ban on a potential future participant. Sanctions are typically applied to member states to compel a change in behaviour or to punish a violation of agreed community standards. Applying such a measure to a non-member pre-emptively signals that the goal is not the enforcement of internal organisational rules but the making of a public political statement intended to isolate a specific entity on the world stage.

Their "Justification"

The arguments articulated in this petition formed the entire basis for the subsequent board vote. As reported across multiple media outlets, the letter's core claims were:

Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza: The letter cited Israel's "protracted campaign in Gaza", which it alleged had killed more than 60,000 Palestinians, including thousands of children.

Destruction of Educational Infrastructure: It alleged, based on a UN-appointed commission, that Israel had "damaged or destroyed more than 90 per cent of schools and university buildings across Gaza".

Obstruction of Palestinian Participation: The letter claimed that Israel had "forcibly prevented Palestine from fielding a full team for this Olympiad". It used speculative language, stating, "We understand that students from Gaza were prevented from travelling for the event", and noted that the sole Palestinian participant was from Jenin, a city in the West Bank that had been subject to Israeli military raids.

Violation of the 'Olympic Spirit': The petitioners invoked the "Olympic spirit", arguing that it requires all member nations to abide by international law and respect the human rights of students from other countries, norms which they accused Israel of repeatedly violating.

Conditional Suspension: The letter explicitly demanded that the State of Israel remain suspended "until it has ceased to place obstacles in the participation of Palestinian students in the Olympiad and complied with its obligations under international law".

The timeline of these events is revealing. The petition was dated and circulated on 1 August, well in advance of the Olympiad's inauguration on 12 August and the board meeting on 18 August.

This indicates a pre-organised political initiative designed to force a vote during the Mumbai meeting, lending credence to the later accusations from a counter-group of Indian scientists that the event was "hijacked". The IOAA board was therefore not acting on its own initiative but was responding directly to a targeted and well-timed external lobbying effort.

In public statements following the decision, IOAA President Aniket Sule, himself an Indian academic named by critics as one of the orchestrators of the campaign, defended the action by drawing a direct parallel to a previous sanction. He explicitly cited the IOAA's 2022 decision to suspend the national teams of Russia and Belarus for their roles in the invasion of Ukraine.

Sule asserted,

This claim of consistent, principled application of a single standard became the official justification for the board's action.

How truthful is this justification?

The case for suspending Israel was presented as a moral imperative grounded in humanism, international law, and the "Olympic spirit". However, a critical analysis of the arguments advanced by the petitioners and adopted by the IOAA board reveals a foundation riddled with legal overreach, unsubstantiated claims, logical fallacies, and transparent political motives.

The "humanitarian" rationale, upon scrutiny, appears less a principled stance and more a convenient façade for a predetermined political objective.

The petition that catalysed the suspension effectively acted as a prosecutor, judge, and jury in a single document. It presented a stark, one-sided narrative of the Gaza conflict, citing high casualty figures and the destruction of infrastructure as prima facie evidence of "Israel's repeated violations of these norms" of international law.

Crucially, this narrative almost entirely omits the precipitating context of the war. The mass-casualty terrorist attack perpetrated by Hamas on 7 October 2023 involved the intentional and well-planned massacre of approximately 1,200 people and the abduction of around 250 hostages, including pregnant women and children, even a few days old.

By decontextualising Israel's military response, the petition transforms a complex and brutal war into a simplistic morality play of aggressor and victim.

More fundamentally, the petition arrogates to itself a legal authority it does not possess.

An international board governing a high school science competition is not a judicial body. It has neither the mandate nor the expertise to adjudicate complex questions of international humanitarian law, such as proportionality, military necessity, and the distinction between combatants and civilians in a dense urban warfare environment. The determination of "war crimes" or "violations of international law" is the purview of competent international courts and tribunals, which operate based on rigorous standards of evidence and due process.

By accepting the allegations in the petition as established fact and acting upon them, the IOAA board bypassed any semblance of due process, effectively condemning a nation based on an unproven indictment. This circumvention of basic principles of justice fundamentally undermines the very "humanitarian" values the board claimed to be upholding.

Did Israel "obstruct" the participation of "Palestinian" students?

The text reads, "We understand that students from Gaza were prevented from travelling for the event". The phrase "we understand" is the language of hearsay and inference, not of verified evidence.

Travel out of the Gaza Strip during the 2024–2025 period has been severely restricted for all residents. This is a direct consequence of the ongoing war initiated by the terrorist attack of Hamas and the security measures imposed by both Israel and Egypt at their respective crossings. To attribute the inability of Gazan students to travel specifically to a targeted Israeli effort to block Olympiad participation, rather than to the general and tragic conditions of an active war zone, requires substantial proof that was neither provided nor, apparently, demanded by the IOAA board.

This narrative of one-sided obstruction is further complicated by a fact revealed by IOAA President Aniket Sule himself. He noted that the pre-registered Israeli students were also "unable to [participate] as they were denied permission by their government". This decision by the Israeli government was clearly made due to the severe security situation and travel warnings, a common practice for nations facing terrorist attacks and in conflict.

This crucial piece of information, which demonstrates that students on both sides have been impacted by the conflict's security realities, was conveniently ignored by the petitioners and did not factor into the board's public justification.

The selective focus on alleged Israeli obstruction while ignoring other factors points to a narrative constructed to achieve a specific political outcome.

Should High School Students Face Exclusion for the Action of their Governments?

At its core, the IOAA's decision imposes a form of collective punishment, targeting high school students for the policies and actions of their government.

While proponents of the suspension argue that the measure is aimed at the "State of Israel" and not individual students, who are still permitted to compete under a neutral flag, this is a specious and disingenuous distinction.

The public act of stripping a student of his or her national identity, removing the flag, stigmatises the students and scars him or her with a traumatic experience.

The Simon Wiesenthal Centre, in a powerful statement responding to a similar suspension of Israeli medical students by another international body, articulated the core ethical problem with this approach:

This principle applies with equal, if not greater, force to the high school students of the IOAA. The act of forcing young Israeli scientists to compete without their national identity is not a surgical sanction against a government. It is a punitive measure that alienates and singles out young individuals, contrary to the Olympiad's stated mission of fostering "international cooperation" and "friendships".

The Indian Collaborators

These critics argued that the activists had committed a "gross overreach of academic mandate", using their positions at publicly funded institutions to interfere in foreign policy and embarrass the Government of India before the global community. They warned that such actions jeopardise India's credibility as a neutral host for international events and risk damaging the country's carefully nurtured and strategically vital scientific and technological partnerships with Israel.

The most explicit admission of political motive came from Suvrat Raju, a faculty member at the International Centre for Theoretical Sciences in Bengaluru and a prominent signatory of the pro-suspension letter. This is what he told The Hindu,

This is an unambiguous confession that the action was intended not only as a message to the Government of Israel but also as a public rebuke of his own government's foreign policy.

When the organisers and chief proponents of a "humanitarian" measure openly admit that their goal is to advance a partisan political position in opposition to their own nation's diplomatic stance, the claim of genuine, apolitical humanism collapses entirely.

Official Response from Consulate of Israel at Mumbai

The official response from Israel came from Kobbi Shoshani, the Israeli Consul General to Midwest India, based in Mumbai. He expressed "surprise" at the decision and unequivocally labelled it as political. He stated, "Not being a part of it is only a political decision coming from a very specific country...". Shoshani suggested that the decision was made without proper authority or awareness within India, stating, "I think nobody in India is aware of this decision, and I believe the organisation made it without obtaining any permission...".

Most pointedly, he attributed the move to the influence of radical political activism within what should be a neutral academic space. He expressed concern about "radicalism taking influence from all over the world into India" and criticised the organisers for "promoting politics, not science or a professional approach".

This diplomatic reaction framed the issue precisely as its critics did: as the co-option of a scientific event by a political agenda that was hostile not only to Israel but to the principles of academic neutrality.

The Real Reason: Anti-Semitism?

It is quite clear that IOAA's action aligns with the discriminatory tactics of the global BDS movement, violates the organisation's own foundational principles of neutrality, and applies a punitive double standard exclusively to the Jewish State.

The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement is a global campaign that seeks to isolate Israel economically, culturally, and academically. A core component of this strategy is the academic boycott, promoted by groups like the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI). This campaign explicitly calls for refusing cooperation with Israeli academic institutions, promoting their condemnation, and working to suspend Israel's membership in international forums.

The rationale provided, citing Israel's alleged violations of Palestinian rights and international law, is the central and unchanging narrative of the BDS movement. The alignment of the tactic (academic boycott), the target (an official Israeli entity), and the justification (the BDS narrative) is too precise to be coincidental. The IOAA was effectively used as a vehicle to implement a key objective of the BDS movement's political agenda within an international scientific body.

Critics of the BDS movement have repeatedly pointed out that while it is framed as a human rights campaign, its founding goals and the statements of its leaders reveal an intention to dismantle Israel as a Jewish State, thereby denying the Jewish people their right to exist with basic human dignity as a people.

In the twenty-first century, antisemitism frequently manifests not as classical religious or racial bigotry, but as a discriminatory political position directed against the collective Jewish entity: the State of Israel.

Leading organisations that monitor antisemitism, such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Simon Wiesenthal Centre (SWC), have developed frameworks for identifying when legitimate criticism of Israeli policy crosses the line into antisemitism.

A central tenet of these frameworks, including the widely adopted International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, is the application of double standards. This involves "requiring of [Israel] a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation".

The ADL clarifies that while criticism of Israel is not inherently antisemitic, it can become so when it delegitimises the state, denies the Jewish people's right to self-determination, or, crucially, holds Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the Israeli state.

The IOAA's action, which punishes Israeli students representing their nation for their government's policies, falls squarely into this category.

The most damning piece of evidence against the IOAA's claim of principled action is found within its own governing statutes. Article 5 of the IOAA Statutes contains an unambiguous clause designed to protect the competition from the very political interference that occurred in Mumbai:

The suspension of Israel is thus a flagrant and undeniable violation of this foundational rule. The official reason given for the suspension, the country's 'ongoing military campaign in Palestine', is unequivocally a 'political ground' arising from 'political tension'. The Israeli Consul General in Mumbai, Kobbi Shoshani, correctly identified the decision as 'only a political decision'.

An organisation that must violate its own charter to single out one specific country for condemnation, and the IOAA board's willingness to disregard its own constitution to satisfy the demands of an activist petition, both provide a critical piece of evidence that the board was not acting as a neutral arbiter of its rules but as an agent of a deeper malaise: Anti-Semitism.

Double Standards Galore

The dispositive evidence for the charge that the IOAA's action is rooted in discriminatory antisemitism rather than genuine humanism lies in a comparative analysis.

An examination of the IOAA's treatment of Israel versus other participating nations reveals a glaring and indefensible double standard. The 'humanitarian' standard that was suddenly discovered and applied to Israel was conspicuously absent when considering the records of numerous other states with far more egregious human rights violations.

This hypocrisy is most vividly illustrated by examining the human rights records of other nations that participated in the 2025 Mumbai Olympiad without comment, protest, or sanction. The 64 participating countries included several authoritarian regimes whose governments are responsible for ongoing, systematic, and adjudicated crimes against humanity and other severe human rights abuses that far exceed the allegations levelled against Israel.

People's Republic of China: The Chinese team participated in the Olympiad. At the same time, credible reports from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the UN itself have documented that the Chinese government is perpetrating crimes against humanity in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. These crimes include the arbitrary detention of over a million Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in 're-education camps', systematic torture, forced sterilisation, and the eradication of cultural and religious identity. The government also engages in a nationwide crackdown on human rights lawyers, journalists, and anyone deemed a dissident.

Islamic Republic of Iran: The Iranian team not only participated but emerged as the top performer, with all five of its members winning gold medals. This academic achievement occurred against the backdrop of the Iranian regime's status as one of the world's leading executioners. The government routinely executes individuals for political dissent, non-violent offences, and for crimes committed as children. It has brutally suppressed the 'Woman, Life, Freedom' protest movement, killing hundreds and arresting thousands, and continues to systematically persecute women, ethnic minorities like the Kurds, and religious minorities like the Baha'is.

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: The Saudi team participated and won a silver medal. During this period, Amnesty International reported that Saudi Arabia was in the midst of an 'execution crisis', having executed a record number of people, many for non-violent drug offences. Foreign nationals and members of the country's Shia minority are disproportionately sentenced to death. The Kingdom also continues to execute individuals for crimes committed as juveniles, a clear violation of international law, and maintains the exploitative kafala system for migrant workers.

Republic of Turkey: The Turkish team participated without issue. Meanwhile, human rights reports from 2024–2025 detail a severe and ongoing government crackdown on freedom of expression, the jailing of dozens of journalists (particularly Kurdish journalists), the arbitrary use of anti-terror laws to silence critics, and systematic attacks on the independence of the legal profession, including the removal of the elected leadership of the Istanbul Bar Association.

The silence of the petitioners and the IOAA board regarding the conduct of these other nations is deafening. There were no petitions circulated to suspend China for its cultural genocide. There were no calls to bar Iran for executing protesters. There was no vote to condemn Saudi Arabia for executing minors. This inaction demonstrates that the 'humanitarian concern' that motivated the suspension of Israel is not a universal principle but a uniquely focused animus.

This combination of factors, a flawed precedent, the violation of the organisation's own statutes, and the complete disregard for far more severe and systematic human rights abuses by other participating nations, constitutes a clear and undeniable evidence if one is needed at all for the Anti-Semitic nature of the discrimination.

Israel is being judged by a unique standard not applied to any other country. This selective singling out of the Jewish state for condemnation, while giving a pass to the world's worst human rights violators, is a hallmark of contemporary political antisemitism. It reveals a moral inversion within this segment of the scientific community, where the actions of a democracy defending itself against a terrorist organisation are deemed more offensive and worthy of sanction than the systematic crimes against humanity perpetrated by authoritarian regimes. This cannot be explained by any objective humanitarian reasoning; it can only be explained by a deep-seated, discriminatory bias against the State of Israel.

Consequences

Perhaps the most powerful critique of the IOAA's decision came from within its own host community. In late August 2025, a group of approximately 300 Indian faculty members and scientists from institutions across the country penned a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, expressing their "serious concern and strong objection" to the suspension.

This letter serves as a comprehensive indictment of the activists' conduct. The signatories point out that the move was 'orchestrated by a handful of academics' without any mandate or legitimacy, and that it did not reflect the views of the broader Indian scientific community. They described the action as a "deliberate misuse of an international scientific platform for political ends" and a "grave misuse of the national and international stage".

The letter detailed the damaging consequences for India because of this politicisation:

Embarrassment to the Indian Government: It accused the activists of using an event inaugurated by the Prime Minister to 'indirectly target India's diplomatic stance and embarrass the nation'.

Jeopardising Scientific Neutrality: It warned that turning a student-focused Olympiad into a 'vehicle for political activism' jeopardises scientific neutrality.

Harming National Interests: The letter underlined Israel's role as a 'long-standing partner in science, technology, defence and agriculture', and cautioned that such 'irresponsible, ideologically driven activism' could harm bilateral ties and isolate Indian science internationally.

This counter-petition demonstrates that the scientific community is not monolithic in its support for the suspension. On the contrary, a significant faction rightly view the flawed decision as an unethical and damaging act of political grandstanding that harmed science, diplomacy, and India's international reputation.

The principles articulated by human rights and academic freedom organisations provide a clear lens through which to evaluate the IOAA's actions. These institutions have long grappled with the ethics of academic boycotts, particularly those targeting Israel. Their consensus highlights several core principles that the IOAA violated:

The Prohibition of Discrimination: Singling out one country for condemnation while ignoring the far worse records of others is, by definition, a discriminatory practice. A commitment to human rights requires consistent and universal application, not selective outrage.

The Value of Academic Freedom: Academic boycotts are antithetical to the core mission of universities and scientific bodies, which is to foster the free exchange of ideas and build bridges through dialogue and collaboration.

By proceeding with the suspension, the IOAA board not only alienated a significant portion of the scientific community and created a diplomatic incident but also acted in direct opposition to the established ethical principles that are meant to govern international academic and scientific exchange.

The suspension of Israel's national team status by the International Olympiad on Astronomy and Astrophysics represents a watershed moment, not for human rights, but for the politicisation of science.

A thorough and evidence-based analysis of the decision reveals an action that was procedurally flawed, intellectually dishonest, and morally inconsistent. It was an act that failed the test of genuine humanism and instead satisfied the criteria for politically motivated, discriminatory conduct that is a hallmark of contemporary antisemitism.

The case against the IOAA's decision is built on a foundation of five irrefutable points:

Procedural Illegitimacy: The action was procedurally bizarre, pre-emptively banning a non-participating nation. This indicates its purpose was not disciplinary but symbolic and political.

A Deceptive Rationale: The 'humanitarian' justification was based on a one-sided political narrative that ignored the context of the Gaza war, relied on unproven allegations presented as fact, and circumvented all forms of due process.

Violation of Foundational Principles: The decision was in direct and flagrant violation of the IOAA's own statutes, which explicitly forbid the exclusion of any country on political grounds. This act of self-contradiction demonstrates a collapse of principled governance.

A False Precedent: The claim of consistency with the suspension of Russia and Belarus was a deceptive analogy used to mask the unique and discriminatory standard being applied to Israel. The circumstances, legal standing, and nature of the conflicts were fundamentally different.

A Glaring Double Standard: The IOAA's complete inaction towards participating states with horrific and well-documented human rights records, including China's crimes against humanity, Iran's mass executions, and Saudi Arabia's execution of minors, is the dispositive evidence of a discriminatory double standard. This selective application of outrage, reserved exclusively for the Jewish state, is the functional definition of antisemitism in the international arena.

Taken together, these points demonstrate that the suspension cannot be understood as an act of "genuine humanism." A truly humanist act would be principled, consistent, procedurally sound, and universally applied. The IOAA's decision was none of these things. It was a targeted political act that leveraged the language of human rights to execute a key tactic of the BDS movement's agenda.

Impact on International Scientific Collaborations that Matter for India

The incident in Mumbai serves as a stark case study in how international forums for science and education, intended to foster collaboration and inspire young people, can be hijacked and transformed into battlegrounds for divisive political agendas. When scientific inquiry is replaced by political litmus tests, the entire enterprise is devalued. This politicisation erodes trust among international partners, damages the credibility of host nations and scientific institutions, and ultimately betrays the students these events are meant to serve. It teaches them that in the world of science, political allegiances can trump objective principles and that certain nations are subject to a standard of scrutiny that others are exempt from.

By capitulating to the demands of a political pressure campaign, the IOAA board has created what can only be called a 'heckler's veto', inviting future activist groups to use its platform for their own agendas and ensuring that future Olympiads may be marred by similar controversies.

To prevent the recurrence of such damaging incidents and to restore faith in the neutrality and integrity of international scientific exchange, it is imperative that the IOAA and similar organisations take immediate and decisive corrective action. The following can be a roadmap for safeguarding these institutions from future political co-option:

Reaffirmation of Foundational Principles: International scientific bodies must publicly and unequivocally reaffirm their commitment to political neutrality, non-discrimination, and the free exchange of ideas, as codified in their foundational charters. The IOAA should begin by publicly acknowledging its violation of its own Statute §5 and recommitting to its enforcement.

Strengthening Governance and Due Process: Statutes forbidding political exclusion must be reinforced with clear procedural safeguards. Decisions to sanction or exclude member (or potential member) states should require a high evidentiary bar, not merely a petition. Allegations of legal violations must be substantiated by findings from competent international judicial bodies, not activist letters.

Adoption of a Clear Non-Discrimination Standard: These bodies should formally adopt a policy against discriminatory boycotts that single out specific nations for censure. This policy should explicitly state that any consideration of a country's conduct must be part of a consistent, universal, and impartially applied standard of review for all participating nations.

Protecting the Core Mission: The leadership of these organisations must be held accountable for protecting their core mission: the advancement of science and education for young people. This requires insulating their decision-making processes from the political agendas of any faction, whether internal organisers or external pressure groups, and ensuring that the focus remains on celebrating scientific achievement and fostering global cooperation.

The pursuit of knowledge is a universal human endeavour that should transcend the political divisions of the moment. By implementing these measures, international scientific organisations can protect the sanctity of that pursuit and ensure that the arenas of science remain spaces for collaboration and discovery, not conflict and discrimination.