A university in Athens decided to bar Abdel Naser Issa, who was recently released from an Israeli prison in exchange for hostages, the right to speak on campus.
By Rachel Avraham
In late October 2025, the Panteion University in Athens took the unusual step of cancelling a planned public panel that would have featured senior Hamas official Abdel Naser Issa, who was released from an Israeli prison in February in exchange for hostages. The university’s decision illustrates the delicate balancing act modern higher-education institutions face: safeguarding academic freedom while preventing their platforms from being used to legitimize designated terrorist organizations.
The event was initially promoted by a pro-Palestinian student group, presenting itself as a “dialogue on liberation” platform. Opposition, however, mounted quickly from Greece’s Ministry of Education, various Israeli advocacy groups, and diplomatic channels, citing concerns over national security, counter-terrorism obligations, and the reputational risk to the university. In response, university officials confirmed the event would not proceed without proper authorization.
At first glance, this might appear a purely national decision. Yet the implications run far deeper for academic institutions globally. Universities are traditionally open forums for discussion, dissent and controversy, yet international norms—such as the UN’s “Consolidated List” of terrorist organizations—place constraints on hosting individuals or organizations under sanctions or terror designations. In this case, Hamas is listed by the European Union, the United States and other jurisdictions as a terrorist organization. The Athens university’s choice, then, reflects not only institutional risk-management but also compliance with wider international obligations.
From Israel’s perspective, this decision is a welcome reaffirmation of the global norm that terror organizations should not be given public legitimacy through academic platforms. For Israeli academic and security circles, the cancellation sends a signal: that universities in Europe—and by extension, beyond—are aware of the symbolic power inherent in such panels. A moderator’s chair does not just host debate—it may confer a veneer of normalization. For Israeli stakeholders, every venue that rejects this veneer strengthens the message that terrorism cannot be repackaged as legitimate discourse.
Universities must now navigate between two competing imperatives: preserving free inquiry and avoiding complicity in extremist propaganda. Greek higher-education authorities and legal scholars may yet evaluate this case as a landmark for where the line is drawn between “free speech” and “terrorism support.”
Yet these debates cannot overlook the context. The October 7, 2023 massacre in which Hamas played a central role still reverberate in academic, diplomatic and security domains. For Greece and other European states, the question is not merely philosophical—it is practical and urgent. Panel venues, student associations and public forums are part of the broader information environment. If pro-terror ideologies transform from underground networks into “speaking tours” they risk normalizing violence and terror as part of the debate.
In conclusion, the Panteion decision is more than a cancellation—it is a test of institutional resolve. It shows that academic institutions can and will draw boundaries when external threats, legal risks and reputational consequences converge. For Israel, the event reaffirms that refusing legitimization of terrorism is not just a security measure but also an academic and moral imperative.
Yet, the case also serves as a reminder: democracy and scholarship depend on institutions willing to ask not only who may speak, but what hosting them implies.
Photo from
