The removal of Professor Joël Kotek from Belgium’s delegation to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance has drawn sharp criticism from the Institut Jonathas, which issued a strongly worded statement condemning the decision and warning against what it sees as an erosion of expert independence in the fight against antisemitism.
According to Institut Jonathas, the decision follows more than fifteen years of service by Professor Kotek within the IHRA framework, where he contributed to Holocaust remembrance and analyses of contemporary antisemitism. His removal has been described by the organisation as “deeply shocking” and “difficult to understand” given his academic profile and long-standing institutional involvement.
In its full statement, Institut Jonathas expressed consternation at what it characterised as the sidelining of one of Belgium’s leading scholars of genocide studies and antisemitism. The organisation emphasised Professor Kotek’s academic record, describing him as an internationally recognised historian and educator whose work has focused on Holocaust history, genocides, and the evolution of antisemitism in contemporary Europe.
The statement argues that the controversy is not only about his removal, but also about the context in which it occurred. It refers to an IHRA meeting dedicated to antisemitism since 7 October, during which Professor Kotek reportedly referenced what he described as documented Belgian cases, including the “Brusselmans affair,” the Aalst carnival controversy, threats directed at a senator, and heightened security measures around Jewish institutions, including the presence of soldiers near certain schools.
Institut Jonathas maintained that these interventions were “lucid, documented, and responsible,” and insisted they should not be interpreted as political attacks but rather as contributions consistent with IHRA’s mandate to address antisemitism in all its forms.
The organisation also raised broader concerns about the implications of the decision for academic freedom and institutional independence. It questioned whether experts working within international frameworks such as the IHRA can continue to speak openly about contemporary antisemitism without fear of professional consequences.
In its statement, Institut Jonathas warned against what it described as a tendency to “silence inconvenient realities” or to distinguish between acceptable historical discussion and more politically sensitive contemporary analysis. It argued that such an approach risks weakening the credibility of efforts to combat antisemitism.
The organisation further stated that several international colleagues of Professor Kotek had reportedly expressed concern and incomprehension regarding his removal, highlighting his long-standing contribution to the IHRA’s work.
Institut Jonathas concluded its statement by warning against what it sees as a broader trend of turning those who identify antisemitism into targets themselves. It argued that democratic systems should protect, rather than sanction, experts who raise concerns based on documented evidence.
The organisation stressed that the fight against antisemitism must include recognition of both historical and contemporary forms of hatred, and cautioned against narrowing the scope of what can be publicly discussed within institutional settings.
