Medo-Halimy Faculty: M4P Occupation, Eviction and Public Responses

Author's note (June 14): At the time of reporting, the most detailed public timeline of events is provided by Maastricht 4 Palestine (M4P), while official university and police statements remain limited.

On Tuesday, June 10, a student-led occupation of University College Maastricht (UCM) by Maastricht 4 Palestine (M4P) ended in a police eviction, followed by criticism and possible legal violations by Maastricht University’s response to the protest, stance on academic freedom, and its ongoing ties to Israeli institutions.

The events followed responses from the student activists of M4P, UM staff for Palestine movement, and the University Executive Board via Instagram. 

Morning of Protest

According to M4P, the occupation had a clear message. The same ongoing demand from last year's encampment, calling on UM to cut all ties with Israel and end its complicity in the genocide against the Palestinian people. The occupied building was renamed the “Medo-Halimy Faculty” in memory of a Palestinian student killed in an Israeli airstrike.

M4P claims they ensured workers could exit the building safely before blocking entrances while a peaceful support demonstration gathered outside. Municipal officers attempted to prevent more supporters from joining, though M4P described the moment as one of “powerful moment of solidarity”.

Negotiation Breakdown

According to M4P, the university made no attempt to contact the group until nearly five hours into the occupation, sending an email at 13:50 requesting a meeting before 14:00. This contradicts the university’s alleged claim that it “tried all avenues to contact the students”.  M4P argued that the university was well aware of the email addresses being used and had even been informed about them during previous actions.

Negotiations commenced with representatives from Free Palestine Maastricht (FPM), UM Staff for Palestine Movement, and M4P. The university sent the head of the Student Services Centre, Margriet Schreuders, and the Dean of the Faculty of Science and Engineering, Thomas Cleij. M4P criticizes this decision, stating that both individuals admitted they had “no actual decision-making powers” and refused to engage with demands such as establishing scholarships for Palestinian students, reportedly even calling their demands “blackmail”. 

The involvement of the police resulted in controversy. During negotiations, UM officials reportedly denied having involved law enforcement, saying the matter was “in hands of the police”. The Executive Board later confirmed it had filed the police report, an action corroborated by the staff letter, which stated that “the university reported its own students to the police for huisvredebreuk” (trespassing).

The Eviction and Its Consequences

Around 17:45, riot police arrived. What followed, according to a statement signed by both pro-Palestine student activists and UM staff, was a violent eviction. Protesters, joined by staff who had come to act as witnesses and supporters, were shoved, kicked, and in some cases, sexually assaulted by officers. Police reportedly refused entry to independent medics and staff, citing operational restrictions.

Once inside, police detained the student occupiers in a common room. According to M4P, students were held for over an hour, searched, and forcibly removed from the building. They were then transported in unmarked vehicles to a remote field outside Maastricht and released without explanation. Which staff argue constitutes as “kidnapping,” under Dutch criminal law (Article 282 Sr) regarding unlawful deprivation of liberty.

‘Ask Me Anything session’ 

In a public online Q&A held two days later, our attending reporters observed that, Rector Magnificus Pamela Habibović emphasized the university’s “main concern was everyone’s safety” (largely due to the use of lit flares by the building windows) and framed the situation as a failure of dialogue rather than repression. She referred vaguely to the need for “real discussion” and the importance of “respecting different opinions,” but did not explicitly name the occupation or the eviction.

Calling back to the disrupted lecture by Zionist activist Raman Osman on the 12th of March (read our article Inside Zionist activist Raman Osman's lecture amid a pro-Palestine coordinated protest for context), Pamela Habibović identified poor planning and venue choices as the main factors for the failure of the event. Echoing the need for better preparation to ensure everyone feels safe and respected, justifying the temporary ban on external speakers as a difficult but necessary decision (which has since been lifted). However, no comment was made on the political and moral convictions of the speaker and the reason for the backlash. Our reporters noted the reflection seemed to be about logistics, ignoring the content that provoked the protest. 

Vice-President Jan-Tjitte Meindersma and UCM Director Wolfgang Giernalczyk echoed these points, expressing concern about freedom of speech and  “walking on eggshells”, advocating for academic freedom through mutual dialogue. When asked about the university’s position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Board gave what one of our reporters described as a “status-quo” answer, empathizing with “victims on both sides” but refusing to name actors or take a specific stance.

The Board also defended its past decision to freeze ties with Israeli institutions, but noted that, unlike the case with Russia, no government directive guided this move. This distinction was not well clarified during the session and appeared to frustrate attendees seeking clear policy justification.

UM Staff Response

UM Law staff issued two formal statements in the days following the occupation. The first released on June 10, expressed concerns over the university's involvement of the police and rights of students being upheld. 

The protest was described as peaceful, and staff were able to talk to the students, hearing their concerns over the situation. Staff members who joined the demonstration stated they aimed to de-escalate the situation and ensure students’ rights were respected. Instead, they witnessed what they describe as disproportionate force by police officers with batons drawn, filming protesters, and denying independent medics access to the building; some of these actions can be seen in videos posted by M4P on June 13.

A second statement was released on June 12, as a response to UM’s statement the day prior, denouncing the university’s actions as not only ethically indefensible but potentially illegal. This letter now has over 100 signatories, comprised of staff from various faculties. The letter accuses UM of:

1. Failing to guarantee the legal right to peaceful protest (Art. 9 Dutch Constitution; Art. 21 ICCPR)

2. Collaborating with police without legal justification under the Dutch Police Act

3. Violating students’ bodily autonomy and safety

4. Engaging in potential unlawful detention under Dutch Penal Code Article 282 Sr

   
   

Staff argue that the UM’s invocation of academic freedom is being used as a “rhetorical shield” to deflect demands for accountability. The statement explicitly cites the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) findings to assert that Israel’s actions plausibly constitute genocide, making UM’s continued partnerships with Israeli institutions not just morally questionable but “possibly legally actionable” under Article III(c) of the Genocide Convention.

Three narratives

1. The Executive Board claims neutrality as an institutional strength. Emphasizing procedural safety, managed dialogue, and avoidance of escalation.

2. M4P sees neutrality as complicity. As they demand that ties with Israeli institutions be cut, arguing that institutional delay and vague promises constitute ethical failure, and the use of police marks a line crossed. 

3. UM Staff argues that UM's actions have breached constitutional and international law, and warns that the university risks forfeiting its credibility as a global academic institution.

   
   

What now?

The UCM occupation may be over for now, but the questions it raised remain unresolved. Can a university that claims to be committed to international law remain neutral in the face of a humanitarian crisis? What is the line between safety and suppression? And who decides which lives are worthy of undisputable outrage and whose are up for debate in the name of “seeking the right balance”?

What is clear is that the debate has moved far beyond a single protest, encampment, or occupation. It now confronts the core of what Maastricht University claims to stand for.