Following controversy earlier this year around the University of Otago’s proposed partnership with Israeli-government linked Palo Alto Networks, Vice-Chancellor Grant Robertson announced a review of the partnership agreement. This has now been completed, concluding that there is “no substantive evidence” that suggests that the University of Otago should end its relationship with Palo Alto Networks (PANW).
The University of Otago announced its partnership with PANW in 2025, proposing that it would aid in the development of a new Masters of Digital Technology for the planned Queenstown campus. Professor Gillespie, a professor from the University of Waikato and expert in the field of international law who conducted the review, described the partnership initiative as “exemplary.” Otago Staff for Palestine have formerly described the partnership as putting the University of Otago “squarely on the wrong side of history.”
According to Gillespie, the review was intended to analyse those concerns raised by staff and students, and assess if the partnership is “in line with relevant university frameworks and statements.” Gillepsie spoke with staff and received comments from PANW, who twice cancelled their meeting with the professor. Gillespie noted that the review “cannot be considered to be exhaustive”. Despite this, Gillespie concluded that there was “no substantive evidence” to suggest the partnership should be terminated.
The Due Diligence Question
One of the concerns raised earlier this year about the partnership was whether the University completed their “due diligence” before finalising this partnership. Establishment Director of the University of Otago Queenstown and Lakes District Project, Professor Richard Barker, confirmed to Critic Te Ārohi earlier this year that “due diligence” on PANW had been undertaken prior to the partnership agreement being finalised.
According to Richard, this process established that PANW is a US-based company, and while it had an Israeli founder and a research facility in Tel Aviv, the due diligence work did not “indicate any company links to the Israeli military, nor was PANW “identified at the time on the [BDS] movement list of tech targets.” The due diligence assessment was undertaken to ensure the partnership “aligned with the University’s values and posed no conflict with our academic mission [...]”.
According to the review at hand, the University did complete a Due Diligence Report in 2025, which Gillespie described as having “limited value”. In the report’s cover note, Vice-Chancellor Grant Robertson acknowledged that the Due Diligence Report was done “without an overall framework to work to”, but was “credible in those circumstances”. The University’s due diligence standards are currently in the process of being redeveloped.
Gillespie also noted that PANW had over 1,500 New Zealand customers by 2025, and “it can be assumed that, at some level, basic forms of due diligence were undertaken by many of them.” And so the partnership went ahead.
Institutional Neutrality
The University’s institutional neutrality policy was established in 2025 during a time of increasing debate around the Boycott, Divest and Sanctions movement (BDS) and Palestine. The Policy states that University leaders will not communicate institutional positions on “controversial political topics” except where such issues “directly impact the University’s role or functions”, and includes “ethical investment” as an example of an exception to that limitation. Gillespie stated that if the University was to end its relationship with PANW, it would also be ending its commitment to academic neutrality.
A statement provided to Critic Te Ārohi by the OUSA Exec argued that the institutional neutrality and academic freedom principles “are meant for academic freedom of staff and students, not protection for corporate partners to insulate themselves from criticism.” Finance and Strategy Officer, Troy Gibbons, added that “[h]iding behind academic freedom is gross, and doesn’t address our concerns with what the company explicitly promotes.”
Political Representative Flynn Nisbett surmised that the review essentially communicates that as long as a company isn’t “directly firing the guns, murdering people, or directly infringing international law – even if they are heavily connected to Israel which is built on all of those things – it isn’t illegal [...] Which must mean academic freedom is being protected by allowing it.”
Wider Concerns
In the section of the review titled “wider concerns”, Gillespie cites anti-boycott measures in the United States and the “rise of anti-semitism” as a reason for caution in ending the PANW partnership.
“Some entities, governments, and sectors are taking an increasingly dim view of those who sanction or boycott Israel,” the review reads. At least 38 states in the US now have “anti-boycott” measures, “with the clear warning, ‘if you boycott against Israel, we will boycott against you’, with comparable counter-measures.” Noting that a “similar reaction” has taken place in Germany, Gillespie argued that “there could create an undue risk to any foreign entity which gets to the head of the pack around BDS-type measures, potentially more so if the restrictions adopted look even more discriminatory than the BDS list, alone.”
Citing a University of Tel Aviv study to make this point, Gillespie noted a “disturbing” trend in recent terror attacks in both Australia and Britain. “New Zealand should not assume that similar attacks could not occur here. As a country, we are already recording a negative upward trend in incidents. Governmental responses in like-minded countries are doing more to combat anti-semitism, via the creation of plans, special envoys, changed legislation, and even initiatives in the University Sector. In Australia, this is already sparking debate over academic freedom and protest. Caution is urged in this area as allegations and counter-allegations are rising.”
On those points, OUSA Exec Finance and Strategy Officer Troy felt that the University’s “refusal” to withdraw from the agreement was being driven by the “fear American universities have been experiencing under Trump because of the perception of antisemitism.”
PANW and OSP
Gillespie shared OSP’s report with PANW, noting that he had the authors consent to do so, and gave PANW the chance to respond to their claims. In response, PANW stated that their "corporate governance, our business operations and research functions remain entirely independent of any state military apparatus.”
“You can’t separate the military complex from the economies that benefit from it, and pretending to do so is incredibly disingenuous,” the OUSA Executive statement reads.
PANW’s response goes on to say that while founder Nir Zuk “served in the military prior to his private-sector career”, he is no longer a member of the executive team or board of directors and has since founded a new startup. “Under our current executive leadership, our corporate activities align strictly with our mandate to operate as a commercial, civilian enterprise.”
As pointed out in the OSP report, the CEO of PANW has previously claimed that “you can’t separate the company from its founder…[and] our commitment to Israel has not changed despite the fact that Nir is not actively at Palo Alto.”
PANW also states that Israel is a “primary hub for top-tier cybersecurity talent” and it’s therefore a “strategic business imperative” for PANW to maintain a “strong talent pipeline and R&D presence in the region”. In response to the allegation that PANW has a pipeline of tech from the Israeli military, they said that they do “frequently acquire commercial companies founded by military veterans” and that this is a “direct reflection of the regional talent pool” and “, does not constitute support for, or evidence of, operational integration with, any military. All acquired technologies are strictly defensive, commercially available solutions.”
Flynn Nisbett, Political Representative, believes the company is marked by its past, stating that the University has the “opportunity to find companies that aren't involved in egregious things [...] I don't know how you can rationalise this.” According to the OUSA Exec, “No company which makes such significant contributions to the cybersecurity space, which enables the ethnic cleansing of thousands of people to justify its existence, should be voluntarily pursued by the University.”
In response to the claim that PANW employees are actively participating in military operations while developing products, PANW acknowledged that “veterans transition programs are a core pillar of our corporate hiring initiatives”, and that they have “veterans who have served in militaries across the globe”, although “their work at Palo Alto Networks remains wholly separate from state or military operations.”
The State of Israel requires most to partake in mandatory military service. As mentioned in the OSP report, Israel Defense Minister Baram has stated that “[d]irect feedback loops connect the frontline, engineers, and industry partners – creating a robust chain from battlefield needs to deployed solutions. These are combat-proven systems. This is what defense tech means in Israel.”
To the claim that PANW develops “dual-use” technologies, they responded that their platforms “are strictly defensive”, and go on to quote their Human Rights Policy: “Our vision is a world where each day is safer and more secure than the one before.” Gillespie described PANW’s ethics guidelines as “commendable”, to which the OUSA Exec replied “[a]ny declaration about human rights from PANW ought to be measured against the conduct of their employees and the national economies they are enmeshed in.”
PANW add that “[a]t no time are our platforms designed, authorized [sic], or sold for offensive military targeting, state surveillance, or human rights abuses.”
Where To From Here?
Professor Gillespie provided a number of recommendations based on his findings, including an “informal review of the Palo Alto partnership at the end of this year, and a review at the end of the first year of teaching the programme.” According to Flynn Nisbett, “this was their opportunity to get out of it if they were going to”.
The OUSA Exec is still calling on the University to, during this review, “include discretionary powers to the ethical procurements policy based on the facts of each situation to ensure they are not contributing, commercially or otherwise, to the economy of any state currently carrying out egregious human rights abuses including genocide, displacement, and expansions of illegal settlements.
“If the relationship progresses, it can be expected it will get deeper,” the review reads. And if the partnership is continued, “it will need to be significantly nurtured, potentially via some type of public affirmation.” Under Section 10 of the report, titled “The Root of the Problem is not Disappearing Anytime Soon”, Gillespie stated that “the topic of Palestine is going to be challenging for the foreseeable future”, and therefore the University “should be planning on how to manage a long-term concern, with some issues requiring advance planning.” Gillespie adds that “[i]f the ICJ [International Criminal Court] does find that Israel has violated the Genocide Convention, significant steps may be recommended.”
When approached for comment, OSP told Critic that they “support the [OUSA] Exec’s statement and reject the findings of the [review].”
