HUNDREDS of academics have defended a Hampshire university which has come under fire for hosting a controversial conference looking at the existence of Israel.

It comes after 4,000 people and an MP called on the University of Southampton to cancel the three-day conference in April.

Organisers of the event say that the conference, entitled Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism, will be a “ground-breaking historical event”.

However campaigners, including Fareham MP Mark Hoban, say that the event, which will run from April 17 to 19, is ‘one-sided’ and ‘hard-line’ and more than 4,000 people have signed a petition on Change.Org urging university chiefs to cancel it, claiming that it is not a conference but a ‘kangaroo court’ into whether Israel should even exist.

Even communities secretary Eric Pickles has got involved in the debate, and called on Southampton University to ensure that speakers represented both sides of the argument at the event.

Bosses at Southampton University have refused to call off the conference, saying that it is part of its commitment to academic freedom and free speech.

Now an outpouring of support has come from more than 800 academics from across the world who signed a statement in support of the University of Southampton.

The signatories include distinguished professors, researchers and lecturers from the world’s leading universities, including Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Yale, University of California, University of Toronto and many more.

The statement commends Southampton, including vice-chancellor Don Nutbeam, “for its resolute defence of academic freedom”.

It states: “We, the undersigned academics, express principled and full support for the University of Southampton’s commitment to freedom of speech and scholarly debate.

“We commend the University of Southampton administration, including vice-chancellor Don Nutbeam, for its resolute defence of academic freedom.

“It is standing principle and recognised practice that academic conference organisers have the right to choose those speakers and topics they feel would best address the purposes of the conference, without these being dictated to them by outside parties.

“We are very concerned that partisan attempts are being made to silence dissenting analyses of the topic in question.

“For external pressure and interference, especially from political lobby groups and a Government minister, to censor lawful academic discussion would set a worrying precedent.”