September 22, 2025
Headlines

Another account of the Oxford Union debate on Israel as apartheid state responsible for genocide

admin18413 mins mins

30 November 2024

The Oxford Student publishes the following, more detailed, account of the Oxford Union debate last Thursday.

29th November 2024

Ex-IDF soldier and former spy for Israel among surprise speakers at Union Palestine debate

Yunzhang Liang, Peter Lenahan and Cameron Samuel Keys

On November 29th, the Oxford Union debated the motion, “This House Believes Israel is an Apartheid State Responsible for Genocide.” 

Speaking for the proposition are Mohammed El-Kurd, Palestinian writer, poet and activist, President of the Oxford Union Ebrahim Osman-Mowafy, Miko Peled, Israeli-American activist, author and speaker, and finally Palestinian-American author Susan Abulwaha. American political scientist Norman Finkelstein was originally scheduled to speak for the proposition, but pulled out before the debate. 

On the opposition side, speakers included Jonathan Sacerdoti, British Journalist and broadcaster, Yoseph Haddad, Israeli-Arab, former Israel Defense Force soldier, and CEO of Together – Vouch for Eachother, Mosab Hassan Yousef, Former Palestinian who worked as an undercover informant for Israel’s Shin Bet intelligence agency, son of a Hamas co-founder, and author of Son of Hamas, and finally Natasha Hausdorf, British barrister, legal commentator, and advocate for UK Lawyers for Israel.

On the road outside the building, around 25 individuals protested the debate. One individual told the crowd: “this is emblematic of the general position that Oxford students take… [they think] people’s lives are up for debate.” Chants from protestors included “1234 occupation no more 5678 Israel is a terrorist state,”; “From the river to the sea Palestine will be free,”; and “Yemen Yemen make us proud turn another ship around.”

“Oxford students [think] people’s lives are up for debate.”

The proposition opened with Mohammed El-Kurd, who anchored his argument on the atrocities committed by the state of Israel: “Personally, I don’t think there is any room for debate in the presence of burning flesh. I don’t think there is any room for conversation while people are being literally burned alive and incinerated.” 

El-Kurd called out the complicity of “this very Empire” in “funding and facilitating” the genocide, highlighting the empty promises they make to the Palestinians: “They tell us, if the Palestinians laid down their weapons, there would be peace, but if we laid down our weapons, we would be killed,” before calling them “simplistic, stupid, silly propaganda points” and “recycled colonial talking points.” “There is absolutely nothing,” he argues, “that the Palestinian people can do that justifies genocide,” rebuking the claim that Hamas was using people as human shields. Multiple points of orders were raised, which El-Kurd rejected, telling one member to “just relax (and) take a Xanax.” 

Before closing his speech, El-Kurd directly addressed the opposition: “In the last two days, I was informed that a new speaker was added to the opposition…and I refuse. You know, I think it dishonours me to share a space with someone who, for decades, collaborated with Israeli intelligence agencies that have killed Palestinians, besieged them, and have given people’s information and addresses and have so much blood on their hands,” referring to opposition speaker Mosab Hassan Yousef. 

“In the last two days, I was informed that a new speaker was added to the opposition”

Immediately after, El-Kurd walked out of the debate and exited the Union chamber.  EL-Kurd then spoke to the protestors, telling them he appreciated the risks they took to their safety and careers and that standing up for the people of Palestine made a difference.  He spoke positively of the audience inside the chamber, stating that they shouted “Shame” when he talked “about the other team.”

The opposition opened with Jonathan Sacerdoti. Sacerdoti began by addressing “the very organisation and nature of this debate”: “The title itself is an outrage, and the speakers are possibly the most aggressive.” 

Next, he criticised the decision by the Union to invite Norman Finkelstein, who he called a “psychopath” : “Today’s president invited a man who justified the atrocities of October 7. Unfortunately, he was too scared to be here tonight, but that psychopath will be here tomorrow.” 

Sacerdoti firmly defended Israel’s innocence in his speech, arguing: “Claims of apartheid and genocide twist history’s darkest crimes and use them as weapons against Israel. The accusers themselves are actually guilty of the crimes they allege Israel is committing.” He backs up his claims with the 1948 Genocide Convention and the 1973 Apartheid Convention, claiming that “legally, both these crimes hinge on intent……documented, unmistakable intent,” but that “there is no policy of racial discrimination, no intent to destroy” that can be found in Israel’s actions. 

“there is no policy of racial discrimination, no intent to destroy [in Israel’s actions]…”

“Instead, Israel does go to extraordinary lengths to try to avoid civilian deaths,” Sacerdoti claimed. “It cancels air strikes when there is a risk of excessive civilian deaths……Hamas on the other hand, does hide its weapons, its control centres, in schools, mosques, universities, and hospitals.” 

“Israel,” he continued, “has provided 700 000 tons of food to the people of Gaza, which is 3200 calories per Gazan citizen per day, on average – and that is whether you like it or not – above the NHS recommended amount for men in this country.” 

“Gazans are receiving more food per day than the world average during the war,” he maintained. “The reason there are people who are going without food in Gaza is because Hamas stole the food.” The speaker was interrupted on multiple occasions by members of the audience calling out “lies,” and “shame,” but continued regardless. 

“Just because you dislike losing an unnecessary war you started does not make something genocide,” he said. 

“I simply want to say that all of this genocidal act that took place on 7 October is the result of a choice for hatred and a choice for apartheid among Palestinians,” he added. “That is apartheid, that is genocide, and that was not Israeli.” 

Closing off his argument, Sacerdoti appealed to the audience to “think critically,” saying: “It’s easy to repeat what you’ve been told again and again and allow it to reinforce prejudices, but truths often lie outside those loops.” 

Next, Union President Ebrahim Osman-Mowafy spoke for the proposition: “I put it to you tonight that [Palestinian civilians] have been murdered by our partner state intent on genocide.” He pointed out how “Israeli leadership, on every occasion, admitted their intent and then followed through with blatant dehumanisation and indiscriminate bombing campaigns,” and that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has described Gaza as the “city of evil” and framed the Israel attacks as a fight against “monsters.” 

Osman-Mowafy’s speech was interrupted by audience members in the balcony, provoking opposition speaker Yoseph Haddad, who in turn responded. He was allowed to continue after a stern warning was given to both parties. Before finishing, he urged the chamber to remember the countless Palestinian civilians that “existed yesterday that will not exist tomorrow” when casting their vote. 

He urged the chamber to remember the countless Palestinian civilians that “existed yesterday that will not exist tomorrow.”

It was now Yoseph Haddad’s turn to speak for the opposition. He began by playing a recording from his phone of a Palestinian admitting “that he just killed ten Jews and had their blood on his hand.” This recording, according to him, was “one of the many videos that Hamas uploaded, and they themselves were proud of it.” 

“If you want to free Palestine, first free Palestine from Hamas. If you boo, then I’m so sorry to tell you this, but you are a terrorist supporter,” he adds. Haddad also called Oswan-Mowafy, who spoke before him, a “coward” for not entertaining point-of-information requests. 

He spoke about his involvement in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), saying: “When the Hamas regime attacks Israel, they attack all the citizens of Israel. And when the IDF protects Israel, they protect all the citizens of Israel.” In response to calls of “shame” from the audience, Haddad simply responded with “Thank you very much. I’m very proud of that shame. Thank you.” 

“I knew that serving in the IDF was not only the right thing (to do), it was the most loyal thing (to do) to protect my society……I am so proud of every decision that I chose, to protect my country, to protect my society, and to protect my people from terrorist organisations like Hamas,” he added. 

Haddad finishes by saying “You are losing. You know why you are losing, because you thought you could destroy Israel, but Israel is here to stay.” 

The floor was then open to floor speeches from the audience. Two members of the audience spoke on each side of the debate. 

Following a speech from a member of the audience speaking for proposition, Yoseph Haddad attempted to obstruct her as she returned to her seat and was promptly asked to leave. 

Haddad brought out a T-shirt with the words “Your terrorist hero is dead. We did it!”

In response, Haddad brought out a T-shirt with the words “Your terrorist hero is dead. We did it!” and a few emojis on it. He put it on before being escorted out of the chamber by security. 

The third speaker for the proposition, Miko Peled, began his speech by focusing on moral values. He challenged the justifications established by the previous speakers, asking, “Does it justify harming a child? Does it justify killing a civilian? This is where you draw the line… it is a question of values.” Peled continued declaring Gaza as “a concentration camp… where Palestinians have been living for more than seven decades.”

Peled maintained that rather than the Israeli regime suffering from terrorism, “the Palestinians have experienced terrorism since the state’s establishment.” He then stated that “October the 7th was not terrorism. They were acts of heroism of a people that have been oppressed.” Following this statement, several points of order were made to the president claiming that Peled was “glorifying terrorism.” Despite the interruption, Peled was permitted to continue with his speech. He concluded by advocating for dismantling what he termed as the “apartheid state” and establishing a “free, democratic Palestine from the river to the sea.” 

Mosab Hassan Yousef, the third speaker of opposition, began with a passionate declaration “I am sentenced by my father to death.” Recognising his position he said: “Why? Because I reported attacks that targeted civilians indiscriminately. This is my crime.” Yousef challenged the support of Palestine apparent in the chamber stating “Hamas is a terrorist organisation in the UK, in the US, and in the European Union,” and addressed the whole chamber with a question: “If you knew about the October 7th attacks, raise your hands if you would have reported it to the authorities.” 

Following this Yousef insulted the demographic of Palestinian people saying: “Now there come the Palestinians, the most pathetic people on earth.” This was met with significant, vocal opposition from the chamber. A Palestinian individual in the audience requested for the speaker to be removed for “insulting me personally.” The President then asked for the speaker to be removed, but, after facing criticism and accusations of biases, he allowed Yousef to finish his speech.

A Palestinian individual in the audience requested for the speaker to be removed for “insulting me personally.”

The speech continued criticising the concept of a Palestinian national identity. Yousef claimed: “I was not born as Palestinian, like millions of Arab children.” He concluded by claiming that the Palestinian identity is a construct to promote a “violent indoctrination” and expressed hope for the region “Arabs and Jews can get along. I have faith in that.”

Closing for the proposition, Susan Abulhawa delivered a passionate speech emphasising the historical and ongoing struggles experienced by the Palestinian people. She argued the debate centres on “the worth of Palestinian lives,” highlighting issues of displacement, oppression, and cultural heritage. She asked the audience to consider how the world would react if the situation was flipped around and “Palestinians had spent the last eight decades stealing Jewish homes, expelling, oppressing, imprisoning, poisoning, torturing, killing, and raping them.” Abulhawa emphasised the deep connection of the Palestinians to the land, she stated: “We are its very soil. We are the rivers and her trees and her stories.” To conclude her speech, Abulhawa envisioned a future where Palestine is “restored to her multi-religious, multi-ethnic, pluralistic glory.”

Closing for opposition, Natasha Hausdorf criticised the proposition for supporting groups like Hamas. She accused them of silencing Palestinian voices who blame Hamas for their suffering. Hausdorf quoted Palestinians in Gaza who said, “Hamas has wounded us. They are responsible for all the destruction… they destroyed our lives.” Acknowledging the allegations of Israeli apartheid and genocide, she stated, “The insidious nature of these allegations is that they take the victims of a crime and accuse those victims of committing the very crime that was imposed on them,” she emphasised. “Israel includes 20% of its population that are Arabs – the only free Arabs in the Middle East with full rights.”

Hausdorf criticised Hamas’ tactics declaring “indoctrination is at the core of the perpetuation of this conflict,” as well as condemning the “Pay to Slay” claiming that it “encourages terrorism by rewarding terrorists according to how many Jews they have slaughtered.” To conclude, Hausdorf expressed concern over the handling of the debate and stated that this was “a dark moment in the Oxford Union’s history,” She finished by wishing that “ultimately the truth will come out” and that all voices, including “all those Jewish students who were too intimidated to come,” will be heard.

“The opposition demonstrated a lot of malice”

Following the debate, The Oxford Student spoke to several students, who shared their thoughts on the event. Feelings of disappointment were shared by most of the student interviewees.

One student offered a critical perspective on the debate. They described the event as “a little bit of a mess,” expressing that “the opposition demonstrated… a lot of malice.” They claimed that the atmosphere was tense and that there was “hostile and at times genuinely threatening behaviour” from some opposition speakers.


Another found it “incredibly disrespectful to the members who come out of their way,” for speakers to make statements such as “accusing the members of the house of being terrorists or terrorist sympathisers.”

Several students viewed the rulings of the President as favouring side propositions claiming “The third speaker [of the proposition] blatantly glorified the events of October 7th… and nothing was done” as well as “the chair was also a speaker for the proposition… any criticism of him of him was then rebutted because he was the chair.”

“Shambles is an understatement. It was a fiasco.”

One concluded their interview saying: “Shambles is an understatement. It was a fiasco.”

The result of the vote was 278 for the motion to 59 against. Thus, the motion succeeded.

 

184 thoughts on “Another account of the Oxford Union debate on Israel as apartheid state responsible for genocide”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related News