Oxford Union debate marred by heckling: 'Apartheid' Israel committing 'genocide'

The Oxford Union debate society voted that Israel is an apartheid state engaged in an active genocide of Palestinians following a contentious Thursday debate marred by interruptions, heckling, and the ejection of participants.

The proposition that “Israel is an Apartheid State Responsible for Genocide,” passed 278-59 after the Oxford University student society debate between opposition speakers UK Lawyers For Israel Charitable Trust legal director Natasha Hausdorff, writer and Oxford alum Jonathan Sacerdoti, former Palestinian spy and anti-Hamas activist Mosab Hassan Yousef, and Arab pro-Israel activist Yoseph Haddad, and pro-resolution speakers Oxford Union president Ebrahim Osman Mowafy, Palestinian poet and activist Mohammed El-Kurd, Palestinian writer and activist Susan Abulhawa, and anti-Zionist Israel writer Miko Peled.

Abulhawa said in a Friday X post that the opposition team was met with jeering when it entered the auditorium, while the full chamber cheered the proposition team’s entrance and remarks. Israeli writer and Haddad’s partner Emily Schrader said on social media that Peled and El-Kurd had refused to shake hands with their opponents and the entire pro-resolution team declined to take a joint photograph with the opposition team. El-Kurd left early, according to Abulhawa, because it dishonored him to be in the same room as the opposition participants. Abulhawa and Peled called the opposition genocide deniers.

Sacerdoti was repeatedly mocked and shouted at during his remarks, according to an audio recording the Oxford alum published on YouTube on Friday. One audience member could be heard yelling “lies” in response to Sacerdoti’s assertion that Israel had overseen the delivery of humanitarian aid to avoid starvation.

“I understand that there are plenty of people in this room who don’t agree with us, who don’t like us, but this esteemed establishment is meant to be a bastion of free speech discussion, and debate, and this example is not any of these things,” said Sacerdoti, who had called for the removal of a audience member.

Hostile event or educated debate?

Abulhawa recalled on X the “memorable moment” when an audience member called Hassan Yousef a “whore” in Arabic when he went to the podium. Schrader, who attended the event, said on X that Osman Mowafy had ignored such behavior but sought to remove Hassan Yousef from the debate for insulting Palestinians because he stated that the “Palestinians are pathetic in their behavior.”

Haddad was ejected from the debate when he challenged an audience member who lamented the deaths of Gazan civilians, questioning if they also were concerned about the safety of Muslim hostages held by Hamas. Haddad claimed on social media on Friday that a picture of Rahat residents Yousef and Hamza al-Ziyadna that he had presented had been thrown on the floor and stomped on. He and Schrader further charged that he had been subjected to curses in Arabic. When Haddad was expelled from the chamber he donned a t-shirt emblazoned with the text “Your terrorist hero is dead, we did that.” The activist said that the “hostile event” had been surrounded by protesters and he had to leave under protection of security.

Sacerdoti said on X that “The evening was a shameful and grotesque mockery of educated debate, interrupted constantly by shrieking, threats and outright hatred.”“The union needs to look closely at the behavior of its president and committee and rethink how it treats the speakers it invites and how it conducts itself more broadly,” he continued in another social media post on Saturday. “It has been trashed by the behavior of the aggressive mob that attended yesterday and needs to rebuild its reputation if it is to be taken seriously again.”

Abulhawa acknowledged that the audience “was not kind” to the pro-Israel speakers, but that her team had also been heckled.

“The opposition employed theatrics, screaming, insults, bullying, lies, and mostly incoherent arguments,” Abulhawa said on social media. “Watching truth break through decades of layered Zionist propaganda in real time was stunning, truly a sight to behold.”

Sacerdoti argued that the proposition was intended to inflame and aggravate rather than inform and that the pro-resolution speakers were the most “aggressive.” He contended during his speech that the events in the Levant did not meet the definitions of genocide and apartheid, notably the “intent” needed for judging such crimes. In contrast to the October 7 attacks and the Hamas perpetrators that the Jewish writer said sought to impose genocide and apartheid in the region, the allegations against Israel demeaned actual genocides and systems of racial domination. Sacerdoti contended that there were no racial policies in the vein of Nazi Germany nor blatant actionable calls for the death of ethnic group members as in Rwanda.

“Just because you dislike losing an unnecessary war you started doesn’t make something a genocide,” said Sacerdoti.

Abulhawa claimed in her remarks that Zionist leaders had made calls for genocide since even before the state of Israel’s inception and that the IDF had engaged in tactics of extermination such as supposed booby-traps targeting children and allegedly ambushing Palestinians after luring them out with humanitarian aid. Abulhawa estimated that 300,000 Gazans, primarily civilians, had been murdered by Israel, and other civilians had been systematically corralled, starved, and raped.

The Palestinian writer argued in the remarks she published on Saturday that Israeli Jews had no connection to the land of Israel, made evident by the supposed targeting of olive trees and archeological sites and Israelis Hebraizing their names.

“Someday, your impunity and arrogance will end. Palestine will be free,” said Abulhawa. “We will put an end to the Zionist American war machine of domination, expansion, extraction, pollution, and looting -- and you will either leave, or you will finally learn to live with others as equals.”

Haddad attributed the overwhelming support for the proposition to the audience being majority Arab in origin, noting on social media on Saturday that he heard “more Arabic than English.” Hassan Yousef, who had been called a “collaborator” by pro-Palestinian participants, said that the “Oxford Union is controlled by terrorist supporters.”

“Last night I asked the participants and pro-’Palestine’ opponents during a debate at Oxford Union if they would have reported Hamas plans to authorities to prevent October 7 massacre. 75% of the participants voted they would have chosen not to report Hamas plans to the authorities,” said the activist, whose father was a co-founder of Hamas.

UKLFI chief executive Jonathan Turner told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday that many Jewish and other students did not attend the debate because of the atmosphere of hostility that had developed at academic institutions.“I have no doubt that the speakers against the motion did a superb job, despite the efforts to intimidate and interrupt them, as will be evident if and when the Oxford Union posts a video of the event,” said Turner.

Hassan Yousef said Saturday that the opposition had not won the vote, but had “certainly won the debate” as would be revealed if footage was published.

The debate roster had been modified several times ahead of the event, according to Abulhawa. Israeli Academic had declined to attend in July, the Jewish Chronicle reported, and Abulhawa claimed that Historian Benny Morris pulled out because former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak was denied a speaking slot. Norman Finkelstein reportedly backed out because Morris would not be on the opposition team, but Abulhawa claimed that Finkelstein didn’t want to attend because he was a “white American savior” who wanted to be “treated as a star” and didn’t want to be “overshadowed by actual Palestinians.”