‘Sinister’ Oxford Union debate on Israel broke law, dons tell Hague Open letter to chancellor calls out ‘failure on all counts’ to protect Jewish students from ‘antisemitism’ for ‘apartheid state’ motion
An Oxford Union debate on Israel in which a speaker described the Oct 7 attacks as “heroism” broke the law, dons have told Lord Hague, the university’s newly elected chancellor.
Baroness Deech, Prof Sir Vernon Bogdanor and the philosopher Prof Peter Hacker are among 300 signatories of an open letter decrying the “inflammatory rhetoric, aggressive behaviour and intimidation” witnessed during the event last Thursday.
The Oxford Union debated the motion: “This house believes Israel is an apartheid state responsible for genocide.”
It came after Jonathan Sacerdoti, the son of a Holocaust survivor who was the opposing speaker, wrote a piece for The Spectator accusing the Oxford Union of “disgracing itself” by allowing “the forces of bigotry, hatred and mob rule” to breach a “once proud institution”.
In the letter, the signatories said: “We unequivocally condemn the incendiary remarks made by some speakers in support of Hamas and terrorist violence. Such statements are not only morally reprehensible but also in clear violation of the law.”
Mr Sacerdoti described the atmosphere in the chamber as “hideous, sinister, and suffused with tension”, with one female student removed for “screaming obscenities”.
He wrote: “This was not an audience interested in debate or even in hearing arguments. It was a baying mob, openly hostile and emboldened by the president’s refusal to enforce the most basic rules of decorum. They interrupted every pro-Israel speaker with jeers, coughs and outright abuse.”
The open letter tells William Hague, Oxford’s chancellor, the debate in which a speaker calls the Oct 7 attacks ‘heroism’ broke the law Credit: The Office of William Hague/PA
He also accused Ebrahim Osman Mowafy, the president of the Union, who is an Egyptian Arab, of being “openly biased from the outset”, and “fostering an environment of unchecked hostility”.
When one of the speakers for the motion withdrew, Osman Mowafy forwent his impartial role as chair, and spoke in favour of Israel being an apartheid state.
According to Mr Sacerdoti, Mosab Hassan Yousef, a fellow speaker and the son of a senior Hamas founder who defected to Israel’s side, was met with jeering derision and cries of “traitor” and “prostitute” by some in the audience as he recounted his story.
Mr Sacerdoti added: “Yoseph Haddad, an Israeli Arab who has dedicated his life to dismantling the apartheid lie, faced similar treatment.
“The international law commentator Natasha Hausdorf was hectored to finish her speech far quicker than her proposition counterpart.”
He also says that when Mr Yousef asked the audience to raise their hands if they would have reported prior knowledge of the Oct 7 massacres, “the vast majority of the room remained still”.
The open letter calls the debate a “failure on all counts”, suggesting that the debate subjected Jewish students to “antisemitism and intimidation”.
It reads: “Debate should challenge ideas, not debase and attack entire communities. Free speech is vital but it must be exercised responsibly and within the bounds of the law.”
The open letter to Lord Hague says ‘debate should challenge ideas, not debase and attack entire communities’
During the debate, Miko Peled, a pro-Palestinian activist speaking in favour of the motion, described the Oct 7 attacks as “heroism”.
Yousef Haddad, a pro-Israel activist, was ejected from the chamber after dismissing audience members as “terrorist supporters”, at which point he put on a T-shirt that read “your terrorist is dead” with a crossed-out face of Hassan Nasrallah, the former Hezbollah leader.
Mr Haddad later took to X, formerly Twitter, to describe Oxford as being “occupied by antisemitic … and racist Middle East peoples”.
One student in the audience said: “I have never felt so targeted at Oxford. The rhetoric from Peled glorifying violence, and Haddad’s provocative behaviour, made the chamber totally toxic. Outside, the chanting from protesters only added to the intimidation.”
‘Divisive and prejudicial’
Mr Sacerdoti told The Telegraph: “The Union’s president deliberately cultivated an environment of hostility towards me, my colleagues, and anyone prepared to challenge the inflammatory motion he chose.
“Institutions like the Oxford Union must not become playgrounds for sinister cliques pushing divisive and prejudicial agendas.”
In a statement, The Oxford Israel Society, representing Israeli students at Oxford, said: “It was pure unfiltered hatred. We left the debate feeling physically ill and unsafe, ultimately deciding to leave together rather than alone”.
Ben Freeman of the Pinsker Centre, a charity advocating for respectful debates on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, said: “This event was a debacle, showing the chaos that ensues when divisive extremists hijack crucial debates in tense campus environments.
“Oxford must step back, reflect, and ensure that future discussions uphold the standards of respect and reasoned debate that this university should represent.”
The motion was carried 278 ayes to 59 noes.
Mr Osman Mowafy said: “During the debate, the president, in accordance with the powers conferred on the chair in the rules of the Oxford Union, directed two individuals to withdraw from the floor of the house.
“The first was a member who was repeatedly interjecting and disrupting the speech by Mr Jonathan Sacerdoti. The second was Mr Yoseph Haddad who was intimidating a member seated behind him.”
“Claims that the debate was badly chaired or that students were not wishing to participate are subjective claims; a debate as contentious as this one would have those unhappy with it no matter what had happened, as evidenced by the coverage of the debate long before it even took place.
“All speakers on side opposition exceeded significantly their time, and at all times their ability to make their speech was ensured and any heckling was shut down by myself.
“The video recordings of the speeches will be released on YouTube in the usual manner where these matters can be judged better.”
Comments are closed.
