Two voices on Israeli apartheid and genocide at the Oxford Union
Susan Abulhawa presenting at the Oxford Union Debate in November 2024
Miko Peled and Naila Kauser write in Mondoweiss on 31 December 2024:
Editor’s note: On November 28th, the Oxford Union held one of its famed debates on the motion: “This house believes Israel is an apartheid state responsible for genocide.”
**** ****
Miko Peled writes:
Below is a recounting and reflection on the debate, from both myself, and an observer in the audience. As the following will show, despite the frequent disorderly conduct from the Zionist camp, the proposition passed by a huge majority. The ensuing fallout by those who lost the debate has resulted in a smear campaign from Zionists online and in media, as well as an investigation by British counter-terrorism police into statements I made. While we work to counter the slanderous claims expressed in some publications, we will not fall into a trap of detracting from the result that was achieved that night in the Oxford Union chamber: The results were 278 to 59 in favor of the proposition. In other words, the Oxford Union, with a significant majority agreed that Israel is an apartheid state engaged in genocide.
I spoke in favor of the motion, sharing my experiences and insights as one with personal connections to the founding of the Israeli state. My co-author Naila Kauser attended the debate as a witness in the chamber, and to the subsequent unfolding drama. Together, we aim to reflect on the night’s experience and significance.
Palestine has been governed by an apartheid regime since May of 1948, when the state of Israel was established. Whether within the original borders of the 1949 armistice agreements – which Israel violated – or in those created after the 1967 Israeli assault on its neighbors, one set of laws existed for Jews, and other sets of laws for Palestinians, which differ from one region of Palestine to another.
**** ****
Naila Kauser writes:
I was witness to a debate at the Oxford Union. Having never attended such an event, I was a little excited to see three writers I enjoy supporting a motion I wholeheartedly agree with, that Israel is committed to apartheid and genocide against the Palestinian people.
I entered the chamber unsure what the response of the students would be to the proposition. Being an elite university, I accepted there could easily be parity in the vote, since many British and US universities are complicit with and profit from Israeli crimes.
In the chamber that night, speakers for the proposition entered to cheers and standing ovations. The room was packed out along with a line of people waiting outside in case anyone left. Opposition speakers entered to subdued cheers as well as a chorus of jeers. The room, I realized, like most university settings since October 7, seemed to be overwhelmingly pro-Palestine.
I report on the speeches in order.
***** ****
Aftermath
Following the debate, speakers of the opposition complained about their experience in media reports and social media, claiming they were the victims of the event, despite the fact that they were recorded insulting the audience, the speakers, and the university.