I was at the Oxford Union’s latest Israel debate – they haven’t learnt their lesson
By Merit Habib Matta, Policy Fellow 2025-2026. This article originally appeared in Jewish News.
On 13 November, the Oxford Union debated the motion “This House Believes that Israel is a greater threat to regional stability than Iran”. Three of the scheduled speakers, including Norman Finkelstein, did not attend- as is customary for the Union. Some students worried that the debate would echo the chaos of November 2024. Others, I’m sure, hoped it would.
The chairman of the committee of the Oxford Union opened for the proposition. In an effort to establish a good-faith basis, he bravely prefaced his argument by stating his respect for the state of Israel- only to be met with a barrage of boos. The crux of this debate was then revealed: although the Union can try and tame the institutional antisemitism that brews within, they are powerless against the restless rows of students that sit before them.
Indeed, in stark contrast to the November 2024 debate, Union leaders seemed to have made an active effort to limit the anti-Israel spiral that had previously unfolded. In the face of expensive legal fees, international criticism, and even a police investigation, it would be difficult for the Union to continue to allow such explicit antisemitic rhetoric. This pressure allowed for careful boundary setting within the Union. There was an overall level of calmness maintained in the first half of the debate.
Mohammad Shtayyeh, the first guest speaker to argue for the proposition, was in no way incentivised to show similar tact. Shtayyeh was Palestinian Authority Prime Minister from 2019 to 2024, a current Fatah member and ally of Mahmoud Abbas. “Israel is an expansionist colonial state” he shouted; and would continue to claim throughout his speech. Without a doubt aware of the willingness of his audience to believe any conspiracy against Israel, he labelled the country a “theocratic” state. Even so far as claiming that the “most important doctrine for the destabilisation of the region” was Greater Israel. Such claims are not only disappointing, but dangerous. It’s not only academic integrity at stake here. With every creative phrase painting a false picture of Israel, Shtayyeh sentences our Jewish and Israeli students to further marginalisation. Many will continue to hide their heritage upon witnessing the demonisation of their identity on such a wide platform. Particularly when such demonisation is received so eagerly by the Oxford student body, who exalt Shtayyeh as a visionary.
Upon claiming that “Israel designed its policy on the basis of racial discrimination”, Shtayyeh pointed to Mizrahi and Ethiopian Jews as victims of such discrimination. This is a strategic weaponization of many in the West’s ignorance of Israel’s rich diversity. It perpetuates the antisemitic myth that Israel, and the nation it represents, is a European one. Indeed, to recognise the reality of Mizrahi and Ethiopian Jewish communities would be to acknowledge the fundamental need for Israel’s existence.
Throughout his bitter ramblings against the state of Israel, Shtayyeh never actually addressed the debate motion. Iran, its crimes and cruelty, were neglected in his speech.
Executive Director of UN Watch Hillel Neuer followed, delivering a powerful and compelling opposition to the motion. When he pointed out how moderate Sunni states in the region cooperate with Israel, I realised the irony: they have done what so many Oxford students haven’t. Recognise that in the face of Iranian aggression, Israel is an invaluable force for good. The proof of such hostility can so clearly be found in the antagonism Neuer faced- cries of “shame!” and unrelenting interruptions of “Point of information!”. What had been constrained for most of the debate inflamed the Union chambers- disruption and intolerance. The acceptable standard of debate behaviour that the Union had tried so hard to instil quickly began to crumble. At no point were such crowds moved by his detail of Iran’s brutal civilian persecution. After all, anti-Israel hate is far trendier than the plight of the Iranian people.
The subsequent speaker for the proposition was former Iranian Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance, Ata’ollah Mohajerani, whose 1989 writings justified Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa calling for the execution of author Salman Rushdie. Neuer had urged Mohajerani to renounce his support of such violence during his speech; there was something so powerful about this interaction. In confronting Mohajerani, Neuer highlighted just how far and deep Iran’s tyranny reaches. Debaters for the proposition portrayed Iran as an isolated, benign state. Rushdie’s stabbing in 2022 is a reminder that Iran’s destabilising power is more than a regional threat- it’s a global ideology. An ideology that fuelled the audience to applaud a man condemned for complicity in Rushdie’s suffering.
Ultimately, the Union’s effort to promote real discourse could not supersede the antisemitic vitriol that has been ravaging our society since the horrors of 7 October. Guest speakers like Shtayyeh are incapable of good-faith debate because they rely on inflammatory rhetoric, not logic. An invitation to the Union is an opportunity to exploit their platform to repackage and rephrase age-old conspiracy theories against the Jewish community. These claims fall on eager ears- young people who are desperate to hear any sweeping accusations against Israel that can fuel their conditioned hatred of the Jewish nation. The normalisation of this language, coupled with its prevalence in our society, has consigned the once-prestigious Oxford Union to perpetual grievance and dull incuriosity.
