Is Israel a Genocidal Apartheid State?

This Oxford Union debate is the most inspiring--and deeply disturbing--debate you will ever hear.

“All the anti-Israel crowd has is emotion, ridicule, and slander because they don't have the truth on their side. That's why they behave like this. You exuded incredible poise and strength in the face of barbaric behavior. Thank you for speaking for us.” ~ Sarah098 comment on Jonathan Sacerdoti's speech

You can listen to me read this article here:

One-time or recurring donations can now be made at Ko-Fi

Natasha Hausdorff, Yoself Haddad, Mosab Hassan Yusef, Jonathan Sacerdoti

This is the most inspiring—and deeply disturbing—debate you will ever see. Not only because of its subject matter, but because it powerfully reveals how the more reasoned and factual one side is, the more inflamed and hateful the other side becomes.

I encourage you to watch the selections I have put together and draw your own conclusions. It took quite a bit of time to organize these videos along with researching the points raised and including some insights. It will take some time and effort to go through it all. But I can assure you, it will be time well spent, much more so than scrolling through hundreds 20 second videos that give absolutely no in-depth meaning to anything but are merely a waste of time.

As you watch and listen, think about who in this debate rises above hate and who wallows in it. Then, ask yourself why.

When I think of Oxford and Cambridge, England’s prestigious universities, I can’t help but think of my favorite author, C. S. Lewis, who attended Oxford and went on to teach at Cambridge.

Although Lewis was deeply embedded in institutional education, according to his writings he didn’t seem to have a very high opinion of it. One of my favorite quotes, from That Hideous Strength, says it all:

“Why you fool, it's the educated reader who CAN be gulled. All our difficulty comes with the others. When did you meet a workman who believes the papers? He takes it for granted that they're all propaganda and skips the leading articles. He buys his paper for the football results and the little paragraphs about girls falling out of windows and corpses found in Mayfair flats. He is our problem. We have to recondition him. But the educated public, the people who read the high-brow weeklies, don't need reconditioning. They're all right already. They'll believe anything.”

In this debate, you will see exactly what Lewis is talking about. How easily the creme-de-la-creme of our youth are manipulated by the intellectuals that they look up to. It is emotion, not reason, that propels their arguments. Students are learning to react rather than to reflect.

The debate was put on by Oxford Union and presided over by its president, Ebrahim Osman-Mowafy, an Egyptian Arab. He is also one of the speakers. His bias is clear, that Israel is a genocidal apartheid state.

Jewish students were intimidated and refused entrance. The room was stacked against the debaters defending Israel. There was never a doubt what the final vote would be.

To start, let’s look at how the Oxford Union introduces this debate by reminding everyone of its proud history of free speech:

The Oxford Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. Since 1823, the Union has been promoting debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe. The Oxford Union is deeply grateful and encouraged by the messages of support in response to our determination to uphold free speech. During our 200-year history, many have tried to shut us down. As the effects of self-imposed censorship on university campuses, social media and the arts show no signs of dissipating, the importance of upholding free speech remains as critical today as it did when we were founded in 1823.

The irony of this statement cannot be lost on those watching the debate, as you will see as we continue.

The first speech I have for you is that of Jonathan Sacerdoti.

His wasn’t the first speech given, but I have put it first because it is the best example of eloquent reason met with unreasonable barbarism.

Sacerdoti observes that these debates are meant not to reach a conclusion for those having started with an open mind, but rather as an appeal to prejudice.

“It is reason that is on trial today,” he says. He hopes that the students are “better than that”. You can judge for yourself if they are.

Mohammed El-Kurd’s speech is an emotional diatribe against Israel and the land it has stolen, particularly from his own family. You can watch El-Kurd’s speech here.

“Occupied” and “stolen” land is a complex issue that it is almost impossible for outsiders to understand unless they have studied it extensively. Here is an article referring specifically to the Legal Status of Jerusalem and Israeli Settlements. I will refer more to it later.

El-Kurd ends his speech saying Zionism is indefensible and must be destroyed, effectively demanding the extermination of all Jews because this is what would happen if Israel ceased to exist.

Let’s look at Ebrahim Osman-Mowafy’s speech next.

He describes some atrocities committed on Gazans during the war. There is no decent human being on earth who would applaud such horrors. However, they occurred during a war, not a genocide. Anyone can get up and talk about atrocities happening during any war down through history, and much would be even worse. While appealing to the listener’s emotion, this is not an argument.

For example, Osman-Mowafy claims 335 bullets were fired at a girl and her fleeing family. I am not sure how in the chaos of war, they can know exactly how many bullets were fired. These are the “facts” stated by Osman-Mowafy, in contrast to Sacerdoti’s verifiable facts of how much food Israel has allowed into Gaza and how Hamas stockpiles for itself. And steals aid and then sells it back to the people.

Yes, Sacerdoti, too, describes horrors, the horrors of Oct 7th. But there is a glaring difference between the deaths of civilians during war and the unprovoked attack on civilians on Oct 7th.

Here is Osman-Mowafy’s speech. You must click on the link and watch it on Youtube:

Here are a couple of comments in response to Mofawy’s speech:

• This speaker is Egyptian!! Why doesn't he talk about Egypt's refusal to open the border to the Palestinians?? Why doesn't he talk about the fact that Egypt controlled Gaza until 1967?? Why didn't Egypt give independence to the Palestinians when it controlled Gaza??

• How can he be a speaker on one of the teams? And he is also the president of the union plus the moderator of tonight’s debate? He also selected the members of the audience present. This guy is an embarrassment and should resign.

• Publish the whole debate. Stop the censorship of Mosab Hassan Yousef, arguably the most courageous whistle blower on the planet. Refusal to publish the whole debate is cowardice of the first order. Shame on you, bringing the name of your college into disrepute

Next, we have activist Miko Peled, who gives us the most shocking moment in the debate when he says:

“What we saw on Oct 7 was not terrorism … these were acts of heroism of a people who have been oppressed.”

Upon which, Jonathan Sacerdoti raised a point of order, saying that Peled’s remarks constituted a “criminal offence” and demanding the Union president “invite the police in” and that Peled’s “depiction of the acts of Hamas on Oct 7 is, under UK law – the Terrorism Act 2000 – illegal.”

Osman-Mowafy responded by saying: “I’m not legal enforcement.”

Sacerdoti has since accused the Oxford Union of “disgracing itself” by allowing “the forces of bigotry, hatred and mob rule” to breach a “once proud institution”, and that the president’s refusal to intervene “effectively enabled Peled’s support for and praise of a proscribed terror group before a room full of impressionable students.”

Below you can watch Yoseph Haddad’s passionate speech.

He debunks the claim that Israel is an apartheid state. And yes, he probably should have toned down the passion of his speech. His words were reasoned, but the added emotion, as we see, isn’t helpful. But he is jeered by the audience and called a traitor, which must be hard for him to hear. When he is told Jews will betray him, he responds that as an Arab Israeli fighting in the IDF, Jewish soldiers rescued him when he was wounded. They could have left him, he says, but they saved his life while putting their own lives at risk from enemy fire.

Haddad addresses Mohammed El-Kurd’s allegations in his speech that his home and land was stolen. I draw attention to this since it is such an important issue so easily misunderstood. Therefore, I am pausing to explain it further.

If you want to understand this problem from a legal standpoint, here is an article about it, referring specifically to the Legal Status of Jerusalem and Israeli Settlements.

What I relate here has to do with my own experiences in Luxor, hopefully giving some context to this complex issue. No, it isn’t exactly the same as what El-Kurd’s family faced, but it is close enough so that it portrays the mentality behind Arabs’ sense of ownership and in particular, Palestinians resentment their homes being “stolen”.

In Luxor, people build on land that does not belong to them. The land belongs to the state, but they build on it anyway. They believe it is their land and no one can convince them otherwise. This is a huge problem in Luxor.

During Covid, many people took the opportunity to build new villas because there was less scrutiny. Right next to where I was living, every night, they were working on a villa and the noise was deafening.

One day, without warning, the military came in and demolished fifty houses, including the house next to me. It was like the West Bank was under seize with police and military personnel and vehicles everywhere. They pulverized the houses, refusing to interact with anyone except to push them away.

And then, they were gone, leaving behind what looked like a bombed-out war zone for the people to clean up. The government conducts these raids on a regular basis.

These are a few of the houses. Remember, fifty were destroyed like this.

I talked to the old man in the photo above, who said this house had belonged to his son who had lived there with his wife and children for years.

Imagine what Western journalist could do with these photos if their interest was in showing the injustice of the Egyptian government to their own people. Imagine the articles they could write, making it sound just as bad as they make it sound when people are evicted in Israel—from homes they do not own but that they claim they own and that they refuse to pay rent on even though they have been allowed to live without doing so for years until finally they are being evicted.

Imagine what these debaters could have said about these poor Egyptians if they wanted to attack the Egyptian government.

But it isn’t to the advantage of journalists, nor to the advantage of these Oxford Union anti-Israel debaters, to make the inhabitants of Luxor out to be victims of their government.

If it isn’t about Jews committing “crimes against humanity,” it isn’t worth talking about.

In Luxor, after a villa has been destroyed, people will go back and stubbornly rebuild it and the same thing will happen all over again, and again. It makes no sense to an outsider but that’s what they do.

Haddad was heckled and finally ejected from the chamber because in the end, he dismissed the audience members as “terrorist supporters”.

Susan Abulhawa gave the most emotional speech, filled with lies about Israel “colonizing” “Palestine”. You can watch it here.

She claims Israel purposely poisons the children of Gaza, a blatant lie that has been debunked, but never mind that.

Her speech is also filled with stories that pull on the audience’s emotions. The horrific suffering in Gaza cannot be denied. However, that suffering will never end until its rotten core is dealt with. No one speaks more powerfully of that rotten core than Mosab Hassan Yusef.

Next, we have Mosab Hassan Yousef’s speech, which the University has refused to release.

The only reason we have it is because someone in the audience thankfully recorded it. It is difficult to hear Mosab’s voice above the shouts and jeers of “traitor” and “prostitute”.

The most shocking part of this speech is when Mosab asks the audience, “How many of you, if you knew ahead of time what was going to happen on Oct 7th would report it to the authorities, raise your hand.”

Less than 5% raise their hands.

As one person commented later: Now I know why Oxford Union has not put this speech upon its website. Less than 5% raised their hands, that means 95% are a real, active and present danger to England's civilian population.

That a man who knows the situation better than anyone else was silenced is unconscionable. Mosab Hassan Yussef is under a death threat from his own father. Why? For confessing to his father of how he informed on Hamas suicide bombings, saving hundreds, perhaps thousands of lives, even saving his own father’s life on more than one occasion. As a result, as Mosab explains, no one has the right to kill him except his own father. He tells the audience, in so many words, that anyone else will be dealt with by Hamas. Can you imagine living under such a curse from your own father—because you thwarted your father’s plans to kill innocent civilians.

And yet, these students call Mosab a scumbag for making a judgment against his own people, calling them “the most pathetic people on earth”. This is his right, to have this opinion, which he bases on facts from his own life that made him draw that conclusion.

Somehow those speaking on behalf of Israel should not be offended that the organizers of the debate and the audience curse and heckle them and call Israel a genocidal, apartheid state. But if they dare to make valid claims that go against the views of the audience and counter speakers, they are told to be quiet.

Mosab’s is the most contentious speech and goes directly to what I was saying about how the more the truth comes out, the greater the hatred against it.

Well, listen for yourself:

We return to reason and the law with Natasha Hausdorff, a British barrister and international law expert who has spoken on behalf of Israel before the United Nations.

I started with law and end with law. The facts cannot be disputed.

She relays the pleas of Gazans:

Hamas has wounded us. They are responsible for all the destruction. All the destruction is on them. May God settle the score with Hamas, take revenge on Hamas, they destroyed our lives.

She goes on to explain:

These are the words of Palestinians in Gaza leaving Jabalia a couple of weeks ago and interviewed by Israeli journalist Ohad from Channel 12. These are the voices that Hamas and the members of The Proposition don't want you to hear. These are the voices they want you to silence.

We want you to rule, they say we. We don't want Hamas. They took away the humanitarian aid. We will be killed if we say anything. The Jews bring us food, give us the humanitarian corridor. May God take revenge on those who uprooted and killed us, Hamas.

She speaks of the shameful act of expelling Yuseff Haddad, the Arab Israeli who exposed the lie of an apartheid state, when Israel is 20% Arab, with equal rights under the law, while there is not a single Israeli in Gaza, as they would be killed outright. It is sheer madness that Israel is accused of being an apartheid state while Gaza somehow is not.

Everything she says is backed up by facts. FACTS. She also refers to this misunderstood issue of “stolen land”.

Here is her eloquent and reasoned speech:

After all the proof to the contrary, the Oxford Union, one of the most esteemed educational institutions in the West, votes that Israel is a genocidal apartheid state.

Why not Hamas? But that would be too logical and true.

Condemning Israel was what they intended to do all along, no matter proof to the contrary. That is why I say that this Oxford Union debate is the most inspiring--and deeply disturbing--debate you will ever see.

I’m encouraged that 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 behavior and intimidation” witnessed during the event where Miko Peled broke the law by describing the Oct 7 attacks as “heroism”.

But their voices are lost in the cacophony of condemnation that continues unabated around the world. We now have the Spanish party leader Ione Belarra accusing Israel of genocide in Syria:

"Israel is taking advantage of the instability advance its colonial and genocidal plan, bombing several areas, including Damascus."

On the contrary, it makes perfect sense for Israel to seize the opportunity to destroy Syria’s chemical and conventional weapons factories, cruise missiles, surface-to-sea missiles, UAVs, fighter jets, radar emplacements, tanks, naval vessels, and attack helicopters in Damascus, Homs, Latakia, Palmyra, and Tartus.

But when it comes to Israel, the term “genocide”, as with the term “Nazi”, has been broadened so far that it has lost its meaning. Israel is now the “Nazi nation committing genocide” with every act of self-defense.

Thank God for these warriors of truth, these defenders of Israel: Jonathan Sacerdoti, Yosef Haddad, Mosab Hassan Yusef, Natasha Hausdorff. Time after time, they walk into the lion’s den and come out victorious, just as Israel does.

If we do not listen to these voices of reason; if we continue to allow our children to be indoctrinated within our own esteemed educational institutions, just as Hamas indoctrinates the children of Gaza, future generations will lose all ability to think critically for themselves. They will not know how to make decisions without first indulging emotions. This becomes a perverse addiction that it is hard to break.

As Sacerdoti said in the beginning, “It is reason that is on trial.” His hopes that the students were “better than that” were dashed at the Oxford Union that day.