The events that unfolded at the Oxford Union during its recent debate should leave us all appalled. What should have been a serious examination of the motion, “This House Believes Israel is an Apartheid State Responsible for Genocide”, descended into chaos, harassment, and outright glorification of violence. For those who still naively believe that universities remain bastions of free thought, the night’s proceedings were a stark reminder of how far this ideal has fallen.
The Union, once the proud home of intellectual rigor, was anything but. Outside, protesters organised by Oxford Action for Palestine chanted the chilling refrain, “Zionists are not welcome in Oxford,” their cries filtering into the chamber. Inside, the atmosphere was described as “hostile and toxic,” with Jewish students reportedly too intimidated to attend. This was not a debate—it was a witch hunt, a spectacle designed not to explore ideas but to suppress them.
The speakers opposing the motion—barrister Natasha Hausdorff, broadcaster Jonathan Sacerdoti, Arab-Israeli journalist Yoseph Haddad, and former Hamas informant Mosab Hassan Yousef—faced relentless heckling and venomous abuse. Sacerdoti’s arguments were met with shouts of “lies,” and insults so vile that security had to remove a member of the audience. Yoseph Haddad, a former IDF commander who highlighted Israel’s coexistence among Jews, Arabs, and Christians, was drowned out by jeers and ultimately ejected.
But the most grotesque moment of the evening came from Miko Peled, speaking in favour of the motion, who described Hamas’s barbaric attacks on October 7 as “acts of heroism.” That such words could be spoken at Oxford, without immediate condemnation, is astonishing. Peled glorified one of the most horrific massacres of modern times—a day when civilians were butchered, raped, and abducted—and yet the chamber’s atmosphere allowed this abhorrent rhetoric to pass. Worse, it found support among some attendees.
More chilling still was the response to a question posed by Yoseph Haddad: If you knew about the plans for October 7 in advance, would you have reported them to prevent the massacre?Astonishingly, 75% of the participants indicated they would not. This staggering revelation lays bare the depth of moral rot festering on university campuses, where ideological fervour now supersedes basic human decency.
This was not the only display of anti-Israel hostility in Oxford that week. Just a day earlier, anti-Israel activists disrupted a lecture by Professor Daniel Chamovitz, President of Ben-Gurion University, at Oxford Brookes University. Protesters waving flags and chanting slogans turned what should have been a scholarly discussion into a scene of chaos, leaving elderly members of Oxford’s Jewish community “shellshocked.” The activists later boasted of their actions, declaring their intent to deny a platform to any “Zionist.”
This is the reality on campuses across the UK: intimidation, harassment, and the silencing of dissent. Those who profess to care about justice and inclusion are, in practice, the greatest enemies of free speech. They do not wish to debate; they wish to silence. They do not seek understanding; they seek to dominate.
What took place at Oxford Union was not just a failure of decorum or a one-off incident of bad behaviour. It was the culmination of years of unchecked bias, where anti-Zionism—often indistinguishable from antisemitism—has been allowed to flourish. Universities, which should be places of inquiry and dialogue, have instead become breeding grounds for intolerance.
The responsibility for this decline rests squarely with university administrations. By failing to stand up for free speech, by allowing protests to cross the line into intimidation, and by refusing to hold individuals accountable, they have enabled this toxic culture to thrive. If Jewish students or pro-Israel speakers feel they cannot participate in debates without fear for their safety, then the university has failed in its most basic duty.
At We Believe in Israel, we call on Oxford and other institutions to take decisive action. This means enforcing standards of civility, protecting all participants in debates, and refusing to capitulate to those who seek to silence opposing views. The principles of free speech and intellectual inquiry must not be sacrificed to the demands of ideological mobs.
What happened at Oxford Union was a disgrace. It was not just an affront to Jewish students and pro-Israel voices but to the very idea of a university as a place where ideas can be discussed and challenged. If institutions like Oxford cannot defend free speech and decency, they will not only lose their credibility but their purpose. It is time for universities to decide whether they will stand for freedom or succumb to the tyranny of the mob. Let us hope they choose wisely.
