At Oxford Union debate, Palestinian-American writer Susan Abulhawa delivers a heart-wrenching and incisive speech for Palestinian freedom and justice, shining light on the historical truth behind the Nakba
Last Sunday (November 29), the hallowed halls of the Oxford Union were host to one of the most contentious debates in recent memory. The motion, “This House Believes Israel is an Apartheid State Responsible for Genocide,” drew global attention, with an intense lineup of speakers on both sides. Representing the proposition were Palestinian writer, poet, and activist Mohammed El-Kurd, President of the Oxford Union Ebrahim Osman-Mowafy, Israeli-American activist Miko Peled, and Palestinian-American author Susan Abulhawa. Notably absent from this roster was American political scientist Norman Finkelstein, who had been originally scheduled but withdrew prior to the event.
Opposing the motion were British journalist Jonathan Sacerdoti, Israeli-Arab activist Yoseph Haddad, Mosab Hassan Yousef — son of a Hamas co-founder-turned Israeli informant — and British barrister Natasha Hausdorff. Outside, a small but vocal group of 25 protesters gathered, chanting slogans like, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” and “Occupation no more.” The gathering reflected the contentiousness of the motion, with one protester declaring, “This is emblematic of the general position that Oxford students take… [they think] people’s lives are up for debate.” The debate resulted in a resounding victory for the proposition, with 278 votes in favour and 59 against. However, it was the impassioned speech delivered by Susan Abulhawa that electrified the chamber and encapsulated the Palestinian experience of dispossession and resistance.
The proposition: Voices of Palestinian resistance
The evening opened with Mohammed El-Kurd, whose stark language set the tone for the debate. “Personally, I don’t think there is any room for debate in the presence of burning flesh. I don’t think there is any room for conversation while people are being literally burned alive and incinerated,” he began, evoking the visceral realities of violence in Gaza. El-Kurd was unrelenting in his condemnation of global complicity, particularly that of Western powers.
Also read: Najwan Darwish interview: ‘In times of genocide, poets find themselves adrift’
He dismissed what he called “simplistic, stupid, silly propaganda points” about Hamas using civilians as human shields, asserting that “there is absolutely nothing that the Palestinian people can do that justifies genocide.” El-Kurd’s sharp rebuttals to interruptions, including his quip for one audience member to “just relax (and) take a Xanax,” underscored the charged atmosphere in the room.
Susan Abulhawa: ‘A Holocaust of our time’
Abulhawa’s address — a searing indictment of Zionism and a heartfelt plea for justice — became the evening’s focal point. A novelist, poet, essayist, scientist, mother, and activist, Abulhawa began her speech with the same unflinching candour that characterises her literary works. She opened with historical quotes from key Zionist figures to illustrate the premeditated dispossession of Palestinians: “Chaim Weizmann, a Russian Jew, said to the World Zionist Congress in 1921 that Palestinians were akin to ‘the rocks of Judea, obstacles that had to be cleared on a difficult path.’ David Ben Gurion, a Polish Jew, stated, ‘We must expel Arabs and take their places.’”
She recounted how early Zionists systematically planned the violent colonisation of Palestine, resulting in the murder or ethnic cleansing of 80% of Palestinians. “They were only partially successful,” she noted, adding, “20% of us remained, an enduring obstacle to their colonial fantasies.” Abulhawa’s speech transitioned from history to personal testimony, as she described the lived realities of Palestinian suffering.
She recalled a young boy in Gaza, whose hands and face were disfigured by a booby-trapped can of food left by Israeli soldiers: “They also left poisoned food for people in Shujaiyya, and in the 1980s and 90s, Israeli soldiers left booby-trapped toys in southern Lebanon that exploded when excited children picked them up.”
With each vivid example, Abulhawa dismantled the narrative of Israeli victimhood. She described systematic atrocities, from sniping children to bombing hospitals and cultural centers, while invoking the Holocaust as a historical reference point: “They expect you to believe they are the victims… that the bombing of entire neighborhoods, burying families alive, is self-defense.”
Her voice grew more resolute as she called out the broader implications of the debate: “This debate is ultimately about the worth of Palestinian lives; about the worth of our schools, research centers, books, art, and dreams; about the worth of the homes we worked all our lives to build and which contain the memories of generations; about the worth of our humanity.”
Abulhawa did not mince words in imagining a reversal of roles: “If Palestinians had spent the last eight decades stealing Jewish homes, expelling, oppressing, imprisoning, poisoning, torturing, raping, and killing them… if we mercilessly forced their NICU babies to die alone in hospital beds, crying until they could cry no more… there would be no debating whether that constituted terrorism or genocide.”
Also read: Palestinian filmmaker Rashid Masharawi: ‘World’s silence is killing the people of Gaza’
Abulhawa’s speech was not just a defence of the motion but a powerful enunciation of fortitude in the face of erasure. Her words underscored the urgency of addressing historical injustices and amplifying voices that have long been marginalised. “I’m here for my grandmothers, both of whom died as penniless refugees while foreign Jews lived in their stolen homes. I’m here for the sake of history. To speak to generations not yet born and for the chronicles of this extraordinary time.”
A call for accountability
Abulhawa framed her presence at the debate as an act of resistance: “I came in the spirit of Malcolm X and Jimmy Baldwin… facing finely dressed well-spoken monsters who harbored the same supremacist ideologies as Zionism.” She invoked her grandmothers, who died as refugees, and addressed Zionists directly: “We let you into our homes when your own countries tried to murder you… and when the time was ripe, you kicked us out of our own homes and homeland.”
Her speech culminated in a denunciation of Israeli desecration of Palestinian heritage and a reflection on what belonging truly means: “You will never understand the sacredness of the olive trees, which you’ve been cutting down and burning for decades just to spite us and to break our hearts a little more. No one native to that land would dare do such a thing.”
The opposition: Arguments and counterarguments
On the opposing side, Jonathan Sacerdoti and Yoseph Haddad presented their case against the motion. Haddad, an Israeli-Arab, emphasised Israel’s democratic framework and the coexistence of its diverse population, arguing that labelling Israel an apartheid state was not only inaccurate but deeply harmful to peace efforts.
Also read: Palestinian filmmaker Mai Masri: ‘If I could go to Gaza, I’d go with my camera tomorrow’
Natasha Hausdorff, a barrister, pointed to Israel’s legal protections for minorities, describing it as a stark contrast to what she characterised as Hamas’s oppressive governance in Gaza. She also raised the spectre of rising antisemitism, suggesting that the motion fuelled hate speech rather than fostering constructive dialogue.
However, the opposition’s arguments struggled to counter the emotional weight of the proposition’s testimonies. Mosab Hassan Yousef provided a personal account of his defection and criticized Palestinian leadership, but his credibility was challenged by audience members familiar with his controversial history.
The aftermath of the debate rippled far beyond Oxford. For many, the resounding victory of the proposition was seen as a moral reckoning — a testament to the growing recognition of Palestinian voices on the global stage. On the other hand, the event also highlighted the polarisation surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Critics argued that such debates risk reducing human suffering to intellectual sparring, while supporters contended that forums like the Oxford Union remain vital for challenging entrenched narratives.
