Natasha Hausdorff gives better than she gets at the Oxford Union debates

December 6, 2024 • 11:30 am

The most recent Oxford Union debate was both odious and raucous, and you can read about it in a piece by Niall Ferguson at The Free Press (archived here).  An excerpt:

Something is rotten in the state of Britain. It was epitomized by a recent [Nov. 28] event at the Oxford Union, the 201-year-old debating society that is such a distinctive and admirable part of Oxford life. It was at the Union that, 40 years ago, I spoke as freely (and indeed as irresponsibly) as I ever have, discovering in the process that I was not cut out for politics. It was there that I saw great debaters of the past, present, and future.

But I never saw anything like the events of November 28.

The motion for debate was in itself a provocation: “This House Believes Israel Is an Apartheid State Responsible for Genocide.” But what was truly shocking was the conduct of the president of the Union, an Egyptian student named Ebrahim Osman-Mowafy, who appears to have abused his position by openly siding with those proposing the motion and treating the opposing speakers with contempt.

According to the broadcaster, Jonathan Sacerdoti, who was arguing for Israel’s side, Osman-Mowafy canceled the traditional pre-debate group photographs, but posed alone for private photos with the anti-Israel team. During the debate, the pro-Israel speakers were repeatedly heckled by the crowd. At one point, a young woman stood up and screamed at Sacerdoti: “Liar! Fuck you, the genocidal motherfucker!”

Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of a senior Hamas leader who defected to Israel, who was arguing alongside Sacerdoti, was met with jeering derision and cries of “traitor” and “prostitute” (in Arabic). Yousef asked the audience to indicate by a show of hands how many of them would have reported prior knowledge of the October 7, 2023, atrocities to Israel. Not even a quarter of the crowd raised their hands.

For the other side, Miko Peled, an Israeli general’s son turned radical anti-Zionist, described the murders, rapes, and kidnappings of October 7 as “acts of heroism.” The Palestinian poet Mohammed El-Kurd, who has equated Zionism with genocide, began his speech by announcing that there was “no room for debate” and ended it by walking out of the chamber. The motion passed by 278 in favor to 59 against.

I have been looking for videos of this debate online, but the bad news is that so far only one short segment has appeared. The good news, though, is that it features the eloquent, brave, and whip-smart Natasha Hausdorff, lawyer and legal director of the UK Lawyers for Israel.

Reader “Bat” sent me the link, but also his take on the video below, which you should watch. His words:

The future Mrs PCC(E) really gave them what for at that shameful Oxford Union debate last week. Here is a video of her full 21-minute speech during which she shows no intimidation and, with a light wave of the hand in several instances, ignores the catcalls of the heavily anti-Israel audience. Though originally scheduled for 15 minutes, she makes it explicitly clear that she will take an extra five minutes as the anti-Israel speakers did when also ignoring the house rules earlier. She ignores the gavel of the Union debate judge several times and speaks for a full 21 minutes. A lovely performance in very hostile territory. 

It is clear that Hausdorff is passionate and terribly angry at the views of her opponents, but her anger is manifested only in her manner of speech, for she keeps decorum throughout. Pity that the same can’t be said of the audience or the judge.

I will add one personal comment, directed at those who on these shores also accuse Israel of “genocide”.  If Israel wanted to kill off all the Gazans—and there are two million of them—it would already be a fait accompli. All it would take would be a series of massive airstrikes and heavy-handed urban warfare directly targeting civilians.  But that is not happening

Instead, Israel has taken care, as far as possible, to avoid killing noncombatants. It warns civilians of airstrikes in advance, sets up humanitarian zones, sends in thousands of tons of food, and, at risk to IDF soldiers’ own lives, tries to target only members of Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.  Is this the act of people bent on genocide?

Since the terrorists use civilians as human shields (Hamas boasts of this!), a large toll of noncombatants is the sad but inevitable result of the terrorists’ cynical tactics.  What about those tunnels under hospitals and schools? Nobody can deny this—except for those who want the state of Israel gone, and its Jews with it.

Those miscreants who accuse Israel of genocide also, and inevitably, fail to mention the explicit genocide of Palestinian terrorists. The first Hamas charter, the teaching of martyrdom and Jew-killing to Palestinian children, and, of course, the endless terrorism enacted against Israeli citizens since 1948—all of these speak of the terrorists’ desire to make the Middle East Judenrein.

No, the real genocide is never mentioned, for it is seen in both the words and actions of Palestinian terrorists and their sympathizers. Instead, the accusation of genocide gets turned against its very victims: the Israelis and now the Jews of other countries (the latest incident was in Australia). I have nothing but contempt for those who ignore these facts.

But I fear I am just repeating what Ms. Hausdorff said above. Listen for yourself.

42 thoughts on “Natasha Hausdorff gives better than she gets at the Oxford Union debates”

    1. Norman, i also recommend jonathan sacerdoti’s presentation in opposition under my comment #7 below. An excellent 20 minutes.

  2. A typical student event, rigged from the start by packing the audience and shameless favouritism from someone play-acting at being an impartial presiding officer. They would have been in their element at Stalin’s show trials.

    1. I don’t know. The most popular boy’s name in the UK is Mohamed, so maybe that is how a younger audience skews.

      1. I’ve been unable to archive Free Press articles, at either .is or .ph.

        It just doesn’t work, you still get the paywall message.

        I’ve tried several times.

  5. Something is rotten in the state of Britain. It was epitomized by a recent [Nov. 28] event at the Oxford Union, the 201-year-old debating society that is such a distinctive and admirable part of Oxford life.

    This is nonsense. Almost nobody in Britain knows what the Oxford Union even is, never mind cares about its nonsensical proclamations nor the poor behaviour of the students.

    1. Perhaps they’ll sense the emergence of antisemitism in the country after they watch the full debate. In that sense, saying that the debate shows that “something is rotten” is not nonsense. And Oxford Union debates are well known among academics, at least.

      And what “nonsensical proclamations” are you describing? The Union has debated many diverse issues over its many years of existence. It’s not fair to imply that all its proclamations are nonsensical.

      If you can’t contribute something to the thread besides sourpussery, which you seem to be doing quite often lately, I suggest that you write nothing. Saying “nobody cares about this topic,” which what you have in effect done, is not a contribution.

    2. It’s not nonsense. If nothing else, it shows that in elite educational institutions, at least, there is a strong tendency to favour Palestine and demonise Israel. It also indicates that usual standards of fairness, decorum and the free exchange of ideas are not being followed or enforced.

      Your point about the Oxford Union is also way off. It is a well-known institution, and its debates are well-publicised.

      These students are not unintelligent, as they wouldn’t be at Oxford if they were. Many of them will hold important leadership positions in the future. However, LESS THAN A QUARTER said they would warn Israel if they had prior knowledge of the October attacks! That’s not only egregious, it’s f**king shocking. It should repulse all reasonable people, making them stand-up and take notice.

      It is callous and immoral position to take and it doesn’t bode well for our collective futures if reprobates like these will be making our decisions. This is why it’s not only important, but it is critical to understand what is going on in the Oxford Union and the minds of its daft and immature students.

  6. I thought an Oxford Union debate was supposed to measure the persuasiveness of the speakers. The audience votes on the resolution ahead of time and then, after the debate and questions from the floor, they vote again (traditionally by leaving the hall through their choice of door marked for the two sides.) The Soho debates in New York and the Munk debates in Toronto use this format, citing Oxford as precedent. The winner is whichever side achieves a net change in votes in its favour. This prevents a partisan audience from simply ignoring the debate except to shout down the speakers it doesn’t like.

    That seems to be one of many travesties the Oxford Union made in its conduct that night. If there was a pre-debate vote, please do correct me.

    1. My favourite in this genre was Hitchens and his friend Stephen Fry debating Archbishop John Onaiyekan and Ann Widdecombe in the Intelligence Squared debate “The Catholic Church is a Force for Good in the World.” Hitchens & Fry changed a lot of minds.

      youtube.com/watch?v=JZRcYaAYWg4

      1. Boris Johnson vs Mary Beard was excellent – his arrogance on taking on a Classics professor on her area of expertise was shameful, but she wiped the floor with him, so she showed him for the fool that he is:

    1. I recommend jonathan sacerdoti’s video in opposition as maybe the first to watch after natasha. I think that he is first in opposition and normally would introduce the other opposition speakers. But i do not see that though his twenty minutes is an excellent time spent viewing. He handles the hecklers very nicely and never loses his balance in making his points.

  10. Most of my friends are UK socialists with a small ‘s.’ Freedom of speech, social care is good, look after those less fortunate, that sort of thing. They are all clueless as to what is actually happening in Israel. They look at me like I killed their dog when I say I don’t think Israel is horrible and Palestinians are all oppressed and defenceless victims. They don’t understand that schools and hospitals have military bases underneath them and some of the men that carried out the attack on 7th October worked for the UN. Most of them have listened when I explain what is happening and has happened and I tell them to look it up from both sides. Palestine has the best PR. I also tell them it is ok to feel sorry for two different groups at the same time and humanity, not hate, should be championed.

  11. Is part of the audience a group of chronic smokers and/or emphysema sufferers? The constant coughing is remarkable given that these are mostly very young adults….

    But for a more substantive comment…I love how Natasha emphasized that the true villains behind the suffering of the people in Gaza are of course Hamas. They are basically an organized crime outfit underwritten by Iran and unfortunately the UN. I continue to be amazed that this is not well known among the so-called intelligent left. There is a book to be written about how Hamas has stolen the tax money from gullible Western nations.

        1. Sorry, José, I didn’t mean for you to have to sound contrite. I was just making a little joke. The host here has taken to calling Ms. Hausdorff the future Mrs. PCC(E) and I was riffing off that. (I will feel really foolish if it turns out they actually are betrothed!)

        1. Indeed! And the comment is appalling, ignorant and immoral. But, as the Prof has often written, free speech has shown this person up for what they are – someone whose opinion, on this subject at least, is way out of place in a reasoned and civilised debate.

  15. Just another example of how the “anti-Israel”, “anti-war” types are often pro-Hamas, pro-terror, and pro-fascist.

    They probably read Pharyngula, too.

  16. In response to Jez Grove: the video is definitely worth watching. Thank you.

Comments are closed.