An academic invited to debate whether Israel is an “apartheid state” at the Oxford Union has written a scathing letter in response, arguing that no one with a “moral conscience” should participate in such an event.

Gerald Steinberg, who founded the pro-Israel lobby group NGO Monitor, was asked by students to appear at the Oxford Union later this year to defend Israel.

The motion was: “This house recognises Israel is an apartheid state responsible for genocide.” Other public figures understood to have also refused the invitation to debate include Israel’s leader of the opposition Yair Lapid of the centrist Yesh Atid party.

In an open letter, Steinberg asked if the Union would also be organising debates to discuss whether the world’s 190 other nation-states had committed apartheid or genocide.

Steinberg wrote: “In addressing the leaders and members of the Oxford Union, I express the deep concern that many of us have regarding the attacks against Jewish students and faculty at Oxford University, and ask what you are doing to effectively counter this ugly display of abusive power.

“Although your invitation refers only to Israel, I assume that the Oxford Union would not contribute once again to poisonous hatred by joining those who immorally single-out Israel, the nation-state of the Jewish people, for demonisation.

“Terms in your cover letter include settlements, barriers, military tactics and policies, etc but, notably, there is no mention of Palestinian terrorist atrocities or repeated declarations of genocidal intentions, also from the Iranian regime.”

Steinberg queried the application of the terms “apartheid” and “genocide” to Israel. “The former was coined and applied exclusively to the notorious South African regime,” he wrote.

“The cynical attempt to mis-apply the ‘racism’ and ‘apartheid’ propaganda labels to Israel and Zionism began under the Soviet Union and Stalin in the 1950s, in alliance with the members of the Arab League…

“The attempts to twist the principles of human rights and construct pseudo-international law to weaponise the term trivialise the actual suffering of millions of people under South African apartheid – a moral stain which the Oxford Union, one would hope, would avoid.”

The full text of Steinberg’s letter is available here.

The original letter of invitation to the Israeli academic from Ebrahim Osman-Mowafy, the society’s president, said: “In 1962 the Oxford Union asked whether ‘The Creation of the State of Israel is One of the Mistakes of the Century’. Sixty-two years on, war continues to plague the lives of Palestinians and Israelis, and meanwhile, illegal settlements multiply and barriers proliferate.

"Critics would argue that little has changed since that debate and that Israel's military tactics and policies towards Palestinians deliberately target civilians and infrastructure to instil fear, control, and enact a planned ethnic cleansing.

“Others, however, maintain that Israel’s military actions are legitimate self-defence measures against threats from violent militant groups such as Hamas.”

The debating society insists it is committed to “inclusive dialogue” and has framed the discussion around language used by global human rights bodies.

Speaking to the JC, Steinberg said: "No one with a moral conscience should participate [in the Oxford Union debate], and the topic must be replaced with a ‘debate' centring on the OU's history of hypocrisy that promotes hate and immorality.”

Since the October 7 attack, universities across Britain have witnessed a spike in antisemitism on campus.

Speaking on LBC last month, a Jewish student said anti-Israel protests had left him feeling “uncomfortable” wearing a kippah in Oxford.

Harry Hatwell, who is studying for a Masters in law at St John’s, said he felt “especially” insecure when near the university’s Palestine encampment.

He had heard protesters chanting that they would shut the university down were their demands not met, he claimed, and had heard one non-student demonstrator insist that “Zionists” should go back to America.

Osman-Mowafy told the JC: “Our mission is to provide a platform for our members and global audience to discuss the most pressing issues of our time. Historically, the Union has never hesitated to engage with the most challenging topics and has welcomed speakers from across the ideological spectrum.”

The “crisis” in the Middle East is one of the most significant foreign policy issues in the world today, Osman-Mowafy added. 

"Our tradition is to provide a platform for discussion, inviting speakers from all perspectives to contribute.

"The invitation extended to Mr Steinberg underscores our dedication to inclusive dialogue. We have already received many positive responses from speakers on both sides of the debate, and we look forward to an engaging discussion.

“The debate is framed following reports by organizations such as the United Nations, HRW and Amnesty International, in addition to the comments made by academics and Human Rights experts, with regards to the actions of the state of Israel.

"These reports alongside the ongoing global discourse makes a debate on this topic timely and crucial. While we cannot comment on Mr Steinberg’s referring to the UN and Human Rights Watch as ‘ignoble’ and suggesting they are complicit in terrorist activities, he is free to make these arguments at the Union.

"Our commitment to free speech ensures that both sides of the debate will be thoroughly represented.”