The Oxford Union’s letter to Gerald M. Steinberg

Dear Mr Steinberg,

I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to you in the hope that you may be able to speak at the Oxford Union in our debate:

This house recognises Israel is an apartheid state responsible for genocide.

Founded in 1823, the Union is the largest society at the University of Oxford and one of the most famous student societies in the world. In the past, we have hosted visits from US Presidents Reagan, Nixon, and Carter, as well as notable figures including HM Queen Elizabeth II, Morgan Freeman, Malcolm X and the Dalai Lama, to name but a few.

We are known for hosting historic debates in our chamber, such as the annual ‘No Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government’ Debate and the infamous 1933 ‘King and Country’ Debate. This debate will follow the tradition of confronting the boldest questions of our time.

In 1962 the Oxford Union asked whether ‘The Creation of the State of Israel is One of the Mistakes of the Century’. 62 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.

In this debate, we ask if, in the wake of findings from Human Rights groups and United Nations Reports, concerning Israeli conduct in relation to Genocide and Apartheid, should Israel be recognised as responsible for genocide and an apartheid state?

Your distinguished career and your leadership have established you as a key voice in discussions on human rights and international policy concerning Israel. Your publications and academic analysis of issues close to the subject matter of the motion are evidence enough of your suitability for this debate.

Moreover, your analytical skills and in-depth knowledge of the geopolitical landscape would greatly enrich our debate, offering a balanced and well-researched viewpoint that would deeply benefit the members of our society.

This debate will be held on one of the following Thursday evenings during our Michaelmas Term: 24th October, 31st October, 7th November, 14th November, 21st November, 28th November, 5th December. If this would be of interest, please do let me know which dates would be convenient for you.

I have attached a formal invitation from the President which contains further information. Thank you in advance for your consideration and please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.

Kind regards,

Amina Bellalem

Prof Steinberg’s response to the Oxford Union

I am responding to your invitation to participate in the series of debates that the Oxford Union is organising on the application of the labels “apartheid” and “genocide” with respect to the more than 190 nation-states that are members of the United Nations, including the UK, Iran, France, Kuwait, Norway, Qatar, Spain, and Egypt.

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 demonization.

The over 30 nation-states that identify themselves as Christian, many with official churches funded by the state budget and featuring crosses on their flags, or 56 that declare themselves as Islamic including membership in Organization of Islamic Cooperation, would be appropriate topics for debates on claims of discrimination against ethno-national or religious minorities or similar terms.

The cover letter that accompanied the invitation referenced the infamous 1933 Oxford Union debate that voted in favour of the motion “That this House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country,” citing this positively as part of “the tradition of confronting the boldest questions of our time.”

That tradition is also described as exploiting the Oxford Union as a platform for crude political propaganda. The histories of this event highlight the fact that the debate took place shortly after Hitler became the German leader, and the Nazis launched the actions and laws targeting the Jewish population. Winston Churchill described the Union’s behaviour in 1933 as an “abject, squalid, shameless avowal... It is a very disquieting and disgusting symptom.”

Among many other responses, Oxford Professor Alfred Zimmern wrote to the Union president who presided over the travesty: “I hope you do penance every night and every morning for that ill starred Resolution. …” A repetition of this notorious history, recalled with disdain almost a century later, is surely not your intention.

Your letter also cites the 1962 debate - “The Creation of the State of Israel is One of the Mistakes of the Century”. To the extent that this event is remembered, it is an early example of “the new antisemitism” in which the centuries-old theological hate practiced in the framework of Christianity and Islam and directed at individual Jews has been replaced by attacks against the Jewish collective in Israel.

The gratuitous labels of “apartheid” and “genocide” add to this edifice, and some might conclude that the leaders and members of the Oxford Union seek to repeat and reinforce the travesties of 1933 and 1962.

Other 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 – further examined below. The letter also cites “findings [sic] from Human Rights groups and United Nations Reports, concerning Israeli conduct …” highlighting the complicity of these ignoble institutions in the campaigns of lies and political warfare that accompany the brutality of the attacks against Israeli civilians.

Additional questions arising on the debates you are planning concern the terms of reference – specifically the heinous crimes of “apartheid” and “genocide.” The former was coined and applied exclusively to the notorious South African regime.

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. Clearly, the multi-generational Arab-Israeli conflict, including the failed invasion of 1948 by 5 Arab states with the explicit goal of eliminating Israel, has no commonality with South Africa.

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

The word “genocide” was created in reference to the systematic and mass killing committed by the Nazis, primarily of the Jewish population in Germany and all the territories that fell under control of the German and their antisemitic allies.

It has subsequently been applied regarding Cambodia, Rwanda, and Myanmar. Under the façade of international law, and reflected in your proposed debate headline, this term is now exploited to delegitimize responses to military aggression, asymmetric warfare and atrocities directed at civilian populations, such as committed by Hamas and its allies.

In contrast, the stream of declarations from Hamas and from the Iranian regime on the intention to destroy Israel (including a digital countdown clock in Tehran), accompanied by extensive military preparations and attacks by the Hezbollah proxy forces, are de facto examples of genocidal objectives.

Therefore, in addressing the appropriateness of the “genocide” and “apartheid” labels, the Oxford Union has a number of dimensions and cases to consider and compare.

Lastly, 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.

In accordance with “the tradition of confronting the boldest questions of our time,” the Oxford Union would be well advised to address this question: This house recognises that its own history of Jew-hatred in different forms is fundamentally immoral and offers its apologies.

I look forward to your considered response,

Prof. Gerald M. Steinberg

The Oxford Union’s response to Prof Steinberg’s letter

The Oxford Union’s core principles are free speech and open debate. 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 debate on this topic is a result of the crisis in the Middle East, which is one of the most significant global foreign policy issues facing the world today.

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.

The debate will proceed as planned, and we extend an invitation to the Jewish Chronicle and other press outlets to attend and report on the substance of this important debate.