On Thursday, 13th November, the Oxford Union debated the motion “Israel is a greater threat to regional stability than Iran” voting 265-113 in favour.
Evaluating the threats emanating from both countries, the debate’s key topics included recent escalations in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict as well as the Iranian nuclear program. Both houses linked the issue of regional stability in the Middle East to global safety and international concerns.
Speakers for the proposition included Lincoln College’s Alex Webster, Jessica Rowe, former Palestinian Prime Minister and specialist in Middle East politics Mohammad Shtayyeh, and former Iranian Minister of Culture and reformist politician Ata’ollah Mohajerani.
The opposition’s speakers were St John’s History student Katie Pannick, St Hugh’s History Masters’ student William Rome, international human rights lawyer and executive director of the UN Watch Hillel Neuer, and Dominick Chilcott, Middle East specialist and former British ambassador to Turkey and Iran.
Alex Webster set the stage for the proposition, commencing his speech by declaring: “I stand here as someone who respects […] and admires the state of Israel”– a clarification that was met with disapproving noise from part of the chamber.
He further stressed that, although an “uncomfortable” position to be in, Israel needed to be identified as the bigger threat to regional stability as its actions tended to pull in global powers. Regarding the selective justice afforded to the state by other countries, he commented: “They get all of the guns but none of the consequences.”
This was followed by Katie Pannick opening the case for the opposition. Throughout her speech, she consistently referred to Iran’s proxy network and deemed it “capable of systemic disruption.” She also noted Iran’s nuclear missile program and the country’s “high appetite for risk,” arguing that Israel tended to act in a more state-centered way and, “though imperfect,” was still embedded in the international community and displayed a democratic core.
“To vote against the motion,” she concluded, “is to recognize where the deeper threat lies.”
Continuing the line of the proposition was Jessica Rowe, who described Israel’s actions as “aggression dressed up as defence.” She illustrated her arguments with historic context such as that of the 2006 Lebanon War, and characterised Israel’s pattern in regional action as “brutally predictable.” Furthermore, she made the claim that Israel continuously strove for disruption of stability for the sake of its foreign policy and concluded that “without conflict, Israel has no leverage to hold over its allies.”
William Rome then proceeded to elaborate for the opposition on the threats emanating from Iran, discussing the country’s systematic repression of minorities such as the LGBTQ+ community, women and political opposition.
In relation to this, he directly addressed the presence of Ata’ollah Mohajerani, who left Iran in 2009. By recalling his own visit to Auschwitz, he indirectly reminded the audience of the historic circumstances under which the state of Israel was founded in the first place and explained that he believed in his “own understanding of Zionism”– a remark that was met with disbelief in parts of the chamber. He further pointed to the Iran’s link to the Russo–Ukrainian war and its interest in a Russian victory, taking the matter of regional security to a global level.
Following Rome’s speech, President Moosa Harraj introduced the floor speech held by Union members.
A proposition speaker began by shifting the debate’s focus to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and how it has affected the lives of civilians.
“It’s tiring to see that only one side is called terrorist,” she stated in regard to the war in Gaza and pointed out that Israel’s actions and disregard of humanitarian principles signify that “international law has been rendered meaningless” in this context.
This was met with a floor speech from the opposition, during which the speaker referred to structural conflict patterns in Ancient Persian history and claimed that these still persevere today in Iran’s behaviour, making it a dangerous and destabilizing nation that affects its regional environment greatly.
The subsequent speaker of the proposition was former Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh, who quickly described Israel as an “expansionist, colonialist state” that was founded to act as a watchdog for imperial powers.
In relation to the aforementioned nuclear program of Iran, he pointed out that Israel is the only country in the region that does possess nuclear weapons and raised the question, “Who is acting and who is reacting?”
Shtayyeh also described the sufferings of the Palestinian people since 1948 and insisted that the “real issue” is in fact not a student debate but real people’s lives that are lost and destroyed through Israel’s “apartheid regime against the Palestinians.”
His speech was met with persisting applause throughout the chamber.
Hillel Neuer then proceeded to argue in favor of the opposition. He spoke of many people’s dangerous willingness “to believe anything” as a key motivator to him speaking in front of the Union and claimed that Israel in fact supports regional stability in the Middle East, standing in stark contrast to the “revolutionary Jihad in Iran.”
He went on by describing how Iran has destabilised neighbouring countries such as Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Gaza. In order to illustrate what could have been, if not for Iran’s destabilizing influence, he claimed that “the beaches of Gaza are beautiful and could have been prosperous property.” This elicited clear signs of exasperation and protest from the chamber, leading to the President having to call for order.
The proposition’s final speech was given by Ata’ollah Mohajerani, who also used a historic example to illustrate Israel’s dangerous behaviour. He compared the Napoleonic wars to Israel’s actions against its neighbouring region. Furthermore, he addressed the death of over 1 million Iranians through Israel’s aggression, including that of his own father.
Dominick Chilcott then closed the debate for the opposition by again mentioning the dangers of Iran’s proxy network and connection to terrorist organisations such as the Hezbollah. He also urged the chamber to “look beyond today’s agenda” and acknowledged the dangers of Iran’s networks if backed by nuclear power.
Reflecting on the debate, a student wishing to remain anonymous told The Oxford Student that he particularly appreciated the presence of and speech delivered by Mohammad Shtayyeh, but that “it would have been nice to hear some […] different perspectives this evening that we don’t […] traditionally hear on social media, on the news.” He also expressed surprise that “only the last speaker brought up uranium enrichment for Iran.”
A student at Keble College commented that “given it was such a serious topic, [the discussion] could have been handled both more respectfully and with more nuance.” She also found Hillel Neuer’s comment on Gaza’s breaches–which another student called “very Trumpean”– to be “disrespectful,” stating that “if we’re attempting to encourage honest debate, we shouldn’t be making such rude and offensive quips.”
Post Views: 7,935