Oxford Union Society: A Two-Century-Old Institution Threatened with Collapse Over Gaza

Founded in 1823, the Oxford Union has long stood as the world’s most prestigious debating society—a sanctuary for free speech, intellectual clashes, and political thought, far from censorship or exclusion.

For over two centuries, its hallowed chamber has welcomed British prime ministers, world leaders, and iconic thinkers who helped shape history. The walls still echo with the voices of Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, and Queen Elizabeth II.

But today, the Union is not just confronting another fierce intellectual debate—it’s facing an existential crisis.

The elected student leadership, once proud stewards of free expression, now finds itself cornered: caught between its commitment to truth and justice—especially regarding the war on Gaza—and mounting pressure from the Union’s Board of Trustees, which controls its financial and administrative assets. The trustees have reportedly threatened to shut the Union down unless the students submit to their censorship demands.

The latest flashpoint came on June 16, 2025, when the Union voted to release the full video of a speech by Palestinian-American author Susan Abulhawa, in which she accused “Israel” of committing horrific crimes against the Palestinian people. While the student leadership backs transparency, some Union officials fear the trustees will block the release.

The Oxford Union is technically independent from the University of Oxford and is distinct from the university’s student union. Its membership is drawn largely from Oxford students and alumni, and it remains one of the most respected student societies in the world.

Now, as it marks more than 200 years of unfiltered debate, the Oxford Union stands on shaky ground—its very legacy threatened not by new ideas, but by the fear of allowing them to be heard.

The Speech That Sparked the Crisis

At the heart of the controversy is a fiery speech delivered by Palestinian-American author Susan Abulhawa during a November 2024 debate: “This House Believes Israel is an Apartheid State Responsible for Genocide.”

Her remarks—which detailed harrowing allegations including systematic rape in Israeli prisons and the use of explosives against children—went viral, drawing hundreds of thousands of views online before the video was abruptly removed.

The backlash escalated when Oxford Union’s Board of Trustees demanded that 73 seconds of Abulhawa’s speech be cut, setting off an unprecedented internal battle. 

Students rallied for transparency and intellectual integrity, while trustees insisted on censorship, citing concerns over the Union’s “reputation” and “financial stability.”

The standoff intensified on March 3, 2025, when Abulhawa filed a lawsuit against the Union, accusing it of discrimination, copyright violation, and breach of contract.

Abulhawa’s appearance was part of a broader session that featured several outspoken advocates for Palestinian rights, including Jewish-American scholar Norman Finkelstein, Israeli-American activist Miko Peled, and Oxford student Othman Mowafy.

Mowafy delivered a haunting line that resonated widely: “We must name the truth—how many bullets does it take to kill a family? 335,” referencing the death toll from Israeli Occupation bombs on Gaza.

He also condemned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s description of Gaza as a “city of evil,” asking: “How can that be, when half its population are children?”

The debate was a pointed, collective condemnation of the Israeli Occupation war on Gaza, focused squarely on human rights abuses and violations of international law. Abulhawa’s speech wasn’t an outlier—it was part of a broader, deliberate discourse challenging the moral and legal foundations of Israeli Occupation policy toward Palestinians.

A Threat to Shut It Down

In a pivotal turn that revealed the depth of the crisis inside the Oxford Union, author Susan Abulhawa declared that the censored parts of her speech contained “factual information” based on documented evidence—calling their removal a form of censorship against an important literary work.

Speaking before Union members, she described her remarks as carefully considered and factually accurate, and accused the Board of Trustees of discrimination, copyright infringement, and breaching a pre-existing contract.

In response, the Union’s elected Standing Committee—composed of Oxford students—voted to release the full, unedited video.

The reply from the Oxford Literary and Debating Union Trust (OLDUT), the charitable body overseeing the Union, was swift and severe: a direct threat to shut the Union down if the uncensored speech went public.

Despite this, a majority of the committee reaffirmed the decision to publish the full video, giving Union President Anita Okunde a 48-hour deadline. The clock was set to expire at 8:30 p.m. on June 18—but as the deadline passed, no action followed.

In a bizarre twist, a senior union official told Middle East Eye that some members of the standing committee want the president to hold another vote or simply refuse to implement the vote's result. 

“Some on the standing committee are claiming the vote was invalid or that the president can ignore it,” the official said. 

What seemed like a breakthrough quickly devolved into renewed infighting. Sources within the Union revealed that efforts were underway to nullify the vote or pressure Okunde into refusing to implement it.

“This is unprecedented,” the official said. “The Oxford Union is on its knees under pressure from the trustees.” “This has never happened in the history of the society,” the official added.

Abulhawa, speaking to MEE, framed the ordeal as part of a larger trend, “This is part of a widespread pattern of silencing Palestinian and pro-Palestinian, anti-genocide voices in western institutions, media and political life.”

Investment in Settlements

As the Oxford Union comes under mounting pressure from its Board of Trustees to suppress a speech critical of “Israel,” students and human rights advocates are increasingly questioning what they see as a stark double standard within the university.

These concerns have been amplified by recent revelations that All Souls College, one of Oxford’s most prominent colleges, is financially invested in companies directly linked to illegal Israeli settlements.

Following an investigation prompted by Freedom of Information requests in July and August 2024, the International Center of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) filed a formal complaint, leading to the college’s referral to the UK Charity Commission.

The documents show that All Souls holds approximately £1.12 million in shares across four companies—Airbnb (£240,000), Booking Holdings (£613,000), Expedia (£7,700), and Motorola Solutions (£260,000)—all listed by the United Nations for their involvement in supporting settlement infrastructure in the occupied Palestinian territories.

According to Amnesty International, these companies play a direct role in enabling human rights abuses by promoting tourism and services in settlements built on illegally occupied land, including Occupied East Jerusalem.

For many within the university, the contrast is deeply troubling: while student efforts to highlight Palestinian suffering are being censored, parts of the institution are quietly profiting from the very policies under criticism.

Sharp Contradictions

“The International Court of Justice has been crystal clear on the illegality of Israeli settlements,” ICJP Legal Officer Mira Naseer told MEE.

“Not that there was before, but there can be absolutely no excuse now for a British educational institution to remain financially complicit in illegal settlements.”

“This is yet another example of a university or college putting their finances above their educational duties and the Charity Commission must step in and provide guidance to charities that are making such investments.”

All Souls College is registered as a charitable institution and benefits from tax exemptions. Under UK law, it is prohibited from engaging in political activity that contradicts British law or the country’s foreign policy—both of which officially oppose Israeli settlement activity.

These revelations come just weeks after a student-led encampment in support of Gaza took place on Oxford’s campus. Beginning on May 6 and lasting until June 25, 2025, students called on the university to adopt a transparent investment policy free from complicity in grave violations of international law.

This glaring contradiction has raised legitimate questions: How can the university administration and the Board of Trustees justify silencing pro-Palestinian speech under the guise of “political sensitivity,” while simultaneously allowing financial ties to companies supporting internationally banned settlements?

Why are students and union leaders punished for defending victims, while trustees face no accountability for funding the oppressor?

And what message does Oxford send to its students—and to the world—when it suppresses voices condemning genocide, yet allows its money to keep flowing toward an occupation?