The Pro-Palestine supporters were wrong to protest

Amidst turbulent cries of protests from the gates of the Union, Daniel Taub, Israel’s ambassador to the UK attempted to deliver his opinions on peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine.

Most of the first half of the speech was interrupted by yells for a “Free Palestine” – yet the speaker persevered, despite the elephant the room.

Taub confessed feeling a ” great sadness” that the corpus of students confined themselves to being “outside and not inside”

The vigorous body searching and excess of body guards was hardly surprising considering the charged nature of the topic. But the commotion seemed at odds with the serene setting of Oxford.

Instead of shying away from the fierce accusations of the students, Taub seized the final minutes of his platform time to address the “elephant in the room”.

He confessed feeling a “great sadness” that the corpus of students to which he used to belong, in possession of breadth of knowledge and opinion, confined themselves to being “outside and not inside”, challenging the effectiveness of their methods of protest, suggesting that their engagement with the subject might be better expressed through analytical and censorious questions.

It was revealed that Taub welcomed the opening up of the floor despite the fact that it was optional and that a closed speech might have appeared a much more appealing prospect considering the tense and intimidating ambiance that infiltrated through the upper windows.

His acknowledgement of the students’ presence redeemed the reserve with which he announced his vague and often diplomatically constructed personal opinions, sufficiently dilute to reduce the chances of exposure during the question time.

The protestors did to some degree achieve their aim of disturbance. Many of the speaker’s words were lost amid violent shrieks, and the audience were subjected to the humiliating process of wriggling between protestors, herded into the narrow entrance of the union.

“Many of the speaker’s words were lost amid violent shrieks”

Yet these tactics of intimidation appeared to backfire as the speaker managed to gain the upper hand by discussing the protestors in their absence, whilst they had been forced into silence, driven away by the bitter October winds.

His mournful tone grasped the sympathy of his listeners receiving greater applause and support than had been enjoyed by the faceless voices roaring outside.

The questions delivered to the speaker were feeble challenges, far less probing than expected following the rowdy entrance. But this was due to the absence of Palestinian sympathisers who were all confined to the inaudible space outside.

A chance to attack the unsatisfactory negotiations led by Israel was surrendered in favour of an aggressive tactic of protest which surprisingly gained more sympathy from the speaker than from the audience who appeared frustrated by the intrusive clamour.

The protesters attempts to mute the speaker only made his voice louder as we strained to catch every word flowing from well-rehearsed lips.

Most of the first half of the speech was disturbed by demands for a ‘Free Palestine’

The disappointing lack of debate was due to the absence of Pro-Palestinian support or awareness inside, yet had the dozens of students teeming outside filed into the confines of the hall, at least a couple of them would have been granted the opportunity to confront, criticise or at least engage with the speaker directly.

Muzzling the opposition does very little to buttress a campaign for individual freedom, and discouraging fellow students from engaging with or exploring alternate strands of debate serves to weaken the credibility of the platform on which the protestors stand.