Giving The FACTS: Ben Shapiro Sets The Record Straight At Oxford University

Written by Published

Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro recently delivered a masterclass at Oxford University, where he addressed the talking points used to support Hamas and the Palestinian position.

During the event, Shapiro engaged in a thought-provoking exchange with a woman wearing a hijab who attempted to accuse Israel of various wrongdoings. However, Shapiro skillfully dismantled her arguments and highlighted the crucial distinction between Israel's actions and those of Hamas.

The woman began by suggesting that Hamas is justified in killing civilians because Israel has allegedly done the same in its attempts to destroy the terrorist organization. She also claimed that Israel has bulldozed 55,000 Palestinian homes since 1948.

Shapiro responded by emphasizing that while civilian casualties are an unfortunate reality of war, Israel would not be justified in intentionally targeting Palestinian civilians. He drew a parallel to World War II, highlighting the significant number of civilian casualties on both sides and pointing out that this did not justify targeting civilians.

Shapiro's response effectively eliminated any attempt to draw an equivalency between Israel's actions and those of Hamas. He acknowledged the woman's claims but emphasized that even if they were true, they would not justify Hamas's brutal tactics, such as raping and beheading Israeli civilians. He argued that narrowing the rules of war to such an extent would essentially categorize the Allies in World War II as war criminals.

The discussion then shifted to the question of moral equivalency between deliberately targeting civilians and unintentional civilian casualties resulting from terrorists hiding among them. The woman argued that Israel is effectively doing the same because Gaza is densely populated. Shapiro challenged her assertion, asking if Hamas should be granted immunity simply because they hide among civilians. He pointed out that this would be a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

The woman then claimed that Israel had killed 3,500 children in the past three weeks, more than the number of children killed in conflicts worldwide over the last four years. Shapiro questioned the accuracy of her claims, highlighting that the numbers provided by the terrorist government are likely unreliable. He also pointed out that the claim of more deaths in Israel-Palestine conflicts than in all other global conflicts combined over the last four years is unfounded. He cited the Tigray War in Africa, which resulted in the deaths of 52,000 civilians between 2020 and 2021, to illustrate the fallacy of her argument.

The discussion continued with the woman asserting that since 2005, 23 out of every 24 conflict deaths have been Palestinian, suggesting an unjust disparity between the number of Palestinians and Israelis killed. Shapiro responded by stating that he would hope Israel is killing more Hamas members, as they are a terrorist group. The woman then claimed that the conflict was not a just war but rather one-sided ethnic cleansing. Shapiro challenged her by asking if it is not just to defend oneself against a group that has murdered 1,500 Israeli civilians and taken others captive. He asked her to name a just war, to which she did not provide a response.

The woman then made the sweeping claim that Israel has been killing civilians for the past 75 years. Shapiro pointed out the oversimplification of her statement, highlighting the numerous wars waged against Israel by the Palestinians and Arab nations during that time. He suggested that her intent was to portray Palestinians solely as victims without acknowledging their aggression and rejection of peace.

The climax of the exchange came when Shapiro asked the woman which part of Palestine she believed was occupied. Her response was that the entirety of Palestine was occupied. This revealed the true desire of many Palestinians, which is not a two-state solution but rather the elimination of Israel and the dominance of Islamism. Shapiro emphasized that this one-state solution would ultimately lead to the destruction of Israel.