Nadir AhmedvsNick Matau

Ahmed argued that for about 200 years after the founding of America there was no war or terrorism between America and the Islamic world, and that Israel's occupation brought such conflict into that relationship.

Ahmed argued that Israel's creation involved bombings, including the King David Hotel attack, and that this is how terrorism entered the Islamic world.

Ahmed argued that Israel is a state sponsor of terrorism, funding settlers to carry out attacks that ethnically cleanse the occupied territories, which he said Israel has held for about 76 years.

Ahmed described Gaza as an open-air prison, citing Human Rights Watch and the walls around Gaza, and compared those walls to the walls of the Warsaw Ghetto.

Ahmed said about 80% of Gaza's population came from Israel and were barred from returning because they are not Jewish, and argued that the blockade is collective punishment.

Ahmed cited a statement attributed to Osama bin Laden that American and Israeli oppression of Palestinians and Lebanon motivated the September 11 attacks, and argued this began a chain of radicalisation leading to the Afghanistan war.

Ahmed argued that the Iraq war was based on lies from Netanyahu, Wolfowitz and Kissinger, and that Iraqi insurgents were motivated by Israel's treatment of Palestinians. He said about 30,000 American servicemen had died by suicide as a result of that war.

Ahmed argued that Israel also drove the Iran war, which he said was based on lies.

Ahmed argued that Israeli forces support settler attacks and turn a blind eye to them, citing Brookings Institution references and a BBC documentary on settlers.

Ahmed concluded that Israel has drawn America into endless wars, and argued that Matau is loyal to Israel rather than to America, presenting America first as the right principle.

Matau said he would set aside his prepared opening, and argued that Ahmed's account of no conflict omits the Barbary raids, which he said enslaved over a million Europeans and Americans.

Matau argued that the King David Hotel was a British military headquarters and therefore a military target, and that the attack was carried out by groups such as the Irgun, not Israel's official defence force.

Matau said Jordan controlled the West Bank and Egypt controlled Gaza before the 1967 Six-Day War, and that a Palestinian state was not declared until 1988.

Matau argued that the Palestinian flag was devised under British influence and adopted by the PLO in 1964, and that the region's borders and names were also set by European colonial powers.

Matau argued that the international-law rulings on the occupation Ahmed cited are advisory opinions rather than binding decisions, and that the UN has not taken Chapter 7 enforcement action on them.

Matau said comparing walls to Hitler is a reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy, and that under Ahmed's logic Egypt, which has walls on its Gaza border, would be worse.

Matau argued that a Jewish-majority state is not unusual, since many countries have a majority from one ethnic group, and that wanting cultural unity in a country is not inherently wrong.

Matau argued that urban warfare causes collective suffering rather than collective punishment, and that the problem extends beyond Hamas to other Palestinian armed groups, which he named.

Matau cited B'Tselem data putting killings of Israeli civilians by Palestinian civilians at about nine times the rate of the reverse, and argued that if settlers are the problem, Palestinians are nine times the problem.

Matau said Ahmed had misread the debate's topic, which is which of Israel or Palestine is more moral rather than America first, and offered to hold a separate debate on America first.

Ahmed said bin Laden's letter states he acted because he could not bear the suffering, and argued that the Israel first supporters misled the American public about that motive.

Ahmed proposed reading the bin Laden letter together and read passages referring to the American-Israeli oppression of Palestinians as the reason for the attacks.

Ahmed argued that Netanyahu's claim about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, Kissinger's push for regime change, and Wolfowitz's claim about Saddam and bin Laden were lies, and that Israel fuelled both the invasion and the insurgency.

An audience member said friends in Gaza are glad Israel has intervened and asked Ahmed for his response. Ahmed answered that the blockade has destroyed Gaza's economy, that reports document children's depression, and that the blockade is unjustified.

An audience member asked whether colonisation and subjugation justify the indiscriminate killing of civilians. Ahmed answered that no one justifies terrorism, that Israel is a terrorist state, and that Americans should disengage from the occupation.

An audience member asked Matau whether the same standard applies to Muslim occupation of Western countries in Europe. Matau answered that the same logic applies to any group that occupies and oppresses others.

An audience member asked Matau whether Israel committed any immoral or unjustified acts against Palestinians before October 7, 2023. Matau answered that some IDF soldiers escalated violence, that some settlers act as vigilantes, and that he condemned Baruch Goldstein's massacre.

Matau argued that the debate is about which side is more moral, said Israel is not perfect and should not be held to perfection, and said his concern is Islamist ideology, which he called Palestinianism, and the Red-Green alliance. He said he does not hate Muslims or Palestinians.

Ahmed said Matau did not deny that the Israeli army works alongside settlers, pointed to a BBC documentary and an AP report of a joint statement by Australia, the UK and Canada on settler impunity, and argued that Matau's loyalty to Israel is the core problem.