In December 2025, I was elected President of the Oxford Union, a world-renowned debate organization. I made history as the first Palestinian to hold that role in the 203-year history of this institution.
I won the presidency by a wide margin in an election with far higher turnout than in recent elections. Throughout the campaign, I spoke openly about my background as a Palestinian from Gaza and how my identity and family history have shaped my understanding of the importance of representation and debate. However, that openness soon became the basis for continued attempts to discredit me.
Early reports questioned my suitability for office based purely on who I was, rather than my stated platform or background. The purpose was clear. To paint me as an extremist, an extremist, an inherently suspicious person.
These reports are not isolated. They formed part of a broader smear campaign that accompanied my presidential campaign, in which I was positioned as an extremist and a national security concern. Within that framework, false rumors began to spread that the students themselves who supported my campaign could face consequences such as revocation of their visas, placement on security watchlists, and formal investigations. No evidence has been submitted to support this.
I always thought student politics involved a certain level of hostility. What shocked me was that reputable news outlets took these stories without even basic due diligence, and in some cases went even further, presenting the insinuations as fact, making me unfit for public office.
The pattern became unmistakable when, a month after I was reported in the Jerusalem Post, I received an email from the Jewish Chronicle requesting a response for a future article. Although the email was framed as a “right of reply” opportunity, it actually contained a series of claims and innuendos presented as evidence of extremism. The most notable of these were those with alleged family ties to Hamas members.
The claim was in reference to Mohammed al-Reith, a man who was killed in an Israeli drone strike in Beirut in January 2024. He has nothing to do with me. The proposal relied on combining one of the most common first names in the Arab world with a surname widely shared in Gaza. My father, the same name Mohamed Elaes, is a scientist at Qatar University and is still alive and well.
Other points raised in the same email were not allegations of wrongdoing at all, but descriptions of my speech and activities that were rearranged to appear questionable.
One concerned social media posts mourning the killing of Palestinian journalist Saleh al-Jafarawi, who was killed in Gaza in October 2025, shortly after the latest “ceasefire” was announced. In an email, a Jewish Chronicle reporter described al-Jafarawi as a “Hamas propagandist.”
Israel’s attack on Gaza has become the worst conflict for journalists in recorded history. My post was a defense of press freedom and a tribute to media workers who died in the line of duty.
The other was my involvement in the documentary Heart of a Protest, which I helped produce, which followed pro-Palestinian demonstrations across the UK. The film, which had a zero budget, was able to explain why protesters continue to mobilize and the obstacles they face in doing so. All proceeds were donated to families in Gaza.
Another line of attack focused on a speech I gave to the Oxford Union in November 2024 in support of the motion “This House believes that Israel is an apartheid state responsible for genocide.” I wasn’t interested in what I said. The opposition was to my participation itself.
I was proud to speak at that debate to refute arguments that justify or support the genocide in Gaza. I am proud to speak about my relative Maysara Al Rais, who was killed along with her family in an Israeli airstrike on her home. If that’s the claim, I’ll accept it without hesitation.
To me, these attack patterns do not reflect strength. They reflect weakness. If the concerns raised against me were genuine, if I truly posed a danger to the organization I currently lead, there would be no need for me to recast legitimate and legitimate political expression as evidence of extremism, or to imply guilt through fabricated familial meetings.
These attempts to discredit me are part of a broader effort to silence Palestinians in public and prevent Palestinian participation altogether. They are meant to warn us.
I wouldn’t do that.
Write 100 articles that mischaracterize or denigrate us. We are long past the stage where this intimidates us into silence. In fact, it increases the need to talk even more.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.
