Campus Exchange With Dennis Prager Sparks Debate Over Islamophobia, Terrorism, and Moral Judgment

A heated exchange between conservative commentator Dennis Prager and a university student has resurfaced online, reigniting debate over accusations of Islamophobia, academic discourse, and how Western institutions discuss terrorism and the Middle East. The moment occurred during a formal debate at the Oxford Union, where Prager was invited to argue that Hamas poses a greater threat to peace than Israel.

During the question-and-answer portion of the debate, a student challenged Prager by suggesting that the extremist groups he cited—such as Hamas, ISIS, Hezbollah, and Boko Haram—were all Arab and/or Muslim, implying that his argument unfairly targeted Muslims and Arabs. The student asked why Prager viewed only these organizations as threats to peace, prompting applause from parts of the audience.

Prager rejected the premise of the accusation, stating that his argument was based on observable actions rather than ethnicity or religion. He noted that Boko Haram, one of the groups he referenced, is not Arab, and argued that, to his knowledge, the most prominent groups engaging in practices such as public beheadings are currently rooted in parts of the Arab and Muslim world. He emphasized that this was not an attack on individuals, but a critique of political and moral conditions within certain societies.

In his broader remarks, Prager framed the debate as a moral comparison between what he described as a free state and a police state. He argued that Israel, despite policy flaws, functions as a democracy that seeks peace, while Hamas openly calls for Israel’s destruction in its founding charter. Drawing historical parallels, Prager compared the debate to questioning whether Nazi Germany or Britain posed a greater threat to peace in the 1930s, a comparison that drew strong reactions from both supporters and critics.

Prager also criticized Western academia and media, claiming they suffer from what he called a “broken moral compass.” He argued that moral judgments are too often based on casualty numbers rather than intent, ideology, or responsibility for initiating violence. To illustrate his point, he referenced World War II, noting that higher civilian casualties in Germany did not make Nazi Germany morally justified.

Supporters of Prager praised his response as forceful and articulate, arguing that he exposed what they see as ideological blind spots in elite academic institutions. They contend that labeling criticism of Islamist extremist groups as “Islamophobia” shuts down legitimate debate and obscures serious human rights issues, including treatment of women, political dissent, and minorities in certain regions.

Critics, however, argue that Prager’s comments risk oversimplifying complex geopolitical realities and unfairly generalizing about Arab and Muslim societies. Some scholars and activists maintain that extremist violence should be condemned without framing entire cultures or civilizations as morally deficient.

The exchange has since circulated widely on social media, where it has been framed by some commentators as a moment in which a “woke” student was left speechless. Others see it as emblematic of deep ideological divides over free speech, cultural criticism, and how universities handle controversial viewpoints.

Regardless of perspective, the incident highlights ongoing tensions within higher education over who defines moral authority, how terrorism is discussed, and where the line lies between critique and prejudice in global political debates.