Woke Student Calls Dennis Prager “Islamophobic” His Response Left Her SPEECHLESS!

In a shocking confrontation that has sent waves across social media, Dennis Prager, the famous conservative commentator, was accused of “Islamophobia” during a fiery debate at Oxford University. The accusation came from a woke student during a discussion about whether Hamas or Israel posed the greater threat to world peace. But what happened next? Prager’s calm and calculated response not only left the student speechless but also brought the entire audience to its feet in applause.

A Clash of Ideologies: Dennis Prager vs. Oxford’s Radical Left

It was a moment that no one at Oxford’s famed Union debate will forget. The motion: “This house believes that Hamas is a greater threat to peace than Israel.” To anyone familiar with Middle Eastern politics, the very suggestion seemed absurd. But it was presented as a legitimate academic debate, and Dennis Prager, ever the provocateur, was tasked with defending the proposition.

To the shock of many, the debate quickly shifted from a discussion of geopolitics to an emotional and heated exchange about race and religion. One student, visibly frustrated, stood up and accused Prager of “Islamophobia,” questioning why all the dangerous organizations Prager cited—like Boko Haram, ISIS, and Hamas—were Arab or Muslim. It was clear the student was attempting to pigeonhole Prager’s argument into a dangerous stereotype, one that casts Muslims and Arabs as inherently violent.

Prager’s Explosive Response: Facts Over Feelings

Prager, known for his no-nonsense approach to difficult conversations, didn’t flinch. He calmly responded, “Why do I think that is? Sad to say, it was answered by Arab intellectuals at the United Nations. The Arab world is a benighted place at this time. The status of women is particularly low. The Arab world translates fewer books in one year than Greece does in ten.”

The response was immediate and visceral. The crowd erupted in applause, but the student who had accused him of Islamophobia could only stand frozen, unable to answer. What started as a fiery accusation turned into a crushing silence as Prager not only debunked the student’s point but also boldly stated that his remarks were not anti-Arab but a critical examination of the political and moral state of the Arab world.

He continued, “If you love Arabs, you have to understand how low the moral level of the Arab world is right now. And that has nothing to do with individual Arabs who may be saintly. But that is the dominant moral state.”

The Debate Turns Personal: From Political Ideology to Morality

The real fireworks came when Prager connected the current debate to broader moral issues. “The only beheading groups in the world today, to the best of my knowledge, are Arab or Muslim,” he said, pointing to the brutal reality of groups like ISIS and Boko Haram. For many in the audience, the emotional weight of his words hit hard.

But Prager didn’t stop there. He drew an analogy between the situation in the Middle East and Nazi Germany in the 1930s. “In the 1930s, was there a debate over the proposition that Nazi Germany was a greater threat to peace than Great Britain?” he asked, delivering a shocking comparison that made the radical left in the room squirm. “That is a perfect analogy to what we are debating tonight.”

He hammered home the point: “The question is not whether Israel is perfect, but whether Israel, a free democracy, should be equated with Hamas, a brutal, totalitarian regime that targets civilians for death.”

The Double Standard Exposed: Criticizing the West While Benefiting From It

What truly set Prager’s argument apart, though, was his unflinching criticism of the West’s moral compass. He turned the tables on his critics, asking them why they felt the need to criticize Israel while ignoring the far greater threat posed by Hamas and other Islamic terrorist organizations.

Prager’s comparison of the free state of Israel to the oppressive regimes of Hamas and ISIS was powerful and poignant. “Where in the world,” Prager asked, “does anyone argue that the free state doesn’t want peace and the police state does?”

It was this kind of moral clarity, one that sharply distinguishes between free democracies and authoritarian regimes, that resonated deeply with the audience. For Prager, it was never about defending every action Israel takes; it was about recognizing that in the battle between a democracy and a totalitarian state, the threat to peace is obvious.

The Warped Academia: A Broken Moral Compass

In one of his most pointed critiques, Prager tackled the intellectual world’s moral failure head-on. “There has been a broken moral compass in the intellectual world in the West for the last 80 to 100 years,” he declared. He pointed out that during the Cold War, many academic institutions treated the United States and the Soviet Union as moral equivalents, even after the Soviet regime had killed millions of its own people and engaged in genocidal actions.

This, Prager argued, was the same kind of moral blindness that now permeates the debate over Israel and Hamas. The media, he said, constantly portrays the Palestinian side as innocent victims, despite the fact that Hamas’s stated goal is Israel’s destruction.

Prager’s condemnation of the media’s bias was sharp: “If the BBC or Sky News covered World War II, you would have seen far more dead German civilians than British civilians,” he said. “But it takes a very frail moral mind to believe that you determine right and wrong by the number of dead.”

Prager’s Argument for Israel: A Nation Seeking Peace, Not War

As he wrapped up his powerful speech, Prager pointed out that Israel has consistently offered peace, even at the cost of land. “Israel would dismantle the settlements for real peace in a moment,” he said. The Israeli people, according to Prager, are far more interested in sending their children to college, making a good living, and advancing in science and technology than in fighting wars.

The stark contrast between Israel’s peaceful aspirations and Hamas’s brutal quest for destruction was undeniable. Prager emphasized that Hamas’s own covenant explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel, a point that many in the room could no longer ignore.

The Backlash and the Hypocrisy Exposed

As Prager’s speech drew to a close, the hypocrisy of the student’s accusation of Islamophobia became evident. Prager had made a morally coherent and intellectually robust argument, one that exposed the failure of Western intellectuals and media to confront the realities of Islamic extremism. The student’s accusation had been based on an emotionally charged but intellectually shallow premise, and it crumbled under the weight of Prager’s logic.

The silence that followed his remarks was deafening. What began as an aggressive confrontation ended in an intellectual defeat for the student, and for many in the audience, Prager had decisively won the debate.

Conclusion: Dennis Prager’s Impact and the Future of Discourse

In the end, Dennis Prager’s response to the accusation of Islamophobia was nothing short of masterful. By combining moral clarity, historical analysis, and a fearless commitment to the truth, Prager left his critics and the audience with much to reflect upon. The battle between free societies and oppressive regimes is far from over, but Prager’s argument serves as a powerful reminder that the stakes are higher than ever.

As for the student who accused him of Islamophobia, her response was all but silenced. It’s clear that when intellectual discourse is carried out with respect for facts and logic, the emotionally charged rhetoric of the radical left is left in the dust.