Stephen Hawking joins academic boycott of Israel

[Le Socialiste]

Well, this is a welcome development:


Professor Stephen Hawking is backing the academic boycott of Israel by pulling out of a conference hosted by Israeli president Shimon Peres in Jerusalem as a protest at Israel's treatment of Palestinians.

Hawking, 71, the world-renowned theoretical physicist and former Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge, had accepted an invitation to headline the fifth annual president's conference, Facing Tomorrow, in June, which features major international personalities, attracts thousands of participants and this year will celebrate Peres's 90th birthday.

Hawking is in very poor health, but last week he wrote a brief letter to the Israeli president to say he had changed his mind. He has not announced his decision publicly, but a statement published by the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine with Hawking's approval described it as "his independent decision to respect the boycott, based upon his knowledge of Palestine, and on the unanimous advice of his own academic contacts there".

Hawking's decision marks another victory in the campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions targeting Israeli academic institutions.

In April the Teachers' Union of Ireland became the first lecturers' association in Europe to call for an academic boycott of Israel, and in the United States members of the Association for Asian American Studies voted to support a boycott, the first national academic group to do so.

In the four weeks since Hawking's participation in the Jerusalem event was announced, he has been bombarded with messages from Britain and abroad as part of an intense campaign by boycott supporters trying to persuade him to change his mind. In the end, Hawking told friends, he decided to follow the advice of Palestinian colleagues who unanimously agreed that he should not attend.

Hawking's decision met with abusive responses on Facebook, with many commentators focusing on his physical condition, and some accusing him of antisemitism.

By participating in the boycott, Hawking joins a small but growing list of British personalities who have turned down invitations to visit Israel, including Elvis Costello, Roger Waters, Brian Eno, Annie Lennox and Mike Leigh.

However, many artists, writers and academics have defied and even denounced the boycott, calling it ineffective and selective. Ian McEwan, who was awarded the Jerusalem Prize in 2011, responded to critics by saying: "If I only went to countries that I approve of, I probably would never get out of bed … It's not great if everyone stops talking."

Noam Chomsky, a prominent supporter of the Palestinian cause, has said that he supports the "boycott and divestment of firms that are carrying out operations in the occupied territories" but that a general boycott of Israel is "a gift to Israeli hardliners and their American supporters".

Hawking has visited Israel four times in the past. Most recently, in 2006, he delivered public lectures at Israeli and Palestinian universities as the guest of the British embassy in Tel Aviv. At the time, he said he was "looking forward to coming out to Israel and the Palestinian territories and excited about meeting both Israeli and Palestinian scientists".

Since then, his attitude to Israel appears to have hardened. In 2009, Hawking denounced Israel's three-week attack on Gaza, telling Riz Khan on Al-Jazeera that Israel's response to rocket fire from Gaza was "plain out of proportion … The situation is like that of South Africa before 1990 and cannot continue."

Israel Maimon, chairman of the presidential conference said: "This decision is outrageous and wrong.

"The use of an academic boycott against Israel is outrageous and improper, particularly for those to whom the spirit of liberty is the basis of the human and academic mission. Israel is a democracy in which everyone can express their opinion, whatever it may be. A boycott decision is incompatible with open democratic discourse."

In 2011, the Israeli parliament passed a law making a boycott call by an individual or organisation a civil offence which can result in compensation liable to be paid regardless of actual damage caused. It defined a boycott as "deliberately avoiding economic, cultural or academic ties with another person or another factor only because of his ties with the State of Israel, one of its institutions or an area under its control, in such a way that may cause economic, cultural or academic damage".

• This article was amended on 8 May 2013. The original described Hawking as Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge. He stepped down in 2009.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/08/stephen-hawking-israel-academic-boycott

[Paul Pott]

Disgusting that the Zionist rats would attack him for his disease. How about we cripple them?

[Fourth Internationalist]

and some accusing him of antisemitism.

How on earth is anti-Zionism anti-Semitic? People are so stupid... :(

[l'Enfermé]

But comrades, the Zionist Entity is now a patron of the Syrian Worker's Revolution!

[DasFapital]

Obama's anti-zionist muslim conspiracy has won over another convert just like we planned!

[Menshevik Scum]

How on earth is anti-Zionism anti-Semitic? People are so stupid... :(
Israel is Jewish, therefore you cannot oppose it without being an anti-Semite. That's literally the argument they give.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Israel is Jewish, therefore you cannot oppose it without being an anti-Semite. That's literally the argument they give.

Anti-Semitism is a hatred or prejudice against Jewish people.
Not all Jewish people reside in or support Israel.

Anti-Zionism is opposition to the state of Israel (it's policies, organisation etc).
According to Marx, a state mirrors class relations in society and acts as an instrument of class repression. I see no mention of race or religion here.

So how on Earth can Anti-Zionism be Anti-Semitic? It might be on Mars, but not
here.

[Sudsy]

That's like saying being anti-apartheid is being anti-white, only nazis and skinheads believe that.

[RadioRaheem84]

Being against Jim Crow was not anti-White or anti-American or anti-Southern.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

To be honest I think it's kinda weird to single out Israel from all the other fucked up ass nations (well, all of them) without delving into liberal appeals to 'democracy' and all that fun stuff, institutionalized racism is everywhere


Maybe it's just because I'm drunk


[edit]
I'm talking about 'anti zionism' as ideology versus a generalized 'hey it's fucked what they're doing to the Palestinian people' because it is, in fact, fucked, but nobody's boycotting the US over institutionalized racism towards black people here re- the prison system, for example.

[Goblin]

Good. Maybe people will stop comparing anti zionism with antisemitism now.

[blake 3:17]

Maybe it's just because I'm drunk


[edit]
I'm talking about 'anti zionism' as ideology versus a generalized 'hey it's fucked what they're doing to the Palestinian people' because it is, in fact, fucked, but nobody's boycotting the US over institutionalized racism towards black people here re- the prison system, for example.

You're absolutely right. At present, there's no possible way to boycott the US. There are ways to slow trade with it down, and try to change the terms on which trade with it is done. There are questions of democracy, sovereignty, ecology, and solidarity which have to be considered.

I'm not sure how conscious folks here are of how widespread the fight against US racism has been internationally. One of the absolutely key reasons the scum at the top could not execute Brother Mumia was that there was so much international solidarity for him, expressing both love for him and hate for injustice. If they'd murdered him, no US embassy or representative would be safe.

For those of us for whom it is relevant, I think we should stick to some fairly conventional demands (which have been slowly forgotten over time) -- withdrawal from NATO and NAFTA, getting rid of US military bases in our countries, opposing all US military actions, and supporting independent movements of working people in the US.

[blake 3:17]

From BDSmovement dot net:


Five reasons why Hawking is right to boycott Israel
Posted on May 9, 2013 by Ben White atAl Jazeera English

As announced by the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine (BRICUP) and subsequently covered by The Guardian, Reuters and others, world-renowned theoretical physicist and cosmologist Professor Stephen Hawking has decided to heed the Palestinian call for boycott, and pull out of an Israeli conference hosted by President Shimon Peres in June. After initial confusion, this was confirmed - Hawking is staying away on political grounds.

Here are five reasons why Professor Hawking is right to boycott:

5. Whitewashing apartheid

The Israeli government and various lobby groups use events such as the “Presidential Conference” to whitewash Israel’s crimes past and present, a tactic sometimes referred to as “rebranding”. As a Ministry of Foreign Affairs official put it after the 2009 Gaza massacre, it is the kind of approach that means sending “well-known novelists and writers overseas, theatre companies, [and] exhibits” in order to “show Israel’s prettier face, so we are not thought of purely in the context of war”. “Brand Israel” is all about creating a positive image for a country that is the target of human rights campaigners the world over – as if technological innovations or high-profile conferences can hide the reality of occupation and ethnic cleansing.

4. Shimon Peres

Despite his reputation in the West as a “dove”, Peres’ career to date includes war crimes in Lebanon,support for collective punishment of Palestinians in Gaza, and, in private discussions, incitementagainst non-Jewish citizens. Anyone would do well to avoid a conference hosted by such a hypocrite. Simply not being Ariel Sharon does not really cut it; Peres should be scheduled for a trip to The Hague, not welcoming foreign dignitaries and celebrities.

3. Boycott is not incompatible with ‘dialogue’

Contrary to the rhetoric of Israeli officials and sympathisers, boycott is not contrary to dialogue. Hawking’s decision, for example, will mean people are discussing Israeli policies and strategies for ending occupation. That is not atypical – BDS initiatives often encourage a meaningful exchange of views and perspectives. However, some people abuse the concept of dialogue to defend an asymmetrical status quo, leaving intact a colonial power dynamic where, in the words of South African poet James Matthews, “the oppressor sits seared with his spoils/with no desire to share equality/leaving the oppressed seeking warmth/at the cold fire of/Dialogue”. Boycott has nothing to do with having, or not having, conversations – it is about accountability for, and opposing, basic violations of a people’s rights. Confronting and resisting the reality of Israeli apartheid begets a dialogue that is fully realised in the context of equality and decolonisation.

2. Impunity and accountability

The boycott is grounded firmly in the well documented facts of Israeli policies. The US State Department speaks of “institutional discrimination” faced by Palestinian citizens, while Human Rights Watch says Israel maintains a “two-tier system” in the West Bank. From the “discriminatory” control and distribution of water resources (Amnesty International) to the “forced transfer of the native population” (European Union), it is no wonder that the UN’s Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination hasreported Israel as violating prohibitions against “racial segregation and apartheid”.

Illegal settlements are used to colonise the West Bank, Palestinians in Gaza are blockaded and bombed, Palestinians in East Jerusalem have their homes demolished – and all the while, of course, expelled Palestinian refugees just a few miles from their properties are still prevented from returning home on the basis they are not Jews. And note that the “But what about China/Myanmar/Syria etc” line misses the point (as well as placing Israel in some rather interesting company). A boycott is atactic, advisable in some contexts, and not in others. It is not about a scale of injustice or wrongdoing. It is about a strategy targeting systematic human rights abuses and breaches of international law, called for by the colonised. Which brings us to…

1. The Palestinian call for solidarity

Palestinians suffering under Israeli apartheid are calling for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) as a strategy in the realisation of their basic rights, a fact that many Zionists choose to ignore when attacking boycott campaigns. The Palestinian civil society call for BDS was officially launched on July 9 2005, a year after the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion on the illegality of Israel’s Separation Wall. Signatories to the BDS call come from representatives of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Palestinian citizens of Israel, and Palestinian refugees. Since then, growing numbers of people in the likes of academia, the arts world, trade unions and faith communities have answered the BDS call with initiatives that put the focus firmly on Israel’s routine violations of international law and ending complicity in these crimes. Professor Hawking is to be commended for seeking the advice of Palestinian academics, and heeding their request for international solidarity in a decades-long struggle for freedom and justice.

Ben White is a freelance journalist, writer and activist, specialising in Palestine/Israel. He is a graduate of Cambridge University.



http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/05/20135953058699815.html

[blake 3:17]

!!!!!!!!!!!!! Reality is hitting home. From the article below:
Fair or not, Israel is being judged by a different standard than Russia and China. And it will continue to be judged that way.

Even if we conclude that the world’s attitude toward Israel is hypocritical, the important question we must ask ourselves is the following: “Is the price of holding onto the West Bank worth the price of ever-increasing isolation?"

The author is a billionaire, Democratic Party insider, and avid Zionist. This may seem like nothing to the ultra leftists, but this is big:

The prophetic lesson of Stephen Hawking's Israel boycott
There's no question that it was wrong of the famous physicist to cancel Peres' invitation to a conference in Israel. But that's not really the point.
By S. Daniel Abraham | May.28, 2013 | 12:52 AM | 102

What Stephen Hawking did was dishonorable. He accepted an invitation to the Israeli Presidential Conference and then, under pressure, withdrew.

Yes, it was a dishonorable thing to do but the most important lesson to learn is that his actions portend the face of the future.

Ironically, this conference is convened in honor of President Shimon Peres, one of Israel’s strongest voices for peace with the Palestinians.

Ironic, too, that it is Peres who has been predicting that these sorts of reactions to Israel’s occupation are destined to become more and more common.

Almost two years ago Peres voiced his fear that if Israel refuses to commit to its 1967 borders, with modifications, the world will turn against Israel in a far more substantive way than Hawking has done now.

More and more people are going to stop coming to conferences in Israel because the world, whether it's fair or not, will not accept Israel’s continuing occupation of the Palestinians in the West Bank.

We can write Op-ed articles assuring ourselves that Hawking is a hypocrite, that he lectures in China, where the occupation of Tibet is far more brutal than Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. And he has lectured in Russia, where human rights violations are profound.

Fair or not, Israel is being judged by a different standard than Russia and China. And it will continue to be judged that way.

Even if we conclude that the world’s attitude toward Israel is hypocritical, the important question we must ask ourselves is the following: “Is the price of holding onto the West Bank worth the price of ever-increasing isolation?"

The prophet Isaiah declared that the Jewish people are to be “a light unto the nations.” And in many ways we have been. We brought into the world the idea of monotheism, of one God, in whose image every human being of every race and religion is created. The Jewish people have made extraordinary contributions to the world, and these include the Israeli scientists who created the device that enables the very ill Dr. Hawking to speak.

The Jewish people have many things of which to be proud. But ruling over 2.5 million Palestinians on the West Bank is not one of them.

The sooner Israel realizes this, the sooner they will establish two states, side by side: The State of Israel and The State of Palestine. We can all have a field day denouncing Stephen Hawking for hypocrisy, but at the end of the day what matters most is that we realize just how wrong it is to occupy a people whose leader, Mahmoud Abbas, wants to make peace with us.

What Hawking did was wrong. What we are doing is self- destructive. Maybe we can’t change Hawking’s mind but we had better learn how to change ours.

S. Daniel Abraham is an American entrepreneur and the founder of the Center for Middle East Peace in Washington.

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/the-prophetic-lesson-of-stephen-hawking-s-israel-boycott.premium-1.526245

[Orange Juche]

being against jim crow was not anti-white or anti-american or anti-southern.

if you don't like amurrica you can geeeeeet out!

[blake 3:17]

Jews "brought into the world the idea of monotheism"? Did this guy never hear of Zoroastrianism?

That's the least of his issues. Or maybe not. I dunno.

I will point out he is talking about forfeiting the West Bank. That's it. Still an improvement...

[Sky Hedgehogian Maestro]

Interesting to see such a high profile name do this! Especially one I respect so greatly.

[Lither]

How on earth is anti-Zionism anti-Semitic? People are so stupid... :(

Heh, I remember a story in the news a while back over some Orthodox Jews condemning Israel and having Israel respond by calling them antisemitic. Because that is, of course, the most logical reason they have for opposing it.

The real reason was a religious one, I believe. It's been a while and I can't remember it well, but it was something to do with Israel not being supposed to exist yet.

[AnSyn Blackflag]

Jews "brought into the world the idea of monotheism"? Did this guy never hear of Zoroastrianism?

Zoroastrianism was a dualistic religion which simplified ancient Iranian pantheons into two opposing forces, Ahura Mazda (Illuminating Wisdom) and Angra Mainyu (Destructive Spirit). It is not a monotheistic one. But yes, it is considered to be the primary influence to the Abrahamic concepts of good and evil in spirituality.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Zoroastrianism was a dualistic religion which simplified ancient Iranian pantheons into two opposing forces, Ahura Mazda (Illuminating Wisdom) and Angra Mainyu (Destructive Spirit). It is not a monotheistic one. But yes, it is considered to be the primary influence to the Abrahamic concepts of good and evil in spirituality.

Wasn't Angra Mainyu more of a devil than a god? That's mirrored in the other abrahamic religions, so it doesn't really count as a duo-theistic religion in that regard.