I was surprised and disappointed to read that Stephen Hawking (the cleverest man in the world...and an atheist ) has decided against travelling to Israel for a conference, after bowing to pressure from American professor Noam Chomsky and some 20 other academics.
Chomsky's reason are, and I quote "Israel systematically discriminates against the Palestinians who make up 20% of its population in ways that would be illegal in the UK"
Chomsky is a hypocrite of colossal proportions by siding with the Palestinians who, incidentally, discriminate against their own women, or 55% of its population in ways that would be totally illegal in the UK.
While I'm the first to agree that Israel have over the years blatantly discriminated against the Palestinians, the same 20% who refuse to accept Israel's right to exist, I don't think an academic boycott serves any purpose whatsoever. In fact the sciences are about the only activity where Israelis and Palestinians work together - as equals.
Israel is not perfect by any means and has done many things wrong, as have all other nations, but at least it does not discriminate against its own women.
Israel is a democracy - Palestine probably never will be.
Judaism can and does co-exist with democracy - Islam can't.
Israel has more Nobel Prize winners than all of the Moslem world put together.
Come on Stephen, do as you had intended. Go to Jerusalem and spread your wisdom and atheism.Go to Israel and speak to both Israeli and Palestinian physicists who will welcome you and don't listen to the double-standard rhetoric of two-faced academics.
If you don't attend the Jerusalem conference the sensible people of the world, such as myself, will in future expect you to boycott all Islamic nations for the discrimination of women and gay people.
Oh, and by the way, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair are both going to Israel, and we all know those two care more for the human condition and have worked harder for social justice than pompous Chomsky and his geeky pals ever will.
Dear readers, your comments on this matter would be appreciated.
:(
I agree with you - there is no reason to single out Israel for a boycott (unless, of course, you've got issues with Jews).
ReplyDeleteMaybe that's the hidden agenda GB, just maybe...
DeleteI believe the only reason not to associate with somebody based on their behavior is if you are afraid you'll succumb to peer pressure and start behaving the same way. Since he's already proven he's likely to succumb to peer pressure, maybe it's best he stays away until he grows a backbone.
ReplyDeleteJust sayin'
I didn't think of that as Stephen is someone I hold in high esteem, but...I think you're probably spot on Nessa. Thanks for the observation :)
DeleteI'm going to beg to differ...when he was due to attend he said he would speak out against Israel, but then was persuaded not to go at all. From the BBC "the 71-year-old wrote to the organisers on 3 May saying that he had planned to criticise the Israeli government"
ReplyDeleteI am a supporter of the cultural and political boycott of Israel, as I believe that what the Israeli state does goes way, way, way beyond what other countries are allowed to get away with...but I recognise the issue is extraordinarily over-emotionally charged and there is little objective judgement on the matter. It's not about having issues with Jews...that's something often thrown at those who are opposed Israel's actions...it really is about how the Government and its agencies behave. I shall wait for the flack.
No flack from me NB, on the contrary, thanks for your comment - I wish Stephen had gone and either criticized both the Israeli and Palestinian leaders for their inability to sort out their differences, or, better still, not made a single political statement. He is a physicist, not an apologist for stubborn Jews and Arabs who refuse to grow up
DeleteHaving survived a Holocaust does not give you the right to inflict one on others...
ReplyDeleteYes Tempo, I know what you're saying but what I don't like is the hypocrisy of taking sides on human rights grounds when both sides are as bad as each other
DeleteI agree with you on the basis of what you wrote, but since what you wrote is all that I know, I don't feel that I am in a position to take a strong stand. As for Hawkin "bowing to pressure" from a "pompous Chomsky," I would consider such statements to constitute a personal attack on both men, and to therefore detract from your main argument, which is that the boycott by Hawkin was counterproductive. One other thing that occurs to me is that, although the Palestinian culture is itself no respecter of human rights, your "they're just as bad" argument wouldn't constitute a reason for Hawkin to have gone. Yet, if I were him, I'm fairly confident, based upon what I know of the situation, that I would have either gone or else have been consistent in boycotting all nations that engage in human rights violations, most notably my own USA. It's this "pick and choose" attitude that causes me the most problem because it reeks of hypocrisy.
ReplyDeleteP.S. If you're going to modify comments, could you do away with word verification? These boxes take up so much of my time trying to get the letters right that I sometimes give up.
You are so much more diplomatic than I,Snow, and I always stand corrected. Thank you. As for boycotting nations that engage in human rights violations, that's what I've always done. I refuse to visit such places, and even avoid rogue states within nations that practice capital punishment.
DeleteI'll see if I can do away with the verification option, and thanks for the comment