This is a cross post from the Jewish Chronicle by Sandy Rashty

Trade between Britain and Israel rose by 21.9 per cent year-on-year between the first quarter of 2012 and 2013.

And despite the vociferous boycott campaign, imports from Israel rose by 55.6 per cent in the same period.

The figures released by the Central Bureau of Statistics in Israel show a  £170 million overall increase in bilateral trade.

Most of the British imports come from Israel’s renowned high-tech sector. But  food produce is also a key contributor to the buoyant trade figures, despite being one of the boycott campaign’s main areas of attack.

The UK is Israel’s second largest export market. The US is the largest.

Noah Shani, minister for Trade and Economic Affairs at the Israeli Embassy in London, said: “Business between Israel and the UK is booming and the latest bilateral trade figures are once again testament to the strength and vibrancy of this trade relationship.”

Hugo Bieber, chief executive of UK Israel Business, a leading organisation promoting trade relations between the two countries, added: “We have seen significant interest from Israeli firms exporting to the UK and also from UK firms looking to purchase best-in-class products and services from Israel.

“Given Israel’s status as the ‘start-up nation’, consistently developing new technologies across sectors, we expect to see trade between the UK and Israel continue to increase.

“When business is put ahead of politics, significant economic benefits can be seen for both the UK and Israel.”

Since the beginning of the year, the UK Israel Tech Hub at the British embassy has helped organise five tech-related business delegations between the two nations.

This week, Middle East Minister Alistair Burt joined a delegation of 20 British pharmaceutical and biomedical companies to Tel Aviv — including NHS representatives .

The two-day trip is part of a number of government-backed delegations promoting co-operative economic relations between the two counties.

Rohan Silva, a senior policy adviser to David Cameron, led a delegation of British supermarket chains and luxury brands to Israel last month.

Meanwhile, at the UK Israel Business Awards on Wednesday, Sir Mervyn King, the retiring Bank of England Governor, praised Israel’s economic performance. “It is one of the very few advanced economies whose output grew every year throughout the economic crisis”, he said. He also revealed that he had advised Israel’s central bank on a new law regulating the functions of the Bank of Israel.

A leading trade union in Northern Ireland has been obliged to withdraw a motion calling for the boycott of certain Israeli goods because the resolution had no basis in fact

NIPSA is the largest trade union head-quartered in Northern Ireland and represents public sector workers. It has a long history of hostile activity towards Israel.

The motion, put forward at the trade union’s annual conference in Enniskillen last week, noted with dismay “the passing of legislation in Israel that effectively creates segregation on buses,” and called for the Union’s general council to lobby to ban settlement goods in response.

Northern Ireland Friends of Israel co chair, Steven Jaffe, said: “We welcome the withdrawal of the motion and hope it leads to  reflection by Union leaders against unfair hostility to Israel. We very much look forward to engaging with Union members who want to make a positive contribution towards peace in the Middle East. Northern Ireland trade unions have much to offer given their experience of fostering cross-community dialogue, and both Israelis and Palestinians could learn much from their example”.

NIFI was approached by a couple of concerned members of the Union. Steven says: “We were able to confirm to them that the allegation had no basis in fact – of course no such law exists. I am proud that they then made representations to their Union to ensure this motion did not go unchallenged”.

“We are grateful for assistance from Trade Union Friends of Israel and  Trade Union Links with Israel and Palestine who we approached for help”.

Steven is a consultant to the Board of Deputies on communal engagement with Israel and his work is part-funded by the Jewish Leadership Council.

This is a cross post from Haaretz by Carlo Strenger

By deciding not to attend the Israeli Presidential Conference, one of the world’s leading scientists is singling out Israel and denying it has been under existential threat for most of its existence.

Dear Professor Hawking,

There are many reasons why you are considered one of the world’s leading scientists. As you know very well, one reason for your achievement is the ability to keep a mind of your own and to refuse caving in to pressure by the mainstream. Innovation is only possible if you are immune to such pressure.

Given my respect for your achievement I am surprised and saddened by your decision, reported today by The Guardian that you have cancelled your participation at this year’s President’s Conference in Jerusalem, and that you have joined those who call for an academic boycott of Israel. I would have expected a man of your standing and achievement not to be influenced by the pressure that was reportedly exerted on you to cancel your visit in Israel.

Let it first be said that I have been opposed to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories for many years, and that I have voiced this opposition with all means at my disposal. I think that Israel’s settlement policy in the West Bank is indefensible morally, stupid politically and unwise strategically, and I will continue opposing it as long as I can.

This being said, I have always found it morally reprehensible and intellectually indefensible that many British academics have been calling for an academic boycott of Israel. This call is based on a moral double standard that I would not expect from a community whose mission it is to maintain intellectual integrity.

Yes, I think that Israel is guilty of human right violations in the West Bank. But these violations are negligible compared to those perpetrated by any number of states ranging from Iran through Russia to China, to mention only a small number of examples. Iran hangs hundreds of homosexuals every year; China has been occupying Tibet for decades, and you know of the terrible destruction Russia has inflicted in Chechnya. I have not heard from you or your colleagues who support an academic boycott against Israel that they boycott any of these countries.

But let me go one step further: Israel is accused of detaining Palestinians without trial for years. So is the USA, which, as you very well know, to this day has not closed Guantanamo Bay. Israel is accused of targeted killings of Palestinians suspected or known to be involved in terrorist acts. As is reported worldwide, the United States has been practicing targeted assassinations of terror suspects in many countries for years.

The question whether these detentions and targeted assassinations can be justified is weighty, and there are no simple answers. Personally I think that even in a war against terror democracies must make every conceivable effort to maintain the rule of law and avoid human rights violations.

Yet let us not forget that both Israel and the United States are in difficult situations. Israel was on the verge of a peace agreement with the Palestinian people when the second Intifada broke out. Daily Israelis were shredded into pieces by suicide bombings, and it is very difficult for Israeli politicians to convince Israelis to take risks for peace. The U.S. is still reeling from the trauma of 9/11. It has occupied two countries, Afghanistan and Iraq for a decade since. I happen to think that it was wrong to attack Iraq, in the same way that I think that Israel’s settlement policy in the West Bank is wrong.

Professor Hawking: how can you and your colleagues who argue for an academic boycott of Israel justify your double standard by singling out Israel? You are simply denying that Israel has been under existential threat for most of its existence. To this day Hamas, one of the two major parties in Palestine, calls for Israel’s destruction, and its charter employs the vilest anti-Semitic language. To this day hardly a week goes by in which Iran and its proxy Hezbollah do not threaten to obliterate Israel, even though they have no direct conflict with Israel about anything.

Singling Israel out for academic boycott is, I believe, a case of profound hypocrisy. It is a way to ventilate outrage about the world’s injustices where the cost is low. I’m still waiting for the British academic who says he won’t cooperate with American institutions as long as Guantanamo is open, or as long as the U.S. continues targeted assassinations.

In addition to the hypocrisy, singling out Israel’s academia is pragmatically unwise, to put it mildly. Israel’s academia is largely liberal in its outlook, and many academics here have opposed Israel’s settlement policies for decades. But once again, British academics choose the easiest target to vent their rage in a way that does not contribute anything constructive to the Palestinian cause they support.

Israel, like any other country, can be criticized. But such criticism should not be based on shrill moralism and simplistic binary thinking – something I do not expect from academics. The real world is, unfortunately a messy, difficult place. Novelist Ian McEwan is quoted in the Guardian as saying that “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” when he was criticized for coming to Israel to receive the Jerusalem Prize for Literature in 2011.

He certainly has a point. Living up to the standards of human rights and the ideals of democracy in an imperfect world is difficult. Major thinkers like Philip Bobbitt and Michael Ignatieff have invested deep and comprehensive thought into the difficult topic of how to maintain the human rights standard in a world threatened by terrorism.

Professor Hawking, I would expect from a man of your intellectual stature to get involved in the difficult task of grappling with these questions. Taking the simple way out of singling out Israel by boycotting it academically does not behoove you intellectually or morally.

If your cancelation was indeed a function of pressures and not from health reasons, as stated by your university following The Guardian’s report, I would respect it if you were to reconsider your decision and come to the President’s Conference.

Sincerely,

Carlo Strenger

Following pressure from anti-Israel boycott campaigners, Professor Stephen Hawking has decided to withdraw his attendance from the Israeli Presidential Conference: ‘Facing Tomorrow 2013′.  The conference looks at tomorrow and engages the central issues that will influence the future, such as geopolitics, economics, society, environment, culture and identity.

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

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3470/an_open_letter_to_stephen_hawking

A Fair Play spokesman said:

“Steven Hawking’s misguided withdrawal from the Israeli Presidential Conference is both bizarre and unfortunate. President Shimon Peres is one of Israel’s strongest and most consistent advocates for peace through negotiation and compromise with the Palestinians, and the Israeli Presidential Conference is a venue for promoting his approach. Prof Hawking could have joined the Conference and explained his views on the conflict in the region, just as many other participants have done. By boycotting the conference, he has thrown away this opportunity and will help nobody.”

UPDATE:

There are now reports that Professor Hawking cancelled his attendance due to health reasons. If so, then his position has grossly misrepresented by the boycotters. We will be following this closely until we have confirmation.

Also see this from the Washing Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/physicist-stephen-hawking-wont-attend-israeli-conference-cites-personal-reasons/2013/05/08/98521b3c-b7c2-11e2-b568-6917f6ac6d9d_story.html

A potentially discriminatory anti-Israel boycott motion was passed at Clackmannanshire Council in Scotland on Thursday 14^th March 2013. The motion, introduced by Councillor Archie Drummond, an Independent Socialist and Member of the UNISON trade union, was passed without opposition by a meeting of the full council, with only three abstentions (one Labour, one SNP, and one Conservative). The motion stated:

“Clackmannanshire Council condemns the Government of Israel for its continuing illegal occupation of Palestine’s East Jerusalem and the West Bank and for its continuing illegal blockade of Gaza.

Clackmannanshire Council welcomes the decision of the United Nations on 29 November 2012 to grant “non member observer State” to Palestine.

However, for the people of Palestine, the suffering of the last 64 years continues as the Government of Israel continues to ignore and breach international law.

Just as individual sanctions against apartheid in South Africa led ultimately to its demise there, so individual and collection sanctions against the state of Israel will end apartheid and suffering in Palestine.

Clackmannanshire Council therefore resolves to resist, insofar as legislative considerations permit, any action that gives political or economic support to the State of Israel.”

A Fair Play Campaign Group Spokesperson responded to the  passing of the motion saying  “The idea of Clackmannanshire Council having its own foreign policy is ridiculous. This misguided and offensive motion will have no impact on the real world, a fact acknowledged by the motion itself when it stresses that it will only act “insofar as legislative considerations permit“. We urge the Council to grow up and abandon this biased stunt of a motion.”