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.”

Much was made this week of a petition signed by 62 professional footballers, including several English Premier League players, protesting UEFA’s decision to hold next summer’s European under-21 Championships in Israel.

The petition, reportedly initiated by the ex-Tottenham Frederic Kanoute, also featured the former Chelsea striker Didier Drogba and Newcastle midfielder Yohann Cabaye.

Or did it?

News emerged today that in fact neither of these players actually added their name to the petition. Drogba took to twitter to deny that he was involved and Yohann Cabaye posted a message to his website stating that he had never agreed to his name being attributed.

Admittedly the campaign to prevent Israel hosting the tournament next summer has been a bit of a damp squib but did the organisers really have to stoop this low? To borrow a football cliché, it’s a real head in the hands moment.

But there’s an even more serious edge to this tale.

How many of the other footballers had their names added to the petition without consent? And how much of the BDS strategy in general relies on inflation, exaggeration and, dare we say, outright falsehood?

Suddenly a petition which appeared to have finally given some exposure to a failing campaign has become a laughing stock, its credibility shot to pieces.

Culture and sport should unite rather than divide. It should form bridges between people so that difficult issues such as the Middle East Peace Process can be tackled in a constructive way.

This sort of petition can only ever be destructive, and even more so when it is full of lies and half-truths like the ones uncovered today.

This is a cross post from The Times of Israel by Jeremy Newmark

Israel demonstrated patience and restraint in the face of regular rocket fire for months, but the enormous increase was too much to bear. For the past week, Israel conducted operation Pillar of Defence, a biblical reference to the pillar of cloud that guided the Children of Israel through the desert when they left Egypt and protected them from the Egyptians’ arrows and slings.

These rockets are aimed at Israeli towns, houses and schools. They are weapons used almost exclusively to hurt civilians. Using them against Israel is a breach of International Humanitarian Law – in other words, a War Crime. Officially, at least, the major Human Rights NGOs recognise this. In 2008, Human Rights Watch said

Hamas rocket attacks targeting Israeli civilians are unlawful and unjustifiable and amount to war crimes.

This Monday, a report from Amnesty International said that rocket fire by Hamas and other groups against Israeli towns

violates international humanitarian law.

Others have pointed out that launching such attacks from civilian areas (thus creating human shields) constitutes a double war crime. You’d never know it to watch the behaviour of some of these selfsame NGOs, with their staff taking to Twitter and the traditional airwaves to strongly attack Israel with only a cursory mention of Hamas (and in one case making arguably antisemitic jokes at the expense of Jewish Members of Parliament).

UNITE, one of the UK’s largest trade unions and the biggest funder of the Labour Party, released a 500-word screed, which condemned the

illegal Israeli assassination

of Hamas terrorist leaders but didn’t once mention Hamas rockets or Israeli victims, even dismissively. The failure of institutions like UNITE to even acknowledge Hamas war crimes is shameful, and demolishes any pretense that they are interested in international law, justice or a lasting peace.

This time, though, these groups are the more marginal. The British Government demonstrated balance and understanding from the outset. Both Prime Minister David Cameron and Foreign Secretary William Hague backed Israel’s right to self-defence and are absolutely explicit that the primary responsibility for the escalation lies with Hamas itself.

Of course, the Government was also very clear that it feared a ground offensive – something that Israel’s Government was also clearly trying to avoid. This combination is a mature and developed approach which Israel’s leaders are much more likely to heed than the immediate condemnation that we’ve sometimes seen in the past.

This approach was echoed in Parliament, with many MPs rising to speak in support of Israel and condemn Hamas. The perennial knee-jerk critics like Sir Gerald Kaufman were in a clear minority. Reasonable and constructive comments came from all sides of the house with supporters of Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel ensuring their voices were heard in both the Commons and the Lords.

One reason for this support is that Israel’s story is being told better than it has been for many years. During previous conflicts, Hamas and Hezbollah got their messages out more effectively and faster than Israel. Supporters of Israel in the UK were left without the information we needed to respond. Things seem to have changed dramatically. Finally Israel has mastered social media. The IDF’s Facebook graphics, rapid responses and YouTube videos mocking Hamas’s almost-comical boasts meant that lies have been debunked before they can spread. In the UK, we are especially lucky to have Daniel Taub. As Israel’s Ambassador to Britain he is a powerful advocate and effective communicator who has also helped get Israel’s message across in the media and to politicians. The quality of analysis and output from BICOM was also world class.

The UK Jewish Community is united in its support for Israel’s right – Israel’s need – to stop the rocket fire. Leaders from across the community wrote to Ambassador Taub to express this support and to ask him to convey it to Israel’s leaders. This support also exists at the grassroots level. Members of the Jewish community have been actively organising and joining protests outside the Palestinian mission against rocket fire and counter-protests at the Israeli Embassy to ensure that anti-Israel protests are answered. They have used Facebook and Twitter to show their support and spread the message that the rockets must stop. They’ve made sure that the Batsheva Dance Troupe, an Israeli group touring the UK, was welcomed with Israeli flags and smiles in sharp contrast to the boycotters who greeted them with hate.

Israel worked hard to avoid sending ground troops into Gaza, with Israeli leaders doing everything they could to reach a ceasefire agreement that will stop the rockets through negotiation. The ceasefire deal announced by US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and Egyptian Foreign Minister Mohmed Kamel Amr will be tested immediately. Will Hamas and the other groups keep to the agreement? How should Israel respond if they don’t? Will Hamas attempt to re-arm? Will Israel be forced into ground action anyway?

We pray and hope for peace for Israel – especially Southern Israel, which hasn’t been free from rockets day-to-day for years. We hope that the model of positive activism seen in the UK will be an enduring example for the future. The region needs a lasting solution to this conflict. The only viable solution remains a two state solution. A safe and secure Israel alongside a Palestinian state. And we also hope that the positive model of communication and activism seen in Israel and the UK can be a model and inspiration for the future.