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

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

“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.”

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.

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.

The TUC’s decision to singularly focus on Gaza again is bizarre. There is no motion on Syria, at a time when hundreds are dying every week, or on anywhere else in the Middle East, still reeling from the aftershocks of the Arab Spring.

A visit to only Gaza, ignoring the West Bank, Israel and the Sinai, is a distorted snapshot of a complex situation; it would be the sort of trip which
conceals as much as it reveals.

More concerning, though, is the TUC’s decision to visit Gaza with the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. PSC trips are necessarily biased and one-sided, meeting only those parts of Palestinian society that support their views. In particular, PSC trips to Gaza usually include meetings with terrorist leaders from Hamas. The PSC makes no secret of its agenda.

We believe that the trip should not go ahead as envisaged in the motion. However, if it does, we call upon the TUC to take the opportunity and have a more balanced visit to the wider region, organised by neutral and fair organisations, and to guarantee that they will not meet with the terrorist leaders of Hamas.

To Whom It May Concern,

It has come to our attention that the al-Quds Day March is being advertised on Transport for London buses. As an advert for a political event, this advert contravenes section 3.1 (p) of the TfL Advertising Policy which states 3.1 ‘Advertisements will not be approved for, or permitted to remain on TfL’s services if, in TfL’s reasonable opinion, the advertisement falls within any of the following categories.’ (p) ‘The advertisement relates to a … a political cause.’

Quds Day is an annual political rally introduced by Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. In creating the day, Khomeini said “I ask all the Muslims of the world and the Muslim governments to join together to sever the hand of this usurper [Israel] and its supporters.”

More recently, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Iranian State news that “The Quds Day is not merely a strategic solution for the Palestinian problem, as it is to be viewed as a key for solving the world problems; any freedom lover and justice seeker in the world must do its best for the annihilation of the Zionist regime in order to pave the path for the establishment of justice and freedom in the world”

The particular advert, apparently placed by the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC), directs people to that organisation’s website for details. The IHRC website’s details on the event make it clear that this is an explicitly political rally.

Their page on the Quds Day rally[1] includes the following quote “Oh Muslims and deprived of the world, rise up in unity and take your destiny in your hands. Lets start from where we live. We should sanction their economy and puppets in our countries. We should deny them any breathing space until we free our nations of their perfidy. It should ever remain in our minds that we can free Quds only when we free our nation of its corrupt elements.”

At previous al-Quds Day Marches in London the flag of the Hezbollah, a proscribed terrorist organisation, has proudly been on display by participants alongside signs stating “We are all Hezbollah now!” Speakers at previous rallies made inflammatory political speeches calling for the destruction of the State of Israel.

We appreciate that this might not have been apparent when the advertising was first accepted in good faith. However, in light of the explicitly political nature of the event being advertised on TfL buses, we are sure that you will take this opportunity to apply your Advertising Policy consistently and remove the adverts.

Yours sincerely,

Jeremy Newmark                                                                           Jon Benjamin

Chief Executive                                                                          Chief Executive

Jewish Leadership Council                                                Board of Deputies of British Jews

Fair Play has put the following statement out to the media:

The Co-op’s decision to reformulate its policy on settlement goods to include a boycott of four Israeli companies is naïve and a retrograde step.

This extension is significantly less than the full boycott of Israel sought by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. However, the Co-op has not fully understood the Jewish community’s serious concerns with an ever-increasing slippery-slope boycott policy.

Despite the Co-op’s claims that they are applying their policy even-handed, goods from Occupied Northern Cyprus, for example, may still be sold in Co-ops and labelled as “produce of Turkey”.

The Co-op claims that it may buy more produce from other Israeli companies in place of these four. This remains to be seen, and we will monitor the outcome closely.

“UCU’s treatment of its Jewish members over the last five years includes assaulting their identity, ignoring their harassment in the Union and refusing to investigate their resignations. Now UCU has gone further and simply redefined ‘antisemitism’ itself. UCU will actually campaign for other organisations to stop fully fighting antisemitism, and has changed its procedures so complaints from Jewish members will be treated with suspicion.

The truth is apparent: whatever the motivations of its members, we believe UCU is an institutionally racist organisation.”

For a live report of UCU’s vote on redefining antisemitism, see ENGAGE.

Fair Play wrote a letter to Moyle Council pointing out that they’d be linking to Hamas and exactly what this means. The letter was tabled at a recent Council meeting and has now been covered by the Ballymoney Times:

‘Hamas for tea’ at Moyle Council?

Published on Tuesday 19 April 2011 16:16

REACTION TO Moyle Council’s support for a twinning arrangement with Gaza has come in from the Israeli community.

The Council split on the issue but a majority did back the proposal brought forward by Independent councillor Padraig McShane who visted Gaza last year.

Cllr McShane says the ‘twinning’ will help give humanitarian aid to Gaza.

Gaza is ruled by Hamas, a group which Israelis heavily criticise.

On ‘Facebook’ many people in Gaza have welcomed the decision by Moyle to twin with Gaza but the Jewish Chronicle newspaper reported that Steven Jaffe, co-chair of Northern Ireland Friends of Israel, said: “Is Moyle District Council prepared to turn a blind eye when it invites Hamas officials to tea at the town hall?”

And the London-based pro-Israeli ‘Fair Play Campaign Group’ has contacted Moyle Council on the matter.

Arieh Kovler said the Fair Play group is an organisation created by the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council, the main institutions of the British Jewish community.

The letter said: ‘I am writing to express extreme concern at media reports that Moyle District Council is proposing to twin with Gaza city. The Council should be aware that Gaza City is ruled by Hamas.

‘Hamas is recognised by the USA, UK and the Republic of Ireland as a terrorist organisation. Hamas has been linked with more than 400 terrorist attacks including more than 50 civilian-targeted suicide bombings.

‘The Hamas charter rejects all peace negotiations with Israel and calls for Israel to be obliterated. Hamas came to prominence in the 1990s by rejecting the Oslo peace process which sought to established a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

‘The manner which Hamas governs Gaza has brought widespread concern internationally relating to the killing and torture of political opponents, the treatment of women and homosexuals and the indoctrinating of children as young as eight to anti-Jewish hatred and violence.

‘A twinning between Moyle District Council and the Hamas-dominated Municipality of Gaza City would make a formal and symbolic link between your Council and an antisemitic, internationally proscribed, terrorist organisation. This has very serious ethical and legal ramifications for the Council.

‘I would be obliged if you would please bring these concerns to the attention of the councillors.

‘If Moyle District Council wishes to make a humanitarian gesture towards Palestinians who are suffering because of the conflict there are many organisations which are seeking to brihg together Palestinians and Israelis.

‘I would be delighted to provide information about appropriate initiatives which the Council would, I am sure, approve and may wish to support,’ said the letter.

There was no discussion of the letter when it was tabled in front of councillors at the main April monthly meeting of the Council.

In another development, Moyle councillors did not like the “tone” of a letter sent to them about Gaza by the head of Nenagh Council in County Tipperary.

Moyle Council has a long standing association with Nenagh but recently when the SDLP said they wanted more information on the Gaza proposals, before they finally backed it last month, Seamus Morris had been touch urging the Council to back the Gaza link.

But, at a recent meeting, Councillor Catherine McCambridge (SDLP) proposed, seconded by Councillor Willie Graham, ‘That a letter be sent to Nenagh Council to express Council’s disappointment at the tone of the letter sent by the Mayor to Moyle Council regarding the proposed twinning with Gaza.’

On a vote being taken, there were nine votes in favour of and none against the proposal which was carried.

Earlier this year Nenagh Mayor, Cllr Seamus Morris (Sinn Fein) urged Moyle Council to back Cllr McShane’s Gaza proposals

In the letter, Cllr Morris said: ‘Back in the 80s when it was not a popular thing to do Nenagh Town Council twinned with Moyle District Council.’

And in the letter Cllr Morris said it was a “mystery” to him why SDLP councillors were ‘holding up’ the plan.

Last year Moyle Independent councillor Randal McDonnell said he would rather go to ‘Outer Mongolia’ than Nenagh.

At the time, Seamus Morris said he wouldn’t allow the comment to sour relations between the two towns