Stephen Hawking Joins Israeli Academic Boycot

[jugoso]

Renowned theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, 71, has decided to pull out of a major conference, hosted by Shimon Peres, that Hawking was scheduled to headline in Jerusalem. Hawking said it was "his independent decision to respect the boycott, based upon his knowledge of Palestine, and on the unanimous advice of his own academic contacts there."

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

[+and-then]

I support his right to choose but it seems improper to boycott an event that is purely about science. He has attended other functions there so he certainly isn't an anti semite. The very fact that he has lived with ALS for so many years has to be some kind of miracle in itself.

[Coffey]

Good, glad he has. I hope the point is made more public as well.

I support his right to choose but it seems improper to boycott an event that is purely about science. He has attended other functions there so he certainly isn't an anti semite. The very fact that he has lived with ALS for so many years has to be some kind of miracle in itself.

Of course he isn't an anti semite..... It's the typical card played by the extreme Zionist Jews when they don't get their own way or when someone disagrees with them. It's like a spoiled child throwing a tantrum.

If I made up a new religion and tried to play a card like that, everyone would laugh at me. But since WW2 and the nasty stuff the Nazi's did the Jews have had that card.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Coffey

[jugoso]

I support his right to choose but it seems improper to boycott an event that is purely about science.

How is it improper? It´s his way of demonstartting his feelings about what is happening there.

He has attended other functions there so he certainly isn't an anti semite.

No he isn´t. But everyone has their line in the sand and I guess his has finally been crossed

The very fact that he has lived with ALS for so many years has to be some kind of miracle in itself.

Yes it is. However, it has absolutely nothing to do with Judaism.

[Space Commander Travis]

I support his right to choose but it seems improper to boycott an event that is purely about science. He has attended other functions there so he certainly isn't an anti semite. The very fact that he has lived with ALS for so many years has to be some kind of miracle in itself.

I do hope it's possible for someone to say that they object to the Israeli govt's policies and actions without having to worry about being labeled an anti Semite.

[+and-then]

I do hope it's possible for someone to say that they object to the Israeli govt's policies and actions without having to worry about being labeled an anti Semite.

It absolutely is possible and happens regularly. I reserve the term myself for only the most obvious, egregious cases. Antisemitism is not disagreement with the policies of Israel's government, it's the hatred of Jews just for being Jews. In my opinion there are a couple of those here at UM but it isn't my place to call them out. Most here are genuinely angry about the mistreatment of the Palestinians, have joined on the bandwagon of public hue and cry and find it fashionable to decry the "oppression and apartheid" policies of the Israeli government. My chief issue with them is that they have no sense of balance or fairness regarding cause and effect in this conflict. EVERYTHING is Israel's fault.

[redhen]

"critics say he should stop using Israeli technology in computer equipment that allows him to communicate"

""Hawking's decision to join the boycott of Israel is quite hypocritical for an individual who prides himself on his whole intellectual accomplishment. His whole computer-based communications system runs on a chip designed by Israel's Intel team. I suggest if he truly wants to pull out of Israel he should also pull out his Intel Core i7 from his tablet," said Nitsana Darshan-Leitner of Shurat HaDin."

[Space Commander Travis]

"critics say he should stop using Israeli technology in computer equipment that allows him to communicate"

""Hawking's decision to join the boycott of Israel is quite hypocritical for an individual who prides himself on his whole intellectual accomplishment. His whole computer-based communications system runs on a chip designed by Israel's Intel team. I suggest if he truly wants to pull out of Israel he should also pull out his Intel Core i7 from his tablet," said Nitsana Darshan-Leitner of Shurat HaDin."

And that just shows that the Israeli scientific community is not spiteful or vindictive in any way, doesn't it.

[Super-Fly]

""Hawking's decision to join the boycott of Israel is quite hypocritical for an individual who prides himself on his whole intellectual accomplishment. His whole computer-based communications system runs on a chip designed by Israel's Intel team. I suggest if he truly wants to pull out of Israel he should also pull out his Intel Core i7 from his tablet," said Nitsana Darshan-Leitner of Shurat HaDin."

LOL, like some thing out of a sketch show.

[ExpandMyMind]

"critics say he should stop using Israeli technology in computer equipment that allows him to communicate"

""Hawking's decision to join the boycott of Israel is quite hypocritical for an individual who prides himself on his whole intellectual accomplishment. His whole computer-based communications system runs on a chip designed by Israel's Intel team. I suggest if he truly wants to pull out of Israel he should also pull out his Intel Core i7 from his tablet," said Nitsana Darshan-Leitner of Shurat HaDin."

It might have been made in Israel, but Intel is an American corporation. Otherwise I would agree with the logic.

[Yamato]

Trying to claim the i7 for Israel was a bit spanky I must admit.

[Space Commander Travis]

It might have been made in Israel, but Intel is an American corporation. Otherwise I would agree with the logic.

Actually, I think there's a flaw in their argument. They say "Hawking's decision to join the boycott of Israel is quite hypocritical for an individual who prides himself on his whole intellectual accomplishment", but Intel didn't help with his intellectual accomplishment; that was all his own work. Where they helped was to help him communicate it; his intellectual accomplishment had nothing to do with israel. And by their argument, China might just as well claim credit for the accomplishments of American technology, mightn't they, since a lot of it was probably made there.

Edited May 9, 2013 by Colonel Rhuairidh

[danielost]

How is it improper? It´s his way of demonstartting his feelings about what is happening there.

No he isn´t. But everyone has their line in the sand and I guess his has finally been crossed

Yes it is. However, it has absolutely nothing to do with Judaism.

So I take it your all for the hundreds of rockets fired into isreal and don't think they should defend themselves.

[Yamato]

So I take it your all for the hundreds of rockets fired into isreal and don't think they should defend themselves.

A small minority of the rockets came from Gaza, yet Gaza is under siege and the West Bank, Golan Heights, Lebanon, the Sinai, and Syria are not. Obviously, "the hundreds of rockets" are no excuse for treating some Palestinians any differently.

[+and-then]

So I take it your all for the hundreds of rockets fired into isreal and don't think they should defend themselves.

In a word - YES. This is exactly what they think. There can be no other conclusion, though they are not ethical enough to be honest and say what the intent is. These are the same kind of people who shook their heads and maybe uttered just a tsk,tsk when they heard and saw the results of the kristallnacht. "Unfortunate - but after all, don't they deserve it?"

[jugoso]

In a word - YES. This is exactly what they think. There can be no other conclusion, though they are not ethical enough to be honest and say what the intent is. These are the same kind of people who shook their heads and maybe uttered just a tsk,tsk when they heard and saw the results of the kristallnacht. "Unfortunate - but after all, don't they deserve it?"

So I take it your all for the hundreds of rockets fired into isreal and don't think they should defend themselves.

I don´t consider the majority of Israeli actions as defensive by any means. it´s always the same ol shtick with you guys. Israel does many things to instigate and incite the Palestinians. What part of illegal occupation and continuing to build settlements on Palestinain land is defensive? Subjugating millions of people for the actions of very few only adds fuel to the fire and insures that those growing up under these conditions will justifiably have strong negative feelings towards Israel.

Edited May 17, 2013 by jugoso

[+and-then]

I don´t consider the majority of Israeli actions as defensive by any means. it´s always the same ol shtick with you guys. Israel does many things to instigate and incite the Palestinians. What part of illegal occupation and continuing to build settlements on Palestinain land is defensive? Subjugating millions of people for the actions of very few only adds fuel to the fire and insures that those growing up under these conditions will justifiably have strong negative feelings towards Israel.

I will ask you the same question that BJ keeps dodging (not so artfully), how would you solve it? Where would you have the "occupiers" move to? And if they resist, how much blood and treasure is it worth to the world to solve this "Problem"?

And as for the injustice of inconveniencing or even killing many because of the actions of a few, would you not defend your family from a lone gunman because he is surrounded by unarmed people who are cheering him on as he tries to murder them? So they just give up and allow a few to destroy them off land they feel is their's just as the Palestinians do? Who decides who gets to stay? And why hasn't the world been able to force a solution until now? A just solution COULD be had but for those who teach their children to hate a Jew just for being born a Jew. I think in your heart you know this is correct. And yes, I'm sure some Jews teach their children such hate as well. But it is NOT INSTITUTIONAL as it is in the PA and Hamas and the Hezzies, uhh and Syrians and Egyptians and Jordanians...I could go on, but what would be the point. I'm not trying to be argumentative, Jugoso. But how about a little balance in the discussion?

Edited May 17, 2013 by and then

[buckskin scout]

I will ask you the same question that BJ keeps dodging (not so artfully), how would you solve it? Where would you have the "occupiers" move to? And if they resist, how much blood and treasure is it worth to the world to solve this "Problem"?

And as for the injustice of inconveniencing or even killing many because of the actions of a few, would you not defend your family from a lone gunman because he is surrounded by unarmed people who are cheering him on as he tries to murder them? So they just give up and allow a few to destroy them off land they feel is their's just as the Palestinians do? Who decides who gets to stay? And why hasn't the world been able to force a solution until now? A just solution COULD be had but for those who teach their children to hate a Jew just for being born a Jew. I think in your heart you know this is correct. And yes, I'm sure some Jews teach their children such hate as well. But it is NOT INSTITUTIONAL as it is in the PA and Hamas and the Hezzies, uhh and Syrians and Egyptians and Jordanians...I could go on, but what would be the point. I'm not trying to be argumentative, Jugoso. But how about a little balance in the discussion?

"Peace is vital - BUT not at any price" - David Ben-Gurion, 1949 Diary entry

Here are several peace proposals made to Israel in which Israel declined because it refused to withdraw to pre-June 5 1967 lines.

The 1967-1971 UN Jarring Mission, a UN effort to implement Resolution 242 which called for trade land for peace. Israel rejected it.

The 1969 Rogers Plan, involved implementation of Resolution 242 with a withdrawal of Israeli forces from Occupied Territories and just settlement of the Palestinian refugee problem in exchange for Arab acceptance of a permanent peace with Israel. Israel rejected it.

The 1977 Carter Comprehensive Peace Plan, once again, the Carter Adminstration attempted to implement elements based on Resolution 242 in a peace plan. Menachem Begin declared Israel will never accept "foreign sovereignty" over "Judea and Samaria". After more than a two years of deadlock between Carter, Begin, and Egypt's Sadat, they only managed to create cold peace between Israel and Egypt in which Egypt was given back the Sinai in trade to recognize the state of Israel. Jerusalem was unmentioned. Palestinian "autonomy" was once again thwarted when Israel finally accepted a peace treaty with Egypt in 1979 but ONLY after Egypt and the United States agreed essentially to ignore the Palestinians. The US promised Israel up to $3 billion in extra aid beyond its annual sum of around $2 billion and substantial quantities of additional military equipment for the modernization of Israeli armed forces, including the accelerated delivery of F-16 warplanes, the latest in America's air force.

The 1981 Prince Fahd Peace Plan, Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Fahd bin Abdul Aziz put forward a plan "affirming the right of the states in the region to live in peace. The plan called for Israel's withdrawal to 1967 borders, removal of settlements, and the establish a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. Israel rejected it and announced it would counter the plan by establishing more settlements in the West Bank.

The 1982 Reagan Peace Plan, this plan offered for Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders under the guidelines of the UN Resolution 242, freeze on Israeli settlements, full autonomy for the Palestinians (sans an independent Palestinian state, a retreat from the Carter Plan), and an undivided Jerusalem to be negotiated between both parties in exchange for America's ironclad commitment to Israel's security. Prime Minister Menachem Begin rejected the plan and labeled any Israeli that accepted it as a "traitor". The next day, the Israeli cabinet formally rejected the Reagan Plan and at the same time announced its intention to establish 42 new settlements and revealed a 30 year plan to settle 1.4 million Jews in the occupied territories. Israel rejected it.

"Such settlement is a Jewish inalienable right and an integral part of our national security. Therefore, there shall be no settlement freeze." - Prime Minister Menachem Begin

The 1982 Arab Fez Peace Plan, differs abit from Prince Fahd's proposal of a year earlier in mainly in its strong support of the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinians. The plan offered implicit recognition of Israel by calling for UN Security Council "guarantee for peace for all states of the region." Israel rejected it.

The 1988 PLO Peace Plan, the National Council of the Palestinian Liberation Organization renounced its terrorism, accepted UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

The council affirmed "the determination of the Palestine Liberation Organization to reach a comprehensive peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict and its essence, the Palestinian cause, with the framework of the United Nations Charter, the principals and provisions of international legitimacy, the rules of international law, the resolutions of the United Nations, and the resolutions of the Arab summits in a manner that asserts the right of the Palestinian Arab people to return, excercise self-determination and establish its independent national state on its national territory, and creates arrangements of security and peace for all the states of the region."

After two years without any serious progresss, the talks were halted in 1990 by the United States at the insistance of Israel.

The 1989 Bush Peace Plan, the Bush Administration embraced Resolution 242.

"Now is the time to lay aside, once and for all, the unrealistic vision of a greater Israel. Israeli interests in the West Bank and Gaza, security and otherwise, can be accommodated on a settlement based on Resolution 242. Forswear annexation. Stop settlement activity. Allow schools to reopen, reach out to the Palestinians as neighbors who deserve political rights."

James Baker, Secretary Of State, May 22 1989

Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir immediately labeled Baker's speech as "useless". The settlements accelerated in 1990 which caused Baker to publically deplore them:

I have to tell you that everybody over there [in Israel] should know what the [White House] telephone is: 1-202-456-1414. When you're serious about peace, call us."

James Baker, Secretary Of State, June 13 1990

Israel ignored Baker and continued its establishment of settlements.

Baker continued his efforts in 1991 with arduous trips to Israel and Arab nations to get the parties to agree to meet.

"Nothing has made my job of trying to find Arab and Palestinian partners for Israel more difficult than being greeted by a new settlement every time I arrive. I don't thinkthere is any bigger obstacle to peace than the settlement activity that continues not only unabated but at an enhanced pace. This does violate United States policy. I've raised the issue on any number of occasions with the leadership of the government of Israel to no avail."

James Baker reporting to the House Foreign Affairs Subcommitte On Foreign Operations, May 22 1991

On June 22 1991, Baker received the unprecedented agreement of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Syria to meet face to face with Israel, Prime Minister Shamir rejected the idea, "I don't believe in territorial compromise."

Baker finally convinced Israel and Shamir to an agreement to meet with Palestinians and neighboring Arab states. Even succeeded in October 18, 1991, with Russian bowing to Israeli interests and restored diplomatic relations with Israel, severed since 1967. The talks dragged on at a snail's pace inconclusively in which Israel refused to meet for a few times a month or so.

After Shamir was voted out of office in June 1992, he admited the lack of progress was deliberate, a delaying tactic he had employed over the last ten years in order to gain time to colonize the occupied territories. Clyde Haberman, New York Times, 27 June 1992

The New Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin extended the talks with month long sessions, but by November 1992 no progress was made except with Jordan that there would be future discussions. The talks were plagued by Israel's rejection of Resolution 242.

The Arab parties finally suspended both multilateral and bilateral talks when Israel expelled 413 Palestinians from the Occupied Territories to a hill-top north of the Israeli-controlled belt in southern Lebanon in December 1992. As consequence, the Bush Administration voted for a UN Security Council resolution that condemned Israel and called for action and demanded, under International Law, that the Palestinians be returned home without delay. The successor administration of Clinton followed America's tradition of complicity in Israel's violations when it welcomed Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's offer to take back one hundred of the Palestinians immediately and the rest hence a year later, stating that this offer removed any need for the Security Council's sanctions against Israel. Unmentioned by Warren Christopher (Secretary Of State) and overlooked by the US media is that the one hundred would be jailed, not returned home. And the rest in all probability faced the same fate a year hence.

Edited May 17, 2013 by B Jenkins

[jugoso]

And why hasn't the world been able to force a solution until now?

Reason #1 The United States.

List of UN Security Council resolutions vetoed by the USA, 1972 - 2002

http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/geoff/UNresolutions.htm

[+and-then]

Reason #1 The United States.

List of UN Security Council resolutions vetoed by the USA, 1972 - 2002

http://www.phon.ucl....resolutions.htm

Ever see the episode of the "Road Runner" cartoon where the coyote finally catches him? Whe he gets close enough to grab him he realizes the RR is GIGANTIC, he turns and looks at the screen as if to say "okay, what now?" Did it ever occur to you that the US has been restraining Israel from eradicating her enemies? And that if we step aside she will end all this in a very fast and brutal fashion with possibly millions dead? Of course not. The anti Israel crowd have deluded themselves into believing that America is all that stands between Israel and it's destruction. Someday we are going to see how wrong that assumption has been.

[jugoso]

Did it ever occur to you that the US has been restraining Israel from eradicating her enemies?

Has it ever occured to you that the only reason Israel can eradicate their enemies is because of US support?

Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. To date,

the United States has provided Israel $118 billion (current, or non-inflation-adjusted, dollars) in

bilateral assistance. Almost all U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance,

although in the past Israel also received significant economic assistance. Strong congressional

support for Israel has resulted in Israel receiving benefits not available to any other countries; for

example, Israel can use some U.S. military assistance both for research and development in the

United States and for military purchases from Israeli manufacturers. In addition, U.S. assistance

earmarked for Israel is generally delivered in the first 30 days of the fiscal year, while most other

recipients normally receive aid in installments. In addition to receiving U.S. State Departmentadministered foreign assistance, Israel also receives funds from annual defense appropriations bills for rocket and missile defense programs. Israel pursues some of those programs jointly with the United States.

http://www.fas.org/s...ast/RL33222.pdf

Edited May 17, 2013 by jugoso

[+and-then]

Has it ever occured to you that the only reason Israel can eradicate their enemies is because of US support?

http://www.fas.org/s...ast/RL33222.pdf

Leaving aside religious faith I will concede your point. At least from the initial arming of the state. But Israel is an arms manufacturer in it's own right, now. The 3 billion or so we provide are just credits for our best new tech - like maybe the F-35. They then purchase even more than we credit them for. The bottom line here J is that I believe they have a right to be in the land of their ancestors as much or more as the Palestinians. I believe the Bible and I believe that those who come against them will be crushed. Until today I have seen no evidence to the contrary. While I have no doubt that many here on UM are impatiently waiting and hoping for it, I suspect it will all be in vain for them.

[jugoso]

Just to be clear here AT, I have no axe to grind with Israelis and am not waiting for Israel to implode. I+m a peace and love kinda dude!

The bottom line here J is that I believe they have a right to be in the land of their ancestors as much or more as the Palestinians.

Why?

I believe the Bible.

Why?

[Space Commander Travis]

Ever see the episode of the "Road Runner" cartoon where the coyote finally catches him? Whe he gets close enough to grab him he realizes the RR is GIGANTIC, he turns and looks at the screen as if to say "okay, what now?" Did it ever occur to you that the US has been restraining Israel from eradicating her enemies? And that if we step aside she will end all this in a very fast and brutal fashion with possibly millions dead? Of course not. The anti Israel crowd have deluded themselves into believing that America is all that stands between Israel and it's destruction. Someday we are going to see how wrong that assumption has been.

So basically the U.S. has to behave respectfully towards Israel or else it might go on the rampage out of fear and paranoia? That sounds very much like the way that countries like N. Korea and (if it giot the chance, perhaps) Iran behave. But attitudes seem rather different towards the one as to the others, don't they.

[+and-then]

So basically the U.S. has to behave respectfully towards Israel or else it might go on the rampage out of fear and paranoia? That sounds very much like the way that countries like N. Korea and (if it giot the chance, perhaps) Iran behave. But attitudes seem rather different towards the one as to the others, don't they.

No, not the point I was striving to make. Israel is NOT the aggressor state in this region. It simply is not. With the military it possesses it could ravage it's neighbors and hold the region and the world in terror if it chose to - much as NK tries to do. But what is the record? Not a single threat against anyone who was not ALREADY threatening them first. This country is bending over backward to survive in the world and to mollify world opinion of it. They feel they have a sound right to the land they inhabit (and I agree) and will fight - as a last resort - to keep it. But they are NOT running about making threats. My answer was to someone who says that the only thing between Israel and destruction is America and it simply isn't true.