Stephen Hawking joins academic boycott of Israel

Post Reply New Topic

Ummm....under a Westminster parlimentry system, opinion polls have no immediate impact, the only poll that matters is the one on election day (the election). And what disenfranchisement are you refering to? Is there a provision in UK voting law that disenfranchises adult voters?

There are laws against BDS in the United States... any boycott of Israel is subject to all sorts of penalties that do not apply to boycotts of any other country.

Xenon13, could you please cite to the referenced "laws against BDS"?

I am aware of 26 USC 999, but that pertains to compliance with a foreign country's boycott demands, not to what you appear to be referencing above.

God, that irks me. I mean, I think that Israel has a right to exist (And, usually, is politically expedient for us, having an ally in the region), but I certainly don't condone a great many of their actions. Speaking out against the abuse inflicted on the Palestinian people is the man's right, is very brave, and is politically smart. Oppressing a populace based on race or religion always radicalizes them.

You are right. The Jews in Israel should stop fighting. They will all be killed or dispersed in under a year and the "problem" will be "solved" Then the Palestinians will start cutting each other's throats which is their natural inclination.

ruveyn

Actually, the issue I'm most concerned about is the non-prosecution of those who settle in areas that are Palestinian by treaty. After all, why should the Palestinians trust and work with someone who keeps trying to steal their land.

Second, it shouldn't be about Jew and Muslim. It's about Israel. The nation contains both religions, and must be prepared to go bat for both, to protect the rights of both. However, preferential status has long been granted to Jews. Sure, they're a minority. So were the Afrikaaners. Hey, white Afrikaaners have totally been killed to the last man for working with the blacks, eh? Actually, they continue to hold a strong position in the country. The same could be said for the Jews, if the diplomacy were approached the right way. Unfortunately, continuing to marginalize Muslims simply pushes them further and further into the arms of radicals. What we can learn from this is that diplomacy ca lead to a modern nation for both parties, whereas continuing to refuse to talk empowers the rebels. When a government is overthrown militarily (As will, eventually, be the case for Israel, if it continues to refuse to talk), the situation for the overthrown party/minority/ethnic group is much worse. Look at the plight of White Rhodesians under Mugabe. The reason for the is that the diplomat is a statesman, the general is a strong man. By encouraging the Jews and Palestinians to field the best diplomats rather than the best soldiers, they can build a great nation for both.

And yes, appropriate response by the Israeli Defense Force must be permissible. However, in almost every retaliation for the death of a few Jews, enormous numbers of Muslim civilians are slain. This is not appropriate response. Appropriate response would be highly trained strike teams targeting confirmed terrorists and soldiers with sensitivity training.

You are permitted to hold whatever views you want, friend, but being uncompromising is no way to build a nation. It can only build a warzone.

Boycotting Israel because Stephen Hawking says so, is a grade A example of the argument from authority fallacy. Intelligent people have held unintelligible political views before. There are people who are equally intelligent who claim that there never was a Holocaust, that the Earth was created in six days and that extreterrestrial beings have visited us many times.

Israel is the most democratic country in the middle east. Some people just can't accept that a small capitalist country surrounded by theocracies and socialist regimes has a much higher standard of living.

Furthermore, I find it funny that nobody wants to boycott China, despite the fact that 10 000 people are executed there every year and that the uyghur people are treated much worse than the Palestinians. The very same people who support an embargo of Israel, also oppose the US embargo of Cuba--the only country on the western hemisphere that doesn't hold free elections.

Before we discuss the human rights in Israel, we need to discuss what Hamas does to the people. Hamas imprison people because they're homosexual, they carry out extrajudicial killings and they're responsible for a complete lack of freedom of speech on Gaza. And like a little brat who throws rocks at people, they violate the truce over and over again by all of a sudden launching fajr missiles at Israeli civilians.

Since Israel is a free market economy, a boycott hits the people and not the politicians.

A lot of people have called for investigations into China. The problem with this is that... well, China's not Israel. Israel is a money sink. They're largely dependent on the United States, although less so than they used to be. However, China... we're dependent on them, as is a large portion of the West. We don't like it, but it's not smart to piss off the big dog.



In order for any discussion to be successful, both parties have to recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization. Once this happens, however, the Jewish government has to take a philosophical attitude towards it. They can't blame the PA for Hamas's actions, and they can't lob rockets of their own back. Hamas must be handled like any criminal organization. Unless, of course, the PA is revealed to be ordering Hamas to conduct it's operations.



Sadly, yes. This is where I agree with you. Completely cutting off businesses from doing their thing does not help. I mentioned Rhodesia before. Prior to Mugabe, there was a possibility that in the future, a South African solution could be achieved. After we cut them off, it weakened them to the point where they could be backed into a corner and overtaken. By maintaining the power of the Israeli economy and government with restrictions, we can push them to do what we want while keeping them in the game.

People seems to be forgetting that China is dependent on us as well--and that China can only make money by us as long as western coorporations doesn't move to India instead.

In 2012, US aid only accounted for 1.5% of the Israeli GDP--and the aid is mainly used for military purposes so that the small country can defend itself.



Not necessarily. One can put pressure on a government without labeling them as a terrorist organization.





I think this is easier said than done. Remember that the Israeli politicans are elected by the Israeli people--and that the Israelis have access to an (almost) free press and the internet, which means that they can make up their own minds.

A weakened Israel can make a cocky Hamas think that they'll stand a chance this time and make Hamas become more aggressive. Furthermore, it can make Iran or Syria do something extremely stupid.

Nobody ever used Hawkings joining the boycott as their sole reason.For them it just adds weight to the already overburgeoning tanker of reasons to oppose Israel's hegemony in the region.


You honestly think that is their beef?

Wrong. Many people, with an unbiased perspective of histroy cannot accept the circumstances in which Israel came into existance and the way its current behaviour curtails Palestinians from their rightful homes and resources.

Rubbish. A lot of people are boycotting and protesting against China because of its relationship with Tibet.

The reason Israel recieves comparitively more focus is that it is a military complex operating an ongoing besiegement of a dispossesed and assymetrically disadvantaged population.

I seem to recall the last round of hostilities was provoked when the Israeli air force launched a preemptive bombing against the military leader of Hamas and later said that breaking the peace was 'worth it' in order to get him.

You do not want the Palestinians or their supporters to fight back with either violence or economic measures, what do you expect them to do?

Also I'm old enough to remember that boycotts did a pretty good job of undermining the Apartheid regime.

The proven rise of antisemitism in our century and the fact that many prominent computer scientists are Israelis is a nice counterweight, then.



To a certain degree, yes. Allthough many probably have antisemitic reasons as well, which explains why they don't give a damn about the situation in North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Zimbabwe or Kazahkstan.



Most historians agree that Israel did indeed exist before it was occupied by the Romans, the Brits and the Ottomans. Furthermore, they also seem to agree that Palestine never existed and that Palestinian nationalism arose in the late 60's. The Ottomans simply regarded the area as a southern part of Syria.

All Palestinians driven from their homes by force, were given the opportunity to move back in 1949. The same can't be said about the jews driven from their homes in the Arab countries, the five million hindus driven from their homes in Pakistan or the five million muslims driven from their homes in India. But I guess how Pakistan came to exist is irrelevant, as neither the jews nor the capitalists are responsible for it.



http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=e ... t+china%22

http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=e ... nezuela%22

http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=e ... t+burma%22

http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=e ... tt+laos%22

http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=e ... h+korea%22




So what you're saying is that the Uyghurs and the Tibetans stand a military chance against China, or that the Kurds aren't disadvantaged against the Iranian government?



As always, Hamas violated the last ceasefire in february by launching more rockets.



What the Romanians did to the communists the Palestinians should do to Hamas. Again: The Israeli civilians (the ones who'd get harmed by economic sanctions) aren't the ones who wreck havock on Palestinian territories.



Israel is not an Apartheid regime. This is a common straw man argument from the modern day antisemitist movement. If you wonder why the Palestinian territories have a significantly lower standard of living than Israel, blame PLO and Hamas. Hamas have the choice of whether or not to use the aid the receive on welfare and infrastructure--or to use them on missiles and luxury cars to the politicians. The seem to prefer the latter, though.

Israel has free elections, more freedom of speech than any of it's neighbors, better healthcare than most European countries and equal rights for both muslims and jews. The Apartheid regime was not a democracy as less than ten percent of the adult population (the white ones) could actually vote.

Furthermore, Israel was the first country in the middle east to abolish the death penalty. Lastly, the apartheid regime didn't have a free market to the same extent as Israel does; nor do the Palestinian territories--so economic sanctions against Palestine would actually cripple Hamas before crippling the people.

In your view...Who, pray tell, are these demigods with said "unbiased perspective of histroy (sic)" holding such views? Not even in a book like The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy do the authors come even close to anything like what you're suggesting.

I bet Israel sucks even for the jews that live there.....isn't military service mandatory? and given all the violence that takes place it pretty much ensures all the young people are exposed to violence and killing people. I get the impression its a very militaristic nation which I simply do not support regardless of what race/ethnicity the people there are.

Then there is that bit about the unjust way modern day Israel came about, usually there are hard feelings when a group of people decides to declare other peoples land their own and throw them out regardless of why. Just not sure how people can argue that there was nothing at all wrong with the way modern day Israel came about. I also don't see how it is 'anti--Semitic' to point out that it was a little bit messed up.

Military service is de-jure mandatory in many democratic countries--but it's easy to get away from it if you want to. Many countries are far more militaristic than Israel; even though their military arsenal per capita is larger than the American militiary, their military culture is completely different.



Israel belonged to the jews long before the Romans, the Arabs and the Brits started fighting over it. Furthermore, the 1940's were a special case because millions of jews were forcefully removed from their homes in Arab countries.

It is, but it's considered part of the national defence of Israel in its culture. Not all people go to the front line, but everyone - apart from most Arabs - is expected to help.

Israel needs to be quite defensively militaristic because of the numerous threats it faces from those who would annihilate it.



No, it doesn't.



The option for the Israelis is this: be "militaristic" in a defensive sense or be wiped out.



The way Israel came about was far more just than the country you live in. Remember that the Americans had to butcher, murder and enslave their way. The U.S. is not unique, though. Slavery is a worldwide phenomenon, and still actually happens in many places in the world.



You do know that the Palestinians have never had their own land, don't you? The Mandate for Palestine was British-controlled, then the territory was under the jurisdiction of the Ottoman Empire.

The Palestinian identity didn't even come into existence until the mid-1960s. In 1948, the nascent Jewish state, Israel defended itself against the might of numerous Arab armies hellbent on Israel's annihilation. When Israelis triumphed, Jews across the Arab and Muslim world were forced to flee. I accept that a lot of people did leave the Israeli state - often because of the fighting, but Jewish leaders pleaded with them to stay.



You know about the huge historical connection to the land and, furthermore, the Balfour Declaration and the attempts to mediate peace between Arabs and Jews in the decades before Israel was born?