Hawking, boycotts and the settlements

Forget the civil war in Syria; the big news from the Middle East today seems to be the decision by Stephen Hawking, the world’s most famous living physicist, to boycott a conference in Israel as a gesture of solidarity with the Palestinians.

From the Israelis’ point of view, this is a story they should want to have die as quickly as possible. Beating up on Stephen Hawking is not the way to win friends; as Chemi Shalev puts it in Haaretz, “Not only is a campaign against Hawking bound for defeat, as any PR expert will tell you, but its fallout will be compounded the more that the protests are aimed at his physical disabilities.”

But some people just can’t help themselves. The conference chairman described the boycott as “outrageous and improper”, and said that “The imposition of a boycott is incompatible with open, democratic dialogue.”

As a description of an organised blanket boycott of Israeli institutions and academics (of the sort some Palestinians have encouraged) that criticism would make sense. But so far there is no evidence that Hawking supports any such sweeping tactic, and one person deciding not to go to a conference is not an “imposition” of anything. In any case, the conference concerned is only loosely speaking an academic conference; it’s sponsored by Israel’s president, and is described by Noam Sheizaf as “an annual celebration of the Israeli business, political and military elites, whose purpose is unclear at best.”

Mind you, it wasn’t just the Israelis who were making themselves look silly; Cambridge University, Hawking’s employer, originally claimed that Hawking had declined to attend for health reasons, later having to apologise for the “confusion”.

Once you’ve read up on that, you can turn a little closer to home and read the statement by the Australian Jewish Democratic Society, which has been threatened with disaffiliation from the Jewish Community Council of Victoria for having organised a campaign to boycott products from the Israeli settlements on the West Bank.

The view from the Israeli right, which at least some in the JCCV appear to endorse, is that this is indistinguishable from a boycott of Israel itself: it’s fundamental to Likud’s position that the settlements should be treated as an integral part of Israel.

But of course the reality is that the settlements are on occupied territory, in violation of the express terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention. They are also, in purely practical terms, an obstacle to any peace settlement, since their relentless growth restricts the land available for a Palestinian state.

The counter-argument is often made that there are much more serious obstacles to Mid-East peace (such as Palestinian intransigence of one sort of another), so harping on the settlements is naive at best or at worst suggests bad faith and even anti-Semitism.

But this misses the point. Whether or not the settlements are the most serious obstacle, it is beyond dispute that they are an obstacle, and one that the Israeli government could address immediately (at least to the extent of stopping their expansion). Other obstacles may raise other difficulties, but this particular obstacle only exists because the Israeli government has chosen to let it exist: a choice that calls into question its commitment to peace.

A publicity campaign, such as that by the AJDS, to focus public opinion on that fact seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable tactic. It doesn’t amount to being anti-Israel (much less anti-Jewish) unless you think that peace is somehow contrary to Israel’s interests.

Reports on Monday indicated that an unofficial freeze on new settlement construction has been in place since Barack Obama’s visit to Israel in March. If true, that would at least be a step forward in the peace process – one that might not have been taken without the sort of pressure that international campaigns can apply.

4 thoughts on “Hawking, boycotts and the settlements

  1. It is very simple and cannot be argued.

    The annexing of another countries land is an act of WAR. This land is held by force under no existing authority other than by military might.

    WW2 has only taught them that might is right and high walls and social isolation are a great way to terrorise people.

    Like

  2. That’s true Mark, but even war has its rules. It’s not unlawful of itself to occupy territory pending a peace treaty, but it is unlawful to transfer your own population into it.

    Like

  3. Hi Charles, if your intention was to occupy this land as the Isr*elis contend as a buffer for their own security then hand it over to the UN.

    There has never been good will on their side that I have seen. They are entrenched in the mind set that they are the earths permanent victims and their struggle will justify anything.

    Recently the Arab league was willing to swap the occupied land for other lands but their refused. They see no culpability in the ramification of the social isolation and dislocation of those that live in the Garza strip Etc etc etc etc.

    If the US walked away and stopped supporting this total intransigence they would have to make some meaningful attempts at settling this issue.
    I was once an ardent supporter but time is up and they have compromise because world opinion is turning. EG now the Palestinians are part of the UN and this sentiment will grow.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.