comments_image Comments

5 Reasons Why the Smartest Man in the World Is Right to Boycott Israel

Stephen Hawking should be commended for pulling out of an Israeli conference as a protest at Israel's treatment of Palestinians.
 
 
Share

 

As announced by the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine ( BRICUP) and subsequently covered by  The GuardianReuters and others, world-renowned theoretical physicist and cosmologist Professor Stephen Hawking has decided to heed the Palestinian call for boycott, and pull out of an Israeli conference hosted by President Shimon Peres in June. After initial  confusionthis was confirmed - Hawking is  staying away on political grounds. 

Here are five reasons why Professor Hawking is right to boycott: 

5. Whitewashing apartheid 

The Israeli government and various lobby groups use events such as the "Presidential Conference" to whitewash Israel's crimes past and present, a tactic sometimes referred to as "rebranding". As a Ministry of Foreign Affairs official  put it after the 2009 Gaza massacre, it is the kind of approach that means sending "well-known novelists and writers overseas, theatre companies, [and] exhibits" in order to "show Israel's prettier face, so we are not thought of purely in the context of war". " Brand Israel" is all about creating a positive image for a country that is the target of human rights campaigners the world over - as if technological innovations or high-profile conferences can hide the reality of occupation and ethnic cleansing. 

4. Shimon Peres 

Despite his reputation in the West as a "dove", Peres' career to date includes  war crimes in Lebanon, support for collective punishment of Palestinians in Gaza, and, in private discussions,  incitementagainst non-Jewish citizens. Anyone would do well to avoid a conference hosted by such a hypocrite. Simply not being Ariel Sharon does not really cut it; Peres should be scheduled for a trip to The Hague, not welcoming foreign dignitaries and celebrities. 

3. Boycott is not incompatible with 'dialogue' 

Contrary to the rhetoric of Israeli officials and sympathisers, boycott is not contrary to dialogue. Hawking's decision, for example, will mean people are discussing Israeli policies and strategies for ending occupation. That is not atypical - BDS initiatives often encourage a meaningful exchange of views and perspectives. However, some people abuse the concept of dialogue to defend an asymmetrical status quo, leaving intact a colonial power dynamic where, in the words of South African poet  James Matthews, "the oppressor sits seared with his spoils/with no desire to share equality/leaving the oppressed seeking warmth/at the cold fire of/Dialogue". Boycott has nothing to do with having, or not having, conversations - it is about accountability for, and opposing, basic violations of a people's rights. Confronting and resisting the reality of Israeli apartheid begets a dialogue that is fully realised in the context of equality and decolonisation. 

 

2. Impunity and accountability 

The boycott is grounded firmly in the well documented facts of Israeli policies. The US State Department  speaks of "institutional discrimination" faced by Palestinian citizens, while Human Rights Watch  says Israel maintains a "two-tier system" in the West Bank. From the "discriminatory" control and distribution of water resources ( Amnesty International) to the "forced transfer of the native population" ( European Union), it is no wonder that the UN's Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has reported Israel as violating prohibitions against "racial segregation and apartheid". 

Illegal settlements are used to colonise the West Bank, Palestinians in Gaza are blockaded and bombed, Palestinians in East Jerusalem have their homes demolished - and all the while, of course, expelled Palestinian refugees just a few miles from their properties are still prevented from returning home on the basis they are not Jews. And note that the "But what about China/Myanmar/Syria etc" line misses the point (as well as placing Israel in some rather interesting company). A boycott is a tactic, advisable in some contexts, and not in others. It is not about a scale of injustice or wrongdoing. It is about a strategy targeting systematic human rights abuses and breaches of international law, called for by the colonised. Which brings us to… 

 
See more stories tagged with: