Stephen Hawking accused of hypocrisy over Israel conference boycott

[davidhaslanded]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/may/08/stephen-hawking-hypocrisy-israel-boycott|Stephen Hawking's decision to boycott an Israeli conference in protest at the state's 46-year occupation of Palestine was derided as hypocritical by some, who pointed out that the celebrated scientist and author uses Israeli technology in the computer equipment that allows him to function.

Hawking, 71, has suffered from motor neurone disease for the past 50 years, and relies on a computer-based system to communicate.

According to Shurat HaDin, an Israel law centre which represents victims of terrorism, the equipment has been provided by an Israeli hi-tech firm, Intel, since 1997.

"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.

[Scootaloo]

1. And the air he breathes contains niitrogen molecules exhaled by an Israeli!

S'like saying the Birmingham bus boycott was hypocritical because Henry Ford was a white guy.

[Deep13]

2. That's inconsistency, not hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy is insisting that others live by rules you are not will to accept. Hawking is simply being somewhat inconsistent in his own application of his own standards.

[bowens43]

3. Wow what a ridiculous article.

He really thinks that Hawking's intellectual accomplishment has anything to do with which chip is in a computer he might use and that where it was produced would be in any way relevant?

sounds to me like Nitsana Darshan-Leitner of Shurat HaDin is a dumbass.

[bunnies]

8. ^^ this ^^

[oberliner]

15. Nitsana Darshan-Leitner is a female

And not a dumbass.

[DrDan]

4. he is to be admired for this stand . . . and the charge of hypocricy is ridiculous

[shira]

27. How is it okay to visit Iran & China, but not Israel? n/t

[Larkspur]

5. Why can't Israel treat Palestinians as human beings?

If they did, then there would be no boycott.

It is Israel who is really hypocritical. They claim being persecuted when others rightly point out their human rights abuses against the Palestinians, but are quick to attack others, especially Arab and Muslim nations, for human rights abuses.

[King_David]

11. Yes israelis treat Palistinians like Romulans

And Klingons ,

[oberliner]

20. This incident shows the power of the Palestinian Lobby

Hawking was set to travel to Israel until he was pressured by The Lobby not to do so.

He was well aware of Israel's policies when he accepted the invitation to attend - it was only after being contacted by The Lobby with their high pressure tactics was he bullied into backing out.

[King_David]

26. Yes agreed nt

[Larkspur]

42. If only the Palestinian lobby could do a better job in the American TV market

about getting the Palestinian story out to counter the AIPAC "Israel can never do any wrong" propaganda, then they might be a modern country today.

[oberliner]

46. They do a pretty fantastic job in every other market

North America is pretty much the only one that hasn't fallen in line with the narrative.

If only those pesky AIPACers would keep quiet!

[azurnoir]

6. Gee I didn't know Intel was an Israeli company

it's wiki page makes the claim it's an American Company something that obviously should be corrected

Intel Corporation is an American multinational semiconductor chip maker corporation headquartered in Santa Clara, California. Intel is the world's largest and highest valued semiconductor chip maker, based on revenue.[3] It is the inventor of the x86 series of microprocessors, the processors found in most personal computers. Intel Corporation, founded on July 18, 1968, is a portmanteau of Integrated Electronics (the fact that "intel" is the term for intelligence information was also quite suitable).[4] Intel also makes motherboard chipsets, network interface controllers and integrated circuits, flash memory, graphic chips, embedded processors and other devices related to communications and computing. Founded by semiconductor pioneers Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore and widely associated with the executive leadership and vision of Andrew Grove, Intel combines advanced chip design capability with a leading-edge manufacturing capability. Though Intel was originally known primarily to engineers and technologists, its "Intel Inside" advertising campaign of the 1990s made it and its Pentium processor household names.

This page was last modified on 8 May 2013 at 14:30.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel

[oberliner]

9. The Guardian writer Harriet Sherwood is an idiot

Where she gets the idea that Intel is an Israeli company is beyond me.

Any idiot with internet access and the ability to surf to Wikipedia could find out otherwise in about five seconds.

That paragraph is embarrassing - The Guardian ought to edit their articles more carefully and hire more qualified writers.

[azurnoir]

12. It seems based on Shurat HaDin's statement

wonder if they'll sue Hawking, I hear they're suing former Democratic POTUS Jimmy Carter here's their statement about Carter

Asserting that no individual has done more than former President Jimmy Carter to defame Israel and to challenge its right to exist, a group of readers filed a class action suit against Carter and the Simon & Schuster publishing company, back in February, 2011, alleging that Carter’s book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” contains numerous false and knowingly misleading statements intended to promote the author’s agenda of anti-Israel propaganda and to deceive the reading public instead of presenting accurate information as advertised.

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/jews-still-planning-to-sue-jimmy-carter-over-anti-israel-book/2013/04/10/

[oberliner]

30. Except that the statement doesn't say that

The statement from Shurat HaDin does not say that Intel is an Israeli company. It says that this particular chip was designed by Israel's Intel team.

So, once again, shame on Harriet Sherwood and The Guardian for piss poor reporting.

[azurnoir]

44. It strongly insinuates it though

from the OP

His whole computer-based communications system runs on a chip designed by Israel's Intel team

eta albeit I should be thanking you as your insistence here only show vapidity of Shurat HaDin's statement

[oberliner]

62. Not even slightly

It is very clear. It says exactly what it says. Only an idiot could possibly think that Intel is an Israeli company. Even if they thought the quote "insinuated" as such, one would think a reporter could spend five seconds to identify that Intel is a US company (as you did). This is a reporter writing for a major newspaper.

[azurnoir]

75. well then as Intel is a US company, the entire point of the OP is rendered moot

but please do keep on about the Guardian's reporting

[DJ13]

7. Then he should switch to an AMD powered PC

Problem solved.

[Catherina]

10. Wow. Right on cue

By Chemi Shalev | May.08, 2013 | 9:30 PM


...

3. Judging by its initial reactions, Israel and its legions of so-called defenders will do their best to help the BDS make the most of it. The Presidential Conference could have made do with “regret”, but no, their spokespersons had to be “outraged”, thus setting a high bar for Israeli politicians who will now try to outdo each other in denouncing and condemning Hawking. To this one must add the foul and vile social media jokes of average-Joe Israelis on social media that have already found their way into the mainstream press.

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 – including the too clever by half calls for him to “boycott” the technological remedies for his affliction provided by Israeli knowhow.

Israelis aren’t known for their subtlety or genteel manners, so one can rest assured that this is exactly what is going to happen.

....

Rather than containing the damage or serving as a wake-up call, unfortunately, the reactions to Hawking’s decision to join the ranks of boycotters is much more likely to make matters worse.

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/stephen-hawking-is-now-the-academic-boycott-movement-s-unlikely-poster-boy-1.519980

[shaayecanaan]

13. The Nazis invented jet propulsion engines

therefore anyone who wants to boycott the Nazis should refuse to fly on jet airliners.

Stupid argument, isn't it?

[oberliner]

14. And we're right on to the Nazis

It's like clockwork.

[shira]

22. The Nazis were masters at boycotting Jews for being Jews.

Let's not pretend racism today is not the major driving force behind the boycott today.

Check out Hawking enjoying his trip to China, despite its ridiculously brutal occupation of Tibet:
http://www.china.org.cn/english/scitech/172341.htm

Nazis who boycott Jews would, of course, have no problem with China.

[shaayecanaan]

25. Israel was a master at boycotting Germans

German films were banned from Israel until 1967. There was a very wide consumer boycott in israel of all german products that persisted throughout the seventies, until german processed meat products began to make an appearance on israeli store shelves. Even today, Volvo sells half as many cars in Israel as Mercedes does, which is unusual by global standards. Both Israeli and north american jews bought volvos in preference to audis, bmws or mercedes for decades.

Which all goes to show that boycotts are as Jewish as matzah ball soup, and as American as cherry pie.

[Dick Dastardly]

71. The Nazis did not invent jet propulsion engines. Your erroneous claim is no suprise.

Since its par for the course that facts are of little consequense when it comes to sticking it to anything Israel at every opportunity , its expected.

Even if we are talking about the more modern age, it was not the Nazis who invented jet propulsion as the article below shows.



Jet engines can be dated back to the invention of the aeolipile before the first century AD. This device used steam power directed through two nozzles to cause a sphere to spin rapidly on its axis. So far as is known, it was not used for supplying mechanical power, and the potential practical applications of this invention were not recognized. It was simply considered a curiosity.

Jet propulsion only took off, literally and figuratively, with the invention of the gunpowder-powered rocket by the Chinese in the 13th century as a type of fireworks, and gradually progressed to propel formidable weaponry. However, although very powerful, at reasonable flight speeds rockets are very inefficient and so jet propulsion technology stalled for hundreds of years.

The earliest attempts at airbreathing jet engines were hybrid designs in which an external power source first compressed air, which was then mixed with fuel and burned for jet thrust. In one such system, called a thermojet by Secondo Campini but more commonly, motorjet, the air was compressed by a fan driven by a conventional piston engine. Examples of this type of design were the Caproni Campini N.1, and the Japanese Tsu-11 engine intended to power Ohka kamikaze planes towards the end of World War II. None were entirely successful and the N.1 ended up being slower than the same design with a traditional engine and propeller combination.

clip
The key to a practical jet engine was the gas turbine, used to extract energy from the engine itself to drive the compressor. The gas turbine was not an idea developed in the 1930s: the patent for a stationary turbine was granted to John Barber in England in 1791. The first gas turbine to successfully run self-sustaining was built in 1903 by Norwegian engineer Ægidius Elling. Limitations in design and practical engineering and metallurgy prevented such engines reaching manufacture. The main problems were safety, reliability, weight and, especially, sustained operation.

The first patent for using a gas turbine to power an aircraft was filed in 1921 by Frenchman Maxime Guillaume.[4] His engine was an axial-flow turbojet. Alan Arnold Griffith published An Aerodynamic Theory of Turbine Design in 1926 leading to experimental work at the RAE.


In 1928, RAF College Cranwell cadet [5] Frank Whittle formally submitted his ideas for a turbo-jet to his superiors. In October 1929 he developed his ideas further.[6] On 16 January 1930 in England, Whittle submitted his first patent (granted in 1932).[7] The patent showed a two-stage axial compressor feeding a single-sided centrifugal compressor. Practical axial compressors were made possible by ideas from A.A.Griffith in a seminal paper in 1926 ("An Aerodynamic Theory of Turbine Design&quot .



full
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_engine

[azurnoir]

72. no they simply were first to design a useable for the purposes of flight jet engine

not to mention the first airworthy jet aircraft

[oberliner]

16. Stephen Hawking Enjoys China Trip

After a barrage of camera flashes by Chinese students and reporters, Stephen Hawking slowly spelled out his words of wisdom to a packed auditorium in Beijing Wednesday.

"I like Chinese culture, Chinese food and above all Chinese women. They are beautiful," Hawking said, setting off a storm of applause.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/scitech/172341.htm

China in Tibet: A Brutal Occupation

http://www.savetibet.org/resource-center/all-about-tibet/china-tibet-a-brutal-occupation

[delrem]

17. After "An Inconvenient Truth" some folk criticized Al Gore for hypocrisy,

saying that his lifestyle was way excessive compared to the average consumer.

We all know that the people who led with that argument didn't give a damn about how Gore's life style might contribute to global warming. In fact, most of those people flat out denied that a phenomenon "global warming" existed, asserting that everything that we see in nature is product of natural cyclical causes, human input not factoring in.

I can accept that criticism as being somewhat valid if and only if in acknowledging the validity of the criticism I am seen to also acknowledge the underlying correctness of Gore's argument.

So Gore, the person, is far from perfect, but he did us a service by putting this issue on the map. The issue, Gore's actual argument, isn't touched by ad hominem claims of "hypocrisy".

[shira]

24. How can anyone boycott Israel w/o boycotting China first? n/t

[delrem]

54. Most people don't imagine China ever aspiring to enter the EU.

Most people don't imagine China aspiring to have some "special no-daylight relationship" with the USA and NATO.

Why is that? Because the countries and situations are fucking well *different*, shira. And if Israel wants that kind of close military/economic connection with NATO, it will get put under the same damn microscope as any country wanting to make and keep that bond. Do you think the USA got a free pass when it underwrote Pinochet's overthrow of Allende? It didn't and the chips are still being counted because people don't forget such things. To be sure Pinochet *won*, that faction *won*, but by God there are those of us who *still* want an accounting. (IMO) it's the nature of the "progressive faction" to demand an accounting from gov't for what gov't does, in war and in macro-economics especially. Plenty of us still chafe that the SOB Pinochet was counted somehow "one of us" by the US political elite.

Do you think that those of us who were and are royally pissed by Pinochet, by the various alumni of the "School of the Americas" and their over-funded actions, should say "oh no, no no, I'm totally OK with Pinochet and the killers from the School of the Americas, because first I have to boycott China and I haven't got to that yet!"

Consider (I know you don't want to) South Africa. In the end SA wanted more to be part of the larger "western culture" than it wanted to go it alone, or to go it with another group of allies. So at long last SA overturned apartheid and began a different process. Remember SA during the apartheid years? Remember the endless lists of awful, awful crimes, the necklacings, the torture, the sheer brutality of incidents perpetrated by every side which, when cited as casus belli for continuation of war and the status quo, had no answer? Do you consider how easy it would be to light a match and start that again -- how much restraint all sides, all the people in SA, need?

Pointing out instance after instance of individual acts of evil is certainly provocative, but it never can amount to an explanation, or an answer.

[shira]

61. Then let's not pretend this is about human rights, morality, ethics.

Let's assume the occupation is as bad as anything else happening anywhere in China or SA. The thing is, Israel is quite different than those countries, in that they have actually offered the Palestinians their freedom (their own state) multiple times only to be rejected w/o so much as a reasonable counter-offer.

A boycott only serves to support continued Palestinian intransigence.

Imagine China offering Tibet their own nation or SA doing the same, only to be rejected w/o counter-offers due to the other side that prefers the conflict continuing. It's unimaginable...

[azurnoir]

29. so 7 years ago Hawking went to China, who'd have ever known

thanks for posting that shocking news

[oberliner]

33. It's not shocking to me

Just goes to show that certain "pressure groups" are more powerful than others.

[azurnoir]

34. was there a 'pressure group' attempting to dissuade Hawking from going to China?

did Free Tibet contact him concerning this?

it has been about 36 hours since it was announced Hawking was not attending this science/political conference time enough to shake out his bedsheets figuratively speaking

[oberliner]

36. Are you seriously not aware of the Free Tibet movement?

Save Tibet-- Boycott China

More than a million Tibetans have died from the Chinese occupation of torture, starvation, and execution, according to the Tibetan Government in Exile.

http://www.etters.net/Tibet.htm

[azurnoir]

38. your photo shot there does not appear to' be from FreeTibet with whom I am quite familiar

nothing in that shot is click-able no further information can be found and it is not credited to FreeTibet nor is it dated but a valiant try no the less

do you have a statement from FreeTibet?

[oberliner]

41. It's not

And there isn't.

I was just surprised that you didn't know that groups were urging people to boycott China.

[azurnoir]

43. the question is was the boycott being dvocated prior to 2006?

The boycott China movement seemed to center around the 2008 Olympics, 2 years after Hawkings visit

and the only claiming I did not know is you

[oberliner]

63. Yes it was

Years before, in fact. But I don't want to get too far off track. You know my point, I know yours. We don't agree. What else is new?

[azurnoir]

69. link please oh and show us where Mr Hawking was contacted and asked to boycott China too

as he in the case of Palestine

[shira]

66. The BDS movement started its death throes at UC-Berkeley, remember?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113440882#post1

At Berkeley, astute student leaders recognized BDS as the true author of the bill and refused to pass it unless the resolution explicitly denounced that movement.

And so it came to pass that radical anti-Israel students, at Berkeley of all places, were forced to insert into their bill, at five different places, language saying the resolution “does not support Omar Barghouti, the leader of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS), and his end goal of a one-state solution that would replace the state of Israel.” His movement, they proclaimed, “calls on a cultural and academic boycott, which hurts more people than just policymakers, is counterproductive to academic and cultural growth, and is an inherently different tactic than divesting from companies.” And they reiterated that their actions “should in no way be misconstrued as support for any other goals or beliefs related to the BDS movement.”

This comprehensive rejection of BDS characterized not just the bill but also the speeches that preceded the vote. Amazingly, speakers from both sides of the aisle joined in condemning BDS. Even divestment supporters realized that distancing themselves as much as humanly possible from the widely-reviled movement was key to persuading voters. Student government president Connor Landgraf later echoed these sentiments in his wholesale denigration of the bill. In an official statement, he cautioned: “The international BDS movement, which has been known to attach itself to this legislation, cannot and should not take this as its victory. In no way do I endorse the movement’s call for cultural and academic boycotts…”

For years now, the BDS movement in the United States has failed to enact any boycott against, or divestment from, Israel. Not once has it harmed Israel’s pockets or stature. Not once has it benefitted Palestinians, let alone the cause of peace, because it rejects entirely the concept of peace between a Jewish state of Israel and an Arab state of Palestine. Two weeks ago, the student government of America’s most radical student body rejected it outright, explicitly and repeatedly. If it cannot succeed at Berkeley, how can it ever hope to succeed elsewhere? It cannot. Berkeley killed BDS.

[azurnoir]

68. ah ya

[Purveyor]

18. Oh good. Another 'david' has landed. Will you be 'offended' if you are addressed as 'david'?

Just wondering in advance, as it is a touchy matter for a few.

Welcome to the 'forum'...btw.

[King_David]

47. 'Will you be 'offended' if you are addressed as 'david'?'

And if he said ,yes.... That he would be offended, then would you unremittingly and continuously and childishly continue to call him what he says he would be offended by, like 3 members of this forum childishly do.

Would the 3 forum members bully him?

[Purveyor]

48. Most likely King_David, as I find it ridiculous that someone 'chooses' a screen name yet is

offended when addressed by that 'choosen' screen name.

[King_David]

49. Theres lots of things I find ridiculous,

And I have explained it many times to all of you.

Just because my screen name is a Gay Jewish Icon is where the problem lies.

[Purveyor]

50. No, that is where 'your' problem lies...not mine. You should have thought it through more

carefully when you selected the name if you didn't want to be addressed by it.

BTW, I know nothing of or about the 'king david' that you speak as I don't partake in biblical babel and propaganda.

I give just as much credence to the fairytale "Jack and the Beanstalk".

Perhaps you should consider having you screen name changed to "Jack"?

[King_David]

51. Bye

[Purveyor]

53. I usually post this when I tell one to 'piss off'. Enjoy and bookmark for reference.

[King_David]

55. Classy

[Purveyor]

56. Aren't those children precious with such a catchy tune? One of my fav musicals...

a catchy tune?

[King_David]

67. Yep

I had the urge to call you "Perv" but I won't be childish .

[Purveyor]

77. As you already know, I wouldn't 'give a shit' what YOU call me considering the 'source', indeed.

Carry on and humor me some more.

Unlike you...I rather enjoy it. Must be my years of 'conditioning' of dealing with persons with the likes of you.

[King_David]

78. Yes it's clear what you think about people

Who are " the likes of me"

I have been dealing with it almost all my life.

It's a struggle that us people "the likes of me" have been dealing with for many many years, and finally making progress .

[Purveyor]

79. godspeed. eom

[delrem]

52. It's absurd to say folk who refer to you offhandedly as "David" or "Dave" are homophobic.

What I know about the historical "King David" can fit on the head of a pin - something about slingshots, killing giants, attaining the rank of "King". But that awareness is also supersaturated with a ridiculous religious mythology that bends what could even possibly be "truth" into shapes that I, as a five year old, rejected as ludicrous.

I don't blame *you* for the ridiculousness of my original religious schooling, or expect *you* to give the same texts the same reading as I do, the texts being so infused with liturgical illumination as to lack independent sense; but for the same reason I don't think you should blame *me* for not bowing to the unknown details of your religious schooling, where names are icons and where by taking such a name you for some reason expect others to treat you with the identical respect as you grant the icon. That's being a bit too sensitive.

As I've said, I won't call you "David" again, but shee, do you ever have issues! (I really don't care about your personal religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, or whatever -- and I hope to hell that you don't care about mine.)

[King_David]

65. As Pelsar says

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1134&pid=41049

[azurnoir]

57. Thanks I did not know Bathsheba was a guy

because from the writing I've read it seemed like Bathsheba was a woman because according to the Bible David killed killed Bathsheba's spouse because he (David) had impregnated her, must all have been some sort of misunderstanding or something

[King_David]

64. That story doesn't interest me at all

[King_David]

73. Sorry, right-wingers, but King David was gay

It was years ago that I heard a particularly poignant segment of the Hebrew Scripture chanted in the synagogue—the story, in the Book of Samuel—of the powerful boyhood friendship between Jonathan and David. Jonathan was the emotional son of King Saul; David, the future king, was his companion and fast friend. Their bond, described without restraint in the Bible, was robust: Jonathan declares to David: “Tomorrow is the new moon, and you will be missed, because your seat will be empty.”

It’s hard to let pass the unfolding passionate relationship between these two young scriptural heroes. The romantic tension they shared was reinforced by the fierce and jealous hostility felt by King Saul against David; the paranoid monarch once even threw a spear at the lad. Jonathan so adored David that he eschewed his role as prince and gave his heart freely to his friend. His father’s disapproval did not repress his loyalty and devotion to his amour.

Granted, there are edicts in the earlier Book of Leviticus forbidding homosexual love; this is what makes the Jonathan-David affair so remarkable. Here is an intense saga of love, rivalry, and Oedipal complexes all being driven by the force of homosexual tenderness. There are deep implications of Jonathan feeling “empty” when David’s chair was vacant.


http://www.examiner.com/article/sorry-right-wingers-but-king-david-was-gay

[azurnoir]

74. that's all well and good and I'm quite familiar with it however 2 things

it still does not explain the Bathsheba episode unless you will opine that it's false, it would seem the actual King David was bi-sexual, something that IMO is far more common than some are comfortable with thinking. Also you are not a King n -so to claim anyone calling you David or Dave is being homophobic is ridiculous but OtOH a clever attempt at spin as the royal title had nothing to do with the biblical David's sexuality

[King_David]

76. Yes it is troublesome to some

Hence the title of the article...

Bisexual ? WTF difference does that fucking make ???

What does LGBT mean to you ????

[azurnoir]

80. Quote "What does LGBT mean to you ???? "

Last edited Sat May 11, 2013, 12:54 PM - Edit history (1)

well

L=Lesbian
G=Gay
B=Bi-Sexual
T=Trans-Gendered

what does it mean to you?

[King_David]

81. Sigh. nt

[Dick Dastardly]

82. King David was neither hetero or homosexual. He was asexual.

King David loved his right hand. The legendary hairiness of the palm of his right hand was a testament to his love. Except for two occasions of weakness where he cheated on his right hand using his left hand unbeknownst to his right hand, he had remained true to his right hand his whole life. His right hand eventually forgave him for his indiscretions with his left hand and actually allowed an occasional threesome with his left hand.
King David did have visions of himself a naked Barbara Bush, Snoop Dog and Bill Clinton going at it. Sometimes Britney Spears and Hillery Clinton joined in. Other than his visions and the occasional threesome with his left hand he remained dedicated to his right hand and remained a virgin his whole life.

[oberliner]

83. What about Dick Dastardly?

Any idea of what he was into?

[Dick Dastardly]

84. Dr Evil's Fembots, Ginger and Mary Ann from Gilligans Island and Daphne from Scooby Doo.

My right hand has been a good friend too.

My Muttley has a thing for Lassie.

[oberliner]

86. I meant the HB character

He seems to be a little disturbed.

[King_David]

85. Agreed,

I read that somewhere too.

[oberliner]

19. Stephen Hawking to Travel to Iran for International High School Physics Competition

Renowned physicist Stephen Hawking, best known for his work in cosmology and quantum physics, will attend the annual International Physics Olympiad, a brain-to-brain competition among the top physics high school students of 86 countries. The competition will be held this year in Isfahan, Iran, July 13 - 22.

http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2007/04/stephen-hawking-to-travel-to-iran-for.html

Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran

[delrem]

21. Are you suggesting...

Are you suggesting that the Zionist Democracy of Israel, The Islamic Republic of Iran and the People's Republic of China, should all be treated the same because all three fall flat w.r.t. "human rights"?

That isn't how things work! The relation between Israel<->USA is different than Iran<->USA and these two are both different in different ways than China<->USA. For example, Iran<->USA is a case of open economic warfare. This case doesn't resemble BDS in the least, because BDS is civil and voluntary. The USA isn't threatened by Iran, not in the least. The US sanctions, focused on Iran's nuclear program as Casus belli, don't focus at all on "human rights of Iranians, or those under Iranian rule". In contrast, China<->USA is a case of necessary interdependence, not only because China owns a large part of the US debt.

I see problems with the relation Canada<->USA in terms of many factors. A uniting factor is that the two countries compose North America, a vast land of unknown beauty and potential. The peoples of Canada<->USA are "natural" trading partners and their destinies are interconnected.

As a Canadian progressive I sometimes see myself mirrored as Doonesbury's "last american liberal" running around a field where the NRA sport peppers the ground around him with buckshot, trying to make the fun last. We are all similar but American progressives have it much worse!

When I consider Canada<->China vis-a-vis Canada/USA political-economic relations I focus 100% on economics of ownership of resources and trade agreements regarding items produced, and I'm aware that China and the USA reference very different models esp. in regards to the economics of ownership. This difference has an effect on the substance of trade agreements, in terms of what is written, with foresight, and in terms of what isn't written because one side or the other or both didn't have the foresight, or vision.

Canadian models of economics and ownership are very similar to those of the USA, and are the consequences of centuries of colonial expansionism. The image that comes to my mind as an icon to brand the thing is from the gold-rush days, when a European prospector, one who knew the script, needed only to stake a claim in order to have it. That image, that brand, totally negates the rights of any indigenous people who might have, before during and after the "rush", inhabited the land. Of course that image, insofar as it represents a model of the prevailing North American economic culture, to this day totally negates the rights of any indigenous people, the indigenous now consisting of multi-generational European, Asian, etc., families, supplementing the population of the first-peoples.

In this regard it seems to me that Israel is more similar to China than to the USA, since both Israel and China are hell bent on securing the planet's natural resources for the state, in trust for the people.
The US and Canada don't have that concept.

[oberliner]

31. No

I'm saying that Hawking has been comfortable traveling to events in countries that are occupiers and/or human rights violators.

[delrem]

45. I'm comfortable traveling to events in the USA,

even though the USA has been indulging in occupation, torture, indefinite detention, etc.

If a BDS movement were begun which had some chance of forcing a change for the better (through the peaceful, external economic forces of a common marketplace) I would consider joining in. But I totally reject it if some asshole argues that if I don't/didn't join with a BDS movement against a US market, even tho' one existed and had solid reason behind it, therefore my joining in another BDS movement can be laid at my feet as a crime of prejudice and hypocrisy. *That* kind of argument is purest dirt-digging ad hominem smear.

For example in a way too long ago time I was first introduced to the awkward (to me) notions of the american union leader Cesar Chavez - I say "awkward" because at that time I was a self-indulgent youth with no understanding of the world outside what was spoon-fed me by "the daily news" on local radio/TV/newspapers. There was no internet. The movement that Chavez was leading required considerable more education of folk like me, that we could begin to understand, and I neither had that education nor knew how to acquire it. Even so, I was somewhat semi-aware of e.g. a "boycott California grapes" movement and would, in spite of my illiteracy, avoid the things in the supermarket. Did I fully understand the situation? Hardly. Not even close. Did I think my restraint had any effect whatever? No. Do I even now think those boycott movements had some deciding effect? No, I don't. An educating effect? Yes, I do, because somehow it got through to me that a decision to act/not-act could be based on some ethical principle, in this case a principle which I had yet to really learn of as applied in a situation broadly alien to me, distant as I was from California and the situation of those workers.

I wouldn't apply standards to Hawking that I couldn't live up to myself, and that not only are perfectionist impossibilities but totally miss the point.

[oberliner]

60. Such movements do exist for China and Iran

In fact, in the former case, quite prominently so.

[azurnoir]

28. Thanks for info so 6 years ago Hawking went to Iran

case closed

[oberliner]

32. You are welcome

I think it's very instructive as well.

[azurnoir]

35. and whatb are we being "instructed" about when it comes to Hawking

what conclusions are we to come too?

[oberliner]

37. That he has attended conferences in lots of places

Including in countries that are occupiers or human rights violators.

[azurnoir]

39. so what conclusions should we be drawing from his refusing to attend this conference?

surely you can be plain about it

[oberliner]

40. That the Palestinian Lobby is extremely effective

They are able to exert an inordinate amount of pressure and make it very uncomfortable for those who do not accede to their demands.

Hawking said he had intended to go to the conference (and speak out against the occupation) until the Palestinian academics convinced him not to attend at all.

[azurnoir]

58. Yes those Palestinians are powerful indeed

why they intimidate everyone they come in contact except for Israel it seems

[oberliner]

59. The Palestinian Lobby is

Have a look at them bragging about their accomplishments:

BDS Victories

http://www.bdsmovement.net/victories

Personally, I do not think they are working in the best interests of the Palestinian people.

Just as many others feel that The Israel Lobby isn't working in the best interests of the Israeli people.

[azurnoir]

70. yes they do list their successes

does that bother you?