Nobel laureate cancels London trip due to anti-Semitism

[oberliner]

An American Nobel laureate has cancelled a planned visit to a London university because of what he perceives to be "a widespread anti-Israel and anti-Semitic current in British opinion", the Guardian newspaper reported Thursday.

Steven Weinberg, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin, had been invited to Imperial College to speak in honor of a Pakistani physicist, Abdus Salam, and to deliver a talk at a conference on particle physics.

In a letter to his host at Imperial, Michael Duff, Professor Weinberg said he was withdrawing from the trip, which was due to take place in July

He said his decision was triggered by an agreement by the National Union of Journalists at its national conference to boycott Israeli products.

He wrote: "I know that some will say that these boycotts are directed only against Israel, rather than generally against Jews.

"But given the history of the attacks on Israel and the oppressiveness and aggressiveness of other countries in the Middle East and elsewhere, boycotting Israel indicated a moral blindness for which it is hard to find any explanation other than anti-Semitism."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3404128,00.html

[Violet_Crumble]

1. Protesting a boycott by doing a personal boycott...

Whatever rocks his boat, I guess, but it's just a bit hypocritical to bitch about what he sees as anti-Israel sentiment in Britain and then turn around and indulge in some anti-British sentiment in retaliation...

What this guy is trying to argue is that not only boycotts aimed at Israeli policy, but criticism of Israel policy is antisemitic. While there's some who do believe that criticism of Israeli policy = antisemitism, most folk aren't that silly.

Something interesting to note about this guy. I went and read the Guardian article about it and this gem from him wasn't repeated in the ynet article:

'Prof Weinberg said the only other reason he could imagine for the boycott was the NUJ's "desire to pander to the growing Muslim minority in Britain".'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2087159,00.html

Imagine if someone stated that a reason for a decision to do something was due to the desire to pander to a growing Jewish minority somewhere. What I'd like to know is why one is seen as being bigoted, while the other appears to be perfectly acceptable (for Americans at least)...

[pnorman]

2. I was just watching him a few days ago,

in a UK documentary on atheism! Here's one Google hit: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/weinberg.htm

He generally makes a lot of sense, and I'll listen to him carefully and with respect. But although I well understand what's bugging him here, I think he's full of shit on this.

pnorman

[pelsar]

3. its not silly...

its a very gray area...

What this guy is trying to argue is that not only boycotts aimed at Israeli policy, but criticism of Israel policy is antisemitic. While there's some who do believe that criticism of Israeli policy = antisemitism, most folk aren't that silly.

we all know anti semites will hide behind the "anti israel" wing.....and jews who are sensitive to being singled out will find the anti israel wing very close to anti semetism in character if not in exact definition.
________________

to expand: jews have been singled out over the centuries as being different....and i do believe i'm speaking for the mainstream of jews...when israel is singled out, it gets hard to differentiate between our historical past as jews (the baggage) and israel, the jewish country, being singled out as different even if its simple straight forward criticism of israeli policy.

I'm always amused to a certain degree about the accusations leveled at israel: colonialistic, apartheid, genocide, facist, to name a few. I dont believe any other country, including those that really are facist, have real apartheid (saudi arabia), get so many different types of accusations from so many different types of groups: from the far left to the far right to the religious fanatics....that puts israel in the catagory of being singled out...hence the hyper sensitivity of so many jews toward it.

and though i'm supposed to add that criticism of israeli policy does not equal anti semetism, it isnt so simple: for example when the president of iran does criticize israeli policy and then threaten to wipe it off the map, as well as declare the holocaust a hoax, well it does seem to cloud the issue for many jews.

i will say that its never been so simplistic as it is for any 'normal country"

[Violet_Crumble]

8. Sorry, but it is silly...

Because for this guy there is no grey area. What his argument is is that criticism of Israel or calls to boycott Israel for their policies towards the Palestinians is anti-semitic. He's not saying that there are *some* antisemites who hide behind criticism of Israel to try to give legitimacy to their bigotry - he's saying that it's the criticism of Israel that makes someone antisemitic...

I'm always amused to a certain degree about the accusations leveled at israel: colonialistic, apartheid, genocide, facist, to name a few. I dont believe any other country, including those that really are facist, have real apartheid (saudi arabia), get so many different types of accusations from so many different types of groups: from the far left to the far right to the religious fanatics....that puts israel in the catagory of being singled out...hence the hyper sensitivity of so many jews toward it.

I've seen all those accusations and more aimed at other countries, including the US and Australia. Israel's not by any means singled out...

[oberliner]

10. I think you are mis-representing his comments

Where does he say that criticism of Israel makes someone antisemitic?

He states that boycotting Israel while not boycotting other countries with oppressive and aggressive policies is hard to explain without antisemitism.

[Violet_Crumble]

11. No, I'm not...

Read what he said: "But given the history of the attacks on Israel and the oppressiveness and aggressiveness of other countries in the Middle East and elsewhere, boycotting Israel indicated a moral blindness for which it is hard to find any explanation other than anti-Semitism."

Can you explain why someone with that mindset wouldn't apply that same mindset to criticism of Israel?

[oberliner]

13. Here's what I think the difference is

Singling out Israel as the sole country in the world whose policies warrant a boycott is not the same as being critical of Israel.

If this British organization had a list of say thirty countries in the world whose policies were objectionable to them and Israel was among those countries then I do not think anyone would have the right to claim that there is any antisemitism involved.

When, however, you say that Israel is the one country in the world that is worthy of a boycott then I think it begs the question - why Israel? Is it because Israel is the most egregious human rights violator in the world? Clearly not.

That the one country boycotted by this organization happens to also be the one country that is the only Jewish state in the world strikes some people as something more than a coincidence.

[pelsar]

12. a bit off topic...but the heart of the matter...

I've seen all those accusations and more aimed at other countries, including the US and Australia. Israel's not by any means singled out...

it comes up often.....i would define it as the quantity and breadth of accusations being leveled at israel vs other countries with a far greater list of human rights abuses both in quantity as well as frequency.

i would define it as such when israeli arguments for security and concerns are "brushed off" and not even worth mentioning.

(perhaps later i'll see if i can find some stats....number of articles about israel in the intl papers per day...or something like that vs 'france" although its probably related to the number of journalists in israel (i read once where it was second to washington dc)

[pelsar]

16. the difference is that the US and australia actually attempted genocide....

a quick look via google

israeli genocide: 1,500,000
american genocide 1,300,000
Australian genocide 1,100,000
germany's genocide 1,600,000

obviously this is by no means definitive of anything, its just interesting: whereas israel has not committed genocide its has the most discussions about it (the first page of google is full of the accusations). For the US and Australia which can be argued actually attempted genocide they have far less. Germany topped israel

it is a bit strange...a country that hasnt by a long shot committed/attempted genocide....has more discussions about it than some countries that actually have.....

[oberliner]

6. Physicist who refused to lecture in U.K.: I'm not calling for boycott

An American physicist and Nobel Prize laureate who withdrew from a speaking engagement at a London university, citing anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiment in the U.K., says he is not calling for a boycott of Britain.

"I'm not calling on anyone else not to go to Britain," Prof. Steven Weinberg of the University of Texas, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for physics in 1979, told Haaretz on Thursday night. "I don't want to say I'm cutting ties with the U.K. - I love England. I just feel personally uncomfortable going with the atmosphere there at the moment. It's increasingly hostile to Israel, especially in the intellectual world."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/863233.html

[Violet_Crumble]

9. But he is boycotting the UK...

Which is what I said in the post you replied to. And that makes him a hypocrite.

Also, just curious as to what you think about the comment he made in the Guardian article. I mentioned it in my post:

'Prof Weinberg said the only other reason he could imagine for the boycott was the NUJ's "desire to pander to the growing Muslim minority in Britain".'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2087159,00.ht...

Imagine if someone stated that a reason for a decision to do something was due to the desire to pander to a growing Jewish minority somewhere. What I'd like to know is why one is seen as being bigoted, while the other appears to be perfectly acceptable (for Americans at least)...

[oberliner]

14. He's not boycotting the UK

He just has declined an invitation to a visit to a university there due to his discomfort with the climate in Britain these days. He has not said that he will no longer by purchasing products made in the UK and, in fact, he is quoted as saying: "I don't want to say I'm cutting ties with the U.K. - I love England. I just feel personally uncomfortable going with the atmosphere there at the moment."

[oberliner]

15. In response to the comment from the Guardian

One does not need to imagine the scenario you describe as it happens quite regularly. Recall the situation where productions of the Rachel Corrie play were cancelled in the US and Canada. Did not some people claim that part of the reason for the cancellation was due to the desire to pander to influential Jewish organizations?

[High Plains]

4. Weinberg is a weenie....and an attention hound.

What does the National Union of Journalists have to do with particle physics?

Hmmm, maybe I'll decide not to go to Austin because of dorks like him, then issue a press release about how he's oppressing me.

[pelsar]

5. maybe journalists should boycott.....the palestenians?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/853108.html

After the abduction I tried to put together the pieces of the puzzle, but did not quite succeed. I do not know whether anyone in the Palestinian Authority has tried to investigate my abduction. I do know that no one has been arrested for it.


Not the same journalist. Not the same person. But this is not just a matter of Riad Ali. Since my abduction there have been several more abductions of journalists in the Gaza Strip. The kidnappings themselves are widely covered at first and sometimes even elicit a protest from the journalistic community, but no more than that. I have the sense that the media are beginning to relate to abductions as just another news item, which initially grabs front-page headlines and leads the news broadcasts, before being pushed to the back pages and sometimes forgotten


We, the journalists, know that the media are an important tool for the Palestinian people and for these militant groups. The time has come for us to use our doomsday weapon to send one clear message: There is no coverage under the threat of abduction. There is no coverage until Alan Johnston's fate is ascertained.

[msmcghee]

7. I guess they feel safer boycotting the side . .

. . that they know will not kidnap and execute them if their coverage is not pro-Palestinian enough.

Also, why boycott the side that makes your job so much easier by staging "special events" for your cameras safely away from the actual fighting.

That's at least understandable if not exactly principled.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. The title is misleading.

He's not refusing to go because of any genuine anti-semitism.

He's refusing to do so because he's unable or unwilling to distinguish between criticism of Israel and anti-semitism.

There undoubtedly is some anti-semitic activity in the UK, although far less than many people claim.

The boycott of Israeli academics which he is complaining about - while unbelievably stupid - is not part of it.

[Shaktimaan]

18. What would qualify as genuine anti-semitism in your opinion? np