whichever one is the most pressing to you personally. Otherwise, the world wouldn't operate. You can be morally opposed to something without shunning all contact with them. You can reserve boycotts for the causes you feel strongest about. That's the point of a boycott, otherwise, you'd just disengage from the world. None of us are in position to judge why Palestine-Israel is so pressing to Hawking, but not Tibet. Maybe he has an aversion to beatings of child prisoners. who knows. Point is, just because he boycotts one thing, doesn't mean he should boycott everything he's morally opposed to. A boycott is a very extreme form of action reserved for the causes one feels strongest about. ^which is, by the way, why I don't think an academic boycott of Israel is particularly a good idea, but then again, I've never felt particularly morally repulsed by the situation.
I agree with you, Northside, if it's getting involved in a cause outside of your work. But when your work is necessarily international, and the very enterprise you've signed on for is more international than it is national, ... then you better be very consistent and morally defensible if you're going to interrupt that work for a cause. These guys are not doing that, IMHO. If they want to raise awareness, here's an idea. Go to flipping Israel, do your work, and then afterwards, stay for an extra day, join hands together and insist on visiting and learning about the Palestinian territories. That would raise a lot more awareness all around and you'd still do your work and you'd not be arbitrary. (Not *you* but MC Hawking, et alia.)
While not directly comparable to Hawking's decision, this does remind me of how the majority of us donate money. By whoever is pressuring us the most in the current time.
I need to know what Leonard Susskind thinks about Israel since he was actually right about black holes.
^agreed, which is why I think an academic boycott of Israel doesn't make sense. I was trying to argue that the whole thing about boycotts is that they basically focus anger on one party, so I don't exactly see the point of doing multiple boycotts.
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-spec...rael-advocacy-as-hate-speech.premium-1.523189 Other articles intentionally selected because they are pro-Hawking's decision: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...en-hawking-palestinian-boycott-israel-history Here's the thing guys. For Palestinians and supporters of their cause, option #1 is diplomatically achieving their goals. That's never going to happen as long as the "Referee" is conflicted. Option #2 has become peaceful protests. This has really picked up. While boycott has that unfortunate isolationalist factor, its disadvantages are less ****ty that the disadvantages of other approaches. Option #3 is violence which can be deemed terrorism or military action depending on who you ask. There is no option for Palestinians to do nothing because doing nothing means they will lose something. This has always been the case. So which of these (or other) options do you suggest people pursue? The useless first option or the violent third option? BDS was shown to be a good influence on getting rid of apartheid south africa. Why shouldn't it work there? Because it's not morally IDEAL? That's a luxury. We should all be grateful that they are trying something which does not harm Israeli or Palestinian lives. It won't be effective on its own, but it's a good step in a much much much better direction. If this works, Palestinians can re-think their allegiances to the groups which prefer and specialize in violence.
I didn't think this was a thread about what Palestinians should do. It's about random international scientists, and I have made a very concrete suggestion. Do your work, attend the conference, then make a big public gesture. Go the territories, Mr. Hawking, and actually learn something about the situation other than a few articles. Arbitrary gestures from scientists only leads the general public to think they are politically biased people who let their politics affect their science. In turn, this leads people to distrust science further. Nasty cycle, and it accomplishes zero politically.
BDS'ers come in all nationalities. Stephen Hawking is not a random international scientist lol. He didn't want to go. Yes he could attend the conference and make a big gesture later, but instead he decided to do what he considers more suitable for the circumstances - he may think the situation is far too bad for boycotting an academic conference to be considered excessive. It's perfectly justified IMO. Again, BDS will cause new problems and eliminate older worse problems. They will create new solutions, and the worst case scenario is that nothing changes. Is BDS a perfectly good idea? Not at all. But I tend to favor those ideas where the chance of saving the lives of Israelis and Palestinians is higher. If BDS catches on, it will have better results for civilians in Israel and Palestinian territories. It has worked before, it can work again. Desperate choices aren't always pretty, but they're still worth a try. The personal opinion of Stephen Hawking is significant, particularly when it comes to skipping work - he obviously thought it was worth the sacrifice.
Only because you think it bolsters your hateful case against Israel. If he had said something pro-Israel, you would not have started the thread. Then it would not have been significant to you.
Disagree that it's significant. His science (was) significant when he was younger, and some of his books for the general public are worthwhile, but mathematics smarts don't make him a visionary when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, at all. I say with all honesty that I care even more what you post about the conflict that what Stephen Hawking says about it (because I think you study it more closely than he does, for a longer period of time.) And I say this as a physicist. I like to post about politics all the time too, and even NBA predictions, but I generally don't show much aptitude for either of those.
Most people don't care about his belief because he is supporting the muslim side. I don't care about his opinions because I believe there is more out there than the black holes he speaks of.
Absolutely agree, his credentials don't matter. But does have math smarts and he does have fame as well. Being famous is important in this instance, and how he became famous adds credibility. While he is no expert, you can't put him in the same boat as if... Justin Bieber was doing this (even though he would probably be more effective at doing this lol). We can't really be sure what he's studied about the conflict, but we know that he spoke to a number of Palestianian academics before his decision. I assume (but could be wrong) that he spoke to people who opposed the idea. He made a decision. While he may not be an expert, he is certainly aware of how to research, how to eliminate bias, how to read sources of information, etc. Hmmmm. I don't think he should do the work, especially if it's furthering te cause of something he's unsure about. Going to the territiories, going to Israel, learning more, sure why not..
