The international community should disabuse those Palestinians promoting boycotts of the idea that they can avoid these compromises. By failing to take that stand against the boycott campaign, professor Hawking has done nothing for the cause of peace. If anything, by encouraging behaviour that entrenches the conflict, he has set it back.
Dr Toby Greene is director of research at BICOM
Two weeks ago I attended the annual policy conference of the Institute for National Security Studies, Israel’s premier strategic think tank based at Tel Aviv University. On the panel, Fatah Central Committee member Jibril Rajoub exchanged views on how to reach a two state solution, in fluent Hebrew, with Israeli academics, current senior Israeli officials, and retired senior IDF officers.
If a leading elected Fatah official feels it appropriate to participate in a conference on Israeli security, at an Israeli university, hosted by retired IDF generals, it surely makes no sense that Professor Hawking should boycott a conference on human interaction hosted by Nobel peace prize winner Shimon Peres. So what explains this strange discrepancy?
Apparently professor Hawking was persuaded to take this action by Palestinian academics. No doubt they convinced him that this was the only way they could put pressure on Israel and secure their human rights. If so he was misled. The reality is that many of those promoting the boycott are not interested in achieving their rights through a peaceful two state solution, but mistakenly believe a greater goal is attainable for the Palestinian people: international isolation of Israel which leads to a single Arab majority state.
Negotiate for peace
To justify their rejection of negotiations, they claim that talking doesn’t lead anywhere. This is not the case. We are approaching the twentieth anniversary of the 1993 Oslo Accords. This agreement, the single most significant breakthrough to date in efforts to create peace between Israelis and Palestinians, came about as the result of unofficial meetings held between PLO officials and Israeli academics. It was these contacts which laid the groundwork for mutual recognition between the PLO and the State of Israel, and the creation of a self-governing Palestinian Authority. Since then Israeli and Palestinian leaders have twice attempted to address the final status issues and forge a final status agreement. On both occasions, in 2000 and in 2008, the talks led to very progressive Israeli proposals, which were not taken up by the Palestinian side.
Rather than not leading anywhere, negotiations have repeatedly led the Palestinians to a point where they must face up to the compromises required for a peaceful two state agreement. It is precisely these compromises that those promoting boycotts, and opposing dialogue and negotiations, apparently want to avoid.
Legitimate concerns on both sides
Professor Hawking should have listened instead to moderate Israelis and Palestinians like those active in the Bereaved Families Forum or One Voice, whose plea to the rest of the world is not take sides, but to understand that Israelis and Palestinians both have legitimate concerns that need to be addressed.
By not coming to Israel, professor Hawking has denied Israelis the opportunity to hear his views directly, and denied himself the opportunity to hear the Israeli side of the story. Most Israelis would like to end the situation in which they control the lives of so many Palestinians. This is why a large majority support in principle the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, a position that has been held by every Israeli government since 1999. But Israelis will not accept this without Israeli demands on security, and the future of Israel’s status as the national home of the Jewish people, also being met.
The international community should disabuse those Palestinians promoting boycotts of the idea that they can avoid these compromises. By failing to take that stand against the boycott campaign, professor Hawking has done nothing for the cause of peace. If anything, by encouraging behaviour that entrenches the conflict, he has set it back.
36 Responses to “Peace makers promote peace, not boycotts”
Maik Finch
reply to me on the subject of Hasbara
instead of using the typical israel propaganda technique of crossing anti-zionist with anti-semite _ and we will have a logical discussion _
and if you can’t (or won’t ) do that _ then perhaps you could explain why you pro-israel lobbyists always have to hurl personal abuse as well _
Roy
I’m sorry but it’s not your decision what I’m going to write about.
And I didn’t “hurl personal abuse” at you. I didn’t raised the subject of Antisemitism out of thin air. It’s not like you were writing an Innocent commentary about Hasbara.
you were interjecting the word “RAT” onto something which is predominantly Jewish.
To think that it was only a coincidence or innocent that you used one of the most powerful symbols of classic Antisemitism regarding something that is Jewish is a ludicrous notion.
This is not about deflecting criticism on Israel/Zionism. I invite you to present any criticism you like. but if you don’t want to be accused of Antisemitism, than I have a crazy idea that might work – how about not using anti-Semitic motifs in your criticism about Israel/Zionism.
I’m unclear as to the importance of using “RAT” to relate to Hasbara. cant you criticize Hasbara without using the derogatory term, and Antisemitic motif – “RAT”?
It would be as if someone would use the word nigger in relation to someone or something which is clearly black, and then complain he is being unfairly attacked when he is called a racist.
You know what? if you can give me a logical reason why one has to use the word “RAT” in relation to Hasbara, then I will apologize and admit my mistake.
Ian Andrew
What a loadof tosh! Any Likud MK does not want peace with Palestians, they are committed to capturing the whole of the land of ‘Eretz Israel’ no matter what. The only way Israel will accept a two state solution is the US puts enough pressure on them to do so. They negotiate from an overwhelming position of strength, as a state and as a military power. The BDS is a peaceful movement that exists as a pressure group to raise awareness of issues from the view of the Palestinians’. Is that what Israel is afraid of,the truth!
Tim Holmes
BICOM is a key part of the Israel lobby in Britain, devoted to pushing pro-Israeli propaganda and affiliated with pro-Israeli lobbyists.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/BICOM
http://electronicintifada.net/tags/bicom
The organisation claims that it is “dedicated to creating a more supportive environment for Israel in Britain” and that they “support a close relationship between Britain and Israel, based on shared values and interests.”
http://www.bicom.org.uk/about/
Left Foot Forward would never dream of publishing material by professional propagandists for the governments of Burma or Zimbabwe, or indeed for Hamas. So why do you yet again disgrace yourselves by overlooking the terrorism of a UK ally, and giving their apologists a platform?
wpw
Your use of the word “genocidal” is offensive, ignorant and undermines your entire argument. I’m sorry I wasted any time reading your remarks.