From Michael Berkson
In his defence of Stephen Hawking’s support for an academic boycott of Israel, Jonathan Rosenhead compares the boycott to those that once targeted the institutionalised oppression in apartheid South Africa and racial segregation in the US (15 June, p 28). This comparison is unfair.
He overlooks the wider context of the academic boycott, which is that of a concerted attempt since 1948 to destroy Israel. For example, there have been calls for the expulsion of all Jews from the land; Iran explicitly threatens destruction of the state of Israel; and there are continual rocket attacks from Gaza and Lebanon.
Boycotts, and particularly academic boycotts, can only deepen divisions and reduce the chance of a negotiated peace.
The underlying assumption of Rosenhead’s article is binary: that the Israeli government is wrong and the Palestinian governments are right. This is politically naive, but more importantly it lacks the dispassionate analysis that is fundamental to science.
Advertisement
There is much, in my view, that the Israeli government does or allows to be done that is wrong. However, the same applies to the Palestinian governments.
Like Rosenhead, I am appalled at the ongoing military occupation of Palestinian territories by Israel. Hopefully, like me, he also believes that Israelis are entitled to live in peace within the pre-1967 borders of their state.
The problem with the academic boycott is twofold: most of those it punishes are equally opposed to the occupation, and many boycott supporters deny the right of Israel to live at peace within its borders. Incidentally, Hawking’s distinction in cosmology adds no weight to his opinions on the complex issues of the Middle East.
Great Shelford, Cambridgeshire, UK
