Trending Topics:

The power of Stephen Hawking

News
on 54 Comments

Has an establishment figure ever used his personal capital to such glorious effect? No wonder Israel advocates are so unhinged by Stephen Hawking’s brave act. A cartoon by Carlos Latuff (thanks to Terry Weber):

Latuff Hawking
Latuff Hawking cartoon
Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

54 Responses

  1. MarkF on May 11, 2013, 11:24 am

    I dunno Phil, remember the last thing Israel did to a guy in a wheel chair. Ahmed Yassin didn’t fair too well.

  2. FreddyV on May 11, 2013, 11:45 am

    I don’t know if anyone took note of the Guardian poll. It was at 68% pro Hawking, then dropped down to 62%.

    I bet Hasbara Central had their IP scramblers running and were hitting the ‘no’ button like maniacs to try and level things up.

    I love it went Zionists crap themselves. I just hope they’re got the message that they lost the war of public opinion a long time ago.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius on May 11, 2013, 12:00 pm

      It’s a bit like how, when one of the regular Hasbarists posts on CiF threads, they’ll have amassed a huge number of ‘recommends’ before anyone’s even had the time to read their post! Of course, as I’ve pointed out in these threads many times, they could easily get round this by allowing only registered users to ‘recommend’. But they don’t seem interested.

      • ritzl on May 12, 2013, 12:41 am

        @Maximus I’ve noticed that too. But I kinda like the universal ratings at CiF, as it makes every comment a poll of sorts. At least every early/upthread comment. I think it’s a useful gauge of broader sentiment, at least within the Guardian’s audience, and acknowledging that the hasbara troops are always poised to pounce. And in the course of current articles on this issue, there, to me usually ultimately reflects the acceptance of the Palestinian PoV. You can only vote once there, so there may be early recommend “stuffing,” but ultimately it becomes more or less representative.

        If you mentally discount the “stuffing” aspect, the CiF results are even more stark.

        FWIW.

    • talknic on May 11, 2013, 1:52 pm

      “I just hope they’re got the message that they lost the war of public opinion a long time ago.”

      It’s not in a propagandists brief to get any messages

    • gingershot on May 11, 2013, 4:59 pm

      @FreddyV

      I watched that Guardian Poll closely – it dove from nearly 68% to 62% in the last 8 hrs or so it was up – I was just waiting for it to happen

      I know it was a coordinated Zio effort.

      These guys are just so damn good at organizing and fixing the numbers

  3. Maximus Decimus Meridius on May 11, 2013, 11:50 am

    Genuine question: Does anyone know of any ‘liberal Zionist’ who has come out in support of Hawking? I don’t mean simply defending him from abuse, but actually applauding his decision?

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius on May 11, 2013, 12:20 pm

        Thanks for those – interesting reading.

        Neither of them wholeheartedly support Hawking, however, and both say they are against the BDS movement (as though it were a unified entity). So I’d say it’s grudging support at best.

      • Don on May 11, 2013, 4:01 pm

        Thank you for pointing this out. Larry Derfner strikes me as a very decent person; and he has paid a rather hefty price, literally, for his opinions.

    • Mike_Konrad on May 11, 2013, 12:59 pm

      I do not know. I do not think Hawkings should have been brought into this. I think this will backfire ON BOTH SIDES.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius on May 11, 2013, 4:17 pm

        It is Perez – or whoever was dishing out the invitations to this glorified hasbara fest – who ‘brought Hawking into this’ by inviting him in the first place. Maybe next time, they should restrict invites to schmooze with possible war criminals only to those they know will appreciate the ‘honour’?

      • Bumblebye on May 11, 2013, 5:10 pm

        Your second sentence denies the man his own agency. Why? Do you think he’s some kind of manipulable puppet? Just because his body won’t work? Are you the sort of man who simply cannot look a disabled person in the eye, associating physical malfunction with mental/intellectual malfunction? Some of the sharpest wits I’ve known were ‘caged’ inside bodies like Prof Hawkings, a double loss to them and the rest of us, because they’d either become disabled as kids, or been born so and (over 40+ years ago) educated separately and less well.

      • justicewillprevail on May 11, 2013, 5:28 pm

        What are you talking about, again? Your snide implication that Hawking does not have a mind of his own, cares about the desperate situation of Palestinians, and wants to make a stand, is absurd and childish. He brought himself into it because he wanted to, because he has principles and because he is a decent human being. Get over it. There is no backfire. He is aiming at one side only.

      • ckg on May 11, 2013, 7:29 pm

        You called him “Hawkings” too when the story broke four days ago. Those familiar enough with him to at least know how to spell his name know that his views are of great importance. And no one has EVER had Prof. Hawking “brought into” ANY argument. If you think that then you REALLY don’t know Stephen Hawking.

      • Shingo on May 11, 2013, 7:49 pm

        I do not know. I do not think Hawkings should have been brought into this. I think this will backfire ON BOTH SIDES.

        It’s an amazing development. As the Zios attack him and become increaibgly unhinged, it will further lift the mask on the repugnant ideology of the Ziinist cult.

        It will be impossible to attack Hawking and still claim to be the victims.

      • Sumud on May 11, 2013, 9:33 pm

        I do not think Hawkings should have been brought into this.

        Condescending! Hawkings is a free agent, and he made his decision based on his own assessment of the situation.

        He wasn’t “brought into” anything by anybody.

  4. pabelmont on May 11, 2013, 12:00 pm

    Phil, its is a lovely cartoon, just lovely. It expresses all our hopes. BUT TELL ME, has any other scientist followed his lead and refused to participate?

    Remember this: the conference will be held and it will have become (IN PART) what it was not, originally, a REFERENDUM on the occupation, etc., and when it goes ahead, those who do NOT boycott will be SAID to approve. Of the occupation, not of science.

    • libra on May 11, 2013, 4:36 pm

      pabelmont: BUT TELL ME, has any other scientist followed his lead and refused to participate?

      No, a full scientific program will still be offered highlighted by those two acclaimed alchemists Bill Clinton and Tony Blair who will again be on stage demonstrating how to turn base instinct into gold.

      And let’s not forget Dr. Larry Brilliant is one of the speakers. I’m not sure what he does exactly but he sounds very clever.

      • piotr on May 12, 2013, 7:41 am

        OMG! Barbara Streisand will attend! She is all butter!

        Sadly, the list starts with a certain Elliot Abrams who is a singularly despicable character. Just by himself he suffices to boycott the meeting. Most of you are too young to remember, but during civil wars in Central America he was all over TV defending murderers and rapists who were “our friends”. Being Assistant Secretary for Human Rights, no less. A kind of guy who gives fascists a bad name.

        And the chances are that his charming wife will show up to. It is hard to find a better matching couple.

      • lysias on May 13, 2013, 2:09 pm

        If I correctly understood the reporting on Democracy Now! this morning, the judge in Guatemala who delivered the verdict finding Gen. Rios Montt guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity spoke about the legal liability of those persons abroad who had assisted Rios Montt’s crimes. And the people on Democracy Now! mentioned Elliot Abrams as being one of those persons.

      • marc b. on May 14, 2013, 2:08 pm

        the judge in Guatemala who delivered the verdict finding Gen. Rios Montt guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity spoke about the legal liability of those persons abroad who had assisted Rios Montt’s crimes.

        you don’t say?

        When Gen. Efrain Rios Montt staged his coup on March 23, 1982, the Israeli news magazine Ha’olam Hazeh reported he had the help of 300 Israeli military advisers who assisted in training, planning and executing the coup. Yediot Aharonot referred to the coup as “the Israeli connection.” Rios Montt himself acknowledged to an ABC reporter that things had gone very smoothly “because many of our soldiers were trained by Israelis.” During the 17 months of Rios Montt’s rule, Israel’s intensified military involvement in Guatemala was supplemented by assistance on other levels. Shortly after Rios Montt seized power, the two countries signed a wide-ranging Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement. Guatemala’s tourist board reportedly targeted US Jewish communities in its promotion campaign, and Guatemalan radio regularly aired Israeli programs. Magen David Adom, Israel’s Red Cross, solicited contributions from American Jews so that Israel could dispatch relief supplies to Guatemala. During this period, a Guatemalan business leader told the Los Angeles Times: “We’re isolated internationally. The only friend we have left in the world is Israel.”

        Rios Montt’s minister of defense, Gen. Mejia Victores, overthrew the president on August 8, 1983. The change in presidential palace personnel did not appear to signal any change in Israeli-Guatemalan relations. The Eleventh Convention of the Federation of Jewish Communities of Central America and Panama met in Guatemala City in April 1984, attended by Israeli diplomats and high Guatemalan government officials, though Guatemala’s Jewish community is estimated at no more than 1,500. Rodolfo Lobos Zamora, the Guatemalan army chief of staff, visited Israel in early 1985, reportedly to “negotiate for Israeli aid, particularly military aid.” Mejia Victores himself was scheduled to make a state visit to Israel on April 14, 1985, but the threat of a coup forced him to cancel.

        Intensified Involvement

        In January 1983, at the height of Rios Montt’s carnage, then-chief of staff Gen. Hector Lopez Fuentes summed up the relationship this way, “Israel is our principal supplier of arms and the number one friend of Guatemala in the world.” What accounts for the pervasive Israeli involvement in Guatemala? The convergence of two factors in the fall of 1981 provides part of the answer. First, Defense Minister Ariel Sharon felt strongly, as did Prime Minister Begin, that Israel could increase its leverage over Washington by performing indispensable functions for the US in third countries. Second, the Reagan administration was obsessively concerned about events in Central America, and Guatemala’s significance in US regional strategy was considered crucial at a time when Congressional restrictions on direct US aid were still in force. Lt. Gen. Wallace Nutting, then head of the US Southern Command, noted in 1982 that “the situation in Guatemala is potentially more serious than in El Salvador because the population is larger, the economy is stronger, and the geographical position is more critically located in a strategic sense.”

        These two elements converged in the Memorandum of Understanding between Israel and the US in November 1981. The Memorandum specifically provided that the US would grant third countries permission to spend part of their US military credits in Israel. Israel did not feel that the accord went far enough in meeting its needs for expanded markets, nevertheless the Jerusalem Post stated that the Memorandum “laid the groundwork for using Israel’s defense needs and the American aid that nourishes them, to create a broader base for Israel’s industrial development.” The strategic agreement was suspended a month later, when the Begin government annexed the Golan Heights, although Sharon contended that it remained secretly in effect. In discussions prior to the agreement’s formal reinstatement in November 1983, Israel proposed that it serve as a conduit for American aid to “anti-communist” forces in Central America — primarily the Nicaraguan contras and Guatemala — through a fund the administration would establish independent of the government budget to finance projects implemented by Israeli “experts.” The Reagan administration’s commitment to these provisions was apparent when Congress tried to block US aid recipients from channeling such aid to the contras in the FY 1986 foreign aid bill: The Reagan team pressed successfully for wording that would not “take away from the sovereign decision” of other countries to assist the contras.

        http://www.merip.org/mer/mer140/israel-guatemala

    • The Hasbara Buster on May 12, 2013, 12:26 am

      Simple. Scientists who do attend won’t even be noticed. Hawking is far more famous than all of them combined.

      Not that I like the opinions of someone not an expert in Middle Eastern history to carry so much weight, mind you. But it’s the rules of the game. The Zionists started it when they alleged that Martin Luther king equated anti-Zionism to antisemitism. Now it’s boomeranging.

  5. Basilio on May 11, 2013, 12:06 pm

    Well, the thing is Hawking’s position is something that many people would take notice of out there. Some Israelis might be afraid that stances like his might make others question Israel, and that, with time, it won’t be business as usual, but even Olmert and Barak warned of such things, not that they didn’t, over their careers, contribute to the mess.

  6. Justpassingby on May 11, 2013, 12:25 pm

    Apparently Chomsky were one of the people urging Hawking not to participate, however, why did Hawking accept the invition to begin with?

    • ckg on May 11, 2013, 7:42 pm

      I wish Mondoweiss would investigate further the apparent eye-opening Chomsky link. Chomsky, like his protege Finkelstein, has never endorsed BDS, unless I’m mistaken. But I would love to be mistaken here. Please prove me wrong.

      • Basilio on May 14, 2013, 2:10 am

        To clarify Chomsky’s views, he does support boycotts. He doesn’t necessarily support an all-out academic boycott of Israel. In this case, there were many non-academics, so if Chomsky encouraged him to boycott the conference, it would still mean Chomsky was being consistent. That’s all. He doesn’t agree with all of BDS’s political positions, but he agrees with some boycotts.

  7. anthonybellchambers on May 11, 2013, 12:28 pm

    The following, in essence, is the reason for the condemnatory report by the Church of Scotland, this week, and also for the action of world-renowned scientist, Professor Hawkins in deciding against attending an Israeli conference to honour a man who collaborated with the odious apartheid regime in South Africa in the supply of nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

    ‘Defenders of Zionism say it is a national movement for the repatriation of a dispersed socio-religious group to what they see as an abandoned homeland.

    Critics of Zionism say it is a colonialist or racist ideology. Reasons for opposing Zionism are varied and include the confiscation of land from indigenous Palestinians and their ensuing expulsions, racism and violence against Palestinians, and a refutation of the Zionist claim of a Jewish scriptural entitlement to the Holy Land.’
    (Wikipedia)

    • Shingo on May 12, 2013, 12:02 am

      As Rumsfeld would say, you have to deal with the Zionism you have, not the Zionism you want it to be.

  8. American on May 11, 2013, 12:46 pm

    That is a great cartoon!

  9. Citizen on May 11, 2013, 2:09 pm

    Hawkins is the goy Einstein; the latter wrote to a friend apropos Israel, that the jews never learned a thing from 2000 years of persecution–as to why.

  10. David Doppler on May 11, 2013, 5:23 pm

    Great cartoon! And the MSM is reporting the story, although Dershowitz’s diatribe was somehow news not fit to print in the NYT report.

  11. Mayhem on May 11, 2013, 8:34 pm

    I cannot get over the sheer hypocrisy over this whole issue with Chomsky having convinced Hawking to undertake his boycott.
    Given Chomsky’s professed views against BDS at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5hY-gffV0M it seems as though the minds of these people depend upon whom they just talked to or what they ate for breakfast. With this kind of duplicity the ambiguity and hollowness of the BDS becomes apparent.
    To top things off Ali Abunimah in The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/09/stephen-hawking-palestinian-boycott-israel-history makes the amazing claim that Stephen Hawking’s support for the boycott of Israel is a turning point in the BDS campaign.
    All that Abunimah has to offer in his article is the same old polemic about BDS and, just because Hawking had signed up, the Guardian gave the BDS campaign another free kick.

    • amigo on May 12, 2013, 6:16 am

      “Given Chomsky’s professed views against BDS at link to youtube.com it seems as though the minds of these people depend upon whom they just talked to or what they ate for breakfast. With this kind of duplicity the ambiguity and hollowness of the BDS becomes apparent.” MH

      I cant get over Israel,s hypocrisy in whining about Academic Boycotts given Israel,s refusal of entry to Chomsky/ Finkelstein and refusal to allow Palestinian students to travel to the USA to take up Fulbright Scholarships they earned.

      Grrrr.

      • Kathleen on May 12, 2013, 10:50 am

        “I cant get over Israel,s hypocrisy in whining about Academic Boycotts given Israel,s refusal of entry to Chomsky/ Finkelstein and refusal to allow Palestinian students to travel to the USA to take up Fulbright Scholarships they earned.”

        Would be great to see more focus put on these issues. You can bet “On the Media” with Brooke Gladstone will not touch the lack of coverage in our media on these issues. Or the lack of experts on Iran on our MSM outlets.

    • Sumud on May 12, 2013, 7:04 am

      All that Abunimah has to offer in his article is the same old polemic about BDS and, just because Hawking had signed up, the Guardian gave the BDS campaign another free kick.

      Speaking of polemics, do you actually dispute anything Abunimah wrote in that Guardian piece? Can’t see how they have given BDS “another free kick” if Abunimah has stuck to facts.

      And what is this sudden concern with facts anyway Mayhem? Hasbara is one lie after another. I don’t see you on any of the Dershowitz articles calling him on the disgusting things he has said about Hawkings.

    • amigo on May 12, 2013, 9:17 am

      “To top things off Ali Abunimah in The Guardian link to guardian.co.uk makes the amazing claim that Stephen Hawking’s support for the boycott of Israel is a turning point in the BDS campaign.A-hem

      He is right.Just look at the antics and desperation of the Zio apolo-jests.

      Never see them so flustered.

      Even the UN vote to recognize Palestine did not create this level of reaction.

      Another nail in the carcass of what was the so called Greater Israel .

    • Jeff Levy on May 12, 2013, 2:50 pm

      Yes Mayhem.

      I suggest you invite Noam Chomsky and Stephen Hawking for breakfast conversation.

      By such a clever ruse, you might take advantage of their well-known inability to think for themselves (see any Youtube video by Chomsky to view his inability to speak for himself on any issue and to behave in an always-agreeable manner) and susceptibility to changing their minds under the influence of the powerful effects of coffee and pancakes.

    • Shingo on May 13, 2013, 7:58 am

      I cannot get over the sheer hypocrisy over this whole issue with Chomsky having convinced Hawking to undertake his boycott.

      Oh I doubt you’re having that much trouble Mayhem. After all, you and your fellow travelers keep harping on about how BDS is immoral because it’s collective punishment, how it won’t work because the Israelis will simply harden their position, how BDS is inferior to diplomacy yada yada yada, yet the same folks staunchly support the sanctions (which are far harsher) against Iran.

      When it comes to hypocrisy, you guys get the Oscar.

      With this kind of duplicity the ambiguity and hollowness of the BDS becomes apparent.

      What ambiguity? Hawking has not even mentioned BDS in relation to his position.

      To top things off Ali Abunimah in The Guardian link to guardian.co.uk makes the amazing claim that Stephen Hawking’s support for the boycott of Israel is a turning point in the BDS campaign.

      What’s so amazing about it? You and your fellow travelers are behaving like a pack of cornered feral cats over this incident. Your reaction alone tells us it’s a turning point.

      All that Abunimah has to offer in his article is the same old polemic about BDS and, just because Hawking had signed up, the Guardian gave the BDS campaign another free kick.

      Oh bother. One publication, of the hundreds in the English speaking world, has allowed a BDS advocate to write an article – and you guys scream no fair.

      Unbelievable.

  12. NoMoreIsrael on May 12, 2013, 12:04 am

    A sleazy defense attorney for OJ Simpson calls the world’s greatest living astrophysicist “an ignoramus.” I think that’s hilarious.

    Hawking also supports one state. Inspiring.

  13. The Hasbara Buster on May 12, 2013, 12:19 am

    I sometimes pity the Zionists. They have no right to independent opinion on any living or deceased person; all people must be judged in relation to their stance on Israel, not on their merits.

    In the case of Hawking, Zionists made an egregious U-turn from lavishing praise on him just a few weeks back (“The “most famous” living scientist in the world [who] greatly enlarged our understanding of the origin and possible fate of the Universe [and] has a flourishing scientific career”) to calling him a cripple who hasn’t got a clue.

  14. piotr on May 12, 2013, 9:05 am

    My bad: this is comment on Maher, who annoyed me quite a bit and made me prone to mistakes.

    I watched for about one minute and Maher is simply an annoying idiot. He even says something intelligent at random, but he simply is not integrating news that he reads into something coherent. What I see is that he embodies an average idiot from the street and thus he is selected as a TV host. Sorry for an elitist remark.

    Example 1: Isn’t it a bigotry of soft expectations to accept the fact that there are riots any time there are cartoons or movies offending “Allhah” (I think that Muslim are actually sensitive disrespecting the Prophet, P.B.U.H. to the point of disputes if it is OK to abbreviate Peace Be Upon Him)?

    What I mean by “integrating the news” is that there are many Muslim out there and a lot of them belong to young poor male demographic group that is somewhat prone to rioting all over the world. And there are news report about those riots, usually we pay no attention to them so there is no issue of “accepting” or not. E.g. in civilized nations of Europe soccer riots are most prominent. Actually, the most bloody riot in Egypt was soccer related, so these guys are not all that different from civilized Europeans. East Asian countries have more esoteric philosophies so their riots may be harder to comprehend, like riots in China when they noticed, after 140 years, that Japan controls Senkaku islands.

    Example 2: “I am not for dictatorship, but any time we overthrow a dictatorial Muslim government it is worse, like Egypt, Iran or Afghanistan.” Who are “we”, kenosabe? Reza Pahlavi and Mubarrak were deposed because their own military did not have the will to fight rioting crowds. “We” could perhaps bribe the generals, but you need lieutenants and captains on the street willing to charge the crowds rather than arresting their commanders.

    Which comes to Example 3 that I anticipated and had to stomach to watch. How is it that as soon as those lesser people get the opportunity to participate in free elections they elect conservative incompetent bufoons? Unlike educated and predominantly middle class Americans who elect such brilliant people like Senator Cruz, Representative Allen West and hundreds of others (including George W. Bush)? I admit that the list can be expanded with Democrats, but after contributing 100 bucks to DNC I leave it to others. In the country of my birth, the democratically elected leaders seem to alternate between mediocrities and total idiots (meaning, more stupid than Maher).

    Example 4 that I had no stomach to watch: bewilderment that people who have upper hand in civil wars are usually not nice. I heard the whine “they are not our friends” and my mental capacity to watch the idiot was exhausted.

    • lysias on May 13, 2013, 2:19 pm

      When Maher said something that actually made sense (that the 9/11 hijackers, whatever else they may have been, were anything but cowardly,) he was thrown off the air for his pains.

      I guess he learned his lesson.

  15. Kathleen on May 12, 2013, 10:46 am

    Phil, Annie, Adam etc…anyone watching and listening to whether Chris Hayes switch to a prime time slot on MSNBC shut his mouth with more money in regard to discussing the I/P issue based on facts or at all on his new program? I watched for about a week and then stopped watching. His tendency to talk to fast for me became even more exaggerated on a one hour program with topics that everyone else on those MSNBC one hour mostly tirades about the same subjects have gotten monotonous to me. I still watch Chris Matthews because he often has several views on his program. So disappointing to watch his great program UP (long and in depth conversations) lose ground. Has anyone been watching Chris Hayes…did he have his mouth shut about the I/P conflict via this move? Did his producers go with this move or has there been a guard shift there too?

    MSNBC’s All In With Chris Hayes Highlights NPR’s Discredited Disability Report
    http://mediamatters.org/video/2013/04/06/msnbcs-all-in-with-chris-hayes-highlights-nprs/193509

  16. subconscious on May 12, 2013, 12:09 pm

    The Facebook page of the conference has kept silent about Hawking’s withdrawal, so far. The latest reference to him is on Apr. 7, “We are excited to be hosting at the 2013 Israeli Presidential Conference the renowned British physicist, Professor Stephen Hawking‬”:
    https://www.facebook.com/TheIsraeliPresidentialConference
    Chomsky joined other academics in lobbying Hawking to withdraw:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/10/noam-chomsky-stephen-hawking-israel-boycott

  17. just on May 12, 2013, 12:38 pm

    Thank you Professor Hawking.

    Too bad for Israel.

  18. miriam6 on May 12, 2013, 6:05 pm

    Conference boycotted by Hawking has hosted Palestinian speakers every year

    Top West Bank figures, including key PA officials, regularly participate in Peres-hosted gathering that top British scientist is eschewing in solidarity with the Palestinians.

    ****************************************************************************
    ****************************************************************************
    “The Israeli Presidential Conference that Stephen Hawking is boycotting in solidarity with the Palestinians has featured a succession of prominent Palestinian speakers among its participants over the years, including key members of the Palestinian Authority.

    This year’s conference is again set to include at least one prominent member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, and the gathering has been attended in each of its previous four years by leading Palestinian figures including top Palestinian Authority officials, negotiators, academics, and the man helming development of the first planned Palestinian city.

    The British scientist’s announced decision to boycott the Jerusalem conference sponsored by Shimon Peres came just days after the Palestinian minister of health paid an official visit to the Hadassah hospital in Jerusalem, at the head of a delegation of Palestinian officials. The visit was designed to promote the increased employment of Palestinian medical staff workers and further cooperation between the hospital and the PA’s Ministry of Health.

    The PA’s Munib al-Masri, a billionaire member of the PLC who was reportedly wooed several times to serve as PA prime minister, is listed on the Presidential Conference website as a speaker “to be confirmed” at this year’s gathering.
    Last year’s Conference featured former PA minister, PLC member and peace negotiator Ziyad Abu Zayyad, who also participated in all three previous conference — in 2008, 2009 and 2011 — the website shows.

    Yasser Arafat’s former national security adviser and preventive security chief Jibril Rajoub participated in the 2011 conference. Rajoub is the deputy secretary general of Fatah’s Central Committee, and head of the Palestinian Olympic Committee. Also speaking in 2011 at the conference was PA negotiator Hiba Husseini.

    Another 2011 speaker was Palestinian academic Mohammed S. Dajani Daoudi, professor of Political Science at Al-Quds University in Jerusalem, who also participated in the 2009 conference….”

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/conference-boycotted-by-hawking-has-hosted-palestinian-speakers-every-year/

    • Shingo on May 13, 2013, 4:59 am

      Conference boycotted by Hawking has hosted Palestinian speakers every year

      So who’s going this year Miriam? For that matter, who went last year?

    • talknic on May 13, 2013, 9:45 am

      “Conference boycotted by Hawking has hosted Palestinian speakers every year “

      How many Palestinians will be going this year?

      Hawking has freedom of choice … ever heard of it? Has boycotting caused any more outrage than what he might have said? (think about it)

      A boycott uses far less effort, especially for a man with his condition and it seems to have had the desired effect of pushing the issue out into the world’s consciousness just a tad more ..

      drip by drip

    • Woody Tanaka on May 13, 2013, 10:19 am

      “Conference boycotted by Hawking has hosted Palestinian speakers every year ”

      Who cares? Until the Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza have free and unfettered access to all of Palestine — including those areas presently controlled by the zionist invaders, areas such as al-Quds and Jaffa — those in charge of the ethno-religious apartheid state should be ostracized as the criminals they are, regardless of what PR stunts they pull and regardless of how many tokens they present in their programs.

    • talknic on May 14, 2013, 12:43 am

      “The visit was designed to promote the increased employment of Palestinian medical staff workers”

      Some people just can’t help LYING! The visit was designed to promote increasing employment of Palestinian medical staff workers.

  19. Sycamores on May 12, 2013, 6:10 pm

    i’m sure Stephen Hawking thought long and hard about his decision to boycott israel academically. i’m sure he knows the profound effect this has on the Palestinians, israelis and the rest of the world. his decision is a turning point, its ramfications will become more apparent as time goes by.

    an academic boycott on apartheid israel would have the same effect as the sport boycott had on apartheid South Africa.

  20. justsayin on May 13, 2013, 12:30 am

    how easy we are to be lied to time & time throughout mankinds history, so a power may stay, “in power” .Is there a knowledge they have that is keeping them in power …or is it just as humans , being dumbed down by so much pr via the media.
    It is refreshing to see people stand ground,..& correct the status. I see that as a major problem with people in the USA, …they feel slighted after realization of the aparthied they support in so many ways, that a denial in wanting to even hear the word Palestine when trying to correct a lie that the mighty pr of the aparthied state.

    • just on May 13, 2013, 10:02 am

      Well said.

      (Glenn Greenwald might well agree.)

Leave a Reply