Stephen Hawking's Israel boycott:

when politics doesn't need poster children

This isn't Darfur. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is complex and well known, so Hawking isn't taking the role of George Clooney
By Jennifer Lipman Thursday 9 May 2013 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/09/stephen-hawking-israel-boycott#start-ofcomments

Stephen Hawking has decided not to attend a conference hosted by Israel's president, Shimon Peres. Photograph: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Stephen Hawking, perhaps the greatest mind of our era, has backed a boycott in protest over the policy of the present Israeli government towards the Palestinians. Hawking's decision not to attend a conference hosted by Shimon Peres has been greeted with delight by supporters of the boycott campaign. What better way to bolster their argument than a lauded intellectual refusing to stand by in the face of injustice? The efforts of those who want Israel to be shunned whether in culture, sport, academia or politics garner plenty of interest, but never so much as when a celebrity gets on board. When Hebrew-speaking thespians were invited to the Globe theatre, a chorus including Emma Thompson publicly professed indignation. The debate about Israel hosting next month's European under-21 football championship went far beyond the blogs following the intervention of Frdric Kanout. Conversely, when Rihanna or Justin Bieber perform in Tel Aviv, they suddenly attract the unlikeliest of fans. Indeed, those against the boycott jumped for joy when it briefly and incorrectly seemed that Hawking had cancelled for health, rather than political, reasons.

It's natural, if you support a cause strongly, to crow when a prominent individual who is listened to far more than the average openly backs your cause. For some Roger Waters comes to mind preoccupation with the Israeli-Palestinian situation goes further than a signature, but for many, I'd hazard, wading in one way or the other comes not after years of study of the Middle East. The famous have as much right as anyone to talk politics and if a prominent individual wishes to back a boycott, or rage against it, he is free to do so. The problem is the activists who seize on them as poster children. It's disingenuous, investing one signature with the weight of an entire political approach, and implying that because of a person's notoriety, their pronouncements are gospel instead of what they are the views of someone no more or less informed. Many causes need glitter to get a hearing. The Rohingya Muslims, for example: their plight rarely makes the front page. George Clooney brought Darfur to the world's attention. You can say plenty about Gaza, but you cannot claim it is ignored by the mainstream media. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is extraordinarily complex. It requires activists with a vested interest to focus on the facts, to aim for more than point-scoring, and consider the real questions how to end the cycle of violence, for one, and how to educate people on both sides as to why two states is the answer not which celebrity agrees with them. What the Middle East desperately needs is dialogue, which is why I believe a boycott cannot offer a constructive approach. The discussion could well benefit from meaningful interventions from intellectuals like Hawking, but these must go beyond headline-grabbing.

Tags: Stephen Hawking, Israel boycott, Benjamin Netanyahu, Benyamin Netanyahu, Knesset, Shimon Peres, Hebrew-speaking, the Middle East, Gaza Strip, The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Jennifer Lipman, The Guardian,