RMS Cancels Lectures In Israel 609
Eesh writes "Globes and Haaretz report that Stallman cancelled his plans for lecturing in Israeli universities as part of a visit to the Palestinian Authority, due to threats by the Palestinian organizers that they won't be paying for his trip if he does so. Globes write: 'Stallman was scheduled to visit Israel in July and to speak at Haifa University, Tel Aviv University and Shenkar College. The Palestinians initiated the visit, but when they understood that Stallman would also be speaking at Israeli universities they told him they would no longer fund the trip. In response, Stallman announced that he would cancel the speaking engagements in Israel, and would be satisfied with visiting the Palestinian Authority regions only.'" Here's the email from RMS and response from the Israeli organizer. Hopefully RMS will brush off being named "Linux founder" by Haaretz. Update: 05/29 19:39 GMT by T : Oops! As user Windrip points out below, it's Globes, not Haaretz, which attributed Linux to RMS.
makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe if universities in Israel want to have him speak there, they should invite him at a different time and by him some other tickets?
Re:makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. Is it a dick move by the Palestinians? Absolutely. But it really is their right, after all, they are paying for his trip and they can put whatever conditions on it they'd like.
Now, whether or not he should have, at that point, decided not to go at all, because he's being used as a political pawn, I suppose we can argue about that. But at the end of the day, he agreed to the trip as the Palestinians wanted, then decided he'd also do some other things on their dime, they said no way, so he decided to stick to the original agreement. I can't really fault him for that.
If Israeli universities want to pay for him to come in a week later, then they are free to do that.
Re: (Score:3)
But at the end of the day, he agreed to the trip as the Palestinians wanted, then decided he'd also do some other things on their dime, they said no way, so he decided to stick to the original agreement.
The reporting suggests that the original agreement did not have a "you will not visit Israel on a trip that we're funding" clause in it. The story suggests that RMS agreed to give some lectures for the Palestinians, and only later, when he added stops in Israel, did the Palestinians attach additional conditions; RMS then subsequently accepted these additional conditions.
Re:makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This time was just over money, but there have been others who cancelled appearances when reminded of political issues. A very timely example is Gil-Scott Heron who passed away May 27, 2011.
From wikipedia:
'In 2010 he was due to play a gig in Tel Aviv, but this attracted criticism from Palestinian groups who stated "Your performance in Israel would be the equivalent to having performed in Sun City during South Africaâ(TM)s apartheid era... We hope that you will not play apartheid Israel." In response he
Re:makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
'In 2010 he was due to play a gig in Tel Aviv, but this attracted criticism from Palestinian groups who stated "Your performance in Israel would be the equivalent to having performed in Sun City during South Africaâ(TM)s apartheid era... We hope that you will not play apartheid Israel." In response he cancelled the gig.'
There is no factual error in that quote. Israel is an apartheid state.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no factual error in that quote. Israel is an apartheid state.
Pretty much, yeah. All the arguments against this that I've seen seem to fundamentally misunderstand either how apartheid actually worked in South Africa or just how little independence Palestine actually has...
Re:makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, there is a great difference between apartheid (discrimination of citizens based on race), occupation (governing by military force over population) and siege (preventing/filtering produce as part of an ongoing war effort).
The Palestinians in the west bank are under occupation (with quite extensive autonomy in most internal affairs). The Palestinians in Gaza are under a military siege. They are not occupied, at all. The Palestinians living inside Israel are equal rights citizens. No apartheid at all. If you want to contradict these statements, please bring forward the facts on which you rely.
All of this does not matter to the question of artists canceling appearances. If an artist does not want to appear in Israel, that's fine. An artists who cancels is being suckered into making a political statement under the guise/threat of avoiding making one. A singer performing in Paris does not mean the singer supports France's laws against traditional Muslim wear. A singer performing in New York does not mean the singer supports the USA's aggressive intellectual property foreign policy. Yet, for some reason, a singer appearing in Tel-Aviv is told that this will be interpreted as supporting the occupation.
Not appearing in Israel does not make a political statement. Appearing in Israel does not make a political statement. A statement is only made when an artist schedules an appearance, and then cancels. The statement can be interpreted as "I live under a rock and only now found out what Israel is doing", or as "I don't have a spine and am too afraid of outside pressure to tell people whom my performance schedule is none of their business to go to hell".
Shachar
Re:makes sense (Score:5, Informative)
The Palestinians in the west bank are under occupation (with quite extensive autonomy in most internal affairs). The Palestinians in Gaza are under a military siege. They are not occupied, at all. The Palestinians living inside Israel are equal rights citizens. No apartheid at all. If you want to contradict these statements, please bring forward the facts on which you rely.
The Israeli arabs are citizens of Israel in the name only. Recently, there was a fairly well published case of an arab being sentenced for rape for having consensual sex with a jewish woman. She went to the police when she found out that he was arab not jewish and he was sentenced to 18 months in jail for "rape by deception." The occupation/colonization project of the West Bank has been going on for over 40 years so to not call it an apartheid system is insincere.
All of this does not matter to the question of artists canceling appearances. If an artist does not want to appear in Israel, that's fine. An artists who cancels is being suckered into making a political statement under the guise/threat of avoiding making one. A singer performing in Paris does not mean the singer supports France's laws against traditional Muslim wear. A singer performing in New York does not mean the singer supports the USA's aggressive intellectual property foreign policy. Yet, for some reason, a singer appearing in Tel-Aviv is told that this will be interpreted as supporting the occupation.
Ah, the old "why are you protesting against us and not against every other shit state in the world, you must be anti-semites!"-argument. FYI, there were fierce protests against the olympics being held in China, against various events in Morocco and Turkey and so on. Also note that rms is not a random singer, but a political activist who has spent his life promoting software freedom. It would not be out of character for him to protest against the the occupation of Palestine.
Nope, wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Apartheid by definition is racial segregation within borders of a country.
That's what happens in Israel. Palestine Authority is not a country but a part of Israel, however its citizens are denied the right to move freely within the borders of Israel.
Re:Nope, wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
What exactly?
Palestine citizens need special permissions to move past checkpoints. That's why the wall was built.
And Palestine is NOT a separate state. That's also not controversial at all.
Re:makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, there is a great difference between apartheid (discrimination of citizens based on race), occupation (governing by military force over population) and siege (preventing/filtering produce as part of an ongoing war effort).
It's not that clear a distinction. The black regions of South Africa during apartheid were nominally independent states too, just with nothing resembling an independant economy or political system - much like Palestine. What's more, there was a very definite campaign of ethnic cleansing used to drive out the non-Jewish residents of what became Israel proper. As for the difference between occupation and siege... which it's closer to at the time seems to vary depending on the mood of Israeli politicians
The Palestinians living inside Israel are equal rights citizens.
Nominally equal. In practice they don't really have much in the way of political representation, the major parties have to be restrained from outlawing any political party that tries to represent them by the courts, there's fairly impressive racism in employment and housing and provision of services to majority-Arab cities, etc... (To be fair, a lot of this isn't unique to Israel - the US at least has similar race problems.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How is israel an apartheid state? Is it not the same middle eastern people that every other country surrounding them is?
Re:makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Israeli ? Not really. Their land was stolen.
All land was stolen, ultimately.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, by the Egyptians, Assyrians, Hittities, Bablylonians, Romans, Ottomans and so forth. Oh, wait, did you mean recently?
The point is, if we're going to let Israel (or the Palestinians) off the hook for what they're doing today because of what's been done to them in the past, we've got a long, long history to adjudicate. Possibly we could exclude the Inuit from having make reparations, but it's not clear yet.
Middle East history could best be described as "An eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an ey
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Unlike many other countries ... also funded by the USA. But people like you never mention that when talking about other countries, only Israel gets called on the carpet for that anytime money is in question. Funny that.
Re:makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
As an AC said, two posts up is someone complaining about Palestinian money coming from the EU.
But more to the point, Israel receives more US foreign aid, including military aid, then any other country. That's not even including all of the support we give to dictators in the region so that they'll take a softer stance towards Israel. That's also not including the costs of all the hate directed our way because we're supporting hated dictators.
Supporting Israel has cost America a lot of blood and treasure, but they don't seem to respect us for it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
yeah. After all, Palestinians are not Semites!
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, Palestinians are semits. You guy need to read some history first, and then comment.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=whoosh [urbandictionary.com]
Re:makes sense (Score:5, Informative)
Not this bullshit again. Being against Israel is not the same as being antisemitic, there are plenty of reasons to be anti-Israel considering all the lousy crap they've done and continue to do in that region. And accusing Palestinians of "antisemitism" is especially dumb, as Palestinians are just as Semitic as the Israelis are.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trying to pick a bad guy in the region is pretty easy. It's pretty much all bad. I've seen no one that doesn't have blood on their hands.
Re:makes sense (Score:4, Funny)
Trying to pick a bad guy in the region is pretty easy. It's pretty much all bad. I've seen no one that doesn't have blood on their hands.
I hear that Pontius Pilate was the last person with clean hands in that region...
Re:makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
That is true, but when your government charter specifically and explicitly calls for the murder of all JEWS and blames them for secretly being behind pretty much every war or revolution that ever happened in the world while referencing the protocols of the elders of zion it's pretty obvious that in this case they are anti-israel specifically because they are anti-jew.
Re: (Score:2)
That is true, but when your government charter specifically and explicitly calls for the murder of all JEWS and blames them for secretly being behind pretty much every war or revolution that ever happened in the world while referencing the protocols of the elders of zion
[citation needed] (FWIW, the government charter specifically recognizes some Jews as Palestinian).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Glad you asked for a citation, but you did not say which part... Taking them one at a time:
Murder of all jews: Hamas charter Article 7, last paragraph and following Hadith.
Blames them for being behind wars and revolutions: Hamas charter Article 22 (which explicitly blames "the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there" on the Jews, as well as World War I and World War II).
Protocols of the Elders of Zion: Hamas charter article 32, which s
Re: (Score:3)
The word "antisemitism" is a modern coinage invented to specifically mean hatred of Jews [wikipedia.org].
I'm sure you think you're very clever with your minimal knowledge of Latin, but you can't simply break modern pseudo-classical words into fragments, literally translate them, then reassemble them again and expect the literal meaning to match up with modern usage.
Pornography is drawings of whores, righ
Re: (Score:3)
That "test" is a bit moronic. First, it wouldn't really be testing for "antisemitism" new or otherwise, it would be testing for "Anti-Israelism". These are still two seperate beasts, even if both are equally idiotic. One can still hate Israel with an irrational passion and not really hate Jews themselves as an ethic or religious group. There are groups of people who hate everything about the US (calling it the "great satan" and such), but might not hate Christians (the majority religious) or ex-Europea
Re:makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
One can dislike Israel without being anti-Semitic. As I read someone say to a Jewish kid they'd grown up with, "we don't dislike you because you're Jewish. We dislike you because you're an asshole.", and he was, and Israel is.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Makes as much sense as saying that people in Israeli Universities are responsible for all evil made on behalf of Israel. I was pretty much being sarcastic. I don't really give a shit where RMS talks so much as I'm just tired of people bitching about Israel like there is no fault on the other side. The only solution for this from the side of the Palestinians seems to be the total destruction of the State of Israel.
Re: (Score:2)
But i just wonder, when your boss pays you to go in California for some work trip, do you by some strange accident also go in Colombia???? i know i know, your boss is the same dick and is against the freedom.
Employees who travel for business frequently mingle personal and business travel at their own additional expense. When traveling long distances, employees often take the opportunity to stay on in an interesting location, or prepend or append travel to other countries that are more easily and affordably reached from the business destination. Unless there's a scheduling issue that prevents you from using vacation days, why would your boss care?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If I ever meet RMS, I'd like to confront him on his misunderstanding of economics [slashdot.org], I think that beyond the future of HURD, that would be the only interesting thing to talk about with the guy.
Ahh .. the elephant in the room of free speech (Score:2)
Someone has to pay for the beer.
I'll give props to RMS in this case.
Re:Ahh .. the elephant in the room of free speech (Score:4, Insightful)
The "Free" in "Free software" stands for freedom, not cost; RMS has been very clear on this point, but he also seems to be ignorant of the fact that the best beer is also Free as in Freedom. IMHO, the saying should be "Free as in Freedom not Free as in promotional".
It would be best to get the message out as broadly as possible, in this case RMS is taking what he can get to give as best he can. Better to speak to some than to none.
I make Free Software. I also make Free Beer. At the local brewers club we exchange our carefully recorded recipes for different brews. We bring free samples of our fee free beer, and we share it Freely with anyone in attendance, both in bottle and in recipe. We have a great time "tasting" different brews: Some do wind up in the swill bucket, while other brews are favored, and their recipes are copied and reproduced again later by those who favor the beer. We make improvements and offer suggestions; Some of my brews have come back to me after being improved and I've had better beer, and better friends, because of it.
It does cost us to make the beer, much like it costs us to make the software, or to make the speeches -- I think it's only fair trade that we receive reimbursement for our labors. In RMS's case: In exchange for speeches about Software Freedoms he accepts money and/or travel expenses. In the case of our brew club I exchange my beer for theirs; For friends and neighbors I exchange free beer for camaraderie and the occasional tool loan.
"Free as in Beer" means something very much like "Free as in Freedom" to a home brewer like myself.
Re: (Score:3)
> "Free as in air" or something similar that you don't actually have to pay for ever
Canned air, $20:
http://www.nextag.com/canned-air/products-html [nextag.com]
Re:Ahh .. the elephant in the room of free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll give props to RMS in this case.
So now he's set the precedent that when you pay for RMS' trip, you're entitled to dictate what he does in his free time. Smart move.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
His neckbeard feels more at home in the middle east
It's Ironic (Score:4, Insightful)
Stallman expects the rest of us to live some live of software purity, never compromising on closed software, despite the fact that we often do so for pragmatic reasons like getting paid, getting the job done etc. Yet here is he, quite prepared to give into bullying terms when it suits him.
Re:It's Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
Stallman expects the rest of us to live some live of software purity
I am not so sure about that one:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware [gnu.org]
in particular,
We don't insist that users of GNU, or contributors to GNU, have to live by this rule. It is a rule we made for ourselves. But we hope you will follow it too, for your freedom's sake.
Yes, he hopes that other people will follow in his organization's footsteps, but it is not something he insists on. Elsewhere on the GNU and FSF websites, I have seen remarks that indicate an understanding that some people may not have a choice in using proprietary software. Yes, RMS campaigns for a further expansion of free software use, and tries to make people aware of what they are forfeiting when they agree to proprietary software licenses, but that does not mean that he insists that everyone agree with him or that he has no concept that people may be forced to use proprietary software.
Re:It's Ironic (Score:5, Informative)
RMS is not all of GNU, so here is his personal thoughts on the matter [kerneltrap.org]
Richard Stallman: What about them? The programmers writing non-free software? They are doing something antisocial. They should get some other job.
Any more questions?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wow. Pretty selective quoting there. Maybe I can improve on it.
Re: (Score:3)
I said socialistic/Marxist government crashes the economy, and then it starts pumping money into it trying to push prices up for things that failed and that must die (so the market says - it must die.)
As to whether the act of pumping the money into failing businesses and asset bubbles is socialist/Marxist or no, I am not making that judgment, but what leads to the problem in the first place is socialistic/Marxist government.
Now, whether US government was or is Marxist - no. However it is socialistic in the
Re:It's Ironic (Score:4, Insightful)
despite the fact that we often do so for pragmatic reasons like getting paid
+1
How does Stallman pay his bills, anyway? AFAIK, MIT doesn't pay him. Is it all from paid speaking gigs? BTW, Speeches Want To Be Free.
Re:It's Ironic (Score:5, Interesting)
RMS's bills and bio (Score:5, Informative)
> How does Stallman pay his bills, anyway?
(For a detailed answer, you could read a biography about him: http://static.fsf.org/nosvn/faif-2.0.pdf [fsf.org] )
Some organisations pay him for the talks he gives. He also won some awards in the 90s which came with chunky cash prizes which he said he would invest.
His bills probably aren't too big anyway. He asks his hosts to pay his travel and accommodation (usually staying with someone in their house rather than in a hotel). He has no kids, which saves him a lot of money.
FSF doesn't pay him any salary.
Re: (Score:2)
And he saves on shaving cream.
nothing ironic about it (Score:5, Insightful)
Free software is about receiving source code along with software and being able to modify and redistribute the software. There is nothing inconsistent about Stallman's behavior: you can get paid for software, you can create proprietary software, etc. if you like. Some of your business models may not work with free software, but that's not Stallman's intent, that's just a consequence.
The Palestinians are paying for the trip and they get to set the conditions they pay for; that's the way all invited talks work. "No side trips" is a common condition for invited talks.
What's actually going on is that Israel is forcing foreign scientists wanting to visit the Palestinian territories to travel through Israel, and then saying "oh, we made you come here, why don't you also give some lectures for free". Imagine the US used military force to keep international planes from landing in Canada and then asked foreign scientists diverted through the US to also give free talks in the US; it would be quite outrageous.
The situation is made even worse because the Palestinians are so poor compared to Israel. For Israeli universities to piggy-back on a trip paid for by the Palestinians ought to be a huge embarrassment for Israel.
The obvious thing would be for Israel to pay for the entire trip, including the trip to the Palestinian territories. That would be the obvious, right and peaceful thing to do. Apparently, Israel isn't interested in that.
I hope Israel will turn around and do the right thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nonsense. Are they requiring him to get on a plane and land in US? I don't know what kind of deal RMS got for himself but I am pretty sure it is quite uncommon that organizers require you to go back to country of origin after the engagement is over. He should have negotiated fee for giving talks like 1k/hour and pay for his
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I hope Israel will turn around and do the right thing.
Israel could say "oh, we still want you to visit us, so we will fund your trip if Palestinians withdraw their funding. And we will allow you to visit them too."
Now that would be the right thing.
Re:nothing ironic about it (Score:5, Interesting)
Noam Chomsky was barred entry into Palestinian territories (entry and exit to which is controlled by Israel) last year:
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/17/denied_entry_israel_blocks_noam_chomsky
Re:nothing ironic about it (Score:5, Insightful)
"What's actually going on is that Israel is forcing foreign scientists wanting to visit the Palestinian territories to travel through Israel, and then saying "oh, we made you come here, why don't you also give some lectures for free". Imagine the US used military force to keep international planes from landing in Canada and then asked foreign scientists diverted through the US to also give free talks in the US; it would be quite outrageous."
It would also be outrageous is Israel is doing it, which it isn't. I would ask you to find citations for that ever happening. And what is this about "Israel paying"? When a scientist is invited to speak at an academic institution the institution is paying. There is zero government involvement. There is also no involvement from other institutes, unless they are pooling resources for an event (say, a conference).
" 'No side trips' is a common condition for invited talks".
I am an associate professor and I have been invited to give hundreds of talks, at institutes and companies in the US and in many other countries. I have never heard of this "Common Condition".
At most I ask my paying hosts for accurate dates, telling them I will be travelling more. I have never encountered any kind of objection to that, nor a request to share the primary travel venue. Of course, I do not ask for extra travel or Room & Board for the "side" travels.
"Apparently, Israel isn't interested in that."
Again what is "Israel" the university of Tel Aviv? The University of Haifa (which, BTW, in which the majority of students are Palestinians)? The Israeli Immigration authorities? The Mossad? El-Al?
Re: (Score:3)
The statement about Palestinians being the majority of University of Haifa's students is not true. About 20% of the students are Arabs, from what I know (but I didn't find any formal numbers). The vast majority of those are Israeli citizens. There is a large minority in Israel of Arabs (about 20%). they usually define themselves as Palestinians, but they are still Israeli citizens. There are almost no citizens of the Palestinian Authority in Israeli universities, if there are any at all.
This doesn't change
He didn't create the problem, it was thrown at him (Score:5, Insightful)
There's nothing in the free *software* philosophy about what conditions can be put on plane tickets. There's a hint in the name - it's about software, not planes.
His lousy options were to cancel the Israel gigs, or cancel the Israel and the Palestinian gigs. He went for the former, and apologised.
This isn't news at all. This part of his work must be pretty frustrating for him.
This should be a non-story (Score:2)
Yet here is he, quite prepared to give into bullying terms when it suits him.
I'm sorry, but: what?
I think a group that is in a heavily-embargoed, poverty-ridden country has every right to be furious at their scraped-together funds being used for speaking engagements in the highly-privileged nation that is doing the embargoing.
The fact that RMS went and booked the other speaking engagements shows that he truly has no political sensitivities, and has been the wrong person to represent the FSF for quite
Re:This should be a non-story (Score:4, Interesting)
> that RMS went and booked the other speaking engagements shows that he truly has no political sensitivities
By booking engagements in Israel, he showed that he looks past sectarian boundaries and sees people, each of which deserves freedom in their use of computers.
RMS writes extensively about politics:
http://stallman.org/archives/polnotes.html [stallman.org]
Israel and Palestine are one of the most recurring topics.
Real reason (Score:5, Funny)
They refuse to call it "GNU/Israel".
Bad call IMO... (Score:3)
This now sets a precedent that RMS will respond to fiscal pressure, as he's established that the head of FSF will change who he says it to based on who's paying.
Far better for RMS to have refused the trip entirely. Yes, it would have canceled the Israeli university talks anyway, but it would have at least said that he's unwilling to be bullied or change who he talks to.
And for those who say "He could go on a separate time on Israeli money": There is a huge logistical cost in his time and effort involved in traveling halfway across the globe. A trip like this takes two days near dead for travel time & jetlag alone.
This is a cost which RMS, not the Palestinians, is presumably paying. It makes sense, if this cost is incurred, to also give talks at Israeli universities, as this cost is something the Palestinians presumably aren't paying for, he is.
If, instead, the Palestinians are paying for his travel time as well as his ticket, this makes the precedent even worse.
Re:Bad call IMO... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're drawing a pretty broad conclusion from this one specific event. Had he agreed to *never* have any dealings with Israel then I'd agree there's a problem. All he did was to cancel lectures on this specific trip that is being paid for people kind of entitled to make such a demand - regardless of how petty it may be. I don't see how this is a civil liberties or freedom thing when he's voluntarily traveling on their ticket.
And the Palestinian women (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure they would want to? [earthweb.com]
And yes, I happen to think that the whole RMS Sexism debacle was blown a little out of proportion, but it damaged his reputation as a speaker wherever gender-neutrality is desired.
Stupid move, rms (Score:4, Interesting)
In his place, if someone tried to manipulate me like that, I'd do the opposite -- give them a big fat "fuck you" and go meet the other side instead, even if I had to pay for the trip.
How about a fair compromise instead? (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy solution;
Both parties want him to Speak, let both parties pay half each. If both parties refuse, stay home, if only one accepts, then go there.
I fully understand why the Palestinians do not wish to pay the "Israeli" share, and the other way around. However, splitting the costs is fair, and all parties win.
Sure, I realize it might be impolite if the Palestinians had already been promised a visit, but I think at least the option of splitting costs should be proposed.
Re: (Score:3)
What is your real game here?
Not playing any game. I'm clearly not involved, or able to really advice anyone on this topic. Just voicing my opinion. This is slashdot.
Who are you trying to depict as unreasonable?
The one refusing an objectively fair compromise. Both, either, or neither, I don't care. For reference, I don't have much bias in the question, I think both sides are partly responsible for the situation.
The point of the proposal is to force both individually to accept, or depict themselves as unreasonable. Doubly so if the other part accepts. I'm not pointing fingers.
Politics aside ... (Score:4, Insightful)
They already have top class academics working for them and plenty of funding to bring other academics to visit them pretty regularly. I have had the privilege to meet many famous Israeli academics, but I am yet to meet a Palestinian one.
If we just ignore the politics for a little while, I can see why an underfunded Palestinian university might feel cheated if they are paying for a guy to come from across the world to give a lecture, and the guys across the border who have lots more funding and better staff than they have tried to amortize Israeli costs of bringing a foreign academic by using Palestinian money. After all, they could have offered to split the bill or something.
On top of that, I'm not sure about the situation right now, but until very recently, Israel (which controls Palestinian borders and tax collection) was withholding tax money from the Palestinian Authority because they were in reconciliation talks with Hamas. Again, ignoring politics, but looking at a very real cashflow issue that their universities might be having, I can see why they might resent this move.
Re: (Score:3)
stupid... (Score:2)
Not Ha'aretz (Score:2, Informative)
One of the posts in the linked thread goes to some Israeli biz-pub.
The Ha'aretz article [haaretz.com] about RMS' decision doesn't mis-attribute "Linux Founder" to RMS.
The error is in another publication [globes.co.il]
When drawn into a boycott... (Score:4, Interesting)
Sounds to me like... (Score:4, Insightful)
The Palestinians don't believe in freedom of speech. RMS should cancel his entire trip; his talk would be wasted on them anyway.
Good decision I think. (Score:4, Insightful)
However, even a turkey could see that would cause problems given the plans the "New World Order" has for the region.
I would have not accept funds in the first place from any political organization over there for transportation.
I would have a independent source of funds for travel expenses. I would then ask for donations from both sides when I got there to pay for the trip.
Richard runs the risk of looking like he is choosing sides by doing this, even though he might not feel that way about the politics of the region.
I say that because his mission is somewhat political due to the economics he will be discussing and social systems that make open source software very profitable as well as technically superior than close source commercial software.
-Hack.
The organizer has a good point (Score:2)
You chose the "Free beer" giving up the "Free of speech" and that disappoints me very much since it has to do with the genuinity implementation of your own presented ideas.
Elsewhere in the response he gives the details
Boycotting the Israeli Universities since you get funds from Palestinians means that you accepted the Palestinians proprietary license. Neither you nor them want to help their neighbor.
I agree, and my respect for RMS' idealism is lessened.
Travel to Palestine...? (Score:2)
Re:Travel to Palestine...? (Score:4, Informative)
"Where are you going?"
"Do you know anyone in Egypt? In Jordan?"
"How long have you known your friend?"
"Who are you meeting there?"
"Why is it you have a Canadian passport, and your friend has a British Passport?"
You got the sense you were interacting with human lie detectors. Answers like "It's none of your business" would not have gone down well.
Tempest in a Teapot: (Score:2)
I'm hardly a Stallman fan, but this seems a bit blown out of proportion.
As others have said, go to the Israeli universities on another trip.
Of course, he could do the payback thing and get the Israelis to pay for his second trip, schedule appearances in the Palestinian territories and then cancel them.
Would be a nice symmetry to that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What are you talking about, it's RMS, I am even surprised he takes a plane at all unless it's Free (and also free).
Re:So cheap (Score:4, Funny)
Something about transportation wants to be free.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Richard Stallman" is his birth name, but "rms" (all lower-case) is his chosen identity. Kinda like "Norma Jeane Baker" versus "Marilyn Monroe", or "Robert Zimmerman" versus "Bob Dylan".
Re: (Score:2)
Only an idiot or an egotistical jerk that's also an idiot would refer to themselves by a tla (that's three letter acronym).
No, I've never met the guy, but if he really refers to himself as rms, the previous comments stand. If it's just the media doing this, then those 'reporters' are the ones the comments refer to.
Re: (Score:2)
From his website:
"Richard Stallman" is just my mundane name; you can call me "rms".
He usually uses "Richard Stallman" or "Richard M. Stallman" for formal correspondence.
However in informal contexts like email signatures he is very likely to just use "rms".
This is not unlike a "Robert" being known informally as "Bob", except that this is a
nickname for the full name, not just the the first name.
Re: (Score:3)
Everybody that I know that knows him personally (which I don't) calls him Richard. I've had a few brief email conversations with him and he didn't sign the emails at all. RMS is his login name. Back in the olden days (which, through the fog of memory, I think I may have been party to) programmers used to refer to each other by their login name. Many people (even me) used to sign their emails with their login name (which would have been the same as their email address). Back when "finger" was the way to
Re:ha (Score:5, Interesting)
Eddie pointed out the hypocrisy pretty accurately IMHO. RMS is willing to accept conditions on his travel and speaking plans that he would find completely unacceptable in software.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me get this straight.
Because some Palestinians invited him to speak and are paying for all his expenses.
Because some Palestinians are not happy that their money would end up funding his speaks in Israel and would rather not pay anything if he chooses to do so.
Because some Israeli can make arrangements for another visit (but instead insist in playing the hypocrisy card).
Considering that if he accepts the Palestinian terms he will do what was originally agreed: talk to these Palestinians.
Considering that
Re: (Score:3)
That's because there's no logic in hate-based politics.
Now that's a gross misrepresentation of this statement:
RMS is willing to accept conditions on his travel and speaking plans that he would find completely unacceptable in software.
I'd have the EXACT same position if you swapped the roles of the Palestinians and Israelis, or if it were two other random groups who happen to be geographically proximate and don't like each other.
Re: (Score:3)
Software is different than travel. If you ask me for a ride or I offer one to the store, and I say no, I don't want you also to go somewhere else while we are out on foot but to stay with me, is that unreasonable? You're comparing apples to oranges.
A better solution would be to ask Isreal if they would like to fund the trip, and then if they agree offer to speak in both places. That gives Isreal the chance to make Palestine look bad and say don't bother coming. If both parties agree, then it makes Palestine
Re: (Score:3)
If you ask me for a ride or I offer one to the store, and I say no, I don't want you also to go somewhere else while we are out on foot but to stay with me, is that unreasonable?
Whether or not it's reasonable, it's a poor analogy to Stallman's trip to the mid-East. How about if you ask me to take the bus to the cleaners to drop off some laundry, and you offer to pay for the roundtrip bus fare. After I complete the trip to the cleaners, I decide to walk next door to get some coffee, but you object and demand that I return immediately from the drop off at the cleaners. Is that reasonable?
Re: (Score:3)
Not married, huh? I'm willing to accept conditions on my travel plans that I would find completely unacceptable in software, mainly because it beats the hell out of sleeping on the couch. As people keep pointing out, these are two wholly separate parts of a person's life, and it's not at all hypocritical to manage them differently.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Rockets =/= rocks. The Palestinians toss plenty of those. You should also check the definition of a WMD before spouting more worthless bullshit.
That said, I don't favor either side. They are equally culpable. Just because one has more powerful toys does not make them the worse of the two. If you support either side, you're a sucker.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Isreal, this nation of "victims" has been growing its borders "in defense" of itself for decades. To see how Israel started and what it has become is astounding. When China does it, its wrong. When the US does it, it's wrong. When Israel does it it's wrong.
And it's good you know something about the bulldozer story. Did you catch how she was alive the first time they ran her over? Yeah, they ran her over three times. That story by itself was enough to polarize me against Israel and what they are doing
Re: (Score:3)
Irony of irony, I don't hate Jews. I actually like Jews. Jews are generally good people. They eat terrific food and so I also eat Jewish food quite often. I disagree with their religion, of course -- I'm atheist. But as people go, I generally get along well with them. Their self-loathing is a bit annoying, but apart from that, I find them largely nice, intelligent and interesting people -- at least the ones I know which are generally east coast, northern, city dwellers.
What I hate is abusive governmen
Re: (Score:3)
That's why they give you the option to get the stamp on a separate piece of paper that you can just take out of your passport when you no longer need it.
Re: (Score:3)
I should have the freedom to choose any software license I want. I've had enough of his my-way-or-the-highway thinking.
Are you saying you don't?
Re: (Score:3)
Really? Not really. A great deal of the community follows his licence recommendations, and without that licence, often projects will flounder. Further, it leads to in-fighting over what licences should be used and which advances the cause of OSS the most, and that's the height of idiocy, because the answer is simply "all and none." Fighting over what licence is best is useless and redirects effort from where it should be, which is heightening the profile of OSS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Except as pointed out, the payment is coming from UN financial support of the area, so your little "imagine if" scenario fell apart after the "wasn't supported by the West."
Re: (Score:3)
Dont mention that most are civilians, where is the declaration of war?
Why do you support murdering land thieves who gained their country thru terrorism?