Rapid Responses to:

LETTERS: Yoram Blachar Medical ethics, the Israeli Medical Association, and the state of the World Medical Association: IMA president's response to open letter to the BMA BMJ 2003; 327: 1107 [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Discussing the IMA's opposition to torture

Tom Marshall   (7 November 2003)

Support

Dr. Gajanan A Kanitkar   (9 November 2003)

Does Blachar oppose torture

Sam J Oddie   (12 November 2003)

Demonisation of the IMA and its president is based on distortions and selective use of documents

Alexander Massey   (14 November 2003)

Summerfield-unlimited access to the printed BMJ?

Daniel Y Ellis   (14 November 2003)

Tom Marshall and the IMA's opposition to torture

Herschel Zimonas   (15 November 2003)

Professor Alan Dershowitz’s arguments for the legalisation of torture

Tom Marshall   (17 November 2003)

While we obsess about Israel....

S Jones   (19 November 2003)

Re: Professor Alan Dershowitz’s arguments for the legalisation of torture

Herschel Zimonas   (19 November 2003)

Discussing the IMA's opposition to torture 7 November 2003
Tom Marshall, Harkness Fellow in Health Policy Brigham & Women's Hospital, MA 02120 Send response to journal: Re: Discussing the IMA's opposition to torture	I am reassured to learn that the IMA opposes torture in any form. [1] However this does not mean that Somerfield’s concern about the use of torture in Israel is not legitimate. Israel is an unusual country in a number of respects. In the first place Israeli law permits the use of “moderate physical pressure” – in other words torture. The Landau Commission clarified the legal position of torture in Israel by exonerating from prosecution those who carry out torture provided they act under the belief that “the harm caused by him was not disproportionate to the harm avoided." [2] It is hard to prove that a torturer did not believe he was avoiding a greater evil. Secondly, although Israel has ratified the Convention against Torture, it insists that this does not apply to the Occupied Territories (or their 3.5 million residents). Israel is in the process of annexing more than half of the West bank by building security fences that will become de facto borders. [3] This will increase substantially the population under its control to whom the Convention against Torture does not apply. Thirdly, Israel’s use of torture has legitimated the use of torture in other settings. At least one prominent Harvard law professor has argued that torture should be legalised in the USA. [4] Many countries practice torture. Israel is far from unique in this respect and doubtless far from the worst offender. However Israel should be of particular interest for two further reasons. The majority of Israel’s citizens are of European and Western origins and Israel receives over $3 billion a year in US aid (mostly military aid). [5] The USA in particular and the West in general are seen as partly responsible for the actions of their Israeli cousins, a fact that contributes to the current climate of distrust between the Islamic world and the West. Yours sincerely 1. Blacher Y. IMA president's response to open letter to the BMA British Medical Journal 2003;327:1107. 2. Section 22 of the Penal Law, 1977. 3. The Economist Israel's security barrier: A safety measure or a land grab? Oct 9th 2003 4. Dershowitz A.M. "Is It Necessary To Apply 'Physical Pressure' to Terrorists -- And To Lie About It?" Israel Law Review, 1989, p. 197. 5. http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/010201/0101015.html Competing interests: None declared
Support 9 November 2003
Dr. Gajanan A Kanitkar, Research Fellow Tata Memorial Hospital. Parel Mumbai India 400012 Send response to journal: Re: Support	Sir, I would certainly and wholeheartedly support the IMA president in his letter. It is very important to note that medical professionals in the UK have not been dealing with terrorism as compared to several conflict areas like Palestine or Kashmir. We as Indians have been exposed to terrorism in its' worst form and can understand what the IMA president wants to say. Though I would criticise any medical professional making a treatment decision on political grounds, and the isrealis have been bearing the brunt of terrorist attacks recently, I would be even more critical of people using ambulances to transport terrorists. Here human rights take a back seat. I would like to end the letter saying that we have to understand both sides before criticising the Isrealis and should be supporting them for their efforts with Palestinian medical fraternity in trying to help in the victims of terrorism who are ultimately human beings. Thank You Competing interests: None declared
Does Blachar oppose torture 12 November 2003
Sam J Oddie, Specialist registrar in neonatology Newcastle, NE1 4LP Send response to journal: Re: Does Blachar oppose torture	I have followed this correspondence with interest. Numerous people have criticised Summerfield, many unfairly. Blachar has not responded to the central allegation. Does he oppose moderate physical pressure, or whatever euphemism is currently being used to describe torture? Sam Oddie Competing interests: None declared
Demonisation of the IMA and its president is based on distortions and selective use of documents 14 November 2003
Alexander Massey, Thames Cancer Registry King's College London, , London SE1 3QD Send response to journal: Re: Demonisation of the IMA and its president is based on distortions and selective use of documents	Sir, Tom Marshall joins Derek Summerfield [1] and uses distortions and selective references to single out Israel for opprobium because, for example, "the majority of Israel's citizens are of European and Western origins".[2] In fact, the majority of Israelis, Jews and Arabs, are of Middle Eastern or North African background. There are also substantial communities of Ethiopian, Central Asian and North Caucasian Jews. Most of the rest originate from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, hardly Westerners or America's 'cousins'(sic), as Marshall claims, aping Arafat propaganda that Jews don't belong to the region. And Israel is by no means unique as a recipient of massive US aid. Her neighbour Egypt, a despotic regime with an appalling human rights record of routine torture of dissidents, receives billions of US dollars. The US has also donated hundreds of millions of dollars to the Palestinian regime whose Al-Aqsa brigades, along with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, are accused by Palestinian human rights workers of torturing and executing over 70 suspected colloborators in the past three years.[3] Chose and pick is the method employed by Derek Summerfield in his campaign to demonise the Israeli Medical Association and its president Yoram Blachar.[1] In the absence of hard facts, Summerfield relies on the Amnesty International reports critical of Israel. Basic research of the Amnesty International reports on the Arab-Israeli conflict would produce the following: "The attacks against civilians by Palestinian armed groups are widespread, systematic and in pursuit of an explicit policy to attack civilians. They constitute crimes against humanity"[4]. The Human Rights Watch is no less damning: "The failure by Arafat ant the PA to take steps (against suicide murderers) implies a high degree of responsibility".[5] Despite their proclaimed passion for human rights, Summerfield et al do not call for the medical profession to boycott Palestinian doctors some of whom, like the Gaza paediatrician and a senior Hamas leader Dr Abdel Aziz Rantissi, direct terror. I am glad that the correspondence in the BMJ has exposed the political agenda which is driving the slandering of the Israeli Medical Association. 1.Summerfield D. Medical ethics, the Israeli Medical Association, and the state of the World Medical Association. BMJ 2003;327:561 2.Marshall T. Discussing the IMA's opposition to torture BMJ 2003;327:1107 3.Guerin O. BBC News online, 3 November 2003 4.Amnesty comdemns Palestinian attacks, BBC News online,11 July 2002 5. Erased in a Moment. Human Rights Watch report, Nov 2002 Competing interests: I have Jewish relatives in Israel who are refugees from a Muslim country
Summerfield-unlimited access to the printed BMJ? 14 November 2003
Daniel Y Ellis, Spr in Emergency Medicine Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, SW10 Send response to journal: Re: Summerfield-unlimited access to the printed BMJ?	I find the BMJ quite remarkable. First, it prints an unchallenged, baseless letter by Derek Summerfield, full of inflammatory accusations against an Israeli doctor. (1) Then, when this doctor has the chance to defend himself, Summerfield gets another go at rubbishing him afterwards. (2) This is not a discussion where two doctors are squabbling over the best treatment for heart failure; it is one man’s apparent desire to destroy another’s reputation and to tarnish all the doctors of a particular country. Why should Summerfield automatically have the right to respond, especially when his response is to recycle the original unsubstantiated claims? This correspondence is also a good example of how if you lie for long enough, people eventually believe you. Authors for the BMJ now write about torture in Israel ‘documented without valid refutation’. (3) Where is this evidence? Summerfield would have us believe that Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) and Amnesty have exclusive rights to the truth in the Middle East. In reality, these organisations do not appear to be totally impartial. Their evidence comes almost exclusively from the ‘testimony’ of Palestinian ‘torture victims’. If there is one thing for which there is ample evidence, it is the ability of certain Palestinians to lie. Their leader (Arafat) lies daily, saying one thing in English (peace, coexistence) and another in Arabic (jihad, death). Their spokespeople lie (Saeb Erekat’s now infamous claim on CNN that thousands of Palestinian civilians had been massacred in Jenin when actually 11 died, mostly in crossfire incidents). In addition, there are countless incidents when regular Palestinians have lied or have been coerced into lying. Are we to automatically assume that these ‘torture testimonies’ are even loosely based on fact? Sadly, the BMJ, in giving voice to Summerfield and his falsehoods is merely fanning what is fast becoming an anti-Israel wildfire. Outside of medicine, this inaccurate and biased coverage has led to a dramatic increase in attacks on European Jewish targets. A recent European poll that showed 70% of people think Israel is the number one threat to world peace (ahead of Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria) is a tangible example of how repeated biased reporting can distort a population’s perspective. This poll has caused leading Europeans (eg Romano Prodi) to hang their heads in shame and ask themselves how they let such misinformation become acceptable as the truth. Within the medical fraternity, we already have doctors being disciplined for discriminating against Israeli students. Do any of their views come from reading misleading articles in the BMJ? If British doctors are ever polled on their feelings towards their Israeli colleagues, let us hope that editors of the BMJ will not need to have the same feelings of remorse as Mr Prodi. 1. Summerfield D Medical ethics….BMJ 2003;327:561 2. Summerfield D Authors response….BMJ 2003;327:1108 3. Lewis B The issue is simple. BMJ 2003;327:1108 Competing interests: None declared
Tom Marshall and the IMA's opposition to torture 15 November 2003
Herschel Zimonas, Retired dermatologist London NW1, United Kingdom Send response to journal: Re: Tom Marshall and the IMA's opposition to torture	Sir, In his hostility to Israel Tom Marshall goes so far as blaming the Jewish state for legitimating "use of torture in other settings"[1]. In fact, the practice was justified under certain conditions as a 'moral paradox' as far back as the early 1970s by the world authority on ethics and just war Michael Walzer of Princeton University[2]. It is unacceptable that Marshall should be free to make slanderous accusations of this kind in a peer journal. Herschel Zimonas (Dr) 1.Marshall T. Discussing the IMA's opposition to torture, BMJ 2003; 327:1107 2. The Dissent magazine. The United States in the world - just wars and just societies, Vol 7, No1 (2003) Competing interests: None declared
Professor Alan Dershowitz’s arguments for the legalisation of torture 17 November 2003
Tom Marshall, Harkness Fellow in Health Policy Brigham & Women's Hospital, MA 02120 Send response to journal: Re: Professor Alan Dershowitz’s arguments for the legalisation of torture	Dr Zimonas is outraged by the link I make between arguments for the legalisation of torture and Israel. I can understand his concern. It is an outrageous assertion. What evidence do I have for this link? The most recent advocate for legalisation of torture is Professor Dershowitz (Harvard University). May I take the opportunity to quote what Professor Dershowitz said during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, March 3, 2003: “But if we're going to do it and subcontract and find ways of circumventing, it's much better to do what Israel did. They were the only country in the world ever directly to confront the issue, and it led to a supreme court decision... " [1] If there is indeed a slander being committed against Israelis, it is not by me. In Israel, the use of force ('moderate physical pressure') was sanctioned by the ruling of a commission chaired by Judge Moshe Landau in 1987. It was finally ruled illegal in September 1999. [2] References: 1. http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/ 2. http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/1996/51507396.htm Competing interests: None declared
While we obsess about Israel.... 19 November 2003
S Jones, na London Send response to journal: Re: While we obsess about Israel....	Dr Marshall (eBMJ 18th November) makes an important point about the illegality of 'torture' in Israel. I trust that anyone being tortured there will employ one of the many excellent lawyers in that country and pursue the matter in court. It may be tough but they have a better chance of a fair hearing than in neighbouring states. Two further thoughts came to mind. 1. We in the UK can hardly preach to others about dealing with terrorism, given the mess we made of things during the 70s and 80s. Call me cynical, but I think the main reason why the IRA ceased its war on the mainland is because the Americans reduced their financial support. 2. While we obsess about the failings of the Israeli government, the less attractive aspects of Zionism and the absence of a response from an Israeli doctor to yet another accusation that he is less-than-perfect, we are not thinking of the plight of the people of Chinese-occupied Tibet who are being tortured and ethnically cleansed as I write. Why? Call me cynical (again) but don't we have close economic ties with China? With Israel, we have nothing to lose. It's easy to pick on the financial 'little guys', so we do! As well as Tibet, we are also far less interested in the plight of the hundreds of women being murdered in India because of dowry issues (nice to see the doctor on TV toe the establishment line and dismiss a case in question as another accident - someone could make a fortune there selling safer stoves). Last but not least, where are the protests against the genocide in Zimbabwe? Do we still have economic ties with the latter or is it that we don't want to upset South Africa? Whatever the reason, we don't hold the respective medical professions in those countries accountable for the crimes committed by their leaders, so quite why anyone should blame one or more doctors in Israel for the human rights transgressions of the IDF and government is beyond me. Like others before me, I can see the problems on both sides in the Middle East. And challenging the skewed perceptions of some respondents does not mean I wish to defend Israel. Peace to all! Competing interests: None declared
Re: Professor Alan Dershowitz’s arguments for the legalisation of torture 19 November 2003
Herschel Zimonas, Retired dermatologist London NW1, United Kingdom Send response to journal: Re: Re: Professor Alan Dershowitz’s arguments for the legalisation of torture	Sir, The position of Alan Dershowitz on legalising torture is well known and owes a great deal more to his radical liberalism and the influence of Michael Walzer than to Israeli legal practice.[1] But the issue was not what this or that lawer thinks: Marshall - not Alan Dershowitz - blamed Israel for "(legitimating) the use of torture in other settings".[2] This accusation - like the rest of Marshall's anti- Israeli polemic - remains fictitious. Herschel Zimonas (Dr) 1. The Dissent magazine. The United States in the world - just wars and just societies, Vol 7, No1 (2003) 2.Marshall T. Discussing the IMA's opposition to torture, BMJ 2003; 327:1107 Competing interests: None declared