Rapid Responses to:

FEATURE: Tom Hickey Should we consider a boycott of Israeli academic institutions? Yes BMJ 2007; 335: 124 [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Is boycott a valid academic response?

Anthony Papagiannis   (20 July 2007)

BMA views

Vivienne H Nathanson, WC1H 9JP   (20 July 2007)

Don't boycott Israel

Hugh Mann   (20 July 2007)

Are BMJ members to also boycott therapies from Israeli Universities

Leonard Bernstein   (20 July 2007)

is this the role of the bmj?

charles simenoff   (21 July 2007)

Israel Boycott

nigel de kare-silver, nw10 1ss   (21 July 2007)

Priorities

Joel G Naftalin   (21 July 2007)

No to the Boycott

Julian Hirsh   (21 July 2007)

Once again, why only Israel

Mark Berelowitz   (21 July 2007)

Unrestricted jurisdictions for British academics?

Adolfo E Talpalar   (22 July 2007)

Make love not boycott

Boris Gorbis   (22 July 2007)

Is your justice blindsided?

Ehud Emanuel   (22 July 2007)

Collective Punishment

John R. Cohn   (22 July 2007)

Can I join BMJ armed wing?

Orian S Shirihai, Boston , MA 02111, USA   (22 July 2007)

My comment when I voted (only slightly edited)

Brian Robinson   (22 July 2007)

Why this now?

Irvin A Lampert   (22 July 2007)

How about we boycott your journal instead?

David B. Rosenberg   (23 July 2007)

Boycott, an idea that is replete with madness

Kenneth Polin   (23 July 2007)

Physician Heal Thyself

Hamid Haeri   (23 July 2007)

Bizarre argument

Peter C. Zhen   (23 July 2007)

Why is this nonsense in the BMJ?

Robert A. Lange, MD, MBA   (23 July 2007)

Democracy in Israel and the responsibility of the individual citizen

Nikolai A Manassiev   (23 July 2007)

The BMJ at it again

Morris S Odell   (23 July 2007)

Proposed boycott

Michael Bar-On   (23 July 2007)

Why always Israel?

Dr Jonathan F Bernstein   (23 July 2007)

Proving Bias in your motion

M J Levine   (24 July 2007)

What's good for the goose.......

A. Mark Clarfield   (24 July 2007)

And Now For The Real Issue

Andrew M Fink   (24 July 2007)

Today, an historical perspective

Eric S. Shinwell   (24 July 2007)

Unjust Boycott

Michael J. Szanto   (24 July 2007)

Boycotts that are based in misconception

Michael Stone   (24 July 2007)

South Africa parallel

Samer R Abdelnour   (24 July 2007)

Bigotry pure

Ehud Schwammenthal   (24 July 2007)

Re: The BMJ at it again

Brian Robinson   (24 July 2007)

Why only Israel

Mark Berelowitz   (24 July 2007)

If it looks like Anti-semitism...

George A Werther   (24 July 2007)

Continued BMJ bias

Jonathan Hasleton   (24 July 2007)

bigger problem or just rhetoric

Patrick Hudson   (24 July 2007)

A Boycott is Essential

Tony Greenstein   (24 July 2007)

BMJ readers make their voices heard

Joy S Wolfe   (24 July 2007)

Pro Israel Lobby out to silence a genuine debate

Nadeem Zafar Jilani   (24 July 2007)

Re: Should we consider a boycott of Israeli academic institutions?

Sean Wall   (24 July 2007)

Unfair to Israel

Patrick M Young   (24 July 2007)

An effective academic boycott of Palestinians already exists.

Tahseen Chaudhry   (24 July 2007)

Fundamentalism is fundamentalism by any name

Elizabeth Marsh   (24 July 2007)

I thought the BMJ was a medical journal

Ian Rivlin   (24 July 2007)

Educate how?

David S Halpin   (24 July 2007)

Boycott Israeli Academic Institutions to highlight injustice and denial of human rights

Edward Morris   (24 July 2007)

Little Boys Boycott - Adults Talk

Simon A P Jenkins   (24 July 2007)

Selected for trial on a political issue

A. Michael Denman   (24 July 2007)

Brainwashing. Stalin - Hitler style.

val pepper   (24 July 2007)

self fullfilling argument

al stein   (24 July 2007)

No boycot.

Leonard S. Fagan, M.D., F.A.C.O.G.   (24 July 2007)

Don't open your mouth if can't say anything nice

Albert J. Kirshen   (25 July 2007)

worried for the future

linda herzberg   (25 July 2007)

What is a rational response?

Ann Robinson, Ann Robinson   (25 July 2007)

the BMJ: pathognomic marker of Britain's history?

Noel D. Sturtz   (25 July 2007)

We should boycott israeli medical and academic institutions

Amin Elhihi   (25 July 2007)

Absolutely Not

Naomi F Solomons   (25 July 2007)

An absolute disgrace--does the BMJ support terrorism?

louise Troostwyk   (25 July 2007)

Education not boycott

Dr Charles Daniels   (25 July 2007)

The case for an academic (and wider) boycott of Israel

Ben Alofs, Gaerwen LL60 6AH, Ynys Mon, North Wales, UK   (25 July 2007)

The Elders of Zion: en bloc vote against the boycott.

Jeremy M Jacobs   (25 July 2007)

Silencing dissent

Paul J Malin   (25 July 2007)

No to the boycott

Jacob Amir   (25 July 2007)

What timing?

Fred Johnston   (25 July 2007)

Re: Israel Boycott

Hany M. El-Hosseiny   (26 July 2007)

Anit-Boycott hysteria in the way of truth

Ghada Karmi   (26 July 2007)

Should we consider a boycott of Israeli academic institutions? NO

Renato Caviglia   (26 July 2007)

Overdue

Richard J Lyus   (26 July 2007)

We must know the facts

Christopher J Burns-Cox   (26 July 2007)

Irrelevant

Gerry Lewis   (26 July 2007)

Two wrongs do not make a right

Mohammad Dakheel   (27 July 2007)

Re: Once again, why only Israel

Saleem Abdallah   (27 July 2007)

Re: We should boycott israeli medical and academic institutions

Saleem Abdallah   (27 July 2007)

Re: Bigotry pure. Arabs in Israel do not enjoy equal rights in a constitutional manner

Ben Alofs   (27 July 2007)

Medical Academic Institutions absurd

Robert Winkler, MD   (27 July 2007)

Get educated not indoctrinated

Sharon Klaff   (27 July 2007)

The logical fallacies are mind-boggling

Ilanit Meckley   (27 July 2007)

Yes, We must support academic boycott of this Imperialist State

Zarina Bhatia   (27 July 2007)

Just because we're a crowd

Ricardo Guido Lavalle   (27 July 2007)

Why does the BMJ even consider a poll on a boycott?

George Steiner   (27 July 2007)

Say No to the Boycott

Rachel J Rose   (27 July 2007)

boycott of Israeli academic institutions

javaid khan   (27 July 2007)

Bravo BMJ

Michael J Ingram   (27 July 2007)

Should we consider a boycott of British academic institutions too?

Luiz Dratcu, Alastair Santhouse, consultant in psychological medicine   (27 July 2007)

No foot in the door, please

Mark B. Sobell, Professor Linda C. Sobell   (27 July 2007)

Arab Becomes Head of Israeli State Hospital-Boycott Him Too?

Adam Finkel   (27 July 2007)

Truth of the matter

Sharon Klaff, Barry Shaw,   (27 July 2007)

Report of the UK Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism and the anti-Israel boycott debate

Peter Simmons   (27 July 2007)

If you boycott Israel, I will never read BMJ again

Jane M. Liebschutz   (27 July 2007)

thanks for trying for sanity

Gary E. Goodman   (27 July 2007)

...and let's our patients die

tommaso de pas   (27 July 2007)

Ignorance

Mark B Suss   (27 July 2007)

Say no to the boycott and its supporters

MARTIN HARRIS   (27 July 2007)

Were those who campaigned exclusively on apartheid "anti-Afrikander" racists?

derek a summerfield   (28 July 2007)

Typical British Response

David Ende   (28 July 2007)

Shame on you

Rachel Toby Woolf   (29 July 2007)

Re: Typical British Response

Joseph Berger   (29 July 2007)

Faux pas

Ricardo Kohan M.D. F.A.S.N.   (29 July 2007)

the journey of a student from Gaza

Riyad Deis   (29 July 2007)

May I sugest some additional candidates

Frank Tudos   (29 July 2007)

No To Boycott

Dr Khaled Dik   (30 July 2007)

Re: Were those who campaigned exclusively on apartheid "anti-Afrikander" racists?

Paul J Malin   (30 July 2007)

Boycott is a synonym for delegitimisation

Albie Cukier   (30 July 2007)

Israeli science doesn't boycott others - why should UK science do so?

Ari Elson   (30 July 2007)

Why the BMJ ran this debate

Fiona Godlee   (30 July 2007)

Antisemitism is singling out Jews even if you don't hate them

Zev Lidert   (30 July 2007)

Should we consider a boycott of Israeli academic institutions? Yes & No

Imad Uthman   (30 July 2007)

I voted YES.....

Abe Bird   (30 July 2007)

True dangers of suggested boycott of Israel's academia

Michael H Martin-Smith   (30 July 2007)

Tom Hickey is to be Congratulated

Wleed Haq   (31 July 2007)

Re: Why the BMJ ran this debate

Paul J Malin   (1 August 2007)

How to Build Medical Joint (BMJ) partnerships in the Middle East

David R Katz   (1 August 2007)

No boycott in international science

Giorgio Coen   (2 August 2007)

Only one side of the story

Claude Bachmeyer   (2 August 2007)

What can Clinician-Scientists Bring to this Debate ?

A. Joseph Layon, Zori, Robert   (6 August 2007)

The BMJ should not be a political forum

Bob Dunkley   (7 August 2007)

A typical case of positive prejudice

Jose M Thalenberg   (9 August 2007)

Science and morality

Dr. Abid Hussain   (9 August 2007)

Let science be science

Roland Rosmond, Sweden   (9 August 2007)

Civilized Israeli Occupation

nizar Shakhshir   (25 August 2007)

Humanity or hypocrisy

Barry Bub   (26 August 2007)

Response to Dr. DA Summerfield

Michael Baum   (5 September 2007)

Scientific Journals should not engage themselves in Political Polling

Yoram Blachar   (5 September 2007)

Go and see the truth for yourself. I did.

Asad Khan   (7 October 2007)

Is boycott a valid academic response? 20 July 2007
Anthony Papagiannis, Respiratory physician St Luke's Hospital, Thessaloniki 552 36, Greece Send response to journal: Re: Is boycott a valid academic response?	The pair of Head to Head articles on boycotting Israeli academic institutions sent me tossing mental coins: to vote or not to vote? If yes, then for or against? I suppose this is the aim of such features, to make one think, preferably twice or thrice, on issues that might otherwise slip by unheeded. Both contributors offer strong and probably valid arguments to bolster their cases. The state of Israel and its actions and institutions do seem to enjoy a unique immunity to public criticism which is usually uttered at the risk of worldwide ostracism thanks to powerful and vociferous lobbying. At the other end of the spectrum, the South African apartheid regime attracted worldwide criticism for its inhuman discriminatory practices, despite the fact that South Africa was also home to a number of pioneering medical institutes and discoveries. Maybe their lobbying was not good enough. On the other hand, en masse condemnation of Israeli (or any other) academia for state-sanctioned malfeasance or discrimination sounds heavy- handed. If there is a proven case of a specific person or institute involved in inhuman, unethical or dubious practices, then this person or institute should justifiably, and on the basis of evidence, be blackballed by the international academic community. And if Israeli (or any other) academics were the first to condemn such incidents and distance themselves from any suspicion of complicity or tacit agreement, there should be little ground for anybody else to take up the cudgel against them. Finally, once such a boycott starts it is likely to trigger an avalanche of response in which reason, justice and common sense will play only minor parts. Hickey hints at such a response in his second paragraph. That would benefit no one, and it would take a major effort to stop, if ever. Without voting for either side of the argument, I rest my case. Competing interests: None declared
BMA views 20 July 2007
Vivienne H Nathanson, Director of Professional ctivities, BMA BMA House, Tavistock Square, WC1H 9JP Send response to journal: Re: BMA views	Tom Hickey refers to signatories to the call for a boycott being BMA members. There were certainly doctors in the group of signatories and some of there are probably BMA members. They were not, however, signing the call for a boycott on behalf of the BMA. The BMA is not a signatory and believes in education and support to achieve change. This view is spelt out in the news article written by Owen Dyer at BMJ, Apr 2007; 334:871. Competing interests: None declared
Don't boycott Israel 20 July 2007
Hugh Mann, Physician Eagle Rock, MO 65641 USA Send response to journal: Re: Don't boycott Israel	Like two roosters trapped in a cock fight, Israel and the Arabs are co-equal victims in a world that is motivated by conflict, gore, and profit, rather than cooperation, health, and peace. Let's stop blaming the victims, and let's put the blame where it belongs: the failure of the world's academics and physicians to solve man's problems and change man's mindset. Competing interests: None declared
Are BMJ members to also boycott therapies from Israeli Universities 20 July 2007
Leonard Bernstein, Retired Professor, Boston University School of Dental Medicine 60 Babcock St., #95, brooklne, MA 02446-5920 Send response to journal: Re: Are BMJ members to also boycott therapies from Israeli Universities	In order to be true to and internally consistent with their boycott of Israeli Universities, BMJ members should also refrain from prescribing any therapies or utilizing any surgical and/or medical techniques that have come from the results of Israeli research. I propose that any BMJ member who voted for this boycott should propose that the BMJ pass a motion to this effect. Then all the rational and critical thinking people in the world would then really be able to appreciate your stupidity. Competing interests: None declared
is this the role of the bmj? 21 July 2007
charles simenoff, expert witness manchester m25 0er Send response to journal: Re: is this the role of the bmj?	yet again,the bmj uses its pages to allow a "debate" over the policies of israel,the only jewish state in the world. the idea of the academic boycott and all other boycotts by trade unions is a chance for those who want to destroy the only democratic country in the middle east. the arabs have failed to destroy it by force;that is still their stated aim and now we have the odious comparison of israel as an apartheid state. if the boycotters had any any decency they would not use computers with intel chips made in israel,or use drugs developed in israel. i am concerned that the bmj,a respectable scientific journal,has dumbed itself down to a poll that allows anyone to vote and to vote as often as one wants on a subject that does not deserve the publicity generated. it would appear that the editor has not learned from the uproar caused by previous anti-israel and anti-jewish articles from derek summerfield et al(quoted yet again by hickey) Competing interests: i am a jew and a doctor.i am sick of the likes of tom hickey being given a platform for their racist anti-semitic views in a respectable journal
Israel Boycott 21 July 2007
nigel de kare-silver, gp nw2 6jh, nw10 1ss Send response to journal: Re: Israel Boycott	Tom Hickey portrays a Palestinian nation which is subugated and oppressed. He paints an Israeli society where there is intimidation of anyone who dares oppose state policy. He glosses over genocides in Darfur and government policy intended at causing mass death by starvation in Zimbabwe. He places any equivocation of anti-Israelism and anti-semitism as an attempt to international stiffle debate. He uses these as his argument in favour of boycotting the academia of Israel and then tries to create a world in which this boycott would only affect institutions and not individuals. Tom Hickey is clearly an articulate author who manges to constructively build his arguments into a natural conclusion. Tom Hickey fails to acknowledge the huge amounts of international aid regularly passed to the Palestinians, more per head than any other UN recipient group. Tom Hickey fails to acknowledge that contributions to this aid was withehld by both the USA and EU for many years because of the abuse of this money to use it towards military objectives rather than the humanitarianism it was intended for. Tom Hickey tries to portray Israeli society as intimidated against free speach by an authoritarian soviet style leadership where nothing could be further form the truth. Indeed it is this free speech which allows internal objections to government policies to reach the international arena. It is unequivocal. Israel is a democratic inclusive society which has been subjected to attrition and war and state sponsored terrorism from its neighbouring states since its independence in 1948. Israel is not protected by the comfort zone of seas and friendly like-minded nations from those who are hostile to its existence in the way England or the USA are protected. Israel is not a perfect nation state. Mistakes are made and, as anywhere, individuals exist who abuse the trust their position expects of them. Israel has an internal infrastructure that allows for decisions and actions of its officials to be challenged and, when found guilty punished. This is very much unlike the Palestinian militias. Tom Hinkley, when did you last here a report of a suicide bomber being condemned for blowing up the wrong target and creating civilian casualties? or a rocket attack across a border being targetted on appartment blocks and not an army camp? Israel has to take steps which are fair reasonable and proportionate to defend its democracy and its freedoms just as England is doing in its way now. Tom Hinkley's arguments are built on castles of sand. That sand will be washed away by those individuals determined on extending their perverted unchallengable interpretations of religion and politics into the worlds which allow Tom Hinkley the freedoms to mix with peoples of other races cultures and thoughts that oppose his own. They will hitch hike onto his stance and debate and, when they acheive their targets ignore without compunction or feeling his protestations at their excesses. Competing interests: I am a Jew I am a doctor of medicine I am a GP Program Director
Priorities 21 July 2007
Joel G Naftalin, Trainee in O & G Kingston Hospital Send response to journal: Re: Priorities	I fail to see what this has to do with the BMA. I would have thought that there are enough problems within the NHS to keep their hands full. Instead they are using our fees to provide a mouthpiece to political activists whose ill-informed one-sided views have nothing to do with the practice of medicine nor the lives of doctors. Shame on you BMJ. Competing interests: None declared
No to the Boycott 21 July 2007
Julian Hirsh, Retred None Send response to journal: Re: No to the Boycott	"Moreover, the boycott would be of 'Israeli academic institutions' only. We would not sever links with our Israeli colleagues, which would be counterproductive. Individual and group collaboration and publication on joint projects could continue, as long as such projects were not formally sponsored by Israeli institutions." Can Dr Hickey explain how is it possible to boycott Insttutions wihout boycotting Individuals? Competing interests: I am a Jewish Zionist
Once again, why only Israel 21 July 2007
Mark Berelowitz, Consultant Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust, NW3 2QG Send response to journal: Re: Once again, why only Israel	I have no objection to the BMJ's pages being used for critical discussion about the merits or otherwise of an academic boycott of Israel. However, I continue to be baffled as to why it is only Israel that receives all this attention. If the criterion is "non-Arab country with worst recent record in relation to the Palestinians", then Israel is indeed the probable winner. But I would respectfully suggest that you give a proper airing to a number of different possible criteria by which we might fairly and squarely decide who to boycott: 1. Middle Eastern country with worst track record in relation to Palestinians (possibly not Israel). 2. Middle Eastern country that has killed the most Palestinians (not Israel). 3. Middle Eastern country that most disenfranchises people living and working within its borders (not Israel) 4. Middle Eastern country with worst track record in denying rights to Arab women and children (not Israel). 5. States that have killed the most Arabs latterly (we might just have to boycott ourselves and the USA). 6. States that have killed the most foreign nationals latterly(time to look in the mirror again) 7. States that most brazenly abuse human rights (lets see if we have the courage to boycott China now) So I have no problem with discussing a boycott of Israel. But if we discuss only Israel, then the charge of anti-semitism is both inevitable and also well deserved. Mark Berelowitz Competing interests: None declared
Unrestricted jurisdictions for British academics? 22 July 2007
Adolfo E Talpalar, MD, PhD; Researcher Karolinska Institute 17177 Send response to journal: Re: Unrestricted jurisdictions for British academics?	The Israeli-Arab conflict is a pure political problem. Violations of human rights in that conflict, are problematic for both sides. So, what is the parameter to unilaterally boycott a single side? It sounds that is just bias, political sectarianism or even pure racism. The jurisdictional pretension of such a boycott is extremely problematic: What are the limits for British academics power? Do they have the right to decide in regular criminal cases? If so, they should at least present minimal credentials of qualification and knowledge of the facts. Academy is fine, but not far beyond good and evil. Competing interests: None declared
Make love not boycott 22 July 2007
Boris Gorbis, attorney Beverly Hills, USA Send response to journal: Re: Make love not boycott	In reading the various positions and responses in the on-going debate over the call for boycott of Israeli academic institutions by the British University and Colleges Union (UCU) I stumbled upon the most recent (and probably the most coherent) attempt to explain its rationale. It was by Mr. Hickey, chair of the UCU and I found it in the online version of BMJ. It begins with admission that the boycott call mobilized forces that are "great and good". What follows does not suppport the view that Mr. Hinkey refers to forces that vocally criticize the voted upon action by his union. Nor does it appear that Mr. Hickey understands that issue goes beyond Israel. I am neither an "eminent American professor" nor a supporter of Israel who "threatened to bankrupt or destroy the career" of Mr. Hickey. I am an early protester of the boycott proposal but I have neither sought nor saw any such nonsense. I objected to the boycott because it is, like many other condemnations of the State of Israel, based on fake morality, phony data and false premises. Anyone claiming to be academically involved would not consider the rhetoric and ideology worthy of consideration, yet the association of academicians is attempting to act precisely on that basis. This is not a unique experience -- in the course of the cold war many of British intellectuals and academics made consistent calls upon the United States (and the West) to disarm without making any such demands upon the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries. The call for boycott of colleagues in Israel retches up the process quite a bit. Because for me it involves issues of survival, it must be examined on its own terms. The obvious underlying fallacy of this approach is that it has no honestly stated objective. It does not claim to result in reduction of tensions or better chance for a lasting peace between Jews, Christians and Arabs. It is openly admitted as a "tactic", a pragmatic tool designed to cut Israeli academicians and students from the academic universe in Britain and (as the organizers obviously hope, elsewhere.)if they continue to act under their institutional flag. One may ask:"Why?" As an attorney I am compelled to ask: "Who benefits?". The only answer of Mr. Hickey is that it is intended to create a "moral outrage". Many have questioned why this outrage be directed against only one party in the complex equation, where there is systemic principle at work that any conflict resolution requires both parties to be compelled to act. Many have rightly questioned the appropriatness of singling out the Arab-Israeli conflict as the only bonfire of moral outrage when there is systemic dehumanization in so many other parts of the world. We know that the call for boycott is not premised on the desire to provide greater aid to needy Palestinians who for decades have received more international aid per capita than any refugee group or displaced population in history. Some, including this writer, questioned if the benefits of "education" as seen through the Judeo-Christian prism of values are congruent with those practiced by radical Muslims. This question of course is highlighted by the fact that most terrorist acts of the past decade committed out of the sense of 'moral outrage against Israel and against American, French, Spanish, British and Israeli targets involved highly educated individuals. The most recent attacks in Britain were carried out by and involved medical doctors. Al Qaeda's 2d in command is a trained pediatrician. Yet no "moral outrage" is directed against medical and academic institutions where doctors and scholars are primed to take life instead of safeguarding it. No moral outrage is directed against Sunnis extermination of Shias across Asia and the Middle East and no boycott of academics and institutions complacent in this on-going slaughter is in the works. It has to be acknowledged that the boycott is not directed at improving the quality of life or academic and educational opportunities for Arab and Palestinian students and scholars. No data showing that there is any systemic ethnic discrimination in Israel directed against its non- Jewish citizens was presented because it does not exist. There is no data that any specific Israeli institution has a policy of quotas or discrimination based on ethnicity or national origin. No such evidence was invoked to justify the UCU call for boycott. Obviously, no-one considered any evidence of discrimination against Jewish students or scholars anywhere in the Arab academic institutions since,(let's be frank about it) there are virtually no Jews left in the Arab world following their wholesale expulsions since 1948. The underlying thesis is that since 1967 Israelis colonize territories of the land illegally, that this colonization created difficulties and hardships for Palestinians, including those seeking better educational access. It is undoubtedly true that wars and conflicts do not stimulate any aspect of the quality of life, Everything else is if not outright false, is controvertible. So why such an extraordinary measure that Mr. Hickey himself admits brought 'predictable condemnation' upon the head of the union? I believe most people criticizing the union saw it as an undisquised attempt to simply punish Israeli scholars and academicians collectively. Cutting stipends from visiting Israeli students received a great deal of criticism. Some equated this to blackmail. Some called it anti-Semitic. The real answer however, may be differently rooted. It is a poisonous myth that today's violence stems from the unresolved Israel-Palestinian conflict. Deep down it is not even a clash of Muslim and Ameropian civilizations. The Israeli-Arab. Arab-Christian and Arab-Arab conflicts are advanced windows into the underlying demographically driven struggle for world domination. Since 1967 the population of the West Bank and Gaza has grown from 450,000 to 3.3 million with 47 percent of those under the age of 15. That growth occurred notwithsatanding the alleged 'atrocities' and 'inhumanity' of the Israelis. I subscribe to the understanding of current strife best expressed by Prof. Heinsohn in his book "Sohne und Weltmacht: Terror in Aufstieg und Fall der Nationen". According to his powerful analysis, the current wave of terrorism, wars and violence is explained by the "Youth Bulge" creating pressure upon countries with stable population or negative population growth. According to Prof. Heinsohn 'demographic capitulation' of these countries is imminent when for every 100 males in the 40-44 age group there are less than 80 boys aged 0 to 4. In Britain the number is 100/46, in Germany it is 100/50, but in the Gaza strip the numbers are 100/464. It is my inesapable conclusion that the call for boycott of Israeli institutions is a mask, a ploy to earn a future recognition and reward from the forces of the oncoming assault. Like any pandering of a group anticipating its demise it does not and cannot succeed. In fact, it only advances the agenda of the counterforce and hastens the unfortunate outcome. Thus, while I am offended by lies and half-truths just as much as by deliberate ignorance of the boycott-call clarions, including Mr. Hickey, I am much bothered by their attempts to earn some safety points in a demographic war that threatens my world, my seed, my country. Regretably, that threat now confronts not just Israel but Western Europian countries as well. Religion, ethnicity, and ideology are but tools in this global reforming and UCU is taking part in it against my personal and collective interests. Competing interests: None declared
Is your justice blindsided? 22 July 2007
Ehud Emanuel, Citizen 20852 Send response to journal: Re: Is your justice blindsided?	If I agree to the author's claims, which as an informed and rational person I absolutely do not, I would still withold my support unless the motion's scope were to be widened: what about Palestinian academia, which has consistently failed to condemn (and quite often passively encourages) state-sponsored acts of terror and violence against unarmed citizens (incl. children, babies, seniors, tourists) both in Israel proper and in the Palestinian territories? If you really care about the fate of these two states, you should apply the same measure to both sides. Competing interests: Israeli
Collective Punishment 22 July 2007
John R. Cohn, Professor of Medicine Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107 USA Send response to journal: Re: Collective Punishment	Academic boycotts are antithetical to the free exchange of ideas, fundamental to such institutions. A boycott of Israeli institutions has been proposed. One justification of the boycott’s backers is alleged Israeli “collective punishment” of Palestinians(1), as reflected in defensive measures to prevent attacks on their citizens—attacks which have taken over a thousand lives. Those measures, at least, have military justification and have saved lives on both sides. The proposed boycott, “collective punishment” of Israel’s academic institutions, is retribution for its own sake with no practical value but to inflict pain. Israel’s academic and medical communities have tried to deliver education and healthcare to Palestinians, but they have been stymied by the Palestinians themselves. Checkpoints and barriers are a response to attacks on Israeli cities and towns and were largely absent prior to 2000 and Yasir Arafat’s intifada. Palestinians have abused traditional medical neutrality, impairing Israeli efforts to deliver care, using ambulances, patients, and “pregnant women” to deliver the means of destruction(2). Tens of millions of refugees from around the world during the last century were resettled. Only the descendants of Arabs who left Israel were placed in permanent refugee status. At the urging of their Arab brethren, the United Nations created a unique bureaucracy, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), for that purpose. Among the 21 members of the Arab League, all but Jordan denied citizenship and homes to those displaced. There has been considerable tragedy on both sides of this nearly sixty-year-old conflict. Beginning with rejection of partition in 1948; through 19 years of Jordanian and Egyptian occupation of Gaza and the West Bank; the 1967 Khartoum conference where assembled Arab leaders pledged "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it”(3); the 2000 negotiations at Camp David, when Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat responded to yet another Israeli offer of self-determination and statehood with the second intifada; to the 2006 Palestinian election of Hamas, unalterably and unabashedly opposed to Israel’s existence(4), Palestinians and their leaders in the Arab world have repeatedly refused a peaceful resolution and statehood because it required not just acknowledgement but acceptance of Israel’s existence. Despite their responsibility for the Palestinians’ suffering, I am opposed to a boycott of Arab League or United Nations members as morally wrong collective punishment and counterproductive to the cause of peace. 1 Hickey T. Should we consider a boycott of Israeli academic institutions? Yes. BMJ 2007;335:124 (24 July). 2 Cohn JR, Romirowsky A, Marcus JM. Abuse of health-care workers’ neutral status. Lancet. 363:1473, May 1, 2004. 3 Khartoum resolutions. http://www.mideastweb.org/khartoum.htm, accessed 22 July, 2007. 4 The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant, accessed 22 July, 2007. Competing interests: None declared
Can I join BMJ armed wing? 22 July 2007
Orian S Shirihai, Asst. Professor Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston , MA 02111, USA Send response to journal: Re: Can I join BMJ armed wing?	Before bypassing Britain's leaders, try to think why did they not boycott Israel academia or industry so far? Perhaps because they dedicated a bit more time to become educated about the Israeli -Arab problem and perhaps they found this kind of solution counter productive. Why counter productive? 1. Israeli scientists, doctors and public will now view British scholars as a side in the conflict. Placed at one side of the conflict, British scholars will not be able to promote peace, but will certainly promote tension and aggression. 2. Politically unaffiliated donors will prefer to donate their money to universities and fellowship programs that do not support one political agenda or another. 3. Myself any many other scientists will not feel comfortable participating in conferences where the review of potential speakers, posters or travel awards is based on their country of origin. 4. I will not feel comfortable sending a manuscript or grant application to an institute or journal that uses political criteria in reviewing my scientific contribution. Is BMJ a medical journal or political-medical journal? What is next: BMJ armed wing and BMJ martyrs? I find it inappropriate for a physician or a scientist who spend 100% of their time at the ward or in the lab to take their opinion (based on occasional news paper reading) into offensive action against a group of scientists and physicians from another country. If you want to be offensive you can speak, write or demonstrate. Otherwise, be constructive. Being constructive: If any of the British scholars were taking their time to immerse themselves in the Arab Israeli dilemma, they would come up with more constructive ideas. Here is an example: A professor in our university in Boston has established a foundation that sponsors fellowships for Palestinians and Israeli post doctoral trainees to spend 2 years together in labs in Boston. Each lab will take both Israeli and Palestinian trainees so to create a bridge made of intelligent people that had a significant amount of time to connect and share experiences, possibly even starting a joint effort by commercializing an invention made during the research. This is smart. I will tell you that a couple of weeks ago I received an application from a student from Iran that is interested to come to Boston for a post doctoral training. I distributed this application among members of my lab as I always do. The unanimous response was: If we take this guy, he will become an ambassador of peace once he goes back to Iran. Go do medicine: I have discussed the boycott with a number of colleagues here in Boston. I have to say, people in Boston feel that you must be really bored if you spend so much time and effort on generating such poor ideas and giving them such a strong public exposure. As a physician and a scientist I cannot imagine myself promoting any political agenda by blocking research and medicine in any country, even if this country is an enemy. BMJ: instead of intensifying the conflict, as if you were a political journal, you could spend your effort being constructive and find ways to initiate collaborations between Arab and Israeli scientists. Somehow you chose to become BBC-BMJ. Competing interests: None declared
My comment when I voted (only slightly edited) 22 July 2007
Brian Robinson, Retired psychiatrist, still assessing patients under the Mental Health Act for Social Services Milton Keynes Send response to journal: Re: My comment when I voted (only slightly edited)	I have gone back and forth on this one for the last 2 years or so in relation to the UCU/AUT/NATFHE debates. I've followed all the arguments, attended debates &c. In the end, it's largely a tactical, pragmatic decision, and I've voted No because: (a) it's counterproductive and simply makes rightwing forces more reactionary, and (b) it gives the rightwing too many excuses to do nothing except make accusations of antisemitism because of the singling out issue (i.e. not boycotting other human rights offenders). There IS however a moral case, but that case is the same for boycotting China, the USA, the UK &c &c ... Also, practically, how on earth could *clinicians* implement such a medical boycott?* The other big unanswered question is, How would we know when the boycott could be finished? Different boycotters have different aims, some just want an end to the Occupation, but others want the dissolution of the Israeli state. This has never been clear. ------------- * I'm adding this. I was called a little while ago to the A & E dept one night to assess a young Israeli on a visit to this country. Obviously I wont give further details, but if he needed further assessment and/or treatment in hospital, and if I'd been his hospital psychiatrist, at some stage, in the interests of my patient, I'd have had to confer with my Israeli colleague. I put this to a couple of my pro-boycotting colleagues but didn't get a clear reply. I can see how a boycott by, say, research academics might be implemented (indeed we've seen some unpleasant examples in the last year or two) but how on earth would doctors go about a _clinical_ boycott? - Dr Brian Robinson, Milton Keynes Competing interests: If being a secular Jew who's also an atheist is a competing interest, then I declare it.
Why this now? 22 July 2007
Irvin A Lampert, Retired histopathologist KT2 5SW Send response to journal: Re: Why this now?	I am profoundly disappointed that the organ of the British Medical Association should have entered into the issue of academic boycotts. The matter has been debated at length in most serious newspapers and journals in the land as well as by the heads of all Academic Institutions of this country and has been totally condemned. Why then raise this matter regarding Israel now? What special interest or indeed expertise is available to the BMJ beyond medical issues, which are entirely ignored in Professor Hickey’s contribution. The remit of your journal is medical and scientific, in setting up a so-called “Poll”, open to all and sundry, to anyone, in fact, who can obtain the appropriate url, is sheer populism, dubious at best and utterly contrary to the spirit of scientific enquiry for which the BMJ purports to stand. To be prepared to tamper with the integrity of the journal, invites the consideration that there are ulterior motives behind the invitation to anyone to state where “they stand on this issue”. Competing interests: None declared
How about we boycott your journal instead? 23 July 2007
David B. Rosenberg, Attending Physician, Emergency and Trauma St Charles Medical Center, Bend, Oregon USA Send response to journal: Re: How about we boycott your journal instead?	Obviously there are people at your journal who consider politics and political correctness to be more important than objective scientific inquiry. Who knows how your political agenda may govern selection of articles and editorial control? Science shouldn't be political, and when it does it becomes suspect. Competing interests: None declared
Boycott, an idea that is replete with madness 23 July 2007
Kenneth Polin, Physician USA 60025 Send response to journal: Re: Boycott, an idea that is replete with madness	The very question that an academic would consider a boycott is utter madness. The Israeli scientific and medical communities are at the forefront of science as well as medical advances. These advances are given to the world and are also available to the Palestinians. When a baby is born with severe heart disease, the doctors in the Palestinian areas are able to send the baby to the Israeli medical centers for care that would not be available elsewhere. For any political considerations to be applied to the academic community of Israel demonstrates the lack of true intellectual process on the part of the proponents of any boycott. Perhaps those who wish a boycott should reject any medical assistance that was developed by the Israeli community. Also perhaps those who are quick to criticize should go live in any Arab country and suffer the same circumstances that the residents suffer in terms of lack of democracy and lack of rights afforded to women and minorities. Competing interests: None declared
Physician Heal Thyself 23 July 2007
Hamid Haeri, software engineer 02138 Send response to journal: Re: Physician Heal Thyself	Antisemitism only encourages violence. Physicians see enough blood as it is. Competing interests: None declared
Bizarre argument 23 July 2007
Peter C. Zhen, Piano teacher My house in Toronto Send response to journal: Re: Bizarre argument	"We are asked why we do not propose a boycott of other states whose policies are barbaric and inhuman, such as China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Zimbabwe. And we are speaking of a culture, both in Israel and in the long history of the Jewish diaspora, in which education and scholarship are held in high regard. " Do you mean to imply that the Chinese DON'T hold education and scholarship in high regard? Have you ever actually met a Chinese person before? I assure you, we're not as clueless as you think. Please quit being so condescending. Competing interests: None declared
Why is this nonsense in the BMJ? 23 July 2007
Robert A. Lange, MD, MBA, retired physician 16826 Send response to journal: Re: Why is this nonsense in the BMJ?	The area under dispute was Jewish, Roman, Christian, and was conquered by Islam in the past. Today a small part of the area is Jewish once again. It appears to have been under dispute for over 2000 years. What is the British Medical Journal, of all publications, doing getting involved in a land dispute that is thousands of years old? You have no expertise or special moral qualifications in this matter. Why not keep your mouth shut and talk about medicine? Competing interests: None declared
Democracy in Israel and the responsibility of the individual citizen 23 July 2007
Nikolai A Manassiev, GP Goodrest Croft, B14 Send response to journal: Re: Democracy in Israel and the responsibility of the individual citizen	Three points. 1. Is it right for the BMJ to give space on its pages for such debate? Scientists and doctors over the centuries have taken position on variety of issues. Here are some, in no particular order - proper sanitation, working conditions in factories, human rights, torture, biological weapons, the atomic and thermonuclear bomb, exploatation, aparthaid etc. So the BMJ debate does not seem exeptional. Was this right or wrong is not possible to tell - the BMJ is organ of BMA and we do not know what BMA membership thinks. Perhaps BMJ would conduct a poll and let us know. 2. Another point came to mind while reading all submissions. All in this debate, including the rapid responces seem to agree that Israel is a democratic state with jews being over 80% of the population. In democratic elections, they elect representative Governments. In their elections they have voted in Governments which represent their views on variety of issues, including continual illegal occupation, building of illegal settlements, building of a separation wall, citizens of Isreal-only roads and towns, establishing one of the biggest prison of Earth (Gaza), extrajudicial killings, to mention just a few of their Governments' actions. What does this tell us about the majority of citizens of Israel (over 80 % jews), who have voted for and implemented such policies? Citizens of non-democratic countries (past and present) may have a legitimate argument in saying that what their Governments did/do, was/is without their consent and claim absolution. Would Israeli citizens be able to say that? 3. How is one to judge in such matter? By asking his own conscience is one way. Alternatively one may rely on others such as BMA to take a position on one's behalf.By the by, the USA has been boycotting and blockading Cuba for many decades, scientists and all, for the crime of Cubans to dare having a political system different from theirs. Competing interests: None declared
The BMJ at it again 23 July 2007
Morris S Odell, Forensic physician Melbourne, Australia 3006 Send response to journal: Re: The BMJ at it again	The thing that occurs to me as I read the latest incarnation of this scurrilous debate is, "it's the BMJ yet again". Why is it that we don't see this vicious politically driven and yes, anti-semitic, campaign given such regular publicity in other prominent journals? One can only conclude that the BMJ has more than an impartial interest in the issue and is happy to push it whenever it gets the chance. It's no defence to say that you allow the other side to respond, you must know that your reputation ensures that publishing such a question gives it an undeserved degree of respectability. You do yourself no credit in this. A read through the responses shows the dim view that many take of both the debate and your actions. You are associating yourself with dangerous bedfellows who are proposing an action that is inimical to the values of the enlightenment and the scientific tradition. I will never again give the BMJ the credibility or respect I used to have for it and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Competing interests: I am a doctor and a jew.
Proposed boycott 23 July 2007
Michael Bar-On, Pensioner Home 91063 Send response to journal: Re: Proposed boycott	I am a retired civil Engineer resident in Jerusalem for the last forty years. Before the BMA goes plunging into boycott, perhaps they should send a representative to spend an hour or two in one of Israel`s hospitals and count the hundreds of Arab patients treated daily on an equal footing to the Israeli patients. Here the principal of the Hippocratic oath fully applies. The reputation of Israeli medicine is such that patients come to be treated from as far away as Kuweit. Recently, during the fighting between Hamas and Fatah, a wounded Fatah fighter was treated in Ashkelon just as an Israeli patient. I am married to a nurse who has worked in an Israeli hospital for over thirty five years. Such a boycott would do nothing to further relations between Arab and Jew and in the long term would harm both. Rather than criticize from the comparative safety of a Brighton address, perhaps it would be better to see the facts on the ground. Michael Bar-On BA,LRPS Competing interests: None declared
Why always Israel? 23 July 2007
Dr Jonathan F Bernstein, General Practitioner The Beechcroft Medical Centre, 34 Beechcroft Gardens, Wembley, HA9 8EP, UK Send response to journal: Re: Why always Israel?	In the debate over the boycott of Israeli academic institutions Tom Hickey and others bridle at accusations of anti-Semitism. They hide behind the presence of Jews, most of whom are voluntarily disconnected from the majority of the community, to deflect such accusations as if this exonerates them. When questioned as to why there are no boycott proposals against regimes such as China, Iran and Zimbabwe they hide behind statements that such boycotts depend “on the merits of each individual case.” Perhaps they do. However they do not consider other cases. It is Israel, and always Israel, that is chosen in isolation for such treatment. It is only Israel’s academic institutions that are attacked. It is only Israel that the world holds up to standards way in excess of any other nation including our own. Why not balance the argument and disengage from Palestinian or the wider Arab and Moslem academia that support anti-Israel and anti-Semitic Governments and propagate and fund world-wide anti-Semitic “research,” literature and media demonising Jews and Israelis and advocating violence against Jews and Jewish institutions worldwide. The ongoing occupation is distasteful, misguided and opposed by the vast majority of Jews and Israelis. But just as attempts on both sides are growing in momentum to solve the issues boycotts undermine that very process. If they truly supported academic freedom such motions would not even see the light of day. I for one as a Jew and a Zionist, a believer in a two-state solution find such motions distasteful and misguided in conception and anti-Semitic in execution. Competing interests: Jewish and Zionist and in favour of a two state solution
Proving Bias in your motion 24 July 2007
M J Levine, IT Consultant HA8 6QS Send response to journal: Re: Proving Bias in your motion	Mr Hickey uses the following to justify the boycott is not unfair to Israel: "But whether a boycott is appropriate in such places depends on the merits of each individual case. In the case of Israel, we are speaking about a society whose dominant self image is one of a bastion of civilisation in a sea of medieval reaction. And we are speaking of a culture, both in Israel and in the long history of the Jewish diaspora, in which education and scholarship are held in high regard. That is why an academic boycott might have a desirable political effect in Israel, an effect that might not be expected elsewhere. " This statement clearly shows that bias is being applied and justified. By claiming that Israel is a "civilized society in a sea of medieval reaction" and "... education and scholarship are held in high regard..." Mr Hickey is at the same time using one set of rules to judge Israel and another to judge disputes in other parts of the World. In addition he is perpetuating the view that Israel is surrounded by a savages - this can only be classed as discriminatory to the many millions of Arabs who are quite clearly not savages. Does the BMJ allow for differences in backgrounds of doctors when articles are submitted? Do articles from Arab or Muslim sources receive an "easier-ride" than those from Israel or the West because of the savage nature of the environment they are written in? Israel is no longer an occupier in Gaza. They left in 2005. In that time, Sederot has been hit by rockets on a daily basis from Gaza. Have the Gazan's taken the opportunity to rebuilt the strip or have HAMAS and FATAH used the time to re-arm with the intention of war? As for the West Bank, this is disputed territory. Israel has more right to this region than the Jordanians residents of Jericho etc. It was gained as a result of a defensive war in 1967. Jordan relinquished all claims on this region when King Hussein signed the peace treaty with Israel. No other country has been under so much pressure to justify her existence. The closest similar territorial dispute is that of Turkey and Greece over Cyprus. Next in line is the issue of Kurds in Syria, Iran, Iraq and Turkey. Further afield we see a dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. None of these disputes receive a fraction of world attention that is paid to Israel. No one calls for boycotts of these countries. Is that because all of them are located in a "sea of medieval reaction"? Competing interests: None declared
What's good for the goose....... 24 July 2007
A. Mark Clarfield, Professor of Geriatrics Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 84101, Israel Send response to journal: Re: What's good for the goose.......	To the editor, There are (at least) 5 reasons to oppose Dr. Hickey's position: 1)Lack of a level playing field: Assuming (for the sake of argument only) that all of the claims of Israel's detractors are 100% true, why Israel? What about countries with a much worse human rights record: eg.China (Tibet et al), Russia (Chechnya et al), Somalia (Darfur et al), Egypt (treatment of political dissidents et al, Palestine (Hamas suicide bombers et al) the UK (shooting de Menezies et al). Why single out Israel? 2) A Boycott will be counter-productive Once again , (assuming agreement as above) a boycott will be counter- productive. Those Israelis who do agree, even partially, with the the boycotters' critique of Israeli government policy are to be found in high concentration on Israeli campuses. Why shun those with whom you are in some agreement? A boycott will only serve to cause Israeli academicians to unite against this unfair boycott, despite their sympathetic attitude towards the Palestinians. 3) By What Right? What is the BMJ's denominator/constituency? There are hundreds of millions of Arabs and Moslems around the world, and many (but thank God , not all) of whom you can be sure can be conscripted to collaborate in this "vote" against Israel. These kinds of "surveys" prove nothing. I am surprised that the BMJ would get involved with such an unscientific methodology. 4) Medicine and Politics What is a medical journal like the BMJ doing asking such a question ? The boycott is purely a political tactic. By the same logic, why not ask the BMJ to set up a vote on whether British academics should be boycotted for the UK government not getting out of Northern Ireland? It is ironic that the term "boycott" originates in the troubled history of Northern Ireland. After all, the Protestant settlers have been there for 400 years. Given this history, calling for a boycott of British academics makes about as much (or more ) sense as Hickey's call to boycott us. 5)Outcome measures In the end, a boycott will do absolutely nothing to help the Palestinians reach statehood, a goal of most Israeli academics. It will only distract us from helping to achieve a fair peace in this troubled part of the world. With respect... Competing interests: I am an Israeli physician.
And Now For The Real Issue 24 July 2007