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
Andrew M Fink, Consultant Ophthalmologist Ra'anana, Israel Send response to journal: Re: And Now For The Real Issue	Boycott proposers often state that boycotting South Africa worked, so why not Israel? The glaring difference is that whereas supporters of the Apartheid regime supported the ideology of Apartheid, Israelis as a whole have voted in at least the last 3 elections against the occupation and in favour of a 2 state solution. We Israeli academics thank Hickey for his information highlighting the evils of the occupation and Israeli actions which make Palestinians' lives so very difficult. However we need to be told so no more than British or American academics need to be told what an awful life Iraqis lead because of the British and US presence there. Moreover we also know that like in Iraq, just blaming the US and UK exclusively for the situation, ignoring context and enemy actions, is the act of the politically naive, deliberately ignorant and usually biased. So too Hickey fails to mention that Palestinians regularly make their own situation worse (firing rockets from unoccupied Gaza), miss opportunities, and commit inexcusable acts of terror which achieve nothing but Israeli retaliation, and yet more security measures. The real issue therefore is not that we Israelis need to be told by patronising ivory tower foreigners that the occupation needs to end, but rather how to end it. On a personal level, I feel there is no substitute for meeting the 'enemy' directly, for example, at academic meetings as happens regularly in Israel and elsewhere, and breaking down stereotyping, something which Hickey seems determined to restrict. Shame on him. Competing interests: Israeli Doctor
Today, an historical perspective 24 July 2007
Eric S. Shinwell, Professor of Neonatology Hebrew University, Jerusalem Send response to journal: Re: Today, an historical perspective	Today is the Jewish Fast day, the Ninth of Av, that commemorates the destruction of both temples in Jerusalem and the expulsion of Jews from Spain. Today, Nasrallah, leader of Hizballah joyously declared that his newest missiles will destroy Tel Aviv! Today, Hamas fired missiles on a children's home in a Kibbutz! Today, Ahmadinejad re-affirmed his determination to wipe Israel off the map! And, today, I read that the British Medical Journal chose to question my academic freedom. I was born in Glasgow to Scottish parents, trained in Medicine at Kings College Hospital, London and now am an internationally-recognized researcher in Neonatology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Today, as ever, my rights to academic freedom and self-determination are as absolute and inviolable as those of Tom Hickey. Today, Tony Blair, Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas are discussing the future of our region. And, thus today, I will continue writing my latest invited article for a British academic journal …. Competing interests: Israeli University Professor
Unjust Boycott 24 July 2007
Michael J. Szanto, Private Investment Advisor Chicago 60614 Send response to journal: Re: Unjust Boycott	Nearly a century ago, my grandfather, Paul Szanto, had to move to Austria from Hungary to study medicine. As in many countries at the time, efforts were made to restrict the numbers of Jewish students and faculty members at universities in Hungary. The trend towards academic boycotts against Jews culminated in the forcible removal of all Jews from universities by the Nazis. Particularly significant in Hickey's article is his reference to how Israelis and Jews particularly value education and academia that was long denied Jews in Europe. This makes clear that he understands that he is seeking to undermine Israel's most valued institutions including Hebrew University that was partly founded by Albert Einstein; he wants to hit Israel where it hurts. This puts him on the side of many in the Middle East including the current leader of Iran who desire there to be no Jewish state or significant presence in the region. His arguments concerning the welfare of Palestinians seems to be a stretch for a number of reasons. For one thing, Palestinians historically were always among the most educated in the Arab World, particularly before the emergence of suicide bombers over a decade ago. Hickey speaks not at all of the terrorist atrocity that resulted in the murder of famous American surgeon, David Applebaum, and his daughter on the eve of her wedding. Nor does he speak at all of any of the savage bombings that have targeted Israeli universities and hospitals that serve both Jews and Arabs. Hickey shows no concern about all of the suffering from oppression in the Middle East--that is unrelated to Israel--which is characterized by the massacre in Hama by Syrian forces or the recent jailing of large numbers of Iranian academics who dared challenge their government. His article doesn't address at all the very hateful anti-Semitism that is so common today in the Middle East. As a child of Holocaust refugees the call by some in Europe to once again boycott Jewish academics causes me great concern. Competing interests: None declared
Boycotts that are based in misconception 24 July 2007
Michael Stone, theraputic massage self-employed Send response to journal: Re: Boycotts that are based in misconception	Putting aside the issues of free exchanges of academic ideas, without which academia would become a pale shadow of itself, Tom Hickey's advocacy to boycott Israeli academics has ignored verifiable facts and pursued what can best be described as "the Palestinian narrative". Take his first claim, for example, that the territories "have been colonised by Israeli settlements built on illegally confiscated land". In reality, 80% of the Israeli settlements have actually been built on land purchased by Jews prior to 1948, to which Israel holds title. A simple Google search clearly demonstrates that the lands in such areas as the Etzion Block were taken in the 1948 war, and their Jewish residents were either massacred or fled. The remaining 20% have been built on crown land that has belonged to nobody since the breakdown of the Ottoman Empire in 1917. Any other settlement is seen as illegal by the Israeli government, and dismantled. Tom Hickey then cites education and infrastructure as areas of concern, yet ignores that Israel has built far more hospitals, universities and schools for the Palestinians, than has the Palestinian authority in the areas that it controls. Instead, monies have been diverted to the purchase of arms and the support of terrorism. Palestinian education has been largely about brainwashing Palestinian childrem to martyrdom. We quickly forget that what we call "the Palestinian Authority" is no more than a loose amalgam of nine terrorist groups each fanatically committed to Israel's destruction. Yes, there are roadblocks, but surely the question we need to ask is, would Britain do anything differently? Roadblocks were a prime and necessary feature of Britain's war against the IRA, and it needs to be remembered that the IRA did not target Britons in their London homes, and certainly not to the tune of 8,000 dead civilians in 320,000 attacks over a 6 year period ... which is, proportionately, what Israel has faced. Consider that scenario, and ask yourselves again, would Britain, or any democracy committed to the safety of its citizens in the face of implaccable terrorism, do anything differently? As to the boycott, despite the huge resources devoted to security, Israel remains the developer of the cell phone, the computer chips our computers run on, and the Windows programs that drive them. The first anti-virus was developed in Israel, as are our internet and telephone security. In the past five years Israel, with a population of seven million, has received six Nobel prizes. They are not trivial, either. The Nobel prize for Chemistry that defined how cells work has opened up an entire new field of genetic medical reseach that promises a wealth of major cures. The question should not be "should we boycott Israel?", when there are so many real abusers of human rights around, the Palestinian leadership standing at the forefront as they forge new terrorists out of the children of their constituents, but rather "can we afford to boycott Israel?" Competing interests: None declared
South Africa parallel 24 July 2007
Samer R Abdelnour, student Canada Send response to journal: Re: South Africa parallel	International pressure on all aspects of South African society, including universities, helped to bring down apartheid in South Africa. Israel denies Palestinians the same basic human rights through a similar apartheid system, thus, the international community must take up boycotts, economical, cultural, and educational, to help bring down Israeli apartheid in Palestine. Competing interests: None declared
Bigotry pure 24 July 2007
Ehud Schwammenthal, Associate Professor of Cardiology, Tel Aviv University, Director, Cardiac Rehabilitation Institute Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer 52621, Israel Send response to journal: Re: Bigotry pure	1. It would be absurd, if at a time when my colleagues and I in our Institutions cooperate with Palestinian physicians and their Institutions for the benefit of Palestinian patients, we should be boycotted by our British colleagues (the distinction between boycotting academics and their institutions is an insult to intelligence. Moreover, this form of political blackmail is appalling in any case) 2. The boycott would be highly ineffective and instead of promoting the Israeli-Palestinian relationship worsen the Israeli-British relationship (maybe this is its true purpose) 3. Mr. Hickey’s argument that it is justified to single out Israel for boycott, because education and scholarship are held in higher regard than in countries such as China and Iran is bigotry and racism presenting itself as flattery. China has a 4000 year old tradition of culture and education and the level of Iranian tradition of scholarship is outstanding. Also, why doesn’t Mr. Hickey suggest boycotting the US for their Middle East policy – say by calling on British scholars to avoid post-docs at Harvard, or any other American University? 4. The boycott is unfounded. It was planned exactly at a time when Israel withdrew unilaterally from the Gaza strip, destroying all its settlements, and evacuating all settlers (by force when necessary). Israel even withdrew – contrary to the initial plan – from the border between Gaza and Egypt leaving the Palestinians for the first time in their history in charge of their own border with a neighboring Arab country. But the boycotters refuse to be confused by facts. For about 10 years now, the overwhelming majority of Israelis is willing to withdraw further from the occupied territories in exchange for peace and good neighborhood. All we got so far were 5000 missiles on the cities bordering to the Gaza strip. There are two sides to every conflict, even to an asymmetric one. 5. The comparison to South Africa is outrageous. Within Israel proper, Israeli citizens who are Arabs not only enjoy equal rights in a formal constitutional manner: Thirteen percent of our MP are Arab (as opposed to 0% in France, which has a sizeable Arab minority too) and Israel is one of the two countries in the world where the socioeconomic differences between a non-Muslim majority and a Muslim minority are lowest (in terms of family income, unemployment rate etc) – in striking contrast to France and Belgium, and yes, even Britain. 6. Antisemitism? I don’t know whether the motive is more “enlightened” anti-Semitism (the form which comes with a lack of awareness of ones racism and instead a sense of “radical liberalism”) or plain ignorance. But it is definitely bigotry. In this context I find it interesting what the Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish once said: “Nobody would give a damn for the Palestinians if the Jews were not involved”. I apologize upfront should it turn out that Mr. Hickey is also active in the "Free Tibet Movement", the "Council against the genocide in Darfur", the "Movement against forced circumcision of women in Egypt" an the "Movement against discrimination of Muslim youths in France". Competing interests: None declared
Re: The BMJ at it again 24 July 2007
Brian Robinson, Psychiatrist - as required Sec 12 work Milton Keynes Send response to journal: Re: Re: The BMJ at it again	Poor old BMJ! Allow me to come to the defence. Several doctors, as far as I know all BMA members, have wanted to start a medical boycott of Israel for a few years. Somehow or other (can't now remember how) I got involved to the extent of being asked to join one. For a short time I did join an email list, before deciding I was against. So there really is an issue here, and I prefer to think that the BMJ as done a service in bringing it into the open. Indeed, without any special inside knowledge, I have some reason to think the BMA, if not the Journal, may have been under some pressure to "do something", and may well have been accused of timidity, or evasion of ethical responsibility. And should we not be grateful that, after all, the "poll" (open to those whose political motto is Vote Early and Often) is currently running at over 80% opposed to a boycott. So who's complaining? Thanks, BMJ. -- Dr Brian Robinson, Milton Keynes Competing interests: None declared
Why only Israel 24 July 2007
Mark Berelowitz, Consultant Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust Send response to journal: Re: Why only Israel	Dear Dr Godlee The more I think about it the clearer it becomes that your journal now needs to prove that it is not anti-semitic or overly focussed on Israel: 1. Using your own search engine, looking for ["country name" + human rights], I identified 169 references in the BMJ to Israel, which is more than China, and much more than the combined totals for Burma, Saudi Arabia and Syria together. 2. This evening I was talking two Afghan women. The one had to leave medical school when the Taliban took over. All educational facilities for women and girls were closed, and all study by women and girls, even private study, was punishable by death. They said that today in Afghanistan, in the rural areas, schools for girls are routinely burned to the ground. 3. Human Rights Watch identifies a number of countries (not including Israel), in which a. Women's evidence in court officially carries less weight than that of men b. Rape victims who are not virgins have less protection in law than those who are virgins c. Men can avoid punishment for rape by offering to marry the victim. d. Migrant workers have few or no legal rights. Under the circumstances, how does the BMJ justify its preoccupation with the morality of Israel? Unconscious or deliberate anti-semitism would seem to be the obvious answer. Competing interests: None declared
If it looks like Anti-semitism... 24 July 2007
George A Werther, Academic Paediatric Endocrinologist Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, 3052, Australia Send response to journal: Re: If it looks like Anti-semitism...	That the BMJ considers it appropriate to host such a poll is incredible. It is reminiscent of the Third Reich authorities questioning the right of Jewish doctors to practise medicine. One is only reassured by the overwhelming negative response to the question, leaving the BMJ looking pathetic - shame on you! Perhaps you should take solace in the high proportion of "Yes' votes coming from Hitler's birthplace, Austria. It seems that nothing has changed in Europe. Competing interests: None declared
Continued BMJ bias 24 July 2007
Jonathan Hasleton, Doctor Hope Hospital, Salford, Manchester Send response to journal: Re: Continued BMJ bias	Dear Sir, The uninitiated may well question why the Editorial staff of the BMJ felt the need to pose the question of 'Should we consider a boycott of Israeli academic institutions?' in their journal. However, a cursory glance through the archives of the BMJ reveals a string of articles (1) which vilify Israel and whose scientific validity has then been questioned. Why they would invite a non medic to comment on this subject is unclear. Hickey's call for boycott raises a number of points that require clarification by himself and the editors who approved his article for publication. Firstly, his comment that 'Eminent American professors, and supporters of Israel, have threatened to bankrupt and to destroy the careers of any union members who support a boycott' (2) lies unsubstantiated (as does most of his poorly referenced piece) and stinks of a century old Jewish Conspiracy theory that last raised it's ugly head on the front cover of the New Statesman. Secondly, the question of what is constructive criticism of Israel and what is anti semitism is certainly a grey area. Yet criticism based on falsehood falls squarely into only one category. It is not clear to me where Hickey gets his (again unreferenced) claim that Israel is 'home to road networks exclusively for the use of Israelis'(2) that he somehow employs to bolster his argument and deploy the apartheid theory. If Hickey is to be found lacking in his source for this fact, he can indeed be held up as an anti semite, rather than an honest critic of the Jewish State. The question will then be - how complicit is the editor in chief of the BMJ in commissioning him to write this article and allowing its publication. It is not clear to me at all that Hickey's piece is 'in the best interests of science, medicine, and patient care.'(3) Godlee herself has stated elsewhere that the failure to retract unsound data has long term consequences.(4) We may not be dealing with clinical data but we are still dealing with human lives. It may be pertinent to quote the Chief Rabbi, Sir Dr Jonathan Sacks when he says that the 'unfolding tragedy in Israel will not be solved by demonization, myth, blood libels, reiterations of medieval fantasies, modern forgeries like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, attacks on Jews and synagogues throughout the world, evasions, lies, and conspiracy theories. Political problems have political solutions, and they require nothing less than truth, fact, relentless honesty, self-criticism, the capacity to compromise, and a willingness to prefer an imperfect peace to the perfect purity of holy war, sacred suicide, and murderous martyrdom. Antisemitism begins with Jews but never ends with Jews. Now is the time for those who care about humanity to join in the defence of humanity, by protesting this newest mutation of the world's oldest hate.' (5) May be it was not so wise after all for "The BMA to grant editorial freedom to the editor of the BMJ"(3) and she should be taken to task over her continued bias against Israel. Dr Jonathan Hasleton (1) See in particular Rytter et al. Effects of armed conflict on access to emergency health care in Palestinian West Bank: systematic collection of data in emergency departments. BMJ 2006;332:1122-1124 (2) Hickey, T. Should we consider a boycott of Israeli academic institutions? Yes. BMJ 2007;335:124. (3) Godlee, F. Independence and other things. BMJ 2007;335. (4) Young C,.Godlee F. Managing suspected research misconduct. BMJ 2007;334:378-9. (5) Sacks, J. A New Antisemitism. In A New Antisemitism .Ed. Iganski, Kosmin, B. (Profile Books, 2003). Competing interests: I am a Jew
bigger problem or just rhetoric 24 July 2007
Patrick Hudson, plastic surgeon Albuquerque, 87102 Send response to journal: Re: bigger problem or just rhetoric	Whether or not to boycott Israeli academics seems a reasonable topic to discuss in an academic journal. I am not sure of a boycott's value but I am willing to read both sides. Is Tom Hickey really telling the truth when he says "Eminent American professors, and supporters of Israel, have threatened to bankrupt and to destroy the careers of any union members who support a boycott" ? I find this hard to believe but if it is true we all have an even bigger problem on our hands. I urge the Editors of the BMJ to find and publish the facts immediately. It would certainly influence my opinion. If we are not free to publish in a UK magazine, how free are our colleagues in Israel to express their opinions? If Tom Hickey is not telling the truth then shame on him for trying to win his argument with such extreme rhetoric. Competing interests: None declared
A Boycott is Essential 24 July 2007
Tony Greenstein, Legal Advisor Brighton Unemployed Workers Centre BN1 7BL Send response to journal: Re: A Boycott is Essential	There are certain states, such as South Africa and Nazi Germany before it, which deserved a boycott. Why? Because they were states, not of their own inhabitants or citizens, but a part thereof. Israel is exactly the same. It is a state of Jews, be they Jewish nationals in israel (there is no Israeli nationality) or Jews like myself living in the diasporah. It is easy for the medical establishment to avert its eyes. That happened regarding Mengele in Germany, it happens re US doctors in Guantanamo and other examples around the world and there will be a strong tendency among British doctors to do the same. The Palestinians have been living for 60 years under occupation. Most were driven out in 1948 to create a Jewish state. But even today Israel seeks to 'purify' the Jewish racial component of the state - it is openly called Judaification or The Demographic Problem. Earlier this week the Knesset (Parliament) passed the first stage of a bill which will reverse a High Court ruling 12 years ago (ignored) whereby the Jewish National Fund and its collaborator, the ISraeli Lands Administration, can't sell or lease land only to Jews. Imagine if there were an English National Fund which refused to sell land to Jews. How many doctors would proclaim this has nothing to do with us? Actually probably quite a few. I enclose the link to Haaretz, the most prestigious Israeli newspaper, whcih denounced this vote in the Knesset (by 64-16) in an editorial simply entitled 'A racist state' http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=884358 Tony Greenstein Competing interests: None declared
BMJ readers make their voices heard 24 July 2007
Joy S Wolfe, Retired Cheadle SK8 1QY Send response to journal: Re: BMJ readers make their voices heard	Looking at the response to your poll about the boycott of Israel it is clear people are making their feelings abundantly clear that a vast majority are against it However, I can't help feeling what the BMJ is doing running such a poll which has absolutely nothing to do with medical issues, other than the fact that the notorious favourite of the BMJ columns, Derek Summerfield, was the driving force behind it It would be more appropriate for the Journal to focus on more of the remarkable medical achievements and research breakthroughs achieved by Israel, and to reflect on how damaging a medical, or indeed any other boycott, would be. Go to any Israeli University, hospital or research establishment and you are likely to see Jews, Palestinians, Arabs, Druze and Christians working and being treated alongside each other Surely the BMJ should not give a platform to anyone wishing to damge that situation Competing interests: None declared
Pro Israel Lobby out to silence a genuine debate 24 July 2007
Nadeem Zafar Jilani, Specialist Registrar Central Manchester and Manchester Children's Hospital NHS Trust Send response to journal: Re: Pro Israel Lobby out to silence a genuine debate	I am not at all surprised at the overwhelmingly one sided voting against the proposed boycott of Israeli academic institutions. It just shows how organised Zionists are in galvanising their supporters in opposing anything that they perceive harmful to their interests. And on the same note I congratulate Tom Hickey and BMJ for not shying from calling a spade a spade. These Zionist academics,thanks to powerful lobbying, have managed to throttle any genuine concerns raised about plight of Palestinians.They have not only influenced policy decisions of US but also of United Nations and EU. The so called international community turns a blind eye to daily subjugation and humiliation of Palestinian people at the hand of Israeli army because of this pressure from Zionists. Occaisonal honest voices like Mr. Hickey's will be branded anti-semite and heckeled as it is evident at this forum. But all right thinking people who stand for justice should not be bullied by Zionists and coninue mobilising public opinion against apartheid policy of Israel. Putting pressure on Israel's academics with a boycott threat can be a beginning which ultimately might force Israel's government to change at least some of its policies towards Palestinians. Competing interests: I am a Muslim and consider Palestinans equal human beings as Israelis.
Re: Should we consider a boycott of Israeli academic institutions? 24 July 2007
Sean Wall, Consultant on Israeli relations The Roswell Beautification Committee, E5L 5N2 Send response to journal: Re: Re: Should we consider a boycott of Israeli academic institutions?	I think your current policy of car bombing in Britain is more than sufficient to demonstrate your views. Perhaps a policy against self- medication could be pursued. Competing interests: None declared
Unfair to Israel 24 July 2007
Patrick M Young, GP Salters Meadow centre, Burntwood, Staffs. WS14 9DG Send response to journal: Re: Unfair to Israel	The paragraph headed, "Unfair to Israel?" says it all really. Watching the left banging on about Israel is like watching dogs smelling each others bums. I have to look away to spare myself from witnessing the odiferous armour propre of you, "right-on" types. I prefer the more honest amour de soi of the Israeli state. The new fascists lining up against them are the Islamists and the left: Ironic - anti-semites used to be right-wing. As for the BMJ, stop the posturing and get the politics out of this (medical) magazine. Please ride your hobby-horses elsewhere. The BMA exists to promote & benefit the profession. It should not be a platform for the misguided to persecute the misrepresented. Patrick Young Competing interests: None declared
An effective academic boycott of Palestinians already exists. 24 July 2007
Tahseen Chaudhry, Surgical Trainee Barts and The London NHS Trust, E1 Send response to journal: Re: An effective academic boycott of Palestinians already exists.	Israel has systematically denied academic freedom to the Palestinians for decades. This has ranged from closure en masse of educational institutions to limitations on the freedom of movement of students and academics. With hindsight, it appears that these closures are very often entirely unrelated to the overall security situation, calling into question the usual justifications given by the Israeli state. Indeed, the whim of an individual teenage soldier at a given checkpoint on any particular day is often what matters most. In response, many apologists for Israel wish to draw other, more unpleasant regimes into a comparison with Israel, or seek to look for the deeper causes of Palestinian suffering. These are irrelevant to the current debate. The fact remains that as an occupying force, Israel often fails to live up to its responsibilites under the Geneva convention. Israeli academic institutions have not only failed in their condemnation, but have often provided the justification that legitimises these acts to the Israeli electorate. Competing interests: None declared
Fundamentalism is fundamentalism by any name 24 July 2007
Elizabeth Marsh, Writer DT4 9QU Send response to journal: Re: Fundamentalism is fundamentalism by any name	The author states that his views have led to him being vilified. Isn't this a bit like thumping someone on the nose and then questioning why the person retaliates by kicking you, harder than you first punched them? If Mr Hicks is unable to recognise the anti-Semitic overtones of his views, then he should not be overly surprised when others do. One of the main advantages of living in the Western world where freedom of expression still retains value is that we may speak freely. But freedom is never unequivocal - it comes with a caveat to exercise a degree of responsibility, that in expressing any views, we must refrain from writing or saying what we think and like simply because we can, and to exercise restraint and discipline at all times, especially if what we say is likely to be controversial. When a new medical theory emerges, it is often controversial and the authors are aware that in order for this new breakthrough to be accepted, that the real challenge is how to present this new idea to the community. If the community acknowledges the importance of the discovery, this will in time, lead to a wider acceptance. One's personal views on political issues are not relevant, nor should they be so in a medical fraternity. This does not mean there should be no consensus on subjects, or that debate should be stifled but it does require a degree of respect for the wider audience, when constraint may be justified. Competing interests: None declared
I thought the BMJ was a medical journal 24 July 2007
Ian Rivlin, General Practitioner Queensland, Australia 4567 Send response to journal: Re: I thought the BMJ was a medical journal	Very tragic that the BMJ should involve itself in this kind of nonsense. An august journal like the BMJ shouldn't allow itself to be shanghaied by anti-semites for political purposes. It's indecent and reflects very badly on the gullibility of the BMJ editorial staff. If the BMJ had first orchestrated this kind of quasi-political movement against real human rights abusers (such as Iran, Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lybia, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Afghanistan, many Central and South American states, Burma, Russia, Pakistan etc etc etc) then the BMJ's credibility might have been maintained. As it is, their brazen anti- semitism stands out like an illuminated beacon. This is a pretty sad end for a publication that used to have such noble underpinnings. Competing interests: None declared
Educate how? 24 July 2007
David S Halpin, Retired orthopaedic and trauma surgeon Kiln Shotts, Haytor, Newton Abbot TQ13 9XR Send response to journal: Re: Educate how?	Prof Nathanson echoes Dyer and 'believes in education and support to achieve change'. I presume she aims this at the powers that be in Israel. What evidence exists to show that the oppressive policies and brutal actions of this state have been tempered by 'education and support'? On the contrary, the daily tally of deaths, maiming, house demolitions, land theft etc etc continues without abatement. I agree that education is the key to understanding. Then the heart might be opened to those people who have been supplanted and who now reside in ghettos within that 15% still regarded as 'Palestine' by some. I recommend viewing of a US film made in 1948 'Sands of Sorrow' http://www.palestineremembered.com/Articles/General/Story 2129.html It shows some of the 750,000 refugees from force of arms and terror. We know that only a handful were repatriated in spite of UNGA resolution 194. Then see the 'Apricots of Ertas' http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cjwI26-zV74 And finally an article by the courageous Gideon Levy on torture extending over four days and nights with a sudden paraparesis supervening.http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt. jhtml?itemNo=871239 Then having absorbed a small amount of the Palestinian pain, ask those with power and the vote in Israel whether this is the plan:- "I believed, and to this day still believe, in our people’s eternal and historic right to this entire land." Ehud Olmert, Israeli Prime Minister, to the US House of Representatives, June 2006 This was one of the more moderate statements by an Israeli premier. If this is the plan, then pretence should end; the pretence that 'education and support' can play any part other than playing for time. Delusion is sterile. Competing interests: Founded a charity - The Dove and the Dolphin, central aim of which is to promote the health and welfare of Palestinian children
Boycott Israeli Academic Institutions to highlight injustice and denial of human rights 24 July 2007
Edward Morris, G.P. Nuffield Health Centre Witney OX28 6JQ Send response to journal: Re: Boycott Israeli Academic Institutions to highlight injustice and denial of human rights	Whilst there is a strong theoretical case for all academic work to be freely pursued and its results made internationally available, such a utopian stance is not appropriate in the current crisis in the occupied territories. Israel and its academic institutions, including medical ones, are complicit in the denial of human rights and basic health care in the illegally occupied territories. The Israeli Medical Association has consistently failed to oppose the use of physical methods of interrogation or to take any stand on the human rights abuses perpetrated on the Palestinian people. If an academic boycott serves to force Israel and its often naive supporters and defenders (many of whom have no idea of the real conditions of life and death in Gaza and the West Bank) to face these realities and begin to redress them, then it is worthwhile. Competing interests: None declared
Little Boys Boycott - Adults Talk 24 July 2007
Simon A P Jenkins, Retired GP M45 7LH Send response to journal: Re: Little Boys Boycott - Adults Talk	Boycotting Israel Academic Institutions is destructive of any Middle East Peace dialogue. Tom Hickey's article is defensive of his own boycotting stance in contrast to Michael Baum's healing approach to resolving the different opinions that are held in Israel. Hickey is strong on opinion but weak on facts. He should go to Israel with an open mind and talk to some of the people he criticizes. He teaches philosophy, no doubt from a very comfortable armchair, but he should test his prejudices against reality, and not accept the mantra of those who spew hatred of Israel and have no interest in creating civil human relationships in a democratic society. Hickey has no right to declare that his actions are not anti-Semitic when I as a Jew, with experience of work in the Ministry of Health in Israel claim that he is. It is the victim, not the perpetrator, who should be allowed to say whether he has been racially abused. Hickey says he is not against individual Israel academics but others in his camp (Mona Baker) have already shown this to be untrue by sacking 2 Israeli Academics for no good reason other than they happened to be Israeli. I hope that reason not prejudice will prevail in this debate. The medical profession should follow the recent example set by Journalists and overturn the destructive attempts to undermine the promotion of dialogue that are being fuelled by Hickey and his co-conspirators Competing interests: Jewish; Zionist; Worked in Israel;Past Member of BMJ Management Committee.
Selected for trial on a political issue 24 July 2007
A. Michael Denman, Emeritus consultant clinical immunologist Northwick Park Hospital HA1 3UJ Send response to journal: Re: Selected for trial on a political issue	The BMJ is a medical journal which should only be expected to comment on political issues that are medically relevant, such as health care. The Palestinian dimension of the Arab -Israeli conflict is a political issue of which the call for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions icluding the Israel Medical Association is a part. By uniquely selecting this political issue for discussion even in a seemingly neutral manner, the BMJ is entering a political arena. It is also conferring legitimacy on a disgraceful campaign which has been condemned by the vast majority of UK academics. Furthermore, by presenting the issue in this format, the BMJ has effectively put Israel on trial. Competing interests: None declared
Brainwashing. Stalin - Hitler style. 24 July 2007
val pepper, process engineer Dresden, Germany,01309 Send response to journal: Re: Brainwashing. Stalin - Hitler style.	When the medical source is becoming the political tribune, that reminds me the darkest events of the nazi and bolshevik history. But if you already decide, why not to start from the recent terrorist plot of the muslim doctors in uk? Competing interests: No
self fullfilling argument 24 July 2007
al stein, MEd autism 99927 Send response to journal: Re: self fullfilling argument	Mr Hickey crys wolf once too often when he refers to the forces of "good" attacking the suporters of the academic boycott. Yes it is the Jewish conspiracy all over again, only this time it is the conspiracy of the "good." Mr Hickey does not just come out and say that world Jewery is out to bankrupt him and other boy-coters explicitly probably because he wants to appear fair and balanced. It would be easier to take issue with Mr Hickey had he only said what he meant. Alas. When good is bad and bad is good, Orwell will have his say. Had Mr Hickey wanted to boycott the academic institutions of China or Saudia Arabia because those governments jail those who give vent to the free expression of ideas, I might have been swayed. Instead, he takes on the "good" Israeli academics. Again alas. In Mr. Hickey's world, the wolf never eats those who cry wolf, for it is too handy for wolf cryers to have the wolf always lurking in the woods with dark and sinister plots agains human beings. Competing interests: None declared
No boycot. 24 July 2007
Leonard S. Fagan, M.D., F.A.C.O.G., Attending Physician Kenosha, Wisconsin 53140 Send response to journal: Re: No boycot.	Your Mr. Hickey has demonstrated his true feelings towards Jews and Israel. How long was the West Bank and Gaza occupied by Egypt and Jordan? Did the population suffer under the previous occupiers? Did the Lebanese Army just destroy a refugee camp whilst trying to evict 'militants'? How long have Arab dictatorships been oppressing their populations? Is Darfur a Jewish problem? Why are Sudanese refugees fleeing from refuge in Egypt to Israel? Do Israel medical institutions boycot Arab students and doctors? Do you think that any Islamic states would welcome Jewish physicians or tourists? Do Jews call for the destruction of Arab States and their populace? The mere fact that the BMJ has taken this question seriously is testimony to how low you have fallen. Blatant anti-semitism has bloomed in the U.K. I see little to gain from your publication. It appears that more medical research in my field(Gyn/Ob) comes from Israeli researchers than from the U.K. Competing interests: None declared
Don't open your mouth if can't say anything nice 25 July 2007
Albert J. Kirshen, Consultant - Palliative, Geriatric and Internal medicine University of Toronto, Temmy Latner Centre for Palliative Care, Toronto, Ontario M5T 3L9 Send response to journal: Re: Don't open your mouth if can't say anything nice	It is with regret that I enter this debate, whose very existence seeks to delegitimise both discussion and dissent. Nor is it the purview of the BMJ to wade into politics in this manner. Neither side deals with very fundamental issues, relying only upon the existing situation for their flawed statements. Professors Hickey and Baum – I agree with neither of you. Let us go back to basic principles – such should be familiar to any academic. Can we, perhaps, start with answers to the following questions: • Does a person have a right to be alive? Does this right change because of their physical location? • Does a population with a clear and pre-existing majority in a significant geographic region have a right to have its own government, governed by its own language, customs, laws and people? One presumes that all persons believe the answer to the first question is “yes”. One hopes and prays that the answer to the second question is also “yes”, else South Africa and East Timor, to mention just two, have no right to exist. But these are YOUR answers, not those of the involved parties. I see no acknowledgement that the answer to either question is “yes” when put to locals talking about Jews and Israel. And please don’t “poo-poo” me in response, not unless you can show me that the individuals in control of the appropriate institutions and agencies have stated in plain English/Arabic/Hebrew a “yes” answer to these questions vis à vis Israel. Regrettably you cannot! This being the case the boycott is misplaced and wrong. Failure to acknowledge one side’s very right to life and existence negates all further discussion. Should you wish to have a boycott I suggest you boycott the elements who answer “no” to these questions vis à vis Israel. Failure to do so destroys the very underpinnings upon which we base our discourse. I have no hope to ever see this happen. Competing interests: Orthodox Jew Zionist Free-thinker
worried for the future 25 July 2007
linda herzberg, teacher copenhagen municipality,2100 ø Send response to journal: Re: worried for the future	my girlfriend suffers from multural sclerosis and is once in a while treated in hospitals in the UK. she is afraid that she will not get her medicine. That is one of my concerns. yet another concern is: what are we doing with all basic Israeli contributions:for instance the sms system for the telephone, developement of solar energy ect. to learn from the history i do remember signs: wir kaufen beim Juden nicht. (we don't buy from Jews) and is is as though it has not been remembered.whether you like it or not: there is a democracy in the Middle East.. and I would have appreciated a full boycott on suicide bombers .. and I am eagerly looking foreward for human rights among the palestinians, looking foreward for a palestinian who will fight for democracy, equality for his- her-people. Help the palestinians in developing human rights for women, for children, for equality and freedom of speech.. Don't let down these Israelis who are figthing and helping the palestinian people to develope. and let the israelis so far contribute in science, litterature, human rights and let's appreciate our freedom of speech, freedom of thinking..for everybody.. Competing interests: i have following comments
What is a rational response? 25 July 2007
Ann Robinson, GP Mountfield Surgery London N33NR, Ann Robinson Send response to journal: Re: What is a rational response?	The BMJ is wading in murky waters. Its continued focus on Israel is inappropriate for a UK based medical journal in my opinion. Its call for an unscientific online poll which is open to abuse by interested parties, flies in the face of its avowed aim of upholding scientific rigour. I considered cutting up my BMA membership card and returning copies of the journal until it returns to medicine, science and balanced health news. Is boycotting the BMJ and BMA a rational response to your irrational focus? Probably not. But it is hard to know how else to express my extreme disquiet about your agenda. Competing interests: None declared
the BMJ: pathognomic marker of Britain's history? 25 July 2007
Noel D. Sturtz, Researcher Miami, FL 33180 Send response to journal: Re: the BMJ: pathognomic marker of Britain's history?	Britain abstained in the 1947 UN vote to partition Palestine. Apparently, institutional ambivalence (or revisionism?) continues, now manifested by Mr. Hickey. With such a skewed interpretation of history, he is astounded at being condemned! After the Six-Day War, Moshe Dayan pleaded with King Hussein to take back the West Bank. Why didn't he? Because he had more to fear from Arafat and, moreover, remembered that it was the nascent PLO that murdered his own grandfather, King Abdullah, a decade earlier. Thus the illegal colonization, in Mr. Hickey's words. The true tragedy is that, along with Jordan, no other Arab country would have anything to do with the Palestinians. Did they all wage war against Israel in '48, '56, '67, and '73 in order to create a Palestinian state? Did Jordan establish an independent Palestine during her control of the West Bank from 1948-67? Rather, every Arab country has hung the Palestinians "out to dry," exploiting them to detract attention from their own despotism. Indeed, if Mario Puzo were living in that region, he might well have written about the Hashemites and House of Saud instead of the Corleones and Tattaglias (Ironically, even the name Palestine has no historical Arab connection; it was assigned by the conquering Romans over a millenium ago as a final insult to the "Philistine" Jews.) Israel's handling of the West Bank situation over these three decades is certainly open to debate. But the over-riding issue is this: Her existence and legitimzation as a Jewish state continue to be imperiled - overtly, by acts of war and terrorism, and under the atavist academic boycotts promulgated by the likes of Mr. Hickey. Competing interests: None declared
We should boycott israeli medical and academic institutions 25 July 2007
Amin Elhihi, consultant psychiatrist Lister Hospital, hertfordshire SG1 4AB Send response to journal: Re: We should boycott israeli medical and academic institutions	Can anybody imagine living in a state of war for more than 60 years? Who is responsible for the killing of everyday basis of ordinary civilians? I know it's hard to convince colleagues their knowledege based on local news. The reality that palestinians are facing serious tragedy which their hopelessness status might affect the whole region!! We have wittnessed the suicidal phenomena which was a response to 50 years of occupation, destruction of infrastucture, eradicating people from their homes and building settelemnts in palestinian land. It's easy for Dr Michael Baum to call for balance and cooperation, but why he ignores the fact that there are more than 500 UN resolutions related to palestine never been implemented by Israel? Why in the 21st century there is a people under occupation? Do they really believe that the apartheid wall which separate children from their schools, men from their place of work and farmers from their land, Is this about security? I am appealing to all colleagues to vote 'Yes' for the debate . Israeli doctors, and academics needs to realise that their position is important to us, this why we call to boycott them because they can't be part of a military state their agenda to kill the palestinians or to transfere them to no were. Israeli doctors should condemn the daily killing, they should call to stop the suffering of the palestinians on checkpoints, they should facilitate building the health services which destroyed by the army. Israeli academics should call for the Palestinians refugees right for return . I believe it's the time to give the palestinian people the hope of living, by making the initiative to boycott the Israeli institutions a reality. Competing interests: I am Palestinian in origin, a qualified medical doctor, and a consultant psychiatrist.
Absolutely Not 25 July 2007
Naomi F Solomons, Learning Support Assistant Edgware HA8 Send response to journal: Re: Absolutely Not	1. Realise how much of the technology we use comes from Israel. 2. Compare the way Israelis treat their non-Jewish citizens (allowing them to attend our Universities, use our health system) with the way non- Muslims are treated in Arab countries before you decide Israel is guilty. 3. Israelis don't train their youth to blow themselves up and kill as many as possible in the name of religion. Competing interests: None declared
An absolute disgrace--does the BMJ support terrorism? 25 July 2007
louise Troostwyk, physiotherapist UCLH Send response to journal: Re: An absolute disgrace--does the BMJ support terrorism?	I think it is an absolute disgrace that the BMJ - a medical journal firstly feels the need to enter politics and then show support for terrorism. Israel, like any other country, has a right to defend its borders and people, they are under constant attack, most of which is not reported, by terrorists. They will and should defend themselves. I feel the BMJ is showing an antisemetic stand and this is unnecessary and uncalled for. Put your energy into looking after you own professions - defend our doctors, find them jobs and save the sinking NHS - leave politics alone unless you have something constructive and useful to say. It is merely displaying ignorance. Competing interests: None declared
Education not boycott 25 July 2007
Dr Charles Daniels, Macmillan Consultant in Palliative Medicine, Northwick Park and St Marks Hospitals HA1 Send response to journal: Re: Education not boycott	Conflicts are ended by education not by boycott. Perhaps the BMA if it truly wishes to promote peace in the middle east would be better to host a "doctors forum for the promotion of peace through mutual education". All would be invited to inform and at the same time listen to the other and promote joint initiatives aimed at bringing health and peace. I for one would join. Perhaps those who really want peace and respect for ALL would also join. We would all need to be humble and open minded enough to find ways of promoting peace rather than attacking the other side. Competing interests: Jewish and a Zionist. If wishing for peace in the Middle East and for respect for all is a "conflict of Interest" I declare it.
The case for an academic (and wider) boycott of Israel 25 July 2007
Ben Alofs, GP Principal Meddygfa Star Surgery, Gaerwen LL60 6AH, Ynys Mon, North Wales, UK Send response to journal: Re: The case for an academic (and wider) boycott of Israel	In June this year we reached a milestone: 40 years ago Israel occupied East-Jerusalem, the Westbank and the Gaza Strip and started a process of creating facts on the ground in the form of illegal and relentless colonization of Palestinian territory. The Oslo Agreement, which was supposed to lead to the formation of a viable Palestinian state, had little impact on this. In fact, during the 'peace process' the number of colonists in occupied territory rose faster than ever. Nowadays more than 450.000 Jewish settlers continue to encroach on Palestinian land. Violent settlers terrorize Palestinian farmers and wreak destruction in their olive groves. The building of the separation wall, supposedly for security reasons, in many places deep in Palestinian territory, resulted in another landgrab. Jewish only roads see to it that the colonies are connected with each other and with Israel within the Green Line, but they bypass and exclude Palestinian communities. At the same time the system of military roadblocks in Palestine is designed to suffocate the Palestinian economy and a normal functioning of Palestinian society. A system like this cannot exist without widespread repression and violations of human rights, international law (the Geneva Conventions) and UN resolutions. Whilst Jewish settlers are judged by Israeli common law, the Palestinians are judged by military courts and emergency laws from the Mandate era and more than 10.000 Palestinians languish in Israeli jails, many under administrative detention. The occupation affects every aspect of Palestinian life. I am a frequent visitor to Palestine and Israel and go there annually since the last 5 years. Every year it gets worse. Israel may say in public that it wants peace, but the facts on the ground tell a different story and that is, that Israel is more interested in land than peace. In essence, what it wants is maximum Palestinian land and minimum Palestinians. There is a set of policies in operation to discourage Palestinians from hanging on to their land (denying Palestinians building permits is but one example). It is a silent form of ethnic cleansing. The process that started in 1948 has never stopped. Israel had 40 years to prove its good will. It is found wanting and now is the time to act. I have stopped buying Israeli goods for quite a few years now, but we need to consider broadening the boycott to include academia as well. Why is an academic boycott appropriate? Tom Hickey has already supplied a number of reasons. I want to add to that. Israeli academics - the Arabists, psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, political scientists, military engineers etc. are involved in creating and maintaining the matrix of control over the occupied Palestinian population. The academics - apart from doing their normal military service - do reserve duty every year and that often involves being part of the repressive machinery in the Occupied Territories. And then there is the issue of the lack of academic freedom enjoyed by Palestinians. Palestinian students from the Gaza Strip are forbidden to access the institutes of higher learning in Bethlehem, Jerusalem and Nablyus and are therefore denied basic academic freedoms. The Palestinian universities are frequently the target of closures and the suffocating network of military roadblocks makes normal academic life frequently impossible. As a medical doctor I recently signed together with my wife, A&E consultant Dr Pauline Cutting, the petition to call for a boycott of the Israel Medical Association. The IMA in my opinion has breached a moral code by refusing to condemn in principle the torture of Palestinian prisoners, sanctioned by the Landau Commission. It refuses to protest against the callous treatment of ill persons and pregnant women at military roadblocks, where Palestinian women are all too often forced to give birth rather than in hospital. Unfortunately the silence of the IMA and the rest of academia, their unwillingness to act as regards the situation in the Occupied Territories speaks for itself. Less than 5% of the academic community courageously speaks out against the occupation. The rest sides with the Israeli establishment and goes along with State policy. I can therefore only conclude that in my opinion there is a definite case for an academic boycott. How long should it last? Our Palestinian colleagues have asked for this boycott and if they have come to the conclusion that Israel has made a significant U-turn then we will follow their lead. On a personal note: I think that the two state solution is no longer possible. Israel's occupation has become too entrenched to reverse. The Palestinians will rightly refuse to accept some truncated state in the fashion of the Bantustans and Israel refuses adamantly to retreat to the 1949 Armistice line. There are more and more voices on the Palestinian side heard that say: allright, you want the land, annex us. But we will demand to become equal citizens in your state. They will join up with those Palestinians, who stayed put in 1948 and later became Israeli citizens. These Palestinian Israelis are involved in a long struggle for equal civil rights. Only a few days ago the Knesseth passed the first reading of a bill which excludes non-Jewish Israelis from leasing state land administered by the Jewish National Fund. This bill is widely seen as discriminatory and even racist. It is not the first piece of discriminatory legislation. There is in fact a clear process of South Africanisation in Israel/Palestine. Occupation is the central issue, but not the only one. Fundamentally this whole issue is about equality between Jews and non- Jews. There are many good people in Israel, who are acutely aware of the historical injustice that has been inflicted on the Palestinian people. They are our allies. We do not want to hurt them. But if Western governments refuse to act to exert meaningful pressure on the State of Israel to end the occupation of Palestine, it is we the people who need to take action. I boycotted Outspan many years ago. Now I enjoy oranges from South Africa and boycott Jaffa. I hope the time will come that I will enjoy Jaffa oranges again and have tea and cordial relations with my colleagues from the Israel Medical Association. Competing interests: I have worked as a health care worker in Palestinian refugee communities and in the near future I would love to get involved with the Palestine medical school in Jerusalem/Nablus, teaching general practice to the medical students
The Elders of Zion: en bloc vote against the boycott. 25 July 2007
Jeremy M Jacobs, Geriatrician Hadassah Hebrew University Hospital, Geriatrics and Rehab Send response to journal: Re: The Elders of Zion: en bloc vote against the boycott.	To the Editor, The Elders of Zion: en bloc vote against the boycott. Judging by the nature of the response to the recent e-poll, which has put Jewish Israeli Academicians up for trial, it seems from a cursory glance that the Elders of Zion have arisen from slumber, made a bulk purchase of lap tops and voted en bloc against Mr. Hickey and the boycott. Either that, or the BMJ is actually the organ of world Jewry, boasting a 97% Jewish Readership. Perhaps both. Might I suggest that the next lesson in democracy, (spuriously aimed at “Helping Doctors make better decisions”), address the subject and method of the e-vote itself. Having boycotted Jewish Israeli Academics, surely it would only be correct and appropriate to exclude them from the voting process? Furthermore, not only voting rights but also the rights to readership of the BMJ might be denied to the Jewish Israelis, as well as Jews elsewhere who would be unwilling to express disallegiance with the State of Israel. Incidentally, after the planned boycott has gone through, what to do with Jewish Israeli literature (printed or electronic) stemming from Jewish research? Obviously paper books and periodicals could be easily disposed of by burning, but disposing of the electronic stuff will need a bit more thought. BMJ- Wake up, get real, and take a long look in the mirror. There is no debate here, and the views expressed by Hickey have nothing to do with furthering the prospects of peace among people in the Middle East. This Rhetoric is a carbon copy of 1930’s anti-Semitism, and the BMJ has embarked upon a journey down a slippery slope traveled before. Competing interests: None declared
Silencing dissent 25 July 2007
Paul J Malin, Veterinary Surgeon New Mexico, US Send response to journal: Re: Silencing dissent	Whether or not you are a critic of Israel it must be obvious from the responses received so far that there clearly are rational arguments in defense of Israel, critical of the Palestinians and Arab states, and against boycotts. And if you have followed the debate elsewhere you cannot help but know that what Hickey dismisses as "the great and the good" who mobilised themselves (not "were mobilised") against the boycott includes many members of the UCU itself(1), Nobel laureates, leaders of major universities, students unions, teachers unions, academies of science, newspaper editorial writers, government ministers and opposition leaders—in the UK, the USA, Canada and elsewhere(2). With all due respect to a certain responder on the 24th, a Zionism capable of that quality of bullying and lobbying would not still be having to fight boycotts and delegitimisation six decades after its state was created. Evidently there are two sides to this story. Yet if the boycott were to take effect, one of the main effects—an absolutely intentional effect—would be to muzzle the Israeli side so that only the Palestinian voice would have free rein within the academic community. You can be a critic of Israeli policy but if you have a scrap of a sense of justice in you, you cannot support the intentional stifling of one side, and one side only, in this bitter conflict. (1) Populus Ltd., Poll of UCU Members, July 3rd 2007 (2) Engage: http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1207 Competing interests: Jewish, Zionist and not fond of being discriminated against
No to the boycott 25 July 2007
Jacob Amir, retired physician Jerusalem, Israel Send response to journal: Re: No to the boycott	The principle of the Universality of Science and Learning - that academics DO NOT discriminate against colleagues on the basis of factors that are irrelevant to their academic work (such as race, religion, nationality, etc) is well established. To boycott academics by reason of their country of residence breaches this principle. The proposed boycott on Israeli academic institutions is obviously selective, as nobody has proposed to boycott states like Sudan, Russia, Iran, China, and more, where horrible transgressions of human rights occur, including genocide. The selective anti-Israeli action speaks volumes about the huge anti-Israeli bias of people like Tom Hickey. Harsh criticism of Israeli policies is totally legitimate and is being dome in Israel on a daily basis. But, denying the right of Israel to exist, like some of the boycott supporters do, is definitely not. Competing interests: None declared
What timing? 25 July 2007
Fred Johnston, Student Manchester Uni, M13 9PL Send response to journal: Re: What timing?	It is amazing that the BMJ, of all journals, is posting this debate and vilifying Israel uniquely at this time. We in the UK have just been subjected to two attempted car bombings perpetrated by Arab doctors practising in the UK and the government warns us there could be many more. How many have been stopped by the security services that we do not know about Yet it is Israeli academics that are targeted by the BMJ. Is this appeasement, are the BMJ attempting to be the modern Chamberlin? Also to Mr Nadeem Zafar Jilani: with over 300m Arabs (and 1bn Muslims) compared with less than 20m Jews worldwide perhaps the voting against the boycott is because most people believe it is wrong and not because of some conspiracy. Competing interests: None declared
Re: Israel Boycott 26 July 2007
Hany M. El-Hosseiny, Mathematician, Cairo University, Egypt Cairo University, 126311 Egypt Send response to journal: Re: Re: Israel Boycott	1- International aid to Palestinians is less than 15% of the aid to Israel. 2- 60% of the American aid to Israel is officially directed to military uses. No one tried to stop Israel building what is supposed to be the fourth most powerful army in the world. 3- I wonder what would have happened in South Africa if academics, artists, athletics, .. have refused boycotting the apartheid state in the 1980's? It may be true that Israel is not the same model as South Africa, but still it's a state founded on absolute rights for one cultural-ethnic group. Competing interests: I am Egyptian
Anit-Boycott hysteria in the way of truth 26 July 2007
Ghada Karmi, Retired GP Last prctice: Brentford Health Centre, Brentford,. Send response to journal: Re: Anit-Boycott hysteria in the way of truth	Michael Baum and his anti-boycott supporters display the usual alarm over any action against Israel that, like the current academic boycott, threatens to be effective. Although he claims to disapprove of the Israeli occupation, neither he nor his Israeli friends want to do anything constructive about ending it, nor about the appalling treatment of Palestinian academics, teachers and students. Nowhere does he show the faintest interest in the regime of imposed curfews, closures, checkpoints, house demolitions, summary executions and imprisonment without trial with which Israel’s army has destroyed any semblance of normal life for 3.5 million Palestinians. The hardship that Palestinian patients, medical staff and ambulance drivers have to endure because of this regime, the shortages of medicines and nutrition, and the difficulties of access to hospitals are all described in numerous international, as well as Israeli human rights reports, but Professor Baum does not mention these things. He prefers instead to indulge in a fantasy that Israel is not an apartheid state but a multicultural haven for persecuted minorities, wilfully ignoring its persecution of the Palestinian minority under its control. Anti-Arab discrimination operates at every level of Israeli society. 58 percent of Israeli Arabs are impoverished, as against 12 percent of Jews; unemployment amongst Arabs is 25 percent, but only 7 percent amongst Jews; Arab municipalities receive a far smaller allocation of government funding than Jewish ones, and Jewish settlements get three times the funding. Last week, a new law, restricting purchase of publicly owned land in Israel (most of it originally Arab owned) to Jews only, was passed overwhelmingly in the Israeli parliament, prompting one right wing Israeli commentator in Maariv, (23.7.07) to describe this as racism. The everyday contempt Israelis display towards Arabs is one of the most depressing spectacles for any modern state. But none of those agitating against the boycott wants to engage with these facts, because they know Israel’s conduct is indefensible. So, they divert the discussion onto other topics. Professor Baum for example cites collaborative work between Israelis and Palestinians, Palestinian patients being treated in Israeli hospitals, benevolent projects for Palestinians under occupation, etc, all commendable but beside the point. He should instead have addressed himself to two simple questions: (1) Does he accept Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians? (2) If not, what does he intend to do about it? Morality and conscience requires us all to take a stand against injustice and oppression wherever it is being practised. Israel is a good place to start, and for those of us who care about these issues boycotting Israel’s institutions until it gets the message is the least that we can do. Competing interests: None declared
Should we consider a boycott of Israeli academic institutions? NO 26 July 2007
Renato Caviglia, MD, PhD Campus Bio Medico University, Rome Send response to journal: Re: Should we consider a boycott of Israeli academic institutions? NO	It's ridiculous, if not worse, to involve the Israeli academics in this context. This is pure hatred. This poor man has forgotten the great contribution that Israeli scientists have given to the world. But anyway, as always, Israel and Israeli people can rely only on themselves. But it doesn’t matter, Israel will win this battle too. Competing interests: JEW
Overdue 26 July 2007
Richard J Lyus, Family Medicine Seattle, WA 98122, USA Send response to journal: Re: Overdue	How brave of the BMJ to publish this article. Political debates of this magnitude deserve to be aired in every possible venue; they are too important to be left to politicians and political scientists. The incorporation of political debate into 'non-political' fields is in fact part of the very essence of democracy, and any other approach involves deference to an aristocracy. The BMJ can be proud that it is blazing a trail - leaving all other medical journals in the dust - to a a time when doctors consistently and effectively use their considerable weight to address more than just medical issues. Morality crosses all academic disciplines. Competing interests: None declared
We must know the facts 26 July 2007
Christopher J Burns-Cox, Locum Physician Southend Farm,Wotton-uinder-Edge GL12 7PB Send response to journal: Re: We must know the facts	This is no time for mud-slinging, racism or rudeness. Israel is a racist state and is persisting in destroying Palestinians, their society and lands and discriminating against their Arab citizens. Israeli academics and doctors, except for a very noble few, have connived in the illegal and cruel acts of their government. They have already forfeited any decent moral position as they continue to destroy Palestinian lives and society. Judging by the responses of those naming themselves as Zionists, the writers do not know the real facts about what Israel is doing or they could not possibly condone them. The real facts are readily available in reports from such as Amnesty International. It is one of the duties of a general medical journal to express views of the profession and here we have horrifying examples. Which of these views is really compatible with the basic ethics of medical practice- love they neighbour? Congratulations to the BMJ for exposing them. Please encourage further facts and debate on the matter. Competing interests: None declared
Irrelevant 26 July 2007
Gerry Lewis, Semi retired. Home NW3 2PL Work from home Send response to journal: Re: Irrelevant	Too much of this article is devoted to the way opponents of the boycott have responded. It does not deal rationally with the boycott itself. It advances no convincing argument that a boycott will help resolve the immensely complex issues that entangle the Middle East. It suggests no reason why this country is singled out for boycott when there are so many others whose record of suppression and intolerance are outrageous. A concern for the plight of the Palestinians is of course legitimate and proper. But a concern for a society that is surrounded by enemies and periodically subjected to suicide bombing is also legitimate. There are more effective and intelligent ways to deal with this problem than a boycott that can achieve nothing but a sense of self-satisfaction among its prooponents. Competing interests: None declared
Two wrongs do not make a right 27 July 2007
Mohammad Dakheel, Professor of Islamic History, County College, 07501 Send response to journal: Re: Two wrongs do not make a right	Our own action made it hard to be a Palestinian living anywhere. To say that I'm a Palestinian is to be equated with either a violent, terrorism supporter or anti-Jews and a hater of the west or of course, both. It is never (rightfully so) seen as a nation that works hard to advance the world or its own society. Most Palestinians on the ground, especially those of us from Gaza resent that and are now asking the world to not be the butt of their sympathy. Palestinians living abroad could have worked hard to create a positive impact on the world, instead, they are creating more hate, advocating and supporting violence and crushing the name of Islam by promoting the ideology of suicide bombing as a result of occupation and causing the world to feel sympathy towards it. While Arab countries have a lot of money and use it to purchase Israeli inventions (including weapons, via the US) they do not use it to advance their own countries and have the lowest level of education and literacy. Of course, the other use is to spread propaganda against the west, create terrorists and utilize the blood of Palestinians to make their point legitimate. By advocating the boycott against Israel, you are legitimizing terrorism and telling the bullying mentality that they won and that they can use more violence (such as 9/11 and 7/7) to force you to yield to their demands. Instead of wallowing in the guilt that many organizations know how to use, take a realistic look. The West is not the cause of our misery, we are. The West did not make us kill each other, and the West did not force the Arab states to deprive Palestinians of any basic rights. The West was not behind the Palestinians behavior in many countries that they lived in such as Jordan and Lebanon and the "occupation" is not always to blame for our behavior then or now. The real guilt should be felt by those who clap for us and who help to make bigger criminals out of us by supporting anti Israel actions. To us, it means that Israel is the only bad party, and it also means that we scared you into submission to our demands. We should not be encouraged by your sympathy, in fact, what we need is a little tough love. Our people are dying every day at the hand of other Palestinians who you are encouraging by separating the situation into two groups; "evil Israel and the good Palestinians". Does the notion of two wrong and two bad sides crosses anyone's mind? Does the idea that by advocating our fight and encouraging us to go on as we did will only yield more violence, which will keep us under occupation because no one will trust us to have self ruling? Do you even realize that this exact action is what encouraged us to kill each other? In the name of my two brothers who were killed by other Palestinians and my wife who was raped and butchered by them and for the sake of my children whose home was destroyed, again, by other Palestinians who are legitimized by your "sympathy and help" please, please stop it and please do not let us do this anymore. My family is guilty because they said that Islam does not promote suicide or killing innocent people. Please, if you really want to help do not let us get away without conditions. Before helping, place civilized demands and see who will accept it. Before helping stop treating us as if we were mindless, before helping listen to the people who live there, read what the people in Gaza are saying. Do not encourage those who are loud to proceed and do not let those who live away from the situation talk you into doing something that will prolong the misery. We need help; tell Israel AND the Palestinians what your demands are. I'm sure you mean well, but we have only known violence and bullying and any measure against Israel only translates into approval of what we have become. Competing interests: None declared
Re: Once again, why only Israel 27 July 2007
Saleem Abdallah, Political analyst West Bank, Palestine Send response to journal: Re: Re: Once again, why only Israel	I'm assuming from your name that you are Jewish. Although yours was not the only Jewish name, I was interested in your article and in your title. As a Palestinian I would like to add my vote to yours. I fully agree, why just Israel? As a Palestinian I know first hand the damage done by calling to boycott Israel, academically or economically. Not only that it validates everything the Palestinians are saying, including support for suicide bombing, it is hurting any chance of peace and is taking away any chance for help from Israel. Maybe if the world wants to help, they should have the courage to boycott the Arab countries until they give the Palestinians living there a citizenship status and maybe some rights, after all, all these countries have to offer is oil and not all of them at that. The issue is clear to me. It is either Anti Semitism which has been infesting Europe or fear of the retaliation that will follow. They know that it will add to the argument of the Arab?s claim that the west is motivated by the ?Crusaders? who want to destroy Islam which will feed into the terrorist mind. To the anti Semites I say, my enemy?s enemy is not my friends and to the fear of terrorism I say nothing you do will stop it. The seed has been planted but have the courage to really do the right thing for the Palestinians or do nothing. I thank you for your words Saleem Competing interests: None declared
Re: We should boycott israeli medical and academic institutions 27 July 2007
Saleem Abdallah, Political analyst West Bank, Palestine Send response to journal: Re: Re: We should boycott israeli medical and academic institutions	I'm sorry to add one more thing to your credentials; you do not live in the situation. Fighting for the right of return is an unrealistic fight, which had prolonged the war. Why not ask the Arab countries to give some rights to the Palestinians living there. As a person who works in a profession of healing, how can you advocate suicide bombing? It is not a result of occupation, it is a sad trend. As a Palestinians, are you feeling the consequences of your words? We, those living there and who never condoned suicide bombing, understood that it will only result in having us turn into a violent nation, and it has. Please, think of what you are saying. Please, do not just follow the same thing that we hear. You speak of the news heard by the west, maybe you should stop listening to the news from your sources and start looking in the mirror. Our own people, Arabs, sold us a long time ago. They occupied us for 19 years, and our own stole our money for years. Suicide bombing may be a result of frustration but that has a collective guilt attached. We need to, we must see what we do and hold ourselves accountable and not excuse such action just because we have a problem. Look at Iraqis what they are doing to each other. Was that the only solution or was it the solution make into an act of bravery by people who say what you are saying? We are wrong to advocate for an inhumane behavior. We were wrong to leave our homes and trusting Arab leaders who told us to go. We were wrong to focus on one thing only rather than create a nation desired by all. Instead, we are feared and loathed by many especially the Arab nations. We have become the root of all disasters, terrorism, poverty and injustice by neighboring nations, wars, hate, violence of all kinds are attributed the "Palestinian problem" Israeli doctors have treated more Palestinians that Arab doctors have, believe it or not. We would take our children to Israel for treatment anytime before we take them to Jordan or Egypt, because they refuse us. I'm always told not to say these things so the world would never hear of anything good Israel had done, but as a Muslim, I am compelled to tell all the truth, to be fair; to ask all sides to be fair. Israeli aggression has gone beyond a point of self defense, but that does not mean that everything they do is evil. While Arab countries refuse to give us jobs and those who work do not get equal pay, Israel provided us with jobs. Shame on them for making us need Israel, if anyone should be blamed. Where is the courage to say that? The UN resolutions came with conditions but it seems that everyone sings that song without really reading or analyzing them. Most UN resolutions have been violated by all parties in the region. Please, do something to speed up a solution, not to make it go on. We need selflessness and not stubbornness. Competing interests: None declared
Re: Bigotry pure. Arabs in Israel do not enjoy equal rights in a constitutional manner 27 July 2007
Ben Alofs, GP Principal Meddygfa Star Surgery, Gaerwen LL60 6AH, Ynys Mon, North Wales, UK Send response to journal: Re: Re: Bigotry pure. Arabs in Israel do not enjoy equal rights in a constitutional manner	I must take issue with Dr Ehud Schwammenthal's assertion that .."Israeli citizens who are Arabs not only enjoy equal rights in a formal constitutional manner...", because it is at the heart of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people and is quite relevant to the current debate. I am a Dutchman. My country has a constitution of which article 1 reads: "All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted." Contrary to what Dr Schwammenthal suggests Israel has no constitution. Instead it has 11 Basic Laws, none of which guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of religion or, most importantly, equality. The Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty, passed in 1992 and the nearest thing Israel has to a Bill of Rights, fails to include equality among the rights it enumerates, instead emphasising the values of the state as "Jewish and democratic". Despite a pledge in the Declaration of Independence of May 1948 to produce a constitution within six months of the establishment of Israel as a State, no document has yet been drawn up. One of the insuperable obstacles facing the drafters has been how to embody the ethnic and religious values of a Jewish state without resorting to clearly discriminatory language. Israel is no ordinary state of its citizens, like the Netherlands or the UK. It defines itself as a Jewish state, including potentially millions of Jews who do not live in Israel. These can 'return' any time whilst the indigenous Palestinian population is excluded from it all. The murkiness of Israel's self-definition is underscored by the privileged status various international Zionist organisations, including the Jewish Agency and the Jewish National Fund, enjoy in Israeli law. They have semi-governmental status, including owning vast tracts of Israeli land (expropriated from Palestinan refugees), even though their charters require them to act exclusively in the interest of world Jewry. As a consequency, Arab citizens' exclusion from the Israeli and Jewish nation has very concrete effects both on their social position in Israel and the possibility of developing a civic identity. There are some 137 possible nationalities that can be recorded on Israeli identity cards: from Jew, Georgian, Russian and Hebrew through to Arab, Druze, Abkhazi, Assyrian and Samaritan. Everything, in fact, apart from Israeli. This is because the state refuses to acknowledge that the Israeli nation can be separated from the Jewish nation. The strength of this conviction could be seen when an Israeli Jew petitioned the Supreme Court back in 1971 to have his nationality changed from Jewish to Israeli in public records. His application was rejected. Over the years the Palestinian Israeli's, i.e. those Palestinians who managed to stay put in 1948 and now form a sizeable majority of between 20 and 25% of the population, have become more vocal in insisting on equal civil rights. The right to vote cannot hide the fact that Palestinian Israeli's or all non-Jews for that matter, are basically second class citizens. This became quite clear again last week, when a large majority of Knesseth members voted in favour of a law, which excludes non-Jews from leasing the large areas of state land owned by the Jewish National Fund. The law on family reunification also denies Palestinian Israeli's who marry a Palestinian from the Occupied Territories, the right to have their spouse living with them in Israel. The only choice they have is to move to the Occupied Territories. Much of the inequality is cleverly hidden in quasi-legal language. As I have argued elsewhere, Israel's 40 year occupation has resulted in practically irreversible facts, which makes a physically and economically viable State of Palestine all but impossible. The reality on the ground is that the Arab and Jewish communities live next to each other, but in a relationship of separateness and unequality. More and more Palestinians are giving up on the two state solution and their demand to be treated as equal citizens in a bi-national state will grow and not go away. In this respect there are clear parallels between Israel and the struggle against Apartheid in South Africa. My thanks goes to journalist Jonathan Cook, based in Nazareth, and his excellent book "Blood and Religion", which was a source of information for this reply. Competing interests: I have worked as a health worker in Palestinian refugee communities and would love to make a contribution in teaching general practice to the students of the Palestine medical school in Jerusalem/Nablus
Medical Academic Institutions absurd 27 July 2007
Robert Winkler, MD, Oncology Drug Development USA, 07932 Send response to journal: Re: Medical Academic Institutions absurd	Dear Editor, As one who practiced medicine in Jerusalem during the 'Intifadah', treating patients who were admitted to the hospital or to ICU just because they were 'unsuccessful' in their terrorist mission of killing others and were injured during the process..I was repetitively challenged on the logic of the Israeli Hospitals in following this practice.. However, all Israeli Hospitals, the vast majority being academically affiliated, have been practicing this attitute, bearing the costs and the 'absurd'. The reason was that its the right thing to do ethically, as human beings should be treated irrespective of anything when injured! How would BMJ regard this practice? Should it be condemned? Competing interests: None declared
Get educated not indoctrinated 27 July 2007
Sharon Klaff, Ex radiographer now teaching yoga London, UK Send response to journal: Re: Get educated not indoctrinated	Quote from "Ignored by the Brits" by Amir Hanifes: “As a holder of two degrees from the University of Haifa and a PhD student at the University of London, I traveled to Bournemouth for the meeting of the British University and College Union (UCU) as an Israeli delegate on behalf of the Israeli Council for Academic Freedom……… They were uninterested in the fact that Arab students, who view themselves as a national minority in the State of Israel…………enjoy the freedom to act politically and on the public relations front.……..the figures we presented were futile, because all they cared about was their one and only objective: De-legitimizing the State of Israel with no relation to its academia; presenting it as an apartheid state that deprives its minorities of elementary rights such as education and the freedom of expression…” Dr Hanifes writes exactly of those issues I do not understand. Here we have a non Jewish minority Israeli citizen explaining to our academic elite the freedom he enjoys as an Israeli citizen and yet they ignore him and persist with their call to boycott Israeli academics. I really do not understand this kind of prejudice. What is it that makes educators and doctors not accept facts that are presented to them by the very people who enjoy those freedoms they deny exist? Why do they persist that Israel is an apartheid state when this very distinguished and accomplished Druze-Israeli tells them otherwise? Surely he is an expert in this field, the source material they ought to be researching instead of listening to the hatred in their souls and the indoctrination of those who would that Israel did not exists? How is it that we in the UK entrust the education of our children to such people? Is the kind of education they provide not suspect if they are simply unable to accept hard evidence placed before them? We have now witnessed terrorists from the depths of the Islamic medical fraternity; yes doctors who are prepared to kill instead of saving lives. Has anybody wondered whether they might have been treated by one of them? Imagine if they had decided death by poisoned injection rather than car bombs! Yes they might have been more successful in administering a phial of toxic poison to each patient they treated rather than becoming amateur bomb makers! And yet the BMJ runs a discussion on the question of ostracizing not the institutions those terrorists emanate from, but Israeli institutions that the eminent Druze-Israeli Doctor tells them acts in total freedom and acceptance of all. Have we heard of Israeli doctors and professors carrying out acts of terror in London and Glasgow? No, but we did read of an Israeli doctor on holiday on 7/7 who immediately went down to the terrorist bomb site in Holborn to help the injured. How could he do this? Simply because he is a Jew with a Jewish code of ethics who had unfortunately amassed a great deal of expertise in helping Israeli victims of Arab terrorism. What are the criteria for boycotting the righteous and not the terrorists? Is the hatred harbored for Jews so great that people will place the education of their own children in jeopardy rather than shout from the roof tops that such prejudices should not be tolerated in a democratic civilized society? Why do we not hear a chorus of objection to this call for academic boycott of Israel ringing out from the depths of our government, churches and civil society? Instead we have the official organ of our Medical Association becoming involved in politics. Will it ever be trusted again by real academics to have their articles reviewed and published without a preconceived prejudice? Maybe a reviewer has a prejudice against women, or black people or gays and is influenced by that. Is this call to Boycott Israel not in the same vein? I doubt that any self respecting researcher would ever again submit an article to the BMJ for publication and I doubt that anybody of worth in the medical fraternity will trust what they read in such a journal. Competing interests: I am a Jewish mother who feels despair for western civilasation whose survival is in the hands of our ill educated academics.
The logical fallacies are mind-boggling 27 July 2007
Ilanit Meckley, Healthcare Consultant USA Send response to journal: Re: The logical fallacies are mind-boggling	It is difficult for me to get past the initial lines of the argument supporting a boycott of Israeli academic institutions. Academicians must realize that they cannot cloack themselves in a garb of academic talk and refuse to understand facts that are indisputable. The following facts must be taken into consideration: 1) There never was an independent state in the land currently occupied by the State of Israel prior to 1948. During the 400 years it was under Ottoman occupation, the land was considered a backwater and there was never any attempt at development or enrichment of the land. As a result, the land was a wasteland filled with deserts and swamps and it was considered impossible to cultivate or grow anything on it. The land itself was owned by landowners, many of whom themselves did not live on the land because the land could not sustain life. The people who lived on the land were essentially serfs and peasants to the landowners, barely eking out an existance while paying rents to the absentee landlords. 2) When Jewish settlers began to legally purchase land from the landowners (who were only too happy to sell at outrageously high prices) and began to cultivate the land, the local populations were generally pleased with the co-existance because that meant additional jobs and money. 3) Relationships formed between Jewish and Arab neighbors where Jewish medical personnel cared for Arab patients, provided water, and other necessities that local leaders were unable to provide. 4) Arab riots and massacres against the Jewish settlers, pre-1948, were inspired by religious fanaticism with the message that the Jews were enemies. With local populations having nothing else to live for (again, there were no places of higher education, there was no opportunity for betterment, there was no medical care among the local population) they were coerced (sometimes forced on pain of death) to participate. Many Arabs killed each other for failing to participate in riots against the Jews. 5) During Israel's war for independence, Arab leaders forced or encouraged many local Arab populations to leave their homes; however, only Jordan (a fake country created by Britain) opened its borders. However, the displaced persons were not absorbed into society and were instead left in refugee camps, created by their own leadership. This is what remains today in Lebanon and Jordan. 6) There was never any mention of a Palestinian nationality until the 1960s. If there was such a thing as a Palestinian people, wouldn't it have made sense for them to seek a state all along and not just all of a sudden? Jews have remained a distinct people throughout history. 7) The concept of a two-state solution is a political plot intended to maintain focus on the Palestinians and vilify the Israelis. For example, Israel unilaterally pulled out of the Gaza Strip and forced its Israeli residents to evacuate. The idea was that the Gaza Strip would be a model for the Palestinian state. Disregarding the apartheid that had just occured (making an area completely "free of Jews" to allow others to live there), it quickly became clear that an autonomous state was not what the Palestinians wanted as they continue to rain Qassam rockets into Israel proper today. If all they wanted was an area they could govern themselves, which they were literally handed on a silver platter, why would they instead focus their energies on attacking Israel? Why wouldn't they develop their social institutions? The list can go on and on. But I find it pathetic that such apparently intelligent people would be sucked into the media ploys and manipulation that anti-Israel leaders would have you believe. Instead of focusing on the incredible research and advancements that Israeli institutions have produced - DESPITE the continued attacks, suicide bombs, and general global apathy - you are deluding yourselves into believing that political correctness, negotiations, and just being nice to everyone will solve the Middle Eastern problem. I would suggest that you research Britain's role in the Middle East at the beginning of the 20th century and the negotiations and backstabbing that it particpated in and encouraged. Competing interests: None declared
Yes, We must support academic boycott of this Imperialist State 27 July 2007
Zarina Bhatia, Peace Activist B21 9RQ Send response to journal: Re: Yes, We must support academic boycott of this Imperialist State	It is high time the opinion in the European World especially, changed towards this long ignored area in the Middle East that has remained occupied forcefully and ruthlessly by Israel for several decades now. This has created the world's biggest prison of innocent inhabitants of Arab origin, namely the Palestinians. In the present context, the American Government has taken hold of Iraq for Oil. Palestine is occupied for its land grabbed systematically chunk by chunk. Occupation by any so-called 'civilised' state over another, is unforgivable and Israel, America or Europe, as they claim to be, do not show that they are, I am afraid! Let the world see true light of Democracy for the people in both these states, NOW. Let people get their JUSTICE and FREEDOM. Let PEACE prevail in the world of today. Competing interests: None declared
Just because we're a crowd 27 July 2007
Ricardo Guido Lavalle, Project Manager IT Rio de Janeiro, 22291-050 Send response to journal: Re: Just because we're a crowd	Dr. Derek A. Summerfield made a tough support to the boycott and Dr. Mark Clarfield, I think, made quite a brilliant call for lucidness and the inconvenience or even the nonsense of such an action. Many other supported one or other position, and I'm inclined to believe there's a dose of truth included. But you all know this whole issue is not about truth, nor justice. It's about prevalence. 1)If the IMA is punishable in any way by the WMA, it's a matter to be solved with the regular WMA resources (ethics commission, etc.) and with the WMA regulations at reach. 2)It may happen that the WMA is populated by either by Mossad agents or 3rd Reich Agents. In such a case, the result is quite easy to be predicted. But *you* chose to be part, so swallow it. 3)If everything goes right, a quite "fair" decision will be made, and no one needs to feel too much disappointed. But why does the BMJ accepts this prepotent attempt to force organic decisions by means of a poll? Was it a mere matter of numbers? Was it? See, something extremely bad is happening in this historical time, where Doctors can't differentiate from a brainless crowd. Smash them, no matter the reason, no matter who they are. Just because we are a crowd. PS. If this happens in a medical forum... well, I better start building my bunker. Competing interests: None declared
Why does the BMJ even consider a poll on a boycott? 27 July 2007
George Steiner, Professor Emeritus of Medicine University of Toronto, Toronto Canada M5G 2C4 Send response to journal: Re: Why does the BMJ even consider a poll on a boycott?	I am deeply concerned that a journal which has been highly respected would even consider conducting a poll on a boycott of Israeli academic institutions. The BMJ is a journal that should aim to advance the health and well being of all people. Would a boycott achieve this? Is health and well being something that is determined by political or religious boundaries? If the answer is “no”, as surely it must be, then why does a journal that should be concerned with health and well being even consider a poll that is unrelated to that aim? No matter which way the poll goes, what business does the BMJ have in even giving space to it? Competing interests: I am a Jewish physician and professor concerned with the life, health and well-being of other people. This in no way competes with my opinions.
Say No to the Boycott 27 July 2007
Rachel J Rose, Teacher SKA Send response to journal: Re: Say No to the Boycott	How could a journal such as BMJ even consider something as unacademcially appealing as boycotting academics that live in a country constantly surrounded by the threat of terrorism and suicide bombings. Israel has much to offer, and boycotting them will only damage the reputation of BMJ. Competing interests: None declared
boycott of Israeli academic institutions 27 July 2007
javaid khan, PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE THE AGA KHAN UNIVERSITY Send response to journal: Re: boycott of Israeli academic institutions	I would fully support the boycott of Israeli acadamic institutions.Enough is enough.The world has seen enough killings by the Israeli Goverment.Time has come that we should give a strong message to the Israeli Goverment so that they could learn to live with peace. Competing interests: None declared
Bravo BMJ 27 July 2007
Michael J Ingram, General Practitioner Radlett Send response to journal: Re: Bravo BMJ	I was delighted that the BMJ was prepared to put the issue of academic freedom under debate in this weeks head to head about boycotting Israeli Universities. One would have naively thought that the clearly expressed and oft repeated mission of the BMJ in favour of such freedom might have deterred them from debating such an obvious issue. However the BMJ was, once again able to ignore its own principles to ensure that had the pervasive prejudice of an academic arguing that one particular nation should be denied such basic right. I cannot wait for further topics in the new look “ethics” of head to head debates . May I suggest some controversial topics such as “female circumcision- an attack on traditional values” ; “Hiv/Aids- a sexually transmitted virus or a punishment from heaven” “Amputations and beheadings – the medical benefits of Sharia Law” Competing interests: None declared
Should we consider a boycott of British academic institutions too? 27 July 2007
Luiz Dratcu, consultant in adult psychiatry South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, York Clinic, Guy's Hospital, London SE1 3RR, Alastair Santhouse, consultant in psychological medicine Send response to journal: Re: Should we consider a boycott of British academic institutions too?	Browsing the last issue of the BMJ, we were surprised to encounter the article ‘Should we consider a boycott of Israeli academic institutions?’ (1). This is a political-ideological debate, devoid of any clinical or scientific interest, for which there is no shortage of alternative fora, and which is completely misplaced in the pages of what is meant to be a medical journal. The BMJ has granted few countries other than Israel the dubious honour of being the focus of such kind of debate. Tom Hickey, the proposer of the ‘yes’ motion, claims that, of all countries, and on account of her policies in the Occupied Territories, only Israel should be entitled to the privilege of being subjected to a boycott. This is because it is "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". To single out Israel for a boycott on these grounds is clearly demeaning to powerhouses of civilisation such as China and Russia, whose self-image and culture are as towering as any. And yet, despite the annexation and suppression of Tibet by China, and Russia’s devastating policies in Chechnya, China and Russia fall short of Mr Hickey’s exacting threshold for a boycott. Sudan probably ranks very low in Mr Hickey’s list. Despite the genocide perpetrated in Darfur, either by policy or with the connivance of the Sudanese government, Mr Hickey does not even grant Sudan the recognition of a brief quote. By mentioning Saudi Arabia, Iran and Zimbabwe, he is slightly more considerate to these "other states whose policies are barbaric", yet they too fall short of his strict criteria for a boycott. Is it because Mr Hickey thinks that, unlike Israel, none of these proud nations hold education and scholarship in high regard? Why focus on Israel alone? If the BMJ really wishes to be part of debates about boycotting academic institutions in countries whose policies are thought controversial, it should extend the list to the many candidates available. There is plenty of material on offer, as the world is not short of unfair, dictatorial or nasty regimes, nor of countries whose foreign policies may be as objectionable. The UK itself could be a good start. There are many reasons, past and present, why Britain could be seriously criticised. There is a long litany, from the tragic partition of the Indian subcontinent to the war in Iraq, not to mention the enduring misery in the former colonies, in Africa and elsewhere. As irrefutable evidence that no country is being singled out for a debate on a boycott, the BMJ could set the example by instigating a debate as to whether other countries should boycott British academic institutions until Britain repairs the damage it has caused and finally mends its ways. By Mr Hickey’s own standards, nowhere else would an academic boycott stand a better chance of "having a desirable political effect". After all, this is his own country, so clearly where "education and scholarship" are held in the highest regard. Alternatively, the BMJ could stick to its original purpose and publish articles that are relevant to the medical readership it purports to serve. 1. Hickey T, Baum M. Should we consider a boycott of Israeli academic institutions? BMJ 2007; 335: 124-5. Competing interests: None declared
No foot in the door, please 27 July 2007
Mark B. Sobell, Professor Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida USA33071, Professor Linda C. Sobell Send response to journal: Re: No foot in the door, please	The notion that an academic boycott should be mounted against a country as an attempt to change political policies would constitute a dangerous foot in the door for fascistic suppression of academic freedom and is wholly misguided. That it should be given legitimacy by a respected medical journal is reprehensible. It does not take much imagination to think of a variety of similar rationalizations for academic boycotts of nearly anywhere, once the door is opened. Competing interests: None declared
Arab Becomes Head of Israeli State Hospital-Boycott Him Too? 27 July 2007
Adam Finkel, Physician Haifa, Israel Send response to journal: Re: Arab Becomes Head of Israeli State Hospital-Boycott Him Too?	Whilst some are proposing an academic boycott of Israel, and others in the BMA are even proposing more specifically boycotting the Israeli Medical Association (IMA) and its membership, the Israeli State has appointed Dr. Mas'ad Barhoom, an Arab, to be director of Naharya Hospital in the Western Galilee, one of eight state owned hospitals in Israel. For some outsiders like Hickey, the situation in Israel may seem very straight forward-Israel is bad. However for every allegation of Israeli oppression against Palestinians, we Israelis see on our own doorsteps contrary evidence of our State behaving in a truly democratic and egalitarian way, as the above appointment of an Arab to a senior state position clearly shows. A majority of Israelis have repeatedly voted in favour of ending the occupation, and negotiating a peaceful solution including a Palestinian state. Indeed Israel with majority public backing, withdrew from Gaza. Israelis, including I am sure Dr Barhoom, need no boycott to tell them of the need to end the occupation. What is needed are fresh ideas about HOW to end it whilst maintaining Israeli security and fulfilling Palestinian aspirations. Hickey's proposed boycott is an inappropriate and empty gesture and completely misses the point. Competing interests: Israeli Academic
Truth of the matter 27 July 2007
Sharon Klaff, Jewish Mother London, UK, Barry Shaw, Send response to journal: Re: Truth of the matter	How many of these story’s reach the world’s media? a) I suppose I must start with the proud announcement that Dr. Mas'ad Barhoom, the director of the Italian Hospital in Nazareth for the last eight years, has been named the first Arab director of a state-owned hospital - Western Galilee Hospital in Nahariya. He will head one of only eight state-owned general hospitals in the country. The Health Ministry announced the appointment of the 47-year-old Haifa native this week. Barhoom grew up in Shfaram and specialized in family medicine and health-system management. The Health Minister congratulated the doctor on winning the public tender and said he was certain Barhoom had been chosen "on his own merit and not as a representative of a sector. Nevertheless, I am sure that Dr. Barhoom's choice will only strengthen the connection between Jews and Arabs in the North, and I am sure he will advance the hospital in Nahariya as he brought forward the Italian Hospital in Nazareth." b) Whilst on this subject, I received a mail this week from Barry Shaw in Netanya who wrote about a hospital experience that beats the Boycott. He writes:- “It's never a pleasant experience to go into hospital. It's one of my least favourite things to do. But, when you've got to go, you've got to go. The operation wasn't too bad. The Israeli medical service is excellent and the care is wonderful. As I was wheeled from the recovery room to my ward I was still in that euphoric state that only a trained anesthetist can induce. I was wheeled into a room where I was to be parked until my release the following day. In the next bed to me was an Arab boy, attended to by his mother dressed in traditional Arab dress of what could be described as moderate Muslim attire. We were gracious and pleasant with each other, and they offered me orange juice, figs, and nuts. When I was sufficiently out of la-la land and back into the land of the living I began to hear their story. Sarim Shahub is twenty one years old, and from Gaza. In May, he was shot in the face and arm and had been in intensive care at Ichilov Hospital. He was now sufficiently well to move around in the Trauma Ward while receiving treatment for his face wound. One bullet had entered through his left cheek and exited through the side of his mouth. The Israeli surgeons had put a breathing tube in his throat, and he was temporarily unable to speak. His mother told me that he had been caught up in the fighting between Hamas and Fatah. This may be true. It could also be true that he had been fighting for one of the factions. The following day, when I felt strong enough to crawl around the ward, I noticed that other rooms were taken up by Palestinians. I was told that all had gunshot or shrapnel wounds inflicted in the Palestinian in-fighting in Gaza. One room was out of bounds. Either the patients were in intensive care, or they were people of significance, and therefore kept isolated. As I lay in bed next to Sarim I read an article about the intended British boycott of Israeli academic institutions. I looked across at Sarim as he lay in his hi-tech Evolution hospital bed. Here was a Palestinian from Gaza receiving the finest medical care and attention from Israeli doctors and nurses, all trained in Israeli academic institutions. These are the very institutions that British academics wish to boycott. His treatment will consider for some time until he is healthy enough to return home to Gaza. I do not know what his fate will be. I only know that his immediate past was damaged by corrupt and violent Palestinian leadership who continue to reject creating a state of their own alongside the Jewish state of Israel, and by the lawlessness and violence that is today's Palestinian society. I do know that Sarim has been given another chance of life by the dedication and professionalism of the Israeli medical profession.Will somebody please tell me how a British boycott of Israeli academics and learning institutions will have helped Sarim, and others like him, in his moment of crisis?” c) Continuing the medical theme this week, ten Ethiopian doctors and nurses are taking part in an intensive course in Jerusalem on the treatment of AIDS patients. More than half of all HIV/AIDS patients in Israel are Jews of Ethiopian descent, which has given doctors in the Jewish state a wealth of experience in treating that demographic. About four years ago the Israelis decided to start sharing that experience and knowledge with Ethiopian medical professionals who simply lacked the resources to make the same gains on their own. To date more than 50 Ethiopian doctors and nurses have participated in the two-week training course, and have returned to their own nation equipped to provide far better treatment to those suffering from the world's most feared disease. And the world is talking about boycotts, rights to exist, racism, etc., etc Stuart Competing interests: None declared
Report of the UK Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism and the anti-Israel boycott debate 27 July 2007
Peter Simmons, Consultant Psychiatrist QEII Hospital AL7 4HQ Send response to journal: Re: Report of the UK Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism and the anti-Israel boycott debate	The BMJ provides a veneer of medical legitimacy for debating proposals for an academic boycott of Israel. A front cover page calling for peace rather than a debate about a boycott would have been in keeping with the traditions of a British Medical Journal. Do doctors wish for a Biased Medical Journal or Boycott Many Jews? The BMJs declared mission is “To lead the debate on health, and to engage, inform, and stimulate doctors, researchers and other health professionals in ways that will improve outcomes for patients.” (1) What is the evidence that an article promoting an anti-Israeli boycott will “improve outcomes for patients”? The evidence from the 1930s Nazi boycott of Jews was of the prelude to the genocide of the Holocaust in which about 6 million Jews were murdered. (2) Many Jews thus feel uneasy that the British medical establishment has entered the boycott Israel debate. This article (3) is published less than 2 years after the Israel withdrawal from Gaza. (4) The BMJ rewards withdrawal from territories with discussion of a boycott! It is published the year after publication of the “Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism”. (5) Some extracts from this report are: “The committee unanimously recognised that criticism of Israel should not, in itself, be regarded as antisemitic but equally recognised that anti-Jewish prejudice in any context should not be overlooked.” “Over the past three years there has been a continuing debate about the case for boycotting products or people from Israel and we were told that often the language supporting such boycotts has compared the policies of Israel with those of Nazi Germany. This may be political propaganda but it is still objectionable.” “We received evidence regarding the attitudes of a small number of academics whose critical views of Israel have adversely affected their relations with Jewish students. Particular tension has been caused by rare cases of academics who have crossed the line between personal interest or activism, and academic abuse of power.” “Some witnesses noted that even though the motivations of the boycotters may not in themselves be antisemitic, the effect of their actions would be to cause difficulties for Jewish academics and students. The majority of those who have institutional affiliations to Israeli universities are Jewish, and thus the consequences of a boycott would be to exclude Jews from academic life.” “The singling out of Israel is also of concern. Boycotts have not been suggested against other countries.” “We conclude that calls to boycott contact with academics working in Israel are an assault on academic freedom and intellectual exchange.” I propose that the BMJ accepts the conclusions of the “Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism”. The BMJ’s deliberate venture into the anti-Israel boycott debate soon after publication of this Parliamentary report may confirm some doctors’ experiences that the multi- ethnic British medical world is becoming uncomfortable for Jews. This BMJ article encourages conflict (Hickey acknowledges that a previous proposal to discuss whether to boycott Israeli academic institutions “caused a furore” (3)), and the BMJ focuses a front cover headline on one country - Israel. Would there be a discussion of a boycott if Israel were an Arab or Islamic rather than Jewish state? Both Gaza and the West Bank were each previously occupied by Arab countries (Gaza by Egypt 1949 to 1967; the West Bank by Jordan) (6) – were these countries subject to calls for a boycott by the BMJ? This BMJ article does not highlight Arab-Israeli achievements. Many Arabs and Muslims (as well as Jews and members of other religions) are integrated at high levels in Israel including many in medicine and some as members of Parliament. Hebrew and Arabic is used in the Israeli parliament. (7) However, some Arab countries have been noted to have an official policy of refusing to accept Jewish and Israeli visitors. (8) Does the BMJ proposed a boycott against such countries that have declared an official policy of anti-Semitic racism? The BMJ poll lists many countries in its poll, including the “Occupied Palestinian territory” and “Israel” (9) – and I cannot find mention of any “Unoccupied Palestinian Territory” - why not? Palestinians and Israelis need to progress towards peace, and in my view, towards a two state solution. The BMJ could opt to help – or harm - this process. The BMJ has choices. Bias or impartiality. Controversial Israel focused front cover headlines or brave calls for peace. Dialogue or conflict. I would like the BMJ to choose peace, dialogue and impartiality. But will the reality highlighted by the UK Parliament that “consequences of a boycott would be to exclude Jews from academic life” prevail? I fear that the BMJ may have already chosen – the wrong path. References: (1) Our vision and mission. BMJ. http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/sitemap/about-bmj/Our-vision-and-mission (accessed 26 July 2007) (2) Never again. A history of the Holocaust. Martin Gilbert. Harper Collins. 2000. (3) Should we consider a boycott of Israeli academic institutions? Yes BMJ 2007; 335: 124 (4) Israel completes Gaza withdrawal. 12 September 2005. BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4235768.stm (accessed 25 July 2007) (5) Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism. All-Party Parliamentary Group against Antisemitism. September 2006; London: The Stationery Office Limited (6) The Arab- Israeli Conflict. Its History in Maps. 4th edition. Martin Gilbert. Weidenfeld and Nicolson. 1984 (7) Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Israel. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Templates/Hasava.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRORIGINALURL=%2fMFA%2fFacts%2bAbout%2bIsrael%2fLooking%2bat%2bIsrael%2fLooking%2bat%2bIsrael -%2bThe%2bState%2ehtm&NRNODEGUID=%7b3D7120C6-9AE0-4D3F-8AA6- 2D7379B305B7%7d&NRCACHEHINT=Guest (accessed 26 July 2007) (8) Jews barred in Saudi tourist drive. 27 February, 2004, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3493448.stm (accessed 26 July 2007) (9) Where do you stand on the issue? Vote in our poll at http://www.surveymk.com//sr.aspx?sm=YjRQ5iQLF0ztfNgS6yJKybK9QP6sRpQub7TJRKgEqMI_3d BMJ (accessed 25 July 2007) Competing interests: None declared
If you boycott Israel, I will never read BMJ again 27 July 2007
Jane M. Liebschutz, Associate Professor of Medicine Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA 02118 Send response to journal: Re: If you boycott Israel, I will never read BMJ again	What business does the BMJ have in developing international policy without an overt health outcome? Why don't you use the weight of such a journal to improve access to healthcare, clean water, HIV medication or other notable health related outcomes throughout the world? It makes no sense to me why BMJ would choose this as their effort to improve the world. It appears to be a racist motion by the journal. You have tarnished what was a shining reputation as an unbiased source of health care research and information. If BMJ does this, I will strongly lobby my university's medical library to stop subscribing to BMJ and its associated publications. Competing interests: None declared
thanks for trying for sanity 27 July 2007
Gary E. Goodman, Computer Services, freelance 44312 Send response to journal: Re: thanks for trying for sanity	Lots of extreme rhetoric about BMJ and author Tom being anti-Semitic and showing "extreme bias" against Jews, and "why don't you SHUT UP about non-medical issues" (shades of O'Reilly and Ari Fleischer). I saw NO anti -Semitism whatsoever. Hinkey hates Jews? Com'on. That's laughable. I've gotten far worse bile from Jew to Jew, and I do not hate myself or my parents. Responses about "why not boycott other countries too" is the lamest excuse ever for Israel's crimes, like a drunk saying he's not as much of a drunk as the guy down the bar, as an excuse to keep drinking. However, one said: "Go to any Israeli University, hospital or research establishment and you are likely to see Jews, Palestinians, Arabs, Druze and Christians working and being treated alongside each other Surely the BMJ should not give a platform to anyone wishing to damge that situation" Don't know how true that is, but it's mostly irrelevant to the issue of OCCUPATION and Israeli university's support or silent complicity for it. So I still think a strong message should be sent to Israel, NEEDS to be sent, regardless of how it might temporarily hurt co-academic institutions. Even if this measure lost, but 42% supported it, that would still send a message that Israel is walking on thin ice in terms of human rights. Israel has crossed the line, many times, in terms of extreme violence against it's Arab neighbors. Israel has an a First Class High-Tech Military and uses it regularly in cities and towns, not pathetic suicide belts. Documents from early Zionists like Jabotinsky and others show this as The Plan, not anomaly, not "just response", to colonize the land of "Palestine" at the expense of the inhabitants, by force. Israel flatly ignores International Law. Thank you for your efforts, Mr. Hickey. It takes a lot of political courage to stick one's neck out for an unpopular but just cause. Respect due, even from those who disagree with the details. P.S. After this campaign, please boycott MY country too! We are no longer the "Beacon on the Hill", if ever were, and even some formerly- influential Reagan Republicans have spoken out in horror at the lawlessness of the USA. Competing interests: member: Interfaith Council For Peace in the Middle East (Jewish member)
...and let's our patients die 27 July 2007
tommaso de pas, Medical oncologist European Institute of oncology, Milan , Italy, 20144 Send response to journal: Re: ...and let's our patients die	A patient with cancer is playing with her son. That is because of god and, maybe, because of me. If so, that is due to research by physicians around the world. Also from Israel. Boycotting Israeli academic institutions we beat research. Beating research we stop that playing. Anywhere and anyhow. Competing interests: None declared
Ignorance 27 July 2007
Mark B Suss, reigstrar Melbourne 3162 Send response to journal: Re: Ignorance	You wrote: "We are accused of unfairly singling out Israel—the Jewish state...We are asked why we do not propose a boycott of other states whose policies are barbaric and inhuman...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...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" I am not sure whether this is more insulting to the Israelis or the Arabs. Has the author travelled to the Middle East? The Israelis don't think about their neighbours as "a sea of medieval reaction". The comment is laughably inaccurate. In fact they can watch the television shows of the nearby countries or travel in Muslim countries on holiday. It is abundantly clear to the Israelis that the Arab countries are modern states in which life is in many ways not too different from their own. There would be many too in Fez or Cairo who would take issue with the concept that Arabic scholarship is not held in high regard. Has the author seen the reverence felt in those cities for their ancient seats of learning? Still, that point was consistent with the tone of the article, which reads like a poor primary-school history essay. Perhaps the author should go back and read about the real medieval interactions between Jews, Muslims and Christians - without them we would have no medicine to speak of. Competing interests: None declared
Say no to the boycott and its supporters 27 July 2007
MARTIN HARRIS, General Medical Practitioner & Honorary Consultant Great Ormond Stret Hospital London Temple Fortune Health Centre, London NW11 7TE Send response to journal: Re: Say no to the boycott and its supporters	Tom Hickey from Brighton wrote in the BMJ as Chair of University and Colleges Union (UCU); he writes that he was the mover of the UCU proposal to boycott Israeli academic institutions. From 1981-2005 I was also a lecturer in the University of London medical school. Israel Universities and academic institutions are open to Israeli, Arab and foreign students. Where is the evidence for the denial of educational opportunities and academic freedom to Palestinian students and scholars? Hickey quotes from The Guardian by some BMA members; these include doctors who have expressed their personal opinion about the right of Israel to exist. Unfair to target: Hickey opinions that the boycott is appropriate because of the merit of the individual case of Israel, appearing to praise Israel. Is the converse of this correct that it is inappropriate to boycott say Russia since polonium will then be delivered from Moscow to London or Brighton? Freedom: Hickey states that Israel society has a dominant self image as a bastion of civilisation- actually yes, the mainstay for thousand of years! There is freedom for Jerusalem since 1967. Was there freedom in Arab Jerusalem before 1967? Medical services: Israel provides medical services to all including failed suicide bombers and those escaping into Israel from conflict in Gaza. Israel technology, medical invention, emergency search and rescue intervention has diagnosed and saved people around the world. Israel treats and teaches Jew, Arab and Christian. Peace, not war: Where is the motion as doctors for peace and the right of every person to live in peace? Where is the motion to condemn the use of Red Crescent ambulances to transfer weapons or terror attacks? BMJ: I am amazed that BMJ editorial allowed the medical journal of the BMA to print this personal opinion. Online poll manipulation: BMJ has received clear evidence of online poll manipulation by multiple voting from ISP identification when the Palestine Solidarity Campaign manipulated the vote to boycott, changing overnight the boycotters from 5.6% to 21.5%. SAY NO TO THE BOYCOTT & ITS SUPPORTERS Competing interests: None. I’m a Doctor & I’m Jewish.
Were those who campaigned exclusively on apartheid "anti-Afrikander" racists? 28 July 2007
derek a summerfield, Hon Sen Lect, Institute of Psychiatry, London Maudsley Hospital, SE5 8BB Send response to journal: Re: Were those who campaigned exclusively on apartheid "anti-Afrikander" racists?	I would like a brief addendum to my challenge to Professor Baum of 25 July in the light of the astonishing persistence of the argument, lavishly demonstrated in Rapid Responses, that campaigners who focus on Israel's behaviour in the Occupied Territories are likely to be "antisemitic" because there is no other plausible explanation for why they are not also campaigning about other countries. So were campaigners against South Africa in the apartheid era guilty of "anti-Afrikander" racism if they were not also involved in the struggle against abuses in other parts of Africa?("Why do they pick on us alone?", I used to hear pro-apartheid whites say).Are today's campaigners on Tibet to be reasonably described as "notoriously anti-Chinese" or showing "anti- Asian" racism if they are not also visible in protests about Iraq or Columbia? I am not aware that those who argue like this in defence of Israel do so similarly about campaigners in other theatres;some of them may well have joined such protests at one time or another- so long as it was not Israel There is a highly selective moral blindness at work here. Lastly, people want it both ways. They boast of Israel's exceptionality ("the only democracy in the Middle East"), but then cry foul when that claim is examined in respect of a militarised occupation and colonisation. Competing interests: None declared
Typical British Response 28 July 2007
David Ende, Urologist Sydney, Australia 2010 Send response to journal: Re: Typical British Response	If the British weren't so morally bankrupt and antisemitic back in 1948 we would probably not be in the position now of having millions of unfortunate Arab refugees who are being played as porns by their "brothers". Why on earth would a supposed medical journal want to buy into a political debate? Israeli academia and medicine has proved itself to be world class without the support of the rest of the world. To suggest a boycott in the name of science only highlights the lack of insight already portryaed by British journalists in understanding politics in the Middle East Competing interests: None declared
Shame on you 29 July 2007
Rachel Toby Woolf, Housewife and volunteer with police HP9 2BZ Send response to journal: Re: Shame on you	Have you ever been to Israel and of more interest have you ever been to an Israeli hospital? If not then you have not seen people, of every race, creed and colour, be they arab, christian or jew, being treated with compassion and the best medical care anyone could wish for. Would this happen in any arab country? I don't think so. People such as yourself are not just against an Israeli boycott but are virulently anti-semitic, so why don't you just come out and say so. Competing interests: None declared
Re: Typical British Response 29 July 2007
Joseph Berger, consulting psychiatrist Toronto Canada M3H3S3 Send response to journal: Re: Re: Typical British Response	I am an English-born British medical graduate, practising as a psychiatrist in Canada. I am a member of the Assembly or parliament of the American Psychiatric Association - representing Canada's largest province, Ontario. At the APA we recently passed virtually unanimously a resolution condemning these so-called attempted academic boycotts. As far as I can see Tom Hickey is not a physician. What is his odious ill- informed hysteria doing in a prestigious medical journal? Those of us of British origin working elsewhere are deeply and profoundly embarrassed by the loss of objectivity and common sense that seems to be coming from some quarters in Britain these days. The world of medicine should be the last place for such completely inappropriate trouble-making to be given any publicity. Competing interests: None declared
Faux pas 29 July 2007
Ricardo Kohan M.D. F.A.S.N., Head, Department of Nephrology Carmel Hospital Haifa Israel 34362 Send response to journal: Re: Faux pas	To the Editors BMJ By introducing a political poll,which has no place whatsoever in a medical publication, and then calling the Palestinian Authority " The Occupied Palestinian Territories" you are clearly biased against Israel, condescending to the Palestinians,insulting the intelligence of your readers and not faithful to the BMJ motto of helping doctors make better decisions. Competing interests: None declared
the journey of a student from Gaza 29 July 2007
Riyad Deis, filmmaker Jerusalem Send response to journal: Re: the journey of a student from Gaza	The following is just one example why Israel should be academically boycotted. A student from Gaza who likes to go to a university in the West Bank, such as Birziat University will have to travel to Egypt and then to fly to Jordan and from there to cross through Israeli borderline and from there has to pass two checkpoints. There is one checkpoint in Jericho and the other at the entrance of Rammalh toward Birzait. Sometimes they are more than two. All this is possible if, first he/she was able to leave Gaza: since Israel is in control of all exists of Gaza, land, sea and air. This is terrible difficult. Second, if he/she was allowed to enter Israel from Jordan. In this case Israel has stopped issuing permits to gazans, students or others since 2000. The hope of the boycott is bringing attention to the Israelis the terrible injustice they impose on students whose only aim in life is to get education. Thank you. Competing interests: None declared
May I sugest some additional candidates 29 July 2007
Frank Tudos, Medical student Berlin Germany Send response to journal: Re: May I sugest some additional candidates	I have understood, that the protagonists of a boycott argue that comparing Israel to other oppressing regimes is not valid, as "they" torture, kill, oppress their own folks, whereas Israel deprives the Palestinians - not their "own" people - from their basic human rights. This way of thinking is sick and cynical, but if the boycotters would stick to their own standards, wouldn't it be consequent to propagate a boycott of the following regimes: India - Kashmir China - Tibet, other ethnic minorities (e.g. Moslems, but obviously to be considered as "own" people) Russia – mass slaughter in Chechnya (obviously again “own” people, not recently occupied) Turkey - Kurds (apartheid in its purest form, but maybe again “own” people, not “occupied”) When will the world start focusing on their plight? Apart from China, all these countries are btw considered to be democracies. Thank you!! Competing interests: None declared
No To Boycott 30 July 2007
Dr Khaled Dik, GP Macksville NSW 2447 Australia Send response to journal: Re: No To Boycott	As a palestinian living in Australia, i felt what mean to be refugee since my departure with my family in 1948 to Lebanon. Too much suffering and the tragedy of palestinian people continues. we declare and denounce the Policy of Israel towards continuing occupation and mass punishment to whole towns and Palestinian population, the idea of boycotting Israeli scientific institution is not a good idea unless such institution is directly involved in the policy of the government of continuing occupation. At time of my service in Gaza strip, I visited an Israeli neurologist in Herzilia in 1998 - as a patient at that time, I had been cared to outmost level and I felt the dedication of that doctor towards me. I cannot see much positive in boycotting. By keeping channels open to the Israeli side this may give opportunity to the Isareli side to continue to listen to other opinions and ideas and this may help the change. Expressing views not boycotting. Competing interests: No Financial Interest held
Re: Were those who campaigned exclusively on apartheid "anti-Afrikander" racists? 30 July 2007
Paul J Malin, Veterinary Surgeon New Mexico, US Send response to journal: Re: Re: Were those who campaigned exclusively on apartheid "anti-Afrikander" racists?	For as far back as the BMJ's electronic archives go, Dr. Summerfield has been using the journal to promote his political views. Through a series of letters, and through the opinion and comment space granted him more than once by the editors, he has made his protests: once or twice, a decade or so ago, regarding Iran and Iraq (in order to blame Britain for complicity), Morocco once, and over and over again Israel. Only Israel has been the target of his calls to boycott. There is nothing either illegal or wrong in Dr. Summerfield, as an individual, pursuing the causes that fire his interest, but his published record makes it plain that his cause is not universal human rights but the singling-out of Israel. Readers of the BMJ should understand that it is this fixation they are being invited to share, not the cause of humanity in general. What of the BMJ? It is not an individual and it owes a duty to be balanced, to respect the diversity of its readers' opinions, and to avoid harming its primary mission of serving medicine with ill-judged ventures into politics. Searching, again as far back as the archives go, I find at least two instances where the journal has played host to calls to boycott Israel, and various other pieces that allege Israeli mistreatment of Palestinians. Nowhere did I see articles highlighting Palestinian violence against Israelis (or other Palestinians), or the contribution Palestinian choices have made to the miserable situation they are now in. Nowhere are there articles and op-eds calling for the isolation or boycott of Palestinians, Arab states or, in fact, any other country including—heaven forbid!—Britain. The BMJ proposes that balance consists in pairing an article that put Israel—uniquely among nations—on trial together with one that defends it. Such "balance" is designed to drag Israel into the mud. If we're to do this right, let's see the BMJ present articles each week, making the case for and against boycotts of every country in the world. With 191 to choose from, we'll at least have four years until it's Israel's turn again. Competing interests: None declared
Boycott is a synonym for delegitimisation 30 July 2007
Albie Cukier, Manager Westchester Drive NW4 1RD Send response to journal: Re: Boycott is a synonym for delegitimisation	This feature is simply another example of Israel's political enemies taking every opportunity and means to attack Israel, whilst hypocritically and deliberately ignoring other much greater injustices in the world, medically, academically or otherwise. At the same time as other states and regimes callously ignore any attempt at peace, compromise or freedom of conscience or expression, in Israel contrastingly this is a daily feature of life whose institutions wherever humanly possible and politically possible, seek to preseve life and freedom. Although Israel makes a top rate and disproportionate contribution to its size in the fields of medical science, yet the enemies of Israel seek to delegitimise it and stifle its world class academic institutions and contributions to medical science. The singularly intense approach against Israel represented in this feature marks out this campaign and its proponents as a hugely discriminatory and some might say a 'racist' phenomenon driven by a unbounded desire to destroy the state of Israel at whatever cost, aligned with those who seek and have sought repeatedly to do so, militarily. Regrettably a respected medical journal like the BMJ has become caught up in the trap of not being able to adequately distinguish between legitimate political debate, and misguided propaganda, allowing its limited medical column space and reputation intended for high quality for medical journalism, to be misappropriated by a political propaganda machine highjacking its purposes under the guise of rational medical debate. Competing interests: None declared
Israeli science doesn't boycott others - why should UK science do so? 30 July 2007
Ari Elson, Assoc. Prof. & Secty., Israel Soc. for Biochem. and Mol. Biol. Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel 76100 Send response to journal: Re: Israeli science doesn't boycott others - why should UK science do so?	Scientists boycotting other scientists for political reasons is simply to be done. This is always an easy thing to say when one is the party threatened with boycott. However, a recent event illustrates that Israeli science also practices what it preaches. Last year, at the height of the tirade of the Iranian President in support of Israel's destruction, Iran applied to join the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (IUBMB) as an associate member. Israel is a full member in the IUBMB and is represented in that organization via the Israel Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, of which I am Secretary. Our organization decided to listen to the Iranian presentation at the IUBMB meeting in which Iranian membership was proposed and, if it seemed up to professional standards, to vote in its favor. Indeed, this is exactly what happened - our delegation voted in favor of the Iranians. I believe this is an ultimate demonstration of separation of science from politics. Iran poses an existential threat to Israel, yet Israeli scientists voted in favor of their professional colleagues from Iran. Israel poses no threat to the UK (nor to anybody else, despite what some may think) - why shouldn't UK scientists behave professionally like their Israeli counterparts? Competing interests: None declared
Why the BMJ ran this debate 30 July 2007
Fiona Godlee, Editor, BMJ BMJ, BMA House, Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9JR Send response to journal: Re: Why the BMJ ran this debate	We expected a strong response to this debate. Let me try to answer the question some of you have raised about why the BMJ decided to include it as one of its head to heads. The BMJ aims, among other things, to reflect current debates, including political ones, that impinge on the future of health care and health research. The question of whether there should be an academic boycott of Israel is currently under serious consideration in the UK. It has been raised by trade unions that represent university academics and health workers, and it has been widely discussed in the UK media. In retrospect we could have made this context clearer for those who were not aware of it. The debate was not initiated by the BMJ but it has potentially important implications for our readers around the world. Doctors and medical academics are among those lobbying for a boycott and, as some of you describe in your responses, doctors and medical academics are in turn being lobbied to take one side or another. However, the question has not been discussed openly within the medical academic community. We took the view that, as part of our regular debates on a range of issues, BMJ readers should be given the opportunity to see arguments on both sides and to contribute their opinions, which you have done and are doing. While some of you do criticise the BMJ for taking up this issue, others on both sides of the argument have welcomed the opportunity to debate it. The level of interest can be judged by the response. Some of you will still maintain that to discuss it at all is wrong, that it is out of place in a medical journal, and that by raising the issue at all the BMJ is legitimising the idea of such a boycott. I do not accept this view and find it interesting that some of those who speak against boycotts on the grounds of academic freedom are those most determined to silence debate on this issue. I am also interested by the extent to which just posing the question is seen by some to align the BMJ with those in favour of a boycott. To my knowledge this assumed alignment with one side of the argument has not happened with previous debates we have posed (see http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/interactive/polls). At issue here, and addressed by some of your responses, is the question of whether academic boycotts can ever be justified. The BMJ believes that they cannot, except possibly in cases where science itself has been debased, as in Nazi Germany. The BMJ’s opposition to academic boycotts was clearly articulated in 2003 (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7379/0/g) and has not changed. As Jacob Amir reminds us in his response, it is a fundamental principle of the universality of science and learning that academics do not discriminate against colleagues on the basis of factors that are irrelevant to their academic work, such as race, religion, nationality, or gender. Some of you raise more practical objections in this case, including the difficulty in agreeing the desired endpoint of such a boycott. The voices of Palestinian doctors and academics against a boycott of Israel are particularly compelling. Our readers’ poll has come out strongly against a boycott (see http://www.surveymk.com//sr.aspx? sm=YjRQ5iQLF0ztfNgS6yJKybK9QP6sRpQub7TJRKgEqMI_3d). But what if it had come out in favour? Would this have led the BMJ to change its position? No. In our last poll most readers said journals should not carry drug advertising. Does this mean we will stop carrying these adverts? No. The polls are useful in reflecting readers’ views but they don’t decide BMJ policy. We knew there was a risk that this poll might be hijacked by pressure groups, and we have evidence that this happened on both sides of the debate – we have copies of e mails calling on people to vote one way or another. We make no pretence that our polls are scientific – another issue that has not been raised in relation to other debates. Most people see them for what they are – a means of engaging with our readers. Among the many well argued views in these responses are two that directly accuse the BMJ of bias against Israel. I don’t believe the BMJ is biased against Israel but it is an accusation I take seriously. Proving bias is difficult, as we know from our work on evaluating the quality of peer review in medical journals. But if there is a perception of bias this is something we should listen to. One of the respondents is concerned that there are more mentions of Israel when you search bmj.com than there are of China. I expect that most of these mentions will be in our news coverage. I would argue that this is not evidence of anti-Israel bias but of a judgement we have made – based on a mix of gut feel and market research – about how interested our readers are in the region. To examine this further we would need (and would welcome) an independent contextual analysis of our coverage that looked at the balance within each story and across the board. Unrelated to this debate we are looking to increase our news and other coverage from under-represented parts of the world – specifically China and Latin America. Another potential bias is hinted at by one respondent – that political views might affect our decisions on whether to publish submitted articles from Israel. I have come across some data on this. In a blog called discardedlies.com, Herve Seligman at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has posted his analysis of publications in the BMJ that come from Israel, Denmark and Switzerland between 1984 and 2004 and compared this with the same countries’ published output in JAMA (http://discardedlies.com/entry/?4877). He concludes that the BMJ’s Israeli representation decreased or stagnated during this period while JAMA’s increased. I have offered Dr Seligman our data on the country of origin of submitted articles, which would strengthen the analysis, especially if he could get the same information from JAMA. However, without a measure of the quality of the articles being submitted and published in the two journals, we would still be left not knowing whether a true bias existed. A more obvious explanation is that Israeli researchers were sending their best papers to JAMA rather than the BMJ. For the absence of doubt, the BMJ welcomes excellent research from all regions of the world (for information on what sort of research we are interested in, see http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/334/7583/4-a). The authors’ country of origin has never in my experience been a factor in our decisions. The BMJ will continue to champion academic freedom and encourage open discussion of the challenges to health, equity, and human rights around the world. We have received many eloquent and enlightened responses to this debate, too many to do justice to in the letters pages of the journal. We will publish extracts from the best of these responses in the Observations section of the journal next week. Competing interests: I am the Editor of the BMJ and am responsible for everything published in it.
Antisemitism is singling out Jews even if you don't hate them 30 July 2007
Zev Lidert, PhD chemist Erlich Solutions, Czaslaw 25, 32-415 Raciechowice, Poland Send response to journal: Re: Antisemitism is singling out Jews even if you don't hate them	Dear Mr. Hickey, In your call to boycott Israeli academic Institutions you write a passage requiring discussion. That passage is intended to explain why – despite the fact that evil happens elsewhere and perhaps in more extreme forms than in Israel – singling out Israeli academic Institutions is justified and cannot be misconstrued for anti-Semitism You give two arguments. Number 1: “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.” The second is: "…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." Brought together: "That is why an academic boycott might have a desirable political effect in Israel, an effect that might not be expected elsewhere." This last statement is both demeaning to many Asian and African nations while carrying strong hints of anti-Semitism. Why anti-Semitism? Wikipedia carries the following definition of anti-Semitism. I quote: “Bernard Lewis defines anti-Semitism as a special case of prejudice, hatred, or persecution directed against people who are in some way different from the rest. According to Lewis, anti-Semitism is marked by two distinct features: Jews are judged according to a standard different from that applied to others, and they are accused of "cosmic evil.” It appears to me that in your call to boycott Israeli educational institutions, Jews (or at least those millions living in Israel) are judged according to a standard different from that applied to others, and they are accused of "cosmic evil.” Hence your argumentation fulfills the criteria of anti-Semitism as set by Bernard Lewis. Different standard In the sea of evil in this World you justify singling out for condemnation only Jews (or a good portion of them living in Israel) and you don’t even see that there is something inappropriate in the act of singling them out. You state that Jews themselves brought it upon their heads. After all they have: (1) positive self image as a bastion of civilization in the sea of reaction and (2) high educational and scholarship standards. These two behaviors make them different from others and justify a different treatment. This is like telling a beautiful woman that raping her was justified by her beauty. The remarkable fact is that you don’t even deny that you apply a different yardstick to Jews and hence fulfill Lewis’ first criterion of anti-Semitism. You have right to do so, you say, because Jews themselves are to blame for it. Others are not a subject of your call for a boycott because in your eyes – it would seem – their standards are lower and their self image less positive. Cosmic evil You describe Israeli occupation as an unprovoked act of aggression. You make no attempt whatsoever to balance this description with some background as to the origin of the conflict, some reflection upon the subject of why Jews occupy Arab land, wherefrom come clashes between Jews and Arabs, and perhaps hinting at the responsibility of the Europeans, like yourself, for making lives of Jews very miserable indeed on your own Continent and at many points in your history expelling them from your midst. The implication of your silence as to the motives, reasons, and causes of occupation is that Jews simply represent evil, “cosmic evil” as Bernard Lewis would call it. Although I attempted to prove that your argumentation is more than justifiable critique of Israel but enters the territory of anti-Semitism, I doubt, Mr. Hickey, that you are a committed, passionate anti-Semite. You are just another morally blind intellectual arrogantly and single mindedly pursuing the newest, inspiring cause like those of your predecessors in Great Britain who spoke in favor of Soviet Society when Stalin made a mockery out of justice. I have no desire to stop you, silence the debate, and overturn your boycott although I think you should be aware of the damage you have caused in hearts and minds of people like myself who feel once again betrayed by the British and by the Europeans. Keep doing what you are doing and enjoy yourself, Mr. Hickey! Feel good about yourself and forget that your words might be absurdly misinterpreted as an expression of anti-Semitism! We all need success in life. I wish you a huge success and achievement of the “desirable political effect in Israel, an effect that might not be expected elsewhere.” Respectfully Competing interests: None declared
Should we consider a boycott of Israeli academic institutions? Yes & No 30 July 2007
Imad Uthman, Professor American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut Lebanon Send response to journal: Re: Should we consider a boycott of Israeli academic institutions? Yes & No	So far this debate has stirred an unprecedented number of responses on the poll, with the number of respondents climbing by the hundreds every day to exceed 21,000 votes. This only reflects the magnitude of the Israeli-Arab conflict in this part of the world. Being a native of southern Lebanon, I have witnessed since my childhood the consequences of the various Israeli wars on my country, last but not least the summer 2006 war (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7562/DC1), that caused an unprecedented amount of human and material losses in Lebanon. Naturally, I have voted for a boycott of the Israeli academic institutions. The reason is that besides being a physician, I personally would favor any non-violent approach that would help solve this conflict. I hope that using such means of pressure would be able to spare the lives of Arab and Israeli civilians. Both views of Tom Hickey and Michael Baum seems reasonable, but I must add to this that witnessing the miseries the Palestinians refugees who were driven out of their lands and homes since 1948 would naturally sways my opinion to vote for the boycott. Needless to speak about the daily ordeals faced by the Palestinian population living in Israel, but let’s get a glimpse about the situation of those living in Lebanon. These refugees first came to the country in 1948, with the hope of returning back in a short period, they were assigned some temporary camps to accommodate them. With the hope of a fast return back home, they were not given any civil rights to work in the country. The situation, 60 years later is disastrous, these people are still crowded in the same places, they outnumber half a million persons now, and they are still denied the right to work or get a permanent home in Lebanon, always with the hope of returning home soon. In Lebanon every body is sure that this day may never come. Naturally in these miserable and inhumane conditions, the only outcome to expect is more radicalism and more fertile grounds to breed terrorists among people who have no targets to meet in their lives. On second thoughts, I think that a total boycott of all academic Israeli institutions, would be counter productive, perhaps the boycott should target only the academic institutions with established evidence of segregation against the Palestinian population. I am sure that there will always be reasonable Israeli academicians would still believe in the right of the Palestinians to live in a free state and to have equal civil and academic opportunities as their fellow Israeli people. Now who will determine who is guilty, remains another issue. In this part of the world we have lost hope of the International or United Nations agencies because we believe that they are not fair and always take the side of Israel. Finally, this debate is yet another wake up call to the world that the lack of a fair solution to the Palestinian problem would only set the ground for more hatred and more blood shed in this restless part of the world. Competing interests: None declared
I voted YES..... 30 July 2007
Abe Bird, Journalist on medicine 61002 Br Send response to journal: Re: I voted YES.....	I vote YES. I'm for using medicine concept in order to help terrorists to fight against human western intellectual strongholds as Israel and London. Doctors are and should be trained to help the diseased and if needed to accomplish mission even by blowing themselves in the midst of London in order to provide more task to local hospitals and hospitalities. You see Mr. (?)Tom Hickey, I read you. I vote YES as Dr. (?)Tom Hickey votes and call for Israeli doctors to act the same way and boycott the Palestinians. No more medicinal help for poor Arabs in the territories, they know there how to die self handed whether by bombs or diseases. Or at least they can fly to London. May be Mr. Tom Hickey will volunteer to hospitalize them on his own pound sterlings? Are you ready Mr. Hickey? (A small sarcasm on big Antisemite Brits. I hope my Brits still have some humor). Competing interests: None declared
True dangers of suggested boycott of Israel's academia 30 July 2007
Michael H Martin-Smith, retired GP principal HU5 3EU Send response to journal: Re: True dangers of suggested boycott of Israel's academia	A recent climatic modelling by Californian atmosphere/climate scientists of the probable effects of a postulated exchange of 100 nuclear warheads between India and Pakistan revealed, as a probable consequence, a global cooling effect due to soot deposition in the upper atmosphere which would , essentially, ruin world crop harvests for up to a decade - quite apart from the immediate casualties from blast, fall-out, epidemics,pests and general socio-economic collapse. It is fair to suppose that this appalling catastrophe would, in effect, wreck civilisation and the lives of billions for generations to come. The rulers of India and Pakistan have wisely looked into the abyss, set up a "hot line", and begun tentative discussions to avert the worst. What has this to do with Israel? Quite simply,this. Firstly, Israel has up to 300 nuclear warheads, and has second strike capability. Secondly, whereas India and Pakistan, much as they detest each other, at least recognise the other's right to exist, and do not work for total extermination of their adversary. Thirdly, there is, and can be at present, NO "hotline" between Teheran and Jerusalem, for religious/ideological reasons on the part of Iran. Any proposed measure against Israel must be judged SOLELY on whether it will or will not produce such an elementary first step away from catastrophe Israel, by contrast , is faced with a global combination of Islamists, PC New Leftists, and good old-fashioned antisemites who openly desire and actively work for the annihilation of Israel per se. Even a mass conversion by Israelis to Buddhism, and reduction to an enclave the size of the City of London, would not be enough to assuage the hatred of the enemies of Israel, any more than the total absence of a Jewish State, peaceful or otherwise, obviated the so-called Final Solution in earlier times. These present-day enemies of Israel are increasingly orchestrated to a degree by a regime ( the emerging Islamic Empire of Iran)whose human rights record and fanaticism ensures that if, opportunity ever arose, Israel's 5 million Jews face certain extermination, along with as many others as could be "accessed" for the purpose. In such a situation, faced with extermination in a hostile global climate of opinion, Israel would follow the classic theory of nuclear war,( cf. General Beauffre,Theory and Practice of Nuclear War), and exercise the "Samson Option"; moreover, given the hostility expressed in respectable UK and other Institutions alongside those of Iran et al, would have no reason to stay her hand. Furthermore, rightly or wrongly, a boycott by respected Western Institutions would give aid and comfort to those who avowedly wish to remove Israel, not merely from the Occupied territories, but from the face of the Earth . This being so,a boycott of Israel would be a small but definite step on the road to nuclear war. We cannot afford many more such... I trust I am not alone in believing that , whatever the rights and wrongs of Israel's occupation policies , these pale into insignificance beside the looming danger of nuclear war and its computed results. Until Iran et al set up a hot-line with Israel and openly accord the State of Israel full legal/diplomatic recognition, eventual disaster is a certainty, if only from miscalculation or error. As doctors, the imperative to avert or at any rate not contribute to a nuclear war overrides all else -indeed,it is the only real excuse for us to weigh in at all! If we are to exercise boycotts, it would be more appropriate to boycott those who actively advocate and work for the extermination of a member State of the UN which, moreover, holds the future of civilisation in an increasingly tremulous hand. Israel is exceptional,in summary, in experiencing existential threats in the past, present, and future. What is new is that Israel/Jewry can now exact an appropriate price for any new attempt at its removal! We ignore this central reality at our peril - Nature, thanks to Einstein's famous equation, abhors a fool even more than She does a vacuum. A future Middle East composed of fused glass debris is no future at all - even for Palestinians, who should have learned by now that their "friends" and Brothers in the Umma are a bigger menace to them than their Israeli adversaries have ever been. The proposed boycott is not simply one-sided and unjust, but is also highly dangerous and sure to be ineffective. It must be rejected outright Competing interests: A consuming desire to avoid a looming nuclear disaster
Tom Hickey is to be Congratulated 31 July 2007
Wleed Haq, dentist sy1 4et Send response to journal: Re: Tom Hickey is to be Congratulated	I would like to congadulate Tom Hickey for his courageous article which he has written in the face of predictable and offence accusations of antisemtism which he have seen before levelled against the likes of prominet doctors such as Derick Summerfield who dared to speak out against Israeli attrocities. He has infact highlighted several very important issues facing he Palestinians in regards to access to medical treatment which if were being denied by any other country which promotes itself as the bastion of democaracry would be widely and unanimously condemened by the west. Doing or saying nothing would make us complicit in the collective human rights abuses committed against the Palestinian people. The International Committee of the Red Cross reports " It is estimated that hundreds of thousands of sub-munitions failed to detonate during last year's conflict in southern Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah. A year later and ordinary people continue to live with the threat of death, injury and loss of livelihood posed by cluster munitions and other explosive remnants of war" The examples are numerous: (New York, September 13, 2006) – Israeli security forces launched attacks that harmed Palestinian medical emergency personnel and damaged ambulances on at least six different occasions in the Gaza Strip between May 30 and July 20, Human Rights Watch said today. The six incidents were: On May 30, around 1 a.m., Israeli artillery fired on paramedics in the northern town of Bait Lahiya as they were collecting casualties. One paramedic was injured. Video footage of this incident recorded the sound and detonation of an incoming shell that wounded the paramedic. The footage did not include any audio or video indication of ongoing fighting between Israeli forces and these or other armed Palestinians. On July 12, ambulance paramedics came under Israeli gunfire as they collected casualties in al-Qarrara, southern Gaza Strip, in the early afternoon. On July 19, around 1 a.m. Israeli forces opened fire at the location where a paramedic had just stepped down from an ambulance to collect a casualty in Maghazi Refugee Camp. In a second incident on the morning of July 19, a drone-fired missile landed close to and gravely wounded a driver who was part of a convoy of three ambulances in Maghazi Refugee Camp that was collecting injured persons from an Israeli strike a short while earlier. The bomb also wounded another paramedic less seriously. On July 20, shortly after noontime, a shell that was apparently launched from a ship hit an ambulance en route to collect a casualty on the Sea Road south of Gaza City. In a second incident on July 20, in the evening, a drone-fired missile struck a building near two clearly marked ambulances on the southern edge of Maghazi Refugee Camp, wounding to a driver and paramedic. (Human Rights Watch: Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territories: Don’t Fire on Gaza Medics http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/09/13/isrlpa14185.htm) A message needs the be sent that such treatment is unnacceptable and boycotting israeli Institions is a fair and effective method to put pressure on the Israeli Authorities to stop their state-sponsered crimes against the Palestinian people. Many are the examples one can bring up about the disrepect the Israeli Authorites have shown against medical institutions aiming to provide medical and humanitarian assistance to Palestinians but now is a time to make a stand - this is about providing basic human rights to an occuppied and oft forgotton people. Competing interests: None declared
Re: Why the BMJ ran this debate 1 August 2007
Paul J Malin, Veterinary Surgeon New Mexico, US Send response to journal: Re: Re: Why the BMJ ran this debate	Whatever foolish and bigoted resolution a British union may pass, the response both in Britain and around the world makes it clear that there will be no real boycott just yet. The latest proof comes from Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, whose statement of solidarity with Israeli academics has over 10,000 signatures, from Nobel laureates on down through the scholarly ranks (1). Nevertheless Fiona Godlee, editor of the BMJ, is at best hopelessly naive to host this debate. The boycott leaders are a tiny minority of fringe activists, but they are experienced at navigating union politics and are becoming skilled at manipulating public opinion. A solid, immediate boycott is not the only good outcome for them. They succeed if they simply accustom people to seeing Israel presented as a pariah, unfit to coexist among nations. By giving them a platform the BMJ both amplifies and legitimises these people, and it is a disturbing measure of their success so far that Ms. Godlee can't see the harm in that. Ms. Godlee protests that the BMJ is only providing a debating chamber, and in fact strongly opposes a boycott. A couple of sentences in an editorial buried in four-year-old archives is not exactly a ringing condemnation. Even the Guardian and the Independent, not known for sympathy to Israel, have given a more credible response than that(2,3). It is time the BMJ understood how it is allowing itself to be used to smear a single one out of all the world's nations. Ms. Godlee could do worse than absorb the words of Dr. Fathi Arafat, Yasser's brother, quoted in the BMJ's own obituary(4): "There must be cooperation in health. Nobody can be in his own world." Providing a respectable stage for the politics of extremism is not compatible with cooperation. (1) http://www.surveymk.com//sr.aspx? sm=YjRQ5iQLF0ztfNgS6yJKybK9QP6sRpQub7TJRKgEqMI_3d (2) http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2094247,00.html (3) http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article2600211.ece (4) http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7481/46 Competing interests: None declared
How to Build Medical Joint (BMJ) partnerships in the Middle East 1 August 2007
David R Katz, Prof of Immunopathology Univesity College London W1T4JF Send response to journal: Re: How to Build Medical Joint (BMJ) partnerships in the Middle East	I was reluctant to comment on the head to head debate (21st July). I was tempted to ignore it. What needed to be said - opposition to a boycott of Israel - has been said by the British Medical Association, and confirmed by Dr Nathanson in her response. For me, it is absurd that the BMJ should use the same banner to compare the broad general significance of drug advertising in medical journals (14th July) with ballots at a small British trade union. This reluctance was not intended to diminish or deny the tragedy of those injured, maimed, psychologically damaged and killed on every side of the prolonged Middle East conflict. Rather, it was to express my distaste for the abuse of the BMJ by Hickey, who has unknown medical credentials, less distinguished academic status than that of my friend and colleague Michael Baum; and who did not attempt to focus on medical issues (academic or otherwise), or on serious constructive initiatives. But, regrettably, consultation suggested this might be misinterpreted as “boycott”, either of Hickey, or of the BMJ (more particularly of the commissioning editor, whose published Middle East record does not inspire confidence in journalistic impartiality). Like Baum, and like many Israeli and Palestinian physicians, I have to engage, to explain that protests about abuses of process against other countries (like no doubt Hickey and many of his Jewish supporters, I am no stranger to such activities!) are targeted at Governments, rather than at the legitimacy of the countries themselves. To-day about half of all Jews live in Israel, so that, flawed as it may sometimes be, a significant component of any “Jewish” slant is formulated there. I have to ask whether (a) his Jewish supporters are involved in Jewish activities, promoting knowledge and understanding of Judaism, in fora other than this; and (b) planned academic programmes in UK universities and medical schools should make this 'debate' a key focus? Allowing Jewish academics and students to run the risk that a racist anti- Semitic slogan and / or poster might emerge during the debate, despite the enormous care he will take to avoid such an occurrence (where we have all failed hitherto, as documented in the Parliamentary Committee on Anti- Semitism)? Do we wish this to be the defining international political priority activity of 2007-8 on UK campuses? I suggest that none of these topics have a place in the BMJ. Their airing owes much to current media fashion and prejudice, so a complaint to the Committee on Publication Ethics may not be as justified as first I thought. They betray ignorance of the contribution that Israeli long term investment in research and development, and thoughtful health service planning, and the professionalism of the Israel Medical Association (IMA), have to offer in any new political configuration that may emerge in the Middle East. When you read Baum’s contribution, look anew at the last BMJ foray into this subject, (October 2006). This prompted a thought: maybe the BMJ could broker serious continuing dialogue on the October 2006 key topics between the IMA and physicians groups from neighbouring countries? Maybe an online poll asking whether or not people favour such activities would not have been as offensive as opening your webspace to a simplistic “pro / anti-boycott” poll? As chairman of the Jewish Medical Association (UK) I am confident that the majority of my colleagues would support and help to facilitate such dialogue strongly. (Prof) David R Katz Competing interests: (David Katz is an observant Jew, a member of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, worked for some years in Israel, and has many professional and personal links with Israel).
No boycott in international science 2 August 2007
Giorgio Coen, President of Hospital via Dandolo 75, 00153 Rome, Italy Send response to journal: Re: No boycott in international science	I spent all my life doing clinical research and always appreciated the international value of science and the exchange of views between fellows of many, many countries. To speak of a boycott of a country for political reasons whatever they are is against all my beliefs and a real regression to past times. Communist countries did not participate some of their scientific advances, a fact which made their research less internationally controlled by experts in the field. And also the fascist countries did not like internationally diffused science and boycotted the antifascist, mainly anglosaxon english speaking countries. I recently listened to a lecture by the recent israeli nobel laureate Dr Ciechanower. He was born in Israel in 1947 at the time of the foundation of the state. He made a remarkable career studying for decades a very important and exciting area of cell biology. His discovery of the Ubiquitin system is an extraordinary peace of work and advancement, entirely developed in his country. I think that anyone proposing a boycott of Israeli science should coherently refrain from reading and utilizing his basic work, receiving for himself from this boycotting aptitude a real personal damage for loss of important knowledge. I think that boycott is an odd way to approach political problems, so many in the world. I think also that no one should be able to judge other societies with the presumption of being without defects, feeling superior to other countries. Are European countries so sure not to have hidden skeletons in their backyards ? Competing interests: None declared
Only one side of the story 2 August 2007
Claude Bachmeyer, MD Paris, 75020 Send response to journal: Re: Only one side of the story	Tom Hickey considers that a boycott of Israeli academic institutions will help Palestinians suffering under « Israeli Occupation ». In a few words he summarizes a conflict lasting for a few decades. He cannot accept the “delays, harassment, and humiliation at checkpoints…” of tutors and students… But he does not say a word about suicide bombers and kassam rockets killing Israeli citizens (including Medicine Doctors) leading to the security fence and checkpoints. Which Palestine college or university condemned these crimes? He dares to compare Israel (the only democracy in Middle-east) with Iran, Saudi Arabia, China…, but he should also list Syria, Yemen, and Sudan... Does he know that Palestinians may attend Israeli Universities? That Arabs take part in Parliamentary life in Israel? Competing interests: None declared
What can Clinician-Scientists Bring to this Debate ? 6 August 2007
A. Joseph Layon, Professor and Chief University of Florida College of Medicine, Zori, Robert Send response to journal: Re: What can Clinician-Scientists Bring to this Debate ?	To the Editors: First we thank you and Doctors Hickey and Baum for initiating this debate. This exchange mirrors the problems inherent in any discussion of the Palestinian - Israeli issue: Professor Hickey talks about being vilified for his attempt to discuss - not initiate action, but discuss - a response to a moral issue: the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israeli Government. Professor Baum does not take up the question as to whether a Discussion should be initiated, but argues that consideration of a boycott is equivalent to a condemnation of Israel and its’ universities. Although these are not the same questions, we understand the dilemma of both view- points. At risk of oversimplification, we approach this controversy as a medical student observing a debate by specialists over a patient’s complex medical problem: to distill facts from opinions. Perhaps we should start with a discussion of the problem, that it to say, that treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis. Professor Baum argues that “…There are two narratives concerning the tragic history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both have verity, yet they are recounted as if one had the monopoly of truth….”. This is true. We are scientists and physicians, not religious or political figures. The first part of any scientific experiment starts with a definition of the problem. When science works well, we agree on the known and unknown, and then design experiments to clarify the unknowns. Should we not first sit together to look at the information we have, determining common ground upon which we can agree, and from there begin discussions as to what needs to be investigated ? The most exciting experiments are those which shed light upon our incorrect preconceptions and open new areas to be investigated. It we start from this point, our analysis is as follows: 1. We would ask: As regards the Palestinian - Israeli conflict, is there oppression of the Palestinians and, if so, does it rise to a level that warrants a response ? Are the Universities a part of this problem, are they complicit ? It is in the answer to this query that there is presently conflict; without agreement on this, it is difficult to have further Discussion. 2. Once the problems raised in # 1 are agreed upon, the next questions are: Should there be a response ? What is the response if there should be one ? Is not one of the central problems of the Mideast crisis one’s conception of appropriate versus inappropriate response ? 3. If # 2 is answered that some response is warranted, is a boycott the appropriate response ? Is the issue being considered of such magnitude that our response allows us to break the collegial bonds holding academic institutions together ? The only way this could be answered in the affirmative is if the Israeli Universities are centers of support for morally unjust policies. Then, we must also ask if a boycott makes possible doing more good than harm ? It should be possible to understand and help heal the wounds - past and present - suffered by the Jewish people, while still standing for justice for Palestinians. In fact, the commentators note very clearly that justice is required for both peoples. Are the Israeli institutions simply mouth-pieces for the flawed and dangerous policies of the Government ? Professor Hickey has not proven that point. While we have no reason to doubt Professor Hickey’s assertion that “…No Israeli college or university has publicly condemned what is being done in the Occupied Territories in the name of every Israeli citizen…”, this is not enough. First of all, we must remember that in each of our societies, the administrators who become university leaders are often politically conservative, if not compromised in some fashion. What matters more is whether there are attempts within those Universities to right the wrongs of the Occupation. Having worked with Israeli and Palestinian colleagues, we know there are ongoing struggles for peace with justice occurring within these institutions, using the tools at their disposal. This is the strongest reason not to move forward with a boycott: We need to use our skills and contacts to increase the interactions between us and our Palestinian and Israeli colleagues; not less, but more. Is there - as posited in query # 3 - a chance of doing more harm than good with a boycott ? In thinking this through, we are struck, again and again, by the thought that inappropriate responses often impede a solution to a problem. We need to talk more, not less. Interact more, not less. All the while, we need to make clear that we expect and demand a peace that is just. If we, as scientists and physicians cannot do this, who can ? Our politicians - indeed the world - need our example. We, of all people, cannot fail. We cannot allow our prejudices to reflect the incompetence and moral compromise of our political leadership. Reading our colleague's comments makes clear to us both their passion and humanity. Through our contacts, we are attempting an approach similar to that initiated by David Baum, referred to in Professor Baum’s comment. We are building relationships between Israelis at Tel Aviv University, Palestinians at the Makassed Hospital in East Jerusalem, and our institution as our part of a solution. Further, we argue that the next step might be one that brings together interested “healers” to identify the “pain” and determine responses to alleviate the symptom; perhaps the only result of this conference would be to identify those responses which are inappropriate. Even if there were only a few of us - and we actually think there are many - we would rather stand with our Israeli and Palestinian colleagues who demand a just peace, than walk away. We are, after all - despite our differing politics and religions - united in a common oath: Primum non nocere. A. Joseph Layon, MD, FACP Professor of Anesthesiology Surgery and Medicine, Chief, Division of Critical Care Medicine Robert Zori, MD Professor of Pediatrics, Chief, Division of Genetics University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida, USA 32610-0254 Competing interests: None declared
The BMJ should not be a political forum 7 August 2007
Bob Dunkley, Community Pharamcist Eightlands Pharmacy Dewsbury WF13 2PA Send response to journal: Re: The BMJ should not be a political forum	As a *paid* subscriber to the BMJ, I despair of the political argument carried on in its pages. I value the clinical content of the BMJ, and to have various parties with axes to grind airing their views in the pages of the Journal somewhat devalues my subsription, as clinical content must, by pressure of space be held over. Let those who have vehement views in this argument air their views elsewhere. Bob Dunkley Competing interests: None declared
A typical case of positive prejudice 9 August 2007
Jose M Thalenberg, M.D., Ph.D. Federal University of São Paulo - Brazil Send response to journal: Re: A typical case of positive prejudice	"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 is a typical case of positive prejudice.The Israelis must be punished because they are not poor barbarians (like the Arabs, Mr Hickey? Is there a hidden negative prejudice in your statement?). Positive and negative prejudices are the two sides of the same coin. Besides, your proposal is as smart as the American boycott to Cuba. The blockade will make the Cuban people put down Fidel Castro because Cubans must eat three times a day. Indeed?!! Competing interests: The same as Dr. Baum.
Science and morality 9 August 2007
Dr. Abid Hussain, SHO Psychiatry, Birmingham b24 9sa Send response to journal: Re: Science and morality	Science looks to explain and rationalise the human environment into way which can be better understood by us humans. Since all humans have the same rights science is intimately linked with morality. People’s rights are linked with their cultural roots and places of existence. The illegal occupation of Palestine goes against all of these fundamental rights. In the west we are veiled from the inhumane demolition of Palestinian settlements by a media machine. You will not hear the screams and helpless cries of how whole Palestinian families being murdered or entombed under the rubble of their own home whilst an Israeli bulldozer gets to work. Nor will you hear how the Israeli government prevents medical supplies from reaching Palestinian Hospitals. If people really value science and the advancement of knowledge then they should question there our selves about the acceptance of published material from a state which terrorises its neighbours. Competing interests: None declared
Let science be science 9 August 2007
Roland Rosmond, MD, PhD, associate professor University of Gothenburg, Sweden Send response to journal: Re: Let science be science	The idea to drag a specific political notion into the world of science is self-destructive. There are by far more appropriate places for political debates than within the scientifically community. Let at least science in general, and medical science in particular, be free from the ghosts of political anti-Semitism. Competing interests: None declared
Civilized Israeli Occupation 25 August 2007
nizar Shakhshir, SpR Cardiology Cardiff Uk cf14 4xw Send response to journal: Re: Civilized Israeli Occupation	Some people say that this is a political rather than a scintific debate , I believe the opposite . When the Nazi's conducted unethical scientific expirements, the world decided not to aknowledge these experiments nor their results because it was unethical , so science and politics go hand by hand . The israeli occupation is unethical, serving as an occupation army soldier on a west bank check point preventing pregnant women and ill patients from reaching a hospital is unethical, preventing students and tutors from reaching their school and University is also unethical . UNfortunately serving in the occupation Israeli army is mandatory for the Israelis, and only few risk being imprisoned for refusing thst unethicsl servise . By saying yes we send a strong segnal to those academics saying that we do condemn that unethical occupation , and we urge them to do something about it . talking about suicide bombers and rockets in israeli cities , have you asked yourself a question about why an 18 year old man or woman would kill himself ? When I used to work in Palestine I had many phonecalls from Patients asking me how can I help as they are at the check point and refused entry to the city and cant reach the hospital , My answer was God help you . I recomend watching a movie called Paradise now ( Was nominated for the OSCAR but had a strong Israeli loby against it ). Competing interests: Palestinian doctor who worked under occupation .
Humanity or hypocrisy 26 August 2007
Barry Bub, Educator author 3014 Chapel Ave Cherry Hill NJ 08002 Send response to journal: Re: Humanity or hypocrisy	Open letter to the members of the New York Institute of Gestalt Therapy Yesterday I read articles in the British Medical Journal discussing the proposed boycott of Israeli academics. I encounter the same hypocritical illogical thinking with regards to my home country - great enthusiasm for boycotting apartheid-era South African institutions (white government); silence when a black-run government supports the death of half a million AIDS victims a year. This deliberate inaction re AIDS has been labeled as genocide by many South African activists. Last week the only high level South African official dealing effectively with the crisis was fired by the government. Silence from the world community. Does England boycott the academics of surrounding Arab countries that prevent citizenship and limit Palestinian rights? Not to my knowledge. A few weeks ago I asked that we take a position asking the Association for the Advancement of Gestalt Therapy to make it clear that unlike other professional organizations in England, Israeli gestalt academics would be welcome at the conference. There were three responses, otherwise silence. Hopefully this was just due to summer doldrums. A few months earlier when it was proposed that we issue a statement in support of human rights for terrorists in captivity there was an outpouring of solid support, including myself. There is no question that Israel is an imperfect society and its Utopian goals have (alas) been eroded by 50 years of struggle for survival. Yet civilized societies do not ban free speech, discussion and debate, intellectual discourse, or sharing of academic information in the interest of making this a better world. We do not issue fatwa’s banning an individual, no less all academics or doctors from a given country, when we do not like what is being said or written. By outlawing academic contact with faculty from Israel or any other country, England is planning to follow the lead of those opposed to the painstakingly evolved values of western civilization. With the annual AAGT meeting due to be held in England next summer, we have an opportunity to make ourselves heard, to be a voice for rationality and freedom of academic expression in a world living in fear rather than concern for justice. Barry Bub MD Competing interests: None declared
Response to Dr. DA Summerfield 5 September 2007
Michael Baum, Emeritus Professor of Surgery UCL Portland Hospital, London W1 Send response to journal: Re: Response to Dr. DA Summerfield	Response to Dr. Summerfield. I feel no moral obligation to respond to Dr. Summerfield's latest vilification the Israel Medical Association (IMA) as it is merely voicing another iteration of his well documented hatred for Israel.[1,2,] An earlier version of this recurring calumny appeared in the Guardian in May this year. In a dignified response submitted to the BMJ, signed by Dr. Yoram Blachar, president of the IMA and 1,000 senior physicians from all round the world, his arguments were refuted. (See web page; http://www.ima.org.il/Ima/FormStorage/Type1/IMA_UK_boycott.doc and also http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/334/7599/871-e?ck=nck#166645). Incidentally Dr. Blachar has recently concluded his successful term of office as chairman of council of the World Medical Association (WMA) whilst Leah Wapner, IMA’s Secretary-General, has just been appointed Secretary-General of the European Forum of Medical Associations (EFMA). If Dr. Summerfield’s version of the truth is correct then you would have to believe in a world wide conspiracy to legitimize the IMA involving a thousand physicians, the WMA and the EFMA. The IMA is no more an arm of the Israeli government than the BMA is an arm of the British government but Dr. Summerfield still doesn't seem to accept that fact. I have therefore been in touch with the IMA directly and they assure me that their full response is currently with the letter editor of the BMJ.[Editorial note: please see next response in this string.] Michael Baum [1] Summerfield DA, What is the WMA for? The case of the Israeli Medical Association. Lancet. 2003 Feb 1;361(9355):424; discussion 425-6. [2]Summerfield DA Medical ethics, the Israeli Medical Association, and the state of the World Medical Association: Open letter to the BMA. BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):561; Competing interests: None declared
Scientific Journals should not engage themselves in Political Polling 5 September 2007
Yoram Blachar, President, Israeli Medical Association 2 Twin Towers, 35 Jabotinsky St. Ramat Gan 52136, Israel Send response to journal: Re: Scientific Journals should not engage themselves in Political Polling	3.8.07 The urge of the BMJ editors and editorial staff to engage in political matters, expressed in their recent preoccupation with the proposed academic boycott against Israel, is simply unexplainable. For several years the BMJ has gradually changed its role from being one of the foremost medical journals, one which publicized clinical trials and studies in the fields of medical and life sciences, to one which deals with matters entirely outside the purview of a respected scientific journal, and even those matters are not treated equally. For example, there was no critical self-searching in the BMJ that I can recall during the period of extremist violence in Ireland or any condemnation of the inhumane treatment carried out by certain British soldiers against Iraqi civilians. Since one can assume that the academic institutions in Britain such as Oxford, Cambridge and others did not bear responsibility for what was happening in the political arena, including blatant violations of human rights, the question of whether to impose upon them an academic boycott simply did not arise. Consequently, this continued fixation with human rights in the Israeli-Palestinian realm is puzzling at best, and makes one wonder why we have merited such singular treatment when there is no lack of places in the world where human rights are trampled, to the point of genocide. For some reason, the voice of the BMJ is silent regarding the atrocities in Darfur and Sudan, the murder of millions in Congo, the carnage in other countries and the unabashed breaches of human rights in China, where organs are removed from prisoners awaiting execution, not to mention the treatment of the Falun Gong. Yet the BMJ has not seen fit to debate the wisdom of a boycott of Chinese academic institutions, nor have they made it the topic of an opinion poll. And rightly so: just as the idea of a boycott of Israeli academic institutions is foolish, pointless and punishes exactly those who are most active in providing help to people in need, so, too, a boycott of Chinese academic institutions would serve no purpose. Therefore, one must unequivocally protest this attempt on the part of the BMJ to deal with political issues, particularly the complex, long standing conflict in the Middle East. As an example of such complexity one can consider the recent proposal of Qatar, a member of the UN Security Council, regarding the serious humanitarian situation in Gaza. This proposal was blocked by none other than the Palestinian delegation, in an apparently censurable attempt to defend and excuse the Hamas, whose leaders have aggravated an already difficult situation. Such action is worthy of condemnation by everyone, including those British academics who are so quick to delegitimize Israel, since the actions of these Palestinian representatives blocked the discussion of a serious humanitarian topic in an international forum. If British academicians and doctors wish to help the suffering and downtrodden, they would do well to stop dealing with harmful, counter- productive opinion polls on academic boycotts of Israel and begin to channel their energy toward easing the suffering in Gaza. The BMJ, too, should forego dabbling in politics, and return to being a valued and respected medical journal, in keeping with its distinguished tradition. Competing interests: Dr Yoram Blachar is president of the Israeli Medical Association.
Go and see the truth for yourself. I did. 7 October 2007
Asad Khan, Specialist Registrar, Respiratory Medicine Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester, M23 9LT Send response to journal: Re: Go and see the truth for yourself. I did.	I have been following the debate in these columns with a mixture of interest and incredulity. I wonder how many of those who accuse Tom Hickey and Derek Summerfield of 'anti-Israel bias' and 'anti-Semitism' have actually visited the West Bank or Gaza to see the facts for themselves. I had the good fortune to visit Israel and the West Bank for two weeks in August. What I saw there changed my life forever. We spent a lot of time at checkpoints in the West Bank. Unfortunately, the word 'checkpoint' sounds so benign that it hardly conveys the horror of the place. Have you seen a cattle shed crammed full of animals? With only one gate to get out, guarded by a farmer with a stick? Well, just replace him with an Israeli soldier with a rifle- and the animals with Palestinians- and you're not far. At Huwwara checkpoint near Nablus, we saw a queue extending for half a kilometre out of the cramped shed and into the merciless sun. One by one, the Palestinians were called forward and their documents inspected. Some got through, others were turned back. Depending on the mood of the soldier. The explanation given for the checkpoints- 'security'- is a lie, as the barriers mostly stand between Palestinian cities and towns, not between Palestine and Israel. Israel, through its system of 700 checkpoints, roadblocks and earth mounds in the West Bank strangles the Palestinians' freedom of movement. 68 women have been forced to give birth at checkpoints since the year 2000 (www.ifamericansknew.org). Half of the babies involved have died, as have 4 of the women. Many of the babies born have suffered irreversible brain damage. Imagine being the helpless husband or son of a woman forced to endure the pain of labour on the baking earth at a checkpoint- with an armed soldier looking on- and you will begin to understand how suicide bombers are born. 18000 houses have been demolished by Israel since 1967, often over the heads of their inhabitants (Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions- www.icahd.org). The reason given again? The big lie- security. The truth is that even if a Palestinian owns a piece of land, to build or extend an existing dwelling on it, he must put in an application costing $20000. This is almost uniformly rejected, and as his family grows, he is forced to build illegally. Then in come the bulldozers. The Palestinian then has to clear the rubble themselves and pay the Israeli government for the cost of demolishing his house. There have been several references in these columns to the attempted terrorist attacks by Muslim doctors in Britain. Such people would do well to remember that the first 'doctor terrorist' was Jewish- Baruch Goldstein, who gunned down 29 Palestinians at prayer in the city of Hebron in 1994, injuring 150 others. A shrine to Goldstein has been erected in the fanatical settlement of Kiryat Arba- a plaque there reads: "To the holy Baruch Goldstein, who gave his life for the Jewish people, the Torah and the nation of Israel". It has become a pilgrimage site for those with extreme right-wing views. In the old city of Hebron, 400 fanatical settlers- protected by Israeli Defence Force soldiers- hold 30000 Palestinians to ransom. They stone and kick the inhabitants, while the Israeli army forbids Palestinians to drive- in some areas, even to walk- on the streets. I saw for myself the concrete blocks, rubbish and human excrement thrown down onto passing Palestinians by the illegal settlers occupying the flats above Arab shops. The racist graffiti is shocking: - 'Arabs to the gas chambers!' - 'Watch out Fatima, we will rape all Arabs!' - 'Mohammed is a pig'. Below this is a drawing of a pig reading the Quran. - 'If you Arabs had just used a f***ing condom, then none of this would have happened!' (If anybody finds this unbelievable, give me your email address and I shall be all too happy to send you photographic evidence.) Walking through old Hebron, you pass row upon row of abandoned shops with their doors welded together and spray-painted with the Star of David. The resonance of the Warsaw ghetto is chilling. As for the stance that Israel is the 'only democracy in the Middle East' and 'treats all its citizens equally', I invite you to visit the Negev desert in Israel. The Israeli organization Physicians for Human Rights (www.phr.org.il) told us of the plight of Bedouins there. There are 60 villages which have existed before 1948, the existence of which Israel does not recognize. As a result they have no healthcare, electricity or clean water. Their infant mortality rate is 7 times the Israeli average- in the 4th richest country in the world, with possibly the best healthcare system anywhere. Those who grieve at the potential loss of academic freedom that a boycott of Israel may cause would do well to learn about the violation of Palestinian academic freedom. We visited Birzeit University just outside Ramallah. There we were told by Yasser Darwish, the Public Relations officer for the institution, how during the Second Intifada the Israelis constructed a checkpoint between Ramallah city and Birzeit. This checkpoint was nothing but a series of earth mounds, piles of rubble and huge rocks stretching for a mile and a half- with the sole purpose of obstructing the passage of people. This was not all- people trying to reach the University by walking around the obstacles were often greeted with beatings, rubber bullets and teargas. Sometimes students and teachers would be allowed to go to Birzeit in the morning but the checkpoint would be completely closed in the afternoon when it was time to go home. 5000 students and teachers would then have to take a circuitous route over hills and through valleys to get home- this would take upto 2 hours. Students- including females- were subjected to humiliating body searches. Soldiers stormed the women's dormitories on several occasions, breaking windows, doors and furniture. Electricity, water and telephone lines in Birzeit and Ramallah were cut off, isolating people from the outside world. Healthcare is not a 'basic human right' in Palestine. It is incredible that some people have been highlighting the graciousness of Israel in agreeing to treat wounded and ill Palestinians. Under the Geneva conventions, an occupying power has responsibility for the health of the people it occupies. In Nablus, we visited Rafidia Hospital, the main general hospital. We were met by Dr Sadaqah, the Deputy Director. He told us that each time the Israelis invade Nablus, the first thing they do is to encircle the hospital, preventing the passage of staff and patients and resulting in unnecessary deaths. Sometimes patients need to be transferred to hospitals in Jerusalem or Israel- however the Israeli authorities create hurdles at every opportunity. Often by the time permission is obtained (a minimum of 2 days even for an emergency), the patient dies- this happened to a burns patient two days before our visit. At the height of the 2002-2003 invasions and curfews, Rafidia received 8-9 cases of serious injuries every day. Staff ended up living in the hospital for 23 days. The Israeli army prevented casualties from the Old City from going to Rafidia- a clinic was set up in a mosque in the Old City to deal with them. Dr Sadaqah told us that this clinic had to perform two emergency amputations without anaesthesia. The Israelis would also prevent bodies from being taken for burial- as a result the hospital morgue overflowed and ice-cream trucks had to be used to store the bodies. He also told us that the Israelis would regularly enter the hospital, and actually removed 4 patients from their beds. One of these was actually an intensive care patient who had just returned from major surgery. When the doctors and nurses asked for reasons, they were simply pushed aside. We were horrified to learn that when the soldiers removed patients from the hospital, they were accompanied by Israeli doctors who never tried to stop this happening. The soldiers would often remove patients from ambulances while they 'checked' them. Do you hear the Israeli Medical Association protesting against these gross violations of human rights by Israel? I had the good fortune to interview two students from Al Quds University Medical School in Jerusalem. To understand the unique situation that al-Quds students- and indeed all Palestinian Jerusalemites- face, it is important to revisit 1967 when Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza, and illegally annexed East Jerusalem. Israel declared Jerusalem to be 'the unified capital of Israel'; a position not recognized by the international community, including the United States. The Palestinian residents of Jerusalem were offered Israeli citizenship- however this entailed pledging allegiance to Israel. Unsurprisingly, most of them declined. They were therefore declared 'residents' without citizenship, and are obliged to carry blue Jerusalem ID cards. The space next to 'Nationality' on these cards is blank. The residents of the West Bank, in contrast, carry green ID cards. Blue ID holders cannot travel to the West Bank, and those with green ID cannot enter Jerusalem. This situation has divided families- including married couples. If a Jerusalem resident marries a West Bank Palestinian, it is forbidden for them to live together either in the West Bank or Jerusalem. As a result, many couples live illegally, in constant fear that one of them will be discovered and expelled. The only precedent to this obscene situation is that of South Africa under apartheid. The students explained that the campus of the medical school is located in the Jerusalem suburb of Abu Dis. The main teaching hospital- Maqassed- is in the city proper. You used to be unable to tell where Abu Dis ended and Jerusalem started. Not any more. Israel's Separation Wall has separated the two and for all practical purposes, Abu Dis is now in the West Bank. One of the students told us that of the 40 students in his year, 5 have blue ID and the rest green. You can imagine the consequences. To go to Maqassed for their training, students with green ID need a special permit- which is very difficult to obtain. Even those who manage to get one can never be sure they will make it to the hospital as they are frequently turned away at the checkpoint for no reason. Therefore most green ID students are forced to travel to West Bank hospitals for their clinics- across more checkpoints. The converse situation is that blue ID students may be able to attend clinics but are often stopped from going to lectures in Abu Dis. And this is no straightforward trip- a journey that should take no more than ten minutes can last an hour and a half due to checkpoints and the circuitous route the students have to take. When they do manage to qualify, al-Quds doctors are prohibited from working in hospitals in Jerusalem and Israel as their qualification is not recognized by Israel. The West Bank hospitals are only an option for those with green ID. This situation forces many to go abroad. As for those who claim that Israel, with its violations of human rights, is 'merely defending itself', I would like to bring to your attention the following statistic from the BBC: In 2006, 660 Palestinians were killed by Israeli 'security' forces. These included 141 children. The total number of Israelis killed by Palestinians in 2006? 23. Follow the link below for the story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6215769.stm Now that I am back in the UK- and have opened my mouth in these columns- I know I shall be accused of being anti-Semitic. This is intellectually bankrupt nonsense. I have many Jewish friends in Britain, and now in Israel as well. They are disgusted at what Israel is doing, and are fighting a brave and often dangerous battle, sometimes at the expense of being ostracized by family and friends. The leading critics of Israeli policy- Noam Chomsky, Amira Hass, Ilan Pappe, Norman Finkelstein, the late Tanya Reinhart- are all Jewish. This is not a centuries-old Jews versus Muslims conflict. (Also remember- 12% of Palestinians are Christians, and this number includes leading figures like Hanan Ashrawi and the late Edward Said.) It is a matter of basic human rights. If one is criticizing house demolitions, checkpoints, extrajudicial executions etc, and one is accused of being anti-Semitic, then the accuser is bizarre indeed. In order for these criticisms to be anti-Semitic, the accuser has to accept those violations of international law as inherent characteristics of Judaism. So who is being anti-Semitic here? Another question I am likely to be asked is, 'There are so many conflicts in the world today- why are you so obsessed with Palestine?' In case you hadn't guessed by now, justice for Palestine is the key to peace in the Middle East. It is a festering sore in the flesh of every Arab; the longer it goes on, the more resentful of the West they become. Yes, there are many terrible conflicts like Darfur, Somalia, the Congo, Chechnya and Kashmir. But these are relatively recent, while the oppression of the Palestinians has been going on for 60 years. It is the longest ongoing occupation in the world today- and the only one apart from Iraq. And the only one where the oppressor is being financed and armed to the teeth by the 'civilized' world. You may wonder what all this has got to do with the debate over a boycott. Well, despite individual dissenting voices, it is clear that Israeli academia and the Israeli Medical Association have failed to come out as a body and condemn the occupation. This is despite repeated calls by Palestinian, Israeli and international human rights organizations. By their silence, they are complicit in human rights abuses- I have no choice but to campaign for a boycott. The 'exchange of ideas' has led nowhere- despite years of talks at governmental level, a just peace for the Palestinians remains a distant dream. It is time for people in other countries to adopt measures to stigmatize Israel, something which their governments refuse to do. There is a precedent- South Africa. Given the fact that many prominent South Africans- including Nelson Mandela, Ronnie Kasrils and Desmond Tutu- have publicly said that Israel's oppression of the Palestinians is far worse than South Africa under apartheid- why the hesitation to enforce a boycott? As for those who sympathize with the Palestinians but are against boycotts, I have a simple question- in that case, what are they going to do for the Palestinians- whom the world has boycotted and abandoned for so long? If the academic freedom of Israelis is sacred, should that not apply to Palestinians as well? For a full account of my trip, please visit http://chestdocinpalestine.blogspot.com Competing interests: I am a Muslim who refuses to be labelled an anti-Semite simply for criticizing the oppressive policies of the Israeli state.