Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I am deeply concerned by your article which, by partially reflecting
reality, becomes misleading.
To reflect reality would have been to mention that following Israel's
Supreme Court ruling, the State is already providing medical treatment
which,unfortunately, is not the case of neither Jordan nor Egypt where no
human rights organizations have pleaded with their governments to fulfill
their own obligations in providing medical care to refugees.
To reflect reality would have been to mention the fact that Israel is
taking care also of injured fighters in the Hamas-Fatah battles, in
addition to the patients in urgent need of medical treatment.
You have chosen to manipulate reality by publishing a dramatic picture,
bigger than the text, which shows the body of Jamal Al-Yedyan been carried
by obviously distressed Palestinians. The reality is that Mr Al-Yedyan,
was shot dead by Hamas. However, by deliberately avoiding to mention this
critical fact, you have made your readers believe that the picture is
indeed related to the article where Israel is, again, not treated even-
handed.
I would have expected from the BMJ to review and assess this article with
the same rigorous criteria you use when publishing other information.
However, when the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is concerned, you have a
different criteria, both regarding the review and your willingness to
publish. In fact, in the last several years you have chosen to publish, at
least in 6 occasions, articles on this matter, where invariably Israel is
heavily criticized. In contrast, other conflicts and their infringement of
human rights such as Chechnya, or even Afghanistan or Iraq are barely
noticed. I am afraid that no intellectual exercise in the gentle art of
justification can disguise the unavoidable conclusion that hidden behind
your subjectivity is a consistent anti-Israeli attitude and a blatant
politicization of your Institution.
Human rights groups plead for treatment for patients in Gaza
I am deeply concerned by your article which, by partially reflecting
reality, becomes misleading.
To reflect reality would have been to mention that following Israel's
Supreme Court ruling, the State is already providing medical treatment
which,unfortunately, is not the case of neither Jordan nor Egypt where no
human rights organizations have pleaded with their governments to fulfill
their own obligations in providing medical care to refugees.
To reflect reality would have been to mention the fact that Israel is
taking care also of injured fighters in the Hamas-Fatah battles, in
addition to the patients in urgent need of medical treatment.
You have chosen to manipulate reality by publishing a dramatic picture,
bigger than the text, which shows the body of Jamal Al-Yedyan been carried
by obviously distressed Palestinians. The reality is that Mr Al-Yedyan,
was shot dead by Hamas. However, by deliberately avoiding to mention this
critical fact, you have made your readers believe that the picture is
indeed related to the article where Israel is, again, not treated even-
handed.
I would have expected from the BMJ to review and assess this article with
the same rigorous criteria you use when publishing other information.
However, when the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is concerned, you have a
different criteria, both regarding the review and your willingness to
publish. In fact, in the last several years you have chosen to publish, at
least in 6 occasions, articles on this matter, where invariably Israel is
heavily criticized. In contrast, other conflicts and their infringement of
human rights such as Chechnya, or even Afghanistan or Iraq are barely
noticed. I am afraid that no intellectual exercise in the gentle art of
justification can disguise the unavoidable conclusion that hidden behind
your subjectivity is a consistent anti-Israeli attitude and a blatant
politicization of your Institution.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests