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
Rapid Response:
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
Competing interests: No competing interests