I have subscribed to the BMJ for some 35 years and yet still learn
from the
journal of uncertainties in how to treat otitis media.
But I need read the BMJ for only a month or so to find out the absolute
truth
about the Middle East and that the true villain is
Israel. Report after report presents “evidence” for this and now an
article,
years after the events, also tells me of the “perils” of
criticizing Israel. Perils? Has someone been shot or attacked? Have homes
or
offices been vandalized? Has there been a fatwa?
Has someone been stabbed for making a critical film? No; someone has had a
lot of emails 4 years ago.
Is Karl Sabbagh’s article a personal view? Not many personal views
get
editorial endorsement. Is this a scientific paper? Clearly
not or it would perhaps show an analysis of responses to a statistically
valid
number of other articles critical of Israel. And
possibly compare with the responses to control articles or to articles
critical
of the Palestinian administration or of Hamas. Is
such research in process?
So is this maybe relevant to some on-going “peril” that has arisen
after
criticizing Israel or some on-going bullying, as the
editorial team implies? The BMJ published a recent report (BMJ 2009: 338:
b170) about conditions in Gaza. This was written during
the war and based largely on quotes from someone who is on record as
saying that 9/11 was just what certain people deserved
(where, incidentally, was that declaration of interest?). That report
generated
7 rapid responses. These are your “sinister forces”
?
This is “peril” ? This is “bullying”? You’d get more reaction to a wrong
recipe
for chicken soup.
As for these present articles, after 3 days these have generated
about 30
responses. What irony, or maybe disappointment, that
articles referring to “sinister forces” and “orchestrated campaigns” and
“bullying” induce such a feeble torrent.
And talking of sinister forces, may I query why you publish this now?
It surely
cannot be because 4 years were needed for
complex number crunching and peer reviews. And certainly not because of
the intellectual sophistication of the analysis of the
emails. It strains credulity that it has taken 4 years to get a legal
opinion. So
why now? Is it offered as a contribution to the
current bien-pensant, chic and nonchalant climate of opinion that vilifies
Israel and her advocates, before reaching for another
croissant? I only ask.
Jonathan Freedland has suggested you develop a thicker skin. I think
I know
of what he speaks. If Karl Sabbagh, Kamran Abbassi
, and the editorial team want to learn about real peril and sinister
forces, look
at the Guardian’s “ Comment is Free” section for
the hundreds of overwhelmingly hostile responses that follow with hours
any
article even vaguely supportive of Israel. Read,
say, Mr Freedland’s article on 4th Feb 09 about left wing bias against
Israel.
Within a few days that generated in excess of 800
responses most of which were full of loathing for Jews (spare me also the
sophistry of the distinction between Israelis and Jews)
and which condoned, excused or encouraged violence against Jews. And that
omits the comments deleted by the moderators
which did not, one assumes, suggest hug a Jew today. That is a concerted
response and that is peril. Not the sort of “peril” or
indeed “bullying” that may have given your writers pause between sips of
coffee but peril and bullying that finds real physical
expression now in attacks on Israeli shops in Kensington, attacks on Jews
old
and young in London and Manchester, the
vandalizing of a synagogue in Venezuela and the need for a heightened
level
of security in synagogues across the UK.
The BMJ could stick to being an academic journal and argue about p-
values .
It is much the better for not doing so. But when
the journal does go into areas outside its acknowledged expertise, it is
putting views to a wider audience that will include
people better informed on many issues than you are. People, who quite
legitimately may get irritated when publication in the
BMJ gives a spurious veracity to what may be no more than opinion and who,
horror, express their views. Your editorial has drawn in evidence
4 year old data which is unremarkable as compared to responses to
controversial issues in other media right now. The few
responses to far more recent articles criticizing Israel give the lie to
your
assertions of peril and bullying. And on such a feeble
basis
you proclaim your fears of "sinister forces" to the world and congratulate
yourselves on your principled stance.
This demeans the BMJ from whom I'd welcome rather more certainty
about
treating otitis media and rather less certainty about
the rights and wrongs of the situation in the Middle East.
Rapid Response:
Evidence does not support conclusions.
Dear Madam
I have subscribed to the BMJ for some 35 years and yet still learn
from the
journal of uncertainties in how to treat otitis media.
But I need read the BMJ for only a month or so to find out the absolute
truth
about the Middle East and that the true villain is
Israel. Report after report presents “evidence” for this and now an
article,
years after the events, also tells me of the “perils” of
criticizing Israel. Perils? Has someone been shot or attacked? Have homes
or
offices been vandalized? Has there been a fatwa?
Has someone been stabbed for making a critical film? No; someone has had a
lot of emails 4 years ago.
Is Karl Sabbagh’s article a personal view? Not many personal views
get
editorial endorsement. Is this a scientific paper? Clearly
not or it would perhaps show an analysis of responses to a statistically
valid
number of other articles critical of Israel. And
possibly compare with the responses to control articles or to articles
critical
of the Palestinian administration or of Hamas. Is
such research in process?
So is this maybe relevant to some on-going “peril” that has arisen
after
criticizing Israel or some on-going bullying, as the
editorial team implies? The BMJ published a recent report (BMJ 2009: 338:
b170) about conditions in Gaza. This was written during
the war and based largely on quotes from someone who is on record as
saying that 9/11 was just what certain people deserved
(where, incidentally, was that declaration of interest?). That report
generated
7 rapid responses. These are your “sinister forces”
?
This is “peril” ? This is “bullying”? You’d get more reaction to a wrong
recipe
for chicken soup.
As for these present articles, after 3 days these have generated
about 30
responses. What irony, or maybe disappointment, that
articles referring to “sinister forces” and “orchestrated campaigns” and
“bullying” induce such a feeble torrent.
And talking of sinister forces, may I query why you publish this now?
It surely
cannot be because 4 years were needed for
complex number crunching and peer reviews. And certainly not because of
the intellectual sophistication of the analysis of the
emails. It strains credulity that it has taken 4 years to get a legal
opinion. So
why now? Is it offered as a contribution to the
current bien-pensant, chic and nonchalant climate of opinion that vilifies
Israel and her advocates, before reaching for another
croissant? I only ask.
Jonathan Freedland has suggested you develop a thicker skin. I think
I know
of what he speaks. If Karl Sabbagh, Kamran Abbassi
, and the editorial team want to learn about real peril and sinister
forces, look
at the Guardian’s “ Comment is Free” section for
the hundreds of overwhelmingly hostile responses that follow with hours
any
article even vaguely supportive of Israel. Read,
say, Mr Freedland’s article on 4th Feb 09 about left wing bias against
Israel.
Within a few days that generated in excess of 800
responses most of which were full of loathing for Jews (spare me also the
sophistry of the distinction between Israelis and Jews)
and which condoned, excused or encouraged violence against Jews. And that
omits the comments deleted by the moderators
which did not, one assumes, suggest hug a Jew today. That is a concerted
response and that is peril. Not the sort of “peril” or
indeed “bullying” that may have given your writers pause between sips of
coffee but peril and bullying that finds real physical
expression now in attacks on Israeli shops in Kensington, attacks on Jews
old
and young in London and Manchester, the
vandalizing of a synagogue in Venezuela and the need for a heightened
level
of security in synagogues across the UK.
The BMJ could stick to being an academic journal and argue about p-
values .
It is much the better for not doing so. But when
the journal does go into areas outside its acknowledged expertise, it is
putting views to a wider audience that will include
people better informed on many issues than you are. People, who quite
legitimately may get irritated when publication in the
BMJ gives a spurious veracity to what may be no more than opinion and who,
horror, express their views. Your editorial has drawn in evidence
4 year old data which is unremarkable as compared to responses to
controversial issues in other media right now. The few
responses to far more recent articles criticizing Israel give the lie to
your
assertions of peril and bullying. And on such a feeble
basis
you proclaim your fears of "sinister forces" to the world and congratulate
yourselves on your principled stance.
This demeans the BMJ from whom I'd welcome rather more certainty
about
treating otitis media and rather less certainty about
the rights and wrongs of the situation in the Middle East.
Dr Michael Apple
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests