Medical ethics, the Israeli Medical Association, and the state of the World Medical Association
BMJ 2003; 327 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.561 (Published 04 September 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;327:561All rapid responses
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.
Recently Alain Finkielkraut was interviewed in Le Figero and
discussed the idea of a new anti-semitism which is based on progressive
politics. <br /><br />
He argues that the intelligentsia and socially concerned have been
<em>"re-stalinized".</em> Concerns about US power since the
fall of communism has lead to people falling into the trap of seeing
conspiracy wherever they look, and this inevitably leads to citing of a
Zionist conspiracy.<br /><br />
He argues that the racist period of anti-Semitism is over, and that
hatred of Jews is expressed solely in the language of anti-racism.<br
/><br />
Quote:<br /><br />
<blockquote><em>Example: the wall. The Israelis, as we
know, have decided to build a security fence along the "green line". The
Israeli left was behind this initiative, aiming to reinforce Israel's
security. The right reluctantly accepted a solution which implied the
renunciation of Greater Israel. The Sharon government traced out the wall,
snipping off a few kilometres of Palestinian territory. This decision was
eminently worthy of criticism: it cut off, for example, the Palestinian
town of Kalkilya. But the discussion which is raging today doesn't express
this sort of legitimate criticism. It denounces the measure as
"apartheid". Etienne Balibar and Henri Korn explain, in Le Monde, that the
wall divides the region between a "population of inmates" and a
"population of prison camp guards". <br /><br />
<strong>What motivates the supporters of the wall of
separation?</strong><br /><br />
It's not racial ideology as in the case of apartheid, it's fear of
Palestinian terrorism. To interpret the Israeli-Palestinian situation
through the lens of anti-racism, is to condemn yourself to understanding
nothing, and moreover to dragging in the most absolute hatred: the racist
is the enemy of humanity. If Israel is a race of camp guards, how can we
not celebrate when an Israeli is killed? Isn't it one less Mengele? And
nothing stops this hatred: the Jews of France who support a race of camp
guards are complicit in the worst of crimes. This is the way they stick a
swastika on the chests of those on whom they used to stick a yellow star.
An animosity is displayed which becomes impossible to reason with and very
hard to combat, because, in order to nazify the Jews, it makes use of the
very memory of what happened to them.</em></blockquote>
<br /><br />
<a
href="http://europundits.blogspot.com/2003_09_01_europundits_archive.html#1063...">Translation
of the Le Figero interview.</a>
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dr Richmond refers to "curfews, checkpoints, excessive and
indiscriminant force, and arbitrary detentions." What is excessive or
arbitrary is entirely his opinion and I hope based on intimate local
territorial knowledge, intelligence and extensive military training. As
for curfews and checkpoints, between 1994 -2002 there were none of the
former and many fewer of the latter as the Israeli army fully withdrew
from Palestinian towns, with the Palestinian Authority taking control.
This was the time that Hamas decided to start its suicide bombings in
Israel.
If a complete unilateral withdrawal to 1967 borders (making Israel 9
miles wide) would guarantee the harmony between Israel and a Palestinain
State as exists between USA and Canada, Israel would withdraw tomorrow, I
have no doubt.
Regarding settlements,the majority built miles from Arab towns on
bare hill sides, again what is illegal and what is Palestinian land (it
was never this before 1967, and then overnight became so) is a matter of
dispute. Whatever, Israel has said their removal is negotiable and will
happen, and their presence is reversible. I agree they should not be
further expanded. In the meantime until a negotiated settlement is
reached, all Israelis have the right to physical protection. Unfortunately
persitent roadside sniping and the literal walking of suicide bombers in
to Israel towns has forced the Israeli government to spend millions of
dollars on bypasses and the security fence-dollars that we would much
rather they were spent on social services. Nobody is looking to
expropriate more land for the hell of it.
The recent Israel citizenship law was roundly condemned by many in
Israel also, just as many in Britain consider aspects of Britain's
immigration and refugee laws to be discriminatory. Does this make Britain
"reminiscent of South African apartheid"?
The 1 million Israeli Arab citizens do not live under military
occupation. They have Arab representatives in the Israeli parliament
(apartheid?) who on a daily basis condemn the Israeli government. With
impunity they visit and openly encourage Israel's murderous enemies
including Hizbollah and Arafat, creating a serious image problem for the
community they represent. Israeli Arabs enjoy far more freedom and
democratic rights than Arabs under any Arab regime including the
Palestinian Authority, and they know it, but there is discrimination in
Israeli society which we must work to improve. Sorry we are not perfect. I
am glad we have organisations like the Israeli Democracy Institute.
But then, sadly, we are in a state of war with their ethnic
bretheren. We are not living in north Yorkshire. What's your excuse?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I don’t wish to take this debate too far from its origin but I cannot
let Dr Daniel Ellis get away with the suggestion that labelling Israel as
an apartheid state is ‘complete nonsense’. Nor can I let Dr Andrew Fink
get away with his flippant attempt to suggest that racist attitudes are
the same as racist state policies. In 1973 the United Nations described
the components of the “crime of apartheid”. Five of these are amply
fulfilled by Israel in its treatment of the Palestinians and these are as
follows:
1. Does the state deny members of a racial group the right to life
and liberty of person?
Palestinians in the Occupied Territories are
indisputably denied these rights by the Israeli government on a daily
basis by means of curfews, checkpoints, excessive and indiscriminant
force, and arbitrary detentions. This is amply attested by many Israeli
human rights organisations such as B’Tselem.
2. Does the state impose on a racial group conditions calculated to
cause their physical destruction in whole or in part?
At the birth of the state of Israel over 400 Palestinian villages were
depopulated and destroyed. The process continues to this day in the
illegally occupied territories with regular expropriation of Palestinian
land for the construction of illegal settlements (for Jews only) and the
network of Jews only roads. This has resulted in the establishment of 13
cantons (ghettos?) were the Palestinian population now live completely
surrounded by armed Israeli settlers and soldiers. Yet further
expropriation of Palestinian land is currently taking place for the
construction of what all Palestinians and many Israelis refer to as the
Apartheid Wall.
3. Does the state take measures calculated to prevent a racial group
from participating in the political, social, economic, and cultural life
of the country?
In May 2003 the Israeli Democracy Institute published their annual report
which stated of the Arab population within the 1967 borders: “There is
serious political and economic discrimination against the Arab minority;
there is much less freedom of religion than in other democracies; and the
socio-economic inequality indicator is amongst the highest in the sample.”
Few would argue that the disenfranchisement and daily harassment of the
3.6 million Palestinians living under the illegal Israeli military
occupation could be described as a benevolent invitation into Israeli
political life.
4. Does the state impose any measures designed to divide the
population along racial lines?
On 31st July 2003 the Israeli government passed a law denying citizenship
to Palestinians who marry Israeli citizens. One of the effects of this law
will be that Israeli Arabs who marry Palestinians from the illegally
Occupied Territories will have to leave Israel if they wish to live with
their marriage partner.
5. Does the state exploit the labour of members of a racial group?
Palestinians from the occupied territories have long been exploited by
Israeli businesses as a source of cheap labour.
In my view there can be no doubt that Israel adopts clearly racist
policies in a manner reminiscent of South African apartheid. Israelis and
others may find this conclusion uncomfortable but I cannot see how they
can logically argue against it. In answer to Dr Fink’s comment, though
several thousand Asian residents of some cities in North Yorkshire did
indeed riot because of racism in the summer of 2003 their reasons for
doing so were in a different league from those I have described here.
I am grateful to Fadi Kiblawi for much of the details contained in
this letter. The opinions are my own.
Sam Richmond
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
i wonder if bmj is the right forum to discuss these issues. the end
of tunnel is not in sight and all the pages of the journal would not be
enough to cover the allegations and counter-allegations. other fora are
present and they can take up the matter more profesionally than a
community of doctors trained to alleviate suffering of foes and friends.
some of the allegations stand out like a sore thumb, but commonsense must
prevail at the end simply because the forum is inappropriate. i think when
UNO cannot solve a 50yrs old problem, then i don't suppose bmj and its'
readers can bring a dramatic solution. also the guilty ones are not going
to balk but be more resolved in their protestations.so where that leave
all of us except fuming with indignation and thus hurting ourselves. the
ground realities remain the same. those who feel very strongly can join
various human rights groups to either bring the guilty to justice or an
amicable solution, as required by the circumstances.did i say bring the
guilty to justice? how can that be when "might is right" is the current
philosophy at UN? surely there must be SOME WAY?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Several thousand residents of Bradford and Burnley found cause to
riot last year because of the profound racism they experience on a daily
basis in England. What is the British medical establishment doing about
this? Has Britain become apartheid since I left?
Britain sends thousands of troops to Iraq and unknown numbers of
Iraqi civilians are killed. Are British military doctors doing enough to
prevent this slaughter? Are they colluding directly or by association with
an occupying army? What is the BMA doing to investigate its military's
activities?
Richard Smith states that "I believe strongly that free debate is
ultimately a major benefit, even though it means that people will
sometimes be upset and offended." Thus he failed to understand the gravity
of Haselton's accusations. Free debate doesn't just cause some to be upset
and offended, it also causes others, even Britons, to kill.
Truth relativity is fine but does it have no limits? Does absolute
falsehood not exist? The fine line may be an interesting intellectual
exercise, but to us here, it has become a matter of life and death. We
are lied about--Israel is another South Africa, for example--and we get
killed for it.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Sir,
I have been following your correspondence
about the elected chairman of the World Medical
Association (WMA). It is clear there are polarised view
points. Discussion based on fact is always healthy.
However blanket statements, as found in Dr Riordan's
letter (6th Sept 2003) such as "many of us have no
confidence in the intellectual and moral integrity of
Israeli doctors", surely has no place in a serious
journal. The sentence implies a lack of intellectual and
moral integrity in this group of doctors. No reference is
given and therefore we do not know if Dr Riordan has
carried out interviews in Israel, has some facts he
should have presented or is bigoted. The second
sentence of his letter suggests the last option.
The BMA has endorsed the Royal College of
Psychiatrists report "Changing Minds: Every family in the
land"(www.changingminds.co.uk)" Why should we
rightly expect a lack of stigmatisation to mental illness
but be prepared to accept, without evidence, a whole
nation's doctors are corrupt? Why should a journal with
a strong stance against fraud in published data be
willing to print an unreferenced letter?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dr Zagzoug, in his touching call for ethical responsibility in the
medical profession, with verification of the facts, "emotions that need to
be directed in the right way" and leaving the conflict to the politicians,
goes on to refer to:
"the recent dreadful bombing from the Israeli F-16 or the retaliatory
attacks from the desperate Palestinian."
So, the bombing of the Hamas leadership by the Israelis was a totally
unprovoked, non-retaliatory, "dreadful" event, while the murder of
innocent civilians with no connection whatsoever to the conflict, in
downtown Jerusalem, an area with no territorial dispute whatsoever, is
"retaliation" by the "desperate" Palestinians.
Dr Zagzoug, what happened to your sense of professional
responsibility? What happened to verifying facts, directing our emotions
in the right way, leaving the conflict to the politicians? I suspect these
sentiments went the same way as the sense of editorial responsibility in
publishing Summerfield's diatribe.
I'm currently on elective, working in a Jerusalem hospital,
witnessing first-hand Israeli and Arab doctors and nurses working side-by-side to treat Israeli and Arab patients. We should take the IMA as a
shining example of what could be, rather than punishing it for what our
own biased perceptions say might be.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Numerous people have criticized me (and my professional competence)
for suggesting that Israel is an apartheid State. All I can say is that
numerous people of great integrity and personal knowledge of apartheid
(just two are quoted below) also hold this view.
Extracts of a letter by Nelson Mandela
[Editorial note: On 10 June 2005 we deleted from here a quotation from a memo purportedly written by Nelson Mandela. An account of how the memo came to be written (*not* by Mandela) and its subsequent circulation can be found on: http://arjansweblog.blogspirit.com/archive/2002/09/13/the_mandela_memo.html
Edited letter from the USA Desmond Tutu
“I've been very deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it
reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa. I
have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and
roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented
us from moving about.
I have experienced Palestinians pointing to what were their homes, now
occupied by Jewish Israelis. I was walking with Canon Naim Ateek in
Jerusalem. He pointed and said: "Our home was over there. We were driven
out of our home; it is now occupied by Israeli Jews."
Apartheid in the Holy Land - April 29, 2002 - The Guardian
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Having had the great privilege to work and study in Israeli hospital,
I would like to correct anyone’s misunderstandings as to what goes on
these institutions.
Arabs are treated in exactly the same way as Jews are. They benefit
from the same medical expertise, and receive the same level of respect
confidentiality and autonomy as a Jewish patient would receive. In fact on
the intensive care units of Hadassah and Shaare Tzedek hospitals it is not
uncommon to have Jewish victims of terror in the same room as the
perpetrators.
Jewish and Arab Doctors work side by side, enjoying mutual
professional respect and friendship from each other.
After the supposed Massacre of Jenin last year it transpired that
Israeli Doctors risked life and limb running into the church of the
nativity to treat the terrorists inside.
It is ironic that the accusations that have been made on this
website, in the same week that a Palestinian murdered the head of the
A&E department at one of Jerusalem’s largest hospitals. The late Dr
David Applebaum was enjoying a drink with his daughter the day before her
wedding when both of them were blown up in the name of "religion". Dr
Applebaum exemplified what it is to be an Israeli doctor; superb clinical
knowledge, boundless energy and enthusiasm and not allowing his own
personal political views to detract from the care of any of his patients.
He was single handily responsible for saving hundreds of Arab lives in his
illustrious career.
And what thanks does he get for his life’s work? Misinformed false
accusations by supposed professionals, who cover their own personal
prejudices in the name of science and philosophy. Articles like these rub
the salt in the wound of a family whom were supposed to be attending a
wedding, but instead found themselves attending a double funeral.
Contrary to the article I am responding to, I believe that having an
Israeli doctor as the chairman of the WMA is a positive forward thinking
attitude. It recognises a body of professionals who excel in there pursuit
of scientific knowledge and turn a blind eye to any political views or
emotions they may have in order to treat any patient that walks through
the door equally.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
The ongoing apartheid myth
Sam Richmond’s views on apartheid are interesting yet when he tries
to attach them to Israel a fundamental error becomes apparent. Israel has
never annexed the disputed territories of the West Bank and Gaza strip and
therefore they are not part of the State of Israel. This goes back to 1967
when this territory, along with the Sinai and the Golan Heights, was
captured by Israel in a defensive war. Israel agreed that territory would
not be annexed and would be given back in return for peace treaties. Only
Egypt agreed so only the Sinai was given back. Syria will not negotiate
with Israel but when it does the Golan too will be returned to Syria. The
West Bank and Gaza, part of Jordan and Egypt respectively and never a
sovereign Palestinian state, were later cynically ‘disowned’ by these
countries in order to complicate an already difficult situation. The
subsequent behaviour of all Arab nations towards the Palestinian people
has not improved with most doing nothing to assist them and often making
the situation worse by donating huge sums of money to terrorist groups.
Quite distinctly, Arabs that live in Israel (1 million Israeli Arabs)
enjoy the same rights as Israeli Jews, including voting rights. For this
reason one finds Arab generals, politicians, judges etc. This is not
apartheid.
As part of the Oslo accords, Israel has agreed to negotiate with the
Palestinians over the future of the disputed territories on the proviso
that terror stops. We are all eagerly awaiting this halt in terror, so
that a negotiated settlement can be reached and the West Bank and Gaza
will also be exchanged for peace.
I never cease to be amazed at how some people blunder into the morass
that is the Middle East, apparently without any proper research. These
basic historical facts are not secret or hidden so how come they are
glaringly omitted from some authors submissions? Is it that they aren’t
looking or is it that they don’t like to accept what they find?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests