Natahanson’s letter and the related news article on the healthcare
crisis in Gaza generate two crucial points. First, why does the BMJ still
insist on calling Gaza ‘occupied’ and thus infer blame on the Israelis?
The Israelis carried out a much publicised withdrawal a year ago. Is the
BMJ suggesting that this did not in fact take place?
Secondly the BMJ once again absolves the Palestinians of all blame in
this scenario. If a dictator or a ‘regime’ elects to spend its money on
bombs, guns and ammunition (never seems to be a shortage of these in Gaza
or the West Bank) it should not then cry to the West that its people have
insufficient medicine. It’s what Saddam did in Iraq and what Hamas are
doing in Gaza. Incidentally, the Israeli’s have offered medicine to the
Palestinian people but Hamas has said it would prefer the cash. I wonder
why?
Rapid Response:
Is Gaza still occupied?
Natahanson’s letter and the related news article on the healthcare
crisis in Gaza generate two crucial points. First, why does the BMJ still
insist on calling Gaza ‘occupied’ and thus infer blame on the Israelis?
The Israelis carried out a much publicised withdrawal a year ago. Is the
BMJ suggesting that this did not in fact take place?
Secondly the BMJ once again absolves the Palestinians of all blame in
this scenario. If a dictator or a ‘regime’ elects to spend its money on
bombs, guns and ammunition (never seems to be a shortage of these in Gaza
or the West Bank) it should not then cry to the West that its people have
insufficient medicine. It’s what Saddam did in Iraq and what Hamas are
doing in Gaza. Incidentally, the Israeli’s have offered medicine to the
Palestinian people but Hamas has said it would prefer the cash. I wonder
why?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests