Professor Baum has not responded to my call to justify his exoneration of the Israeli Med Assoc.
In the July 21 BMJ debate on the merits or demerits of an academic
boycott of Israel, Michael Baum, an emeritus professor of surgery, was the
author of the essay against a proposed boycott. One of his points was that
“it is a lie to suggest that the Israeli Medical Association is complicit
the ill-treatment of prisoners”. The reference he provided for this
assertion was the response by IMA President Yoram Blachar in the BMJ in
2003 to my open letter of appeal on this subject. The lie, then, was mine.
To assert this, on so charged a public issue, and in the world’s most
publicised medical journal, is no small matter- it is capable of
reassuring those who were harbouring some doubts about medical ethics in
Israel, and of increasing the sense of security and indeed impunity with
which interrogations of Palestinians are conducted in Israel.(Professor
Baum did not seek to rebut the other main charge against the IMA: their
refusal to speak out- as the World Medical Association (WMA) mandates- on
systematic violations by the Israeli military of the Fourth Geneva
Convention-guaranteed rights of a civilian population to unhindered access
to the essentials for day-to-day life, including medical services, and for
immunity for health professionals at work).
The claim about lying is also of some bearing to my personal
reputation as a doctor and human rights campaigner.
I am also one of the main proponents of the call for the expulsion of
the Israeli Medical Association from the WMA, and in a lengthy and well
referenced rapid response on July 25 I sought to provide a comprehensive
resume of the case against the IMA. In so doing I challenged Professor
Baum to justify his claim and the scholarship upon which it was based, and
to reply at bmj.com for others following the debate to weigh up. I also
sent a copy to his email address. 5 weeks have passed and Professor Baum
has not responded. I do not know what his intentions are, but to refuse
would seem in the particular circumstances to be unprofessional and
unethical. What he wrote is unambiguously an unconditional exoneration of
the IMA in the face of “lies” about their conduct. I again appeal to him
to justify this.
Rapid Response:
Professor Baum has not responded to my call to justify his exoneration of the Israeli Med Assoc.
In the July 21 BMJ debate on the merits or demerits of an academic
boycott of Israel, Michael Baum, an emeritus professor of surgery, was the
author of the essay against a proposed boycott. One of his points was that
“it is a lie to suggest that the Israeli Medical Association is complicit
the ill-treatment of prisoners”. The reference he provided for this
assertion was the response by IMA President Yoram Blachar in the BMJ in
2003 to my open letter of appeal on this subject. The lie, then, was mine.
To assert this, on so charged a public issue, and in the world’s most
publicised medical journal, is no small matter- it is capable of
reassuring those who were harbouring some doubts about medical ethics in
Israel, and of increasing the sense of security and indeed impunity with
which interrogations of Palestinians are conducted in Israel.(Professor
Baum did not seek to rebut the other main charge against the IMA: their
refusal to speak out- as the World Medical Association (WMA) mandates- on
systematic violations by the Israeli military of the Fourth Geneva
Convention-guaranteed rights of a civilian population to unhindered access
to the essentials for day-to-day life, including medical services, and for
immunity for health professionals at work).
The claim about lying is also of some bearing to my personal
reputation as a doctor and human rights campaigner.
I am also one of the main proponents of the call for the expulsion of
the Israeli Medical Association from the WMA, and in a lengthy and well
referenced rapid response on July 25 I sought to provide a comprehensive
resume of the case against the IMA. In so doing I challenged Professor
Baum to justify his claim and the scholarship upon which it was based, and
to reply at bmj.com for others following the debate to weigh up. I also
sent a copy to his email address. 5 weeks have passed and Professor Baum
has not responded. I do not know what his intentions are, but to refuse
would seem in the particular circumstances to be unprofessional and
unethical. What he wrote is unambiguously an unconditional exoneration of
the IMA in the face of “lies” about their conduct. I again appeal to him
to justify this.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests