SPME Board Responds to Lancet Editorial With A Request for Truth and Not Uneven Equivalancies

  • 0

On August 16, we received an email from an SPME member who directed our attention to the August 12 issue of The Lancet, one of the oldest and most widely read British medical journals. Starting on the front cover of that issue, in bold print, was an editorial describing an “escalating humanitarian crisis” in Lebanon, and even-handedly blaming Israel and Hizbollah. The SPME Board decided to submit a letter to the editor of The Lancet. The Lancet editorial and our letter follow:

It is time for urgent action on the Lebanese health crisis. Rarely has a humanitarian crisis been so deliberately and ruthlessly exploited at the expense of civilian populations by warring parties. Forces in Lebanon and Israel are pressing narrow and utterly unrealistic claims, while the international community struggles to act. Israel is never going to defeat by force Hizbollah, a political group now firmly entrenched in Lebanese society. And Hizbollah, even with the support of Iran, will never succeed in destroying Israel. Yet these are the stated aims of both parties. Their mutually cruel and desperate attacks not only harm the lives of unprotected men, women, and children, but also ensure the survival of undiluted enmity for several generations to come.

Jan Egeland, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, has said of the situation: “Providing aid and saving lives in Lebanon requires these basics: access to those in need, security for those providing it and adequate funding.” Political gridlock means that little has been done to provide these basic life-saving initiatives.

A large section of the southern Lebanese civilian population is currently living in crisis. At least 900000 people out of a population of 4 million have been displaced, their homes already reduced to rubble. The majority have fled north, some finding shelter with family members and friends, but hundreds of thousands of others have sought refuge in public spaces, in schools, and underground car parks. Those remaining are the needy-the old, the sick, the injured, and the poor-without humanitarian assistance.

The ongoing military operation has caused enormous damage to bridges and road networks, severing the humanitarian lifeline between Lebanon and the outside world. This destruction is seriously impeding the health system’s capacity to deliver care. There is particular concern for high-risk groups: pregnant women, the elderly, wounded, or chronically ill. Severe shortages of safe drinking water, food, fuel, and medical supplies are reported all over south Lebanon.

In response, UN agencies and several non-governmental organisations launched a consolidated Flash Appeal for Lebanon on July 24, requesting a total of US$150 million to enable aid groups to supply food, shelter, and protection to civilians caught up in the conflict. The response from the international community to date has been disappointing: only 27% of the total requested has been pledged. In any case, for this humanitarian aid to reach its intended beneficiaries there must be effective access for the providers of that assistance.

Kofi Annan has repeatedly called for an immediate cessation to hostilities to allow urgently needed humanitarian relief to reach the vulnerable populations of Lebanon, while condemning the Security Council for their failure to act firmly and quickly. Despite a draft UN resolution calling for a cessation to hostilities there has been mystifying hesitation among the international community over intervening in this escalating humanitarian crisis. These delays highlight the need for humanitarian issues to be separated from the political and very difficult process of achieving a UN resolution over a ceasefire. What is needed is a twin-track approach.

Sweden’s Prime Minister, Göran Persson, was the first to propose a conference of donors to plan the reconstruction of Lebanon. Persson’s idea could be strengthened by convening a summit of international development and health ministers. They and only they would have the legitimacy to add new diplomatic urgency to the UN Security Council’s effort to achieve an immediate ceasefire. Development and health experts could create a mechanism to coordinate the complex array of international organisations working in Lebanon. They can sharpen legal instruments to protect humanitarian corridors. And they can leverage funding to meet the UN targets.

Most importantly of all, Sweden’s initiative would offer a constructive counterpart to the atrocious failure of the US and UK’s weak, evasive, and ultimately disastrous foreign policy towards the Middle East. Western governments are willing to allow civilians to perish-in the words of WHO, Israel and Hizbollah’s military action “continues to pose an unacceptable threat upon humanitarian access”-in order to protect the political status quo in a region that needs a vigorously renewed effort to achieve long-term stability and security for displaced and threatened peoples on all sides. The humanitarian indifference that typifies American and British policy is a betrayal of democratic principles of peace and reason. It is impossible to express the despair into which their empty leadership has plunged us. The Swedish olive branch, appropriately strengthened, must now be grasped with tenacious resolution.

SPME’s Response to Lancet:

To the Editor:

One trouble with editorials written in the heat of the moment for a weekly is that they get overtaken by events. Contrary to the expectations of your front-page editorialist (August 12), a cease-fire
is, at least for the time being, in place in Israel and Lebanon.

The editorialist made a point of not blaming Israel alone for all the suffering caused by the war in Lebanon. But even-handedly faulting Israel and Hizbollah is not the same thing as seeking the truth.
Hizbollah did everything it could to maximize civilian casualties. Israel did everything it could to minimize casualties among civilians used by Hizbollah as human shields. We wonder what crystal ball the editorialist used as a basis for the claim that Israel is never going to defeat by force Hizbollah and Hizbollah will never destroy Israel. That proposition is not based on any evidence we have seen, and despite its superficial symmetry, it implicitly acknowledges the lack of symmetry in Hizbollah’s and Israel’s aims.

A Lancet editorialist should be able to distinguish explicitly between an organization that tries, albeit with imperfect instruments, to kill civilians and a state that tries, albeit with imperfect instruments, to
minimize such casualties while protecting its own people. Surely readers of this journal can understand that there is no such thing as a perfect surgical strike.

The quotation from Jan Egeland’s account of the situation is accurate but leaves out the passage where he lays full blame for the devastation on Hizbollah. Access and security are certainly necessary for the provision of humanitarian aid, but according to Shimon Peres, Israel allowed aid supplied by Arab countries to reach Lebanon even during active hostilities. Moreover, it is in the interests of both Israel and the United States to make sure that aid from the international community reaches its intended beneficiaries, if only to counterbalance the aid that will come from Iran via Hizbullah.

Unfortunately, some international organizations may be too bureaucratic to react as quickly as Hizbullah, and according to some reports, neither the West nor the Arab governments have made overly generous offers of support to the Lebanese government. Human Rights Watch asserts that one of the major obstacle to the provision of aid in some areas is unexploded missiles and bombs, which have cost some civilians their lives since the cease-fire began. But it is probably too early to know exactly what is happening on the ground, and things may change a lot in the next few weeks.

Meanwhile, we share the editorialist’s concern for the suffering human beings in the areas affected by the fighting. But they will not benefit from sensationalizing and the blame game. In the future, we hope that the Lancet will take a more constructive and fact-based approach to addressing their humanitarian and medical needs. Such an approach would be in keeping with the journal’s expertise, mission, and history, and would be less likely to be result in editorials that are obsolete by the time of publication.

Judith S. Jacobson, DrPH, MBA
Associate Professor of Clinical Epidemiology
Columbia University, New York, New York, USA
On behalf of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East
Edward S. Beck, Ed..D., CCMHC, NCC, LPC, Alvernia College and
Susquehanna Institute, President
Board of Directors
Jonathan Adelman, Ph.D., University of Denver
Steven Albert, Ph.D., MPH, University of Pittsburgh
Leila Beckwith MD, Professor of Pediatrics Emerita at UCLA
Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D., City U. of New York
John R. Cohn, MD, Thomas Jefferson College of Medicine
Donna Robinson Divine, Ph.D., Smith College
Stanley Dubinsky, Ph.D., U. of South Carolina
Rev. India E. Garnett, M.Div. Treasurer, Harrisburg PA Chapter, United
Church of Christ
Rabbi Peter Haas, Ph.D. Case Western Reserve U.
Efraim Karsh, Kings College U. of London
Richard Landes,Ph.D. Boston U.
Ruth Lichtenberg-Contreras, Ph.D., Secretary, U. of Vienna and Natural
History Museum of Vienna
Allan Lipton, MD, Penn State College of Medicine, Milton S. Hershey
Medical Center
Robert S. Mirin, Esq., Harrisburg, PA
G.S. Don Morris, Ph.D.,California Polytechnic U./Wingate Institute IL
Philip Carl Salzman,Ph.D. McGill U.
Gerald Steinberg, Ph.D., Bar Ilan U.

SPME Board Responds to Lancet Editorial With A Request for Truth and Not Uneven Equivalancies

  • 0
AUTHOR

Judith S. Jacobson

Universities have never been perfect, but they were not always the way they have become in the past decade or so. I graduated from Brown in 1964. In my day, old-fashioned anti-Semitism was not quite dead. After World War II, Brown and other ivies had increased their admissions of Jewish students. There was still some discrimination about financial aid, which Jews were thought not to need, but in the classroom, we had a kind of freedom and openness that is rare now. And for a while, things got better.In the 1960s because of the Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam War, faculty and students brought advocacy into the classroom. We believed that professors should express their opinions instead of hiding behind a façade of objectivity. We believed, and I still believe, that honest and open exchange facilitates the pursuit of truth. Students as well as professors had freedom of speech, and all ideas were up for grabs. It seemed like a good thing. But it was hijacked by people with a different agenda.My friends and I were civil rights activists, and then anti-Vietnam war activists. We thought every leftward leaning person wore a halo. Some of us still think that. But in early June 1967, my friends and I were all worried about Israel; a bunch of young men I knew were ready to head over to Israel to help, and then, before they could get on a flight, the Six-day War was over.Wonderful, I thought. Now I can relax, right? Wrong. Within days, it seemed, the left had turned against Israel. The Israelis were doing terrible things in Ramallah, my friends told me.I concentrated on the Vietnam War until my buddies on the left started supporting North Vietnam. Wanting the United States to get out of Vietnam seemed to me very different from encouraging people to kill American soldiers.So then I concentrated on the Women’s Movement, but luckily, before that got too weird I got married and started having babies. And then the babies grew, and I went to graduate school in public health at Columbia. In 1996, a few weeks before my younger son graduated from college I got my doctorate and joined the Columbia faculty in the Mailman School of Public Health.But in the 1970s, before I was on the faculty and while I wasn’t paying attention, the brilliant and charismatic Edward Said came to Columbia. His special mission was to use the tools of liberal education to undermine western civilization. From his base in English and Comparative Literature at Columbia, he dispensed what is now called postcolonialism to a generation of academics and students in the humanities and social sciences. He was full of charisma and Euro-Palestinian radical chic, and he argued that being an American of European descent makes one incapable of understanding the terrible suffering and oppression experienced by the Third World, especially Palestinians. He also said, famously, “Facts don’t count; only emotions count.”Thereafter, postcolonialism and the demonization of Israel and the United States spread through university departments of literature, history, anthropology, and the social sciences, with disastrous consequences for the pursuit of truth.Those of us who love Israel tend to take its bashing personally. We either fall into soul searching, asking ourselves if we really did those bad things in a fit of absent-mindedness, or we start sputtering defensive denials - no, we are not an apartheid state, no, we don’t do genocide. Neither response does any good or addresses the real problem.Israel, however much we love or hate her, is one small country. The time that professors spend on Israel-bashing is time not spent on the actual politics, cultures, economics, geography of the vast and complex Middle East. It is time not spent on honor killings or slavery; on the differences between Iran and Iraq, or the cultures of the Kurds, the Copts, and the Assyrians. It is also time not spent on Dante or the deforestation of the Amazon or the role of the geisha in Japanese business. However, postcolonialism and Israel-bashing have had relatively little impact on the medical schools, the public health schools, most of the other professional schools, and the hard sciences.So in the spring of 2002, I was studying the use of complementary and alternative medicine by cancer patients when a friend who had college-age children asked me to join an on-line listserv called Professors for Peace. When I asked why, he replied, So you can respond to the lies about Israel. Within minutes of subscribing, I was being deluged by poisonous anti-Israel nonsense emailed by my fellow academics.Over the next few weeks, a few of the lies were so preposterous that I lost control and let out a little squeak of outrage on the internet. For example, someone quoted a Columbia professor, Gayatri Spivak, about the beauty of suicide bombing. I could not help responding that that was not my idea of beauty. But I kept wondering, Where are all the other Columbia professors who know the truth about Israel? Why aren’t they on the job here?After a month or so, someone named Ed Beck from Harrisburg PA emailed me off the listserv and suggested that we start our own listserv. I asked, Wouldn’t we be preaching to the choir? He said, If we are going to have no impact, preaching to the choir will be more fun than being preached to by the devil. That was the beginning of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East.Since then, SPME has grown from an email list of some 300 academics to a global organization reaching more than 30,000. Our growth has made it possible to respond to some of the lies disseminated by Israel’s enemies. We have worked both behind the scenes and in public to preserve the integrity of academic institutions.We have been misrepresented as an organization of knee-jerk right-wing Palestinian-oppressing Zionists who seek to suppress the free speech of anyone who implies that Israel is not perfect. We concede that Israel is imperfect, but we do not believe it is so much less perfect than, say, India or Italy that it does not have a right to exist. No serious efforts are being made to promote boycotts of or divestment from other countries, however much they violate human rights.It is important to remember that although much of the Middle East is undeveloped, it is not poor. Even the Palestinians, or at least their leaders, are not poor. If you are not really trying to provide services for your population, and you are getting handouts from the European governments, you can put together enough cash even after your suicide bomber expenses to fund several professorial chairs, as well as to send to American universities a number of students whom you have trained in the fine art of propaganda.The sources of funding for the Edward Said chair at Columbia, now occupied by Rashid Khalidi, include, in addition to the United Arab Emirates, a number of sources close to the Palestinian Authority. Khalidi’s Middle East Institute has also received funding from the Saudis. (Of course, as Martin Kramer points out, people without a specific interest are unlikely to fund Middle East studies.)The source of the problem on campus is:1. A systematic and well-financed effort to use educational institutions to undermine public support for Israel and, to the extent possible, the United States2. A widespread bias among academics in the humanities and social sciences against anything the US government or Israel is associated with; all such causes are termed right-wing and are therefore anathema3. Even among academics and students who support Israel and are aware of the problem of anti-Semitism on the campuses, a kind of cognitive dissonance, a refusal to see that the left does not have a halo (neither does the right, but it is not useful in this context to classify things as left or right), and a tendency to deny or minimize the problem.However, little by little, we have helped to make faculty aware that the enemies of Israel are also the enemies of academic freedom. With support from those faculty, we hope to preserve the integrity of our academic institutions. That is our mission.


Read all stories by Judith S. Jacobson