SPME Public newsletter January

  • 0

Sir/Madam:

“Beacon of Hope” by Sarah Irving and Marc Hudson (3 December 2004) presents an inspiring description of a health program run by and for Palestinians. However, the article’s depiction of the conditions in which the Bethlehem Arab Society Rehabilitation Clinic functions is incomplete. The authors ascribe psychological and other problems affecting the population served by the clinic to “military occupation” without mentioning the context of this occupation, namely, violent attacks by Palestinians on Israeli civilians. In the past few years, terrorist activities have included nightly shootings targeting Israeli civilians in the residential area of Gilo, “drive-by” killings of Israeli motorists on the Jerusalem-Hebron highway, and the brutal murder of two Israeli children out on a day hike in the area.

The observation of an unnamed physiotherapist that Israeli soldiers now are “using more live ammunition, not rubber bullets” is not surprising, given that those soldiers are themselves facing live ammunition, including the explosive belts of suicide bombers.Official Palestinian media incitement and encouragement of armed attacks, praise for terrorists, and demonization of Jews were bound to have an adverse psychological impact on Palestinians. By erasing the context, the authors, like the officials of many self-proclaimed human rights NGOs, have produced a grossly distorted image.

The point of the article is to demonstrate that Palestinians are capable, on their own, of establishing and running an effective, innovative health program that meets the needs of their community. We admire the achievements described. However, the Palestinians do not have to go it alone, nor do they. The authors could have mentioned that Israel’s Peres Peace Centre brings Palestinian patients, including patients from Bethlehem, to Israel to receive life-saving treatment that is not available in the Palestinian areas. This effort, described as a “program of hope”by Professor Anwar Dudin, a Palestinian Arab paediatrician at al-Yamama hospital in Bethlehem, reflects the Israeli commitment to peaceful and cooperative relationships with the Palestinian community.

Sincerely,
Steven M. Albert, PhD
Judith S. Jacobson, DrPH
Mailman School of Public Health
Columbia University, New York (USA)

Irwin J. Mansdorf, PhD
Israel Citizens Information Council

For the Medical and Public Health Issues Task Force,
Scholars for Peace in the Middle East

SPME Public newsletter January

  • 0
AUTHOR

Steven M. Albert

In early 2000, I read the newsletter of the American Anthropological Association and was surprised to see an essay by Jeff Halper, who founded the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions. The essay was biased in every way: selective in evidence, slanted in language, naïve in reasoning. In preparing my reply I searched the web and found that for every one balanced entry on Israel’s position, there were perhaps 20 negative entries. Many were stridently rejectionist and anti-Semitic; those that were not betrayed woeful ignorance or frank silliness about the Middle East. My reply was published and the editor asked if I would countenance a reply from Halper and perhaps a dialogue. I agreed. Halper never replied, suggesting that he could not face argument informed by facts. This was my introduction to the politicized world of the academic Middle East.Since then I have narrowed my focus to anti-Israel bias in the public health and academic medical literature, which is monitored by the SPME Public Health and Medical Task Force. There is no shortage of bias in this field. Key British journals, such as Lancet and the British Medical Journal, devote major resources to academic partnerships and journalistic coverage designed to show Israeli policy is responsible for poor health, limited hospital access, and psychological trauma in the occupied territories. In fact, the evidence suggests that health is not poorer in the territories and that people do have access to hospitals. It also true that Israelis suffer poor mental health in war. These inconvenient facts, now published in 2 letters in BMJ and 4 in Lancet, help, we hope, in stemming the tide of 60 years of anti-Israel propaganda, which has finally managed to make its way into academic medical research.The Task Force continues to monitor and respond to the most egregious instances of bias in the most prominent journals. It consists of 5-10 academics across the globe, from Israel to the UK to the US, who take the time to respond to such falsehoods. We are pleased to see that most journals are willing to admit fault and publish our work. Our monitoring has led to one journal retracting a bad piece of science and to others publishing corrections.In this effort, we have also crossed paths with virulent anti-Semites, such as the one who wrote me privately and said he would never accept Zionist facts. Others are more subtle. But at heart these critics cannot admit that the medical and public health record of Israel simply does not support their claims of a terrorist, racist, imperial regime. So they make stories up or simply ignore statistics from the UN, WHO, and other international medical organizations.Facts and reasoned argument support the claims of Israel and can be used to undo the propaganda of its enemies. But we need to marshal this evidence and face the false claims directly. The biggest challenge here is time. The members of the Public Health and Medical Task Force all have day jobs. I run a major research effort on aging, chronic disease, and health promotion. My colleagues are similarly busy with academic medicine, psychological research, bioethics, and other areas. Still, we take time from these efforts to play a small but important part in ferreting out propaganda that may bias others less informed about Israel and the Middle East.


Read all stories by Steven M. Albert