Steven Albert on Health Crisis in Gaza, Lancet, Vol 368 October 14, 2006

Sharmila Devi’s World Report on health conditions in Gaza[1] cites only Palestinian, non-governmental, and UN sources; not a single Israeli source was consulted. This in itself would not be a problem except that these sources are hardly disinterested parties. Confidence in the report is further undermined by unsupported claims such as miscarriages or premature labour being caused by sonic boom flyovers-an old canard with no medical basis.

Evidence does not seem to be very important to Devi. She cites a Palestinian doctor who reports that “many patients injured in the conflict smelt of phosphorous shrapnel”; this is a “common belief” among Gazans. But it is also a common belief in Gaza that Israel has poisoned the water and supplies chewing gum that depletes sperm counts. Wouldn’t a little fact-checking and independent inquiry have been appropriate?

Of course, Devi does not mention Israeli casualties and the mental health eff ect of kassam rockets shot from Gaza, military incursions by Hamas across the border, Al Aksa brigade attempts at suicide bombings, or any of the other reasons Israeli troops are in Gaza.

Sadly, these one-sided reports are echoed by WHO’s reports on the war in Lebanon. Your accompanying Editorial2] refers readers to the WHO website on humanitarian eff orts. But when recounting the eff ect of the war on civilians, the report mentions the numbers injured or displaced in Lebanon, but does not mention that half a million Israelis were also forced to leave their homes because of Hezbollah rocket attacks explicitly targeted toward civilians.

I suggest that The Lancet subject its medical journalism to the same standards it uses for medical research.

I declare that I have no confl ict of interest.

Steven M Albert
smalbert@pitt.edu

Behavioral and Community Health Sciences,
Graduate School of Public Health, University of
Pittsburgh, A211 Crabtree, 130 DeSoto Street,
Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA

[1] Devi S. Gaza crisis continues to worsen as all eyes turn to Lebanon. Lancet 2006; 368:
353-54.
[2] The Lancet. Gaza’s crisis must not be overshadowed. Lancet 2006; 368: 340.

Editorial note: This letter was published in Lancet along with other letters critical of the journal.

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