February 18th 2009
The Wounds of Gaza or the Demise of Editorial Review?
We read, with great dismay, your February 2 article on the situation in Gaza in the Lancet Global Health Network.(1)
Dismay, to be sure, over the suffering of innocent civilians. But no less dismay over the cynical use of your magazine for political rhetoric filled with unproven allegations and outright lies. As we are unable to address all these allegations in a limited space, we will address some; this by no means indicates assent with the other outrageous claims.
The article begins by asserting that Israel executed 35,000 prisoners of war in 1967. The claim of murdered POWs was sparked recently by the release of an Israeli documentary film, covered by the Egyptian press who then reported that Israel killed 250 Egyptian POWs. However, the film’s producer contends that the Egyptian media distorted the facts presented and that the incident in 1967 did not involve unarmed prisoners of war, but rather Palestinian militants killed during battle. Furthermore, two UN peacekeepers who witnessed the 1967 war have gone on record as stating that if an Israeli unit had killed some 250 POWs near El-Arish, they would have known about it.(2) We have no idea where the number 35,000 came from, other than the imagination of those seeking to incite a modern day blood libel.
The article goes on to discuss the use of unconventional weapons by Israel. Some of these claims, such as the use of silent bombs in which “all objects and living things are vaporized without a trace”, sound like the stuff of science fiction films. Of course, no facts are brought to remotely support such an absurd accusation, other than “unnamed people in Gaza” who supposedly witnessed such an event. The same goes for purported executions of innocent children, old people and women who were supposedly killed in cold blood. No such thing occurred. What did occur, according to an orthopedic rehabilitative surgeon in one of Israel’s leading hospitals, is that Hamas made PLO policemen and others stand against a wall while they shot their legs with a machine gun and then stabbed their legs to finish the job. Most of these Palestinians were treated in Israeli hospitals such as Ichilov, Sheba and Barzilai Medical Centers to save their lives and treat their fractures, amputations and neurological damage.
The authors then go on to state that Israel targeted ambulances in the recent fighting. I refer you to a recent article in the Australian press in which a Palestinian ambulance driver admits that the Hamas hijacked Red Crescent ambulances and lured them into the heart of battle to transport fighters to safety.(3)
Similarly incomprehensible is the authors’ claim that the Gaza tunnels are not being used to smuggle weapons. This incontrovertible fact has been reported by the British press, in addition to every reputable news agency.(4)
As far as the number of killed or injured, we do not have exact figures and there is no question that innocent civilians were tragically and regrettably killed in the recent fighting. We are no less pained by this than the authors. However, it is important to put events in their proper context. Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza two years ago, despite the deleterious effect on many of its citizens, who were uprooted from their homes and until today find themselves without jobs, permanent housing, or emotional security. Despite this act, or perhaps because of it, the Hamas, a terrorist organization which subsequently took control of Gaza, continued firing rockets and missiles on Israeli cities. These attacks from Gaza have been going on for eight years, but intensified recently as more sophisticated weapons were obtained and the range of the missiles was extended to include major Israeli population centers. For eight years, Israel did not respond to these attacks (which included over 12,000 rockets and mortar shells) on any large scale, out of concern for the Palestinian population. Only when the situation became intolerable for Israeli citizens, including thousands of children, did the government take action. We are sure you agree that any government has an obligation to protect its citizens and that any other government would have acted similarly-if not more harshly. Despite the government’s actions, the Prime Minister of Israel declared on the first day of the military operation that the Palestinian residents in Gaza are not enemies, but neighbors, and the goal is to return a peaceful existence to the inhabitants bordering the Gaza Strip. This is why Israel, far from deliberately targeting civilians, made every effort not to harm them, including warning people to leave their homes before an attack.
As health professionals, we deeply regret that during the clashes in condensed neighborhoods, as Hamas militia fighters operate within civilian populations, the latter are hurt. We find it incomprehensible that Hamas is using homes, schools, ambulances and children(5) as shields and using mosques as warehouses for ammunitions and as spots from which to launch missiles and rockets at Israeli cities. At the same time, Israel has continued to allow the supply of humanitarian aid of drugs, equipment and food to the Palestinians through the “humanitarian corridor”, even instituting unilateral cease fire blocks in order to let such aid through unimpeded. Only now does the UN admit that Hamas has been stealing many of these supplies meant for humanitarian aid.(6) Israel also offered to admit wounded civilians into Israeli hospitals; however this offer was rejected and Hamas continues to prohibit Palestinian ill and wounded from being evacuated to Israel. A field clinic was opened by Israel at one of the Gaza Strip crossings but Tony Laurance, acting head of the WHO’s office in Gaza and the West Bank, said he doubted Palestinians would be allowed by their leaders to access the clinic, and in fact, almost none have taken advantage of it.(7) We would note that these efforts are in addition to the thousands of Palestinian children and adults that are treated regularly in Israeli hospitals.(8)
As physicians, we find it inconceivable that a respected publication like the Lancet would print such an imaginary, unproven, uncorroborated diatribe. This is wholly apart from whether the Lancet, as a scientific publication, should be dabbling in politics at all. Before accepting a medical article for publication, you rightfully insist on proven facts and evidence. You would not think of printing something based on the flight of fancy of an unknown physician. Why is this case different?
Prof. Aaron Ciechanover, M.D., D.Sc. Nobel Prize Winner in Chemistry, 2004.
Dr. Yoram Blachar, President, Israeli Medical Association
Prof. Yehudah Shoenfeld, M.D., Editor, Israeli Medical Association Journal and Harefuah
Prof. Joshua Shemer, M.D., CEO, Maccabi Health Services. Brig. Gen. (Res.), Previous commander of IDF Medical Corps
(1) Abu Sittah G, Ang S. The Wounds of Gaza. The Lancet Global Health Network, available at www.thelancetglobalhealthnetwork.com/archives/608.(2) UN soldiers doubt 1967 killing of POWs. Jerusalem Post online edition. March 29, 2007. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879208500&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
(3) “Hamas tried to hijack ambulances during Gaza war”, The Sydney Morning Herald, January 26, 2009, http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/hamas-tried-to-hijack-ambulances-during-gaza-war/2009/01/25/1232818246374.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
(4) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/04/gazas_tunnels/html/7.stm. ” In the current situation, the tunnels are believed to be the main arms supply route for Palestinian militant groups.”
(6) UN: Hamas raided warehouse in Gaza, seized blankets, food. Jerusalem Post online edition
(7) ”Gazans stay away from Israel clinic”, Jerusalem Post online edition, Jan. 20, 2009. http://www.jpost.com
(8) See, e.g., Gazan baby’s life saved by Wolfson heart surgery, Jerusalem Post, Jan. 6, 2009 as one example of many. In 2007, 28,153 Palestinian patients and accompanying persons received permission to enter Israel for medical care..
Bookmark on delicious | Digg
February 19th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Compared to the letter to which it responds, this letter is better phrased and more carefully written, but is also biased. Its bias is more subtle in that it doesn’t tell non-truths, only half-truths. For example, in describing the events that led to the attack, it doesn’t mention that a cease-fire existed earlier and that Israel was the first one to materially breach it, as it often did in the past ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-kanwisher/reigniting-violence-how-d_b_155611.html ). Even more troubling is that Israel carefully made plans to attack civilians and destroy civilian infrastructure, a fact that were either known to the authors or should have been ( http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057648.html ). Once aware of the legal instructions to the Israeli army, one can reasonably conclude that the main purpose of calling civilians in advance of deliberately destroying their houses and their livelihoods and obviously putting their lives and limbs at risk, was to provide legal cover to the individual attackers.
Anyhow, it is clear that, as was the case with the US in Iraq, that all branches of a democratically elected government contributed actively to the decision to launch a highly disproportionate attack against a practically defenseless population when much less violent options to protect its citizens existed and weren’t fully explored.
I suggest we keep in mind Hannah Arendt’s phrase “the banality of evil”. Atrocities are not executed by fanatics or sociopaths, but rather by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were morally justified.