British Medical Journal issues health warning about Zionist emails
Guest post by Judeosphere
In October 2004, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) published a “personal view” by Derek Summerfield, in which he expressed his concern at what he saw as systematic violations of the fourth Geneva Convention by the IDF in Gaza. Summerfield generated considerable controversy when he (falsely) declared: “The Israeli army, with utter impunity, has killed more unarmed Palestinian civilians since September 2000 than the number of people who died on September 11, 2001.”
Now, almost five years later, Karl Sabbagh, an author and television producer, has published an article in the BMJ about the “Israel Lobby’s” orchestrated campaign to suppress debate following the publication of Summerfield’s article. After conducting a statistical analysis, he learned that many protest emails sent to the BMJ were done so at the urging of the American pro-Israel media watchdog group Honest Reporting, which posted a statement:
Beyond falsely branding Israel as guilty of ‘war crimes,’ deliberate child-killing, illegal colonization and apartheid, the article makes absolutely no mention of how Palestinian terror and political corruption have contributed to the unfortunate state of the Palestinian heath system. If you agree this article is inappropriate for a respected medical journal, send comments to British Medical Journal editor Kamran Abbasi, click here
In his BMJ article, Sabbagh concludes:
In the 60 years since the establishment of the state of Israel, attempts to present in print an account of Palestinian history and Palestinian rights have usually been met by swift and highly organised protests. Protesters have written in their hundreds to journals and newspapers, often using arguments supplied by a central publicity machine and phrased in suspiciously similar terms. These campaigns, and similar campaigns launched against publications that print material critical of Israel, seem fundamentally different from the normal discourse between readers and the publications they read.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with organising an effective lobby group, but lobbying for Israel seems to be in a different category from, say, lobbies against fluoridation and MMR vaccine. The ultimate goal of some of the groups that lobby for Israel or against Palestine is apparently the suppression of views they disagree with.
BMJ’s editors essentially endorsed this view, noting that “orchestrated campaigns can succeed in closing down debate.” However they did publish a counter-opinion by Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland. His advice to BMJ:
For journalists, especially those in the opinion business, there were few shocks in Sabbagh’s essay. They have come to learn that in today’s wired world, wading into any topic of controversy—not just Israel-Palestine—can bring an instant email bombardment. It simply comes with the territory.
So when I wrote in the Guardian during the US election campaign that the world’s verdict would be harsh if Americans were to reject Barack Obama in favour of John McCain, I received what I estimate were between 3000 and 4000 emails. At one point, they were arriving at the rate of 10 a minute.
And let’s not forget the BBC. The obscene phone calls by comedians Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross brought in 30 000 complaints in late 2008. In 2005, Jerry Springer: the Opera triggered 55 000, organised by Christian activists. In both cases there were demands that those responsible be sacked.
The harsh reality is that what Sabbagh described as a rare, exceptional event is increasingly common—and clearly not confined to the Israel-Palestine conflict. “These campaigns,” Sabbagh writes, “seem fundamentally different from the normal discourse between readers and the publications they read.” Would that that were so. Sadly, they have become commonplace. Many a battle hardened editor would have a simple word of advice to Sabbagh and the BMJ: grow a thicker skin.
There is a strong desire to see the pressure from pro-Israel activists as somehow unique. But each of the elements Sabbagh cites—demands for resignations, the enlisting of non-readers of the publication involved—have been present in these other cases. True, Israel-Palestine probably generates more venom than most topics, but that is hardly one-way traffic. In January 2009, anti-Israel activists forced their way into the offices of the pro-Israel lobby group, British Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM), damaging computer equipment, cutting phone lines, and throwing documents out of the window.
And the Jerusalem Post reports:
Prof. Elihu Richter, a public health expert and head of the Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Public Health and Community Medicine’s Genocide Prevention Program, told The Jerusalem Post: “My own direct personal experience with the BMJ is that it does have a bias against things Jewish and Israeli.”
By contrast with the “repetitive opinion pieces the BMJ has published by Summerfield and others, it has rejected quality papers from Israeli researchers, including one on the fine trauma care Hadassah provides for all, including Palestinians, for the flimsiest of pretexts,” he says.
Comments
| 27 February 2009, 4:23 pm |
I hope Prof Richter has proof of his claims or he has just libelled one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world.
Also your quote from the BMJ editors article, that incidentally does not ‘essentially’ endorse the Sabbagh article (unless you want to argue that any peer reviewed article is endorsed by the BMJ), is completely out of context given that it is discussing the issues raised by Sabbagh neutrally and actually provides references for specific examples of alleged suppression of debate.
What’s your point? Unless it is that arguing that orchestrated email campaigns should be not be criticised when they support Israel because that means you ahve a problem with Jews. If so, that rather proves Sabbagh’s point.
| 27 February 2009, 4:32 pm |
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with organising an effective lobby group, but lobbying for Israel seems to be in a different category from, say, lobbies against fluoridation and MMR vaccine.
Is that the same lobby against the M.M.R. which was based on fabricated and non-existent evidence? What precisely is Sabbagh’s professional qualifications? The linked article appears only to discussion his experience in “describing complex events and subjects for a nonspecialist audience”, and although I accept the B.M.J. does have a responsibility to publish qualiative studies, in my mind quantitive and, above all, medical related studies are more appropriate. Lest it wish to be tarred with accusations of bias or poor judgement as the Lancet was over John Hopkins.
| 27 February 2009, 4:36 pm |
lobbying for Israel seems to be in a different category from, say, lobbies against fluoridation and MMR vaccine. The ultimate goal of some of the groups that lobby for Israel or against Palestine is apparently the suppression of views they disagree with.
As usual, the lying antisemites (publishing this straighforward blood libel about ‘Israel killing more civilians with impunity blah blah screech screech’), are trying to blur their racist crime of demonising Israelis by attributing it to the victim, in the finest tradition of Goebels and Streicher.
Fine journal? Don’t make me laugh. There is nothing ‘fine’ about publishing antisemitic propaganda, even if it has become ‘respected’ in the sewer that Britain has become.
| 27 February 2009, 4:40 pm |
Alec, scientific journals don’t select authors on the basis of qualifications, just the strength of the evidence in their article.
| 27 February 2009, 5:00 pm |
Good one, Another, insinuate breaches of libel law in responre to a view you disagree with in order to substantiate charges that the B.M.J’s critics are… well, you work it out.
| 27 February 2009, 5:07 pm |
Err no Alec. Just pointing out that if the good Prof can’t substantiate his accusations he should withdraw them. My subtext, as someone with some knowledge of scientific publishing (although given I’m anonymous this has little value here), is that I find it inconceivable that the BMJ “has rejected quality papers from Israeli researchers, including one on the fine trauma care Hadassah provides for all, including Palestinians, for the flimsiest of pretexts”. It just doesn’t ring true.
| 27 February 2009, 5:14 pm |
Seems like a rather nasty case of Lancetitis. I prescribe a short course in critical thinking and a weekly enema. Stay away from bright sunlight, the Guardian, Question time, Channel 4 news, Lefty blogs and follically challenged Sotsmen.
| 27 February 2009, 5:30 pm |
Why did Sabbagh wait almost 5 years to publish this piece?
Why NOW, when anti-Israeli/anti-Semitic feeling is at such a high?
My take on it that he is jumping on a rather overcrowded bandwaggon in an attempt to discredit current criticism of articles attacking Israel using distorted facts and/or downright fabrications.
Oh -and would his article have been of any interest at all say 12 months ago?
| 27 February 2009, 5:35 pm |
British doctors are clearly frothing anti-semites. By focusing on the uniqueness of tools such as GIYUS.org (which pales in comparison to the large network of NGO’s set up to combat Russell Brand!), they are obviously alluding to the theory of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. First the Glasgow airport attack, now this! They hate the Joos, don’t they
| 27 February 2009, 5:42 pm |
Er, yes, Another. Reichter’s statement was a personal opinion and, we can safely assume, not all he has to say on the matter. This, being a blog and not an academic journal, is not obliged to give a fully referenced piece.
Next, can you at least make an attempt at answering my original question? The more you operate from the position that Sebbagh’s is unimpeachable whilst requiring verification only from t’other side, the more you look as if you’re attempting to shut down debate.
| 27 February 2009, 5:49 pm |
Another, does BMJ publish anything recognizing positive aspects of Israeli health care or medical/pharmaceutical research?
| 27 February 2009, 5:51 pm |
I’m not arguing that Sebbagh is unimpeachable. I’m pointing out that his piece provides citations whereas Reichter only presents opinion. If you truly think that people are arguing that Sebbagh is unimpeachable then have a look at the rapid responses below his article. Bear in mind these are moderated by the BMJ.
Also, if somebody says that an academic journal is rejecting their papers for trivial reasons then they had better be able to back that up with evidence. After all an argument is only as strong as the supporting evidence.
Slightly off topic but you might enjoy this 2003 article over Academic boycotts of Israel published by the BMJ editor.
| 27 February 2009, 6:01 pm |
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with organising an effective lobby group, but lobbying for Israel seems to be in a different category from, say, lobbies against fluoridation and MMR vaccine. The ultimate goal of some of the groups that lobby for Israel or against Palestine is apparently the suppression of views they disagree with.
And the rather large, noisy, well-funded and organized lobby for Palestine against Israel — what about that lobby, Mr. Sabbagh? Do they ever stand accused of attempting to suppress facts that might dilute pro-Palestinian claims or cast them in a rather different light?
| 27 February 2009, 6:02 pm |
Like Another, I have extensive experience of academic publishing, inclusive of all its aspects – as an author, a referee and an editor.
Firstly, a scientific journal should steer as clear as possible from political controversy. There is obvious place for politics in democracy, and there is obvious place for science, and the two are like water and oil. They don’t mix well.
Secondly, not every aggrieved author with rejected paper is right – and neither is he/she wrong. Scientific lore abounds with stories cutting both ways. It is pointless to express opinion on the basis of prejudice. BMJ might be right, or Richter may be right, we simply don’t know.
Thirdly, a journal can’t have its cake and eat it. If a journal publishes rigorously peer-reviewed papers with neither bias nor an appearance of ideological bias – as, in my experience, scientific journals overwhelmingly do – then any attempt to lobby it on ideological grounds is wrong and should be rejected by the editors. If, however, a journal is willing (like Lancet or BMJ) to publish politically-controversial papers or op-eds then it enters the political arena and is not immune to lobbying or adverse comment. Once it decides to play by the rules of political market-place, it will be played by the same rules by others.
| 27 February 2009, 6:17 pm |
My subtext, as someone with some knowledge of scientific publishing (although given I’m anonymous this has little value here), is that I find it inconceivable that the BMJ “has rejected quality papers from Israeli researchers, including one on the fine trauma care Hadassah provides for all, including Palestinians, for the flimsiest of pretexts”. It just doesn’t ring true.
Well, as someone also with some knowledge of scientific and other academic publishing, I don’t find anything here that ‘doesn’t ring true’. The FACT is that the Lancet and BMJ published highly dodgy political opinions masquerading as … well, heaven knows what, but they were not remotely appropriate for those journals. And it’s also a FACT that they did not research any basis for those dodgy opinions, because those obscene accusations are not supported by any evidence, never mind robust evidence (simply quoting Hamas spokespersons does not count as scientific evidence, just in case you are labouring under the delusion that it does). They have, therefore, lost any claim to be regarded as impartial scientific journals.
| 27 February 2009, 6:18 pm |
s.o.muffin
sounds like your experience is more than mine (author, worked in scientific publishing for a bit). And there are certainly journals notorious for publishing flaky papers based on the authors affiliation with the editors (PNAS in particular) but the BMJ has a very solid reputation on this front.
as it happens I agree that scientific journals should strive to avoid politics, obviously this is not possible for issues such as climate change and healthcare, but with respect to I/P, outside of the boycott debate, generally they should strive to be apolitical. Nevertheless this is a separate argument from the OP which seems to be arguing that the BMJ’s decision to publish is somehow anti-Israel. That the OP author doesn’t argue against Sabbagh’s arguments and evidence but chooses to link to an unsubstantiated smear from Richter invalidates their argument however.
| 27 February 2009, 6:21 pm |
S O Muffin has it in a nutshell.
As a healthcare professional I for one rigorously oppose mixing politics with profession. There is absolutely no place for personal political opinions or prejudices within the medical world.
When I buy a professional journal I want to read professional articles. If I want politics, I’ll buy a newspaper.
| 27 February 2009, 6:28 pm |
another: I would turn your argument on its head. It is precisely at the seam-line between science and politics (climate change, health-care management etc.) that scientific journals must be at their most scientific: evidence-based, logical, dispassionate argument, based upon reliable (ideally, repeatable) data and clear chain of evidence. Not on personal opinions, emotions, hyperbole and non-scientific language.
I didn’t read the original article in BMJ, the one that elicited adverse emails and “lobbying”, hence it would be wrong of me to comment on that. But the quotes attributed to Sabbagh (and I have no reason to doubt them) are outrageous and inconsistent with scientific culture.
| 27 February 2009, 6:31 pm |
Gene, when looking through the library today for stuff on pig faeces, I espied the Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine.
I’m not arguing that Sebbagh is unimpeachable. I’m pointing out that his piece provides citations whereas Reichter only presents opinion.
Yours is a simulacrum of reasonableness. You are pursuing, to the point of excluding other points, a valid query of the sustainability of argument from a comments piece. Good. Except I and others are not basing our arguments on Reichter’s statement – yet you do not respond to our questions/queries, so on that front are the very worst of positions: not even wrong.
My thoughts on libel law are in line with the authorship of this blog: it’s a bleeding disgrace which is abused by those with money and influence to stifle criticism, and as a thinly veiled threat on blogs that named speakers “better watch out if they know what’s good for them”.
The B.M.J. can be seen to have form on allowing vituperative opinion pieces against Israel, but you do not comment on this: only a opinion piece which is supportive of Israeli science and critical of the B.M.J. As with your ‘querying’ the qualifications/evidence of only individuals pursuing the latter, and blanking questions regarding the former’s, the inference I draw is that you’re primarily interested in defending only critics of Israel.
Plus, the link you gave is subscription only.
| 27 February 2009, 6:35 pm |
when looking through the library today for stuff on pig faeces
Alec, you are wasting your time. If you really want to read Hasbara Buster’s outporings, look at other threads on HP.
| 27 February 2009, 6:37 pm |
Wa-haha!
| 27 February 2009, 6:45 pm |
Don’t be horrid to Nearly. He’s had too much sunny delight today, that’s all.
| 27 February 2009, 6:50 pm |
Alec, I don’t understand your argument. I really don’t. You initially questioned Sabbagh’s qualifications, I pointed out this was irrelevant to the legitmacy of his piece*, you then seem to read a subtext to my arguments which has eluded me. Anyway the BMJ publishes peices supportive of Israel as well as criticial of it, so again, what is your point? That it shouldn’t criticise Israel or that it shouldn’t get involved in I/P disputes, if it’s the latter then I’m inclined to agree, the former would be outrageous though.
s.o.muffin, the trouble with demanding that science be apolitical and not invite opinion pieces is that scientists are people too, with all the political and personal prejudices that come with that. It is absolutely necessary to invite personal opinions on scientific data from experts in the relevant fields to fully test evidence and that debate should never feel the need to be censored. Although I admit that it is hard to see how I/P fits in to this argument
*which i now realise wasn’t externally peer reviewed and contains rather startling unreferenced assertions but that is besides the point to my criticism of the OP and you. The OP and you haven’t criticised the content so much as the fact that it was published at all.
| 27 February 2009, 6:53 pm |
PS It’s unfortunate that the BMJ piece I linked to is paywalled, I didn’t realise. It makes astrong argument against a boycott of Israel on the grounds of academic freedom, similar to the arguments made supporting the running of the Sabbagh piece and issues arising from email campaigns.
| 27 February 2009, 7:20 pm |
You initially questioned Sabbagh’s qualifications, I pointed out this was irrelevant to the legitmacy of his piece*,
Not necessarily relevant, but if he has an attested animus towards Israel, it could be questioned. That modern mass-media can be used to marshal campaigns for named subjects is unremarkable. Sabbagh wasn’t content with observing this, he had to guild the lilly by opining that the “lobbying for Israel” in general (despite, as far as I can see, having been charged only with examining the response to to Summerfield’s piece) was of a magnitude all of its own. That’s not science. That’s opinion.
If oncology attracted as much passion as I/P, and a osteologist wrote a scathing attack on named oncologists, I would ask similar questions.
you then seem to read a subtext to my arguments which has eluded me.
All I have to go on is what you write here, and have noted your declaring any criticism of Sabbagh and the decision of the B.M.J. as out of bounds while casting aspersions on me due to an individual whose comments I was not judging.
Anyway the BMJ publishes peices supportive of Israel as well as criticial of it, so again, what is your point?
Personally, I think the only pieces supportive of anything Israeli it publishes should be of Israeli science.
That it shouldn’t criticise Israel or that it shouldn’t get involved in I/P disputes, if it’s the latter then I’m inclined to agree, the former would be outrageous though.
The former would be as well. That is politics, and not related to science. Of course, academics and scienstists cannot divorce themselves completely from such concerns, but it should go without saying that discussion on Israel attracts a lot of heat and should be carefully monitored.
| 27 February 2009, 7:22 pm |
I get the feeling ( and it’s only a ‘feeling’ ) that SOME British doctors are jealous of their Jewish counterparts because of their superior skills their discoveries and their top-notch research.
That produces sentiments of inadequacy which are then expressed through various ‘anti-Zionist’ screeds.
I think the same psychological mechanisms are at play when it comes to boycotting Israeli academics and universities.
Petty human jealousies and envy coupled with the inability to accept one’s intellectual limits while at the same time embracing and even celebrating the medical/academic achievements/discoveries of those who are perhaps little better at the whole game.
Calls for boycotts and such are just a form of pouting.
| 27 February 2009, 7:46 pm |
Naziberalism, Naziberlas and Muslimists
As I look at the sway of the liberal left into the hands of fascism and Nazism, and it’s endorsement of the Islamic extremist, I find that traditional terminologies fail to pin point the moving shift of politics. I call to update terminologies to ease the description of the current political shifts. I suggest the following new terminologies:
1. Naziberalism to describe the liberal left who in fact are the heir of the Nazi spirit- combination of Nazism and Liberalism.
2. Naziberal, combination of Nazi and Liberal. Best examples of Naziberals are George Galloway, Ken Livingston, Caryl Churchill, etc.
3. Muslimist to describe the missing link between the Islamist and the law obeying Muslim. This term describes the silent Muslim who do not participate in violent acts but give tacit support for extremists by donations to terror organisation, support of non violent Jihad, support establishment of Sharia law in the West, etc. I am afraid that the large minority (a majority?) of Muslims could be the reclassified as actual Muslimists.
| 27 February 2009, 8:05 pm |
If you agree this article is inappropriate for a respected medical journal, send comments to British Medical Journal editor Kamran Abbasi
Kamran Abbasi is of course wholly aloof from the I/P discourse?
| 27 February 2009, 8:27 pm |
My god, I actually wrote this before NO posted, but at the price of appearing less-than-predictive
No, you didn’t, liar. That’s what I responded to.
Alec, has anyone told you lately that you are a ridiculous tosser?
| 27 February 2009, 8:37 pm |
Wind them up, watch them go.
| 27 February 2009, 8:39 pm |
Perhaps someone can compile a list of British organizations, both government and non-governmental, that are not anti-Semitic. Feel free to include schools, universities, governmental committees, private organizations, magazines, etc.
| 27 February 2009, 8:45 pm |
the trouble with demanding that science be apolitical and not invite opinion pieces is that scientists are people too, with all the political and personal prejudices that come with that.
This is precisely the reason to make deliberate and clear separation between science and politics and, each time they happen to intersect, to go out of the way to address issues in a scientific journal according to rules of the scientific game.
| 27 February 2009, 8:48 pm |
Kamran Abbasi is of course wholly aloof from the I/P discourse?
The argument that somebody is automatically stereotyped with regard to the I/P conflict by virtue of their name is as racist when applied to Arab names as it was racist when Richard Ingrams applied it to Jewish names. And equally disgusting.
| 27 February 2009, 8:56 pm |
Agreed, S. I wonder if he were related to Ali Abbasi who, despite having been an immigrant from Pakistan, learnt Gaelic in Scotland.
| 27 February 2009, 9:55 pm |
Kamram Abbasi is no longer at the BMJ. He edits Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Onmedica.com and has an excellent blog on cricket.
| 27 February 2009, 10:06 pm |
To the Idiot who pruned my post,
Don’t you read any of the OTHER posts on HP?
Didn’t you realise I parodied several antisemitic claims made in another thread that
a) Jews poison food with Cancer
b) That Jews are responsible for sex mad Muslims
In this thread HERE!!!!!! http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/02/27/get-your-kecks-off-for-the-jews/
Where the humour was equivalent to what I posted in terms of BMJ NOT (apparently) accepting a paper from an Israeli. Hence, my idea that they WOULD go for antisemitic papers.
DOH!!!!!
| 28 February 2009, 7:56 pm |
Is the BMJ problem not a symptom of a general problem with the left – it politicises everything, from science to culture to history to law.
Mideast politics should have no place in the BMJ.
| 1 March 2009, 9:45 am |
Just take a look at all the letter / email writing campaigns on anti-zionist websites.
| 1 March 2009, 12:27 pm |
Is the BMJ problem not a symptom of a general problem with the left – it politicises everything, from science to culture to history to law.
Some Guardian-reading Brit-twit made life for my colleague more complex by successfully lobbying to move a business meeting away from Israel for political reasons.
| 1 March 2009, 3:38 pm |
To the Democratic Republic of Syria, I take it?
| 2 March 2009, 1:00 pm |
As one of the scientists who challenged Summerfield’s various papers, without knowing about HR, I dispute the suggestion of any organised campaign. I had no emails asking me to submit a response and had read no other comments relating to the items. If there was a lobby group, it totally passed me by. (In one of his articles, Summerfield wrote that he couldn’t tell the difference, in symptomatology, between surviving a concentration camp and falling off your bike. I laughed until I stopped. This man was supposed to be an expert in torture! A humanitarian.)
The Lancet is as bad as the BMJ and I’ve alerted HR to recent items. But this is not just an issue of left wing politics. They are as biased when it comes to chronic fatigue syndrome. They’ll accept any old pro-psychiatry rubbish and publish perhaps one paper in ten years indicating a more complex aetiology. When the Lancet published one paper which omitted data showing that the primary aim of the psychiatric intervention had not been achieved, I sent the ‘missing’ statistics to the editors. They refused to publish. It’s what we call misleading your readers. Why? The pro-psychiatry lobby is promoting an expensive treatment. So it’s not a question of saving tax payers’ money. This group wants to blame the victim. Bit like the BNP likes to blame immigrants. It’s a primitive, easy solution to a complex problem. In the case of Israel, I don’t think any of them in Tavistock Square really know what’s going on in the area. They’re not behaving like scientists who require evidence. Maybe blaming Israel is easier than trying to figure out how to deal with Hamas, years of propaganda etc.
The BMJ and Lancet have a reputation based on the past. Now, you get more reliable info in the News of the World. Meanwhile, we support the Gazans so they don’t have to work to buy food, support their children etc. We do it for them. About 50% of UNWRA funds comes from the EU, and the rest from the US and Arab lands. Perhaps less food might make them consider doing what Israel did. Turn desert into land. Think of ways of making money. Except Hamas have a more important aim, of destroying a neighbour. Point is, do we have to fund them so they have the food and time to do so?
| 4 March 2009, 7:18 am |
While you argue about the BMJ’s prejudice and practices, have a look at the statistics displayed on the BMC’s website concerning foreign registered doctors practicing in the UK. The statistics for Israeli doctors are telling, as any Israeli doctor trying to apply for a job in the UK will report. What’s not displayed in the report is the registration rate and refusals in the past decade, which if released would tell a worthy story.
“There is nothing intrinsically wrong with organising an effective lobby group, but lobbying for Israel seems to be in a different category from, say, lobbies against fluoridation and MMR vaccine. The ultimate goal of some of the groups that lobby for Israel or against Palestine is apparently the suppression of views they disagree with.”
The “medicalization” of the Jewish national problem.
Jewish nationalism as a virus. Zionism as a disease.