The British Medical Journal has
previously published
politicised reports on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that should have no
place in a medical publication. The BMJ's latest edition includes a
study "Effects of armed conflict on access to emergency health care in
Palestinian West Bank: systematic collection of data in emergency departments",
the objective of which is "To assess the impact of restrictions in access to
hospital services imposed on the civilian population during the armed conflict
in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel."
The
report quotes a variety of statistics, drawing the conclusion that
"patients delayed by the Israeli occupation were more likely to be admitted to
hospital than were other patients." While there is no reason to argue with
statistical data collected by a team of Danish researchers, the analysis
presents a very one-sided context. Working on the premise that "The
occupation of Palestine includes movement restrictions that may influence access
to health care", the report refers to Israeli checkpoints and other
"physical barriers" while claiming that "The reported delay in access to
healthcare facilities is not in accordance with" the principles of the 1949
Geneva Convention.
The BMJ's report leads the uninformed reader to believe that Israeli actions
are solely responsible for the difficulties experienced by Palestinian medical
facilities. It also fails to add the relevant context behind the need for
restriction of Palestinian movement as a result of terrorist threats
against Israeli civilians. Indeed, the report does not acknowledge the
abuse of medical facilities and ambulances by Palestinians for terrorist
activities, including the transportation of weapons and terrorists. It is
impossible to properly understand the situation that exists in the West Bank and
the need for Israeli counter-terror measures without acknowledging this reality.
The BMJ needs to carefully consider the merits of publishing studies which
lack proper context and thus become part of the anti-Israel politicisation
present within certain medical organisations and related journals.
Comments to the British Medical Journal:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/feedback and to the authors of the study:
khl@niph.dk
BBC "FORGETS"
QASSAM THREAT
HonestReporting's
international site has recently examined the media's minimising of the
dangers posed by Qassam missiles fired from the Gaza Strip against Israeli
targets.
While the Qassams have continued to fly, the IDF has
reacted by shelling launching sites in Gaza and targeting those terrorists
responsible for firing the missiles.
However, while the BBC has
reported on
Israeli actions, the terror activities and missile launches have warranted scant
attention, something that, according to viewers and listeners who have contacted
HonestReporting UK over the past few days, has been repeated across a number of
BBC channels.
HonestReporting UK asks that subscribers are alert to
the chronological inversion employed by some in the media that would portray
Israel as the instigator of military activity against Palestinians despite the
continuous barrage of Qassams which has been underreported in recent weeks and
months.
Comments to the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/
HonestReporting UK
Thank you for your involvement in responding
to media bias.
To support our work, donate here today.