How to Build Medical Joint (BMJ) partnerships in the Middle East

I was reluctant to comment on the head to head debate (21st July). I was tempted to ignore it. What needed to be said - opposition to a boycott of Israel - has been said by the British Medical Association, and confirmed by Dr Nathanson in her response. For me, it is absurd that the BMJ should use the same banner to compare the broad general significance of drug advertising in medical journals (14th July) with ballots at a small British trade union.

This reluctance was not intended to diminish or deny the tragedy of those injured, maimed, psychologically damaged and killed on every side of the prolonged Middle East conflict. Rather, it was to express my distaste for the abuse of the BMJ by Hickey, who has unknown medical credentials, less distinguished academic status than that of my friend and colleague Michael Baum; and who did not attempt to focus on medical issues (academic or otherwise), or on serious constructive initiatives.

But, regrettably, consultation suggested this might be misinterpreted as “boycott”, either of Hickey, or of the BMJ (more particularly of the commissioning editor, whose published Middle East record does not inspire confidence in journalistic impartiality). Like Baum, and like many Israeli and Palestinian physicians, I have to engage, to explain that protests about abuses of process against other countries (like no doubt Hickey and many of his Jewish supporters, I am no stranger to such activities!) are targeted at Governments, rather than at the legitimacy of the countries themselves. To-day about half of all Jews live in Israel, so that, flawed as it may sometimes be, a significant component of any “Jewish” slant is formulated there. I have to ask whether (a) his Jewish supporters are involved in Jewish activities, promoting knowledge and understanding of Judaism, in fora other than this; and (b) planned academic programmes in UK universities and medical schools should make this 'debate' a key focus? Allowing Jewish academics and students to run the risk that a racist anti- Semitic slogan and / or poster might emerge during the debate, despite the enormous care he will take to avoid such an occurrence (where we have all failed hitherto, as documented in the Parliamentary Committee on Anti- Semitism)? Do we wish this to be the defining international political priority activity of 2007-8 on UK campuses?

I suggest that none of these topics have a place in the BMJ. Their airing owes much to current media fashion and prejudice, so a complaint to the Committee on Publication Ethics may not be as justified as first I thought. They betray ignorance of the contribution that Israeli long term investment in research and development, and thoughtful health service planning, and the professionalism of the Israel Medical Association (IMA), have to offer in any new political configuration that may emerge in the Middle East.

When you read Baum’s contribution, look anew at the last BMJ foray into this subject, (October 2006). This prompted a thought: maybe the BMJ could broker serious continuing dialogue on the October 2006 key topics between the IMA and physicians groups from neighbouring countries? Maybe an online poll asking whether or not people favour such activities would not have been as offensive as opening your webspace to a simplistic “pro / anti-boycott” poll? As chairman of the Jewish Medical Association (UK) I am confident that the majority of my colleagues would support and help to facilitate such dialogue strongly.

(Prof) David R Katz

Competing interests: (David Katz is an observant Jew, a member of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, worked for some years in Israel, and has many professional and personal links with Israel).

David R Katz,
Prof of Immunopathology
Univesity College London W1T4JF

It should come as no surprise that Jews have played a prominent role in medicine in Britain over the past 350 years. The tradition of Jews in medicine dates back to antiquity, is reflected in the numerous Talmudic debates on medical topics, and has been a feature in almost every Diaspora. The names of physicians such as Assaf Harofe, based in Babylon (modern Iraq), and Maimonides (with roots in Spain, working in Egypt, and with contacts in both Babylon and Yemen) are legendary, and pre-1656 a Marrano physician, Roderigo Lopes, had already made his mark in London, albeit chiefly in political intrigue.