'Physicians for Human Rights' has political agenda

MK Forer calls for National Service to cut ties with doctors group; 'an entity that calls Israel an occupier doesn't deserve our support.'

Benny Toker,

MK Oded Forer
MK Oded Forer
Flash 90

The Supreme Court rejected appeals against the law that permits force-feeding of hunger-striking prisoners earlier this week, ruling that the law passes constitutional muster.

One of the petitioners against the law, the Physicians for Human Rights organization, said in response to the ruling that "the Supreme Court has trampled on medical ethics and maintained a damaging law that should never have been passed at all." The organization added that it hoped that "the medical community in Israel will refrain from complying with the law and continue to act in accordance with the Hippocratic oath and medical ethics."

MK Oded Forer (Yisrael Beytenu) told Arutz Sheva that these statements prove yet again that this is a radical organization that is acting to against the state of Israel. "On the one hand, they have this great name, 'Physicians for Human Rights', which indicates that they are just interested in health issues. But when you look into their activities more deeply and you see their response to the Supreme Court, you understand the extent to which they have no connection to justice or the law. They represent a radical political worldview. If the Supreme Court rules in their favor they're happy, if not, they can just reject it."

The MK called on the National Service directory to stop its involvement with the organization. "It's an outrage. I discovered they're connected to National Service. This means that there are some people who are volunteering, and that's their National Service. They give up a year or two of their lives to help an organization that bills itself as fighting violence exerted by the 'occupation.' If that's their worldview, that we are occupiers, the state of Israel shouldn't be funding them. I've contacted Ministers Uri Ariel and Sar-Shalom Gerbi [Chairman of National Service] about this matter asking them to examine whether it is fitting that such an organization should be part of National Service. In my opinion, the answer is a resounding no."