You'd think that one of the four leading medical journals in the world wouldn't engage in deliberate malpractice and even quackery. You'd think. But it is obvious that that the British Medical Journal has done so with a vengeance. And with vitriol. And with malice aforethought. And with ignorance.
In an article entitled "Palestine: the assault on health and other war crimes", the British Medical Journal violates the most basic and elementary rule in medical practice -- getting all the facts and getting them straight before you make a diagnosis. They also violate one of the cardinal rules needed to remain respected in journalism -- they published outright lies, falsehoods and gross distortions.
The article, written by Derek Summerfield, who is cited as an Honorary Senior Lecturer at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, is, as stated, an opinion piece. But that doesn't negate the British Medical Journal's responsibility for accuracy and facts. It also doesn't negate the British Medical Journal's accountability and even liability for any negative impact resulting from such obviously biased and even hate-filled and prejudicial opinion, which even ignores (or is ignorant of) international law.
In his second sentence (after his thesis is stated in the first), Mr. Summerfield already shows his deception: "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." What he does not state is the breakdown of what type of person was killed -- terrorist or civilian. Nor does he give the source for his facts. Also, by equating Israel's defensive operations with the terrorist murders of 9-11, he is not-so-subtly implying that Israel is the equivalent of the mass murdering Al-Qaeda.
According to the best statistics available, about two thirds of the 2,800 or so (1,866) non-Israelis killed were combatants.(1) Moreover, 365 of the non-combatants killed were killed by actions of their own side. Also, this figure may not include those homicide/genocide bombers, who perpetrated 138 attacks of mass murder.
Regarding those putative civilians killed in the Arab Intifada against the sovereign state of Israel and her civilian population, the Geneva Convention is very specific: all the deaths are the responsibility of the Arabs engaged in the war. First, here is the law, then an explanation.
Convention (IV) Relative to The Protection of Civilian Persons In Time of War
Signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949
PART III Status and Treatment of Protected Persons "Section I. Provisions common to the Territories of the Parties to the Conflict and to Occupied Territories"
Art. 28. The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.
Art. 29. The Party to the conflict in whose hands protected persons may be, is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents, irrespective of any individual responsibility which may be incurred.(3)
In plain English, the above articles state that a combatant hiding among a civilian population may not use said population as a human shield and is responsible for any casualties or deaths incurred. This means that the Arabs themselves are responsible for all of their civilian casualties, since they never, ever engage in lawful warfare - to include the wearing of uniforms (to thus distinguish themselves from civilian populations), or stage operations and maintain barracks, or retreat to non-civilian areas. In each case of Israeli military action, said action was taken in response to Arab acts of war against the Israeli civilian population.
Going back to those putative 'civilians', according to the Arab's own figures, as put forth by The Jerusalem Media and Communication Center and The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah, 75% support homicide/genocide bombings of Israelis, and "83.9 percent, support the continuation of the war of aggression against Israeli civilians."(3)
International Law is very clear as to who is a civilian. Article 3, section 1 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War states the following: "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities..."(4)
These 83.9% then, may be counted as combatants and not 'innocent' civilians, since such support has been clearly demonstrated to show incitement through (at the very least) hate speech, which is a crime of genocide. According to The UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: "Any advocacy of national racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law."(5)
So let's get back to that inflammatory and wildly inaccurate second sentence by the esteemed Mr. Summerfield. So far, we have determined that the unvetted number of Arabs killed who were combatants is 1,866. The unvetted number of putative civilian Arabs killed is, so far, 934. Time to vet these numbers for scientific accuracy, as I am sure both Mr. Summerfield and the British Medical Journal would want us to do.
Readjusting the figures to reflect those putative civilian Arabs killed by actions of their own side -- 365, that makes a total of 568. If you factor in those who do not legally fall under the Geneva Convention designation of "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities...," to include those who support the illegal acts of genocidal murder by suicide bombers, as well as the entire illegal war of terror called 'the Intifadah', you must reduce the 568 total by 83.9%. This leaves a grand total of ~91 people who, to everyone's definition, fall in the category of completely innocent civilians. This is a far cry from 2,800 people. In fact, this is an inflation of figures by nearly 3000%!
As to the ultimate responsibility of those 91 innocent deaths, leaving aside the illegalities of waging and staging a war from a civilian area as the Arabs do, one must look at the events leading up to them. Israel, at Camp David, offered the Arabs not just peace, but peace with over 99% of what the Arabs wanted. The Arabs flatly turned Israel down and the Arabs -- not the Israelis -- initiated this war. So ultimately, even those 91 deaths are the responsibility of the aggressors -- in this case, the Arabs, for two proven reasons.
In reading the entire opinion piece, there are no credible facts nor even any balance whatsoever. Not one word is mentioned about any negative impact of the war of genocide(6) by the Arabs against an innocent Israeli Jewish population. No mention of the fact that Israel has suffered 11,356 casualties including 73 suicide bomb attacks, which killed 293 Israelis, since the outbreak of violence in September 2000. Nor is mentioned the approximately 400 rocket attacks specifically aimed at civilian homes. Nor is mentioned that a total of 1,017 Israelis and foreigners have been killed by Arab terror, nay war, deliberately targeting an innocent civilian population in the past four years.(7)
It seems that the British Medical Journal's reputation is no longer deserved. It also appears that the British Medical Journal, using very poor cognitive and decision-making skills in publishing such an obviously anti-Semitic and inflammatory piece, may be guilty of war crimes under the 'hate speech' clause of the Geneva Convention.(see footnote 5)
As for Mr. Summerfield, sadly for him, he has revealed himself to be suffering from at least one, if not numerous mental and/or emotional defects. His denial of reality, his confabulations and his inappropriate use of a scientific forum to put forth such a hate-filled diatribe, couched in pseudo-science, is really a cry for help. Luckily for him, he works in a place that might offer him such services.
Footnotes:
(1) See http://www.ict.org.il.
As in the Jenin operation, the Arabs occupying Jewish Palestine have demonstrated their lack of veracity regarding facts and figures. In Jenin, the Arabs reported it as a massacre of 500 civilians and later revised their figures to 56. (The UN report further revised the figure to 52, 30 of whom were armed combatants.) This same article shows that Israeli statistical reporting (which estimated between 45 and 55) is much more accurate than that of the Arab press and anti-Israel sources.
See also http://www.campusprogram.com/.../jenin.html and http://www.rense.com/general24/dt.htm.
2) http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm.
3.) See http://www.jmcc.org/publicpoll/results/2002/no44.htm and http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2003/p9epressrelease.html.
4.) http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm
5.) http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm
6.) See http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html
"...genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;"
The Arabs routinely target civilian populations consisting of Israelis and/or Jews with particular attention to families, children and pregnant women, thereby trying to destroy any future generations.
7.) http://www.israelforum.com/.../t-6573.html and http://www.jpost.com/...1096259492154&apage=1.
[With many thanks to Dev, who helped me with the research, and the 'anonymous math teacher' who helped with the number-crunching.]
In an article entitled "Palestine: the assault on health and other war crimes", the British Medical Journal violates the most basic and elementary rule in medical practice -- getting all the facts and getting them straight before you make a diagnosis. They also violate one of the cardinal rules needed to remain respected in journalism -- they published outright lies, falsehoods and gross distortions.
The article, written by Derek Summerfield, who is cited as an Honorary Senior Lecturer at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, is, as stated, an opinion piece. But that doesn't negate the British Medical Journal's responsibility for accuracy and facts. It also doesn't negate the British Medical Journal's accountability and even liability for any negative impact resulting from such obviously biased and even hate-filled and prejudicial opinion, which even ignores (or is ignorant of) international law.
In his second sentence (after his thesis is stated in the first), Mr. Summerfield already shows his deception: "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." What he does not state is the breakdown of what type of person was killed -- terrorist or civilian. Nor does he give the source for his facts. Also, by equating Israel's defensive operations with the terrorist murders of 9-11, he is not-so-subtly implying that Israel is the equivalent of the mass murdering Al-Qaeda.
According to the best statistics available, about two thirds of the 2,800 or so (1,866) non-Israelis killed were combatants.(1) Moreover, 365 of the non-combatants killed were killed by actions of their own side. Also, this figure may not include those homicide/genocide bombers, who perpetrated 138 attacks of mass murder.
Regarding those putative civilians killed in the Arab Intifada against the sovereign state of Israel and her civilian population, the Geneva Convention is very specific: all the deaths are the responsibility of the Arabs engaged in the war. First, here is the law, then an explanation.
Convention (IV) Relative to The Protection of Civilian Persons In Time of War
Signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949
PART III Status and Treatment of Protected Persons "Section I. Provisions common to the Territories of the Parties to the Conflict and to Occupied Territories"
Art. 28. The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.
Art. 29. The Party to the conflict in whose hands protected persons may be, is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents, irrespective of any individual responsibility which may be incurred.(3)
In plain English, the above articles state that a combatant hiding among a civilian population may not use said population as a human shield and is responsible for any casualties or deaths incurred. This means that the Arabs themselves are responsible for all of their civilian casualties, since they never, ever engage in lawful warfare - to include the wearing of uniforms (to thus distinguish themselves from civilian populations), or stage operations and maintain barracks, or retreat to non-civilian areas. In each case of Israeli military action, said action was taken in response to Arab acts of war against the Israeli civilian population.
Going back to those putative 'civilians', according to the Arab's own figures, as put forth by The Jerusalem Media and Communication Center and The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah, 75% support homicide/genocide bombings of Israelis, and "83.9 percent, support the continuation of the war of aggression against Israeli civilians."(3)
International Law is very clear as to who is a civilian. Article 3, section 1 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War states the following: "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities..."(4)
These 83.9% then, may be counted as combatants and not 'innocent' civilians, since such support has been clearly demonstrated to show incitement through (at the very least) hate speech, which is a crime of genocide. According to The UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: "Any advocacy of national racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law."(5)
So let's get back to that inflammatory and wildly inaccurate second sentence by the esteemed Mr. Summerfield. So far, we have determined that the unvetted number of Arabs killed who were combatants is 1,866. The unvetted number of putative civilian Arabs killed is, so far, 934. Time to vet these numbers for scientific accuracy, as I am sure both Mr. Summerfield and the British Medical Journal would want us to do.
Readjusting the figures to reflect those putative civilian Arabs killed by actions of their own side -- 365, that makes a total of 568. If you factor in those who do not legally fall under the Geneva Convention designation of "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities...," to include those who support the illegal acts of genocidal murder by suicide bombers, as well as the entire illegal war of terror called 'the Intifadah', you must reduce the 568 total by 83.9%. This leaves a grand total of ~91 people who, to everyone's definition, fall in the category of completely innocent civilians. This is a far cry from 2,800 people. In fact, this is an inflation of figures by nearly 3000%!
As to the ultimate responsibility of those 91 innocent deaths, leaving aside the illegalities of waging and staging a war from a civilian area as the Arabs do, one must look at the events leading up to them. Israel, at Camp David, offered the Arabs not just peace, but peace with over 99% of what the Arabs wanted. The Arabs flatly turned Israel down and the Arabs -- not the Israelis -- initiated this war. So ultimately, even those 91 deaths are the responsibility of the aggressors -- in this case, the Arabs, for two proven reasons.
In reading the entire opinion piece, there are no credible facts nor even any balance whatsoever. Not one word is mentioned about any negative impact of the war of genocide(6) by the Arabs against an innocent Israeli Jewish population. No mention of the fact that Israel has suffered 11,356 casualties including 73 suicide bomb attacks, which killed 293 Israelis, since the outbreak of violence in September 2000. Nor is mentioned the approximately 400 rocket attacks specifically aimed at civilian homes. Nor is mentioned that a total of 1,017 Israelis and foreigners have been killed by Arab terror, nay war, deliberately targeting an innocent civilian population in the past four years.(7)
It seems that the British Medical Journal's reputation is no longer deserved. It also appears that the British Medical Journal, using very poor cognitive and decision-making skills in publishing such an obviously anti-Semitic and inflammatory piece, may be guilty of war crimes under the 'hate speech' clause of the Geneva Convention.(see footnote 5)
As for Mr. Summerfield, sadly for him, he has revealed himself to be suffering from at least one, if not numerous mental and/or emotional defects. His denial of reality, his confabulations and his inappropriate use of a scientific forum to put forth such a hate-filled diatribe, couched in pseudo-science, is really a cry for help. Luckily for him, he works in a place that might offer him such services.
Footnotes:
(1) See http://www.ict.org.il.
As in the Jenin operation, the Arabs occupying Jewish Palestine have demonstrated their lack of veracity regarding facts and figures. In Jenin, the Arabs reported it as a massacre of 500 civilians and later revised their figures to 56. (The UN report further revised the figure to 52, 30 of whom were armed combatants.) This same article shows that Israeli statistical reporting (which estimated between 45 and 55) is much more accurate than that of the Arab press and anti-Israel sources.
See also http://www.campusprogram.com/.../jenin.html and http://www.rense.com/general24/dt.htm.
2) http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm.
3.) See http://www.jmcc.org/publicpoll/results/2002/no44.htm and http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2003/p9epressrelease.html.
4.) http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm
5.) http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm
6.) See http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html
"...genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;"
The Arabs routinely target civilian populations consisting of Israelis and/or Jews with particular attention to families, children and pregnant women, thereby trying to destroy any future generations.
7.) http://www.israelforum.com/.../t-6573.html and http://www.jpost.com/...1096259492154&apage=1.
[With many thanks to Dev, who helped me with the research, and the 'anonymous math teacher' who helped with the number-crunching.]