Peter, your unwavering commitment to global health, truth, and justice is one of the reasons your voice continues to matter so much.
In an age of polarization, God is in the details. Scientific journals derive their authority from precision, balance, and intellectual discipline. When those virtues give way to advocacy (even for a cause one considers just) they risk eroding the very trust on which their authority rests.
Your invocation of Weber is particularly apt. I would add another voice: Spinoza's single word, Caute ("be cautious"). It is not a call for timidity but for intellectual responsibility. Words published under the imprimatur of science do not merely describe reality; they shape it. Their foreseeable consequences therefore become part of their ethical meaning.
Conviction without responsibility is not enough, especially for institutions whose credibility rests on the pursuit of truth.
Thank you Patricia, that’s very kind. I love the Spinoza reference. And “Their foreseeable consequences become part of their ethical meaning” puts it better than I did. Thanks again!
Thank you Patricia, that’s very kind. I love the Spinoza reference. And “Their foreseeable consequences become part of their ethical meaning” puts it better than I did. Thanks again!
Thank you Peter for addressing this issue so clearly. As I follow the professional/political discourse re the conflict in the middle east the Lancet often is sited as a "scientific, credible source" even when there is NO scientific evidence to back the statements. I do believe that every editor and editorial board has both ethical and moral responsibility responsibility to be true to its ethos which the Lancet has failed to do regarding Israel for a long time. We too often don't speak up and challenge these unethical conducts, thank you for being a voice of reason and ethical conduct.
"Hamas ministry documents, dated February and March 2020, detail Hamas’ strategy of embedding its military infrastructure, fighters, and leadership within hospitals and medical facilities in Gaza, blatantly violating international law and endangering civilian lives. As with all such installations and services in Gaza, Hamas cynically exploits the healthcare system to provide cover for and expand its terror operations."
"Hamas explicitly states that health facilities in Gaza are not neutral spaces, but instead play a critical role in Hamas’ terror network. Hamas officials expressed alarm at the prospect of “hostile parties” gathering intelligence on medical facilities, since these “serve as places that the wounded” – who “hold sensitive positions in the resistance”– “are gathered in during times of escalation.” In addition, they described medical facilities as places of “gathering for many commanders of the movement [i.e. Hamas] and the government in times of escalation."
"Hamas also deliberately maintains a physical presence within hospital buildings. For example, Hamas officials note that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) “has chosen [to operate] in a wing inside Al-Shifa Hospital that is adjacent to the [Hamas] movement’s offices”
Despite being aware of Hamas’ control and exploitation of medical spaces, NGOs and UN agencies with a medical and humanitarian focus continued to operate under Hamas-imposed restrictions. They accepted Hamas’s surveillance, movement limitations, vetting of their teams, and were exposed to pressures and directives from Hamas security personnel.
The NGOs also refuse to publicly admit their knowledge of Hamas’ use of medical spaces for military purposes, while simultaneously and hypocritically condemning Israeli attacks on terror targets in the vicinity of hospitals and medical centers. This selective reporting distorts reality, prevents the international community from obtaining reliable information from the field, encourages terror groups to continue exploiting areas that ought to be neutral, undermines humanitarian efforts in Gaza, and contributes to the demonization of Israel.
I agree with Peter Singer's distinction. Not everything that is anti-Zionist is best analysed through the lens of antisemitism. Peter refers to the excellent Adam Louis-Klein, who also points us in a more important direction. As he argues, we should stop spending all our energy trying to prove that anti-Zionism is "really" antisemitism, and instead recognise anti-Zionism as an ideology in its own right. As Louis-Klein has written, "we need to recognize antizionism as its own bigotry" and "we should view antizionism as racism."
Anti-Zionism has its own blood-soaked history. It underpinned Soviet campaigns against "Zionists," including Stalin's anti-Zionist purges and the anti-Zionist persecution that culminated in Poland's 1968 expulsion of thousands of Jews. It has also fuelled decades of wars, terrorism and rejectionism in the Middle East, costing hundreds of thousands of lives. We do not need to force anti-Zionism into the category of antisemitism to condemn it. It deserves condemnation as a destructive political ideology in its own right.
The irony is that perhaps the best framework for understanding how institutions like The Lancet drift this way comes from the Jewish intellectual Noam Chomsky, himself a longstanding critic of Israel. In Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky argued that elite institutions rarely invent narratives, they legitimise and recycle them. Once a claim has been laundered through prestigious institutions, journalists, academics and editors repeat it because it appears to carry the imprimatur of objective authority.
That is why I think The Lancet situation is worth looking at, but only in perspective. It is downstream, not upstream. The more important question is how anti-Zionist narratives become laundered into journals like the Lancet, because they have been first institutionalised by the United Nations. Within the UN, voting dynamics led by blocs such as the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the Non-Aligned Movement have, over decades, produced an international anti Israel consensus that is then treated by Western media, academia and journals as neutral and authoritative. Much of that political architecture was reinforced by Soviet anti-Zionist doctrine during the Cold War. The USSR has gone, but many of those narratives and propaganda machinery remain embedded within the UN system. By the time they reach journals like The Lancet, they look like scientific and moral consensus.... what they are of course political advocacy.
Once criticism ceases to be about the actions of a government and becomes the demonisation of an entire nation, we are no longer engaged in ordinary political criticism. At that point, it matters little whether the hostility is rooted in Islamist jihadism, Soviet-derived anti-Zionism, neo-Marxist anti-colonial theory, or older European traditions of antisemitism. These are different traditions of hatred, but they converge on the same destination: the exceptional delegitimisation of the world's only Jewish state. Whatever you call it, the Lancet has aligned with the UN into the oldest forms of hatred.
Peter, your unwavering commitment to global health, truth, and justice is one of the reasons your voice continues to matter so much.
In an age of polarization, God is in the details. Scientific journals derive their authority from precision, balance, and intellectual discipline. When those virtues give way to advocacy (even for a cause one considers just) they risk eroding the very trust on which their authority rests.
Your invocation of Weber is particularly apt. I would add another voice: Spinoza's single word, Caute ("be cautious"). It is not a call for timidity but for intellectual responsibility. Words published under the imprimatur of science do not merely describe reality; they shape it. Their foreseeable consequences therefore become part of their ethical meaning.
Conviction without responsibility is not enough, especially for institutions whose credibility rests on the pursuit of truth.
Thank you Patricia, that’s very kind. I love the Spinoza reference. And “Their foreseeable consequences become part of their ethical meaning” puts it better than I did. Thanks again!
A remarkable and trenchant analysis of the transformation of antisemitism to
pc anti-zionism. We need a public health approach to the prevention of it and genocide.
We cannot rely on, or expect, objectivity from the medical establishment, the UN or world opinion…
Thank you Elliot. Unfortunately, I would have to say you’re right.
a very good analysis of a difficult topic
Thank you Monica! Much appreciated.
Thank you Patricia, that’s very kind. I love the Spinoza reference. And “Their foreseeable consequences become part of their ethical meaning” puts it better than I did. Thanks again!
Thank you Peter for addressing this issue so clearly. As I follow the professional/political discourse re the conflict in the middle east the Lancet often is sited as a "scientific, credible source" even when there is NO scientific evidence to back the statements. I do believe that every editor and editorial board has both ethical and moral responsibility responsibility to be true to its ethos which the Lancet has failed to do regarding Israel for a long time. We too often don't speak up and challenge these unethical conducts, thank you for being a voice of reason and ethical conduct.
Thank you dear Judith.
Thank you. What a scholarly, thoughtful, and erudite note. Much appreciated.
One might also call on Lancet, which claims to be concerned with the rights of health care workers, to report the following (https://ngo-monitor.org/reports/hamas-misuse-hospitals-docs/):
"Hamas ministry documents, dated February and March 2020, detail Hamas’ strategy of embedding its military infrastructure, fighters, and leadership within hospitals and medical facilities in Gaza, blatantly violating international law and endangering civilian lives. As with all such installations and services in Gaza, Hamas cynically exploits the healthcare system to provide cover for and expand its terror operations."
"Hamas explicitly states that health facilities in Gaza are not neutral spaces, but instead play a critical role in Hamas’ terror network. Hamas officials expressed alarm at the prospect of “hostile parties” gathering intelligence on medical facilities, since these “serve as places that the wounded” – who “hold sensitive positions in the resistance”– “are gathered in during times of escalation.” In addition, they described medical facilities as places of “gathering for many commanders of the movement [i.e. Hamas] and the government in times of escalation."
"Hamas also deliberately maintains a physical presence within hospital buildings. For example, Hamas officials note that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) “has chosen [to operate] in a wing inside Al-Shifa Hospital that is adjacent to the [Hamas] movement’s offices”
Despite being aware of Hamas’ control and exploitation of medical spaces, NGOs and UN agencies with a medical and humanitarian focus continued to operate under Hamas-imposed restrictions. They accepted Hamas’s surveillance, movement limitations, vetting of their teams, and were exposed to pressures and directives from Hamas security personnel.
The NGOs also refuse to publicly admit their knowledge of Hamas’ use of medical spaces for military purposes, while simultaneously and hypocritically condemning Israeli attacks on terror targets in the vicinity of hospitals and medical centers. This selective reporting distorts reality, prevents the international community from obtaining reliable information from the field, encourages terror groups to continue exploiting areas that ought to be neutral, undermines humanitarian efforts in Gaza, and contributes to the demonization of Israel.
I agree with Peter Singer's distinction. Not everything that is anti-Zionist is best analysed through the lens of antisemitism. Peter refers to the excellent Adam Louis-Klein, who also points us in a more important direction. As he argues, we should stop spending all our energy trying to prove that anti-Zionism is "really" antisemitism, and instead recognise anti-Zionism as an ideology in its own right. As Louis-Klein has written, "we need to recognize antizionism as its own bigotry" and "we should view antizionism as racism."
Anti-Zionism has its own blood-soaked history. It underpinned Soviet campaigns against "Zionists," including Stalin's anti-Zionist purges and the anti-Zionist persecution that culminated in Poland's 1968 expulsion of thousands of Jews. It has also fuelled decades of wars, terrorism and rejectionism in the Middle East, costing hundreds of thousands of lives. We do not need to force anti-Zionism into the category of antisemitism to condemn it. It deserves condemnation as a destructive political ideology in its own right.
The irony is that perhaps the best framework for understanding how institutions like The Lancet drift this way comes from the Jewish intellectual Noam Chomsky, himself a longstanding critic of Israel. In Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky argued that elite institutions rarely invent narratives, they legitimise and recycle them. Once a claim has been laundered through prestigious institutions, journalists, academics and editors repeat it because it appears to carry the imprimatur of objective authority.
That is why I think The Lancet situation is worth looking at, but only in perspective. It is downstream, not upstream. The more important question is how anti-Zionist narratives become laundered into journals like the Lancet, because they have been first institutionalised by the United Nations. Within the UN, voting dynamics led by blocs such as the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the Non-Aligned Movement have, over decades, produced an international anti Israel consensus that is then treated by Western media, academia and journals as neutral and authoritative. Much of that political architecture was reinforced by Soviet anti-Zionist doctrine during the Cold War. The USSR has gone, but many of those narratives and propaganda machinery remain embedded within the UN system. By the time they reach journals like The Lancet, they look like scientific and moral consensus.... what they are of course political advocacy.
Once criticism ceases to be about the actions of a government and becomes the demonisation of an entire nation, we are no longer engaged in ordinary political criticism. At that point, it matters little whether the hostility is rooted in Islamist jihadism, Soviet-derived anti-Zionism, neo-Marxist anti-colonial theory, or older European traditions of antisemitism. These are different traditions of hatred, but they converge on the same destination: the exceptional delegitimisation of the world's only Jewish state. Whatever you call it, the Lancet has aligned with the UN into the oldest forms of hatred.