The British Medical Journal (BMJ) has today published an analysis of the criticism it received after an article was printed in 2004 criticising Israel.
In the original article Derek Summerfield expressed his concern at what he saw as systematic violations of the fourth Geneva Convention by the Israeli army in Gaza.
The piece attracted a huge response with the BMJ's website and its editor receiving hundreds of hostile emails as a result.
In the analysis published today, author Karl Sabbagh claims many of the emails in question were sent as part of a campaign to silence criticism of Israel.
A large number of the hostile responses were sent from a website that marketed itself as "the largest Israel media advocacy group in the world" but the authors of today's report suggest there was little evidence those sending the emails had actually read the controversial BMJ article.
"There is nothing intrinsically wrong with organising an effective lobby group," Mr Sabbagh writes, "but the ultimate goal of some of the groups that lobby for Israel or against Palestine is apparently the suppression of views they disagree with.
"Such campaigns cannot be allowed to succeed – not so much because they are wrong about the issues, but because their ultimate aim is censorship and suppression by means of intimidation," he concludes.
In an accompanying editorial also published today writer Michael O’Donnell praised the BMJ for publishing Mr Summerfield's report in the first place.
"The best way to blunt the effectiveness of this type of bullying is to expose it to public scrutiny," the editorial states.
However, in another accompanying commentary piece, journalist Jonathan Freedland claims in the technological society we now live in, controversial topics always attract a significant response.
"It simply comes with the territory," he claims, suggesting the incident involving Mr Summerfield's report was no longer a rare event nor confined simply to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
No comments:
Post a Comment