An open letter to the ombudsman of LANCET about its disgraceful politicization

Dear Ombudsman

When I was an active physiologist, I had great respect for LANCET.  I even published in LANCET.  I am sorry to say that  events of the past couple of years have caused me to change my opinion.

I must take issue with Richard Horton’s abuse of his power and his utter contempt for his position as editor of a prestigious scientific journal and the journal’s audience as evidenced by his heinous antisemitic politicization of LANCET and by his failure to adhere to standards of excellence of quality expected from LANCET.

Editor Richard Horton has been and still is abusing his power as editor to promote a specific uncivilized political point of view, i.e., the delegitimization and destruction of a nation and of a people.  There was no opportunity for another person having an opposing view to have read the offending paper and overview statement of the editor in advance and simultaneously present his/her analysis on this important subject.  Any future submission by an individual having an opposing view would have to undergo peer review and would be limited in length.  Ergo, there would be no guarantee of publication nor would there be any guarantee of equal exposure as to placement in the journal should such an article be published.  There would be no inclusion in an information retrieval system as letters to editors are usually not archived for retrieval.  Such restrictions do not apply to an editor.  Thus, the use of a scholarly journal having the stature of LANCET for a reasoned scholarly debate did not and does not exist.

Permit me to elaborate further.

When an editor of a journal provides an opinion, it should reflect the highest standards of scholarship worthy of a journal such as LANCET.  The editor is the voice of the journal.  The editor’s behavior reflects on the journal.  An editor should set an example of the quality of writing and scholarship expected for publication in the journal.  If the editor uses shoddy scholarship, there is the perception that the editorial staff is tolerant of poor quality scholarship which will then be reflected in the quality of the articles appearing in the journal.  An excellent example of failure to adhere to high standards of quality is editor Horton permitting the publication of a paper which is virtually devoid of scholarship and to which he added overview comments which reflect negatively on his role as an editor and his eager willingness to accept  a very uncivilized partisan point of view without any significant degree of cerebration on his part.

Editor Horton, in his overview of the article “Childbirth at checkpoints in the occupied Palestinian territory” accuses the Israelis of inhumane actions towards pregnant “Palestinian” women and claims that the Israeli actions are “crimes against humanity.”  Further there is the charge that the Israeli soldiers are doing this with premeditated intent.  This later point has aspects of the ancient blood libel charge – well known in British history – and makes the Israeli (Jewish) soldiers appear to be  avatars of evil – a view that is congruent with the depiction of Jews in British culture and various antisemitic organizations throughout the world including the political left.  Yet, nowhere does editor Horton discuss the very pertinent reasons as to why Israelis have checkpoints nor did he require the author of the article to discuss this crucial point.

Editor Horton does not provide any evidence of the number of cases where Israel denied pregnant women from entering Israel through the checkpoints: he implies that this is exceedingly widespread, else why does he scream to have this brought before the International Criminal Court as a crime against humanity? – nor does he provide any comparative statistics on the number of hospitals in Gaza and the number of births occurring in hospitals in Gaza, nor does he even address the question as to the number of pregnant women from Gaza who go to Israel for birthing.  Editor Horton does not discuss why these pregnant women are insisting on having their babies in Israel.  Further, editor Horton does not discuss the veracity of an underlying assumption, i.e., that Israel has a responsibility to provide medical services for these women.

Editor Horton, had he done his research, would have become aware of Palestinian Arab Muslims using ambulances and medical facilities to transport and harbor terrorists including the use of female suicide bombers disguising themselves as pregnant women.  Editor Horton should have required -nay, demanded – that the author, in making his case, discuss these aspects of the subject.  Had editor Horton done his homework, he would have discovered the story of the pregnant woman, whose life the Israeli medical staff saved, who later tried to come back to blow up the very medical facility in which her life was saved including the people who saved her.  Editor Horton seems willing to deny Israelis the fundamental right of any living organism or state: the right to life which includes the right of self-defense.

Sadly, editor Horton appears to be so imbued with his hate-filled antisemitic ideology that he not only did not address all of the above fundamental and highly significant issues he also disregarded the basic need for maintaining quality of scholarship; worse, he did not require the author of the article to address them.

Shoddy editorial scholarship does produce shoddy publications.

It is despicable that Editor Horton and the author of the article are abusing the reputation of LANCET so as to spread lies and distortions about Israel and Israelis (Jews).   It is equally despicable that there has been a lack of outrage from British physicians, from the media and from the medical community throughout the world against editor Horton and LANCET.  I consider the lack of outrage to be indicative of the acceptance by society of the use of a hate-filled, antisemitic/anti-Israel ideology to trump science and reason.

I am not privy to the reasons why editor Horton is using LANCET to vent his obvious hatred of Israel and, by extension, Jews.  However, when I consider the role British academicians play in castigating Israel, attempting to destroy it as a political entity and working to ostracize its scholars from international meetings, I do not find this latest overt expression of British hate so surprising.  What is disturbing is the fact that for the past couple of years LANCET has been reneging on its role as an important vehicle for presenting ideas and for reasoned scientific and medical debate: instead it has become a center for the dissemination of irrational and unwarranted hate – a direct violation of the Hippocratic Oath and the Oath of Maimonides.

British culture is suffused with antisemitism which, ipso facto, provides an excellent breeding ground in which individuals can and do manifest overtly their anti-social and uncivilized behavior.  Editor Horton, seems to be imbued with classic British antisemitism and, not surprisingly, seems to have adopted the anti-intellectual approaches of distortion and outright lying adopted by British scholars on the political left as they feverishly work to demonize and destroy Israel and the Jewish people.  In so doing, editor Horton has diminished and is diminishing the stature of LANCET as a leading medical journal.

Sadly, the lack of disgust by the scientific and medical community throughout the world at Richard Horton’s behavior as the editor of LANCET, I consider to be reflective of the extent antisemitism has grown throughout the world in the past few decades: it is evidence of the intellectual community’s willingness to accept fantasy, lies, and distortions in the place of facts and reason just to promote an uncivilized political end.  How else could editor Horton get away with such abominable scholarship?

If editors of scientific journals such as LANCET succumb to endorsing hate-filled ideologies and substituting them for facts and reason while not making their perspective authors adhere to the highest standards of scholarship then how is a civilized society supposed to teach a new generation of children and expect them to understand the importance and need for intellectual honesty and integrity, the need to respect all people, the reverence of life, and to do away with culturally derived hate?