Doc's Talk: Health officials slam WHO over alleged bias

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Health officials slam WHO over alleged bias

Dan Izenberg , THE JERUSALEM POST

A group of Israeli public health experts have blasted human rights organizations for alleged bias regarding their criticism of Israel's policy on allowing sick Gazans to enter or pass through Israel to receive hospital care.

The attacks came in a letter of protest sent by Prof. Elliot Berry, Elihu Richter and Ted Tulchinsky and Dr. Ronny Shterksall to the director of the World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva, Dr. Margaret Chan, as well as in an article published in October by The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. In his article, Richter wrote that the WHO regional branch and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR-I) charge that the state is denying sick Gazans access to hospitals in Israel, Jordan and the West Bank by blocking them at the Erez crossing.

In fact, however, the number of permits granted to Palestinians to exit Gaza for medical treatment increased by 45 percent between 2006 and 2007 and the trend continued during the first six months of 2008.

This, even though during these years, Palestinian terrorism against targets in Sderot and the Gaza periphery increased dramatically, including attacks against the Erez crossing point itself.

According to Richter's figures, 4,932 Palestinians received permits to cross into Israel in 2006, compared with 7,176 in 2007 and 8,796 in the first half of 2008.

At the same time, the proportion of applications that were accepted by Israeli authorities fell drastically during the same period. Accepted applications constituted 90.2 of all applications made in 2006, 81.5 percent in 2006 and 66 percent at the end of the first six months of 2008.

Richter also traced the number of rockets and mortars fired by terrorists at Israel during the same period, and found that the increased frequency of attacks did not have a negative influence on the absolute number of permits granted sick Palestinians from Gaza.

At the same time, he wrote that the increase in the proportion of applications rejected by Israeli authorities between 2006 and mid-2008 was "mostly because of security reasons."

As for the dramatic increase in applications for medical treatment outside the Gaza Strip, Richter quoted Prof. Rafael Walden, head of vascular surgery at Tel Hashomer Hospital, as explaining that it resulted from "system-wide breakdowns in the infrastructure of medical care in Gaza."

He added that PHR-I doctors who visited Gaza hospitals reported severe shortages of basic equipment, replacement parts, broken equipment and shortages of medication.

However, Richter failed to mention that the most important reason for the increase in applications to leave Gaza via Erez is the closure of the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt following the Hamas takeover of Gaza in June 2007.

Since then, Erez has been the only way for any Palestinian to leave the Gaza Strip, even if he wants to go to Egypt.

This fact was noted in a response by PHR-I to Richter's claims.

"Richter's interpretation of the facts is inaccurate," wrote the director-general, Hadas Ziv. "Since the Rafah crossing was closed on June 9, 2007, it has continued to be closed most of the time and therefore the number of sick people going through the Erez crossing has increased. This increase finds expression in the growth in the number of permits but also in the large increase in the number of rejections."

In a number of High Court cases, PHR-I has charged that even after sick Palestinians have been granted permits to cross Erez, they are interrogated by the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) and ordered to divulge details about family members and others as a condition for being allowed to cross the border.

In responding to this charge, Richter described these interrogations as non-coercive and defended them.

"Non-coercive interrogation of many patients to obtain security information on those who are dangerous would seem to be an elementary precautionary measure for protecting the right to life and safety, in the light of Hamas' use of patients as suicide terrorists and its terror attacks directed at the Erez patient crossing," he wrote.

In its response, PHR-I wrote that it did not oppose security checks "at the entry to Israel from Erez, but is strongly opposed to the fact that today Israel uses a permit regime and bureaucratic and psychological terrorism against people who cannot receive proper medical treatment in Gaza and are dependent on favors from Israel, even when all they ask is to cross into the West Bank or Jordan.

"Richter relies on what the ISA tells him as though it is God's own truth, even though the ISA, as an organization, is not supervised by anyone and hides behind security arguments and closed doors."

The human rights organization added that one of the reasons Gaza cannot provide more of its population's medical needs is because Israel controls all the border crossings and can prohibit entry of goods, including medicines and medical equipment.

Israel, for example, prohibits the entry of all radioactive material, so Gaza hospitals cannot provide radiology treatment to cancer patients.

On another issue, PHR-I strongly rejected Richter's charge that it did not condemn the attacks on Sderot and the treatment of IDF captive Gilad Schalit.

The head of the WHO Regional Office, Tony Lowrance, charged that Richter's claims that access to hospital care for Palestinians from Gaza had improved over the past two years was "selective and misleading."

Referring to the figures of applications filed and permits granted in the first six months of 2008, Lowrance said, "The bottom line is that 4,400 patients have been denied access to specialized care which they cannot receive in Gaza. This includes cardiac, cancer and orthopedic patients, some of whom are facing life-threatening situations." Lowrance described the treatment of the sick at Erez junction as "inhuman." Ambulances coming from Gaza may not cross the border and the patients, many of them too sick to walk, are wheeled to the Israeli side, where they are interrogated.

According to Richter, "The interrogations, delays and refusals at checkpoints are a consequence of applying the same precautionary principles that guide questioning, frisking, body checks and baggage checks at airports, where tens of millions are forced to endure inconveniences and delay to detect and deter danger from a tiny number of terrorists."

In their letter to Chan, the public health experts accused the WHO office of "continuing its tradition of focusing on referrals to Israeli hospitals as its main concern."

Its failure to promote dialogue for health and human rights and to address continuous official incitement to genocide and abuse of the children of Gaza by genocidal propaganda and even training in terror bespeaks to ethical tribalism."

Lowrance said in response, "We appreciate the wider issues but our concern is with health care and our mandate is the West Bank and Gaza."
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1227702421125&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Guest Comment:
Sadly, both Jews and non-Jews will believe that the Israelis are bad people and Arabs are victims because of the anti-Israel bias in this report by WHO. If there is to be any balance, articles like this one need to be read and shared. Don

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk