Dear Melisa

I would like to share with you my thoughts concerning the very problematic session on Gaza that took place on Friday 25 October at the CR conference in Carpi. But first and foremost, I have to cite the disgraceful issue of the hostages. Their kidnapping, their mistreatment, and murdering many of them now in captivity for 400 days.

Biases

The session on War Genocide and Public Health raised several important questions as to how we in the CR address these highly charged set of issues. here are several biases I noticed at the recent conference that deeply disturbed me:

  1. The title of the session “The public health and environmental damage caused by war: a case study of Gaza now and in the future” showed a very serious systematic bias.  A title I suggest: “The war in Gaza, the Western Negev and the Galilee of Israel: Data and Ethical implications”.
  2. The inflammatory language used by some of the speakers.
  3. The recognition that my presentation belonged to the above session and not to be in a separate free-standing presentation.
  4. The selection of speakers for the conference should have been persons representing all viewpoints and not just one to a degree. This was corrected adhocthanks to the proactive interventions of Yoram Finkelstein
  5. the major themes of the three lectures in that session were that Israel was committing genocide and ecocide and was a settler colonial state. These statements were slanderous.
  6. The selective focus on Gaza while there are currently much more big evil genocides such as the 500,000 people who were murdered in the Syria genocide

starting from 2011 till present (https://stopgenocidenow.org/conflicts/syria/) and the genocide of 50,000 Christians murdered in Nigeria by Muslim Fulani militias over the past four years (https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/christian-massacres-prove-nigerian-genocide-is-religious).

A suggested Toolbox

I would like to suggest that in addressing these issues we have to be guided by the same rigor with which we investigate, document, and report on all other problems in the field of occupational and environmental medicine. Only by doing so will we be able to protect ourselves from making dangerous mistakes and provocations as I believe happened with some of the presentations.

Here is a toolbox I suggest we use in addressing these issues:

  1. Recognize a topic as contentious and then ensure representation of all points of view.
  2. Require the use of authoritative data, where such data is sourced and qualified, and if needed produce any alternate data for discussion.
  3. Subject the data to the rigorous examination as is usual in our fields.
  4. Produce recommendations in line with our ethical perspectives.
  5. Have an active and separate moderator able to keep speakers to their agreed subject matter.

Reliable data

We have to collect and assess whatever data there are on potential genocidal situations. We have to start with assembling and documenting systematically what I call the W5h: Who, When, Where, What, Which, and How of the scenarios. We have to use timelines to organize the W5h data. Furthermore, I refer the CR fellows to the data from authoritative experts such as John Spencer, the Professor of Urban Warfare at West Point, and Colonel Sir Richard Kemp, the retired British Army officer.

Ecocide and its relationship to genocidal intent

Addressing the issue of ecocide as one of the consequences of the war was very definitely a good thing. I congratulate Danielle on his persistence in advancing the subject, this is an important issue and my colleagues and I published in 2007 a paper on genocide and ecocide: Malthusian pressures, genocide, and ecocide. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, (Richter, E. D., Blum, R., Berman, T., & Stanton, G. H. (2007).  13(3), 331-341.)

But in the CR session, it was restricted to Gaza only and not to the massive destruction of life and habitat in the Western Negev by Hamas and especially in Northern Galilee by Hizbullah as well as in Beirut. In each of these cases, the question that must be asked is whether the ecocidal damage was a consequence of an intent to commit genocide.  The Charters of Hamas and Hizbullah are explicit in expressing their genocidal intentions.

Death toll

The issue of estimating death tolls requires addressing the following three points: Intent, distinction, and proportionality. These are well-known terms in international criminal law.  Concerning intent, there could be no moral equivalence between Hamas and Hizbullah’s intentions to destroy Israel and Israel’s right and duty to defend its population. Furthermore, the fact that Israel throughout the entire war continued to supply Gaza with water, food, medication, fuel, etc. refutes the claims that Israel’s intentions were anything but ecocidal and genocidal. Concerning distinction and proportionality, emerging data that address these questions points in the light of the context of the best available data on deaths, civilian: combatant ratios, and the role of shielding, a practice used by Hamas and Hizbullah.

Here are some points from an interview given on Mar 28, 2024, by Prof. Spencer, perhaps one of the most knowledgeable sources in the Gaza conflict:  90% of the death toll of modern war has been civilians. some 18,000 civilians have died in Gaza, a ratio of roughly 1 combatant to 1.5 civilians. Given Hamas’ likely inflation of the death count, the real figure could be closer to 1: 1. See the full interview in the link:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YhoH-0c2yc

Today, the death toll is estimated to be 41,000 of which 20,000 are estimated by the IDF to be combatants which gives an approximate 1:1 ratio which remains the same as at the beginning of the war.

Indoctrination and Incitement

School textbooks and social media are indicators of intent. As a member of a US-Israeli-Palestinian Task Force, I spent many years working with groups working on Israeli and Palestinian textbooks. An article I wrote many years ago summarized that project in the Times of Israel https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-textbook-study-flawed-and-wrong/ . Since then, the very highly qualified researchers who did this work have updated their reports. To make a very long story short it is sad to say that the latest editions of Palestinian textbooks have become increasingly extremely inflammatory. There is much more Demonization, Dehumanization, Delegitimization, and promotion of war curricula, as well as Holocaust Denial. By contrast, there have been improvements in Moroccan textbooks. A positive role model for countering textbook indoctrination and incitement is the program of Prof. Mohammed Dajani, a Palestinian who founded WASATIA, an NGO that calls for moderation – www.wasatia.info. Dajani spoke at our first and second New Poverties conferences in Jerusalem   https://thenewpovertiees.wixsite.com/conference2019/agenda.

We must go forward

My lecture at this year’s CR conference, presented by Zoom, on Deradicalization, pointed to the precedent of Denazification after World War II as a role model.

I look forward to continuing the discussion on these issues trying to do something good, choosing life, and finally, doing what we can to work to release the hostages.

Elihu D Richter MD MPH Associate Professor

Occupational and Environmental Medicine

Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Public Health and Community Medicine

POB 12272  Jerusalem Israel