NGO Monitor Analysis (Vol. 1 No. 1) 17 January 2003

Physicians for Human Rights Color Pamphlet Contradicts its Own Mission Statement

Introduction

Many readers protested the unbalanced and biased stance and the failure to acknowledge the moral dilemmas and tough security issues facing the Israeli government and army. Foreign funders and journalists praised the document precisely because it was produced in Israel, and therefore seemed to legitimize harsh criticism of Israeli policies.

This article seeks to examine four questions:

1. What were PHR's apparent underlying objectives?
2. How does this pamphlet reflect PHR's own mission statement?
3. How does this pamphlet fit into PHR's other recent activities?
4. How would the funders react?

The pamphlet itself

PHR's mission statement and work

Physicians for Human Rights -- Israel (PHR-Israel)...is a non-partisan, nonprofit organization, dedicated to promoting and protecting the medical human rights of all residents of Israel and the Occupied Territories....PHR-Israel opposes the subjugation of medical care to political considerations of any kind.

There exists an international citizenry which has its rights...which promises to raise itself up against every abuse of power, no matter who the author or the victims.

Why the pamphlet is misleading and what were PHR's apparent underlying objectives?

Secondly, the report does nothing to protest or even acknowledge the human rights abuses against Israelis. There is no mention of official Palestinian television condoning suicide bombing attacks against civilians, be they Jewish, Arab or foreign workers inside Israel. Thousands have been wounded and mutilated in these attacks, in addition to the hundreds that have been killed. PHR does discredit to its cause by contradicting its own ideal of "opposing the subjugation of medical care to political considerations of any kind…no matter who the author or the victims." Presenting the publication without any context renders it misleading and demonstrates the centrality of PHR's ideological dimension and objective.

How PHR could have been truer to their mission statement?

• They would have depicted the moral dilemmas relating to human rights which Israeli soldiers and policy makers face on a daily basis. Instead of, or, at least, in addition to, a cartoon of soldiers, brandishing disproportionately large weapons, laughing at a young, obviously pregnant, Palestinian woman trying to get through a checkpoint, saying "she is only fat", one could have drawn attention to the documented use of ambulances and baby carriages to carry bombers and explosives and the relentless environment of Palestinian terrorism which have caused more than 600 civilian casualties on the Israeli side. No serious analyst would deny that weapons and explosives have been smuggled into Israel precisely this way. It is for this reason that military analysts advise against the removal of checkpoints. Without denying the suffering of many sick and pregnant people who need to cross checkpoints in order to receive medical attention, the issue of Israel's responsibility and right to prevent the slaughter of its own citizens is bound together with Palestinian suffering.

• A balanced, non-political organization would have included images of how the IDF is trying to mitigate the human tragedy in areas under its control. Many Israeli physicians and hospitals, as well as the IDF, are active in attempting to relieve the humanitarian costs. As IDF deputy medical corps commander, Colonel Dr. Nissim Ohana has emphasized, "It is our moral duty as doctors to assist anyone who needs our help." The colonel noted that for many years the IDF has used pediatric medical equipment to treat Palestinian civilians under its control, and in the last two years, the equipment has been given to reserve forces as well. Lieutenant Colonel, Ziar Dabor, Head of the Medical Equipment Department announced that from December 2002, the medical staff in the West Bank have even been equipped with new equipment necessary to deal appropriately with situations such as Palestinian women who give birth prematurely. Inclusion of such material would be particularly appropriate because PHR--Israel recently produced a report claiming that Israeli policies are responsible for a 500% increase in premature childbirth among Palestinians in the last two years. Perhaps PHR could even claim some credit for the changes introduced by the IDF. Instead, this pamphlet not only failed to take into account the reasons for the deteriorating health care situation in the areas under Palestinian control, but it also chose to ignore the steps the IDF has taken to relieve suffering.

  Through these omissions, PHR demonstrates that its primary objectives are political and ideological -- aspects that are beyond its remit to promote medical human rights. While PHR is promoting its political agenda, many Israeli doctors and hospital staff provide high quality medical care to Palestinians and others, despite the environment of hate.

• Even one image of the terror felt on the Israeli side of the border would demonstrate real concern for "protecting the medical human rights of all residents of Israel and the Occupied Territories," as advocated in the PHR mission statement. Freedom of movement also includes the right to ride buses and drive on the roads without the threat of terror attacks. Suicide bombers seek to infiltrate into the pre-1967 borders of Israel to murder as many civilians as possible -- be they Jews, Arabs or foreign workers and to sow maximum fear and panic. It is entirely within the remit of PHR's human rights work to draw attention to images presented practically every hour on official Palestinian television encouraging suicide bombings against civilians in Israel. To qualify as a human rights organization, PHR needs to advocate human rights consistently and without bias.

• Most worrisome of all, in the course of correspondence with PHR, they admitted that they deliberately chose to use crude stereotypes in the pamphlet. The PHR spokesman claimed that these "stark images" were used in order to "draw the attention of more readers." PHR works in sensitive areas on a professional and supposedly "nonpartisan" basis. It is not a political party and neither needs nor should canvass in the streets on political and ideological issues. Unfortunately, PHR has embarked on a blind rampage against Israeli policies, with complete disregard to background or context.

How does this pamphlet fit into PHR's recent output?

In November 2002, PHR produced a 70-page report, A Legacy of Injustice A Critique of Israeli Approaches to the Right to Health of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories
(www.phr.org.il/Phr/Pages/PhrArticles)

The quotes below illustrate the style and tone of the report:

...the attitude of the State of Israel toward the Occupied Territories and the Palestinian residents living within them is clearly characterized by exploitation. While seeking to utilize the resources of the Palestinian economy (particularly cheap labor, water and land), Israel has evaded its obligation to ensure the fair implementation of social rights for the Palestinian community. Thus it has maximized its profit from the occupation, without taking responsibility…

...accordingly, we believe that local responses to distress must always be accompanied by constant pressure to remove the roadblocks, closures and curfews that cause this distress.

To prevent any misunderstanding, we must emphasize that we have no desire to see the return of the Civil Administration, which was -- and can only be -- a tool to implement a policy of occupation.

…an unequivocal demand that Israel cease to violate human rights in the Occupied Territories, act to find a political resolution, and immediately remove all restrictions on freedom of movement in the Occupied Territories: internal closure, siege and curfew.

We must emphasize that PHR-Israel believes that the State of Israel has no authority to erect checkpoints or roadblocks as a form of total control of the movement of Palestinian residents within the West Bank and Gaza Strip

Israel argues categorically that it bears no responsibility for the healthcare of Palestinian residents in the Occupied Territories.

A second PHR article, posted permanently on its website, which talks of the Medical Situation in East Jerusalem, (www.phr.org.il/phr/Pages/PhrArticle) claims:

Israeli authorities force Palestinian residents out of Jerusalem by severely limiting options for building. Residents in need of housing have to leave the city in order to find it. Once they leave, their residency status is revoked, leaving them cut off from medical services to which they are entitled as residents. In addition, medical services that are provided to East Jerusalem's Palestinian residents do not measure up to the national standard..

How would the funders react?

This funding and recognition also increases their responsibility to live up to their claims and stated objectives and to refrain from activities, that are, in fact, in direct contradiction to its declared goals. Unfortunately, many PHR activities are totally inconsistent with these objectives, including the brochure under discussion. It is not at all clear that the funders realize the extent to which PHR has gone beyond its declared aims. Moreover, it is also unclear to what extent it is influencing well-intentioned, pro-human rights and pro-democracy funds with these professionally produced yet politicized and misleading reports.

A spokesperson for the Delegation of the EU Commission to Israel, which provides funding for PHR activities under the EU's Human Rights and Democracy Program, was quoted as praising the "eye-catching pamphlet." Brussels allocates huge sums every year to human rights NGOs and institutes, which lobby for democracy. When one looks, however, at the potentially damaging effect some of these organizations have, one has to ask what checks and balances the EU is using to prevent their funds being misused to support a narrow ideological or political agenda. Equally important is the question to what extent are they inappropriately influencing the democratic process in Israel.

Similarly, one wonders how the EU would react to American government sponsorship of public relations pamphlets showing stereotyped French or Italian officials abusing migrant workers living in appalling conditions while sending smiling troops off to man checkpoints preventing Croatians entering Serbian territory.

Funders also include the Finnish Embassy and the New Israel Fund. Would either of these two entities knowingly allocate funds to an organization whose activities are primarily aimed at achieving ideological and political goals rather than the universal human rights claimed in PHR's mission statement?

Summary

The Arab-Israeli conflict has taken a considerable toll on both sides. If one's mission is "dedicated to promoting and protecting the medical human rights of all resident of Israel and the Occupied Territories...oppos[ing] the subjugation of medical care to political considerations of any kind", then subjective blame is not only out of place, but counterproductive. In addition, the moral imperative to defend the rights of both sides must go beyond the superficial depictions of this publication.