Jewish doctors denounce BMA over Gaza ceasefire letter

The letter, it says, will only “escalate” this problem.

The BMA letter’s critics point out that it makes no mention of Hamas, the October terrorist atrocities, Hamas’s use of human shields or its holding of Israeli hostages without access to medical treatment or the Red Cross.

Instead, it accuses Israel of causing “an inexcusable shortage of basic necessities” such as water, food and fuel, and “damage to hundreds of medical facilities” - without mentioning the tunnels Hamas built beneath every hospital in Gaza and uses as bases to store weapons and mount attacks.

However, according to the letter, “the impact on healthcare and wealth workers” made by Israel during the war both breaches international law and violates “medical neutrality”. It calls on Cameron to “stand up” for this principle, and to work with other countries to impose an immediate ceasefire and ensure aid reaches Gaza.

Doctors who have denounced the letter include Liz Lightstone, professor of renal medicine at Imperial College. She posted on X (formerly Twitter) that she was “ashamed to be a member of the BMA”, saying the letter was “as far as from a statement of neutrality as can be imagined.

“Clearly the BMA is hoping to so alienate its #Jewish members that you will become a #Jewfree environment where your #Jewhatred can run free. Where are your neutrality statements on the 85,000 children starved to death in #Yemen; or the 5.4 million people displaced & facing a massive #humanitarian crisis in #Sudan? Shame on you @DrPhilBanfield & @DrLatifaPatel

“This is not #neutrality. This is singling out one conflict based solely on the fact #Israel is involved. That is #antisemitic”

Well-placed medical sources have told the JC that before they drafted the letter, Banfield and Patel did not consult or notify the BMA’s official, policy-making bodies.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a medical consultant based in London said: “The BMA has no formal mandate from members or elected representatives to send this letter and no agreed policy which legitimises its authors to effectively act as a mouthpiece for those who denounce Israel and thereby give support to Hamas under the guise of humanitarianism.

“If they had truly wanted to adopt a position of ‘medical neutrality’, they would steered clear of attributing blame, checked the facts and been honest in naming Hamas, the ruling power in power in Gaza, who have most of the responsibility for supply shortages affecting innocent civilians and the loss of defects medical infrastructure. They would also have acknowledged Hamas’s deliberate targeting of Israeli healthcare facilities.”

Top child and adolescent psychiatry consultant Dr Jon Goldin told the JC that the letter had persuaded him to leave the BMA after more than 30 years: “It is written in a totally one-sided way. The BMA’s role is to protect its members. But there is already a lot of antisemitism in medical settings and this risks inflaming tensions. They are alienating members, especially Jewish ones.”

Other doctors have posted stinging comments after signing the petition. They include psychiatrist Danny Allen, a BMA member for 45 years, who calls the letter “the most egregious example of bias I have ever seen”. He told the JC that the BMA had no business writing such a letter, because it was “giving its opinion in an area where it has no standing”.

High Selsick wrote that “as a Jewish doctor with family and friends in Israel this letter makes it clear that the BMA does not consider our lives as having any value… It is deeply biased and clearly lays the blame at the door of Israel with no mention of the role that Hamas plays in depriving Gazan citizens of their basic rights nor their deliberate use of civilians and medical facilities as shields for their terrorist commandos.”

Another critic is Valentine Goulstine, a Hertfordshire GP. He wrote: “ have experienced a lot of antisemitism from other doctors on various platforms. Enough is enough! I have stopped my BMA membership and am appalled by the frank antisemitism in the medical field.”

Professor David Katz, chair of the Jewish Medical Association, pointed out that the BMA also wrote last week to NHS England chief Amanda Pritchard, saying it was vital for all staff to feel safe and supported at work. But this, he said, “contradicted” the letter to Cameron, which had caused them “fear and distress” by opening the door to those who wished to criticise Israel alone.

A BMA spokesperson said it had mentioned the atrocities, the hostages and the use of human shields in a statement on its website, although not in the letter to Cameron.

The spokesperson said: “There is no contradiction in raising grave concerns about a humanitarian and healthcare crisis overseas and protecting doctors in the UK from discrimination and harassment. The BMA stands unequivocally against antisemitism and discrimination of any kind, whether that’s based on religion, race, nationality or political beliefs.

“It is wrong to take a specific letter in isolation, given all that we have said on the conflict so far, including in our comprehensive position statement that is referenced in the letter to Lord Cameron. It is not only incorrect, but irresponsible to suggest that we have not spoken out forcefully on the appalling attack by Hamas and the taking of Israeli hostages.

“The BMA absolutely wants to see the release of all hostages unharmed, and has consistently called for this, including in our position statement and in our initial response to the October attack.

“More broadly, as a professional association, the BMA has a long history of campaigning on human rights issues both in the UK and around the world and has longstanding policy on preserving medical impartiality in conflicts and upholding international law.”

The campaign group UK Lawyers for Israel wrote to Cameron on Thursday saying it had been contacted by “several concerned doctors” about the BMA’s letter, saying they were “horrified” by it and that it “does not represent their views”. The lawyers’ group urged him to ignore it, on the grounds it “contains serious omissions, and also contains a great deal of misleading information, incorrect facts, false allegations and pure anti-Israel propaganda”.

They told the Foreign Secretary they had also written to the BMA, requesting they withdraw it, and shared the view it would “stir up racial hatred in the medical profession, encourage antisemitism in medical workplaces, promote distrust of medical professionals on the part of members of the public, and prejudice medical neutrality”.