Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Department of Error

2020; Elsevier BV; Volume: 395; Issue: 10223 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30323-8

1474-547X

Amy Alpert, Maxine Fookson, Seth Komarovsky, Alan Meyers, Alice Rothchild, Rachel Rubin, Peter H. S. Sporn,

Anti-Semitism and critiquing the actions of IsraelAs members of the health-care community, all of us Jewish, we disagree with the comments made by Julio Rosenstock and colleagues 1 about the Correspondence by Paola Manduca and colleagues 2 representing "a clear manifestation of anti-Semitism". 1 This accusation is commonly wielded as a means of foreclosing critical discussion of the behaviour of the state of Israel, conflating such criticism with anti-Semitism, meaning anti-Jewish.It must be the responsibility of those wielding such accusations to cite the specific text being identified as anti-Semitic.The comments made by Manduca and colleagues 2 were an accurate description and justified critique of Israel's assault on the Gaza Strip; the Correspondence 2 contains no text that might be considered anti-Semitic.The petition 3 that Rosenstock and colleagues mention is replete with pejoratives about the Correspondence by Manduca and colleagues 2 (eg, "This letter contains hateful falsehoods, malevolent political opinion, and inaccuracies"; "one sided, unbalanced, egregious anti-Israel invective"; and "inappropriate polemical letter").Finally, although Rosenstock and colleagues 1 accuse The Lancet of anti-Israel bias in their original criticism, 3 they do not mention anti-Semitism.If Rosenstock and colleagues wish to make the case that anti-Semitism motivates Manduca and colleagues' 2 critique of Operation Protective Edge, then they must cite specific text.