Boycotts and Protests To Meet APA Keynote Speaker, Desmond Tutu
Boycotts and Protests To Meet APA Keynote Speaker, Desmond Tutu
The selection of Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu, 1984 Nobel Peace Prize recipient, to present the convocation lecture at the American Psychiatric Association’s upcoming annual meeting has so outraged some APA members that they have arranged meeting boycotts and protests. They hope to persuade their organization to disinvite a man they contend has made “strongly anti-Semitic comments,” spread falsehoods about Israel, and taken positions in opposition to the APA’s own policies.
APA president Carol Bernstein, MD, told Psychiatric Times that she invited Tutu to deliver the William C. Menninger Memorial Convocation Lecture on May 16 at the APA’s meeting in Hawaii. The invitation was issued after Dr Bernstein attended the American College of Psychiatry’s annual meeting in 2010, where she heard Tutu discuss South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission of which he was chairman.1
“I was incredibly moved by his wisdom, his strength, his humanity and his description of Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa. He was really eloquent and uplifting,” Bernstein told Psychiatric Times. Bernstein invited Tutu to speak on the same topic at APA’s meeting. The contract was signed in April of 2010, she said, and Tutu’s lecture was publicized last year at APA’s New Orleans meeting.
While the convocation is an opportunity to hear about important topics related to the field, it is not a scientific presentation, said Bernstein, and it is the APA president’s prerogative to invite the speaker. Part of the purpose of the Menninger lecture is to expand our understanding of human values, Bernstein explained adding that many prior convocation speakers, such as actress/novelist, Carrie Fisher, author/photographer Tipper Gore, and physician/authors Oliver Sacks, MD, and Abraham Verghese, MD, have “addressed aspects of the human condition and caring for others.”
The Truth and Reconciliation process, with its approach to our common humanity, provides similar lessons, she said, particularly given the growing disintegration of civility in the US.
Asked if she were aware of the controversy surrounding Tutu at the time she issued the invitation, she said no.
Member outrage
A few weeks before the APA Assembly met in Washington, DC, last November, Jerome “Jerry” Rogoff, MD, Assembly area 1 representative, said he became incensed upon learning that Tutu was the designated convocation speaker. He and several others contacted Bernstein about Tutu’s “dark side.”
They assumed that Bernstein was unaware of “Tutu’s other side, and if notified and informed in detail of what his stances were with quotes from him and accurate citations that she would investigate and rescind the invitation,” Rogoff said. “Instead, we were met with a stonewall.”
So Rogoff and others turned to APA’s Assembly. We knew Tutu was a hero and role model to many who might be unaware of his other side, Rogoff said.
Rogoff prepared an Action Paper with input from other members. The paper called for the invitation to be withdrawn and “a suitable less divisive substitute speaker be invited instead.” Rogoff, who lived in Israel for 9 months and speaks Hebrew, signed the paper, along with 24 other APA members.
The Action Paper noted that being the main speaker at the Convocation of Fellows “is one of the highest honors APA can bestow,” that Tutu “has made several speeches, given interviews and made public pronouncements against the State of Israel that are not just critical, but defamatory, distorted, inaccurate, inflammatory and completely one sided,” and that many APA members “perceive some of Mr Tutu’s statements to be anti-Semitic, personally repugnant and unacceptable.”
As an example, Rogoff pointed to a 2002 speech by Tutu in which he said that “people are scared in this country [the US] to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful – very powerful.” In that speech, according to Rogoff, Tutu then went on to place American Jews in the company of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic and Idi Amin.2
This and other excerpts of Tutu’s statements with references and Rogoff’s commentary were compiled into a supporting document accompanying the Action Paper. [Copies of the Action Paper and supporting documentation are available by contacting Rogoff through APA’s member directory.]
Unfortunately, Rogoff said, the Action Paper presentation and discussion were put at the end of the Assembly meeting, “an interesting phenomenon itself,” and only 4 of some 20 speakers were able to present their views before discussion was terminated and a voice vote taken.
It was a close vote and the Assembly speaker decided for the nays. Generally, when that occurs, Rogoff said, it is followed by a standing vote, but there was no time.
An APA press representative confirmed that it is usual protocol to take a standing vote following a close voice vote, and Roger Peele, APA’s secretary, agreed that the “debate was closed prematurely.”
In response to an APA member’s query to some APA candidates for office, Peele wrote: “I was disappointed that most of those supporting Jerry's motion and most of those opposed had no chance to express their opinions as the debate was closed prematurely because the Assembly had to leave the room at exactly 11 AM that Sunday morning. It was not a fully considered decision,” he said.
Despite his concerns, Peele said he voted against Rogoff’s “creditable motion.” “I didn’t disagree that Tutu's positions were insupportable and offensive,” Peele said. “But for me, the question was what was in the interests of the APA. I think the best test was, did it damage the American College of Psychiatrists--an organization whose composition is very close to the APA except for a greater tilt toward academics? Everyone says ‘no,’ that his talk was a big plus at the ACP. Second, what happens if one disinvites? I don't know the details, but it was done at St Thomas College, and the resulting outcry, I gather, was to reverse that decision and reinvite him.3 Having Tutu speak at the Convocation may be damaging. But my guess is that to disinvite would be more damaging.”
Continuing controversy
Following the Assembly meeting, some members contacted Bernstein and members of the Board of Trustees, according to Rogoff. Bernstein said she has communicated with many members.
“I have spoken to many, and many are thrilled and excited that the Archbishop is the convocation speaker. Certainly, there are a few people who are upset, and they are entitled to be upset. But it is not like it is a mass movement, “she said. “In some instances people felt that because I didn’t change my mind or I didn’t agree with their views that I was not listening to them sufficiently. But most of them recognized that we could agree to disagree on our perspectives."
Many APA members have strong feelings about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, she conceded, but noted that Tutu is not speaking on that topic.
In February, Rogoff and others purchased an ad in Psychiatric Times, explaining that they had petitioned “Dr Bernstein, the Board of Trustees, and the Assembly to rescind the invitation to Mr Tutu, to no avail.” They felt betrayed by “their valued organization and its use of our dues to honor this man, by whom we feel personally attacked and defamed.” The 27 APA members who signed the ad vowed not to attend the annual meeting. They also mentioned that others “are considering various kinds of protests during the meeting.”
The signers to the ad objected to Tutu’s assertion that Zionism has “very many parallels with racism” and to his equating Israel to an apartheid state.4 They also pointed to Tutu’s urging of the Cape Town Opera to cancel its visit to Israel5 and for the University of Johannesburg to terminate ties with Ben Gurion University in Israel6 as being in conflict with APA’s own position statement opposing all academic boycotts.7
Asked about the seeming conflict between Tutu’s call for academic and cultural boycotts of Israel and APA’s position, Bernstein said “Tutu is not speaking on behalf of the APA, so I don’t see the relevance of that issue.” Regarding Rogoff’s and others’ planned boycott and protests of the APA meeting, Bernstein said, “of course people are entitled to do whatever they think they need to do, but it is unfortunate. . . I hope that people will come to the meeting for all the other things it has to offer even if they don’t wish to hear Tutu speak.”
She expressed sadness that some members are taking things out of context and “jumping to conclusions and making assumptions without speaking to the people involved.”
“We all value debate and we may disagree about things,” she said “but we need to do that in ways that are collegial, cooperative and appropriate and not in ways that are hostile and destructive.”
References
1. Fink PJ. Fink! Still at large: the Truth and Reconciliation Commission proved to be a healing force in South Africa. What lessons are there in South Africa’s experience about the power of forgiveness? Clin Psych News. May 1, 2010.
2. Snyders M. Education: Tutu's 'anti-Semitic" speech. City Pages blog, Oct. 4, 2007. http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2007/10/a_transcript_of.php
3. Furst R. Tutu-St. Thomas dustup isn’t over. Star Tribune. October 1, 2007. http://www.startribune.com/local/11606896.html. Accessed January 13, 2011.
4. Dershowitz AM. Bishop Tutu is no saint when it comes to Jews. Hudson New York. December 20, 2010. http://www.hudson-ny.org/1742/bishop-tutu-is-no-saint-when-it-comes-to-jews. Accessed January 10, 2011.
5. Cape Town Opera defies call to boycott Israel tour. Opera Now. January/February 2011. http://www.rhinegold.co.uk/magazines/opera_now/news/opera_now_news.asp?pg=8. Accessed January 21, 2011.
6. Tutu D. Israeli ties: a chance to do the right thing. Times Live. September 26, 2010. http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/article675369.ece/Israeli-ties--a-chance-to-do-the-right-thing. Accessed January 25, 2011.
7. Peyser H, Altesman R, Anfang S, et al. Boycott of Israeli academics and the position of the American Psychiatric Association. Isr J Psychiatry Relat Sci. 2007;44: 74–75. www.psychiatry.org.il/.../2706200785008AM@Pages%20from%20IJP-44-1-15.pdf. Accessed January 25, 2011.
The article above does not include a number of facts and information supplied by some may inadvertently distort others. First the discussion at the Assembly was arranged in advance and all parties knew it would occur and all new of the time constraints. The disucssion was ended when an Assembly member asked for a vote. The majority of the members of the Assembly voted to have the vote. The outcome of the vote on the Action Paper to request that Tutu be disinvited was clear. The Assembly voted clearly against the proposal. For this reason the Assembly did not need a standing vote or in terms of Assembly rules a vote by strength. The action of the Assembly was democratic and clear. Sidney Weissman, M.D.
From:Stewart Ting Chong Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 12:04 PM
To: apa@psych.org
Cc: editor@psychiatrictimes.com
Subject: To: APA president Carol Bernstein - Boycotts and Protests To Meet APA Keynote Speaker, Desmond Tutu
Importance: High Dear Dr. Bernstein, I have just read an article from the Psychiatric Times, "Boycotts and Protests To Meet APA Keynote Speaker, Desmond Tutu" http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/news/content/article/10168/1788049 I would like to draw your attention to the following excerpts from his original address which you can find at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/29/comment I believe that you will see that members of your organization appear to be taking Archbishop Tutu's words out of context which I find questionable and unethical given the profession that they are in. "In our struggle against apartheid, the great supporters were Jewish people. They almost instinctively had to be on the side of the disenfranchised, of the voiceless ones, fighting injustice, oppression and evil. I have continued to feel strongly with the Jews. I am patron of a Holocaust centre in South Africa. I believe Israel has a right to secure borders." "Israel will never get true security and safety through oppressing another people. A true peace can ultimately be built only on justice. We condemn the violence of suicide bombers, and we condemn the corruption of young minds taught hatred; but we also condemn the violence of military incursions in the occupied lands, and the inhumanity that won't let ambulances reach the injured." "People are scared in this country [the US], to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful - very powerful. Well, so what? For goodness sake, this is God's world! We live in a moral universe. The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust. Injustice and oppression will never prevail. Those who are powerful have to remember the litmus test that God gives to the powerful: what is your treatment of the poor, the hungry, the voiceless? And on the basis of that, God passes judgment. We should put out a clarion call to the government of the people of Israel, to the Palestinian people and say: peace is possible, peace based on justice is possible. We will do all we can to assist you to achieve this peace, because it is God's dream, and you will be able to live amicably together as sisters and brothers. " With very best wishes, Stewart Ting Chong, MA ============= From:Stewart Ting Chong
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 5:37 AM
To: apa@psych.org
Cc: editor@psychiatrictimes.com
Subject: RE: To APA president Carol Bernstein - Boycotts and Protests To Meet APA Keynote Speaker, Desmond Tutu Dear Dr. Bernstein, One follow-on comment: the same argument used by your APA member group was used in the University of St Thomas, MN, incident in 2007 which led the university president to withdraw his invitation to the Archbishop and then, after the true facts were revealed, do an about-face and re-invite him. So this is not the first time that these statements were taken out of context and the accusations determined to be unfounded. http://www.citypages.com/2007-10-03/news/banning-desmond-tutu/ http://www.startribune.com/local/11606811.html I trust that integrity and truth shall continue to shame those who attempt to cause slander and harm. Best regards, Stewart Ting Chong
I know this is utterly, completely off topic but I really don't care. I would really like to know (in a nutshell) what the APA is doing for me? Seriously. I have just spent the last couple weeks in private practice hell. I spend all day on the phone trying to obtain prior authorizations and I spend the rest of the day trying to sort out the chaos of insurance coverage. Somewhere in between all that I see patients. And at the end of the day I have very little to show for it. I got sick and lost 2 days from work & I think I am going to be spending the rest of 2011 catching up from losing those 2 days.
So I really don't care who speaks at the convocation of the meeting because I won't be attending it.
And if anyone wants to E-Mail me, my E-Mail is dhmoak@yahoo.com.
Google "TuTu boycott Israel" and you will have plenty of historical and recent statements by Tutu pushing for boycotts of Israel.
17 February 2011
Dear Dr. Bernstein,
I have been an APA member since 1997, though I must admit I had originally quit after residency because I do not like nor support how the APA chooses to insert its opinions into political issues. Look where the mixing of politics and psychiatry got the Russian population, for instance. Don't get me wrong, though, for advocating in the name of meaningful change DOES involve politicking to a degree (the fight for parity, for instance). However, to invite a world figure known to stand for things that go against the very core of our moral fiber to give the principal address at the Convocation of Fellows at this year's annual APA meeting in Hawaii is simply stultifying. This is and especially true for someone who does so on the basis of his own distorted beliefs and biases. It is actions like these that caused me to leave the APA so many years ago and in fact my only reason for rejoining was to gain access to the wonderful malpractice program through PRMS. Your failure to reverse your invitation further tarnishes the APA's image and in doing so makes it that much harder for our profession to gain the respect we so deserve and need in the medical community. Nice job, Dr. Bernstein. Do not count me as one who will be boycotting the meeting, though; I never planned to attend in the first place.
In disappointment,
Daniel B. Block, MD
Board Certified, Adult Psychiatry
West Grove, PA
How much, if anything, is Desmond Tutu being paid? If he has being paid, is that the wisest use of funds in these economic times? Wouldn't any money being paid to guest speakers perhaps be better spent reducing some of the costs we APA members face, such as EHR, e-prescribing softwar, etc?
Danie B. Block, MD
Board Certified, Adult Psychiatry
West Grove, PA
I agree entirely with Dr Block about Tutu and the APA's political bias. I should have resigned from that organization long ago. Jan T Goff MD
On the one hand I am glad that PT will feature this issue on page one.
However I was disappointed by the article--not the chronological sequence
of events regarding the invitation and attempt at "balance"but rather the
weak delineation and shallow presentation of Tutu's defamatory,
demonizing remarks["uncivilized democracy"} and attitude toward Israel.
The overarching point in my opinion is not only the insults,epithets and
inaccuracies of Tutus's remarks and attitudes but the supreme irony
that we are honoring him as a man of peace and reconciliation while he currently
pursues an aggressive,provocative,hurtful and shameful course of
activities that damages the already precarious often faltering
Israeli-Palestinian peace process.For the Bishop--While there has been an honorable past there is a record of very controversial present activity.
We should at the least respect our APA membership with a fully informed background and understanding of the person we have chosen to address us
Barton Blinder MD
Barton J. Blinder M.D.
949 640 4440 [o]
949 721 9572 [fax]
Faculty:Clinical Professor,Dept Psychiatry
and Human Behavior,School of Medicine
Univ. Calif.,Irvine
THanks Dr Bernstein for inviting a legendary figure of modern times and it is a privilege to hear their experience. We should be able to hear different opinions without boycotting an event. People from different parts of the world have different and strong opinions regarding mid-east and American politics, and it is understandable even if we don't agree with it. Even if one did one 'bad' thing, does not mean it negates all the good that was done in their own country.
I was dismayed to find in a recent issue of Psychiatric Times (February 18, 2011) a full-page ad signed by Tom Gutheil and others, protesting Carol Bernstein's choice of Desmond Tutu as a keynote speaker for the APA meeting in May. They expressed outrage that Bishop Tutu has endorsed pro-Palestinian views and specifically that he has likened Israel to an apartheid state and Nazi Germany. Desmond Tutu, an "anti-Semite." I have always been staunchly pro-Israel and have defended, among other actions, the construction of the security barrier and the Gaza blockade. However, I have come to realize what a selective and biased view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict we are given here in the US. For example, Israeli activist, Joseph Dana, reported several weeks ago that peaceful Palestinian protesters in Bil'in were attacked by Israeli forces with rubber bullets, tear gas and water cannons hooked up to sewage water. Israeli security has lately been taking Palestinian children into custody to terrorize their parents-- something that apartheid South Africa did to silence anti-apartheid activists. Has this received any coverage the US media? No. The more I read and hear about the situation from the more even-handed foreign media (not Al Jezeera but the BBC, for example), the more disturbed I've become by the United States' blind allegiance to Israel, right or wrong. I think Bishop Tutu is exactly right: this has become a human rights issue and I don't know how anyone who stands firm on human rights can continue to ignore the oppression and abuse of the Palestinians. The fact is, American Jews are about to help Israel sink under the weight of its own contradictions. The tremendous contribution to international human rights and liberal values by the American (and world) Jewish community is being undermined by their support of Israel's increasing racism and oppression of the Palestinians. I hope Bishop Tutu knows that Dr Gutheil & colleagues do not speak for all of us in the American Psychiatric Association. Their intolerance of alternative points of view is frankly disturbing. Carolyn J. Douglas, MD New York, NY
I appreciate the article in the March 2011 Psychiatric Times concerning the invitation to Archbishop Desmond Tutu to present the convocation lecture at the annual meeting. The protest against this invitation should not deter the APA from inviting him, and I applaud Dr. Bernstein for her courage. Dr. Rogoff is outraged at the invitation and wrongly urges the APA to rescind the invitation. He refers to a lecture in 2002, in which he claims that Archbishop Tutu verbalized anti-Semitic remarks. Review of that speech (see the attached link) reveals nothing of the sort. That lecture explicitly expresses love and respect for the Jewish population, and he names Jewish leaders who helped the causes of liberty in South Africa and the United States. The thrust of his remarks are that the governmental tactics used to preserve the present arrangements in Israel relegate Palestinians to second class status, including humiliation, seizing of homes, and other extra-judicial activities. He likens those tactics to ones used by other oppressors. His remarks represented a blunt political statement against the current situation in Israel, but were clearly in the realm of reasoned political dialogue. I find it incomprehensible that his remarks could be interpreted as anti-Semitic. Frederick Engstrom, MD Distinguished Life Fellow American Psychiatric Association http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2007/10/a_transcript_of.php#
It is amazing how individual personal political views can get such highly educated and supposedly sophisticated people so worked up, and comfortably utter misleading and not exactly smart statements. Israel is a FOREIGN state, and has desperately tried over the years to raise itself as the representative voice of and last chance for survival of all Jews, and thus justified incredibly brutal and inhumane behavior in the name of self-defense and Jewish survival (please refer to the UN extensive documentation and several reports by Time and other journals on Israeli pre-emptive and "defensive"wars and policies if you don't know the history). Does the oppressed have to be an oppressor? Is that acceptable? Misconstrued statements equating criticism of Israeli policies and actions against any one who is not Jewish are simply a form of deception and people should be ashamed of doing that. How can you stand by policies advocated by a foreign government openly suggesting removing some of its own citizens from their homes and "displacing" them to another country, because they are not Jewish. Can you call that anything but racist? And when a renowned and widely respected figure like Tutu criticizes such behaviors and actions, he is simply branded as anti-Semitic, and then it is fine to bypass every one else in the APA and force the opinion to refuse his invitation claiming this is the request of "numerous" members. It is simply astounding. Moataz M. Ragheb, MD, PhD Brown Medical School Tel: 401-444-7442 Fax: 401-444-7109
This controversy and Psychiatric Times' reporting of it, which did not address the very real political disagreements involved, teach important lessons. Unfortunately, we humans often exaggerate our political opponents' immorality. One can of course respect or even love Israel while condemning its government's policies - as do many Israelis. Certainly, many of us who love the United States have condemned some of its government's policies. Psychiatrists in this country have traditionally been liberal, friends of Israel, and friends of freedom. If we don't speak up for those values and the values that support them, it may be that no one else will. But friends do not always agree with friends. And if we as psychiatrists and supporters of Israel cannot be friendly toward, or are unable to learn from, opposing opinions, who will? Even appalling truths must be seen. Cynicism breeds hostility breeds violence. One has the right to cover one's ears in order not to hear someone shout fire in a crowded theatre, but surely it is not wise. Freedom of speech is not just a moral issue. It is enlightened self-interest. If we suppress speech of those with whom we disagree, we cannot learn from them or challenge what they think. And many will assume that we cannot tolerate the truth. "Know the truth and the truth shall set ye free." Jews, Christians, and Muslim all believe that, and all are capable of forgetting it. Desmond Tutu is not an antisemite. He has at times been harshly critical of Israeli government actions and policy, but he is more friendly to Israel than most of world opinion. If we cannot learn from Desmond Tutu and other peacemeakers with a proven record supporting Israel who have nevertheless at times been highly critical (Nobel peace laureate Jimmy Carter is another), then we will not learn from world opinion and certainly not from the vast majority of the world's Muslims. The Anti-Defamation League, AIPAC (the American Israeli Political Action Committee), and their supporters have attacked Tutu. Jewish peace activists and the American Jewish Committee have supported him against those attacks. The Psychiatric Times article does not explain that, but rather implies that the only argument in support of the APA's choice comes from free speech values. The fact is that world opinion outside of the United States and Israel, and certainly the opinion of the large majority of the world's Muslims, is far less friendly to Israel than Desmond Tutu. And unfortunately, much of the world sees Israel as proxy for the world Jewish community. To deny this is to deny the truth and the opportunity to learn from and be freed by it. There is more and harsher criticism of Israeli actions and policies in Israel and the Israeli press than there is in the U.S. or its press. Unfortunately, in this country probably more than elsewhere, accusations of antisemitism may follow any criticism of Israel. (Jewish critics of Israeli policy are often analogously called "self-hating".) But Israel and the world's Jewish communty are not identical. And in the real world, almost everyone at some time needs criticism, even harsh criticism. True charity is often given without asking. Unfortunately, without asking, either the giver or the receiver may learn insufficiently from the situation. Psychiatrists know that false beliefs are often best not directly challenged. We should also know that people - and nations - can't always get what they want and sometimes must try real hard to get what they need. The APA meeting is not be a political forum. but on your own time, whether you support Israel or agree with its critics or perhaps both, listen to Desmond Tutu,
Some of the responses below highlight important human rights issues in Israel which the article by Arline Kaplan barely touches on and indeed seems to actively avoid. But the elephant in the room can't be ignored and the bottom line is this: Desmond Tutu's character is being attacked because he is highly critical of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians--- not because he racist or "antisemitic". Like Dr Engstrom (March 15 post below), I read the transcript of the 2002 speech in which the Archbishop, according to Dr Jeffrey Rogoff, "went on to place American Jews in the company of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic and Idi Amin".
In typical fashion of smear campaigns Dr Rogoff has taken Tutu's comments completely out of context, then used these comments to argue that Tutu supports a position that the Archbishop clearly does not take (see transcript of speech at: http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2007/10/a_transcript_of.php).
So why would Dr Rogoff, presumably an intelligent and ethical psychiatrist, go to the trouble to prepare an action paper on the issue; and why would other some other APA members sign the paper, threaten to protest at and boycott the APA Annual meeting? Psychiatrists should be interested in this question and willing to identify and deal with the other elephant in the room. Fortunately, Ms Kaplan gives a not so subtle hint when she tells us that Dr Rogoff "lived in Israel for 9 months and speaks Hebrew"....mmm, let me guess....Dr Rogoff is Jewish!
Well, that would be funny if it weren't for the fact that real feelings of hurt are most likely involved and we should confront what ---in my opinion-- are the source of those feelings: that the Jewish people, as an ethnic/religious group have indeed suffered more oppression throughout history than any other single group---the Nazi holocaust being a culmination and undoubtedly the most extreme example of the evil we humans are capable of perpetrating against each other. Its understandable then that some Jews are particularly sensitive to any criticism of the state of Israel which many have seen as the most tangible evidence of an antidote to the extreme suffering their people have endured. But many Jews do not view Israel this way and in fact are ashamed to be associated with Israeli policies they see as oppressive and in direct violation of the teachings of ancient Jewish prophets. And as Harry Fischer points out below, prominent Jewish groups have come to Desmond Tutu's defense against attacks by conservative Jewish groups such as AIPAC. He also alludes to another important point: the international community is almost unanimous in its condemnation of Israeli policies vis a vis Palestinians. The UN for example has clearly identified Israeli settlements in the West Bank as illegal under international law and continues to express concerns about inhumane conditions including inadequate food and drinking water created by the ongoing blockade of Gaza.
These issues should of interest to all Americans, perhaps most of all psychiatrists, if only out of self interest. The current intense Congressional debates about budget priorities include attempts by some to severely cut programs and services many of our patients depend upon. So here's the other relevant bottom line: the U.S. provides more aid to Israel than any other nation: about $7 million per day. Egypt has been a close 2nd at $2-3 million per day, largely in relation to its cooperation with U.S. policies in the region especially regarding Israeli security. That may all be changing, like everything else in the Arab world these days. Meanwhile, isn't it time we review whether supporting repressive regimes and policies wherever and whoever they may be is in our interest? Meanwhile, isn't it time we review whether or not supporting repressive regimes and policies wherever and whoever they is really is in our interest? Don't we have other priorities? And for those who care about Israel, the Palestinian issue won't go away by trying to prevent human rights champions like Desmond Tutu from speaking at the APA convention.
Shalom and Salam,
James L. Fleming, MD
Past President, Western Missouri Psychiatric Association
Kansas City, MO
816-213-1885
jflemingmd@yahoo.com
Rogoff shouuld back off and not use quotes out of context to defame Tutu.