Bridging the Divide or Deepening It?

Abstract

In “Bridging the divide in the Holy Land” (News Focus, 21 Apr., p. [352][1]), J. Bohannon discusses his view of how Israeli and Palestinian scientists are working together within the frame of the Israeli-Palestinian Scientific Organization (IPSO). The article ends on an optimistic note, with the Palestinian scientist Mukhles Sowwan stating that “science is a universal language, like music. It can make people understand each other.” In a section of the article subtitled “Where collaboration is a dirty word,” mention is made of “one Israeli professor,” who “railed” against the IPSO program. The unnamed professor is the signatory of this letter. I am also cited as stating that the program is “dangerous” and “playing into the hands of terrorists.” This information has no factual basis. It is correct that I expressed my opposition to the launching of IPSO under the present circumstances in a letter to Menahem Yaari, Deputy Chairperson of the Executive Council of IPSO and one of the founders of the organization. The reason for my opposition was the partisan character of the organization, which drew support, on the Israeli side, exclusively from persons of a political orientation unabashedly critical of the policies of recent Israeli governments toward the Palestinians. At the very least, I would have expected Yaari to encourage Bohannon to read my letter and Bohannon to contact me in person and enable me to present my arguments directly to him and not by proxy. As for the text, cited statements, and pictorial material figuring in the article, many of these are not “facts” but markedly biased political declarations, representing exclusively the Palestinian view and, again, that of one extreme pole of political opinion in Israel, referred to above. The aerial picture of the “security barrier” and the associated text (box on p. [354][2]) do not explain that the barrier was an option forced on Israel by the grim reality of the killing and maiming of innocents by Palestinian terrorists. A juxtaposed picture of the horror on the streets of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem after one of the bomb attacks (not “bomb plots”) would, perhaps, have been appropriate. The building of the barrier has the support of the overwhelming majority of the Israeli electorate, and the highly respected Israeli Supreme Court of Justice is dealing with every complaint concerning the barrier, whether submitted by Palestinians or Israelis. The claims (unproven) that the barrier is depriving Palestinians of water and blocking animal migration must be weighed against its (proven) lifesaving effects. On page 356, readers are shown Viveca Hazboun in front of her clinic, which is said to have been destroyed by Israeli artillery fire. Assuming that the facts are correct, don't the readers of Science deserve to be fairly informed about the background to the shelling? There is a war in the Holy Land and civilians, as innocent as Hazboun, were victims of Palestinian sniper fire. Thus, any description of the unfortunate results of warfare should be presented in the context of the events having led to these results. I think that Sowwan got cause and effect in the wrong order: “People must understand each other first; then they can do science and play music together.” [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.312.5772.352a [2]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.312.5772.354