Mick Hartley

I wrote back in May about the Lancet, its editor Richard Horton, and accusations of antisemitism following the journal's publication in 2014 of a letter about Gaza that the Israeli Ministry of Health called "bordering on blood libel". There followed something of a conversion as Horton visited Israel, was impressed. and oversaw a special issue of the Lancet devoted to "Israel’s world-class medical establishment". He expressed regret over the Lancet's past attacks on Israel, but left the original Gaza letter in place, and refused to publish a rebuttal.

Now Gerald Steinberg, of NGO Monitor, has written an overview of the whole affiair for the Tower – The Lancet: How an Anti-Israel Propaganda Platform was Turned Around:

The British publication The Lancet is one of the most influential medical journals in the world, and for many years, was used as a major platform for anti-Israeli demonization campaigns under the façade of science and medicine. Between 2001 and 2014, 264 articles on Palestinian and Israeli issues were published, a majority consisting of political opinion or commentary with little medical content. Many included distorted or unsupported claims that Israel was responsible for premature births, deaths of Palestinians at checkpoints, cancer deaths, psychological disorders, and more. In addition, The Lancet’s editor Richard Horton repeatedly condemned Israel, repeating the false allegations, for example, that “Tens of documented deaths, including of children, have been attributed to checkpoint delays.”

These statements and publications were, and continue to be, used as sources in anti-Israel campaigns, particularly in the health field. For example, a resolution introduced at the 2013 meeting of the American Public Health Association, referring to “apartheid-type policies in the occupied lands of Palestine,” included 16 references to The Lancet.

However, in September 2014, these attacks abruptly ended. Horton accepted an invitation from doctors at Haifa’s Rambam Hospital to visit Israel, and in public appearances and media interviews, expressed regret. He announced a new project that would portray Israel in a positive light, and in 2017, The Lancet published a special volume on Israeli contributions to medicine. This remarkable reversal is unparalleled among major platforms used in anti-Israel demonization campaigns.

As described in detail below, the immediate trigger for the unprecedented turnaround in 2014 was a exposé published in the “Health News” supplement of The Telegraph under the headline “Lancet ‘hijacked in anti-Israel campaign': Senior British medical figures say the well-respected journal is being used as a platform by alleged conspiracy theorists.” The article, based on NGO Monitor’s research, highlighted the activities of two frequent contributors and co-authors of a virulent anti-Israel “open letter for the people of Gaza” published in The Lancet. These authors promoted “the views of David Duke, a white supremacist and former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard,” including pushing a video entitled “CNN Goldman Sachs & the Zio Matrix.” The video features an anti-Semitic rant by Duke on how “the Zionist Matrix of Power controls Media, Politics and Banking” and Jewish “racism and tribalism to advance their supremacist agenda.”

Steinberg goes into detail about how pressure was applied to Horton, resulting in the turnaround and the special "pro-Israel" issue. Can such pressure be applied more generally to Israel's detractors? Probably not.

In looking beyond Horton to other cases in which scientific and medical professionals abuse their positions for antisemitism and to promote false allegations to demonize Israel, “naming and shaming” can play a central role when there is sufficient leverage. Horton’s public reputation was important to him, and as soon as he saw that this reputation was endangered, he moved to limit the damage. In contrast, Stephen Rose – a British professor of biology and a leader of the anti-Israeli academic boycott – embraced his radical reputation, including demonization of Israel. There was no source of leverage on Rose – he could not be forced out of his position over political actions. Horton, in contrast, as editor of The Lancet, occupies what is essentially a commercial position, where a loss of reputation can be costly.

While naming and shaming worked in this case, particularly because of Horton’s lack of due diligence in vetting crudely antisemitic authors like Manduca and Swee Ang, it is difficult to extend the same approach to other examples. The case of Horton and The Lancet are important for understanding political warfare, but at the same time, the ability to apply the relevant tactics and strategy is limited.

It does all make you wonder exactly what you have to do to get sacked as Lancet editor – after this, and the Iraqi death count report he was happy to publish, and his speech at a 2006 rally in Manchester denouncing "the axis of Anglo-American imperialism". Plus the whole Andrew Wakefield MMR-autism debacle – though in that case he did withdraw the paper and admit his error. After the damage had been done.