Belgian physician refuses to treat Jewish patient over Gaza op

[iandhr]

Source: Haaretz

A Belgian physician who refused to treat a Jewish woman with a fractured rib suggested she visit Gaza to get rid of the pain.

The physician made the remark on Wednesday while manning a medical hotline in Flanders, Belgium’s Flemish region, whose capital, Antwerp, has a sizeable Orthodox Jewish population, the local Jewish monthly Joods Actueel reported Thursday.

The woman, Bertha Klein, had her son, who is American, call the hotline at 11 p.m.

“I’m not coming,” the doctor reportedly told the son and hung up. When the son called again, the doctor said: “Send her to Gaza for a few hours, then she’ll get rid of the pain.” According to Joods Actueel, the doctor confirmed the exchange, saying he had an “emotional reaction.”

Health ministry officials were looking into the incident, according to the monthly’s online edition. According to Joods Actueel, the doctor knew the patient was Jewish because of Klein’s son’s American accent.

Read more: http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.608220

---

Anti semitism is alive and well. Especially in Europe.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

1. And anti Arabism is alive and well, particularly in Israel, Europe, America.

Sometimes our world sucks.

[philip.chinery]

53. sigh

Never seen it in person. Not once.

[Behind the Aegis]

54. Have you ever seen an atom?

[JackRiddler]

61. I've seen a lot of anti-Semitism and even more anti-Arabism.

Meanwhile...

[Behind the Aegis]

66. Belgium is under attack?!

I hadn't heard!

[IronGate]

56. So, because you've never seen it in person

means it doesn't exist?

[Igel]

153. My suspicion.

"Alive and well" does not mean "it exists in minimal form."

If you never see it and you're in a situation in which it's likely to occur if it's present but doesn't ever get observed it means it's probably rare.

In which case it exists, but it's not alive and well.

It's rather like some plants and animals. They exist, if you look hard enough you can find them. But they're on the endangered species list because they, as a group, are not "alive and well." In fact, they barely exist and are rare.

[Ex Lurker]

2. yes, I'm against Israel's actions in Gaza, but this is unacceptable nt.

[DetlefK]

3. Unethical.

The culprits are Hamas and Israel's government.

[IronGate]

4. He should lose his license to practice or, at least, suspended from practice.

No matter what a health care provider's views are, they're not allowed to refuse treatment on the basis of political beliefs.
Here in the US, if a doctor did what this doctor in Belgium did, they would be before a board of ethics really quick.

[RufusTFirefly]

8. Try getting an abortion at a Catholic hospital

Religion is simply politics with a patina of supernatural legitimacy.

[jamzrockz]

17. why do we even have to make exception for religion?

I think that in itself is respecting religion and putting it above the non religious people.

[Igel]

155. Because it puts personal autonomy

above requiring that a service be provided.

To say that there's a religious exception means that the person doesn't have to do something that's offensive to him/her. The worst that happens is that somebody has to find a different service provider.

To put the rights of the client above the rights of the provider is to say that it's perfectly okay to compel somebody to do what is offensive to him/her. The worst that happens is that the service provider is forced to be unemployed without benefit of unemployment benefits or is treated like a slave to another's rights.

Most conflicts in rights are resolved simply by saying "do what you want, I'll do what I want." They're resolved with minimal compulsion. Some people are into having as much power over others as possible and really are into ordering others about. The Bill of Rights is precisely not about that. It's more a "live and let live" kind of document, not a dictatorship.

[valerief]

36. Badda bing! nt

[Tumbulu]

59. Good point nt

[RufusTFirefly]

5. I condem this doctor in no uncertain terms

But the ever-present specter of antisemitism doesn't justify war crimes in Gaza.

Imagine if Westboro Baptist were held up as the sole representative of the Christian Church.

No country, no race, no religion is immune from bigotry and hate. All of it should be roundly condemned.
Moreover, we should strive to understand what motivates these destructive thoughts so we can move toward a more peaceful world.

The carnage in Gaza is a deeply discouraging step in the wrong direction.

[JDPriestly]

16. Westboro Baptist exercises its right to freedom of speech in an

obnoxious way, but it does not throw rockets to demonstrate against homosexuality. There is a huge difference.

Here is a list of Palestinian terrorist attacks from 1989-2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks

It takes a lot of work and organization to establish the trust that is required to have peace after a record like that.

[RufusTFirefly]

18. Collective punishment is still a war crime according to the Geneva Conventions n/t

[JDPriestly]

23. How do you think the Allies won WWII?

By bombing. Here.

The Bombing of Dresden was an attack on the city of Dresden, the capital of the German state of Saxony, that took place in the final months of the Second World War in the European Theatre. In four raids between 13 and 15 February 1945, 722 heavy bombers of the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and 527 of the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on the city.[1] The bombing and the resulting firestorm destroyed over 1,600 acres (6.5 km2) of the city centre.[2] Between 22,700 and 25,000 people were killed.[3] Three more USAAF air raids followed, two occurring on 2 March and 17 April aimed at the city's railroad marshaling yard and one small raid on 17 April aimed at industrial areas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

You cannot excuse terrorist organizations when they are respond to perceived injustices with small acts of violence against the civilians of another nation and then condemn the nation with a democratic government that within its borders enforces peace that is the subject of the random violence for responding with military violence.

Here is the list of Palestinian attacks on Israel between 1998 and 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks

Any attempt to make peace has to include a structure to eliminate violence on both sides. That is the only way that enough trust can be established to negotiate peace.

[RufusTFirefly]

32. Bombing Dresden and Japan were war crimes

Don't justify war crimes by confusing correlation with causation.

The Allies won and they committed war crimes, not because they committed war crimes.

(regarding his and Colonel Curtis LeMay's involvement in the bombing of Japan during World War II)

Robert McNamara: LeMay said if we lost the war that we would have all been prosecuted as war criminals. And I think he's right. He... and I'd say I... were behaving as war criminals.
Robert McNamara: LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side has lost.
Robert McNamara: But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?

From The Fog of War

[JDPriestly]

41. Immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win is the key.

That principle may well be what is pushing Israel to make sure it wins at all cost. Meanwhile lives are lost.

We should all be pressing both sides to make peace not war.

The killing of innocent children is the natural result of war and terrorism. The inability to live in peace leads to war which leads to killing children (and usually their parents too).

So instead of encouraging one side or the other to get revenge or "justice" through violence, we should be encouraging both sides to negotiate and enforce a well negotiated peace.

Justice can only rarely be achieved through violence. Violence has not worked well for Palestine. Palestinians get lots of encouragement and sometimes a shipment of rockets or some other horrible tool of war and terrorism, but they don't get the right help to make peace for their people and to have attitudes that permit them to keep the peace.

Here is a list of Palestinian terror attacks between 1989 and 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks

Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_political_violence

And international Palestinian terror attacks on Jewish targets:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/terror1952_1989.html

There is enough blame on both sides. Note the picture of a kindergarten classroom in Israel hit by a Palestinian rocket.

The fighting has been going on for over 60 years. Time to stop it.

Time to ask Israel to negotiate for peace with the Palestinians and to ask the Palestinians to then enforce the peace with criminal penalties against their own people who commit acts of terror. I don't know if that is possible, however, because Palestine is more a people than a traditional state.

There is enough blame on both sides. But the list of Palestinian terror attacks may seem unimportant to DUers who are watching a slaughter. But it is not unimportant to Israelis and the IDF who are fighting a war to end that terror. Two sides. Two sides.

[truedelphi]

64. Convenient of you to overlook the Occupation of Palestine by The Israelis.

The actions of the Israelis in taking over the homeland of the Palestinians caused the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. And the murder and wounding of thousands - all sanctioned by the UN as to give the USA and Great Britain an ally and thereby some control in that important oil region. Given that back ground, it is not surprising that there has been so much bitterness from the Palestinians, with overt actions of rocket attacks.

All this is especially tragic, as the Palestinians had lived peaceably for so long with so many others. Palestine was noted for the tolerance of the Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sufis and others, for each other, for so many long years. (Yes there were outbreaks of war, on occasion, but just as we in the US states suffered our long Civil War, war and intolerance were the exception and not the rule.)

Rabbi Henry Siegman has been speaking out:

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/30/henry_siegman_leading_voice_of_us

[JDPriestly]

116. Actually, I am taking into account the facts as the Allies saw them at the end of WWII.

The Allies were responsible for the safety of the many, many Jewish refugees. Those refugees could not be left safely in Germany after the war. They could not be returned to their homes because those homes were now occupied by Germans (or others in Europe) who would take revenge if they had to give them up to Jews. To try to repatriate the Jewish people to the homes they lived in and the businesses and status they had before the war would have prolonged the war.

The Allies were overwhelmed by the numbers of refugees. The US took a lot of them. But remember, we had just come out of the Depression to fight a war. We had a housing shortage, even in some areas, a schoolroom shortage. We had failed to take refugees during the Depression because we did not have the jobs and economy to support them. That, we recognized as a mistake, and we did what we could but it was not enough, could not be enough.

In short, there was a crisis of refugees but especially of Jewish refugees. They could not stay where they were. They wanted to go to what is now Israel. It was at the time a British Protectorate. It had that status not because the British had sought to make it a colony but because it was part of the Ottoman Empire which the British and allies defeated in WWI and which Britain governed after that war.

After WWII, the people living in Palestine were viewed as supporters of Hitler. Fair or not, that is how the Allies perceived them because some of their leaders had supported Hitler. So Palestine was viewed as a sparsely populated land that had never established a national or sovereign government for any length of time but had passed from the supervision and control of the Ottoman Empire and Turks to the British Protectorate and sided with the enemy of the allies in WWII.

The Jewish people had not had a homeland since the Romans destroyed their nation (please correct me if I am wrong about this), yet they had maintained a national identity as Jews, not just a religious one but a national one. The phrase, "Next year in Jerusalem" had great meaning to them just as a pilgrimage to Mecca has meaning to Muslims. Israel was a spiritual as well as national significance to the Jewish people from what I gather. (I am not Jewish.) The Jewish people were, for centuries, not accepted as full citizens across Europe. Hence the expression, "The Wandering Jew."

Here is a small excerpt from a list of the exiles of Jewish people. You need to go to the Wikipedia page to appreciate the long, long history of the exiles of the Jewish people. The amazing thing is that the Jewish people retained their identity as a people through so many exiles. That is astounding. Here are just a few examples of the persecution of Jewish people.

1933-1945
The German Nazi persecution started with the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses in 1933, reached a first climax during the Kristallnacht in 1938 and culminated in the Holocaust of the European Jewry. The British Mandate of Palestine prohibited Jewish emigration to the Land of Israel. The 1938 Evian Conference, the 1943 Bermuda Conference and other attempts failed to resolve the problem of Jewish refugees, a fact widely used in Nazi propaganda (see also MS St. Louis). Many German and Austrian Jewish refugees from Nazism emigrated to Britain and many fought for Britain in the second World War.

1947-1972
The Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries, in which the combined population of Jewish communities of the Middle East and North Africa (excluding Israel) was reduced from about 900,000 in 1948 to less than 8,000 today. The history of the exodus is politicized, given its proposed relevance to a final settlement Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] When presenting the history, those who view the Jewish exodus as equivalent to the 1948 Palestinian exodus, such as the Israeli government and NGOs such as JJAC and JIMENA, emphasize "push factors", such as cases of anti-Jewish violence and forced expulsions,[1] and refer to those affected as "refugees".[1] Those who argue that the exodus does not equate to the Palestinian exodus emphasize "pull factors", such as the actions of local Zionist agents aiming to fulfil the One Million Plan,[3] highlight good relations between the Jewish communities and their country's governments,[5] emphasize the impact of other push factors such as the decolonization in the Maghreb and the Suez War and Lavon Affair in Egypt,[5] and argue that many or all of those who left were not refugees.[1][3] Israel absorbed approximately 600,000 of these refugees, many of whom were temporarily settled in tent cities called Ma'abarot. They were eventually absorbed into Israeli society, and the last Maabarah was dismantled in 1958.

(Living in France and in Los Angeles, I have met many of these Jewish refugees from the Middle East. They did not all go to Israel, so I do not think that Zionism was the real reason for their leaving their homelands. In fact I am very sure it was not based on conversations I have had with some of them.)

1960s-1989
Due to the 1968 Polish political crisis thousands of Jews were forced by the communist authorities to leave Poland. See also rootless cosmopolitan, Doctors' plot, Jackson-Vanik amendment, refusenik, Zionology, Pamyat.

1970s
State-sponsored persecution in the Soviet Union prompted tens of thousands of Soviet Jews to emigrate to Israel, and some also to the United States with "refugee" status.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_refugees

In the US, we view Jewish people as just the same as everyone else, no more to be ostracized or persecuted than any other religion. But that is because of our First Amendment. If the right-wing Christians had their way, who knows what religion they would persecute?

Genocide is wrong. The establishment of the nation of Israel was intended to right the centuries, close to two thousand years of genocide against the Jewish people. Genocide is still wrong. But is Israel practicing genocide?

A lot is said about how intolerant Israel is of people of other religions. But compared to Saudi Arabia where Bibles are pretty much banned or Egypt where the Christians have been persecuted from time to time and are subject to certain limitations based on their religious affiliations, Israel is an extremely tolerant society. All citizens have the vote, and last I heard there were non-Jews sitting in the Knesset, their parliament.

As far as I have heard, people who are not Jewish still have civil rights in Israel. The violence going on now does not appear to be aimed at non-Jews in Israel. Not from what I have heard. I question, therefore, whether what is going on can be called a genocide. I don't think it is violence based on race or ethnicity. I think it should be viewed as a war.

Genocide is wrong. War is wrong. My solution is to pray for peace and to wish well to those who are negotiating right now for peace.

The Palestinians want the right to return to Jerusalem and the land partitioned for Israel. They want to live in the homes that they think their grandparents live in. Do you live in the home your grandparents lived in? I live thousands of miles from that home although I have cousins who still live there. Most Americans live closer than I do, but we don't expect to live near where our grandparents lived. Lucky is the American who does. And the world increasingly reflects US culture in that people live near work, not near their ancestral homes. There would be no immigration in the world if living where your grandparents lived was an important value to us today.

The Israelis are accused of genocide, perhaps rightfully so at this time, but it is mostly because their military power is greater and most important better organized than that of the Palestinians.

Let's look for a moment at the military situation from the point of view of the Palestinian role in it. The Palestinians bombard Israel with rockets, etc. and then protest loudly when Israel responds with its superior military capacity. The Palestinians then pretend to wonder why so many of them are killed and why the area given to them has shrunk each time that Israel responds with its superior military organization and power. The process has become predictable. It may be somewhat cynical. I don't know, but it may be.

Do you seriously think that the Palestinians believe at this point that they can win back land with their rockets? Why are they sending the rockets? They must know what the response will be to those rockets. They must have figured that out by now.

I do not think the Palestinians are stupid or so emotional that they cannot keep from sending the rockets. I think that they are sending the rockets to incite Israel to respond with violence. That is the only reason I can think of for the rockets and stones. Yes. It is an expression of frustration. But it has never gained back any territory. It has never helped to obtain peace. I think it is done to incite Israel to attack. It makes no sense otherwise.

The small weapons of the Palestinians are like flea bites on a lion's back. What does the lion do? It takes it's mighty tail and whips its backs to make the fleas stop biting. That's what mighty tails are for. How can the Palestinians expect less of Israel?

Of course, Israel fights back when it is repeatedly harassed and its people cannot live in peace. Do the Palestinians seriously expect Israel to respond to their rockets and stones with rockets and stones? Of course not, Israel responds with its mighty tail. The Palestinians tease Israel and then pretend righteous indignation when Israel swings it tail. Seriously, how would you respond if your neighbors threw potentially harmful things, say broken glass, into your back yard where you garden and your children play?

I think the plan is to cause the world to condemn Israel. Younger children do this to their older siblings. A little pinch from the younger child, the larger child responds with a slap or a kick, and mom and dad scold the older child. That is, I think the Palestinians' plan.

My point: There are two sides to this. I am presenting Israel's side because we do not see it on DU.

The only answer is meaningful peace negotiations. The exchange of land for a negotiated peace is a good possibility in my view. But the Palestinians and Israelis will have to take a long view. It will not just be an exchange of land for peace. It will involve a lot of personal exchanges and a plan to build trust between the two sides. Finally, I believe it will require a couple of generations possibly before the borders can be made secure enough that Israel can accept a powerful Palestine as its neighbor.

Sometimes peace negotiations can take place before a dispute reaches a crisis. (As I have posted so many times, there are three ways to end disputes.) After so many years of fighting and so many failed attempts to negotiate a peace that would leave the Palestinians with some national identity and pride, the Israelis may be resigning themselves to the final resort of simply conquering Palestine. It's a rather sad situation, but Israel is certainly not entirely to blame for it.

I have presented an argument in support of Israel. Many DUers have made the argument in support of Palestine. I repeat that there are two sides to this dispute and because there are two sides it is better not to take sides but to pray for peace and support the peace negotiations.

My hope is that Israelis and Palestinians will be able to live together in peace, side by side for the moment, and one day in a unified country in which religious and cultural tolerance is the rule.

I hope all DUers on both sides of this issue will pray or if they prefer to put it this way, "send good vibes" to the peace negotiators.

[truedelphi]

124. We might not see Israel's side to it presented on DU, but it is presented

By the media, again and again, and often the huge events that Israel precipitates are swept under the rug by that same media. For instance, most Americans have no idea that Israel's "incursion" into Lebanon in 1982 resulted in at least 20,000 civilian casualties.

I can remember from forty five years ago, when there were problems between the Israels and the Palestinians, that Chicago newspapers always spoke of "Israelis being killed" with the word "murder" sometimes being interjected into the news article, while the Palestinians simply "died."

I too hope that both sides will someday live in peace. Over the years there have been twenty or more moderate organizations that have sprung up, inside Jerusalem, Tel Aviv or inside the Palestinian ghettos. And the moderate leaders are always gunned down, with the PLO being blamed (back in the day), and now of course Hamas. But cynics among us believe that it is likely that the murderous end of some of the organizations has to do with Likkud, as well.

[SwankyXomb]

34. IF WBC thought they could get away with it

they'd do it in a heartbeat.

[valerief]

37. If only anti-abortionists didn't shoot and kill doctors, too. nt

[Jack Rabbit]

6. This is exactly what we don't need

Perhaps the doctor should to Gaza and see what it is is like to live in a country where medical supplies are unavailable because someone won't let them in. The doctor should not take his frustrations with Bibi out on this woman because she is a Jew.

[Roy Serohz]

7. That's a rotten thing to do

Shame on him, the asswipe!

[BillZBubb]

9. The doctor was flat out wrong.

But is this really a case of anti-Semitism? Has he refused to treat Jewish patients in the past? Was this a one time occurrence?

There is a good chance he simply let his anger at the events in Gaza overcome his better judgment. Dr. Actueel needs to be reprimanded in any case.

[MrBig]

35. Yes. Yes it is.

The same way that people in the US attacked and refused to help Muslims in America after 9/11, this doctor is guilty of anti-Semitism because he is punishing someone simply because they are Jewish.

And this is why the line between being anti-Israel and anti-Semitic is so blurry - a lot of people just equate the two

[BillZBubb]

43. I don't think it is that simple.

He may have refused because, her being Jewish, he assumed she supports what Israel is doing. So, it is really a way to lash out against supporters of Israel's action. The odds are she is a supporter, that is just a statistical fact. Notice he didn't say that being a Jew was bad or use any truly anti-Semitic smears. He said go to Gaza.

I'd be willing to bet he has provided services for Jewish patients in the past without any problem.

At any rate, I'm not apologizing for the guy. He was wrong to make a generalization about a group of people and vent on her. He deserves some sort of reprimand.

[MrBig]

47. No, it really is that simple

It's a little disingenuous to say "he didn't say that being a Jew was bad"...when he refused to provide her with medical assistance solely due to the fact that she is Jewish. Realize, that the ONLY reason he did not provide her assistance is because she is Jewish. That is anti-Semitism.


Let's phrase what you said a little differently. "He may have refused because, her being black, he assumed she supports President Obama. So, it is really a way to lash out against supporters of President Obama. The odds are she is a supporter, that is just a statistical fact. Notice he didn't say that being black was bad or use any truly racist smears.

Are you telling me that if you read the above paragraph, you wouldn't find the person to have been a racist?

[BillZBubb]

78. That is the poorest example of a counter argument I've think I've ever seen.

The two cases are vastly different. And you omitted a key passage--did the doctor in question have a history of similar refusal of service to Jews? Had he ever done so in the past?

If you can answer that in the affirmative, then, yes he is an anti-Semite. If, not, he's probably not.

[MrBig]

83. Explain how they are vastly different

It really is the same thing.

And no, a history of anti-Semitism is not required for this single act to be considered anti-Semitic.

Look, if you want to blame all Jews worldwide for the actions of Israel's government, feel free, but don't be surprised if you rightfully get called anti-Semitic

[IronGate]

125. +1000.

It would appear that this poster is doing everything possible to excuse this doctor's anti-Semitism.
Sick shit.

[uppityperson]

98. He was wrong and it was anti-Semitism. Even as a one time occurrence of course it was bigotry.

[cosmicone]

10. As a doctor who hates Netanyahu's actions in Gaza

I find this disturbing and appalling.

A patient seeking help is simply a patient in need -- patients are not white/black/hispanic/jewish/buddhists/hindus/muslim -- ever.

[LoisB]

11. I agree 100%.

[Peacetrain]

21. From your lips to Gods ears..

holding individuals responsible for the actions of a goverment.. or a group.. is insane.. the whole thing is insane..

We need more people like you in this world

[stranger81]

142. Very well said. [n/t]

[geardaddy]

15. Not cool.

[d_b]

19. Fuck Israel

and fuck that 'Doctor'

[Peacetrain]

20. Totally unacceptable treatment

that is just inhumane... as is bombing a UN school inhumane.. this is out of control ..

[question everything]

22. Indeed. The irony is that traditionally, both Christians and Muslims

would seek a Jewish doctor..

I hope that Belgium takes steps. Especially after the attack, two month ago, at the Jewish museum.

[roguevalley]

25. this man is probably anti semitic to start with. how did he know she was Jewish. Did he decide

because her name sounded Jewish? Sarah Palin won mayor of Wasilla by saying her opponent was a Jew because his last name was Stein. He is a Baptist.

[amandabeech]

24. There is no mention of the doctor's name, or at least I don't see it.

It seems that many of the anti-Semitic incidents recently in Europe have been perpetrated by people whose ancestry is in the Middle East or North Africa, sorry to say.

[Aerows]

26. Absolutely unacceptable.

You can disagree with the actions of the Israeli government (which I do) without taking it out on innocent Jewish people. You can disagree with the actions of the Israeli government without taking it out on every Israeli, for that matter.

Ill people are ill people, and doctors have an obligation to help them. For all he knew she could have a punctured lung because of the fractured rib.

[mike_c]

27. Isreal is stoking that anti-semitism with by creating a racist, apartheid state...

...and embracing ethnic cleansing to expropriate other people's land. The doctor's response was inappropriate, for sure. And certainly anti-Semitic if his basis for refusing treatment was the patient's ethnicity. However, it's not unexpected that among the people who quite naturally react badly to Israel's behavior, some will react inappropriately. I hope he reconsiders his remarks and learns from this experience.

[Comrade Grumpy]

28. Oh, the outrage! Beats talking about dead Palestinians.

[JI7]

33. this is the type of thing right wingers say anytime a minority is attacked in the US

they will bring up some other person of similar background that did something they don't like as an excuse for it.

[MrBig]

39. So calling out anti-Semitism is wrong now?

I guess because of Israel, no Jews around the world are allowed to claim persecution? Or is it only acceptable when the persecutor states their motive is because of their anti-Israel views?

This comment really toes that anti-Israel/anti-Semitism line that the Belgian doctor clearly crossed.

[uppityperson]

99. So we are supposed to be upset at only 1 type bigotry at a time?

[LeftishBrit]

106. Is it not possible to talk about both?

Belgian Jews are not responsible for dead Palestinians, any more than Europaean Muslims, or indeed Iraqis, were responsible for 9-11.

Punishing people just for their ethnicity is ALWAYS wrong and bigoted. Especially perhaps for a doctor.

[IronGate]

130. So you're excusing the doctor's anti-semitism?

Typical of you.

[JustAnotherGen]

29. How sad

That doctor showed the every day face of evil.

[CBGLuthier]

30. He is wrong but there is no denying that two months ago he would have had no problem

It is a shame that innocents around the world must suffer because one nation has lost its fucking mind, soul, what have you. I imagine though that Israel does not give two shits about it.

[magical thyme]

38. agreed. nt

[intaglio]

31. Unacceptable and the doctor should be disbarred n/t

[BillZBubb]

44. Utter nonsense.

He is a doctor not a lawyer. You don't disbar doctors.

Plus, what he did doesn't deserve any overly drastic response. He needs to be reprimanded.

[intaglio]

46. No, he refused treatment

Hippocratic Oath (Modern version)

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

Emphasis mine.

[IronGate]

49. Not disbarment, loss of license to practice medicine. nt.

Doctors simply can't refuse to treat someone because of their heritage or religion, which is exactly what he did, that's anti-Semitism.

[LeftishBrit]

107. Doctors are struck off; not disbarred; but refusing to treat a patient because of their ethnic group

or race or religion DOES deserve a drastic response.

[Aristus]

40. Out of line.

Doctor, you treat the patient in front of you. You treat people who need your help. Leave politics at the exam room door.

[McCamy Taylor]

42. Anti semitism is alive and well in a doctor in Belgium.

That is all that we can learn from this story.

[BillZBubb]

45. Nonsense.

He was reacting to the Israeli slaughter in Gaza. No doubt he has treated Jewish patients in the past with no problems. The current situation led him to improperly lash out at someone who he felt supported Israel's actions.

[IronGate]

48. So the doctor assumed that because she's Jewish,

she supported Israel's actions and on that basis, he refused to treat her?
That's anti-Semitism pure and simple and he should face severe penalties for that, up to and including loss of his license to practice medicine.

[Behind the Aegis]

50. You are correct, but like the cleaning of a house....

It is amazing the number of people who actually try to find justification in out-in-the-open anti-Semitism!

[IronGate]

51. It is amazing, isn't it.

I would never refuse to treat someone because of their heritage/religion/ethenticity/etc.
I would lose my Paramedic license and face criminal charges, rightly so.

[leftynyc]

73. Frankly nothing surprises me about DU anymore

The level of trust for whatever comes out of the mouth of a terrorist organization like hamas is nauseating. How many posters here, right on this thread, tried to justify what this doctor did to this Jewish woman because of what's going on in Israel - as if that matters at all. But if a Jewish doctor refused to treat a Muslim because of suicide bombings, honor killings, what those lunatics in Nigeria are doing - the place would be filled with outrage. Like I said - nauseating.

[BillZBubb]

77. What surprises me is how many find excuses to support the murder in Gaza.

[leftynyc]

81. It's a war

People die. And this thread is not about I/P. I see you have nothing to say about this pathetic doctor - how typical.

[MrBig]

103. There is no evidence this woman supports Israel

This isn't even an I/P issue!

How is that such a tough concept to grasp?

The doctor assumes all Jews support Israel and withheld medical treatment solely because of her religion.

This is a religious bigotry issue. And it sounds like you support the actions of the bigot.

[uppityperson]

100. "but it was only 1 time" and "he was provoked"

amazing

[Behind the Aegis]

101. Even more amazing...

Even discussing this, and calling it anti-Semitism....

The pro-Israel manure spreaders seized on the Belgian doctor refusing to treat a Jew as a justification for killing babies in Gaza.

So, you have a group claiming it is justifiable, others claiming it isn't anti-Semitism, and still another group claiming it is being used to "justify baby killing." How long before "false flag" claims are made?

[Behind the Aegis]

139. The fact you can't see the difference is not suprising, but doesn't change the nature.

People can be as outraged as the want about the Israeli actions, or even Israel, but when they start taking it out on Jews around the world, that is anti-Semitism. So, you "grow up" and learn that punishing Jewish people for the actions of a nation-state is bigotry, plain and simple.

[Behind the Aegis]

141. It doesn't change the fact it was anti-Semitic.

Refusing service to a Muslim because of 9-11 would be Islamophobic. The only one with "unmitigated gall (GAUL is French)" is you because you are desperately trying to change the subject and justify bigoted behavior.

[Behind the Aegis]

144. That should have been my response to you...SEVERAL posts ago.

But, it is good to know.

[leftynyc]

148. Ask yourself

what your reaction would be if a Jewish doctor refused to treat a Muslim patient because of honor killings, suicide bombings, FGM, marrying off children to old men, those disgusting clowns in Nigeria that kidnapped all those girls? Would you be as jazzed to defend that doctor?

[Guaguacoa]

150. One question.

Do you believe it is ok for dr's to not treat athiests for what an athiest state does? Refusal to treat muslims for what muslim radical's do? If not then I think you are also anti semitic.

[etherealtruth]

157. Without doubt!

[BillZBubb]

76. Nonsense.

It is logic 101. According to polls, the majority of Jewish people support the ongoing massacre in Gaza. So, it is a fairly reasonable assumption that the woman did as well. That isn't anti-Semitism. It is anti-Israel murdering innocents-ism.

The doctor should face a penalty for not treating someone in distress, but nothing as severe as losing his medical license.

[MrBig]

104. Hopeless

You are justifying religious discrimination and bigotry against Jews based on your random poll of Jews saying a "majority of Jews" support a particular position. Even tjough Israeli Jews might have different views than European Jews who might think differently from Ethiopian Jews.

But you're not anti-Semitic...

[IronGate]

111. OMG, what nonsense.

She was a Belgium Jew, he refused service on the basis that she was Jewish, THAT'S ANTI-SEMITISM.

The lengths some will go here to dismiss clear cases of anti-Semitism is breathtaking.
And before you reply about Israel this and Israel that, this thread isn't about the I/P conflict.

[IronGate]

132. Logic 101?

Then you failed the course.

[Guaguacoa]

151. This has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have

ever read on a progressive/liberal board. It's idiotic to assume anything about the woman, the dr is anti semitic period. He's making a decision, one without any knowledge of her whatsoever, based on her ethnicity. Bigotry at it's finest.

[jberryhill]

52. he should follow the example of the brave Israeli doctors

...who have volunteered to help treat the wounded on both sides, both the soldiers and the wounded evacuees from Gaza.

[JackRiddler]

63. Where do these "evacuees" go?

Is Israel allowing refugees to flee to its (pre-1967) territory? Has some other country opened up a camp for "evacuees"? What does this word mean? Do you mean the people who flee to UN locations that are then bombed?

[jberryhill]

72. I think you missed the point

Gazans aren't treated by Israeli doctors.

[leftynyc]

74. What the fuck does that have to

do with a sick woman in Belgium? And if a Jewish doctor refused to treat a Muslim because of the atrocious behavior around the world - think suicide bombings, honor killings, kidnapping young girls and selling them off to be married, shooting girls trying to get an education (I could go on and on) - would you be as understanding of THAT doctor's refusal?

[Guaguacoa]

152. Unless that woman is massacring muslims

in belgium then it has nothing to do with her. Do you REALLY support persecuting everyone of the same ethnicity as radicals? Do you support persecuting all muslims for what radical muslim terrorists do? If not then that's hypocrisy.

People should not be persecuted because of what radical's of their same ethnicity do, period. End of story. People that think they should are in no way progressive or liberal and are actually closet far right wingers.

[LTX]

156. First, this board is thick with people "pissed about the Israelis," as is every liberal news site in

this country (read Salon, Slate, Raw Story, MSNBC, etc.). I have no idea where this notion comes from that "no one is allowed to be pissed at the the Israelis."

Second, no "genocide" is being, or has been, committed. That is the the kind of pure balderdash that reeks of anti-semitism in and of itself, not the least because you and the re-definition squads apply the term "genocide" to this conflict and this conflict alone.

Third, what possible justification do you have for saying that "the goal is to kill all of the Palestinians in the territory"?

Gaza alone has in excess of 1.7 million Palestinians. It has a birth rate of 33.27 births/1,000 population, an average overall life expectancy of 74.4 years (with female life expectancy averaging 76.21 years, and male life expectancy averaging 72.69 years), an overall literacy rate of 95.3%, and an annual population growth rate of 2.91%, the 13th highest in the world.

Total Palestinian casualties in the conflict have been approximately 1,700. That is total, which means it necessarily includes both combatants and civilians. Just to put that in perspective, there were 3,071 traffic fatalities in the state of Kentucky in 2009, a state with roughly the same population as Gaza. If Israel's goal is to kill all of the Palestinians, they would be better served by opening car dealerships in Gaza than conducting the operations they have been conducting.

[Scootaloo]

55. Wow, that's fucking vile

I look forward to the followup of the doctor losing his license.

[BillZBubb]

80. It was wrong, but losing his license is much too drastic.

[IronGate]

131. No, it isn't.

Here in the states, if I refused to treat a patient on the basis of one's heritage, not only would I lose my EMT-P license, but I would also face criminal charges.
This was a clear case of anti-Semitism.

[gwheezie]

57. I believe it's anti semitism

I also am very concerned about the rise of anti semitism in europe.
This woman for all anyone knows has nothing to do with what Israel is doing, she's a jew, that is all we know about her, she's not in Israel, she's not even vaguely in the mid east, she's in europe for gods sake. I'm not jewish, I'm an atheist but this scares the hell out of me and just to be clear, if I am forced to pick sides in the mess, I lean more towards the people of gaza. I've avoided the israel-gaza threads because I think both sides are suicidal, I can't really defend either sides position although the people of gaza seem to be getting the worst of it. But this has nothing to do with my deep concern over the rising tide of anti semitism and fascism especially in europe.
Both sides of this conflict is adding to the fierce hatred of jews, arabs, muslims and persians, depending on where you are born.

[Live and Learn]

58. No doctor should deny treatment to anyone. nt

[JackRiddler]

60. A doctor in Belgium is a raging asshole who should lose his license.

(Assuming the story as reported etc. etc.)

I'm sure this totally justifies the IDF's massacre of random civilians trapped in Gaza, the rubbling of their neighborhoods, etc.

[longship]

62. Primum non nocere.

Primum non nocere

[Behind the Aegis]

67. It is anti-Semitic.

Refusing to treat someone because she is Jewish is anti-Semitic. Rationalize it any way you want, it is bigotry. It is no different than a doctor refusing to treat a Muslim after 9-11 because "s/he might support a terrorist attack on the US."

[Behind the Aegis]

70. He was making an anti-Semitic point.

He decided not to treat her (or inform her of no treatment) because she is a JEW not an ISRAELI. His bigotry is now for all to see, whether it is because he was "angry" is irrelevant. Her only "crime" was being a Jew. That is anti-Semitism.

[JI7]

71. it is anti semitism, it's like right wingers who think it's ok to treat black people badly

by bringing up chicago or oj simpson and other stupid shit.

these people are nothing but bigots.

[MrBig]

92. I can't tell if you're serious or trolling n/t

[JI7]

117. how dare i refer to bigots as "these people"

[DemocratSinceBirth]

145. These People=Bigots

It's pretty clear from his sentence.

[leftynyc]

75. I'm sure you'd be

just as understanding when a Jewish doctor refuses to treat a Muslim because of the suicide bombings, honor killings, gassing their own (Syria) - I'm sure I'll see you defend that doctor, right?

[leftynyc]

89. More bullshit

and whining - so sorry 100% of the threads cannot be about how much Israel sucks. That every single paper in the world doesn't devote 100% of their coverage to how much Israel sucks. It must really chap your ass that so many Europeans are showing their true colors as it takes the spotlight off your favorite topic of bashing Israel. Too bad.

[leftynyc]

97. This thread is not about I/P

so I have no idea where you're getting anyone defending anything other than those defending the actions of this disgusting doctor. But keep digging.

[IronGate]

119. What bullshit!!!!!

This article was written to show the rising anti-Semitism around the world, and this was a case of anti-Semitism.

[IronGate]

118. Yes there is treatment for broken ribs, you wrap the affected ribs tightly to

prevent them from moving around.
This doctor refused treatment solely on the basis of her being Jewish, that's anti-Semitism.
And this thread isn't about the I/P conflict, it's about a doctor who refused a Belgium Jew treatment because of her heritage.

[Codeine]

126. I don't think they wrap broken ribs anymore.

I broke three in a car accident and the doctor just told me to avoid strenuous activity for a few weeks.

[IronGate]

127. As a Paramedic, yes we do, what happens at the hospital MAY be different,

but every doctor I've talked to said that's the best treatment for broken ribs.

[BillZBubb]

79. You are correct. In and of itself, this one incident is not anti-Semitic--it is anti Israel by proxy

[LeftishBrit]

109. No, it's antisemitic. If the woman had been Israeli, it would have been anti-Israel; but she is a

Belgian Jew. Not connected with Israel.

[PersonNumber503602]

93. It's unacceptable no matter what.

It's unacceptable when/if doctors do this to muslims after any sort of terrorist attacks. It would be unacceptable if a jewish doctor refused to treat a muslim because of the events in Gaza. He made an assumption about this person because of her jewish faith. If the situation was reversed, I would condemn the doctor in that situation and I'm sure you would too.

And even if she does support Israel, that is not a legitimate reason to not treat a patient. People in the medical field are supposed to be professional at all times and treat their patients to the best of their ability. If they allow their judgement to be clouded by their own personal beliefs (especially bigoted ones based solely on one's religion), then they should not be allowed to practice.

The specifics of this are irrelevant. You can replace the actors and their religious traits in this scenario, but the it would not change a thing. This guy should not be practicing because he cannot control his own personal emotions when it comes to the health of his patients.

[fujiyama]

122. This is clear anti-semitism

and discriminating against or refusing to treat a patient due to their religion is a blatant violation of global medical ethics. And this isn't about whether or not the patient's condition could be treated. It's about using the violence in another country as an excuse to discriminate against a patient due to his or her religion.

Appalling and inexcusable!

[Humanist_Activist]

128. Well that's a stupid post, its like refusing to treat a black person for the actions of Uganda. n/t

[oberliner]

82. Please note how many DUers responding to this thread do not see this as anti-semitism

Alarming, though, sadly, not surprising.

[MrBig]

84. It's incredibly depressing

And it really is a microcosm of how even allegedly progressive societies can still be a bastion of hatred, bigotry and collective punishment

[MrBig]

95. And you have the absolute right to be called out

Since you support collective punishment of an entire group of people based on the actions of a country's government (even when said people have no affiliation with that government) lets find other places we can do this.

All Muslims should be punished for the actions of the Iranian government.

All Arabs should be punished for the actions of Syria.

All Christians should be punished for the actions of the Vatican.

In case its necessary

[Guaguacoa]

154. So people in the US that refused

service to blacks were "getting grumpy"? Truly ridiculous.

[PersonNumber503602]

96. There are plenty of articles/postings on this site criticizing Israel and as far as I can tell

no one is trying to actively silence such articles. If anything, there is a lively debate about the horrible effects of the Israel methods in handling the terrorists firing rockets into Israel. You seem bothered that there posts not in step with your view are being tolerated or even discussed. This is a discussion board in which people come here to discuss issues such as the events in Gaza.

Discussion is acceptable and encouraged, is it not?

What isn't acceptable is for a doctor to discriminate against someone of jewish faith because of the events in Gaza. It's even more unacceptable considering neither of individuals are directly involved in the conflict. Criticizing this doctor is not accepting the actions of Israel. The actions of Israel does not excuse bigotry against Jewish people around the world. These are two separate issues with the only ties to Gaza/Israel existing in the doctor's mind.

[uppityperson]

102. Who here is saying forgive Israel their actions because a doctor elsewhere acted on bigotry?

[LeftishBrit]

108. Nobody is saying 'forgive the Israelis their transgressions because someone was antisemitic'

Good grief.

'I have an absolute right to be outraged that my tax dollars are supporting massacres such as this.'

Nobody said you didn't have that right.

I support Israel's existence and detest Hamas; but I am TOTALLY against Israel's present actions, and think America, as holder of the purse-strings, needs to take a much tougher line than it has so far.

But what right has a doctor in Europe to punish someone just for being Jewish? Collective punishment is utterly wrong, whether by Israelis against all Palestinians;Europaeans and Americans against Muslims; or Europaeans and Americans against Jews.

What would you say of an Israeli doctor who refused to treat Palestinians; or an American doctor who refused to treat Muslims?


'Humans are all by nature isolationists, and scared of " others".

It is our socialization that can broaden us.'

Possibly - but a doctor should have this socialization, or not be a doctor!

[MrBig]

110. Thank you for this post

My patience with this open embracing of anti-Semitism is wearing thin.

[LeftishBrit]

113. I am not a doctor - I am a researcher in an area slightly related to medicine

There are many conditions for which there is no direct treatment. But a doctor can still offer advice as to how to take care of yourself, etc.

There is a difference between saying 'There is nothing I can do directly; but the ribs should heal themselves in X weeks' and saying 'Get away from the phone; you belong to the wrong ethnic group!'

[IronGate]

121. There is treatment for fractured ribs, wrap them tightly to prevent movement. nt.

[IronGate]

120. WTF are you talking about forgiving Israel for these "transgressions'?

This is about a doctor who refused to treat a Jewish woman solely on the basis of her being a Jew.
That's anti-Semitism and all your tap dancing trying to excuse the doctor isn't going to change that fact.

[IronGate]

133. Hey Tumbulu, maybe you didn't notice,

but this thread is about a doctor who refused treatment based solely on ethnic heritage, not on the I/P conflict.

[leftynyc]

85. Not surprising at all

And yet they wonder and whine about why the far left has no credibility or power. This was a good piece to read:

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/181021/why-europe-has-trouble-fighting-anti-semitism

[fujiyama]

123. I'm disturbed by the excuses some posters are making

I say this as someone in complete disagreement with Israel's assault on Gaza. But discriminating against people of a particular faith due to the actions of a foreign nation's military actions is not only just plain wrong, it's also stupid.

[JackRiddler]

147. It's anti-Semitism.

It's also the case of some asshole in Belgium being used here as though it justifies Israeli mass murder in Gaza.

[oberliner]

149. Who has used him to justify that?

I have not seen anyone do that - if they have, that is really out there.

[LeftishBrit]

105. That is unforgivable

[booley]

129. In the category of "Not Helping"

Don't be a choad. It rarely helps anything

[Liberal_from_va34]

138. I'm no fan of Israel's current policies of aggression, but this is not right.

After all, nobody even knows this woman's position on the Palestine-Israel issue. And regardless of what she believes, such treatment is simply uncalled for.

Sadly, I predict that more such incidents will occur in the future as the current situation heats up. After all, antisemitism has been on the rise worldwide in recent years.

[Ken Burch]

146. The man is a bigoted boor.

Of course antisemitism is alive and well. But standing with Netanyahu is the worst way to fight it.

You fight antisemitism by fighting ALL forms of bigotry...ALL of which are just as evil and lethal as antisemitism.

Antisemitism isn't the only hate that matters.