Scholars for Peace in the Middle East Respond to Statement by Psychologists for Social Responsibility

Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR) has issued a statement condemning Israel's use of sonic boom flyovers as "psychological warfare against the Gaza population." They are concerned that these flyovers will "further escalate the already high rate of stress and trauma-related psychological disorders among Gaza civilian population." To their credit, they also recognize that "the use of sonic booms is justified by Israel as a response to the firing of Qassam rockets, originating in Gaza and directed at Israeli population centers." Their statement concludes with a claim that peace in the Middle East will only emerge with "the establishment of an independent, contiguous, and viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, with its capital in Jerusalem."

Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) is concerned with this statement, which has been presented to the US Congress. It condemns Israeli policy without providing the full context for the sonic boom flyovers. It relies upon biased sources to support the claim of psychological injury. Most importantly, the statement exploits professional medical credentials to justify a political position.

The context for the flyovers is straightforward. They are a response to Qassam rocket attacks on Israeli population centers. As Israeli officials point out, when the Qassam attacks stop, the flyovers will stop. Moreover, Qassam rockets and sonic booms differ in an important way: the sonic booms do not kill anyone; the Qassams do. This important difference is not mentioned in the PsySR statement.

Also, the claim of medical morbidity is suspicious. The PsySR statement offers no evidence for any negative medical or psychological effect, short- or long-term. In fact, the source for the alleged negative mental health effects of the flyovers turns out to be a single Palestinian psychiatrist, hardly an unbiased source. This same source, often cited in media reports, has also defended suicide bombing, as documented in a recent Honest Reporting report.

Most critically, the PsySR statement uses medical credentials to promote a political position. Since when are psychologists experts on what a negotiated solution to the Middle East conflict should look like?

One must also question the selective outrage of PsySR. Are sonic booms in Gaza the worst form of mental health abuse in the world today? Is the most important issue PsySR could bring to the attention of the US Congress?

What could explain this selectivity? SPME has recently determined that people active in Psychologists for Social Responsibility have promoted an overtly anti-Israel agenda in other venues as well. A symposium at the APA this past summer sponsored by the group caused quite a commotion as the panel was decidedly pro-Palestinian. Those in the audience who supported Israeli positions on these issues were shouted down by the panelists when they attempted to give some balance to the discussion.

We note as well that some members of PsySR are unhappy with the politicization of the organization and have expressed their unhappiness publicly. We support such efforts to keep politics out of medical research and public health advocacy.

Please disseminate this information widely to combat bias in mental health research and practice.