For a long time I have been disappointed because therapists have seriously neglected what I consider an important part of our role; namely, to bring the specialist knowledge we have of the impact of external factors on the inner life of the emotions, to public awareness and into the public arena for discussion. Therefore I welcome the article by Pete Sanders in the latest issue of Therapy Today (‘Therapy and politics’).

There is much in Sanders’ article that can be disagreed with and discussed. The crucial factor is that it is a genuinely professional and scientific article in that it demonstrates clear thinking, good research and is well referenced. It can be taken seriously in the furtherance of critical thought and ethical practice of our profession.

Not so the article ‘To resist is to exist’, nor, sadly, the editorial. I admire anyone who goes into war zones and refugee areas to offer help to distressed people and increase their professional knowledge and experience in the process. From their article, there is no evidence that this was the reason Martin Kemp and Eliana Pinto went to the West Bank. It would seem that either they went there to look for evidence to confirm their already biased views about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict – and found what they looked for – or they went with more genuine motives and became enthralled by the views of their interviewees to the extent that they abandoned any effort to corroborate or investigate sources.

Whatever Kemp and Pinto’s intentions were, what clearly comes across in their article is an attempt, not even subtly disguised, to enrage the reader against Israel, and clear evidence that they have succumbed to the ‘false media incitement to hatred’ that we have been deluged with, particularly since 9/11. The ignorance (of the creation of Israel and the history of the conflict with not only the Palestinians, but Britain, the surrounding Arab States and now Iranian backed Hizbollah and Hamas) that the article seems to demonstrate is alarming. 

Much of the journalistic/reporting profession appears to have abandoned its fundamental raison d’etre to inform the public in an unbiased non-judgmental way, in the service of higher profits and greater notoriety. It is essential that our own profession does not do likewise, particularly as our work gives us an insight into the unconscious mechanisms of ‘scapegoating’, denial, displacement and vicarious revenge that underlay bias and ‘taking sides’.

Anyone who supports one side of a conflict against the other (which side is irrelevant) is, in my opinion, a perpetrator of hatred. Kemp and Pinto’s article is likely to arouse hatred against Israel in those so disposed and outrage in those not so disposed. Hatred and outrage are a potent mixture that is likely to generate further aggressive feelings and violence. What a pity that Kemp and Pinto did not go out to look for – and they would have found many – projects that bring Palestinians and Israelis together for some mutual purpose such as mourning their dead together or developing joint medical and educational projects. Perhaps the responses to their article may even inspire Kemp and Pinto to found such a project. What concerns me more is what is Therapy Today going to do to overcome this glaring bias?

Ruth Barnett
Human Rights promoter and anti-racism educator