The article ‘To resist is to exist’ is a most blatantly one-sided piece of political polemic. It has no place in what is supposed to be a professional journal.

Many of the statistics cited are those from Israelis who are demonstrably opposed to the policies of Israel. No source data is quoted. While it is quite proper that anti-government Israelis should have a voice (it says much for Israel that they can speak freely both inside and outside Israel without fear of prosecution or persecution), it is curious that no comment is made of the other side of the coin. The authors make no mention of any Israelis who have been traumatised by suicide bombers.

Although the authors concentrate on the West Bank, they do not similarly mention the psychological impact on Israelis. Children and adults are just as likely to be traumatised by the repeated rocket attacks from Gaza as the West Bank population mentioned in the article. Are the authors aware that families in the border towns in Israel are regularly trapped in bunkers for days on end? Equally, are the authors aware of the concerns regularly voiced by the psychological services in Israel on the impact of repeated traumatisation of Israeli children?

The use of the word ‘illegal’ to describe the ‘occupation’ is repetition of an old linguistic trick. Use the word often enough and the reader may start to believe it. Although there have been UN resolutions calling on Israel to ‘withdraw from occupied territories’ (note that it does not say ALL occupied territories), it should be appreciated that Israel was created following a UN resolution in 1947. That resolution has not been accepted by many Muslim states to this day. Hamas, who were elected in Gaza, and Iran, who back Hamas, openly call for the eradication of Israel. Your authors manage to ignore this too.

The Palestinian leaders and their supporters have repeatedly rejected the two-state solution, which was on offer on multiple occasions. The title of the article says it all. They’d rather resist than accept the reality of Israel. Then they protest when Israel defends itself against harm to its own civilians.

Therapy is about taking responsibility for one’s self and one’s actions, and coming to terms with reality as it is, not what you’d like it to be. Regardless of your political viewpoint, and whether your sympathies lie primarily with the Israelis or the Palestinians, this biased view has no place in your journal, and should not have been published.

May we now anticipate a parallel article about how Israelis have suffered trauma from suicide bombers and rocket attacks? This heavily biased article risks being offensive to your many Jewish members, some of whom have friends and relatives in Israel. It is so busy defending the viewpoint of one side of this conflict that it totally ignores the viewpoint of the other.

Sue Epstein and David Epstein