On the 8th of November, 2023, Dr. Wynia published a viewpoint in the most prestigious medical journal in the field, entitled Health Professionals and War in the Middle East. The article admonishes physicians for sitting on the fence and calls us to take our ethical responsibilities seriously. The three positions we must take as physicians, according to Dr. Wynia, are: condemn dehumanization and genocide; stand against anti-semitism and anti-muslim hatred; and condemning war crimes especially those of a medical nature.
So far so good. No one in their right mind can disagree with Dr. Wynia on these points. However, the devil, as always, is in the details. This article exemplifies how power is used to normalize evil. This is done by carefully constructing and presenting information as unquestionable truths, using specific discursive strategies. Their goal is to shape public perception to align with their interests.In this case, the power of the white coat, the credibility of the journal, invoking medical ethics and morals, is being deployed to support Israel’s cause. All of that is being done, without explicitly taking Israel’s side and presenting oneself as balance and fair-minded. This is not to say that Dr. Wynia is deliberately skewing the opinion towards one side. As intelligent as he may be, that is giving him too much credit. I wouldn’t be surprised if he genuinely believes himself to be fair-minded and balanced. It may well be that there he himself is a prey to the conniving strategies blatantly on display in journalism and academia alike, by those in power beyond him. Nevertheless, one can identify many discursive strategies that he exemplifies that most of the “balanced” rhetoric is characterized by. This rhetoric is not explicitly Zionist, and for that reason is most effective in advancing their lost cause. A few examples are presented here:
Discursive Strategy #1- Scant Mention of Palestinians
It is ironic that in a discourse concerning the devastating impacts of the Middle East conflict, those who are directly under bombardment – the Palestinian civilians – receive scarcely an indirect mention, effectively rendering invisible the very individuals most acutely affected by the violence.
The effects achieved by this strategy: backgrounding Palestinian Narrative; undermining their loss; focus shift to Hamas; prevent any empathy from arising for Palestinians.
Discursive Strategy #2- Specific Actions of Hamas vs. Generic Statements Regarding Israel
Dr. Wynia focuses on detailed accounts of Hamas’s actions, such as launching rockets or using human shields, while references to Israeli actions are often vague and non-specific. This approach creates a narrative imbalance, where the actions of Hamas are scrutinized and portrayed as aggressive and unjustified, while Israeli actions are obscured or diluted, thus mitigating perceived responsibility or culpability.
The effects achieved by this strategy: amplification of Hamas’s aggressiveness; mitigation of Israeli military actions; skewed moral judgment against Hamas; perception of disproportionate blame.
Discursive Strategy #3- Appeal to Context and Complexity in Defense of Israel vs. Simplification for Hamas
Dr. Wynia appeals to the complexity and nuance in Israel’s military and political decisions, often contextualizing their actions within broader security concerns. In contrast, actions by Hamas are presented in a simplified, often one-dimensional manner, devoid of such contextual depth. This discursive method paints a picture of a complex and morally ambiguous situation for Israel, while portraying Hamas’s actions as straightforwardly condemnable.
The effects achieved by this strategy: portrayal of Israel as a rational actor in a complex situation; depiction of Hamas as lacking in moral and political complexity; fostering understanding and justification for Israel’s actions; reducing empathy for the Palestinian cause.
Discursive Strategy #4- Direct Moral, Ethical, and Legal Condemnation of Hamas and Justifications/Rationalization for Israel
In this strategy, Dr. Wynia’s text directly condemns Hamas for moral, ethical, and legal violations, while simultaneously presenting Israel’s actions as justifiable or understandable in the given context. This creates a moral dichotomy, where Hamas is unequivocally portrayed as the aggressor violating international laws and norms, whereas Israel’s actions are rationalized as responses to these violations.
The effects achieved by this strategy: moral vilification of Hamas; legal and ethical rationalization of Israeli actions; creation of a clear perpetrator (Hamas) and victim (Israel) narrative.
Discursive Strategy #5- Selective Portrayal of History and “Weaponizing the Holocaust”
Dr. Wynia selectively references historical events, notably the Holocaust and specific instances of anti-Semitic violence, while omitting significant historical contexts relevant to the Palestinian experience, such as the Nakba or ongoing occupation. This approach aligns with Norman Finkelstein’s concept of “weaponizing the Holocaust,” where the Holocaust is used as a rhetorical tool to justify or divert attention from the present actions of the state of Israel. If Jewish history is relevant, then the significance of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising also warrants exploration. This selective historical portrayal and weaponization of the Holocaust create an imbalanced narrative that emphasizes Jewish suffering and resilience while marginalizing the historical and ongoing struggles of the Palestinians.
The effects achieved by this strategy: foregrounding Jewish historical suffering; erasure of the Palestinian historical narrative; shaping a one-sided historical understanding favoring Israel; and using the Holocaust as a rhetorical shield for contemporary political actions.
Israel Defense Forces do with bombs what that author does with words. Such is the power of discourse.
Last modified: January 18, 2024
