MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407175504 · doi:10.1186/s13031-024-00634-0

Realising health justice in Palestine: beyond humanitarian voices

2025· letter· en· W4407175504 on OpenAlexaff
James C. Smith, Sara el-Solh, Layth Hanbali, Sawsan Abdulrahim, Sali Hafez, Samer Abuzerr, Bram Wispelwey, Mads Gilbert, Mohammed Seyam, Bassam Abu Hamad, Dorotea Gucciardo, Rasha Khoury, Amira Nimerawi, David Mills, Ghassan Abu‐Sittah

Bibliographic record

VenueConflict and Health · 2025
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Conflict Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic healthGenocideHuman rightsLawRight to healthEconomic JusticeHumanitarian aidSociologyHumanitarian crisisPolitical sciencePublic administrationRefugeeMedicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the shadow of Israel's ongoing genocide throughout occupied Palestine, this article examines the moral, political, and epistemic responsibilities of humanitarian, public health, global health, medical and related communities of practice amid profound violence and injustice. In this paper we offer a three-part critique of a May 2024 commentary by Karl Blanchet and colleagues, 'Rebuilding the health sector in Gaza: Alternative humanitarian voices' (Blanchet et al. in Confl Heal 18:42, 2024). We argue that in relation to the post-genocide reconstruction of the health system in Gaza, the authors have failed to adequately contextualise their analysis, or the health system reconstruction policy proposal as commissioned by the Gaza Health Initiative [Gaza Health Rebuilding Initiative (GHRI), Future of the Gaza health system: Needs assessment. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/656c4ff5b219116063f8099e/t/65c30c4d3e80fd21f1165b57/1707281499127/Final+first+draft+-+Gaza+health+system+report.pdf . Accessed 8 November 2024], and as such have failed to elucidate the root causes of what manifests most immediately as an entirely manufactured humanitarian crisis. This in turn undermines the substance and utility of the recovery proposal as it has been presented. We also argue that the authors have failed to afford due recognition to several key health actors in Palestine, in particular the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza and UNRWA, and that this subtle but critical act of erasure further undermines the relevance and applicability of their recovery proposal as presented. In response we emphasise the centrality of Palestinian perspectives, and the need to uphold Palestinian leadership in all stages of the recovery process. Thirdly, we take issue with the suggested chronology and substance of the recovery proposal as presented, which overlooks response and recovery efforts already underway and led by Palestinians in Gaza, and which overstates ultimately harmful intervention strategies such as networks of internationally managed field hospitals. Against the backdrop of a very limited window for what we consider morally justifiable humanitarian engagement in Gaza, we join many others who have called for a paradigm shift away from the inertia of supposed objectivity and claimed neutrality that function to perpetuate injustice. Instead, we call for the collective practice of critical advocacy, solidarity with people affected by injustice and oppression, and an emancipatory politics in pursuit of justice in Palestine.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.187
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConflict and HealthSame topicHealth and Conflict StudiesFrench-language works237,207