Gal Beckerman of Forward, The Jewish Daily has written a piece on Operation Abraham and Inon Schenker's presence at the 2009 National HIV Prevention Conference in Atlanta. He asks some relevant questions, but either misstates or was misled by Schenker that Operation Abraham is solely seeking to target adult males at risk for HIV. In fact, Operation Abraham would like nothing more than to be in the business of circumcising infants, and proposed lobbying the AAP on the issue of infant circumcision in Schenker's presentation abstract and at the conference itself.
I'm quoted and characterized as a cynic for stating that I believed Schenker's motives were monetary, given that we in the United States are not naive in the area of circumcision. Cynical I am ... of Operation Abraham's motives. Clearly, the United States and North America don't suffer from a lack of circumcisers or circumcision technique or implements or parents willing to offer up their children wholesale to a stranger in scrubs.
Inon Schenker's cry of antisemitism is itself a cynical smokescreen that cannot hide his ulterior motives. It is no secret that big money is involved in prevention efforts. Clearly, Schenker isn't telling anyone these alleged medical missions are going to be a "gift" to Americans with foreskins. His other wounded puppy remark is that opposition is rooted in some kind of "cruelty." For a man wielding a knife in the general direction of men's crotches, this is laughable, but serious.
Perhaps most telling of Schenker's cynicism is the claim a debate on "the benefits of circumcision" has yet to occur in the United States. He, helpfully, just wants to start one. As someone who has been listening to this debate for the better part of 20 years and actively participating since December of 2006, when I started this blog, this is nonsense.
Other inaccuracies that I'll choose to believe show Beckerman's optimism is that male circumcision reduces HIV risk by 65%. That's an overstatement of the claims by about 15 percentage points. The absolute reduction was shown to be only 1.8%, a negligible difference easily lost to disinhibition.
When Beckerman interviewed me, I told him not to quote me on the issue of Jewish circumcision. Rather I referred him to Eli Ungar-Sargon. Eli made some excellent points. Beckerman reports that Eli "wondered if the two motivations, health and religious, were actually more intertwined."
“There has always been this subterranean desire to demonstrate the relevance of our traditions” Ungar-Sargon said, referring to the Jewish community, “whether it’s saying that eating kosher is healthy or the prohibitions around sex during a woman’s menses is healthier. This sort of logic comes from a place of apologetics, and it’s a very disturbing thing to me. It’s also a very weak argument.”
