Swedish Paper Accuses Israel of Organs Harvest

**Regeneration** · August 23rd, 2009, 07:31 PM

A Swedish magazine named aftonbladet published two articles recently by Asa Linderborg and Donald Bostrom, accusing Israel of killing Palestinians to harvest their organs and drink their blood. In other words: Blood libel. I don’t like violence, but I hope one day… I’ll bump into one of their writers and honor him with a fist to the face.

Noobi Zubi · August 24th, 2009, 11:23 AM

you can harvest his organs and drink his blood while you're in to it...

i don't understand why one can't publish Muhamad caricatures in the Scandinavian area but you can accuse the jews in whatever you like.

btw, let me quote wikipedia about that newspaper:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftonbl...f_antisemitism

Allegations of antisemitism

Aftonbladet has several times been accused of publishing antisemitic material.

When Israel invaded Lebanon during the 1982 Lebanon War, Israel was accused in several articles in Aftonbladet of perpetrating a "repeating" of the Holocaust.[3] In a picture published in an article on 17 June 1982, then Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin was portrayed as a Jewish Angel of Death, followed by the caption: "And on that night I want to cross the land of the Palestinians and beat all first-born of both humans and creatures and perform my punishment on all of the Palestinans' Gods, I the lord".[4]

An editorial article published in Aftonbladet on 1 April 2002 was controversially titled Den korsfäste Arafat ("The Crusified Arafat"), which by some critics was considered a reference to the Jewish deicide (an antisemitic canard that places the responsibility for the death of Jesus on the Jewish people as a whole).[5]

In a column by Aftonbladet motor journalist Robert Collin published on 3 January 2006, Collin blamed what he referred to as the "Jewish lobby" for what some perceive as the less frequent use of the word "Christmas" in the United States (see Christmas controversy):

"Christmas is approaching, but the word is seldomly heard. Instead of Christmas people say "Hollyday" [sic]. It's the powerful Jewish lobby in the United States that considers the word "Christmas" to have a Christian undertone (well, that one can agree upon, wasn't it at that time Jesus Christ was born?)".[6]

When a reader criticised Collin's assertion by arguing that the Jews as a group have no more to with the debate on Christmas in the United States "than intellectuals, Muslims, atheists, journalists, socialists, liberals etc", Collin responded to the reader by saying that "the only lobby group among those that you mention that has a real influence in the United States, is the Jews".[7]

Zixinus · September 9th, 2009, 11:20 PM

I'm no fan of Israel (for reasons with for policies, not against its people) and I know that the Israel military has done some pretty nasty things, but organ harvest? Please, that's just plain ridiculous.

Of course its always easier to resort to lie and slander when you're too lazy to make your own argument.

EDIT:
Looking up the results of the article in wikipedia .

Firstly, it is indeed true that the journalist does not have proof, according to the editor:

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3766093,00.html

"I'm a responsible editor who gave the green light to an article because it raises a few questions," Helin wrote. He confessed that the paper had no evidence of such practices.

Here is this particular piece of gold nugget:

Quote:

But Boström admitted he had no evidence of such deeds, as the bodies returned to the families were never examined to determine whether organs had been taken. "As far as I know no one examined the bodies," he said. "All I'm saying is that this needs to be investigated."

Typical journalistic crap in my opinion: starts out with good intentions, knows that he has power to do good but doesn't bother to get all the facts straight and all the angles covered in favour of the making the story.

What is true though, is that Israel still hasn't returned a lot of bodies to relatives, which is probably where the rumour started. The number is probably above 200 and my guess is that its a problematic process probably hampered by the usual bureaucratic delays. Some people probably got nervous and began speculating for the cause of the delay.

There is also a single photograph that the lazy journalist probably though was enough evidence.
See the article for yourself.

I would dare wager that the stitches are there for cosmetic reasons: so that the family doesn't bury a few buckets but something at least resembling a body.

In another page, it talks about how the reporter only showed up only to photograph the body.

I'm not a medical expert, but I am quite sure that the IDF isn't using dead Palestines as organ source: you can't. Most organs even in a hospital environment are rejected for whatever reasons, probably because they're damaged by the time they got it and I would wager that the process is a bit delicate.
I somehow sincerely doubt that you have better luck with a body ripped apart by bullets and put in by a truck.

Noobi Zubi · September 10th, 2009, 01:22 AM

I'm no doctor either but I'm pretty sure you're right about the period in which organs can be transferred from one man to the other.

It's funny, to think that Israeli soldiers are going out to battle with a shopping list "2 kidneys, a liver and a heart. make them all of blood type B".

When they see a terrorist they should first order him to ley out his weapon and state his blood type out loud :P

Reminds me of the famous Beilis trial, in which a jew was accused for killing a christian boy in order to bake Matzo (a dry bread eaten throughout the passover)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menahem_Mendel_Beilis

the ridicules thing is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_l..._and_sacrifice

Jews are not allowed to eat even animals blood and are forbidden of any kind of cannibalism...
more over, Jews are not allowed eating Matzo that was made of anything other than plain water
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matzo#I...nd_preparation

Just as ridicules as stealing organs, and just as Blood Labels were taking their toll against Jews in the dark ages, this foolish story will take it's toll one way or another.

**Regeneration** · September 10th, 2009, 01:33 AM

It is sad that Swedish officials refused to denounce this report.

Zixinus · September 10th, 2009, 01:14 PM

What does Jews have anything to do with it? The articles were about Israel and its soldiers, not necessarily about Jews.

Many Israelis are Jews, but not all Jews are Israeli. I really hate this thing: Israel is a nation. It's a nation created by Jews and it announces itself as a Jew nation, but that doesn't mean that Jewism and Israel are completely one. Criticising Israel is not the same as criticising Jews. There may be an overlap at one point, but that would a bit more obvious, no?

Anyway, Regen, what are you talking about? Various government officials quite clearly expressed that the article is appalling, especially the Swedish diplomat in Israel. What more are they supposed to do?

Noobi Zubi · September 10th, 2009, 04:19 PM

Unfortunately, nowdays antisemitism is disguised as anti-Zionism.
Take this recent example from the Spanish press

http://philosemitism.blogspot.com/20...-in-spain.html

The caricature shown there comes to hinder Israel but has so many remarkable antisemitic symbols in it that one can hardly mistake.

According to what I heard of the case the Swedish ambassador in Israel was quick to criticize the article and the Swedish government was even quicker to criticize the ambassador for doing that...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftonbl...y#Government_2

edit: spelling mistakes

Zixinus · September 10th, 2009, 05:44 PM

And sometimes shouting "antisemitist!" is nowadays a good way to dodge an argument or a critique that has nothing to do with either ethnicity or religion.
Strangely, shouting "homophone" or "anti-roma" nowadays just doesn't carry that much weight even though these people too visited the concentration camps way back. In my country, which did get under Nazi occupation, we still hate romas and homosexuals but the attitudes are a quite different when it comes to ethnic Jews.

Also; what are you talking about Nobbi? The wiki article does not imply that the ambassador was criticized, merely that the other politicians stepped back and tried not to get tied up into the mess. The only thing I can get out that was implied by them, was that this is free press, what are they supposed to do?

Arrest someone because they've written an (albeit, in this case, an extremely badly researched) article? Where did I hear that before?

Noobi Zubi · September 10th, 2009, 11:17 PM

First, let me quote out of the wiki article:

"Elisabet Borsiin Bonnier, the Swedish ambassador to Israel, strongly condemned the article, stating: "The article in the Swedish newspaper is shocking and terrifying for us Swedish, as it influences the Israeli citizens... The embassy can not emphasize more its disgust." The Swedish foreign ministry and the Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt distanced themselves from the ambassador's statement and underlined that Sweden is a democracy with freedom of press, and that state representatives should not comment on individual articles in newspapers."

So the Swedish foreign minister did negate the words of his ambassador.

As to the freedom of press/ speech: this freedom refers to handing out information, not to act as a tool of propaganda. the wiki value on the freedom of press is limited so let me quote the freedom of speech limitations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom...edom_of_speech

Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or "hate speech"

That is, you can say whatever you'd like, as long as you don't harm anyone else, and if you do harm - you better be saying the truth (which isn't the case here) cause you will be sewed like hell after that.

Take note that no one really demanded the reporter to be arrested but the Swedish government refused condemning the article, even though it's a pure pile of bullshit.

As to your argument regarding the use of the "antisemitic" card to dodge critiques: it could have been true if the newspaper didn't have problematic past in that subject and if the story had any bit of truth in it. Since they both don't exist, the only conclusion is that the article's main purpose was an attack at Israel and as numerous studies show, anti-Zionism is often a disguise for antisemitism.

Did you ever ask yourself how come you hear so much about Israel and the horrors it causes but you have no idea what is going on in the rest of the world?

During the last 10-15 years there was a massacre in Darfur, an ongoing genocide in Sudan (over a million and a half murdered, but who cares? they're niggers and don't have good PR), ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia and god knows what i forgot.

The everlasting obsession about Israel can only be explained deeper means other than mere freedom of press.

By the way, israel is also the country against which more than half of the UN decisions stand. You see, the Israelies are sooo damn wicked that they caused more harm to the world than all the rest of the 147 countries in it during the last 60 years...

Now try to tell me antisemitism has nothing to do with it.

I say that from the facts it seems to me that the motive for this article is antisemitic, what motive can you come up with?

Zixinus · September 11th, 2009, 09:08 PM

Quote:

So the Swedish foreign minister did negate the words of his ambassador.

No, they distanced themselves. That means that they don't comment and want nothing to do with the whole mess. Is that the most honest behaviour? No, but this are politicians that we are talking about, for whom placing their loyalties and reputation are the their primary tool. Could a few of these high politicians spared a sentence that they find the article ridiculous and that they do no agree with its content or conclusions? Yes. Does that make them anti-Semitic? I'm not sure, unless you believe that not giving a damn is basis for being anti-Semitism.

Let me repeat, they distanced themselves! In what world does that mean negation? If I refuse to answer a yes-no question, does that mean that I said no?

Quote:

Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or "hate speech"

Let's look at the entire paragraph, shall we?

Quote:

According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights.[21] Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or "hate speech".[22] Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction and/or social disapprobation.[23]

Emphasis mine.

Within context, freedom of speech is established as something that is defined by legal law. Since laws are different in every country and the limits of freedom of speech are established by these laws, thus every country has different limits on freedom of speech.

What you're doing is called "cherry picking". Unless you can point to the Swedish laws that would allow officials to act against this newspaper, I don't see anything wrong going here, aside a few politicians refusing to comment on a stupid article.

Quote:

Take note that no one really demanded the reporter to be arrested but the Swedish government refused condemning the article, even though it's a pure pile of bullshit.

So? The same is true for most tabloid magazines: the story is bullshit, fake or far different than implied. If the government tried condemning every stupid article that appears in the presses, they wouldn't have time to do any actual governing.

Have you considered that this may be a political issue in Sweden and that the politicians refused to say anything because they didn't want to open another can of worms?

The very first line of this article on wiki hints the point here:

[quote]Sweden strongly protects freedom of speech and was a pioneer in officially abolishing censorship.[/url]

Let's look at this a little closer shall we?

Quote:

The responsibility before the law rests only on the responsible publisher of a newspaper and only on the author of a book, with secondary rules only for such cases as books with an anonymous or an anknown author. It is not possible to take legal action against i.e. reporters, sources, distributors or printers because of the content of a book or a newspaper. The Swedish Constitution in this and a number of other ways gives very strong protection for the free word and the free press.

Emphasis is mine.

See the issue here?

Quote:

Since they both don't exist, the only conclusion is that the article's main purpose was an attack at Israel and as numerous studies show, anti-Zionism is often a disguise for antisemitism.

I demand you to show these studies.
How were they made? Who was the control group? Who made them? Why were they made? Who paid for it?

I do concede that racists that are indeed anti-Semitic may try to mask their hatred in front of the public by indirectly attacks on their subject matter. That does not mean that all attacks on Israel are racist or anti-Semitic.

Why? Because, and I am repeating myself here, many Israelis are Jews, but not all Jews are Israeli. Israel is a nation and can be criticised as a nation. Being prejudiced against it makes you an anti-Israel(i?). Jews are a people and can be criticised as such. Doing so makes you an anti-Semitic, as you oppose/are prejudiced against Semetic people, ie, Jews (by common definition, as "Semetic" actually refers to a larger family group). However not all Jews are Israeli, ergo, not all anti-Israeli remarks are automatically Anti-Semitic until proven otherwise.

And of course it was an "attack" on Israel: the newspaper anti-Israel status is well-known.

I may concede that the magazine at large also harbours or even directly expressed Anti-Semetic sentiments if these could be shown. I can't say the the magazine is not necessary anti-Semetic, because it may be and I can't say for certain as I don't read it.

The writer confessed on the article that he is not anti-Semetic (or at least, claims to be), but heard these stories and wanted to attract attention to them. That does not make him anti-Semetic, at least not on these grounds alone. That makes him anti-Israeli. The difference is immense.

Quote:

Did you ever ask yourself how come you hear so much about Israel and the horrors it causes but you have no idea what is going on in the rest of the world?

Your argument has nothing to do with the topic at hand and is flawed. Just because other countries and nation do horros that does not mean that Israel can too.

There are many other serial killers than Jack the Ripper and some of them did far more horrible murders with far more people. Does that excuse Jack the Ripper? I don't think so.

Quote:

By the way, israel is also the country against which more than half of the UN decisions stand.

Could it be due to the UN disapproving of Israeli politicies?

Quote:

Now try to tell me antisemitism has nothing to do with it.

Anti-Semitism has nothing to do with it because it is Israel as a nation and institution that is attacked, not the Jews within Israel.

Quote:

I say that from the facts it seems to me that the motive for this article is antisemitic, what motive can you come up with?

Greed, ambition, the seeking of fame, effort to hold moral superiority, laziness, sucking up to the editors, and so on. My guess as to why the reporter wrote what he did is in my earlier post.

I have read trough the article and the reporter heavily accuses the Israeli government of organ harvest based on what the Palestinians say and his own conclusions about the organ trade. Perhaps I was not meticulous enough, but I failed to find even one line, one remark, one comment that indicates that the author abhors the Jewish religion, race or culture.

Show me the paragraph, show me one damn sentence that indicates that the reporter hates or is prejudiced against Jews. I have found plenty condemning the Israeli government and military, yet none for condemning them for being Jews. Show me even one remark or word, and I'll concede that the author is anti-Semitic. Until then, I can't come to any other conclusion but that there is a persecution complex within your argument.