Israel: just another mid-eastern country? / Palestns claim Israel loots organs

[Merko]

Deja vu, anyone?
'The meaning of freedom of press is the freedom to publish the truth, not the freedom to lie and slander.' (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/08/21/israel.sweden.organ.harvesting/index.html)

[Darth Rotor]

Deja vu, anyone?
'The meaning of freedom of press is the freedom to publish the truth, not the freedom to lie and slander.' (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/08/21/israel.sweden.organ.harvesting/index.html)
My, what a fine collection of colons this article presents.
First, the No True Swedish Porn Star phallacy:
A country which really wants to defend democratic values must strongly condemn false reports that reek of anti-Semitism like the one published this week by the Aftonbladet newspaper." Piss off, Lieberman, the government doesn't own the press in Sweden, and is not obliged to nurse your bruised ego.
Lieberman is also considering revoking Aftonbladet's press credentials in Israel, spokesman Palmor said.
You can do that, of course. Your turf, your rules.
Bostrom, who spoke to CNN from Stockholm on Wednesday, said he wrote the piece in reaction to a recently unveiled corruption scandal in New Jersey that allegedly involved the private sale of a kidney from a donor in Israel.

Bostrom stressed that he has no proof that Israeli soldiers were stealing organs ...
"What," screams fellow Scandanavaian Claus Larsen, loudly enought to be heard beyond the internet, "you made a claim with no evidence?"

But of course, Bostrom didn't mind spreading the rumor, as it sells papers.

Journalism and ethics, sort of like oil and water.

Not well played, Bostrom.

DR

[Merko]

This article (which was buried deep inside the paper and wasn't exactly on the front page of the tabloid) may not have been the greatest piece of investigative journalism. But it seems pretty unlikely that it would in any way have been caused by antisemitism. Nobody accuses journalists telling stories about Chinese or Brazilian organ trade of being 'anti-Chinese' or 'anti-Brazilian'. It's undeniable that Israelis have been deeply involved in organ trade, both in the New Jersey case and in other incidents. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_donation_in_Israel) gives a few leads for those who are interested in sources and causes for this pattern. It's pretty obviously topical to report on this issue, and it's not like Aftonbladet have been obsessing about it on a regular basis.

Given the available information, it seems rather unlikely to me that organs would have been stolen from the killed Palestinians. But it's clearly not impossible. When Lieberman flat out rejects that anyone in the IDF might have been involved in such trade, he puts himself in an impossible situation if it were to be discovered that some pathologist has indeed stolen organs for the black market. He would either have to resign, or try to cover up the story, making himself and the government complicit in an international Jewish conspiracy to steal people's organs. Can't imagine how anyone could make Israel a greater disservice than that...

[ddt]

This Swede saved tens of thousands of Jews:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Raoul_Wallenberg.jpg

Out of gratitude, Israelis murdered this other Swede:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Folke-Bernadotte.jpg

And let's not forget that Swedish neutrality in WW2 saved this guy's life:

http://www.dhm.de/lemo/objekte/pict/KontinuitaetUndWandel_zeitschriftSpiegelKniefallBr andt/index.jpg

plus that of thousands of Danish Jews.

[Doctor Evil]

How exactly is the New Jersy case related to Isreal? Please explain?

[Alt+F4]

Given the available information, it seems rather unlikely to me that organs would have been stolen from the killed Palestinians. But it's clearly not impossible.

I agree. How can organs be harvested from someone that is already dead? Does the IDF kill someone and then have a refridgerated truck standing by? As for Palestianians who are only wounded and taken to the hospital, what could they possibly take from you and still survive? A kidney perhaps? That type of scar would be easily identifiable.

Does anyone have a link to the orginial Swedish article translated into English?

[Safe-Keeper]

"It's a shame that the Swedish Foreign Ministry fails to intervene in a case of blood libels against Jews," Lieberman told Sweden's ambassador to Israel on Thursday evening. "This is reminiscent of Sweden's stand during World War II, when [it] had failed to intervene as well."
Why is there a separate word for libel against Israelis and Jews?

[ddt]

Why is there a separate word for libel against Israelis and Jews?

That's obvious: because they are the chosen people. Especially the ones from Moldova, such as Lieberman and Orly Taitz.

Thanks for giving the full quote; it gives the perspective of my picture gallery that might be lost on some.

[Merko]

How exactly is the New Jersy case related to Isreal? Please explain?
The donors allegedly (afaik no one is convicted yet) came from Israel. Frankly, that seems a bit odd, given the shortage of organ donors in Israel. But apparently the FBI have verified that this happened in a few cases.

[Thunder]

it is not the role of government to censor newspapers and tv stations. that would be a threat to freedom and democracy.

let the people boycott, protect, whatever they like.

if the people are outraged, let them show their outrage.

[Thunder]

That's obvious: because they are the chosen people. Especially the ones from Moldova, such as Lieberman and Orly Taitz.

Thanks for giving the full quote; it gives the perspective of my picture gallery that might be lost on some.

are you actually suggesting that false blood-libels against Jews did not exist in Europe? its just Jewish arrogance?

I agree, there are times where the accusation of "blood-libel" has been thrown around too carelessly, but in this case it seems to be appropriate.

the Jewish state was accused of kidnapping innocent Palestinians and stealing their organs for sale. this accusation was based on ZERO evidence...as a true blood-libel would.

the IDF does horrible things, but accusing them of lies is not the way to go. not unless you want to give Israel ammunition to their false- accusation that all criticism of Israel is based on anti-Semitism.

is that what you want?

[Pardalis]

Out of gratitude, Israelis murdered this other Swede:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Folke-Bernadotte.jpg

What it "Israelis" in general, or a group of extremists?

[Thunder]

What it "Israelis" in general, or a group of extremists?

to be fare, Israelis routinely may excuses for and forgive Zionist acts of terrorism, and even make stamps honoring Israeli terrorists.

[Pardalis]

No, ddt made a generalization, implying the Israelis weren't grateful of this man and killed him, just like I would be making a generalization accusing the Palestinians of violence when really talking about Hamas.

[Doctor Evil]

The donors allegedly (afaik no one is convicted yet) came from Israel. Frankly, that seems a bit odd, given the shortage of organ donors in Israel. But apparently the FBI have verified that this happened in a few cases.

So, basically, this has NOTHING to do with the accusation regarding the IDF. (Which seemed to be rather baseless. No evidence that organs were actually taken, or implanted. Liver and heart transplants are not that common. It should be easy to find out if such transplant took place at the dates when these Palestinians were killed.) No one involved had anything to do with the government of Israel, or the IDF. And the fact that some donors may have come from Israel means nothing in this context.

Yet it was still included in the paper. Why? What is the logic here? Or is the author somehow think that if one Jew (in this case a group of US citizens) performs a crime it tells us something about all Jews?

[gtc]

Nobody accuses journalists telling stories about Chinese or Brazilian organ trade of being 'anti-Chinese' or 'anti-Brazilian'.

If they made up a story saying that the Chinese or Brazillian military were killing people in order to steal their organs, then that would be anti-Chinese or anti-Brazillian.


He would either have to resign, or try to cover up the story, making himself and the government complicit in an international Jewish conspiracy to steal people's organs.

What a load of BS.

[Merko]

I agree. How can organs be harvested from someone that is already dead?

Same way they are 'harvested' from people killed in car crashes etc.

[Thunder]

Or is the author somehow think that if one Jew (in this case a group of US citizens) performs a crime it tells us something about all Jews?

You got it!! the actions of these two Rabbis reflects the mentality of the larger Jewish population.

they are all thieves, butchers, traitors, dirty, slimy, greedy, and worship Satan!!

:p

[Doctor Evil]

You got it!! the actions of these two Rabbis reflects the mentality of the larger Jewish population.

they are all thieves, butchers, traitors, dirty, slimy, greedy, and worship Satan!!

:p

Just to be clear, I would not ask the question if we were talking about separate news stories. In this case the author connects this stories, without good reason.

[Merko]

the Jewish state was accused of kidnapping innocent Palestinians and stealing their organs for sale. this accusation was based on ZERO evidence...as a true blood-libel would.
No, that is not a reasonable reading of the article. It certainly does not mention anything about the 'Jewish state' (or any state), or any vast conspiracy, or anything like that. It gives some background about the state of illegal organ trade in Israel in general and also tries to explain why there is such a demand.

[Pardalis]

I'm also perplexed about the choice of thread title.

Somehow, instead of being about a very flimsy news story* and its author being at fault, it's about Israel being at fault for reacting to it, and questioning its very existence in the Middle East?

*Actually, it's not a news story, since no evidence has been provided.

[Merko]

You got it!! the actions of these two Rabbis reflects the mentality of the larger Jewish population.
If that's what you think then that's bad for you, but you certainly can't blame the author (Boström) for getting such ideas into your head.

[Merko]

What it "Israelis" in general, or a group of extremists?
A group of extremists.. unfortunately, the Israeli later elected one of the three main responsible people (Yitzhak Shamir) as their prime minister in free and fair elections.

Anyway, that was a long time ago. But I think that those who say PLO or Hamas can never be allowed to lead a Palestinian state because they have been engaged in terrorism should take a look at the history of Israel.

[Thunder]

If that's what you think then that's bad for you, but you certainly can't blame the author (Boström) for getting such ideas into your head.

I am a Jew...and I was joking.

Its called sarcasm. Its a wonderful gift.

[gtc]

I think it is trying to suggest that Israel is just as bad as the Islamic countries who protested against the cartoons in 2006 because they asked the Swedish government to condemn this blood libel against the IDF.

The Swedish Foreign Ministry has pointedly refused to criticise the article but interestingly (http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/08/20/swedens-double-standard-on-freedom-of-the-press/) enough criticised the cartoons.

[Pardalis]

Merko, could you explain your thread title? Why would this abysmal article requestion Israel's place in the Middle East?

[Merko]

Yet it was still included in the paper. Why? What is the logic here? Or is the author somehow think that if one Jew (in this case a group of US citizens) performs a crime it tells us something about all Jews?
Just one question. Do you think it's possible at all to report about bad things happening in Israel? I mean, there are Jews in Israel, so obviously some people with antisemitic tendencies could read such a story and get strange ideas. So you think that responsible newspapers must never cover things about Israel that are bad or problematic - like illegal organ trade?

The article is about the black market for organs in Israel. The New Jersey group was part of that. The article contains a number of sourceable statements about illegal organ trade in Israel. And then it also conveys the story of Palestinians who suspect that their relatives had their organs stolen. This appears to be based on the documented fact that the bodies had strange scars which had no sound explanation.

Now, I don't personally find it very likely that the organs were stolen, and there may have been other (probably bad) reasons for why a careless autopsy was performed in some cases. The Palestinians may have suspected organ theft because there was an Israeli campaign to increase organ donations at the time and they just got that association when they saw the unexplained scars.

[Pardalis]

I think it is trying to suggest that Israel is just as bad as the Islamic countries who protested against the cartoons in 2006 because they asked the Swedish government to condemn this blood libel against the IDF.

Or maybe it's the opposite, maybe Merko is implying that Israel is playing primadonna for rightfully being appalled by the article.

Anyway, it's clearly not about Boström's lack of professionalism, but about Israel as a whole.

[Merko]

Merko, could you explain your thread title? Why would this abysmal article requestion Israel's place in the Middle East?
The thread title reflects the Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman behaving exactly like we're used to expect mid-eastern dictators and autocrats to behave. See quote in the OP.

[Pardalis]

The thread title reflects the Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman behaving exactly like we're used to expect mid-eastern dictators and autocrats to behave. See quote in the OP.

Lawrence Cannon and Hillary Clinton would react the same way.

[Merko]

Or maybe it's the opposite, maybe Merko is implying that Israel is playing primadonna for rightfully being appalled by the article.

The Muslims being outraged about the Danish cartoons were much more rightfully outraged (though of course still wrong to question the freedom of speech). Those cartoons were meant to cause outrage (by the editors, and by a few of the cartoonists). This article was clearly not meant to imply anything about Israelis in general or the Israeli army in general. It does claim that the Israeli government does not try to stop doctors participating in the illegal organ trade. If that accusation is false, perhaps it would be better to provide some evidence to the contrary, than to play the antisemitism card.

Anyway, it's clearly not about Boström's lack of professionalism, but about Israel as a whole.
Unfortunately, mr Lieberman represents Israel. Putting such a fringe extremist as foreign minister was probably not a very good idea.

[Merko]

Lawrence Cannon and Hillary Clinton would react the same way.
That's nonsense. In fact, I don't think any other Israeli foreign minister, at least in the last few decades, would have done so either.

[Merko]

I am a Jew...and I was joking.

Its called sarcasm. Its a wonderful gift.
So why do you hate Jews then?

[Pardalis]

That's nonsense.

No, they would denounce the article and demand a retraction.

[Doctor Evil]

Just one question. Do you think it's possible at all to report about bad things happening in Israel? I mean, there are Jews in Israel, so obviously some people with antisemitic tendencies could read such a story and get strange ideas. So you think that responsible newspapers must never cover things about Israel that are bad or problematic - like illegal organ trade?


Nice strawman. :rolleyes:

Even a cursory reading of Israeli papers would show you that it is not only possible to report on bad things happening in Israel, it is actually happening all the time.

As it happens, you seem to mix things up. You raise the issue of illegal organ trade in Israel, yet the two stories in the article have nothing to do with that. One is about the IDF being used to harvest Palestinian organs. This, if true, could not have been done without government approval. In any case, there is no evidence that organs have actually been taken and transplanted. Worse, the second story is clearly about illegal organ trade in the US, not Israel.


The article is about the black market for organs in Israel. The New Jersey group was part of that. The article contains a number of sourceable statements about illegal organ trade in Israel. And then it also conveys the story of Palestinians who suspect that their relatives had their organs stolen. This appears to be based on the documented fact that the bodies had strange scars which had no sound explanation.


But the New Jersey story is about illegal organ trade in the US, not in Israel. The only (possible) connection with Israel is the fact that some of the donors were Israeli. The operations, and the receivers of organs were not. This story has nothing to do with any organ donation problem in Israel.

There is no logical connection between the stories, yet the author still tried to connect them. Why?

I must say that I can not follow your reasoning. Are you arguing that we should not object to this story because it is possible that such things happen? This does not look very appealing to me. It is not a replacement for good, solid evidence.

[a_unique_person]

Just to be clear, I would not ask the question if we were talking about separate news stories. In this case the author connects this stories, without good reason.

That seems to be the case. I don't know why it is 'blood libel' though, that is a specific libel to do with something else entirely.

[barium]

I think it is trying to suggest that Israel is just as bad as the Islamic countries who protested against the cartoons in 2006 because they asked the Swedish government to condemn this blood libel against the IDF.

The Swedish Foreign Ministry has pointedly refused to criticise the article but interestingly (http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/08/20/swedens-double-standard-on-freedom-of-the-press/) enough criticised the cartoons.

Laila Freivalds was forced to resign after the muhammed cartoon affair. And the current administration handled the comparable Lars Vilks muhammed drawings controversy in about the same way as they're handling the current situation.

[autumn1971]

No, they would denounce the article and demand a retraction.
I seriously doubt that, as it would be a full-time job.
And no, the Sec. of State would never be so arrogant as to demand that a free foreign government interfere with its press just so our big American feelings aren't hurt.

[Merko]

No, they would denounce the article and demand a retraction.
That's possible, but Lieberman went much further than that. He has turned this a diplomatic issue between Israel and Sweden, and by extension between Israel and the EU (because Sweden happens to currently hold the chairmanship in the EU). All this because the Swedish government refused to take action against the newspaper.

[Merko]

Even a cursory reading of Israeli papers would show you that it is not only possible to report on bad things happening in Israel, it is actually happening all the time.

Yes, absolutely. In Israel. Israeli papers are very good sources for an extremely wide spectrum of opinions and information about what is happening. But it seems to be extremely risky to report on more problematic issues outside of Israel.


You raise the issue of illegal organ trade in Israel, yet the two stories in the article have nothing to do with that.

Yes they do. You should probably read the article.

One is about the IDF being used to harvest Palestinian organs. This, if true, could not have been done without government approval.

It is not. It is about suspicions that in some case organs would have been taken from bodies. Not about some official IDF conspiracy. It could have been a single pathologist.


Worse, the second story is clearly about illegal organ trade in the US, not Israel.

Not true. The donors where (allegedly) recruited in Israel, then flown from Israel to the US.


There is no logical connection between the stories, yet the author still tried to connect them. Why?

Because he was writing a story about illegal organ trade in Israel?

Again, it's not like Aftonbladet have been obsessing about Israeli organ trade on a regular basis.

Are you arguing that we should not object to this story because it is possible that such things happen?
I'm not arguing that you should not object to the story. Objecting is fine. I have some objections myself, and I have registered them in this thread.

I'm arguing that accusing someone of antisemitism just because they are reporting about something bad happening in Israel is not sensible.
It is not a replacement for good, solid evidence.
The same should go for accusing people of antisemitism, specifically accusing them of spreading the blood libel.

It used to be that being accused of antisemitism was a very bad thing. Today, it no longer means anything. This is extremely unfortunate, because it really should be one of the worst accusations imaginable.

[Pardalis]

I seriously doubt that, as it would be a full-time job.
And no, the Sec. of State would never be so arrogant as to demand that a free foreign government interfere with its press just so our big American feelings aren't hurt.

You have to compare with a similar context. Imagine the implications of the accusations of the article if Canada was at war with native Indians, and the article implied Canada was taking organs from dead Indians. They would certainly be appalled and demand a retraction.

[Pardalis]

The Muslims being outraged about the Danish cartoons were much more rightfully outraged

No, that whole controversy was created out of whole cloth, Danish mullahs took some cartoons and a few unrelated pictures and brought them to the Middle East, months after their publication, and tried to instigate hatred.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#Danish_Imams_ tour_the_Middle_East

[Pardalis]

It does claim that the Israeli government does not try to stop doctors participating in the illegal organ trade. If that accusation is false, perhaps it would be better to provide some evidence to the contrary, than to play the antisemitism card.

No, but it does claim that Israel takes organs from dead Palestinians, the author should provide evidence for that or shut up.

He's a sloppy journalist, and all you've got to say is Israel is wrong for being appalled? I don't know if you've noticed, but that region is pretty volatile, the last thing it needs is disgusting rumors like this one.

Unfortunately, mr Lieberman represents Israel. Putting such a fringe extremist as foreign minister was probably not a very good idea.Yes, and with him you can finally say what you've always wanted to say outloud about Israel right?

[Doctor Evil]

I will repeat myself, the article has accused the IDF of taking organs from Palestinians during the 1990. It offered scant proof, but highlighted the need for organs in Israel.

But it did include also a recent incident where organs were illegally traded in New Jersey. Apparently, some of the donors were Israeli. This story has nothing to do with illegal trade of organs in Israel. It has a lot to do with illegal trade in the US. It does show that some Israelis need money.

The article included both, even though they are not connected logically. One involves the government of Israel, the other, at most some private Israeli citizens. One part claims that Israelis need more organ donations. The other implies that Israelis are willing to donate organs in the US. It actually goes against the other claim, since if so many organs are needed in Israel, why did the donors donate in the US, rather than in Israel?

As far as I see it, there is no logical reason to connect these stories. When one looks at the facts closely they point to different conclusions. The only common factor is that the accused people somehow belong to the same group. This is lazy thinking. It is also a shameful piece of journalism.

[Pardalis]

As far as I see it, there is no logical reason to connect these stories

Of course there is, you only need to put the words "Israel" "illegal organ trade" and "dead Palestinians" in an article, and automatically people will connect the dots and voilà: you've got yourself a Jewish conspiracy to kill Palestinians and harvest their organs without actually saying it!

It's brilliant really. You just put the ingredients and the readers will do the rest.

ETA: And I almost forgot, the most brilliant part. When Israeli officials get pissed, it's proof that they have something to hide or that they are extremists and against freedom of the press!

And since it's not entirely impossible, then it must be true, because it was reported in a newspaper.

[Skeptic]

Is Lieberman suggesting a law to ban such articles in Israel? No.

Is Lieberman suggesting a law to ban such articles in Sweden? Of course not (not that his view would mean anything in Sweden if he did.)

He merely means that freedom of the press can be abused to publish blood libels, as in this case -- and is reacting to the Swedish government's hypocritical refusal to condemn an article blaming the IDF for organ harvesting (a modern form of the "Jews drink gentile blood" libel) due to its sudden "concern" with "freedom of the press".

This is the same government that has no problem condemning Israel for all kinds of "violations of human rights", of course. Apparently, claiming the Jews drink the blood of Christians (or harvest the organs of Muslims) has no effect on their human rights; otherwise, I'm sure the Swedish government would have condemned it by now.

Yet, according to Merko's "logic", publishing a blood libel is just fine; refusing to condemn it is just fine; but reacting to it, in a perfectly reasonable way -- not the "we will kill you if you don't retract it!" way -- is evil and dictatorial.

Anybody ordered a super-sized order of double standard with fries?

Pathetic.

P.S.

Oh yeah, dear Swedish government? The reason you refuse to condemn this article -- a literal restatement of the medieval blood libel -- is your oh-so-wonderful concern for "freedom of the press"?

Yeah, sure. Try publishing an article in Sweden claiming Muslims drink Jewish blood. See how long you'll last before the inevitable government condemnation for "spreading hate" and "Islamophobia".

But Israel is a bad country, everybody in Sweden knows, so if the dirty Jews Israelis are not guilty of that, they are surely guilty of something just as bad. Besides, the tiny minority of extremist Jews don't threaten to blow up bombs in your cities unless you condemn and retract newspaper articles they do not like, so who cares?

[gtc]

DDT seems to be suggesting that the Israelis aren't sufficiently grateful that the Swedes didn't give even more assistance to the Nazis during WWII but I'm not sure why he is bringing up the perfidry of the Moldovan 'chosen people' (as exemplified by Orly Taitz).

And I really don't understand why Merko seems to think this is an Israeli attack on the whole of the EU because Sweden is currently chairing the EU.

Nor do I understand why its somehow up to the Jews to prove they don't harvest the organs of dead Muslims.

[Skeptic]

To nobody's particular surprise, Ma'ariv (http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/932/962.html?hp=1&loc=1&tmp=7648), Israel's daily newspaper (Hebrew) reports that:

1). Swedish government officials were involved, together with various Palestinian pro-terrorism organization (a redundancy, I know...) in the original "investigative report" which made this blood libel claim in 2001, so it is not surprising the Swedish government will not condemn it, as it is condemning itself.

2). In the past, the oh-so-"freedom of speech" Swedish government had condemned articles it considered hurtful to various groups, and, in particular, shut down an internet site for being offensive to -- wwwwwwwwwwait for it, yes, I know you guessed it already -- Muslims.

Jews don't count, however.

Ah well. Israelis, I guess, will have to learn to live and die without the Swedish government's sympathy; without the moral support of a bunch of those cowardly, hypocritical, blood-libel-promoting schmucks.

How could we possibly manage, I have no idea, but we'll just have to do it somehow.

[GreNME]

Oh yeah, dear Swedish government? The reason you refuse to condemn this article -- a literal restatement of the medieval blood libel -- is your oh-so-wonderful concern for "freedom of the press"?

You should probably re-check who invoked blood libel there, because from what I read it wasn't the Swedes.

Oh, I get it: you're calling it blood libel because of the accusations that Israeli armed forces are doing to Palestinian bodies what is in one way or another considered objectionable to Palestinians. Since the accusations range from unwarranted autopsies to claims of organ removal, they all get to be considered blood libel-- a good, old-fashioned invocation from medieval anti-semitism that's sure to bring up emotional elements to what is otherwise a case of poor journalism.

Skeptic, could you for once try to make an argument in opposition to a group or idea that doesn't involve somehow equating the thing or group you're opposing to evil?

[Merko]

No, that whole controversy was created out of whole cloth, Danish mullahs took some cartoons and a few unrelated pictures and brought them to the Middle East, months after their publication, and tried to instigate hatred.
Your logic is flawed. Yes, some Muslims (who were not mullahs), did this, with exactly that purpose. But the purpose of the editors of Jyllans-Posten was also clearly to provoke Muslims. They had been running anti-Muslim material for years and campaigned for several anti-Muslim Danish laws. In the same context, Denmark had (and has) a party in the government which as one of its main issues has been running on the vilification of Muslims (even though there are very few Muslims in Denmark).

The fact that the islamophobic editors of Jyllands-Posten and the islamist Muslim extremists shared a common objective, eg creating outrage among Muslims, does not in any way free the editors of Jyllands-Posten from responsibility. Responsibility does not sum to 100%. Of course, in a free country they should be allowed to publish whatever they want as long as it does not threaten any individual, and it is not the role of the government to do anything about that.

[Merko]

No, but it does claim that Israel takes organs from dead Palestinians, the author should provide evidence for that or shut up.

It does not. Nowhere in the article does it state or imply that Israel would be, or have been, taking organs from dead or living Palestinians. That is something you made up.

Allegations that some Israeli may have committed a crime is in no way an indictment of Israel as a state.

Also, are you seriously suggesting that any public discussion about suspected crime is off-limits, unless there is full evidence? Does it not occur to you that the press frequently calls the attention to suspected crime, which prompts an investigation, which may subsequently yield evidence?

So if for example someone suggests that there is a mafia in Italy, is it wrong for the press to write about that, unless they can absolutely prove what is happening? Would it be anti-Italian to report on the possibility of an Italian mafia in general?

Yes, and with him you can finally say what you've always wanted to say outloud about Israel right?
You're implying that I'm an antisemite. Do you have evidence for that?

For the record, my sympathies in Israeli politics are clearly to the left of labor, but I consider Kadima as well to be constructive and serious. As for Likud.. not really, but at least they are not bat-crazy like Lieberman is. Just like in European countries who are plagued by xenophobic parties (see Denmark), it should be the responsibility of respectable parties to keep such parties out of power.

[E.J.Armstrong]

No newspaper should deliberately lie in the same way that no minister of any country should be a racist like Mr Lieberman.

[E.J.Armstrong]

...You're implying that I'm an antisemite. Do you have evidence for that?...



You won't get any. Those of the Zionist persuasion don't do evidence.

You'll be entertained though by them following you around hurling abuse.

Stay on topic. This applies to everyone.

[Merko]

I will repeat myself, the article has accused the IDF of taking organs from Palestinians during the 1990.

It has not. Someone from within the IDF does not equal 'the IDF'. Going ballistic every time anyone suspects that anyone within the IDF may have committed an atrocity implies that IDF personnel would be some sort of superhumans.


But it did include also a recent incident where organs were illegally traded in New Jersey. Apparently, some of the donors were Israeli. This story has nothing to do with illegal trade of organs in Israel.

That's a really spurious argument. It's like saying that reporting about some German burning a synagogue in france has nothing to do with antisemitism in Germany, because you know, those are French synagogues, and discussing them for context in an article about German antisemitism is therefore completely unrelated.

Incidentally, I agree that the New Jersey case was not the best use of the available article space. It would have been much more relevant to detail Israeli involvment in buying illegal organs in Brazil and south-eastern Europe.

However, recruiting donors for illegal organ trade in Israel does require a network of operatives for the screening and testing of subjects. It is not exactly a stretch to suspect that the same people being involved in organ exports may also be involved in organ imports. And with regards to the law, there clearly should not be any difference.


One involves the government of Israel, the other, at most some private Israeli citizens.

Both involved individuals. The supposed accusations of the Israeli government being actively involved in organ trade (much less organ theft) are a whole-cloth fabrication. There is nothing in the article that suggests this. If it had been suggested, there's absolutely zero chance that it would have been published in Aftonbladet.

It actually goes against the other claim, since if so many organs are needed in Israel, why did the donors donate in the US, rather than in Israel?

As far as I see it, there is no logical reason to connect these stories. When one looks at the facts closely they point to different conclusions. The only common factor is that the accused people somehow belong to the same group.
That's just nonsense. Business is all about selling to the highest bidder. Sometimes that may mean importation or domestic trade, sometimes exportation. Criminal business is hardly different. No one in their right mind would argue that because company X exported a product of type Y, that makes it less likely that they may also have sold Y domestically.

Investigating organized crime is all about following connections. An organ trading network in New Jersey with ties to operatives in Israel is an excellent lead for exposing Israeli organ traders. Assuming, of course, that anyone is interested in doing so. An alternative would of course be to just deflect the issue completely and start raving about antisemitism and refuse to have any sort of investigation, because, you know, why investigate something unless there is already 100% evidence?

[Merko]

Is Lieberman suggesting a law to ban such articles in Sweden?

No, but he appears to demand that the Swedish government break the law by taking action against the article. Note that his demands are on the Swedish government, not the tabloid in question. That should be a give-away.

harvesting (a modern form of the "Jews drink gentile blood" libel) due to

You know, it's just a matter of time before criticizing an Israeli of tax evasion will be "a modern form of the 'Jews drink gentile blood' libel".

Illegal organ trade has nothing to do with implying that anyone would be somehow perverted or sadistic, or engaged in cannibalism, or anything like that. The article makes it quite clear that the motives for illegal organ trade in Israel is a severe shortage of donors, not some bizarre cultist behaviour unknown outside of Israel.


Yeah, sure. Try publishing an article in Sweden claiming Muslims drink Jewish blood. See how long you'll last before the inevitable government condemnation for "spreading hate" and "Islamophobia".

Nobody claimed anyone was drinking somebody's blood. Stop masturbating.

[Merko]

various Palestinian pro-terrorism organization (a redundancy, I know...)

Oh dear. You're complaining that because someone accused some Israelis for heinous crimes, that person must be antisemitic.

Then in the same thread, you unequivocally accuse all Palestinians of being, by definition, involved in even worse crimes (at least in my book, desecrating dead bodies is not nearly as bad as actually killing people, but YMMV).


In the past, the oh-so-"freedom of speech" Swedish government had condemned articles it considered hurtful to various groups, and, in particular, shut down an internet site for being offensive to -- wwwwwwwwwwait for it, yes, I know you guessed it already -- Muslims.

Yes. Someone at our foreign ministry called a web hotel and 'asked' them to 'do something' about an internet site, which they did. When it was revealed, our prime minister publicly condemned this action, and the foreign minister was immediately sacked. The racist website was of course reinstated again.

Guess someone was just a little bit selective in the reporting there.

[gtc]

Yes, some Muslims (who were not mullahs)

Where is your evidence for this assertion?

But the purpose of the editors of Jyllans-Posten was also clearly to provoke Muslims.

Or this assertion?

They had been running anti-Muslim material for years

Or this one?

and campaigned for several anti-Muslim Danish laws.

Or this?

had (and has) a party in the government which as one of its main issues has been running on the vilification of Muslims

Or this assertion?

(even though there are very few Muslims in Denmark).

'Very few' is a matter of personal opinion of course, but according to wikipedia at least one in twenty Danes are muslim.


No, but he appears to demand that the Swedish government break the law by taking action against the article.

Where? He asks the government to 'intervene' and then complains that the Swedish government didn't support its own Embassy's condemnation of the article. He seems to be asking the Swedes to say they don't believe the assertions made by the article.

Note that his demands are on the Swedish government, not the tabloid in question. That should be a give-away.

How so?


You know, it's just a matter of time before criticizing an Israeli of tax evasion will be "a modern form of the 'Jews drink gentile blood' libel".

You aren't fooling anyone, except maybe DDT.

Unfounded allegations that the Jews kill Christian babies to use their blood in obscene rituals has been been replaced by unfounded allegations that Israelis kill Palestinians to use their organs.

Its the same implausible allegations, they have just replaced Jew with IDF and blood with organ. And you have fallen for it.

[Merko]

And I really don't understand why Merko seems to think this is an Israeli attack on the whole of the EU because Sweden is currently chairing the EU.

The Swedish foreign minister, who because of the rotating chairmanship is currently representing the EU, has a scheduled visit to Israel soon. Now, Israel are threatening to cancel his visit if the Swedish government does not censure the tabloid in question (which would of course be illegal).

It's a bit ironic that our current government is in fact quite Israel-friendly, as was our previous government. There was a shift about 1995, previously the Swedish Social Democrats would be more sympathetic to the Palestinians. There may possibly be another shift if the Social Democrats get back into power next year, as polls predict, although it's very hard at the moment to know what the Social Democrats really want regarding any issue.

Nor do I understand why its somehow up to the Jews to prove they don't harvest the organs of dead Muslims.
It is surely up to the Israeli authorities (you really should reconsider substituting with 'Jew' every time you can just to conjure up racist connotations) to investigate illegal organ trade in Israel or perpetrated by Israeli. I would not mind if they also investigated rumours about organ theft, although to be honest I don't think any internal Israeli government investigation regarding mistreatment of Palestinians would be of very much use, considering previous experience. In this matter, I think it's an issue for the Palestinians to bring in some international investigators, if they want to pursue the issue.

[gtc]

making himself and the government complicit in an international Jewish conspiracy to steal people's organs.

You made it about the Jews so don't come all precious now.

[Merko]

Where is your evidence for this assertion?

Trying to wreck the thread by demanding evidence that the moon isn't made of cheese, I see. Don't want to discuss the issues, eh?

'Very few' is a matter of personal opinion of course, but according to wikipedia at least one in twenty Danes are muslim.

First, it doesn't. It states "Denmark's Muslims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Denmark) make up more than 4% of the population and the country's second largest religious community." Secondly, the source for that statement (in Wikipedia) is this report (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3167.htm). But that report states: "Religion membership: Evangelical Lutheran 95%; other Protestant denominations and Roman Catholics 3%; Muslim 2%."

Later in the report it is said: "Islam is now the second-largest religion in Denmark, with the number of Muslims in Denmark estimated at slightly more than 4% of the population."

There's obviously an inconsistency here. The CIA world fact book gives the 2% figure. I would be much surprised if the real figure was 4%, and I'm really wondering where that number comes from.


Unfounded allegations that the Jews kill Christian babies to use their blood in obscene rituals has been been replaced by unfounded allegations that Israelis kill Palestinians to use their organs.

There are no allegations that Israelis kill Palestinians to use their organs. There are suspicions that some Israelis may have stolen organs from dead Palestinians. That's a pretty huge difference.

The suspicions do not come out of nowhere, but are based on the observation that returned dead bodies have unexplained scars.


Its the same implausible allegations, they have just replaced Jew with IDF and blood with organ.
It's the same, except it's just completely different. If it was impermissible to discuss anything relating to the IDF that could in any way be related to blood, I'm sure that would be very comfortable for the IDF. Sorry, they are not entitled to that copout.

[Merko]

You made it about the Jews so don't come all precious now.
Oh dear. I used the word Jew, so therefore anything goes?

Look, you're not being honest in this debate. Your reading comprehension is not really that bad. When you read what I wrote about Lieberman, you fully well understood that I meant that if Lieberman got himself entangled in illegal organ trade because of his gross incompetence and unbounded populist divisiveness, that would be disastrous precisely because it would verify hitherto bizarre and racist claims of some vast Jewish conspiracy at a government level.

[gtc]

Trying to wreck the thread by demanding evidence that the moon isn't made of cheese, I see. Don't want to discuss the issues, eh?

You have made assertions and have not provided a skerrick of evidence for them. If you now want to declare that those assertions are off topic then you shouldn't have made them in the first place.

You also haven't provided a skerrick of evidence to support your primary claim that Israelis are harvesting organs.


First, it doesn't. It states "Denmark's Muslims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Denmark) make up more than 4% of the population and the country's second largest religious community." Secondly, the source for that statement (in Wikipedia) is this report (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3167.htm). But that report states: "Religion membership: Evangelical Lutheran 95%; other Protestant denominations and Roman Catholics 3%; Muslim 2%."

Later in the report it is said: "Islam is now the second-largest religion in Denmark, with the number of Muslims in Denmark estimated at slightly more than 4% of the population."

There's obviously an inconsistency here. The CIA world fact book gives the 2% figure. I would be much surprised if the real figure was 4%, and I'm really wondering where that number comes from.

I was sure it said 4 to 5 percent but I see now it says 3 to 4 percent.


There are no allegations that Israelis kill Palestinians to use their organs.

Bostrom, who witnessed the man's killing, said Ghanem was taken away alive by Israeli forces. His body was returned five days later with a cut in his midsection that had been stitched up. Ghanem's family said they believed that his organs had been removed.

Though I don't know how he could have seen him taken away and seen him killed.

There are suspicions that some Israelis may have stolen organs from dead Palestinians. That's a pretty huge difference.

See above.

The suspicions do not come out of nowhere, but are based on the observation that returned dead bodies have unexplained scars.

They have autopsy scars. Bostrom spoke to an IDF officer who says that they are routinely carried out. To turn that into suspicion of organ harvesting is silly.


It's the same, except it's just completely different.

Its not different. Not when the evidence amounts to:

a) allegations that some bodies were returned with autopsy scars in the early 1990s.
b) claims an Israeli was involved in the NJ case as a donor.
c) the apparent fact that Israel doesn't have enough organ donors.

That is all the evidence presented. Linking them into a story that Palestinians have their organs stolen is obscene. What is worse is that you are demanding that Israel investigate these unsubstantiated allegations and you have decided that you wouldn't trust the results of an investigation.

[gtc]

precisely because it would verify hitherto bizarre and racist claims of some vast Jewish conspiracy at a government level.

The very same conspiracy that you are giving credence to!

Perhaps you could spell out for us just which unsubstantiated rumours of Jewish atrocities you believe and which ones you don't.

[Merko]

You have made assertions and have not provided a skerrick of evidence for them.

Pardalis claimed that the hate-instigating Danish Muslim leaders were 'mullahs'. I responded that they were not. Yet you challenge me to provide evidence for 'assertions'?

You also haven't provided a skerrick of evidence to support your primary claim that Israelis are harvesting organs.

I haven't made any such claim. In fact, I've stated several times in this thread that based on available evidence, it appears unlikely that this happened. And no one (not even the Palestinians interviewed in Boström's article) voice any suspicion that this would still be going on.

But feel free to make up my positions if you don't feel that you're able to argue against my real positions. I'll be just fine then explaining why you're wrong to claim that a Nazi pedophile ring faked the moon landings and destroyed the evidence by blowing up the WTC.

I was sure it said 4 to 5 percent but I see now it says 3 to 4 percent.

Yeah, and actually 2 percent. But who cares about facts when it doesn't suit your purpose?



There are no allegations that Israelis kill Palestinians to use their organs.

Bostrom, who witnessed the man's killing, said Ghanem was taken away alive by Israeli forces. His body was returned five days later with a cut in his midsection that had been stitched up. Ghanem's family said they believed that his organs had been removed.
Though I don't know how he could have seen him taken away and seen him killed.

He claims the IDF killed Ghanem because Ghanem was regularly throwing stones at the IDF. Why don't you just read the bloody article?

As for how someone could have seen Ghanem killed and also have seen him being taken away alive, there is only one explanation for that: The witness apparently believes that Ghanem later died as a result to the gunshots to Ghanems chest, legs and stomach that the witness had seen.

But again, if you actually read the bloody article, you'd see that Boström doesn't claim to have seen this at all. He claims that he was there a few days later, when the maimed body was returned. Boström retells intervieww subjects' accounts of the shooting, those are not his own observations.


They have autopsy scars. Bostrom spoke to an IDF officer who says that they are routinely carried out. To turn that into suspicion of organ harvesting is silly.

Boström is not satisfied with that explanation (neither am I). Why would they conduct an autopsy on a person who had been shot in the chest and stomach? Why would they conduct an autopsy when the relatives do not want that?

Again, I think that while the evidence indicates some wrongdoing, it seems a little far-fetched that someone would have stolen the organs. But given the documented complicity of Israeli medical personnel in illegal organ trade, it can hardly be dismissed as impossible. There would be the motive (money, the possibility to save someone's life), and the opportunity (a dead young body which no one with authority cares very much about).


Not when the evidence amounts to:

a) allegations that some bodies were returned with autopsy scars in the early 1990s.
b) claims an Israeli was involved in the NJ case as a donor.
c) the apparent fact that Israel doesn't have enough organ donors.

That is all the evidence presented.

You forget the documented complicity of Israeli health personnel in facilitating illegal organ trade, and previous high profile cases of Israeli operatives being involved in illegal organ trade for the Israeli market (Brazil, South-East Europe).


What is worse is that you are demanding that Israel investigate these unsubstantiated allegations and you have decided that you wouldn't trust the results of an investigation.
You're wrong. I want Israeli authorities to investigate illegal organ trade in Israel, which is clearly going on. For the reasons you mention, I'm not particularly interested in an Israeli government investigation regarding possible organ theft in the 90's. I hope they would cooperate, and I figure there might be some chance of them doing so as I expect it would clear them of this particular suspicion, but the investigation would have to be done by a third party to have any credibility.

[Merko]

The very same conspiracy that you are giving credence to!

Pah. I might as well argue that you are the one giving credence to this conspiracy. But I'll let you have the playground for yourself.

Perhaps you could spell out for us just which unsubstantiated rumours of Jewish atrocities you believe and which ones you don't.
It's very simple. You're not allowed to make up my positions, even if you think that doing so would help your case. Unless I've said that I believe in something, you are to assume that I don't.

If you're not willing to play by those rules, I must ask you to provide a comprehensive list of the children that you have not yet raped. Let's not go there.

[ddt]

What it "Israelis" in general, or a group of extremists?
You're absolutely right, my apologies - my text was at least horribly ambiguous. It was a small, extreme group known as Lehi or as the Stern Gang who murdered Folke Bernadotte.

to be fare, Israelis routinely may excuses for and forgive Zionist acts of terrorism, and even make stamps honoring Israeli terrorists.
And I could indeed go on to add that, while the Israeli Labour government at the time vocally condemned several actions of Lehi, including this one, they knew who murdered Bernadotte and have never even indicted him. In due time, Lehi got honored with medals and stamps, and its former leader, Shamir, became PM.


DDT seems to be suggesting that the Israelis aren't sufficiently grateful that the Swedes didn't give even more assistance to the Nazis during WWII but I'm not sure why he is bringing up the perfidry of the Moldovan 'chosen people' (as exemplified by Orly Taitz).
You conveniently left out the best known Moldovan Jew, Avigdor Lieberman, Israeli FM, who made this statement in the article:
"It's a shame that the Swedish Foreign Ministry fails to intervene in a case of blood libels against Jews," Lieberman told Sweden's ambassador to Israel on Thursday evening. "This is reminiscent of Sweden's stand during World War II, when [it] had failed to intervene as well."
Maybe his Moldovan heritage explains that he is used to state intervention in the press. That is no excuse at all for wanting a foreign government to intervene with its free press. He is the representative of a democratic government which respects freedom of the press in general, and as noted, has in general no problems with critical articles appearing in the Israeli press.

The above reaction of Lieberman is an instance of the knee-jerk reaction of trying to stifle any criticism of Israel with saying "you guys are responsible for the Holocaust". That has been popular for some time with official Israeli circles - but I thought those times were over - and it is still popular with a small crowd of fanatic Israeli supporters. And personally, I'm getting sick and tired of it. Actually, in my mind it gives more credence to the original criticism when this is used as response.

Now you seem to agree with Lieberman, GTC, though you hint to the general stance of Sweden during WW2, whereas, as I read it, Lieberman focuses on the Holocaust in particular. I'll treat them in the reverse order.

As to the Holocaust, I already mainly made my point with the photos. Raoul Wallenberg, Swedish ambassador in Hungary, saved tens of thousands of Jews from deportation to Auschwitz. Sweden itself harboured nearly all Danish Jews, 5,000, who for the most part lived in the greater Copenhagen area, and fled over the Sound to neutral Sweden, when the Nazis took initiatives to deport them to the extermination camps. Sweden also harboured non-Jewish fugitives from the Nazis, such as Willy Brandt, who fled from Germany to Norway, and from there to Sweden when Norway was occupied. Now where did Sweden in any (direct) way contribute to the Holocaust?

As to Sweden's general role in WW2: it remained neutral and, yes, it exported iron ore to Germany, needed for its war machine. You would have preferred that Sweden stopped supplying iron ore? In that case, the Nazis would have declared war on Sweden, sent two divisions, occupied the country and had gotten the iron ore after all. No safe harbour for Danish Jews, and no Swedish ambassador to Hungary. Sweden was between a rock and a hard place, and claiming it did the wrong thing is a facile platitude.


You aren't fooling anyone, except maybe DDT.
A quaint allegation. I haven't said anything about the veracity of the claims about the organ 'trade', I only reacted to the knee-jerk Holocaust reaction.

[Skeptic]

The above reaction of Lieberman is an instance of the knee-jerk reaction of trying to stifle any criticism of Israel

"IDF soldiers harvest Palestinians' organs" is no more "criticism of Israel" than "Jews use gentile blood in matzos" is "criticism of Jewry". In both cases it's just a blood libel, although the former is put in a slightly more modern form.

Let us see: somebody says that a non-Jew disappeared; Jews were in the area, and he was last seen alive around them; his body later found with mysterious marks; therefore, the only possible explanation is that he was murdered by the Jews, so that they could use his body for nefarious purposes.

How the very same Israelis whose press screams bloody murder whenever someone in the 'territories' is beaten up completely missed this story; how nobody of the thousands of the people involved blabbed in the almost ten years since the story was first reported; or how exactly organs harvested in this way would fit anybody, when fitting the tissues between donor and recipient is notoriously difficult? Well, similar questions were made about the original blood libel: how can the Jewish religion, which forbids the use even of animal blood, suddenly use human blood? And how come no reliable witnesses are ever found for the alleged making of bloody matzos? And so on.

But all that doesn't matter. In both cases, all that matters is that somebody spread a vicious rumor about the Jews, and some people, apparently, are willing to believe it against all evidence, logic, and common sense -- because it makes the Jews look bad, and therefore, has to be true.

[Merko]

"IDF soldiers harvest Palestinians' organs" is no more "criticism of Israel" than "Jews use gentile blood in matzos" is "criticism of Jewry". In both cases it's just a blood libel.

I'll explain why you're wrong. The 'blood libel' is not wrong because it is in some way related to blood. It's wrong because it is a completely nonspecific allegation, designed to portray Jews as different, perverse, evil and immoral.

The suspicions against IDF personnel on the other hand are quite specific. The article in question explains when the supposed organ theft would have taken place, and whose organs it would have been. It gives a name for the person from the IDF responsible for delivering the supposedly incomplete body back to the relatives, a person who may reasonable expected to have knowledge about who had treated the body. This is not the stuff of racist scare stories. It's a clearly investigatable criminal charge.

Even if the suspicions are unfounded, as we all seem to agree they probably are, it's not reasonable to attribute them to belief in the blood libel myths. Having your relatives killed by authorities who then deliver them back with strange scars is something that would make any person generally suspicious. The blood libel, besides, was always about drinking blood, never about stealing organs. Taking organs from dead people, on the other hand, was at the time a frequent theme in Israeli media due to the campaign to recruit more organ donors.

In my opinion, it is much more reasonable, based on the given information, that the Palestinian relatives would have their suspicions grounded in the organ donation campaign, not in the blood libel myths. In fact, if it had been grounded in the blood libel myths, why are they worried exclusively about organs, and not at all about blood?

[Aepervius]

If they made up a story saying that the Chinese or Brazillian military were killing people in order to steal their organs, then that would be anti-Chinese or anti-Brazillian.

Except that when people indeed DO make anti chinese story, nobody pipe up a word and msot just nod as if they would expect anything bad from the chinese. You don't see many then yelling for evidence. Same for some other "bad" governements. But do it against the Israeli.... And see how quick "blood libel", "anti-semite", and "terrorist" get thrown out at you.

I do not know about this story, it sounds kinda a myth, and boy I did see not a few one made up to try to sully IDF, but then again I heard worst story which sounded like a myth but indeed after verifcation did happen (like for example withholding treatment to certain people in the US to observe how they suffer/die of some illness. IIRC it was for syphilis) and IDF did quite a few bad stuff themselves... The problem is that it is difficult to verify, one way or another, unless somebody dig the alleged corpse up.

My take on it would be to think the journalist was doing a poor job, but I am not expecting a pullizer from yellow journalist and it sound like the journal it was publishedin was a rag.

OTOH I would indeed EXPECT a president of a so called democraty to understand freedom of press, and to use the "persecution" card only when it is truly warranted. It does not sound to be the case here.

[Merko]

How the very same Israelis whose press screams bloody murder whenever someone in the 'territories' is beaten up completely missed this story;

They did not. It is not disputed that IDF soldiers killed mr Ghanan, or that they took his body away, or that IDF personnel inflicted the scars discovered by the relatives.


how nobody of the thousands of the people involved blabbed in the almost ten years since the story was first reported;

Why would thousands of people be involved? One single pathologist would be sufficient. Yes, for sure he would have needed connections with the illegal organ trade. But we already know that this trade exists.

And people involved in that trade have 'blabbed', often and repeatedly.

or how exactly organs harvested in this way would fit anybody, when fitting the tissues between donor and recipient is notoriously difficult?

I agree about this point. Even though there is of course a waiting list, and stolen organs could be made use of exactly in the same way we are making use of organs from eg traffic victims, it seems a little unlikely that someone would be able to have such a long list of people waiting for illegal donations, that they could expect to find a match for a random organ. And if someone did not have such an illegal list, a person stealing organs from already dead people could not expect to be paid, which would remove most of the motive for doing so.

Anyway, I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable about how organ donations work (in general, or in Israel) to draw a definite conclusion, but this is one of the reasons why I find the organ theft theory unlikely.

But all that doesn't matter. In both cases, all that matters is that somebody spread a vicious rumor about the Jews,
I disagree that this would be a rumour. Rumours are either non-specific or secret. When a specific charge is made publicly, it is not a rumour. 'IDF forces are stealing organs' would be a rumour, but 'IDF personnel, working with a captain Yahya, stole organs from Bilal Achmed Ghanan from the village Imatin on the West bank sometime between May 13 and May 18 1992' is not a rumour. The suspicion may be ungrounded, but I think mr Ghanan's relatives deserve to know.

[barium]

To nobody's particular surprise, Ma'ariv (http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/932/962.html?hp=1&loc=1&tmp=7648), Israel's daily newspaper (Hebrew) reports that:

1). Swedish government officials were involved, together with various Palestinian pro-terrorism organization (a redundancy, I know...) in the original "investigative report" which made this blood libel claim in 2001, so it is not surprising the Swedish government will not condemn it, as it is condemning itself.

2). In the past, the oh-so-"freedom of speech" Swedish government had condemned articles it considered hurtful to various groups, and, in particular, shut down an internet site for being offensive to -- wwwwwwwwwwait for it, yes, I know you guessed it already -- Muslims.

Jews don't count, however.

Ah well. Israelis, I guess, will have to learn to live and die without the Swedish government's sympathy; without the moral support of a bunch of those cowardly, hypocritical, blood-libel-promoting schmucks.

How could we possibly manage, I have no idea, but we'll just have to do it somehow.

1). Our government finance a lot of different book projects without knowing what might come out of it. Also, that's no reason for the current administration to keep quiet. They where in the opposition during that time, and would probably love to smear the old socialist government if they thought it was possible.

2). As I said before, the foreign minister that did that had to resign.

Also, here's a fairly balanced article (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3765758,00.html) about what the Swedish Jewish community thinks of the Israeli reaction.

[Pardalis]

Look, you're not being honest in this debate. Your reading comprehension is not really that bad. When you read what I wrote about Lieberman, you fully well understood that I meant that if Lieberman got himself entangled in illegal organ trade because of his gross incompetence and unbounded populist divisiveness, that would be disastrous precisely because it would verify hitherto bizarre and racist claims of some vast Jewish conspiracy at a government level.

If if if. Do you have any evidence of his involvement in such things to begin with?

Everybody knows just that starting rumors is the same as making accusations, which is what that article did.

It does not. Nowhere in the article does it state or imply that Israel would be, or have been, taking organs from dead or living Palestinians. That is something you made up.

No, that's what the article is implying. That's the rumor it wants to spread.

Also, are you seriously suggesting that any public discussion about suspected crime is off-limits, unless there is full evidence?

This is why there are defamation laws. And given the volatile region, I would especially be careful of what I publish. Any rumor can help ignite violence in that part of the world.

[Pardalis]

Pah. I might as well argue that you are the one giving credence to this conspiracy. But I'll let you have the playground for yourself.

But you DO give credence to this conspiracy theory:

Boström is not satisfied with that explanation (neither am I). Why would they conduct an autopsy on a person who had been shot in the chest and stomach? Why would they conduct an autopsy when the relatives do not want that?

Again, I think that while the evidence indicates some wrongdoing, it seems a little far-fetched that someone would have stolen the organs. But given the documented complicity of Israeli medical personnel in illegal organ trade, it can hardly be dismissed as impossible. There would be the motive (money, the possibility to save someone's life), and the opportunity (a dead young body which no one with authority cares very much about).

You forget the documented complicity of Israeli health personnel in facilitating illegal organ trade, and previous high profile cases of Israeli operatives being involved in illegal organ trade for the Israeli market (Brazil, South-East Europe).

You're wrong. I want Israeli authorities to investigate illegal organ trade in Israel, which is clearly going on.

Do you even read yourself what you write?

[ddt]

This is why there are defamation laws. And given the volatile region, I would especially be careful of what I publish. Any rumor can help ignite violence in that part of the world.

And that's why Lieberman blows this thing up to international news??? Remember, it was an article on page 46 of a Swedish tabloid.

Lieberman apparently thinks this is defamation. Fine, Sweden has defamation laws, sue the paper in a Swedish court.

[Merko]

the original "investigative report" which made this blood libel claim in 2001
Does the Ma'ariv give any information about this supposed report, that would make it possible to find it?

I believe I have followed the story rather well, and I have never heard about such a report. Given that Ma'ariv appear to have been, let's say 'creative' with their reporting of some other details that you mentioned, I guess it is quite possible that this report doesn't exist or is completely unrelated. Anyway, it would be interesting to know if it does exist.

[Merko]

If if if. Do you have any evidence of his involvement in such things to begin with?
Again, you're not being honest in this debate. You're fully well aware that I have never accused him for being in any way involved in such things. Of course he isn't.

No, that's what the article is implying. That's the rumor it wants to spread.
So why are you spreading rumours saying that all Swedes are in fact vicious antisemites who drink Jewish blood every Christmas? Because that is clearly what your posts are 'implying'. Of course you have never stated such a thing, but if you're allowed to decide that what I'm saying means whatever your fantasy says it would mean, even when completely contrary to what I'm actually saying, then surely I must be allowed to do the same with your statements.

[Merko]

But you DO give credence to this conspiracy theory:

Wait a moment. Are you trying to deny that there is widespread illegal organ trade in Israel?

[barium]

Does the Ma'ariv give any information about this supposed report, that would make it possible to find it?

I believe I have followed the story rather well, and I have never heard about such a report. Given that Ma'ariv appear to have been, let's say 'creative' with their reporting of some other details that you mentioned, I guess it is quite possible that this report doesn't exist or is completely unrelated. Anyway, it would be interesting to know if it does exist.

It comes from this blogpost (http://fredimellanostern.wordpress.com/2009/08/23/regeringen-finansierade-publiceringen-av-bostroms-anklagelser-om-organstold/) (in swedish). Utrikesdepartementet (the foreign ministry) is one of the financers of Boström's trip to research for his book Inshallah. I seriously doubt they knew what the resulting book would contain when they granted him the support.

[Pardalis]

Again, you're not being honest in this debate. You're fully well aware that I have never accused him for being in any way involved in such things. Of course he isn't.

So if he isn't, why this hypothetical "if"?

So why are you spreading rumours saying that all Swedes are in fact vicious antisemites who drink Jewish blood every Christmas?

I'm not the one publishing dubious articles about another country.

[Pardalis]

Wait a moment. Are you trying to deny that there is widespread illegal organ trade in Israel?

Let's see your links.

[Thunder]

Wait a moment. Are you trying to deny that there is widespread illegal organ trade in Israel?

widespread? Ive heard of an widespread illegal organ trade industry in China and other Asian countries, but not Israel.

please provide links from legitimate newspapers.

links from Prisonplanet, Rense, and The Final Call, are not legit.

[Merko]

Also, here's a fairly balanced article (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3765758,00.html) about what the Swedish Jewish community thinks of the Israeli reaction.
Thanks for the article. With all due respect though, it is sort of limited to the pro-Israel Jewish community. There are certainly quite a lot of Swedish Jews who share many of Boström's and Aftonbladet's critical opinions about Israel.

And of course there are also many who are often critical of Israel but are also worried because some debaters are sometimes taking criticism of Israel too far (for example, a former Green Party leader described Israeli human rights violations as being in a 'league of their own' a few days ago, which was clearly unwarranted hyperbole).

By the way, Aftonbladet had a followup today where they interviewed someone from the Israeli foreign department, who gave some straight and factual answers to a number of questions and did not try to play the guilt card. If the Israeli government had really wanted to counter antisemitic myths, this is what they should have done from the start. But it's pretty obvious that they have blown this thing up as a political deflection of some sort, perhaps to divert attention from expected EU criticism over settlements.

[Doctor Evil]

It has not. Someone from within the IDF does not equal 'the IDF'. Going ballistic every time anyone suspects that anyone within the IDF may have committed an atrocity implies that IDF personnel would be some sort of superhumans.


Really? Just one person? Who kills someone and do not report to his commanders? How does he calls an ambulance without others noticing? Field units are either composed of 18-21 years old kids, or reservists which serve for a few weeks a year. Units are rotated frequently. So how does this work? Do your unnamed medical personal have contacts in many units?

What about the Hospital? Are the operations have supposed to have occur in a government run Hospital, or a private one? I would expect that such major operations would be performed in a government run hospital and would involve a large number of surgeons and nurses. (If you kill someone for his organs, you would transplant his heart and liver.) Can you do this without authorization, and for money? I doubt it.

Finally, what about the supposed cover, namely, that he was autopsied. You will have to somehow put the name of the Palestinian 'donor' in the books of that place too.

All in all, the claims involve three government run agencies, and many people. To say they are not implicating the Israeli government is wilful ignorance.


That's a really spurious argument. It's like saying that reporting about some German burning a synagogue in france has nothing to do with antisemitism in Germany, because you know, those are French synagogues, and discussing them for context in an article about German antisemitism is therefore completely unrelated.


No. That is a lousy analogy. It is solely based on your continued refusal to acknowledge that donor, patients and doctors play different roles in a transplant.


Incidentally, I agree that the New Jersey case was not the best use of the available article space. It would have been much more relevant to detail Israeli involvment in buying illegal organs in Brazil and south-eastern Europe.


Actually no, this would not be good evidence to support that case, as such case, again, involve operations in foreign countries. Here the claim is that organs were illegali transplanted in Israeli Hospitals. You would need evidence showing you could do that without getting caught.

To emphasize, there is a gulf in scale between claiming that one or two doctors organized a transplant in a foreign hospital to the claim that government run hospitals in Israel have been used to make multiple transplants on the same day. One is easy to hide, the other is almost impossible.


However, recruiting donors for illegal organ trade in Israel does require a network of operatives for the screening and testing of subjects. It is not exactly a stretch to suspect that the same people being involved in organ exports may also be involved in organ imports. And with regards to the law, there clearly should not be any difference.


So, how many M.D. practicing in Israel have been charged in the New Jersey case? I have not seen any.


Both involved individuals. The supposed accusations of the Israeli government being actively involved in organ trade (much less organ theft) are a whole-cloth fabrication. There is nothing in the article that suggests this. If it had been suggested, there's absolutely zero chance that it would have been published in Aftonbladet.


The article suggests it by making a claim which can only be true if many people in several government run organizations are guilty. This includes the IDF, the ministry of health, and the agency which performs autopsies. The activities of people in those agencies are monitored, and somehow this should be dealt with secretly? How do you keep a liver transplant secret? Due to the large number of people involved it can only be a government run operation. There is no other way to keep it secret.



That's just nonsense. Business is all about selling to the highest bidder. Sometimes that may mean importation or domestic trade, sometimes exportation. Criminal business is hardly different. No one in their right mind would argue that because company X exported a product of type Y, that makes it less likely that they may also have sold Y domestically.

And again, you refuse to distinguish between the role of the donor, the patient and the M.D. How many M.Ds practicing in Israel were charged in the New jersey case?


Investigating organized crime is all about following connections. An organ trading network in New Jersey with ties to operatives in Israel is an excellent lead for exposing Israeli organ traders. Assuming, of course, that anyone is interested in doing so. An alternative would of course be to just deflect the issue completely and start raving about antisemitism and refuse to have any sort of investigation, because, you know, why investigate something unless there is already 100% evidence?

Conspiracy thinking is all about making up connections when there are none. For you it suffice that some Israelis donated kidneys for money to support a claim that many people in the Israeli army, health system, and law enforcement somehow collude to steal organs from Palestinians. These claims are different!


Now, the fact is that a multiple organ transplant on the same day would make the news in Israel. The media would also want to know who was the donor. It will be widely noticed, not kept secret. In addition, such a transplant would go through the public health system, so there is also no way that money will be involved. The whole story is ridiculous.

The way I see it, the paper made a very serious accusations without proper evidence. Worse, it connected them with other unrelated cases. It uses insinuations instead of proof. It makes improbable claims, and you seem to have bought the whole of it. Colour me unimpressed.

[Merko]

widespread? Ive heard of an widespread illegal organ trade industry in China and other Asian countries, but not Israel.

please provide links from legitimate newspapers.
Sure. This article (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/23/world/organ-trade-global-black-market-tracking-sale-kidney-path-poverty-hope.html) from the New York Times appears to be a very good starting point. I can give you more links if needed, but I assume you will not suspect them of being part of some antisemitic blood libel smear operation.

[Pardalis]

Wait a moment. Are you trying to deny that there is widespread illegal organ trade in Israel?

Where exactly in the article is it said that it is widespread in Israel?

[Merko]

Really? Just one person? Who kills someone and do not report to his commanders? How does he calls an ambulance without others noticing? Field units are either composed of 18-21 years old kids, or reservists which serve for a few weeks a year. Units are rotated frequently. So how does this work? Do your unnamed medical personal have contacts in many units?

Your account of the scenario appears to be based on a complete mis-reporting on the original Aftonbladet article. Nobody implied that the guy was killed in order to steal his organs. It is made quite clear that he was killed because he was active in throwing rocks at the IDF. So far there is nothing particularly special about the story.

Once someone has been killed, and is sent for medical examination, it only takes a single pathologist to make a few 'non-standard' procedures before discharging the body. From what little I know about autopsies, they would frequently be performed by a single, unsupervised specialist (at least over here).


What about the Hospital? Are the operations have supposed to have occur in a government run Hospital, or a private one? I would expect that such major operations would be performed in a government run hospital and would involve a large number of surgeons and nurses. (If you kill someone for his organs, you would transplant his heart and liver.) Can you do this without authorization, and for money? I doubt it.

Again, you're mistaken, no one is claiming that anyone was killed for the organs. I agree that it takes a well equipped hospital to do it though, which in Israel probably means a government run hospital. And I agree that it would be problematic for the organ traders to explain the history of the transplanted organ. I disagree though that the entire hospital staff would have to be complicit.

Again, I do not find the organ theft theory likely to be true, in large part because of the difficulties you're outlining above (as I have already explained earlier in the thread). You can't expect me or the average Palestinian to be able to accurately judge the possibility for illegal organ traders to insert an organ claiming it comes from some 'traffic accident' or 'European surplus organ' or whatever. But a good investigative journalist certainly could have found out, which is why I'm (in comment 3) saying that the article "may not have been the greatest piece of investigative journalism". Mr Boström is reasonably well known as a photographer; as a writer, not so much.

Finally, what about the supposed cover, namely, that he was autopsied. You will have to somehow put the name of the Palestinian 'donor' in the books of that place too.
No, the autopsy is already official. In a followup in Aftonbladet today, a spokesman from the Israeli foreign department stated that the report may be released if the family requests it, although his answer was a bit unclear as he also said it might require a legal process of some sort (which seems odd, but there you go).

A crooked pathologist performing the autopsy would of course write the report exactly as it would have been, minus any organs being removed. A more clever crook might perhaps even insert something which could be used to explain any missing organs, just in case it was discovered.

Here the claim is that organs were illegali transplanted in Israeli Hospitals. You would need evidence showing you could do that without getting caught.
I agree that this would be needed in order to make the case look very probable. However, the failure to show this does not imply that the case is either something any sensible journalist or editor would have dismissed, or caused by sinister motives. A lazy or incompetent journalist, or lack of time, would be another explanation.

If illegal transplants can happen in South Africa and previously in Turkey, it is not unreasonable, a priori, to assume that they could also happen in Israel.


Conspiracy thinking is all about making up connections when there are none. For you it suffice that some Israelis donated kidneys for money to support a claim that many people in the Israeli army, health system, and law enforcement somehow collude to steal organs from Palestinians. These claims are different!

I have no problem to separate these claims. That's why I have from the earliest point in this thread said that I believe in Israeli organ trade, but not in organ theft from Palestinians.

Also, let me point out that the claim of donors being 'poor Israeli' came from the exposed organ trade ring in New Jersey. I find it rather unlikely that this would actually be the case. Based on known cases (see the NYT article linked above) it appears much more likely that the donor would have come from a poor country but that the trade was facilitated through an Israel-based organ trade operation. That article, too, features an American recipient, getting a Brazilian organ in South Africa through an Israeli contact.

Now, the fact is that a multiple organ transplant on the same day would make the news in Israel.
This thing about 'multiple organs' is not based on anything from the Aftonbladet article though. Please separate the actual article from the re-reporting (and clearly, sometimes mis-reporting) of that article. Please note that Aftonbladet is not the only tabloid out there to get a juicy story, and when other tabloids are spinning the angle of some Swedish newspaper publishing outlandish claims, the facts will suffer, as always.

[Merko]

Where exactly in the article is it said that it is widespread in Israel?
"To those who monitor organ trafficking, it was no surprise that Israel should emerge as the focal point of a syndicate"

"To meet Israeli's growing demand for organs, middlemen calling themselves brokers, from prominent doctors to a former spokesman for a health maintenance organization, have rushed into the market to set prices for a scarce product that can reach $150,000 for a kidney. Some advertise openly in Israeli newspapers and on radio stations, soliciting recipients and donors.

"Much of the remaining costs can often be obtained from insurance plans, though Israeli health maintenance organizations are supposed to ask for proof when donors and recipients say they are related in 'voluntary' operations. Israeli doctors say those requirements are often ignored, and the government says it has no obligation to monitor operations done abroad."

"In the mid-1990's, many of the Israeli organ brokers took their patients to Turkey, flying in teams of Israeli surgeons and relying on donors from Moldova, Romania and Russia."

"Based on a detailed study of confiscated records, South African authorities say the kidney transfer between Mr. da Silva and the Brooklyn woman was one of more than 100 suspect transplants performed in less than two years at St. Augustine's."

"At a court hearing, Mr. Meir said that beyond the 100 or so transplants done in Durban, he had organized 'probably about 35' more in Johannesburg. But South African investigators estimate that the actual number is probably closer to 200, divided among hospitals in Johannesburg and Cape Town."

" 'This is obviously a well-oiled syndicate that knows how to move from one country to another,' R. W. Green-Thompson, superintendent general of the KwaZulu-Natal provincial department of health, said in an interview in Durban."

"But the transplant waiting list in Israel continues to grow, and recent reports from kidney specialists say Israeli organ brokers have appeared in China, among other places."

"All told, the police in Brazil estimate that about 100 men, nearly all poor or unemployed, ages 20 to 40, agreed to sell kidneys."

My bolding to indicate parts that clearly show this is is not just a few isolated incidents. As a comparison, it seems that the total number of transplants in Israel is on the order of 250 per year.

[Doctor Evil]

So now it is the pathologists which are the suspect. That makes no sense. Speed is important when taking organs. On the other hand, there is no real reason to rush corpses to a pathological examination.

This leaves the fact that the pathologist would need an ambulance of sorts to take the organs to a hospital. (The center where such things are done is not located at a hospital.) Then it needs a surgeon to transplant them. Etc, etc ..

Anyway, this is getting boring. The article had not evidence that organs were actually taken, other then the scars. These are known to be due to the pathological examination. It makes far reaching claims out of that.

[Pardalis]

"To those who monitor organ trafficking, it was no surprise that Israel should emerge as the focal point of a syndicate"

A syndicate. Singular.

Some advertise openly in Israeli newspapers and on radio stations, soliciting recipients and donors.

Doesn't say how widespread it is.

Israeli doctors say those requirements are often ignored, and the government says it has no obligation to monitor operations done abroad."

Doesn't say how widespread it is.

"In the mid-1990's, many of the Israeli organ brokers took their patients to Turkey, flying in teams of Israeli surgeons and relying on donors from Moldova, Romania and Russia."

Doesn't say how many brokers there are.

"Based on a detailed study of confiscated records, South African authorities say the kidney transfer between Mr. da Silva and the Brooklyn woman was one of more than 100 suspect transplants performed in less than two years at St. Augustine's."

Is Ste Augustine hospital in Israel?

"At a court hearing, Mr. Meir said that beyond the 100 or so transplants done in Durban,

Durban is in Israel?

he had organized 'probably about 35' more in Johannesburg. But South African investigators estimate that the actual number is probably closer to 200, divided among hospitals in Johannesburg and Cape Town."

Again, not in Israel, and Meir is only one broker.

" 'This is obviously a well-oiled syndicate that knows how to move from one country to another,' R. W. Green-Thompson, superintendent general of the KwaZulu-Natal provincial department of health, said in an interview in Durban."

Again, this is about one syndicate.

"But the transplant waiting list in Israel continues to grow, and recent reports from kidney specialists say Israeli organ brokers have appeared in China, among other places."

Doesn't say how many.

"All told, the police in Brazil estimate that about 100 men, nearly all poor or unemployed, ages 20 to 40, agreed to sell kidneys."


?

My bolding to indicate parts that clearly show this is is not just a few isolated incidents.

I beg to differ. The story follows the dealings of one syndicate, and sometimes mention other brokers without saying how many or who they are.

So your claim that it is "widespread" is overblown, and still unsubstanciated.

As a comparison, it seems that the total number of transplants in Israel is on the order of 250 per year.

And?

[Skeptic]

I think you're missing the point a little bit, Pardalis. The reason not to publish this is not that it might cause Muslims, or anybody, to riot (in the middle east or elsewhere) -- that sort of pathetic cowardice merely encourages more riots. The reason not to publish this is that it is obviously a vicious lie, a blood libel, a slander upon the Jewish people.

Still, isn't it interesting how many of the same folks that were all deeply concerned about Muslims rioting as a reason to not publish the innocuous, or at most slightly snarky, Danish cartoons, are suddenly all in favor of free speech, come hell or high water, when it comes to publishing this blood libel on the Jews?

Free expression of opinion and reporting the truth are negotiable, to be given up if Muslims riots enough, or threaten violence vehemently enough. But spreading the ancient blood libel is nonnegotiable. It's just too good, too precious a pearl to give up due to threats of violence.

[Merko]

Pardalis, as you're pretending to be illiterate, there's no point in responding to you further.

[Doctor Evil]

This thing about 'multiple organs' is not based on anything from the Aftonbladet article though. Please separate the actual article from the re-reporting (and clearly, sometimes mis-reporting) of that article. Please note that Aftonbladet is not the only tabloid out there to get a juicy story, and when other tabloids are spinning the angle of some Swedish newspaper publishing outlandish claims, the facts will suffer, as always.

The multiple organs claim is based on simple logic. If the donor is dead you can use as much organs as needed. In contrast, a living person can only donate as much. For instance one kidney. Donating more would kill you.

It is your insistence on mixing unrelated stories which confuses you. The fact that some Israelis can go abroad, pay money, and have a kidney transplant does not mean that the other story is true. The details, and required logistics are very different.

The accusations against the IDF, or an Israeli pathologist were not based on any evidence, except the fact that an autopsy was done. This is shameful. Why is it surprising that people are angry after being (wrongfully IMO) accused based on such flimsy evidence.

[Pardalis]

Pardalis, as you're pretending to be illiterate, there's no point in responding to you further.

I do know the definition of the word "widespread", thank you.

Maybe some of your other links might help?

[ddt]

Still, isn't it interesting how many of the same folks that were all deeply concerned about Muslims rioting as a reason to not publish the innocuous, or at most slightly snarky, Danish cartoons, are suddenly all in favor of free speech, come hell or high water, when it comes to publishing this blood libel on the Jews?

Could you, instead of this kind of broad generalizations, name one poster on this board, or one newspaper or one opinion maker who has held differing views on the two matters when it comes to freedom of speech?

[Merko]

Still, isn't it interesting how many of the same folks that were all deeply concerned about Muslims rioting as a reason to not publish the innocuous, or at most slightly snarky, Danish cartoons, are suddenly all in favor of free speech, come hell or high water, when it comes to publishing this blood libel on the Jews?
Many, like who? Personally I argued emphatically for the right of Jyllands-Posten to publish the cartoons, on this forum and in other places. I also defended the cartoonists, most of whom had no intent to offend. At the time, I may have gone too far, as it appears at least one of them did have such an intent, although it appears to have been a general tendency towards blasphemy rather than any specifically islamophobic stance.

[Pardalis]

Many, like who? Personally I argued emphatically for the right of Jyllands-Posten to publish the cartoons, on this forum and in other places. I also defended the cartoonists, most of whom had no intent to offend. At the time, I may have gone too far, as it appears at least one of them did have such an intent, although it appears to have been a general tendency towards blasphemy rather than any specifically islamophobic stance.

The Muslims being outraged about the Danish cartoons were much more rightfully outraged (though of course still wrong to question the freedom of speech). Those cartoons were meant to cause outrage (by the editors, and by a few of the cartoonists).

You're not being very consistent.

[Merko]

The multiple organs claim is based on simple logic. If the donor is dead you can use as much organs as needed. In contrast, a living person can only donate as much. For instance one kidney. Donating more would kill you.

Now you're arguing against yourself though. First you say that it would be impossible to steal multiple organs at once because it would draw too much attention. Now you're arguing that thieves logically must have stolen multiple organs because they could. I'm sorry, but you have to choose here.

Personally, I agree with your first argument, that it would probably create too much attention and that therefore the likelyhood of the event goes down sharply with the number of organs stolen.


It is your insistence on mixing unrelated stories which confuses you. The fact that some Israelis can go abroad, pay money, and have a kidney transplant does not mean that the other story is true. The details, and required logistics are very different.

Again, while it appears to confuse you, it does not confuse me. We are dealing here with two types of illegal organ trade. One of them has been proven and appears to be quite persistent (continuing despite having been shut down first in Turkey and then in South Africa). The other one is based on a rather inconclusive evidence, eg the strange scars on returned Palestinian bodies.

To say that they are unrelated is not true. A reasonable person will agree that it is warranted to suspect a convicted cocaine smuggler of also being involved in heroine trade on less evidence than an average person. Just how little evidence is needed to warrant an investigation is a different matter, but the cocaine smuggling conviction is clearly not irrelevant. In dealing with accusations that there would be, or have been, a previously unknown mode of illegal organ trade in Israel, it is therefore relevant to know that the illegal organ trade there has indeed been both widespread and persistant for a long time.

The accusations against the IDF, or an Israeli pathologist were not based on any evidence, except the fact that an autopsy was done. This is shameful. Why is it surprising that people are angry after being (wrongfully IMO) accused based on such flimsy evidence.
It is not surprising, and again, I'm not at all opposed to people having objections. As I suspect the allegations are untrue, we should expect that. I don't approve of allegations of anti-semitism however, or groundless claims that the charges would be based on the infamous 'blood libel'.

I have no problem in seeing this from the perspective of IDF personnel.

Now, please could you for a moment try to see this from the perspective of the Palestinian relatives?

Why is it surprising that people are angry after having their relatives killed, taken away, and delivered back after having been cut up and being crudely stitched together?

[barium]

I think you're missing the point a little bit, Pardalis. The reason not to publish this is not that it might cause Muslims, or anybody, to riot (in the middle east or elsewhere) -- that sort of pathetic cowardice merely encourages more riots. The reason not to publish this is that it is obviously a vicious lie, a blood libel, a slander upon the Jewish people.

Still, isn't it interesting how many of the same folks that were all deeply concerned about Muslims rioting as a reason to not publish the innocuous, or at most slightly snarky, Danish cartoons, are suddenly all in favor of free speech, come hell or high water, when it comes to publishing this blood libel on the Jews?

Free expression of opinion and reporting the truth are negotiable, to be given up if Muslims riots enough, or threaten violence vehemently enough. But spreading the ancient blood libel is nonnegotiable. It's just too good, too precious a pearl to give up due to threats of violence.

Our 2nd largest daily "evening newspaper/tabloid" reprinted two of the muhammed cartoons. And as I've already said, Laila Freivalds had to resign over her attempts at shutting down Sverigedemokraternas website.

Also, you should not forget that the social democrats who had the power during the muhammed cartoons lost the election to a right leaning coalition in the 2006 national elections. The current administration is a different one, and you should rather compare their handling of this affair with their handling of the Lars Vilks muhammed drawings.

[Merko]

You're not being very consistent.

Maybe you're not just pretending to have reading comprehension issues. Let us make a detailed analysis. I will call the two quotes you made of me above A and B, and I will subdivide and number the statements in each quote.

A1 Many, like who?
A2 Personally I argued emphatically for the right of Jyllands-Posten to publish the cartoons,
A3 on this forum and in other places.
A4 I also defended the cartoonists,
A5 most of whom had no intent to offend.
A6 At the time, I may have gone too far, as
A7 it appears at least one of them did have such an intent,
A8 although it appears to have been a general tendency towards blasphemy
A9 rather than any specifically islamophobic stance.

B1 The Muslims being outraged about the Danish cartoons were much more rightfully outraged
B2 (though of course still wrong to question the freedom of speech).
B3 Those cartoons were meant to cause outrage
B4 (by the editors,
B5 and by a few of the cartoonists).


A1 is not found in B. A2, A3 and A4 are consistent with B2. A5 is consistent with B5 because 'most' is the opposite of 'a few'. A6 is not found in B. A7 is consistent with B5 because 'at least one' is compatible with 'a few'. A8 and A9 is not found in B. B1 is not found in A. B2 is, again, consistent with A2, A3 and A4. B3 is clarified by B4, which is not mentioned in A, and B5, which, again, is consistent with A5.

So where exactly is your perceived 'inconsistency'?

[Doctor Evil]

Now you're arguing against yourself though. First you say that it would be impossible to steal multiple organs at once because it would draw too much attention. Now you're arguing that thieves logically must have stolen multiple organs because they could. I'm sorry, but you have to choose here.


Actually, I do not have to choose. The burden of proof is on whoever makes the accusation. Currently, it seems that the person making the accusation, or you, which seem to at least partially support it, can not even tell which organs were taken. Maybe this is because there is no evidence to support said accusation.


Again, while it appears to confuse you, it does not confuse me. We are dealing here with two types of illegal organ trade. One of them has been proven and appears to be quite persistent (continuing despite having been shut down first in Turkey and then in South Africa). The other one is based on a rather inconclusive evidence, eg the strange scars on returned Palestinian bodies.

To say that they are unrelated is not true. A reasonable person will agree that it is warranted to suspect a convicted cocaine smuggler of also being involved in heroine trade on less evidence than an average person. Just how little evidence is needed to warrant an investigation is a different matter, but the cocaine smuggling conviction is clearly not irrelevant. In dealing with accusations that there would be, or have been, a previously unknown mode of illegal organ trade in Israel, it is therefore relevant to know that the illegal organ trade there has indeed been both widespread and persistant for a long time.


But you have not given me any reason to suspect that the same people are involved those stories. Are you suggesting the an Israeli pathologist had anything to do with the kidney transplants taken place in Turkey, or South Africa? Got evidence? As a result your argument fails, badly. A better analogy would be to suspect that a red haired man deals in cocaine because some other red haired man was caught trafficking heroine. And yes, the claim you made is that silly.


Why is it surprising that people are angry after having their relatives killed, taken away, and delivered back after having been cut up and being crudely stitched together?

It is not surprising. Though that is not the issue. The problem here is the publication of serious allegation without proper supporting evidence. That is the responsibility of the author and newspaper.

[Pardalis]

So where exactly is your perceived 'inconsistency'?

Maybe it's because the English language is not our common language, but "one" person doesn't equal "a few" in my comprehension.

You said you defended the cartoonists, but you seem to condemn the one who did intend to offend by singling him out, but at the same time you claimed to defend Jyllands-Posten who by your own admission did intend to offend.

That's inconsistent.

[Merko]

Actually, I do not have to choose. The burden of proof is on whoever makes the accusation.

The burden of proof is on whoever makes the claim, regardless of whether the claim is an accusation or something else. In this case, it was your claim that any hypothetical organ theft would 'logically' have to involve multiple organs.

Currently, it seems that the person making the accusation, or you, which seem to at least partially support it, can not even tell which organs were taken.

This is correct. The claim can however tell from whom they would have been taken, and when it would have happened. As Boström wrote in the Aftonbladet article, the matter should be resolved by investigating the corpses. Boström also opined that this would require that some Palestinians set aside their customs.

As for the 'partial support', I am only supporting it in the sense that I'm arguing that the most plausible interpretation of the charges made does not require any vast conspiracy or anything else that the journalist and editors involved should instantly have recognised as unfit for print. Specifically, there is absolutely no reason to claim antisemitic motives.

But you have not given me any reason to suspect that the same people are involved those stories. Are you suggesting the an Israeli pathologist had anything to do with the kidney transplants taken place in Turkey, or South Africa?

Of course not. But discussing the possibility of a small band of criminals, or a single criminal does not require evidence about those exact criminals, only that the crime itself is at least somewhat plausible. Otherwise we could only discuss possible crimes after there has been a conviction. Clearly, very few crimes would ever lead to convictions if that were the norm.

Absent existing networks for illegal organ trade in Israel, the possibility of someone stealing organs could be dismissed immediately on the basis that there would be no motive for doing so. Given that such networks insist, the crime becomes more plausible. Given then, again, that these networks appear to operate in a way that would not really be consistent with the proposed crime, the crime again becomes less plausible, to the point that I agree it is unlikely to have happened.

The problem here is the publication of serious allegation without proper supporting evidence. That is the responsibility of the author and newspaper.
Sure. There's no doubt they could have made a much better job, and neither the author nor the newspaper is known for high-quality investigative journalism (the author is known as a photographer). Objections are expected, but turning it into an international diplomatic affair is not warranted. Allegations of antisemitism is not warranted either. As Aftonbladet have since proven, they are more than happy to give the IDF a chance to respond. They are interested in selling newspapers, not in promoting any sort of sinister agenda.

Again, I'm not saying that it's fine if newspapers print poorly researched stories as long as they are willing to follow up when someone else does their job and corrects them, but this is unfortunately how tabloids all over the world operate, in the best case.

[Merko]

Maybe it's because the English language is not our common language, but "one" person doesn't equal "a few" in my comprehension.

I never claimed it did:

A7 is consistent with B5 because 'at least one' is compatible with 'a few'.

Being compatible does not mean being equal. Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that three of the twelve cartoonists intended to offend. Three is 'at least one'. Three is also 'a few'. This means that the statements are compatible, eg they can be true at the same time, even though they do not mean exactly the same.

Now, I'm fairly certain that one of the cartoonists intended to offend. I base this on an interview with the person in question. I'm suspecting a couple of others. For a number of the cartoons, they were clearly mocking Jyllands-Posten rather than Muslims, some of them openly, and one using a message in Farsi that would presumably not be understood by the editors. And some others are clearly harmless, more illustrations than cartoons.

You said you defended the cartoonists, but you seem to condemn the one who did intend to offend by singling him out,

I'm not condemning him. Firstly, I myself share the disposition towards blasphemy that I believe motivated this cartoonist. I have more trouble with some of the other cartoons which I believe are just bigoted, but which may despite this not have been intentionally made to offend anyone.

Secondly, even if the cartoonist would have exhibited some poor judgement in submitting his cartoon to this particular newspaper, he has clearly payed for that a million times over by the persecution he has suffered as a result.

but at the same time you claimed to defend Jyllands-Posten who by your own admission did intend to offend.

I'm defending their right to publish anything they want. I demand that the government stays neutral on such publications; but I am not the government, and I should not stay neutral. I was (and still am) fine with the cartoon publication in itself. That article was wholly defensible in my opinion. But other publications by the same editors have been thinly veiled attempts to make business out of stirring up hatred and promoting bigotry and xenophobia. For this reason, I claim that the editors intended to offend.

[Merko]

As opposed to all those other countries, where prostitution doesn't exist, certainly not "under the nose of the army and police". Such as... er... well...
The present situation in Israel in this regards is clearly worse than that say in the Nordic countries. If the police here find out about trafficking they'd raid the place immediately. It still happens, of course.

I don't know enough about Israeli culture, which is obviously extremely heterogeneous, but looking at eastern European countries which also have greater problems with trafficking, it seems to me that conservative values somewhat paradoxically tend to worsen such problems. It is as if these societies tend to prefer to pretend that the problems do not exist, because doing something about them would require talking about subjects that are taboo for a large segment of the population.


Anyway, this was not intended as some general Israel bashing thread, and I don't think it should be a place for listing anything and everything that is bad about Israel.

[gtc]

I haven't made any such claim. In fact, I've stated several times in this thread that based on available evidence, it appears unlikely that this happened. And no one (not even the Palestinians interviewed in Boström's article) voice any suspicion that this would still be going on.

Your statements are contradictory but you are suffering from confirmation bias because you are sure that Israel is up to something bad. You wouldn't accept an investigation that cleared the Israelis and, even if you did accept it, you would still conclude that the Israelis were up to no good. I've linked to your statement that you wouldn't accept an Israeli investigation and here you are demonstrating your belief that, even without evidence, you believe that Israel is up to no good:


Now, I don't personally find it very likely that the organs were stolen, and there may have been other (probably bad) reasons for why a careless autopsy was performed in some cases.



Yeah, and actually 2 percent. But who cares about facts when it doesn't suit your purpose?

Read the article again. It says 3 to 4 per cent.


He claims the IDF killed Ghanem because Ghanem was regularly throwing stones at the IDF. Why don't you just read the bloody article?

I quoted from the CNN article.

As for how someone could have seen Ghanem killed and also have seen him being taken away alive, there is only one explanation for that: The witness apparently believes that Ghanem later died as a result to the gunshots to Ghanems chest, legs and stomach that the witness had seen.

That doesn't make sense!

But again, if you actually read the bloody article, you'd see that Boström doesn't claim to have seen this at all. He claims that he was there a few days later, when the maimed body was returned. Boström retells intervieww subjects' accounts of the shooting, those are not his own observations.

That isn't what is said in the CNN article you provided.

Boström is not satisfied with that explanation (neither am I). Why would they conduct an autopsy on a person who had been shot in the chest and stomach? Why would they conduct an autopsy when the relatives do not want that?

Since when have either of you been experts on the situations in which an autopsy is or is not carried out? This is an argument from incredibility. I can't understand why they would carry out an autopsy, therefore they are only doing it to steal organs or some other 'probably bad' reason.

You forget the documented complicity of Israeli health personnel in facilitating illegal organ trade, and previous high profile cases of Israeli operatives being involved in illegal organ trade for the Israeli market (Brazil, South-East Europe).

As in operatives of the Israeli government or private individuals?


Except that when people indeed DO make anti chinese story, nobody pipe up a word and msot just nod as if they would expect anything bad from the chinese. You don't see many then yelling for evidence.

I don't think the Falun Dafa claims get much credence around here.

Same for some other "bad" governements. But do it against the Israeli.... And see how quick "blood libel", "anti-semite", and "terrorist" get thrown out at you.

Unfounded allegations shouldn't be allowed to stand without being challenged.

The problem is that it is difficult to verify, one way or another, unless somebody dig the alleged corpse up.

I doubt there would be much evidence left after so many years.


OTOH I would indeed EXPECT a president of a so called democraty to understand freedom of press, and to use the "persecution" card only when it is truly warranted. It does not sound to be the case here.

I think it was the Foreign Minister. And nobody has shown that he doesn't understand freedom of the press. Asking a government to express their view that they disagree with an article that damages relations with another country is not the same thing as demanding that freedom of speech be overturned.

I'll explain why you're wrong. The 'blood libel' is not wrong because it is in some way related to blood. It's wrong because it is a completely nonspecific allegation, designed to portray Jews as different, perverse, evil and immoral.

No. The allegations have been very specific in some blood libels. But the allegations are always unfounded, are based on crass speculation and lack evidence. Just like these allegations.

The suspicions against IDF personnel on the other hand are quite specific.

That is not the same as evidence!

The article in question explains when the supposed organ theft would have taken place, and whose organs it would have been. It gives a name for the person from the IDF responsible for delivering the supposedly incomplete body back to the relatives, a person who may reasonable expected to have knowledge about who had treated the body. This is not the stuff of racist scare stories. It's a clearly investigatable criminal charge.

If I make up a specific claim against you, no matter how preposterous, would you expect to be investigated by the police over it?


And that's why Lieberman blows this thing up to international news??? Remember, it was an article on page 46 of a Swedish tabloid.

So anything is fine so long as it is on page 46?


But it's pretty obvious that they have blown this thing up as a political deflection of some sort, perhaps to divert attention from expected EU criticism over settlements.

Is there nothing bad you won't think about those nefarious Israelis?

[Doctor Evil]

Sure. There's no doubt they could have made a much better job, and neither the author nor the newspaper is known for high-quality investigative journalism (the author is known as a photographer). Objections are expected, but turning it into an international diplomatic affair is not warranted. Allegations of antisemitism is not warranted either. As Aftonbladet have since proven, they are more than happy to give the IDF a chance to respond. They are interested in selling newspapers, not in promoting any sort of sinister agenda.


This is the understatement of the year! The paper gave no real reason to think that organs were actually removed. The bodies were autopsied, that is clear. It is also clear that the families of the Palestinians which were killed mistrust the IDF.

All these facts are not in dispute. However, no one have opened up the bodies and looked for missing organs. Not the families, or anyone else from the Palestinian Authority. There is no evidence for the missing organs being implanted in Israel. In fact, there is no evidence supporting the story. None! This is not a basis to a story in a newspaper. Connecting this to another story in New Jersey, again without any evidence makes it even more preposterous.

This story is a bit of a Rorschach test. It tests whether you need evidence to believe the worse of some people, or whether for you it is entirely believable, and think it is for the people accused to prove they are innocents. In this test, you have failed. Badly.

[gtc]

This story is a bit of a Rorschach test. It tests whether you need evidence to believe the worse of some people, or whether for you it is entirely believable, and think it is for the people accused to prove they are innocents. In this test, you have failed. Badly.

Its circular logic. These allegations are given credence because of the preconceived notion that Israelis are bad. And the notion that Israelis are bad is given credence by the existence of allegations like this.

[The Fool]

This is the understatement of the year! The paper gave no real reason to think that organs were actually removed. The bodies were autopsied, that is clear. It is also clear that the families of the Palestinians which were killed mistrust the IDF.



In an autopsy all organs are removed. so yes...organs were actually removed. They are weighed, examined...often sectioned which virtually destroys them. Sometimes organs are not replaced but are retained for further investigation if the cause of death is not determined.

Autopsy is a very unsettling procedure for many people. I remember when my father died of a heart attack. He had advanced heart disease and the heart attack that got him was no surprise to anyone....but because he had not seen a doctor in a certain length of time his body, by australian law, had to be kept from the family... sliced up rearranged and stitched back together with some bits retained for whatever reasons... This can be upsetting.

Now if I was a palestinian who has had a member of the family shot.....my religion wants me to bury the body very quickly. If the people that shot him retain the body for some time....slice it up dice up many of the bits and shove it all back in and stitch the corpse up then its not surprising that the family is going to be less than impressed. Stories of theft of organs start....not because the party involved are jewish but because of the general sad circumstances of the whole deal.

I don't see how reporting of these peoples anger, including thier unsubstantiated claims is consistant with antisemitism or blood libel or any of the other things that some are squealing about.

[Doctor Evil]

In an autopsy all organs are removed. so yes...organs were actually removed. They are weighed, examined...often sectioned which virtually destroys them. Sometimes organs are not replaced but are retained for further investigation if the cause of death is not determined.


That may be true. I meant that the organs were transplanted in someone else.


Autopsy is a very unsettling procedure for many people. I remember when my father died of a heart attack. He had advanced heart disease and the heart attack that got him was no surprise to anyone....but because he had not seen a doctor in a certain length of time his body, by australian law, had to be kept from the family... sliced up rearranged and stitched back together with some bits retained for whatever reasons... This can be upsetting.

Now if I was a palestinian who has had a member of the family shot.....my religion wants me to bury the body very quickly. If the people that shot him retain the body for some time....slice it up dice up many of the bits and shove it all back in and stitch the corpse up then its not surprising that the family is going to be less than impressed. Stories of theft of organs start....not because the party involved are jewish but because of the general sad circumstances of the whole deal.


All true. I understand how the families feel, and understand why they would claim that the body of their loved ones were mutilated. But we are not discussing the feelings and claims of the families of the dead Palestinians. We are discussing the Swedish newspaper, and the (non existent) level of evidence needed for a news story.


I don't see how reporting of these peoples anger, including thier unsubstantiated claims is consistant with antisemitism or blood libel or any of the other things that some are squealing about.


Perhaps it is a result of the fact that the story presented these claims as credible, and even tried to connect these with a different story. This was done without a serious effort to substantiate the claims. If a newspaper makes baseless accusations about people, they are bound not to like it.

[gtc]

The newspaper has admitted they had no evidence (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,25972384-1702,00.html?from=public_rss):


In an editorial headlined "The week the world went crazy'', Aftonbladet chief editor Jan Helin wrote that the first article on the case published last Monday "lacked'' proof of any organ theft.
"I'm not a Nazi. I'm not an anti-Semite. I'm a responsible editing executive who gave the green light to the publication of an article because it asks a number of pertinent questions.''



Two Aftonbladet reporters interviewed the mother and brother of Bilal Achmad Ghanem, a youth allegedly killed by Israeli troops 17 years ago when he was 19 on suspicion of being a ringleader in the first Palestinian uprising.
They asked his 32-year-old brother Bilal if they had any proof that his organs had been stolen.



"No, I don't have any,'' he said.
"But I have met people who told similar stories about their loved ones. We have heard many stories like this one.''



Who cares if there is no evidence? All your doing is 'asking questions' and the allegations must have substance because 'people' have heard 'similar stories'.

[The Fool]

Who cares if there is no evidence? All your doing is 'asking questions' and the allegations must have substance because 'people' have heard 'similar stories'.
There is plenty of evidence. Evidence that there is unsubstantiated claims...This, I believe, is what the author of the article was saying should be investigated. Is this sort of thing to be discouraged now? Calling for the investigation of unsubstantiated claims? If he was calling for the investigation of claims of canabalism in australia would there be outrage? After all, there are no canibals in australia, we ate the last one over a month ago.


but anyway....Note to Israel, please get a new foreign minister. That racist ******** speaking on your behalf on the international stage does your reputation no good.

[gtc]

Calling for the investigation of unsubstantiated claims?

To use Australia for a different example. After the Bali bombings there were numerous rumours circulating that Australia had been involved and even suggestions that there had been a nuclear bomb there. It would have been silly of us to treat those rumours seriously and launch an investigation.

Another example, lots of people have reported being told (or knowing people who have been told) by kindly muslims to avoid certain places or products because of an impending terrorist attack. If a paper gave those allegations credence by repeating them and demanding an investigation - then they would lose all credibility and be rightfully accused of scare mongering.

At most the claims in this story amount to a number of bodies that were returned to families apparently containing autopsy scars with Israel apparently admitting that, yes, they are autopsy scars.

[Merko]

Your statements are contradictory but you are suffering from confirmation bias because you are sure that Israel is up to something bad.
You wouldn't accept an investigation that cleared the Israelis and, even if you did accept it, you would still conclude that the Israelis were up to no good.

Nonsense. I've stated several times in this thread that I expect them to be cleared by such an investigation, and that I don't believe the organ theft happened.

I've linked to your statement that you wouldn't accept an Israeli investigation and here you are demonstrating your belief that, even without evidence, you believe that Israel is up to no good:

Unfortunately, Israel has no credibility anymore in these matters as their 'investigations' are really only white washes. You may be aware of the recent criticism from HRW in this regards (and the automatic counter-attacks trying to portray HRW as antisemites, of course).


Read the article again. It says 3 to 4 per cent.

It says 3-4 in the text, but does not tell us where that number comes from. The stats section in the same article says 2 percent, as does the CIA world fact book.


I quoted from the CNN article.

Which CNN article, and how is that relevant?



As for how someone could have seen Ghanem killed and also have seen him being taken away alive, there is only one explanation for that: The witness apparently believes that Ghanem later died as a result to the gunshots to Ghanems chest, legs and stomach that the witness had seen.

That doesn't make sense!

Why not? Because nobody ever died from being shot in the chest or stomach?


That isn't what is said in the CNN article you provided.

I did not provide any article from CNN. If CNN mis-reported on the case, that is not my fault, or Aftonbladet's for that matter.


As in operatives of the Israeli government or private individuals?

I don't know where the supposed accusation against the Israeli government comes from. Certainly not from me, neither from Boström's Aftonbladet article.

[Merko]

But we are not discussing the feelings and claims of the families of the dead Palestinians. We are discussing the Swedish newspaper, and the (non existent) level of evidence needed for a news story.

Yes you are discussing the feelings and claims of those families. Those were the only such claims in the Aftonbladet article. That article also made it quite clear that there was no further evidence. It made it clear that the bodies had not been re-examined for missing organs.

[gtc]

Nonsense. I've stated several times in this thread that I expect them to be cleared by such an investigation, and that I don't believe the organ theft happened.

Unfortunately, Israel has no credibility anymore in these matters as their 'investigations' are really only white washes. You may be aware of the recent criticism from HRW in this regards (and the automatic counter-attacks trying to portray HRW as antisemites, of course).

Its impossible to reconcile these two statements. You say its nonsense that you wouldn't accept the findings of an Israeli investigation then you say that an investigation would only be a white wash.


Which CNN article, and how is that relevant?

The one that you put in the OP and hence the one this whole thread has been based on!


Why not? Because nobody ever died from being shot in the chest or stomach?

No because seeing someone killed implies that they die there and then.


I did not provide any article from CNN. If CNN mis-reported on the case, that is not my fault, or Aftonbladet's for that matter.

Its your OP!


I don't know where the supposed accusation against the Israeli government comes from. Certainly not from me, neither from Boström's Aftonbladet article.

I quoted your words. Its your accusation that you made in your post.

[The Fool]

To use Australia for a different example. After the Bali bombings there were numerous rumours circulating that Australia had been involved and even suggestions that there had been a nuclear bomb there. It would have been silly of us to treat those rumours seriously and launch an investigation.

Of course it would be silly, as silly as investigatinbg IDF organ theft. Did we criticize anyone for calling for thier investigation? If someone even did?



Another example, lots of people have reported being told (or knowing people who have been told) by kindly muslims to avoid certain places or products because of an impending terrorist attack. If a paper gave those allegations credence by repeating them and demanding an investigation - then they would lose all credibility and be rightfully accused of scare mongering.

Funny thing is the Australian government asks me to report this sort of thing. So they can "investigate" it. There are even signs on the trains telling me to be alert not alarmed....Its all silly stuff but it means that simply reporting silly stuff and calling for it to be investigated is hardly unacceptable.. If people are running around saying these things I'd rather know about it. Would you have preferred to not hear about your example. How could you have then used it in debate?


At most the claims in this story amount to a number of bodies that were returned to families apparently containing autopsy scars with Israel apparently admitting that, yes, they are autopsy scars.
This is what I can't get my head around. Conducting autopsies on people who have been shot to find out what killed them.....is stupid. Besides... delivering corpses long after their family believe they should be decently buried.... lightly minced and restitched is just plain A grade crazy.

[Pardalis]

Its impossible to reconcile these two statements.

Tell me about it, he doesn't seem to realize it, but he says one thing at one time, and saying the opposite the other:

Nonsense. I've stated several times in this thread that I expect them to be cleared by such an investigation,and that I don't believe the organ theft happened.

I would not mind if they also investigated rumours about organ theft, although to be honest I don't think any internal Israeli government investigation regarding mistreatment of Palestinians would be of very much use, considering previous experience. In this matter, I think it's an issue for the Palestinians to bring in some international investigators, if they want to pursue the issue.

I haven't made any such claim. In fact, I've stated several times in this thread that based on available evidence, it appears unlikely that this happened

Boström is not satisfied with that explanation (neither am I). Why would they conduct an autopsy on a person who had been shot in the chest and stomach? Why would they conduct an autopsy when the relatives do not want that?As I suspect the allegations are untrue, we should expect that.
Again, I think that while the evidence indicates some wrongdoing, it seems a little far-fetched that someone would have stolen the organs. But given the documented complicity of Israeli medical personnel in illegal organ trade, it can hardly be dismissed as impossible. There would be the motive (money, the possibility to save someone's life), and the opportunity (a dead young body which no one with authority cares very much about).

You forget the documented complicity of Israeli health personnel in facilitating illegal organ trade, and previous high profile cases of Israeli operatives being involved in illegal organ trade for the Israeli market (Brazil, South-East Europe).So according to Merko, all the evidence makes him think they didn't do it, but somehow Israel is suspicious enough for him to entertain the idea that they did. :boggled:

[Skeptic]

So according to Merko, all the evidence makes him think they didn't do it, but somehow Israel is suspicious enough for him to entertain the idea that they did.

Three points.

1). That Merko, despite knowing there is no evidence, is willing to entertain the possibility that -- somehow, some way -- Jews do drink the blood harvest the organs (really, what's the difference?) of gentiles for nefarious purposes shows us a lot more about Merko than it does about the Jews.

2). All the evidence points to Mr. Joe Smith not being a child molester. In fact, there isn't a shred of credible evidence pointing to Mr. Joe Smith being a child molester. But I don't like Joe, so I think it is perfectly reasonable to have huge headline in a popular newspaper, "JOE SMITH: IS HE A CHILD MOLESTER?". After all, I'm just asking a question, right? There is no way such innocent inquiry could imply any guilt to Joe Smith. Besides, if he did nothing wrong, why is he objecting to me asking such innocent questions? What is he trying to hide?

3). In any case, I think Israel should fund huge advertisements in Swedish newspapers: "MUSLIMS: DO THEY PRACTICE PEDOPHILIA AS PART OF THEIR RELIGION?". We've already established that having no evidence is no reason not to ask questions, and besides, it's all a matter of freedom of speech which has nothing to do with trying to demonize anybody, so I am sure Merko will have no objections.

[Merko]

Tell me about it, he doesn't seem to realize it, but he says one thing at one time, and saying the opposite the other:
I don't know if your problem is with English reading comprehension, or logic.

There is absolutely nothing 'opposite' about someone wanting an investigation of allegations that are expected to be untrue. There are at least two reasons why people often want this:
1) Investigations can not only show that someone is guilty, but it can in many cases show that someone is innocent, or (as in this case) that an alleged crime was never committed. This can benefit many parties: those who feared that crime happened can be comforted that it did not, and those who felt accused do not longer have to live with false suspicions.

2) It may come as a shock to you, but it is actually possible to have a nuanced opinion.

I do not believe that there was organ theft in this case. But I don't know that there wasn't. For that reason alone, I would be interested in an investigation. But that is not the main reason, because my curiosity should be of little concern to anyone. The main reason is that the suspicions appear to have been widespread for a long time, and not among random crackpots but among relatives of many Palestinians that were killed by the IDF. In my opinion, it would be highly desirable to put such allegations to rest.

[Merko]

1). That Merko, despite knowing there is no evidence, is willing to entertain the possibility that -- somehow, some way -- Jews do drink the blood harvest the organs (really, what's the difference?) of gentiles for nefarious purposes shows us a lot more about Merko than it does about the Jews.

You've shown previously in this thread that you are an unabashed racist. You have also shown repeatedly that you consider yourself able to determine what other people 'really' think, and that you don't care at all about what these people have to say themselves. This is a classic tell-tale behaviour of fanatics of every kind, be it religious, political, racial or nationalistic fanaticism.

I don't think you're a very nice person.


But I don't like Joe, so I think it is perfectly reasonable to have huge headline in a popular newspaper, "JOE SMITH: IS HE A CHILD MOLESTER?". After all, I'm just asking a question, right?

At least you yourself don't bother with asking questions, you just make your allegations up and claim them as facts, without any sort of question marks or qualifications.

3). In any case, I think Israel should fund huge advertisements in Swedish newspapers: "MUSLIMS: DO THEY PRACTICE PEDOPHILIA AS PART OF THEIR RELIGION?".
Of course, exactly that allegation is already commonplace in Sweden. I can give you a bank account number if you want to donate. I'm sure you'll be very happy to give your money to Nazis.

[Pardalis]

There is absolutely nothing 'opposite' about someone wanting an investigation of allegations that are expected to be untrue.

Have you ever heard of probable cause (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Probable+cause)?

If there is no reason to think a crime has been committed, then there is no reason to investigate.

[gtc]

There is absolutely nothing 'opposite' about someone wanting an investigation of allegations that are expected to be untrue. There are at least two reasons why people often want this:
1) Investigations can not only show that someone is guilty, but it can in many cases show that someone is innocent, or (as in this case) that an alleged crime was never committed. This can benefit many parties: those who feared that crime happened can be comforted that it did not, and those who felt accused do not longer have to live with false suspicions.

You are demanding that the Israelis put the time and effort into proving that they didn't harvest the organs of Palestinians. What is worse is that, no matter how impossible it would be to prove that they didn't do something like this, you have said that you still wouldn't trust the results.



At least you yourself don't bother with asking questions, you just make your allegations up and claim them as facts, without any sort of question marks or qualifications.

See the question mark at the end of the sentence you quoted? That made it a question. It was also a hypothetical example to show how ridiculous your position is. There is no Joe Smith and no one thinks that Joe is a child molester.


Of course, exactly that allegation is already commonplace in Sweden.

There seems to be a lot of racism in Sweden.

Given that you acknowledge that such allegations are common then why are you not demanding an investigation? Those allegations have as much evidence (i.e. none) to support them as the allegations about Israel.

[Skeptic]

Have you ever heard of probable cause (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Probable+cause)?

If there is no reason to think a crime has been committed, then there is no reason to investigate.

But there IS probable cause!

They're Jews, aren't they?

You never know with those people.

Better keep a close eye on them and investigate every nonsensical rumor, just in case.

Better yet: first demand that they investigate every nonsensical rumor about themselves, and declare in advance you will refuse to believe the investigation result, because, you know, who would trust their denials?

So, if they Jews do not investigate the nonsensical rumor, they're guilty; if they do, they're guilty and covering up the truth.

Sounds perfectly fair to me...

Oh, and P.S. -- as the "Jerusalem Post" reported today, the Swedish newspaper which published the accusations (sorry, sorry -- just asked the questions, me bad) had admitted that, surprise surprise, it had no evidence to back them up.

I know this is totally irrelevant to the issue, but just FYI.

[Skeptic]

You are demanding that the Israelis put the time and effort into proving that they didn't harvest the organs of Palestinians. What is worse is that, no matter how impossible it would be to prove that they didn't do something like this, you have said that you still wouldn't trust the results.

But APART from THAT, he is totally fair and objective on the issue.

[Thunder]

I heard that some Jews drink the blood of Christian children.

It is just a rumor, but nevertheless, we should still look into it.

You never know, with these Jews. They seem nice..but you never know what they are capable of.

[Pardalis]

Oh, and P.S. -- as the "Jerusalem Post" reported today, the Swedish newspaper which published the accusations (sorry, sorry -- just asked the questions, me bad) had admitted that, surprise surprise, it had no evidence to back them up.

I know this is totally irrelevant to the issue, but just FYI.

But the damage is done, the rumor has now been allowed to spread through popular culture. Just like the lie about the "4,000 Jews" of September 11, conspiracy theorists and anti-semites will refer back to the article as being somekind of evidence of wrongdoing.

[Skeptic]

Yes, you're quite right, Pardalis, but you know something? So friggin' what. As Efraim Kishon, the Israeli satirist, once pointed out, the whole point behind Israel is not to end hatred of Jews, which is impossible, but to give it legal status. In the past, Jews had to take seriously those who claimed Jews drink the blood harvest the organs of gentiles, like the Swedish newspaper in question, and those who take such claims seriously and demand they be "investigated", like Merko. After all, when such rumors spread, pogroms were usually in the cards.

With Israel, however, that changed. You seriously entertain the possibility that Jews harvest gentiles' organs? Well, that's just too bad -- you can go self-fornicate. Go ahead taking seriously an ancient blood libel if you want; now, that's your problem, not the Jews'. The "demand" that Israel investigate the "organ harvesting" is really a "demand" they take your idiotic blood libel belief seriously, like they used to before Israel's existence. How dare they not do that any more!

No doubt I'll get replies to this post to the effect that Israel still depends on other countries' goodwill, and how hard it has to work to counter rumors against it still. My intent, however, is not to deny any of that -- but that is true for every country. If someone claimed Icelanders eat the flesh of Buddhists babies in nefarious Icelandic religious ceremonies, no doubt the Icelandic government will protest, and would be worried about such rumors spreading.

The difference is, however, that now there is a limit to how much the Israelies must do to counter such rumors, while in the past, there was no such limit -- the Jews' were at the blood-libel-spreaders' beck and call. Israel should protest and demand an apology, sure -- just like Iceland would have in the hypothetical case above. But the Jews no longer must obey the blood-libel spreaders' "demands" for an "investigation" of the ridiculous blood libel, any more than the Icelanders would have in the hypothetical case above. They are now free, just like the Icelanders would be in a similar situation, to note that those who entertain the possibility of the resurrected medieval blood libel being true are moral cretins not worthy of serious consideration, and to just ignore their "demands".

That is what changed with the creation of Israel. That -- not being taken seriously any more when they accuse the Jews of some ancient libel -- is what some people on this forum can't stand, and consider horrible immorality on Israel's part. But as I said, they can go self-fornicate.

[Thunder]

-Hey, did you hear that Israeli soldiers steal the organs of Palestinians and sell them?

-No, I didn't. Is it true?

-Sure is!! I read about it in a major Swedish newspaper.

-Oh, well, then there must be something to it.

It will now take years to remove this pathetic myth.

[Pardalis]

It's going to help fuel more hatred against Israel though, like your example of M. Smith. Even though he is innocent, people are more likely to remember that there is something wrong with him, because they remember hearing something about it before. Maybe they don't exactly remember what they've read, but they remember reading something wrong associated with the name M. Smith.

This is how rumors are most damaging, and when they pertain to entire nations, especially one that is so much the focus of alot of debate already, this doesn't help.

It probably was the intent, why resurface an almost 20 year old unfounded story?

ETA: maybe that's one of the reasons why Merko doesn't trust Israel's investigations so much, maybe he's read one too many articles about unfounded rumors about Israel.

[Skeptic]

It probably was the intent, why resurface an almost 20 year old unfounded story?

OF COURSE damaging Israel with unfounded rumors was the intent. What else? But taking the damage the rumors might do seriously is one thing, taking the rumors themselves seriously, something else entirely.

To pretend these rumors are show a "possible human rights violation", or that those who spread of believe them are "concerned about Palestinians' human rights" is giving both the rumors and those who believe them far too much credit. In reality, it's perfectly obvious it's just the old "Jews drink gentile blood" rumor in a somewhat modern dress, and those who take it seriously are moral cretins, not to be taken seriously.

If some Palestinian claimed he saw a Jew flying on a broom last Friday, no doubt evidence that Jews fly to join the devil in a witches' sabbath, they'd take that as "evidence", too, demand and "investigation", declare their concern for the possible violation of Palestinian airspace, etc.

Why not, what's the difference? There certainly isn't any in terms of the reliability of the testimony or the absurdity of the accusation. Besides, just like many people accused the Jews of drinking gentile blood in the middle ages, many people accused witches of flying on a broomstick to meet the devil.

You're not saying all of those people are lying, are you? Better have an independent investigation of both accusations, just to make sure. We all know what those Jews are capable of, after all -- surely flying to meet the devil, like harvesting organs, is not beneath them.

If the paper published accusations of Jews flying on broomsticks, that, too, would have to be protested. But I fail to see why the substance of, or evidence for, that accusation, would be any more credible than of the one they actually printed.

[gtc]

In reality, it's perfectly obvious it's just the old "Jews drink gentile blood" rumor in a somewhat modern dress,

Yep. People have been seeing UFOs for at least a thousand years but they only became associated with space craft once our own space program became conceivable.

People have been accusing others of having magical ways to kill and people have been accusing the Jews of things like poisoning wells for centuries. These stories have now transformed into the rumours that regularly surface about secret high tech Israeli super weapons.

The rumours that Jews steal the blood of innocents become the rumours that Israelis kill innocents to steal their organs.

[barium]

Ok. I'll throw in my view in the mix. The article was a baseless accusation against a branch of the Israeli army. Similar baseless accusations have been made about the US army and the Brittish army.

When USA or GB are accused of nefarious doings they calmly refute the claims and show how ridiculous they are. Whenever the Israeli army is wrongly accused of anything it's anti-semitism and some government official cry wolf.

And, asking a swedish foreign minister to stick his fingers where they don't belong is just stupid considering what happened to the last foreign minister who tried to interfere with the free press. I don't think mr. Bildt want to resign over a piece of bad journalism in the back sections of a norweigan owned tabloid.

Here in Sweden the general consensus in the press is that the article was a bad piece of journalism, but that our governments response to Israeli pressure was the correct one.

[gtc]

Ok. I'll throw in my view in the mix. The article was a baseless accusation against a branch of the Israeli army. Similar baseless accusations have been made about the US army and the Brittish army.

When USA or GB are accused of nefarious doings they calmly refute the claims and show how ridiculous they are. Whenever the Israeli army is wrongly accused of anything it's anti-semitism and some government official cry wolf.

When has anyone accused British troops or American troops of killing people in order to steal their organs? And when have people, almost twenty years after the fact, made such accusations knowing that they have no evidence? And when have they then turned around and demanded that the British or Americans then prove their innocence?

The Israeli FM may well have over reacted. However, asking the Swedish government to stand up against such anti-semitism in the same way that their embassy in Israel has done is not unreasonable and it is certainly not unreasonable for them to be expected to, at the very least, refrain from criticising their embassy rather than the newspaper involved.

And, asking a swedish foreign minister to stick his fingers where they don't belong is just stupid considering what happened to the last foreign minister who tried to interfere with the free press. I don't think mr. Bildt want to resign over a piece of bad journalism in the back sections of a norweigan owned tabloid.

Did she resign over the intervention in the press or because she lied (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laila_Freivalds) about doing so?

Also there is a big difference between criticising antisemitism and interfering with the freedom of the press.

[Merko]

I heard that some Jews drink the blood of Christian children.

It is just a rumor, but nevertheless, we should still look into it.

You never know, with these Jews. They seem nice..but you never know what they are capable of.
Great job. Now the next time somebody Googles for this, they'll find your post. Seriously, this is a really stupid thing to keep doing.

[Lonewulf]

That is what changed with the creation of Israel. That -- not being taken seriously any more when they accuse the Jews of some ancient libel -- is what some people on this forum can't stand, and consider horrible immorality on Israel's part.

Not me, that's for certain.

[Merko]

You are demanding that the Israelis put the time and effort into proving that they didn't harvest the organs of Palestinians.

I am not. Neither was Boström. I think the Israelis should investigate the well known Israeli organ trade.

I think it would be welcome if a third party, presumably on a Palestinian initiative, investigated the organ theft story.

But alas, I've already repeated this several times and you just keep claiming that I want things I've explicitly said that I don't want.

See the question mark at the end of the sentence you quoted?
Skeptic accused all Palestinians of being terrorists, by definition, in this very thread. There was no question mark or anything.

There seems to be a lot of racism in Sweden.
There's certainly quite a bit of racism, yes, but I'm not sure it's worse than in many other countries, including Israel. At least we've managed to keep our racist parties out of parliament (and government) so far. But we may well fail in the next elections (and mr Lieberman is probably adding another 0.1 percent to them), so I'm not pointing any fingers.

Given that you acknowledge that such allegations are common then why are you not demanding an investigation? Those allegations have as much evidence (i.e. none) to support them as the allegations about Israel.
Why should I demand investigations, when such 'investigations' already happen on far more flimsy evidence than this? Like schoolgirls being forced into a room and, with no explanation given, having their genitals examined by a total stranger, because of some anonymous rumour.

Digging up a corpse doesn't hurt anybody.

[Merko]

ETA: maybe that's one of the reasons why Merko doesn't trust Israel's investigations so much, maybe he's read one too many articles about unfounded rumors about Israel.
You mean, like the ones from HRW (http://www.hrw.org/en/publications/reports?filter0=**ALL**&filter1=228)? Oh but I forgot, HRW are of course part of the vast global antisemitic conspiracy (http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article.php?id=908). Not sure if Bayefsky thinks it's director, Ken Roth (whose parents escaped from Nazi Germany), is just misguided or if he is one of those 'self hating Jews', that mind-boggling invention by those who otherwise run out of arguments the very moment they can't label someone an antisemite.

[gtc]

I am not. Neither was Boström. I think the Israelis should investigate the well known Israeli organ trade.

I think it would be welcome if a third party, presumably on a Palestinian initiative, investigated the organ theft story.

But alas, I've already repeated this several times and you just keep claiming that I want things I've explicitly said that I don't want.

Your demand is for an investigation to see if the allegations are true and to see if the Israelis can be exonerated. I have quoted your words to show that.

The Israelis can only be shown to be innocent if they prove that they didn't do it. But you have already said that you wouldn't accept the results of an investigation that were conducted by the Israelis but you would accept one conducted on behalf of the Palestinians. Just how neutral do you think such an investigation would be?

Skeptic accused all Palestinians of being terrorists, by definition, in this very thread. There was no question mark or anything.

Now you are changing the subject! That wasn't what you were talking about when you quoted Skeptic and neither was it what I was referring to when I quoted you. As it happens he actually said no such thing. This is what he wrote:


1). Swedish government officials were involved, together with various Palestinian pro-terrorism organization (a redundancy, I know...) in the original "investigative report" which made this blood libel claim in 2001, so it is not surprising the Swedish government will not condemn it, as it is condemning itself.

English is probably not your first language but you should be able to see the difference between what you claimed he wrote and what he wrote.


There's certainly quite a bit of racism, yes, but I'm not sure it's worse than in many other countries, including Israel.

Tu Quoque. That has nothing to do with whether or not Sweden contains racists and this statement goes right against your claim that:


Anyway, this was not intended as some general Israel bashing thread, and I don't think it should be a place for listing anything and everything that is bad about Israel.

You are now making it into a general rant against Israel.

Why should I demand investigations, when such 'investigations' already happen on far more flimsy evidence than this? Like schoolgirls being forced into a room and, with no explanation given, having their genitals examined by a total stranger, because of some anonymous rumour.

What are you talking about?

Digging up a corpse doesn't hurt anybody.

You seriously think that they are going to accept having the corpses of their dead relatives dug up? And just what do you think a corpse that has been in the ground for almost 20 years is going to show? Even if anything was left it would just prove what everybody already agrees - that autopsies were carried out on those bodies. It is not going to show whether other organs were taken and implanted elsewhere.

An investigation can't clear the Israelis because it would be impossible to prove that the Israelis didn't do anything nefarious. It might show that the claims are implausible and lack any evidence but you have already.

[Skeptic]

gtc -- thanks for fixing the glitch. Next time, by the way, I'll send a private message, it just never occurred to me.

[Skeptic]

You seriously think that they are going to accept having the corpses of their dead relatives dug up? And just what do you think a corpse that has been in the ground for almost 20 years is going to show?

It will show that the nefarious Jews CANNOT PROVE the organs were NOT stolen, of course.

But why stop there? Let's dig up the 500-year-old corpses of those alleged to have been killed by Jewish ritual murder during passover, too, just to make sure we're leaving no stone unturned in our search for the truth.

As Merko says, investigations are sometimes started on no evidence at all, so why not? Besides, digging up a few 500-year-old corpses won't hurt anybody.

[Skeptic]

When USA or GB are accused of nefarious doings they calmly refute the claims and show how ridiculous they are. Whenever the Israeli army is wrongly accused of anything it's anti-semitism and some government official cry wolf.

I see your point, barium. However, three things you might not have considered.

1). To wrongly accuse the Israel of, say, industrial pollution, is not necessary antisemitism. But to wrongly accuse it of harvesting gentiles' organs -- that is, of drinking the blood of the non-Jews -- is, rather obviously, antisemitism. (If that is not an antisemitic accusation, what is?)

Indeed, as you say, Israel is now suffering from the "boy who cried wolf" syndrome: when you call everything antisemitism, then when you have something that really is antisemitism, nobody believes you any more. But, as with the boy who cried wolf, eventually there really was a wolf.

2). Israel Zangwill, the 19th century Jewish leader, was once asked why Jews are so paranoid and jumpy when accused of unspeakable crimes, when the accusations are so often by unbalanced people and their idiot followers. "2000 years of Christian love had made us very suspicious", was his reply.

Zangwill knew from experience -- and that experience, as we all know, became horribly worse after his time -- that, when it comes to the Jews, no matter how absurd the accusation or shady and disreputable those who make it, it has a tendency to be believed and acted on. So instantly and strongly reacting to seemingly minor things is the lesson learned, which often seems like "hysterically overreacting".

As I said, the point of having the state of Israel is that it one no longer needs to act in such a paranoid way. But old habits are hard to break, considering what eventually happened when the Jews did not "hysterically overreact" in the past.

3). Asking the foreign minister to stick his finger in it would often be inappropriate, yes. In this particular case, however, the original blood libel was based on government-funded "research" from 2001, showing government involvement (or at least funding) in spreading the libel. So asking for an official government righting of their own wrong is appropriate here. It would not be, and indeed it is not asked, just when Joe Schmoe says "I dislike the Jews".

[Myope]

This article (which was buried deep inside the paper and wasn't exactly on the front page of the tabloid) may not have been the greatest piece of investigative journalism. But it seems pretty unlikely that it would in any way have been caused by antisemitism. Nobody accuses journalists telling stories about Chinese or Brazilian organ trade of being 'anti-Chinese' or 'anti-Brazilian'. It's undeniable that Israelis have been deeply involved in organ trade, both in the New Jersey case and in other incidents. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_donation_in_Israel) gives a few leads for those who are interested in sources and causes for this pattern. It's pretty obviously topical to report on this issue, and it's not like Aftonbladet have been obsessing about it on a regular basis.

Given the available information, it seems rather unlikely to me that organs would have been stolen from the killed Palestinians. But it's clearly not impossible. When Lieberman flat out rejects that anyone in the IDF might have been involved in such trade, he puts himself in an impossible situation if it were to be discovered that some pathologist has indeed stolen organs for the black market. He would either have to resign, or try to cover up the story, making himself and the government complicit in an international Jewish conspiracy to steal people's organs. Can't imagine how anyone could make Israel a greater disservice than that...
"This article (which was buried deep inside the paper and wasn't exactly on the front page of the tabloid) may not have been the greatest piece of investigative journalism."
The article wasn´t hidden in any way. It was published on page 4-5 and filled 2/3 of each page. The article was also mentioned at the bottom of the front page, "Israel is stealing our sons organs" (the main headings were on swedish troops in Afghanistan and Usain bolts new world record).

[Myope]

How exactly is the New Jersy case related to Isreal? Please explain?
The incident in New Jersey, where Israeli kidneys were bought and sold on the black market, has brought attention to illegal organ trade and the need for organ donors. It therefore was in the public interest to publish Boströms article on possible organ stealing.

[Myope]

Hello. I might be the only one (well, maybe barium as well) who has actually READ the article. Donald Boström himself does not accuseIsrael of stealing organs. His article does tell about Palestinian families who believe their sons organs has been stolen. Boström and Aftonbladet are simply messengers bringing forward an accusation made by Palestinians. Instead of investigating the alleged organ stealing the Israeli call swedes anti-Semites and racists, and yesterday the Israeli prime minister Netanyahu demanded that the swedish government condemn the article. It doesn´t work like that in Sweden. Both freedom of speech and freedom of the press are established in our constitution. It´s important for a democracy, such as Sweden, that the government does and can not influence what is written in the press. Somehow Netanyahu missed out on that one when he brought forward his demand.
Let´s not forgot what the article is about: Palestinians claiming their sons organs has been stolen. As an example Boström reveals an incident that occured in 1992. Long story short: Bilal Acmed Ghanan, a 19-year old boy, was shot in the village Imatin by Israeli soldiers. Five days later his body was brought back, stitched from chin to belly. He was not the first to be burried in that manner. The spokesman for the Israeli army said it was routine to perform an autopsy on all killed Palestinians. And yet it was only performed on 69 out of the 133 Palestinians killed in 1992, according t Boströms article.
Nowhere in the article does Boström accuse anyone, but he does bring forward the suspicions from Palestinians whose sons has been cut open; that the Israeli has taken their sons organs. Boström also ask the question why an autopsy was performed on Bilal when the cause of death was obvious. But he nevermakes any allegations against Israel, as I said, he is only a messenger for the Palestinian families. Capisce?

[barium]

When has anyone accused British troops or American troops of killing people in order to steal their organs? And when have people, almost twenty years after the fact, made such accusations knowing that they have no evidence? And when have they then turned around and demanded that the British or Americans then prove their innocence?
There pops up strange accusations against US troops in Kosovo (white slave trade, massacres, rape murder rings) now and then, same for a lot of south american countries. Also, there are reports about supposed massacres during the start of the Iraq occupation, probably fueled by blackwater's less than stellar track record. Years and years after they've happened with only eye witnesses who are not that believable.

The Israeli FM may well have over reacted. However, asking the Swedish government to stand up against such anti-semitism in the same way that their embassy in Israel has done is not unreasonable and it is certainly not unreasonable for them to be expected to, at the very least, refrain from criticising their embassy rather than the newspaper involved.

An ambassadors job is to promote and explain official policy. She shouldn't have condemned a swedish publication without first consulting with her employers.

Did she resign over the intervention in the press or because she lied (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laila_Freivalds) about doing so?

Also there is a big difference between criticising antisemitism and interfering with the freedom of the press.
That was the immediate cause, but she was later censured by the constitutional commitee, so I think she would have been toast even without the lie.

Yes, and a general apology might be acceptable. However, a condemnation on a single magazine is the courts domain, not our elected representatives.

[Pardalis]

Let´s not forgot what the article is about: Palestinians claiming their sons organs has been stolen. As an example Boström reveals an incident that occured in 1992.


And what is the relevance of this in 2009?

Nowhere in the article does Boström accuse anyone, but he does bring forward the suspicions from Palestinians whose sons has been cut open; that the Israeli has taken their sons organs. Boström also ask the question why an autopsy was performed on Bilal when the cause of death was obvious. But he nevermakes any allegations against Israel, as I said, he is only a messenger for the Palestinian families. Capisce?


So he's Just Asking Questions? Now where have I seen that before? :rolleyes:

[Pardalis]

The incident in New Jersey, where Israeli kidneys were bought and sold on the black market, has brought attention to illegal organ trade and the need for organ donors. It therefore was in the public interest to publish Boströms article on possible organ stealing.

Non-existing organ theft in Palestine in 1992 is public interest for Sweden in 2009? You Swedes are such humanitarians, you worry too much.

This is plain and simple conspiracy theory and fear mongering.

[Doctor Evil]

The incident in New Jersey, where Israeli kidneys were bought and sold on the black market, has brought attention to illegal organ trade and the need for organ donors. It therefore was in the public interest to publish Boströms article on possible organ stealing.

No it didn't, as I have argued earlier in this thread. In the New jersey case Israelis donated kidneys for money. As far as I could see, the kidneys were not transplanted in Israelis, or by Israeli doctors. As such the details do not point out to what you say.

Now as to the possible organ stealing, lets see what the family of the dead Palestinian say (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1251145107193&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull). His brother:
Ghanem's younger brother, Jalal, said he could not confirm the allegations made by the Swedish newspaper that his brother's organs had been stolen.
"I don't know if this is true," he said. "We don't have any evidence to support this."


Another relative:
Ibrahim Ghanem, a relative of Bilal, said that the family never told the Swedish photographer that Israel had stolen organs from the dead man's body.
"Maybe the journalist reached that conclusion on the basis of the stitches he saw on the body," he said. "But as far as the family is concerned, we don't know if organs were removed from the body because we never performed our own autopsy. All we know is that Bilal's teeth were missing."


Now:
Jalal and other members of the family said that "rumors" about Israel killing Palestinians to steal their organs have been circulating for a long time.
"I can't tell you if these rumors are true or not," the brother said.
"But in light of the investigative report in the Swedish newspaper, we are demanding an international commission of inquiry into the case."



The amazing loop of spontaneously generated accusations. The family do not know whether their son organs were stolen or not. They could not supply the journalist with any evidence. Nevertheless, the journalist writes his article, and the paper publishes it. Now, the story itself serves as a reason for suspicion. I do not blame the family, but the paper has a lot to answer for.

As you see, the whole story is not based on any concrete information. It is made out of various hints and insinuations which do not even combine to tell a coherent story. On one side, Israelis donate kidneys in the US, leading to a US criminal investigation, and this is supposed to highlight the need for organs in Israel? (There is such need, which does not mean that organs are stolen. Especially not in Israeli hospitals.) On the other hand, there are baseless rumors which are used to generate a news story, which is then used to justify the rumors.

As I said earlier, this story serves as a Rorschach test. It tests how much evidence is needed for one to believe in a fairly severe accusation. The amount of evidence here approaches zero. Yet the story still lives.

[Merko]

Your demand is for an investigation to see if the allegations are true and to see if the Israelis can be exonerated. I have quoted your words to show that.
Yes. It is pointless to investigate allegations that are already proven, is it not?

The Israelis can only be shown to be innocent if they prove that they didn't do it. But you have already said that you wouldn't accept the results of an investigation that were conducted by the Israelis but you would accept one conducted on behalf of the Palestinians. Just how neutral do you think such an investigation would be?

Surely that depends on who would do it? But unless the Palestinians initiate it, I don't see how it could be done. Well, that may not be entirely true. A good journalist might be able to show that it would have been near impossible for any organ thief to get any money from it. That would be a pretty good outcome as well.

Now you are changing the subject! That wasn't what you were talking about when you quoted Skeptic and neither was it what I was referring to when I quoted you. As it happens he actually said no such thing. This is what he wrote:

1). Swedish government officials were involved, together with various Palestinian pro-terrorism organization (a redundancy, I know...) in the original "investigative report" which made this blood libel claim in 2001, so it is not surprising the Swedish government will not condemn it, as it is condemning itself.
So how is it not racist to say that the term "Palestinian pro-terrorism organization" is a "redundancy"?

Of course, the rest of the sentence is a lie as well, but at least that's relatively harmless.

Tu Quoque. That has nothing to do with whether or not Sweden contains racists

That was not the question. The question was whether there is 'a lot' of racism in Sweden. What is 'a lot'? I don't think that question can be answered except by comparing with other countries. A simple answer might be that of course any racism is a lot compared to what is acceptable, but that doesn't really say anything. Or I could say that, no, there's not really a lot of racism here (compared to most countries). But I don't like that answer, because people are, with some frequency, assaulted or even killed because of their race.


You seriously think that they are going to accept having the corpses of their dead relatives dug up? And just what do you think a corpse that has been in the ground for almost 20 years is going to show? Even if anything was left it would just prove what everybody already agrees - that autopsies were carried out on those bodies. It is not going to show whether other organs were taken and implanted elsewhere.

That surely depends on the location of the grave. Given that most Palestinian land is quite dry, I don't think you can be sure of that.

As for whether they would allow it or not, I don't know. But if they would refuse, then that would be an investigation result in and of itself.

An investigation can't clear the Israelis because it would be impossible to prove that the Israelis didn't do anything nefarious. It might show that the claims are implausible and lack any evidence but you have already.
I respect that opinion, but I think you should also respect that others may have a different opinion without being secretly racist.

[Merko]

1). To wrongly accuse the Israel of, say, industrial pollution, is not necessary antisemitism. But to wrongly accuse it of harvesting gentiles' organs -- that is, of drinking the blood of the non-Jews -- is, rather obviously, antisemitism. (If that is not an antisemitic accusation, what is?)

First, your obsession with drinking blood is not healthy. Organ theft stories are fairly commonplace, but I've never seen one related to Jews before. If you look at the Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_theft), it mentions stories about supposed organ theft in India, China, and.. Great Britain (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6565409.stm). But nothing about any Jews.

Second, even though I understand that many Jews may be paranoid about antisemitic claims, you can't expect that others will be so. Most people who are not racists don't give a thought to what 'race' a person involved in a story may belong to. And they certainly don't perform extensive research in comparative mythology to determine whether 'organ theft' could in some way be associated to 'blood libel'. I mean, seriously, can you give a single example of anyone making this connection before this case?


But, as with the boy who cried wolf, eventually there really was a wolf.

Yes, absolutely. But you know what. I managed to locate what you called a 'government report' from 2001. It was actually in my bookshelf, unread until now. In reality, it's a book, mostly containing photographs by Boström. But it also contains a number of articles, the writers being pretty much a 'Who is Who' of respected Swedish journalists that have covered the middle East in recent years. And yes, there's a 'thank you' at the end, acknowledging that the project got some money from the Swedish Foreign Ministry. But alleging that this book would somehow be a work of antisemitism will not exactly gain you many supporters in Sweden, because anyone who is not far out on some political fringe will almost certainly find several of their favourite writers among its authors. Several of them are Jewish, of course.

Obviously, there is also real antisemitism in Sweden. But you really have to look at the most extreme of the extremes.

Anyway, if it was really a question of 'reacting' to a 'bad story', there would have been several sensible ways to do that. The most obvious way would have been to get Aftonbladet to publish a better story to the same audience. I think it is pretty universally agreed in Sweden, and it seems by most serious Israeli analysts as well, that making all this noise only served to spread the story. And if some statement from the Swedish government would truly have been the goal, there's no doubt that the Israeli government has the intelligence to know that this should have been done by bringing up the subject of organ theft in general, rather than asking the government to comment on a particular article, which it cannot do.


But it is clear that whoever started this had no such intents, and that they are using the story to stir up feelings in very much the same way as some islamist extremists used the Muhammed cartoons to stir up feelings a few years ago. Of course this is only made possible because those feelings are to some extent real, but we also have to follow the motives of the instigators.

[Merko]

On the other hand, there are baseless rumors which are used to generate a news story, which is then used to justify the rumors.
It was not a news story though. It was published in the 'culture' section, where you typically see interviews and similar.

[gtc]

There pops up strange accusations against US troops in Kosovo (white slave trade, massacres, rape murder rings) now and then, same for a lot of south american countries.

If the allegations were made then no one took them seriously enough to investigate.

An ambassadors job is to promote and explain official policy. She shouldn't have condemned a swedish publication without first consulting with her employers.

Are you trying to argue that she is not entitled to say that she does not think that the article is true?

Yes, and a general apology might be acceptable. However, a condemnation on a single magazine is the courts domain, not our elected representatives.

The government didn't write the story so they don't need to apologise for it and we are not saying that the newspaper didn't have the right to publish the article and, therefore, should be punished at law. As far as I am aware, the government is entirely able to state its opinion on the piece and on anti-semitic rumours in general. Particularly if it prevents further anti-Israeli rioting in places like Malmo.

Such as the riots that occurred during the Davis Cup (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/265rxhcw.asp?pg=1).

[The Fool]

so in summary...

can we all agree that..

Calling for the investigation of baseless claims of organ theft is silly. Except in Israel, where it is silly and racist.

In what other nations would it also be racist as well as silly?

anyone got any nation in mind?

[Skeptic]

The family do not know whether their son organs were stolen or not. They could not supply the journalist with any evidence. Nevertheless, the journalist writes his article, and the paper publishes it. Now, the story itself serves as a reason for suspicion.

So much for the "the paper was just asking questions, it was not accusing anybody, so what's the problem?" defense.

Did you notice that the only people who raise the "it's just asking questions, what's the harm? No need for evidence!" defense of the paper which spread this ancient blood libel are the same people who are disposed to believe this ancient blood libel on no evidence in the first place?

I'll leave it to the reader to determine what to think about the moral standing of someone who is disposed to believed ancient blood libels on no evidence. That is a very sad, indeed, but I guess I shouldn't be more surprised at them lusting for blood libels than I am at buzzards lusting for carrion.

P.S.

To avoid a misunderstanding, I most emphatically do not include in their number those who dismiss the story as nonsense but think the Israeli action in reply was an overreaction.

Whether that criticism is correct or not, criticizing the Israeli reaction to an antisemitic libel is one thing, believing the antisemitic libel, something else entirely.

[Thunder]

how come its always Israel that gets accused of such barbarism?

and how come its only when its Israel that people care about the accusations?

if this story was about Albania, no one would give a ****.

[Merko]

how come its always Israel that gets accused of such barbarism?

See my link above (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_theft). In fact, it never seems to be about Israel.

if this story was about Albania, no one would give a ****.There was a very similar story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_organ_theft) about (Kosovo) Albanians recently. The difference is that in that case there is an international investigation, even though the evidence is even less specific than in the Imatin case.

So thanks for proving my point.

[gtc]

That article is incredibly muddled but, by the looks of it, the only investigation is being conducted by the Serb authorities who are hardly non-partisan in the matter.

[MaGZ]

Have they no shame.

I think is is outrageous what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians in taking human organs and trading them like commodities.

http://www.presstv.ir/classic/detail.aspx?id=104439&sectionid=3510303

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=103951&sectionid=351020202

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=103891

[WildCat]

The Jews stole my liver and sewed it into a pig, those bastards!

[firecoins]

My girlfriend stole my heart!

[bignickel]

They turned me into a newt!















(I got better)

[Skeptic Guy]

Yes, but you got better.

ETA: It would have helped if I read your entire post...

[timhau]

I can't stomach Neo-Nazis.

[Mojo]

Have they no shame.


Why? Was your usual supplier sold out?

[Professor Yaffle]

Not engaging... just posting this for anyone who didn't know anything about this story:


The author, freelancer Daniel Bostrom, admits he had no evidence to back up the story’s suggestion that the July arrest, as part of an organized crime crackdown, of an American rabbi in New Jersey on a charge of illegal organ trafficking was somehow linked to claims by Palestinians in the 1990s that Israeli Defence Forces were harvesting organs from their dead.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Columnists/1139189.html

[Skeptic Guy]

I just read the stories and was going to point out what Prof. Yaffle did. I figured as much.

[MaGZ]

Returned bodies of Palestinians who were killed with their bodies cut from neck to stomach and then sewed up is proof of organ harvesting.

[Darat]

No it isn't.

[Drudgewire]

Anyone have a price list? I could use an extra liver.

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/alcoholic.gif

[DC]

Returned bodies of Palestinians who were killed with their bodies cut from neck to stomach and then sewed up is proof of organ harvesting.

got any evidence to back up your stuff?
an not faked photographs and faked numbers etc.
we all know those tricks already from that evil Holocaust hoax that never happened.

[JimBenArm]

I guess every coroner's office in the US is guilty of this, too. Bodies tend to be cut open from neck to stomach and sewn up after autopsy, so they must be harvesting organs as well. There can't be any other explaination!
Dr. G, Medical Examiner, Jewess and Organ Harvester!

[DC]

i think this is all just one huge hoax, the Palestinians were just relocated, thats all.

[ponderingturtle]

Returned bodies of Palestinians who were killed with their bodies cut from neck to stomach and then sewed up is proof of organ harvesting.

Or possibly autopsies.

But so what? Worried that organs from "non-White Turd World" as you put it in another thread might end up in good white folk?

[MaGZ]

I guess every coroner's office in the US is guilty of this, too. Bodies tend to be cut open from neck to stomach and sewn up after autopsy, so they must be harvesting organs as well. There can't be any other explaination!
Dr. G, Medical Examiner, Jewess and Organ Harvester!

Why would Israelis autopsy the bodies of Palestinians they kill when the know the cause of death?

[Professor Yaffle]

Has VisionFromFeeling been talking to any Palestinians?

:p

[Drudgewire]

I guess every coroner's office in the US is guilty of this, too. Bodies tend to be cut open from neck to stomach and sewn up after autopsy, so they must be harvesting organs as well. There can't be any other explaination!

Dr. G, Medical Examiner, Jewess and Organ Harvester!


http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/quincy6.jpg

"Upload this spleen to my eBay page Sam, I've got a boat payment to make."

[DC]

the holocaust is well documented, hundrets of pictures showing mountains of death bodys, witnesses etc.
MaGZ doesnt belive it.

one guy claims the IDF is steeling organs from Palestinians.
no evidence, no pictures only hearsay.
MaGZ does belive it.

very telling.
Heil MaGZ

[Giggywig]

the holocaust is well documented, hundrets of pictures showing mountains of death bodys, witnesses etc.
MaGZ doesnt belive it.

one guy claims the IDF is steeling organs from Palestinians.
no evidence, no pictures only hearsay.
MaGZ does belive it.

very telling.
Heil MaGZ

It isn't telling us anything we didn't already know about MaGZ

[Wowbagger]

That is shocking! I thought Jews preferred pianos.

[JJM 777]

Shocking to hear what Jews collectively do.

How do all of them communicate and make these decisions? Must be a huge logistic task.

[JimBenArm]

Why would Israelis autopsy the bodies of Palestinians they kill when the know the cause of death?
Just to confuse you, of course! You forget how evil they are!

[timhau]

Shocking to hear what Jews collectively do.

How do all of them communicate and make these decisions? Must be a huge logistic task.

True. Isn't it amazing what you can do when you control the world?

[HansMustermann]

Anyone have a price list? I could use an extra liver.

Yes, but is it kosher? :p

[JimBenArm]

Yes, but is it kosher? :p
And how would it go with fava beans?

[quarky]

Jews stole my brain and then sold it back to me for more than it was worth.

[Myope]

Is there anyone here (accept me) who has read Boströms article? A simple yes or no will do just fine.

[cwalner]

Jews stole my brain and then sold it back to me for more than it was worth.

Ok, now you're just trolling to be insulted. As I do enjoy feeding this type of troll...


And you had been saving that money all week to buy a candy bar.

[Pardalis]

The rumor has spread to Iran, and the neo Nazis are all over it:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5047115#post5047115

Good job Sweden. :mad:

[Pardalis]

According to MaGZ's Iranian links, Bolstrom has now not only reported flimsy rumours, but...

Freelance journalist Donald Bostrom has told Press TV that an international war crimes investigation awaits Israel over its soldiers' harvesting of organs from dead or dying Palestinians. Was that part of the original Swedish article?

The Iranian article continues:

And there is gruesome pictorial evidence that puts the Swedish journalists' claims beyond any doubt. Yeah right... :rolleyes:

and..

There is just such bad Karma about Israel, Israelis and their supporters in the West. I rest my case. Any one else want to argue that Bolstrom had not an anti-Israel agenda?

He went specifically to PressTV because he knew the Iranian Ahmadinejad propaganda machine would listen to him and publish him.

[Pardalis]

Already covered at lenght here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=151699

I asked the mods to merge the threads.

This article is pure fabrication.

[ddt]

The rumor has spread to Iran, and the neo Nazis are all over it:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5047115#post5047115

Good job Sweden. :mad:

Would PressTV had also picked it up if it had only been a story on page 46 of Aftonbladet, or did they pick it up because Lieberman made a big item out of it that got on CNN?

As to the quotes from the PressTV pages - hard to tell if that's Bostrom's "embellishment" or PressTV's. I thought it was SOP around here to doubt the veracity of PressTV...

[Pardalis]

It was not a news story though. It was published in the 'culture' section, where you typically see interviews and similar.

And now that hate-filled rumor is being published in Iranian news, as a fact.

Thank you Swedes for propagating lies about Israel, nooo, you're not antisemitic at all. :rolleyes:

[JimBenArm]

Already covered at lenght here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=151699

I asked the mods to merge the threads.

This article is pure fabrication.
But...but...it's the Jews! They're pure evil! It must be true! [/sarcasm]

[Pardalis]

Would PressTV had also picked it up if it had only been a story on page 46 of Aftonbladet, or did they pick it up because Lieberman made a big item out of it that got on CNN?

No they picked it up because that Bolstrom prick went directly to them, because PressTV publish any rubbish that puts Israel in a bad light.

[Ryokan]

The Norwegian left-wing newspaper Dagbladet, who is no fan of Israel, debunked most of the accusations against the Israeli by interviewing Norway's top transplant doctor.

http://www.dagbladet.no/2009/08/25/magasinet/media/israel/organdonasjon/7789816/

It's in Norwegian, but I assume you're all so interested in the subject, you'll learn Norwegian to read it. :p

His main argument is that organ transplants are a bit more complicated than just ripping out organs and storing them until someone needs them. You can only transplant organs that are still 'alive' - organs from people who have been dead for more than 30 minutes are mostly useless. The case central to the accusations, a 17 year old boy who was killed by getting shot four times in the stomach and chest, is not very likely to be a good donor. It's also not very likely that his organs matched a waiting patient.

It's also a procedure that takes many hours and can involve as many as 50 people, making it hard, if not impossible, to keep it secret.

The article also compares the accusations to the blood-libel conspiracies.

[ddt]

No they picked it up because that Bolstrom prick went directly to them, because PressTV publish any rubbish that puts Israel in a bad light.

Evidence?

[Pardalis]

Shocking to hear what Jews collectively do.

How do all of them communicate and make these decisions? Must be a huge logistic task.

And you have no justification for buying into PressTV lies, because I saw you post in Merko's thread three days ago (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=151822), so you must have been aware of the discussion about it before MaGZ started his thread. So when you say "shocking to hear", you had heard it before in the other thread, so you are lying right now. You knew the Palestinian story isn't based on any evidence, and yet here you are claiming it as fact.

[Pardalis]

Evidence?

Freelance journalist Donald Bostrom has told Press TV that an international war crimes investigation awaits Israel over its soldiers' harvesting of organs from dead or dying Palestinians.


Boy I love to see you guys squirm into pathetic excuses.

[ddt]

I read that part. Doesn't say who contacted whom. Say: PressTV reads CNN article. They pick up the Stockholm white pages, look for Boström, and call him. Seems to me quite a common thing to do when you're a news agency.

[Pardalis]

I read that part. Doesn't say who contacted whom. Say: PressTV reads CNN article. They pick up the Stockholm white pages, look for Boström, and call him. Seems to me quite a common thing to do when you're a news agency.

Or more likely, your guy Bolström couldn't get his article published anywhere, and then contacted PressTV because he knew they are Israel's ennemy, and would publish any trash that attacks Israel.

This will only inflame Muslims even more against Israel, and maybe encourage a few more terrorist attacks. Mission accomplished, Bolström. :mad:

[Pardalis]

Seems to me quite a common thing to do when you're a news agency.

Is it common practice for a "news agency" (your words, not mine) to publish blatant fabrications as fact?

[ddt]

Or more likely, your guy Bolströbm couldn't get his article published anywhere, and then contacted PressTV because he knew they are Israel's ennemy, and would publish any trash that attacks Israel.
That's an admission you don't have evidence. Bolström had his article already published in Aftonbladet, after all.

And I take issue with calling him "your guy". You may note that I have made no remark in this thread about the contents of Bolströms article, but only about the outrageous (IMO) way that Lieberman reacted to it. For the record, I was swayed by the arguments in this thread that the organ theft story must have been bogus (as far as organ theft is concerned).

The international exposure given by CNN has given the story much more prominence than the "Culture" section of a Swedish tabloid. So I hold it more likely that PressTV picked it up from CNN and then contacted Bolström.


This will only inflame Muslims even more against Israel, and maybe encourage a few more terrorist attacks. Mission accomplished, Bolström. :mad:
You forgot to thank Lieberman, that fine fascist Israeli FM, who, instead of quietly instructing his Swedish ambassador to file a defamation suit, found it wiser to publicly call on the Swedish government to shut its free press.

[ddt]

Is it common practice for a "news agency" (your words, not mine) to publish blatant fabrications as fact?

What's your point? That I should have put "news agency" in quotes?
That because PressTV is cavalier with the facts, they don't know how to leaf through the white pages?

I'm really at a loss here.

[Pardalis]

You forgot to thank Lieberman, that fine fascist Israeli FM


Here we go, it's all Israel's fault again.

It's not Bolström fault for publishing falsehoods to begin with, or Iranian PressTV for picking it up and claiming them as fact for the Muslim world to read, no, of course, it's all Lieberman's fault for being rightfully appalled.

The Iranian article proves Lieberman was right to be pissed.

[Pardalis]

What's your point? That I should have put "news agency" in quotes?
That because PressTV is cavalier with the facts, they don't know how to leaf through the white pages?

I'm really at a loss here.

PressTV is Ahmadinejad's mouthpiece. It's not a news agency, it's a propaganda outlet.

[ddt]

Here we go, it's all Israel's fault again.

It's not Bolström fault for publishing falsehoods to begin with, or Iranian PressTV for picking it up and claiming them as fact for the Muslim world to read, no, of course, it's all Lieberman's fault for being rightfully appalled.

The Iranian article proves Lieberman was right to be pissed.

Shouting helps in what way?

Pardalis, we agree the article was bad journalism. Lieberman was right to be pissed.

Lieberman was not right to ask the Swedish government to shut the presses.
Lieberman was also not right to cry about anti-semitism and blood libel.

[ddt]

PressTV is Ahmadinejad's mouthpiece. It's not a news agency, it's a propaganda outlet.

And because they're a propaganda outlet, they don't know how to find someone in the white pages? Really, this bickering of yours is very tiring and is totally besides the point.

[Pardalis]

Shouting helps in what way?

Well, when talking to deaf people it helps.

Pardalis, we agree the article was bad journalism. Lieberman was right to be pissed.
You're damn right.

Lieberman was not right to ask the Swedish government to shut the presses.
Lieberman was also not right to cry about anti-semitism and blood libel.Yes he was, Israel's security is at risk.

Now the rumor has a new life of its own, it will go on forever, the cat is out of the bag, it is out into the world and it will make babies without ever being refuted (because as noted earlier by GTC, this can't be disproved).

It will infuriate Muslims and encourage and "justify" further terror attacks against Israel.

[Pardalis]

And because they're a propaganda outlet, they don't know how to find someone in the white pages? Really, this bickering of yours is very tiring and is totally besides the point.

You know, the fight against Islamic extremism is hard enough, now we have to contend with their secular progressive Scandinavian enablers as well. (and BTW, there are plenty of those too in Québec)

[ddt]

Yes he was, Israel's security is at risk.

Now the rumor has a new life of its own, it will go on forever, the cat is out of the bag, it is out into the world and it will make babies without ever being refuted (because as noted earlier by GTC, this can't be disproved).
Have you read Ryokan's link to a Norwegian newspaper article? It cites a Norwegian transplant specialist and he says the story is impossible.


It will infuriate Muslims and encourage and "justify" further terror attacks against Israel.
Yeah right. I guess the discussion is going in circles when I note that, say, the US wouldn't react in the same way.

For my part, end of this discussion.

[Pardalis]

Have you read Ryokan's link to a Norwegian newspaper article? It cites a Norwegian transplant specialist and he says the story is impossible.

Yeah, like the Iranian press will ever publish that debunking. The way the article is written, it's as though the organ theft has been proved beyond a doubt and is now part of historical facts about Israel. The readers won't need anything else, this validates what they already feel about Jews.

As I said, Boström's job is done, he played his part well.

[Skeptic]

This will only inflame Muslims even more against Israel, and maybe encourage a few more terrorist attacks. Mission accomplished, Bolström.

But that would just mean some dead Jews... I don't see what you're getting all up in the air about, as if that mattered or something.

Besides, if it does happen, it would all be their fault for whining about it. If Lieberman had just shut up... doesn't he know Jews are not supposed to speak up again vicious rumors, so as not to annoy the gentiles even more?

[Skeptic Guy]

Why would Israelis autopsy the bodies of Palestinians they kill when the know the cause of death?

I read in the NYT that it is (or was) standard proceedure to do an autopsy on the deceased to confirm the cause of death.

Or they were harvesting organs.

Occum's razor.

[Merko]

Is it common practice for a "news agency" (your words, not mine) to publish blatant fabrications as fact?
Then why on earth do you trust them when they say that they talked to Boström? So you think they are trustworthy whenever it suits you, otherwise not?

And why is it suddenly ok for you to invent, out of nowhere, the accusation that Boström went to PressTV? I find it extremely unlikely that he did. If they contacted him.. ok, maybe he'd answer some questions over the phone if he didn't know who they were.

Obviously this is a propaganda outlet that fabricates whatever story it wants to.

As for whether they might have picked up on the story unless Lieberman (and now Netanyahu) made such a big fuzz about it, I think it's possible. The Iranian government certainly has some spies in Sweden, mainly to spy on Iranians in exile. I figure they probably read the major newspapers, including Aftonbladet. But of course it's a much better story for them now.

[Ryokan]

Same way they are 'harvested' from people killed in car crashes etc.

Except it's not.

The only donors from car crashes are those that arrive at the hospital still technically alive. Dead organs are of absolutely no use to anyone.

And often, they don't match anyone in need of a transplant anyway. It's not as easy as just ripping out an organ and installing it in another human.

[Merko]

And now that hate-filled rumor is being published in Iranian news, as a fact.

Thank you Swedes for propagating lies about Israel, nooo, you're not antisemitic at all. :rolleyes:
So the Iranians get to decide who is antisemitic now? You don't make a lot of sense.

[MaGZ]

got any evidence to back up your stuff?
an not faked photographs and faked numbers etc.
we all know those tricks already from that evil Holocaust hoax that never happened.

here
http://www.presstv.com/classic/detail.aspx?id=104165&sectionid=351020202

[Merko]

Except it's not.

The only donors from car crashes are those that arrive at the hospital still technically alive. Dead organs are of absolutely no use to anyone.
That's true. But if you read Boströms article, you'll see that the guy was still alive when he was taken away. So they could have taken organs just as they would have from a car accident victim. But as for how the thief would have managed to explain the origin of the organs, I don't know. With some detailed knowledge about the Israeli organ donor system it might very well be possible to show that this would not be doable without involving 'too many' people.

[MaGZ]

Already covered at lenght here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=151699

I asked the mods to merge the threads.

This article is pure fabrication.

I ask the mods to separate the threads. I provided a link showing the victim has been opened and his organs removed.

http://www.presstv.com/classic/detail.aspx?id=104165&sectionid=351020202

[Ryokan]

That's true. But if you read Boströms article, you'll see that the guy was still alive when he was taken away.

This article? (http://www.presstv.com/classic/detail.aspx?id=104165&sectionid=351020202)

The reporter went on to note that Bilal Ahmed Ghanem, a 19-year-old Palestinian man, was shot dead in 1992 by Israeli forces in the West Bank village of Imatin. Ghanem's body was then abducted and returned several days later by the Israeli military with a cut from the stomach to the neck that had been stitched up.

[Merko]

You know, the fight against Islamic extremism is hard enough, now we have to contend with their secular progressive Scandinavian enablers as well. (and BTW, there are plenty of those too in Québec)
What on earth does this have with Islamic extremism to do?

The fact that you bring that up makes me suspect that you have some rather ugly motives in this discussion. I'm not accusing you of anything, but if you're really not motivated by racism, you should probably be more mindful of what you say.

[Merko]

This article? (http://www.presstv.com/classic/detail.aspx?id=104165&sectionid=351020202)
No. Boströms article (http://www.aftonbladet.se/kultur/article5652583.ab). PressTV is obviously not a credible source for anything.

[Merko]

I ask the mods to separate the threads. I provided a link showing the victim has been opened and his organs removed.

http://www.presstv.com/classic/detail.aspx?id=104165&sectionid=351020202
I'm sorry, but the X-ray channel on my TFT must be broken, because I can't see the lack of organs here.

[MaGZ]

Here we go, it's all Israel's fault again.

It's not Bolström fault for publishing falsehoods to begin with, or Iranian PressTV for picking it up and claiming them as fact for the Muslim world to read, no, of course, it's all Lieberman's fault for being rightfully appalled.

The Iranian article proves Lieberman was right to be pissed.

There you go, standing up for an Israeli fascist.

[Pardalis]

That's true. But if you read Boströms article, you'll see that the guy was still alive when he was taken away. So they could have taken organs just as they would have from a car accident victim.


Boy, you really want this to be true don't you?

[Pardalis]

There you go, standing up for an Israeli fascist.

Coming from you, "fascist" is a compliment isn't it?

[Pardalis]

you should probably be more mindful of what you say.

Tell that to Bolström, he's the one who started this hate campaign against Israel.

[MaGZ]

PressTV is Ahmadinejad's mouthpiece. It's not a news agency, it's a propaganda outlet.

Care to provide some evidence Press TV acts upon orders from Ahmadinejad.

[MaGZ]

Well, when talking to deaf people it helps.

You're damn right.

Yes he was, Israel's security is at risk.

Now the rumor has a new life of its own, it will go on forever, the cat is out of the bag, it is out into the world and it will make babies without ever being refuted (because as noted earlier by GTC, this can't be disproved).

It will infuriate Muslims and encourage and "justify" further terror attacks against Israel.

The Palestinians have know this has been going on since the 1990s. It's not news to them.

[Merko]

That article is incredibly muddled but, by the looks of it, the only investigation is being conducted by the Serb authorities who are hardly non-partisan in the matter.
By the looks of what? The article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_organ_theft) in questions mentions several times that the ICTY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICTY), also known as the Hague Tribunal, is investigating. A hint: the Hague is not in Serbia. The article also mentions that the Council of Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe) was involved in the investigation recently.

So when Muslims are accused of organ theft, several international organizations rush to investigate, despite the lack of any specific case to investigate. But when the rumour is about Israelis, anyone even considering that it might be a good idea to look into specific cases with easily locatable corpses.. must be driven by antisemitism?

Does this not mean then that the ICTY and the Council of Europe must be islamophobes? Or is there one standard for Israel, and another standard for everyone else?

[Ryokan]

No. Boströms article (http://www.aftonbladet.se/kultur/article5652583.ab). PressTV is obviously not a credible source for anything.

Ok, thanks. So they shot him once in the chest, then once in the legs and finally once in the stomach. Then they dragged him by his legs up twenty stairs, put him in a jeep and drove away.

If you wanted a victim to harvest organs from, that's a lousy way to do it. The shot in the chest and stomach probably ruined most of them.

Fem dygn senare kom han tillbaka i mörkret, död och inlindad i gröna sjukhustyger. När militärkolonnen som hämtat Bilal från obduktionscentrat...

So his body was at some place that translates into 'autopsy center', and people are shocked that he had wounds consistent with an autopsy?

Look, I have no doubt that there are organizations, maybe even governments, that actually do harvest organs from people. However, the evidence in this case is lousy at best, and really a much simpler conclusion can be made.

[MaGZ]

You know, the fight against Islamic extremism is hard enough, now we have to contend with their secular progressive Scandinavian enablers as well. (and BTW, there are plenty of those too in Québec)

My, my, it seems Israel has enemies everywhere.

[Pardalis]

Don't you have some crosses to burn or something?

[Merko]

Boy, you really want this to be true don't you?
And you really don't, don't you? I merely pointed out an obvious factual error. I suppose that in your mind, there can only be one motivation for that, because obviously anyone who is not an antisemite would prefer that the story gets garbled and misreported, right?

[Pardalis]

And you really don't, don't you?

If there is no reason to, no, why would I? You on the other hand seem to go out of your way to validate that rumor.

[MaGZ]

I read in the NYT that it is (or was) standard proceedure to do an autopsy on the deceased to confirm the cause of death.

Or they were harvesting organs.

Occum's razor.

Occam's razor

The Israelis are willing to spend time, money and medical expertise and facilities on people they hate.

[Pardalis]

Is that a new definition of Occam's razor I am not aware of?

[Merko]

Ok, thanks. So they shot him once in the chest, then once in the legs and finally once in the stomach. Then they dragged him by his legs up twenty stairs, put him in a jeep and drove away.

If you wanted a victim to harvest organs from, that's a lousy way to do it. The shot in the chest and stomach probably ruined most of them.

Nobody suggested that he was killed in order to harvest organs. Well - nobody except some people in this thread who are trying to inflate and distort the story in order to make it look antisemitic.

Two bullets would have to bounce around rather a lot to destroy all organs, by the way.


However, the evidence in this case is lousy at best, and really a much simpler conclusion can be made.
I agree completely. It doesn't seem likely at all that any organs were stolen. I agree with the argument your Norwegian pathologist made about the difficulty in matching the organs with a donor. I already brought that up earlier in this thread. That would be really, really hard for a criminal organization to do.

I think there might be an exception for some tissue from the eyes, not sure.. anyway that is not relevant to this story, as Boströms photographs prove that the eyes were not stolen.

[MaGZ]

Then why on earth do you trust them when they say that they talked to Boström? So you think they are trustworthy whenever it suits you, otherwise not?

And why is it suddenly ok for you to invent, out of nowhere, the accusation that Boström went to PressTV? I find it extremely unlikely that he did. If they contacted him.. ok, maybe he'd answer some questions over the phone if he didn't know who they were.

Obviously this is a propaganda outlet that fabricates whatever story it wants to.

As for whether they might have picked up on the story unless Lieberman (and now Netanyahu) made such a big fuzz about it, I think it's possible. The Iranian government certainly has some spies in Sweden, mainly to spy on Iranians in exile. I figure they probably read the major newspapers, including Aftonbladet. But of course it's a much better story for them now.

Even Zbigniew Brzezinski gave an interview to Press TV, so what is the big deal here?

[Pardalis]

Nobody suggested that he was killed in order to harvest organs. Well - nobody except some people in this thread who are trying to inflate and distort the story in order to make it look antisemitic.

It wasn't enough?

Just the mere fact that PressTV and MaGZ are all over the story should tell you something about it.

Two bullets would have to bounce around rather a lot to destroy all organs, by the way. Again, you're willing to consider any wild theory in order to keep alive in your mind the possibility of this rumor.

I agree completely. It doesn't seem likely at all that any organs were stolen.You keep saying that, but you don't act like this is what you believe.

as Boströms photographs prove that the eyes were not stolen.How do we know these are genuine?

[MaGZ]

Except it's not.

The only donors from car crashes are those that arrive at the hospital still technically alive. Dead organs are of absolutely no use to anyone.

And often, they don't match anyone in need of a transplant anyway. It's not as easy as just ripping out an organ and installing it in another human.

That is why the thought of the Israelis kidnapping Palestinians when they are alive and killing them when they find their organs match the recipient is so terrifying.

[Pardalis]

Of course none of which you have any evidence for. Just like that Missile at Ground Zero.

[MaGZ]

Coming from you, "fascist" is a compliment isn't it?

Not when it is an Israeli.

[Merko]

If there is no reason to, no, why would I? You on the other hand seem to go out of your way to validate that rumor.
No. But you know what: even if you are right about some conclusion, that does not mean that you can change the facts to suit your conclusion. So in this case, even if you are right that no organs were stolen, that does not mean that you can change the circumstances of the case to make organ theft even more impossible.

If you keep 'arguing' that way you're only helping your opponents, because they will expose your lies and anyone following the debate may then conclude that because you're using dishonest arguments, your conclusion must also be wrong.

In this case, there are some strong reasons for assuming that no organs were stolen. These reasons include:
a) There is no evidence of organ theft, only suspicions. Unfounded suspicions are very common among victims of armed conflicts.

b) No similar previous cases of organ theft are known, neither in Israel or in other war zones, despite many allegations.

c) Organ transplants require careful matching between donor and recipient. A 'random' organ can only be matched if you have a long list of waiting recipients. It seems unlikely that an illegal organization would be able to do that.

d) Organ transplants carried out in Israel are carefully regulated, and it is not clear how anyone would be able to insert a previously unaccounted-for organ into the system without involving a lot of people.


However, there are also some arguments that don't work:
x) It's not possible to take organs from people for more than minutes after death.
(does not work because in this case, the alleged victim was taken away while alive)

y) Since these suspicions are against Israeli, and very probably against Jews, they must be disregarded on that account.
(does not work because.. well, that's a really stupid argument!)

z) Because this allegation was repeated by an Iranian propaganda agency, it must be false.
(does not work because propaganda agencies may occasionally happen to be correct)

[Pardalis]

So in this case, even if you are right that no organs were stolen, that does not mean that you can change the circumstances of the case to make organ theft even more impossible.

Uh?

In this case, there are some strong reasons for assuming that no organs were stolen. These reasons include:
a) There is no evidence of organ theft.

That's as strong as a reason can get.

Thank you, end of thread?

[Merko]

It wasn't enough?
Obviously not. Otherwise, why are you so insistent on distorting it?

This is the age of the internet. It's very easy to find Boströms article, or a translation of it. Lying about the article does not help your case.

Just the mere fact that PressTV and MaGZ are all over the story should tell you something about it.
No. This is a really serious logical fallacy. If this reasoning would be sound, it would be prudent to assume that everything said by a neonazi is reliably false. (NB to casual readers, MaGZ is a known neonazi)

The truth is that you can make absolutely no conclusions at about the veracity of a story, based on who is repeating it. Propagandists repeat stories based only on whether they benefit from it or not, they do not do any fact-checking. You cannot trust them. You have to do the fact-checking yourself.

Again, you're willing to consider any wild theory in order to keep alive in your mind the possibility of this rumor.
You think it's a 'wild theory' that two bullets will not destroy every transplantable organ in a body?

Again, just because you want the story to be untrue, does not mean that every thinkable argument against the story is valid. It does not help your case to embrace weak arguments such as this one. Focus on your good arguments!

How do we know these are genuine?
Certain knowledge is hard to come by, but Boström is a reputable photographer and during his long career he has never been exposed with doctoring photographs. Also, it's hard to imagine a reason for why he would doctor a photo to make it look like the eyes of a body were not stolen. Can you imagine such a reason?

[Thunder]

None of this matters now. The cat is out of the bag. There will always be anti-Semitic bigots who believe that Israelis murder Palestinians to steal their organs for the black market.

The damage is done, and now we Jews have a new blood-libel to deal with.

Thanx Sweden. Thanx a lot.

[Merko]

That's as strong as a reason can get.

No, it is not. The strongest reason is evidence that the crime did not happen.

Yesterday, I read a headline in Dagens Nyheter, which unlike Aftonbladet is supposed to be a 'quality' newspaper (I'm not sure, but they sure think so themselves). It said "'[Michael] Jackson was murdered'". The evidence? Nothing at all. I sure hope Jackson's doctor isn't Jewish...

[Thunder]

I sure hope Jackson's doctor isn't Jewish...

I heard he is a Jew.

http://thm-a04.yimg.com/image/1b6ea987c337a9e8

Doesn't this guy look Jewish? Sure does to me.

Therefore, the Jews killed Michael Jackson!!!

[Pardalis]

Again, just because you want the story to be untrue, does not mean that every thinkable argument against the story is valid. It does not help your case to embrace weak arguments such as this one. Focus on your good arguments!

I don't need to think about every thinkable argument for something that has no evidence for to begin with. Are you this thorough about everything? Just because the existence of a giant simian in North America's forest isn't completely impossible, does this mean it's true and worth our time?

No evidence, no case, move on.