Swedish Blood Libel: The Aftermath

September 1, 2009
Swedish Blood Libel: The Aftermath

• Visit HonestReporting's Website

• Submit examples of media bias

• Encourage your friends to join HonestReporting

Make A Difference!

Your generous, tax-deductible donations keep us going – and the media on its toes!

Dear HonestReporting Subscriber,

Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet's story (translated into English in full here) accusing the IDF of harvesting Palestinian organs caused an uproar. Following its publication, we tracked hundreds of your e-mails to Aftonbladet Editor in Chief Jan Helin, who was certainly left in no doubt as to the depth of anger that his decision to publish an unsubstantiated blood libel had generated.

Donald Bostrom, the author of the offensive piece, duly demonstrated his utter lack of any basic journalistic standards when he said: "But whether it's true or not - I have no idea, I have no clue." On top of this, the story was further undermined as one of the Palestinian families interviewed said they never told any reporter that their son was missing organs.

Rather than acknowledging a case of shoddy, not to mention offensive journalism, Aftonbladet and even the Swedish government turned the issue into one of freedom of speech, as the situation escalated into a full blown spat between the Israeli and Swedish governments.

HonestReporting supports freedom of speech. We have been on the receiving end of accusations that our protests against biased or anti-Israel media are simply a deliberate attempt to shut down the freedom to criticize Israel of those with whom we disagree. Nothing could be further from the truth. While Israel's detractors seem to have ready access to a media only too willing to promote their ideas, Israel's supporters should also have the legitimate right to respond.

We believe that with freedom of speech comes responsibility. Our protests and the calls from Israeli government officials for the Swedish government to condemn Aftonbladet's blood libel are not an attempt to stifle criticism of Israel. Instead, we are calling for Aftonbladet and those in power in Sweden to exercise responsibility for a story that not only breaches basic journalistic standards, but also plays upon classic anti-Semitic canards which seep into the consciousness of those who will find such a Big Lie preserved on the web and beyond for eternity.

Put simply, we believe that a journalist should have some facts before publishing accusations. Publishing allegations from biased sources without making an effort to check if they are true is not "free speech." It is what harms free speech and we expect any self-respecting member of the media to say so.

THE DEBATE CONTINUES

Here we present a roundup of recent developments and commentary on the Swedish blood libel.

*
Israeli university lecturer Modechai Kedar debates Donald Bostrom in this TV debate:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eipil73cA2k

*
Stephen Dubner, writing on a New York Times blog, talked to one unconvinced organ transplant expert:

Al Roth, the Harvard economist whose work on matched-pair organ donations has started to transform the organ-transplantation scenario, told me he found the accusation unbelievable because of the logistics of organ harvesting itself. "Organs don’t last very long and have to be matched rather particularly," he said, "so it would be hard to take them on spec for an international market. So I think black market organs must mostly be from live donors. Live donors can take blood tests well in advance and travel to where the patient is. Deceased organs have to be put on ice, and the clock starts ticking immediately and fast."

*
As an Israeli lawyer files (http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2009/08/legal-action-against-aftonbladet.html) a lawsuit against Aftonbladet in a New York court, Alan Dershowitz in the Christian Science Monitor and Yossi Klein-Halevi in The New Republic make compelling arguments for legal action; Paul Schneidereit, writing in the Canadian Chronicle Herald, is equally persuasive against.
*
James Savage, a commentator on Swedish politics for Sweden's The Local, lists several serious reasons why the Swedish government isn't going to condemn Aftonbladet.
*
Taking on those, such as Seth Freedman, a frequent contributor to The Guardian's Comment is Free who would claim that Aftonbladet's story is not so serious because it targeted the IDF, not Jews in general, David Stavrou, an Israeli writer based in Sweden, says:

The differentiation between Jews and Israel in this case, like in many others, is wishful thinking on the part of many. In reality, there is no differentiation. Like it or not, Israel and the Jewish people are intertwined, each paying the price when the other is attacked, each rising and falling with the others' successes and failures. Aftonbladet knows this of course and takes advantage of it. They can make racist attacks disguised as legitimate political journalism.

Theirs isn't traditional anti-Semitism based on religion (the Jews killed Jesus). It isn't even modern anti-Semitism (the Jews are rich and control the world). This is post modern anti-Semitism. It's all about ratings and it's business orientated. It sells newspapers. Nobody cares about the truth because it's subjective anyway, nobody has time for research and you can definitely count on it that no one will take responsibility. The writer gets his 15 minutes of fame; the paper makes millions. And damn the consequences.

*
To make the point how such libels have a willing audience, particularly in the Arab world, MEMRI republishes this cartoon - Israelis Steal Palestinian Martyrs' Organs, Trample Human Rights Charter - from a Qatari newspaper.

*
But, perhaps demonstrating the sheer lack of credibility behind Aftonbladet's story is this ringing endorsement from Iranian newspaper Kayhan, which quotes Arab reporter Kusar Aslam as saying that, according to YNet News:

"Since the early 1970s the Israelis have snatched thousands of Palestinian bodies from hospitals in the territories and transferred them to the Abu Kabir Forensic Institute."

Aslam, who claims she was stationed in Gaza and the West Bank for 22 years said, "My personal experience verifies the report published by (Donald) Boström," referring to the Aftonbladet reporter who published the original article.

According to Aslam, some of the Palestinians were still alive when they were "kidnapped" by IDF soldiers.

"I personally witnessed Israeli soldiers and army vehicles snatching Palestinian bodies from emergency rooms," the Iranian reporter said. "In other instances I saw soldiers follow Palestinians to cemeteries with the intent of stealing bodies before they were buried."

FACEBOOK, GOLAN RESIDENTS LIVE IN ISRAEL, NOT SYRIA!

Although the Golan falls under Israeli law, residents of the region wishing to write "Israel" in the Hometown section of their profiles are not give the option.

For example, if someone from Qazrin fills in the Hometown space, the only option will be "Qazrin, Syria." The same is true for all of the other Jewish towns, including Ramat Magshimim, Geshur, Mevo Hanna, and Had Nes.

It is not for Facebook to decide the national origin of Golan residents. At the very least, Facebook must include the option of writing "Israel" in the hometown section, as it has done with Jewish residents of the West Bank.

Join HonestReporting's new Facebook group, Facebook, Golan Residents Live in Israel, not Syria and add to the hundreds already calling for Facebook to change its policy.

URL: http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/Swedish_Blood_Libel_The_Aftermath.asp
To subscribe to HonestReporting, enter your email at the top of our homepage.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Sweden's shame over Israeli 'organ theft' nonstory
Why won't its government condemn the outrageous article that accused Israeli soldiers of harvesting Palestinian organs?
By Alan Dershowitz

from the August 26, 2009 edition

Cambridge, Mass. - The Swedish government has refused to condemn a "blood libel" published by one of Sweden's leading newspapers, Aftonbladet.

The article claims that Jewish soldiers in Israel killed Palestinians in order to harvest their organs. The writer of the article, Donald Bostrom, has acknowledged that "he has no idea whether the accusations are true." Yet a widely read Swedish newspaper was prepared to publish this undocumented and highly volatile accusation without requiring its author to present any credible evidence.

This false accusation is reminiscent of the medieval blood libels that falsely accused Jews of killing Christian children in order to use their blood for religious rituals. It is also reminiscent of the notorious Czarist forgery, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. One expects this sort of thing from Iranian or Syrian newspapers, but not from Swedish papers.

Not only has Foreign Minister Carl Bildt refused to issue a personal condemnation of the current "organ libel," his foreign ministry explicitly disavowed the denunciation that was issued by Sweden's ambassador to Israel, who had called the article "shocking and appalling." In a self-righteous statement, Mr. Bildt claimed that condemnation of the article would be inappropriate because freedom of expression is a part of the Swedish Constitution.

This is a bogus argument, as anyone who understands freedom of speech will attest. I have devoted much of my life to defending freedom of speech and consider myself something of an expert on the matter. Nobody is talking about censoring the Swedish press or imprisoning the writer of the absurd article. What we are talking about is expanding the marketplace of ideas to include a completely warranted condemnation of sloppy journalism and outrageous accusations that foment an already increasing anti-Semitism in Sweden.

Freedom of speech is based on an open and vibrant marketplace of ideas. No journalist is immune from criticism for bigotry and defamation, even from high-ranking government officials.

Swedish Prime Minister Fredik Reinfeldt's claim that the Swedish Constitution prohibits government officials from commenting on false and defamatory press reports has been contradicted by the Swedish chancellor of justice, Goran Lambertz, who said the following:

"The government has considerable leeway in such matters. A minister can without risk say something along the lines of 'We have no reason to believe these allegations,' but would be contravening the Constitution if he or she actually criticized the decision to publish the article." Mr. Lambertz then offered his own opinion that the decision to not comment was a nod to political considerations, not to legal constraints.

Recall that virtually all government officials in Europe went out of their way to criticize and condemn the depiction of cartoons that offended some Muslims by portraying Muhammad. (More recently, the Yale Press withdrew these cartoons and other classic art depicting Muhammad out of fear of violent reaction.)

Without getting into the business of comparative offensiveness, no reasonable person could argue that depicting a long-dead religious figure comes anywhere close to falsely accusing contemporary Jews of murdering innocent Palestinians to steal their organs.

The reality is that the Swedish government simply does not want to get into a fight with the Muslim world, much as it didn't want to get into a fight with the Nazis during World War II. Sweden seems willing to sell out the Jews in the name of neutrality, or in this case, in the false name of freedom of expression. Its silence is contemptible.

As a Jew, but also as a strong defender of freedom of speech I am offended by Sweden's craven complicity with evil . Freedom of speech carries with it certain obligations as well. One of those is to condemn false speech. The best answer to false speech is not censorship, it is truthfulness.

By remaining silent in the face of the outrageous and unproven accusations contained in the Aftonbladet article, the Swedish prime and foreign ministers inevitably create the impression that they sympathize with the writer, and perhaps even with his conclusions – or, at the very least, that they don't care enough to disassociate themselves from anti-Jewish defamation.

Mr. Reinfeldt and Mr. Bildt, too, have freedom of speech, which they have exercised on many occasions. By choosing not to exercise it on this occasion – or even worse, by exercising it to criticize the Swedish ambassador to Israel for her condemnation of the article – they become facilitators of bigotry. They should be ashamed of themselves. Their country should be ashamed of them. And if their country is not ashamed of them, then every decent person in the world should be ashamed of Sweden.

Silence in the face of evil is not an option. As Edmund Burke reminded us many years ago: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." To that I may add, "or say nothing." The time has come for Swedish officials to tell the world what they really think of this blood libel.

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter professor of law at Harvard Law School. His latest book is "The Case Against Israel's Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand in the Way of Peace." A version of this piece appeared earlier at FrontPageMag.com .
//////////////////////////////////////////////
The Local: Sweden's news in English

“Bildt did the math: no one gains political points in Sweden from pleasing Israel”

David Stavrou
Search News People, businesses, maps

September 1, 2009

On Swedish Politics

The Local's James Savage comments on Swedish politics, in English
Aftonbladet row: Israel will not get its apology

When Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet published an article accusing Israeli soldiers of plundering the organs of Palestinian teenagers on the West Bank, it caused a storm in Israel, where many sniffed Swedish anti-Semitism. The Israeli insistence that Swedish ministers condemn the article has caused relations between the two countries to sink to a new low.

What Israeli ministers appear to find hard to grasp is that it is politically impossible for a Swedish government to get involved in what newspapers publish. Assuming that their diplomats provide them with good-quality information about Sweden, they should know this.

Now, it’s understandable that the Aftonbladet story hit a nerve, partly thanks to the article’s headline – “Our sons’ organs are being plundered”. It was inevitable that it would unleash an acrimonious debate – in the Israeli press, politics and even here on The Local’s own forums.

But the Israeli ministers have either deliberately or unintentionally misrepresented the Swedish position. This is particularly true for Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. He said the Swedish failure to condemn the article was hypocritical, given its response to the Muhammad caricature controversy in 2005. By linking the two, he seemed to imply that Sweden was sensitive to Muslim concerns, but not those of Israelis.

According to the Jerusalem Post, Lieberman ‘pointed out that Sweden shut down an Internet site in the country that posted the caricatures, and the Swedish foreign minister wrote a letter of apology to the president of Yemen.’

Lieberman’s understanding of the Swedish position is seriously skewed, and is worth tackling, as it has gained currency in international reports. There are four main reasons why Lieberman is wrong here:

1. In 2005, a completely different government was in power. The current centre-right government is not being inconsistent by failing to follow a line set out by Social Democrats 4 years ago. No more inconsistent than, say, Barack Obama is when he follows different policies to George W. Bush.

2. Social Democrat Foreign Minister Laila Freivalds was forced to resign in 2005, after it was revealed that she had sought the closure of a nationalist website that had published cartoons of Muhammad. It was widely perceived that she had acted against the interests of free speech. There was also controversy when it was suggested that she had apologised to the government of Yemen over the cartoons (although the actual contents of the letter did not really go as far as an apology). The Freivalds affair makes it incredibly unlikely that the current government would contemplate condemning the article, let alone apologise for it.

3. The current government has been consistent: when faced with renewed controversy over Muhammad cartoons in 2007, Reinfeldt met with Muslim ambassadors, but again refused to condemn or apologise for the cartoons.

4. Many Swedish politicians outside the government have condemned the Aftonbladet article, including members of the governing party, such as in this article by senior Moderate MEP Gunnar Hökmark , where he compares Aftonbladet’s article to Nazi propaganda. Yet even Hökmark agrees that it is not the place of the government itself to get involved. We may never know what Bildt and Reinfeldt privately think about the article, but it would be unsurprising if their views were similar to Hökmark’s.

It’s understandable that many Israelis, and the Israeli government, are angry about the article. It’s also easy to understand their bafflement at politicians who refuse to express an opinion (something not usually in short supply in most places). But it’s also clear that the Israeli government has either unwittingly or deliberately confused the facts to whip up a new row with Sweden.

16 responses to “Aftonbladet row: Israel will not get its apology”

1.
Ronik says:
August 27, 2009 at 12:20 am

I’m not one to readily agree with the right-wing fanatics who make up a good chunk of Israel’s governing coalition, but the Israeli Prime Minister was right to point out that Israel was seeking a condemnation and not an apology. There is no constitutional infringement for a government to condemn a publication that is at the very least salaciously provocative and patently untrue. The Swedish government has no qualms about condemning a host of other practices that are perfectly legal in Sweden (smoking and drinking come readily to mind). So why not condemn a vicious abuse of freedom of expression?

A condemnation is nothing more than an expression of displeasure or disapproval. It is in no way a restriction of freedom of speech and has no legal consequences (much like Sweden’s condemnation of human rights abuses in say China). Perhaps, after all, there is no such concept in the Swedish language? In which case, it’s time for Sweden to grow up and stop paying lip service to defamation masquerading as a free expression.

Report abuse »
2.
adubent says:
August 27, 2009 at 1:02 am

The above comment above is better than what Swedish politicians can do the whole month! Well-said!

Report abuse »
3.
Ron says:
August 27, 2009 at 3:29 am

The most interesting is that there is anything in their constitution that says it.
ANY person and even Prime minister is ENTILTED to have his opinions and their constitution DOSN”T restrict it. This is just a fig leaf. Opinion doesn;t restrict freedom of speach. Their embassador in Israel has condemned it- does it means she acted against a free speach? Nonsense.

Report abuse »
4.
Rashel Miah says:
August 27, 2009 at 4:32 am

I like to thank the author of a story on theft of Palestinian organs by the Israelis army It’s rely a same that western government support the racist Israelis government.

Rashel, London

Report abuse »
5.
Marvin Allen says:
August 27, 2009 at 10:27 am

As articles go this has the impact of an exploding crisp packet in the large Hadron Collider. But that is to be expected. Best stick to child porn stories and penis shaped carrot pictures.

What is astounding is that James Savage can write anything about free speech when his own publication is the greatest destroyer of that ‘free speech’ since the internet was invented. If the Israelies had given their side of the story to TL then the resultant publication would have been sanitised and amended to suit TL’s desired levels of gravitas.

Report abuse »
6.
Elias says:
August 27, 2009 at 11:46 am

Iam completly against the isreal and generally the sionnist policy in the world, but i think that this newspaper should prove to justice that this accusations are true .if they have proofs they should show it to the justice otherwise any newspaper would the write the craziest things on anyone without any proof. journalists pay big fines for writing false things about celebrities so either what they are saying is true then it would be up to the UN to punish israel, or its only accusations without any proof and in this case the newspaper should be punished severely.

Again im completly against what israel is doing to palestinians but justice is justice.we cant write stupid things in the name of freedom of speech

Report abuse »
7.
Aharon says:
August 27, 2009 at 5:04 pm

there is a big difference between freedom of the press and telling lies that give credence especially to the antisemitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The paper is unable to substantiate its scurilous accusation. Is this Journalism? No, just pure antisemitic mendacities.

Report abuse »
8.
Harold Kazumi says:
August 27, 2009 at 5:40 pm

Actually, the FM DID issue a condemnation, except it was directed at the Swedish ambassador to Israel. Brought on themselves? Not to mention, that the article was accepted as “fact” in Palestine, where more terrorism will be planned as a result, making the effect like yelling fire in a theatre

Report abuse »
9.
Michael Guberek says:
August 27, 2009 at 7:20 pm

Freedom of speech carries with it certain obligations as well. One of those is to condemn false speech. The best answer to false speech is not censorship, it is truthfulness. By remaining silent in the face of the bigoted falsities contained in the Aftonbladet article, the Swedish foreign minister inevitably creates the impression that he sympathizes with the writer, and perhaps even with his conclusions. Mr. Bildt, too, has freedom of speech, which he has exercised on many occasions. By choosing not to exercise it on this occasion—or even worse, by exercising it to criticize the Swedish Ambassador to Israel for her condemnation of the article—Bildt becomes a facilitator of bigotry. He should be ashamed of himself. His country should be ashamed of him. And if his country is not ashamed of him, then every decent person in the world should be ashamed of Sweden.

Report abuse »
10.
MichaelB says:
August 28, 2009 at 4:19 pm

Perhaps do the Swedes have invented both democracy and Ricola or they are plagiarising both. I still don´t know.

This would be however the very first state self-entitling itself a democracy (Israel does the same but they are denied the democratic status by Sweden) which denies their politicians the freedom of speech.

Considering the fact, that the journals are allowed to make politics to the extent they wish, it is a pitty not to leave politics both international as national to the journals. This would spare costs and at the same time give back to those poor politicians their elementary democratic rights, which they are in the moment cruely denied.

Perhaps, on the other hand, are the Swedes neither the inventors of democracy nor of Ricola and they are in effect just plagiarizing. Such smoke-screen argumentation will be welcome just in the non-democratic countires to reconfirm their disapproval of democracy.

Is this stubborn trying to teach everybody about democracy maybe nationalist motivated?

I am living in Germany and we maintain to be a democracy. Never experienced such a phaenomenon. Our Mme. Merkel has dared in the past to distance herself even of the pope´s published encyclica. It was her natural human given right. Some say she was right some not. And what?

Report abuse »
11.
HJ says:
August 29, 2009 at 10:54 am

This is a far more measured editorial than much of the hysteria I’ve read in various fora recently, but the central point of the argument is rather specious. Regarding the four-point rebuttal to Foreign Minister Lieberman:

1. While different political administrations are certainly entitled to disagree on a wide range of issues (social issues, financial issues, and so on), that spectrum only spans so far; there are certain fundamental principles that must survive shifting political winds. Freedom of speech is one such principle. Surely you would not suggest that the next administration could, say, completely dismantle the entire Swedish social welfare system and replace it with a strictly private alternative; instate the death penalty; or deport anyone not actually born in Sweden? Along the same lines, it is patently idiotic to argue that the government’s take on free speech can take a 180-degree turn with respect to the Mohammad cartoon incident, just because a different administration was elected a few years ago.

2. From your own linked article, Freivalds’ resignation was related to the cartoon scandal, but it was hardly the decisive factor. She was already a disgraced politician, having been forced to resign in 2000 over her apartment block plans and also in the political doghouse about the government’s tsunami response. It’s highly doubtful the cartoon incident by itself would have led to her ouster.

3. Again quoting your very own article (indeed, the very headline), “Muslim ambassadors ‘made no demands’” of PM Reinfeldt. This allowed him to do the quintessentially Swedish thing, which was to say “nja” followed by some soothingly vague generalities about how we value free speech here, government policy forbids interference with editorial opinion (except stuff we really don’t like), let’s agree to have a constructive dialog, and so on. He really didn’t have his feet held to the fire, allowing him enough room to wriggle out of having to take a hard stand.

The level of vitriol I’ve seen in public discourse in this case far outstrips reactions to the Muhammad cartoon incidents (both in Sweden and Denmark before that) — which is truly telling about Swedes’ attitudes on these issues.

12.
mehrdad says:
August 29, 2009 at 1:36 pm

dear james,

well written and you surely have a strong point about the swedish freedom of speech.

in germany, i saw a TV debate between a jewish journalist and a leftist so called “antifacist” antisemit who requested a boykott to israel. in this debate, one could exactly see what jews think about this hate propaganda in sweden and whole europe today. the german jewish journalist (hendryk m broder) said: “the holocaust did not begun with auchwitz..it begun with rumors and myths to dehumanize the jews which led to auchwitz”.

now we have the same pattern here. aftonbladt has a long history of antisemitic propaganda like comparing ramallah to auchwitz or publishing articles in which leftists reject the right of israel to exist. this new article is simply one further step to dehumanize the israelis (look, they steal organs of poor palis) and we know where this road will lead like it did 70 years ago.

its a shame that nearyl the whole european media has such a totaly one sided anti-israeli opinion. and its not wondering me that this anti-israeli athmosphere leads to such crap like writen in aftonbladt.

sorry for my poor english skill.:)


13.
ofdesign says:
August 30, 2009 at 6:50 am

Mr. Savage seems like an honest, bright and sensitive individual. When I read the article I desperately wanted to agree with him but I couldn’t. It’s just that a free society needs checks and balances. If freedom of speech goes unchecked writers can manipulate public opinion and in the worst cases, violent words can cause horrifically violent actions such as what happened to the Jews, Catholics, gays and gypsies in Nazi Germany.

14.
israeli says:
August 30, 2009 at 7:03 pm

so much energy is taken to defend an article that is obviously malicious.faint excuses, logic loop holes.
the swedes cling hard to their habits and internal laws and forget that it is not an internal issue. it is about the relations of countries and nations.
it is also a matter of justice. i assume i know what the swedish government will say if the israeli government will do what in oslo think is illegal.
well, antisemitism is not only an internal issue of sweden but a matter of international law that is severely breached here (hate crimes against a large group of poeple).

15.
ofdesign says:
August 30, 2009 at 8:43 pm

The truth needs to be printed. The truth. The truth. The truth.

When a free press runs amuck, the truth is the first victim. The floodgates are now open for any type of vile propaganda. But also, who can believe anything in the Swedish press now? If there’s a great discovery, the rest of the world will need outside sources to verify it.

16.
Bob Jacobsonb says:
August 31, 2009 at 8:17 pm

Sweden’s historical treatment of the Jews ranks just above Spain’s. Before the 20th Century, it’s really pathetic. It’s possible that a thousand years of brutality and discrimination against the Jews (despite their financially propping up countless Swedish regimes and bravely withstanding the insults to remain in Sweden) has left residues of bias and unwarranted hatred among some of the people, making them vulnerable to throwing in with today’s slanderers.

A high-ranking Arab official in a major Arab nation (rather a democrat) told me that as much as he differs with the Israeli right-wing, he fears equally anti-Semitism among his own people because such ideologies are corrosive and long-lasting, preventing reconciliation. He wants peace and prosperity for the region, not further conflict such as the Aftonbladet article encourages. In that practical as well as ethical vein, Swedes should have immediately condemned Aftonbladet for publishing sensational, unfounded hate literature, thus not requiring the Israeli government to do so.