Sweden summons Israel envoy for talks over IDF organ harvesting article

Sweden's foreign ministry has summoned the Israeli ambassador to Stockholm in a bid to solve the developing crisis between the two nations over a recent article by a top Swedish newspaper alleging that Israel Defense Forces soldiers kill Palestinian civilians in order to harvest their organs.

Although the meeting with Israeli envoy Benny Dagan had been scheduled before the article was published, officials in the Swedish foreign ministry told local news agencies on Friday that it would now be used to address the escalating tension between the two countries.

The officials added that comments by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman "had aroused anger" in Stockholm.

Lieberman slammed Sweden on Thursday for not intervening in "the blood libel against Jews," adding that "the matter is reminiscent of the state's stand during World War II, when it also did not intervene."

He also said that he would speak with his Swedish counterpart Carl Bildt, but according to news agencies he had still not contacted Bildt as of Friday afternoon.

On Thursday, Bildt rejected Israeli calls for an official condemnation of the article.

Lieberman had asked Bildt to print a a state rebuttal to the piece, which was published earlier this week in Sweden's top newspaper Aftonbladet. Dagan was expected to make a similar request during his meeting with Swedish foreign ministry officials.

Bildt denied the request, however, writing in a blog post late Thursday that he would not condemn the article as "freedom of expression is part of the Swedish constitution."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1109008.html

They're both so stupid.

I wish the coalition would collapse right now, so Bibi would be forced to call for another election in the fall.

Hawkeye-X

And Lieberman seems to be incredibly gifted at alienating the govts of other countries with the idiotic things he says...

Or does the topic article not matter, lets just go off on a wild bibi tangent.

I have plans, 3 years from now, to fly to Israel, but won't unless Bibi is thrown out on his butt.

Where in Israel are you planning to visit?

Israel is lurching right at the moment; I don't think this election was nearly as bad as it's going to get.

That's like saying that in 3 years the BNP will rule Britain and Michele Bachmann or Senator DeMint will be president of the USA.

Anything can happen anywhere especially in an economic crisis - but your scenarios are thankfully improbable. Especially not Feiglin; the Likud have now totally thrown him under the bus, and I really think his political career is over.

While Sweden was neutral militarily, Swedish diplomats(unlike American diplomats during or BEFORE the war)helped Jews escape the Nazis. And, of course, there was the martydom or Raoul Wallenberg.

(1) The Europaean tabloids are disgusting (including the British ones). Sensational, unreliable, and often implicitly or explicitly racist and xenophobic. A bit of international embarrassment might do them some good!

(2) This is not the sort of thing in which the government can or should intervene directly; though they could have expressed a tougher opinion.

(3) Does Sweden have an organization equivalent to the British 'Press Complaints Commission'? - if so, this is where the complaint should be directed.

(4) As implied by the above - this is not about Wicked Sweden! This is about the pernicious influence of the tabloid press in Europe. It's not government policy; the governments don't and shouldn't own the newspapers. Israeli ministers should realize this, as Israel too has a free press, with some excellent papers, some nasty tabloids, and little government influence over either. The Israelis certainly have a right to complain formally and publicly - but not to act as though this was perpetrated by Sweden in its official capacity as a state.

(5) What Sweden, or any country, did or didn't do in WW2 is not relevant to the present situation.

by forcing Sweden's ambassador to Israel to retract her statement condemning the article, Sweden's gov't does indeed hold a certain amount of responsibility for this vile slanderous article.

The Swedish ambassador should not be blamed for her comment - she was only doing what ambassadors in countries do: try and keep international relations calm, to smooth out tensions etc.

And by the way, Sweden's gov't does indeed interfere in what their newspapers say - if the newspapers are derogatory about Muslims. It seems it's only the Jews and/or who don't get a free pass. There's a word for that.

As an aside, the OP is about the Swedish newspaper article and Sweden-Israel relations. And what happens on dear old DU? The comments are almost entirely about how awful Bibi and Lieberman are. Same old same old... Nothing good to be said about Israel; nothing to counter or even question slanderous article.

Now who here is going to just slam Muslim leadership for being stupid, dangerous, way worse than rightwing, etc...?

:sarcasm:

I certainly did.

Dealing with such things through diplomacy as Israel is doing is certainly better than dealing with them through rioting.

I just don't think Lieberman and diplomacy go together too well.

There is an interesting question here, which both incidents bring up. How absolute should freedom of the press be? At what point does the danger of lies and slander in the press outweigh the danger of interfering with the press?

In that case:

:-A newspaper ran an inflammatory and offensive cartoon.
:-There was widespread public condemnation from followers of the offended religion
:-There were calls for the state to censure (N.B. I don't mean censor, although that too to some extent) the newspaper in question.
:-Those calls were rebuffed.
:-A great many people, including me, condemned the Muslim outcry against the cartoons, and they were widely reprinted.

In this case, we're seeing similar calls for government censure. Are you supporting them this time?

I think that due to the fact that this time there is (almost certainly false) substance causing offence, rather than just cartoons, they shouldn't be reprinted, and there is quite probably grounds for a legal case under Swedish law (I don't know the details, but as LB pointed out in another post, in the UK this would be a matter for the press complaints commission), but that there is not grounds for the government to get involved - either it's a legal matter, or it isn't.

tabloid article, I guess we all have our priorities

Stockholm Jewish community leader Lena Posner tells Ynet article accusing IDF soldiers of harvesting Palestinians' organs was buried in back pages of Swedish tabloid, before angry Israeli response inflamed situation. 'Anti-Semitism here is not so bad, and bringing up the Holocaust every time is definitely unhelpful to us'; PM calls accusations' outrageous'

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3765758,00.html

<snip>

"The Israeli government declared Sunday morning that it expects the Swedish government to officially condemn the newspaper report which accused Israel Defense Forces of harvesting Palestinians' organs.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, "We do not want the Swedish government to apologize, we want it to issue a condemnation."

<snip>

"However, leaders of the Jewish community in Sweden believe that Israeli elements are responsible for inflaming the situation.

According to Lena Posner, head of the Jewish community in Stockholm and president of the Official Council of Jewish Communities in Sweden, "Israel caused all this mess."

Posner told Ynet, "The article was published here on Monday, but no one paid any attention to it. It wasn't a news report and was buried in the back pages of a tabloid. The writer is known to many of us as anti-Israel, and so it the entire paper. This is why no one took it seriously – until Israel got involved."

making waves. It allowed antisemitism to thrive. Zero tolerance is the best policy.

<snip>

"A SWEDISH newspaper admitted overnight it did not have proof for an earlier story alleging Israeli soldiers had trafficked the organs of Palestinians, which sparked a diplomatic row with Israel.

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.''

The tabloid followed up its original story that claimed Israeli soldiers had snatched Palestinian youths to steal their organs with an interview with the family of an alleged victim."

<snip>

"Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, caught in the diplomatic storm provoked by the original story, was also interviewed by Aftonbladet.

Sweden, said Mr Bildt, had to be "more careful in explaining to outsiders the way our freedom of expression and freedom of the press work."

Asked if the newspaper should apologise for the article, Bildt said: "Aftonbladet is responsible for the content it publishes, not the Government."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25972384-12377,00.htm

Palestinian news agency 'confirms' organ snatching story
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418671248&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Researcher says he believes Swedish paper's organ report
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=220756

===========

Showing once again that where Israel is involved, no evidence is needed while reporting the worst about them: Jenin, al-Dura, Gaza beach, Qana II, or more recently, UN school building, white flags, white phosphorus...only "eyewitness" accounts based on the flimsiest bogus 'evidence'. I especially love how organizations who report these libelous hoaxes never feel the need to apologize or retract after the damage is done.

On white phosphorus - maybe I'm wrong - and someone help me out here - but where are medical records or military experts confirming any photos of wounds due to WP, interviews of victims affected and their confirmed medical records....? Count me as skeptical.

...Arabs and Arab nations in Europe, the responsibility wouldn't lie only with the leadership of Arab nations to speak out. All anti-racist, human rights orgs would be shrieking and demanding governments condemn such articles and there's simply no way the same paper would dare publish yet another racist followup article with no more evidence than the first as a response.

Why should the responsibility lie only with Israeli leadership to speak out? Why should they remain silent and let it go? Would you call for Blacks and Arabs to do the same?

Can you imagine the outrage if all this were happening to Blacks, Arabs, and/or their nations?

are libel against all Jews?

you know - from authors who never have a good word for those nations they single out to the exclusion of any others, employ double-standards, hypocrisy, and appear to froth at the mouth anytime they can find something juicy against Arab and Muslim countries?

what do you call that?

From Arabs/Muslims in general to now Arab/Muslim countries? Still it does not work, the article centers around an incident in 1992 and the IDF personnel that may have been involved in the incident, not all Jews or even all Israeli's

IMO there could be another explanation here if memory serves there are religous laws in both Judaism and Islam that require a body be buried intact or complete perhaps any organ removal was an attempt to desecrate the body or an autopsy for other purposes is that any better

and note it is the hyperbolic reaction to the original story that has attracted attention to what would have been by now have been forgotten or simply not believed as Ma'an points out

if only accusations against the IDF didn't transfer magically to Israel and world Jewry as it usually does......history shows that the effects of blaming some Jews has a way of effecting other Jews completely unrelated.

can you please answer me now?

if these hurtful allegations of nazi ghettos, satan worshipers, organ stealing, etc... were frequently and continually aimed at Arabs and Arab nations, there would be no such thing as an over-reaction in response, would there - especially if the response was completely non-violent?

but now you claim that accusations against IDF will somehow transfer to all Jews globally IMO that is hyperbole at its "best"

Recently there was a thread here about a mass wedding in Gaza in which blog posts were cited that claimed the ceremony was proof positive of mass pedophilia amongst Palestinian men, it was disproven on that same thread end of story, unlike the hyperventilating that is going on over a tabliod article that even Ma'an points out was not very believable

and yeah - it must be my imagination that accusations against the IDF and Israel somehow lead to unsafe conditions for Jews worldwide. No direct cause and effect there! :eyes:

I just posted an article from the wife of Israel's Swedish Ambassador. Check that one out.

The false rumors about that wedding in Gaza didn't make national headlines anywhere, in any respectable paper, did they? Got any better examples?

story would have been calm reasoned rebuttal from the IDF proving the claim to be false, rather than the overblown accusations from the Israeli government

...accusation is nothing but a waste of time if the source of those accusations has no reason to stop spreading hate. The IDF response is nothing in comparison to sensational headlines that spread nothing but rumor and innuendo.

Do you believe rumors from racist websites belong as headline stories in popular mainstream media?

at least up until now been called a "racist website"

that sort of content is indistinguishable from the usual spew at hate websites.

A better question:

Any rumor or allegation - substantiated or not - that inevitably fuels hatred and anger - is okay for headline news if the story is about the IDF or Israeli policy?

and you are also trying to equate the global reaction to OCL to a tabloid article that has been given legs by the Israeli government it self and by those such as yourself and due to this I am betting Aftonbladet's readership has skyrocketed, few outside of the EU had ever heard of it prior to this

....is considered hate and condemned in the harshest of terms as racist but against Israel and its institutions, not so much.

can we say "double-standard"?

=======

I direct your question right back at you - do you advocate censorship where Arab institutions and nations are concerned, or is any hateful rumor lacking in evidence okay for mainstream news sources?

because you carry on here as though they are, any actual M$M coverage of the story involved Israel's reaction to it, not so much the story itself

as for your as usual baseless accusations of double standards or what ever believe what ever comforts you

that Swedish tabloid is their most circulated paper, just as the Dutch story on satanic jews spreading swine flu, and the Guardian isn't too shabby allowing the usage of nazi ghettos.

But if you wish to pretend outrage wouldn't be 10x worse if Blacks or Arabs were the target instead, have at it and happy delusions!

your question was answered but not way you wanted so like a spoiled 5 year old you keep asking and making accusations it reminds me of the former tactics of another poster it did not work for him and certainly will not work for you

thanks!

:)

you constantly attempt to corner people and rarely from I have are successful in that endeavor
the problem here Shira is that you try foist off Aftonbladet as a M$M news source when in fact it is a tabloid not considered by many to be real news and read more for entertainment so if the BBC or or CNN ran a story concerning any group that derided that entire group I would expect outrage however Aftonbladet did not deride every Jew nor is it mainstream news so your question is void from the start

Anti-Arab and anti-Muslim prejudice are stock in trade for the tabloid press, and barely raise an eyebrow, especially not from the more vehement critics of antisemitism, real (which, for once, this looks like it may be) or imagined (which most accusations of antisemitism are).

I think it would be an exceptionally good fortnight with regard to press treatment of Arabs!

And the same is even more true with regard to immigrants and asylum seekers; Muslims in Europe; gypsies; etc.

"All anti-racist human rights orgs would be shrieking and demanding governments condemn such articles.."

Are you serious? There might be specific (e.g. Arab or Muslim) organizations) that would protest, but human rights organizations??? I don't think I've *ever* come across a human rights organization directly attacking a racist *newspaper article* about anyone, especially if it were not in media owned by a government.

Recently, a Polish-British organization successfully sued the Daily Mail for racist articles about Poles in Britain. One of the few times such a thing has happened successfully. But that wasn't anything to do with human rights or anti-racist organizations - as I said above, it was an organization for Poles in Britain.

am in Holland for a conference right now.

But in the meantime, google 'Rod Little and immigrants' and/or 'Richard Littlejohn and immigrants' for the sort of thing that I mean.

One example from an area which I know well, as I'm a researcher on education-related issues. A couple of years ago there was a report for the government's education department on teaching difficult topics in school history lessons. I've read the report. One topic discussed was the Holocaust. There was a report of ONE school out of many expressing concerns about Muslim pupils possibly expressing antisemitism or holocaust denial and causing difficulty for other pupils on such matters. This was transmuted by the Daily Mail and other papers as stating that many schools don't teach about the Holocaust in school history lessons for fear of "offending Muslims". Not so; virtually all secondary schools have taught about the holocaust for a very long time and it's now a compulsory part of the curriculum.

Similarly there have been claims in the Daily Mail and similar papers that piggy banks are banned in Britain, and that schools don't allow stories about pigs in primary schools so as not to offend Muslims (it's all rather equivalent to the 'AIPAC are suppressing free speech!!!" crap). In fact this is NOT so; there are plenty of piggy banks around, and the schools which I know well - most of which are at least 20% Muslim- all give the children plenty of pig stories, from Three Little Pigs to The Sheep-Pig (inspiration for 'Babe') to Charlotte's Web. But sadly plenty of people read these press items and it causes or reinforces prejudices against immigrants and Muslims.

A couple of years ago, The Sun published an unfounded report that asylum-seekers are a threat to our swans(!) and have been eating them.

Daily Mail had numerous articles about 'horror stories'about Polish immigrants being allegedly dishonest until they were sued for it! Google 'Daily Mail and Poles'.

I'm thinking of the big ones like AI and HRW, but I can't recall any of them ever demanding that any government condemn any racist or bigoted newspaper articles, and the reason for that would be because the role of human rights groups is to address human rights violations and not to demand that governments criticise newspaper articles. If I'm wrong and they have done so in the past, I'm sure someone will come along and set the record straight....