Israel does not deny stealing organs from Palestinians

The Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet wrote Monday about how the Israeli defense forces are killing young Palestinian men and then stealing their organs for use in transplantations. The provoked a very strong reaction from the foreign department of Israel in which they condemn the fact that Sweden does not have a media censorship that can prevent the publication of this kind of information, according to DN and SvD today. There is no mentioning, however, about the claims being false. To me, that is the bigger news. The reaction of one who is guilty is commonly to get mad at the accuser, rather than to deny the accusation.

After googling the news for a while I have still not found a single article talking about the need to investigate such a serious allegation. Until Israel can demonstrate that there is no organ-stealing going on, the suspicion will for sure linger. Therefore, my recommendation to Israel is to stop calling for censorship in Sweden, and instead get their own act together with cleaning up in the organ trade business.

15 thoughts on “Israel does not deny stealing organs from Palestinians”

  1. Israel can get away with murder and their still riding the anti-semit wave.

    The truth is that most people don’t dislike Israel because they are Jews, we hate Israel because they commit otrocities and murders without regret.
    Israel believe they can act any way they want because everyone should feel sorry for them.

    A lack of emphaty and humanity poison the Israeli policies, they are no better nor worse than their enemy. Just the other side of the same coin.

    Europe should distance themselves from Israel as soon as possible.

  2. …är seriöst? Ska alla fanatiska konspirationsanklagelser utredas eller kan man se en del av dem som grova påhopp? Läs Sydsvenskans ledarblogg om antisemitbladet.

  3. jo jag vet att serious inte betyder seriös, men AB-artikeln är varken tung eller seriös. Bara en massa lösa trådar, anonyma källor, röster i mörkret, med förhoppningen att läsaren ska knyta ihop allt och dra rätt slutsats

  4. Mika, serious betyder “allvarlig”, och anklagelserna är väl så allvarliga de någonsin kan bli med tanke på den anti-sionism som är utbredd över i stort sett hela världen.

  5. You cannot prove a negative (the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence), the evidential responsibilities in this case lies with Aftonbladet, they did not provide anything of substance in the article. It was as speculative as the parody article that appeared in Israeli media about how a Swedish special force had been formed in order to kill Norwegian fishermen in order to get a hold of their fungi-infected feet (a vital ingredient in Swedish salmon apparently).

    The problem is now that the Israeli government are demanding an apology from the Swedish government who are in no way allowed to comment on the article as such, this is a bit like the situation with Honduras, foreign governments demanding that the ones legally in charge break the rule of law and the constitution.

    Also, the last time someone did something stupid like that (Laila Freiwalds (sp?)), the minister in question was sacked and rightfully so.

    What those concerned in the Jewish community should do is to file legal complaints for violation of the hate speech laws against Aftonbladets editor and the freelancer who wrote the article. This would be an appropriate channel for any complaints, and a venue that might actually be successful.

  6. Mattias, you are partly right. You cannot prove the absence of something – unless, that is, you look everywhere. Since organ transplantation is a limited universe, it is possible to look everywhere, by creating an auditable documentation system. Such as the IAEA system for avoiding the spread of nuclear weapons.

  7. You are of-course right about that that a trusted central authority can vouch for something of their concern. But I would asume that such a system does not exist for organs at this time (at least not a world wide system, something for the WHO to organise (no pun intended) perhaps), so the point still stands in the given context.

  8. Maybe we should suggest that the UN, via WHO, do just that? Sounds like a great idea to me.

  9. Hej Ulf,
    Anklagelserna är allvarliga, men ej underbyggda. Det var en usel artikel Aftonbladets kulturredaktion publicerade. Familjen till den mördade mannen förnekar Boströms uppgifter. Den judiska rabbinen i USA som det hänvisas till, och som bidrar till Boströms konspiration är ej dömd. Israeler kom till USA för att opereras. Det nämns ingenting om palestinier eller att enskilda organ flugits över Atlanten. Organtransplantation är svårt, eller omöjligt att utföra under de omständigheter som Boström beskriver. Boström låtsas vara ögonvittne när det mesta tyder på att han går på hörsägen. Jag tycker det är tragiskt att du ställer dig på Åsa Linderborgs sida och inte ser hur extrem Aftonbladets kultursida har blivit.
    Allt gott /Mika

  10. Mika, jag är inte på någons “sida”, jag ville bara påpeka att Israel väljer att attackera budbäraren med krav på censur (något som inte hör hemma i en demokrati) men samtidigt inte förnekar att uppgifterna är sanna. Tills de säger “vi förnekar på det bestämdaste att anklagelserna är sanna och vi har dokumentation att underbygga vårt förnekande med”, så måste man undra om det ligger något i det hela.

  11. Ursäkta, jag drog det lite långt där med Linderborg.
    Enligt min bild har inte Israel krävt censur från officiellt håll, utan velat ha ett avståndstagande till en redan publicerad artikel. Det kan hända att den israeliska reaktionen varit överdriven, men jag kan förstå känsligheten i sådana här fall. Ska de bemöta och förneka allt liknande material och filmer som publiceras i arabiska stater och Iran, som ofta är av ännu grövre art? De kan ju knappast gräva upp en grav från 1992 heller om familjen redan från början varit motståndare till att undersöka fallet.

    Vad läkaren säger om organ från stupade soldater:
    http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/artikel_3414033.svd

  12. OK, de har inte krävt offentlig censur, men effekten blir densamma om staten tillåts gå in och uttala sig i enstaka fall. Det blir ministerstyre, något vi inte tillåter i Sverige. Att det är rutin i de flesta andra länder är en annan sak, men Israel måste ta seden dit de kommer. Denna olikartade syn på förbud mot ministerstyre som en grundpelare i demokratin kan kanske vara en orsak till att Sverige reagerat så hårt på Israels ord, men inte andra länder, spekulerar jag.

  13. This blogg shows extraordinary lack of any scientific understanding of anything. Have you ever heard of the idea that it is “impossible to disprove something”? I suggest maybe you get into some reading, maybe som Richard Dawkins?

    But allow me to give a quick illustration of how ludicrous your idea is…

    Take your best friend for example, maybe your parent, your son or simply someone you know really well. If I tell you that he is a murderer, what would be your reaction? Would it be to immediately investigate the matter? Could you possibly disprove that he is a murderer? The only way to do it would to have a full account of his actions during his lifetime.

    Innocent until guilty is proved prevails. Even if people like you set different standards for Jews

    1. Playing victim does not impress me. Your arguments do not hold up to scrutiny and that is all that matter.

Comments are closed.