How about this for an explaination: a legacy of extremely vicious ethnic hatred spawned by decades of conflict (including many bitter acts on both sides) makes the passing off of defamatory urban myths by one side concerning the other (which have been circulating for years and are connected to a lengthy and deplorable history of ethic slurs shared by middle easterners and europeans alike concerning the ‘targeted’ ethnicity) to a sympathetic but gullable “useful idiot” of a Swedish tabloid journalist more likely.
I think that Israels condemnation of free press has caused much, much more damage to its reputation than the article itself did.
Except for the fact that Israel did not ‘condemn free press’.
It still has yet to be established that this article is anti-semetic in anyway.
Obviously, you think it isn’t. I disagree.
Yes this has been typical of your side of the debate. Me: It has nothing to do with anti-semitism and heres why. You: It is anti-semitism. Vague connections to blood libels don’t prove your case. This article lacks even the most basic requirements of anti-semitism. It isn’t targeted at people because they are Jewish, it isn’t directed at the entire Jewish people, and the accusation doesn’t relate to any practice of Judiasm.
It’s directed at a group of people consisting entirely of Jews, who are seen as representing Jews around the world, and it repeats lies that were, in the past, directed against Jews.
And frankly, I believe you’re being deliberately obtuse.
Good Lord, man, not even all Jews think Israel represents them. I can think of two or three I know personally who would say “Hell yes, investigate that shit” if I talked to them about this.
As is any criticism/accusation directed against the Israeli government.
Same for every criticism/accusation against the Israeli government.
Essentially, anything anybody says that is negative about Israel meets your first two standards of proof. This renders them impotent as arguments for antisemitism.
And so we are down to stealing organs=blood libel. I’ve addressed this, so let me hit the major points:
(1) Israel is not being accused of snatching organs because they are Jewish.
(2) Organ snatching is not directed towards all Jews. A blood libel, on the other hand, is directed at an essential part of Judiasm and thus applies to all Jews. In other words the logic train goes:
A: Jews use human sacrifices in their religious rituals
B: All Jews perform religious rituals
Therefore,
C: All Jews sacrifice humans
On the other hand, the current accusation is:
A: The Israeli army conspires to steal organs from captured Palestinians.
Your comparison then breaks down here because:
B: All Jews are in the Israeli army
Isn’t correct.
(3) Organ snatching is a common accusation and urban legend which bears no common origin with blood libels. They are separate and independent accusations.
Hmm. Is the IDF limited to Jews? I think I remember hearing that Arabs are not allowed or something along those lines. Is it open to all ethnicities? If not, it would be an odd practice, but I hope somebody who knows better can inform me.
treis - no, not any criticism/accusation. Just this one.
Have Swedes ever suffered from bigotry? Have you ever been accused of anything?
You call me obtuse and then respond to my multifacted argument with one sentence?
Anyways, I don’t get how “this one” is any different from any argument. For example, if I accuse the Israeli Government and Army of being poopy pants I have:
(1) Criticized a group made entirely of Jews and
(2) Criticized organizations seen as representatives of Jews around the world
Thus, according to your requirements I am 2/3s of the way to antisemitism. All someone needs to do is find a tenuously related historic insult to “poopy pants” and I’m an antisemite. According to you.
I think I’ll step into mediate.
Alessan will agree for the record that the IDF and Israeli government are poopy pantses. In exchange, you agree that the IDF isn’t harvesting [del]delicious[/del] Palestinian organs.
Deal?
If you accused them of being misers (a classic Jewish stereotype), then yes, that would be anti-semitism.
…
You know, I’ve been thinking about it, and it’s funny - even without this whole anti-semitism thing, I’d still be just as pissed off. These people slandered my country and my army! Why shouldn’t I be angry?!
Can I settle on athlete’s foot and crotch rot? Because those have factual basis.
Alright, but you’re going to have to make concessions. Have you got any spare kidneys lying around?
So, for example, if I accused the Israeli government of providing inadequate money to Israeli-Arab schools I am an anti-semite because I have:
(1) Criticized a group made entirely of Jews,
(2) Criticized organizations seen as representatives of Jews around the world, and
(3) Made an accusation sort of related to a historic insult directed at Jewish people (being stingy with money).
You don’t see the problem with this?
Why should you care what some Swedish rag writes? Hell you probably wouldn’t even of known about it if your government didn’t get their panties in a bunch.
Replace Arab with “White Kids” and Jews with “African Americans” and I’d sure as hell be accused of racism if I said it down here. 
If I were Israeli, I’d care - because the more such accusations are believed, the greater the ethnic hatred in the region, which could very conceivably lead to increased violence.
I doubt anyone in the region is getting their news from Swedish tabloids.