And maybe they brought special deep excavation equipment and radioactive titanium capsules with which to seal up their victims for thousands of years beyond all reach of mortal man. It’s not inconceivable, ya know. Just because there’s no evidence doesn’t mean we can’t postulate some groovy stuff.
Given the discrepancies between the photo and the claims made in connection with it, we breathlessly await clarification.
Have the authorities in Gaza made the least attempt at a real investigation? Or is allowing wild rumors to spread a more appealing strategy?
If Israel “doesn’t need that kind of secrecy”, why are they supposedly conducting blackouts and running bodies into Gaza in the dead of night and organizing Sealed Burials with no Palestinians allowed to discover anything (except for convenient unexplained photo ops)?
The urge to believe this nuttiness is bizarrely strong.
And no, the linked translation to the Bostrom article does not answer the questions I’ve raised. The link does include this telling quote from the “reporter”:
“But whether it’s true or not - I have no idea, I have no clue.”
Oh, but it wasn’t the Swedish people who collectively say that Israel steal organs from Palestinian prisoners, it’s one Swedish, privately owned, newspaper. The Swedish (and Danish) newspapers aren’t controlled by the government or the people, they are controlled by their owners (under libel laws).
I can see why the Israeli government will represent the Israeli people in this but the Swedish people and government have no say in the matter (except that the people could stop buying the paper, that would solve the problem).
I’m not sure whether anything can be done from our part, but I’ll look into it and give it some consideration. Feel free to bring your own suggestions in light of the differences you perceive.
It is literally impossible to “prove” that a conspiracy theory is wrong.
As for the fracas - that is at least in part Sweden’s own fault. If I read the situation correctly, Sweden’s diplomat in Israel did condemn the article - which was not confirmed by ‘head office’ back in Sweden.
Your average member of the Israeli public can be forgiven for assuming that Sweden’s Ambassador knows Swedish constitutional law better than they.
Also, condemning an article is not the same as “censorship”. Censorship is where the gov’t forbids the publication of an article. Condeming is saying that we deplore the obvious bias in an article, while upholding the right of the guy to publish what he likes - however inaccurate and hateful (or not) it may be.
While I tend to agree that the Swedish gov’t ought to have stayed out of this matter, it doesn’t lie is Sweden’s mouth to claim Israelis are at fault here - when their own Ambassador already spoke up; if Sweden wanted to stay out, it should have stayed out from the beginning and taken a consistent approach. The right hand condemning while the left hand says condemnation isn’t possible is no way to run diplomatic relations.
I agree that the Ambassadors condemnation was a mistake, and certainly there have been unfortunate mistakes where the Swedish response could have been better. For the record, her condemnation was removed from the Embassy webpage a while later the same day, I’m guessing after some stern words from our FM.
I don’t agree that this places any fault on Swedish shoulders though, as it was a poor slip up from a lower official, who might even get reprimanded. It doesn’t change the facts that now constrain further responses. Our FM has put the lid on the event now as they have been reported to the Committee on the Constitution, and don’t want to make their matters worse for the questioning that is to follow there.
You’re not asking for a Swedish politician to publicly disagree with criticism of himself, which would obviously be something he did as a private citizen, rather than as a government official.
You’re asking the Swedish government to censure its own (free?) press over an article that is undoubtedly misleading but not criminal.
Why doesn’t your government just sue for damages and/or an apology?
Keep holding your breath. I’ve found contact info for Boström and have written him asking about the photo. No idea when or if he’ll write back, but should he do so I’ll share his answers here in the thread.
The Ambassador to a country isn’t some underling; she’s the highest representative of the country in Israel.
The impression given (for better or worse) is that the ‘constitutional imperative’ not to condemn the article is subject, to say the least, to a significant difference of opinion. Israelis are not to blame for that - it’s a Swedish fiasco.
The fact that this has evidenty been kicked upstairs to some oversight committee hightens that impression.
No, but it is possible to explain why Palestinian men taken into custody die there and then come back sliced from stem to stern and then sewn back up. It is possible to prove that their organs were not removed. (The burden of proof, in this case, is not with the Palestinians but with the Israelis, in whose custody these men died and under the supervision of whom their bodies were cut open - and if Jackmannii is correct, not for purposes of autopsy.) It is possible (although difficult, given the amount of illegal trading going on) to show where Israeli organ recipients got their organs from.
Right now, this is not at the level of a conspiracy theory. Boström says “Israel has a shortage of organs for transplant, and they’ve been participating in the illegal organ trade for God knows how long. Palestinians are dying in Israeli custody and coming back cut up like medical school cadavers. What’s going on?” He doesn’t go on to provide any explanations or outright allege anything, just that the families of the deceased believe the organs are being harvested. Frankly, saying that he personally doesn’t know whether it’s true or not makes it even less of a conspiracy theory; if it were, he’d assert it was true no matter what evidence - or contradictory evidence - was presented.
This just in: An answer from Donald Boström. Translated text in full:
I doubt that’s going to convince Alessan or Jackmannii of anything, but it was cool to hear back from him in any case.
The burden of proof is always on the person alleging something, I would imagine.
The fact that the allegation is made by insinuation and innuendo like “what’s going on?” doesn’t make it any less an allegation - for example, if this piece was about some identifiable individual, and made maliciously, it would still be quite libellous - assuming it isn’t true in point of fact (truth being a defense against libel).
Related question someone here can probably answer (and may already have been answered): what is the position of Islam vis-a-vis handling and/or disposal of human remains?
In which case the proper response would be to sue the newspaper, not demand that the government condemn the article.
I don’t think anyone is having a problem with the Israeli being upset about the article, what is a problem is that they are demanding that people who got nothing to do with it apologize for it.
If the Swedish government were to do that it would set a very dangerous precedent, implying that they are somehow responsible for everything that is printed in Swedish newspapers and anything that they do not condemn is something they approve of. This is why they can not and should not condemn or apologize for something a privately owned newspaper prints. Had demands like that come from a country like Iran or Burma no one would have been surprised, but from a democracy like Israel? Appalling.
The issue may never have arisen if the Swedish Ambassador hadn’t, you know, condemned the article. As far as I know, this wasn’t in response to “Israeli demands”.
What happened is that the Swedes seemingly condemned the article of their own volition, and then retracted the condemnation they had already made; this roused the Israeli public’s fury, quite understandably.
That the diplomatic staff of Iran or Burma would make such an absurd blunder would be understandable. But the Swedes? Appalling.
So the story is that the Swedish Ambassador, defying what is supposedly the constitutional law in Sweden, responds as a helpless puppet to an Israeli politician - deputy foreign minister that he is?
In my opinion, it seems very likely that if she hadn’t issued the condemnation and instead simply asserted that it was none of her government’s business, exactly nothing would have happened.
What makes this an incident is the Israeli public’s fury at a condemnation extended and then retracted. Standing alooft from such nonsense is a principled stand and easily defensible; in point of fact I think it would have been the right thing to do. One you enter the fray, however, the “principled stand” appears to some to be politically motivated.
So Danny Ayalon was the only one angry until the condemnation was retracted? I’m sure it can’t have helped the matter and the coordination between embassy and foreign ministry could certainly have been better, but "17 augusti — Artikeln väcker häftiga reaktioner i Israel " (The article awaken strong reactions in Israel) seem to show that the incident was on the way already.
