Jews steal arab organs!

[Razgovory]

Israel on Sunday withheld the press credentials of a Swedish newspaper in retaliation for a controversial piece that suggested the Israeli army kidnapped and killed young Palestinians to harvest their organs.


The journalists need the credentials to report from Gaza.

"We have no duty to supply them with press cards immediately; (we) have 90 days to decide about their status," said Danny Siman, the head of the government press office.

The article, "Our sons are being stripped of their organs," appeared Tuesday in Aftonbladet and was an opinion piece written by freelance journalist Donald Bostrom.

Bostrom told CNN he had no proof that Israeli soldiers were stealing organs, and that the purpose of his piece was to call for an investigation into numerous claims in the 1990s that such activity was going on in the West Bank and Gaza.

Even though the Swedish embassy distanced itself from the report, the country's foreign ministry refused to condemn it -- saying Sweden has a "free press."

The refusal has rankled Israel, which said it will submit an official complaint.

"This is an anti-Semitic blood libel against the Jewish people and the Jewish state. The Swedish government cannot remain apathetic," said Israel's Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz.

"We know the origins of these claims. In medieval times, there were claims that the Jews use the blood of Christians to bake their Matzas for Passover. The modern version now is that the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) soldiers use organs of Palestinians to make money."


He continued: "It makes no difference whether this comes from a neo-Nazi organization or from an honorable newspaper. The Swedish government must renounce itself from this anti-Semitic publication."

The article centers around the case of Bilal Ahmed Ghanem, a 19-year-old Palestinian man who was shot and killed in 1992, allegedly by Israeli forces, in the West Bank village of Imatin.

Bostrom, who witnessed the man's killing, said Ghanem was taken away by Israeli forces while he was still mortally wounded. His body was returned five days later with a cut in his midsection that had been stitched up.

Ghanem's family said they believed that his organs had been removed.

After that incident, at least 20 Palestinian families told Bostrom that they suspected the Israeli military had taken the organs of their sons after they had been killed by Israeli forces and their bodies taken away -- presumably for routine autopsies.

Bostrom said he balanced those claims in his article by including a reaction from an Israeli military spokesman who told him that the Israel Defense Forces routinely carries out autopsies on Palestinians killed by their troops.

But, as he stated in his article, Bostrom said he has doubts about the necessity of the procedures if it is clear how the person died.

Last week Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman compared the Swedish Foreign Ministry's hands-off position to the country's neutrality during World War II.

"It's a shame that the Swedish Foreign Ministry fails to intervene in a case of blood libels against Jews," Lieberman told Sweden's ambassador to Israel on Thursday evening. "This is reminiscent of Sweden's stand during World War II, when [it] had failed to intervene as well."

Not to go all Tim but I saw this article and had to post it.  Maybe Slargos will move back to Sweden

[Ape]

Not to go all Tim but I saw this article and had to post it.  Maybe Slargos will move back to Sweden

The Israelies want our government to break our constitution, the part dating from 1766  It ain't ever going to happen. So fuck off Israelis.

The article itself (I have read it  in Swedish) doesn't say what the Israelis claim it to say. The article interviewed some Palestinians that claimed that the IDF was removing organs from Palestinians killed or fatally wounded by the IDF. It never stated that the IDF did steal organs.

Now the newspaper itself (Aftonbladet) has a reputation in Sweden for sensationsalism and socialistic views, not that many Swedish people take them overly seriously. Had the article been published in http://www.dn.se/'Dagens Nyheter' (transl. Daily News) the Swedish public would have taken it a lot more seriously.

What the Israeli government need to learn is that critisizing Israel does not equal anti-semitism, as the definition of that is prejudice against or hostility towards Jews.

[Admiral Yi]

The article itself (I have read it  in Swedish) doesn't say what the Israelis claim it to say. The article interviewed some Palestinians that claimed that the IDF was removing organs from Palestinians killed or fatally wounded by the IDF. It never stated that the IDF did steal organs.

Does the author not question the need for autopsies in the article?

What the Israeli government need to learn is that critisizing Israel does not equal anti-semitism, as the definition of that is prejudice against or hostility towards Jews.

Saying this is a case of criticizing Israel is like saying references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is criticizing Israel.

[Scipio]

Presumably, they could verify the organs were there by means of an autopsy.  But, lots of Muslims erroneously believe that autopsies are contra indicated for paradisically motivied Muslims.  Oh, irony of ironies.

[Ed Anger]

Put a guard on all churches.

[Admiral Yi]

And where in the Swedish government does it say that the government cannot comment on stories in the Swedish press?

I mean where in the Swedish constitution.

[DisturbedPervert]

Ghanem's family said they believed that his organs had been removed.

That's good enough for me

[Octavian]

And where in the Swedish government does it say that the government cannot comment on stories in the Swedish press?

Comment or condemn?

Anyway I find the swedish argument about freedom of speech hilarious considering that many (if not most) swedes still believe Denmark should apologies to the islamotards for the Mohammed cartoons.

[Ape]

And where in the Swedish government does it say that the government cannot comment on stories in the Swedish press?

http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_PageExtended____6063.aspx

1 § Med tryckfrihet förstås varje svensk medborgares rätt att, utan några av myndighet eller annat allmänt organ i förväg lagda hinder, utgiva skrifter, att sedermera endast inför laglig domstol kunna tilltalas för deras innehåll, och att icke i annat fall kunna straffas därför, än om detta innehåll strider mot tydlig lag, given att bevara allmänt lugn, utan att återhålla allmän upplysning.

My translation: 1§ By Freedom of Press (snip) ... only before a legal court be spoken to for its contents,

Now I am no laywer, but from what I know if any person within the Government would comment on in a negative way about the press, which might be considered censurship, would be heard by the Committe of the Constitution and might later be prosecuted by the Supreme Court. Something that hasn't happend since the mid 19th century.

[Admiral Yi]

Now I am no laywer, but from what I know if any person within the Government would comment on in a negative way about the press, which might be considered censurship, would be heard by the Committe of the Constitution and might later be prosecuted by the Supreme Court. Something that hasn't happend since the mid 19th century.

So if a Swedish newspaper publishes an article claiming that the Prime Minister fucks goats and the cabinet is all taking bribes from Martians no one is allowed to say anything about it?

[Ape]

Now I am no laywer, but from what I know if any person within the Government would comment on in a negative way about the press, which might be considered censurship, would be heard by the Committe of the Constitution and might later be prosecuted by the Supreme Court. Something that hasn't happend since the mid 19th century.

So if a Swedish newspaper publishes an article claiming that the Prime Minister fucks goats and the cabinet is all taking bribes from Martians no one is allowed to say anything about it?

AFAIK they would have to press legal charges.

Edti: Not by the government, other newspapers might and probably would ridicule them

[Neil]

And where in the Swedish government does it say that the government cannot comment on stories in the Swedish press?

Comment or condemn?

Anyway I find the swedish argument about freedom of speech hilarious considering that many (if not most) swedes still believe Denmark should apologies to the islamotards for the Mohammed cartoons.

Ultimately, the Swedish government is right in this case.  Of course, they're still a bunch of antisemitic assholes.

[Neil]

Now I am no laywer, but from what I know if any person within the Government would comment on in a negative way about the press, which might be considered censurship, would be heard by the Committe of the Constitution and might later be prosecuted by the Supreme Court. Something that hasn't happend since the mid 19th century.

If that were the case, then the Swedish idea of censorship would in no way resemble actual censorship.

[Admiral Yi]

AFAIK they would have to press legal charges.

Edti: Not by the government, other newspapers might and probably would ridicule them

How about an article claiming that AIDS is a myth and everyone should go back to assfucking bareback and sharing heroin needles?

[Razgovory]

Now I am no laywer, but from what I know if any person within the Government would comment on in a negative way about the press, which might be considered censurship, would be heard by the Committe of the Constitution and might later be prosecuted by the Supreme Court. Something that hasn't happend since the mid 19th century.

So if a Swedish newspaper publishes an article claiming that the Prime Minister fucks goats and the cabinet is all taking bribes from Martians no one is allowed to say anything about it?

AFAIK they would have to press legal charges.

Edti: Not by the government, other newspapers might and probably would ridicule them

You know that doesn't make a damn bit of sense?  Government officials can't comment on a news story but must wait till another newspaper press charges.