Jews steal arab organs!

[Martinus]

Seriously, you retarded assfuckers.

During the mohammed-picture incident, you were all screaming about the need to defend freedom of speech.

Now you're asking the Swedish government to apologize for an article in a Swedish newspaper.

I lack the words to express how disgusted I am right now.

I agree with Slargos. Especially as the article in the Swedish press is information (however wrong or incredible it may be), which puts it a magnitude above satyrical cartoons in the sense of what we should be protecting.

[Martinus]

Anyway...on topic. I agree with the dislike of Israel and its supporters crying anti-semitism to criticism.
I hate North Korea, its a shitty regime. That doesn't mean I'm a anti-Korean racist.

I dislike people saying criticisms of Israel are anti-semitic.  I think it's been too common and I think it weakens the meaning of anti-semitism, in much the same way that constant references to someone being like a fascist dilutes the meaning of fascist until it is, in effect, meaningless.  I think that's something that non anti-semites should be concerned with, that and that it's an attempt to shut down debate which then allows the critic to become a martyr - like just condemning the BNP as racist or Islamophobic without detailing the ways and refuting them.

Having said that I think this does seem anti-semitic because it feeds into and from the blood libel.  So in this case when supporters of Israel, or critics, cry 'anti-semitism', I think they have a point.

Unlike Yi and others I actually would like to see an apology and retraction from the paper (though not the government) and I think this is the sort of thing over which heads should roll.  Though I don't think the government need to get involved.

Why is this article a blood libel but an article that would claim a non-Israeli army is doing that (if that article actually claimed that, but it didn't) would not be a blood libel, I assume?

Cries of blood libel (and condemnations thereof) made sense when they were targeted at a unique religious and cultural, powerless minority. They really make no sense when targeted at a full-fledged country with its own army.

[Warspite]

In a Free Country(tm), actions over libellous statements should be pursued through the courts and justice system, rather than by the government, no?

[Admiral Yi]

Why is this article a blood libel but an article that would claim a non-Israeli army is doing that (if that article actually claimed that, but it didn't) would not be a blood libel, I assume?

Cries of blood libel (and condemnations thereof) made sense when they were targeted at a unique religious and cultural, powerless minority. They really make no sense when targeted at a full-fledged country with its own army.

Blood libel is not a generic term for an accusation of wrongdoing, it's specifically related to the charge that Jews secretly kill non-Jews for fun.

[Martinus]

Why is this article a blood libel but an article that would claim a non-Israeli army is doing that (if that article actually claimed that, but it didn't) would not be a blood libel, I assume?

Cries of blood libel (and condemnations thereof) made sense when they were targeted at a unique religious and cultural, powerless minority. They really make no sense when targeted at a full-fledged country with its own army.

Blood libel is not a generic term for an accusation of wrongdoing, it's specifically related to the charge that Jews secretly kill non-Jews for fun.

I realize that. I just think it is another term that is being over-used, especially in the context of a nation with its own state, army and government.

[Valmy]

And per ush, the moment you utter something that could be even remotely construed as negative about israel or israeli conduct, you're an israel-hating nazi.

It's getting pretty boring.

No it is usually when it is something like 'Israelis kill arabs to harvest organs!'.  How that could be considered something "remotely construed" as negative I don't know.

But we have been over this before.

[Valmy]

I realize that. I just think it is another term that is being over-used, especially in the context of a nation with its own state, army and government.

I guess I don't see how that context makes any difference.  Why couldn't a people with a state, army, and government be accused of killing people for fun?  Heck we Americans get accused to starting wars just to kill brown people all the time, because we find it fun.

Just because people have a state, army, and government you can then accuse them of killing people for fun and it is ok?

[Valmy]

They're not asking Sweden to stop them from printing it, they're simply asking them to denounce it. That's not censorship.

It really is not necessary for the Swedish government to denounce that article.  It's idiocy is self-evident and makes that paper look like a conspiracy theory nutbag rag.

If the United States government had to denounce every stupid, ill-informed, poorly researched, prejudiced, and bigoted article published in over here they would be doing nothing but.

The only reason the Israeli government would even make such a request only indicates they are making excellent progress in becoming a full fledged Middle Eastern country.

Oh that was like anti-semitic and anti-Arab at the same time!  Go me!

[DontSayBanana]

Unlike Yi and others I actually would like to see an apology and retraction from the paper (though not the government) and I think this is the sort of thing over which heads should roll.  Though I don't think the government need to get involved.

Again, have we actually seen a direct quote showing condemnation or are we just taking it as a matter of faith that the article doesn't simply reference accusations by the families?

Here's a different way of looking at it from a diplomatic standpoint- if Israel ever hopes to wind things down over there, they're going to need to win people's trust. If I was an Israeli functionary, I would be upset that these accusations are being leveled, but I would view it as an important barometer and a chance to dispel some of the myths; simply screaming "that's not true!" tends to fuel hysteria, not curb it.

[Martinus]

I realize that. I just think it is another term that is being over-used, especially in the context of a nation with its own state, army and government.

I guess I don't see how that context makes any difference.  Why couldn't a people with a state, army, and government be accused of killing people for fun?  Heck we Americans get accused to starting wars just to kill brown people all the time, because we find it fun.

Just because people have a state, army, and government you can then accuse them of killing people for fun and it is ok?

Ok, let me explain what I meant because I think I am not making myself clear.

To me "blood libel" is an expression used to make such accusations look particularly heinous and dangerous, because they are targeted at a vulnerable minority; in this context, blood libel was often used as a prelude to pogroms. As such they have a very strong negative connotation in Western culture.

In this context, using the term "blood libel" to describe such accusations being leveled against the Israeli state (which, as you yourself point out, could and are sometimes used against other countries as well) is a semantic/intellectual dishonesty, in the same vein as labeling anyone who criticises Israel as an "antisemite".

[Valmy]

Again, have we actually seen a direct quote showing condemnation or are we just taking it as a matter of faith that the article doesn't simply reference accusations by the families?

If I print 'Tibet families claim China runs secret camps to harvet Tibetan organs' I bet the Chinese would probably think it was more than just reporting there are crazy Tibetans out there also.  Typically you don't just start reporting conspiracy theories in a paper, just you know, to catalogue all the conspiracy theories out there.

Here's a different way of looking at it from a diplomatic standpoint- if Israel ever hopes to wind things down over there, they're going to need to win people's trust. If I was an Israeli functionary, I would be upset that these accusations are being leveled, but I would view it as an important barometer and a chance to dispel some of the myths; simply screaming "that's not true!" tends to fuel hysteria, not curb it.

I don't understand what you are babbling about.  Random accusations about bullshit are not a chance to dispel anything.  You can never prove you are NOT doing something it is impossible and a waste of time.

Furthermore the reason Israel has problems has nothing to do with winning people's trust.  It has to do with the international community not giving a flying shit about the Palestinians, and how that population is cynically being used to attack the Israeli state, and finally Israel's own nutcases taking advantage of the situation to advance their own agenda.  The situation is not going to improve without outside interference and the international community has nobody to blame but themselves if they were being honest about the situation.  But nobody wants to.

[Valmy]

To me "blood libel" is an expression used to make such accusations look particularly heinous and dangerous, because they are targeted at a vulnerable minority; in this context, blood libel was often used as a prelude to pogroms. As such they have a very strong negative connotation in Western culture.

In this context, using the term "blood libel" to describe such accusations being leveled against the Israeli state (which, as you yourself point out, could and are sometimes used against other countries as well) is a semantic/intellectual dishonesty, in the same vein as labeling anyone who criticises Israel as an "antisemite".

Well I think the context of using this sort of thing is attempting to justify terrorism and attacks on the Israeli state, property, and people so I sort of view it rather intellectually honest rather than dishonest.  Likewise similar accusations against the United States are used for exactly the same purposes.

[Malthus]

I realize that. I just think it is another term that is being over-used, especially in the context of a nation with its own state, army and government.

I guess I don't see how that context makes any difference.  Why couldn't a people with a state, army, and government be accused of killing people for fun?  Heck we Americans get accused to starting wars just to kill brown people all the time, because we find it fun.

Just because people have a state, army, and government you can then accuse them of killing people for fun and it is ok?

Ok, let me explain what I meant because I think I am not making myself clear.

To me "blood libel" is an expression used to make such accusations look particularly heinous and dangerous, because they are targeted at a vulnerable minority; in this context, blood libel was often used as a prelude to pogroms. As such they have a very strong negative connotation in Western culture.

In this context, using the term "blood libel" to describe such accusations being leveled against the Israeli state (which, as you yourself point out, could and are sometimes used against other countries as well) is a semantic/intellectual dishonesty, in the same vein as labeling anyone who criticises Israel as an "antisemite".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that the article draws parallels between what is alleged to happen in Israeli with the recent case of organ-heisting is New Jersey in which some Jews were involved - which presumably elides the distinction between "Israeli" and "Jew", and the notion that all Jews are more or less interchangable/involved in a conspiracy together. This feeds directly on the "blood libel" mythology, which most Jews are rather adverse to (not me though - I'm rather looking forward to recycling Slargos for his useful* organs).

That being said, I certainly don't think it is the government's business to get involved in such things; but the blame isn't all on Israel's side - I understand that the Swedish ambassador in Israel in fact *did* condem the article, and Israel merely got angry when the Swedish "home gov't" failed to reaffirm it. It doesn't lie is Swedish mouths to get pissed at their own diplomatic failure. If it is against Swedish constitutional law to denounce newspaper articles, their abassador should not have  - denounced the article.   

*Not brain. That gets thrown out. Not genitalia either. 

[Admiral Yi]

Again, have we actually seen a direct quote showing condemnation or are we just taking it as a matter of faith that the article doesn't simply reference accusations by the families?

There is the author's comment that since the people were obviously shot he doesn't see the need for an autopsy.

[Admiral Yi]

Well I think the context of using this sort of thing is attempting to justify terrorism and attacks on the Israeli state, property, and people so I sort of view it rather intellectually honest rather than dishonest.  Likewise similar accusations against the United States are used for exactly the same purposes.

Donations to Hamas, bans on Israeli academics, safe haven for terrorists, trade embargoes, etc.

It's a little ironic that Marty's qualifications for people you're not allowed to throw unsubstantiated allegations at excludes...gays!

It's also a little ironic that Marty, who's every third word is homophobe when the topic is gays, is so quick to denounce the term antisemite.