Israeli organ borrowing revisited

[Malthus]

Oh, I agree. "Minor" only in the sense that it would be purely of domestic interest.

For example, there was a recent scandal here in Ontario about a foresnic pathologist who routinely made up results, leading to a bunch of people being falsely imprisioned on heinous charges (including moms convicted of murdering their babies). You may have heard of it, but I doubt it made the international news. It's a big deal, much bigger a deal than what this Israeli lab people are accused of, but still really only of domestic significance.

As you might expect, I have heard *a lot* about Dr. Smith.  He didn't however "make up results", but he would draw conclusions (that he was quite sure of) that was unsupported by the actual evidence, and conclusions no other pathologist would draw.

I would hope the story would spread beyond Canada, as it's a powerful little cautionary tale.

I'm not sure why "make up results" isn't an acceptable shorthand way of saying "he would draw conclusions (that he was quite sure of) that was unsupported by the actual evidence, and conclusions no other pathologist would draw".

What is a 'conclusion unsupported by evidence' other than something, in effect, pulled out of his ass? (Note: I don't mean literally pulled out of his ass ...). 

Anyway, any tale of wrong-doing can be a great object lesson, but it is in the nature of things that some are less likely to gain international currency than others.

[Barrister]

I'm not sure why "make up results" isn't an acceptable shorthand way of saying "he would draw conclusions (that he was quite sure of) that was unsupported by the actual evidence, and conclusions no other pathologist would draw".

What is a 'conclusion unsupported by evidence' other than something, in effect, pulled out of his ass? (Note: I don't mean literally pulled out of his ass ...). 

Anyway, any tale of wrong-doing can be a great object lesson, but it is in the nature of things that some are less likely to gain international currency than others.

"Make up results" implies deliberate falsification.  Dr. Smith didn't do that - he honestly believed in his results.  It's part of what made him such a great witness.  It's a shame he didn't follow the science though...

[Slargos]

Quite wrong. You link speaks of "sales of body parts". That is also what the Aftonbladet article mentions as previously well known (have you read it? I linked to it earlier in the thread).

There is absolutely nothing in your link about harvesting Palestinians for organs.

Of course not; because until the Swedish article came out with its inflamatory and zero-evidence allegations, the identities of the cadavers whose organs were harvested without consent was irrelevant.

The Swedish article took a minor story about ethical violations in a pathology lab - allegations investigated a decade ago by the Israelis themselves - and blew it up into a major international incident through gullably swallowing a bunch of innuendo with absolutely no evidence to support it.

This no doubt delights the Slargoses of the world, and re-enforces the ever-popular stereotype of the dumb-as-rocks Swede (Slargos being the poster child for this ), but is hardly the occasion to start handing out an award for excellence in journalism. 

You are glue, etc.

Or rather, in a perfect world you would be.

Glue.

Or a lampshade.

Just as long as it is not a fucking Ikea lampshade named "EKÅS" or something retardedly Swedish like that.

'cause I have my standards.

Don't worry. I will make it a custom job. It will be very tasteful. 

[Bluebook]

Point of fact - the Israelis do not give a shit about the European Union's foreign policy, because it is utterly impotent. The notion that but for this incident the Swedish presidency would have kicked asses and taken names, and sorted out the whole Arab-Israeli mess to the disadvantage of Israel, thus necessitating manufacturing of such an incident - well, I hardly know where to begin. 

My impression of diplomacy and international relations is that it is not quite that simple though. While it might be quite easy to make statements like that on the internet under the protection of anonymity while (probably) being without any real influence in international affairs, it is not quite that simple for a nation to publicly take that stance. To snub the EU would have real consequences for Israel economy wise at least.

And while Israel might be very much more dependent on US support than access to the european market, it is definitively not irrelevant to Israel. Especially now, when the unconditional support of the US might not be as certain as under the previous president.

Im not saying that the Swedish presidency would have sorted out the conflict, what I am saying though is that there would probably have been some tough choises facing Israel at a point in time where their list of friends is growing thin, while their need to have international backing grows (because of Iran).

But, that is just my opinion of cource, and undoubtedly I have proven myself to be one of those dumb-as-rock-Swedes. Oh well.

[Neil]

...and re-enforces the ever-popular stereotype of the dumb-as-rocks Swede

I understand Im putting myself at great peril to additionally reinforce this stereotype, but there is another side to this story that I have not seen much discussed.

The organ-stealing article has been very beneficial to Israel on the international diplomacy-side of things.

Consider this; Sweden became EU-president-nation on July 1st. Carl Bildt is our foreign minister and he has had very high ambitions to make a difference in the Israel-Palestine conflict. He is also known for his hardline stand on Israel. As Obama lost momentum and was tied down in domestic politics, the general idea was that the EU would pick up the torch in the peace process.   

The Swedish presidency takes off, Carl Bildt gears up for his peace-treaty-offensive, then the newspaper article hits. The Israelis go balistic, the Swedish ambassador says something controversial, we get a domestic debate, the Israelis demand an apology that we cannot give (anymore than the Danish could apologize for the Mohammed-cartoons). Things quickly deteriorate into a diplomatic quagmire. Carl Bildts trip to Israel is "rescheduled" or "postponed" (officially that is, the rumors off the record are that we were told that he would be refused entry if he showed up). Suddenly, the Swedish presidency is effectively neutered by this quasi-scandal. All of this benefits Israel greatly. The peace process is dead in the water with Obama still tied up domestically, the EU neutralized for now, and with Spain coming up as the next EU-presidency nothing is expected to happen...not to mention the faceless new EU foreign minister who is unlikely to ever do anything important.

All in all, this "scandal" has served Israel well, it effectively neutralized Bildt during the presidency.

Could the EU Presidency actually do anything?  Aren't they utterly impotent?

[Valmy]

And while Israel might be very much more dependent on US support than access to the european market, it is definitively not irrelevant to Israel. Especially now, when the unconditional support of the US might not be as certain as under the previous president.

I think Israel would be fine without our support....in any case I doubt we would ever drop it it would be a hugely expensive political move for whoever decides to do it.  Israel is, like everywhere, a political hornets nest most US politicians would rather leave alone.

Much better to do nothing while make bold moves down the road map to peace which only the foolishly naive think is going anywhere.

[Bluebook]

Could the EU Presidency actually do anything?  Aren't they utterly impotent?

They are about as important or unimportant as the EU is. And while "not very, then" might seem like the easy answer, and indeed the most attractive one on an internet forum such as this, in reality it is a bit more complicated than that for Israel right now.

[Barrister]

My impression of diplomacy and international relations is that it is not quite that simple though. While it might be quite easy to make statements like that on the internet under the protection of anonymity while (probably) being without any real influence in international affairs, it is not quite that simple for a nation to publicly take that stance. To snub the EU would have real consequences for Israel economy wise at least.

But, that is just my opinion of cource, and undoubtedly I have proven myself to be one of those dumb-as-rock-Swedes. Oh well.

It is starting to look that way, isn't it.

[Bluebook]

I think Israel would be fine without our support....

I think not. But that just shows that we have different opinions on the matter. I would like to hear your arguments though.

in any case I doubt we would ever drop it it would be a hugely expensive political move for whoever decides to do it.  Israel is, like everywhere, a political hornets nest most US politicians would rather leave alone.

There is a vast array of alternatives between dropping it and backing them 100% no matter what though. As the difference between Obama and Bush has shown if nothing else.

[Bluebook]

Im sorry, but the last two posts you have done directed at me has consisted of nothing more than that emoticon. Perhaps you would be so kind as to articulate exactly what it is you find so hillarious?

[Neil]

Could the EU Presidency actually do anything?  Aren't they utterly impotent?

They are about as important or unimportant as the EU is. And while "not very, then" might seem like the easy answer, and indeed the most attractive one on an internet forum such as this, in reality it is a bit more complicated than that for Israel right now.

That's not really true.  The EU President isn't actually the leader of the EU, and can't direct the EU.

[Bluebook]

That's not really true.  The EU President isn't actually the leader of the EU, and can't direct the EU.

No, the precidency cannot direct the EU, it speaks for and represents the EU though, and it sets the agenda. While its importance should not be exaggerated, it should not be underestimated either.

[Barrister]

Im sorry, but the last two posts you have done directed at me has consisted of nothing more than that emoticon.

That's right. 

[Bluebook]

That's right. 

I really wish you would put  more effort into this.

[Valmy]

I think not. But that just shows that we have different opinions on the matter. I would like to hear your arguments though.

My opinion is based on the reality that our actual support is rather minimal.  They can easily provide for their own defense and carry on their own policies without the chump change money we give them.  Naturally they figure it is probably easier to get along with us than without us but they are not united in that opinion.  Some would rather get rid of the burden of having to go through the motions of making us happy.

There is a vast array of alternatives between dropping it and backing them 100% no matter what though. As the difference between Obama and Bush has shown if nothing else.

There is no practical difference between Obama and Bush.  Both wanted to advance a Palestinian State, freeze settlements and so forth and both were and will be completely ineffective.  Neither most Israelis nor alot of Palestinians have any interest in a Palestinian State but they will go along with us to humor us and delay delay delay.  If any real progress happens the radicals will blow it all to hell like they always do.