Israeli organ borrowing revisited

[Slargos]

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article3433138.ece

Don't have an english link yet, but Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten references an article by an "american academic" that claims to have interviewed Jehuda Hiss of the israeli forensic institute Abu Kabir in 2000 who claims that parts were harvested from corpses "often without the consent of the families of the deceased"

I wonder where this story will go next. 

[Slargos]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/20/israel-admits-harvesting-palestinian-organs

[Neil]

Good.

[jimmy olsen]

What actually happened is a bit different than what you're implying Slargos.

Channel 2 TV reported that in the 1990s, specialists at Abu Kabir harvested skin, corneas, heart valves and bones from the bodies of Israeli soldiers, Israeli citizens, Palestinians and foreign workers, often without permission from relatives.

The Israeli military confirmed to the programme that the practice took place, but added: "This activity ended a decade ago and does not happen any longer."

Hiss said: "We started to harvest corneas ... whatever was done was highly informal. No permission was asked from the family."

However, there was no evidence that Israel had killed Palestinians to take their organs, as the Swedish paper reported. Aftonbladet quoted Palestinians as saying young men from the West Bank and Gaza Strip had been seized by the Israeli forces and their bodies returned to their families with missing organs. The interview with Hiss was released by Nancy Sheppard-Hughes, professor of anthropology at the University of California-Berkeley who had conducted a study of Abu Kabir.

[Pat]

And how do we know what you quote is true? Is there a reason why you don't link to the source?

"However, there was no evidence that Israel had killed Palestinians to take their organs, as the Swedish paper reported." If you had read the article in question, you'd know what was actually written is a bit different from what your article doesn't imply, but quite expressively says. It was never "reported" that Israel did kill Palestinians to take their organs, nor was it claimed such evidence existed. It is true, as the article continues to say, that Aftonbladet "quoted Palestinians as saying young men from the West Bank and Gaza Strip had been seized by the Israeli forces and their bodies returned to their families with missing organs". But if we now can say that organs have indeed been harvested from dead Palestinians, do we not have every reason in the world to now believe these stories to be true?

[jimmy olsen]

No. For one thing they took organs without permission from Israelis as well and I don't see anyone claiming they killed Israelis just for that. Secondly taking organs from a dead body without permission is a negligible crime in comparison to killing someone for the express purpose of using their organs. The later is several orders of magnitude more heinous and reprehensible.

[Pat]

No. For one thing they took organs without permission from Israelis as well and I don't see anyone claiming they killed Israelis just for that. Secondly taking organs from a dead body without permission is a negligible crime in comparison to killing someone for the express purpose of using their organs. The later is several orders of magnitude more heinous and reprehensible.

You don't understand. Read this part of my post again: "It was never 'reported' that Israel did kill Palestinians to take their organs, nor was it claimed such evidence existed."

It was implied that the reporter found credible the stories told to him by Palestinians. In the article he calls for further investiation. That is not to report "this has happened", which your quote wrongly leads us to believe. And you still don't say where you found it. I assume you have good reason not to.

Anyway, we can now see he was quite correct to find the stories of these Palestinians credible (with all that entails). Despite massive cries of "antisemitism" we are now told Palestinians actually were harvested for organs. I'm glad to see the journalist was vindicated - if this additional information had not come out the Israeli smear campaign of lies and defamation would have him known as a liar.

[Martinus]

Selective reporting can be misleading without being objectively untrue, Pat.

If the Israelis were harvesting organs from dead people, without regard to their ethnicity, then reporting it as "Israelis harvest organs from dead Palestinians" make it look much more sinister than it really is.

Also, it may be a language barrier issue, but saying "Palestinians were harvested for organs" implies something else than what the article is saying.

[Pat]

This is the original Aftonbladet article in English translation: http://www.aftonbladet.se/kultur/article5691805.ab

Please tell me in what way it is "misleading".

Edit: Certainly the writer makes his personal beliefs quite clear. All that is implied. But you are free to draw your own conclusions.

Also, it may be a language barrier issue, but saying "Palestinians were harvested for organs" implies something else than what the article is saying.

Which article do you mean? We are talking about several.

[Pat]

Reading through the discussion again it seems we have, in some ways, been talking past each other.

Edit: though I still stand by all my points, of course - the only thing I'd like to take back is the "You do not understand." part towards jimmy olsen, which might not have been entirely justified as I phrased it (but the claim is of course still entirely justified in other more important ways)

[Slargos]

And immediately with the reflexive verbal assaults.

I linked to the first article I read on the subject which was in Norwegian, and I gave a rough outline of what they claimed in the article. I even used the word "claimed" when in fact they stated it as truth and I could've gone the bullshit route of "it's in the paper so it must be true".

Then, I noted that I don't have any links to the article in english, but went ahead and found a link to an English newspaper running the same story.

Since you're referring to the original Aftonbladet story, I will note that I was sceptical in that case aswell.

Of course, you guys obviously shouldn't let the facts get in the way of your point of view. That would be incredibly inconveniencing.

I feel slightly dirty for having to defend myself in this fashion, so to summarize: Fuck you both.

[Martinus]

Also, it may be a language barrier issue, but saying "Palestinians were harvested for organs" implies something else than what the article is saying.

Which article do you mean? We are talking about several.
[/quote]
"Palestinians were harvested for organs" means they were picked up and killed in order to have their organs removed. So I meant the articles that are not saying that.

[Slargos]

Selective reporting can be misleading without being objectively untrue, Pat.

If the Israelis were harvesting organs from dead people, without regard to their ethnicity, then reporting it as "Israelis harvest organs from dead Palestinians" make it look much more sinister than it really is.

Also, it may be a language barrier issue, but saying "Palestinians were harvested for organs" implies something else than what the article is saying.

Selective reading comprehension can be misleading as well.

Never once did I even use the word "Palestinians".

[Martinus]

Selective reporting can be misleading without being objectively untrue, Pat.

If the Israelis were harvesting organs from dead people, without regard to their ethnicity, then reporting it as "Israelis harvest organs from dead Palestinians" make it look much more sinister than it really is.

Also, it may be a language barrier issue, but saying "Palestinians were harvested for organs" implies something else than what the article is saying.

Selective reading comprehension can be misleading as well.

Never once did I even use the word "Palestinians".

I wasn't responding to you, but to Pat. I understand you may have been confused by the fact that I addressed my post to Pat in its first sentence, though.

[Slargos]

Selective reporting can be misleading without being objectively untrue, Pat.

If the Israelis were harvesting organs from dead people, without regard to their ethnicity, then reporting it as "Israelis harvest organs from dead Palestinians" make it look much more sinister than it really is.

Also, it may be a language barrier issue, but saying "Palestinians were harvested for organs" implies something else than what the article is saying.

Selective reading comprehension can be misleading as well.

Never once did I even use the word "Palestinians".

I wasn't responding to you, but to Pat. I understand you may have been confused by the fact that I addressed my post to Pat in its first sentence, though.

Sorry.

I could've worded myself differently, but you misunderstood my intent.

Let's just forget it ever happened, you snide fucking faggot.