Israeli organ borrowing revisited

[Admiral Yi]

For that he was made the target of a viscious smear campaign. I wonder if he will receive an apology?

I assumed he was a bullshit artist and I was wrong.  He has my apology.

[Neil]

Big deal.  This is the way of the future.

[Pat]

I'd like to add, however, that even if the Palestinians did die of natural causes in Israeli jail and were returned to their families without organs, that is still pretty damn bad. And considering the circumstances here, that seems, at least to me, to be a sort of best-case scenario for Israel. The truth could be much worse. Israelis and Palestinians are enemies, after all.

[grumbler]

The allegation was that the Israelis were killing palestinians for their organs. The reality was (assuming the latest allegations are true) that the forensics lab did not have proper ethics guidelines, and was taking corneas etc. from everyone (Israeli and Palestinian alike) without getting approval from next-of-kin first.

The circumstances surrounding the events, as presented in the Aftonbladet article, which I, for one, now deem credible, makes it likely that Palestinians were, while (maybe) not "picked up and killed" quite possibly "killed and picked up" and then brought back five days later without any organs. That is bad enough.

The writer tells about the things he has seen with his own eyes and the stories told to him by Palestinians. It is implied that he finds the stories told to him credible, particularly in the light of what he has seen himself. But he doesn't report "this has happened" or levy any "allegations" against Israel. In the article he calls for further investigation into the matter. And quite rightly so!

For that he was made the target of a viscious smear campaign. I wonder if he will receive an apology?


edit: added a "maybe"

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a new winner of the coveted title "Languish's most gullible!" :woot:

DGullie, if you will email him his crown, that would be most appreciated.

[grumbler]

Why?  Israel has made it its policy for a long time not to defend itself from the endless allegations of evil that get tossed its way.  If it does this time wouldn't that mean it would have to continue to do so?  Or would it be taken that everytime it does not it is implied it is guilty?  I mean you already have an explanation and yet you want more just to prove Israel is not guilty of wrongdoing on a systemic level.  Is it really a good use of their time to put that much effort towards what appears to them to be a fruitless goal?

If you accuse a country of being evil constantly for 60 years after awhile they simply ignore you regardless of the validity of the situation.

I mean what practical value could explaining this in detail give them?  Most people would not believe them anyway.

I must admit that it is fun to watch you get all frothy at the mouth when someone implies someone in Israel has done something wrong.

"Israel," btw, is a legal articficiality.  It doesn't have "policies" and cannot be guilty of innocent of anything.

The answer to the question "why should the Israeli government explain wrongdoing by its employees in detail" is "because it is a democracy, and the governments of democracies should not hide potential wrongdoing from the country's citizens."

But don't pay any attention to logic.  The frothing is more entertaining.

[Pat]

I'd like to add, also, that I have no great love for Palestinians or their ways (though I do have great sympathy with the small minority of secular Palestinians, though I suppose most of them have fled by now - we have quite a few of them in Sweden and they're very good people). I dislike both the Palestinians and Israel. They both share the same middle-eastern mentality that I find quite distateful. I don't understand how anyone not ethnically or religiously sympathetic can sympathize with either side in that conflict. I will not deny that I take great pleasure in how this affair has now developed, and what it has shown for all to see, but I'd take the same great pleasure in taking away illusions of Palestinian-sympathizers (indeed, in left-wing forums I always take the side of Israel when it is justified).

[Barrister]

I'd like to add, however, that even if the Palestinians did die of natural causes in Israeli jail and were returned to their families without organs, that is still pretty damn bad. And considering the circumstances here, that seems, at least to me, to be a sort of best-case scenario for Israel. The truth could be much worse. Israelis and Palestinians are enemies, after all.

It has nothing to do with being the "best case scenario" - it is the scenario.  There's no other evidence to suggest otherwise.

Is it pretty damn bad - yes (although we must remember this happened a decade ago).  But that's why the focus on the Palestinians is bizarre - it's a nasty little story all by itself.  Why try to make it worse?

And Israelis and Palestinians obviously have a dispute going on, but not everything that happens in that corner of the world immediately ties into that conflict.

[Pat]

The allegation was that the Israelis were killing palestinians for their organs. The reality was (assuming the latest allegations are true) that the forensics lab did not have proper ethics guidelines, and was taking corneas etc. from everyone (Israeli and Palestinian alike) without getting approval from next-of-kin first.

The circumstances surrounding the events, as presented in the Aftonbladet article, which I, for one, now deem credible, makes it likely that Palestinians were, while (maybe) not "picked up and killed" quite possibly "killed and picked up" and then brought back five days later without any organs. That is bad enough.

The writer tells about the things he has seen with his own eyes and the stories told to him by Palestinians. It is implied that he finds the stories told to him credible, particularly in the light of what he has seen himself. But he doesn't report "this has happened" or levy any "allegations" against Israel. In the article he calls for further investigation into the matter. And quite rightly so!

For that he was made the target of a viscious smear campaign. I wonder if he will receive an apology?


edit: added a "maybe"

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a new winner of the coveted title "Languish's most gullible!" :woot:

DGullie, if you will email him his crown, that would be most appreciated.

I was entirely agnostic as to the article when it first appeared. It is only now that I deem it credible.

[Pat]

I'd like to add, however, that even if the Palestinians did die of natural causes in Israeli jail and were returned to their families without organs, that is still pretty damn bad. And considering the circumstances here, that seems, at least to me, to be a sort of best-case scenario for Israel. The truth could be much worse. Israelis and Palestinians are enemies, after all.

It has nothing to do with being the "best case scenario" - it is the scenario.  There's no other evidence to suggest otherwise.

Is it pretty damn bad - yes (although we must remember this happened a decade ago).  But that's why the focus on the Palestinians is bizarre - it's a nasty little story all by itself.  Why try to make it worse?

And Israelis and Palestinians obviously have a dispute going on, but not everything that happens in that corner of the world immediately ties into that conflict.

You should know absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. We know Palestinians and Israelis are enemies. We know they don't like each other. I'm not saying I have any evidence here. I'm just saying it's possible. And of course, if Israel has nothing to hide it would be in their best interest to provide full disclosure. Along with that being the only right thing to do.

And is it really bizarre to focus on the Palestinians? Israelis harvesting other Israelis to give the organs to Israelis isone thing. Israelis harvesting Palestinians to give the organs to Israelis is another thing, because the Palestinians are essentially their subject people who they can treat a little bit like they want. Can you really not see the difference? 

[Barrister]

You should know absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. We know Palestinians and Israelis are enemies. We know they don't like each other. I'm not saying I have any evidence here. I'm just saying it's possible. And of course, if Israel has nothing to hide it would be in their best interest to provide full disclosure. Along with that being the only right thing to do.

And is it really bizarre to focus on the Palestinians? Israelis harvesting other Israelis to give the organs to Israelis isone thing. Israelis harvesting Palestinians to give the organs to Israelis is another thing, because the Palestinians are essentially their subject people who they can treat a little bit like they want. Can you really not see the difference? 

Discussing what's possible is pointless.  Anything is possible.  Focus on the actual evidece and what it shows.

And what it shows is that this lab had poor internal controls on harvesting organs.  There is no evidence they treated Palestinians any differently than Israelis.  There's also no evidence they only used these organs on Israelis - Israeli hospitals routinely treat Palestinians.

[Pat]

Yes, I agree we don't have much evidence. Which is why Israel should provide full disclosure. Until then I'll have my suspicions. 

[Barrister]

We in fact have quite a bit of evidence.  Numerous news stories and interviews have been conducted.  Israel has come clean and admitted what happened.

[Pat]

We in fact have quite a bit of evidence.  Numerous news stories and interviews have been conducted.  Israel has come clean and admitted what happened.

I think we can safely say that the mere words of Israel is not "evidence".


But I'm glad they admitted it. Remains to be seen if they will also apologize for their smear campaign of lies and defamation.

[Neil]

"Israel," btw, is a legal articficiality.  It doesn't have "policies" and cannot be guilty of innocent of anything.

Guilt and innocence are legal artificialities, and there are few artificialities that are more artificial than legal ones.

The answer to the question "why should the Israeli government explain wrongdoing by its employees in detail" is "because it is a democracy, and the governments of democracies should not hide potential wrongdoing from the country's citizens."

That's silly.  Democracies have even more reason to hide potential wrongdoing, due to their fragility.

[Pat]

Barrister, perhaps you can help me with a question of legal technicality: When a defendant admits to only that which is proven, and says "nothing else happened", is that then evidence that nothing else happened?