Saturday, August 29, 2009

When immaturity meets double standards: the Aftonbladet "scandal"

A few days ago the Swedish evening paper Aftonbladet published a story suggesting that Israeli soldiers harvested organs from Palestinian prisoners who died in captivity to sell them on the international transplant market. The fact that a country takes prisoners alive and returns dead bodies (this part of the story is not being denied) is itself a major human rights issue, but to Israelis and Zionists worldwide the apparent outrage was the suggestion that their organs were severed for money, which was called, you know, a blood libel.

From a journalistic viewpoint, the story is, to use a euphemism, a piece of crap. But does it warrant the torrent of invectives hurled at it by all and sundry on the Zionist camp? Logic dictates that nonsensical stories should be dismissed. But feigning scandal and claiming Jewish victimhood is very convenient to some (in fact, in some cases it's also a profitable business), so that these professional sufferers have been busy blowing the incident out of all proportion. Foremost among them, the government of Israel, which has asked its Swedish counterpart to condemn Aftonbladet -- which it apparently won't do.

The best way to see the hypocrisy and double standards involved in the scandalization of this irrelevant instance of faulty journalism is to make a couple of comparisons:

Comparison #1: Foreign stories about Israel vs. Israeli stories about foreign countries

It's not like the Israeli press is free from unwarranted demonization of other peoples and countries. For instance, Israeli newspapers are rife with incitement against the Nordic countries, which have been widely described as bastions of antisemitism.

On 30 March 2009, for instance, The Jerusalem Post published an online article under the title "Norway: Increased anti-Semitism has local Jews anxious", which, among other things, reported on an anti-Israel demonstration that took place in Oslo the day before, making the egregious claim that Norway's Finance Minister, Kristin Halvorsen, had marched with the protesters shouting antisemitic slogans. In their words (preserved here):

During the [January 2009 Gaza] war, Olso [Sic!] was fraught with violent anti-Israel demonstrations. Numerous government officials decried Israel’s actions in Gaza – including Minister of Finance Kristin Halvorsen, who led a march shouting, “Death to the Jews!”
In other words, the JPost accused Halvorsen not only of being an antisemite, but also of being unredeemably stupid, to the point of freely expressing her hate at a demonstration that she knew was being filmed. In the Post's defense it must be said that in Israel it is normal for politicians to exhibit precisely that kind of stupidity.

The reaction of the Norwegian government was the only admissible one from a self-respecting authority.

None.

Not a single step was taken by Norway's PM to infringe on the JPost's freedom of speech.

Halvorsen's Socialist Left party, however, did react. But what did they do? Ask the Israeli government to condemn The Jerusalem Post? Call for a boycott of Israeli journalists? No; they simply issued a press release:

Kristin Halvorsen participated in a demonstration for peace in Gaza on January 8th this year. There were no anti-Jewish slogans during the event what so ever, as The Jerusalem Post alleges.

There were appeals for inter-religious coexistence and peace, calling on Israel to stop the war on Gaza. The demonstration lasted for about an hour, and was a dignified and peaceful event.

A splinter-group continued a march towards the Israeli embassy afterwards. This was not a part of the official demonstration, and Kristin Halvorsen did not join this rally. She publicly denounced the violent outbreak that occurred in the aftermath of the peace demonstration.


In the face of which... The JPost retracted the story.

Well, not quite. They took it down from the web. A very bad journalistic practice, if you ask me: if you fucked it up, you must own up to your mistake.

When the Norwegian press did a search for the JPost's sources, it turned out that it was simply an attention-seeking Norwegian Jew who told a story of a nonexistent antisemitism to satisfy his ego. The JPost was left with no other option than to acknowledge the blunder, which it did in a convoluted way, putting the full blame on the deceitful Norwegian who had taken them in.

None of the Israeli politicians or Zionist bloggers now decrying Aftonbladet's bad standards said anything about the Jerusalem Post in the wake of this gaffe. Much less did the Israeli PM apologize to Norway or condemn the canard-telling paper, as he's now requesting from the Swedes.

Comparison #2: Blood libels against Israel vs. Israeli blood libels against others

Since Israelis seem so sensitive to what they call blood libels, they should also be outraged when these are used by other Israelis against certain groups.

Not so. On 19 February 2008, Shlomo Benizri, a Member of Knesset, stated that homosexual behavior caused earthquakes:

Mr Benizri made his comments while addressing a committee of the Israeli parliament, or Knesset, about the country's readiness for earthquakes.

He called on lawmakers to stop "passing legislation on how to encourage homosexual activity in the state of Israel, which anyway brings about earthquakes".

Trust me; while a few Zionist bloggers did make token protest statements, not a single one stated that Israel was a gay-unfriendly country because a gay-hater was allowed to serve in the Knesset. (Benizri was eventually jailed -- on swindling charges.)

Another example. On 11 April 2008, Haaretz published a story about a strange Jewish sect, led by one Elior Cher, that had abused small children, among other things by pushing them against burning-hot heaters, in an apparent attempt at exorcism. Haaretz's journalist had no better idea than to consult rabbi David Batzri, a well-known anti-Arab racist, on the issue. Batzri:

To me it sounds like complete paganism, like sacrificing children to Moloch. This is a religious rite that does not exist in Judaism. There isn't any religious rite because there aren't any such things in the Jewish kabbala, not even in applied kabbala, which is forbidden. This is exactly how children are sacrificed to Moloch. Only in Christianity and in pagan religions is there a concept like that - to pass a child over a fiery oven so he will burn.

See, this is plain blood libel against the Christians. Not, however, to Israeli politicians or Zionist bloggers, who said nothing despite this story being as prominent as, well, Aftonbladet's organ-harvesting article.

Comparison #3: Zionist blogger reactions vs. Nordic blogger reactions

A Zionist blogger after the
alleged Aftonbladet blood libel:

Have a look at this face:That's Jan Helin [Aftonbladet's editor in chief], and he's an antisemite. He's not even a particularly interesting antisemite, with some novel angle that gives you pause or forces you grudgingly to recognize his intellectual innovation. This fellow, he just regurgitates stale old canards and lots of very worn clischees. (...) [Sweden is] a society that is saturated with hatred of Jews.

Don't know what clischees are (maybe clichés in Swedish)?

A Norwegian blogger after the Jerusalem Post canard:

The Norwegian media and public see the Jerusalem Post’s articles as an attempt at waging some sort of propaganda war on Norway, but I suspect it’s all to do with something far more simple, less dramatic: An editor’s urge to boost reader/traffic figures. We see it happen up here, too, on a daily basis. Which is not to say that the Israeli’s disappointment is hard to understand.

It could easily be explained by Norway’s pro Israel traditions. Sudden criticism from a long-time friend may be hard to take. It certainly explains most Norwegians’ disappointment in, and reactions to, Israel’s warfare methods.


What I see here is a mature Norwegian blogger who finds clearly rational explanations pointing to sensationalist journalism instead of putting forward obtuse conspiracy theories.

And an immature Israeli blogger who believes that an utterly irrelevant piece of yellow-press journalism is an example of the indelible Nordic antisemitism.

Or pretends to believe so, anyway.

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

There was an article, well sourced, in Counterpunch that enumerated the past and present incidences of organ harvesting for transplants or research that have occurred in Israel over the last few decades. I think it provides the necessary background with which to view the Swedish story. In light of the scandals involving some Israeli hospitals and the former chief pathologist accused of stealing body parts, the Aftonbladet story may not be quite the "piece of crap" it first appears to be.

But the Israeli response is unsurprising. All outrage and no addressing of the issue.

Anonymous said...

Counterpucnch article:

http://www.counterpunch.org/weir08282009.html#_edn1

Gert said...

Danny Seaman, director of the Government Press Office, whose job it is to help journalists, especially foreign correspondents, cover Israel and have access to Israel's point of view had this to say about the BBC in 2003:

"The way the BBC is trying to portray Israel competes with the worst of Nazi propaganda," the Israeli government's press office head, Danny Seaman, told Reuters.

The BBC's coverage of the I-P conflict is seriously moot, to say the least. I rely on Aljazeera and Press TV for any televised news on I-P.

Attempts at silencing the foreign press is one of the things Israel is quite famous for.

Yaacov wrote:

"He's [Netanyahoo] perfectly aware of the issue of freedom of speech, is MIT-educated Netanyahu, and he's not demanding the Swedish rag sheet be shut down, say, or its editor burned. Other folks do that sort of thing, but not the Jews."

But I don't see many regimes calling for governments to condemn the utterances of members of their free press corps...

Bit of a Zionist reflex is that: at Harry's Place they're now jubilating because the Erasmus University of Rotterdam has decided to terminate its collaboration with Tariq Ramadan (an Islamic scholar) on the grounds that he... runs a TV show on Press TV (the exceedingly tame and boring 'Islam and Life' segment)!

Gert said...

Anonymous:

"[...] the Aftonbladet story may not be quite the "piece of crap" it first appears to be."

The piece is a piece of crap, not because the story is true or not true (we don't know that) but because the journalist didn't do any... real journalism! Merely repeating hearsay is very lazy. Far more interesting would have been to proactively investigate the claims. He didn't.

vhs said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
vhs said...

The article is indeed based on hearsay and as such a piece of crap. BUT the article does not claim to be any more than that. The "journalist" did actually state that these are rumors, which he could not prove but which needed to be investigated.

Now, that may still be crap of course, because baseless rumors do not need to be investigated, and saying "this must be investigated" indicates that they might be real. My point is solely, that he did not say directly that they were real. He stated, that he reported rumors.

Also, it was in a tabloid - the kind that in the US would run articles about "Obama's gay lover" and other utter crap. It was not taken seriously in Sweden or elsewhere at all until the Israeli government made a big fuzz about it (to prepare for the coming negotiations with the EU where Sweden will be chairman?).

Anyway... what do you make of this?: http://www.allbusiness.com/middle-east/israel/102662-1.html

This is an israeli (?) article from 2002 - when the rumors in the Swedish article were:

"State Attorney General Elyakim Rubinstein ordered police to launch an investigation against Prof. Yehuda Hiss, the nation's senior pathologist and director of the Abu Kabir Forensic Institute. Hiss is accused of a long list of charges from inappropriate behavior
as a medical professional to criminal acts such as the illegal sale of and dealings in organs and body parts, removing organs from deceased persons without consent, and misrepresenting organs in returned bodies."


I don't know what to make of it, as I don't know the legal outcome... I just found that old article, and thought: as a minimum, it might have something to do with the origin of the rumors - whether they are baseless or not.

Anonymous said...

More on the Abu Kabir Forensic Institute organ theft scandal and Yehuda Hiss from the Israeli press in 2002 and 2005:

http://chareidi.shemayisrael.com/archives5762/vaera/abukabir.htm

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=629017

Yitzchak Goodman said...

I have an idea for a Hasbara Buster post: After Michael Jackson died, Louis Farrakhan said he was a "victim" of Zionism. This was picked up with with various shades of disdain and disgust on a number of pro-Israel blogs. Here is where you come in: You point out that none of those "professional sufferers" denounced the JPost Kristin Halvorsen article--those hypocrites! Won't that be a great post? Once again Zionist intellectual dishonesty is exposed!

Ibrahim Ibn Yusuf said...

Great idea, Yitzchak!

As soon as Netanyahu asks Obama to condemn Farrakhan, I'll sit down and do the post.

Yitzchak Goodman said...

As soon as Netanyahu asks Obama to condemn Farrakhan, I'll sit down and do the post.

Glib comparisons seem to be your stock in trade anyway. You wrote:

None of the Israeli politicians or Zionist bloggers now decrying Aftonbladet's bad standards said anything about the Jerusalem Post in the wake of this gaffe.

Reality is sloppy. Some stories are more attention-getting. The organ story involved a fairly ghoulish accusation that was going to be widely believed in some quarters despite the lack of evidence, so it got people riled up. Other conspiracy theories are simply met with ridicule or not noticed at all because there is too much out there to take note of.
Many people who love to attack Israel also passed over the JPost business. It isn't that catchy. YMMV.

Ibrahim Ibn Yusuf said...

Some stories are more attention-getting.

I see you're getting it, at last.

We slam Israel and not Sudan because some countries, like some stories, are more attention-getting than others. No antisemitism on our part.

Yitzchak Goodman said...

We slam Israel and not Sudan because some countries, like some stories, are more attention-getting than others. No antisemitism on our part.

That's an editorial "we"? What an interesting thing to say about yourself.

Gert said...

Goodman:

"That's an editorial "we"?"

How lame.

The 'we' stands for those who get constantly accused of awarding Israel exceptional status and not looking at the crimes of others. The most risible argument used against 'us' is that we should consider just how tiny Israel is: is this 'tiny sliver' really worth 'fussing about'? Look away now folks, ain't nothing to see here, just a tiny sliver of Jewish land going about its business...

Anonymous said...

This is apparently the story that won't go away. But let's consider this one:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,645375,00.html

Is this an example of anti-deutschitism or a "sauerkraut libel?"

Or just another sensational article on shady dealings in an unimaginably lucrative body parts market?

Yitzchak Goodman said...

The most risible argument used against 'us' is that we should consider just how tiny Israel is: is this 'tiny sliver' really worth 'fussing about'? Look away now folks, ain't nothing to see here, just a tiny sliver of Jewish land going about its business...

Gaddafi wasn't fooled.

http://judeopundit.blogspot.com/2009/09/irib-kadhafi-africas-woes-stem-from.html

Gert said...

Kadhafi is a fool.

But Judeopundit, rather typically, then spoils it all by classic insinuation:

"The bit about the "brilliant choice" just made those two paragraphs so worthwhile for me. Meanwhile, at PressTV we learn about other places reached by Zionist tentacles: "Sarkozy, Merkel under Israeli influence: Iran": [...]"

Zionist tentacles, d'ya geddit, d'ya geddit? World Jooooo Conspiracy, man!

Is there anyone who doesn't believe that Merkel and Sarkozy aren't influenced in their anti-Iran stance by their pro-Israel stance? You really don't need Press TV to 'learn' that...

Israel strongly influences ME foreign policy of most Western governments. Oh no, shit, it's because Israel is the most wonderful democracy in the ME. Idiot me...

Anonymous said...

I started reading Hasbara Buster after coming across an articulate and intelligent analysis of the Gaza crisis (http://thehasbarabuster.blogspot.com/2008/12/gaza-food-for-thought-or-derision.html). I didn't agree with everything, but it was an intelligent contribution to the discussion.

Unfortunately, the following posts went down, fast, and this is the most hare-brained of them all, so far.

The author criticizes one article in the Jerusalem Post, a comment by one of Israel's dumbest politicians, and believe it or not a comparison between one Israeli blogger and one Norwegian blogger. The latter is particularly ridiculous as it is a blatant case of cherry picking.

The Aftonbladet piece is the most patently, obviously anti-Semitic piece of writing appearing in a contemporary, mainstream Western newspaper I've ever encountered ( the closest in the "cartoon" of Ariel Sharon eating Palestinian children). To anyone with the slightest familiarity with the history of Christian-Jewish relations this cannot help but echo voices of the kind of rabid anti-Semitic propaganda that contributed to the holocaust. To call it a Blood Libel is fitting.

What is most shocking is that, AFTER THE SWEDISH AMBASSADOR CONDEMNED THE ARTICLE, THE SWEDISH GOVERNMENT EXPLICITLY REBUKED THIS CONDEMNATION. This has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech - hardly anyone argues that Aftonbladet should be in any way censored - I certainly don't argue thus - but it is an outrageous accusation, and the least the Swedish government could do was to denounce it. Freedom of Speech does NOT mean that the government can have no views regarding the content of Speech. That would be absurd.

Indeed, the very focus on this affair by commentators such as The Hasbara Buster reinforces the perception that behind left-wing criticism of Israel lie dark, anti-Semitic motives. Left wingers should be the first to condemn the Aftonbladet and the Swedish government's response to this case. This is an issue that has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian issue, and thee fact that even in such a case Left Wingers are more interested in denouncing Israel than in standing up against anti-Semitism is telling.

There are worse things in life than agreeing with Alan Dershowitz about something. Anti Semitism is one of those things.

Gert said...

Anonymous:

"To anyone with the slightest familiarity with the history of Christian-Jewish relations this cannot help but echo voices of the kind of rabid anti-Semitic propaganda that contributed to the holocaust. To call it a Blood Libel is fitting."

No it is not. We have no evidence that the organ theft took place, which is why the journalism practices was sloppy to say the least.

But the stories told and bodies that clearly had been opened up that fuel them clearly exist. You're comparing a myth (classic anti-Semitic blood libels) with something that's real but as yet unproven. Aftonbladet should retract if later it turns out that no organ theft has occurred.

What will you do if the stories turn out to be true? Claim we can't discuss it because it's too reminiscent of mythical blood libels? If such organ theft did take place it has nothing to do with bloodlibel.

Hasbara Buster's piece is about the ridiculous reaction Aftonbladet received, including double standards applied.

"Indeed, the very focus on this affair by commentators such as The Hasbara Buster reinforces the perception that behind left-wing criticism of Israel lie dark, anti-Semitic motives."

That perception is entirely in your head and undoubtedly was already there before you read HB's piece.

"This is an issue that has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian issue, and thee fact that even in such a case Left Wingers are more interested in denouncing Israel than in standing up against anti-Semitism is telling."

Many 'Left Wingers' have denounced the piece as poor journalism. But Israel's reaction is typical: let's just try and blame it on Classic anti-Semitism (TM). If they want to maintain the moral high ground then they shouldn't stoop so low.

As I wrote above:

"But I don't see many regimes calling for governments to condemn the utterances of members of their free press corps..."

Do you, anonymous?

Israel is like a spoiled, petulant child: always throwing its toys out of its pram.

Gert said...

Anonymous should also consider something else: due to the multitude of anti-Semitic myths collated through the ages, Zionists have no problems attempting to create 'historical' parallels between some criticisms of Israel and said anti-Semitic myths. Here a shoe can be found for almost every foot if one is willing to do some creative fitting...

Most seriously was the allegation that accepting there is such a thing as the Israel Lobby was tantamount in believing there is a contemporary 'World Jooooo Conspiracy', a la 'Elders of Zion'. Unfortunately for the smear merchants, the existence of such a lobby is now no longer in dispute, not even by the lobby itself.

More risibly and more recently, on account of the 'natural growth' flap, Obama got compared to the Pharao by no less than an... Israeli cabinet minister! And comparisons between Obama and Hitler are a plenty. Hamas and to a lesser extent Fatah are considered by many (including the dreadful Jerkowitz) the linear descendants of the Nazis. M.Begin was quite obsessive about calling Arafat Hitler.

Senhal said...

I can actually read Swedish... There wasn't anything particularly bad about Boström's article: it's a rather typical 'these-are-rumours-I-heard-but-can't-substantiate' piece which turns up all over the place from war zones, China/Tibet, African countries, etc. He detailed why he wrote about the case now, what he had heard, and the unsuccessful steps he had taken to investigate the case. Then he concluded that the circumstancial evidence warranted a proper investigation - which I agree with.

The Swedish ambassador had been explicitly ordered not to release any statement pending further instructions. Furthermore, her statement pretty much stated that the article went beyond the bounds of free speech - and that that was the position of the Swedish government. To add an additional frisson, she's evidently a member of the Bonnier family, which owns a publishing house which publishes newspapers that compete with Aftonbladet. The Swedish Foreign Minister has furthermore explicitly stated that he does not act as a 'media critic', and does not comment on newspaper articles that do not pertain to the government's actions. A previous government minister who offered a vague apology in the Muhammed cartoons case had to go: Sweden has already had its debate on government intervention in the freedom of the press following international uproar.

The Jerusalem Post story, by the way, was a series of articles which deeply upset the Norwegian Jewish community, including a holocaust survivor whose words the JPost had twisted, and former MK.

Frankly I think those who scream about Scandinavian anti-Semitism should be ashamed of themselves: no-one in Sweden, as far as I know, has mentioned the fact that Sweden during WWII accepted all those Danish Jews that were ferried across by the Swedes (practically all of them), as well as that half of Norwegian Jews the Norwegian resistance managed to smuggle across the border. That's a better record than most other countries, and hardly the act of a perennially anti-Semitic country.

(I'm not Swedish, btw.)

Gert said...

Very interesting, Senhal...

B said...

Just in case you haven't seen it, the Boström article was reprinted in English later in the Aftonbladet here:

http://www.aftonbladet.se/kultur/article5691805.ab