Aftonbladets artikkel om at Israel plyndrer drepte palestinere for organer til transplantasjon har spredt seg i muslimske land og blitt den vandrehistorien den var i utgangspunktet. Det var slik den oppsto og slik har den fått ben å gå på. I Midtøsten er slike antisemittisme historier velkjente, men akkurat denne om organtyveri var ikke utbredt før Donald Boström lanserte dem, i lett skjønnlitterær form.

Det spesielle er at det var i norskeide Aftonbladet, Sveriges største avis, og redaktørene Jan Helin og Åsa Linderborg har ikke bare stått bak storyen. De har gått til motangrep. Linderborg har krevd at Israel må granskes. Hovedargumentet har likevel vært forsvar for ytringsfriheten. Ytringsfriheten trekkes frem for å forsvare en antisemittisk artikkel. Det finnes ikke fnugg av bevis for Boströms påstander. Derimot passer den perfekt inn i vandrehistorien om jøder som dreper ikke-jøder for å bruke deres blod.

Det er i essens historien om dagens svenske medier – og vi kunne tilføye norske, i kraft av Schibsteds eierskap. Boströms historie sier noe om den politiske habitus: Ingen av hovedorganene ønsket å trykke karikaturtegningene, men man går i bresjen for en story som er grovt antisemittisk.

Man kan ikke komme løpende og si at dette handler om pressefrihet. Ville man gjort det om Stürmers karikaturer? I Aftonbladets tilfelle må man si: på frukten skal treet kjennes.

Hans historie er nå omfavnet av medier i Syria, Qatar, Jordan, Emiratene og Oman.

Journalistforbundet i Algerie har gitt Donald Boström en pris, og han var sist måned nede og hentet den. Da påsto han samtidig at israelerne har drept 1.000 palestinere for å stjele deres organer.

Andrea Levin er leder av CAMERA, Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. Levin beskriver hvordan Aftonbladets artikkel nå har fått et eget liv. Levin tar samtidig for seg flere av Boströms påstander om Israels manglende etiske standarder for organhandel osv. Ikke noe av det stemmer.

Men dette er hva Carl Bildt og Fredrik Reinfeldt mener handler om ytringsfrihet: Frihet til å spre hat, for det er det som vokser i organartikkelens fotspor.

Anatomy of a Swedish Blood Libel

Allegations of Israeli organ theft are ugly, false, harmful—and they spread.

Allegations that Israel plunders and trafficks Palestinians’ organs are ugly, false, and harmful to peace efforts. No less dangerous—such libels spread.

The Aug. 17 story by Donald Bostrom in Aftonbladet, Scandanavia’s leading daily, has quickly metastasized to mainstream Muslim media, spawning cartoons of Jews stealing body parts and drinking Arab blood. These have been published in Syria, Qatar, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman, to name a few.

In early September, Algeria’s al-Khabar newspaper echoed Mr. Bostrom in a new fantasy claiming Jewish-directed gangs of Algerians and Moroccans round up Algerian children, spirit them into Morocco and thence to Israel to have their body parts harvested and sold. On Sept. 17, Iran’s PressTV breathlessly declared «an international Jewish conspiracy to kidnap children and harvest their organs is gathering momentum.»

Hate-filled Web sites have also taken up the theme. Almost invariably, wherever such permutations on the idea of Israeli organ theft appear, Aftonbladet is cited.

Of course, Mr. Bostrom has enjoyed newfound acclaim in some quarters for his article. As the fresh rumors of child-snatching and organ theft circulated in Algeria, the National Federation of Algerian Journalists welcomed him last month to bestow an award for excellence, and promised support for his work.

Meanwhile, editors at Aftonbladet have neither acknowledged nor corrected any of the factual errors that litter the article, and instead react with indignation to charges of misconduct. In a perversion of journalistic standards, Editor-in-chief Jan Helin admitted on his own blog on Aug. 19 that Aftonbladet had no evidence for the incendiary charges against Israel. Nevertheless, according to another Aftonbladet editor cited in Israel’s Ha’aretz newspaper on Aug. 20, Mr. Helin’s publication «stands behind the demand for an international inquiry» into Israeli actions.

In his original article, Mr. Bostrom wove a tenuous web of guilt by association among unconnected events, in the classic mode of conspiracy theorists. He linked a criminal New Jersey group—that included several Jews—engaged in organ-trafficking, to sweeping charges against Israel’s supposedly unethical medical establishment. Into this he injected a lurid event from 17 years ago involving Israeli soldiers shooting Palestinian Bilal Ahmed Ghanem, whose organs Mr. Bostrom says were later removed for trafficking.

His account also contains errors concerning Israel, its physicians, laws and military. Take the overarching claim that Israel’s medical establishment is grossly «unethical.» Mr. Bostrom asserts Israel «is the only western country with a medical profession that doesn’t condemn the illegal organ trade.» Yet, as of eighteen months ago, Israel has one of the most stringent laws in the world regarding human organs. It prohibits receiving compensation for organs, bans the sale of organs from the dead as well as the living and minutely defines «compensation» to prevent evasion of the law. Unlike laws in other countries, it prohibits the use of insurance for pre- and post-operative treatment for those Israelis who go abroad and receive purchased-organ transplants. But Mr. Bostrom omits any mention of this.

In seeking to underscore Israel’s supposed pariah status in the medical realm, the reporter cites a Jerusalem Post story from 1992 which, he claims, reported Israel being ostracized by France for its «unethical ways of dealing with organs and transplants.» But the June 29, 1992 article only recounted that, like Italy, Israel was being dropped from a European organ-coordinating group because it had contributed too few organs in proportion to the number used for transplants. No hint is given of unethical activity in the Jerusalem Post story. That charge is invented by Mr. Bostrom.

Francis Delmonico, a Harvard surgeon and international transplant specialist who was quoted in the Aftonbladet article on the issue of organ theft in general, told me he found the Aftonbladet charges completely inconsistent with his extensive interaction with Israeli doctors. Dr. Delmonico said he considered their professional conduct exemplary, and described physicians in the Jewish state as «noble and caring.» He added: «[Mr.] Bostrom has a responsibility to validate his assertions or withdraw them.» Like many others, Dr. Delmonico noted that Mr. Bostrom’s scenario in which Ghanem was supposedly shot before having his organs removed for trafficking was «not feasible from a surgical vantage.»

This indifference to the facts is telling with regard to the article’s depiction of Ghanem. Contrary to the reporter’s version, Ghanem was not an innocent «stone-thrower.» Rather—according to sources that include the Jerusalem Post, Agence France-Presse, and a United Nations casualty summary—he was wanted for kidnapping and assaulting other Palestinians at a time of rampant internecine Palestinian violence.

There are also inventions out of thin air, such as Mr. Bostrom’s connection of an ordinary 1992 campaign in Israel aimed at enlisting future volunteer organ donors to alleged abductions and organ theft committed against Palestinians. The reporter declares: «While the campaign was running, young Palestinian men started to disappear from villages in the West Bank and Gaza. After five days Israeli soldiers would bring them back dead, with their bodies ripped open.» Mr. Bostrom adds, «There were rumors of a dramatic increase of young men disappearing, with ensuing nightly funerals of autopsied bodies.» But evidence for this netherworld is, again, non-existent.

In one of the most seemingly damaging charges, Mr. Bostrom claims Ghanem’s family itself accused Israel in 1992 of killing the man and removing his organs. However, according to recent in-person interviews with the family by the Jerusalem Post, Ghanem’s mother, Sadeeka Ghanem, «denied that she had told any foreign journalist that her son’s organs had been stolen.» Another relative agreed, saying the family never told Mr. Bostrom Israel stole organs from the dead man’s body.

Still, Aftonbladet’s culture editor Asa Linderborg, in whose section the article appeared, wrote in a semi-hysterical Aug. 21 defense of the piece entitled «Examine Israel!»: «In the black of night, [Mr. Bostrom] takes a unique photograph of the mangled body, cut open and stitched from the chin down to the groin, while the boy’s frantic relatives are crying and screaming that the Israelis are plundering their son’s organs.» Fevered imaginations seem to be prevalent at the paper.

While visiting Algiers to pick up his award last month, Mr. Bostrom added embellishments to his original story, announcing that fully 1,000 Palestinians had endured the «harvesting» of body parts, and that all this began as early as 1960. The reporter has evidence for not even one case of organ theft, yet he’s now charging 1,000 cases.

Rational and responsible editorial judgment would have discarded Mr. Bostrom’s surreal story at the outset. Such judgment would also have considered the real world effects of inciting yet more enmity in a volatile conflict, stoking misconceptions and raising greater hurdles to reconciliation.

But Aftonbladet’s view of the parties involved appears strikingly crude, perceiving a realm populated by evil stick-figure Israelis preying mercilessly on romanticized Palestinian «stone-throwers.» One cannot in this context forget Aftonbladet’s unsavory pro-Nazi sentiments during the Hitler regime. This past seems to have done little to inoculate the paper against related bigotries today.

In an age of diminishing communication barriers, when false images and ideas can mislead hundreds of millions of people in minutes, it is more important than ever to reinforce the tenets of honorable journalism, and to expose malfeasance for all to see.

Behold, Aftonbladet.

Ms. Levin is executive director and president of CAMERA, Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America.

Vi i Document ønsker å legge til rette for en interessant og høvisk debatt om sakene som vi skriver om. Vennligst les våre retningslinjer for debattskikk før du deltar 🙂