Monday, August 31, 2009
The Italians are stepping in to make peace and offer Sweden a bailout: Following inflammatory article, Sweden to demand EU condemn anti-Semitism
Is the crisis in relations between Israel and Sweden coming to an end? That is what Italy's foreign minister, Franco Frattini, would like to believe.
In a telephone conversation with Haaretz, Frattini said he recently met with his Swedish counterpart, Carl Bildt, and the two agreed that at a meeting of European Union foreign ministers later this week, they will work to pass a resolution making it clear that the EU, under the Swedish presidency, strongly condemns anti-Semitism and will take action against any manifestation of it on the continent.
Frattini said he intends to demand that the meeting's summary statement explicitly condemn the article published in the Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet, which claimed that Israeli soldiers harvested the organs of dead Palestinians. He said his proposed statement would declare articles of this sort to be "acts of blatant anti-Semitism."
"There are limits to freedom of the press that stem from respect for the truth and the duty of every journalist to prove his claims," Frattini explained.
The accusations in the Aftonbladet article are "terrible conclusions, lying and hurtful, and they have the power to assist all those who seek to incite against Jews or who oppose the existence of the State of Israel," he added.
However, Frattini stressed, "the state cannot intervene in the work of the press. The journalists are the ones who must set limits for themselves and must find the right balance within the framework of the journalistic code of behavior."
Frattini said that is why the Council of Ministers, which is scheduled to discuss the situation in the Middle East later this week, is the correct forum "for Sweden to prove, with concrete steps, its determined stance against anti-Semitism. It would be better for the Swedish response to be expressed there than via a government communique to the press."...
Do the Swedes even understand that what happened is actually "anti-Semitism?" We are not so sure. Would yet another abstract condemnation from the EU actually mean anything more than every other condemnation of the abstract has before? If they can't condemn it when it's staring them in the face in their own country, what do more words on paper mean exactly?
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Sweden Looks to EU to 'Condemn anti-Semitism'.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.solomonia.com/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-renamedtb.cgi/16769
In an update to yesterday's story about Italy publicizing discussions to smooth over the Aftonbladet Blood Libel flap by coming out with yet another general EU condemnation of anti-Semitism, Swedish site The Local reports that Carl Bildt denies there h... Read More
According to Haaretz, the Israeli Foreign Ministry already appears to see through this sham:
"Every initiative against anti-Semitism is welcome," said Yigal Palmor, that ministry's spokesman. "But if the declaration is general and does not specifically relate to the article in Aftonbladet, it will not resolve anything.
"We did not ask for an apology, or for measures against the newspaper or the journalist," he added. "All we asked of Sweden and the Swedes is that they reject and decry the content of the report. And our position has not changed."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1111229.html
I guess what's sort of surprising here is that it's Italy that's actually showing some balls, however small.
How about this story?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,645375,00.html
Is this a "sauerkraut libel?"
Anti-deutschitism?
Just another story of corruption around a VERY lucrative business.
Not many people know this but Daoud is a transplant recipient.
Daoud needed a new brain, but because he was in a country with socialized medicine and all the cost sensitive, third-tier healthcare that accompanies it, he was given the brain of a Jackass.
Daoud,
No one's denying that there's trafficking in organs or that it's profitable or that there are ethical issues or that people who should know better are sometimes involved, as in the recent case in New Jersey.
What does this have to do with the Swedish paper blindly repeating the latest absurd Palestinian blood-libel propaganda?
Are you saying that because there's a German company that sells spare parts that therefore the charges made in the Aftonbladet's story must be true? That would be quite a stretch, even for you.