Talk:2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Importance of israeli admissions of Organ Harvest

I have moved the following paragraph to second in the lede, from last, in an attempt to balance the article.

In December 2009, Israel admitted there had been organ harvesting of skin, corneas, heart valves and bones from dead bodies of Palestinians, Israeli soldiers and citizens and foreign workers, without permission from relatives, in the 1990s, but that this practice no longer occurred.

93.96.148.42 (talk)

Today Aftonbladet publisches an article about what would be an ultimate admission of guilt. They have replaced the director of the Coroners office(?), and the new director, Chen Kugel, writes to Donald Boström: "Du kan säga att du bidragit till denna förändring genom att rapportera om situationen”. "You can state that you have contributed to this change by repporting about the situation". The article is here http://www.aftonbladet.se/kultur/article16430325.ab . I am not qualified enough to know where and what to write in the text. (the text is really a mess with repeting same things on more than one place) Maybe someone with better knowledge in english can do it? It would also be good with a engish source.

I also think this wiki-article gives to much importance to what other swedish newspapers are saying, Aftonbladet is the only major newspaper in Sweden that are left leaning, and also the only one that are pro-palestinian. All the others are sionistic (well, Svenska Dagbladet (conservative) are sionistic on the editorial, but balanced in the paper). This makes that they are taking every chance they get to attac Aftonbladet... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Växelhäxan (talk • contribs) 10:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Did the article say that Israel killed Palestinians for their organs?

Associated Press, United Press International, CNN, ABC News, BBC News, The Guardian and others say it did. If there is a significant minority of reliable secondary saying it didn't, we can say the matter is disputed. In the meantime, not a single one has been presented. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The matter is disputed, at the very least by Bodström and Aftonbladet. Steinberger (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

They are not secondary reliable sources on this matter. Not only that, but no source has been presented even showing that they dispute this. I read Bostrom's Navier interview, and he does not dispute it. Bring sources, and we'll talk, but right now you're just edit-warring in your original research. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow. What do you mean by "they"? And what do you mean by "he does not dispute it"? Steinberger (talk)

You hadn't presented a source showing that Bostrom or Aftonbladet denied that the original article claimed that Israel killed Palestinians for their organs. In the Navier interview, which you cited, Bostrom does not make that denial. But never mind, I found a source myself where Bostrom does make that denial, and changed the lead to include his position. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Boström say he never wrote that, and that it is not in the article. Is that not a denial? Nevertheless and one other thing. You took away what I wrote about "Israeli discource": have you noticed that the AP, UPI, CNN, ABC articles you have used are written by correspondents in Jerusalem (or the "Middle East")? (BBC don't tell where, but Mark Weiss of Irish Times is based in Jerusalem if one believes Google.) It would be more credible if you found a article by a Stockholm correspondent saying the same thing as they do in Israel. Steinberger (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, Bostrom indeed made the denial, but only in the source I brought, not in the source you brought. Your idea regarding "Israeli discourse", and the attempt to support it with an analysis of where various reporters are based, are pure original research, and also happen not to be convincing. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not original research to attribute the articles to it authors or to say where the correspondent resides. That would infact be quite appropriate. Steinberger (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Several of the sources say that the article made this claim, in most cases by using the AP story. Al Jazeera uses the same story, but without that specific claim.[1] So, I think there is evidence of a difference in the reporting on this point. We could explain the difference, although it would mostly be original research. I don't think there is any significant discussion of the point in reliable sources, besides the newspaper's and Scheper-Hughes' denial that it made the claim. One Swedish source said that despite the denial this was just the "evidence chain" that Bostrom painted up, which I believe I quoted above. Otherwise it's just a point for us to be aware of in reporting, I think. We could note that following the December story, several news outlets reported that Aftonbladet had initially claimed that Israel was killing Palestinians in order to take their organs, although Bostrom, Aftonbladet, and Scheper-Hughes denied that the article made this claim. Mackan79 (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I take it we do not have a link to the original article? Stellarkid (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's linked in the article, although it's in Swedish. A translation is here. I believe a fair summary is that the article does not make the claim, but some here say that the article implies that they were killed for that purpose, and some newspapers have glossed the point with language stating that it did (I have only seen one Swedish source that focuses on the point, though others have been more specific in stating that the article implied it). Besides that is the fact (as far as I am aware) that this point was only raised after the December revelations with Dr. Hiss, but I think that is also necessary context, since the point basically has to do with whether those revelations showed the article to be correct. Mackan79 (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the first sentence contains a dangling modifier. Stellarkid (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, it is is titled a controversy, but the other side of this controversy isn't heard of til para 3 "The Israeli government and several US congresspersons condemned the article as baseless and incendiary, while noting the history of antisemitism and blood libels against Jews, and asked the Swedish government to denounce it." Since it is the disputation that makes this the Aftonbladet Israel "controversy," the Israeli side's view should be in the first paragraph along with the original story. The article is not a story about killing and plundering, it is an article about a "controversy" over a story about killing and plundering. Israel's side of it should be right up front. I hope I am making myself clear here. I really think an AfD is warranted here. If any further evidence comes up it could be revived. Stellarkid (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the order is so that a reader gets some idea what was stated before they read that it was condemned. We briefly explain what the article is about, and then explain the response. If we put the response first I think the reader may be a bit confused. I may not be sure exactly what you would propose, though, if you would like to suggest something specific. As far as deletion, there has been quite a bit of coverage, so for that reason I think it's unlikely. Reading your comment again, though, I don't believe it is just the response that is the controversy; the controversy does include the events at the Abu Kabir Forsensic Institute. Mackan79 (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, if editors wish to highlight the most controversial aspects of the article in order to explain the Israeli response, they should keep in mind that Aftonbladet also claimed vindication with the later stories. In that regard, I think it would be hard to deny that the article is primarily focused on the fact that Palestinians disappeared and they were returned without their organs. It isn't for us to gloss the basic claims and focus only on those points where the sentiment remains that the article went too far. If the article went too far, that's just one part of the story. Mackan79 (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I will think on it further. Stellarkid (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I just removed the statement that the article did make this claim that Israel had been killing Palestinians for the purpose of stealing their organs, which I hadn't seen was added. The fact is that even Sydsvkenskan, the rival Swedish paper that sharply criticized the article, does not say that the article made this claim, but rather argues that the article implied it. My Swedish is well out of practice, but I believe the translation I provided above via Google Translate is accurate:

This [revelation] seems to [make] Aftonbladet and Donald Bostrom [right by] half when [in a] [well noticed] article this summer, he [indicated] that Israel is stealing organs from Palestinians who then [are] kill[ed]. In yesterday's Aftonbladet Culture Director Asa Linderborg [expressed regret] that she [had not] "made even clearer that the Israeli army [does not] shoots Palestinian in order to steal the body," but it was precisely the [evidence chain] Bostrom painted: organ shortage in the U.S. and Israel, organ theft in Israel, killing and cut open the Palestinians in Gaza.

See Google's version here (the fact that "Hiss," as in Dr. Yehuda Hiss, in Swedish means "elevator" may be especially confusing). The point is that, other than Bostrom, Aftonbladet, and Scheper-Hughes, all of whom deny that the article made the claim, this is the only source I'm aware of that actually looks at the issue. The others (all based on one AP story, as far as I am aware) summarize the story in a way that attributes this claim to the story, but only in passing and without any discussion. This does give us material to discuss the issue, I think, but certainly not to state categorically that the article made the claim despite Bostrom's denial. Mackan79 (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I brought nine high-quality, independent, reliable sources clearly stating that the Bostrom article claimed Israel killed Palestinians for their organs: AP, UPI, BBC, CNN, ABC, The Guardian, The Irish Times, Haaretz and The Jerusalem Post. I see you brought a tenth, the New York Times, above. Your perception that they are all based on one AP story and/or all date from after the Hiss interview revelation is incorrect: the UPI, BBC,CNN and Irish Times sources were published in the weeks following the original article, and way before the Hiss interview. I'm not sure I see how the perception would be relevant even if it were correct, but in any case, it isn't.

On the other hand, not one independent reliable source has been presented saying that the Bostrom article did not claim Israel killed Palestinians for their organs. Bostrom, Linderborg and Sheper-Hughes are obviously not independent reliable sources on this matter, either according to the rules or according to common sense. Furthermore, I don't see that Linderborg or Sheper-Hughes denied that Bostrom's article made the claim; it seems rather that that Linderborg believes it was ambiguous and Sheper-Hughes is referring to a different matter, namely, whether Bostrom's article claimed that the phenomenon was limited to Palestinians. The Sydsvkenskan writer seems to be saying that for all practical purposes Bostrom's article did make the claim, and he disputes the notion that the Hiss interview substantiated Bostrom's article in any way (which is the notion that makes the Hiss interview, and the question we're discussing, relevant to the controversy to begin with). This position is very similar to that of the ten reliable sources noted above. In any case, he certainly does not say that Bostrom did not make the claim, and so he cannot be used as a source to show that the position of the ten reliable sources is disputed.

Bottom line, unless and until it is shown that a significant minority of independent reliable sources say that Bostrom's article did not make the claim, we have no choice but to say that it did. Bostrom's (and possibly Linderborg's and Sheper-Hughes') denial of this can be noted. I'm changing the lead back to reflect this. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The author in Sydsvenskan interpreted it in the way AP et al did. However, he is open with that it is a interpretation of the article. Unlike the sources you bring up. Steinberger (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Correction to my previous post: I just looked at they ynet article again, and even Bostrom does not dispute that his article said Israel killed Palestinians for their organs. He says "he did not mean to imply" that. This is a comment on his intent, not on the content of the article as it appeared. This means that at present, nobody (outside of Wikipedia, of course) has been shown to dispute this. Now I wouldn't be surprised to find sources showing that Bostrom or Linderborg did dispute this on other occasions, but until such sources are presented, we can't say that they did. I changed the lead again to accurately reflect what Bostrom said in the ynet article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Jalapenos, I think that's clearly an incorrect understanding of NPOV. You had it stating "That claim was made in the original article, though Boström later said that he never meant to imply as much." This is to say that Bostrom makes a claim, but it is false. You cannot make this kind of a statement under NPOV, or WP:BLP for that matter. We report differing views on matters that are disputed; we do not decide that one is correct because the other somehow does not qualify as relevant in our view (even though we then immediately present it). It's an extremely clear violation of WP:NPOV. Mackan79 (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I could give you a bucket loads of blogs and other non-RS that openly disputes that the article said that. You really have to have a certain degree of paranoia to read that out of the article, or to be a genuine antisemite. I don´t deny that it is possible to misunderstand, as you points out Boström does not deny that either. But it is not explicit in the article, in that case you would be able to provide a qoute from the original article, right? So it should not stand "was in the original article", because it is not. It was read in to the original article, but that is a slightly different thing. Steinberger (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Also your interpretation of the attribution to Scheper-Hughes is unfounded; she says that many interpreted it "erroneously as the Israeli army killing Palestinians to access their organs" ("Många som hörde talas om artikeln uppfattade det, enligt Sheppard-Hughes, felaktigt som att israeliska armén dödade palestinier för att komma åt deras organ. Det som hände på Kabirinstitutet var illa nog som det var och drabbade alla slags människor, inte bara palestinier, säger hon.") Lindborg is also clear: "Kanske borde vi även gjort än tydligare att israeliska armén inte skjuter palestinier i syfte att stjäla organ, de tar organ när de dödat av andra skäl – skäl som världens mest moraliska armé alltid anser sig ha." Specifically, "Perhaps we should have made even clearer that the Israeli army does not shoot Palestinians with the intention of stealing organs, they take the organs when they are killed for other reasons -- reasons that the world's most ethical army always sees itself to have." She then says it wouldn't matter how clear they had been. We could request a third party translation if you like, but I think the statements are quite clear in context. Mackan79 (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

@Mackan1: the point you raise is moot, since, properly understood, there is no contradiction between what Bostrom says and what the ten reliable sources say. Bostrom says he did not mean to imply x; The 10 say the article says x. Incidentally, I disagree with your interpretation of WP:NPOV. The policy requires us to give primacy to the main POV. Ideally, we would say "AP, UPI etc. say x; Bostrom says y". That is in fact what I did in the body of the article. But in the lead brevity is required, so we should give primacy without spelling out the whole list, but if you really want to spell it out, I could live with that. I'm also surprised that you didn't object to Steinberger's previous version, which had a classic false parity by saying something like "it was reported that x, but Bostrom explained that y".

@Steinberger: I think you're wrong in how you interpret the Bostrom article, but it doesn't matter what either of us think; it matters what the secondary sources think. You're entitled to the opinion that AP, UPI, CNN, BBC etc. are either paranoid or genuinely antisemitic, but according to WP:V it doesn't matter in the slightest if they are.

@Mackan2: if you're going to press this point, then I would like a third party translation. Your quote from the Sheper-Hughes interview is a statement in the voice of the article leading in to a quote by SH in which she disputes a different issue. Either SH does not coherently state a position on the issue we're discussing, or the article mis-states her position. Linderborg is most certainly not saying that the article did not make the claim. What she is saying is that the claim is false. (In my opinion her statement is actually an admission that the article did make the claim, but I'm assuming you will not agree with me, so I won't press the matter.) Needless to say, I'm all for presenting everybody's position in the body of the text, at whatever level of detail needed to ensure there is no reasonable dispute as to the accuracy of the presentation. But this will probably not be possible in the lead, unless we do it with short quotes, as I did with Bostrom. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Your sources can only be used to verify that it have been summarized that way. Not that "it is" in the article. For that it breeches NPOV as Boström disputes it. Steinberger (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, they should be used to verify what they say, which is that Bostrom's article claimed Israel killed Palestinians for their organs. And Bostrom doesn't dispute it -- you're continuing to misrepresent his remarks. He merely states that he did not intend to make that claim. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No, its you who misrepresents his remarks. He say he never maid that claim, that it is a lie that he did so. [2] Steinberger (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a new source. I hate to be a nitpicker, but in this source he also does not deny that his article claimed Israel killed Palestinians for their organs. He says it's a lie to state that he wrote that soldiers hunt for [Palestinian] youths to take their organs. Killing someone, whom you've captured, for their organs, is different than capturing them with the original purpose of taking their organs. I don't believe I've seen any source saying that he wrote the second thing. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that he didn't refer to the summarization we talk about now? That he instead reefers to a misinterpretation of that summary? I think that is very far fetched. I find it obvious that he do refer to the "killed to harvest" claim. That he meant it that way is also implied by the follow-up questions from Levy. Steinberger (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I seriously don't think he was referring specifically to any group of newspaper articles reporting on his article, but to the controversy in general. I also think that, as people often do in these situations, he was choosing the most extreme available position, whether real or imagined, to attack. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I also believe that he is elaborating some. But I also think it is clear that he refers to the general "killed to harvest" claim and not the controversy in general. Steinberger (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read the various responses mentioned here but if they are as Jalapenos has said (ie 'hunt for' and 'did not mean to imply') then we must take them at their word. All we have is the language they use, not to put to fine a point on it. Not our own interpretations but the words they say, no more, no less. Stellarkid (talk) 05:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That is correct, but in this case Jalapenos do omit the context. Steinberger (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The Haaretz article attributes to Bostrom: "Like for example that they say I wrote that the soldiers hunted for youths so as to take their organs. It's obvious that's a lie." That seems quite clearly a denial that he made the claim we are discussing here. Mackan79 (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have missed some of the comments above. He's denying that the article claimed soldiers hunted for Palestinians to take their organs. Indeed, I haven't seen anyone claim that the article said that. This is different from the question of whether soldiers killed Palestinians for their organs (whom they may have captured for other reasons in the course of their duty). Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

He elaborated some, but that does not obscure what he mean when it is put in context. However, from what you writes above you seem to have missed that Haaretz from the 18th of August summarized the article as "Israeli soldiers are abducting Palestinians in order to steal their organs" (my italics). That excludes your "other reasons in the course of their duty". Similarly in the Jerusalem Post editorial, where they use other words such as "that the IDF murders young Palestinian Arabs to enable the harvesting of their organs for transplanting." (my italics) Also in that example, it is indirectly said that Boström answers the question why they where killed in the article. But he does not. If you read carefully, he does not come close. The "organ shortage" is given in the original article as a reason for his own investigations in 1992 - it is not given as a reason for the Israeli practice, for example. Steinberger (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem all to have missed the crucial point: the article did not claim that anyone was killed for the purpose of harvesting organs, because the article does not claim that any organs were harvested at all. It claimed merely that there are indications that this had happened, and that the matter should be investigated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.7.82 (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

References

The alleged claim that Israel killed Palestinians for their organs

I have removed the following sentence, regarding Hiss's revelations, from the lede, as it is not supported by the body. The body states that the claim that the article claimed that Israel killed Palestinians for their organs is disputed by the authors, and publishers. Hence the sentence is not representative of the article, and inappropriate in the lede, unless it explains who made the claim. "There was nothing in the interview to substantiate the claim that Israel killed Palestinians for their organs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

References

Israeli officials labelling the report as anti-semitic

This was removed: Israeli officials denounced the report at the time, labeling it "anti-Semitic," but did not comment on the specific allegations

Are there specific objections to it? It seems to be WP:V and fairly notable. Unomi (talk) 08:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is another source: http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=171732

The council and the commissioner’s office, “however unwittingly, helped to propagate an anti-Semitic libel by publishing [the EAFORD’s charges] as an official UN document,” wrote UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer.

He called on the UN council and high commissioner to “immediately cease circulating this racist, hateful and inflammatory text to the ambassadors and other delegates of the UNHRC.”

Unomi (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It is the label by Israelis. We should not add anti-semitic category to the article only because of this.sicaspi (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

References

External links

Though sections 23-27 on this page indicate the article's page once had external links why aren't there any there at the moment? Mcljlm (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)