Swedish PM ignorant of his own constitution

August 22nd, 2009
Reinfeldt: proof that forehead size and intelligence are not correlated

Reinfeldt: proof that forehead size and intelligence are not correlated

News item:

The Israeli-Swedish ping-pong over an offensive article in the Swedish Aftonbladet daily continued over the weekend, with Jerusalem calling for a Swedish government condemnation of the article [accusing the IDF of stealing organs from dead Palestinians], and Stockholm pointedly refusing to do so…

…Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt said on Saturday his government would not condemn the report.

No one can demand that the Swedish government violate its own constitution. Freedom of speech is an indispensable part of Swedish society,” Reinfeldt was quoted as telling the Swedish news agency TT. [my emphasis]

But it appears that the Swedish PM is not familiar with his constitution.

The Swedish Constitution says:

Chapter 1 Basic Principles
Article 3
The Instrument of Government, the Act of Succession and the Freedom of the Press Act are the fundamental laws of the Realm.

And the Freedom of the Press Act begins:

Chapter 1 On the Freedom of the Press
Article 1
(1) The freedom of the press means the right of every Swedish subject, without prior hindrance by a central administrative authority or other public body, to publish any written matter, and not to be prosecuted thereafter on grounds of the content of such matter other than before a court of law, or to be punished therefor in any case other than a case in which the content is in contravention of an express provision of law, enacted to preserve public order without suppressing information to the public.

The act is quite long, but I could find nothing that even suggested that the government is prohibited from expressing disapproval after the fact of anything published in a newspaper.

Interestingly, there are some things that cannot be published:

Chapter 7 On Offenses Against the Freedom of the Press
Article 4
With due regard to the purpose of a universal freedom of the press as set forth in Chapter 1, the following acts shall be regarded as offenses against the freedom of the press if they are committed by way of printed matter and if they are punishable under law:

11) persecution of a population group, whereby a person threatens or expresses contempt for a population group or other such group with allusion to its race, skin color, national or ethnic origin, or religious faith;

14) Libel, whereby a person alleges another is a criminal or is blameworthy in his way of life, or otherwise communicates information liable to expose the other to the contempt of others, and, if the person libelled is deceased, to cause offence to his survivors or which might otherwise be considered to violate the sanctity of the grave except, however, in cases in which it was justifiable having regard to the circumstances, or in order to provide information in the matter concerned and proof is presented that the information was correct or that there were reasonable grounds for it; and

15) affront, whereby a person insults another by means of offensive invective or allegations or by any other insulting behavior towards him.

It seems to me that a decent case could be made that Aftonbladet has violated all of the above.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

A warning from history

August 22nd, 2009
The Nazis: A Warning from History

The Nazis: A Warning from History

My wife is away for a week and I’ve been taking the opportunity to watch videos that she wouldn’t enjoy. No, not what you are thinking! Rather, historical documentaries, war movies, Clint Eastwood films, etc.

Now I’m watching a BBC documentary called “The Nazis: A Warning from History”. It’s quite interesting, loaded with period footage that I’d never seen and including many interviews with former Nazis (they always are listed as becoming ‘former’ in 1945).

An early episode describes the persecution of the German Jews before the war, of which Kristallnacht was the culmination (and the beginning of the Final Solution). What is interesting — not that there is anything new in this — was the way in which the antisemitic predilections of ordinary Germans were nurtured for years, while at the same time the Jews were gradually excluded from every aspect of German society: the professions, the arts, political life, education, business, even the right to marry non-Jews (by the 1935 Nuremberg laws).

With every succeeding year, new indignities were heaped on the Jews which would have been unthinkable the year before. But like the proverbial frog placed in water which is slowly raised to the boiling point, the German people (even many Jews) didn’t perceive the horror of the situation until it was too late. The combination of the continuous antisemitic input from the German media and political establishment, the step by step promulgation of exclusionary laws and the gradually increasing paramilitary violence against individual Jews made the later recruitment of soldiers and police for einsatzgruppen [extermination squads] possible.

One of the former Nazis said something like this: “In 1933, who could have imagined what would be in 1945?  Only 12 years — but it was unimaginable beforehand.”

So why do I mention this?

Because a precisely parallel process is underway today. It is not aimed at individual Jews, but at the Jewish state. It is not limited to a single country, but is taking place worldwide. The anti-Israel rhetoric continues to reach new heights and every day things are said which would never have been said before. What was unimaginable last year — like the Aftonbladet accusations — becomes standard fare this year. Just like Nazi propagandists, there are writers and media that specialize in Israel-hatred. I can imagine Max Blumenthal (see here and here) looking in the mirror every morning and asking himself “how can I stick it to them today?”

The parallel is not exact, because unlike most German Jews the state of Israel is capable of defending herself. But the process of isolation — the product boycotts and divestments, the UN resolutions, the attempts to restrict Israeli participation in international sporting events, the academic boycotts, the anti-Israel conferences, and the escalating vilification in the media — are all intended to disconnect Israel from the world, to ensure that she will have no friends to stand by her when her enemies feel ready to challenge her directly.

The response has to be to not allow the temperature to be raised imperceptibly, to not get used to the anti-Israel rhetoric as, for example, “just what one expects from NPR, the Guardian, the LA Times, etc.,” but to push back vigorously against each attack, each lie, each fake ‘investigation’ and every ‘pro-Israel’ group that is actually the opposite.

Technorati Tags: ,

The implications of the settlement freeze

August 21st, 2009

Although the details are not public knowledge — or perhaps they have not been finalized — a ‘temporary’ freeze on new Jewish construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is in effect. Israeli PM Netanyahu will be meeting with US envoy George Mitchell on Aug. 26 to discuss this, among other issues.

Despite the fact that the Israeli government is presenting this as an expedient ‘to get peace talks moving’, there are several implications that cannot be ignored. Keep in mind that this comes immediately after the Fatah congress, in which the Palestinian faction with whom Israel is expected to negotiate has shown itself to be committed to hardline policies which will keep such ‘peace talks’ from getting anywhere. So what does the freeze tell us?

  • It shows that Israel cannot or will not say no to the US. Netanyahu has no illusions about the possibility of fruitful talks, and he understands the domestic political difficulties of agreeing to freeze Jewish construction everywhere in the area occupied by Jordan from 1948-67, including East Jerusalem. And yet he agreed.
  • It weakens Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem. By agreeing to the demand, Israel compromises its position, expressed in the Basic Law–Jerusalem of 1980, that Jerusalem is an integral part of Israel.
  • It sets the stage for a further collision with the US when, in 2010 or whenever, the ‘temporary’ period is up and there still has not been substantive progress in negotiations.
  • It illustrates the asymmetry fundamental to the US conception of a ‘two-state solution’. Although Arab citizens of Israel increasingly consider themselves ‘Palestinians’, suggestions for a freeze on Arab construction within Israel, or — God forbid — Arabs being encouraged to move to the Palestinian state, are considered racist. But Palestinian demands that Jews evacuate the West Bank and East Jerusalem are tacitly approved by the US.
  • It encourages the Palestinians and their allies to press for more concessions as preconditions for talks. Obama has already asked for a minimal gesture from the Arabs as a quid-pro-quo for the settlement freeze and so far has gotten nothing.

One wonders if there have been other concessions — for example, regarding construction of the security barrier — that have not attracted attention yet.

Update [26 Aug 0925 PDT]: See “Will Israel not build barrier for Obama?” in today’s Jerusalem Post.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Quotation of the day

August 20th, 2009

One of my favorite bloggers, Elder of Ziyon said something yesterday that comfortable liberal American Jews really should take to heart (but probably won’t):

If there are to be any lessons for Jews from the past hundred years, it is that being slightly paranoid is probably a much more accurate posture than feeling overly secure, and that it may be a fatal mistake to believe otherwise.

If you have a strong stomach, read the post that this is taken from here.

Technorati Tags: ,

Birds of a feather: Donald Bostrom and Human Rights Watch

August 20th, 2009

Recently I published a Barry Rubin article about allegations in a Swedish newspaper that the IDF was stealing the organs of dead Palestinians under the title “How low they can go“.

Guess what? I was wrong. Israel-hating Swedes can go much lower.

One of the bright spots in the story was the Swedish ambassador to Israel, Elisabet Borsiin Bonnier, who said that the article was

…as shocking and appalling to us Swedes as it is to Israeli citizens. We share the dismay expressed by Israeli government representatives, media and the Israeli public. This embassy cannot but clearly distance itself from it… Freedom of the press and freedom of expression are freedoms which carry a certain responsibility. It falls on the editor-in-chief of any given newspaper.

Israel had hoped that the Swedish government itself would agree. But now it’s reported that the Swedish Foreign Ministry has distanced itself from her remarks:

Sweden’s Foreign Ministry on Thursday said a response by the Swedish Embassy in Israel to a report by the Aftonbladet news saying IDF soldiers killed Palestinians in order to harvest their organs does not represent the government’s stance.

The embassy had stated that the report was “appalling”. But the Foreign Ministry’s spokeswoman said, “The embassy in Tel Aviv responded in accordance to Israeli public opinion, however the Swedish government is committed to freedom of the press…”

Another Swedish government spokesperson, Anders Jorle said, “The Foreign Ministry would not have acted in the same way” as the ambassador…

[Opposition] Green Party spokesman Per Gahrton said Borsiin Bonnier should be recalled and taught the basics of Swedish freedom of speech.

Like the tendentious Human Rights Watch report that accused Israel of shooting unarmed Palestinian civilians in cold blood, the article was based on reports from Palestinian “eyewitnesses”. The author of the piece, Swedish free-lance journalist Donald Bostrom, tried to say it was just a news report about Palestinian beliefs:

What I experienced during this day is many people from Israel who called me haven’t read the article. So they think I’m accusing the IDF of stealing organs. That’s not what I’m doing. I just recorded the Palestinian families saying that. And I think it should be further investigated, either to kill the rumor once and for all, or if it happens to be true, then to start the legal actions…

But the article did far more than this. Jonah Levy explains that

Bostrom’s article reads more like an opinion article than a straight journalism piece, and it attempts to connect claims he heard in the West Bank in 1992 that Israeli soldiers were illegally removing organs from Palestinians killed in fighting with a campaign for Israeli organ donors, supposed illegal purchases of organs in Israel in the early 2000s, and the recent story of American Levy Izhak Rosenbaum who was accused of illegally trafficking Israeli organs.

“We know that the need for organs in Israel is large, that an extensive illegal organ moving is ongoing and has been for a long time, that it is done with the blessing of the authorities, the senior doctor at the major hospital is involved, as well as officials at various levels. And we know that the Palestinian young men disappeared, they were back five days later in secrecy at night, sewn up,” Bostrom wrote in the conclusion of his story.

Bostrom and the newspaper’s lawyers have been careful to not make any specific defamatory statements that could expose them to lawsuits.

But repeating unsubstantiated allegations, juxtaposing them with unrelated — but suggestive — facts, and leaving the reader to draw his own defamatory conclusions is a a time-honored technique of scum like Bostrom to smear their targets.

Now read the last paragraph again, substituting “Human Rights Watch” or “Amnesty International” or “B’tselem” or “Breaking the Silence” for “Bostrom”.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,