Sweden and the blood libel

Recently, a dust up has occurred in, of all things, Israeli-Swedish relations. A leading Swedish daily newspaper, Aftonbladet, alleged last week, that Israeli soldiers stole organs from the bodies of dead Palestinians. The article caused create consternation in Israel, and even prompted by the Swedish Foreign Minister defending freedom of speech.

Israelis jumped hard on this article, because it represents a variation on one of the oldest and most dangerous anti-Semitic cards- the blood libel . Basically, the blood libel against the Jews argues that Jews kill non-Jews to use their blood in religious rituals. The exact charge made by the Swedish newspapers doesn't exactly charge that Jews use non-Jewish blood to bake matzah, but its gives the idea a modern tweak but connecting the allegation to the recent indictment in New Jersey of an Orthodox Jews who smuggled body parts.

As disturbing as the article is on its fact, the reaction by the Swedish newspaper is even more disturbing. The reaction also illustrates something about how some anti-Israel sentiment easily morphs into anti-semitism, without people even knowing.

First, according to the Jerusalem Post, the author, Donald Bostrom, told Arab media site Menassat , that there was "no conclusive evidence" that organ harvesting was a systematic IDF practice, but rather a "collection of allegations and suspicious circumstances." So first, we know that the author has made an allegation that he can not prove.

Second, the editor of the newspaper, Jan Helin wrote an op-ed defending the piece, saying ""I'm not a Nazi. I'm not anti-semitic." Further, he defended the article in an interview with Ynetnews.com saying that he didn't check out the story with the IDF because, "This is not a news report, but the opinion of a reporter who looked at the situation and held a debate on what he thought. Organ trafficking is a question he thought worth investigating. It may be considered a good or bad idea, but it's not anti-Semitic propaganda." So, the editor of the newspaper is ok with the idea of a false report being printed, based on the idea that "questions-are-being-raised.

But Helin goes further and this is the most disturbing part. He attacks right-wing Israeli politicians for causing the problem, saying "I was saddened to see extreme rightist populists using this article as vulgar propaganda." He also used the "some of my best friends are Jewish" defense, saying "I was naïve. I thought Israel was democratic. I have many Jewish friends and I see Jewish culture as very positive."

What we have is an unproven report that traffics in a variation of thousand-year-old anti-semitic charge that is defended by editor of the newspaper who published it. The editor the goes on the attack those who were offended by the piece, claiming that is is only one the right wing politician who are offended it and expresses shock that he could be anti-semitic because he has Jewish friends.

What this illustrates is that a traditional anti-semitic charge somehow can rattle around legitimately among the press as long as its about Israel.

A few points need to be made to Mr. Bostrom and Mr. Helin. The charge made is anti-semitic. It doesn't make you a Nazi - it makes you a disciple of a far older strain of anti-semitism. And defending yourself by saying saying you have Jewish friends is a laughably absurd idea.

Simply put, I didn't believe that anti-semitism was the right charge here at first. Now I'm no so sure.