As reported in the August 20 National Post editorial by Barry Rubin, "The blood libel that won't die", a major Swedish newspaper, "closely tied to the Swedish Social Democratic Party", published an article libeling the Jewish State of Israel. According to the author of the article, Donald Bostrom, the Israeli army deliberately murders Palestinian civilians in order to traffic in their organs.
This is yet another blood libel of the Jewish people. It is reminiscent of the libel that Jews kill Christian children in order to use their blood to bake Passover matzos, the unleavened bread which most Jews, whether religious or not, eat with their families during the Passover holiday. It is impossible to measure the depth of the hate and depravity of those who either publish or believe in this garbage.
But the real story for me is not that these libels are perpetuated by haters, for there is nothing new there, but that they do not elicit the same level of outrage from those groups, governments and individuals who are only too willing to bash the State of Israel at every opportunity. What so far, for example, has been the reaction of the Swedish government to this scandalous claim? According to Haaretz, although the Swedish ambassador to Israel condemned the article, the Swedish Foreign Ministry has not. The Swedish government even went so far as to distance itself from its own Ambassador's condemnation stating that it was the Ambassador's own view, which was designed for an Israeli audience. Some Swedish politicians have even condemned the Ambassador herself who should be "recalled and taught the basics of Sweden's freedom of speech".
And where are the left wing trade unions, the "Palestinian apartheid week" types, and the academic boycotting bunch? Should they not be consistent and be demanding that Swedish academics and universities condemn the story or else face an academic boycott? Or is a libel of the Jewish people not a matter of too much concern for them?
The incident might serve to remind all those observers of the Middle East conflict of the dangers and evil forces which the State of Israel must constantly confront. It might serve to remind them why the Jewish people are naturally reluctant to trust others for their protection and security. And if it does that, then maybe the article's publication will have done some good.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The comparison between what prompts the academic boycotts and the allegation of organ-harvesting is not well taken. The academic boycott, which is in my opinion misguided and unworthy of serious educators, is prompted by the wholesale confinement and oppression of Palestinean Arabs by the state of Israel. (I add that I do not wish to provoke a collateral debate with you about whether such confinement and oppression is justified in light of the insecurities that you mentioned are harbored by the Jewish people. I find such debates unhelpful unless the participants are prepared to adopt an objective and fair frame of mind, which I have observed is rarely if ever displayed in your posts touching upon Israel. I just state it as a fact which has prompted the talk of boycotts which you mentioned.)
ReplyDeleteThe statement you report, however, is not of the same order. At its worst (that is, if one accepts for the sake of argument your ascription of this report to the ancient "blood libel"), this is an expression of xenophobia or bigotry. Were every such expression to be met with boycotts, there would be very little international discourse in the academic world. To fail to call for a boycott, then, does not mean that "a libel of the Jewish people [is] not a matter of too much concern" for Swedish academics. That is a strikingly peremptory assertion, particularly given that there are obvious alternative potential explanations. For example, it may just mean that they, unlike certain others in their line of work, have adopted an admirably dispassionate standpoint, preferring to refrain from speaking until their brains have caught up with the jerk of their knees.
Thomas:
ReplyDeleteLet me clarify.
I do not ascribe to academic botcotts of any sort. I find them repugnant. Hence I agree with you on that.
I was trying to make the point that those who misguidingly call for boycotts, condemnations, etc of Israel invariably refuse to use that type of anti-intellectual intimidation with respect to any other matter. I asked that they be "consistent".
The Swedish government has apparently declined to condemn the article as they believe in free speech. So do I. But allowing someone to speak does not prevent one from condemning what they said. The government's response is illogical and weasly.
If you were "trying to make the point that those who misguidedly call for boycotts ... of Israel invariably refuse [to do the same] with respect to any other matter", you have a strange way of doing that. What you did was suggest that they do not care about a libel committed against the Jewish people. Your precise words were that such a thing might not be "a matter of too much concern for them".
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I think that is over-the-top. If by "clarify" you mean to say that you are abjuring that statement, then you should make that as clear as your condemnation was. It seems to me to be no small thing to accuse fellow academics of turning a blind eye to blood libel.
I have observed your blog for some time now, and in doing so I have seen in past posts a tendency to generalize about people based on the broadest possible categories and the most simplistic stereotypes imaginable. Iranians hate Israel, Obama supporters are blind automatons who fail to see his faults, and now Swedish academics are happy little anti-Semites. Strange.
Thomas:
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be having some difficulties understanding this. Let me try this out.
First, I am not accusing "fellow academics" of doing anything. My comment was clearly directed at those who call for academic boycotts of Israel. Read it again.
Second, you seem to think that accusing Israelis of killing innocent civilians to harvest their organs is a small matter. That's not my view, even if it's yours.
Third, I am not abjuring anything I said. I was trying to explain it to you, although I thought it was obvious.
Lewis,
ReplyDeleteOf course I support your outrage over this statement -- and the Swedish government's failure to clearly refute it.
But may I comment onyour rhetorical style?
Your criticism of "those groups, governments and individuals who are only to willing to bash the State of Israel at every opportunity" is vague and blustering. Precisely which groups, governments and individuals? Any that ever criticize Israel? Or those that you most disagree with or judge to be unfair? Or is this just pre-emptive intimidation of your audience?
Your exchange with Thomas illustrates how this provocative style can lead the discussion astray.
Relatedly, you wrote, on August 16, that "sometimes one has to focus on one side of a debate ... to achieve balance." Perhaps, but balance is in the eye of the beholder. Some critics of Israel may believe that U. S. foreign policy is so consistently pro-Israel that they must "focus on one side" of that issue. You apparently believe that your imbalance is righteous while they are "bashers."
Ron