107 thoughts on “Was ‘Hijacked’ Russian Ship Intercepted by Mossad, Carrying Missiles to Iran? – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

  1. Sorry Richard, I don’t follow what you’re saying. Surely, if Russia wishes to send arms to Iran, it just sends them across the Caspian Sea? It used to have sea-skimming planes on that body of water that we knew nothing about, I’m sure they’re happier about security there than in the English Channel.

    Even if they were being sent to Hezbollah, why would they be sent such a long way round?

  2. you stated richard, that you were not going to waste your time with the organ theft story, even though many including alison weir have attested to the fact that this has been going on and palestinian bodies were robbed of their organs. so under your criteria, isn’t this story then a waste of time?

    1. When someone publishes the organ story in Time Magazine & an Estonian admiral buttresses it with a comment, then we can talk. Though it may pain you to hear this, Alison Weir is not the most distinguished journalist in the world though she has a tad more credibility than Donald Bostrom.

      1. Well Tarmo Köuts was before Estonian independence a captain of fishing vessel’s. He could be portrayed best as an political soldier, not a real normal admiral.

        As a Finn it is impossible to believe that a considerable amount of missiles or any other military material could by Russian government or private weapons smugglers have been loaded to the ship in Pietarsaari (from where the ship started). Pietarsaari harbour besides it is extremely tiny is located as far from the Russian border as possible in Finland. Pietarsaari is a a small city with 20.000 inhabitants. Surely a heavily guarded Russian owned warehouse full of waiting missiles would be have been noticed. Also loading almost 10 meters (the X-55 cruise missile claimed to be one of the possible missile types is 6 meters long) long packets is difficult to hide.The Finnish border control towards Russia is tight and Finland has a no such corruption which could make this kind of large smuggling possible.

        It is also difficult to believe Russia would use such a complex smuggling route and plan to deliver missiles to Iran. Algiers is far away from Iran and Russia basically has no difficulties to deliver legally defensive weapons to Iran.

        As we know the missiles are only parts of weapon systems. For S300 much more equipment is needed to really use them. Without radars etc they are useless. If only missiles are transported to Iran it would mean that they have already the necessary equipment.

        The other popular theory has been that Arctic Sea was used to smuggle drugs. That makes no sense, who would smuggle heroin from Finland to Algeria? From Algeria to Europe would make sense.

        I would specualte that this Arctic Sea episode was either internal fights of Russian mafia or part of an complex plan to destabilize the plans of making Northern Stream pipeline. Northern Stream’s environmental permits approving is on final stages. USA and so also Israel do not like that the pipeline is built.

        To the point made of the organ story passing I must agree. First Aftonbladet is not a low level tabloid, it is by circulation the second biggest newspaper of Nordic countries and a long time “voice” of the Swedish social democratic party (the biggest party in Sweden). Anybody who has bothered to read the English translation of the article in question notices that besides mentioning some facts the article also basically only asks why are the Palestinian bodies autopsied and then returned under secrecy. It doesn’t claim that IDF hunts Palestinians deliberately for their organs. The Israeli organ transplant praxis is far form normal when illegal organ transplants made abroad are more or less “blessed” by the state.

        1. SimoHurtta – good points every one! The weapons theory doesn’t make sense. And the Organs-stolen-for-transplant has been raised only in a very sloppy fashion.

          Over at Wikipedia Israel supporters have largely purged their opponents and are now pumping even more distortion into every article. Within that effort, they’re also claiming that the article on the Organ affair should not examine the facts, only the diplomatic spat. Sadly, on this occasion they’re probably right.

      2. in fact,Bostrom is a good journalist , and Weir is founder of Ifamericansknew. Both have shown more credibility than many jewish ant-zionists, who have shown where their allegiances really lie.

        What exactly was wrong with Bostroms original article that you should defend the IDF!

        1. Why are you misrepresenting what people are saying here? No one here has defended the IDF. Bostrom and Allison Weir have raised questions, but neither has produced the answers. All we are asking for is real, actual evidence. That means that there should be an investigation that starts with examination of suspect bodies by forensic pathologists to determine whether or not organs have been removed. No reasonable analysis would interpret that as defending the IDF.

          1. ‘That means that there should be an investigation that starts with examination of suspect bodies by forensic pathologists to determine whether or not organs have been removed’

            You might ask why this wasnt done back in 1992, when the issue arose. its been raised over the years…Notably Arafat, yet what was done about it?
            If you view the al-jazeera interviews,the israeli spokesman indulges in some barefaced lies.Not Bostrom:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I…jIQ&feature=sub

            Bostrom comes across as a better journalist than many are claiming.

          2. What on earth are you talking about? No one has ever suggested that Arafat’s organs were taken. Can we not wander all over the place, please?

          3. ‘What on earth are you talking about? No one has ever suggested that Arafat’s organs were taken’

            To repeat what ive posted elsewhere:

            ‘Late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat had openly accused the Israeli army and medical authorities of harvesting the organs of Palestinian victims.

            “They murder our kids and use their organs as spare parts,” Arafat told Al-Jazeera in 2002, showing pictures of the bodies of Palestinian children killed and badly mutilated by the Israeli army.
            .
            http://www.uruknet.info/index.php?p=m57676&hd=&size=1&l=e

          4. Well, of course, whatever `Arafat said must be fact, especially if he said it to Al Jazeera – `Arafat, who sold out the Palestinians over and over and over again, including at Oslo where he made a perfectly terrible deal for the Palestinians. And all the while Hanan Ashrawi and her team were wasting their time hanging very tough, demanding Palestinians’ rights, and thinking their negotiations were for real when all the time `Arafat was behind their back negotiating away anything meaningful.

            The Alistair Synclair issue was part of the well-known Abu Kabir case, and has no direct relevance to the allegations that Palestinians are being murdered for their organs. Alistair Synclair’s dead body was transferred to the morgue at Abu Kabir where it apparently was one of many bodies whose organs were removed. Some of the organs were sold by Yehuda Hiss to universities for research and teaching. Others were kept around in jars, or simply thrown out. This is bad enough, but it is hardly the same as singling out Palestinians and murdering them for their organs.

          5. ‘Well, of course, whatever `Arafat said must be fact, especially if he said it to Al Jazeera – `Arafat, who sold out the Palestinians over and over and over again’

            thats an odd statement, when the Arafat statement shows him defending the palestinians! Who looks more like hes selling out the palestinians?
            Your attack on arafat is pathetic,Shirin, and calls into question whom you are defending.

            Meanwhile:
            http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=105140&sectionid=351020202

            ‘This is bad enough, but it is hardly the same as singling out Palestinians and murdering them for their organs.’

            why are u so keen to defend the zionist IOF? The issue is not singling them out,as killing them, taking their bodies for ‘autopsy'(!?) and even not returning them.

          6. Your attack on arafat is pathetic,Shirin, and calls into question whom you are defending.

            Oh my Lord. Shirin is doing nothing that thousands of Palestinians themselves have not done. What do you think Hamas thinks of Arafat? Do you think they’re singing his praises? I really can’t stand yr holier than thou attitude. This blog doesn’t have any sacred cows. No one is off limits for criticism including Arafat. And no one gets to insinutate another has suspect motives for criticizing someone like Arafat. This blog is not a rooting section of any particular national movement. You can criticize Israel. You can criticize Palestine. Got that?

          7. If you want to get an idea of the degree to wich `Arafat sold out the Palestinians at Oslo, try reading Hanan Ashrawi’s book. Better yet, get a few moments alone with her and see what she has to say when no one else is around to hear.

          8. ‘Oh my Lord. Shirin is doing nothing that thousands of Palestinians themselves have not done’

            for your info Richard, gthousands of palestinians are joining in with the late Arafat in demanding an investigation to this crime of taking palestinian organs. If youve not seen it:

            http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_56808.shtml

            So lets get off attacking a dead man and return to the issue of demanding an independent investigation into the organ theft claims. That way you and the palestinians will be on the same page.

          9. That does it. Don’t you bother to read anything anyone says to you in a comment. You’ve now repeated for what seems like the 8th time today that you advocate an investigation. We knew this 8 comments ago. Yr future comments will be moderated & published as long as they conform to my comment rules which you should read if you care to continue commenting here.

          10. ‘Why are you misrepresenting what people are saying here? No one here has defended the IDF’

            Thats what you are doing..though you may not intend it…What you SHOULD have done is called for an independet investigation, before you started attacking bostrom et al.

            meanwhile The Guardian is playing the same game:

            ‘Cook used excellent sources, which are given at the foot of the article.
            Despite that, and despite his history as a former reporter for the Guardian, the Guardian refused to publish this article in its “CommentisFree” section. Jonathan also gives us his record of his subsequent communications with CiF editor Georgina Henry’

            http://justworldnews.org/archives/003776.html

            Now why wont the Guardian publish Jonathon Cooks article?

          11. Oh, come off it, Brian, cut the crap. No one here has defended the IDF either intentionally or unintentionally. Furthermore, I have never attacked Bostrom, and I have been the primary voice saying there should be an independent investigation. And no one here is playing any games except maybe for you.

            And no need to quote for me from Helena’s blog. I was one of her original commenters back in the early days, so I know her, her thinking, and the content of her blog very well, thank you.

            Why don’t you stop your hysterical preaching at people long enough to pay attention to what we are saying here.

          12. ‘Why don’t you stop your hysterical preaching at people long enough to pay attention to what we are saying here’

            i know what has been said here: as elseswhere, Bostrom is under attack for investigating a crime that has long been ignored.

          13. What you SHOULD have done is called for an independet investigation, before you started attacking bostrom

            First of all, I don’t like your moral hectoring. Second, Shirin did precisely what you claim he should have done. He supported an investigation. Whether he did so before or after attacking Bostrom is immaterial.

            BTW, Comment is Free also passes on many of my story ideas. But I presume you won’t try to make the argument that this means the Guardian is in thrall to the Zionist lobby.

          14. Jonathon Cook has a very different experience to you it seems:

            The Guardian shows its Mettle:

            ‘Liberal journalists in our mainstream media are always outraged at any suggestion that their reports or views are in any way influenced by the threat of retaliation from powerful interests. Students of the media are taught that in Western democracies journalists on serious newspapers seek the truth and, except in the case of the odd bad apple, refuse to submit to intimidation. Israel offers a particularly interesting test case in this regard.’

            ‘A week after I submitted a commentary on the Aftonbladet story to the Guardian’s Comment is Free website (the article can be found here), its executive editor Georgina Henry rejected it. Her reasoning, at least to a former Guardian journalist like myself who worked many years on the paper’s foreign desk, seemed more than strange and did not to accord with the newspaper’s usual criteria for assessing either a news story or an opinion piece. Brian Whitaker, who had first received the piece and is the paper’s former Middle East editor, clearly like it and told me “we’re minded to use it”. But suggesting doubts about whether his own judgment would accord with that of the site’s executives, he warned that the issue was “a hot potato” and a decision would have to wait because “a couple of people are on holiday”.

            Baffled by the reasoning provided by Henry in her rejection email, I engaged her in correspondence. Her initial willingness to respond looks generous but actually is driven, I suspect, by the need to persuade me, a former Guardian journalist, and herself that she is doing a reasonable thing in refusing my article. My polite but irritating suggestions that her own words imply that she is rejecting the piece not on its merits but out of fear of the expected backlash, as well as my requests that she explain which facts in the story need “100% independent verification” (a very unusual demand of an opinion piece), quickly lead her to shut down the debate.

            The correspondence offers, I think, some interesting insights into the self-delusions of many of our leading liberal journalists, who desperately need to believe that they are, as they claim, fearless in their pursuit of truth.

            etc
            http://www.jkcook.net/Articles3/0419.htm#Top

            So is the Guardian in thrall to the zionist lobby? or just afraid like so many US congressmen? You decide….

          15. Brian, have you ever heard the expression “less is more”? Well, in your case you can turn it around. More is less, as in the more you go on and on and on, the less likely people are to read what you are writing. You have gone from deadly boring to insufferable in less than 24 hours.

            Give it a rest, already, Brian. We got it. You want an investigation. So do we, but it seems you won’t shut up long enough to hear what anyone else is saying, let alone consider that some of us might just have credentials on the Palestine issue that make you look like a real schmuck. If you know so much and care so much about the Palestinians go put your ass where your mouth is instead of boring people silly while you try to set the world record for the number of comments per hour on a blog thread? Go help with the olive harvest, or sign up with ISM, or join the Christian Peacemakers, or sign up with ICAHD to help rebuild a house, or go to Gaza and bear witness to what is going on there. Better yet, go spearhead an investigation into the body snatching allegations. I can put you in touch with some people in Gaza. One of my best friends is a doctor there, and I’ll bet he can hook you up with all the right people.

          16. Calling Georgian Henry “a leading liberal journalist” is laughable. While I may have differences of opinion w. my own CiF editors fr. time to time about my own queries & whether they are CIF-worthy, the truth is that virtually no one would publish my work before they did in 2006. They opened their pages to this progressive Jew and I’m grateful for it. No so called “liberal” publications were willing to touch me. So if CiF is a “liberal” venue then I don’t know what The Nation and other resoundingly progressive media outlets are. Is there some litmus test for whether one is a mere liberal or a full blooded progressive??

          17. ‘Bostrom and Allison Weir have raised questions, but neither has produced the answers. All we are asking for is real, actual evidence. ‘

            yet for that we find both under attack.Doesnt that strike you as revealing? Its not their job to provide answers, yet they are charged with insufficient evidence…had Bostropm waited till he had a water tight case, thered be no call for investigation till doomsday.

          18. Its not their job to provide answers

            Are you kidding? What is a journalist supposed to do if not find answers? Publishing a report before you have sufficient evidence to support it is shoddy journalism. To claim it is not Bostrom’s job to provide answers is a huge cop out.

          19. their job is to raise questions….to expose if they can., But its the role of the police and authoritative bodies (RFEd Cross?) to do the investigation.
            Israel is not a country that takes kindly to non-jewish journalists sifting thru their manure.

            Bostrom himself says their was little he could do with his investigations…but he could brush aside a curtain and let us glimpse what has been ignored by the rest.

            The huge cop out is your attack on Bostrom…his sin? To side with the palestinians victims who are the ones who really want this issue investigated, in spite of what the zionists keep alledging.

    2. many including alison weir have attested to the fact that this has been going on and palestinian bodies were robbed of their organs.

      Alison Weir, whom I know, like, and respect, is not in a position to “attest” to the “fact” that Palestinian bodies were robbed of their organs. With all due respect to her, she did not present a single piece of actual evidence of organ theft from Palestinian bodies. It was all hearsay, speculation, “feelings”, and “so-and-so says”. That is not attesting to a fact.

      Allison Weir is not an investigative journalist, she is a lady who is very dedicated to an important cause and who does a great deal of excellent work in the interest of that cause.

      1. Weir cited reports attesting to the fact that Palestinian bodies were robbed of their organs in Israel, including this one at Forward. I get the impression many people are simply too revolted by such facts to acknowledge them.

        1. I took apart Allison Weir’s piece in some detail a few days ago in another thread.

          No, she did not cite reports attesting to the fact that Palestinian bodies were robbed of their organs in Israel. The very, very best she did was to cite stories suggesting that this may have happened, and I am being generous here.

          The Forward report you linked to is one of the weaker sources. It cites the well-known 2004 case of Yehuda Hiss, who was removed from his post as chief state pathologist in part because he apparently sold body parts from dead bodies to universities for research and teaching. The only mention of this use of Palestinians’ organs in the Forward article is this: “The state inquiry found no evidence that Hiss targeted Palestinians; rather, he seemed to view every body that ended up in his morgue, whether Israeli or Palestinian, as fair game for organ harvesting. The families of dead Israeli soldiers were among those who complained about Hiss’s conduct. This is almost exactly what I said when I took apart Allison Weir’s article the other day.

          The Forward article goes on to say “the alleged link [between the Yehuda Hiss case and the recent arrest in the U.S. of Levy Izhak Rosenbaum for organ trafficking] doesn’t make practical sense. First of all, by the time dead bodies get to the morgue, it’s much too late to transplant their organs into other people. Second, Rosenbaum is alleged to have arranged, for a fee, kidney transplants from live ‘donors’ who traveled to the United States from Israel for the operations; there’s no evidence that he ever dealt with postmortem organs.” So, Allison’s source ends up hurting her case more than it helps it.

          It is not that we are “simply too revolted” to acknowledge anything, it is that we have yet to see any evidence at all that convinces us that the allegations are actually facts.

          1. Your bolding obscures the context which address the facts; Hiss did steal organs from Palestinians, and Israelis too. He did not target Palestinians in particular, but rather “seemed to view every body that ended up in his morgue… as fair game for organ harvesting”. So, what is precluding you from acknowledging those facts here?

            Also, the only notable weakness in the Forward article, and in your own arguments, is misrepresentation of Bostrom’s article. He never alleged that organs were being stolen for transplant, but rather only insinuated as much. Granted, such insinuation is yellow journalism on his part, and should rightly be decried as such, but missprresenting his insinuations as allegations is and act of libel itself.

          2. My bolding obscures nothing. What it does is to emphasize that the Hiss case was not about stealing organs from Palestinians, but rather about stealing organs period.

            The Forward article is not weak per se, but as a evidence for the allegation of widespread Israeli theft of organs from Palestinians, it is certainly very weak, particularly since it is absolutely clear that Bostrom’s article, and Allison’s piece are meant to give the reader the sense that Palestinians are being targeted by Israel as sources for organs. As for your suggestion of libel against Bostrom, please go peddle that nonsense to someone who is naive enough to buy it.

          3. The details of Hiss’s organ stealing is “actual evidence of organ theft from Palestinian bodies”, despite your previous claim that Weir had not provided any.

            As for the Bostrom article, I have yet to find any translation of it which supports the claims of “allegations”. Again, I’ve noted his article is corrupted by poorly founded insinuation, but I see nothing in the article which can rightly be classified as allegation. If you can quote anything from the article to prove me wrong, please do and I will be happy to recant my position. Until then, you are the one who is not making a sensible argument here.

          4. Aren’t you being just a bit disingenuous here? Clearly the central theme of both Bostrom’s and Allison Weir’s article was that Palestinians were being targeted as sources of organs. Their goal was obviously to lead the reader to believe that this was the case. The Yehuda Hiss case does nothing to support this.

            As for your insistence that Bostrom was merely making “insinuations”, come on!

          5. Again, if you want to claim either made allegations, please quote specifically what you are referring to. Perhaps it might be best check a dictionary for the meanings of the terms in question first.

          6. Now are you denying that the central theme of Bostrom’s and Allison Weir’s pieces was that Palestinians were being targeted as sources of organs? Are you also denying that they attempted to make a case that Palestinians were being killed for their organs, or at least that wounded Palestinians were being taken away alive, and returned with organs missing?

            And please do not patronize me by suggesting I need a dictionary. My English is just fine, thanks, and I have an exceptional vocabulary and grasp of the meanings and uses of words.

          7. Bostrom’s claim or insinuation or whatever you wish to call it, is that the Palestinians were killed IN ORDER to harvest their organs. Or have you forgotten that totally improbable part of his argument? The Hiss case proves that this was not the case. He did not kill anyone in order to harvest their organs. The victims died & then he committed the represhensible offense of harvesting their organs. So keep yr eye on the ball. Organ harvesting is one thing, bad as it is. But killing in order to organ harvest is quite another thing & totally unproven.

          8. The Hiss case proves that this was not the case.

            The fact that “A” happened does nothing to prove or disprove the possibly of “B” having also happened. In actuality, the fact that Hiss was able to steal as many organs as he did before getting caught, the fact that he suffered no legal consequences, and the curious absence of anyone else being exposed in the scandal, all increase the probability that some Israeli solders could have gotten away with killing Palestinians to harvest their organs. Then of course so does Israel’s place as a leader in the illegal organ trade, and Israel’s demonstrated disregard for Palestinian lives. So, while there is not direct evidence to suggest Palestinians were killed for their organs, the possibility isn’t nearly as improbable as it seems you would prefer to believe.

            Regardless, I have decried Bostrom’s insinuation that Palestinians were killed in order to harvest their organs as completely unfounded since the moment I saw it. Have you imagined otherwise?

          9. C’mon. Listen to yrself:

            increase the probability that some Israeli solders could have gotten away with killing Palestinians to harvest their organs.

            …while there is not direct evidence to suggest Palestinians were killed for their organs, the possibility isn’t nearly as improbable as it seems

            So if we start with the probability of .000001% that Israeli soldiers could have gotten away w. this crime & increase the probability to .00002% where has that gotten you? You’re once again speaking in possibilities, surmises, could have, would haves, should haves. But not in cold, hard verifiable fact, which is what I always prefer here. And then your wording becomes even more tortured “the possibility isn’t improbable.” Do you hear how strained this comes across?

            Nor have I ever read any proof that Israel is a “leader in the organ trade.” I’d like to see a credible media source making such a claim.

          10. ‘So if we start with the probability of .000001% that Israeli soldiers could have gotten away w. this crime & increase the probability to .00002% where has that gotten you?’

            why do i get the idea,richard,you are hell bent on not-investigating,and throwing up obstacles to any!

          11. Sorry, Kylebismi, your argument doesn’t stand up. – Hiss was able to steal organs for “research” because they were under his control, there were no time-constraints on him doing it and he could do the act single-handed.

            That’s completely different from the stolen-organs-transplant allegations, which in any case are pretty flimsy. You make it look as if you’re dangerously gullible – worse, you enable others to blacken the reputation of all Palestinian testimony. Why even bother with these accounts, when there’s so much good evidence and proof of occupation forces commiting really serious crimes, which is still not being acted upon?

          12. Buying the claim that Hiss stole thousands of organs single handedly seems exceedingly gullible to me, and I get the impression you don’t have the mental capacity to comprehend my position.

          13. Ah yes, Kyle, that’s right! It is not that there are problems with your argument or that you are doing a poor and inconsistent job of making your position clear, it is that your intellect is so superior to ours that we don’t have the mental capacity to understand you. As you said before, we are also unable to acknowledge the correctness of your view because we can’t get past our emotional reaction to the idea that Israel steals organs. And our language skills are so far beneath yours that you find it necessary to refer us to a dictionary. And we are just plain gullible as well. One wonders why you bother to waste your time conversing with people who are so beneath you in intellectual and emotional ability.

          14. I get the impression you don’t have the mental capacity to comprehend my position.

            Truly a low blow. Pls. avoid this sort of superheated rhetoric. Some disagree w. you. It doesn’t mean any of us are mentally deficient for doing so.

          15. ‘That’s completely different from the stolen-organs-transplant allegations, which in any case are pretty flimsy’

            not flimsy at all…just uninvestigated..Donald Bostroms story has broken a wall of silence, which You would love to see rebuilt

          16. At the moment there is not a jot of evidence to support the allegations, which makes them super-flimsy. Let’s have an independent investigation, and see what evidence that produces. Then we might be able to say there is a solid basis for the allegations. Or we might not.

            And do you yourself a favour and stop impugning people’s motives when you haven’t got the slightest clue whom you are talking to.

          17. Shirin says:
            September 6, 2009 at 6:59 PM
            At the moment there is not a jot of evidence to support the allegations, which makes them super-flimsy. Let’s have an independent investigation, and see what evidence that produces. Then we might be able to say there is a solid basis for the allegations. Or we might not.
            ===================

            WE have the evidence of bodies stitched up….bodies never returned…bodie buried what Israel calls ‘the number graveyards’…

            Thanks to Bostrom, even you are calling for an investigation.

          18. Brian – Palestinians are cursed with supporters who (even in the west) think that Bush ordered 911 and 4,000 Jews avoided going to work at the WTC that day.

            Eastern supporters of the Palestinians are often even more unpleasantly gullible, denying the Holocaust, accepting the “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, blood-libels and all the rest of it.

            All of this does the Palestinians great harm in the eyes of the world – very understandably.

            And the organ-stolen-for-transplants claim, which is old and completely unproven does the same thing. Why press on with something disgusting but not very illegal, when there’s so much more evidence of real international crimes that people could be prosecuted for?

          19. ‘Bostrom’s claim or insinuation or whatever you wish to call it, is that the Palestinians were killed IN ORDER to harvest their organs’

            Insinuation….its what you read into it Richard…Why dont u back an independent investigation into this issue, instead of backing zionist israel.

            Show who you really support:

            http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/09/05/petition-for-free-speech-and-investigation-of-organ-theft-accusations/

            The palestinians support Bostrom..

            ‘The Palestinian Association in Sweden which represents more than 30,000 Swedish Palestinians has sent a letter to the Aftonbladet newspaper, expressing their appreciation of its brave reporters’ efforts in revealing yet another dark face of the Jewish fascist state.
            The association also voiced its appreciation of the Swedish government’s brave position in standing up against the standard Zionist blackmail tactics, which have seen Sweden accused of anti-Semitism; this is a ploy used by Zionists for several decades now, but one which fortunately no longer works’
            http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_56808.shtml

            Do you really believe the ‘autopsy’ excuse? Because thats far more absurd….

          20. instead of backing zionist israel.

            I detest this sort of non sequitur argument. If you want to argue facts do so. But don’t impute motives or beliefs to me that are not based on real evidence. This is argument by slogan, not by ideas.

          21. Will u sign the petition Richard? Show that you do care for a real investigation. And please refrain from attacking people like Donald Bostrom and Alison Weir: youre only exposing yourself the charge of zionis-lite.

          22. ‘No, she did not cite reports attesting to the fact that Palestinian bodies were robbed of their organs in Israel. The very, very best she did was to cite stories suggesting that this may have happened, and I am being generous here’

            Were it not for Bostom and Weir,youd not even be aware of the issue.So your attack on Weir is pathetic.
            in investigation a story,you pursue what leads you have.You dont have to have ‘facts’ : what you should have is case evidence of a crime. This has been done : sufficiently for the PA to promise an investigation…tho id prefer trhe Red Cross.

          23. in investigation a story,you pursue what leads you have.You dont have to have ‘facts’ : what you should have is case evidence of a crime.

            You don’t have to have “facts” but you need “evidence?” I take it you haven’t taken the bar or if you did you never passed. What are “facts” if not “evidence” or a very close fascimile? W/o facts you have pretty much what you’ve laid out here, which is precious little.

          24. The evidence is what Bostrom gathered for his article…his call was for vested authorities to take the case further. You know, like when there is a claim of murder, there is a body: its then up to the police to do the real work.

            Go read his article again. and keep in mind an org representative of 30000 swedish palestinian refugees has publically thanked him for his efforts, efforts you seem to be dismayed at.

          25. Brian – I’m quite sure that the Palestinians are buoyed up by hearing that these allegations are getting an airing – however, they do themselves no good with it.

            The Palestinians often do themselves severe injury in western eyes, eg when Hamas defends the ICC indicted President of Sudan over the genocide of Darfur. We who are immersed in western style ways of thinking and prosecuting need to be delivering real help to the Palestinians, which includes warning them they must have good solid evidence before coming out with allegations, particularly ones like this.

          26. You don’t have any way of knowing what I would and would not be aware of. You don’t even know who I am, where I come from, where I am at the moment, what I do for a living, or what my experience and history are in regard to Palestinian and Israeli issues.

            what you should have is case evidence of a crime.

            “Case evidence of a crime?” LOOOOOL! Are you trying to sound as if you know something about criminal law?

            In any case, at present there is not one scintilla of evidence that Israelis are targeting Palestinians for their organs, let alone that they are killing them in order to harvest their organs. At most, there are questions that should be answered. I have advocated for an investigation from the first moment this story came out, and I will continue to do so. If Israelis are targeting Palestinians and murdering them for their organs, then the world needs to know so that it can be stopped. If an investigation does not turn up any evidence, then this flood of speculation should be shut off and we should all move on to something real.

            Oh – and for the nth time, I have not attacked Allison Weir. I have not attacked Donald Bostrom. I have not supported the IOF. What I have done is try to keep a level head and approach this matter with reason and logic. Your hysterical ranting is not shedding a bit of light on the situation, it is mainly just producing some heat.

      2. ‘Allison Weir is not an investigative journalist, she is a lady who is very dedicated to an important cause and who does a great deal of excellent work in the interest of that cause’

        SO where are the investigative journalists? Not investigating! Thats the way of professionals: they resent the impassioned amateur, poaching on their turf.

        Its the amateurs who are doing the real work.Isnt that the whole idea of the internet: to allow citizen journalism to break thru the professional wall of control?

        1. How about letting the investigative journalists, and the forensic pathologists, and others do their work before racing off the deep end about this? All we have now is questions, so let’s continue to ask for the answers, and in the meantime, let us keep a level head about all this, hmmmm?

          1. ‘How about letting the investigative journalists, and the forensic pathologists, and others do their work’

            well,show me any of your pathologists and IJ doing this work…since 1992, not one has bothered to follow up on this story…

            ‘All we have now is questions,’

            Thanks to Bostrom…the questions are from the dead palestinians relatives…These continiue to be ignored by professional journalists and media.

      3. ‘Alison Weir, whom I know, like, and respect, is not in a position to “attest” to the “fact” that Palestinian bodies were robbed of their organs’

        She is in a position to raise the issue. The difficulty in finding out what happened to the corpses after they were taken away by the IOF, did did they take them away for ‘autopsy’ or to extract organs? Why autopsy bodies whose cause of death was known? Why not return the bodies? etc
        Neither you nor weir can investigate this…but at least she has raised the issue further…

  3. Richard,
    It was your choice to speak in possibilities with your “totally improbable” comment, I simply responded to that. As for Israel’s role as a leader in the organ trade, that is cold, hard, verifiable fact. The revolting nature of organ theift makes it a subject most generally avoid, but if you care to go digging on the problem you’ll find Israeli involvement far more often than most nations. For instance, here is a line from the NYT effectively admitting as much:

    To those who monitor organ trafficking, it was no surprise that Israel should emerge as the focal point of a syndicate.

    1. First, there’s not hyperlink there so I can’t tell what you’re referring to. Second, if you’re talking about the New Jersey incident, that was one case. But what evidence do you have that Israel is a “leader in the organ trade.” That implies far more than a single incident & implies Israel is far more involved than other nations. I’d like to see evidence of this.

      1. Here is a fixed link, which took all of 5 seconds to Google with the information I provided. Note the article isn’t about the New Jersey incident, and please tell me what you think the statement that “To those who monitor organ trafficking, it was no surprise that Israel should emerge as the focal point of a syndicate” implies?

    2. I’m not sure what this argument is about. Kyle, you seem to have agreed with us that it is unlikely that Palestinians have been targeted as sources for organs, and even more unlikely that they have been murdered for their organs. We have agreed that in the Abu Kabir case Palestinians were among those whose organs were taken and sold for profit to universities. This looks like you are engaging in argument for its own sake.

      1. I don’t find either particularly unlikely, just completely unsubstantiated. For a corollary example; I find it highly likely Israelis have sexually tortured Palestinians much like Americans did to prisoners in Abu Ghraib, but I only know of evidence to prove the latter and not the former.

        Also, the central theme of Bostrom’s piece was that Palestinians were being targeted as sources of organs, I have never denied that, but rather only pointed out the difference between insinuation and allegation. On the other hand Weir’s piece is obviously intended to refute the irrational dismissal of the possibility of Palestinians having been targeted as sources of organs, not to insinuate it has happened. Anyway, I’m arguing for the sake of reality, while you apparently realize there are no allegations for you to quote, yet are unwilling to admit as much.

        1. Kylebisme – again, you damage the believability of all the very good evidence by carrying on like this. It’s noticeable that, amongst all the damning evidence we have against Israelis, allegations of recent sexual misconduct are virtually missing. There is some evidence for these crimes in 1948, but even then it seems to have been unusual. Your gullibility tars us.

          1. I was speaking of sexual assault being used specifically as a torture tactic, and clearly identified it as an example of a possibility which I have no evidence to support, but would not shocked if some were discovered. Your inability to comprehend as much only tars yourself.

            Furthermore, some Israelis solders have certainly demonstrated the mentality to commit such acts, shamelessly memorialising it on tee-shirts. Also, there are well documented cases of rapes in 1948, as you can find Benny Morris mentioning here.

          2. Oh, yes, and we are also incapable of comprehending you – I missed this one.

            Are you capable of understanding how egotistical you appear here?

        2. Yes, yes, I know, there cannot possibly be more than one reasonable way to view the Bostrom article, or Allison Weir’s piece. You are the only one who has the intellectual, and emotional capability and honesty – or the language skills – to understand it and express it correctly. And you will be the first to admit that!

          However, in my intellectually and emotionally inadequate view Bostrom goes well beyond insinuation in his piece, so even if I concede that he does not precisely make allegations, I do not agree with your characterization that he is merely insinuating. Also, an allegation need not be in the form of a quotable declarative sentence. But I find this argument over words to be the least interesting part of the discussion.

          I also do not find Allison’s intention as obvious as you do. In this case, though, I can simply ask her about this next time I see her.

        3. I don’t find either particularly unlikely, just completely unsubstantiated.

          I’m sorry but there is far too much hatred & emotion regarding this conflict to deal with the unsubstantiated. I have enough problem dealing w. the substantiated w/o getting into the nether realms of conspiracy theory & naked emotion that lurks throughout the miasma that is this conflict.

          Using standard rules of evidence & fact based blogging is a way of keeping the debate on an even keel. That’s why I simply can’t credit the Bostroms or Weirs of this world when they stray fr. the reservation of substantiated journalism.

          I find it highly likely Israelis have sexually tortured Palestinians

          Israeli border police have forced a Palestinian to engage in bestiality with his donkey. That IS substantiated if you read either my blog or Lawrence of Cyberia, where I read the original story. I have no problem if a story is confirmed by a reliable source as this was. So yes, Israelis have sexually tortured Palestinians in at least one case I know.

          you apparently realize there are no allegations for you to quote, yet are unwilling to admit as much.

          If you’re claiming I’m unwilling to admit the POSSIBILITY that Israel could’ve murdered Palestinians for their organs I simply don’t know what to say. It’s possible the Earth will fall into the sun sometime in my lifetime. But this isn’t a possibility I lose much sleep over. THere are so many truly horrible and SUBSTANTIATED elements of this conflict that I prefer to spend my time dealing with them rather than the could bes or might bes.

  4. I think that it is high time you supported the BDS sanction movement. We are hitting the Toronto Film Festival hard because they are commemorating the 100th anniversary of the apartheid city of Tel Aviv. In a previous article, you pointed out the futility of rebranding Israel. Now, the hasbarits are trying to do the impossible, rebranding Tel Aviv as something other that Auschwitz on the Meditteranean. There is no middle ground. Either you are with us or with the Liebermans, Netanyahus, and Feiglins

    1. Use a term like “Auscwitz on the Mediterranean” one more time here & you’re toast. Speak in real language w/o slogans or propaganda. If you can’t do that go back to whatever anti-Zionist fever pit you came out of.

      Either you are with us or with the Liebermans, Netanyahus, and Feiglins

      I can’t tell you how much this rhetoric disgusts me.

      1. Richard, I don’t know. I find that kind of rhetoric more amusing than disgusting. It is so empty of substance I can’t manage to take it seriously at all.

        1. I’ve been called thousands of pretty atrocious epithets. Maybe my skin’s a bit thin about this sort of thing. But thanks for offering yr more unbiased opinion. It’s good to know how others see this sort of thing too.

          1. The thing is, when people start with that sort of thing it means they’ve run out of real ammunition, and are reduced to, monkey-like, flinging their own poo. When they start with the poo flinging right away it’s a sure sign they didn’t start out with much.

  5. http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/09/05/petition-for-free-speech-and-investigation-of-organ-theft-accusations/

    This story is getting bigger, and this is how investigations get started. Why not investigate? Why not believe the stories of the mothers whose sons were murdered by the IDF, flown swiftky to AbuKabir for the ghoul Yehuda Hiss to plunder their organs, and then five days later dumped back to their villages where the families were ordered to bury their dead in the middle of the night? Do we ask holocaust survivors to provide irrefutable evidence that Dr. Mengele tortured them with his sick experiments? Why is it that people are unwilling to believe the accounts of the Palestinians? This is a story that should be investigated, why try to sweep it under the rug? At least people should be screaming for a massive investigation especially taking into account that the chief pathologist is a criminal who should be in prison for what he did not only to Palestinians, but to Israelis as well. For more info google Kawther Salam.

    1. Why not investigate?

      Well, precisely. Why not see if someone can produce some actual evidence instead of this constant speculating and extrapolating based on no actual evidence at all? Instead of trying to construct a coherent story by trying to create a fabric by connecting loose and often unrelated threads (the technique by which consipiracy theories are constructed), why not take the steps needed to either confirm or refute the claims?

      Why not believe the stories of the mothers whose sons were murdered by the IDF, flown swiftky to AbuKabir for the ghoul Yehuda Hiss to plunder their organs, and then five days later dumped back to their villages where the families were ordered to bury their dead in the middle of the night?

      Because there is no actual evidence that their sons WERE “flown swiftly to Abu Kabir in order to have their organs plundered”. Because there are other, more likely explanations for families being ordered to bury their dead in the middle of the night. And more importantly, there is only speculation, and no real evidence that organs had actually been removed from the bodies. In none of the reports has an investigation ever been conducted in which bodies were opened up by independent pathologists who confirmed whether or not organs were missing.

      Why is it that people are unwilling to believe the accounts of the Palestinians?

      It is not that people are unwilling to believe the accounts of the Palestinians, it is that these accounts are not conclusive of anything. There is nothing in these accounts that confirms even that organs had been removed from the bodies, and there are always plausible alternative explanations for the reported events. And there is even less that confirms the “feelings” and “beliefs” on the part of some that Palestinians have been targeted as sources for organs, and killed in order to obtain them. You can’t conclude that Israelis have targeted Palestinians for their organs based on feelings, beliefs, suspicions, and speculation. You CAN justify an investigation based on those things, however.

      This is a story that should be investigated, why try to sweep it under the rug?

      Who here is trying to sweep it under the rug? What we are asking for is actual evidence in the place of extrapolation and speculation based on feelings, beliefs, and suspicions. I have repeatedly said there should be a real investigation, preferably by an independent body that is not aligned with either side. Independent forensic pathologists should examine returned bodies and determine whether organs are missing, and if they are, whether they were medically removed, or destroyed in the attack that killed the subject. Once it can be determined that organs have been removed, then investigators can go to work determining a chain of custody for the body, and find out specifically what happened. Then we will have more than speculation to go on.

      The Abu Kabir case does nothing for the allegations/suggestions/claims/insinuations that Palestinians have ever been targeted for their organs. It is completely useless as evidence that Palestinians have been murdered, or more spectacularly kidnapped and murdered in order to harvest their organs.

      Show me some real forensic evidence and we can talk. Until then all we have is a conspiracy theory with no convincing basis in fact.

      1. ‘It is not that people are unwilling to believe the accounts of the Palestinians, it is that these accounts are not conclusive of anything. There is nothing in these accounts that confirms even that organs had been removed from the bodies’

        ie you are unwilling to believe the palestinians…But Bostrom has breached the wall of silence,and forced zionist israel into a display of its real nasty character, that has at least made an investigation possible.
        but you keep defending the IOF,but your subtle attacks on Bostroms article.

        1. Brian you became a bloody bore about twenty comments ago. By now you have become insufferable. You have no idea what you are blatting about, and even less idea whom you are blatting it at. You are not interested in a discussion, you are interested in moral posturing and irrational ranting at people, most of whom undoubtedly have longer and stronger credentials than you will ever have when it comes to supporting Palestinians. I wonder how many times YOU have put your ass on the line for the Palestinians.

    2. Do we ask holocaust survivors to provide irrefutable evidence that Dr. Mengele tortured them with his sick experiments?

      Why yes, that’s precisely what Holocaust historians do. They attempt to build an irrefutable case based as much as possible on eyewitness testimony & physical evidence. And they’ve done a helluva lot better job of proving their case than the conspiracy theorists have regarding this case.

      No one is disbelieving that the Palestinian prisoners died. What we disbelieve is that they were killed for their organs.

  6. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23434.htm

    Shiren, there has to be an investigation, this is how we’ll get the proof. And by the way, I believe the mothers who saw the bodies of their sons ripped open. Why conduct unauthorised autopsies on Palestinian youth that were obviously shot and killed by Israel? Why the autopsies? In order to get the answers you want there must be an investigation. By the way, you took apart most of my post with the exception of the Mengele comment. Why? There are some crimes that are covered up so well that the truth, if not vigorously sought, will never come to light. Investigate.
    Now.

  7. Shiren, there has to be an investigation, this is how we’ll get the proof.

    Emman, isn’t that exactly what I have been saying? Isn’t that exactly what I said in the comment you just responded to? I answered your question “why not investigate” by saying “Well, precisely. Why not see if someone can produce some actual evidence. What else could that be other than a call for an investigation?

    And how else can you possibly interpret this: “I have repeatedly said there should be a real investigation…forensic pathologists should examine returned bodies…Once it can be determined that organs have been removed, then investigators can go to work determining a chain of custody for the body, and find out specifically what happened.“?

    believe the mothers who saw the bodies of their sons ripped open.

    I believe them too, but the only thing that is evidence for is that the bodies were ripped open (and I would point out that organs are never harvested by ripping open bodies, but by carefully cutting them open in a systematic way). It is not evidence that organs were stolen, it is not evidence that their sons were murdered. That is why I am saying bodies should be examined by forensic pathologists, and if it is determined that organs were medically removed, then there should be a further investigation.

    I did not respond to the Mengele comment because I do not find it particularly pertinent.

  8. Back to the Russian ship, the possibility of Mossad gallavanting around in European waters tickles my fancy, this does remain an intriguing mystery, whatever was going on. Yeah, taking missiles to Iran around that way is a bit far-fetched, but there is a whiff of Robert Ludlum in all of this. I want Mossad and MI5 to cross sabers (not talking war, just spy high jinks), in such eventuality I’ll stick with 007.

  9. ‘Late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat had openly accused the Israeli army and medical authorities of harvesting the organs of Palestinian victims.

    “They murder our kids and use their organs as spare parts,” Arafat told Al-Jazeera in 2002, showing pictures of the bodies of Palestinian children killed and badly mutilated by the Israeli army.

    In 1998, Israeli medical authorities brashly stole body organs from a Scottish tourist named Alistair Sinclair who died under mysterious circumstances at the Ben Gurion Airport.

    Sinclair’s family reportedly sued Israel upon finding that their son’s heart and other organs were missing.

    According to one report, a heart and organs were sent to his mother who didn’t believe that these were her son’s.

    http://www.uruknet.info/index.php?p=m57676&hd=&size=1&l=e

    1. This story was already linked in a previous comment here & told as well. So you’ve repeated it. Pls. do as I suggest & find the threads dealing w. this subject & don’t repeat material. It’s really a drag on the conversation.

      please refrain from attacking people like Donald Bostrom and Alison Weir: youre only exposing yourself the charge of zionis-lite.

      The only person who is raising that charge is you by insinuation & I resent it. Don’t do it again AT ALL even via insinuation. If you do I have a hair trigger finger these days & little patience for the jargon you’re peddling. And don’t tell me to refrain fr. attacking anyone. I criticize people who I feel deserve it. Period. I don’t pull my punches because someone tells me to do so.

      I’m imposing a daily comment limit on you as well. No more than 5 comments per day. I don’t want to discourse to be dragged down by an obsessive fixation on this issue. Keep track of yr comments & don’t violate the limit.

    2. Brian – Arafat has a terrible reputation abroad and with good reason. You damage the cause of Palestinians by reminding us of him. Not all his claims are rubbish, but the one on the 10 Agora coin is an obvious case of his failing to check anything whatsoever.

      Arafat himself probably had ample money to have the organ thing investigated by serious international pathologists – he failed to do – hence, the ball has been dropped.

      It must be obvious that Palestinians have made serious mistakes in the court of world opinion – you seem determined they shoot themselves in the foot yet again over this one.

      1. I, for one, care a great deal less about `Arafat’s negative reputation abroad, which was due in large measure to the usual hasbara. What I do care about is that he repeatedly sold out the Palestinians, Palestinian rights, and Palestinian goals. He also made some serious errors, but more than that he put his self-interest above the interests of the Palestinian people when it counted most.

    1. SimoHurtta, the story of Israel’s first transplant has already been discussed here just within the last few days. Under Israeli law, at least at that time, it was perfectly legal to take organs from dead patients for transplant without permission of the family. So, they took the heart and transplanted it into another patient, and did so perfectly legally. If it’s a bad law, and Israelis don’t like it, they should work to get it changed. Until then, they can complain, but they can’t say a crime was committed.

      Oh – and the donor, however unwilling, an Israeli Jew, not a Palestinian, and he was not murdered for his organs, he died in the hospital, and since his heart was suitable and compatible, they used it for a transplant.

      So, that case doesn’t do a thing to support the claims that Israel is murdering Palestinians for their organs.

  10. Richard, please understand that I do respect your emotional connection to matters involving Israel. While I am frank in my statements, I don’t do so out of any disregard for that, but rather simply because was never skilled in embellishment and stopped trying long ago. That said:

    Truly a low blow.

    It was an observation based fact that he disagreed with me without explaining his alleged disagreement, calling me “dangerously naive” without even attempting to construct an argument of what he is accusing me of being naive about. Yes, the tone was crude, but I was simply responding to him on the level at which he addressed me.

    I’m sorry but there is far too much hatred & emotion regarding this conflict to deal with the unsubstantiated.

    Again, I was speaking of the facts of Abu Kabir in response Shirin’s claim that there was no proof of Palestinian organs ever being stolen, when you responded to me turning this discussion to possibilities. Could you please acknowledge that was your choice, and stop deriding me for it?

    If you’re claiming I’m unwilling to admit the POSSIBILITY that Israel could’ve murdered Palestinians for their organs I simply don’t know what to say.

    I am at a loss as to how you could have derived that from what you quoted, it was part of a reply to Shirin, addressing his blurring of the distortion between insinuation and allegation.

    It’s possible the Earth will fall into the sun sometime in my lifetime. But this isn’t a possibility I lose much sleep over.

    You never answered as to what you think the statement “To those who monitor organ trafficking, it was no surprise that Israel should emerge as the focal point of a syndicate” implies? Again, considering such relevant facts which you seem intent on ignoring, I contend the possibility here is far more likely than you’d prefer to believe.

    Why yes, that’s precisely what Holocaust historians do. They attempt to build an irrefutable case based as much as possible on eyewitness testimony & physical evidence.

    Sure, but only after the Nazis were devised and that the investigations could be done. Some of the stories like the soap and lampshades seem to have been false, but many no less horrific stories are indisputably true. However, while it was all going on many refused to acknowledge a likelihood of anything of the sort, as that is precisely what apologists do.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link