Opinion: Swedish newspaper row

The government of a democracy in which freedom of the press is upheld cannot interfere in news reports, and is not responsible for their content. It follows then, that the government cannot take responsibility or apologise for such news reports. This principle also applies to the current row between the Israeli and the Swedish governments over an article published in the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet claiming that in 1992 the Israeli army "harvested" organs from dead Palestinians before returning the bodies to their relatives.

The accusations of the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his ultra-conservative foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, that the Swedish government is defending anti-Semitism are ridiculous. It is fanciful to cry anti-Semitism when alleged practices of the Israeli army are being reported. To then refuse work permits to Swedish journalists or even organize a boycott of a Swedish furniture chain are narrow-minded, even dangerous reactions whose aim can only be to escalate an ugly row.

Even bad reporting must be protected

If the Israeli army believes the horrific claims in the article are false, then it has recourse to legal avenues. The right to counter statement and to sue for libel exists in Sweden as it does in Israel. According to Aftonbladet, the article in question is based only on the statements of the families of the dead Palestinians. The newspaper has failed to produce an autopsy report or any other hard evidence.

The Swedish government is of course absolutely right not to take responsibility for what may just be some sloppy research, but Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt would also have been within his rights to criticize the questionable article. Instead, Bildt has chosen to be stubborn, an approach that has annoyed the Israelis. (The Swedish ambassador to Israel did condemn the article, but her statement subsequently disappeared from the embassy's Web site.)

Israel is still suspicious of the EU

In fact, the article about the alleged organ trade has uncovered a deeper conflict. The Israeli government has long regarded the European Union, and Sweden in particular, as pro-Palestinian. With Sweden currently holding the presidency of the European Union and Bildt about to embark on a long-planned trip to Israel, the Israeli government saw its as a good time to pick a fight. It is an issue with which Netanyahu is bound to score points domestically - a foreign opponent always makes people pull together. Moreover, an artificially stoked controversy about Europe's position is a good distraction from Israel's controversial settlement policy.

If fighting anti-semitism was Netanyahu's main concern, then his logic dictates that he immediately break off all ties with the United States, where dozens of anti-Semitic Web sites producing racist, anti-Jewish propaganda are based.

The same principle applies here as it did to the infamous cartoon-row between the Danish government and the Arab world three years ago: press freedom is a core value that must be defended. Ostensibly offended religious feelings, or as in the present case, fabricated anti-Semitism, should not be used as a means to hedge the freedom of the press. The EU must support the Swedish government as it did the Danish government over the cartoons. There is of course one important difference in the present affair: Then, Arabic regimes and religious leaders encouraged demonstrators to commit acts of violence. This should and will not happen in Israel.

Both sides need to take steps to cool tempers. Good relations between the EU and Israel and between the EU and the Palestinians are too important to the Middle Eastern peace process to be put on the line because of a single newspaper article.

Author: Bernd Riegert/bk

Editor: Chuck Penfold