A roundup of recent developments and commentary on the Swedish blood libel.
• First of all, if you still haven't read a translation of Donald Bostrom's original article, read it in English here.
• James Savage lists several serious reasons why the Swedish government isn't going to condemn Aftonbladet.
• Stephen Dubner talked to one unconvinced organ transplant expert:
Al Roth, the Harvard economist whose work on matched-pair organ donations has started to transform the organ-transplantation scenario, told me he found the accusation unbelievable because of the logistics of organ harvesting itself. “Organs don’t last very long and have to be matched rather particularly,” he said, “so it would be hard to take them on spec for an international market. So I think black market organs must mostly be from live donors. Live donors can take blood tests well in advance and travel to where the patient is. Deceased organs have to be put on ice, and the clock starts ticking immediately and fast.”
• Legal action against the paper? Alan Dershowitz and Yossi Klein-Halevi make compelling arguments for; Paul Schneidereit is equally persuasive against.
• Is the Israeli reaction political? So suggests Daniel Korski:
Diplomats I have spoken to are now speculating that the Israeli government – expecting a peace proposal in October from the Obama administration that it will not like – may have used the episode to outmaneuver the Swedish at a time when Stockholm holds the rotating EU presidency. This way, once the likely “Mitchell proposal” comes out, EU backing for the US position may have been undermined, if not neutered. There is already talk of Bildt having to postpone a scheduled visit to Israel.
• Donald Bostrom and Mordechai Kedar squared off in debate.
• And the Arab reaction? No surprises here.
