Guardian: Our Israeli organ harvesting headline was serious error

So you're mad because The Guardian used words you don't like. What about the story? Are you even concerned that Israeli medical personnel took organs and tissue from bodies without asking the next of kin? I didn't think so. I suppose when the religion governing a country is against organ donation you have to resort to theft and bribery to obtain those organs and tissues.

Try Sheik Ahmad Yassin for a start

Guardian Ed: "In Israel They Murder Each Other a Great Deal" "The Israeli Defense Forces murder people because they don't like their political style..." What does the IDF have to do with the recent assault on Italian PM Sylvio Berlusconi? Absolutely nothing. But that didn't stop The Guardian's Associate Editor Michael White from making the following comment during a discussion on BBC Radio London's Breakfast Show concerning the physical vulnerability of political leaders: In Israel they murder each other a great deal. The Israeli Defense Forces murder people because they don't like their political style and what they've got to say and it only means that people more extreme come in and take their place. (The full segment from the BBC Radio London Breakfast Show with Joanne Good and Paul Ross, 8am, Monday 14 Dec. can be heard by clicking on the icon below (3 mins 30 secs in) or here for a limited time only on the BBC website at approximately 1hr 16 mins in.) PS.When will your comrades ever admit to any wrong doing ever? Israelis admit things all the time they have public enquiries.Your lot?

Not like many Israeli news services http://tinyurl.com/y8ewves/myths-mis-conceptions-propaganda/#Muslims-urinated-next-to-Torah http://tinyurl.com/y8ewves/myths-mis-conceptions-propaganda/#Gaza-greenhouses

To those of us who've been in an uproar since that Swedish article first appeared. Sounds like there may be some proof to it if what's said here is true. Any independent verification of this past practice?

(1)Israel denied the story and (2) accused the messenger of anti-semiism. (1R) Now it admits that the story is true, (2R) Claims it was not racist in selection. (3R) Sole body parts across the racial spectrum. (4R) Claims the policy has changed and has stopped. (1) is an UNTRUTH (2) is an UNTRUTH: Common knee-jerk reaction/ defense mechanism; A PROJECTION of internal values: Prejudice against non jews, non white jews & Arabs in Israeli culture is well documented everywhere, see other comments for proof. (3)TRUE: Numerous accounts of jewish families setting up guard on the deceased, to stop unauthorized "autopsy". (4) Cannot be trusted: The "Hannibal option" exposed recently as current policy -not abandoned as claimed: (A soldier in danger of/or kidnapped is shot/killed or commits strategic suicide (suicide bombing) to prevent becoming a hostage) Is zionist policies -unauthorized organ harvesting, preemptive death tactics compatible with jewish faith or community values?

why change the headline, it didn`t mention "Palestinian organs" in it... Oh jeez.

An internationally circulated news outlet could not possibly do this in error. They had plenty of time to think about what they were doing before the story went to print. Every reporter and every editor learns early on in their careers as journalists not to print anything that constitutes libel or slander. The Guardian has proven consistently that they throw caution to the wind and rely on sensationalism rather than facts to sell copy.

In the Guardian article, they cite Press TV as the source of information. Press TV is owned and run by the Iranian government. So now the Guardian is working as a mouthpiece of Iran.

The same report also appeared on the ABC News website

This type of a "mistake" is befitting the likes of Joseph Goebbels. It takes a peculiar talent to come up with this type of drivel.

I saw the headline, I read the story by Ian Black. In line with the Swedish tabloid, Black's journalistic abilities are sorely in question as is the Guardian's editorial judgment. BUT the damage is done; congratulation - UK liberal press - you now manage to legitimize the Arab websites with gory 'tales' of Israeli blood libel. The Guardian is just one example of the liberal and hard left press in the UK whose editorial judgment is unprofessional and untrustworthy where Israel is concerned. Its becoming very worrying.

Hateful grossly uneducated Judophobes.

A leftist rag with no credibilty

So what's the problem? How is this for a headline: "Israel admits that it took organs from Palestinians without permission"? Israelis always argue semantics, never substance.

The fact that Israel was harvesting organs at all is the story, not the omission of that fact that Israeli doctors were not selective of whom they stole the organs from.

Unfortunately, the Guardian long lost it's crediblility. However, it's obvious bias against Israel is feeding antisemitism in the UK.

I carry organ donor on my driver license, and hope any part of me would be useful to the living. I understand that current law is opt-in, that is, no harvesting without permission. But it makes much more sense to have an opt-out policy. This is not a big deal. Dead is dead. For those wondering, I do NOT approve of murdering people to get organs, as implied by that false and irresponsible Swedish story a few months back

They were harvesting organs without permission at any rate. Right?

as well as on the internet site. Shame on the Guardian one again.