it. The way to go is to let the reporter prove the accusations or apologise. It is in Israel's interest to cooperate in any such (supposed) investigation, as it has nothing to fear, just the opposite. As #55 says, it should also be possible (and suitable) to try the reporter of the article for "hets mot folkgrupp" the legal way. I assure you there are many with me, who wish this article had never been published and consider its contents very much below the level of civilized and accepted behaviour, as it throws around accusations without proves. I would personally not have any difficulties with apologizing and condemning this article.

As was pointed out earlier, the minister who apologised for the Muhammad cartoon and shut down the web-site was forced to resign or face impeachment. Many of the arguments about the article being anti-semitic (I agree that it was) here are good, but you're missing the point - unless the article has been convicted of libel by the Swedish Press Ombudsman, it is protected by free speech, and any government official who condemns the article WILL be forced to resign by their political opponents - just like happened after the Muhammad cartoons. In fact, Carl Bildt is already being investigated for not distancing himself enough from what the ambassador in Israel wrote. It is also illegal for government officials to comment on any court cases, so even if the article was a straight up copy of a 16th century blood libel and taken to court, the government CAN NOT comment. Israel should focus on suing the newspaper or forcing a criminal investigation instead (as it is illegal to be anti-semitic in Sweden). But again, it won't technically BE anti-semitic until it has been proven to be so in court, and until that point, the government cannot comment. Are we clear now?

World War One? :) I'd love to read whatever history book you've been reading