The football game part of the Super Bowl was a non-event, but there was serious controversy over one of the commercials: Actress Scarlett Johansson was appearing in an ad for SodaStream, a maker of carbonated beverage dispensers whose main factory is in the West Bank, Palestinian territory that has been occupied by Israel since 1967.
On February 5, USA Today attempted to bring its readers up to speed, but botched some of the basic facts about the Israeli colonies at the heart of the controversy.
The big SodaStream factory is located in Maale Adumim, an illegal Israeli settlement in the West Bank. Activists who support the BDS movement (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions), who urge the use of international economic pressure to promote Palestinian rights, called on Johansson to break her ties with the company.
There was also some effort to pressure the international humanitarian group Oxfam, which has featured Johansson as a celebrity ambassador for the group. Oxfam has–like almost all of the world–declared the settlements are in violation of international law. Johansson wound up ending her relationship with Oxfam rather than splitting with SodaStream.
USA Today, though, put its focus on SodaStream workers. Under the headline “Workers at West Bank SodaStream Don’t See the Fuss,” reporter Kate Shuttleworth focused on Nabil Basharat, a Palestinian who has a good job that pays relatively well, something he wishes he could convey to
the European and American groups pushing a boycott of Israeli products to get Israel to relinquish claims to the West Bank, a region the size of Delaware on Israel’s eastern border where about 375,000 Israelis and 2.1 million Palestinians live.
Note the ambiguous description of the West Bank as being “on Israel’s eastern border.” More specifically, it is on the other side of the border; the West Bank is land Israel has illegally occupied since 1967.
But to USA Today, international law is simply a difference of opinion:
The factory that the campaign has targeted is in Mishor Adumim, part of the Jewish settlement Maale Adumim that overlooks East Jerusalem. The campaign says the settlement is illegal under international law but Israel says that is false.
At another point, the article refers to “the Israeli ‘occupation’ of the West Bank.”
But the illegality of West Bank settlements is not an opinion, it’s a matter of international law, as the International Committee of the Red Cross makes perfectly clear. That is also Oxfam’s position; USA Today quotes the group’s statement saying that settlements “further the ongoing poverty and denial of rights of the Palestinian communities that we work to support.” But they omitted the next sentence: “Oxfam is opposed to all trade from Israeli settlements, which are illegal under international law.”
The paper does quote an Oxfam spokesperson saying much the same: “”The problem at the moment is it’s in an illegal settlement on occupied land.” These are facts about Israeli settlements; USA Today treats their legality as a matter of competing claims between the Israeli government and an activist campaign.
Fortunately, the illegality of most business in the US (where they reside on land stolen from Native Americans) is not at issue here.
Joe Gates: The parallels between these two versions of empire are striking. Especially the joke about deporting the “illegal” immigrants. Both countries need to take a serious, long look in the mirror.
Articles that quote Palestinians (or Jewish Israelis, for that matter) on whether or not they support a boycott should point out that it is, in fact, illegal to advocate a boycott in Israel. http://972mag.com/boycott2325-7132011/18648/
Boicott Scarlett too. End the occupation
Of course, Joe Gates, you made a simple grammatical mistake and meant to write ” ‘unfortunately’ the illegality of most business in the US is not at issue here.” If not to the native Americans, Texas should go back to Mexico and forget the Alamo. But then again, there is no dispute between the US and Mexico over Texas. And hasn’t been one for a long time. What about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict? Hmmm … been going on nonstop for 60+ years. Seems the legality of the occupation has been opposed right from the very beginning.
I think that Scarlett Johansson action is a major warning for the celebrity endorsement. Maybe it would be a good idea to investigate before agreeing to be the spokes person for any product.
I wonder if she actually knew what Oxfam does, although she was a spokes person for them? Perhaps each celebrity endorser should truly investigate a product and its history, and sorry, Scarlett, Oxfam would have been a great source for you to ask..
Illegal land grab…that is a fact; it is not anti-semitic, for land has been taken since 1948. I am sorry that Scarlett did not seem to know, but then most of the media, like those 3 famous monkeys, neither sees, hears nor speaks of what is in plain sight either.
I’m sorry that you quit Oxfam too, but I suppose that if you quit the other your career would suffer. The next time anyone tells you that a company creates jobs, please investigate, because you know, Plantations provided jobs too, but no one ever worked there by choice or had a better life because of those “companies.”
Another example of the modern-day confusion between facts and opinions. Facts are disputable and opinions are not, in this mindset. “Everyone is entitled to his opinion,” being against slavery is simply an opinion, the facts you have worked hard to gather are simply your opinion. Reality is NOT subjective and Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands is NOT an opinion.
Israel says the settlement is not illegal. Well that clears that up. Because Israel never lies. Move along. Nothing to see here.
nice article,
“One of the hardest decisions you’ll ever face in life is choosing whether to walk away or try harder.”
Thank you
@ joe gates:
The difference is a big change happened after the world was involved in TWO WORLD wars – the geneva conventions was adopted (that denied the right to take land by force and for the war fleeing victims the right to return), and the united nations was formed to resolve conflict (and israel was a signatory). It’s a red herring to conflate native americans with the situation POST world agreements and international laws.