Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

SodaStream Super Bowl Ad Obscures More Important Economic Pressure On Israel

The dustup over actress Scarlett Johansson’s appearance in an advertisement for SodaStream, whose factory is located in the occupied West Bank, has obscured a deeper movement in the international community against doing business with entities that profit from or finance the Israeli occupation.

Print Friendly

LobeLog

When I watched the Super Bowl, I tried to avoid the unpleasant experience of also watching Scarlett Johansson’s shameful ad for SodaStream, but failed. That controversy has been boiling for over a week, and while supporters of Israel’s draconian occupation policies are dancing over Johansson’s decision to stand by SodaStream, the tune they’re dancing to is Nero fiddling while Rome burns. On many levels, the economic pressure on Israel is only gaining momentum, and the Johansson controversy both highlights that and masks some far more important events in this category.

On a personal note, I’m terribly disappointed in Johansson. I’ve enjoyed her work in both serious films like Lost in Translation and Match Point as well as in lighter fare such as her role as the Black Widow in various Marvel Comics adventure movies. I’ll enjoy those less now. Johansson might have been naïve at first about SodaStream, as the Financial Times suggests in their sharp criticism of her stance. But Oxfam International engaged her on this subject before breathing a sigh of relief at her decision to step down as their global ambassador. She knows by now how phony her line about SodaStream “building a bridge between Israel and Palestine” is. She simply chose whatever money and other material benefits she expects to get out of the SodaStream ad over the principle of ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and over the excellent international aid work of Oxfam.

What is lost among the Israel-right-or-wrong crowd is how pyrrhic a victory Johansson’s crass selfishness is for them. Her own reaction to the controversy was to lump the SodaStream issue in with the larger Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which targets a wide range of Israeli activities and interests on both sides of the 1967 border. By doing so, they blur the distinction between boycotts against settlements and settlement products (SodaStream has a major manufacturing plant in Mishor Adumim, part of the Ma’ale Adumim settlement bloc, which makes it a target for even progressive Zionist groups like Americans for Peace Now and leaders like Peter Beinart who advocate boycotting settlement products) and boycotts that target Israel proper. The controversy has also led to much greater, and frankly more positive, exposure for the BDS movement as a whole. As right-wing supporters of Israel dance a hora to chants of “#BDSFail,” they fail to realize they are celebrating a victorious battle that is a major setback to their larger war to defend Israel’s occupation and discriminatory policies.

The “ScarJo affair” illuminates some complications with boycotting some settlement businesses. SodaStream provides some of the better jobs available to Palestinians who work there. It’s a classic case of “white man’s burden,” where some of the more liberal members of the powerful party do some good in the larger context of occupation and dispossession. What it demonstrates is not that somehow occupation is benign, but rather that it is impossible, by definition, for the occupier to do right by the occupied.

More importantly, the SodaStream controversy is obscuring much more significant events. I reported recently on the actions of a Dutch financial company that stopped doing business with Israel’s five biggest banks. Now, Denmark’s largest bank has stopped doing all business with Israel’s Bank HaPoalim because of the latter’s funding of settlements.

These are not minor developments, nor the sort of thing that, like the SodaStream issue, can be countered by propaganda and social media activism. There is a message coming to Israel from Europe and its volume is increasing quickly: we have had it with the occupation and we will do what we can to stop it.

While the United States is seen, for good reason, as Israel’s main benefactor, it is Europe, not the US, that is Israel’s largest trading partner. The more that European institutions boycott Israeli businesses over the occupation, the closer Israel gets to the point where every Israeli is going to feel the weight of the occupation in their wallets. And that is going to cause serious political waves.

Israeli business leaders recognize this. They sent a strong message to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the World Economic Forum in Davos that they want his policy to change toward one that is determined to end the occupation and reach an agreement with the Palestinians so that they don’t face these threats any longer. That was not a one-shot effort. The Israeli business community has launched a public campaign to push for peace.

Right now, the countries Israel is most concerned about in Europe — the UK, Germany, France, Italy — are not yet taking the sorts of steps we are seeing out of Denmark and the Netherlands. But there are strong and increasing pressures in that direction. And for the most part, this is not the result of the global BDS movement, although that movement is certainly impacting the discourse and driving some of the thinking behind these larger moves. But these decisions fundamentally stem from the basic incompatibility between European laws and norms and supporting Israel’s occupation and settlement policies.

The Danish and Dutch moves bring a particularly important point home. Most European businesses and governments want to do business with Israel, but not with the settlements. But because Israeli businesses and, especially, its financial institutions that traverse the 1967 borders cannot, for the most part, be split between the two sides of those borders, it has generally been the case that businesses and governments have been reluctant to take economic measures to avoid doing business with the settlements. That reluctance is now waning, and Israeli business is starting to pay the price for the occupation.

There is a clear solution to this problem for Israel — withdraw from occupied territory and come to an equitable agreement with the Palestinians. That does not seem to be on the horizon, despite US Secretary of State John Kerry’s best efforts. But Netanyahu, as beholden as he is to the right, cannot ignore the Israeli business community for long. He has it within his power to bring a deal home if he changes the face of his governing coalition. That requires a political boldness he has never even hinted at. But if he refuses to move in that direction and Europe continues on the course it is on, he will be replaced by someone who will.

Mitchell Plitnick is the former Director of the US Office of B’Tselem: The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories and was previously the Director of Education and Policy for Jewish Voice for Peace.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share