This story, one I initially elected not to comment on, continues to gather momentum in the press. The light cast on the settlement issue is valuable.
On Jan. 12, the Tel Aviv-based SodaStream company announced actress Scarlett Johansson as its global brand ambassador. However, SodaStream's main plant is located in an Israeli industrial park near the major West Bank settlement of Maale Adumim.
Settlements are Israeli residential and industrial sites developed on Palestinian land. In some of the reportage, one will hear reference to "Area C" in the West Bank. This corresponds to the Oslo Accords (1993), in which it was decided that 73 percent of the West Bank (labeled Area C) would be negotiated in future talks. In other words, three-fourths of the territory has existed in diplomatic limbo ever since - and under Israeli control. And in those twenty years, Israel has continued to build and expand in the area. Though the settlements themselves take up only about 1 percent of the West Bank, the total land used (for connecting roads, etc.) is 42 percent. This is all illegal under international law and makes quite evident Israel's intentions.
SodaStream's announcement did not sit well with international relief organization Oxfam, for which Johansson had been a global ambassador for eight years. Oxfam, like many human rights groups, is against Israel's settlement of the West Bank, and therefore voiced concern over Johansson's new appointment. On Wednesday, Johansson tendered her resignation with Oxfam.
Three points of consideration:
1. Despite it residing at the center of the story, Johansson's decision to enter into a contract with SodaStream is probably of least importance. One can only speculate as to her thought process in making the decision, there being only two possibilities, allowing for overlap: she doesn't know much about the subject, or she doesn't much care. In either case, her priorities are fairly clear. While perhaps morally appropriate, judgment of her is futile at the practical level.
2. The issue is the settlement program itself - a key component of the occupation - and its attempt to: acquire as much (and the best land) of the West Bank as possible, predetermine any diplomatic solution, and produce an Israeli-defined Palestine. Boycotting can have an economic effect, which is currently causing unease within Israel and the settlements. The European Union, one of Israel's main trading partners, continues to apply pressure on this front, making uncertain the future of settlement exports. Boycotting can also call needed attention. In this case, it can spotlight the settlement problem and Israel's ghettoization of the Palestinians. This applies especially to the United States, where public opinion can have an impact. In sum, Israel continues to approach apartheid South Africa pariah status.
3. The current diplomatic activity headed by Secretary John Kerry looks like it might be an effort the administration will attempt to maintain to the end of Obama's term. If this push ends up resolving what we know as the Palestine-Israel conflict - something of a possibility - these are the final moments to raise awareness. In which case, the Johansson-SodaStream story has incidentally come at a good time.
One of the better articles on the subject:
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/2014/0130/Palestinian-workers-back-Scarlett-Johansson-s-opposition-to-SodaStream-boycott-video
