Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: SodaStream

Showing posts with label SodaStream. Show all posts

Sunday, February 09, 2014

BDS trying mightily to spin Scarlett into some sort of victory

By any objective yardstick, the SodaStream/Scarlett Johansson episode was an unmitigated disaster for BDS. But Max Blumenthal, whose rabid anti-Zionism and series of provable and verified lies have ensured that he can no longer be published except in Mondoweiss and Arab news outlets, writes a fantasy about Scarlett Johansson to try to fit the facts of the past couple of weeks into his very limited worldview - and try to spin a major BDS loss.

Writing in the UAE's "The National," Blumenthal talks about how Hollywood celebrities used to publicly embrace Israel, but are less likely to do so today.

The reason?

These days, celebrities who shill for Israel can expect to be relentlessly harried and forced to declare where they stand on Israel’s ongoing dispossession of Palestinians.

For those who have attached themselves to humanitarian do-gooder causes, the potential for PR damage is considerable — certainly enough to give them second thoughts. As the price tag on pro-Israel activity rises, some performers are quietly opting out of attractive deals before the controversy shatters their image.

But others like Scarlett Johansson, the comely blonde starlet described by Woody Allen as “sexually overwhelming” were not willing to let apartheid get in the way of a sizeable profit.

In January, the Israeli company Sodastream signed Johansson to promote its home soda-making machines in a $16 million (Dh58.8m) Super Bowl ad that featured her sucking suggestively on a straw off-and-on for two minutes.

Johansson, a standard-fare Hollywood liberal who proclaimed in 2008 that her “heart belongs to Barack”, cast her deal with Sodastream as a shining example of “conscious consumerism and transparency”.

She seemed oblivious to the fact that Sodastream operates out of Maale Adumim, an illegal Israeli mega-settlement built on privately owned Palestinian land whose master plan would eventually bisect the West Bank.

Blumenthal exposes his usual disregard for journalistic ethics and basic facts, of course - one minute of Super Bowl advertising cost about $8 million, not $16 million; the ad was only one minute long, Maale Adumim was not built on privately owned Arab land (except for 0.5% of it,) none of Mishor Adumim where SodaStream's factory is located was built on Arab land, even Israel's far left accepts that Maale Adumim would be part of Israel in any peace agreement, and in no way does it "bisect the West Bank."

He even says that Oxfam forced Johansson out, when the truth is the exact opposite.

Proving that Blumenthal is a liar is too easy.

The funny part is how desperately Blumenthal is trying to spin an episode that was a huge disaster for BDS into a victory.

His thesis that no major Hollywood figure today would support Israel as they did in the past is quite demolished by what Scarlett Johansson actually did do - although he blames her love of money, and doesn't mention that she isn't exactly hurting for cash.

True, there are some B-listers - washed-up rock stars and second-rate acts - that have bowed to pressure and joined the boycott of Israel. Why did they do that? Well, according to Blumenthal, it has nothing to do with what they really believe in.

It is because the Israel haters who push the boycott are bullies! And they are proud of it!

Blumenthal says it explicitly: "celebrities who shill for Israel can expect to be relentlessly harried." The haters expect that thin-skinned celebrities, who are allergic to controversy, will scamper away from any hint of trouble. Sometimes, they are right. It has absolutely nothing to do with the righteousness of their cause - it has to do with the fact that the haters can instantly raise an army of brainless Facebook drones to threaten people who are often not very self-confident to begin with.

Johansson not only pushed back against the BDSers she pushed back on humanitarian grounds! She explained why the BDS goals actually would hurt the people they pretend to care about. She exposed their hypocrisy in a very public way. (This is another point that Blumenthal studiously avoids mentioning.)

This episode did not damage Johansson's star power one bit.

The biggest losers were Oxfam and the BDS movement itself.

Oxfam is now sputtering and making itself look idiotic as it tries to justify its desire to throw hundreds of Arabs out into the street without salaries or healthcare. The halo effect of Oxfam being a humanitarian organization has been considerably dimmed.

But Oxfam, in trying to defend itself, has in turn thrown the BDS movement under the bus! It has been publicly forced to say that it does not support boycotting Israel and it is distancing itself from haters like Max Blumenthal.

Whether that is true or not is besides the point - Oxfam does give plenty of money to organizations that do support BDS - but nevertheless a major humanitarian NGO is publicly saying that boycotting Israel is immoral and beyond the pale, and it is jumping through hoops to make fine distinctions so that it cannot be accused of supporting BDS explicitly.

How on Earth can anyone think that BDS won?

The only people who can believe that are those who spend so much time lying that they can no longer distinguish truth from fantasy.

Like Max Blumenthal.

Coke invests in SodaStream competitor; will Pepsi buy SODA?

From Business Week:

Coca-Cola (KO) announced on Wednesday that it’s buying a 10 percent stake in Green Mountain Coffee Roasters (GMCR) for $1.25 billion. It’s not a move to get into the coffee business but rather an aggressive push to compete directly with SodaStream (SODA), which sells do-it-yourself carbonation machines as well as the flavor syrups that go with them. Coke will be the first company to feature its brands in Green Mountain’s new Keurig Cold machines, set to debut in 2015.

Keurig Cold will make soda and noncarbonated drinks like juices and teas using pods similar to those in Green Mountain’s Keurig coffee brewers. That means consumers could soon make their own Hi-C or Fuze, not just home-bubbled Diet Coke or Sprite. Compatibility with familiar and valued soft drink brands is clearly going to be the selling point, just as it is with the big coffee brands such as Starbucks (SBUX) and Dunkin’ Donuts (DNKN) available as K-Cup pods.

Israel's Calcalist reports that in the wake of the SodaStream SuperBowl ad, it appears that the soft drink giants are getting very nervous. There were rumors of talks between SodaStream and Pepsi six months ago, and now people are talking about both Pepsi and Dr. Pepper as potential buyers or investors in SodaStream.

The day after the Super Bowl, SodaStream stock went down 2 points, causing much cheering from the Israel haters who were certain that their whining caused the drop.

If the SodaStream ad had bombed as the haters pretended, then Coke wouldn't have to drop one and a quarter billion to get into that market, would it?

Today, SODA is up 4 points, an 11% gain, on the rumors of a new partner for SodaStream.

Sorry, haters.

(h/t Ori)

SodaStream CEO destroys Oxfam official on BBC

This is so great:

I also like when the clueless BBC host says that Judea and Samaria is "territory seized from another country." Which country was that, again? And were that country's claims on the West Bank legal under international law?

Another point that I've been noticing lately is that the Israel haters - and I'm including the Oxfam representative here - purposely conflate "settlements" with Area C. The two are not identical. Settlements take up perhaps 4% of Area C, which, as Birnbaum points out, is administered by Israel under existing agreements with the PA.

The disingenuous statement of Oxfam that it is not against Israel is also fairly bogus, because it funds many organizations that advocate a total boycott of Israel. It has an "ambassador" who also advocates BDS.

If Oxfam supports Israel's right to exist as much as it opposes the "settlements" then it should distance itself from Desmond Tutu as much as it distanced itself from Scarlett Johansson. Yet - it wouldn't ever do that. Which speaks volumes as to how much it believes that Israel is legitimate within the "1967 lines."

The video, however, is priceless.

If you aren't Jewish, BDS won't boycott you

Ha'aretz has a very nice article about their visit to the Mishor Adumim Industrial Park, where they spoke with happy Arab employees from many companies that work there.

But one part was especially interesting:

The Shweiki glass factory, with its sleek outer façade and interior, stands out among the mostly shabby-looking low-tech plants, carpentries, workshops and garages that populate this industrial zone just outside the Jewish settlement of Ma’aleh Adumim.

But there’s something even more fundamental that sets it apart: Shweiki is an Arab-owned enterprise.

Its ultra-modern glass factory is just a few hundred meters down the road from SodaStream, the company that recently thrust this small industrial park into the international limelight when it hired American celebrity Scarlett Johansson to serve as the global ambassador for its soda machines – at a time when the movement to boycott goods made in the occupied territories is gathering momentum abroad.

But the managers at Shweiki, established in 1936 by an East Jerusalem family, insists that they get an even worse rap than their Jewish counterparts. On the one hand, the Israeli Ministry of Defense refuses to give its seal of approval to the company’s shatterproof glass, while on the other, the Palestinian Authority boycotts its products.

“The Palestinians in Ramallah say we’re no better than the settlers,” explains Amran Shaloud, production manager at the plant, which moved to Mishor Adumim seven years ago.

...“It’s hard for us to hire Jews here because we’re closed on Fridays, but open on Saturday, and that wouldn’t be comfortable for them,” explains Shaloud, whose factory is right next door to Jewish-run Emesh.

Shaloud is taking a late-afternoon break, talking to a friend, Samih Owweida, who runs an aluminum factory down the road.

“As Arabs, we get it from both ends,” gripes Owweida. “I want to sell my stuff in the West Bank, and nobody will buy from me there.”

And then, with a big sigh, he throws up his hands in despair and utters a small prayer: “Let there just be peace already, so we can finish with this whole mess.”

Here's where it gets good.

The bible for BDS is the website Who Profits, which has an extensive database of all companies in Judea and Samaria that they want people to boycott. (They also list an Israeli companies that sell to Jews in Judea and Samaria, and even one that has the audacity to sell bullet-proof glass to Jews who live in the Gilo neighborhood where there used to be lots of sniper fire.)

Who Profits has hundred of companies in their database.

But they don't list the Shweiki Glass Factory.

A quick look through a phone book finds another Arab-owned company in Mishor Adumim - Khaled Ali Metals Ltd. It is not listed by Who Profits.

Nor are the carpenters in Mishor Adumim named Mahmoud Naeel or Abu Asab.

Isn't it interesting that only Jewish-owned businesses are being targeted by the BDS crowd?

(UPDATE: Bob Knot points out that Owweida's whining about being boycotted by the PA is not quite true; on their webpage they show many projects in the West Bank that they completed.)

Even the Guardian's corrections are wrong on SodaStream

From The Guardian's "Corrections and Clarifications" on Monday:

An article about the issue of boycotts of Israel (US and Israel in war of words over boycotts warning, 3 February, ) wrongly stated that SodaStream, an Israeli company, is "based in the West Bank settlement of Ma'ale Adumim, which is built on expropriated Arab land". As we have said before, it is a factory that is based there, not the headquarters of the company. In another story about the issue, which examined the relationship between Oxfam and Scarlett Johansson, we said that the charity was "under pressure from anti-Israel campaigners to sever ties" with the film star. It would be more accurate to describe the activists in the campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel as "opposed to settlements" (Oxfam under pressure to drop Johansson over Israeli ties, 30 January, page 23).

You know you're in bad shape when even your corrections are wrong.

The SodaStream factory is not based in Ma'ale Adumim, but in Mishor Adumim nearby.

Peace Now once came out with a report claiming that 86% of Ma'ale Adumim was built on private Arab-owned land. Then they were forced to release a revised report that showed that only 0.5% of Maale Adumim was built on private Arab-owned lands. The Guardian, by saying that the entire Ma'ale Adumin is built on "expropriated Arab land," is lying.

Moreover, all of Mishor Adumim - including the SodaStream factory - is built on state-owned land.

In their second correction, they were right the first time. BDS is against Israel, and the BDS movement explicitly calls to boycott all Israeli goods and cultural events, not settlement goods. (Peter Beinart is the one spearheading the idea of "only" boycotting goods created by Jews in Judea and Samaria.) It is completely wrong to say BDS is only against settlements, and one can only wonder why the Guardian made an incorrect correction.

(h/t Irene)

My letter to Reuters about SodaStream

Not that I expect anything to be done, but when they know people are watching them, they tend to be a little more careful.

Dear Editor,

In the story "Israeli settlement factory sparks Super Bowl-sized controversy," writer Noah Browning interviews a worker at the SodaStream plant in Mishor Adumim:

One mid-level Palestinian employee who spoke to Reuters outside the plant, away from the bosses, painted a far less perfect picture, however.
"There's a lot of racism here," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Most of the managers are Israeli, and West Bank employees feel they can't ask for pay rises or more benefits because they can be fired and easily replaced."

I've noted on my blog that Browning has shown serious anti-Israel bias in the past, and this story appears to add to that list.

The fact is that there have now been nine articles in the media interviewing workers at the plant, and only two of them exclusively found a worker that was disgruntled. Every single other outlet found that the workers were happy and against any boycott of SodaStream.

For documentation, see my articles here, here and here.

Given Browning's record and the anomalous nature of his reporting here - the only media outlet that agrees with him is virulently and openly anti-Israel - this story and his reporting reflects poorly on Reuters, and indicates a serious problem with interview bias done by Browning in order to push an agenda rather than reflect the truth of the situation.

Please review Browning's Middle East articles in general, especially the ones I noted, as well as this article in particular. How many people did he interview altogether? Did he only choose the one interview that jived with his biases? Did he purposefully seek out the same employee that Electronic Intifada interviewed? It is astonishing that 7 separate, independent media outlets find that virtualy all employees agree with each other that they are happy, and only Browning and EI found the counter-examples.

Thanks,

Elder

Two more articles showing SodaStream's Arab workers are against BDS (updated)

I've been keeping a tally of articles about Arab SodaStream workers, and two more have appeared.

Both of them again find that the workers are happy and against any boycott, utterly demolishing the lies of Electronic Intifada and Reuters' Noah Browning.

From The Telegraph:

“We have no problems working here”, said one Palestinian employee, as others nodded in agreement. “The relations with the others are good, the pay is fine. But the way home is sometimes very long”.

One outside contractor who regularly visited the plant added: “It’s rare to see a company like this. Everyone sits together, works together. If you ask me, there should be a thousand SodaStreams in this area.”

Several of the SodaStream employees interviewed point to the schism between politics and their everyday lives in terms of relations between Israelis and Palestinians.
“It’s only segregated at the top level, between the Israeli and the Palestinian governments”, says an Arab cook from East Jerusalem working at the SodaStream canteen.

“The politicians, they make all kinds of a mess between Jews and Arabs. But the people here, the Palestinians and Israelis, they are working together, they talk to each other, there’s no problem. But at the political level, there are many issues.”

A Palestinian worker from East Jerusalem is waiting at the bus stop, talking into his mobile phone. “I like working here. The relations between people are good, what can I say?”

From Gawker:

In a Huffington Post blog post last week defending her association with SodaStream, Johansson said she's "proud of the...quality of their product and work environment," and said the factory places Israelis and Palestinians together side-by-side in cooperation. That frankly sounds too kumbaya to be true, but a similar sentiment was actually volunteered without prompting by the Palestinian workers here.

"Hell yeah, I'm happy. We're like family. We have fun,'' said Mohammed Yousef, 22, from the Palestinian village of Jaba. "We are Jews and Muslims here. We are here peacefully. We have no problems. Everyone is complaining about settlements here and everywhere, but SodaStream is different.''

The workers here say they take home about $1,200 monthly–anywhere from double to triple common wages in the territories. The company also provides pensions and some medical insurance.

Truth be told, the SodaStream workers and local Palestinians were downright peeved when asked about the efforts of solidarity activists and their own government to boycott SodaStream. That could cost the hundreds of Palestinians wage earners salaries that are significantly higher than what they would make at home.

"Prostitutes are better than politics. Politics doesn't bring me bread,'' said one 34-year-old packaging worker who declined to give his name. "Leave me alone with the Palestinian state. If they close the plant, where will I go?''

Siam, who eventually checked out the Johansson commercial on YouTube, told me he liked it, especially the dig at Coke and Pepsi. "That was so cool.'' That said, Siam said he understood the objections of the pro-Palesitnian activists who denounced his company's ambassador.

"I talk a lot to friends abroad. They say, 'You are an Arab. How can you work there?'" he said. "Nobody knows there are 1,000 people and their lives will be turned upside down by the [boycott]. You are killing them, so stop it.''

Right now, 6 independent news articles find SodaStream workers are satisfied with their jobs and how they are treated, with only two disagreeing - and those two happen to have been written by those with known extreme anti-Israel bias, Electronic Intifada and Reuters' Noah Browning. It is more and more obvious that those two cherry picked interviews to agree with their biases.

(By the way, if you want to have an idea of how "unbiased" Browning is, his Twitter handle is "@SheikhNB". Can you imagine a wire service reporter with the handle @RabbiX ever being taken seriously?)

(h/t Josh K and Gidon Shaviv)

UPDATE: One more. Score is 7-2.

"Those who seek to help the Palestinians end up hurting us," said Nabil Bashrat, 40, resident of Ramallah who works at the factory.

"(The factory) provides income to hundreds of families, entire villages. Peace is what happens here inside, and not outside. Those who are abroad don't understand the relations and actually sabotage the process. The factory draws us closer. Even in times of instability, as was during the war in Gaza, everything was as usual here."

UPDATE 2: 8-2.

“I’ve been working for a long time alongside the Jews and Palestinians,” one department manager, a Palestinian, tells me. “Everyone does everything together, we eat together, we come to work together. Everyone is treated equally, there’s no difference. I see it as a small contribution [to peace].” Should foreign companies operate factories in the West Bank? I ask. “Yes, of course,” he says. “There’s valuable opportunities here because the Palestinian Authority can’t create enough jobs.”

Tweets and administrivia

Sometimes I tweet things that people like, but I don't blog them. Which makes me feel guilty.

Yesterday, I saw posted on CUWI Facebook page an old, great cartoon that I cleaned up and tweeted - and it quickly became very popular:

My SodaStream poster, which The Forward mentioned was going viral, made it to the UK:

My #SodaStream poster makes it to the UK http://t.co/GsBAKOvJ0V pic.twitter.com/iFtj3ayfn3
— ElderOfZiyon (@elderofziyon) January 29, 2014

The Forward said it was inaccurate, and I answer them in the update to that post.

Today, I retweeted a 2011 post of mine that is relevant again, as the BDSers keep saying that "Palestinian civil society" overwhelmingly supports BDS. It turns out that "Palestinian civil society" doesn't representvery many Palestinians at all.

Yesterday I tweeted this:

Scarlett Johansson's #SodaStream commercial already has 5 million YouTube views: http://t.co/Lwewcavzxg BDSers heads explode
— ElderOfZiyon (@elderofziyon) January 30, 2014

Well, now it has about 7 million and counting, much more than the previous SodaStream commercial that was censored in the 2012 Super Bowl.

Meanwhile, the most popular post of mine for past several weeks has not been a recent one, but my "Apartheid?" poster page. Over 1000 hits yesterday alone! I haven't been publicizing them yet this year.

Apparently, a lot of people are preparing for this year's "Apartheid Weeks" on college campuses and they are finding my posters through search engines. It is by far my most popular post ever, with about 50,000 views on this blog alone, and countless others via emails and from people who are taking the posters (often taking off my name!) and posting them to Facebook.

Partially as a result of that (plus a couple of very popular articles this month, not to mention the online Hasby Awards) this is the biggest month for EoZ since Operation Pillar of Defense.

Shabbat Shalom!

Special Achievement Hasby Award for outstanding grassroots activism

This is a Special Achievement Hasby Award, given outside the normal nominations process, since I didn't have a category for this - and I should have.

The Special Achievement Hasby Award for grassroots activism goes to....

Arab SodaStream workers say they are against BDS

From the Christian Science Monitor:

[T]hose most familiar with the factory – Palestinians who work there – largely side with Ms. Johansson.

“Before boycotting, they should think of the workers who are going to suffer,” says a young man shivering in the pre-dawn darkness in Azzariah, a West Bank town cut off from work opportunities in Jerusalem by the concrete Israeli separation wall. Previously, he earned 20 shekels ($6) a day plucking and cleaning chickens; now he makes nearly 10 times that at SodaStream, which also provides transportation, breakfast, and lunch.

As a few dozen men in hoodies and work coats trickle out of the alleys to the makeshift bus stop where they wait for their ride to the factory, another adds, “If SodaStream closes, we would be sitting in the streets doing nothing.”

Speaking anonymously on a largely deserted street, with no Israeli SodaStream employees present, all but one of those interviewed said they opposed the boycott, given the lack of alternative job opportunities in the West Bank. That underscores Israeli claims that a boycott would be counterproductive, undermining the cooperation and prosperity that could boost peace prospects in the region.

Omar Jibarat of Azzariah, the father of a newborn, is one of those who works in Israel, leaving home well before 6 a.m. for a construction job in Tel Aviv. Though he makes good money, he spends four hours in transit every day and would rather work at the SodaStream factory 15 minutes away.

“I would love to work for SodaStream. They’re quite privileged. People look up to them,” Mr. Jibarat says. “It’s not the people who want to boycott, it’s the officials.”

That’s a common refrain among the SodaStream workers who show up after Jibarat catches his ride.

Leaning up against the cement half-walls of the bus stop, jackets pulled up over their cold hands and faces and cigarette butts glowing in the dark, they blame the PA for failing to create jobs while taking a political stand against Israeli business that do.

“The PA can say anything it wants and no one will listen because it’s not providing an alternative,” says one man, a 2006 political science graduate of Al Quds University bundled in a jacket bearing the SodaStream logo. As for reports that the company doesn’t honor labor rights, that’s “propaganda,” he says. “Daniel [Birnbaum, the CEO of SodaStream,] is a peacemaker.”

The writer did find one disgruntled employee, bolstering my thesis of the interview bias employed by Reuters' Noah Browning and Electronic Intifada's "reporter" who found possibly that same disgruntled employee (his statement sounds a lot like what EI's employee said):

One of the workers waiting for the SodaStream bus this morning says he hates the fact that he’s working in an Israeli settlement, and lies to people when they inquire about his work.

“I’m ashamed I’m working there,” he says. “I feel this is our land, there should be no [Israeli] factory on this land.”

He feels like a “slave,” working 12 hours a day assembling parts – drilling in 12,000 screws a day, he adds.

The Christian Science Monitor is hardly pro-settlement, and plenty of the article explains the viewpoint of the Israel-haters, which gives this account far more credibility.

My update to my previous post about this showed that NPR also found employees at the plant were happy. Which means that JTA, NPR, CSM and The Forward all agree that workers at SodaStream are happy, and the only ones who disagree are Reuters' Noah Browning and EI - both of which have records of, frankly, lying.

Again we see the difference between how real journalists work and how dishonest, advocacy "journalists" work. Electronic Intifada and Reuters' Noah Browning should not be trusted as being honest about anything in the Middle East.

(h/t Benny)

1980 UK SodaStream commercial plus more

Far out, man.

This is actually a YouTube playlist so there are some other bizarre SodaStream commercials that just keep on coming if you choose "Play All."

From AP:

Scarlett Johansson is ending her relationship with a humanitarian group after being criticized over her support for an Israeli company that operates in the West Bank.

A statement released by Johansson's spokesman Wednesday said the 29-year-old actress has "a fundamental difference of opinion" with Oxfam International because the humanitarian group opposes all trade from Israeli settlements, saying they are illegal and deny Palestinian rights.

"Scarlett Johansson has respectfully decided to end her ambassador role with Oxfam after eight years," the statement said. "She and Oxfam have a fundamental difference of opinion in regards to the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement. She is very proud of her accomplishments and fundraising efforts during her tenure with Oxfam."

Johansson is clearly more moral than Oxfam is.

While Oxfam never officially said it supports boycotting all Israeli products - like all humanitarian NGOs, it has to put up a pretense of objectivity - Oxfam has no problem with one of their other ambassadors pushing for the destruction of Israel via BDS. That ambassador is the hateful Desmond Tutu, who happily associates with members of Hamas.

There was never any hand-wringing at Oxfam over Tutu.

Similarly, Oxfam lies about Israel all the time. In a bizarre press release in 2012, Oxfam said "Israeli restrictions on fuel supplies via the overland crossings, imposed in 2007, caused massive shortages, leading the authority in Gaza to seek alternate solutions in fuel supplied through the tunnels." No, Hamas didn't want to pay Israel market prices for fuel nor taxes to the PA so it decided on its own to illegally smuggle fuel instead. Oxfam, simply, lied to protect Hamas and blame Israel even though Israel was not restricting fuel at all.

Another example of how immoral Oxfam is comes from a comparison between how it publicly disagreed with ScarJo regarding SodaStream - but it did everything it could to cover for Palestinian NGO Miftah when it published an article saying that Jews drink the blood of Christians and supported suicide bombers. Yeah, a factory employing hundreds of Arabs is much worse than a blood libel, right?

Johansson is right and it is brilliant that she decided to end her relationship with Oxfam. After all, she has a reputation as a humanitarian that was in danger from associating with an organization that is obsessively against Israel and tolerant towards terrorists and antisemites.

How Israel-haters use interview bias in SodaStream stories (updated)

The SodaStream story brings up an interesting point about journalism itself.

So far, since last year, we have seen four different media outlets interview workers at the SodaStream plant in Mishor Adumin.

First, JTA last February:

“Everyone works together: Palestinians, Russians, Jews,” a Palestinian employee named Rasim at the Maale Adumim site told JTA. Rasim has worked at the plant for four months and asked that his last name not be published. “Everything is OK. I always work with Jews. Everyone works together, so of course we’re friends.”

This was followed by the Electronic Intifada hate site, referring to the video that Sodastream put out about its Arab workers:

“I feel humiliated and I am also disgraced as a Palestinian, as the claims in this video are all lies. We Palestinian workers in this factory always feel like we are enslaved,” M. said.

...When asked if there was discrimination between black and white Jews, M. replied, “Yes, for sure. You will not [find] white Jews wearing yarmulke [a skull cap] doing the hard work or ‘hand work.’ The supervisors who run the factory are mainly Russian and they are managed mainly by the white Jews, and we are ‘Palestinians,’ only workers.”

Then came the article from The Forward that I referred to previously:

During discussions between a Forward reporter and about a half-dozen of these Palestinian employees, conducted out of earshot of Israeli managers, none complained of labor abuses, or of receiving pay below the Israeli minimum wage. Asked about the calls by anti-occupation activists to boycott SodaStream, one spoke about the dearth of jobs in the Palestinian Authority economy.

That was followed by a new Reuters piece written by Noah Browning:

One mid-level Palestinian employee who spoke to Reuters outside the plant, away from the bosses, painted a far less perfect picture, however.

"There's a lot of racism here," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Most of the managers are Israeli, and West Bank employees feel they can't ask for pay rises or more benefits because they can be fired and easily replaced."

I have pointed out in the past that Noah Browning is a very poor reporter with a definite anti-Israel bias.

So we have a case study here. Four reports, two contradicting the other two. Which is accurate?

Obviously, Electronic Intifada has no journalistic integrity whatsoever. It is literally impossible to believe that their reporter would ever admit that some Arab employees are happy. If she interviewed ten workers and only one was critical, that would be the one quoted.

I've shown that Noah Browning is biased. I would not be surprised if he called up EI and asked for the name of the person they interviewed last year to save himself some effort of finding a disgruntled employee himself.

JTA and the Forward are both Jewish publications. But both are very left wing and anti-settlement. They are both highly critical of the Israeli government. The Forward just published an op-ed from Peace Now advocating boycotting SodaStream. It would be difficult to say that they are biased towards finding workers who would sing the praises of SodaStream. Yet - that's who they found.

So who is more credible? The answer is obvious.

If SodaStream was treating its workers like slaves, they would be leaving and finding other jobs. That does not seem to be the case here.

I'm not saying that the person (or people) interviewed by Browning and EI is lying. Every company has disgruntled employees. Any reporter can, and often does, play the game of finding just the right person to support the reporter's pre-existing bias. This is how journalists can lie with facts.

And this is almost certainly what we are seeing here from Reuters and Electronic Intifada.

UPDATE: If you need any more proof that Browning and EI are fudging the truth, this is from NPR:

In the factory, workers on 12-hour shifts make about seven dollars an hour, a hair above Israel's minimum wage and three times higher than the average Palestinian wage.

We didn't want to quiz employees under the boss's eye. But in a minimart in the nearby Palestinian town of Eizariyah, a SodaStream employee who had worked at the company for three years showed us his ID. But he didn't want his name used.

"It's an excellent place to work," he said. "It provides a good salary and they treat us very well. At SodaStream, they do not discriminate between Arabs, Jews or any ethnic group."

The Forward went to the SodaStream factory in Mishor Adumim and spoke to the CEO, Daniel Birnbaum.

Birnbaum is not at all a right wing fanatic. Far from it. He is as liberal a person as you can find. He does not support Israel's claim to Judea and Samaria. He would not have set up the factory in Mishor Adumim, but it was there when he took over the company. And he shows that he is far more pro-Palestinian than all of the "pro-Palestinian activists" combined.

[T]hough he wouldn’t have opened the factory at its current site, Birnbaum said that its presence here is now a reality, and he won’t bow to political pressure to close it — even though the company is about to open a huge new plant in the Negev, within Israel’s internationally-recognized boundaries, which will replicate all functions of the West Bank plant, and dwarf it.

The reason for staying is loyalty to approximately 500 Palestinians who are among the plant’s 1,300 employees, Birnbaum claimed. While other employees could relocate on the other side of the Green Line if the plant moved, the West Bank Palestinian workers could not, and would suffer financially, he argued.

“We will not throw our employees under the bus to promote anyone’s political agenda,” he said, adding that he “just can’t see how it would help the cause of the Palestinians if we fired them.”

...Birnbaum’s advisor, Maurice Silber, said that within the company “everybody is against the occupation.” But it does not follow, he said, that because SodaStream operates in an occupied area, it violates human rights. Eventually, he said, SodaStream could become the “seed of the future Palestinian economy.”

The Arab workers clearly support Birnbaum - showing that claims to the contrary from Israel haters are a lie.

At the plant’s cafeteria, awareness of the current international controversy over Scarlett Johannson’s new role at the company was clearly widespread among employees. During the Forward’s visit, Birnbaum took to the cafeteria floor to give some 250 Palestinian workers a kind of pep talk about the issue, urging them to ignore the political attacks. “We are making history for the Palestinian people and the Israeli people,” he told them in Hebrew, followed by a translator who rendered his comments into Arabic. Birnbaum reassured the workers about their jobs and said he wanted to bring “more and more hands” into the factory as SodaStream grows.

The Palestinians applauded these comments. But then Birnbaum added with a flourish: “Scarlett Johannson would be proud of you!” And at the sound of Johannson’s name — even before the translation — applause among the assembly of mostly male, 30-something Palestinian workers burst out again, palpably louder.

During discussions between a Forward reporter and about a half-dozen of these Palestinian employees, conducted out of earshot of Israeli managers, none complained of labor abuses, or of receiving pay below the Israeli minimum wage. Asked about the calls by anti-occupation activists to boycott SodaStream, one spoke about the dearth of jobs in the Palestinian Authority economy.

So who cares more about Palestinian Arabs - SodaStream or the Israel haters?

With each passing day, the answer becomes more and more obvious.

This SodaStream "controversy" was manufactured out of whole cloth by people with an anti-Israel, not a pro-Palestinian, agenda.

It is backfiring on them, as the world sees that the people obsessed over SodaStream don't care one bit about real live Palestinians.

The Arabs who work for SodaStream make it clear whose side they are on. And their actions and words show just how much the anti-Israel crowd lies.

The world is waking up to these lies.

Expect to see some furious logical obfuscation in the hate sites as they try to pretend that they know better than Palestinians what Palestinians want.

The Sodastream irony

If you put together everything that every "pro-Palestinian "activist has ever done for actual, real Palestinians....

If you tally all the specific things that Omar Barghouti and Max Blumenthal and Philip Weiss and Ali Abuminah and Greta Berlin and Ben White and every single member of Free Gaza, Mondoweiss, Electronic Intifada, the BDS Movement, Students for Justice in Palestine, the ISM and others have done to improve the daily lives of Palestinian Arabs over the past twenty years....

You would not approach what Sodastream does for Palestinian Arab families every single day.

Which of these hypocrites are trying to build a factory in Ramallah or Nablus or Jericho that employs 900 workers and pays them good wages? Who among them is working to increase Palestinian exports of goods and services to the huge Arab markets? Who among them is working to create a high-tech Palestinian hub where they could charge Arab nations for their remote services - industries that require little space and can pay well?

Who among them gives a damn about the Palestinians they claim to work on behalf of?

They don't.

To them, Palestinians are props for their anti-Israel stunts. They are nothing more than pawns. Any Arab that cannot be used as ammunition against Israel is ignored or derided as a collaborator. Any happy Arab employee who works in Mishor Adumin or Atarot Industrial Park is an enemy of their cause.

You know how many stories about BDS are in Arabic media? Practically none. Because Arabs aren't being helped one bit by the vitriolic campaign against an Israeli company that does more for Arabs than every "pro-Palestinian" activist combined.

My Sodastream poster dedicated to Scarlett Johansson (updated)

UPDATE: The Forward mentions this poster but says it is inaccurate.

In fact, the company’s own estimate of how many Palestinians it employs is now 500 out of some 1,300 total workers — up from 160 Palestinians in December 2010 as a result of the growth in sales.

And the poster’s grandiose claim that the company “built a mosque on site” appears to be based on a company video during which an Arab employee displays a room that he says is “dedicated to prayer.” The space shown is actually a locker area with a small eating table, some coat hooks on the wall, a coffee machine and a couple of large garbage cans. The workers are shown spreading thin prayer mats on the bare floor during their prayer times — far from a customized prayer room, much less a mosque.

However, I took all the information from a JTA article last year that The Forward published itself on February 10, 2013. It said:

"Some 500 West Bank Palestinians work at the site, in addition to 400 Arabs from eastern Jerusalem and a mix of 200 Israeli Jews and foreign workers, including refugees from Africa........The Maale Adumim factory has an on-site mosque and a synagogue."

SodaStream shows the toxic hate - and hypocrisy - of leftists

Sodastream as a microcosm of Israel:

My first-ever holiday party was going great until someone in the living room wanted club soda for his vodka. It’s not that I wasn’t prepared. I was in the kitchen, overseeing eggnog, and I handed my co-host a bottle of seltzer made for the occasion with my SodaStream countertop carbonator. He’s the one who told me what happened next.

“Enjoy your Palestinian blood cocktails,” the left-wing reporter said to the vodka drinkers.

This wasn’t the first objection I'd encountered to SodaStream, which turns a bottle of tap water into sparkling with three pumps of a recyclable carbon dioxide cartridge. SodaStream is an Israeli company with a manufacturing plant in occupied territory in the West Bank, a fact that enrages a politically informed, far-left segment of the liberal-yuppie demographic the product is marketed to. By bringing environmental foodie-ism into conflict with humanitarianism, SodaStream has turned the most inoffensive of soft drinks — Sustainable! Sugar-free! — into a political liability for civilians and celebrities alike as they attempt to buy and endorse the correct products.

...For non-famous SodaStreamers, beverage diplomacy is a question of etiquette. At a Thanksgiving with college friends, the appearance of SodaStream’s distinctive, reusable bottles was met with similar tut-tutting. “Blood bubbles,” someone called them. Defending herself, the hostess said the machine had been a gift. Now I say that too, even though I bought mine myself.

Others will sacrifice SodaStream’s sleek countertop design in order to save face. “A lefty journalist friend of mine in Tel Aviv has a machine he keeps under his kitchen sink so that he doesn’t get embarrassed when other lefties come over for dinner,” said Ali Gharib, a reporter covering Middle East issues.

...Even the most fervent anti-Zionists will admit that, for seltzer addicts, SodaStream’s competitors leave something to be desired. iSi’s Twist’n’Sparkle was recalled after a series of dangerous bottle explosions. The Primo Flavorstation — now teamed up with Cuisinart — is a near fit, but its gas cylinder refills are harder to locate. So some fans devise elaborate work-arounds. After Gharib informed his SodaStream-owning cousin of the product’s settlement origins, the cousin began a “subversive campaign” to undermine SodaStream’s business model by using the gas cylinders, then mailing them back to the company claiming they’d been defective and receiving free replacements in return. “This went on for a year,” Gharib said.

Novelist and Code Pink activist Nancy Kricorian uses similar rationale when confronting friends about their SodaStreams. “The bulk of the profit comes not from the machine but from the refill,” she said. “If you can find an alternative source for the CO2 you can decrease your guilt by about 75 percent.”

Those brave leftists - insisting that everyone else boycott a product that they secretly love.

This is similar to the reaction that Cornell "Students for Justice in Palestine" had when it was pointed out they were using Israeli technology for their webpage. Insist that everyone else boycotts Israel, but use Israeli products yourself if it would inconvenience you otherwise.

How principled they are!

The leftist Jewish Daily Forward, also advocating boycotting SodaStream, grudgingly admits

To be clear, SodaStream’s factory is not located in a radical settlement; it is located a 10-minute drive from Jerusalem in an industrial park next to one of the largest settlement blocs — Ma’aleh Adumim — which will likely be incorporated into Israel in any future deal.

More to the point, if the boycotters would have their way, hundreds of Palestinian Arabs would be out of a job:

On a recent afternoon, women wearing hijabs hurried to their shifts at the plant located in Ma’ale Adumin, a suburban settlement about 15 minutes west of Jerusalem. Some 500 West Bank Palestinians work at the site, in addition to 400 Arabs from eastern Jerusalem and a mix of 200 Israeli Jews and foreign workers, including refugees from Africa.

The Maale Adumim factory has an on-site mosque and a synagogue, and Jewish and Arab employees share the same dining hall. SodaStream has two other facilities in Israel, in Ashkelon and the Galilee town of Mount Tabor. The Galilee factory employs several hundred Israeli Arabs.

“Everyone works together: Palestinians, Russians, Jews,” a Palestinian employee named Rasim at the Maale Adumim site told JTA. Rasim has worked at the plant for four months and asked that his last name not be published. “Everything is OK. I always work with Jews. Everyone works together, so of course we’re friends.”

For SodaStream CEO Daniel Birnbaum, treating Arabs and Jews equally is a doctrine, not a convenience.

“We practice equality and full cooperation both on the job and off it,” Birnbaum told the Arab publication Al Monitor in a recent interview.

But the Israel-haters don't worry about such things - because it doesn't affect them, only the Palestinians they claim to love.

“SodaStream has always been a target of the BDS movement, and has developed into a major campaign since late 2011,” a BDS spokesperson told Al Arabiya News.

“We reject any suggestion that the reality that Palestinians are sometimes left with no choice but to work in illegal Israeli settlements is a reason not to take action to end international complicity in human rights violations,” the spokesperson added.

"We reject the suggestion" - what more proof do you need? Meanwhile, hundreds more Arabs, who get significantly higher salaries than those who work in PA-controlled areas, would be jobless.

The Forward, trying to justify its anti-SodaStream position, linked to a study by a rabidly anti-Israel group named Who Profits that claimed that Sodastream exploits Arab workers, but even that study admits that the problem was cleared up years ago. I've shown previously that Who Profits only fights against Jewish-owned factories in the territories, not those owned by Israeli Arabs. In other words - they are antisemitic and their objectivity is close to nil.

But the leftists will keep trying to find reasons to justify their hate after the fact, and if a study by an antisemitic group says that something was bad in 2007, well, damn, that's enough reason right there to hate it!

Here's a company that employs hundreds of Palestinian Arabs, treats them well, in an area that will undoubtedly remain a part of Israel in any peace agreement. A company whose president publicly berated Shimon Peres for not treating his Arab employees with respect. Instead of treating Arabs as helpless children, as leftists do, Sodastream empowers them. SodaStream does more to actually help Arabs than any NGO does.

And the leftists, filled with bile, dismiss its products as "blood bubbles." Their positions are never about their supposed support for Palestinian Arabs, but rather about their hate of Israeli Jews.

Make no mistake - the psychology behind an irrational hatred of everything Israeli is exactly the same as any other bigotry. The same brain chemistry that is behind racism and sexism is behind the crazed, visceral loathing of anything Israeli.

The only difference is that the leftist hate is accompanied by a smugness that their hate is somehow righteous.

BDS leader explains how the movement is meant to manipulate Western liberals

The Badil Center, a Palestinian Arab organization that is a major force behind the BDS movement, has published an extensive analysis in Jadaliyya magazine of their perspective on its progress and shortcomings over the past eight years.

The magazine reprints what appears to be a seminal 2011 piece by Nimer Sultany of SOAS in London, one of the theoreticians behind today's BDS movement.

A careful reading of his article reveals the pure hypocrisy that underpins the entire anti-Israel movement.

Sultany brings up three points and potential pitfalls about BDS.

His first point is about the role of pacifism and violence in Palestinian Arab discourse:

Palestinian history oscillates between two dogmas: the new dogma of nonviolence and the old dogma of violence and armed struggle. ...Given its apparent failure to achieve its declared objective, armed struggle has given way to nonviolence, which has become more fashionable today since it resonates with Western perspectives. Given that stereotypes cast Palestinians as violent, aggressive, and irrational Arabs or Muslims, Palestinians are forced to declare their pacifism before being admitted to the world of legitimate discourse or given a hearing of their views.

...But nonviolence should not now become the new dogma. Westerners ask, “Where is the Palestinian Gandhi?” They ignore the fact that Western practice and discourse have always vindicated violent resistance to unjust foreign occupiers. Thus, it is hypocritical for Westerners to dismiss violent means altogether in the Palestinian case.

...The legitimacy of the struggle and the justness of the demands need not necessarily correlate with the character of the means. The fact is that violent and nonviolent tactics have always co-existed as forms of resistance and they are likely to do so in the future. Therefore, in order to choose nonviolent means, one need not necessarily be a pacifist. The choice of the means depends on historical and political circumstances; they need not become the end. The means should not be deployed for their own sake but for the purpose of achieving noble political goals. The ability of violent or non-violent means to achieve them in a concrete, prudential form should be constantly critiqued and re-examined.

So while BDSers swear up and down that they are against violence, we see that the truth is quite the opposite. The movement is meant to sway Westerners, but it is not meant to mirror how Palestinian Arabs think. Amongst themselves, violence is considered quite acceptable - but not prudent at this time. Next year, it is possible that violence might come back into vogue. He even refers to the current Palestinian Arab pretense of nonviolence as "fashionable."

There is no morality here except the "noble" goal of destroying the Jewish state, and for that, all means are on the table. Pretending that they embrace non-violence for moral reasons is simply a scam to fool clueless Western liberals.

Sultany's second point is about international law:

The boycott movement speaks the language of human rights and international law. It is intended to pressure Israel to abide by international law. By doing so, it risks falling into the trap identified by critical legal scholars. The risk has two aspects. First, there is a danger in conflating law with justice; there is no intrinsic connection between law and justice. The gap between them may not be apparent to those who equate the attainment of justice with the application of law. Second is the belief that applying international law can produce self-evident, concrete consequences; this belief presupposes that applying law is a mechanical operation. But law-application involves inevitably normative interpretations that are not independent of power relations and hegemonic understandings. In addition, law (whether local or international) is not a monolithic entity nor a gapless system. Rather, it contains gaps, ambiguities, and contradictions...

This is not to say that the language of universal human rights and international law should be rejected or that it lacks a positive value. I only wish to caution that this rather limited discourse could produce unintended consequences. One should be cognizant of the detrimental ramifications of this discourse.

Sultany understands that while the anti-Israel movement uses the language of international law and human rights, they don't really mean it - if they can be interpreted in ways that is detrimental to the cause.

If, for example, the definition of "refugee" is standardized so that Palestinian Arabs have the same definition as the rest of the world, that would be quite supportable under international law - but it would be catastrophic for a movement whose intent for decades has been to use millions of people as pawns to help destroy Israel. The same can be said for the definition of "occupation" - if Gaza or Areas A is not occupied, the Israel-haters lose a great deal of their rhetorical power. Ditto for the mythical "right of return," one of BDS' cornerstones, which has no basis in international law in these circumstances.

Beyond that, Sultany makes it clear that human rights and international law have no value to Palestinian Arab nationalist thought. They are only concerned with what they call "justice." And who decides whether justice is served? Why, they are! And there can be no justice, in their minds, while Israel exists.

This is not compatible with international law, and Sultany knows it. But he figures that using the fig leaf of international law, with luck, can weaken Israel enough that the "justice" part of the equation can then have a chance of succeeding.

Sultany is saying, in effect, that while they use the language of international law and human rights, it is just a scam to fool clueless Western liberals. To be sure, they work tirelessly to ensure that NGOs adhere to their definitions of terms like "occupation", but in the back of their minds they know that international and humanitarian law is not nearly as supportive of their movement as they pretend it is. Sultany is warning the BDSers that they just might end up on the wrong end of the law before they finish their goal of making Jews as weak and marginalized as Christians are in the Middle East.

His third warning is about being too serious about boycotting everything that is "Zionist:"

Transforming every aspect of the political struggle to a boycott-orientation reduces the range of political means and vocabulary. Not every adverse discourse or initiative should be addressed through the boycott prism. Surely, these initiatives, to the extent that they warrant criticism, can and should be critiqued. However, the discourse of boycott is inapplicable when the object of the critique is not a state-sponsored activity, nor an Israeli or foreign institution involved in sustaining the occupation militarily or economically. The boycott campaign should be based on credible evidence of targeted institutions’ role in sustaining the apartheid regime’s practices.

Additionally, boycott should not be seen as merely the manifestation of an unguided, blind moral outrage. Its primary purpose should neither be moral preaching nor vengeance and punishment. Rather, it should be applied as a political tool for achieving political ends through political mobilization of activists, constituencies, and consumers. Therefore, there should be some considerations of efficacy. For boycott to be effective it should not be reduced to trigger-happy tactics. If one cries wolf all the time, one risks losing credibility and political currency.

Overplaying the boycott card can discredit it, even when directed against worthy targets. ...Consider the example of the New York Times which is blatantly pro-Israel; it does not follow that it should be boycotted by a writer commissioned to represent a pro-Palestinian position.

The argument can be extended to make sure that Apple or Google or Microsoft aren't boycotted, since that would be counterproductive. As he says explicitly, boycotting Zionist products is not a moral position but a political tool. That's why Sodastream and Max Brenner are perfect targets but Intel isn't.

Yet BDS positions itself to the West as if it were a moral movement, using moral arguments!

For the third time, Sultany is saying that BDS is a scam to fool clueless Western liberals by using language they can identify with, while the movement itself is actually anti-liberalism. It has no ethical problem with murdering Jews, it is willing to discard international law if that contradicts its idea of "justice," and it couches its goal in terms of a morality that it explicitly discards.

This is not an essay that BDSers want thoughtful Western liberals to read.

(h/t Spotlighting)

The heroes of Brighton

Thanks to a Hasby Awards nomination from Harvela, I saw this short video showing how many ordinary people come out every Saturday to counterprotest the BDSers in Brighton who are boycotting a Jewish owned shop that happens to sell Sodastream.

There are lots of videos there, definitely worth checking out.

#BDSFail in Brighton

From Sussex Friends of Israel:

Supporters of Israel came together today, to hold a Bagels Against Bigotry party outside Brighton’s environmentally friendly refill store Ecostream, to counter a planned day of action and demonstration by BDS, the anti Israel group Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions.

The bagel themed party started at 11.30am outside the Ecostream store on Western Road Brighton, with supporters offering home baked cakes and salmon filled bagels for passers-by to enjoy as they visited Ecostream.

According to the Police just 45 members of the anti-Israel ‘BDS’ group attended the event billed by them as a national day of action.

Within 20 minutes of their arrival the Police moved the protesters to the opposite side of the road, where their protests were not only drowned out by the passing traffic but also obscured by regular Brighton and Hove double decker buses.

This week the Ecostream store has reported its best ever week of sales since opening in Brighton last year. During the event today there was a constant flow of customers refilling their oils, vinegars and environmentally friendly detergents, stocking up with dry goods, as well as purchasing their brand new Sodastream machines.

Sussex Friends of Israel organiser Simon Cobbs said: “The turnout from supporters of Israel, from across the country today has been superb, we outnumbered the anti-Israeli groups by at least two to one, and at the same time we had a party. I want to thank everyone for their support today, it just shows what can be achieved when the community comes together to counter bigotry and eat bagels.