During the recent controversy over Scarlett Johansson’s appearance in a SuperBowl ad for the seltzer-maker SodaStream, which builds its fizzers in the occupied territories, Americans for Peace Now took a strong line against purchasing SodaStream products. Its ceo, Debra DeLee, wrote, “Reject SodaStream” because Peace Now regards the West Bank as so vital to the two-state solution:
because Israel’s occupation of the West Bank is such an anomaly, as much as I may like Scarlett (and seltzer), I will not buy SodaStream, not until it moves its headquarters away from a West Bank settlement.
Today I received a fundraising email from Peace Now, titled, “Don’t make me use my SodaStream” (link) on the occasion of the Jewish festival of Purim. Author Sara Ehrman is 95, and a Peace Now board member (and a longtime friend of Hillary Clinton’s). Ehrman’s running gag is that she was around in biblical times.
And with all the talk of piling more sanctions on Iran before negotiations play themselves out, we forget that this isn’t the first time that Iran was sanctioned for threatening the Jews. I had proposed economic sanctions on Haman, but I was overruled. The rightwing hawks in the Jewish community insisted that he be hanged along with his 10 sons.
As a result of that disagreement, I do Purim a little differently than some of my fellow Jews. I don’t carry a grogger. At the Megillah reading, at every mention of Haman’s name, I shpritz my Sodastream (I swear I didn’t buy it – it was a gift).
Even at this crazy time of year, the cause that’s most dear to my heart remains Americans for Peace Now. Through APN we can trumpet the message, at least with regard to Israel, that we will not give way to excess – the rational moderation that exemplifies APN is the way to a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
I just don’t get it. Does APN “reject SodaStream” or does it think the occupied territories are just a joke?
I don’t think there’s much to “get.” She’s old and wise enough to see things are not black and white, really old enough, even when it comes to Jews and their fear obsessions, and somebody thought the idea of a robust old Jewish nana with some wit would bring in more donor dollars to APN. The model is, how many US sitcom series?
She played her part. Something tells me the old gal doesn’t spend much time thinking about the plight of the Palestinians, but maybe I’m wrong?
And, BTW, I can’t help but wonder how many American goys are members of APN.
Zionist organization PACS, have a habit of cloaking with their org names directly suggesting they are American First orgs….See: http://natsummit.org/transcripts/mcmahon.htm
“I will not buy SodaStream, not until it moves its headquarters away from a West Bank settlement.”
Oh, yeah! And the post-67 settlements arose by parthenogenesis, miraculous intervention of the Holy Ghost –pardon, wrong page, miraculous intervention of the other Eloh. The pre-67 state is innocent and kosher, no? Who “does” the settlements but should not be boycotted?
Who do these “American” Zionists think they are conning with their non-boycott boycotting tricks? There is some teaching value to that, too, of course, but not when the comedy is allowed to claim all the space. Enough is sufficient.
These Zionist organizations
She’s making fun of the Jewish community’s anti-BDS obsession – for Purim.
The holiday where we commemorate our own attempted genocide with humor.
There’s something utterly humorless about twisting that into ‘the occupied territories are just a joke.’
I think that she is comparing Sodastream to a grogger. The grogger is used to drown out Haman’s name, and the Sodastream for her is a stand-in. Her position is that she only wanted economic sanctions on Haman, but instead he got :(
She is drawing an analogy between part of the treatment given to Haman and what Sodastream does to people.
Since she says she only wanted economic sanctions on Haman, this can imply that she finds what Sodastream does to people to also be too harsh.
Of course, if you want to take the analogy all the way, you can say that just as she is participating in the spritzing, she is still going along with what happened then and is happening now, although it is not what she votes for. That is, someone else made the decision to do :( to Haman and someone else gave her the bottle.
She should smash the contraption in public on video for all to see. Put your spritzer where you mouth is, madam.