So what does Robert Mackey, a non-supporter of Israel at The Lede blog of his at the New York Times, do to provide a negative spin?
Easy. He writes this headline:
Scarlett Johansson’s Defense of SodaStream Factory
in Occupied West Bank Fails to Sway Critics
Of course, the point could be, Robert, that either, or all together:
(a) those types of anti-Zionist critics could never be swayed
(b) that the point is freedom of expression
(c) that the critics are immoral no matter how much their politics are appreciated by you
(d) that who the hell cares about those critics anyway, if the product sells, it's a success.
Mackey staunchly notes that
The actress’s argument won her praise online from staunch defenders of Israel’s policies [as Scott Stringer, New York City’s comptroller - YM]
Why do Israeli defenders need to be described more than just being defenders? And he adds
Several critics of Israel’s settlement-building policy noted that Mr. Stringer’s comments seemed at odds with the long-held position of the United States government, which calls the movement of Israeli citizens into the occupied territory an obstacle to the creation of a viable Palestinian state.
Again, Mackey must include those less-than-numerous and who-cares-about-them "several critics" who deserve to be included in his post, who note that the comments "seem" to be "at odds with the long-held position of the United States government", a position which has nothing to do with the issue because a "position" isn't a law or legal judgment and in any case, the US is committed to recognizing a change on the ground which reflects the realities of ... Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, as well as the principle of Israel being a Jewish state:
The United States is strongly committed to Israel's security and well-being as a Jewish state...In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.
Blog +972 which represents radical, progressive viewpoints, and is standard reading for Mackey, is prominently quoted. Rashid Khalidi and Diana Butto of the 'Palestinian Arab camp' and rabid Ben White and a mock ad are all included but no support is provided with a reasoned defense, other than her own statement and that Stringer tweet.
Not really a balanced post, Robert. [UPDATE: And your previous one was worse. Unsubstantiated claims repeated without checking, piling on the anti disproportionately to the pro,and depending on politically-charged groups rather than an objective review]
Here's from Jonathan Tobin, however. Maybe update from it? There's more out there. And now Michael Curtis, too. And EOZ.
And what about the business pressure to censor the mention of Coke and Pepsi? Not worthy of a side-bar?
P. S. Another Poster.
- The decision to locate SodaStream’s plant in this industrial park within the boundaries of the West Bank settlement Ma’ale Adumim did in fact predate Birnbaum’s arrival. It was a choice made by company founder Peter Weissburgh, back in the 1990’s
- 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.”- But Birnbaum said that if a Palestinian state comes into being, as is the aim of current U.S.-brokered talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, SodaStream will also be happy to stay and pay its taxes to the new Palestinian state. “We already have factories under the control of the Chinese, the Germans, the Americans and many other countries,” he said. “So what’s the problem to have a factory in the Palestinian state-to-be? We don’t give a hoot where the factory is going to be.”
- 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.”
My comments are up at The Lede:
Here and here.