Lack Of Balance On SodaStream Coverage
Wed, 02/12/2014

I was happy to see Jewish Week was covering the SodaStream/Oxfam story until I read the story itself (online Q&A, “ScarJo Stands Firm”). The story struck me not so much as journalism as propaganda for SodaStream with some free public relations damage control thrown in.

The article does not explain on what grounds Oxfam thought Johansson’s work with SodaStream was inconsistent with its humanitarian goals.

The article does not explain why many consider the industrial zone at Mishor Adumim to be, yes, absolutely illegal.

The article does not explain why a captive labor market will out of sheer necessity accept work from employers whose activities pose a long-range threat to the well-being of the occupied.

The lazy Q&A approach deprives the reader of commentary from individuals offering a credible contrasting perspective to Yonah Lloyd’s self-serving explanations.

What I continue to hope for in The Jewish Week is simply good journalism that relies on research, follow-through, fact checking, and the presentation of multiple perspectives. That way, your readers are challenged and informed, not merely affirmed in whatever biases they already have. You do a disservice to Israelis, Palestinians and your readers by failing to explore the ramifications of Israel’s ongoing absorption of Palestinian land and discriminatory treatment of the non-Jews who live east of the Green Line. Perhaps you are enthusiastic supporters of the Israeli settlement project in the occupied Palestinian territories. Your coverage leads me to believe this is the case. Even so, would not your readers benefit from hearing why Palestinians oppose them and how Palestinians are affected by the presence and expansion of the settlements?

Chicago

Comment Guidelines

The Jewish Week feels comments create a valuable conversation and wants to feature your thoughts on our website. To make everyone feel welcome, we won't publish comments that are profane, irrelevant, promotional or make personal attacks.

Comments

Ms. Reese:
You write beautifully but you are naive.

First I suggest you research further the feelings of the SodaStream’s employees….they are equally paid and happy to work there because they are treated equally and paid equally…..and they get along. In their villages, if employed, they would spend 3-4 weeks to make they money they are making at SodaStream.

Further if Oxfam, as their website states, is indeed “determined to change that world by mobilizing the power of people against poverty” then SodaStream is doing just that. They are taking Jew and Muslim alike and treating them as equals and keeping them far away from poverty.

The State of Israel over the years has given land to the Palestinians only for them to destroy the factories and greenhouses left for their use. Ms. Reese - where is all the money given by the Israel, USA, European Union and others to assist the Palestinians…….suggest you ask the poverty stricken Palestinians if they have received these funds.

You really do a disservice to Israelis, Palestinians and the peace process by dismissing a company that is showing wonderful coexistence between Muslim and Jew. Wake-up and smell the coffee (or should I say Soda?)

C.A.

P.S. Ms. Reese, be careful when you enter Gaza as unfortunately, you may be viewed as an infidel because you are an American.

There is no reasoning with a leftist liberal.

Martha Reese should speak to the many Palestinaians that work for the Israelis in what she calls occupied territory. Ms. Reese you must not have been born before the 1967 war where Israel captured the West Bank whose real name is Judea and Samria to know the real history of this conflict

Add comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.