More bad publicity for the gemstone cowboy

More bad publicity for Leviev, the gemstone cowboy. And this time it's in the UK's Jewish Chronicle:

Anti-Israel agitators target Leviev shops
15/02/2008
By Rachel Fletcher
Anti-Israel demonstrators have targeted the diamond stores of Israel’s wealthiest man, Lev Leviev.

Protestors gathered outside the London and New York stores to deliver a “Justice Valentine”, claiming that “Lev’s diamonds are crime’s best friend.”

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign invited supporters to spread an existing American campaign boycotting Leviev diamonds to London, with 20 demonstrators picketing the Old Bond Street store on Saturday. The protests were timed to coincide with the last major shopping day before Valentine’s Day.

PSC’s website accused Mr Leviev of building illegal settlements in the West Bank and added: “His diamond company has been accused of supplying blood rubies from Burma used to finance Myanmar’s military junta” — a charge the company strongly denies.

London demonstrators included members of Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine, Stop the Wall, and Jews for Justice for Palestinians, holding placards and leafleting passers-by.

In Manhattan, 45 protestors carried red heart-shaped signs with slogans such as “Settlements are Heartless” and sang a parody of the song Diamonds are a Girl’s Best Friend.

A statement from Mr Leviev and the Lev Leviev Group of Companies said the protests were “politically motivated. Those who personally attack the companies or its founder deliberately neglect their extensive humanitarian and philanthropic work, which includes building schools, orphanages, and fostering economic development in communities around the world.

“These protests are also inaccurate in their charges against Leviev diamonds. Leviev is a rigorous supporter of the UN-mandated Kimberley Process concerning conflict-free diamonds and ensures that all gemstones — of all colours — are sourced through internationally recognized legal and ethical guidelines.”

Hmm, humanitarian work. Building settlements for Jews only in occupied territory doesn't really count as humanitarian. But perhaps this is a reference to the claim that Leviev donates big time to Oxfam America.

It wouldn't surprise me if Oxfam took money from Leviev since they're happy to partner Starbucks. But Oxfam isn't so happy to be associated with Leviev. See this from the Adalah NY newsletter:

Leviev Boasts A Contribution That Never Existed: Ma'ariv
Ma'ariv On-Line (NRG)
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/16/ART1/685/919.html

Business tycoon Lev Leviev's website boasts a contribution to a human rights organization, but there was no contribution at all.
by Gal Karniel
January 21, 2008
Economics Page

Lev Leviev, known for his wealth and philanthropy, volunteered misleading information regarding the destination of his charitable donations.

On December 28th, 2007, Lifestyle Magazine conducted an interview with the philanthropist Leviev. During the interview, several organizations were mentioned as recipients of donations from Leviev, among them Oxfam-US. The donation to Oxfam was also noted in profile pieces and other interviews with Leviev, for example in Women's Wear Daily on September 5th, 2007. The Lifestyle interview was quoted in full within the magazine of the Federation of Jewish Communities of the CIS (Common-wealth of Independent States), an organization that supports Jewish communities in Russia, Israel, Germany, and the United States. Leviev is currently serving as the organization's president. [UPDATE - this link has now been disappeared and the Lifestyles mag article has removed all mention of Oxfam too.]

Oxfam International is a confederation of 13 organizations working in cooperation with more than 3,000 partners in more than 100 states, attempting to find long-term solutions to poverty and injustice.

Following the supposed connection between Leviev and Oxfam, the organization Adalah-NY addressed Oxfam in a letter dated January 8th, 2008, which requested that Oxfam not accept donations from Leviev due to his involvement in settlement construction in the West Bank territories, in violation of international law. The letter also referenced Leviev's exploitation of the Angolan population working in the diamond trade, as well as the employment of workers and craftspeople under exploitative conditions in his Manhattan and Brooklyn enterprises, where many do not receive minimum wage and have complained of wage withholding.

Across from Leviev's Madison Avenue diamond store, human rights groups hold frequent demonstrations in denunciation of him and his activities.

Following this, Oxfam released a statement on the 13th of January 2008, stating that the organization maintains no connection whatsoever with Leviev. The statement, signed by Alex Renton of Oxfam-Great Britain and Adrienne Smith of Oxfam America, asserts that: "Contrary to various citations, Lev Leviev is not a donor to Oxfam America and has never been one. To the best of our knowledge Mr. Leviev has not been a donor to Oxfam or any of its affiliates. Oxfam International is an organization of 13 national affiliates working in 100 countries, and we are checking thoroughly whether any Oxfam has had any relationship with Mr. Leviev."

The statement goes on to explain that "Oxfam's policies on donations are clear. We do not accept donations from businesses involved in illegal activities, or operating in occupied territory, including settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories."

The Lev Leviev Group transmitted a letter to human rights groups on the 15th of January 2008, stating: "Having fled the yoke of communism as a teenager living in Uzbekistan, Lev Leviev knows oppression firsthand and has used his self-made success to alleviate suffering around the world. His generosity to numerous groups and organizations is motivated by the wish to do good things for others. Despite the negative characterization of his philanthropy by some political groups, Lev Leviev continues to use his philanthropy solely toward that goal."

Leviev's response did not arrive prior to the publication of this article.

I suppose we ought to be careful saying that he hasn't mde donations to Oxfam. He's a busy man. Maybe he just puts lots of coins in a blue tin or something like that.

Oxfam shows Amnesty how to behave when it comes to celebs & settlements

From the NY Post:

'SEX' STAR, OXFAM PART WAYS

August 6, 2009 --

"SEX and the City" star Kristin Davis is caught in the crossfire of Mideast politics.

The stunning actress is no longer working as a spokeswoman for human rights/relief organization Oxfam International because she also endorses the Ahava cosmetics line -- which is manfactured in what Oxfam regards as "disputed" territory.

Because Ahava is made by Dead Sea Cosmetics in the Mitzhe Shalem Jewish settlement in the West Bank, it's been controversial -- the leftist women's peace group Code Pink, which accuses America of "war crimes," has called for a boycott, saying Ahava uses Palestinian natural resources in what it calls "Occupied Palestine."

"This has been a huge thing," one source told us. "Ahava has factories on disputed land. From Ahava's perspective, they are not doing anything wrong. From an Oxfam perspective, Ahava is a polarizing company and Kristin shouldn't be involved with it."

Our source said Davis "has been very active with both Oxfam and Ahava, and is very passionate about the causes of Oxfam. She was completely unaware of this conflict of interest and is saddened to be on public pause from a group she has devoted so much time, money, and support to."

In a statement, Oxfam said, "Kristin Davis has done great work for Oxfam and we highly value her commitment as a supporter . . . Oxfam remains opposed to settlement trade, in which Ahava is engaged. Both Kristin and Oxfam do not want this issue to detract from the great work we have done in the past and plan to do in the future."

A spokeswoman for Davis told Page Six, "Kristin is passionate about her relationship with Oxfam, and she intends to work with them and other humanitarian causes for years to come." Ahava had no comment.

Bully for Oxfam. Meanwhile, Amnesty is partnering up with Leonard Cohen's Sept. 24 benefit concert in Tel Aviv, sponsored by the settlement-funding Israel Discount Bank. Tell Amnesty to follow Oxfam's fine example -- Action Alert: Tell Amnesty International - No Amnesty for Apartheid Israel!

Oxfam replies but doesn't answer

I've posted about this before, here and here but some time back, Oxfam rejected a £5,000 donation from a Professor Honderich on the grounds that he had expressed sympathy with Palestinian suicide bombers in a book. I wrote to them to complain and they wrote back to "justify" their position. Later it transpired that they were in a partnership arrangement with Starbucks whose Chief Exec is on record supporting the war criminality of Ariel Sharon. Again I wrote to them to complain at their manifest hypocrisy. Again they wrote back "justifying" said hypocrisy. I think it was on the grounds that a) you can't identify a company with it's CEO who was after all expressing a personal. penchant for war crimes and b) the CEO supports a two state solution. Obviously it's pointless getting into too much debate with such disingenuous hypocrites but I did wonder at the time that, if the CEO's views are irrelevant, why was he asked where he stood on the so-called two-state solution? Anyway, now the partnership deal is coming to an end, the Jewish Chronicle has reported that "enraged Muslims had bombarded Oxfam with protests that Starbucks founder and Chairman Howard Schultz was a major supporter of Israeli and Jewish interests." See that? "Jewish interests". So I wrote to Oxfam as follows:

I should be grateful if you would let me know if any protests were made by Muslim groups regarding Mr Schultz's support for "Jewish interests" or was it simply his support for the state of Israel and, in particular, Ariel Sharon's policies in the illegally occupied territories that were the basis of the complaint? I am particularly keen to know if any organisations invoked "Jewish interests" in their complaints.

Here's the bizarre reply:

Thanks for your email on the issue of the collaboration with Starbucks.

Our current one year collaboration with Starbucks will come to an end in September 2005. This collaboration provides support to coffee farmers in Ethiopia and enables Starbucks and Oxfam to share knowledge on coffee purchasing with the aim of finding solutions to overcome poverty and ensure stability in coffee farming communities. After September 2005 Oxfam will still continue dialogue with Starbucks as well as other coffee retailers and roasters on tackling the global coffee crisis.

Oxfam GB has considered how to advance its campaigning work particularly on Fairtrade. There have been significant changes in the coffee market since Oxfam opened discussions with Starbucks on this collaboration last year. Other retailers, including Marks and Spencers and AMT Espresso have both gone 100% Fairtrade. Given these developments Oxfam GB now feel it is more appropriate to work in broader collaboration with a range of retailers, including Starbucks.

I hope that clarifies our position on the collaboration and explains how we will continue our dialogue with Starbucks after the existing collaboration ends.

You can see more about our work in our work in Israel and the Palestinian territories on our website here

In general, we are advocating for a just and peaceful solution to the conflict. We recognise the need for a solution that will allow both Palestinians and Israelis to live, and make a living, within secure borders. We support a two-state solution in which citizens from both societies can enjoy their full range of human rights under international law.

I hope that helps you understand our position on these difficult issues.

With best wishes,

So there we have it. Ok we still don't know if Muslims complained about "Jewish interests" but we do know that Oxfam supports the same solution as George Bush, Tony Blair and Ariel Sharon: the two-state solution.

Oxfam: Palestinians are suffering!

Maybe Oxfam's on a dial up connection. I'd say they were a tad slow with this bit of news reported in the Guardian:

Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are suffering "devastating" humanitarian consequences as incomes plummet, debts mount and essential services face meltdown, Oxfam says in a report that calls for an immediate end to the international financial blockade of the Hamas-led government.

This is a move in the right direction for Oxfam. I wrote to them (as did many others) to protest their rejection of a donation from a chap (I think it was Honderich) for expressing sympathy with suicide bombers. I wrote again (as did many others) to protest their partnership arrangement with Starbucks when the CEO is a prominent supporter of the racist war criminals of Israel who has blamed the Palestinians themselves for the plight detailed above. The reply I got to the latter protest was simply to say something like, Oxfam supports a two state solution. Doesn't everybody?* What made me laugh at the time (I'm not sure if I posted it here) was that the email to me replying to my protest about their hyprocrisy on suicide bombing and Israel's war crimes was sent by a woman called "Kamikazi." That was the name she used anyway. When I'm on a broadband connection I'll see if I can find it. Like I said, I'm not sure if I did a post on it but I think I did. I don't think I would have made anything of the name at the time because I was worried about political correctness and all. You shouldn't make fun of a foreign name. I've let my pc standards slip over the years. Plus when your surname's Elf you earn the right to comment on other people's names.

*For those who don't get irony, I don't actually support a two state solution. I noticed from my tracker this morning that most of my hits today have come from the country where they don't get irony. I won't say which country that is because I'll be accused of anti-Americanism.

Oxfam supports war

A while back I wrote to Oxfam to complain that it was hypocritical of them to reject a donation from a man who said he sympathised with Palestinian suicide bombers whilst they (Oxfam) were embarking on a joint venture with Starbucks knowing that the Starbucks CEO is a Zionist and a supporter of the mass murderer Ariel Sharon. They wrote back to me saying that Howard Schultz, the Starbucks CEO, supports a two-state solution in Palestine and actually wants peace there. I wrote back to them saying that the war criminal Ariel Sharon makes exactly the same claim. Well I have now stumbled on a website that is dedicated to undermining boycotts of racism and imperialism and it shows that Starbucks supports the "war on terror". That war is now believed to have cost around 100,000 Iraqi civilian lives. I have written to Oxfam to get their take on this, though I must say that they ignored my last letter to them. If you are appalled at Oxfam's support for Zionism and war please complete their feedback form or email them. Thanks.

Guardian asks should @Oxfam say #NoScarJo?

This is good of the Guardian to pitch in with the campaign to get Oxfam to ditch one of Israel's ambassadors for the occupation, Scarlett Johansson.

Here's the headline:

#NoScarJo: should Oxfam sever ties with Scarlett Johansson?

The article raises many issues around this case and credits our comrades at the Electronic Intifada for coming up with most of the analysis and info.

But it also raises a serious general point about running with people who might raise money and awareness of a cause but, well there's a but:

While there is no doubt that celebrity endorsement yields financial dividends for NGOs and can raise the profile of a cause, it can also infuriate staff and create tensions with communities in which the organisation works. So what should Oxfam do? Take our poll and tell us your experiences or thoughts on celebrities and NGOs in the comment threads below.

So check out the poll which still has 6 days to run and check out the comments too.  The zionists are having a bit of a field day in the comments but the poll so far is that 87% say #NoScarJo! 

#ScarJo to Oxfam: Drop dead. Norway to Leviev: Drop dead - again

A big day for BDS: Scarlett Johansson has chosen Sodastream over Oxfam. Oxfam comes out looking very unprincipled, having issued waffling statements and endured media scrutiny of why a human rights organization was dithering over what should have been a no-brainer decision. EI reported disarray within the org. Reuters reported on Palestinian worker complaints of racism at Sodastream's West Bank plant, illegally located in the industrial zone of the Israeli megasettlement, Ma'ale Adumim, and a Palestinian worker told the Electronic Intifada last May the company "treats us like slaves." See also this report on worker treatment at Sodastream's plant by the Israeli NGO Who Profits. The media storm around ScarJo gave wide exposure to BDS; entertainment magazines are covering it. Here is a still from inside a New York taxi an activist took today:

The ScarJo imbroglio may look unrelated to another BDS decision today; the Norwegian Government pension fund divested for a second time from the settlement mogul Lev Leviev's Africa-Israel company. (Leviev had his own embarrassing encounter with Oxfam, over a donation he claimed he gave them, a fact they expeditiously denied) The first time round was part of a wide campaign that probably helped push Leviev to stop construction in the Palestinian village of Bi'lin. This led the Norwegian fund to conclude the company had a clean bill of health - or maybe they did not pay much attention at all - until activists spotted signs for Danya Cebus, Africa-Israel's construction arm, building new units in Gilo settlement in occupied East Jerusalem. Activists pressured the Norwegian gov't to re-divest from Africa-Israel.  This divestment decision received coverage in Ha'aretz, the Wall Street Journal, & JPost.

So how are these related? Well as this graphic from the Institute for Middle East Undertanding (IMEU) shows, there used to be seven Palestinian villages where Israel has built Ma'ale Adumim. The industrial zone attached to it antiseptically keeps Palestinian workers out of the settlement & away from its Jewish colonists. Scarjo and her supporters argued Sodastream was doing Palestinians a favor by employing them in their factory on land that used to be theirs. In 2004, World War 4 Report wrote about a similar sinister scheme that was being cooked up for the Palestinian farmers who live in villages separated from their farmlands by Israel's security wall & touted by current Kerry aide & Israel lobby vet David Makokvsky. One of these villages, Jayyous, has the Jewish settlement of Zufim built by another of Leviev's companies, Leader Management and Development, built on its lands, and is currently expanding behind the wall. Jayyous is in the same district with the walled-in Palestinian city Qalqilya:.

The Industrial Agenda

What Israel and Makovsky have in mind for the people of Qalqilya district first became clear during a November 2003 visit to Washington by Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz. On Nov. 14, the Israeli daily Yedioth Aharonot ran an article titled "Mofaz's Initiative: Jobs for Palestinians," reporting that Mofaz presented the US government with an "initiative to build industrial parks that will create jobs for 120 thousand Palestinians." Yediot's Washington correspondent, Orly Azulai, noted that Secretary of State Colin Powell had asked Mofaz to "minimize the suffering caused on Palestinians as a result of the construction of the Separation Fence."

"To implement the initiative, of course, there is a need for an end for terrorism and financial resources," Mofaz said after a meeting with Dick Cheney and Condolezza Rice. "As part of the plan, industrial parks will be built in the Palestinian side and on the seam line. The Palestinians will be able to go to these places without going through IDF checkpoints; private security companies will monitor these passages." 

Possibly this will be the fate of Jayyous. The independent farmers of Jayyous who have tilled the land for at least nine generations will be a dependent Israeli-controlled industrial workforce on what used to be their land, without even entering Israel. This is already happening to the south of Jayyous, where residents of Arab Ramadin, who lived off of sheep herding, have been enclosed inside the fence with the illegal Jewish settlement of Alfe Menashe, and, thus cut off from their grazing lands, have been compelled to abandon their traditional way of life and take jobs in the settlement's industrial zone. In a Dec. 18, 2003 press release, the Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign of the Palestinian Environmental NGOs Network (PENGON) concluded: "The completion of the Wall and its ghettoization of Arab Ramadin are turning a community of shepherds into exploited workers for Israeli settlement industrial zones, as they are unable to sustain their lives."

Britain the abuser

I mentioned using a dial connection before. Maybe it was in the comments. That's not a good excuse for catching up with yesterday's letters in the Guardian today but it's the only one I've got. Here's a chap called Mark Curtis (Author of Web of Deceit and Unpeople) berating Oxfam's Barbara Stocking for her claim that Britain's foreign policy was mostly benign until the "misadventure [woops!] in Iraq."

I was interested to see Oxfam director Barbara Stocking (The world before Iraq, April 11) claiming that the UK "arguably pursued a relatively successful foreign policy until the misadventure in Iraq". Britain illegally bombed Iraq in 1998, was the chief apologist for Russia's bloody onslaught against Chechnya in 1999, increased the export of military equipment to Israel as it reinvaded the West Bank in 2001, armed Indonesia as it attacked Aceh province in 2003, took legal action to prevent the Chagossians returning to their homeland on Diego Garcia and continued to support some of the world's most brutal governments in Colombia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere - to name some of Labour's shocking policies that could fill this page.

It is therefore intriguing to suggest that the government has "championed" the responsibility to protect civilians from war crimes. It wasn't so much that the UK "failed to press Israel" to halt its attack on Lebanon but that it in effect supported the invasion. The notion that Britain should hold others to account for human rights abuses is surely right, but the fact is that Britain is all too often the abuser.

Well put that man! If you hadn't read it already I hope it was worth the wait.

More on Oxfam coming up!

Zionism: a better class of violence

I don't usually buy The Guardian. but the report I posted about below didn't appear on line. I don't usually read the business pages either but a puff piece on Starbucks and its Zionist CEO Howard Schultz caught my attention. Now two years ago, almost exactly, I wrote to Oxfam to complain about their return of a £5,000 donation from a Professor Honderich because he had expressed sympathy with Palestinian suicide bombers. I don't have their reply anymore but they said that they couldn't accept money from someone who expressed support for violence. According to the article linked above it appears that Oxfam has overcome its squeamishness about violence and is happy to work on a joint venture with Starbucks in spite of their CEO's open support for Ariel Sharon's atrocities in the occupied territories. People can write to Oxfam for an explanation of what is at best an inconsistency by following this link.

Las Vegas & Paris: Boycott Ahava settlement cosmetics

On Monday July 21, CODE PINK protested settlement cosmetics company Ahava at a Las Vegas trade show. On July 16 in Paris, there was a spirited protest at a chic beauty shop which carries Ahava. First off, CODEPINK's Nancy Kricorian writes on the group's blog, A.K.A. the PINK TANK:

STOLEN BEAUTY

The Struggle for a Just Peace in the Middle East Coming to a Store Near You

By Nancy Kricorian





As the dust settled on the destroyed homes, schools and lives in the aftermath of Israel’s assault on Gaza earlier this year, mainstream human rights groups from Amnesty International to Physicians for Human Rights/Israel issued reports condemning Israel’s attack and alleging that the Israeli government and the Israeli Defense Forces had committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. The staff of CODEPINK Women for Peace re-opened a discussion of what we could do about Israel’s flagrant flouting of international law and the brutality of the ongoing blockade of Gaza, the occupation of the West Bank and the home demolitions in East Jerusalem. We decided to revisit the idea of a boycott against Israeli products—a boycott that was having more difficulty gaining traction here in the United States than in Europe. But the best way to end an occupation is to make it unprofitable, and one of the best peaceful ways to make something unprofitable is to organize a boycott.

While doing research on the Global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement for Palestine , I came across the web site Who Profits , a project of the Israeli Coalition of Women for Peace . On that site I found a list of Israeli and international companies that are directly involved in and profit from the occupation of the Palestinian West Bank. It seemed strategically and morally important to select for our campaign a corporation whose practices were clearly in contravention to international law. Many of the corporations on the Who Profits list were either unfamiliar to me, discouragingly huge, or didn’t seem like obvious targets for a women’s peace group. But I saw one name that I recognized: Ahava Dead Sea Laboratories. In fact, I knew there was a plastic bottle of Ahava Eucalyptus Mineral Bath Salts sitting on the windowsill next to the tub in my bathroom.

If you take a look at Ahava’s web site, you can read about the company’s environmentally responsible practices: “Our manufacturing processes are non-polluting and environmentally conscious. No animals are involved in testing phases and all of our products are encased in recyclable tubes, bottles and jars.” Ahava’s spokeswoman is fresh-faced Sex & The City actress Kristin Davis, whose commitment to doing good is evidenced by her status as an Oxfam Goodwill Ambassador and her position on the advisory board of The Masai Wilderness Conservation Fund. On the Ahava site, Davis is quoted as saying, “My personal beliefs, which include treating both animals and the environment with respect, are equally important to AHAVA.”

If you navigate around the web site you will see pristine images of the Dead Sea, enticing products with beautifully designed labels, and a photo of a water lily leaf with the caption, “This leaf has nothing to hide.” But, unfortunately, Ahava does have something to hide—an ugly secret about its relationship to a brutal occupation. The Hebrew word “Ahava” means love, but there is nothing loving about what the company is doing in the Palestinian territory of the West Bank. Ahava is an Israeli profiteer exploiting the natural resources of occupied Palestine.

AHAVA Dead Sea Laboratories, an Israeli cosmetics company, has situated its main manufacturing plant and showroom at the Israeli Jewish settlement Mitzpe Shalem in the Occupied Palestinian West Bank near the shores of the Dead Sea. Mitzpe Shalem, built on occupied land in 1970, is an illegal settlement, as are all Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Ahava’s capture of Palestinian natural resources from the Dead Sea is, according to the Fourth Geneva Convention, a patently illegal use by an occupying power of stolen resources for its own profit. To add insult to injury, Ahava’s labels claim that the country of origin of its products is “The Dead Sea, Israel”—this type of labeling has been decried by Oxfam, among other human rights groups, as blatantly misleading.

While we were working on putting together the new AHAVA boycott campaign we called STOLEN BEAUTY , CODEPINK led several delegations to Gaza, one of which never made it into the Strip because the Israeli government wouldn’t let them through the Erez crossing. Several CODEPINK activists decided to take a fact-finding mission to the Ahava plant in the West Bank, corroborating what we had read about the plant’s location and its practices. The women decided to seize the opportunity and—with the avid encouragement of the Israeli Jewish and Palestinian peace activists that they had met—they went to the Ahava store at the Hilton Hotel in Tel Aviv to stage a protest action. Some put on bikinis, wrote on their bodies with mud NO AHAVA/NO LOVE, while others carried signs with slogans such as “There is no love in occupation.” They chanted, sang and made the Israeli evening news

About a week later, we heard that Kristin Davis was going to be at Lord & Taylor on Fifth Avenue promoting Ahava products and signing autographs. Two of us went to the store to deliver a letter to Davis, requesting she stop letting Ahava use her beautiful face and good name to cover up their crimes. She was less than receptive, and we were escorted out of the store. A week later, the CODEPINK bikini brigade showed up at the “Tel Aviv Beach Party”—part of the Israeli government’s multi-million dollar “Re-brand Israel” campaign—in New York’s Central Park. The bikinis and our anti-occupation message made Fox News

We recently sent letters to Ahava’s headquarters in Holon, Israel, as well as to Ahava USA and Kristen Davis, giving them notice of our boycott. We sent copies of these letters to Shamrock Holdings, the investment company of the Roy E. Disney family, which owns 19% of Ahava’s shares. On Monday of this week, CODEPINK women showed up in bikinis and mud at the Cosmoprof North America Trade Show in Las Vegas to let Ahava representatives know we were launching our STOLEN BEAUTY campaign.

We have sent letters to over 100 retailers requesting that they stop stocking Ahava products because Ahava helps finance the destruction of hope for a peaceful and just future for both Israelis and Palestinians. In August we’ll be outside a drugstore, department store or mall near you, exposing Ahava’s dirty secrets and showing that real beauty is more than skin deep. You can go to www.stolenbeauty.org to find out how to join our campaign. And you don’t have to wear a bikini to do it.

And in Paris, July 16 on the Champs Elysees, French activists participated in a spirited protest directed at a retailer that stocks Ahava products:

Action: Ahava, on n'en veut pas from chris den hond on Vimeo.

Kristin Davis used to have her picture on settlement builder and diamantaire Lev Leviev's website, but when she was told about Leviev's settlement construction, she requested it be removed. Apparently she doesn't mind associating her good name with a settlement-based company when they pay her enough.

More pressure on the Beeb's starving of Gaza

Many thanks to one of my Scotland correspondents for drawing my attention to the occupation of the BBC's Glasgow headquarters. The report is on the Sky website which is newsworthy of itself since Sam Kiley, a Murdoch dissident, said that Murdoch was a personal friend of Ariel Sharon. Anyway cop this straight from the Sky website:

Gaza Aid Protesters In Beeb's HQ

7:05pm UK, Sunday January 25, 2009

Dozens of protesters have occupied the BBC's headquarters in Glasgow over the broadcaster's refusal to air an emergency aid appeal for Gaza.

Palestinian woman holds her baby as she stands in the rubble of east Jebaliya, Gaza

The supporters of the Stop the War Coalition and Palestinian groups said they will not leave the building's lobby area until the Beeb reverses its decision.

The coalition claimed there were about 100 demonstrators inside and outside the building.

A Strathclyde Police spokeswoman said there were about 40 to 50 protesters and there had been no arrests yet.

More than 50 MPs have already backed a parliamentary motion urging the broadcaster to show the appeal for thousands of people struggling in the Palestinian territory.

The early day motion - to be tabled on Monday by Labour's Richard Burden - has so far received the support of 51 MPs from across the Commons.

The BBC is still standing firm on its decision not to show the advert for the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC).

The corporation has said it has received "approximately" 1,000 telephone complaints and a further 10,000 by email.

Rival broadcasters ITV, Channel 4 and Five have now agreed to air the appeal. Sky is still considering its position.

Suffering in Gaza

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, is the latest figure to add his voice to the string of politicians, including senior government ministers, urging the corporation to change its mind.

He said he fully backed the Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu, who said: "This is not an appeal by Hamas asking for arms but by the Disasters Emergency Committee asking for relief."

Thousands of people have already demonstrated outside the BBC's Broadcasting House in London this weekend.

The DEC - an umbrella group for several major aid charities including the British Red Cross, Save the Children and Oxfam - wants the appeal to be broadcast on TV and radio.

It aims to raise millions of pounds for Gazans in need of food, medicines and shelter following Israel's three-week assault on the area.

The Charity Commission has repeated its call on the BBC to show the appeal, and also urged Sky to lend support.

BBC director general Mark Thompson says broadcasting the advert could compromise the impartiality of the BBC's reporting from Gaza.

They have a video too but I couldn't load it and you're not missing much really.

I don't get the Observer but I'm guessing that several articles on what the BBC did made it into print today. Check out this little lot:

Archbishop attacks BBC over Gaza

Corporation receives 11,000 complaints and 50 MPs plan to back motion calling for rethink on aid film

• At the heart of BBC row, the homeless of Gaza
• Tim Llewellyn: A cowardly decision

Tim Lewellyn is in a real fume:

The corporation's chief operating officer, Caroline Thomson, had refused to allow it to broadcast an appeal on behalf of the Disasters Emergency Committee for Gaza. She said that one reason was that "the BBC's impartiality was in danger of being damaged". Could the BBC be sure, she added, that money raised for this cause would find its way to the right people?

How is the BBC's impartiality to be prejudiced by asking others to raise money for the victims of an act of war by a recognised state, an ally of Britain, using the most lethal armaments it can against a defenceless population? What sly little trigger went off in her head when Thomson questioned whether the aid would reach the right people? What right people? Hamas, the elected representatives of the Palestinian people? The hospitals and clinics run by private charities and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency? The mosques? The citizens of Gaza, persecuted beyond measure not only by their Israeli enemies but by the western powers who arm and sustain Israel and defy the democratic vote of the Palestinian people?

Is Thomson more fussed about some imaginary "war on terror" that even the new White House is shying away from than she is about upholding the free speech and freedom of action of the corporation?

This pusillanimous obeisance to some imagined governmental threat has aroused unprecedented anger across the BBC.

Ok, I've done a few posts on this now but the Beeb is literally behaving like it's the Israeli state broadcaster. That is a story in itself and I can't promise there won't be more. There almost definitely will be more. I'm hoping the last one will be if and when the Beeb blinks and then buckles.

Boycott Israel update

Boycotting Israeli goods should become easier in the UK following an order that goods produced in Israeli settlements in the West Bank be labelled as such. Here's the Guardian:

Britain has acted to increase pressure on Israel over its West Bank settlements by advising UK supermarkets on how to distinguish between foods from the settlements and Palestinian-manufactured goods.

The government's move falls short of a legal requirement but is bound to increase the prospects of a consumer boycott of products from those territories. Israeli officials and settler leaders were tonight highly critical of the decision.

Until now, food has been simply labelled "Produce of the West Bank", but the new, voluntary guidance issued by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), says labels could give more precise information, like "Israeli settlement produce" or "Palestinian produce".

There see, you can boycott Israel and help the Palestinians.

The distinction doesn't have the force of law just yet but see this:

Separately, Defra said that traders would be committing an offence if they did declare produce from the occupied territories as "Produce of Israel".

And here's some comment:

The TUC general secretary, Brendan Barber, welcomed the public clarification that marking produce from illegal settlements on occupied territory as "produce of Israel" was illegal, but said the government should have gone further.

Barbara Stocking, Oxfam's chief executive, said: "Profiting from the goods produced in the illegal settlements is contrary to international law and they should be banned from sale in the European Union, as they are in Palestine. Trade in such goods undermines the viability of a sovereign Palestinian state and holds back the peace process.

"We support the right of consumers to know the origin of the products they purchase. Trade with Israeli settlements – which are illegal under international law – contributes to their economic viability and serves to legitimise them. It is also clear from our development work in West Bank communities that settlements have led to the denial of rights and create poverty for many Palestinians.".....

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign said it welcomed the new guidance but urged Defra to go further: "The government must seek prosecutions of companies which smuggle settlement goods in under false labels.

"We have received many calls from people who were distressed when they bought goods labelled 'Produce of the West Bank' because they thought they were aiding the Palestinian economy, then realised they were economically aiding Israel's illegal occupation.

"Particularly following Israel's massacre in Gaza, consumers have been shocked at Israel's war crimes and want to take action. They do not want to feel complicit in Israel's occupation by buying stolen goods."............

Toby Quantrill, head of public policy for the Fairtrade Foundation, said farmers in Palestine faced barriers to trade which jeopardised opportunities to trade internationally on equal terms with people making similar products.

And for the zios?

Dani Dayan, the Argentinian-born leader of the Yesha Council, which represents Israeli settlers, said the decision was the "latest hostile step" from Britain. "Products from our communities in Judea and Samaria should be treated as any other Israeli product," he said, using an Israeli term for the West Bank.

Israeli officials said they feared this was a slide towards a broader boycott of Israeli goods. Yigal Palmor, Israel's foreign ministry spokesman, said his country's produce was being unfairly singled out.

"It looks like it is catering to the demands of those whose ultimate goal is the boycott of Israeli products," he said. "The message here will very likely be used by pro-boycott campaigners. It is a matter of concern."

And then a little sop from the Guardian to the Obama fan club:

Israel came under intense US pressure early this year to halt construction in settlements, but has only adopted a temporary, partial freeze. Palestinian leaders say they will not restart peace negotiations until there is a full settlement freeze in line with the US road map of 2003.

Intense pressure? What intense pressure?

I've just re-read the whole article and there's no comment from the Board of Deputies of British Jews but then this is a political issue and, as we've seen, the "board was never intended to be a political organization".

Another ghetto is born in Palestine

I can only marvel at the sheer lack of conscience of the people responsible for this despicable monstrosity:

Omar Hajaj says he will soon be caged "like a zoo animal," with an electric fence encircling his house and his village hemmed in by the notorious West Bank barrier.

The rumble of bulldozers has become a common sound around this Palestinian village on Jerusalem's southern outskirts as earthmovers work on a huge trench which will be filled with towering slabs of concrete.

After years of interruptions, work finally got under way in April to lay the foundations for another stretch of Israel's "security fence" -- a section which will completely encircle this southern West Bank village.

At the moment, villagers have more or less open access to the nearby city of Bethlehem. But not for much longer.

"It is the only village in the West Bank that will be completely surrounded by the wall," says Willow Heske, of the Oxfam humanitarian group, which is helping villagers make their voices heard.

Since the 1967 Middle East War, half of Al-Walajah was annexed by Israel as part of municipal Jerusalem, while the other half remained in the West Bank.

The initial route would have sliced the village in two but following intervention by Israel's high court, it was changed to incorporate the rest of the village -- with one exception: the Hajaj family.

When the towering concrete wall is erected, it will cut directly through Hajaj's property, leaving half on the Al-Walajah side, and the rest -- including his house and nine acres of land -- on the Israeli side.

This would normally have given him free access to Jerusalem.

But last week, government officials told Hajaj his property would be hemmed in by an additional barrier -- a five-metre (16-feet) high electric fence.

His only way into the village will be via a gate in the concrete wall.

From his house, Hajaj can just make out Jerusalem's biblical zoo -- and fears his fate will soon be like that of the animals.

First Gaza, now this.

One more cup of Starbucks for Bob Dylan

Bob Dylan has followed Oxfam in striking a deal with the zionist-led global corporation, Starbucks. This is no surprise to those of us who have followed Dylan's twists and turns since the late 1970s/early 1980s. He first announced that he was some kind of Christian before penning the song Neighbourhood Bully, an angry ditty defending Menachem Begin's Israel against its critics and unarmed victims.

"Peace" oil?

Here's an interesting article from Mark Tran in the Guardian showing how these "Jews and Muslims can be friends" type projects can undermine the Palestinians.

A Palestinian passes some of the 1,000 olive trees burned or cut down by militant
Jewish settlers at Einabus, on the West Bank, in 2003. Photograph: Vadim Ghirda/AP

Peace Oil, an olive oil made in Israel by Jews and Arabs, would seem an ideal Christmas gift for those wishing to take a stand against consumerism.

The oil is one of the products promoted in the Good Gifts catalogue, run by the Charities Advisory Trust (Cat), an organisation founded by Hilary Blume and widely respected for advising charities on ethical ways of generating funds.

The blurb on the Peace Oil website claims the product encourages cooperation between communities. By helping to market the olive oil, Cat hopes to bring economic prosperity to such enterprises, thereby encouraging others.

Despite its laudable intentions, however, Cat has come under fire from those who claim it is undermining products made by Palestinians and brought into Britain by cooperatives such as Zaytoun.

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, the UK branch of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions and the Inter-Faith Group for Morally Responsible Investment, have written to church and charity groups urging them to promote Palestinian olive oil rather than Peace Oil.

The groups claim that without costly advertising, Palestinian products struggle to find space on shelves in UK health food shops, charity outlets and the occasional supermarket.

"As an Israeli-based product, albeit with some Palestinian input, Peace Oil faces none of these limitations," the groups said in a joint statement.

"We hope that the Charities Advisory Trust will take this on board and, at the very least, promote fairly traded Palestinian oil from Zaytoun alongside Peace Oil.

"Until this happens we would urge those who want to give olive oil as a 'good gift' to choose Zaytoun in preference."

Olive oil, the backbone of the Palestinian Authority's agricultural economy, is a vital source of income for tens of thousands of farmers and their families, 67% of whom live below the poverty line.

Palestinian olive oil producers have faced enormous difficulties as Israeli authorities have confiscated or denied access to land, uprooted ancient trees, and controlled water resources. The building of the security barrier has cut off some farmers from their olive groves. Once the wall is completed, 10% of the West Bank will fall on the Israeli side of the barrier.

Zaytoun was established in 2004 to ease access to western markets for Palestinian farmers in the West Bank.

Heather Gardner, a Zaytoun director, said Cat was misleading the public in promoting Peace Oil as a product that encourages peaceful cooperation.

"The fact that Arabs are employed in making Peace Oil is not anything different from the status quo, as Israelis use Arab labour as a matter of course," she said.

She also criticised Peace Oil for its lack of transparency about where the oil is sourced and what the profits are used for. Zaytoun, a member of the International Fair Trade Association, is audited by a Swiss company.

Activists also question the claim that funds from Peace Oil will be used to promote a just peace between Palestinians and Israelis. One activist, who preferred to remain anonymous, was scathing about the product.

"It's a total con," the activitist said. "Peace Oil is using peace to obfuscate the lack of justice for Palestinians in the conflict. It is misleading people of goodwill who want to do something for peace."

Hilary Blume, a director of Cat, strongly defended the idea of Peace Oil, which she said had caught people's imagination since it was introduced a year ago.

"It's Jews, Druze, Bedouin working together," she said. "It's concerned with spreading cooperation among ethnically diverse groups."

Blume, who has worked to bridge ethnic divides in places such as Sarajevo, hit back at critics of Peace Oil, saying the groups wanted a trade boycott of Israel.

She said Peace Oil for cooking, one of three varieties of the oil, uses olives from smallhold farmers from Nablus in the West Bank.

Many of the presents in the Good Gifts catalogue, one of Blume's ideas, are designed to help people in developing countries become more self-sufficient. For example, a £25 gift buys five chickens and a cockerel; £100 buys a travelling library for African schools.

No other gift in the catalogue has attracted the kind of controversy that Peace Oil has faced. Asked why Cat chose not to promote Zaytoun, Blume said it was a commercial product and Cat could not help every cause in the world.

"You can find Zaytoun in every church group in the country," Blume said. "If they can't market it effectively, it's their problem."

This of course isn't the first time the charity sector has been used to support Israel at the expense of the Palestinians. Many of the charities operating in the West Bank and Gaza are getting Israel off the hook of its responsibilities as an occupying power. Also let's not forget Oxfam's love affair with Starbucks.

Support Namibian workers striking against Leviev

Workers at a diamond polishing plant in Namibia belonging to Israeli settlement magnate Lev Leviev are on strike, and are looking for support from international labour and solidarity groups. Adalah-NY, COSATU, and a coalition of Palestinian groups including labor unions have issued a joint statement in support of the strikers:

Support Striking Namibian Workers at Lev Leviev Diamonds!
Protest Firing Threats, Abusive Managers

Adalah-NY: The Coalition for Justice in the Middle East,
Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU),
Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Campaign National Committee (BNC)

July 5, 2008

Management at Lev Leviev Diamond Polishing Company (LLD) in Windhoek, Namibia is threatening to fire 153 diamond polishers who have been on strike since June 19th protesting abusive managers as well as overdue job appraisals, promotions, wages and outstanding overtime pay. The company, owned by Israeli billionaire Lev Leviev, whose companies are already a target of global condemnation for building Israeli settlements in the West Bank in violation of international law, has suspended the 153 strikers and is threatening to begin disciplinary hearings to fire them, claiming the strike is illegal.

Growing global solidarity reaches from Palestine to Southern Africa and the US targeting Lev Leviev’s human rights abuses and war crimes.

Adalah-NY, COSATU and the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee (BNC) urge unions, supporters of human rights, and all other social justice groups to send messages of protest to LLD management, demanding that the strikers not be fired and that their demands be met (addresses and phone numbers to send messages to are below).

Namibia:

In Namibia, the workers started their labor action on June 19, setting up a round-the-clock protest camp a few hundred yards from the factory gates. Among the workers’ demands is the removal of LLD Namibia’s general manager Mike Nesongano. Workers have documented a range of hostile actions by Nesongano, including use of abusive language, disregard of labor law, threatening workers, unfair dismissals, unequal treatment and having a demoralizing attitude towards his workforce. The employees also accuse Nesongano of poor administration and favoring European administrators brought in by Leviev. They also point to intimidation by the company’s lawyer at meetings between workers and management.

Diamond polishers at LLD earn Namibian $450 (US$56) a month, after deductions. This corresponds to less than two U.S. dollars a day, the figure most commonly used by international agencies to define the global poverty line.

LLD has a history of exploiting its workers. In 2006 the company, which only offered its workers temporary status, tried to force workers to sign contracts stating that they would not be paid until they reached certain production quotas. Only the workers’ struggle forced them to nullify the contracts.

LLD's Managing Director, K. Kapwanga, refuses engagement with the workers on fair terms. He has publicly threatened that "[t]he relevant employees will be issued with notices to appear before a disciplinary hearing committee, upon which if found guilty they may face severe penalties and possible dismissal." Enraged by the threat, workers have announced that they will boycott the disciplinary hearings, and have threatened to disrupt the operations of the company should the company fail to heed their demands.

Palestine:

Lev Leviev got his start by supporting Apartheid in South Africa, and reaping profits from that regime's diamond industry. Today his support is directed at Israeli apartheid where the profits are no less handsome. His construction companies build settlements that steal water and key agricultural areas from Palestinians, carve up Palestinian areas of the West Bank into isolated enclaves, and cut off Jerusalem from the West Bank. His most recent settlement construction projects - Mattityahu East in Modi’in Illit, Zufim, Maale Adumim and Har Homa - are central to Israel’s efforts to seize control of and annex strategic areas of the West Bank.

The people of Jayyous, the Palestinian town on whose lands the Zufim settlement is built, have addressed the world calling for a boycott of Lev Leviev because his settlement activities on the properties annexed by Israel's Apartheid Wall destroy their land and livelihoods. As one Jayyous farmer has put it: “85% of our people were farmers working in their fields or tending cattle. Today only 45 out of 3800 people can reach their lands and provide for the livelihoods of their families. Out of the 8,050 people from Jayyous, 3,250 already live abroad. Those of us who have stayed must struggle daily to defend our lands and rights.”

Adalah-NY, the Coalition for Justice in the Middle East in cooperation with the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Campaign National Committee (BNC), a wide coalition of the largest Palestinian mass organizations, trade unions, networks and organizations, has been campaigning against Lev Leviev’s companies for their building of Israeli settlements in the West Bank in violation of international law, as well as his abuses of workers and communities from Angola to New York City. The BNC is the body set up by Palestinian civil society to coordinate the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign launched in July 2005 with the initial endorsement of over 170 Palestinian organizations. One fruit of the campaign initiated by Adalah-NY has been UNICEF’s announcement on June 20th it would no longer accept donations from Leviev, which followed a similar decision by Oxfam International.

Angola:

In Angola, New York Magazine reported in 2007 that “A security company contracted by Leviev was accused this year by a local human-rights monitor of participating in practices of ‘humiliation, whipping, torture, sexual abuse, and, in some cases, assassinations.’”


New York:

At the Apthorp building in Manhattan, 50% owned by Leviev's company Africa-Israel, 88 tenants protected by rent-regulation laws are threatened with losing their apartments as Leviev and the smaller shareholders convert it into an expensive condominium building.

Adalah-NY, the BNC and COSATU urge unions, supporters of human rights for Palestinians, and all other social justice groups to send messages of protest to LLD management, demanding that the strikers not be fired and that their demands be met (addresses and phone numbers to send messages to are below).

Send messages of support for the strikers at LLD Polishing Company in Namibia to:
K. Kapwanga, Managing Director, LLD
Tel.: +26 461 386 150
Fax: +26461 249 253
Cell: +264811 247 249

Send copies of your messages to:
Mineworkers Union of Namibia at mun [at] mweb.com.na
and to Adalah-NY at: info [at] adalahny.org
For more information, contact Adalah-NY at: info [at] adalahny.org

The letter also includes separate statements from the Namibian workers, COSATU, and says more about who's supporting the Namibian workers in Palestine.

For some interesting background material on Leviev in Namibia, see this July 23, 2004 oped by Alexactus T. Kaure in The Namibian, "How Namibia Supports Israel's Palestine Occupation."