Susan Sarandon's Double Standards

Susan Sarandon has expressed surprising unwillingness to denounce her support for the Israeli Billionaire, Lev Leviev, who has been criticized by a variety of NGOs for his involvement in building settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.
In 2004, the ICJ declared both current Israeli settlements and the wall Israel is building inside the West Bank to facilitate future settlements inside the West Bank to be illegal under international law.

UNICEF has recently rejected all offers of partnerships and financial support from him. Lev Leviev had previously sponsored UNICEF fundraising events in France, and his support of UNICEF is featured in several places on his company's website.

But it seems that Susan Sarandon, a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador, has decided not to follow UNICEF's lead and cut all ties with Leviev. As recently as Nov. 13th, 2007, Sarandon appeared as a guest at Leviev's New York jewelry store gala.

Last week while working on a story, I send an email to her spokesman. He responded:

"She is not a spokesperson for any jewelry company nor is she an expert on this matter. She has read information from various sources about both sides of the issue. Beyond this Ms. Sarandon does not feel qualified to make any further comment."

I've always admired Ms. Sarandon's good will and aspirations, but I was amazed by her response to this particular situation and especially her use of the phrase "reading information from both sides." Christopher de Bono, UNICEF's chief of media, told me that, "UNICEF's decision was made after they undertook an internal screening process [and] concluded that donations from him would not be appropriate, because of the nature of some of his business activities."

But was Ms. Sarandon an expert on Iraq, WMD, etc? How about when she spoke out against the U.S. war on Iraq? The fact is one doesn't need to be an expert on agriculture or food to talk about the taste of egg or tomato. Regarding the international law, Israeli settlements on Palestinian land are morally wrong. Any participation and involvement in the creation of such settlements violates international law and presents an obstacle to peace.

Opposing Israeli settlements is one of the clearest morally "correct" positions to take on an Israel-Palestine issue. Many Israelis and even Zionists agree that it is wrong. Secretary of State Condi Rice regularly has warned the Israelis against settlements expansion. Leviev's companies are among those responsible for expanding the settlements.

"Our position on settlements, I think, has been very consistent, very clear. The secretary expressed it not too long ago. He said settlement activity has severely undermined Palestinian trust and hope, preempts and prejudges the outcome of negotiations, and in doing so, cripples chances for real peace and prosperity. The U.S. has long opposed settlement activity and, consistent with the report of the Mitchell Committee, settlement activity must stop." Mr. Richard Boucher, U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing -- November 25, 2002

In denouncing settlements and those who build them, Sarandon does not need expertise to follow the lead of UNICEF, Oxfam International, the UN, all leading human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, B'Tselem (Israeli) and almost all governments worldwide. If she is concerned about her expertise, she or her assistants can get on the phone and talk to any of those organizations.

Sarandon appears to be employing a double standard with respect to human rights in Palestine. She may be doing this due to personal beliefs or out of fear that publicly defending Palestinian rights will hurt her standing to speak out on issues in Iraq. Or, perhaps she might even fear that supporting Palestinian rights and criticizing Israel could hurt her position in Hollywood. Whatever the reason is, Sarandon seems to have forgotten that beyond the names of countries and influential people there are some universal rules we all should respect, and those are international laws.

Follow Omid Memarian on Twitter: www.twitter.com/omid_m

Comments

[hanthala]

Although I respect Susan Sarandon's outspoken stance on the Iraq war and her other anti-war activities, I don't think that being an actor/actress as opposed to the average person on the street should affect your willingness to take a principled stand on justice and equal/human rights. It's clear that she was mistaken in attending Leviev's gala and having any relationship with his company and its executives at all. She needs to be aware that her presence at the event, and the ensuing photos are a real press boost for Leviev's business.

Indeed, as the author points out, denouncing settlements and their expansion, and shady individuals like Leviev, is not exactly putting yourself out there these days. Leviev and his sometimes partner Boymelgreen are sick individuals buried deep in unethical trade and practices.

Thanks to Mr. Memarian for calling Ms. Sarandon out on this one!

[hanthala]

Although I respect Susan Sarandon's outspoken stance on the Iraq war and her other anti-war activities, I don't think that being an actor/actress as opposed to the average person on the street should affect your willingness to take a principled stand on justice and equal/human rights. It's clear that she was mistaken in attending Leviev's gala and having any relationship with his company and its executives at all. She needs to be aware that her presence at the event, and the ensuing photos are a real press boost for Leviev's business.

Indeed, as the author points out, denouncing settlements and their expansion, and shady individuals like Leviev, is not exactly putting yourself out there these days. Leviev and his sometimes partner Boymelgreen are sick individuals buried deep in unethical trade and practices.

Thanks to Mr. Memarian for calling Ms. Sarandon out on this one!

[additup]

The evidence of Leviev’s involvement in settlement building has been steadily increasing as has the campaign against him. Just this weekend there was a widely published article discussing his company’s involvement with a Canadian firm being sued in Canada for war crimes in connection to settlement building. ( http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gI4bs7B0MHqgPfid-oBEP4Moeujw )

Sarandon’s outright obstinacy and the disingenuous statement of her aid have to make one wonder about her commitment to human rights and justice. It is past time for people of her ilk to start to treat this issue the same as other issues of injustice and human rights.

[velvetlenin]

What two sides does she see? On one side of the wall is a settlement built on land stolen (sorry "appropriated") from Palestinian farmers. On the other side are the farmers who stand to lose their land there too.

Do you know that under Israeli law and judicial theory all of the settlements and all of the wall are "temporary"-- that is the only legal justification for building on Palestinian land, in the Israeli judicial system. Even the Israelis understand that sooner or later it will all have to come down.

[jubilationt]

The New York Times has run more than a dozen ads for Leviev's jewelry shop on its op-ed page, and an article in its magazine described him as a "political moderate." If the great liberal newspaper of record can get away with such a whitewash of a right-wing settlement builder, it's not so surprising that liberal avatar Sarandon sees nothing wrong with Leviev.

[Gemma08]

The settlements are the kernel of the huge problematic mess that is the Israel/Palestine problem. That someone so socially and politically aware as Susan Sarandon (whom I heretofore admired) cannot make a moral judgment on this issue is a real disappointment.

[AdamWykle]

The settlements are choking the Palestinians and wiping more of their aspirations of a state away.

http://reliefweb.int/rw/RWFiles2008.nsf/FilesByRWDocUnidFilename/KKAA-7GE73B-full_report.pdf/$File/full_report.pdf

[Patnyc]

What could Sarandon be thinking? Israeli settlements are one of the only issues on Palestine and Israel on which much of the sane world agrees. Every credible human rights group in the world, and all real experts on international law agree that Israeli settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territory violate international law. Virtually everyone worldwide agrees that Israeli settlements are an obstacle to peace. The dissent on this worldwide is only from a very small right-wing minority and a portion of the Israeli population.

What, one must wonder, are the "both sides of the issue" that Ms. Sarandon's spokesperson is referring to? Is one side that stealing the farmland from Palestinian villages in the West Bank, impoverishing them and building homes for Jews only on their land is a good thing? That "Judea and Samaria" (ie, the West Bank) should always remain part of "Eretz Israel" (ie, Greater Israel)? That the indigenous Palestinian people who live between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River actually have no right to remain on their land, and no rights at all, that only Jews have rights?

It is shameful that Ms. Sarandon has been unwilling to make a choice between the "two sides" - human rights, international law and morality, and the right wing fringe.

Is her unwillingness to follow UNICEF's lead and distance herself from an Israeli settlement-builder a result of cowardice, fear of the right-wing "pro-Israel" lobby, or cold political calculation?

[mirene]

To be or not to be for international law and human rights, is that an option? Susan Sarandon seems to think so as she refuses to sever her relation with Lev Leviev , whose companies are building settlements on Palestinian lands, in violation of international law.

Ms Sarandon has condemned the war against Iraq and the subsequent occupation of the country . We respect her for speaking out. Is it too much to ask her to condemn the fourty year occupation of Palestine which Leviev is helping to consolidate? When UNICEF has severed its relation to Leviev, after checking the situation on the ground, after internal deliberation, is it too much to ask Susan Sarandon, the Goodwill Ambassador , to follow suit?