Omid Memarian

Saturday, July 19, 2008

Susan Sarandon's Double Standards
(First published on Hiffington Post)

Susan Sarandon has expressed surprising unwillingness to denounce her support for the Israeli Billionaire, Lev Leviv, who is has been criticized by a variety of NGOs for his involvement in building settlements in the Palestinian-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 publically 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.

2 Comments:

At 5:43 AM , Blogger Fariborz Shamshiri said...

Islamic Iran is making excessive use of the death penalty to spread fear among people mostly dissidents and activists. Although Iranian officials insist death penalty is an effective deterrent but in fact experience in past 29 years proved that death penalty is not an effective way to prevent crimes.

Also Iran officials claim that death penalty is carried out only after an exhaustive judicial process which doesn't have any meaning while suspect doesn't go through a fair trial. Police force in Iran torture suspects to confess to crime whether they have done it or not and their confession under torture is a main argument that judges take into consideration to sentence suspects to death. Sadly most of judges are illiterate and they don't have any knowledge about law but sharia. They do careless about suspect rights from the beginning of trial to the end.

Under above circumstances all of these sentences are against international laws and Iran is in violation of them. (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)

We urge Islamic Republic of Iran's officials bring an immediate end to these executions.

Please support above cause to Stop Execution in Iran and spread the message in your network. Thanks.

http://stop.torturing.us/2008/07/stop-executions.html

 
At 3:34 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Sir

I am Sadia Ahsanuddin, a researcher at Harvard University in the United States of America. I was wondering if I could contact you for a survey please? Your identity will not be revealed.

If you are able and are interested, please contact me at ahsanudd@gmail.com.

Thank you
Sadia Ahsanuddin

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home