The Little Bit of Neanderthal in All of Us. By Carl Zimmer.

A reconstruction of a Neanderthal skeleton, right, with a modern human skeleton in the background. Frank Franklin II/Associated Press.

The Little Bit of Neanderthal in All of Us. By Carl Zimmer. New York Times, January 29, 2014.

Toe Fossil Provides Complete Neanderthal Genome. By Carl Zimmer. NJBR, December 20, 2013. With related articles.

The genomic landscape of Neanderthal ancestry in present-day humans. By Siriram Sankararaman et al. Nature, published online January 29, 2014.

Abstract:

Genomic studies have shown that Neanderthals interbred with modern humans, and that non-Africans today are the products of this mixture. The antiquity of Neanderthal gene flow into modern humans means that genomic regions that derive from Neanderthals in any one human today are usually less than a hundred kilobases in size. However, Neanderthal haplotypes are also distinctive enough that several studies have been able to detect Neanderthal ancestry at specific loci. We systematically infer Neanderthal haplotypes in the genomes of 1,004 present-day humans. Regions that harbour a high frequency of Neanderthal alleles are enriched for genes affecting keratin filaments, suggesting that Neanderthal alleles may have helped modern humans to adapt to non-African environments. We identify multiple Neanderthal-derived alleles that confer risk for disease, suggesting that Neanderthal alleles continue to shape human biology. An unexpected finding is that regions with reduced Neanderthal ancestry are enriched in genes, implying selection to remove genetic material derived from Neanderthals. Genes that are more highly expressed in testes than in any other tissue are especially reduced in Neanderthal ancestry, and there is an approximately fivefold reduction of Neanderthal ancestry on the X chromosome, which is known from studies of diverse species to be especially dense in male hybrid sterility genes. These results suggest that part of the explanation for genomic regions of reduced Neanderthal ancestry is Neanderthal alleles that caused decreased fertility in males when moved to a modern human genetic background.


The Date of Interbreeding between Neandertals and Modern Humans. By Siriram Sankararaman et al. PLOS Genetics, October 4, 2012. Also here.

Abstract:

Comparisons of DNA sequences between Neandertals and present-day humans have shown that Neandertals share more genetic variants with non-Africans than with Africans. This could be due to interbreeding between Neandertals and modern humans when the two groups met subsequent to the emergence of modern humans outside Africa. However, it could also be due to population structure that antedates the origin of Neandertal ancestors in Africa. We measure the extent of linkage disequilibrium (LD) in the genomes of present-day Europeans and find that the last gene flow from Neandertals (or their relatives) into Europeans likely occurred 37,000–86,000 years before the present (BP), and most likely 47,000–65,000 years ago. This supports the recent interbreeding hypothesis and suggests that interbreeding may have occurred when modern humans carrying Upper Paleolithic technologies encountered Neandertals as they expanded out of Africa.


Resurrecting Surviving Neandertal Lineages from Modern Human Genomes. By Benjamin Vernot and Joshua M. Akey. Science, published online January 29, 2014.

Abstract:

Anatomically modern humans overlapped and mated with Neandertals such that non-African humans inherit ~1-3% of their genomes from Neandertal ancestors. We identified Neandertal lineages that persist in the DNA of modern humans, in whole-genome sequences from 379 European and 286 East Asian individuals, recovering over 15 Gb of introgressed sequence that spans ~20% of the Neandertal genome (FDR = 5%). Analyses of surviving archaic lineages suggests that there were fitness costs to hybridization, admixture occurred both before and subsequent to divergence of non-African modern humans, and Neandertals were a source of adaptive variation for loci involved in skin phenotypes. Our results provide a new avenue for paleogenomics studies, allowing substantial amounts of population-level DNA sequence information to be obtained from extinct groups even in the absence of fossilized remains.


Zimmer:

Ever since the discovery in 2010 that Neanderthals interbred with the ancestors of living humans, scientists have been trying to determine how their DNA affects people today. Now two new studies have traced the history of Neanderthal DNA, and have pinpointed a number of genes that may have medical importance today.

 

Among the findings, the studies have found clues to the evolution of skin and fertility, as well as susceptibility to diseases like diabetes. More broadly, they show how the legacy of Neanderthals has endured 30,000 years after their extinction.

 

“It’s something that everyone wanted to know,” said Laurent Excoffier, a geneticist at the University of Bern in Switzerland who was not involved in the research.

 

Neanderthals, who became extinct about 30,000 years ago, were among the closest relatives of modern humans. They shared a common ancestor with us that lived about 600,000 years ago.

 

In the 1990s, researchers began finding fragments of Neanderthal DNA in fossils. By 2010 they had reconstructed most of the Neanderthal genome. When they compared it with the genomes of five living humans, they found similarities to small portions of the DNA in the Europeans and Asians.

 

The researchers concluded that Neanderthals and modern humans must have interbred. Modern humans evolved in Africa and then expanded out into Asia and Europe, where Neanderthals lived. In a 2012 study, the researchers estimated that this interbreeding took place between 37,000 and 85,000 years ago.

 

Sir Paul A. Mellars, an archaeologist at the University of Cambridge and the University of Edinburgh, who was not involved in the research, said the archaeological evidence suggested the opportunity for modern humans to mate with Neanderthals would have been common once they expanded out of Africa. “They’d be bumping into Neanderthals at every street corner,” he joked.

 

The first draft of the Neanderthal genome was too rough to allow scientists to draw further conclusions. But recently, researchers sequenced a far more accurate genome from a Neanderthal toe bone.

 

Scientists at Harvard Medical School and the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany compared this high-quality Neanderthal genome to the genomes of 1,004 living people. They were able to identify specific segments of Neanderthal DNA from each person’s genome.

 

“It’s a personal map of Neanderthal ancestry,” said David Reich of Harvard Medical School, who led the research team. He and his colleagues published their results in the journal Nature.

 

Living humans do not have a lot of Neanderthal DNA, Dr. Reich and his colleagues found, but some Neanderthal genes have become very common. That’s because, with natural selection, useful genes survive as species evolve. “What this proves is that these genes were helpful for non-Africans in adapting to the environment,” Dr. Reich said.

 

In a separate study published in Science, Benjamin Vernot and Joshua M. Akey of the University of Washington came to a similar conclusion, using a different method.

 

Mr. Vernot and Dr. Akey looked for unusual mutations in the genomes of 379 Europeans and 286 Asians. The segments of DNA that contained these mutations turned out to be from Neanderthals.

 

Both studies suggest that Neanderthal genes involved in skin and hair were favored by natural selection in humans. Today, they are very common in living non-Africans.

 

The fact that two independent studies pinpointed these genes lends support to their importance, said Sriram Sankararaman of Harvard Medical School, a co-author on the Nature paper. “The two methods seem to be converging on the same results.”

 

It is possible, Dr. Akey speculated, that the genes developed to help Neanderthal skin adapt to the cold climate of Europe and Asia.

 

But Dr. Akey pointed out that skin performs other important jobs, like shielding us from pathogens. “We don’t understand enough about the biology of those particular genes yet,” he said. “It makes it hard to pinpoint a reason why they’re beneficial.”

 

Both teams of scientists also found long stretches of the living human genomes where Neanderthal DNA was glaringly absent. This pattern could be produced if modern humans with certain Neanderthal genes could not have as many children on average as people without them. For example, living humans have very few genes from Neanderthals involved in making sperm. That suggests that male human-Neanderthal hybrids might have had lower fertility or were even sterile.

 

Overall, said Dr. Reich, “most of the Neanderthal genetic material was more bad than good.”

 

Some of the Neanderthal genes that have endured until today may be influencing people’s health. Dr. Reich and his colleagues identified nine Neanderthal genes in living humans that are known to raise or reduce the risk of various diseases, including diabetes and lupus.

 

To better understand the legacy of Neanderthals, Dr. Reich and his colleagues are collaborating with the UK Biobank, which collects genetic information from hundreds of thousands of volunteers. The scientists will search for Neanderthal genetic markers, and investigate whether Neanderthal genes cause any noticeable differences in anything from weight to blood pressure to scores on memory tests.

 

“This experiment of nature has been done,” said Dr. Reich, “and we can study it.”

300,000-Year-Old Caveman “Campfire” Found in Israel. By Megan Gannon.

300,000-Year-Old Caveman “Campfire” Found in Israel. By Megan Gannon. LiveScience, January 27, 2014.

Evidence for the repeated use of acentral hearth at Middle Pleistocene (300 ky ago) Qesem Cave, Israel. By R. Shahack-Gross, F. Berna, P. Karkanas, C. Lemorini, A. Gopher, R. Barkai. Journal of Archaeological Science, In Press, Accepted Manuscript (January 25, 2014).

Ancient Roman Infanticide Didn't Spare Either Sex. By Stephanie Pappas.

One infant’s skeleton found at the Hambleden site. An analysis of remains from 35 infants revealed they were most likely killed at birth. English Heritage.

Ancient Roman Infanticide Didn’t Spare Either Sex. By Stephanie Pappas. LiveScience, January 24, 2014. Also at Discovery News.

Ancient DNA study of the remains of putative infanticide victims from the Yewden Roman villa site at Hambleden, England. By Naglaa Abu-Mandil Hassana, Keri A. Brown, Jill Eyers, Terence A. Brown, and Simon Mays. Journal of Archaeological Science, Vol. 43 (March 2014).

Abstract:

Previous analysis of the perinatal infant burials from Romano-British Yewden villa, Hambleden, indicated the practice of infanticide at that site. We attempted to determine whether this practice was specifically targeted at one sex or other by determining the sex of the infants using analysis of fragments of the amelogenin gene. We also analysed mtDNA in order to shed light on aspects of kinship. Thirty-three infants were analysed, and sex was successfully identified in 12. Seven were female, five male. No two infants shared identical mtDNA polymorphisms, indicating that all came from different mothers. Taken together with previous DNA results from perinatal remains from Romano-British sites where infanticide has been identified, they provide no evidence that manipulation of the sex ratio was a motivation for infanticide in Roman Britain.


Pappas:

A new look at a cache of baby bones discovered in Britain is altering assumptions about why ancient Romans committed infanticide.

 

Infant girls were apparently not killed more often than baby boys, researchers report in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Archaeological Science.

 

“Very often, societies have preferred male offspring, so when they practice infanticide, it tends to be the male babies that are kept, and the female babies that are killed,” said study researcher Simon Mays, a skeletal biologist for English Heritage, a non-governmental organization that protects historic sites.

 

Though ancient Romans indeed preferred boys, there is no evidence they went as far as infanticide to skew the sex ratio, Mays told LiveScience.

 

Tiny skeletons

 

Mays and his colleagues used a technique called ancient DNA analysis to study infant bones found at a site called Yewden Villa, near Hambleden, in England. Although the site was first excavated in 1912, and found to hold the remains of infants dating back about 1,800 years, the infant bones were since thought to have been lost, Mays said.

 

But recently, nearly a century after the initial excavation, archaeologist Jill Eyers, director of Chiltern Archaeology in England, found the bones tucked away in tiny boxes in the site archive.

 

In 2011, Mays and Eyers published a study of the bones suggesting the babies were victims of infanticide, based on the fact that measurements of the long bones of the arms and legs suggested that all of the babies died at the same age, right at the time of birth.

 

If the deaths had been natural, Mays said, you’d expect to see some premature babies, some who died around the time of birth, and others who died in the weeks after birth.

 

Because of the high number of skeletons, the researchers speculated the site contained a brothel, and the babies were those of prostitutes. But that idea was always “a long shot,” Mays said.

 

In the new study, the researchers delved into why these babies were killed. Ancient Roman texts refer to infanticide as an accepted practice, and the only way people could control the size of their families in a time before reliable contraception. (In fact, Rome’s foundation myth involves twin boys, Romulus and Remus, who are left to die by their mother, but are saved by wild animals.)

 

The texts refer to infanticide in Rome itself, however, which had a different culture than its far-flung territories, such as those in Britain, Mays said.

 

And although the Roman preference for boys would suggest that Romans practiced sex-selective infanticide, Mays said, there is only one document to back up that assumption — a letter from one Roman soldier stationed in England to his pregnant wife, telling her not to bother keeping the baby if it’s a girl when it's born.

 

DNA testing

 

It’s impossible to tell the sex of a baby by looking at the shape of the bones. Sex differences only emerge after puberty, Mays said. So the researchers turned to a newer tool: ancient DNA analysis. They tested 33 of the 35 most complete remains, but because DNA does not preserve well in old bones, the researchers were able to tease out sequences for only 12 of the 33.

 

Of those, seven were female and five were male, a relatively even sex ratio, Mays said.

 

What’s more, none of the babies shared a mother, a strike against the brothel hypothesis. If the babies were the offspring of prostitutes, Mays said, the women would likely have been pregnant again and again.

 

The 12 babies studied in the new paper bring the total number of ancient Roman babies thought to be victims of infanticide who have undergone DNA testing to 25. Overall, there is no evidence that baby girls were killed more often.

 

“It seems as though they weren’t using infanticide to manipulate the sex ratio,” Mays said.

 

“Now that we can use DNA to tell whether the babies were male or female, we’re starting to revise the commonly held assumptions about infanticide in the Roman world,” said Kristina Killgrove, a bioarchaeologist at the University of West Florida, who was not involved in the research.

 

As horrifying as the killing of newborns seems to modern people, in ancient Rome, babies weren’t considered fully human upon birth, Mays said. Instead, they gained humanity over time, first with their naming a few days after birth, and later when they cut teeth and could eat solid food.

 

I Look Down On Young Women With Husbands And Kids And I’m Not Sorry. By Amy Glass.

I Look Down on Young Women With Husbands and Kids And I’m Not Sorry. By Amy Glass. Thought Catalog, January 15, 2014.

I Look Down on Amy Glass and I’m Not Sorry. By LaComtesse. Jezebel, January 27, 2014.

Unknown Feminist Blogger Amy Glass Amazingly Trolls Entire World with Anti-Mom Screed. By Tommy Christopher. Mediaite, January 28, 2014.

Growth and Globalisation Cannot Cure All the World’s Ills. By Gideon Rachman.

Growth and globalisation cannot cure all the world’s ills. By Gideon Rachman. The Financial Times, January 27, 2014.

Rachman:

In Europe and North America it is the threat of political and social tensions within nations, rather than international rivalries, that are worrying the global plutocracy. A central element of the Davos creed is the faith that globalisation is good for both the western world and for emerging powers.

 

However, it is now almost conventional wisdom that the globalisation medicine has had an unpleasant side-effect. Even if it raises overall growth levels it has also powerfully contributed to wage stagnation and increasing inequality in the west. As a result, European politicians are worrying about a possible resurgence of the nationalist right and the radical left. And the Americans are increasingly worried about the gap between the richest 1 per cent and the rest – and the political consequences should the gulf keep widening.

 

It is easy to mock the global plutocracy – fretting about war and inequality – as they sip fine wines, behind a security perimeter high in the Swiss mountains. Yet global bankers and business people are, at least, largely immune to the viruses of xenophobia and nationalism. Their unofficial slogan is “make money, not war”. And they treat foreigners as potential customers rather than potential enemies.

 

In that sense, the idea that capitalism and globalisation are the best antidotes to political conflict – for all its flaws – retains a lot of attraction. Even if the old economic treatments for political conflict are losing some of their potency, they are still the best we have.

Is Zionism Never Having to Say You’re Sorry? By Akin Ajayi.

Is Zionism never having to say you’re sorry? By Akin Ajayi. Haaretz, January 28, 2014. Review of My Promised Land. By Ari Shavit.

The Sick Middle East. By Daniel Pipes.

The Sick Middle East. By Daniel Pipes. DanielPipes.org, January 24, 2014. Also at the Washington Times.

Anti-Semitism Is an International Threat Once Again. By Brendan Simms.

Anti-Semitism is an international threat once again. By Brendan Simms. London Evening Standard, January 27, 2014.

Israel or Palestine: Who Will Take In the Settlers? By Sara Hirschhorn.

Israel or Palestine: Who will take in the settlers? By Sara Hirschhorn. Haaretz, January 27, 2014. Also here.

Israeli settlers remaining in a Palestinian state? Sensible indeed. By Zvi Bar’el. Haaretz, January 28, 2014.


Hirschhorn:

Ariel Sharon is likely rolling over in his grave this week with the latest developments in the peace process. Even with his well-founded reputation as a man of great appetites, Sharon’s gluttony for Greater Israel has been surpassed by his political successors since his incapacitation eight years ago. Today, with its newly insatiable appetite for annexation, koshering illegal outposts, and adding new settlement blocs to the national consensus, Israel’s leadership seems devoted to polishing off the Palestinian state altogether. Could Ariel Sharon himself have stomached Israel’s new settlement policy?

 

On Friday, Benjamin Netanyahu announced his proposal for a new settlement bloc in the vicinity of Beit El, a fourth to join the three blocs in the area of Ariel, Maale Adumim, and Gush Etzion that have been on the table since the Oslo Process, comprising approximately 13% of the West Bank in total. While the PM has yet to reveal his secrets, presumably this bloc might contain some of the original settlements Sharon helped bring into existence – including Ofra, Beit El, and Shilo, as well as some of the more entrenched ideological settlements between Ramallah and Nablus including Kfar Tapuach, Maale Levona, and Eli.

 

For swallowing another chunk of settlements, the Prime Minister gets a 2 for 1 deal:

 

First, in proposing a Beit El bloc, Bibi has spiked the punch in the struggle to have Israel recognized as a Jewish State. Having schooled Secretary of State John Kerry on the supposed scriptural significance of Shilo (the resting place of the Israelite sanctuary, or mishkan) and Beit El (the site of Jacob’s ladder dream), he seamlessly integrated ingredients of Zionist and Jewish history while simultaneously erasing the Green Line. As Netanyahu expressed in a recent cabinet meeting, he seems to be hoping that a Beit El bloc could also help the United States (and the Palestinians) overcome their “mental block” about Israel’s right to exist in the whole of the land of Israel.

 

Secondly, beyond the biblical claims, it seems that Bibi hid another surprise – hinting at the impossibility of evacuating some of the most ideological settlers and the realistic alternative that either Israel or Palestine must digest them as part of any peace deal. Speaking at Davos last week, he announced that he would not “uproot a single Israeli” from the Jordan Valley either. In fact, Netanyahu offered various scenarios that would allow settlers to remain under a Palestinian state, including long term land leases in the West Bank (turning Hebron into some kind of Hong Kong?) or land swaps within territorial Israel. It didn't take long for Naftali Bennett, his economy minister, to accuse him of “ethical befuddlement” in even airing the idea that settlers might choose to stay in their homes under Palestinian sovereignty: “Two thousand years of longing for the Land of Israel did not pass so we could live under the rule of [Palestinian Authority President  Mahmoud Abbas].”

 

While it’s rare that I agree with Benjamin Netanyahu on most Israeli policies, there is a case to be made that this scenario is not only in the interest of Israeli democracy, but should be incumbent on a future State of Palestine. Certainly, the international community should not accept Palestinian sovereignty that justifies being judenrein (like many other Arab/Muslim states), as Palestine, like Israel, should also be ideologically predicated on becoming a multi-ethnic democracy in the Middle East.

 

Responding to these ideas, the PLO Executive Committee’s Hanan Ashrawi said on Monday that she affirmed the premise of some Jewish settlers living under a future Palestinian state, but only they be treated as individuals, each of whom must apply for Palestinian citizenship (and forfeit their Israeli citizenship) and would be forbidden to live in “ex-territorial enclaves.” While both Netanyahu and Ashrawi seemingly agree on the premise of a forced population transfer of Israeli settler-citizens, her idea is of a group that can no longer live as intact community and must be neutered of its national ambitions (or at least sympathies) – essentially ideologically dismantling the settlements while leaving them physically intact. Certainly, these are terms that Israel does not demand of Israeli Arabs and the international community should not accept less of a Palestinian ethnocracy than it demands of Israel.

 

Moreover, this equivalency is important because Ashrawi seemingly speaks to a larger issue far beyond the West Bank. If the Palestinian movement fundamentally does not accept a Zionist entity (which is how Bibi must recast his demand for a recognition of “Jewish State” for it to have any meaning) – believing that the difference between the settlement of Ofra and Tel Aviv is just a matter of semantics – then the issue of West Bank settlers living under a Palestinian state really only becomes a proxy for the Palestinian vision of a one-state solution where Jews can only live in “settlements” as a religious ethnic minority with no political rights. (Essentially, modern-day version of the dhimmi status of Jews in Muslim lands in the medieval period.) This arrangement would end the occupation by giving Israeli settlers fewer rights than Palestinians today and sets a troubling precedent for the future, calling into question whether settlements are really the obstacle to peace at all.

 

Yet, the Prime Minister’s grandiose ideas for a Greater Israel have been outflanked recently by those in his own cabinet. Bennett and the ultra-nationalist movement’s continued agitation for annexation officially moved into the Israeli mainstream last week when former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren opined in his own obituary for Sharon that in the absence of a negotiated peace agreement, “one solution could be a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian population centers.” (Perhaps he had other ideas in mind, but with his implication that that the IDF would remain in the settlements, calling this anything short of annexation seems to be mostly a matter of taste — although for Palestinians, a fourth settlement bloc might still be a better deal than a state on less than 40% of the West Bank.)

 

Meanwhile, Avigdor Lieberman has stirred the pot again with ideas of transferring Wadi Ara Israeli-Arabs to the West Bank, fare that was immediately rejected as “delusional” by those in the Triangle. The Palestinians, for their part, have few appealing options left should the Kerry talks fail – one can only hope for a revived UN bid or other forms of non-violent resistance, rather than the outbreak of a third intifada.

 

Would Ariel Sharon be getting his just desserts? In an interview with Haaretz’s Ari Shavit in 2003, Sharon surmised, “if it turns out that there is someone to talk to, we will have to take steps that are painful to every Jew and painful to me personally. Look, this is the cradle of the birth of the Jewish people. All of our history is connected to those places: Bethlehem, Shiloh, Beit El. And I know that we will have to separate from some of those places.” As documents from the Wikileaks cache reveal, in 2004, Sharon may have intended to go further, taking far-reaching steps in the West Bank and Jerusalem and annexing the major settlement blocs, implying he would concede other parts of the West Bank and would consider handing over some Arab neighborhoods, although “not the Temple Mount, Mount of Olives or the City of David.”

 

Yet, by 2005, Sharon had seemingly rejected either Israeli disengagement or annexation as a preferred solution, falling back on a negotiated solution of land-for-peace, averring that any other option “would be a mistake . . . there will not be another unilateral move.” Nonetheless, subsequent Israeli leaders have mobilized Sharon to justify whatever policies they have seen fit, regardless of whether Sharon himself would have considered them before he fell into a coma. If even the great patron of the settlements could not swallow these ideas, one wonders how history will judge Israel’s hunger for the settlements in decades to come.

Why Can’t Jews Stay in a Palestinian State? By Jonathan S. Tobin.

Why Can’t Jews Stay in a Palestinian State? By Jonathan S. Tobin. Commentary, January 27, 2014.

Naftali Bennett: Jews living under PA rule would be killed. By Herb Keinon. Jerusalem Post, January 28, 2014.

Bennett’s ignorant and dangerous distortion of Jewish history. By David Landau. Haaretz, January 28, 2014.

Naftali Bennett: Netanyahu’s Annoying Alter Ego. By Tom Wilson. Commentary, January 29, 2014.


Tobin:

For 20 years Israeli governments of both the left and the right have agreed on one thing: Jews and Jewish settlements could not be left behind in any territory handed over to the Palestinians. But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has indicated that he is willing to change that policy and that seems to have upset almost as many Israelis as Palestinians. Netanyahu stated that even in the event of a peace agreement he had no intention of repeating the precedent established by Ariel Sharon in Gaza in which every single settlement, soldier, and individual Jew was uprooted. According to Netanyahu, if there is a peace treaty, there’s no reason that Jewish communities could not remain in part of the Palestinian state along with the Palestinian inhabitants, if they were willing to do so.

 

It was not surprising that the Palestinians would immediately and angrily reject the suggestion that Jews could live in their putative new state. Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas had already denounced the idea, but lest anyone be in doubt about the Palestinian position, PA negotiator Saeb Erekat sought to clarify the official view:

Anyone who says he wants to keep settlers in the Palestinian state is actually saying that he doesn’t want a Palestinian state. No settler will be allowed to stay in the Palestinian state, not even a single one, because settlements are illegal and the presence of the settlers on the occupied lands is illegal.

It was interesting to note that both right-wing and left-wing critics of Netanyahu as well as members of his own Cabinet were almost as angry as the Palestinians. The right is appalled at Netanyahu’s tacit willingness to accept a Palestinian state, and the left thinks the prime minister was just playing a cynical tactical game designed solely to embarrass the Palestinians. The concerns of both factions may well be justified. Netanyahu, however, was right to raise the issue and to provoke a debate about the nature of the Palestinian state that is, after all, one of the goals of the current peace talks. Regardless of his  motives, this is a topic that must be addressed if the negotiations are truly aimed at ending the conflict.

 

The reason that Israeli governments have always agreed with the Palestinians about the need to evacuate any Israelis living in what might become a Palestinian state is no secret. It’s not just that the Palestinians don’t want Jews in their state and the fact that the settlers don’t want there to be a Palestinian state. It’s that any Israelis who chose to remain in their homes wouldn’t last any longer than the greenhouses that wealthy Americans purchased from Gaza settlers who were uprooted from their homes in 2005. Within hours of the Israeli army pullout, every one of these valuable facilities that could have been used to help revive the strip’s moribund economy was burned to the ground. The same fate awaited every other building left by the Jews, including every synagogue.

 

Without the protection of the Israel Defense Forces, Jews in Arab territory haven’t a chance. That’s a basic fact of life in the country that predates Israel’s birth. Without self-defense forces, Jewish settlers in those lands inside the pre-June 1967 borders were exposed to relentless harassment, terrorism, and even pogroms. And there is no reason to believe the situation would be any different in a future West Bank state where the Palestinian population has been educated for decades to believe Jews have no right to live in any part of the country.

 

But, as Netanyahu rightly pointed out, a peace treaty that would actually end the conflict rather than merely pause it until the Palestinians felt strong enough to resume hostilities must entail an acceptance on both sides of the legitimacy of the rights of the other side. Just as Arabs are equal before the law in the State of Israel, have the right to vote, and serve in its Knesset, a democratic and peaceful Palestinian state must not exclude the possibility of allowing a Jewish minority within its borders. If that is something that the PA is unable to countenance, it proves once again that it isn’t interested in peace. A state where Jews are, as Erekat says, “illegal” is one that is committed to a permanent state of war against Israel.

 

Israeli right-wingers are angry at Netanyahu’s acceptance in principle of a Palestinian state. Without the threat of repeating the traumatic scenes that characterized the Gaza withdrawal, a division of the West Bank would, at least in theory, be more likely.

 

Yet the prime minister’s suggestion also angered supporters of a two-state solution. In particular, Israeli negotiator Tzipi Livni, who as Tom Wilson wrote earlier today seems to understand that the talks have little chance of success, bitterly denounced Netanyahu’s statement as designed more to prove the Palestinians weren’t negotiating in good faith than achieving a deal.

 

Livni may well be correct about Netanyahu’s intentions. Goading the Palestinians into repeating their intolerant and anti-Semitic objections to Jews living within their borders undermines their cause. Like previous generations of negotiators, Livni seems to think peace can be achieved by ignoring the hatred on the other side. But merely drawing a line between Israel and the Palestinians and calling it a border won’t end a conflict that is rooted in the Arab and Muslim rejection of the idea of legitimacy for any Jewish state no matter how large or small it might be.

 

It has become a cliché of Middle East commentary to speak of the painful sacrifices that Israel must make if it is to have peace. That is true. But the path to peace is a two-way street. If the Palestinians want a state, it cannot be on genocidal terms that require the ethnic cleansing of Jews. Until they’re ready to live alongside Jews inside their state—and to guarantee their security—genuine peace is nowhere in sight.

Demonizing Israel; Demonizing ScarJo. By Jonathan S. Tobin.

BDS propaganda poster: “Scarlett Johansson represents Oxfam and SodaStream? Human Rights and Apartheid go hand in hand?”

Demonizing Israel; Demonizing ScarJo. By Jonathan S. Tobin. Commentary, January 27, 2014.

Will ScarJo Pay a Price for Her Principles? By Jonathan S. Tobin. Commentary, January 30, 2014.

Tobin:

The BDS campaign against SodaStream took an unexpected turn yesterday when actress Scarlett Johansson announced her resignation as a representative of Oxfam. The British-based coalition of philanthropic groups had condemned Johansson’s role as a commercial spokesperson for SodaStream, an Israeli soda machine manufacturer, because of its location in the Jerusalem suburb of Maale Adumim in the West Bank. Initially, Johansson sought to remain with both organizations, but it was soon clear that she had to choose and released the following statement through a spokesman:

“Scarlett Johansson has respectfully decided to end her ambassador role with Oxfam after eight years,” the statement said. “She and Oxfam have a fundamental difference of opinion in regards to the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement. She is very proud of her accomplishments and fundraising efforts during her tenure with Oxfam.

In response, Oxfam thanked Johansson for her service but made it clear that her decision with SodaStream meant she was no longer welcome:

While Oxfam respects the independence of our ambassadors, Ms. Johansson’s role promoting the company SodaStream is incompatible with her role as an Oxfam Global Ambassador. Oxfam believes that businesses, such as SodaStream, that operate in settlements further the ongoing poverty and denial of rights of the Palestinian communities that we work to support.

 

Oxfam is opposed to all trade from Israeli settlements, which are illegal under international law. Ms. Johansson has worked with Oxfam since 2005 and in 2007 became a Global Ambassador, helping to highlight the impact of natural disasters and raise funds to save lives and fight poverty.

This is a remarkable turn of events. For Johansson, a prominent Hollywood liberal who has campaigned for Democrats and progressive causes, Oxfam was a perfect fit because of her interest in poverty-related causes. But as one of the most visible international charities, it was also a good match for a career in that it added a touch of gravitas to an actress who might otherwise be trivialized as the only woman to be named the sexiest woman in the world by Esquire twice. One might have thought that in terms of an immediate monetary reward, Johansson would choose SodaStream over Oxfam because one pays her and the other doesn’t. But in terms of positive publicity and maintaining her status as a member in good standing of the Hollywood liberal establishment, Oxfam might have been the more sensible choice.

 

In sticking with SodaStream, Johansson will win the praise of many Americans, especially fellow Jews, but it opens a new and potentially bitter chapter in the struggle by the BDS movement against Israel. The question facing the actress as well as friends of the Jewish state is whether her decision will herald more defeats for those seeking to isolate Israel or will instead provide a new focus for a BDS movement that is gaining support in Europe even as it remains marginal in the United States.

 

It is possible that Oxfam’s decision wasn’t entirely based on the anti-Israel bias of its London-based leadership. One of the leading corporate donors to Oxfam just happens to be the Coca Cola Company that has given millions to the group. That tie between a company that can be linked to obesity and bad nutrition and a charity that promotes feeding the hungry is seen as a contradiction by some and only explained by the cash that flows from Coke to Oxfam. But the fact that SodaStream is a competitor that is already eating into Coke’s market share could account, at least in part, for Oxfam’s speed in denouncing Johansson.

 

But even if contributions from Coke had nothing to do with Oxfam’s decision, the most important conclusion to be drawn from the way this controversy developed is the ease and speed with which a theoretically apolitical charity like Oxfam publicly embraced the BDS stand even though it meant losing the services of such an effective ambassador as Johansson. The decisiveness and alacrity  with which Oxfam’s leaders condemned her ties with an Israeli company may well have come as a rude shock to Johansson after she signed on to appear in SodaStream commercials, including one scheduled for broadcast during the Super Bowl. Though she is an active supporter of many liberal causes who embraced Oxfam because of its apparent compatibility with her personal values, it may not have occurred to her that in international progressive circles such associations with Israel aren’t kosher.

 

The point here is not simply the factual inaccuracy of Oxfam’s accusations that settlements further Palestinian poverty or deny Palestinian rights. Having seen SodaStream’s operations herself, Johansson knew that charges that it exploited its Arab workers were nothing but propaganda and absurd lies. She rightly understood that its owners were committed peaceniks who genuinely believe that the cooperative and mutually profitable relations between Jews and Arabs that go on at SodaStream are exactly what the region needs. But in the world of Oxfam, opposition to West Bank settlements isn’t about what’s good for the Palestinians. The factory’s location, a few miles from Jerusalem’s city limits in territory that almost certainly would be incorporated into Israel in the event of a peace treaty, is merely an excuse to continue a campaign of delegitimization against the Jewish state. And in that struggle, there can be no exceptions or even any grey areas where people of good conscience may differ.

 

The arrogant moral certainty of Oxfam’s statement simply assumes that the presence of Jews in what is, under international law, disputed territory rather than that of a sovereign state, is repugnant. That is exactly the mindset of BDSers whose purpose is not aiding poor Palestinians but to further impoverish them by destroying businesses that provide them with income and an opportunity to better themselves that is largely denied them by the corrupt governments led by both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza.

 

But now that Johansson has rejected the leftist groupthink of Oxfam that assumes the Jewish state to be beyond the pale, it remains to be seen whether there will be a price to be paid for her principled choice. As I noted earlier this week, it is possible that in the future Johansson may become the focus of a concerted boycott by Israel-haters. Though their efforts won’t put even a minor dent in her career prospects in the United States, it is entirely possible that she will be become better known in Europe and Asia as a supporter of Israel than as a gifted A-list actress. The implications of such a development would not be trivial for film producers who increasingly rely on international markets to realize profits, nor for other companies seeking film stars to promote their products.

 

If Johansson had abandoned SodaStream it would have signaled an immediate and high-visibility victory for the BDS campaign, certainly its most important victory in the United States. But having cast her lot with defenders of the Jewish state, the actress must understand that this isn’t the end of the story. She may have thought her work for Oxfam gave her common ground with progressives in Europe and around the globe. But she may now discover that, from this day forward, they will only see her as a public figure to be rejected and shunned as a principled Jew who stands with Israel.


The Boycott-Israel Movement Targets Scarlett Johansson. By Seth Mandel. Commentary, January 24, 2014.

Scarlett Johansson’s Defense of SodaStream Factory in Occupied West Bank Fails to Sway Critics. By Robert Mackey. New York Times, January 27, 2014.

Clearing the Air. By Scarlett Johansson. The Huffington Post, January 24, 2014.

Scarlett Johansson & Soda Stream –Peace vs. Apartheid? By Rabbi Shraga Simmons. Aish.com, January 25, 2014.

Scarlett Johansson is “saving the world” in sexy Super Bowl ad for SodaStream. By Zayda Rivera. New York Daily News, January 27, 2014.

Coke and Pepsi Trigger “Ban” of Scarlett Johansson’s SodaStream Super Bowl Ad. By Aaron Taube. Business Insider, January 27, 2014.

“Internal revolt” at Oxfam over Scarlett Johansson affair, insider says. By Ali Abunimah. The Electronic Intifada, January 27, 2014.

Why the A-List Shuns BDS. By Michael Dickson. The Times of Israel, January 27, 2014.

Sex, Politics, Scarlett Johansson, and the Middle East. By Michael Curtis. American Thinker, January 27, 2014.

Scarjo and Peace. Jerusalem Post, January 28, 2014.

Scarlett Johansson: “No Guilt” About SodaStream. By Elisheva Goldberg. The Jewish Daily Forward, January 14, 2014.

The Politics of Celebrity Ambassadors. By Emily Greenhouse. The New Yorker, January 16, 2014.

Scarlett Johansson’s pro-Israel master class. By Marco Greenberg. Haaretz, January 28, 2014.

SodaStream boss admits West Bank plant is “a pain in the ass.” By Nathan Jeffay. The Jewish Daily Forward, January 28, 2014. Also at Haaretz.

Scarlett Johansson steps down as Oxfam ambassador amid SodaStream controversy. Jerusalem Post, January 30, 2014.

Scarlett Johansson’s SodaStream Super Bowl Ad Followed By Her Oxfam Resignation. By Gregory Katz. AP. The Huffington Post, January 30, 2014.

Johansson quits Oxfam over Israeli settlement trade spat. By Hazel Ward. AFP. Yahoo! News, January 30, 2014.

“Scarlett Johansson has consciously decided to be the new poster girl for Israeli occupation and apartheid,” [BDS] co-founder Omar Barghouti told AFP.

Scarlett Johansson Quits as Oxfam Ambassador as Criticism Mounts. By Greg Mitchell. The Nation, January 30, 2014.

Ali Abunimah on Scarlett Johannson. Twitter, January 29, 2014. And here.

While Scarlett Johansson’s departure from @Oxfam is welcome, she should have been fired long ago, not allowed to quit.

 

And thanks to #ScarJo, boycott, divestment and sanctions (on apartheid Israel) is now huge international story.

Scarlett Johansson not only abandons Oxfam but throws it under the bus. By Phan Nguyen. Mondoweiss, January 30, 2014.

How Scarlett Johansson got mired in one of the Middle East’s touchiest controversies. By Max Fisher. Washington Post, January 30, 2014. Also here.

Scarlett Johansson and Oxfam, Torn Apart by Israeli Company Deal. By Isabel Kershner. New York Times, January 30, 2014.

Scarlett Johansson Chooses SodaStream Over Oxfam After Dispute About West Bank Factory. By Robert Mackey. New York Times, January 30, 2014.

Palestinian workers back Scarlett Johansson’s opposition to SodaStream boycott. By Christa Case Bryant. The Christian Science Monitor, January 30, 2014.

What You Need to Know About the Scarlett Johansson and SodaStream Controversy. By Tasneem Nashrulla. BuzzFeed, January 30, 2014. With BDS propaganda pictures.

Will boycotting ScarJo end the occupation? By Khaled Diab. Haaretz, January 30, 2014.

A BDS Thought Bubble. By Jonathan Marks. Commentary, January 30, 2014.

“Pro-Palestinians” Versus Real Palestinians. By Evelyn Gordon. Commentary, January 31, 2014.

Scarlett Johansson at Her Least Diplomatic. By Lisa Beyer. Bloomberg, January 31, 2014.

Bad for the Jews: Israeli Annexation of Palestinian West Bank, Scarlett Johansson and BDS. By Juan Cole. Informed Comment, January 31, 2014.

Scarlett Johansson won’t be bullied by activists for Israeli boycott. Good for her. By Robyn Urback. The National Post, January 31, 2014.

Of ScarJo, Soda, Settlements, and Super Bowls. By Michael M. Rosen. National Review Online, January 31, 2014.

Occupation belies the Hollywood mind. By Rami G. Khouri. The Daily Star (Lebanon), February 1, 2014.

“FT” blast on settlements will strike fear at Hasbara Central (if not among liberal Zionists and “glitzy blondes”). By James North and Phil Weiss. Mondoweiss, February 1, 2014.

5 things I learned from the Scarlett Johansson/SodaStream affair. By Noam Sheizaf. +972, February 2, 2014.

The real SodaStream commercial they don’t want you to see. By Katie Miranda. Mondoweiss, February 2, 2014.

Yes, Scarlett Johansson’s Defense of SodaStream is Problematic. By Bernard Avishai. TPM, February 3, 2014.

SodaStream accuses Oxfam of funding BDS. By Tovah Lazaroff. Jerusalem Post, February 3, 2014.

Both Sides Declare P.R. Victory in Skirmish Over SodaStream Super Bowl Ad. By Robert Mackey. New York Times, February 3, 2014.

Scarlett Johansson row has boosted Israeli settlement boycott, say activists. By Ian Black and Harriet Sherwood. The Guardian, February 6, 2014.

But, according to Omar Barghouti, founder of the Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, “the political atmosphere has changed towards enforcing international law. Israel’s impunity is being eroded. BDS is growing tremendously and that is affecting decision-makers everywhere. We are changing the discourse.”

 

BDS, insisted Barghouti, was “no coalition of lefty intellectuals” but was supported by Palestinians across the political spectrum, including nationalists and Islamists. Many advocate a two-state solution to the conflict with Israel, while others, including Barghouti, argue for a “secular democratic state” that would replace “apartheid” Israel – though how that would happen given the balance of forces remains unclear. According to the sociologist and writer Salim Tamari, an advocate of two states, “the problem is that among many BDS people, there is no endgame.”

 

A weakness of Palestinian strategy is that a boycott of Israel on the ground has never made much headway. Shops in East Jerusalem and the West Bank are crammed with Israeli produce even when Palestinian goods are available at equivalent prices. “If foreign banks are standing up for our rights, what are we doing?” asks Mahdi Abdel-Hadi of the Passia think tank.

 

Barghouti counters this by speaking of the “colonisation of the mind” and sheer dependence on the occupation. “We don't expect the criteria that we ask in Britain, Johannesburg or New York to apply in Ramallah or Jerusalem. We are a captive economy. Israel has over decades destroyed our industry and agriculture and confiscated our water resources. We do not expect our economic institutions to completely boycott Israel. That’s unrealistic.”

 

Barghouti described his own attendance at Tel Aviv University, where he did an MA in philosophy and ethics, as a “private matter.”


Scarlett Johansson, War Criminal? By Daniel Schwammenthal. Wall Street Journal, February 6, 2014.

SodaStream is a model of cross-cultural collaboration.


What’s a Responsible, Progressive Position on an Israeli Settlements Boycott? By Matthew Duss. The American Prospect, February 5, 2014.

Frankly Scarlett, You Should Give a Damn. By Gershom Gorenberg. The American Prospect, February 6, 2014.

BDS Movement is Harming Itself. By Hussein Ibish. The National, February 8, 2014.

John Batchelor and Malcolm Hoenlein on the Scarlett Johansson SodaStream controversy. Audio Podcast. The John Batchelor Show, January 30, 2014, Hour 3. Runs from 4:33 to 10:51.

Scarlett Johansson is 2013’s Sexiest Woman Alive. By Tom Chiarella. Esquire, October 7, 2013. From the November 2013 issue.

Sorry, Coke and Pepsi (with Scarlett Johansson). Video. SodaStreamGuru, January 27, 2014. YouTube.

SodaStream: Building Bridges. Video. StandWithUs, February 27, 2013. YouTube.