Israel and Palestine have been fighting over Gaja for decades. The ongoing struggle has left Gaja in ruins. The ongoing siege of the Gaja territory by Israeli forces has made it impossible for any humanitarian efforts to rebuild the Gaja strip. In the midst of this conflict, Coca-Cola has decided to invest in the Gaja territory and is set to build a factory. The author examines the real reasons behind such investment and takes a microscopic look at the deal to determine whether this investment will be for the benefit of people residing in the Gaja strip or will prove to be beneficial to the state of Israel (Ridley, 2014, para. 1).
Since the start of his article, the author seems to have a clear point of view and forthrightly states that this deal will eventually put the Palestinians on the short end of the stick. He argues that it will be the state of Israel which will reap the benefits of the deal while the Palestinians will have to suffer in silence. He supports his statements by citing the requirements of raw materials for any such factory to operate, its availability or rather unavailability in the Gaja region and the profit the state of Israel will realize for providing the said raw materials (Ridley, 2014, para. 2).
Firstly, the raw materials for building the factory has to come via Israel as it commands all the transportation lines surrounding the Gaja strip. This gives a kind of leverage to Israel which the state will command throughout the duration of the establishment of the factory and will earn a huge profit. While on one hand Israel is allowing the construction materials required for the factory to pass through, it is allowing the passage for only a fraction of construction materials which is required to rebuild the Gaja territory. The author is implying here that Israel is allowing the transportation only because it is benefiting in the process. The main ingredients needed to produce Coca-Cola are sugar and water. Since Gaja territory is already having electricity and water shortage problems, it is clear that Coca-Cola is expecting to meet its demands for raw materials and power from Israel (Ridley, 2014, para. 6). Coca-Cola says the opening of the factory will create hundreds of jobs. The company will also launch social programs for the benefit of the people. The author disagrees with this point of view and says if the company was in favor of Palestinian people it should use it influence and demand the end of seizing of Gaja territory (Ridley, 2014, para. 11).
While I do agree with the author on some points, I do not agree with the article as a whole. Yes, the building of the factory will benefit Israel but it will also be beneficial for Palestinians. Nothing can change the state of a region overnight. Coca-Cola might prove to be the first step in many to come. I also do not like the total negative and biased approached of the author. The author says that if the Company (Coca-Cola) wanted to help the Palestinians it would demand the end of seizing of Gaja. I do not believe a corporation, however, powerful they might be can exert such influence over a nation’s government.
Also, bringing the past of the company such as its operation under Nazi Germany is childish behavior. The author’s argument that Coca-Cola is supporting Israel as atonement for collaborating with Nazi regime makes me feel like he is just grasping for ideas. I believe any argument or article should be based on facts. Author’s approach to this article was fact-based at first, but as you go through the article it feels that he lets his ideas run wild.
The aim of any corporate company such as Coca-Cola is to make a profit. They will not invest in any venture unless they see it becoming profitable in coming years. Hence, their investment in Gaja territory is not for a social cause and everyone understands that. But the way the author has tried to convince its readers, it feels like as if Coca-Cola is acting like a tool in the hands of the Israeli government and is trying to harm the people in Gaja region. The article has a lot of strength in its facts but at the end, as a reader, I feel that the only take away from the article I will remember in the long run is the author’s biased approach to the topic in question.
References
Ridley, Y. (2014, December 29). Coca-Cola's investment in Gaza. Retrieved February 19, 2016, from https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/middle-east/16057-coca-colas-investment-in-gaza
