Javier Bardem joins the boycott against Adidas for choosing an Israeli soldier for a campaign

Adidas has faced growing calls for a boycott after featuring a former Israeli soldier in a campaign promoting its single-shoe service for amputees. The controversy centers on Shalev Biton, an ex-Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldier who lost his left leg during the 2021 Israel-Gaza conflict. Biton appears in a series of advertisements and posters showcasing the company's "Single Shoe" service, which allows individuals with limb differences to purchase a single shoe instead of a pair. The campaign, launched in Israel, sparked outrage among pro-Palestinian activists and celebrities, including Spanish actor Javier Bardem, who publicly condemned the decision. Adidas issued a statement on Monday acknowledging the concerns surrounding the campaign. The company apologized for the image used in a recent local activation, stating it was never their intention to offend. The firm emphasized that the campaign was a localized effort in Israel and not part of a broader global strategy. It reiterated its commitment to inclusion and described the service as an initiative designed to better serve people with unique mobility needs. However, the message did not address the political implications of featuring a former IDF soldier in a campaign targeting amputees, many of whom are Palestinian civilians injured in Israeli military operations. The campaign gained traction after social media users highlighted the stark contrast between Biton’s personal experience and the suffering of Palestinian amputees. According to reports, over 5,000 Palestinians, including numerous children, were amputated during the 2021 conflict. Critics argue that using Biton’s image to promote a product aimed at amputees is deeply insensitive given the scale of civilian casualties in Gaza. Some activists pointed out that Biton’s injury occurred during an operation against Hamas, a group designated as a terrorist organization by Israel and several Western nations. Javier Bardem, known for his vocal support of Palestinian rights, took to his Instagram account to amplify the call for a boycott. In one post, he shared images of Biton alongside graphic depictions of Palestinian casualties, accompanied by messages such as “Adidas, helping killers of children to rise again.” Bardem also criticized the involvement of groups like ACOM, an Israeli advocacy organization, which accused him of targeting “an amputee” as “his last objective.” In another post, he called out Adidas for choosing a man whose actions, according to some critics, resulted in the deaths and injuries of Palestinians. “Adidas chose a man with blood on his hands,” he wrote. Other voices joined the chorus of dissent. The Movement for Boycott, Disinvestment, and Sanctions (BDS) urged Adidas to remove all related content from its platforms and adopt a more ethical corporate policy. Activists argued that the campaign was not just tone-deaf but a direct affront to the families of those harmed by Israeli military actions. They emphasized that the issue transcends marketing choices and touches on deeper questions of accountability and representation. Despite the backlash, Adidas maintained that the campaign was intended to highlight accessibility and inclusivity. The company stated that the advertisements were created locally in Israel and that the service continues to expand across Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, including countries like the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and Egypt. However, it did not explicitly mention Israel in this expansion plan. The situation reflects a broader pattern of scrutiny toward multinational corporations for their associations with Israeli military activities. Adidas has previously drawn criticism for sponsoring Israeli football teams playing in occupied territories. This latest incident adds to the pressure on the brand to align its messaging with the values of the communities it serves. As the debate continues, the outcome will likely depend on how Adidas responds to ongoing public and activist demands for transparency and ethical responsibility. For now, the controversy underscores the complex intersection of commerce, politics, and human rights in the global spotlight.