Boycott Israel ; Oxfam asked to dump Scarlett Johansson as ' ambassador '

BDS are correct, of course. Johansson appears to want her cake and eat it too.
There can be no half-measures in boycotting anything related to the illegal occupation of the State of Palestine, no compromises, no softening for wheedling arguments about ' benefiting Palestinians '. Palestinians are not advantaged by occupation in any way and arguments to the contrary are the rhetoric of occupiers and their back-slappers.

 

She's an 'actor'. What the hell does she know about anything except dollars? This was some deal her agent found for her for which she got very well rewarded. I doubt the plight of the Palestinians even entered her consciousness for one second except for when she read her scripted statement.
If she knew anything at all about the Palestinian situation she wouldn't be so dumb as to sign up with a Soda Stream endorsement.

 

It is likewise not for the Plaestinians to lecture Johansson on what she should promote or think, "no compromises, no softening" what happens to things that dont bend ?

 

Sadly, I think the same can be said of musicians like Neil Young who plans to play a concert in Tel Aviv this summer. The mind boggles that the Neil Young of the '60s and '70s, who wrote 'Southern Man' and 'Ohio' is the same Neil Young who intends to sell-out the Palestinian's to help pay for another ranch in California.

 

Johansson responded to critics last week by saying she stands behind SodaStream, which is committed to "building a bridge to peace between Israel and Palestine, supporting neighbors working alongside each other, receiving equal pay, equal benefits and equal rights."

 

Yes, it's in the link and the OP- along with the Palestinian rejection of such bollox.

 

Hmm...Maale Adumin does stretch far into the West Bank.

Maybe Scarlett isn't aware of this little fact.

 

She would be doing Oxfam a great service by apologising.

 

she's a Hollywood actress.

she don't know (*)(*)(*)(*) about (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

So, Sodastream provides Palestinians jobs but is the bad guy.

You realize they don't make public policy, right?

If the settlements will be there regardless of what Sodastream does, then isn't it better to provide jobs to these people than not?

 

having a factory in Maale Adumim, is giving legitimacy to the settlements.

its a statement of foreign policy, and acceptance of Israel confiscation of Palestinian private property, of which equals more than 30% of this settlement.

I don't think Scarlett knows what she's doing.

if she knew 1/3rd of this settlement is built on stolen land, she would likely leave the campaign.

 

All the political activism in the world won't put food on the table.

Again, settlement policy doesn't mean a whole lot as compared to the need to have a steady source of income.

Let's say Sodastream closed shop and left. If the settlement policy remained, where should the people living there find work?

 

SodaStream should open a factor inside Israel.

its that simple.

 

This isn't about Sodastream. What about the people living in this part of the West Bank who need work?

 

so you were against the boycott of Apartheid South Africa, cause it took jobs away from needy Afrikaners?

 

She probably knows what she's doing. Oxfam provides aid all around the world - Palestine isn't its sole concern.

 

I personally think she knows perfectly well what she is doing.

 

Building the gallows for ones own hanging also provides work.

 

If Sodastream is providing better wages to these people than they would otherwise have, then that's at least better than the alternative.

If Sodastream is abusive to its labor, that's one thing, but it doesn't look like that's the case.

South Africa is comparable in some ways, but as far as I understand it, the sanctions imposed on South Africa were more effective than the boycott at ending apartheid.

Boycotts work as political statements, but they don't necessarily accomplish much. There have been a few that have worked, however.

- - - Updated - - -

That's a bit hyperbolic, don't you think?

 

so you were against the American boycott of Apartheid South Africa?

you would have been against a boycott of Nazi Germany?

because poor little Afrikaners and Nazis may have gone without a job?????

 

I didn't even say I was against boycotting Sodastream.

I was just questioning the logic.

The Palestine situation is one where there is undoubtedly abuse and desperation, but without legitimate work, that just encourages people to work for terror groups.

The difference I see with this situation and the ones you're comparing it with are that I don't trust the Palestinian leadership anymore than I do the Israeli one.

With the Nazies, the resistance seemed capable of making things better. The same goes for the people fighting to end apartheid.

The Palestinians are unfortunately stuck between an authority that views them as lesser people while being manipulated by Islamic extremists.

That doesn't inspire me to side with the resistance, especially when seeing what Islamists have done in other countries via the Arab Spring.

 

You've never heard the Iranian dissidents who spoke out against the sanctions against their country because it only effects the common people?

Often, that's precisely how these things pan out. Look at North Korea - does this guy look like he's hurting for a meal?

 

Possibly. But I wanted to drive home the point that, in my view, this actresses actions are a political stunt designed to give the false impression that the Palestinian's will benefit long term from her actions when in truth her actions ultimately are intended to serve the interests of Israel. This is clearly a PR stunt designed to deflect attention away from the underlying causes and long term solutions to end Palestinian suffering. I believe she is not dumb enough not to know that her actions are harmful to the Palestinian cause.

 

Boycotting the West Bank is one of those few boycotts that actually achieves its objective.

it sends a strong moral and political message, that certain behaviors are not acceptable.

no one really suffers due to this boycott.

but the message is loud and clear.

 

Perhaps, although I'd imagine she's probably like most Americans in that she doesn't focus as much on the Palestine situation as this forum apparently does.

Contrary to popular belief, it's not the worst situation of human rights abuse, but for some reason, it's often treated like it is.