Scarlett Johansson not only abandons Oxfam but throws it under the bus

During a 2007 Oxfam trip to Sri Lanka, Scarlett Johansson heard the story of how Asela Abeytunga lost his father and brother to the tsunami. (Adrian Fisk)

“On one hand you’re thinking, [the celebrity life] is so surreal, but it’s my work and helps me bring awareness to Oxfam.”
Scarlett Johansson, 2007

On the other hand…

The Associated Press broke the story last night that Scarlett Johansson was quitting her role as an Oxfam global ambassador, ending a three-week battle that began with the announcement that the actor had signed a multi-year deal as the global ambassador for SodaStream. SodaStream has been the target of a years-long boycott campaign because one of its primary manufacturing plants is located in an illegal West Bank settlement.

The AP quoted from a statement provided by Johansson’s spokesperson:

“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.”

With this statement, Johansson and her public relations team not only extricate her from a vulnerable position, but does so cynically and opportunistically by throwing Oxfam under the bus.

The statement claims that Johansson left Oxfam over “a fundamental difference of opinion in regards to the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement [BDS]”—an unconvincing assertion since Oxfam has never taken a position on BDS.

However, by making this allegation, Johansson frames her departure as a result of Oxfam forcing her to make a different and presumably more difficult decision. That is, instead of being asked not to represent a company that manufactures products from an illegal West Bank settlement, Johansson implies that she was being forced by Oxfam to honor the Palestinian BDS call.

There is a difference between boycotting a company and not shilling for a company. At best, Johansson was simply being asked for the latter. The issue was not about BDS, but about the contradiction in being the ambassador for one organization that opposes illegal settlements (Oxfam), while being the ambassador for another organization that is based in and profits from an illegal settlement (SodaStream).

So Johansson changes the subject, from one in which she occupied both sides of opposing interests—perhaps inadvertently at first, but unwilling to budge—to one in which Oxfam was making unreasonable demands of her.

Not only does this place the blame on Oxfam for the ensuing scandal and absolves Johansson of fault, it falsely portrays Oxfam as a supporter of the BDS movement.

While there is nothing inherently wrong with BDS—and it would be wonderful if Oxfam did support BDS—the organization has never taken a position on the issue. And while there is no shame in supporting BDS, there is an unavoidable cost. Organizations that publicly support BDS are subject to a fierce pro-Israel backlash that includes relentless harassment, false accusations of anti-Semitism, and loss of donor funding.

Thus, while absolving herself of blame for her own debacle, Johansson leaves Oxfam vulnerable to the cost of endorsing BDS without the benefit of having endorsed it.

Scarlett Johansson in India

Scarlett Johansson hears the story of Uma Mahajan, who was abused by her first and second husbands, 2007 Oxfam tour in India. (Adrian Fisk)

Unfortunately Oxfam made itself open to being exploited by its former global ambassador. Early in the scandal, Oxfam refused to take a strong public stance. Instead, it expressed both its “opposition to all trade from Israeli settlements” and its respect for “the independence of our ambassadors,” adding that it was “engaged in a dialogue on these important issues” with Johansson.

After Johansson issued her January 24 statement in which she defended SodaStream, Oxfam wrote that it was “considering the implications of her new statement and what it means for Ms Johansson’s role as an Oxfam global ambassador.”

On January 27, Oxfam GB tweeted that

such situations … take some time to resolve, but please be assured that we’re working on this right now and will be in a position to make a fuller statement very soon.

Yet it deleted the tweet soon after.

Ali Abunimah in the Electronic Intifada reported that there was an “internal revolt” at Oxfam over Johansson, with its American branch being the holdout to a resolution due to fundraising fears.

Oxfam’s assumed paralysis and its efforts to be diplomatically discreet left a wide gap in the public narrative that Johansson’s PR team was able to exploit.

Johansson got to announce her departure, and with that announcement came the privilege of defining the narrative that would cast her in the least culpable light, while deserting Oxfam for the most shameful reason.

One door closes, and another one opens.

Johansson with SodaStream CEO Daniel Birnbaum

Scarlett Johansson announcing her deal with SodaStream CEO Daniel Birnbaum at the Gramercy Park Hotel Rooftop Club, 10 January 2014: “I am beyond thrilled to share my enthusiasm for SodaStream with the world!”

About Phan Nguyen

Phan Nguyen is a Palestine solidarity activist based in New York. Follow him on Twitter: @Phan_N
Posted in BDS, Israel/Palestine | Tagged , , , , , , , ,

{ 63 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. bangpound says:

    I believe the timing of the statement was intentional. There was no coordination with Oxfam. The announce was designed to surprise and humiliate Oxfam.

    link to twitter.com

    • Krauss says:

      Oxfam deserves to be humiliated. They were deeply unwilling to cut their ties until the public pressure became insurmountable, thereby exposing their eager willingness to sell their “principles” in favor of profits.

      • Mondowise says:

        Krauss, exactly! well said. that they did NOT take immediate, conclusive action to stand by their principles in strength and sever ties with sj on the spot at the very beginning of this whole thing leaves an ugly blemish on the face of oxfam’s integrity and morality, to say the least.

        there should never have been a “three-week battle” or any battle at all in the first place. oxfam should have been proactive on day one to prevent that by asserting publicly they will never allow such an ambassador and will thus end ties with her.

      • Yup. I said as much (in a more polite way) in an email to the Oxfam UK chief exec today. They should have cut Johansson loose on day one. OK, they might have tried to find a face-saving ‘Ms Johansson regrettably had to back out of her Oxfam role due to work commitments’ schtick, but if that didn’t work, they should have dumped her. Unequivocally. They have allowed her to get the upper hand, and to misrepresent their stance (or non-stance) on BDS. Cowardly and foolish.

    • eGuard says:

      Indeed, bangpound, the initiative was left with SJ/SS. Phan writes this too, so the title is wrong. Should be more like: Scarlett Johansson abandons Oxfam while Oxfam takes two weeks to walk under the bus.

  2. amigo says:

    All her good work is now worthless as she has shown her cards.

    She runs with the racists and oppressors and shuns Human Rights and international Law.

    Shame on her.

  3. a blah chick says:

    Makes you wonder why she got involved with Oxfam in the first. I think someone said it would look good on her resume.

    • pabelmont says:

      ABC: “Makes you wonder why she got involved with Oxfam in the first.”

      She may be a (generally) principled person. PEP is hardly unknown in the USA, after all. She is not the first and will not be the last who decries human-rights violations — except when Israel does them.

  4. eljay says:

    >> With this statement, Johansson and her public relations team not only extricate her from a vulnerable position, but does so cynically and opportunistically by throwing Oxfam under the bus.

    It’s a shame Ms. Johansson chose Zio-supremacism over humanitarian work, but if she’s going to protect her public image and her career, the shrewd wording of her announcement makes perfect sense.

    • Mondowise says:

      it’s not the wording that ruins her public image, it’s her choice.

    • Her career, maybe, in the sense that few in Hollywood will dare to incur the wrath of Zion. But image? I’m not sure. I’ve looked on a few celeb sites today – American sites, mostly frequented by young women who don’t necessarily give a toss about international affairs – and there is a huge amount of anti-Johansson, anti-Sodastream noise. And that’s just America. Elsewhere in the world, which is overwhelmingly pro-Palestine, the backlash against Johansson is going to be much worse. And she can’t really afford to have a tainted image – it’s not like she’s much of an actress, and is due to be replaced by the next pillow-lipped blonde in the Hollywood pipeline pretty soon anyway.

      Johansson, and/or her handlers, were incredibly stupid to let her get tangled up in this mess in the first place. My guess is that they operate in an American Zionist bubble and had no idea just how widespread the BDS movement has become. Let’s hope this is a straw in the wind, and acts as a warning to others who might be tempted to become settlement shills.

  5. just says:

    I guess Oxfam doesn’t use their donations to pay PR firms………it’s not their schtick. But, it is Scarlett’s.

    It’s a win for BDS and Oxfam.

    Pukeworthy Richard Haass this morning:

    ““This is actually a serious issue,” Haass said Thursday on the MSNBC show. “This is part of the whole anti-legitimacy of Israel issue, and the fact that Oxfam is going after her, all kidding aside, this is a serious issue, what she is doing is right. Good for her.””

    Read more: link to politico.com

    So Oxfam is the culprit. Amazing, eh?

    (Mika did sort of an eye roll thingy just prior to his whine.)

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      Yup, because to the likes of zio Haass, nothing, not helping starving people around the world or the good that Oxfam does, matters in comparison to protecting his zio state.

    • seafoid says:

      Inflammable material is planted in my head
      It’s a suspect device that’s left 2000 dead
      Their solutions are our problems
      They put up the wall
      On each side time and prime us
      And make sure we get fuck all
      They play their games of power
      They mark and cut the pack
      They deal us to the bottom
      But what do they put back?

      [Chorus:]
      Don’t believe them
      Don’t believe them
      Don’t be bitten twice
      You gotta suss, suss, suss, suss, suss out
      Suss suspect device

      They take away our freedom
      In the name of liberty
      Why don’t they all just clear off
      Why won’t they let us be
      They make us feel indebted
      For saving us from hell
      And then they put us through it
      It’s time the bastards fell

      [Chorus]

      Don’t believe them
      Don’t believe them
      Question everything you’re told
      Just take a look around you
      At the bitterness and spite
      Why can’t we take over and try to put it right

      [Chorus]

      We’re a suspect device if we do what we’re told
      But a suspect device can score an own goal
      I’m a suspect device the Army can’t defuse
      You’re a suspect device they know they can’t refuse
      We’re gonna blow up in their face

      link to youtube.com

      Israel is in way deeper shit than Northern Ireland was

  6. Lets face it this child uh woman is a strong pro-israel person.

  7. I uploaded this video then learned of this latest development. Well the video still highlights the wrong perpetrated by SodaStream so please share it: VIDEO: Scarlett Johansson’s Shameful Shilling for Sodastream
    (I plan on making an update to highlight her shameful choice of sticking with SodaStream and throwing Oxfam under the bus)

  8. MHughes976 says:

    No doubt she’s indignant about people who try to imprison bubbles. Haass’ ‘going after her’ is strong language considering the delicate and diplomatic language that Oxfam has used. I don’t think that the bus will injure Oxfam that seriously.

    • Kathleen says:

      But Oxfam should publicly explain that her claim that this disagreement has anything to do with Oxfam supporting the BDS movement…total bull. They ought to slam her statement

  9. Krauss says:

    P.S happy to see Phan writing more articles on the site, one of the best writers on these issues and almost always the most detailed.

    • Kathleen says:

      Agree. Great writer. Clear and concise

    • Denis says:

      I agree that Phan is one of the best writers on MW, but not this piece.

      Sure, SJ makes me want to puke, too. And I wouldn’t drink a SodaStream if I was dying of thirst in the middle of the Negev desert and had to choose between it and a pint of camel piss. But this hatchet-piece by Phan is uncalled for, even though everybody in the echo-chamber seems to be eating it up without calling him out on the factually anemic fantasy piece it is.

      SJ’s statement:

      She and Oxfam have a fundamental difference of opinion in regards to the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement.

      Phan calls this line”

      “—an unconvincing assertion since Oxfam has never taken a position on BDS.”

      What a sorry non sequitur. Why, pray tell, does Ox have to have a public position on BDS in order for there to be a genuine disagreement w/ SJ over the issue? Phan implies that the only “genuine” disagreements are those that are based on publicly held positions. There is no way Phan could know what disagreements SJ and Ox had or didn’t have.

      My guess is that sometime over the last few weeks Ox people made it clear to SJ that they support BDS, and she made it clear to them that she doesn’t. That seems to me like very reasonable and mutual grounds for saying ciao. As a result of such a disagreement she could have decided it was a bad match, and they could have decided it was a bad match. That’s the way I read her statement. Why is that “unconvincing”? Where’s the bus in this? And who is Phan to jump in here and start telling the world that SJ didn’t take the one-way walk over BDS as she claims?

      Phan goes on to assert that b/c “Oxfam has never taken a position on BDS” that means that SJ left Ox in order to “throw Oxfam under the bus.” What rubbish. SJ is not the one who went public on the Oxfam issue. If she was getting burned over it and decided to preempt them on pulling the plug, that is not throwing anybody under a bus. She was the one who was about to become bus-fodder, which is what Phan and everybody else on MW were waiting for.

      Phan seems to be operating under the mistaken idea that because it was SJ and not Ox who terminated the relationship that a bus was involved. I would love to have seen his article if Ox had ended the relationship . . . ha! Would he assert Ox throws Johansson under the bus? Yeah, I don’t think so. It would have read more like: “Oxfam dumps Johansson on moral grounds over BDS, no bus involved.”

      She was smart to preempt them, and that’s what ‘s pissing off people on MW, judging by the comments to this piece. Everybody here was salivating at the prospect that Ox would dump her, but she deprived the vultures of the pleasure.

      More Phan funny-logic:

      “Johansson implies that she was being forced by Oxfam to honor the Palestinian BDS call.”

      There is no such implication in her statement. Saying that you have fundamental differences with someone over an issue is not an assertion that the other person is forcing you do to anything. What rubbish, Phan.

      Phan normally does much better than this, but we all have our bad days. Sorely disappointed.

  10. charlesfrith says:

    Blood bubbles don’t float

  11. yrn says:

    “Not only does this place the blame on Oxfam for the ensuing scandal and absolves Johansson of fault, it falsely portrays Oxfam as a supporter of the BDS movement.”

    Touché Scarlett.
    showed the real faces of Oxfam that were unwilling to cut their ties with her, until the public pressure and exposing their eager willingness to sell their “principles” in favor of profits and showed their hypocrite ugly face.
    And showed the world again, who the BDS movement is, a bunch of known bullies.
    Go Scarlett Go.

  12. Chu says:

    “but does so cynically and opportunistically by throwing Oxfam under the bus”

    Oxfam is the bus. She got off the bus and went on a charter bus to camp Zion.

  13. Kathleen says:

    ” The issue was not about BDS, but about the contradiction in being the ambassador for one organization that opposes illegal settlements (Oxfam), while being the ambassador for another organization that is based in and profits from an illegal settlement (SodaStream).”

    Such important points. Hopefully Oxfam will clarify why they asked her to step down or be given the boot in her apartheid back end.

  14. Kathleen says:

    News everywhere
    link to google.com

    In all articles I have looked at it does say Scarlett “ending her relationship” as if it were her decision. No mention of her being asked to leave if she was going to continue to be the brand face for SS. Yes Oxfam allowed her to take the reins. Hopefully they put out a public statement after she publicly kicked them in the cajones again

    • MHughes976 says:

      News everywhere indeed – it’s one of the (only) 14 items on the BBC News teletext service today. Mind you, I think that the main news broadcast gave more attention to the news that Justin Bieber had been accused of involvement in a brawl. Celebrities certainly get things celebrated even if in a rather perverse way.

    • amigo says:

      Look at the picture of miss Johannson comforting an Indian Woman.

      Close your eyes scar-let and pretend She is a Palestinian Woman whose son has just been shot by the killers in the idf who you support.

    • Here is the email I received today from Mark Goldring, chief exec of Oxfam UK (I had previously written to him to request that they sever ties with Johansson):

      Dear…..,

      Oxfam has accepted Scarlett Johansson’s decision to step down after eight years as a Global Ambassador and we are grateful for her many contributions.

      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.

      Best wishes,

      Mark

      Mark Goldring
      Chief Executive

      Oxfam GB

      ************

      It deffo looks as though Johansson was the one who did the dumping. Nothing about ‘by mutual agreement’ or any such formula. Oxfam do NOT come out of this smelling of roses. They handed the initiative to Johansson and made themselves look like baddies putting heartless pressure on poor little Scarlett, who just wanted to ‘promote peace and equality’. In a war zone.

      N

      • Kathleen says:

        No way she did the dumping…not even a question. They gave her a choice drop the branding gig or out you go. She was going to get the boot and they gave her a chance to walk…but was not graceful at all

        • If that’s the case, why does Oxfam’s own statement (see the email above) refer to ‘Johansson’s decision’? If Oxfam were indeed the ones to do the dumping, why did they continue to pretend otherwise even after Johansson had so publicly spat in their faces and lied about their (non) stance on BDS? I could understand them wanting to let her leave with ‘dignity intact’ and allow her to pretend it was her decision rather than vice versa. But when she chose to show such disrespect towards them, why would they continue to go out of their way to mollycoddle her?

          My guess is that Oxfam America’s pandering to Zionist interests led to indecision and inaction in the organisation as a whole, and Johansson took the initiative to be the one to do the dumping.

          • Kathleen says:

            “My guess is that Oxfam America’s pandering to Zionist interests led to indecision and inaction in the organisation as a whole, and Johansson took the initiative to be the one to do the dumping.’

            Good point.

  15. OlegR says:

    Oxfam lost an ambassador.
    Johanssen lost some charity work.
    What did BDS gain ? Nothing.

    • talknic says:

      @ OlegR “Oxfam lost an ambassador”

      Lost a hypocrite, won publicity

      “Johanssen lost some charity work”

      Lost credibility as far as her alleged humanitarian values are concerned

      “What did BDS gain ?”

      On going, high profile, world wide publicity

    • kalithea says:

      …in the Zionist upsidedown world.

  16. kma says:

    I see this slightly differently than “throwing Oxfam under the bus”. the actress is a zionist and “cleared the air” on that, and Oxfam had DAYS to dump her, but FAILED to do so. her PR machine took over and dumped Oxfam instead, entirely REMOVING the conflict, as if Oxfam had no problem with her in the first place.

    Oxfam could have done the right thing. instead, it did nothing, giving this PR opportunity to her on a sliver platter. they asked for it!!!

  17. kma says:

    p.s. the potshot at BDS proves that the actress KNOWS excatly what she’s doing by supporting apartheid, and all the commenters on this site who keep wondering if she’s just not aware or hasn’t been told or whatever excuse are BLIND when it comes to PR with a pretty face. her prepared statement was clear as it gets.

    Oxfam got what it should have expected from this. I’m sure they know that now.

  18. broadside says:

    Bottom line: Oxfam could not possibly have handled this worse. Somehow, they turned what should have been an easy positive into a negative Whoever was in charge of this should be fired on the spot — just like Johansson should have been.

  19. kma says:

    if anyone hasn’t seen this article, “Starving to death in Syria’s Yarmouk camp” on AlJazeera, they should: link to aljazeera.com

    this should be the kind of visual contrast used to demonstrate the meaning of Johansson’s support for Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and flippant attitude toward Oxfam while she poses for Sodastream and the ethnic cleansers.
    I hope Caterpillar signs her up, too. there would be good visuals on that – uprooting for the expansion of Sodastream.

  20. John Douglas says:

    I wrote several days ago that I didn’t think Johansson was either a bimbo or heartless and I’d wait to see what she would do and why. She’s done it and in the process attempted to outsmart Oxfam. Shame on her. Why did she do it? I still don’t think she’s stupid. I suspect that at heart she’s a liberal. She doesn’t need the money. What’s left is ” … tribe first, principles second …” We are hardly without precedent in that regard. Still, shame on her.

  21. Kathleen says:

    Have put up two polite comments about how Scarlett’s spin on her “ending the relationship” “ditching Oxfam” is what Huff Po has one of their pieces titled. My comments about how this was Scarlett spin, that Oxfam had never said they supported the BDS and that the differences had to do with Oxfam’s stance on international human rights and social justice and Scarlett’s public support and personal profit from the illegal occupation.

    So far Huff Po moderators have not allowed those comments up on two different threads about this issue. Go on over and leave a comment about more Scarlett, SS spin.
    Scarlett Johansson Stands By SodaStream And Ditches Oxfam Over Israel Boycott Row
    link to huffingtonpost.co.uk

    link to huffingtonpost.co.uk

  22. Kris says:

    From the Electronic Intifada article by Ali Abunimah, linked to in the article:

    Unlike other national affiliates, “Oxfam America doesn’t invest one cent in the Palestinian territories, or even Israel. They don’t have any programs in the West Bank or Gaza,” the insider explained.

    “Yet they [Oxfam America] always claim that anything Oxfam says on Palestine or Israel affects their fundraising. They almost have veto power on what Oxfam does on Palestine,” the insider added.

  23. I said on another thread (awaiting moderation) that Oxfam have handled this affair remarkably poorly. In allowing Johansson to get the upper hand – SHE was the one to do the dumping – they have handed her the initiative and made themselves look passive, craven and pathetic. They’ve also been misrepresented. They allowed her to put this in a BDS vs ‘working for peace and cooperation’ framework, instead of in a ‘human rights and international law’ vs ‘war crimes and violations of the Geneva Convention’ framework.

    The end result will please nobody. For people like us, Oxfam hasn’t gone far enough and have shown themselves to be amenable to Zionist bullying and pandering to celebs. For the pro-Israel crowd, poor Scarlett has been bullied. Expect the anti-semite card to be played soon, if it hasn’t been already.

  24. Eva Smagacz says:

    I do not see anything bad coming from lots of PR that implies that Oxfam is pro-BDS. Anything that makes link between Israel, illegal settlements and BDS is good publicity, as far as I am concerned.
    There must be a tipping point that makes sane person ask – why are all these institutions anti-illegal Israel settlements and pro-BDS?

    This was Obama’s long term strategy, remember? To undermine the hegemony of Israel Lobby (or as they call it, in anti-semitic manner, in Israel – a Jewish Lobby) by exposing illegal settlements and their corrosive influence on the “peace process”.

  25. ymedad says:

    I would think, if I was an anti-settlement activist, that this Oxfam 2012 statement was a call for BDS: link to oxfam.org

    “Jeremy Hobbs, Oxfam International’s Executive Director, said:

    “Europe’s condemnation of Israel’s settlement expansion is welcome but words alone mean nothing when people’s lives keep worsening.

    “Similar statements came out of last year’s EU-Israel Association Council. Yet we’ve seen a sharp rise in new settlement construction across the West Bank. Meanwhile, Palestinian displacement and Israeli-led demolition of Palestinian homes and water cisterns, many of which were funded by EU taxpayers, has increased.

    “To see positive change on the ground, Europe needs to step up and take a leadership role. EU governments must match their words with urgent and concrete measures to push for an immediate end to settlement construction and the unlawful demolition of Palestinian civilian infrastructure.””

  26. hophmi says:

    “I do not see anything bad coming from lots of PR that implies that Oxfam is pro-BDS. Anything that makes link between Israel, illegal settlements and BDS is good publicity, as far as I am concerned.”

    It will hurt Oxfam America. And it should. That’s the price of putting Palestinian advocacy above human rights, labor rights, and peace, especially when Coca-Cola is your pimp.

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      “That’s the price of putting Palestinian advocacy above human rights…”

      yes, advocating for Palestinians rights isn’t the same as advocating for human rights to zios like you, hoppy. The Palestinians don’t even qualify as “human” to zios like you, do they?

      Typical zio-fascist.

    • Sumud says:

      That’s the price of putting Palestinian advocacy above human rights…

      Ziocaine causes brain damage.

    • Ecru says:

      @ Hoppy

      “…the price of putting Palestinian advocacy above human rights…”

      I know as a died-in-the-wool Jewish Supremacist and fan of ze Judenreich you have trouble with this concept but advocating for Palestinian rights IS advocacy for human rights. You see contrary to all the propaganda you Zionists spew up the Palestinians are (GASP!) Human Beings too.

      …especially when Coca-Cola is your pimp….

      Yes. As if you gave a damn about Coca-Cola even five seconds before this SS thing hit the fan. It’s just a handy propaganda tool for you. (And before you ask I’ve not touched coca-cola in YEARS.)

      “It will hurt Oxfam America”

      Good. Maybe then the rest of Oxfam can ditch the obviously Zionist infested hole and set up something more worthwhile.

      Also – way to show how much you TRULY care about human rights and things – whooping about a charity that tries to make a more equitable world for all coming a cropper. Nice caring attitude you’ve got there.

    • kalithea says:

      Haven’t you heard the saying: There is no such thing as bad publicity? The more BDS is in the spotlight the better. More awareness.

      And speaking of pimping. What could be worse than pimping for Apartheid?

    • Talkback says:

      Hophmi: That’s the price of putting Palestinian advocacy above human rights, labor rights, and peace, …

      Translation into Non-Hasbara English:

      That’s the price of putting international and human rights above Zionist oppression and exploitation of occupied Gentiles and other crimes against international and human rights including Apartheid, …

  27. John Douglas says:

    Hophmi’s a sneaky one. He writes, “That’s the price of putting Palestinian advocacy above human rights, labor rights, and peace …”
    “Palestinian advocacy.” That’s very clever, leaving out the “for what”. Let’s see what comes from Hophmi when we complete his thought:
    “That’s the price of putting Palestinian [... rights to live free of being murdered and imprisoned, to work their own land, to rule themselves and to be free of decades of war waged against them...] above human rights, labor rights, and peace …”
    Hophmi is incoherent here, but at least he’s on the right track.

  28. Sumud says:

    Agree Oxfam waited too long to resolve this, or were too generous in giving one of their ambassadors the opportunity to opt out instead of taking the initiative and canning her. Still – it seems a minor point in the long run.

    The local rag picked up an AFP article which gives a lot of space to Oxfam’s statement and none to Scarlett’s:

    link to theage.com.au

  29. a blah chick says:

    I think we should have a caption contest on the photos above.

    “Pretty white American blonde actress commiserates with swarthy and (thankfully) non Arab women about their awful menfolk.”

  30. broadside says:

    Claire Danes parlayed her effusive praise for Tel Aviv as a party town into the cover of Vogue. God only knows how many magazine covers Johnasson gets for this.

    • Talkback says:

      Nothing beats Hebron where the party starts were others end and its garbage can even be thrown onto Palestinians without impunity thanks to the security.

  31. dbroncos says:

    Johansson may have out maneuvered Oxfam with her resignation and her reasons for it but Oxfam will go about its business and be better off without Johansson’s racist baggage. Johansson, however, hasn’t put to rest her scandalous “I’m only in it for blood bubbles” attitude. On Sunday afternoon tens of millions of viewers will tune in to watch the Super Bowl and her SodaStream commercial will spark lots of conversations about her priorities and SodaStream’s crimes. A big boost to BDS!

  32. kalithea says:

    Scarlett is now where she belongs. She didn’t belong with Oxfam because all along it appears she’s been hiding the fact that she’s really a Zionist and that fact contradicts with the role she played as ambassador for Oxfam. With her departure, that contradiction no longer exists and truth triumphs which is a great thing in the bigger karmic scheme. She has chosen the materialistic, depraved side and it’s where she belonged all along, down there, and not as someone deserving of our admiration. In the larger scheme of life, she’s just been downgraded. Her hypocrisy could no longer exist obscured behind her role as an ambassador to a humanitarian organization, therefore the SS contract was meant as a test to her integrity and by choosing to stick with SS, she chose to diminish herself instead of removing the contradiction and raising herself up.

    I agree that she threw Oxfam under the bus, but then that too was in her nature to begin with being a Zionist. Zionists will throw anyone and anything under the bus on behalf of tribal ignorance. She’s finally demonstrated who she really is, what she stands for and what she’s capable of on behalf of Zionism.

    It’s disappointing that Oxfam allowed Scarlett to run with the narrative and thus “frame” them with the BDS issue while making herself appear the victim (something Zionists do very well to justify a wrong move). The short-term backlash arising from her cunning deception is the price they’ll have to assume temporarily for hesitating on an issue that called for decisive integrity and swift action. Let this be a lesson to Oxfam to not hesitate when the integrity of their message is on the line.

    In the short term, Oxfam appears the loser, but in the greater scheme, Scarlett is the real loser having had to resort to a deceptive image of Oxfam to make herself look like the victim and create a distraction while she removes her mask of compassion to reveal the face of indifference to suffering and oppression. In other words, she went from being the face of Oxfam to becoming the face of Apartheid profiteering. Bad move.

  33. Citizen says:

    Tidbit of at least gossipy interest: Scarlett was named by her own parents after Scarlett O Hara in Gone With The Wind. With that in mind, let’s take a look the original character, as analyzed by a Palestinian–oops, I mean black woman: link to npr.org

    Interesting both in terms of basic character, and also, in terms of historical south during US Civil War and the “civil war” going on now regarding apartheid Israel and BDS.