News

Scarlett Johansson’s new pals: group that is trying to break Obama’s Iran deal

By 10
The Israel Project is milking Scarlett Johansson's support for settlement product
The Israel Project is milking Scarlett Johansson’s support for settlement product

We live in a celebrity-driven culture, right? And Scarlett Johansson has done more to educate people about the Israel/Palestine issue than anything since the Gaza war of ’08-’09. She got John Kerry to talk about boycotts and the Financial Times to explain why the settlements are illegal and wrong.

Well it’s Monday morning, and the story isn’t going away. Her image is begin milked relentlessly by the rightwing Israel Project. First they did a tasteless lascivious ad with Johansson canoodling with two old men. Now they’re giving her a peace tattoo, above. So Johansson has gone from being Oxfam’s poster girl to the Israel Project’s! The Israel Project is a rightwing Israel lobby group: It is trying to break Obama’s deal with Iran, it mourns Ariel Sharon as “the last lion of Judaea”, its board is all Democratic neocons like Marty Peretz.

Now to liberal Zionists. Twice now (here and here) I’ve said that Americans for Peace Now have been silent on the Scarlett Johansson settlement-uproar. I was wrong (particularly in the second instance, when the group was on the record). Peace Now’s Debra DeLee wrote a piece called “Love Israel. Oppose BDS. Reject SodaStream” for the Forward last week, in which she said people should boycott SodaStream:

Under normal circumstances, I would buy SodaStream and recommend it to my friends. But the circumstances under which the product is made are not normal. And because Israel’s occupation of the West Bank is such an anomaly, as much as I may like Scarlett (and seltzer), I will not buy SodaStream, not until it moves its headquarters away from a West Bank settlement.

Apologies to Peace Now.

Meanwhile, at HuffPo, Robert Naiman of Just Foreign Policy (who alerted me to my error), says the flap has highlighted the idea of a principled support for the two-state solution.

Johansson’s statements on the controversy have tried to obscure a crucial issue: what relationship should people who support the two-state solution have to Israeli settlements in the West Bank?..

Oxfam’s view is that someone who supports the two-state solution should not be promoting economic ties with Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Johansson’s view, apparently, is that it’s ok to claim that you support a two-state solution and then turn around and promote economic ties with Israeli settlements in the West Bank, thereby bolstering and normalizing the occupation.

Oxfam’s view is normative among sincere advocates of a two-state solution. Johansson’s apparent view is marginal among sincere advocates of a two-state solution…

By claiming to support a two-state solution while helping to bolster the occupation, Scarlett Johansson is acting as a Susan Collins for the occupation, pretending to be moderate, while acting to bolster extremists.

Oxfam did the right thing in taking a principled stand. You can thank Oxfam for their principled stand at MoveOn here and on Thunderclap here. The Thunderclap is set to go off on Sunday evening during the #SuperBowl.

Related Posts

10 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

There’s many people claiming others to be on their side.

The fact they claim Scarlett doesn’t neccessarily mean Scarlett agrees with them.

0
0
View Replies (2)

I don’t know who listens, who approves, of the statements you quote. Better they happen than otherwise. Water torture (drip, drip, drip) for Israel? Like to hear John Kerry say something like that, or let it past the UNSC.

0
0

Well Scarlett, you reap what you sow. Now you are going to be used for political propaganda by a bunch of swivel-eyed fanatical fundamentalists who will not hesitate to implicate you in their land-grabbing, segregationist agenda. That cute Hollywood image is about to be mired in some desperate slimeball campaigning, sexist and racist to boot. I don’t think your publicist is going to be too impressed, or come to that, future employers. What a shame.

0
0
View Replies (1)

reading the transcript from Ratner Report: NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio Facilitating Israeli War Crimes http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=11412#.Uu-6Nd6R9QQ.twitter
as well as talking about Blasio and the letter from 58 Jewish New Yorkers (i believe Mr Weiss was one of the signitures) stating AIPAC does not speak for us they also talk about ASA, Hillel and miss apartheid

RATNER: And the third thing that’s happened, of course, is the controversy over Scarlett Johansson and her endorsement (which we’ll see at the Super Bowl) of SodaStream, SodaStream, the company that makes that fizzy water machine that’s made in the occupied territories, made in the West Bank, made actually, just outside one of the biggest settlement blocks in the West Bank. She was–at the time she did this endorsement, she was working as the goodwill ambassador for Oxfam. Oxfam actually said this is incompatible with your job as working for Oxfam. And rather than quit her, I think, very lucrative job with SodaStream, she quit her job with Oxfam. Huge stink about it. She comes off as a real dummy in this thing.

the Johanssons of this world should stick with saving endanger frogs such as the interior robber frog from eastern Puerto Rico rather then supporting illegal settler land theft in Palestine if they don’t want to look like a real dummy.

0
0

RE: “By claiming to support a two-state solution while helping to bolster the occupation, Scarlett Johansson is acting as a Susan Collins for the occupation, pretending to be moderate, while acting to bolster extremists.” ~ Robert Naiman

IN OTHER WORDS, SCARLETT JOHANSSON IS A “TWO-STATE FAKER”:
“Flotilla 3.0: Redeeming Obama’s Palestine Speech with Gaza’s Ark”, By Robert Naiman, truth-out.org, 3/25/13

[EXCERPTS] There’s a half-empty way and a half-full way of looking at President Barack Obama’s Jerusalem speech about the creation of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.
The half-empty way of looking at it is: This was Obama’s white flag of surrender. To everyone around the world who for decades has been assuming that at the end of the day, the president of the United States would lead the way to resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict, Obama was saying: Don’t look at me. Just because the United States is the principal military, diplomatic and economic protector of the Israeli government, doesn’t mean that I, as the president of the United States, will do anything about the military occupation of millions of Palestinian human beings. Bibi doesn’t want an independent Palestinian state; Bibi’s government doesn’t want an independent Palestinian state; AIPAC doesn’t want an independent Palestinian state; and Congress – which defers to AIPAC – doesn’t want an independent Palestinian state. Of course, many of them mouth the words – not Bibi’s government, they don’t even do that – but those who mouth the words oppose any practical measure that would help bring an independent Palestinian state into existence. They’re “two state fakers.” Settlement freeze? Impossible. UN membership for Palestine? Can’t be done. No, according to the two state fakers, the only option on the menu in the restaurant for the Palestinians is to return to negotiations without a settlement freeze, negotiations that for 20 years have brought more land confiscation, more settlements, more restrictions on Palestinian movement and commerce, more oppression. And so, Obama was saying, my hands are tied. Don’t look at me.
The half-full way of looking at it is this: It was a great speech. If you “price in,” as the markets say, acceptance that the US government isn’t going to lead on this, it was a great motivational speech. President Obama made a very compelling case that someone else should do something. . .

ENTIRE COMMENTARY – http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/15307-flotilla-30-redeeming-obamas-palestine-speech-with-gazas-ark

0
0