Trending Topics:

Johansson sees greater wrong in Oxfam than Israeli settlement

Israel/Palestine
on 71 Comments
Scarlett Letter (graphic: Doc Rocket)

Scarlett Letter (graphic: Rachele Richards @docr0cket)(click on image to enlarge)

Defending SodaStream during a recent interview, Scarlett Johansson states she doesn’t see the problem in the seltzer-maker’s operations in a West Bank settlement. Johansson endorsed the product in a highly-controversial Super Bowl ad last month. But regarding the legality of Israeli settlements in Occupied Palestine, she says: “that’s very easily debatable ….there’s no right side or wrong side leaning on this issue.”

And Johansson answered with a definitive “No” when Guardian reporter, author Carole Cadwalladr, suggested perhaps she’d “unwittingly inserted herself ” into the conflict, and this was all some sort of mistake. It’s a startling conversation.

Cadwalladr’s article, daring in its purview, is titled Scarlett Johansson interview: ‘I would way rather not have middle ground’, in reference to the actress’s line on the mixed audience reaction after a premier viewing of her new sci fi flick “Under the Skin” at the Venice Film Festival .

Then Johansson is queried about the pedophilia allegation against her director Woody Allen: “It would be ridiculous for me to make any kind of assumption one way or the other.”

That’s when a gutsy Cadwalladr steps up her game and inserts SodaStream into the discourse.  Some of Johansson’s comments– she knew about the settlement issue ahead of time, that “still doesn’t seem like a problem,” but “there’s something… not right” about Oxfam’s position on settlements– are simply stunning.  Check it out:

She’s flustered [by the Woody Allen question], and since I’ve been given the wind-up signal by the publicist, I move on to an even more difficult subject. SodaStream. When I Google “Scarlett Johansson” the fizzy-drinks maker is the third predictive search suggestion in the list, after “Scarlett Johansson hot” – before even “Scarlett Johansson bum”. A month ago, Johansson found herself caught up in a raging news story when it emerged Oxfam had written to her regarding her decision to become a brand ambassador for SodaStream. The company, it transpired, manufactures its products in a factory in a settlement on the West Bank, and while “Oxfam respects the independence of our ambassadors,” it wrote, it also “believes that businesses that operate in settlements further the ongoing poverty and denial of rights of the Palestinian communities that we work to support”.

Johansson responded by stepping down from her Oxfam role. From afar, it looked liked she’d received very poor advice; that someone who is paid good money to protect her interests hadn’t done the necessary research before she’d accepted the role and that she’d unwittingly inserted herself into the world’s most intractable geopolitical conflict. By the time Oxfam raised the issue, she was going to get flak if she did step down, flak if she didn’t. Was the whole thing just a bit of a mistake?

But she shakes her head. “No, I stand behind that decision. I was aware of that particular factory before I signed it.” Really? “Yes, and… it still doesn’t seem like a problem. Until someone has a solution to the closing of that factory to leaving all those people destitute, that doesn’t seem like the solution to the problem.”

But the international community says that the settlements are illegal and shouldn’t be there. “I think that’s something that’s very easily debatable. In that case, I was literally plunged into a conversation that’s way grander and larger than this one particular issue. And there’s no right side or wrong side leaning on this issue.”

Except, there’s a lot of unanimity, actually, I say, about the settlements on the West Bank. “I think in the UK there is,” she says. “That’s one thing I’ve realised… I’m coming into this as someone who sees that factory as a model for some sort of movement forward in a seemingly impossible situation.”

Well, not just the UK. There’s also the small matter of the UN security council, the UN general assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice… which all agree that they’re in contravention of international law. Half of me admires Johansson for sticking to her guns – her mother is Jewish and she obviously has strong opinions about Israel and its policies. Half of me thinks she’s hopelessly naive. Or, most likely, poorly advised. Of all the conflicts in all the world to plant yourself in the middle of…

“When I say a mistake,” I say, “I mean partly because people saw you making a choice between Oxfam – a charity that is out to alleviate global poverty – and accepting a lot of money to advertise a product for a commercial company. For a lot of people, that’s like making a choice between charity – good – and lots of money – greed.”

“Sure I think that’s the way you can look at it. But I also think for a non-governmental organisation to be supporting something that’s supporting a political cause… there’s something that feels not right about that to me. There’s plenty of evidence that Oxfam does support and has funded a BDS [boycott, divest, sanctions] movement in the past. It’s something that can’t really be denied.” When I contacted Oxfam, it denied this.

Very strange. If Johansson doesn’t see herself as supporting a political cause, she’s blind.

annie
About Annie Robbins

Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss, a mother, a human rights activist and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani

Other posts by .


Posted In:

71 Responses

  1. Krauss
    Krauss
    March 17, 2014, 3:20 pm

    It’s bizarre how the journalist keeps throwing her lifelines. Scarlett went out of her way to reject them out of hand. In the end, Johansson forced the Guardian to write the title they wrote.

    But the key question is this: given that she has now gone out of her way to endorse illegal settlements, will her career in Hollywood suffer because of her naked support of Apartheid?

    Of course not.

    She has plenty of company in Tinseltown, where fundraising for the IDF is a rite of passage, for that kind of racism, all the while they take their liberal masks as long as it is America, Africa or Europe.

    When it is Palestine, all of the sudden, the game changes. We’ve seen this movie before.

    • annie
      annie
      March 17, 2014, 4:48 pm

      i hope these questions dog her in every every interview. i think it’s too early to judge if her career will suffer. it might hurt her at the box office, especially in the foreign market. time will tell. as far as i am concerned, her reputation/face has a big scar across it. apartheid, it’s a branding she won’t be able to wash off.

      • Oscar
        Oscar
        March 17, 2014, 5:24 pm

        Nope, Annie, the impact is crystal clear. Scarlett’s now on the BDS list. Will not see any moreof her movies, TV shows or whatever.

      • annie
        annie
        March 17, 2014, 6:31 pm

        me neither oscar.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        March 17, 2014, 6:34 pm

        @ Annie Robbins
        As far as I am concerned, she still has not told anyone in public why she thinks BDS is a bad thing. She said it was, she mentioned it was a motivation for her decision early on, but nobody has asked her about it for the record to my knowledge. What does she think of BDS as a peaceful way of contesting the status quo? Even generically? What does she have to say about Algeria and apartheid S Africa, and the BDS movement then?
        Anybody asking her? Who has asked her, for the record, what she think about Israel’s occupation per se? Why nothing on this? Why nobody asks her if she thinks jobs for the handful of Palestinians working for Sodastream is more important than the lack of jobs generally in the WB due to belligerent Israeli occupation and siege? It’s like babbling about the US lack of jobs without talking about FTAs…..

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        Maximus Decimus Meridius
        March 18, 2014, 3:58 am

        It’s been quite interesting – and perhaps encouraging – to observe the commentary on Johansson’s SS debacle. I’ve looked at a few celebrity/entertainment sites with mostly American readers – ie not the type of place you’d expect to find much anti-occupation feeling – and the reaction to Johansson’s decision has been mostly negative. There’s a general feeling that an already extremely wealthy woman chose the $ over human rights. The only ones who defend her are the usual gang of on-call Zionists. And these, as I say, are American readers. I doubt you would have seen such a reaction even 10 years ago, certainly not in the US.

        Whether it will damage her career remains to be seen – as others have said, it certainly won’t do her any harm with the powers that be in Los Angeles and New York. Au contraire. Then again, seeing as Johansson isn’t much of an actress, and is better known for her product shills than her ‘acting’, her appeal is in any case likely to fade as soon as her looks do, and the next non-threatening blonde (there’s always another one) will take centre stage. So the point is rather moot.

  2. JusticeForPalestine
    JusticeForPalestine
    March 17, 2014, 3:28 pm

    Am I the only who thinks that Johansson doesn’t sound particularly SMART in this interview?

    I don’t mean simply that it sounds like she isn’t making “smart decisions” or “smart arguments.” I mean that she sounds DUMB.

    At the very least, Johannson sounds incapable — in this interview, at least — of putting together a coherent sentence, let alone a coherent explanation of her actions.

    Maybe Johansson isn’t as intelligent as some of the fictional characters she portrays.

    And maybe lack of intelligence partially explains Johansson’s seeming inability to navigate all these SodaStream/Oxfam/BDS conversations and choices.

    • The JillyBeans
      The JillyBeans
      March 17, 2014, 5:33 pm

      I’d say she’s been fed lines on how she should answer interviews during this round of promotions for her films. She’s a well trained seal that one.

      • amigo
        amigo
        March 18, 2014, 8:36 am

        She was picked for her looks and lack of intelligence.

        Now her handlers and Israel are paying the price.

        She will quit or get tired of late night catch up hasbara sessions for the next ??? .

    • American
      American
      March 17, 2014, 6:36 pm

      She is seriously dumb.

    • chicagodave
      chicagodave
      March 17, 2014, 9:30 pm

      http://www.today.com/entertainment/scarlett-johansson-reveals-pretty-low-sat-score-8C11323112

      The SAT isn’t a perfect measure of intelligence by any means, but it isn’t total BS either. She clearly doesn’t understand the political realities. Nobody who understands what is happening in the West Bank could possibly think that Ma’al Adumim is a model for ‘movement forward.’

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      Maximus Decimus Meridius
      March 18, 2014, 3:52 am

      I agree. I’d be the last person to ascribe to the ‘dumb blonde’ stereotype, but Scarlett seems to live up to in in spades. Worse than that, she seems entirely lacking in empathy or compassion, as shown not only by her – bumbling and inarticulate – comments on SS, but also regarding Dylan Farrow (whatever one thinks of the allegations against Allen). Johansson comes across as being exceptionally shallow and self-centered. She can’t even articulate the PR lines fed to her by SS articulately. If ever there were an argument for celebs staying out of politics, this is it.

  3. eljay
    eljay
    March 17, 2014, 3:36 pm

    >> I mean that she sounds DUMB.

    She’s young and she sounds dumb, but not nearly as dumb – or as overtly hateful and immoral – as the (presumably) older Zio-supremacists here on MW and elsewhere who say far dumber and far more hateful things far more forcefully than she did.

    • puppies
      puppies
      March 17, 2014, 5:00 pm

      @eljay – I don’t think there is a graded scale of immorality and hatefulness for Zionism. The robots (and perhaps some humans, too) generously invited here by Phil sound exactly as retarded as that Johannsen goose.

  4. Tzombo
    Tzombo
    March 17, 2014, 3:40 pm

    “If Johansson doesn’t see herself as supporting a political cause, she’s blind.”

    Blind yes, but that’s how they have been selling it for decades. Being pro-Israel is not political, being pro-Palestinian is.

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      March 17, 2014, 4:16 pm

      “Blind yes, but that’s how they have been selling it for decades. Being pro-Israel is not political, being pro-Palestinian is.”

      Very keen observation!

      • ritzl
        ritzl
        March 17, 2014, 4:49 pm

        Aye. Very keen.

    • Daniel Rich
      Daniel Rich
      March 17, 2014, 10:07 pm

      @ Tzombo,

      Q: Being pro-Israel is not political, being pro-Palestinian is.

      R: Embrace yourself for an impromptu, standing ovation. You [simply] nailed it. Bravo, encore…, encore…

  5. ah
    ah
    March 17, 2014, 3:47 pm

    She is a Dimwit!

  6. ckg
    ckg
    March 17, 2014, 4:04 pm

    An excerpt from Scarlett Johannson’s 2012 DNC speech:

    When I was a little girl, my mother—a registered Democrat—would take me into the polling booth, and tell me which buttons to press and when to pull the lever. Is that even legal? I remember the excitement I felt in that secret box, and feeling like my mom’s vote wasn’t just about the candidate, it was about our family—and all the families just like ours.

    And that is the problem, Scarlett. When the workers at the Sodastream factory go to the polling booths to elect the officials that control the army that occupies their land, it’s only families just like yours that can vote.

  7. geofgray
    geofgray
    March 17, 2014, 4:31 pm

    what struck me as remarkable in the interview was the interviewer not johanson. he invited johanson to make a thoughtful response, ie how does she counter israel’s violation of UN resolutions, geneva conventions, etc? her response is that the israeli/palestine situation is viewed differently in america than it is in britain. yes it is. in america you don’t have to think as in using your own head to evaluate the i/p situation in light of data such as e.g. international law. in america we engage in thinkiness, a kind of lo cal thinking. what results is comments like: i/p: it’s complicated, now what’s for lunch.

    • JeffB
      JeffB
      March 17, 2014, 9:11 pm

      @geofgray

      invited johanson to make a thoughtful response, ie how does she counter israel’s violation of UN resolutions, geneva conventions, etc? her response is that the israeli/palestine situation is viewed differently in america than it is in britain. yes it is.

      She gave a fine response. In the USA the UN doesn’t have much credibility nor authority. The Iraq war being a perfect example of this. The UN was unambiguous that this war constituted aggression and the public didn’t much care. Conversely in the UK the UN is taken much more seriously.

      Similarly violations of the Geneva convention. The whole Bush concept of “illegal combatant” is designed to completely reject the protections that Geneva puts in place by creating a class of people who enjoy neither the protections of being civilians nor those of soldiers. Even the USA courts agree this is a rejection of Geneva and no one cares the classification continues.

      When the country with over 1/2 the world’s military power doesn’t agree with the UN on what is the international law, the international law is ambiguous. It isn’t Scar Jo who isn’t thinking clearly on that one.

    • puppies
      puppies
      March 17, 2014, 10:17 pm

      @geofgray – Not to worry, the Brits are learning thinkiness so fast, they might already get there tomorrow morning.

  8. DaBakr
    DaBakr
    March 17, 2014, 4:42 pm

    nobody is going to point out the bigoted and racist assumption made by the interviewer in typical back-handed complimentary sleaze:
    “Half of me admires Johansson for sticking to her guns-her mother is Jewish and has strong opinions on Israel and its policies”

    As if it would be impossible for SJ to have any opinions of her own and surely is under the influence of her Jewish genes more so then her non-Jewish genes from her father.
    How does the presumptuous reporter know that the father is not a supporter of Zionism and was a greater influence on his daughter then the mom?

    • eljay
      eljay
      March 17, 2014, 4:56 pm

      nobody is going to point out the bigoted and racist assumption made by the interviewer in typical back-handed complimentary sleaze:
      “Half of me admires Johansson for sticking to her guns-her mother is Jewish and has strong opinions on Israel and its policies”

      A Jewish girl with a strongly pro-Israel Jewish mother has a strong opinion about “Jewish State”. Makes perfect sense to assume that the mom was an influence.

      How does the presumptuous reporter know that the father is not a supporter of Zionism and was a greater influence on his daughter then the mom?

      How do you know the reporter was being presumptuous?

    • Ellen
      Ellen
      March 17, 2014, 5:21 pm

      Wow, DaBakr, great diversion from the subject at hand — Johansson’s interview and her bizarre answers.

      So you go after the interviewer: “bigoted and racist.” ” the presumptuous reporter…”

      BTW, if her father is a supporter of Zionism is irrelevant. It is not excluded by the reporter’s expression of respect that Johannson appears to be supportive her mother, an important influence for SJ’s life and thinking, a mother who is supportive of Zionist ideologies.

    • kma
      kma
      March 17, 2014, 8:22 pm

      DaBakr,
      was it your mom or your dad that made you a zionist?
      or were you just dumb?

    • Daniel Rich
      Daniel Rich
      March 17, 2014, 10:11 pm

      @ DEBKA DaBakr,

      You should have a talk with Chaim Chuck Lorre about that ‘mother’ angle, as his sitcoms are loaded with ’em or are you suggesting that ScarJo’s ‘tree’ stood on a hill?

    • puppies
      puppies
      March 17, 2014, 10:20 pm

      @Dabak – “As if it would be impossible for SJ to have any opinions of her own”
      Almost as impossible as expecting the same from you.
      Both Zionists, after all: there are no independent thinkers left among Zionists. The surviving ones have already jumped ship.

  9. hophmi
    hophmi
    March 17, 2014, 5:10 pm

    As usual, she’s absolutely correct.

    Cults never recognize nuance, and Scarlett’s opinion is nuanced.

    And the quip about how Scarlett takes the opinion she does because her mother is Jewish is journalistic malpractice. There’s no evidence presented in this piece that Scarlett thinks that way. Her opinion is shared by most Americans, Jewish and non-Jewish.

    • Daniel Rich
      Daniel Rich
      March 17, 2014, 8:04 pm

      @ hopmi

      Q: Her opinion is shared by most Americans, Jewish and non-Jewish.

      R: Time to expand and diversify the inner circles you traverse through.

      • amigo
        amigo
        March 18, 2014, 8:28 am

        “Time to expand and diversify the inner circles you traverse through.”Daniel Rich

        I would prescribe a “Hopbotomy” as a cure and save his brain for future study.

        when it all went wrong and why.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        March 19, 2014, 11:58 am

        “R: Time to expand and diversify the inner circles you traverse through.”

        LOL. Time to learn how to read basic polling data.

    • The Hasbara Buster
      The Hasbara Buster
      March 17, 2014, 9:40 pm

      @hophmi

      As usual, she’s absolutely correct.

      She claimed, without evidence, that Oxfam funded a BDS movement. She also claimed that the illegality of the settlements is “easily debatable.” These two claims are not correct.

      Cults never recognize nuance, and Scarlett’s opinion is nuanced.

      The UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice and the US Government have all asserted, without nuance, that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal. Would you call all of these organizations “cults”?

      Johansson’s opinions are “nuanced” to the same extent that a Holocaust denier’s are. However, contrary to the Holocaust deniers, who act out of ideology, Johansson simply acts out of cluelessness.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        March 18, 2014, 4:45 pm

        I guess she never noticed that the US use to official claim those settlements are illegal, like most of the rest of the world, and she also hasn’t noticed that the US official stance these days is that the settlements are “an obstacle to peace.”

      • annie
        annie
        March 19, 2014, 6:33 pm

        there’s nothing “nuanced” about taking an opinion of the corporation sponsoring her global ambassadorship, they have pr people who prepare her statements about the company. example a.) http://mondoweiss.net/2014/03/scarlett-johansson-sodastream.html

        and other statements in this guardian article match almost verbatim with the the afp article i read the other day. so she’s got her lines down pat. call it a scripted nuance if your will, but the chance it’s even original is ..zilch.

        and what’s this: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/03/johansson-farrago-sodastream.html

        Johansson gave Anthony Lane an interview at the Waldorf Hotel in New York, and fluttered:

        “I think I was put into a position that was way larger than anything I could possibly—I mean, this is an issue that is much bigger than something I could just be dropped into the middle of.”

        the guardian:

        I was literally plunged into a conversation that’s way grander and larger than this one particular issue.

        hmm, reminds me of another scarlett.

    • eljay
      eljay
      March 17, 2014, 9:41 pm

      >> Cults never recognize nuance, and Scarlett’s opinion is nuanced.

      Talk about (war) crimes and other evils committed or supported by (Zio-supremacist) Jews, and you must recognize “nuance”.

      Talk about (war) crimes and other evils committed against Jews, and suddenly “nuance” becomes anti-Semitic and has no place in the discussion.

      It’s funny how that works. Very cult-like…

    • Taxi
      Taxi
      March 18, 2014, 1:43 am

      I once saw an interview with scarlett where she declared herself to be “a European ashkanazim” – not a Norse.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        March 18, 2014, 4:41 pm

        @ Taxi
        Mmmm, did she get that from there mommy or daddy? What’s probable?

    • Ecru
      Ecru
      March 18, 2014, 2:44 am

      @ Hoppy

      And as usual you’re completely wrong.

      BTW Hoppy are you EVER going to admit you LIED about Europeans and “anti-semitism,” that you have repeatedly indulged in what amounts to a BLOOD LIBEL against us?

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        March 19, 2014, 11:58 am

        “BTW Hoppy are you EVER going to admit you LIED about Europeans and “anti-semitism,” that you have repeatedly indulged in what amounts to a BLOOD LIBEL against us?”

        Why would I admit something that is not true?

      • Ecru
        Ecru
        March 20, 2014, 5:09 pm

        @ Hoppy

        Except of course that the charge against you of lying repeatedly, blood-libeling Europeans as anti-semites time and again is indeed true. Though given your obvious xenophobia, your supremacist world-view and your complete lack of anything even approaching moral character, the fact you don’t see anything wrong with besmirching an entire continent of people is hardly surprising. However, given your repeated denials would you like me to go through the comment history of these discussions Hoppy? Because I will if you want……

        But to summarise:-

        1) Using an internet survey you have claimed that European incidents of anti-semitism have increased.

        2) It has been pointed out to you repeatedly that the survey only deals with perceptions of anti-semitism not actual anti-semitism within the self-selecting sample.

        3) You have never acknowledged that the survey report itself confirms that the reports are of perception even though, as has already been stated you have been repeatedly informed of the fact both by myself and others who actually took the time to read the document.

        4) You have tried to pass this survey off as representative of Europe even though you have been informed, again repeatedly, that the report itself declares that the findings and method do not meet the criteria for representativeness.

        5) When challenged on your repeated lies you have either ignored those challenges (cowardly btw) or merely repeated them with no added evidence to back up your claims.

        Given all this what you have actually been doing, you who positively scream “ANTI-SEMITISM!!! (wahhhh!)” at the drop of a hat, is promulgating hate speech against not just one nation but many. It’s ironic but possibly the grossest bigots on the planet, Zionazis such as yourself, are always whining about hate speech while you indulge in the basest blood libels against non-Jews.

        I leave it to the moderators and owners of this site but personally I think you should be banned as surely as any Neo-Nazi would be for libelling Jews and indulging in real (not the made up stuff you cry about) anti-semitism.

  10. Ellen
    Ellen
    March 17, 2014, 5:12 pm

    Johansson has been coached on answers to questions about her shilling for Soda Stream.

    Her responses, are only that. There is not too much logic behind them and if she were to honestly debate these questions, the dishonesty of her responses would be revealed.

    She has demonstrated little intelligence, but now she shows the world that she also has no character.

    Sticking to your guns is always a good cover for low intelligence, ignorance and little character.

    • JeffB
      JeffB
      March 18, 2014, 8:22 am

      @Ellen

      Johansson has been coached on answers to questions about her shilling for Soda Stream.

      What evidence do you have for that? Her answer seem rather unprofessional to me. Exactly what you would expect from someone who is just giving her honest opinion.

      Everything she’s done is perfectly consistent with a completely non conspiratorial view of the world. She was put in a position by BDS of having to make a choice between support for Israel and support for Oxfam. The assumption was she was going to cave. Instead she took a moral stand against BDS based on her real and true feelings. Since that happened she’s suddenly gained a higher political profile, and now when she’s asked questions about why she did what she did she answers.

      There is no need for a conspiracy here. She really isn’t opposed to the settlement enterprise and doesn’t think it is a bad thing. That’s it. Welcome to the real world, not everyone agrees with you.

      • MRW
        MRW
        March 22, 2014, 4:14 am

        What a crock.

  11. ckg
    ckg
    March 17, 2014, 5:36 pm

    I’ll be the first here to make this prediction: She’ll get invited to be a speaker again at DNC 2016, perhaps along with Natalie Portman. Hillary’s troops will roundly applaud her for her ‘courage’ and ‘conviction’.

    • annie
      annie
      March 17, 2014, 6:49 pm

      she’ll get booed by some of the crowd if she tries addressing them. remember the jerusalem vote at the dem convention? can they really afford to expose how many people there are pissed at israel?

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        March 19, 2014, 11:59 am

        “she’ll get booed by some of the crowd if she tries addressing them. remember the jerusalem vote at the dem convention? ”

        Remember the reaction when the primetime speakers mentioned Israel several times that night? No booing.

      • annie
        annie
        March 20, 2014, 10:59 am

        which primetime speakers and what did they say about israel. we’re they representatives of apartheid, like her? evidence someone mentioned israel without boos from the crowd doesn’t erase the vast majority of reps booing during the vote over jerusalem. you know that.

        i seriously doubt they would risk putting her in front of an informed public at a convention. it could be scandalous, and would be caught on video.

    • kma
      kma
      March 17, 2014, 8:27 pm

      Israel is frightened of its demographic “Jewish AND democractic” problem. funny, it doesn’t seem to be a problem in the US! we’re “democratic” AND zionist AND a Jewish minority. can we just ship AIPAC and all of congress to Israel?
      please? with the actresses? please?

  12. amigo
    amigo
    March 17, 2014, 6:09 pm

    So scarlett thinks it is far worse to give to the poor and the needy than it is to take from them.

    What a twisted little moron she is.

    Sounds as if scarletti has been to an intensive hasbara course.

  13. March 17, 2014, 6:24 pm

    Claire Danes was asked about filming in Israel and was ebullient in her praise of the place. Not too many months after, look who’s on the cover of Vogue — perhaps the most coveted cover in all media for a starlet.

    Lest you think it was a reward to Danes, you’d be wrong. It was a message to everyone else.

    • just
      just
      March 17, 2014, 8:43 pm

      Danes did ‘Homeland’ and received much acclaim.

      Another in a long line of Islamophobic garbage. Based on an Israeli’s series “Hatufim”.

  14. Citizen
    Citizen
    March 17, 2014, 6:40 pm

    On a different note, except it involves celebrities more significant than Johansson, remember when the leaders of Russia, China, and Israel were absent at the Funeral of Nelson Mendalla–What Does This Mean? I recall Israel said it was short notice and would cost to much to attend, while the Israeli PM was caught up in scandals about living the high life…. Anybody here know any commentary about this? Why did those three countries make no effort to memorialize Mandella, hence the principles he stood for? I recall Obama used the funeral as an opportunity to regurgitate his mantra of “change.”

    • ivri
      ivri
      March 17, 2014, 7:04 pm

      Why was Israel absent? Well, that has nothing to do with Mandela. S. Africa has become very pro-Palestinian and made the present political climate there not conducive for visits of Israeli political figures. It makes much better political sense for Israel to expand contacts and spend efforts on countries in the continent that are politically closer to Israel, e.g. Kenya.

      • amigo
        amigo
        March 18, 2014, 8:46 am

        “It makes much better political sense for Israel to expand contacts and spend efforts on countries in the continent that are politically closer to Israel, e.g. Kenya.”ivri.

        Why not China.It too is not a democracy.Definitely closer to Israel

        Here is why nuttyahoo did not attend.

        “Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has a little problem balancing budget concerns with statecraft: Back in May, he spent $127,000 on “an in-flight rest chamber” for his trip to Margaret Thatcher’s funeral (in addition to the $300,000 El Al was already set to receive for transporting him).

        Cut to this weekend, when Netanyahu announced he would be begging off of Nelson Mandela’s memorial service, because attending would be too expensive.

        But it’s worth considering just what Netanyahu is willing to spending Israel’s money on (in addition to a super-fancy bed): $2,700 a year on ice cream. $18,000 on clothes, hair, and makeup (double the outlay of just a few years ago). $940,000 on three separate residences. $52 million on compensating settlers for not being allowed to build in the course of a settlement freeze that was more Potemkin’s village than freeze—not to mention billions in the settlements that have already been built and those that are on the way. Suddenly, expensing $1.9 million to pay his nation’s respects to one of history’s greatest men sounds like a bargain, doesn’t it?

        There,s much more at!!

        http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/09/netanyahu-can-t-afford-to-attend-mandela-s-funeral-here-s-what-he-can-afford.html

    • peterfeld
      peterfeld
      March 17, 2014, 9:00 pm

      It was quite appropriate for Israel not to attend, I’m glad they stayed away. Representatives of an apartheid regime would have desecrated Mandela’s funeral by their presence and would probably not have been very welcome.

  15. jsinton
    jsinton
    March 17, 2014, 6:44 pm

    Hmmm….. Big bucks or human rights? Let me think about this one.

  16. jsinton
    jsinton
    March 17, 2014, 7:22 pm

    I hope her career tanks. She’ll be over 30 soon, can’t pass as a teenager anyways.

  17. joer
    joer
    March 17, 2014, 7:23 pm

    I don’t agree with the people here who say that Johansson is not smart. I have dealt with many people who are very intelligent but work to maintain a willful ignorance on this subject. Take, for instance, where she says:

    Until someone has a solution to the closing of that factory to leaving all those people destitute, that doesn’t seem like the solution to the problem.”

    All she would have to do would be to Google “Palestine” to see there are other ways to cure the destitution of the Palestinians. …like allowing the right of return with compensation. There are other solutions to their plight besides making seltzer bottles for Israel. Someone has to have some brains to be so involved with the West Bank and know how not to be confronted with that fact.

    Part of her brand is being a role model for young liberals. This episode is damaging her brand, It will discourage similar celebrities from being so publicly identified with Israel. In that way, it can be counted as a win for BDS. My one comment is that so much attention has been paid to Oxfam that the Palestinians are getting lost in the shuffle. They are her real adversary…after all, she is cashing in on resources that were stolen from them.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      Maximus Decimus Meridius
      March 18, 2014, 3:11 pm

      She cannot string together an articulate sentence, even when the talking points were handed to her by Sodastream.

      If Johansson is indeed intelligent, she’s certainly going out of her way to pretend otherwise. And giving a far more convincing performance than in any of her lousy films.

  18. Daniel Rich
    Daniel Rich
    March 17, 2014, 7:46 pm

    When money talks, I listen to the silence of falling leaves, not dwindling notes…

  19. DICKERSON3870
    DICKERSON3870
    March 17, 2014, 10:09 pm

    RE: “I also think for a non-governmental organisation to be supporting something that’s supporting a political cause… there’s something that feels not right about that to me. There’s plenty of evidence that Oxfam does support and has funded a BDS [boycott, divest, sanctions] movement in the past. It’s something that can’t really be denied.” ~ Scarlett Johansson

    MY COMMENT: I’m beginning to doubt that Scarlett Johansson actually scored as much as 1,080 (out of 1600) on the SAT!*

    *SEE: “Scarlett Johansson reveals ‘pretty low’ SAT score”, by Gael Fashingbauer Cooper, today.com/entertainment, 10/02/13

    [EXCERPT] High school was half a lifetime ago, but actress Scarlett Johansson, 28, still remembers her SAT score.

    The “Don Jon” star sat down for a chat with director Darren Aronofsky for Interview magazine, and the question-and-answer format made her think of that long-ago exam.

    She asked Aronofsky for her SAT score, and the director at first said he didn’t remember. But Johansson recalled hers, from her days at New York’s Professional Children’s School.

    “I think the way it worked when I took them was that they were out of 1,600, so maybe you’d get a 1,240 if you were a smarty-pants,” she said. “I got a 1,080, which was pretty low. But that was probably because I didn’t answer half of the math questions.”

    Aronofsky later confessed he did know his SAT score, which was 1,360. “You suck,” said Johansson. “Damn it … Now I feel like a big dummy with 1,080.” . . .

    SOURCE – http://www.today.com/entertainment/scarlett-johansson-reveals-pretty-low-sat-score-8C11323112

  20. DICKERSON3870
    DICKERSON3870
    March 17, 2014, 10:15 pm

    RE: “Half of me thinks she’s [Scarlett Johansson is] hopelessly naive. Or, most likely, poorly advised.” ~ Carole Cadwalladr

    MY QUESTION: Does anyone know who Scarlett Johansson’s agent is?

    • DICKERSON3870
      DICKERSON3870
      March 22, 2014, 12:20 am

      ANSWER – Scarlett Johansson’s Agent: Scott Lambert. William Morris Agency. One William Morris Place. Beverly Hills, CA 90212.
      SOURCE – http://famous-relationships.topsynergy.com/Scarlett_Johansson/Contact.asp

      ALSO SEE: “Mediator Says William Morris Guilty of Racial Discrimination Against African American Employee”, by Cynthia McKinney, DissidentVoice.org, January 1st, 2014

      [EXCERPT] How do you snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? By winning on the battlefield and losing at the peace table. That was my critique of the gigantic struggle against apartheid when compared to the economic and political situation that prevails in the Republic of South Africa today.

      In the U.S., a young man is on the verge of a huge victory on the legal battlefield and he must not become a loser at the peace table. That young man, a veritable “David,” is about to topple a “Goliath!” I’m writing about Marcus Washington, a young African American male who is going up against William Morris Endeavor Entertainment (formerly known as William Morris Agency, the oldest talent agency in Hollywood) and its bevvy of politically connected lawyers: 6 attorneys and 3 paralegals at the elite law firm, Loeb & Loeb LLP. Also, for the second year in a row, one of those opposing attorneys, Michael P. Zweig, has been named “Best Lawyer” in Labor & Employment Litigation by The Best Lawyers in America (2013-2014) and last year, he was named “New York Super Lawyer” for Employment & Labor by Thomson Reuters. Laughingly, this same celebrated attorney was the Chairperson of the Loeb & Loeb Diversity Initiative Committee between 2002 and 2010 and is the Co-Chair of the Employment and Labor Practice Group, while for three years, he has adamantly denied that William Morris has engaged in any unlawful conduct.

      Amazing.

      William Morris Endeavor Entertainment is headed by Ari Emanuel, the very same outfit that, I was told, stepped in to dampen enthusiasm and support for an excellent documentary by Ian Inaba about my life in politics, American Blackout. Well, Marcus alleged in his complaint filed with the Southern District of New York on December 21, 2010 that this little racist outfit has discriminated against Blacks for more than a century by denying qualified people of color equal employment opportunities, particularly by excluding them from higher-status, higher paying positions such as Agent, thus giving this Hollywood talent agency a race-based monopoly in representing Black talent in all areas of entertainment – from the concert stage to the box office! No wonder so many Black “superstars” are going broke and worse, going to jail! Let’s see if the ones so afflicted also just happen to be the Black celebrities that have a heart for Black people.

      Marcus Washington, representing himself as a pro se litigant in a case alleging employment discrimination and institutionalized racism against William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, is on the verge of winning! Look at their client list and see just how big a case this is! According to this 2009 Variety story, William Morris clients include Eddie Murphy, Tyler Perry, Queen Latifah, Forest Whitaker, Whoopi Goldberg . . .

      . . . The evidence of Hollywood’s unvarnished racial animus introduced in all three of these cases points to the regular use of the words “nigger,” “monkey,” “Uncle Tom,” “coon,” “spooks,” and more in internal e-mail traffic of these agencies’ top Agents and employees. So it should not be a surprise that, according to Marcus Washington’s evidence, William Morris had an explicit policy of not hiring Black agents from 1898 to 1961 and that in 1963, there were more Black Agents employed in the New York office at William Morris (one) than there were when Washington worked there between 2008-2010 (zero).

      Recently, the arbitrator in Washington’s case found that William Morris did unlawfully discriminate against Marcus because of his race and that Marcus has suffered monetary damages as a result of that discrimination and that Marcus is due legal fees and costs as a prevailing pro se non-attorney in this three-year legal battle that is still on-going. . .

      ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://dissidentvoice.org/2014/01/mediator-says-william-morris-guilty-of-racial-discrimination-against-african-american-employee/

  21. DICKERSON3870
    DICKERSON3870
    March 17, 2014, 10:34 pm

    RE: “I would way rather not have middle ground” ~ Scarlett Johansson

    BEAVIS: “Way!”
    BUTTHEAD: “No way!”
    BEAVIS: “Way!”
    BUTTHEAD: “No way!”
    BEAVIS: “Way!”
    BUTTHEAD: “No way!”
    [CONTINUED AD NAUSEAM]

    Beavis and Butthead on Letterman [VIDEO, 06:18] – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYqB0m4XYRQ

  22. hophmi
    hophmi
    March 18, 2014, 10:46 am

    Well, as I tell you frequently, a lot of people find BDS to be a noxious idea, wrongheaded policy, discriminatory in nature. There are people who do not drink the post-colonialist Kool-Aid.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      Maximus Decimus Meridius
      March 18, 2014, 3:09 pm

      A lot of people find Zionism to be a noxious idea, wrongheaded policy, discriminatory in nature. There are people who do not drink the Zionist Kool-Aid.

      You were really asking to be parodied, weren’t you? But you just made it way too easy for us.

  23. Susan A
    Susan A
    March 18, 2014, 3:12 pm

    @hophmi: And as you must read regularly and thus acknowledge, a lot of people find belligerent occupation and ethnic cleansing noxious ideas, illegally wrong-headed policies and most definitely, undeniably discriminatory in nature. There are people who see the truth, don’t deny the truth and definitely don’t drink the foul fizz that contributes to the wrecking of lives and the rotting of teeth. There is nothing discriminatory about BDS. BDS works towards human rights, dignity and equality for the people of Palestine because governments continue to do nothing. Notice how quickly sanctions have been slapped on Russia; check out all the other countries under some sort of sanction. Israel’s immunity to criticism must end for the good of everyone.

Leave a Reply