Monday, March 17, 2014

Scarlett Stands By Her Decision

Scarlett Johansson defended herself.

Was the whole thing just a bit of a mistake?
...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."

..."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." 

+972 attacked:-

By stating that the illegality of settlements is ‘very easily debatable’ and that there is no ‘right or wrong side,’ the actress has proven she is not naive at all – but is rather choosing money over humanitarian concerns. By default, she is enabling the occupation.

I left this comment:

on the other hand, she could be correct in her legal analysis of the status of the Jewish residential communities in the parts of the League of Nations mandated area to become the resonsituted Jewish national home and that the only profits that could result from a prolonging of the hostilities by Arab, supported by progressive leftist forces, are the profits of war, or, the profits of the "human rights industry" which prolongs the suffereing of people, calssifying them as refugees, etc. just so they can donate money and pay the salaries of all sorts of groups and associations.


No comments: