International aid group Oxfam accepted Hollywood actress Scarlett Johansson’s resignation on Thursday after a recent controversy involving her paid endorsement of SodaStream, an at-home soda-making product made in Ma’ale Adumim, a section of the Israeli-occupied West Bank territory.
The move by Oxfam came after Johansson’s spokesman released a statement late Wednesday, which said, in part, that she had “respectfully decided to end her ambassador role with Oxfam after eight years,” according to The Associated Press.
“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,” it added.
Johansson, who has become the face and “global brand ambassador” for SodaStream, is due to appear in a slick SodaStream advertisement during the Super Bowl on Feb. 2.
The international debate had caused a stir around the world. The West Bank and Gaza Strip lands, which are both defined as illegally occupied territories by the U.N., are populated by Palestinians but also dotted with highly contentious Israeli settlements.
Oxfam said in a statement that it “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.” And further, it “is opposed to all trade from Israeli settlements, which are illegal under international law.”
Critics said Oxfam should have cut ties sooner with Johansson.
Hubert Murray, grandson of late Professor Gilbert Murray and whose great-uncle Dr. Henry Gillett were both founding members in the 1940s of the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief — which later became Oxfam, said the organization could have a tough time overcoming the debate.
“Now that Ms. Johansson has resigned from her post as ambassadress, the remaining casualty of this episode is Oxfam for having prevaricated and procrastinated on the matter, making it look as though compliance with donors’ wishes rather than adherence to principle is their main concern,” Hubert told MintPress on Thursday. “To sacrifice principle to expedience is not a viable strategy for the long-term reputation of a non-profit organization such as this. Oxfam’s reputation has been seriously damaged and as many individuals and organizations have learned to their cost, a reputation once lost is hard to restore.”
However, Hubert said the whole episode has had a positive outcome: shedding light on the “settlement policy and the duplicity of successive Israeli governments in the so-called ‘peace process.’ Secondly, I would like to think that Oxfam, in particular Oxfam-America, has been chastened by this controversy and will take stock of their founding principles and recalibrate accordingly.”
Adding to the chorus of criticism was Ben White, an author and researcher specializing in Israeli-Palestinian relations. He said opposition to Israeli violations of international law is now a mainstream position for a leading poverty alleviation and human rights based charity like Oxfam.
“However, it is correct to highlight Oxfam’s weakness in responding slowly and in failing to unilaterally cut ties with Johansson — enabling a kind of ‘face saving’ exercise,” White told MintPress. “Ultimately, the whole episode reinforces the growing strength of campaigns such as BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) that seek to end Israeli human rights abuses, but Oxfam emerges with dented credibility for the way they responded.”
Criticism was also heaved on Johansson.
“By quitting Oxfam and sticking with her endorsement of SodaStream, Scarlett Johansson has confirmed she values profiting from the Israeli occupation and apartheid far above human rights and charitable work,” Ali Abunimah, author of “The Battle for Justice in Palestine” and co-founder of the website The Electric Intifada, told MintPress. “The fact that she quit Oxfam rather than being fired by the charity weeks ago, reflects very poorly on Oxfam. The charity failed to swiftly and clearly uphold its principles and appears to have been taken by surprise by Johansson’s announcement, adding to its humiliation and disarray.”
He added that celebrities, companies and nongovernmental organizations should be on notice that complicity with Israeli occupation, and apartheid, comes “with a high reputational cost. Whatever financial gains Johansson reaps now will fade. She will be remembered, like those who were complicit with apartheid in South Africa, for standing on the wrong side of history.”