Scarlett quits

[davekc]

Looks like she finally decided to quite.
It is all Rlent's fault.
Scarlett Johansson steps down as Oxfam ambassador | Fox News

 

[RLENT]

Looks like she finally decided to quite.

Actually she doubled down ... and maintained her business relationship SodaStream ... and tossed an 8 year relationship with Oxfam ... opting to go for the bucks instead of moral principles ...

What likely happened was that Oxfam told her she would have to make a choice and pick either them or SodaStream ... and if she didn't, they would make it for her.

(There's precedent - Oxfam has done it before with several folks, Kristin Davis I think was one IIRC)

It is all Rlent's fault.

LOL ... yeah ... I'm afraid I can't take credit for Scarlett's decisions ... she'll have to own those herself.

“I know, I’m really proud of my Oxfam work. It’s just….I have this SodaStream gig to get to.” (Graphic: Stephanie Westbrook)​

Ever the optimist, a week ago as I wondered what choice Scarlett would make, knowing “something’s gotta break” between now and the Superbowl. Somehow I held out hope it wouldn’t turn out this way. Scarlett made her choice. She’s throwing in the towel, ending her relationship with Oxfam and staking her career, reputation, and god knows what else (morals come to mind) with the Israeli occupation and SodaStream.

Late Wednesday West Coast time the Associated Press broke the news. A statement released by a spokesperson for her cited “a fundamental difference of opinion” about the issues raised by her recent decision to serve as “global brand ambassador” for SodaStream, a company that manufactures its home carbonation contraptions in an illegal settlement on the West Bank.

From the AP report, which was written by Derrik J. Lang:

(Article continues at link below)

Lost in Occupation: Scarlett Johansson ends relationship with Oxfam to stick with SodaStream

#itsrainingmenforannierobbins

 

[muttly]

Good for her.

Scarlett Johansson dumps immoral Oxfam
From AP:

Scarlett Johansson is ending her relationship with a humanitarian group after being criticized over her support for an Israeli company that operates in the West Bank.

A statement released by Johansson's spokesman Wednesday said the 29-year-old actress has "a fundamental difference of opinion" with Oxfam International because the humanitarian group opposes all trade from Israeli settlements, saying they are illegal and deny Palestinian rights.

"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."
Johansson is clearly more moral than Oxfam is.

While Oxfam never officially said it supports boycotting all Israeli products - like all humanitarian NGOs, it has to put up a pretense of objectivity - Oxfam has no problem with one of their other ambassadors pushing for the destruction of Israel via BDS. That ambassador is the hateful Desmond Tutu, who happily associates with members of Hamas.

There was never any hand-wringing at Oxfam over Tutu.

Similarly, Oxfam lies about Israel all the time. In a bizarre press release in 2012, Oxfam said "Israeli restrictions on fuel supplies via the overland crossings, imposed in 2007, caused massive shortages, leading the authority in Gaza to seek alternate solutions in fuel supplied through the tunnels." No, Hamas didn't want to pay Israel market prices for fuel nor taxes to the PA so it decided on its own to illegally smuggle fuel instead. Oxfam, simply, lied to protect Hamas and blame Israel even though Israel was not restricting fuel at all.

Another example of how immoral Oxfam is comes from a comparison between how it publicly disagreed with ScarJo regarding SodaStream - but it did everything it could to cover for Palestinian NGO Miftah when it published an article saying that Jews drink the blood of Christians and supported suicide bombers. Yeah, a factory employing hundreds of Arabs is much worse than a blood libel, right?

Johansson is right and it is brilliant that she decided to end her relationship with Oxfam. After all, she has a reputation as a humanitarian that was in danger from associating with an organization that is obsessively against Israel and tolerant towards terrorists and antisemites.

Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: Scarlett Johansson dumps immoral Oxfam

 

[davekc]

Sounds like both sides are trying to put the best political spin on it that they can.

 

[muttly]

#delusionalannieagreesmurderesarefreedomfighters

Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: Mondoweiss agrees that released murderers are "freedom fighters"

 

[Turtle]

#delusionalannieagreesmurderesarefreedomfighters

Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: Mondoweiss agrees that released murderers are "freedom fighters"

#ridiculouslyofftopic

 

[Maverick]

End of OP article says it all....

The Associated Press contributed to this report. The old controllers of information, at it again.

Let's ask this misguided women a question. Are you a....Ashkenazic Jew, or a Sephardic Jew?

Bet she doesn't even know.

 

[Ragman]

Let's ask this misguided women a question. Are you a....Ashkenazic Jew, or a Sephardic Jew?

Bet she doesn't even know.

Does it really matter?

 

[Maverick]

Does it really matter?

It matters greatly.....especially if she doesn't know.

And I'd just bet pappy's mule, she don't.

 

[Ragman]

It matters greatly.....especially if she doesn't know.

And I'd just bet pappy's mule, she don't.

Please explain. I don't see what difference it would make.

 

[RLENT]

Does it really matter?

No it doesn't ... In fact, as far as I can see it' entirely irrelevant ...

 

[Maverick]

What happened in Russia during the mass round up and murder of millions of Christians?

This website gives a bumbling attempt at dividing two sets of people. Yet, the supposed occupants of modern Israel are the true descendants of Moses? How can that be? So, this OP character needs to decide which affiliation fits her propaganda move the most....I guess.

"It's not clear when the split began, but it has existed for more than a thousand years, because around the year 1000 C.E".... Huh?

Judaism 101: Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews

There is only one set of Jews, not two. Is this not like stating two sets of British people? Ah, one set was from, oh say, 800 BC, and the other is from say, fill in the blank. We 're not sure how this happened, or when it took place because all historical facts are foggy bout that.

Clearly....there are those who say they are Jews, but are not.

 

[Maverick]

No it doesn't ... In fact, as far as I can see it' entirely irrelevant ...

Then we'll bow out. I prefer relevance myself.

Please continue your discussion.

 

[RLENT]

Then we'll bow out. I prefer relevance myself.

Please continue your discussion.

No need for you to bow out ... I only stated my opinion from my perspective ... because I didn't see any case being made for your assertion as to how it is relevant.

I will read your link and see if it alters my opinion.

 

[Ragman]

I will read your link and see if it alters my opinion.

Still irrelevant to me.

 

[RLENT]

Good for her.

It remains to be seen whether it will actually be good for her over the long run.

In any event, it is certainly good for the BDS movement because it gives it widespread attention and places the issue on the radar screens of many who may have been unaware of it before and pushes the matter into the mainstream conversation.

Regardless of all that, thanks for another opportunity to illustrate how the hasbarats use propaganda to twist and distort the actual truth of a matter:

Scarlett Johansson dumps immoral Oxfam
From AP:

Scarlett Johansson is ending her relationship with a humanitarian group after being criticized over her support for an Israeli company that operates in the West Bank.

A statement released by Johansson's spokesman Wednesday said the 29-year-old actress has "a fundamental difference of opinion" with Oxfam International because the humanitarian group opposes all trade from Israeli settlements, saying they are illegal and deny Palestinian rights.

That they are illegal is pretty much beyond dispute ... with everyone from the UNGA & UNSC to the International Court of Justice to our own government having long considered them to be so - from CNS News:

(CNSNews.com) – Asserting that the United States views Jewish settlements as “illegitimate” does not amount to prejudging the outcome of negotiations aimed at resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Thursday.

The U.S. has not recognized the legitimacy of settlements in the disputed territories “for decades,” she told a press briefing.

“Every administration in recent memory has said that the settlements are illegitimate,” Psaki added. “So it’s been a pretty consistent position for quite some time now.”

Some 520,000 Israelis – around seven percent of the total population – live in areas claimed by the Palestinians, including long-established suburbs of east, north and south Jerusalem.

Increasingly often in recent months, Secretary of State John Kerry and State Department officials have made the point about settlement illegitimacy.

Usually, they have attributed the term to “continued” settlement activity – implying active construction work in existing or new settlements. (President Obama used the same term in his 2009 speech in Cairo and again at the United Nations later that year, saying the U.S. “does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”)

(Article continues at link below)

State Dept.: Israeli Settlements Are 'Illegitimate' | CNS News

Furthermore, this been the opinion of others as well - including Jews and Israelis - such as Daniel Steiman, who published the following in The Jerusalem Post:

The settlements are illegal under international law

By DANIEL STEIMAN
12/29/2013 23:13

​

It is abundantly clear to most observers that settlements built in the territories were always intended to eventually be permanent parts of the State of Israel.

Every few months or so, I come across an op-ed on an Israeli or Jewish website that attempts to argue that the world’s uproar against settlements is illegitimate, and that settlements are perfectly legal under international law.

The latest such op-ed I read, about a month ago in this publication, was from Yair Shamir, the current Israeli minister of agriculture and son of the late Yitzchak Shamir.

While I do not dispute that there has always been an intense bias toward Israel when it comes to applying the standards of international law, this does not, however, change the fact that Israel’s settlement enterprise is, and has always been, grossly illegal under international law.

Shamir’s arguments to the contrary are not only misinterpretations of the articles of international law, but also run counter to the very spirit of that law.

As a first principle to this question, it must be understand that the West Bank is under a legal regime of belligerent occupation. Belligerent occupation is a specific category under the international laws of war that comes into effect when a state captures territory from another state during the course of war.

On the first day that Israel came into possession of the West Bank and Gaza Strip from Jordan and Egypt, respectively, the IDF declared its authority over the territories, and that the international law of belligerent occupation would be the law of the land in those territories. Much to Israel’s credit, it has been the only state since the end of World War II to have formally applied the international law of occupation in a territory it has conquered through war. Occupation law in the territories is still enforced to this day, 46 years after it was established.

It is in regard to the West Bank’s legal status that we get to the first of Shamir’s major misinterpretations of international law. Shamir argues that because Jordan illegally occupied and annexed the West Bank during the Israeli War of Independence, it did not have legal sovereignty over the land. Thus, there is no lawful sovereign that Israel can return the land to, and therefore Israel’s occupation must be considered sui generis, and not a normal military occupation to which the main pillars of international occupation law, the Hague Regulations of 1907, and the 4th Geneva Convention, are applicable.

It is indeed true that the Hague Regulations as a legal document is primarily concerned with protecting the sovereign titles of territory under occupation. But this is not the case with the 4th Geneva Convention, of which Israel is a signatory. Established in 1949, in response to the horrific atrocities committed against civilians during World War II, the primary focus of that convention is to protect the human rights of civilians who find themselves under occupation, not with the legal titles of sovereigns.

As Yoram Dinstein, former rector of Law at Tel Aviv University and world authority on the international laws of war, notes, any confusion about whether the 4th Geneva Convention is applicable in the West Bank is cleared up by Article 4 of the Convention (Dinstein 2009), which states: Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals. (Geneva Convention IV).

By the fact that Israel conquered a territory that was inhabited by civilians who are not Israeli citizens (i.e. Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank), this makes the Fourth Geneva Convention applicable, and de jure, makes Israel’s control of the West Bank a military occupation.

Israeli jurist Theodor Meron also concludes that “the application of the [4th Geneva] Convention should not be interpreted as the recognition of the status of Jordan in the West Bank. It must be remembered that, as a humanitarian convention par excellence, the Fourth Geneva Convention is concerned primarily with people, rather than territory; with human rights, rather than with legal questions pertaining to territorial status” (Meron 1979: 109).

Furthermore, in how many cases of war and occupation are the sovereign rights to a particular land not disputed? Is Israel’s situation really that unique? It would appear to be a very narrow and ineffective interpretation of international law if the rights afforded to civilians under the 4th Geneva Convention are disregarded in every case when it cannot be determined which sovereign has legal ownership to the land under occupation.

If the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable in the West Bank, than the question becomes whether Israeli settlements conform to Article 49(6) of the convention: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

Shamir argues that this law only prevents the occupying power from forcing its own citizens into the territories it has conquered, i.e. in reaction to when Germany deported its Jewish citizens to the death camps in Poland and elsewhere, and not in cases of citizens voluntarily moving to the occupied territory. Both Shamir’s interpretation of the wording of the law and the background of its formulation are completely false.

First, such an interpretation implies that Article 49(6) is intended to protect the citizens of the occupying power, in this case Israeli citizens. However, the sole purpose of the 4th Geneva Convention is to protect the civilians living under occupation, not the citizens of the occupying power, who are not afforded any protection by the Convention.

Second, the term “transfer” does not imply forced, as evidenced by another article in the Convention, Article 49(1), which forbids the deportation of civilians from the occupied territories, and uses the phrase “forcible transfer,” not simply the term “transfer,” as Article 49(6) does.

Further, to quote Dinstein, the settler’s “voluntary cooperation in the transfer does not diminish from its illicit character, pursuant to the sixth paragraph of Article 49, as long as the Occupying Power stands behind the project.”

Article 49(6) is always applicable as long as the occupying power is facilitating the transfer of its own citizens, whether forced or not. What Article 49 (6) aimed to prevent was not situations such as those in which Nazi Germany was deporting its Jewish citizens to the death camps, but instead Nazi Germany’s intention to transfer its ethnic German citizens into the Eastern European territories it conquered as part of its Lebensraum policy to alter the demographics of those territories.

This is not to compare in any way Nazi Germany with Israel’s settlement policy, but instead to illustrate how the voluntary transfer of citizens of the occupying power could be used to violate the human rights of the occupied, and thus was prohibited under Article 49(6).

Furthermore, if one concedes that Israel’s rule over the territories is an occupation, then the settlement project is violating the most fundamental principle of international occupation law: that the occupying power may not unilaterally annex any territory it conquers.

It is abundantly clear to most observers that the settlements built in the territories were always intended to eventually be permanent parts of the State of Israel.

Under international law, the occupying power may temporarily requisition the private property of a civilian living under occupation only if it is done strictly for the purposes of security. Thus, whenever a West Bank Palestinian, whose land was confiscated by the IDF to build a settlement, challenged the legality of that confiscation in Israel’s High Court, the military always argued that the settlement in question was temporary and was built strictly for the purposes of security.

But, of course, anyone who saw through the IDF’s smokescreen could see that all settlements are intended to be permanent in nature, and a large number, especially those built for religious Zionist settlers, were built for ideological reasons, not security. Thus, the settlement enterprise can be seen to be a grave violation of international occupation law as it violates the very fundamental core of that law: there is no legitimacy to annexation through conquest.

For people like Shamir who remain pro-settlement, there are really only two arguments they can make with respect to settlements and international law.

One could argue that international legal community is simply biased against Israel anyway, and therefore Israel does not need to follow laws that other nations have ignored with impunity. Or, two, they could say that Jewish law supersedes international law, and that it is the law of the Torah that truly governs Israel’s rule in the West Bank. But what they cannot say is that international law is on the side of the settlement project. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The writer received an MA from Georgetown University’s Department of Government in 2012. He currently lives and works in Jerusalem.

The settlements are illegal under international law | JPost | Israel News

And even the Government of Israel's own legal advisor has told them as much - from the 1967 legal memo - which was classified "Top Secret" - of Theodor Meron, who at the time was Legal Advisor to the Foreign Affairs Ministry of Israel:

"My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

Although Meron made the statement above, he went on to expound as to how the Government of Israel might ignore the actual spirit and intent of the law as enshrined in the 4th Geneva Convention and establish settlements, thereby flagrantly defying international law ... although they would still likely be rejected by the international community (which they have been)

An article which addresses Meron's actions in this context is linked below:

Theodor Meron's '67 memo provided legal rationale for settlements

 

[RLENT]

Still irrelevant to me.

I suspect it may well be to me as well, once I read it ... but I will keep an open mind until I actually have.

I also suspect that it will provide an opportunity for some more enlightening discussion (IOW: an educational opportunity ... )

 

[RLENT]

"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.

Huh ?

Does Oxfam even have a position on the BDS movement ?

... or this just a slick PR effort to misrepresent the actual facts of matter in an attempt to make Scarlett come out smelling like a rose and cast Oxfam as the villain ?

One might draw some preliminary conclusions about that by the nature of arguments presented in the piece supplied by Muffin that I have quoted and am replying to here. For example:

"Scarlett Johansson dumps immoral Oxfam"

"Johansson is clearly more moral than Oxfam is. "

"Similarly, Oxfam lies about Israel all the time. In a bizarre press release in 2012, Oxfam said ..."

"Another example of how immoral Oxfam is comes from a comparison ..."

Generally, it's been my experience and observation, that Zionist hasbarats aren't a terribly bright bunch ... they often fail to consider the unintended consequences and ramifications of the crap they chuck out. This is based on my interactions with them over the last year or two, and observing their interactions with others for a somewhat longer period. It's a study in stupidity and quite hilarious actually ... especially when you watch them try to deal with a Hasbara Buster™ that really knows their stuff (The comments section of Mondoweiss is full of this kind of thing on a daily basis)

Since they often operate off of distortions, misrepresentations, and outright lies in their propaganda efforts, it leaves them open to being exposed for what they actually are: fanatical zealots ... who'll do nearly anything for the cause.

Recalling the nature of Muffy's participation in past political discussions, I don't find it at all odd that he's thrown his lot in with this bunch. Birds of a feather and all that. Hard to say what the actual motivation is ... although it is known he's a right-winger ... and his current position (fanatical, knee-jerk support for Zionism) is fairly common by some on the Right.

Consider the lines quoted above as an example of what I'm talking about. Here's the rather obvious inference that can be made:

If Oxfam is so obviously immoral and "lies about Israel all the time", what does it say about Scarlett Johansson that she would have an 8 year relationship with them ?

To understand the matter of whether Oxfam even has a position on BDS and what the overall intent of this "spin" was, we need to turn to some more outstanding expert analysis by Phan Nguyen, who breaks it down and deconstructs the narrative that the fanatics are presently trying to build:

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

Phan Nguyen on January 30, 2014

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 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.

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!​

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

So ... long story short: Oxfam acted in a classy manner, being "diplomatically discreet" ... and allowing Johansson the freedom to choose to resolve the issue in a manner she saw fit ... and Scarlett returned the favor by basically taking a huge dump and shatting all over Oxfam, foregoing the moral position for the immoral one, and opting to go for the bucks instead ...

A very classy lady no doubt ...

 

[RLENT]

What happened in Russia during the mass round up and murder of millions of Christians?

Huh ?

I'm not sure what you are referring to, or what your point is ...

This website gives a bumbling attempt at dividing two sets of people. Yet, the supposed occupants of modern Israel are the true descendants of Moses? How can that be?

The answer to that question should be self-evident I would think ...

Since Judaism does accept converts (but does not proselytize) it's a fair bet that at least some portion of the occupants of modern Israel are not true, direct descendants of Moses (in terms of genetics) ... except perhaps in a spiritual sense ...

That fact, IMHO, has little bearing on whether or not they are Jews.

The question of "who is Jewish" is seemingly a complex one, in that there may be some difference of opinion and disagreement even among Jews themselves about this.

As just a (largely ignorant) old Gentile, my own personal take on the matter is that since Judaism is a religion, those that believe in the tenets of Judaism (to whatever degree) and practice those tenets (to whatever degree) would be Jews ...

But that is somewhat of an over-simplification ... because there are other aspects to the question (see below)

And just as there are many denominations in Christianity, so too is there an analog in Judaism (Reform, Conservative, Orthodox ... to say nothing of any splits or schisms within the three main subdivisions)

So, this OP character needs to decide which affiliation fits her propaganda move the most....I guess.

"It's not clear when the split began, but it has existed for more than a thousand years, because around the year 1000 C.E".... Huh?

Judaism 101: Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews

I'm afraid you've lost me here ... please elaborate as to what this has to do with the matter and how that is so ...

There is only one set of Jews, not two.

Depending on exactly what you mean by that, it seems to me that this would be a rather presumptuous declaration/determination for a non-Jew to make ... in light of history ...

Classifying people as Jew/non-Jew - particularly along ethnic/genetic/racial lines - has a rather dubious history, especially in recent history ...

Is this not like stating two sets of British people? Ah, one set was from, oh say, 800 BC, and the other is from say, fill in the blank.

I think it would be quite easy to show that what presently constitutes the "British people" are made up of a number of different original subcultures, from various genetic lines, from a number of different places ...

Peoples (tribes and nations, in the non-state meaning) are something that are, for the most part, ever-changing and constantly evolving.

We 're not sure how this happened, or when it took place because all historical facts are foggy bout that.

Yes ... and ?

Clearly....there are those who say they are Jews, but are not.

That depends on how one defines being Jewish ... clearly there are a number of aspects to it ... from religion to ethnicity to culture ...

As a Gentile, I find that I have no standing which allows me to make authoritative statements on the matter of "who is a Jew" which would (or should) have merit or carry any weight ... it is largely a matter for the Jewish people, and the particular individuals involved, to sort out themselves.

OTOH, I can certainly opine to a limited extent (constrained by my own ignorance) on whether someone who claims to be Jewish appears to be following the tenets of Judaism as I understand them to be ... just as I similarly can with someone who professes to be a Christian, in terms of the tenets of that faith ...

But even that is probably fraught with problems and dangers ...

 

[Turtle]

End of OP article says it all....

The Associated Press contributed to this report. The old controllers of information, at it again.

Rather than jump to such a conclusion, you probably should have read the original Scarlett Johansson, Oxfam part ways over politics AP report to see who is controlling what.

Let's ask this misguided women a question. Are you a....Ashkenazic Jew, or a Sephardic Jew?

Bet she doesn't even know.

Yeah, I can't see how that's relevant to her quitting Oxfam at all. She is the daughter of an American Jewish mother and a Danish Christian father. She hooked up with Oxfam because they bill themselves as a humanitarian organization created to fight poverty, and that's mostly what they do. She wanted to help highlight the impact of natural disasters and raise funds to save lives and fight poverty, which is the stated goal of Oxfam, and was motivated to become involved by the organization’s response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami. Yet increasingly Oxfam is becoming more of a political organization, spending a lot of their time and money on telling Starbucks what kind of coffee they can sell to what kind of labels Dole can put on their bananas, and in taking a very political, very non-humanitarian stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Scarlett Johansson's global endorsement simply doesn't fit in with Oxfam's local political motives. SodaStream has 22 manufacturing facilities around the world, including, Israel, the West Bank, Germany, Sweden, US, Australia, South Africa and China. The World Bank estimates the unemployment rate in the West Bank at 22 percent. SodaStream employs approximately 900 Palestinian workers from East Jerusalem and the West Bank, making it one of the largest employers of Palestinians. Which is the opposite of poverty. If Oxfam is more concerned about poverty than politics, they wouldn't care one way or the other how those jobs were created.