Forethought and lack of it

Scarlett Johansson is embroiled in a controversial saga of her own choosing since stepping down an Oxfam ambassador.  When she became the brand face of SodaStream, she may not have known that the company had a plant in the Palestinian Occupied Territories.  Oxfam informed her and asked Johansson to disassociate herself from SodaStream.  Instead, not only did Johansson choose her commercial ties over her humanitarian ones but, probably because of some staggeringly bad advice, she has released a statement announcing her parting of the ways with the charity by making no bones about Oxfam asking her to boycott Israeli products as part of the "divestment and sanctions movement."  Oxfam however did not ask to boycott SodaStream (and does not hold a position in any boycott 'movement), merely stop promoting it, so it comes across as bitterness from Johansson or, more likely, her advisors.
Anything related to Israel is controversial as the partisans are so polarised - only the antagonists in Syria are further apart.  This makes it a minefield for anyone who wanders off-piste as they will be instantly shot down by one side or the other.  Such has been the fate of the celebrity photographer Rankin (real name John Waddell) and his idle speculation.  I had never heard of him before he was elevated into the spotlight following an interview in The Independent, where he said, "I think the reason that she's not backed down is because, in America, the Jewish zealots are so powerful.  Especially in the entertainment industry, what they could do her career.  But the main thing in all this for me is that kind of extreme Judaism.  That extreme belief that this is their homeland and those people are worthless to them.  That's very powerful in America.  They will blacklist you.  They will blacklist you.  It's worse than McCarthyism."
Pretty crude yet incendiary stuff.  Johansson's global profile is such that it would raise questions were  she to suddenly disappear from cinema screens.  Again, I think it is her advisors who panicked, in thrall to the same (illusory) fear that Rankin alludes.  Extremists of all kinds are dangerous people and it could be said the settlers in the Occupied Territories need to possess such a mindset to tough it out when surrounded by hostile locals and international opprobrium.  One might even go as far uyuhguhvhvjhvjhvvhjvhvkhjvvkjhjvhhjvsaying the settlers are as dangerous to the long-term security of the State of Israel as the original Zealots were to Judaea 2,000 years ago, when they brought about the destruction of Jerusalem by sidelining the moderates in the Jewish Uprising against Rome, except that with the modern settlers the threat to a predominantly Jewish state be internal as a one-state solution will have an overwhelmingly Muslim population.
Rankin's loose talk though gives succour to anti-Semites.  His focus should not be on 'extremist' Judaism but hardline right-wing Zionism which dominates the Zionist cause to the exclusion of all other forms, dismissing them as traitorous and so bringing reluctant mainstream Judaism onside for they see no other way.  In the course of an essay about diasporas, one of my case studies was the original Diaspora and there are some interesting and diverse views under the banner of Zionism, most of which are positive and constructive and it is a shame that Tea Party-style conservatism has come to be synonymous with Zionism.
Rankin also does not draw enough distinction between Judaism and conservative Judaism and Israel and the Occupied Territories, with his mention of 'extremist belief' and 'their homeland'.  Rather pathetically, he fails to untangle the distinction in his apology, which makes him sound just like a closet anti-Semite.  He admits he was glib on such a "difficult and sensitive subject," and a spokesman said the remarks were at the same time "half-baked" and "spun."  Saying though it was not his "official position" calls into question just what exactly is his unofficial position.  Rankin's brutal disavowal of his comments furthermore is cack-handed, as rather than being at the mercy of terrified advisors (occupying the same mindset as Johansson's), it makes it sound as if he has been 'leant on' and so inadvertently gives validity to his newspaper spiel.
It wasn't just left there though.  More forethought was lacking in the person of Mark Gardner, of the Community Security Trust, which campaigns on issues of anti-semitism.  Stating the remarks revived long-standing slurs alluding to the power of Jews over the media and Hollywood, he demanded that both Rankin and The Independent repudiate the comments.  Leaving aside that Jewish people do have a valued position in the entertainment industry and the BBC gave airtime to Simon Schama and Alan Yentob in separate documentaries to extoll the virtues of Jewish talent and in Hollywood, from David O. Selznick and Louis B. Mayer through Mel Brooks, Roman Polanski and Woody Allen to the Coen Brothers to name a few (as South Park once quipped, "Come on Jews, show the gays who really runs Hollywood.") and that this was all achieved through many Jews, like many Irish, having an uncanny knack for storytelling.  Leaving all that verifiable and uncontroversial fact store aside, by Gardner making demands of Rankin and The Indy, he is asserting the very power over the media that he decries as false.  He really should think his statement and his tone through more carefully to improve his advocacy for (as Gardner well knows) anti-Semitism is a cancer that never really goes away, as the vicious hoax about Israeli hospitals sterilising black mothers from having more children proves.  If Jews are successful, we should applaud it as they enrich our lives, rather than view it as a sinister conspiracy.  After millenia of persecution, Jews are entitled to a homeland and the State of Israel serves that and a two-state solution guarantees its long-term security.  Finding a middle ground and compromise is invaluable to ending prejudice and Johansson, Rankin and Gardner need to take that on board.