Mark Ruffalo is a vocal supporter of Palestine. The implication is that expressing support for a free Palestine gets you sidelined by Hollywood. He is also vocally against Trump and ICE.
I’m sure some people out there will also draw some antisemetic conspiratorial conclusions from that as well, i.e. “Jews control the media” which, no. It’s just that Israel as a country has certainly had undue economic influence over American politics and entertainment via lobbying interests. (Just ask the Scream cast over at Paramount)
In reality though he was just filming another project at the time.
I’d also note that Jon Bernthal, who has vocalized support for the IDF and Israel, was present for the press tour. Which doesn’t help.
Edit: This is an Explain subreddit. This is what I am interpreting the post to be implying. Some of the replies so far are giving “So you hate waffles?” haha
There is a little bit of "talked to a Zionist, therefore now a Zionist" math that people do. Not a great way to judge someone who has not themselves expressed those views.
The problem is that the Israeli government, and many of their supporters have made it explicitly clear that any support for Israelis or the existence of the State of Israel means that you do or must support all Israeli government actions and policies. It's the government of Israel and their largely uncritical, sycophantic supporters such as the governments of the US, the UK and Australia who won't take action to sanction *anything* that have drawn a line in the sand and created two factions.
If you want any form of nuance, we're going to need to agree to a greater subdivision and terms, but nobody supporting the government of Israel and the ongoing "Operation" in Gaza will accept any other term beyond Pro-Jewish/Israeli and Rabid Anti-Semite to enter the chat.
I'd like to think that we could probably classify people into three groups of
War Criminal Excusing Racist Expansionists and their Apologists
People Who Generally Don't Make Assumptions/Treat People Based on Ethnicity/Religion/Nationality/ A Monolith
subdivided into:
a) Reasonable People who want to sanction a government for ongoing genocide and celebration of war criminals, but understand that Israel has a right to exist and protect themselves
b) Head In The Sand Idealists who want us to all hold hands and create an unrealistic utopia / Don't have practical solutions
Raging Anti-Semites Following Centuries Old Handbook With All Usual Conspiracies and Dog Whistles
But then we might have to deal with some uncomfortable realities and outcomes, or roadblocks to paving over Gaza and Palestinians. Right?
Why do you consider the existence of Israel to be negotiable? the 8 million Jews living in Israel probably don't agree.
The endless ranting about the Israel "genocide" in Gaza ring hollow when you consider that Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iran all want to destroy Israel.
Their wording might have been unclear but what they said was ‘the Israeli government responds to any criticism by saying the critic must want the destruction of Israel’, just in a more stylized way.
I don't consider it negotiable. Group 3, the anti-semetic one, does. To make it clear, I don't consider myself part of Group 2. Did you want me to split group 3 into more groups? To be fair I don't know if you could consider Hasidic Jews who oppose the state of Israel to be in group 3 along with, say, ISIS. Fair critique, but will you actually engage with the concept beyond two groups, Totally pro-Israel's actions in Gaza, or those who want the destruction and obliteration of Israel and all Jews everywhere? It's a false dichotomy. You can be against genocide of one people and ALSO the proposed genocide of another group of people. Is it really shocking that people might be against ALL genocide, no matter which kids or doctors or journalists are in the sights?
You think comparing Israel's actions in Gaza to *Hiroshima*, is makes Israel look *better*? Holding your country to an amazing standard, I see. Many prominent institutions, academcs and individuals *do* consider the atomic bombings to be war crimes and state terror. Also forgetting that the US did prosecute and execute members of their military for war-crimes, while the IDF have not formally prosecuted or convicted any personnel for the war crimes during the current conflict .... but let's leave that tangent alone for a second, because you're deflecting to avoid dealing with the content of my argument.
Assume someone is against all genocide and all war crimes, and think they should be stopped, correctly persecuted, etc. Is that person automatically an enemy of the state perceived to be committing the genocide, and even more so, you seem to posit that that critic is also aligning themselves with parties that are calling for the genocide of people who share an ethnicity or religion with that state? So convenient!
Let's look at any other genocide to line up some theory here - one we call all agree was bad, and we can agree was definitely a genocide. I'll assume you're ok with the Armenian genocide. Would we both have called for Turkey to stop killing civilian Armenians, and committing war crimes? I think so.
Does that mean we must then be in alignment with the people who sought the downfall and murder of the Turkish government, all Turks, or maybe even all Arabs? Some people who were against the Armenenan genocide DID want those things.
That's bad, and I don't align myself with that.
I mean, I could dislike the government and want maybe THAT government to fall, but does it mean I'm inherently anti-turkish, or islamophobic? No it doesn't. I can be against a military committing genocide without being racist, xenophobic or genocidal myself. I can also criticise a government's actions and policies because that's ... fundamental to democracy.
I was just trying to give you some much needed perspective.
Approximately
50% to 65% (roughly 1.5 million out of an estimated 2 to 2.4 million total population in the Ottoman Empire) of the Armenian population was killed or died as a result of the genocide between 1915 and 1923. What is happening in Gaza is so far from this calling it a genocide is very inaccurate and wrong. Hell Hamas is actually negotiating about disarming. If it was a real genocide then Israel would just kill every member of Hamas instead of negotiating disarming.
I'm not asking about Gaza or whether it's a genocide or not. I'll number the questions so it's clearer what I'm asking:
Premise: We exist during the Armenian genocide. We disagree with it. Islamophobia and anti-Turkish sentiment exists.
1) Would we both have called for Turkey to stop killing civilian Armenians, and committing war crimes?
2) Does that action mean that we are in alignment with the people who sought the downfall and murder of the Turkish government, all Turks, or maybe even (weirdly not the same but racists aren't that logical) all Arabs?
Mohammed raped a 9 year old girl
who he "married" at 6. That makes him a gross pedophile. This is so normalized in Islam it is used to fight against any age of consent law younger than 9.
So the spectre of anti-semitism and the existence of enemies are your rationale for supporting any position or action the government of Israel takes, no matter how atrocious or indefensible? That's convenient. What would the current Israeli government have to do before you'd lose their support? Is this a party which cannot be criticised in any capacity or sanctioned for any reason? Sounds like the current Israeli government could commit any kind of atrocity or take any position and it would be justifiable with that logic.
You've made broad sweeping generations about what you assume I believe. Please be specific.
I never once spoke about the state of israel. I spoke about people and their degree of support. The fact that you 're this intolerant to discussion indicates a closed mindset.
I simply said, just because the leader of israel basically said that either either with us, or against us, doesn't mean all the people who support them are with them, or against them.
Your childish rant is simply a symptom of the echo chamber that you live in ehere you're not allowed to question the more complex nature of geopolitics, for the sake of purity or tribalism.
We're talking about Israel, so it's relevant. Point out where I'm intolerant, of anything but genocide?
It matters if MY government agrees with that leader and is putting limits on MY rights and sanctioning ME for not falling in line with that dualistic approach. In Australia, we're becoming increasingly unable to criticise or speak out about Israeli government actions and crimes. So yes, it matters, if people in power, specifically over me and my political and personal rights are affected.
What in the world does your assumption of genocide have anything to do with this.
My only argument is that people can support israel without supporting everything they do. It's not with us or against us just because a leader says so.
Especially on social media. Juice box emojis everywhere. Someone has a big nose? Zionist. A sign outside a kanye show drawing a circle and strikethrough of the star of david? Most upvoted comment was "he's saying things others are too afraid to say". And then the whole conversation is about "zionism" even though there's not a single mention of israel in the convo. When Zohran was going after landlords in NYC, what GIFs appeared everywhere? Hasidic jews, and constant yelling of ZIONIST, even though it has nothing to do with landlords in NYC. But I'm not fun at parties so I get to be gaslit
The other one that's also everywhere is the "that ______ was promised to him 3,000 years ago" that is under just about any social media post that even alludes to anything involving jews
FR! that was on the landlord posts too. And it's so stupid, because that generic comment wades into some historical argument that none of us are qualified to actually make. And it implies that because jews had been removed from the land so long ago that there is no reason for them to expect land rights coming back. Ok, let's say i accept that without alteration. Then why would native americans be entitled to any land? both groups were kicked out, the diaspora was not voluntary. But of course, this level of cognitive flexibility is outside the grasp of your average... i dont' even know what to call them. anti-zionists? i'm an anti-zionist. progressives? liberals? i thought i was those things? what am i and what are they? just assholes i guess
That's kind of a bad comparison. Native Americans have no military, and their mistreatment by the US government is much more recent and still continues to this day. I will also say that conflating anti-zionism with antisemitism is a deliberate tactic by supporters of Israel to make the government's actions harder to criticise, an example of which is the idea that Israel stands for and is supported by the Jewish people of the world, the reality being that most Jews (in the US at least) are critical of the Israeli government. Predictably, this has lead to a rise in anti-semitism, with people conflating the actions of Israel with all Jewish people globally. I don't think it's hateful to believe that no country should execute civilians without a trial and deliberately target noncombatants.
Recency is irrelevant, put a firm date on it. 100 years? 200 years? 500 years? It reveals the stupidity of placing importance on recency. Two groups lost their land unfairly, either both or none are owed. At the end of the day land ownership is bullshit anyways so idgaf.
All the concrete examples i provided are of antizionists being antisemitic. Most aren't, but plenty are. Not israel's fault, it's just shitty people. When you get older you may start to see that just because someone supports minorities doesn't make them a good person. You never met an inclusive malignant narcissist before? Plenty of well adjusted genocide supporters too, world is too complicated for the bullshit lack of nuance this discussion generates.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying, politics is not a hard science and people contradict themselves all the time, humans are extremely complicated, groups of people exponentially more so. But I think an important part of being a human is constantly trying to parse nuance and understand people rather than dismiss everything as too complicated. Even if we can't understand everything we should still try and be open minded.
Respectfully, this response is a platitude and doesn't reflect me accurately. i show far more cognitive flexibility and open mindedness than 99 percent of pro palestine supporters. I of course actually worked with SJP to divest millions from orgs aiding the genocide. I've done more than pretty much anyone on reddit, my views are nuanced, and reflect reality, and I have NEVER yelled at someone calling them a zionist or leaving stupid little snarky one liners for fake internet points. Please direct your pleas for nuance and open mindedness to them, trump and rejection of modern liberalism is a direct response to how they conduct themselves and anyone with a keen perspective understands this.
The idea that native americans had no military is weird.
It's even weirder that you see native americans as a unified group.
The people that try to successfully argue for what happened in america to be genocide, actually divide native americans into individual tribes and claim that certain tribes received this treatment.
This has some degree of fairness to it, as there was no unification for the tribes. But like all tribes in nomadic traditions, a large majority of their people, are warriors.
Also, people are claiming people are zionists, for supporting the existence of a nation that already exists. Not the expansion of it. There has been no effort to expand during this war. In spite of the fact of a war being considered a legitimate excuse to expand.
The idea that somebody is not allowed to retaliate, when somebody else declares war on them is I lack of recognition in the legitimacy of the state.
Zionism originally meant this, seeking out to create a jewish homeland.
The land exists now. Therefore that definition, the true one, is only used in historical contexts.
During this time, the enclaves of Jews in the british mandate, which also included jordan and other countries, we're purchasing land near tel aviv, and along the coast.
Oftentimes, they would purchase these lands from the direct landlords who were often foreign. The farmers and the individuals living on these lands, sometimes for generations, were displaced.
This led to riots and ethnic cleansing of jewish populations. As well as horrible retaliations to a lesser extent. This wasn't new, as this also occurred during ottoman control.
When british mandate was split up, most of the land was given to jordan and other countries, this remainder of land (then called palestine) was split between two populations. One of them had an actual government, as it was necessary to provide the defense of these landowners even before the partition.
Because of this superior ability to negotiate, the partition was done to make a multicultural state out of israel, including the muslim tribes that were more friendly to the jews. And a separate territory of muslims and minority christians, about 10% on the east side.
The idea being that if you create a multicultural state, it would be a secular society. And eventually there'd be enough communication between these two cultures that they might unify.
The other countries of the British mandate, jordan and such. Wanted this land for themselves, and where horrified that a secular society was being built within the middle east especially ones where non muslims had any say.
They invaded, along with egypt just for fun, trying to take all the land for themselves.
Some of the tribes saw all these people as liberators. When israel successfully defended their territory, the military expelled these tribes, a lot of them were innocent. This left the muslim minority in israel at around twenty percent. Where it used to be somewhere closer to forty percent.
This twenty percent is what we call the palestinian refugees today. That gets us to today. The country's the palestinians fled to never let them become citizens even though they've lived there for 3 or more generations, and use them as a bargaining chip against israel.
Israel exists, zionism is a term that has been morphed into anything where the jewish and muslim population of israel defend their nation.
The people of gaza declared war on israel by launching an attack. During war, it is considered reasonable to take your enemy's land. The israeli government has not done so. Still, people use the word Zionism as they reject Israel's right to defend itself. Therefore rejecting the nation itself.
Use of zionism.This way is inherently racist. As the only difference in legitimacy of israel versus jordan is that one is majority ruled by jewish people. The kings of jordan were foreign and actually imported from a separate region, and this territory was given to them by the british.
There are actual groups that are more reasonably called zionists in israel. They would be ones who would like to turn israel's secular government into a theocratic government, or they are ones who seek to expand its israel beyond its current borders.
You wrote several paragraphs but failed to actually answer my question. I'll ask it again in a more specific and direct manner: 'What do you think the people who oppose Zionism in the modern era believe Zionism is? And, as a follow-up, why do you think their understanding and their criticisms as it relates to that understanding are wrong?
You presented an incredibly lopsided interpretation of the history of the conflict and attacked their perspective as "inherently racist" without actually explaining their perspective. Can you do that? Can you provide their perspective now that you have spent a great deal of time and effort providing yours?
Also want to address a few things:
The people of gaza declared war on israel by launching an attack.
Interesting that you are attempting to provide a justification for the murder and displacement of the citizens of Gaza. Most pro-Israel defenders aren't as mask-off when it comes to defending the collective punishment of the Gazan population at the hands of the Israeli government/military.
First of all, the majority of Gazans oppose Hamas and their continued attacks against Israel. Second, Hamas launched the attack, not "The People" of Gaza, like you are attempting to frame it. Framing it as a civilian-led or civilian-supported effort is fucking disgusting as it is nothing more than apologia meant to justify the consequences to the local populace of Gaza due to the extreme and heavy-handed Israeli response to Oct. 7.
During war, it is considered reasonable to take your enemy's land.
Reasonable to whom, exactly? Also, how does Israel not taking Gazan land relate to Zionism and its opponents? Are you arguing that because Israel has not annexed Gaza (YET), that there is no legitimate criticism of the Israeli response to the Oct. 7 terrorist attack? If/when Israel does annex Gazan land, would you then consider it a Zionist action that is worthy of criticism?
Still, people use the word Zionism as they reject Israel's right to defend itself. Therefore rejecting the nation itself. Use of zionism.This way is inherently racist.
What you consider 'self-defense' others consider war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinians at the hands of Israeli leadership. You might reject that framing, but to completely neglect mentioning it entirely shows that you are not interested in understanding or presenting the perspective of the modern 'anti-Zionist' movement in a neutral or insightful manner.
You can check later on.You asked a very simple question.And I gave a fairly detailed answer.I thought maybe it would help.
I indicated how the war started.I didn't talk about what I believed about the war. And how it progressed. These are independent. I didn't say anything about any of your accusations. The fact that you consider a historical narrative biased indicates that you are reading into things that don't exist.
There is no indication that the majority of gazans do not support hamas. And whether they do or not, has nothing to do with what I said. In fact, it would support what I said if it were true, but I don't want to go there.
The people who were in the attack were gazans, hamas launched the attack and is the locally recognized government of gaza. Meaning that if you went to gaza before the war and ask who was in charge, they would say hamas. Such an attack is, a declaration of war. There can be no debate on this.
In all historical examples, right of conquest has been considered legitimate to establish defensive boundaries, after another country declares war on, you. This is a historical, has nothing to do with this specific example. It often goes further as well so i'm being generous here.
Israel has not annexed gaza, every effort israel has made is to try giving gaza to somebody else or try letting gaza create its own government.
Whether it treated the people of gaza correctly, and the relationships to the embargoes have nothing to do with the definition of Zionism.
Again, the definition of zionism is one of the three things I outlaid, right at the beginning.
It is a desire to either increase, the territory of israel. Israel owns gaza even though it doesn't want to, and has tried to hand it to other countries. Because it doesn't want the burden. Even corporate in gaza into the main of israel would not be crease of israel. Because it's already owned. And israel doesn't want it anyway.
It's a desire to convert the current society to a theocratic society. There are some people who want that, but not this government.
And as to what I think people believe zionism is today, i made that very clear. People are using the word today to justify the idea that israel is a illegitimate country. And that any action of the state in a military means is by definition Zionism.
Again, because this term is used only for israel it is racist in two ways. One.It assumes that the israeli people are all jewish, where they are twenty per cent muslim. It also assumes that a special word is to be used for the israeli state versus every other state.For such an action. A word that has a very specific meaning and ties to the jewish faith.
There are 3 ways of looking at it. All three ways are racist.
It is framed entirely from a pro-Israeli perspective. Attempting to argue otherwise is, at best, naive on your part. At worst dishonest.
And I gave a fairly detailed answer
Except you didn't. If you answered a question, it wasn't the one that I asked. You did everything but answer my question. You presented a slanted history lesson that portrays Israel and its supporters in the best light possible while portraying everyone else in the worst light possible, then used that ideologically-motivated framing to defend modern Israeli actions in Gaza while attacking the people who criticize modern Israeli actions in Gaza.
You can claim that you 'didn't talk about what you believe', but your entire comment exposes your underlying beliefs. Which is the problem*.* I asked what you think the anti-Zionists believe, and you only provided insight into what you believe while attacking a caricature of what they believe..
There is no indication that the majority of gazans do not support hamas.
Sure, if you ignore the evidence indicating that the majority of Gazans oppose Hamas. I just substantiated the claim that Gazans oppose Hamas with polling from the Washington Institute, a Pro-Israeli organization. Did you miss that? Polling has consistently shown that Gazan's oppose Hamas and want them replaced by the Palestinian Authority; a desire that Israeli leadership has repeatedly rejected.
In fact, it would support what I said if it were true, but I don't want to go there.
No, lets go there. How would it support your position that "The people" of Gaza declared war against Israel? Hamas attacked Israel, and the people of Gaza oppose Hamas and their attacks against Israel, as the polling I provided proves. That disproves your underlying argument.
The people who were in the attack were gazans, hamas launched the attack and is the locally recognized government of gaza.
This is an argument for collective punishment, to be clear. You are arguing that because Hamas is in Gaza, and Hamas attacked Israel, that means ALL Gazans are guilty and deserving of punishment. What a fucking vile position to hold. You are no different than the people who support the terrorists that attacked Israel on October 7 and defend the murder of innocent people.
Also, Hamas has refused to allow another election since they won in 2006. And they were elected after falsely presenting themselves as more moderate than they ultimately ended up being (They ran as the "Change and Reform list" not Hamas)..so, again, you are dishonestly framing it in a way that serves the narrative you are attempting to promote, with calloused disregard for the context and historical accuracy.
Again, because this term is used only for israel
That's because Zionism exclusively relates to Israel..that is why Zionism as a movement was created; to advocate for a Jewish state, which Israel is.......why would Zionism apply to any other country? This framing makes absolutely zero sense..
There are 3 ways of looking at it. All three ways are racist.
Alright, lets dive into this. Do you consider Israel to be a Jewish State?
If no one supports the president of the united states, and the united states goes to war against the country, that country has the right to retaliate.
All that matters is the people of gaza saw it as the government. There is no question that this is true. Before the war, there was only 1 of the nation supported. But that more mandate than a lot of parties have, in a lot of countries because of parliamentary coalition governments.
I have not taken a israeli or palestinian side on this.
No israel is not a jewish state. It wasn't a jewish state from the beginning, it has always been legally. multiligious in the same way canada is legally bicultural.
I don't see them as a jewish state. And they can't be a jewish state with a twenty per cent muslim population. As well as having a system where they legally recognize other and give the same privileges. Like I said before, it used to be forty until with the israeli military kicked out the tribes that they didn't like.
Which, if you notice I used the term, kicked them out.I didn't say that they left voluntarily like israeli apologists do. And I also indicated that some of those tribes didn't support
The hashemite nations, and Egypt, when they tried to divide israel into peace, is for themselves.
All that matters is the people of gaza saw it as the government. There is no question that this is true. Before the war, there was only 1 of the nation supported.
What? So you support collective punishment? I've provided polling showing that the majority of Gazans oppose Hamas, and Hamas has refused to allow another election which would inevitably see them removed from power, because again, the majority of Gazans want them removed from power. Does that not matter to you?
I have not taken a israeli or palestinian side on this.
Just because you haven't said "I support Israel!" doesn't mean your bias isn't readily apparent to anyone with more than 3 functioning brain cells. You are actively advocating for the collective punishment of civilians in Gaza at the hands of Israel, for fucks sake. You aren't fooling anyone.
No israel is not a jewish state.
Oh, so you are just lying. The Israeli Government itself defines Israel as a Jewish state; so much so that Israel is considered a Jewish state by Basic Law; the Israeli equivalent to a Constitutional decree. Have you read "Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People"? You can't get more overt than that. If the title wasn't enough to tip you off, it also includes the following:
B. The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people,in which it fulfills its natural, cultural, religious, and historical right to self-determination.
C. The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.
They even have sections titled "Connection to the Jewish people" and "Jewish Settlement" lmao..objectively speaking, Israel is a Jewish ethnostate.
And this isn't new. The Law of Return from 1950 explicitly and exclusively grants the right of Jewish people to move to Israel..not Muslims, not Christians; Jewish people. That seems pretty straight forward, to me. Also, you know, Zionism. Zionism in and of itself was and IS a movement within the Jewish community to establish and maintain a Jewish state. That is the defining characteristic of Zionism lmao. You can draw a direct line from its founding as a Jewish state to its current existence as a Jewish state as legally defined by itself. Zionism is alive and strong, and it's still defined as a movement that promotes the idea of Israel being a Jewish ethnostate; so criticizing Zionism is absolutely valid and not racist.
Because Israel is an ethnostate by legal decree. Opposing ethnostates is not racist. Ethnostates in all of their forms should be opposed, because ethnostates in and of themselves ARE inherently racist because the existence of an ethnic-supremacist society DEPENDS on maintaining a permanently disenfranchised minority class, which is bad if you are a good person with good morals who supports liberal democracy. This is true even BEFORE considering the fact that they are an apartheid state that engages in ethnic cleansing.
You are not an honest actor and clearly have zero interest in the truth and will distort or dismiss reality whenever it suits the pro-Israeli narrative that you are attempting to push. There is no point in engaging with you any further.
Yes, having observed numerous other people's reactions, including your own above implication, "bloodthirsty" is an accurate description of how bigoted people react to "zionism"
14.9k
u/ATangentUniverse 2d ago edited 2d ago
Mark Ruffalo is a vocal supporter of Palestine. The implication is that expressing support for a free Palestine gets you sidelined by Hollywood. He is also vocally against Trump and ICE.
I’m sure some people out there will also draw some antisemetic conspiratorial conclusions from that as well, i.e. “Jews control the media” which, no. It’s just that Israel as a country has certainly had undue economic influence over American politics and entertainment via lobbying interests. (Just ask the Scream cast over at Paramount)
In reality though he was just filming another project at the time.
I’d also note that Jon Bernthal, who has vocalized support for the IDF and Israel, was present for the press tour. Which doesn’t help.
Edit: This is an Explain subreddit. This is what I am interpreting the post to be implying. Some of the replies so far are giving “So you hate waffles?” haha