Mark Ruffalo pomstuje na syjonistyczną klikę

Protokoły mędrców Hollywood

Bob Goldberg

Celebryci przemawiający „jako Żydzi” bronią Marka Ruffalo, twierdząc, że jego antysemityzm jest koszerny

.

Hollywood zabrało głos w sprawie kontrowersji wokół Marka Ruffalo, bo najwyraźniej demokracja nie może przetrwać, dopóki celebryci nie wyjaśnią nam, że fuzje korporacyjne są syjonistycznym spiskiem.

Ruffalo skrytykował proponowaną fuzję Paramount–Warner Bros., łącząc w jedną całość rodzinę Ellisonów, Oracle, Izrael, Gazę, sztuczną inteligencję, TikToka, technologie wojskowe i konsolidację mediów – atrakcyjnie zaaranżowaną sieć syjonistycznego spisku.

Paramount odpowiedział, że Ruff odwołał się do antysemickich stereotypów, co było nie tyle naciąganą interpretacją, ile dokładnym opisem pomieszczenia, w którym wszyscy pozostali udawali, że wszystko się zgadza.

W odpowiedzi ponad 180 żydowskich artystów, filmowców, naukowców, rabinów, pisarzy i progresywnych intelektualistów podpisało list otwarty w obronie Ruffalo. Zaktualizowana lista „Variety” zawiera 184 nazwiska.

W liście stwierdzono, że oskarżenia o antysemityzm są wykorzystywane jako broń do uciszania krytyki Izraela, Oracle, sytuacji w Gazie, Ellisonów oraz samej fuzji. Wygodnie, bo w ten sposób wszystkim pozostałym z góry przypisuje się złą wolę, zanim ktokolwiek dopuści się prostackiego czynu, jakim jest przeczytanie tego listu.

Następnie list opisuje świat, w którym bogaci żydowscy mężczyźni kontrolują media, technologię, inwigilację, propagandę, kontrakty wojskowe, TikToka, Gazę, AI i przyszłość demokracji. Poza tym – wzór powściągliwości.

W pewnym momencie obrona Marka Ruffalo zamieniła się w casting do „Protokołów mędrców Hollywood”.

Autorzy twierdzą, że „łączą kropki”. Jasne. Tyle że tymi kropkami są żydowscy miliarderzy, konsolidacja mediów, zagraniczne wpływy, technologie wojskowe, propaganda, zakulisowa kontrola, inwigilacja i uciszani krytycy. Subtelne niczym syrena okrętowa w aplikacji do medytacji.

To nie jest zabawa w łączenie kropek. To antysemicka teoria spiskowa w okularach do czytania.

Żydowskie podpisy nie przekształcają magicznie teorii o żydowskiej potędze w krytykę władzy. Nie można posypać teorii spiskowej tożsamością i nazwać jej koszerną.

Sygnatariusze powołują się również na żydowski obowiązek etyczny, który najwyraźniej jest progresywną wersją rabinicznego hechszeru: przykleić go do opakowania i mieć nadzieję, że nikt nie sprawdzi składu.

Najwyraźniej ten etyczny obowiązek nie obejmuje obrony ofiar prawdziwych represji; uruchamia się wyłącznie wtedy, gdy hollywoodzki aktor potrzebuje pomocy w wybieleniu teorii spiskowej za pomocą wspólnotowej tożsamości.

W styczniu organizacja praw człowieka Hengaw poinformowała, że filmowiec Javad Ganji, 39-letni reżyser i asystent reżysera filmowego i telewizyjnego, został zabity bezpośrednim ostrzałem sił irańskiego reżimu podczas protestów w Teheranie. Według Hengaw Ganji został zastrzelony 9 stycznia w dzielnicy Sadeghiyeh.

W lipcu IranWire poinformował, że siły Korpusu Strażników Rewolucji Islamskiej otworzyły ogień do samochodu, którym jechał Mehdi Tavakoli – artysta, fotograf i instruktor w Sanandaj Youth Cinema Society. Tavakoli, który wcześniej został aresztowany i uwięziony za działalność kulturalną, zginął wraz z matką i siostrą.

Oto represje bez hollywoodzkiej strategii PR-owej: mniej efektowne, za to bardziej realne.

Żadnej rodziny Ellisonów, żadnego dyrektora Paramountu, żadnego izraelskiego kontraktu wojskowego. Tragicznie rzecz ujmując, żadnego oczywistego sposobu, by zamienić zamordowanych irańskich artystów w wykład o żydowskiej potędze. Alarm przeszedł więc bez większego echa.

Sami irańscy filmowcy wykazali się większą odwagą niż hollywoodzcy sygnatariusze. Jak podał Hyperallergic, dysydencki reżyser Jafar Panahi opublikował oświadczenie podpisane przez 184 irańskich filmowców, potępiające represje reżimu i wyrażające poparcie dla narodu irańskiego.

Stu osiemdziesięciu czterech irańskich filmowców występujących przeciwko dyktaturze – to jest odwaga.

Stu osiemdziesięciu czterech zachodnich progresistów przemawiających „jako Żydzi”, którzy bronią celebryty, jednocześnie przedstawiając Żydów jako hub USB łączący media, wojnę, technologię, inwigilację i demokrację – to już coś innego. Odważne mniej więcej tak, jak odważny jest gościnny występ w „The Young Turks”.

Ich argument wydaje się brzmieć: ponieważ jesteśmy Żydami, nasze antysemickie ujęcie jest w istocie żydowską etyką. Bardzo eleganckie. Zgodnie z tą logiką zatrucie pokarmowe staje się sztuką kulinarną, jeśli kucharz najpierw odmówi błogosławieństwo.

Oczywiście Żydzi mogą krytykować Izrael. Nie-Żydzi również. Ludzie mogą krytykować Oracle, Paramount, Larry’ego Ellisona, Davida Ellisona, fuzje, drony, algorytmy i wszystko inne, co akurat w tym tygodniu psuje nam brunch.

Nikt nie zyskuje immunitetu od krytyki tylko dlatego, że dokument przychodzi owinięty w talit i opatrzony pieczęcią „etycznie żydowskie”.

Stara wersja głosiła, że Żydzi kontrolują banki i gazety. Nowa mówi, że kontrolują fuzje, AI, TikToka, Gazę, Tony’ego Blaira, demokrację i wszystko, co Mark Ruffalo właśnie odkrył.

Z jednej strony list w obronie Marka Ruffalo pokazuje, jak antysemickie stereotypy są wybielane, polerowane i opatrywane hechszerem przez Żydów, którzy wierzą, że oskarżanie zbiorowo pojmowanych Żydów o zbrodnie przeciwko ludzkości przemienia najstarszą teorię spiskową w akt żydowskiej cnoty.

Z drugiej strony przynajmniej wiemy już, że powinniśmy nadal bojkotować tę pozbawioną talentu, przepełnioną nienawiścią zgraję.

---

Link do oryginału:

The New Zionist Times

The Protocols of the Elders of Hollywood

Hollywood has weighed in on the Mark Ruffalo controversy because apparently democracy cannot survive until celebrities explain that corporate mergers are a Zionist plot…

Sanctions against Israel mark a turning point in international political antisemitism

Fiamma Nirenstein

Elly Schlein, leader of Italy’s Democratic Party, in Turin in February 2023. Credit: Mike Dotta/Shutterstock.

The great temptation for left-wing forces to fish in the waters of the new antisemitism in search of votes is nothing new. It costs little; the Jews pay the price.

In Rome, there is an eagerness to cast aside the common sense demonstrated by the Italian government, in coordination with Germany, and embrace this easy and politically rewarding line—this time by following Britain in imposing sanctions against Israel. Ignorance and double standards provide the backdrop.

The ambition to embrace a new crusade against Israel emerged immediately after British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband, announcing sanctions concerning Judea and Samaria, told Parliament that Israel is engaged in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and attempting to erase the two-state solution.

This, of course, ignores repeated Palestinian rejections of peace proposals and the reality created by the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas massacre.

At the same time, British politicians have presented themselves as champions of human rights while ignoring monstrous violations committed by Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas.

Now that Britain has announced sanctions on products from Judea and Samaria, and has been followed by a procession of European countries driven by the pursuit of left-wing votes and fear of their growing Muslim populations, the parliamentary group leaders of Italy’s Democratic Party (PD), Five Star Movement (M5S) and Green and Left Alliance (AVS) on the Chamber of Deputies’ Foreign Affairs Committee have demanded urgent consideration of legislation imposing similar sanctions.

Angelo Bonelli, co-leader of AVS; Elly Schlein, leader of the Democratic Party; Giuseppe Conte, leader of the Five Star Movement and a former Italian prime minister, and others have signed on. Indeed, they consider it “shameful” that Italy, of all countries, is missing from this campaign.

The document speaks of “illegal occupation” and offers other banal examples of the ignorance of those who wrote it. It also demonstrates the irresponsibility of a move whose primary consequence will be to further fuel mass antisemitism.

We have already seen another demonstration of this phenomenon at a protest against legislation addressing antisemitism, where Hamas and Hezbollah flags were brought into Parliament. Only ISIS was missing.

Why is the path of sanctions wrong?

First, those responsible for violent acts should be punished. But contrary to the propagandist image being presented, they constitute a fraction of the roughly 500,000 Israelis living in Judea and Samaria, a population representing a wide variety of cultural and social backgrounds. Most condemn violent extremists and are themselves the targets of thousands of Palestinian terrorist attacks each year.

Israel prosecutes its own criminals. Some are in prison; others are standing trial.

But Judea and Samaria are not territories “illegally occupied” by Israel. The area was occupied by Jordan, whose annexation received almost no international recognition, until Jordan attacked Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War and was defeated.

After repeated Israeli attempts to exchange land for peace, the Oslo Accords of 1993 and 1995 divided Judea and Samaria into Area A, under Palestinian control; Area B, under Palestinian civil control and Israeli security control; and Area C, under Israeli control.

Israel has the right under those agreements to build in Area C, which also includes the E1 area between Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim. Some of the greatest conflicts arise when Palestinians attempt to expand into Area C.

Expelling Jews from Judea and Samaria would risk producing the same disastrous result as Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from the Gaza Strip—the creation of the conditions that eventually produced Yahya Sinwar and Oct. 7.

There is another British mistake. It concerns the safety of Britain’s own citizens.

Israel has helped protect Britain from serious terrorist threats. In 2015, for example, British authorities discovered three tons of ammonium nitrate stored by Hezbollah-linked operatives in London after receiving information from Israel.

On the basis of what unfounded prejudices should a relationship encompassing security, science and culture be dismantled?

Associating Israel with “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” is a lie. Forcing Israel to surrender is unthinkable.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, with Israel’s decision to close the British Consulate in eastern Jerusalem, has delivered the first clear response. But the larger answer must be equally clear.

Neither Miliband nor Schlein will draw the borders of a Palestinian state. It is absurd to imagine that they can. Only Israelis and Palestinians can negotiate those borders; they cannot be imposed from London, Rome or anywhere else.

And no sanctions campaign can erase a fundamental historical truth: The Jewish people are not strangers in Judea and Samaria. Their roots there reach back thousands of years. Whatever the future of this land may be, it cannot be decided over the heads of the Jews whose history, identity and destiny are bound to it.

Fiamma Nirenstein is an Italian-Israeli journalist, author and senior research fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs (JCFA). An adviser on antisemitism to Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, she served in the Italian Parliament (2008-2013) as vice president of the Foreign Affairs Committee. A founding member of the Friends of Israel Initiative, she has written 15 books, including October 7, Antisemitism and the War on the West, and is a leading voice on Israel, the Middle East, Europe and the fight against antisemitism.

What if the Palestinians Don’t Want Two States, Mr. Miliband?

Jonathan Sacerdoti

Britain’s Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband speaks at the House of Commons in London, Britain, Sept. 8, 2026. Photo: HOUSE OF COMMONS/Handout via REUTERS

Britain’s Foreign Secretary Edward Miliband told the House of Commons on Tuesday that securing a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “in its fullest form” is “the North Star of this government’s policy.” He then announced the means: an import ban on Israeli settlement goods, sanctions on anyone who finances or builds them, a ban on advertising them, a formal British declaration that the “occupation” itself is unlawful, an arms embargo that lasts as long as that so-called occupation does, and a coalition of European states lining up alongside him.

Every one of those measures is aimed at one party. Not a single one is aimed at the other. To Israelis: “You will face the full force of UK sanctions.” To the Palestinian Authority, in the same statement: “I urge the Palestinian Authority to accelerate reform.” Urge. That is the entire consequence attached to the side that will supposedly be running this new state.

Which brings us to the question no British foreign secretary has been willing to ask for 50 years. What if the Palestinians do not want two states, and never have?

It is not a rhetorical question. It has an answer, which is a matter of record. In 1937, the Peel Commission proposed partition; the Jewish leadership accepted it as a basis for negotiation and the Arab leadership rejected it flat. In 1947, the United Nations proposed partition again; the Jews accepted, the Arabs refused, and five Arab armies invaded to settle the matter by other means. For the 19 years that followed, Jordan held the West Bank and Egypt held Gaza, and in all that time nobody — not the Arab League, not the residents, not a single British foreign secretary — proposed establishing a Palestinian state on either territory. The land was available. The state was not wanted.

The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was founded in 1964, three years before Israel controlled one inch of the West Bank or Gaza. Whatever it was formed to liberate, it was not the territories Miliband now says are the obstacle. After the Six-Day War, the Arab League met at Khartoum and issued its famous three noes: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel. Nothing ambiguous there.

Then came the era of serious offers, and the record is worse, not better. At Camp David in 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat a state on virtually all of Gaza and the overwhelming majority of the West Bank, with a capital in Jerusalem. Arafat declined and revealingly made no counteroffer. What he made instead was the Second Intifada: bombing buses, cafés, a Passover seder — roughly a thousand Israelis murdered.

In 2008, Israel’s Ehud Olmert went further still, offering territory equivalent to nearly the whole West Bank, land swaps for the rest, a divided Jerusalem, and international trusteeship over the holy sites. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas never gave an answer. Not a refusal — an absence.

In 2014, the talks led by US Secretary of State John Kerry collapsed.

In 2020, the American plan for peace was rejected before it was published.

And in 2005, Israel actually did the thing Britain now demands. It withdrew from Gaza completely: every soldier, every settlement, every settler, some of them dragged from their homes by their own army. There was no occupation left to complain about, no checkpoint, no settler. What grew there was Hamas, tens of thousands of rockets, and eventually Oct. 7, 2023 — the invasion, the mass rape, the murder, the abduction of grandmothers. That is not an argument about borders. It is an answer to the question of what a Palestinian entity does with sovereignty when it gets it.

Nearly three years on, and a year after the ceasefire, Hamas has not decommissioned a single weapon. The Palestinian Authority has not held a legislative election since 2006, and its president is in the 22nd year of a four-year term. It still pays salaries to imprisoned terrorists and stipends to the families of dead ones — a policy Miliband did not mention once, in a statement of several thousand words about
“peace.”

If a Palestinian state is ever to exist, there is exactly one design for it that survives contact with the evidence, and it was set out by the man Miliband treats as the villain of the piece. In his Bar-Ilan speech of 2009, Benjamin Netanyahu publicly accepted a demilitarized Palestinian state, on terms he summarized simply: all the powers to govern themselves, none of the powers to threaten Israel. No army. No control of airspace. No military alliances with Israel’s adversaries. An Israeli presence along the Jordan Valley as a security buffer. Palestinian refugees resettled in a future Palestine rather than inside Israel. And a binding, unambiguous recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

Each one of those conditions exists because its absence has already been tested to destruction. Borders and airspace left unsupervised produce smuggled rockets — not a prediction but Gaza’s history, many times over. A right of return exercised into Israel rather than into Palestine does not produce two states; it dissolves one, which is rather the point of proposing it. And recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is demanded precisely because 90 years of refusal have demonstrated that the quarrel was never really about where the line goes. Self-government yes; sovereign war-making no.

Anyone who finds those terms intolerable is not arguing for a Palestinian state. They are arguing for a rematch. And a people who will consent to exist only if they are also permitted to threaten the existence of their neighbor have not made the case for a state; they have made the case against one. A country whose animating purpose is the unmaking of another country is not a nation waiting to be born. It is a war with a flag — and not worth one more drop of blood, or one more decade of diplomacy, to deliver.

So let us put the uncomfortable proposition plainly. Statehood, everywhere else on earth, is something a people demonstrates a capacity for: the ability to govern, to hold elections, to keep agreements, to refrain from massacring their neighbors. Here alone, in the Palestinian territories, it is treated as an entitlement that no amount of conduct can forfeit and no amount of conduct is required to earn. Ninety years of refusals, three wars of annihilation, two intifadas, the largest slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust — and the British position is not merely unchanged but hardened, with the sanctions falling on the people who were invaded.

Keir Starmer, remember, already recognized the ‘State of Palestine,’ waving it into existence with the flourish of a man opening a garden center. There are, then, already two states for Britain’s Labour Party. What did Britain receive in exchange? Nothing was asked for and nothing was given. No disarmament, no election, no end to pay-for-slay. Recognition was handed over as a reward for Oct. 7 and produced precisely the improvement you would expect. Miliband’s answer to that failure is a larger version of it.

A policy which has failed continuously since 1937 is not made viable by British anger. A solution requiring the enthusiastic participation of a party which has refused it at every opportunity is not a solution at all. It is a wish, dressed as a plan, enforced against the only participant who ever said yes. In reality, there is no two-state solution to this problem because there is no solution at all to a problem which nobody will even have the courage to describe accurately. People who want solutions should stick to crossword puzzles.

You can’t navigate in a new world with an old map. Miliband chose his metaphor better than he knew. A North Star is a fine thing to steer by, but something by definition you never reach. It gives you your latitude and never your longitude. It is invisible from half the planet. And it disappears altogether under cloud.

Sailors understood these limits, which is why they built chronometers, then radio beacons, then satellites, and stopped betting the ship on a single point of light. Only in the Foreign Office is a man still on deck at midnight, rejecting the progress of modern developments and staring up into the overcast, insisting the star is there somewhere and that this amounts to knowing where he is.