Actor Mark Ruffalo’s recent rant against a proposed merger between two major Hollywood studios was even too much for some in far-left Tinseltown.

But while Paramount called out the star’s “antisemitic tropes,” some of his colleagues were more than happy to sign on to the offensive message.

According to Page Six:

“Solidarity — well said.” Cusack wrote on X in response to Ruffalo’s lengthy defense of his remarks, which centered on Oracle’s ties to the Israeli military and the company’s leadership.

The controversy erupted after Ruffalo criticized Oracle executive vice chair Safra Catz, who also sits on Paramount’s board, and reposted a video of her discussing “really profoundly scary technologies” Oracle used to assist the Israeli military following the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terror attacks.

Ruffalo tied his criticism of Oracle to the Ellison family’s proposed $111 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, pointing to Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison and his son, Paramount CEO David Ellison. The actor argued that the deal, which would put CNN, HBO and Warner Bros. under the same family’s control, raises concerns about editorial independence, jobs and more.

ADVERTISEMENT

The reaction among ordinary Americans via social media, however, was much different than Cusack’s:

Here’s the full text from the post above:

Having carefully reviewed the evidence, I believe it is fair to say that, whatever may be in his heart, Mark Ruffalo has repeatedly engaged in antisemitic rhetoric and behavior.

He has subjected the world’s only Jewish state to extraordinary moral condemnation; repeatedly described Israel’s actions as “genocide” even after previously apologizing for using that term inaccurately; amplified sensational claims about Gaza that proved false, including the claim that 14,000 babies faced death within 48 hours; and most recently linked Jewish billionaires, media ownership, surveillance technology, Israel, and “genocide” in a way that understandably evokes classic antisemitic tropes. He also appears to apply standards to Israel that he does not apply with remotely comparable intensity to far more repressive or murderous states.

The counterargument, which I take seriously but ultimately find insufficient, is that Ruffalo says he is criticizing the policies of a state rather than Jews, and is hardly alone in making extremely serious allegations about Israel’s conduct in Gaza. Criticism of Israel—even fierce criticism—is not inherently antisemitic. The relevant question is whether the same principles are applied consistently.

No country should be beyond criticism, certainly not Israel or the United States. But context matters. Israel was attacked on October 7 by Hamas, an organization whose founding charter calls for Israel’s complete destruction. Hamas deliberately built an enormous military tunnel network beneath densely populated Gaza while making clear that those tunnels were for its fighters, not civilians; senior Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzouk explicitly said that civilian protection was the responsibility of the UN and Israel. The UN Secretary-General himself acknowledged that Hamas and other militants deliberately used civilians as human shields. Even this language is not correct. Hamas deliberately used Gazan civilians as human sacrifices.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a terrible tragedy involving immense suffering on both sides, and Israel’s decisions should be scrutinized rigorously. But it becomes antisemitic when the complexity disappears only for the Jewish state: when Hamas’s strategy, ideology, terrorism, hostage-taking, use of civilian infrastructure, and responsibility for initiating the war are erased; when disputed accusations against Israel are presented as uniquely settled facts; when the historical context is disregarded, and when Jewish national self-determination is subjected to standards not demanded of other peoples or states. Equal standards are the minimum requirement for opposing antisemitism while engaging in legitimate criticism.

Mark Ruffalo is a terrific actor, and I truly loved him in Poor Things (one of my favorite moves). But Richard Wagner was a great composer, even if he was an awful human being, and mel Gibson was amazing in Gallipoli, even if he suffers from the same ailment as Wagner.

 

People added these details:

“The accusation that I am antisemitic is appalling and fundamentally dishonest. Criticizing the actions of the Israeli prime minister, a military technology contract, or the executives who supply it is not the same as criticizing Jewish people,” Ruffalo wrote in response on X on Saturday, Aug. 22.

ADVERTISEMENT

He continued, writing, “This critical and necessary dialogue is then dishonestly framed as being anti-Israel. To be clear, my views come from my own political convictions and should never be interpreted as hostility toward Jewish people, for whom I have deep love and respect. Everything I know about acting, activism, and humanism has been profoundly shaped by the Jewish friends, colleagues, and loved ones who have been integral and family throughout every point of my life.”

Ruffalo has been a vocal critic of Israel’s war in Gaza in recent years. In his latest critique, the actor reposted a video to his Instagram Stories that showed Oracle executive vice chair Safra Catz, an Israeli-American, speaking in 2024 of “some really profoundly scary technology” that Oracle had built that could be deployed in the conflict between Israel and Gaza.

In his Instagram Stories, Ruffalo described the war as a “genocide” that was built on an apartheid system of oppression powered by Oracle.” He also warned that the same technology could one day be “used on you,” according to Variety.

Here’s some additional coverage:

What are your thoughts?

NATIONAL POLL: Should The United States Use FORCE To Secure The Border? vote now

TAP HERE TO ADD YOUR VOTE

This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here.

 

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.