Hollywood has always been political. Or at least its stars like to think so. Forever assuring themselves they’re on the “right side of history,” they parade their A-list power behind whichever fashionable cause guarantees the loudest applause from their peers and fans.

And right now, nothing is trendier in Tinseltown than the pro-Palestinian cause — a ready-made underdog tale for those with little grasp of the facts.

So it was hardly surprising that this year’s Emmy Awards were laced with anti-Israel messaging: Spanish actor Javier Bardem pairing his tux with a keffiyeh draped like a pashmina, actress Hannah Einbinder capping her acceptance speech by shouting “Free Palestine,” and a scattering of red-hand pins – worn as a gesture of solidarity, though their wearers seemed oblivious that the symbol is a nod to the gruesome 2000 Ramallah lynching of two Israeli soldiers.

1/
Glitz, glamor, red carpets… and Palestine.
At last night’s @TheEmmys, some celebs couldn’t resist hijacking the spotlight with anti-Israel stunts.

From Javier Bardem’s keffiyeh show to “Free Palestine” shout-outs, here’s a roundup of the worst.  pic.twitter.com/hTHXeQ7PUE

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) September 15, 2025

And we say: let them. Actors live in a bubble, rewarded by their circles for what they imagine are “principled” positions, blind to how these gestures look to the broader public — or to more knowledgeable colleagues within their own industry who see through the act.

A perfect example came with the petition launched by Film Workers for Palestine, signed by some 4,000 filmmakers, writers, actors, and crew members. Emma Stone, Joaquin Phoenix, Rooney Mara, Mark Ruffalo, Olivia Colman, Andrew Garfield, and others lent their names. The petition demanded a boycott of the Israeli film industry, accusing its institutions of “whitewashing or justifying genocide and apartheid,” even citing cultural events like the Jerusalem Film Festival.

It went further still, sanctimoniously claiming that “the vast majority” of Israeli companies “have never supported the full rights of the Palestinian people” — as if this sweeping indictment were the result of some rigorous survey rather than lazy ideological sloganeering.

But just days after the letter was published, Paramount Pictures became the first major studio to break ranks. In a pointed rebuke, the studio declared:

We do not agree with recent efforts to boycott Israeli filmmakers. Silencing individual creative artists based on their nationality does not promote better understanding or advance the cause of peace. The global entertainment industry should be encouraging artists to tell their stories and share their ideas with audiences throughout the world. We need more engagement and communication — not less.

This clash revealed Hollywood’s split personality: the loud posturing of celebrity activists on one side, and the quieter but firmer resistance of industry institutions on the other.

And into this divide stepped the industry’s most high-profile trade publication, read by more than 25 million people a month: The Hollywood Reporter. Not as a neutral observer, but as an amplifier of one side of the story.

First, let’s put this into context. The Hollywood Reporter’s fixation on Israel is striking for a publication ostensibly devoted to the entertainment industry. In just one week this month, it published 18 separate pieces referencing Israel and the war in Gaza — nearly three a day.

On the Emmys alone, it ran multiple articles spotlighting pro-Palestinian gestures, including two focused entirely on Javier Bardem’s keffiyeh and anti-Israel remarks.

The first carried the headline: “Javier Bardem Calls for Israel to ‘Stop this Genocide’ at 2025 Emmys.” The second dropped even the pretense of neutrality, dispensing with quotation marks altogether: “‘Monsters’ Star Javier Bardem Voices His Support to End Genocide in Gaza.”

The piece quoted Bardem’s ludicrous claims in full, including his solemn invocation of the “International Association of Genocide Scholars.” Readers were not informed that this supposedly august body requires nothing more than a $30 membership fee to cast a vote declaring Israel guilty of “genocide.”

The article then folded in the celebrity boycott letter, presenting it as a “new pledge to boycott working with Israeli film institutions and companies.” Noticeably absent? Any mention of Paramount’s unequivocal statement rejecting the boycott — released days earlier. In other words, The Hollywood Reporter chose to present a picture of unified anti-Israel solidarity in Hollywood, when in fact the industry itself was already fracturing.

This isn’t an isolated case. A wider snapshot of the outlet’s coverage shows a consistent pattern: lionizing Palestinian filmmakers while nit-picking Israeli ones. One glowing feature was headlined: “Amid the Tragedy of War, Palestinian Filmmakers Are Finding a Way to Break Through.”

By contrast, a recent review of Barry Avrich’s The Road Between Us: The Ultimate Rescue, which documents Israeli general Noam Tibon’s desperate effort to save his family from Hamas terrorists on October 7, was dismissed as offering a “tense but oversimplified snapshot.” One criticism leveled at Avrich was that he focused “too much” on October 7 so that “nobody needs to think of anything that came before or after.”

Before? What exactly does The Hollywood Reporter believe happened “before” October 7 that could possibly contextualize the butchering of Israeli families in their homes? The implication is as grotesque as it is telling.

This is the deeper problem. We could say that Hollywood’s most prominent industry voice has traded neutrality for selective outrage, but the truth is The Hollywood Reporter was never neutral. Like much of Hollywood, it has long been sympathetic to left-wing and progressive causes.

But to suggest this is simply more of the same would be a mistake. In aligning itself with the pro-Palestinian cause as framed by Hollywood’s loudest activists, The Hollywood Reporter is not being “progressive.” It is lending its voice to a movement from which its celebrity backers will eventually distance themselves — when the wind shifts, or when they realize they are alienating their employers and fans.

Publications don’t have that luxury. Unlike actors insulated by a bubble of self-congratulation, The Hollywood Reporter is still an industry institution. Its credibility is supposed to rest on professionalism, not posturing. By choosing sides, it risks a stain that will be far harder to wash off.

The actors flaunt the pins, the filmmakers sign the pledges, and The Hollywood Reporter cements the narrative — one it may find impossible to rewrite when the curtain falls.