Hollywood News / Mark Ruffalo Responds To Antisemitism Claims After Criticising Ellisons

Los Angeles, Aug 23: American film actor Mark Ruffalo has responded to allegations that he is “antisemitic” after accusing David and Larry Ellison of “powering some of the most destructive and inhuman forces in the world”.

The actor took to his X, formerly Twitter, and penned a long note in which he lashed out at Paramount after the company slammed him.

He wrote, “The accusation that I am antisemitic is appalling and fundamentally dishonest. Criticising the actions of the Israeli prime minister, a military technology contract, or the executives who supply it is not the same as criticising Jewish people”.

“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”, he shared.

Also Read: Kangana Ranaut Remembers Karishma Kapoor As Her ‘OG Fashionista’

The actor shared a clip of a Paramount board member, Safra Catz, as he spoke about “really profoundly scary technologies” that Oracle used to help the Israeli military after the October 7 terror attack.

The actor called elder Ellison, a “classic oligarch” and warned of the consequences if Paramount and Warner Bros. are allowed to merge.

Ruffalo added, “This merger has real consequences for real people and for the entire country. Scrutinising the Ellisons, including Oracle’s business built on data, surveillance technology and government contracts, as well as the serious threat to editorial freedom and the loss of livelihoods for thousands of families, is fair and necessary. The $111 billion deal would hand one family control over CNN, HBO and Warner Bros., backed in part by foreign money whose influence on editorial decisions has never been fully explained to the public.”

(IANS)