Jane Fonda Defends Mark Ruffalo From Paramount’s Antisemitism “Smear”: “We Will Not Stand By”
Jane Fonda has defended Mark Ruffalo after Paramount accused him of invoking antisemitic tropes while criticising its proposed takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery. Fonda said the allegation was a false smear intended to divert attention from concerns about media consolidation, arguing that Ruffalo has a right to speak about politics, corporations and the merger without intimidation.
The dispute followed Ruffalo’s sharing of a video concerning Oracle executive Safra Catz and technology supplied to Israel’s military during the Gaza war. Paramount said it did not tolerate prejudice, while Ruffalo said criticism of Israel’s prime minister, military technology contracts or supplying executives was not hostility towards Jewish people; the Anti-Defamation League and Simon Wiesenthal Center supported Paramount’s characterisation. The wider takeover battle involves Paramount Skydance’s $31-per-share offer and a reported $82.7 billion Netflix-WBD agreement, while an anti-merger open letter backed by Ruffalo has collected more than 5,000 signatures.
- Fonda rejects Paramount’s antisemitism allegation against Ruffalo.
- Ruffalo says his criticism concerns politics and corporate conduct.
- The dispute sits within a major Warner Bros. takeover battle.
New here? Start with this
Warner Bros. Discovery is a major American media company that owns film studios, television channels and streaming services. Its possible sale has prompted debate over whether too much of the media industry could come under the control of a small number of companies.
Mark Ruffalo is an actor and political campaigner who has spoken against the proposed deal. Jane Fonda, another prominent actor and activist, has supported his right to criticise the companies and people involved.
The argument has also become linked to the Gaza war and disputes over how criticism of Israel, its government or firms supplying its military should be described. Some Jewish advocacy groups say Ruffalo’s comments used antisemitic themes, while Ruffalo and his supporters reject that view.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Fonda and Ruffalo’s supporters argue that criticism of a government, military contracts, corporate power or media consolidation must remain permissible, including when Israel is involved. They contend that treating such criticism as antisemitic without clear evidence risks chilling speech and diverting attention from substantive questions about Gaza, technology suppliers and the public consequences of a major media merger. Their concern is that allegations of prejudice should be made carefully, because they can seriously damage reputations and narrow legitimate political debate.
The case against
Paramount and the organisations backing its assessment argue that public figures have a responsibility to avoid rhetoric that can echo longstanding antisemitic narratives, even when their stated target is Israeli policy or individual business leaders. They maintain that opposition to Israel’s government or military actions does not exempt speech from scrutiny when its framing may encourage hostility towards Jewish people, and that calling this out is part of opposing prejudice rather than suppressing criticism. Their concern is that political advocacy should distinguish clearly between accountable institutions and language or insinuations with a discriminatory history.