A new Daily Wire column argues that Hollywood’s embrace of the “Free Palestine” slogan is less a principled political awakening than the latest in a long line of celebrity causes — one that demands public allegiance and punishes anyone who stays on the sidelines.
Writing for the outlet, journalist and film critic Christian Toto contends that the entertainment industry’s response to the October 7 attacks and the war in Gaza follows a familiar pattern, comparing it to earlier star-driven crusades such as climate change activism, the campaign against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and allegations of Trump-Russia collusion. In each case, Toto writes, celebrities jumped in “with two oversized feet,” only to move on when a new cause captured their attention.
Sheeran caught in the crossfire
Central to Toto’s argument is the predicament of singer Ed Sheeran, who, according to the column, removed pro-Palestinian rapper Macklemore from his tour after pressure from several venue owners. Toto describes Sheeran as having tried to remain as neutral as possible — and being punished for it anyway, with the media casting him as the villain, radio stations dropping his music, and band members leaving the tour.
The episode, as Toto frames it, illustrates the cost of neutrality in an industry where taking no position is itself treated as taking the wrong one. He notes that he expects few, if any, celebrities to publicly defend Sheeran, arguing that to do so would risk professional blowback.
That dynamic — what Toto calls a “monolithic celebrity culture” that permits only one side of a debate — runs through the piece. Toto writes that public praise and publicity function as the currency of modern Hollywood, and that going political is often a way for stars to signal to one another that they hold the “correct” opinions.
Lillard’s apology and the Venice ovation
As evidence, Toto points to actor Matthew Lillard, known for “Scream” and “Scooby-Doo,” who apologized for taking a role in the most recent “Scream” sequel — months after the film hit theaters and grossed $121 million domestically. The apology came, per the column, because the film had originally included actress Melissa Barrera, who was fired from the franchise over comments about Israel that the studio considered too toxic in the weeks after October 7.
Toto quotes Lillard describing his regret: “I feel ashamed about that. Because in that moment I was so excited to go back, I didn’t really think about Melissa and that journey … I’m embarrassed, that’s the truth… I blew that. I’m on the wrong side of history for that. I still like being in the movie [but] it may not have been the best idea.”
The column also cites the recent Venice Film Festival, where a jury press conference became the subject of a pre-event meltdown over whether stars would participate as they had in past years. When a fiercely anti-Israel film titled “NAZA” screened, Toto writes, the audience responded with a record-breaking 25-minute standing ovation — a reaction he characterizes as owing at least something to virtue signaling.
From ICE to Gaza, and back again
According to Toto, the rapid turnover of causes is nothing new. Climate change once dominated the celebrity circuit, with stars funding documentaries or, in Leonardo DiCaprio’s case, both starring in and supporting environmental projects. Major films like “Geostorm,” “Snowpiercer,” “Don’t Look Up,” and “2012” traded heavily on eco-anxiety, he notes. Now, with recent polling suggesting climate change is fading in the public eye, the industry has pivoted to the Middle East.
Only months ago, Toto writes, the same celebrity ecosystem rallied against ICE, with red-carpet pins tied to the immigration enforcement debate and musicians penning tributes to a slain anti-ICE activist, Renee Good. That cause, he predicts, will be discarded for the new one by the time awards season arrives — assuming the collective messaging doesn’t shift again even sooner.
Toto is skeptical that the Gaza cause will translate into a wave of big-budget feature films. The industry has produced a handful of documentaries on the theme, he acknowledges, but the subject is hardly box-office catnip. He expects the movement to continue mostly through low-budget documentaries rather than star vehicles.
He also questions how deeply many stars understand the conflict they are speaking about. As an example, he cites actress Susan Sarandon, who he says once denied that Hamas committed mass rapes during the October 7 atrocities. Former Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, by contrast, filmed a documentary on the subject that allowed survivors to share their accounts.
A familiar critique from the right
The column reflects a broader conservative criticism of Hollywood activism: that celebrities adopt causes for social signaling rather than conviction, and that dissent from the prevailing view carries real professional consequences. Toto also faults many in the industry for what he calls memory-holing the October 7 attacks themselves — the context, and what he characterizes as the day’s sheer barbarism — while no longer recognizing Israel’s right to fight back. He notes that more than two years passed before Hamas returned living hostages, and that many entertainers who spoke out forcefully after the attacks stopped doing so quickly, even as the hostage crisis continued.
Whether or not one agrees with Toto’s framing, his central observation about professional incentives is difficult to dispute: in an industry where neutrality itself can become a controversy, the pressure on entertainers to pick a side — and to pick it publicly — shows no sign of easing. The open question, as Toto sees it, is not whether Hollywood will move on to its next cause, but how quickly.
Source: www.dailywire.com — https://www.dailywire.com/news/why-free-palestine-is-just-the-latest-celeb-slogan-forcing-entertainers-to-take-sides