It says a lot about our culture when the loudest voices on Palestine aren’t politicians or diplomats, but actors clutching trophies. Straying from outfit rankings and couple launches, this year’s headlines at the 77th Emmy Awards were infiltrated by politics.
The talk of the star-studded evening was the lauded Hacks star Hannah Einbinder’s speech, “Go Birds, Fuck ICE, Free Palestine,” instantly shifting the night’s narrative to a political one. The audience applauded, the clip spread across social media, and Palestine became one of the most discussed topics of the evening.
Einbinder wasn’t alone in her political statements. On the red carpet, actor Javier Bardem wore a keffiyeh and pledged to refuse to work with anyone justifying the genocide, joining the thousands of celebrities who have signed the Film Workers for Palestine petition. Megan Stalter’s handbag, reading “CEASEFIRE”, also appeared on the red carpet, indicative of the evening’s superficial undertones. None of these moments changed policy, but together they made sure that on a night dedicated to television, Palestine dominated the conversation.
That visibility is what matters. With Gaza entering its third year of devastation, international attention fluctuates depending on what else dominates headlines. In that context, celebrity activism helps to keep the issue alive in public conversation. But let’s be honest: applause in Los Angeles does not change the facts on the ground. No ceasefire was brokered because of an Emmy speech, and no blockade was lifted because of a red-carpet accessory. What changes is the media cycle, who gets covered, what gets clipped, and what is trending.
Palestine’s prominence in Hollywood is unusual. Other causes, like climate change, labour rights, and even domestic political crises, rarely cut through in the same way. ‘Free Palestine’ has become the statement stars feel compelled to make, suggesting that celebrity activism has shifted. In a country like the USA, where discussing Zionism is branded controversial, Palestine has paradoxically become a more approachable subject for Hollywood than many national issues.
In an age of developing censorship, approachability of controversial topics is significant. Just days after the Emmys, Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show cut out after a reference to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, as ABC scrambled to pull the segment. Donald Trump even praised the decision. And then? Silence. Few media platforms talked about the assassination, and even fewer discussed rising censorship. The contrast reveals the selective way politics is permitted in popular media: some causes can be name-dropped on award shows, others are too hot to touch.
Meanwhile, Ricky Gervais summed up the bind of celebrity politics in a single tweet: “If you never want to be criticised then say nothing, do nothing and of course be nothing.” True, but the harder question is whether speaking out matters at all beyond PR value. Einbinder’s soundbite, Bardem’s keffiyeh, Stalter’s bag: all drew attention, but in different ways. And in each case, the symbolism risked overshadowing the substance. Einbinder’s politics trended, but her haircut and Eagles shoutout competed for airtime. Stalter’s accessory was consumed as part of a best-dressed round-up of red carpet fashion. The problem isn’t the stars themselves, but the Hollywood machine that turns acts of solidarity into another accessory.
That doesn’t mean celebrities should stay quiet. Awareness is fundamental. If no one speaks, Palestine risks disappearing from the cultural conversation altogether. But awareness without follow-through is fragile. The petition pledging not to collaborate with Israeli institutions, signed by numerous celebrities, is a different kind of cultural moment. It carries professional risk and potential consequences. That is the kind of stance that makes institutions uncomfortable.
Hollywood statements, by contrast, are limited. They shape public opinion and push the Gaza genocide into spaces where it might otherwise be ignored. They create symbols. But we shouldn’t mistake symbols for solutions. Javier Bardem articulates my point: “Me not getting jobs is absolutely irrelevant compared to what is going on there”. The superficial questions of the designer of the gown or an upcoming project mean nothing in comparison to the horrors in Gaza. The exposure is positive, but these star-studded individuals go home to their multi-million-dollar houses in Santa Monica, being praised for articulating two words about Palestine. It isn’t enough, but that begs the question: what is?
Celebrity activism is part of the story, but not the whole. In the end, ‘Free Palestine’ on stage is a cultural gesture, sometimes bold, sometimes hollow, always fleeting. It matters because it keeps the issue visible. But until visibility translates into real political pressure, its impact will remain more about the stars than the people suffering on the ground.
“Emmy Award” by hans s is licensed under CC BY-ND 2.0.
Related
2025 Emmy Awards: Celebrity activism steals the spotlight
It says a lot about our culture when the loudest voices on Palestine aren’t politicians or diplomats, but actors clutching trophies. Straying from outfit rankings and couple launches, this year’s headlines at the 77th Emmy Awards were infiltrated by politics.
The talk of the star-studded evening was the lauded Hacks star Hannah Einbinder’s speech, “Go Birds, Fuck ICE, Free Palestine,” instantly shifting the night’s narrative to a political one. The audience applauded, the clip spread across social media, and Palestine became one of the most discussed topics of the evening.
Einbinder wasn’t alone in her political statements. On the red carpet, actor Javier Bardem wore a keffiyeh and pledged to refuse to work with anyone justifying the genocide, joining the thousands of celebrities who have signed the Film Workers for Palestine petition. Megan Stalter’s handbag, reading “CEASEFIRE”, also appeared on the red carpet, indicative of the evening’s superficial undertones. None of these moments changed policy, but together they made sure that on a night dedicated to television, Palestine dominated the conversation.
That visibility is what matters. With Gaza entering its third year of devastation, international attention fluctuates depending on what else dominates headlines. In that context, celebrity activism helps to keep the issue alive in public conversation. But let’s be honest: applause in Los Angeles does not change the facts on the ground. No ceasefire was brokered because of an Emmy speech, and no blockade was lifted because of a red-carpet accessory. What changes is the media cycle, who gets covered, what gets clipped, and what is trending.
Palestine’s prominence in Hollywood is unusual. Other causes, like climate change, labour rights, and even domestic political crises, rarely cut through in the same way. ‘Free Palestine’ has become the statement stars feel compelled to make, suggesting that celebrity activism has shifted. In a country like the USA, where discussing Zionism is branded controversial, Palestine has paradoxically become a more approachable subject for Hollywood than many national issues.
In an age of developing censorship, approachability of controversial topics is significant. Just days after the Emmys, Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show cut out after a reference to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, as ABC scrambled to pull the segment. Donald Trump even praised the decision. And then? Silence. Few media platforms talked about the assassination, and even fewer discussed rising censorship. The contrast reveals the selective way politics is permitted in popular media: some causes can be name-dropped on award shows, others are too hot to touch.
Meanwhile, Ricky Gervais summed up the bind of celebrity politics in a single tweet: “If you never want to be criticised then say nothing, do nothing and of course be nothing.” True, but the harder question is whether speaking out matters at all beyond PR value. Einbinder’s soundbite, Bardem’s keffiyeh, Stalter’s bag: all drew attention, but in different ways. And in each case, the symbolism risked overshadowing the substance. Einbinder’s politics trended, but her haircut and Eagles shoutout competed for airtime. Stalter’s accessory was consumed as part of a best-dressed round-up of red carpet fashion. The problem isn’t the stars themselves, but the Hollywood machine that turns acts of solidarity into another accessory.
That doesn’t mean celebrities should stay quiet. Awareness is fundamental. If no one speaks, Palestine risks disappearing from the cultural conversation altogether. But awareness without follow-through is fragile. The petition pledging not to collaborate with Israeli institutions, signed by numerous celebrities, is a different kind of cultural moment. It carries professional risk and potential consequences. That is the kind of stance that makes institutions uncomfortable.
Hollywood statements, by contrast, are limited. They shape public opinion and push the Gaza genocide into spaces where it might otherwise be ignored. They create symbols. But we shouldn’t mistake symbols for solutions. Javier Bardem articulates my point: “Me not getting jobs is absolutely irrelevant compared to what is going on there”. The superficial questions of the designer of the gown or an upcoming project mean nothing in comparison to the horrors in Gaza. The exposure is positive, but these star-studded individuals go home to their multi-million-dollar houses in Santa Monica, being praised for articulating two words about Palestine. It isn’t enough, but that begs the question: what is?
Celebrity activism is part of the story, but not the whole. In the end, ‘Free Palestine’ on stage is a cultural gesture, sometimes bold, sometimes hollow, always fleeting. It matters because it keeps the issue visible. But until visibility translates into real political pressure, its impact will remain more about the stars than the people suffering on the ground.
“Emmy Award” by hans s is licensed under CC BY-ND 2.0.
Share this:
Like this:
Related