denounces

Paramount on Friday sharply denounced a proposed boycott of Israeli film institutions by a group that calls itself Film Workers for Palestine and is supported by dozens of Hollywood luminaries.

Earlier this week, the group launched an open letter pledging to withhold support for Israeli film festivals, production companies and other organizations that the group said were involved in “genocide and apartheid against the Palestinian people.”

The letter has been signed by hundreds of individuals, including filmmakers Jonathan Glazer, Ava DuVernay, Yorgos Lanthimos, Emma Stone, Joaquin Phoenix, Rooney Mara, Olivia Colman and Mark Ruffalo.

“As filmmakers, actors, film industry workers, and institutions, we recognize the power of cinema to shape perceptions,” the group wrote. “In this urgent moment of crisis, where many of our governments are enabling the carnage in Gaza, we must do everything we can to address complicity in that unrelenting horror.”

The group pledged “not to screen films, appear at or otherwise work with Israeli film institutions — including festivals, cinemas, broadcasters and production companies,” which have been “implicated” in attacks on Palestinians. The group described its effort as being inspired by filmmakers joining the South African boycott over apartheid, a global campaign decades ago that proved influential in helping overturn the nation’s government.

Paramount, which was acquired last month by the Larry Ellison family and private equity firm RedBird Capital Partners, made clear its opposition to the filmmakers’ campaign.

“We believe in the power of storytelling to connect and inspire people, promote mutual understanding, and preserve the moments, ideas, and events that shape the world we share,” said an emailed statement attributed to the company. “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.”

Paramount is the first studio to state a position on the divisive issue. An insider who was not authorized to speak about the internal debate said Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison and the company’s leadership team felt strongly about the need to speak out in opposition, believing that individuals should not be boycotted based on their nationality.

“The global entertainment industry should be encouraging artists to tell their stories and share their ideas with audiences throughout the world,” Paramount said. “We need more engagement and communication — not less.”

A left-wing Greek opposition party denounced the sale Tuesday of a major domestic defense company to the Israeli SK Group, whose portfolio includes Israeli Military Industries (IMI) and Israeli Shipyards, Anadolu reports.

“It is not a simple sell-out, but another act of complicity of the (Kyriakos) Mitsotakis regime with the genocide in Palestine,” the New Left party said in a statement.

“At the time of the genocide, the Mitsotakis government, is tying the country to Israel’s chariot, proceeding with a nationally detrimental choice that gives away critical sectors on terms of servitude,” is said.

The party underlined that the sale of ELVO to the Israeli holding company is another episode in the selling out of critical public infrastructure and strategic industries.

“The loss of the most important Greek defense industry to foreign hands undermines the country’s national security and technological self-sufficiency,” it said.

Thessaloniki-based ELVO (Hellenic Vehicle Industry) has, for around five decades, produced buses, heavy utility trucks, military jeeps, armored vehicles and tanks, mostly under licenses from third parties, for the Greek Armed Forces.

In 2020, the sale of ELVO to an Israeli-interest consortium that comprises Plasan Sasa, Naska Industries — SK Group and Greek businessman Aristidis Glinis, was concluded for around $3.4 million.

SK Group announced Tuesday that it completed the 100% takeover of ELVO.

Published on
24/06/2025 – 18:17 GMT+2

ADVERTISEMENT

The Brazilian ambassador to the EU has told MEPs in Brussels that a disinformation campaign surrounds the trade deal signed in December 2024 between the EU and the Mercosur countries – Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay.

Pedro Miguel da Costa e Silva strenuously countered the arguments of the deal’s critics during a hearing of the Parliament’s trade committee on Tuesday.

“The occurrence of animal diseases is much higher in the EU than in Brazil. It shows the need to check the veracity of some narratives,” the ambassador said, holding up a sheet of paper and adding: “In any case, I need to stress that nothing in the agreement changes the right of the EU and its member states to protect human, animal, or plant health.”

The Mercosur agreement aims to establish a transatlantic free trade zone encompassing 750 million people and nearly one-fifth of the global economy.

The EU member states have yet to adopt the deal, but some – led by France – oppose it, facing strong domestic resistance from environmental activists and farmers who argue that it would create unfair competition and fail to uphold environmental and phytosanitary standards.

“The debate about this agreement has not always been a balanced one. Some people want to apply a unique benchmark to Mercosur and ask us to engage in an endless loop of negotiations,” Da Costa E Silva said.

He denounced what he described as unfair treatment of the deal when compared to others the EU has negotiated – citing recent agreements between the EU with Chile or Mexico, and those under discussion with India and the US – claiming these haven’t faced the same kinds of “accusations, and unreasonable demands and expectations”.

The ambassador also sought to counter the arguments raised by farmers concerned that their Brazilian counterparts would gain unfair competitive advantages.

“The [market] access we received in products considered sensitive by the European producers is very limited,” he said. And he claimed that some Brazilian standards are more stringent than European. “For example: the share of land that our farmers need to set aside for the protection of native vegetation varies from 20% of their properties in the south of Brazil to 80% in the Amazon region. This is far beyond the requirements asked of European farmers.”