Film workers pledge not to work with Israeli institutions they say are implicated in genocide

On 8 September 2025, roughly 1,200 actors, directors and film crew announced a public pledge refusing to collaborate with Israeli film institutions they say are “implicated in genocide and apartheid” against Palestinians. The statement, circulated by the group Film Workers for Palestine and modelled in part on anti-apartheid cultural boycotts, names festivals, cinemas and production companies as targets of the moratorium. Signatories include high-profile figures such as Olivia Colman, Mark Ruffalo, Ava DuVernay, Yorgos Lanthimos and others who say institutional partnerships with the Israeli state amount to complicity. The pledge frames the action as an ethical response to what signers describe as an urgent humanitarian and political crisis.

• About 1,200 film industry professionals had signed the pledge by the evening of 7–8 September 2025, according to the circulated list; signers include Olivia Colman, Mark Ruffalo, Ava DuVernay, Yorgos Lanthimos and others.
• The pledge, organised by Film Workers for Palestine, asks members to refuse screenings, appearances and collaborations with Israeli festivals, cinemas, broadcasters and production companies judged complicit in abuses.
• Organisers cite parallels with the cultural boycott of apartheid South Africa and reference Filmmakers United Against Apartheid, founded in 1987 by figures such as Jonathan Demme and Martin Scorsese.
• An accompanying FAQ lists Israeli festivals—Jerusalem Film Festival, Haifa International Film Festival, Docaviv and TLVFest—as examples of institutions the signatories consider partnered with the state.
• The pledge specifies it targets institutional complicity, not Israeli individuals; it notes Palestinian citizens of Israel and some Israeli film entities are regarded as exempt.
• Earlier cultural actions include a 2024 letter by more than 1,000 writers and a separate letter signed by over 65 Palestinian filmmakers accusing Hollywood of dehumanising Palestinians.
• The pledge is among the largest cultural boycott moves since the Gaza assault began, and arrives amid other industry protests and union debates about protections for members with Palestine-related views.

Background

The pledge was published at a moment of heightened international scrutiny of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and of global debates over cultural and economic pressure as a means of political influence. Activists and some legal scholars have characterised aspects of the Gaza offensive as meeting definitions of war crimes or genocide; supporters of Israel dispute such labels and point to security and terrorism concerns. Against this contested legal and moral landscape, cultural boycotts have re-emerged as a tactic aimed at increasing pressure on institutions rather than individuals.

Cultural boycotts have precedent. In the 1980s, major film-makers refused to show work in apartheid South Africa, a move campaigners credit with helping to isolate the regime internationally. The current pledge expressly invokes that history, arguing that coordinated refusal to lend cultural legitimacy can shift perceptions and policy. At the same time, the global film industry is highly networked: festivals, distributors and co-producers operate across borders, raising complex questions about collateral impacts on artists and audiences, including Palestinians.

Main event

Film Workers for Palestine released the pledge on 8 September 2025, accompanied by a public list of signatories and an FAQ explaining how institutions are judged to be “complicit.” The FAQ cites ongoing government partnerships, funding relationships and public statements that organisers interpret as enabling or whitewashing state actions. The pledge asks signers to decline screenings, appearances and collaborations with named classes of institutions, while leaving open work with individual Israeli artists who are not institutionally aligned.

Organisers and several signatories framed the move as both ethical and strategic. Screenwriter David Farr — listed among signers — said his family history of Holocaust survival shaped his decision and described the boycott as a moral necessity. Other signatories emphasised solidarity with Palestinian filmmakers who have publicly requested international colleagues to refuse institutional collaborations they see as legitimising oppression.

The pledge lists concrete examples of institutions it considers problematic, naming major Israeli festivals including Jerusalem Film Festival, Haifa International Film Festival, Docaviv and TLVFest. It also points to production companies, sales agents and distributors that, organisers say, have longstanding ties to state bodies. Organisers acknowledge exceptions exist and advise following guidelines set by Palestinian civil society for context-sensitive decisions.

Industry response has been mixed. Some unions and associations have previously recommended caution around working with certain Israeli cultural bodies; others have warned about risks of censorship, professional reprisals or legal exposure for boycott participants. Festival directors and exhibitors not targeted by the pledge voiced concern about the complexity of screening decisions and potential harm to artists — including Palestinians — who rely on international platforms.

Analysis & implications

The pledge reframes cultural engagement as an axis of political leverage. If sustained, such a boycott could complicate programming decisions for festivals and distributors that routinely curate international work, potentially reducing opportunities for certain Israeli-funded projects to reach global audiences. It may also provoke defensive responses from state-linked cultural institutions and from governments that view cultural boycotts as punitive or politicised.

Economically, the direct short-term impact on Israel’s film sector is likely limited: global box office revenues and co‑production pipelines are diverse and many projects rely on multinational funding. However, symbolic isolation can affect marketability, sales-agent relationships and festival invitations, especially for films seeking prestige circuits. The pledge’s pragmatic exemption for individuals may blunt some immediate collateral harm to artists unaffiliated with state institutions, but determining affiliation is often contested and opaque.

Politically, the move amplifies pressure on cultural gatekeepers to adopt policies that reflect human-rights considerations. It may also harden positions: proponents argue boycotts are non-violent pressure that helped end apartheid, while opponents characterise them as unfairly punitive and potentially counterproductive to dialogue. The pledge could stimulate comparable campaigns in other creative sectors, or prompt counter-moves seeking to shield targeted institutions.

Comparison & data

These comparisons show the pledge in a lineage of culture‑based pressure tactics. While earlier boycotts often targeted entire national industries, the current pledge focuses on institutional ties to state policy. Measuring real-world impact will require tracking festival programming changes, distribution deals and industry statements over coming months.

Reactions & quotes

“As film-makers, actors and film industry workers, we recognise the power of cinema to shape perceptions… In this urgent moment of crisis, we must do everything we can to address complicity in that unrelenting horror.”

Film Workers for Palestine (pledge statement)

“I cannot support my work being published or performed in Israel… The cultural boycott was significant in South Africa. It will be significant this time.”

David Farr (screenwriter, signatory)

“Artists and festivals are now weighing ethical obligations against cultural exchange; this debate will shape programming choices into the next awards season.”

Independent film curator (summary of sector commentary)

Unconfirmed

• Whether the named Israeli festivals and companies will formally respond or alter programming in direct reaction to this pledge is not yet confirmed.
• The extent to which the pledge will affect distribution deals, festival lineups or box-office performance in the next 12 months remains uncertain and will depend on how widely institutions adopt similar policies.
• Claims that a majority of Israeli film institutions have explicitly supported state policies are broad generalisations in the pledge’s FAQ and require case-by-case verification.

Bottom line

The 8 September 2025 pledge by Film Workers for Palestine represents a significant cultural mobilisation: around 1,200 industry professionals publicly committed to refusing institutional collaborations they see as complicit with Israeli state actions. The move is rooted in historical precedent and aims at institutional leverage rather than individual blacklisting, but its operational effect will depend on how festivals, distributors and cultural bodies respond.

For readers watching film industry dynamics, the pledge signals that ethical considerations tied to geopolitical conflicts are increasingly shaping programming and partnership choices. Observers should track festival statements, distribution contracts and any dialogue between Palestinian civil society and international cultural institutions to gauge whether this initiative changes access for films, filmmakers and audiences in the months ahead.

• The Guardian (news report, exclusive on pledge)
• Film Workers for Palestine (organisation — official pledge and FAQ)
• Venice Biennale / Venice Film Festival (festival — screening and awards information)
• Variety (industry coverage — reporting on earlier Palestinian filmmakers’ letter and industry context)