It comes as no surprise that top Hollywood stars are getting their say regarding the war on Iraq, or does it?

Traditionally, Hollywood has been a vocal platform where a wide variety of causes are championed, such as the fight against deadly illnesses, human rights in general, and children's and women's rights in particular.

Unlike the intellectual rebellion of the 1960's and 1970's however, celebrities these days seem to be more interested in causes that are unlikely to bring about controversy, somewhat fashionable causes you may say, "Free Tibet", breast cancer, the use of animal fur, and most recently, the increasingly fashionable, fighting for Afghani women's rights.

Needless to say, such causes are indeed honorable. But due to the timing, the nature and the extent in which these campaigns are often unleashed, one cannot help but wonder how genuine such activism really is.

"Going with the flow" can hardly resemble courage. Afghani women have been abused for generations, yet leading celebrities in the US seemed to realize such a fact only when the US officially waged war on the poverty-stricken nation, and strived to batter the already battered image of the Taliban. True, the Taliban deprived women of numerous rights, but the US war on Afghanistan had little, if nothing at all to do with such legitimate concerns. Freeing Afghani woman was neither on the top nor the bottom of the Pentagon's list of "things to do", when the Napalm leveled entire villages and killed thousands. But it was a fabulous myth to propagate throughout the media, and various Hollywood celebrities, of course, played along.

Celebrity politics, some genuine, and some not, have indeed made their mark in Hollywood. But unlike their European counterparts, voices of dissent in Hollywood often are unseen and unheard. No, American stars are not in agreement on everything, and are not all pro-the official policies of the White House, but they are aware of the price, often a costly one, they could possibly pay if their views sharply contrasted that of powerful groups, that with a greater weight on the public opinion than that of a beloved singer or actor.

But something is changing in Hollywood.

A growing anti-war movement is in the making. Over one-hundred celebrities have signed a letter to President Bush, published in major newspapers around the country, opposing a pre-emptive war on Iraq.

The letter was revealed about the same time that actor Sean Penn, the star of such films as "I am Sam" and "Dead Man Walking," defied the role of what is acceptable behavior for public figures in the US, and paid a visit to Iraqi hospitals, crowded with dying children desperately in need of medicine that is outlawed under the sanctions policy. Penn's move is likely to cost him, for the overwhelming, and often exaggerated patriotism sweeping the states these days is unlikely to forgive such a daring move.

Penn's visit to Iraq, and the letter signed by well-known actors such as Matt Damon, Gillian Anderson, David Duckovny, and Samuel L. Jackson was truly a milestone, for they chose to champion a cause that seemed little fashionable or rewarding. These decisions also came at a time of high emotions, where anger often conquers logic, and calls for revenge often overpower calls for humanity.

Daring as it may seem, taking an anti-war on Iraq stance requires much less risk than defending Palestinian rights. The key difference between both causes, is that the second is likely to directly spark an undying campaign of protests by pro-Israel groups and lobbies. Directly criticizing Israel's occupation and mistreatment of Palestinians, or simply voicing a concern or a positive gesture toward Palestinian rights has often set off denunciations that proved costly to many public figures in the United States. Somehow and in someway, calling for freedom for Palestinians seems to evoke accusations of anti-Semitism among Israeli supporters and powerful groups. As irrelevant as the accusations may sound, the strategy works, and for years it has silenced most of the dissenting voices.

But that taboo is also being broken. Jane Fonda, a well-known American actress, and a two-time Oscar winner just finished a tour to the West Bank, where she met with Palestinian artists and families who have lost loved ones due to Israeli violence. Moreover, Fonda had the chance to experience a glimpse of the real life drama millions of Palestinians endure everyday, as she too had to find her way through Israeli army concrete blocks, mud barriers and yes, she passed by the Israeli soldiers, who seemed friendlier than they usually are.

Clearly, this issue has little to do with acting, sports or aerobics and much to do with reality, or tragic realties. We, as individuals, regardless of what we do, or don't do for a living, bear a responsibility, toward our communities and others. While actors often manage to get us to cry, to be inspired, to learn something of value, they can too extend their mission beyond the stage, to help promote peace and justice. Needless to say, we are all capable of delivering a message, a virtuous one, of sharing our views, our vision, or even making a difference. Sometimes standing for what is just can prove costly. But isn't that the idea? Isn't this why we use the term "fighting" for justice?

You don't have to be a top-paid celebrity to make your voice heard however, or to make a difference or touch people's lives. All you need to acquire is courage and faith. The thousands of internationals who flooded Palestine to assist and protect Palestinian families are in fact our heroes, our celebrities, even if they had nothing to do with acting whatsoever. It is just that this fight is by far the most challenging, and needs people of conscience from all walks of life to join in. So, whether you are a Fonda, a Penn, or a teacher, a student or a stay at home mom, the fight for peace and justice needs you today more than ever before. Please don't hesitate for long, for much is at stake. Join us.

Ramzy Baroud is a Palestinian journalist and is editor in chief of PalestineChronicle.com.