When I started hearing claims that the most recent Superman movie could be about Gaza, I had to pause and take a closer look. In theaters since the start of July, there’s been increasing assertions that the most recent installment of the DC franchise offers a not-so-subtle portrayal of the ongoing plight of the people of Gaza, the West Bank, and the rest of the occupied territories.
Directed by Irish filmmaker James Gunn, the superhero’s latest adventures bring him to the defense of a fictional country named Jahranpur against the US-backed nation of Boravia. Fighting against military aggressions and threats of invasion, the one who otherwise goes by Clark Kent is forced to confront extraterrestrial enemies while grappling with the implications of interventionism, struggling to find his North between superpower influence, the many notions of sovereignty, and his own role as a symbol of justice in a politically tense world.
We’ll save you two hours and bit by saying this: iut’s hard to not see the film as direct commentary on the historical oppression of those indigenous to the Holy Land. If we break it down to the basics, in Superman’s alternate world, Jahranpur represents the marginalized fighting tooth and nail for self-determination and their right to exist. With such a name, the brown skin, and everything they’re going through, the comparison with Palestine becomes almost undeniable. On the other hand, Boravia is, by opposition, the metaphor for occupying forces–white-passing, well-armed, and determined to take over their openly-declared nemesis. What’s more, the imbalance of power that exists between both fictional nations also reflects the decades-spanning disparity in means and support between Palestine and the illegal Zionist State.
superman being so blatantly pro palestine and immigration had me cheering at the screen like this pic.twitter.com/PwhagNSVAN
— minion #7721124 (@deathbymercedes) July 12, 2025
Going further, a number of storylines seen on screen also seem to reinforce the above. In one scene for example, Superman asserts that whether or not Jahranpur is an imperfect nation, it does not grant another power the right to invade it; to which his interlocutor counters by arguing that the Boravian government seeks to liberate the people from a tyrannical regime. “You know that’s silly, of all people, the Boravians?” Superman responds, stunned by the audacity of the claim. This is just one needle in a haystack of what we consider explicit references as it is nearly impossible to ignore the movie’s subtext. Whether in the plot itself or in the flurry of parallels to contemporary pro-Palestinian discourse, the rhetoric of liberation resonates far beyond familiarity.
With all this in mind, you’re probably wondering what the issue is? And there are quite a few actually, starting with the fact that the director has so far denied any intentional reference to Palestine in his most recent work despite the many similarities in it. “When I wrote this the Middle Eastern conflict wasn’t happening. So I tried to do little things to move it away from that, but it doesn’t have anything to do with the Middle East. It’s an invasion by a much more powerful country run by a despot into a country that’s problematic in terms of its political history, but has totally no defense against the other country. It really is fictional,” the 58-year-old told The Times in a recent interview.
As much as the director insists that the film isn’t a direct depiction of the Palestinian struggle, one could argue that he’s trying to keep a safe distance, aware of the potential backlash and severe career repercussions he could face, without jeopardizing the delivery of his message. With his Irish background, and Ireland’s absolute support towards Palestinians, in mind, assuming he wouldn’t have had a scene or two dedicated to reflecting the ongoing conflict feels a little far-fetched. Add to that the fact that October 7 isn’t the starting point of the Palestinian struggle, and it’s hard not to sense something suspicious.
But these are just assumptions of intention, whether they are true or not, Gunn’s risk management comes across as somewhat performative, seemingly wanting to avoid controversy and confrontation rather than develop clearly on the issues the film raises. Building on that, isn’t that risk worth taking when you consider how many have risked their lives in Palestine just to survive, or the rare few in the silver screen industry who, like him, were well-aware of the potential consequences of a pro-Palestinian plea, yet still chose to speak up? Yes, it could be mirroring other conflicts, like Russia’s aggression on Ukraine for example, but the timing, the asymmetry of power, and the surrounding context make the comparison feel obvious— particularly when taking the ethnic edge of the movie into account.
You don’t need to be an expert in anthropology to notice how the Jahranpur, depicted as brown-skinned victims, weak, and at war, serve as the reflection of the Palestinians, and more broadly, Arabs. The name, if we’re being honest, made our eyes roll, coming as just foreign sounding enough to the European ear to draw in some feigned, surface-level sympathy. Frankly, if you’re going to be represented by someone else, something a little more dignifying could’ve been appreciated. Boravians, strong, powerful, and carrying all the privileges that a world like ours can offer, represent the Western world — a status quo we all know and that is perpetuated through medium and content similar to this. That said, while the critique is present and just — and let’s face it, no one wants to be the villains, even if white, in movies —the film could have benefited from a more nuanced or subtle approach. But then again, maybe that’s just us. And whether or not his intention was to focus on Palestine, the film also fails to fully engage with the complexities of colonialism and domination, with issues like apartheid, resource scarcity, hunger, lack of basic needs, and the denial of rights, feeling like they were rushed, or worse, neglected.
At this point, especially two years into a genocide, art to an extent can become trivial. Decolonial movements call for action, including divestment, and yes, sometimes even violence — so kudos for making a film that touches (remotely) on these issues, but as the last installment of Superman remains distributed and streamed, and not actively fought, the generated profits of the movie — which reportedly earned over $200 million since its release — are most likely benefiting an industry renowned for upholding systems of inequality and tends to, more times than not, have the oppressors, rather than oppressed, interests at heart. Lest we forget that it was in Hollywood, the last bastion of Palestinian solidarity in our books, that actress Gal Gadot was handed the platform to promote blatant Israeli propaganda, with little regard for balance, equality, or telling the story from both sides.
Think what you will of this movie, but if it gives anyone the impression that it’s advancing any noble cause—from Palestine to anti-imperialism or decolonization anywhere else around the world—let us be clear: it shouldn’t.
The post The Latest ‘Superman’ Is A Weak Allegory for Palestine appeared first on MILLE WORLD.
