
What 'Superman' Says About Gaza—And Us
And that, in itself, says something profound.
Despite fierce controversy and calls for boycott by some pro-Israel commentators, Superman is topping the box office charts, making over $220 million globally during its opening weekend.
Gunn has repeatedly insisted that Superman is not about the Middle East. "When I wrote this the Middle Eastern conflict wasn't happening," he told The Times of London. He emphasized that the fictional war between Boravia and Jarhanpur was crafted before the Hamas-led attacks on October 7, 2023, and Israel's ensuing war on Gaza. He even said he tried to steer the narrative away from Middle Eastern analogies once real-world violence erupted. And yet, despite these denials, the allegory has taken hold.
Why?
Because the movie's central dynamic—a powerful, U.S.-backed aggressor invading a poor, largely defenseless neighbor—is all too familiar. Boravia, with its military might, international impunity, and stated mission to "liberate" Jarhanpur from supposed tyranny, mirrors in disturbing ways Israel's ongoing bombardment and occupation of Gaza. The imagery is searing: tanks and drones lining up at a border fence, a young boy clutching a national flag as civilians scatter in fear, and a so-called "just war" increasingly exposed as a campaign of domination. That such scenes resonated so strongly with viewers is not the fault of the audience's "left-wing brain," as Ben Shapiro dismissively put it—it is a reflection of the moral clarity that emerges when oppression is laid bare, even in fictional form.
Online, the reaction was swift and divided. Some called it the most "openly pro-Palestine" content to ever appear in a blockbuster. TikTok creators, influencers, and activists lauded the film's unflinching portrayal of invasion and resistance, with one user declaring, "Superman is antizionist and leaves no room for doubt." Others—particularly in right-wing circles—branded it "Superwoke," accusing Gunn of injecting ideology into entertainment.
Whether or not the film was meant to be about Israel and Palestine, it functioned as a kind of cinematic Rorschach test. When seeing injustice portrayed on the screen, viewers brought with them the images that have been burned into global consciousness after nearly two years of siege on Gaza—images of children killed, hospitals bombed, and international law flouted with impunity. When you witness a conflict where one side wields F-35s and the other buries its dead in mass graves, any story of asymmetrical warfare will inevitably call Palestine to mind.
LONDON, ENGLAND - JULY 02: James Gunn, David Corenswet, Rachel Brosnahan, Nicholas Hoult and Peter Safran attend the "Superman" Fan Event in London's Leicester Square on July 02, 2025 in London, England.
LONDON, ENGLAND - JULY 02: James Gunn, David Corenswet, Rachel Brosnahan, Nicholas Hoult and Peter Safran attend the "Superman" Fan Event in London's Leicester Square on July 02, 2025 in London, England.To be clear, Superman is not a perfect political text. The film's Jarhanpurians—coded as Middle Eastern or South Asian—are largely passive. One of the few named Jarhanpurian characters is a falafel vendor, Malik, who serves as emotional fuel for Superman's arc before being killed off. As The Forward noted, the Jarhanpurians' purpose is less to assert their own dignity than to highlight the hero's morality. And so, while some audiences saw pro-Palestinian messaging, others rightly questioned whether the film reinscribes a savior narrative—centered on a white alien-immigrant superhero—rather than empowering the oppressed to resist on their own terms.
Indeed, as Middle East Eye pointedly observed, Palestinians are not waiting for a white superhero to rescue them. The real heroes are the medics treating the wounded under rubble, the journalists livestreaming amidst bomb blasts, and the people who keep marching for their right to exist. Superman may deliver lines about morality, kindness, and justice, but in the real world, those words are being lived by people with far less privilege and far greater courage.
Still, the film revealed how deeply the public has absorbed the reality of Gaza, how far sympathy for Palestinians has spread beyond Arab or Muslim audiences, and how badly establishment media and politicians have underestimated this shift. When a Warner Brothers tentpole provokes hashtags like "#SupermanIsHamas," it is not because the film is agitprop—it's because the world now sees Gaza everywhere.
Even Gunn's framing of Superman as "an immigrant" touched off fierce debate, with conservative pundits recoiling at the suggestion that a refugee from Krypton could embody the American immigrant story. But that, too, is part of the tension: if Superman is a refugee who stands up to bullies, who uses his power to shield the powerless, then what happens when audiences draw connections between that ethos and the very people being demonized by Western governments?
The film doesn't just expose geopolitical parallels—it exposes cultural contradictions. America wants to believe in Superman's values, but recoils when those values are applied consistently, especially when they implicate allies like Israel. It wants to celebrate rebellion in fiction but criminalize resistance in reality. And it wants to embrace immigrants in theory while deporting, detaining, and defunding them in practice.
That's why Superman matters—not because it offers a perfect analogy for Gaza, but because it unintentionally lays bare the moral hypocrisy at the heart of so much political discourse. The discomfort it generates is revealing. When people see children under fire and think immediately of Gaza, the problem isn't that the film is too political—it's that reality is too brutal to ignore.
This isn't the first time a Hollywood film has echoed global struggles, and it won't be the last. But what's different now is the speed and intensity with which audiences connect the dots—and the growing unwillingness to let sanitized narratives obscure the truth. Even in the heart of a superhero spectacle, people are demanding moral clarity.
In the end, Gunn may not have set out to make a film about Palestine. But the world saw Gaza in it anyway.
And that, in itself, is a kind of justice.
Faisal Kutty is a Toronto-based lawyer, law professor, and frequent contributor to The Toronto Star.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Time to get real about the Muslim Brotherhood's Mideast menace
The United States may finally be getting serious about defanging the Muslim Brotherhood. A new bill making its way through Congress, the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2025, represents a new chapter in America's complex history with the oldest and most influential Islamist movement. The bipartisan legislation, led by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Florida Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart and Jared Moskowitz, would for the first time designating the global Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, clearing the way for US sanctions. Advertisement Founded in Egypt in 1928, the Brotherhood's member groups operate in virtually all Muslim-majority countries, as well as in the West. Each branch proclaims the same core worldview of Muslim supremacy, but adapts tactics and goals to the local environment — some at times engaging in democratic politics and legitimate activism, others deploying brutal violence. Hamas, the official Palestinian branch of the Brotherhood, is a prime example of this pattern: It has participated in elections and seeks to govern, but also has a 40-year history of unspeakable terror. Advertisement America has historically struggled to find a coherent posture toward this complex movement. It has generally regarded the Brotherhood negatively, at least partially returning the visceral hatred the group spews against the United States. But at times, Washington has seen the group as a tactical ally on the geopolitical chessboard. During the Cold War, many US analysts believed the Brothers' opposition to Communist atheism made them a valid alternative to the Middle East's Soviet-leaning regimes. Advertisement In 2011, when the Brotherhood gained power in various countries after the Arab Spring, President Barack Obama looked at that development with favor — sparking anger in longstanding regional allies. Many American policymakers and State Department aides remain sympathetic to the Brotherhood, and in academia, support for it is all but reflexive. Yet, despite the whitewashing attempts of its many cheerleaders, the Brothers — as the ideological forefathers of today's jihadists — maintain a century-long tradition of anti-Western, anti-American, antisemitic and anti-democratic dogma. Advertisement Tellingly, several of al Qaeda's founders were ex-Brotherhood members — who became disillusioned with the group's only partial embrace of violence. Moreover, several Brotherhood branches and spin-offs have directly engaged in violence, and like Hamas have long been designated as terror groups by the United States. America's challenges with the Brotherhood are not unique. Most European countries actively monitor the group's activities on their territory. In 2014, a British government review concluded that 'the aspects of Muslim Brotherhood ideology and tactics, in this country and overseas, are contrary to our values, our national interests and our national security.' Last month, France released a report making a similar assessment, leading President Emanuel Macron to call for stringent measures against the group. Cruz's bill differs from those introduced in Congress in the past. It does not seek to wholly ban the organization, acknowledging, 'Not all Muslim Brotherhood branches are currently violent.' Rather, it seeks to sanction violent Brotherhood branches around the world — and to create a legal framework for a wider designation in the future. Advertisement The measure is gaining support in Congress, and even if it does not pass, President Donald Trump may choose to move against the Brotherhood in an executive order. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters Either way, the United States should take a closer look and a tougher position toward the Brotherhood, both abroad and at home. Internationally, the ambiguous positions of the past must be no more. Instead, US policies should aim to diminish Muslim Brotherhood influence. Advertisement Domestically, law-enforcement agencies should use existing legal tools to go after the web of US-based Brotherhood spin-offs. Whether by designation or not, a tough, clever and coherent Muslim Brotherhood policy would represent a break from decades of half-baked positions — and a step forward in undermining one of America's historical foes. Lorenzo Vidino is the director of the Program on Extremism at The George Washington University and author of 'The Closed Circle: Joining and Leaving the Muslim Brotherhood in the West.'


Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Gaza hunger crisis deepens as UN and Israel remain divided over aid distribution
Trey Yingst, Fox News Chief Foreign Correspondent, reports on the hunger crisis in Gaza as the UN and Israel remain at odds over aid distribution.

Wall Street Journal
an hour ago
- Wall Street Journal
Beware Iran's New Ruling Elite
All wars have consequences, particularly for the vanquished. For the Islamic Republic of Iran, the 12-Day War—its recent conflict with Israel and the U.S.—hasn't been a soul-scorching, society-rending fight in the way of the Iran-Iraq War. From 1980-88, hundreds of thousands perished and battlefield trauma nearly cracked the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the theocracy's indispensable pillar. But that conflict did offer an opportunity for Iran: The struggle led the regime to build institutions that guaranteed the revolution's survival. The 12-Day War, by contrast, has weakened the heads of those institutions substantially and looks likely to launch a new generation of leaders. That's bad news for Israel and America.