Is The New ‘Superman’ Movie About Palestine?

Director James Gunn swears his new Superman movie isn’t about Gaza. But audiences can’t stop talking about it.

From war profiteers to media manipulation, the film is being read as an allegory for some of today’s most urgent political crises, and it’s sparking the kind of discussions that are rarely associated with Hollywood cinema.

The movie opens with Superman (David Corenswet) having just stopped an invasion by Boravia, a fictional, high-tech military ally of the United States, into the fictional neighboring country of Jarhanpur. By the end of the film, Superman is once again called to stop a second invasion.

Online, viewers have quickly drawn parallels between the film’s villain, Lex Luthor (Nicholas Hault), a billionaire arms dealer supplying Boravia, and real-world figures like Donald Trump, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and Peter Thiel.

The film has also been interpreted as a critique of how media can be weaponized to shape public opinion. In order to clear the way for Boravia’s invasion, Luthor launches a smear campaign portraying Superman as a misogynist villain with a “secret harem” bent on conquering Earth. The narrative turns the public against him and the US government allows Luthor to detain him, showcasing how the media can manufacture consent for state repression and foreign intervention.

In one notable scene, reporter Lois Lane (Rachel Brosnahan) interviews Superman and questions whether his actions in Jarhanpur are justified given Boravia’s claim that they’re liberating the population from tyranny. On social media, viewers have noted that this exchange mirrors Western media narratives used to justify Israel’s killing of over 58,000 Palestinians in Gaza, as well as its ongoing blockade, which has currently left 2.1 million people on the brink of famine.

“When I wrote this, the Middle Eastern conflict wasn’t happening,” Gunn told The Times of London. “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.”

But his denial hasn’t stopped the speculation. If anything, it’s invited commentators across TikTok and YouTube to publish videos dissecting the movie’s imagery scene by scene, to argue that the parallels with Gaza are undeniable.

Boravia’s Slavic-speaking, authoritarian president has reminded some viewers of Vladimir Putin, tying the storyline to the invasion of Ukraine. Others have compared his demeanor to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and his physical appearance to Israel’s founding prime minister, David Ben-Gurion.

The setting of Jarhanpur, an arid, desert-like region populated by brown-skinned civilians facing off against a technologically superior military, has deepened comparisons to Israel’s war on Gaza. One scene, in which unarmed civilians face down Boravian tanks at the border, has especially reminded audiences of images from the 2018 Great March of Return protests in Gaza.

“A lot of the imagery reminded me of Gaza. But I also saw parallels with Ukraine,” said Marc DiPaolo, a pop culture scholar who has studied over 70 years of superhero comics. “Maybe by making it neither, it could be both. The question is whether that’s a cop-out. Is Gunn being cowardly? It’s a tough question.”

Some viewers are frustrated by Gunn’s refusal to acknowledge the film’s political resonance. In Jacobin, critic Eileen Jones told Gunn to “grow a spine,” writing, “You know you’re deliberately evoking the genocide in Gaza. Just say so.”

DiPaolo said that while audiences invested in social issues often will want overt declarations, most artists believe ambiguity makes their work more powerful. This approach invites emotional engagement, even if it frustrates those seeking moral certainty.

Since the film’s release on July 11, Google searches for “Palestine” have spiked by 750% in the U.S. and 1,200% in the U.K. among users also searching for “Superman.”

That ambiguity, whether intentional or not, is sparking questions. Is Lex Luthor meant to be Elon Musk? Is Superman stopping the Israeli military?

Perhaps in that ambiguity, some audiences are drawing real-world connections between systems of oppression and digging deeper into what’s actually happening in Gaza, where nearly one-third of the population is now going days without food and more than 60,000 people are suffering with symptoms of malnutrition, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry.

Dozens of film reviews, op-eds, and commentators across the political spectrum have weighed in. Right-wing figures like Ben Shapiro have focused on the film’s perceived “wokeness,” especially its portrayal of Superman as an immigrant. It comes amid a wave of intensified ICE raids under Trump and reports of inhumane conditions in detention centers across the United States. 

In one scene, after being detained, Superman, an extraterrestrial raised in the Midwest of the United States, is told he has no legal rights as a “foreign alien.”

It seems that, for conservatives, the film taps into anxieties about shifting public opinion on immigration, foreign policy, and national identity.

Marc DiPaolo, author of War, Politics and Superheroes: Ethics and Propaganda in Comics and Film, argues that superhero stories offer insight into how a society understands power, morality, and justice. Over more than 70 years of superhero media, DiPaolo notes, characters like Superman have evolved with the times, ideologically flexible yet symbolically rooted in their origins.

Superman’s role as an outsider who sides with the marginalized can be traced back to his origins. Created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, two sons of Jewish immigrants struggling during the Great Depression, the character was initially shaped by working-class concerns.

In Superman #1 (1939), he intervenes when a mine owner refuses to provide a pension or improve safety conditions for an injured worker.

Over time, Superman has been reimagined to reflect shifting political climates, including advocating for environmentalism and nuclear disarmament during the arms race of the 1980s Reagan era. After 9/11, superheroes became darker, more violent, and more morally ambiguous. Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel (2013), starring Henry Cavill, reflected that era. He portrayed a darker, traumatized Superman who kills, seems indifferent to collateral damage, and embodies a brooding masculinity shaped by post-9/11 anxieties. The film’s imagery of collapsing buildings, ash-covered survivors, and aerial destruction drew direct visual parallels to the attacks.

Gunn’s take is deliberately lighter and seems closer to Superman’s original ethos. This version of the hero avoids lethal force whenever possible and takes care not to damage the city around him.

Gunn has said that this Superman film is about idealism, a return to hope, where kindness, as he puts it, is “the new punk rock.”

“This new James Gunn Superman is another attempt to engage directly with some very specific issues of our time,” said Dan Hassler-Forest, pop culture scholar. “Unlike previous films that were more generally reflective of the political moment, this one is entering a climate many people experience as extremely polarized. We have far-right governments in multiple countries including the U.S., and a lot of xenophobic rhetoric that scapegoats non-white immigrants, for broader social and economic problems.”

According to Variety, Superman wrapped filming in July 2024, months before Trump returned to office. This means some of the film’s most striking political parallels, including those related to Gaza and ICE raids, couldn’t have been intentional. 

Boravia’s second invasion, announced only after Superman is detained, has been read as echoing Israel’s decision to break the Gaza ceasefire on March 18, just ten days after the White House began detaining pro-Palestinian student activists.

Similarly, Luthor’s deal to supply weapons to Boravia in exchange for half of Jarhanpur’s territory has reminded viewers of Trump’s “Gaza Riviera” proposal, which envisioned him building luxury resorts on occupied land.

“The rise of far-right politics and creeping fascism both in the U.S. and globally is the result of years in the making,” Hassler-Forest said. “Filmmakers absorb all of this. They respond to it creatively, sometimes anticipating the shape of what’s to come.”

Pop culture, he explained, acts as a political barometer. What ends up on screen reflects some of the competing ideas circulating at any given moment.

“There’s never one unified shift in society. There are always multiple visions battling for dominance,” Hassler-Forest said. “And the people financing these films back the version they think will resonate most.”

Warner Bros.’ decision to hand Gunn the reins of the DC cinematic universe marks a clear shift. His political orientation, seen in Guardians of the Galaxy, leans progressive but stays light on its feet.

Warner is clearly betting on a formula that has worked before. Films like Barbie and The Matrix Resurrections were both slammed by conservatives as “woke propaganda,” yet together grossed over two billion dollars.

The ambiguity around Gunn’s political references, Hassler-Forest argued, serves both artistic and commercial purposes.

“It lets audiences with different views find something to identify with,” he said. “And it gives filmmakers plausible deniability. No major studio director is going to say, ‘Yes, I made this to criticize Israel.’ That would shut down other valid interpretations too.”

Still, he believes superhero films can play a real role in strengthening social movements by giving organizers a shared cultural language.

In 2018, Black Panther was used by voter registration drives targeting Black communities. In 2023, Barbie had 12-year-olds talking about patriarchy on TikTok.

As for Superman, Hassler-Forest said, “Most people go into superhero movies expecting a theme park ride. But when they come out thinking about Gaza, journalism, billionaires, and justice, that’s something special.”