SUPERMAN
Directed by James Gunn
129 minutes, DC Studios, 2025
Editor’s Note: This article contains very mild spoilers.
“Truth, justice, and the American way.”
Those words are the long-time tagline of the DC comics character, Superman. They are not as prominent today as they have been in the past, but for those us, like me, who were great fans of DC comics in the 1970s and 1980s, they still defined Superman.
They were also one of several reasons why, although my youthful passion for comic books leaned much more toward DC than its rival Marvel in those days, I didn’t care much for Superman. I liked the idealism he was supposed to represent, but his simplistic presentation and, more than anything, his deference to authority was a message my young and rebellious self was profoundly uncomfortable with.
So how is it that in 2025, James Gunn’s new movie, Superman, has delighted me and many others by striking the biggest cultural blow to date against the United States’ mindless support of Israel, even as it commits war crimes and guns down innocent Palestinians on a daily basis?
The dynamics of this movie are fascinating to watch, but the responses are much more important.
‘Boravia’ is Israel, and is the bad guy
Since Superman premiered, there has been a lot of chatter about it. The film broadly tells the story of Superman intervening against Boravia—which, both in the movie and in the comic book lore it is drawn from is presented as an Eastern European country—conquering its neighbor Jarhanpur—clearly depicted as an economically and physically ravaged country populated by people of color, many of whom are visibly Muslim. The scenario is inescapably evocative of Palestine.
“Superman has gone woke” is one extremely popular attack on the film. That one is rooted in Superman’s clear message supporting the rights of immigrants, but it also goes hand-in-hand with the complaint that the character has been warped by the “liberal media” to condemn Israel.
Even leaving aside the notion that Superman, as a character, ever represented anything other than kindness and caring for all, even if in a highly pro-American way, the arguments are silly. Anyone who is familiar with the character would recognize Superman’s simple argument when he is criticized for stopping the surrogate for Israel in this film, Boravia, from slaughtering innocent and helpless civilians: “People were going to die!”
Superman’s strength as a character is his idealism, which often spills over into extreme naivete, and his determination to treat all life as precious and equal. That’s what the crowd whining that “Superman has gone woke” just can’t grasp.
Since Israel, Palestine, or any other country—save the United States, of course—is not mentioned in Superman, the metaphor of Boravia can be interpreted, or denied, at the viewer’s whim. But to do so, one has to ignore the unambiguous evidence in the film.
James Gunn, who wrote and directed Superman, insists that Boravia and its neighboring country Jarhanpur, are not direct references to Israel and Palestine, but his explanation is very telling.
“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… [the movie depicts 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,” which he said “really is fictional.”
Just from the statement that “the Middle Eastern conflict wasn’t happening,” we can tell that Gunn is not deeply learned in Israel and Palestine, although what he probably meant was that October 7 had not yet happened (he started writing the film in late 2022) and neither had the overt genocide in Gaza. As such, it may be fair to take him at his word that he was referencing a broader idea.
But it’s an inescapable reality that the powerful country vs a helpless people describes Israel and the Palestinians, especially in Gaza.
Sure, in addition to Israel and Palestine there are a few parallels with Russia and Ukraine. But that allegory doesn’t really fit since Boravia was said to be a close U.S. ally. Plus Ukraine, while certainly not the military power Russia is, is clearly far from helpless in the face of Russian aggression.
The deep relationship between the Boravian dictator (who speaks with a thick Russian or Eastern European accent and looks like a caricature mix of Benjamin Netanyahu and David Ben-Gurion) and the American corporate sector resembles Netanyahu, even while his alienation from the American political sector might evoke Putin a bit more.
But the Israel-Palestine metaphor is clearly there. It may have been one among several examples of the political dynamic in Gunn’s head, but what emerges on film is unmistakably influenced by Israel, even if not solely so.
Gunn likely did not want to be too on the nose with his allegory, although he pretty clearly failed at that effort. More importantly, this movie is the foundation for what he and his backers at Warner Bros./Discovery hope will be a multi-billion-dollar franchise to rival that of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. He wants the political debate to enhance the film and its legacy, not to overwhelm it, so some degree of space to be evasive about politics is prudent.
More important than the writer’s intentions, though, is that the political conflict depicted was so quickly seen for what it is.
Profound culture shift
In the past, even the very recent past, it would have been unfathomable for an American summer blockbuster film to show Israel, even a metaphorical Israel, as an invading, corrupt country whose neighbors were in such terror they had to pray for a superhero to save them, or all hope would be lost.
A writer would have come to the studio with a script like that, even one where the allusion to Israel was obscured to a much greater degree, and it would have been tossed out. There might be fear of backlash, or it simply might be that this concept would be seen as too challenging for Americans who still hold on to the mythical image of Israel as either the poor victim of the ravenous Arab and Muslim hordes or the plucky little state that rose to become a military power and key American ally. But that didn’t happen here.
A movie painting Israel in a villainous light reflects a generational shift in how Israel is viewed. Warner Bros. clearly didn’t see it as a risk.
The fact that Gunn wrote this movie is notable enough. But Warner/Discovery spent $225 million to make it and anticipates another $125 million in advertising. That’s a significant investment. Moreover, they have two more high-budget films in the works, eight more in development, as well as two more television series in production and five more in pre-production.
If Superman failed at the box office or caused a backlash that might lead to boycotts of DC media, it would be a disaster. But there hasn’t been a hint of trepidation or pressure on Gunn to soften this message. Warner Bros./Discovery CEO David Zaslav is known for his frugality, his willingness to scrap projects just for tax breaks, and for a relatively conservative approach. He obviously didn’t see this as much of a risk.
A movie painting Israel in a villainous light reflects the change in generations as well. After all, the older audience, the folks still denying the real nature of Israel, is not the target of this film. Nor am I, as a man in his late 50s. It’s younger people, and they see Israel differently.
No going back to an idealized Israel
More than just reflecting that shift, a movie like Superman entrenches it culturally in a way that all the political activism, analysis, protests, and even exposure of the truth can’t. It normalizes the view of Israel as an aggressor state. That’s why it provokes denial from the likes of far-right Israel backer pundit Ben Shapiro and hysteria from other pro-Israel zealots who don’t deny the reality of the movie.
Consider the words of the far-right, racist Israeli rapper known as Hatzel (The Shadow):
“Instead of presenting a character who defends the weak and fights for justice, they turned it into a disgusting political caricature, where Israel (under a different name) is portrayed as a fascist state, a warmonger, and a close ally of the U.S., which supplies advanced weaponry to fight ‘poor and miserable farmers (the good Palestinians) with pitchforks and stones.’ And Superman? He comes to save them from bloodthirsty Israel. This is literally a film of incitement against us… And I will tell you here, clearly: The liberal Jews in America are the main contributors to anti-Semitism in the U.S…There is no greater enemy to an Israeli than the progressive American Jew.”
The bile and hate of this racist activist are typical of the responses from the pro-Israel and Israeli far-right. But as much as they might rant, they can’t avoid the fact that the world now sees what Israel does every day, and that a more realistic understanding of Israel is becoming not just a debating point or a political issue but a part of the cultural zeitgeist.
It’s not just about Israel. Superman goes to great lengths to present the hero as an independent actor, following only his own ethical code. The other superheroes in the film are sponsored by a huge corporation. They eventually come around and help Superman, but it takes a while.
Superman doesn’t only challenge the long-held, false image of innocent Israel, it also challenges Americans’ fecklessness, the ease with which its government is manipulated, and its blind, greedy, self-serving arrogance.
This might have been what pleased me most. The second blockbuster movie about Superman, back in 1980, ended with Superman flying through space carrying an American flag. But the U.S. comes off very badly in this movie.
Superman is betrayed by the U.S. and handed over to his nemesis, Lex Luthor, who imprisons him. He is told he has no rights since he is an alien (i.e., immigrant). The U.S. also continues to back Boravia throughout the movie, and Superman is criticized for interfering in the murderous Boravian operation without American authorization. As more of the nefarious plot is uncovered, the U.S. government stands by doing nothing and never taking responsibility for its actions. Only the superheroes are working to save the day.
Superman doesn’t only challenge the long-held, false image of innocent Israel, it also challenges Americans’ fecklessness, the ease with which its government is manipulated, and its blind, greedy, self-serving arrogance. Of course, it treads lightly on this point; again, there is only so much Gunn wanted to dive into political issues. It is, after all, a light-hearted fantasy movie that is expected to launch a series that will bring in a ton of money.
But Superman proves there is no going back to the idealization of Israel that was kick-started back in 1960 when Paul Newman romanticized Israel’s creation in the film Exodus, and boomed after the 1967 war. The delusion about Israel’s colonialist birth and apartheid life has been shattered by the exposure of its genocidal present. And a movie like Superman ingrains that shattered image into our culture. This, like Superman himself, might just provide a bit of hope in these dark times.
Mitchell Plitnick
Mitchell Plitnick is the president of ReThinking Foreign Policy. He is the co-author of Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics and maintains the Cutting Through newsletter on Substack at mitchellplitnick.substack.com/.
Not the first time a Hollywood movie has tackled America’s dark underbelly through an innocent-seeming genre movie. High Noon is the classic example.
By the way, David Corenswet is the first Jewish actor to portray Superman, a fact which adds another layer of complexity to the whole farkakte debate. The author of this piece is Jay Michaelson, a rabbi who writes for the Forward. Lois Lane is played by Rachel Brosnahan, who isn’t Jewish but played a Jew in ‘The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel”.
James Gunn has cast the first Jewish actor to play Superman in a major motion picture in Superman: Legacy, honoring the superhero’s Jewish roots…
David Corenswet Is the First Jewish Superman. Here’s Why That Matters.
[3] Planet of the Zionist Apes
Superman Is Not the First Pro-Palestine Hollywood Film
A Film Ahead of Its Time?
Upon its release, Planet of the Apes (2001) performed modestly at the box office. Its narrative ambiguity, uneven pacing, and genre confusion made it easy to dismiss. But perhaps its true failing was that it spoke too clearly to a truth no one wanted to confront.
In 2001, the public was not ready to hear an allegory about Zionist settler colonialism. Hollywood certainly wasn’t ready to produce one. And it’s not clear that Tim Burton, visually imaginative but politically opaque, fully understood the subtext written into his film.
Yet in hindsight—especially after the 2003 Iraq invasion, the continued siege of Gaza, and the expanding recognition of Israeli apartheid—the film’s core message feels prophetic.
Final Thoughts
In an industry where criticism of Zionism is a red line, Planet of the Apes (2001) may have quietly crossed it. Through metaphor and misdirection, the film holds a mirror to the crimes of settler colonialism—not in the 19th century, but in Palestine today.
Sometimes, to speak the truth, you must speak in code. And sometimes, that code is science fiction.
[1] Planet of the Zionist Apes
Superman Is Not the First Pro-Palestine Hollywood Film
When Tim Burton’s Planet of the Apes remake hit theaters in 2001, audiences were left puzzled. Critics panned its ambiguous ending, and it failed to achieve the cultural resonance of the original 1968 film. But viewed through a different lens—one sensitive to political allegory and historical subtext—this version may in fact be among the most subversive Hollywood blockbusters of the early 21st century.
Its target? Zionist settler colonialism.
From Nuclear War to Colonial Allegory
The 1968 Planet of the Apes, starring Charlton Heston, was unmistakably a product of its time: an anxious, allegorical tale about nuclear annihilation, race, and Cold War geopolitics. Its dystopian vision resonated with American audiences reeling from the civil rights movement, Vietnam, and the Cuban missile crisis.
Fast forward to 2001. The political terrain had shifted dramatically. Nuclear war was no longer at the center of cultural anxiety. Instead, the enduring injustice in Palestine—and the increasingly open entanglement of U.S. foreign policy with Zionist ideology—loomed as one of the central, unresolved crises of the modern era.
Yet in a media landscape heavily influenced by Zionist-aligned power centers, especially in Hollywood, direct critiques of Israel or Zionism remain largely off-limits. Writers and directors risk professional backlash or worse. So what happens when a filmmaker wants to say the unsayable?
They make allegory.
The Writers Behind the Mask
Screenwriters Lawrence Konner and Mark Rosenthal, both veterans of the Golan-Globus era of Israeli-American cinema, were no strangers to the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Having worked within Israeli-funded film projects, they would have developed firsthand insight into the mindset of the Israeli military, political elite, and liberal Zionist circles. This experience seems to echo in the script’s rich ambivalence toward its simian protagonists.
In the 2001 Planet of the Apes, apes are not merely violent overlords. They are a species with religious mythologies, internal politics, and moral contradictions—mirroring, perhaps, the range of Zionist identities from ultra-militarists to well-meaning peace activists still tethered to supremacist assumptions.
[2] Planet of the Zionist Apes
Superman Is Not the First Pro-Palestine Hollywood Film
“Semos” and the Myth of Origins
The clearest allegorical clue comes from the ape origin story. In a reversal of the original film’s narrative, the founder of ape civilization is named Semos—an unmistakable anagram for Moses. Semos, a genetically modified ape, betrays the humans who nurtured him. He leads a revolution that culminates in human subjugation. Ape dominance is sanctified through myth and religion, just as Zionist historiography sacralizes conquest, displacement, and domination through Biblical claims.
This twist casts the apes not simply as “the other” but as settler-colonial usurpers, retroactively justifying their rule with religious myth. It’s a pointed critique—one that invites comparison to how Zionism appropriated Jewish religious identity to establish political dominance over Palestinians.
Humans as Palestinians
In this reading, the humans represent the indigenous population, stripped of their history, demonized as backward, and denied self-rule. They are not simply victims—they are dehumanized, just as Palestinians have been in Zionist discourse, policy, and military doctrine. The apes’ control of history, culture, and violence mirrors Israel’s totalizing domination over Palestinian life.
The allegory deepens when astronaut Leo Davidson returns to Earth—only to find it too has become a planet ruled by apes. In 2001, this ending baffled audiences. In retrospect, it reads as a dark satire on American complicity. The ape colonization of Earth becomes an allegory for the Zionization of American political life, a process evident in the rise of neoconservatism, AIPAC’s influence, and the erosion of U.S. neutrality in the Middle East.