'Superman' raises questions about the Israel-Palestine conflict

He is faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, and can jump over a building in a single bound, but can he outrun a geopolitical metaphor?

James Gunn’s Superman is doing two things at the moment - creating records at the box office and stepping into one of the most polarizing global debates of our time: Israel and Palestine. Not because the caped hero declares allegiance. Not because he picks a side. But because in a world this divided, even fiction doesn’t get to be neutral.

Had the controversy been over the casting, the audience would have likely forgotten it; however, it targets the issue that matters - geopolitics. Some viewers believe the film subtly wades into the Israel-Palestine conflict, whether intentionally or not. Gunn denies it. But the internet has already made up its mind.

The film opens with Superman (played by David Corenswet) preventing the fictional nation of Boravia—characterized by onion-domed buildings and Russian-speaking leaders—from invading Jarhanpur, a country depicted as having brown-skinned citizens in traditional Eastern dress. By the end, Superman (or his friends) stops a second invasion attempt while Lois Lane exposes the larger political cover-up behind it.

Although Gunn has stated that he “wasn’t thinking of the Middle East” when writing the film, that hasn’t stopped comparisons from being made. Online, people have drawn a line from Boravia to Israel and from Jarhanpur to Palestine. Comment sections across Instagram, TikTok, and X have become a hub for political commentary.

That wasn't the only way he supported the oppressed, the outsiders, the 'aliens'. The only person The Man of Steel became close to during a fight was named Malek, a falafel cart vendor from a mixed background, possibly of Middle Eastern descent. It is his death that causes Superman to take charge and save the world from falling into the hands of Lex Luthor.

That seems to be the heart of Gunn’s Superman: He isn’t anti-Israel. He’s anti-needless death. He protects life, regardless of who it belongs to. And that means standing in the way of destruction—whether the aggressor wears boots from Boravia or drones from anywhere else.

Still, even fictional metaphors don’t live in a vacuum. Boravia and Jarhanpur may be made-up countries, but their visual and cultural coding—the imagery, the asymmetry of power—resonate with current headlines. Whether Gunn intended it or not, audiences are reading between the frames.

Depending on where you live—India, Pakistan, or nearby—you might see Jahanpur as a stand-in for Kashmir, and Boravia as echoing more than just India’s name. That parallel deepens when the Boravian Head of State is portrayed as comical and attention-seeking, evoking real-world leaders with a flair for the spotlight. But whatever your take is, one thing’s clear: Superman isn’t picking sides. He’s showing up for humanity.

Gunn may not be offering a foreign policy thesis, but he is reminding us who Superman is: the last son of Krypton, committed to truth, justice, and protecting those who can’t defend themselves.

If the film takes a stance, it’s not anti-Israel. It’s anti-injustice. And in 2025, that still counts as political.