23 July 2025 | 08:30 CAT
3-minute read

The new Superman film has sparked global debate by portraying a fictional occupation that closely mirrors Israel’s presence in Palestine, marking a rare moment in mainstream media where the Israeli state is symbolically cast in a negative light. Analyst Hafidh Ibrahim says the shift in narrative reflects changing global attitudes, but warns that cultural moments like these don’t yet translate to political change.

In the latest DC Comics film, Superman finds himself defending a fictional country called Jahanpur — a thinly veiled reference to Palestine — against a colonising power named Buravia, styled as an Eastern European occupier. The choice of allegory is not subtle, and neither is the response.

“This movie is seen as, in a sense, groundbreaking,” says Hafidh Ibrahim. “Superman himself is… what you’d call an immigrant,” he adds, pointing to the film’s pro-immigrant tone as a major shift from previous narratives that championed US militarism and colonial expansion.

With over $200 million spent on production and another $100 million budgeted for promotion, the film is no small indie project. Backed by Warner Bros., its message seems to have evaded the usual gatekeeping that protects pro-Israel narratives in Hollywood. Historically, US media — with active support from the Pentagon’s liaison offices — has shaped foreign policy perceptions through movies, often casting America and its allies in heroic roles.

“Culture is actually used to shape narratives, to shape how people view other places, other people, other populations,” Ibrahim explained. The new Superman, however, may be one of the first blockbusters to invert that formula.

Predictably, the film has not been met with uniform applause. Right-wing media in the West, typically anti-immigrant and staunchly pro-Israel, have criticised the film’s message. Some have gone as far as accusing the producers of manipulating review scores with artificial intelligence.

“There’s been attempts to actually try and debunk the movie… by pointing to the fact that Superman and the DC company actually used AI to get its rating up,” Ibrahim said.

What’s remarkable, says Ibrahim, is not just the content of the film but the fact that it hasn’t been buried.

“There’s been no attempts to actually constrain the movie… no real statements being issued about Israel-Palestine.”

This relative silence from institutions usually quick to condemn anything critical of Israel suggests a shift — if not in power, then in tolerance.

The timing of the film’s release is also significant. It follows a year and a half of escalating violence in Gaza and the West Bank, leading to growing international condemnation of Israel’s policies.

“Israel’s behaviour over the past year and a half has been so despicable that it’s difficult to [suppress criticism],” Ibrahim noted.

This film joins other recent media productions — such as BBC documentaries about the Israeli occupation — that are gaining traction despite past suppression. Ibrahim believes this signals a broader shift in the public’s willingness to question long-held myths about Israel being “a democratic island in a hostile Arab sea.”

While the movie may represent a turning point in cultural representation, Ibrahim is cautious about overstating its impact.

“Currently we need to stop a conflict where hundreds are dying every day. It doesn’t make an on-the-ground difference at the moment.”

Still, culture has long-lasting consequences. “The enduring narrative of Israel as this… state born out of the Holocaust… actually shapes behaviour for generations,” he explained. If Superman can help disrupt that narrative — even slightly — it may help shift perceptions in the long term.

Listen to the Media Lens on Sabaahul Muslim with Moulana Sulaimaan Ravat.