James Gunn Denies Superman’s Boravia Subplot Is About Israel and Palestine — Claims Script Was Finished Before Conflict Began

James Gunn’s Superman released back in July, and while audiences praised the action and visuals, one subplot has sparked unending controversy. The film introduces Boravia, a fictional U.S. ally that launches an invasion of its weaker neighbor, Jarhanpur. For many viewers, the parallels drawn by James Gunn to Israel and Palestine were immediate. Yet Gunn has brushed off the comparison, laughing at the idea and insisting that he completed the script “before the conflict began.”

That defense doesn’t hold water. The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is not some new development — it has been one of the longest-running disputes in modern history, shaping global politics and culture for decades. To claim his script predates the conflict is to deny a century of reality.

A Conflict Older Than Gunn’s Career

The Israeli–Palestinian conflict didn’t suddenly emerge in 2023 or 2024 when fighting intensified. Its roots stretch back to the late 19th century, when competing Jewish and Arab national movements collided under Ottoman rule. By the mid-20th century, the 1947 UN Partition Plan and the 1948 Arab–Israeli War set the stage for decades of unrest, displacement, and bloodshed.

Since then, the region has endured repeated wars, intifadas, settlement expansion, and blockades. Amnesty International calls it “one of the longest running conflicts in modern history.” Entire generations have grown up knowing nothing but tension between Israel and Palestine.

Against that backdrop, it is hard to imagine anyone claiming their script “predated the conflict.” The war never ended — it has simply evolved.

Boravia as a Stand-In for Israel

What makes the Boravia storyline so explosive is not just that it depicts an aggressor state invading a poorer neighbor. It’s that Boravia is explicitly called “an ally to the United States.” That detail instantly triggers comparisons to Israel, which has long been Washington’s closest partner in the Middle East.

If Gunn were trying to mirror Russia and Ukraine, the alignment would be reversed — America would support the smaller nation being invaded. Instead, Gunn placed Superman in a conflict where a U.S.-backed state attacks, and the Man of Steel chooses to intervene on behalf of the underdog.

The casting and visuals only deepen the impression. Boravians are played as lighter-skinned, European-coded, while Jarhanpurians are portrayed by darker-skinned actors in settings that resemble Middle Eastern or South Asian backdrops. To many audiences, it felt less like a generic war and more like a direct nod to Gaza and the West Bank.

The Vasil Ghurkos Controversy

Boravian leader Vasil Ghurkos has also drawn scrutiny. His appearance, accent, and mannerisms led some critics to note a resemblance to real-world Israeli leaders such as Benjamin Netanyahu. Publications like Tehran Times outright called him “a caricature,” while social media threads accused the film of leaning into stereotypes.

Some Jewish audiences were particularly incensed. On Reddit and in outlets like Times of Israel, commenters argued that it was insulting for Superman — created by Jewish artists Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster — to be used in what they see as an anti-Israel allegory.

Allegory or Coincidence?

Gunn denies it all. He insists the Boravia subplot has nothing to do with Israel or Palestine and says he finished the script before the most recent Gaza escalation. He points out that Boravia and Jarhanpur are legacy DC Comics locations, not inventions created for this movie.

Still, critics argue that intent doesn’t matter. Allegory is defined as much by how audiences interpret the story as by what the creator claims. And the audience reaction has been clear: from Forward to Mondoweiss, from left-wing commentators like Hasan Piker to angry Reddit threads, people overwhelmingly see Boravia as Israel, Jarhanpur as Palestine, and Superman as the outside savior forced to intervene.

Why the Denial Doesn’t Convince

The problem for James Gunn is simple: the Israel–Palestine conflict didn’t “begin” in 2023. It has been raging in different forms for over 75 years. By making Boravia an American ally, by casting the aggressor as European-coded, and by setting the victim nation as darker, poorer, and displaced, he guaranteed that audiences would draw parallels.

Whether he meant it or not, Gunn created a superhero film that dropped Superman straight into one of the world’s most sensitive and enduring conflicts while taking a very definitive stance for one side over the other. And now that viewers are connecting the dots, no amount of denial will change the imagery they saw on screen.

Do you think James Gunn was referencing Israel and Palestine in Superman? Sound off in the comments and let us know!

UP NEXT: LA Comic Con Uses Stan Lee Hologram to Push Civil Rights Allegory That Stan Himself Denied in Life