Scott
Verified User
I'd heard this a bit, then I got the following article in my email:
www.normalisland.co.uk
I don't agree with everything the author says. I like Gal Gadot, and thought she was wonderful in her role as wonder woman as well as in the Fast and the Furious series. Is her acting range limited? Perhaps, but in the aforementioned films, it worked. I suspect her core personality aligns with those films and may not align with other films she's been in that don't fit her personality.
Anyway, back to the subject of the article, quoting its introduction below:
**
Zionists are extremely upset that the new Superman movie is nothing like Israel and Gaza. The movie depicts a technologically-advanced nation armed by an evil US billionaire that is brutally colonising someone else's land. The land in question is a fictional place called Jarhanpur. The invaders are from Boravia, another fictional place that first appeared in a Superman comic in 1939, before the Nakba was a twinkle in David Ben-Gurion's eye.
In the Superman movie, the Boravian army is stealing land from Jarhanpur while killing and displacing the civilian population. Disturbingly, Superman steps in to save civilian lives, instead of blaming the leaders of Jarhanpur for their deaths like a sensible person would. He doesn't even pretend it's too complicated to intervene or consider the civilians might not have condemned their leaders. He doesn't once say "Boravia has a right to defend itself". Clearly, Boravia needs to step up its lobbying game.
If you think all that sounds bad, the movie describes Superman as an "immigrant" which is ridiculous because everyone knows Krypton is one of the 50 US states. Legendary American Christopher Columbus was born on Krypton and he wasn't an immigrant, was he?
**
Zionists extremely upset with Superman movie for unfairly depicting their genocide
It's really bad when people don't depict your genocide fairly
www.normalisland.co.uk
I don't agree with everything the author says. I like Gal Gadot, and thought she was wonderful in her role as wonder woman as well as in the Fast and the Furious series. Is her acting range limited? Perhaps, but in the aforementioned films, it worked. I suspect her core personality aligns with those films and may not align with other films she's been in that don't fit her personality.
Anyway, back to the subject of the article, quoting its introduction below:
**
Zionists are extremely upset that the new Superman movie is nothing like Israel and Gaza. The movie depicts a technologically-advanced nation armed by an evil US billionaire that is brutally colonising someone else's land. The land in question is a fictional place called Jarhanpur. The invaders are from Boravia, another fictional place that first appeared in a Superman comic in 1939, before the Nakba was a twinkle in David Ben-Gurion's eye.
In the Superman movie, the Boravian army is stealing land from Jarhanpur while killing and displacing the civilian population. Disturbingly, Superman steps in to save civilian lives, instead of blaming the leaders of Jarhanpur for their deaths like a sensible person would. He doesn't even pretend it's too complicated to intervene or consider the civilians might not have condemned their leaders. He doesn't once say "Boravia has a right to defend itself". Clearly, Boravia needs to step up its lobbying game.
If you think all that sounds bad, the movie describes Superman as an "immigrant" which is ridiculous because everyone knows Krypton is one of the 50 US states. Legendary American Christopher Columbus was born on Krypton and he wasn't an immigrant, was he?
**