i wanna stay this post by saying i am a lifelong marvel fan (art, not corporation of course) and that i am anti zionism. if you’d like to argue with me on why palestinians are sub-human and should all be forced out, don’t bother. this post is more questions about artistic intention and other peoples’ analyses than an analysis of my own, and questions as to whether or not the intentions of certain writing decisions stain the whole franchise. this post is directed at fellow anti-zionist comic readers. i also talk shit about the last of us towards the end, by the way.
my introduction to x media was x-men evolution, and little me took its themes as a simple, monster high esque “be nice to people who look different and be proud of yourself”. as i grew up, i was always led to believe that the x-men acted as a metaphor for the civil rights movement, with xavier representing a more “respectable” approach and magneto representing a more militant. so imagine my shock when i recently learned that chris claremont lived in a kibbutz and based his interpretation of magneto on israeli pm begin (i’ve seen claims that xavier is based on ben-gurion, but i haven’t found him saying this). he says he based magneto’s redemption on how begin went from being a terrorist to winning the nobel peace prize- which is frankly quite confusing narrative wise because begin never stopped being a zionist, while magneto eventually abandoned his ideas of mutant separation and supremacy. i found all of this so particularly surprising because to me, if we applied zionism to the x-men, it seemed as though magneto served as a metaphor for someone leaving zionism. when he hurts kitty, he realizes that he has become as violent as those he claims to hate and instead devotes himself to teaching. this seems to send an anti-zionist message, but claremont’s seeming continued support of israel greatly muddies the waters. to further complicate things, claremont wrote storm as an orphan of the suez crisis and the first to confront magneto post his epiphany. based on all the evidence above, it seems claremont condemns the hostility between the state of israel and egypt. regardless of his intention, the story comes off as being against violence in the name of isolationism, something antithetical of zionism. basically, i’m super lost.
claremont stopped being the principal x-men author in the 90’s, and this brings up my first question. has the influence of other authors altered the characters significantly enough to divorce them of their strange zionist origins? usually i can brush off all the weird shit claremont and byrne did as being claremont and byrne, since i am unfortunately very used to misogyny in comics (i was quite disgusted to read claremont saying he was inspired by gun culture to make female superheroes, considering his female characters have become some of the best in comics with the help of future writers). but i think this is more than something that can just be brushed off, as magneto’s past affects the story so deeply. has he grown past claremont’s interpretation? has he become something better than a comparison to a butcher? does this stain the whole franchise as zionist, or does the collaborative nature reduce the impact of claremont’s contribution? does the fact that it can be interpreted as anti-zionist make it okay, even if the creator meant something else? how does this affect adaptations (ie- x-men 97) as well as the continuation of 616? does the fact that other writers did not share this intent, but were inspired by claremont’s character, bring the idea forward?
i would like to go more into the story- how israel is directly criticized in the beginning of the krakoa era (despite also being the setting? magneto defends krakoa by saying it was not founded on colonization, and he says this in israel occupied territory, which reads like a liberal condemnation of zionism made by hickman), how i thought krakoa was going to be a clear criticism of ethnostates because of the problems they cause the very people they claim to represent (some authors did pull on this thread, others did not), the complicated history of genosha and how it would be hypocritical to condemn apartheid in south africa while still supporting israel- but i think that’s for another day. i’ll be honest, i’ve been pretty emotionally torn up about this for days. some x-men characters are my favorites of all time, and i often thought of the series as a political fantasy more than a reflection of real world geopolitics. i don’t want to support a series that promotes zionism in its very plot. sabra can be written out of marvel, but i don’t see how this can be erased. i can see how it can be altered; they can have magneto specifically criticize israel as an ex-settler (he does claim he will fight on behalf of all oppressed people, and i dream one day they’ll explicitly include palestine). this sort of goes back to the question as to whether the authors who came after claremont have made the story evolve past its origins.
when the last of us television series was airing, i became aware of druckmann’s gross intentions behind the second game. oddly, claremont doesn’t seem to mention palestinians or the violence against them at all, unless one were to interpret kitty as a stand in for all victims of israeli violence. again, extremely hard to tell what is being said there. the lack of glorification of violence makes it feel less repulsive than tlou, but not completely free of any potential bad messaging. i know sabra is the primary goal of the bds pressure on marvel, but i don’t think we should stop there. i think it’s important that if they’re to keep such a beloved series going that they acknowledge its past wrongs.
again, i am open to discussion with fellow anti-zionist comic readers, if anyone should even see this post. i would ask people more directly, but i don’t exactly feel comfortable going into someone’s dms and demanding they explain their political relationship to art. and for the time being, i think it’s best that people stop saying “magneto was right” so often.
