'Imperial feminism' — JK Rowling finds oppression in Iran after remaining silent on Gaza genocide

Controversial British author JK Rowling has again kicked up a storm.

Last week, when she threw her support behind the anti-government protesters in Iran with a post on X, the internet was quick to recall her silence over the genocide of Palestinians in besieged Gaza by Israel.

"If you claim to support human rights yet can’t bring yourself to show solidarity with those fighting for their liberty in Iran, you’ve revealed yourself. You don’t give a damn about people being oppressed and brutalised so long as it’s being done by the enemies of your enemies," she wrote, slamming those not amplifying her message.

Her post included an AI-rendered image depicting a woman lighting a cigarette with a burning photograph of an Iranian leader. Interestingly, that photo of the woman was taken in Canada, not in Iran.

But the words of the writer, popular for creating the Harry Potter series and notorious for her pro-Israel bias, read less like solidarity and more like indictment — a moral ultimatum in which neutrality itself became guilt.

But the response was immediate. Netizens did not come in defence of Iranian government. Instead they asked her a question: Where were you?

She was asked where this voice was when Gaza was being erased by Israel, or where she had left her moral urgency while neighbourhoods were flattened, hospitals bombed, and children pulled lifeless from beneath the rubble.

An X user recalled how Rowling "stayed dead silent during the mass murder of babies in Gaza" while suddenly discovering "oppression and brutalisation" in Iran.

"Absolutely shameless scum," the user wrote.

Since late December, Iran has experienced protests, starting at Tehran's Grand Bazaar, due to the rial's depreciation and economic issues that many say are linked to Western sanctions. Demonstrations later spread to several other cities.

Tehran has accused the US and Israel of backing the "riots" and "terrorism". During the protests, Israel’s spy agency Mossad posted an unusual Farsi message telling protesters it is with them in the streets.

For more than two years of Israeli genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, Rowling said nothing.

She remained tight-lipped about the brutal siege and starvation, as well as the killings of Palestinians. Many analysts and studies estimate that nearly 200,000 Palestinians have died, the vast majority of whom were women and children.

Israel continues to occupy nearly half of Gaza and has confined over two million Palestinians within the remaining areas of the blockaded territory, which Israel has been bombing in breach of agreed truce.

Yet Rowling has never launched anguished posts on social media, nor made calls for solidarity or warnings about complicity.

However, her silence on the Gaza genocide and social media sermons in favour of Iranian protesters have become a point of scrutiny.

"Yes, we should support the women of Iran who are deprived of universal human rights - however, your brand of selective feminism is not feminism. It’s cynical posturing to cover for the fact that you (and others) have abandoned the women and girls of Palestine/Gaza during an ongoing genocide; their universal human rights have been trampled on for decades," a journalist wrote.

Highlighting women of colour's plight is a facet of privileged-white feminism when it boosts book deals, adulation or status, she argued.

"Until you educate yourself about intersectionality — and walk the talk — you’re in no position to preach about ‘revealing yourself’," she said.

A worldview laid bare

Criticism intensified when users pointed at an earlier post in which Rowling retweeted a user’s claim that "Iranians are rejecting Islam and Sharia en masse," praising protesters as "light in a dark world."

To many, this was not a linguistic misstep but a worldview laid bare: liberation deemed legitimate only when detached from religion, resistance applauded only when it conforms to Western expectations.

Iman, a German woman of Arab descent, told TRT World that such framing reveals whose suffering is allowed to resonate.

"The problem with the Palestinians is their just cause," she said.

"The elites in the West don't have the courage to stand with this just cause, and they don't fit the stereotype that wins the sympathy of people like Rowling."

Elham, a Belgian Tunisian woman, echoed the sentiment, arguing that identity — not principle — often determines who receives global outrage.

Palestinians, she said, are repeatedly cast into narrow roles: either helpless victims awaiting Western rescue, or an inconvenient reality to be ignored.

"Entire societies are reduced to a simple story of light versus dark," she noted.

But the backlash was not theological. It was ethical.

A trial of moral consistency

What Rowling encountered was not a rejection of the Iranian people’s struggle, but a rejection of her claim to moral authority. It was a rejection of human rights lectures from those who stayed silent as Gaza suffered.

Critics have described her stance as selective feminism — raising one’s voice when the victims are politically palatable and lowering it when they are Palestinian, besieged, and stripped of international protection.

Others called it more bluntly: "imperial feminism" — a language of women’s rights that emerges only when it aligns with dominant power structures, and disappears when solidarity becomes inconvenient.

Outrage marked with exhaustion

Rowling’s defenders argued that one injustice does not negate another. In theory, that is true.

But as critics argue, Rowling did not employ empathetic language but rather judgmental language. She did not foster collective solidarity; instead, she established a moral court.

"Forgive us for being reluctant to join a crowd that commits/cheers on/supports genocide as it now itches for regime change in the same region," UK lawmaker Adnan Hussain reacted.

"Something tells us it's not human rights or freedom that motivates their sudden moral awakening."

It's not that the billionaire novelist has not been previously grilled over her selective solidarity.

"Why is JK Rowling, who presents herself as a champion of women’s rights, silent on the mass slaughter, maiming, torture, abuse, dispossession, bereavement, sexual assault and rape of Palestinian women?" asked journalist Owen Jones in a 2025 article.

But after her latest comments on Iran, netizens expressed outrage marked with exhaustion. They highlighted annoyance with hierarchies of suffering where Muslim pain is acknowledged only when it conforms to a sanctioned narrative.

"Spare us the selective feminism. Your moral bankruptcy was on full display when it came to Palestinian women," political commentator Bushra Shaikh wrote in reaction to Rowling’s post, telling the novelist that her version of freedom "only applies to women who conform to Western liberal ideals—everyone else to you is expendable."