Israel attacks Spielberg over 'Munich', his movie on '72 Olympics massacre

<snip>

"Steven Spielberg had hoped that his new geopolitical thriller, Munich, which opened on limited release in the United States yesterday, would generate debate on the morality of the Bush administration's war on terrorism and offer, as he put it, a "prayer for peace". Instead, the director finds himself at the centre of a storm, with conservative commentators, pro-Israel lobbyists and even the Israeli government accusing him of creating a false moral equivalence between the "terrorists" he depicts and those mandated to hunt and kill them.

The film recounts the aftermath of the notorious kidnap and murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich. Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, sends agents to kill those it believes are responsible, but the effort becomes bogged down in moral ambiguity as doubts emerge about how closely the targets for assassination were involved, and whether perpetuating the cycle of violence ultimately achieves anything.

The parallels with today's world, in which President George Bush has characterised the hunt for al-Qa'ida as a battle between good and evil, are both compelling and a big part of the reason why the film has touched such a raw nerve. The Bush administration doesn't like to be accused of moral ambiguity any more than the Israeli government does, which explains why defenders of both have attacked Spielberg in similar terms.

Two weeks ago, Israel's consul general in Los Angeles, Ehud Danoch, emerged from an advance screening and promptly denounced the film in a series of interviews as "presumptuous" and "superficial". Accusing Spielberg and his team of putting Mossad and the Palestinian guerrilla group Black September on the same moral plane, he complained: "This is an incorrect moral equation. We in Israel know this."


more

just bought out Dreamworks and then a country attacks Speilburg by name? Note that Paramount Pictures isn't mentioned--it's clearly "personal".

these days

This will generate a ton of FREE publicity for his movie.

Is their anyone in the world who actually though Israel would be happy about a movie that is so critical of their response to the Munich incident? I'm sure Spielberg was counting on, or at least expecting, this reaction.

and Mel Gibson

have been learning one hard lesson about the Israelites.

I think the distinction ought to be made between someone in the Israel Government attacking Spielberg here and the many, MANY Jews who were insulted by Mel Gibson's movie.

Try not to lump everyone in the same boat.

You're quite right.

Ironically, such distinctions have been driven from our discourse, in no small part due to efforts to shut down discussion of Israel outside of very narrow parameters.

Even more ironically, now it is Spielberg who has run afoul of this political correctness. His head must be spinning, poor fellow.

often people try to narrowly look at a subject that is anything but narrow. The Israeli-Arabic conflict is anything but simple. Actually, anything Jewish is anything but simple, they are a rich, complex people, with a rich, complex history. (I don't mean "rich" as in monetarily)

I thought this was an interesting and bold move for Senor Spielbergo. I figured at this point in his career he would be less likely to take a risk like that, but he did. I can't wait to see it. I'm a big Eric Bana fan too.

...who ask the same questions this film does.

Most Jews calls themselves Jews and most Israelis call themselves Israelis.

Are Israelites like "members of the Hebrew persuasion" or something?

Oh, and Merry Christmas.

vigilante or otherwise--even violence that starts out in a righteous cause, can turn to heinous war crimes. That's WHY we have the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions, which the Bushites have spat upon and ground into dust.

The escalating violence in the Middle East--and the blood-drenched Bushites--are NOT making Israel safer. And Israel's alliance with these fascists is the biggest mistake Israel has ever made. They are liable to kill us all.

See Carl Sagan's "The Cold and the Dark," for the impacts to our atmosphere of even a limited nuclear exchange. (Hint: all life on earth will die.)

The bombing of Iran and Syria is coming sooner rather than later, according to other threads this evening. We were in fact killing Syrian soldiers and bombing Syria/Iraq border villages all through Katrina, and probably still are.

Nice Christmas present to Iranian and Syrian children. Santa's going to blow you to smithereens this holy season!

Can you imagine the hatred the Bush Cartel and Israel are creating? The Cartel, with Israeli complicity and encouragement, illegally invades Iraq and slaughters tens of thousands of innocent people, destroys their civil society and imprisons and tortures many, then immediately starts saber-rattling at Iraq's neighbors, forces Iran to get nukes to defend itself, and now intends to punish Iran for DARING to defend its people, by illegally bombing them!

It's easy to despair. We must not. These terrible crimes are the inevitable result of election fraud. The American people do not support this. It is being done against our will. We have virtually no representation in Washington DC. And we MUST change this, or we will be seeing--and our government will be committing--continual war crimes until this tinderbox they've made of the Middle East blows right up in all of our faces.

Throw Diebold and ES&S election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor' NOW!

--------------------

Thank you, Steven Speilberg, for trying to bring some WISDOM to this situation. It is desperately needed.

I quite like your analysis and moral sense.

Surely, however, you aren't claiming that the Democratic Party's policy toward Israel is in the least different to that of the GOP.

For that matter, Clinton's atrocious strangulation of Iraq rather makes Bush's blunt invasion pale by comparison: it is under the bombings and the sanctions enforced by Clinton, after all, that many times more Iraqis died than have been killed thus far in this war.

Recall also that Kerry campaigned in behalf of fighting the war to a "victory." He intented to do a lot of killing in Iraq, too; indeed, his campaign was largely a commercial for his abilities as a killer of foreigners.

So I'm really not sure how the Diebolding of our elections, bad as that is, worsens matters for the Middle East. Either Democrats or Republicans would have inflicted more casualties there. The problem goes far deeper than who wins here: it is at heart the problem of empire, and not which half of the US duopoly pursues it.

Is nothing but cold blooded MURDER

the killer of no clorine

so water went bad and kids died.

But the GOP were the ones to jump on anyone that suggested removing clorine from the list.

Clinton could have been braver - but let's put vast majority of the blame where it belongs.

A little dose of diplomacy could keep a total world war from breaking out. We won't get that with dubco in power though.
We are on the brink- who will be the brave soul to pull us all back?

Carl Sagan & Mordechai Vanunu - The Israel Nuclear Scientist, have been out in front for years.

The hatred the Bush Cartel and Israel are manufacturing is beyond assumption.

Great post.

and a kick for the upcoming New Year--may it be better than the last and buck the trend

I sure didn't see *that* coming. :eyes:

...much like this article calling "Black September" a guerrilla group, instead of what they really were, terrorists.

they were two terrorists and war criminal?

Moral ambiguity works equally well on all sides.

:beer:

almost as dangerous as *

peace

karma's a nasty thing.

If the world was just, Sharon would be tried, convicted, imprisoned
Begin and Shamir...

In any case-- have so much fun with selective morality.

who'da thunk it.

Been there, done that, smelled the hypocrisy.

Go on and enjoy one's ludicrous way.

....the world must be unjust which is why Arafat died in relative comfort unlike his people and the ones whom were victims of his butchery and savagery and terrorism.

who'da thunk it.

Been there, done that, smelled the hypocrisy.

Go on and enjoy one's ludicrous way.

As Jim and I did.

So, OK, it IS all about fighting fire with fire and an eye for an eye. It is about war by other means, covert ops and playing the same game. Whoever wants to wear the white hats can debate their good intentions on this road to Hell- anytime. But to engage in tit for tat violence in exactly the same way is moral equivalence right at the get go. The Mossad is but part of a determination never to let the other side ever get any leg up on the jewish people. But the Mossad- not the Jewish people- like the CIA for the US and innumerable other secret warriors- is the scapegoat loaded with sin driven out by the non-participating populace to fight all the other goats out there.

The public might have had a superficial view of the film and the issues raised. Thanks to the fear and hatred of the defensive line, they are instead getting an education as to the depth and breadth of delegated assassinations and secret dirty laundry. And who started it it, who was the worst and most unjustified and how will it end? That is the murk the secret killer angels love and the illusions they guard.

So many people angry and afraid. Spielberg makes a movie. The others, with the bullets and the power shields and the public ignorance, are more scared of them than the terrorists. Just like the powers with all the money and nukes are whining scared of little nations, the little guy and any reporting of the truth. Scared, wrathful and quaking and utterly self-revealing.

Besides oil it is a little talked about secret that the hardline agenda of Sharon-like factions matches perfectly and supports Bush in Iraq with moral equivalence of a sort that has proved disastrous in Palestine. The only dubious thing in the whole joint effort at killing civilians is the smarmy claims of righteousness. Silence would become them more, but if they want to remove any quiet support by the silent majority in whose name they slaughter women and children let them keep their jaws flapping and their media tools churning.

One can understand at least the Israeli position, but for America 911 seems a bald pretext to join in the ME fray for profit.

...reducing it to rubble and killing hundreds, Yet the lone suicide bomber who sacrifices himself is the cowardly bad guy?

israel can afford a director and make it's own version.

this is spielberg's.

The combat of ideas has to take place in the theater of ideas. In this case, it's an actual theater. If you don't like one version of a story, make your own. If you don't like what someone else says, say your own piece. Everybody benefits when the response to one idea is another idea.

/goes off to drown in a vat of irony

Hey, wait a minute...

:eyes:

I know you are trying to be flip, as if to say because he is a Jew he could never hate Jews, even though he really doesn't.

Two words for you: Roy Cohn (he's a two-for-one!)

this film as "presumptious and superficial"..I bet it sells a LOT of tickets.

I'll decide for myself.

Thank you, Steven Spielberg.

It's all about the ticket sales. Nothing more, nothing less. Make a provocative movie and you get paid big. The ppl who agree with you will see it to get the warm fuzzy feeling, and the ppl who disagree with you will see it because they can't help themselves.

Spielberg is a genius.

So is Mel Gibson.

So is Michael Moore.

None of them cares about anything except the $$$.

That Spielberg is just a provocateur!

it safe and crank out the usual Hollywood bullshit.

Hollywood has proven time and again that this stuff sells and they'll keep pumping it out as long as ppl keep coming.

I thought it was a little slow, but well-made.

It does raise some questions about whether an eye-for-an-eye is effective as a strategy. In iraq all we are doing is inciting more people to join the insurgents. Israel's current government isn't doing much better.

and I don't know what Mr. Danoch is talking about regarding moral ambiguity.

I saw no moral ambiguity. I only saw wrongs commited by two sides. The film shows the Israeli athletes murdered in extremely graphic detail. There is no ambiguity here. They are murdered in cold blood and Spielburg makes no mistake about that.

I then saw the Israelis decide to seek vengeance and commit crimes themselves. The questions raised are perhaps those that governments would rather not ask - you can kill the leadership and the henchman, but new ones inevitably emerge. Ultimately, political solutions are erquired. The cycle of violence is obviously something the likes of Mr. Danoch would rather not contend. In fact, Spielburg actually leaves out what was likely the most emberassing mistake by the Israelis - the murder of an innocent Moraccon waiter in Lilihammer, Norway.

I remember reading a great book about this years ago (named One Day in September) so when I found out Spielburg was making a film on the Munich massacre, I was very interested. Amazingly, the events were just as disturbing as I remember reading. It is a well done film.

The book also had an interesting section abuot the reaction of the families of the murdered athletes. I believe several were disappointed with the actions of the Israeli government. They preferred actually capturing the terrorists and punishing them in a court of law.

but how exactly would they have been captured?

BTW, as I understand, a large part of the controversy of this film is that the book it's based on isn't considered a reliable source; IOW, the movie is reality-inspired fiction.

I strongly supported Israel's actions going against Black September for the Munich Massacre. While some mistakes were made, Israel's response was measured and appropriate, and it should have been the model the US should have followed in response to 9/11! Instead, we chose to invade another country, bombed their towns and villages, killed hundreds of innocent civilians, and let the culprit escape.

I'll take Israel's surgical response to Munich any day over America's slaughters in Afghanistan and Iraq!

BTW, why didn't Black September go after King Hussein? He is the one that sent his tanks against the PLO in Jordan. When Arabs kill Arabs no one seems to notice!

were the assassination Jordan's PM in 1971 and the attempted assassination of Jordan's UK ambassador. Ironically enough, most of Black Septembers attacks took place in Europe, while I haven't been able to find an attack of theirs inside Israel.

As I noted above, it would have been preferable to have arrested and tried them. Ethical/philosophical issues aside, assassination is problematical from a diplomatic standpoint (if carried out in friendly/neutral territory), not to mention the risk of hitting the wrong target (as happened in Lillhammer) or bystanders. Besides all that, it also exposes your own agents to risk. Unfortunately, sometimes, as in this case, it's the least evil available option - hostile states certainly weren't going to hand them over, Europe for whatever reason wasn't arresting them, and kdinapping them (a la Eichmann) is far from simple.

We forced the plane to land at NATO airbase in Italy. We wanted them arrested and prosecuted for the hijacking and the cold blooded murder of wheel-chair bound Leo Klinghoffer. The Italians let the hijackers go!

Having to choose between justice and appeasement, justice would have been to have shot the terrorists.

This is a bloody business whenever it involves terrorist groups. One can make peace with nations, one cannot make peace with groups whose only bond is the hatred they feel for you.

What I meant was that that - to take the Achille Lauro case as an example - ideally, they should have been tried. As events unfolded, I wouldn't have had a problem if the US decided to hunt them down.

--The Italians let the hijackers go!--


'1985: Gunmen hijack Italian cruise liner

>snip

In Context

The hijackers were from the Palestinian Liberation Front, a splinter group of Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Liberation Organisation.

They shot dead a disabled American tourist, 69 year-old Leon Klinghoffer and had his body thrown overboard with his wheelchair.

The crisis ended on 10 October. Egypt gave free passage to the hijackers in exchange for the rest of the hostages.

But US Navy jets intercepted a chartered Egypt Air 737 carrying the gunmen and forced it to land in Italy.

Four of them were tried in Italy and sentenced to long prison terms. Abu Abbas, the alleged mastermind escaped jail and stands convicted in absentia. '

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/7/newsid_2518000/2518697.stm

Abbas slip right through their finger - they could have arrested him if they wanted to.

And as far as I've been able to determine, all but one of the hijackers were released or escaped (while on furloughs, mind you) over a decade ago

I thought these other ones might come in handy, feel free to fill
in the gaps, & use as desired -

~The only good terrorist is a *blank* terrorist~

~Never *blank* with terrorists~

~Never *blank* to terrorists~

~You're either *blank* us or *blank* the terrorists~

~There's never any *blank* for showing *blank* to terrorists~

~It's not terrorism when *blank* does it~

~Terrorists are *blank*-doers with *blank* in their hearts~

~Not all *blanks* are terrorists, but all terrorists are *blank*~

:)

I thought everybody knew that? Isn't that patently obvious that the whole point
of the assassinations, & the terrorism, & the murders of (sometimes) innocents,
& the use of explosives in European & ME capitals by the Mossad agents was
vengeance? The whole point of the exercise was to exact revenge, to murder those
who were included in Golda's List! It didn't matter if that revenge included the
use of car-bombs, or other explosive devices, in Paris, or Rome, or Beirut, &tc.
"Measured"!?! "Surgical"?"?"