Jamie Weinstein
Spielberg's Munich Massacre
By Jamie Weinstein
© 2006 Cornell Daily Sun
There is so much the Hollywood crowd could teach us and even more they could teach our President and his advisors. Take this for example:
It seems like just yesterday our President was being derided by many on the left for being a "cowboy" — to the disbelief of little children everywhere. But with the enormous success of Brokeback Mountain, we now know that being a cowboy is only a bad thing if you are a straight cowboy. Had President Bush embraced his cowboy image, and also proclaimed his gayness, then he just may have succeeded in winning the Hollywood crowd over — and maybe even an academy award. And you thought Karl Rove was smart. Bush's Brain has nothing on those wizards in Hollywood.
But I digress. This column has nothing to do with gay cowboys. Just Steven Spielberg (I am pretty sure he is neither gay nor a cowboy).
Over winter break, Spielberg released his highly anticipated film Munich, which purports to tell the story of how Israel dealt with the Black September terrorists responsible for the massacre of 11 Israeli athletes and coaches at the 1972 Olympic games. In truth, no director or screenwriter could create a movie portraying the Israeli response accurately since the details of the response are a state secret. So Spielberg admittedly created a fictional account of what happened and inserted his (and anti-zionist screenwriter Tony Kushner's) political beliefs and biases into it.
The movie's central philosophy is essentially this: an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. This is something that may be interesting if you heard it from Barney the Purple Dinosaur, but it leaves something to be desired from a director who believes his film is a "prayer for peace," as he told Time Magazine.
The Palestinian Arabs in 1972 targeted innocent Olympic athletes. They targeted them and killed them in cold blood. Massacred them. For being Israelis. For being Jews.
In the aftermath of the 1972 Munich Massacre, Israel, it is said, targeted those responsible for the ruthless bloodbath — those who physically perpetrated the attacks and those who helped plan and finance them. Those with blood-stained hands were found and eliminated — some some estimate that 18 terrorists in total were ultimately done away with.
To most (hopefully), the distinction is obvious between the two cases, though it wasn't evidently apparent to Spielberg. For starters, the Israeli athletes were innocents. They were killed for who they were, not for what they did. The Palestinian Arabs killed by Israel, on the other hand, were targeted for the acts they committed, not for who they were ethnically or religiously.
But here is the crucial distinction that flies right over Spielberg's head and tears apart his "eye for an eye makes everyone blind" theme. The Israeli response was not primarily motivated out of revenge. They did not kill Palestinian Arabs because some Palestinian Arabs killed Israelis.
No. Israel targeted strategic people. Those who carried out the operation, those who planned it, and those who financed it. By eliminating these people, Israel was making it harder for the next operation against innocent Israeli citizens to occur. By taking out these criminals, these murderers, Israel was fulfilling the number one obligation that any government has: protecting its citizens.
We hear in Munich repeatedly that those targeted by Israel will simply be replaced. If only it were that simple. When you take out crucial members of any organization (like the masterminds and financiers) it makes the organization harder to operate and often less efficient. You eliminate, among other things, experience and expertise. Who could say that doesn't make a difference?
Ten years ago this month, Israel found and killed chief Hamas bomb maker Yahya Ayyash. His elimination was surely a serious setback for the terrorist group. More recently, we have seen contemporary examples of this. In March and April of 2004, Israel targeted and killed Hamas leaders Sheik Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz Rantisi. These leaders were pivotal to the functioning and inspiration of Hamas, a terrorist organization which calls for the destruction of Israel and ruthlessly targets innocent Israeli men, women and children on busses and in cafés for death.
As a result, the group was left in disarray. Such targeted assassinations, along with the building of a security barrier along on the West Bank, helped reduce terrorist attacks within Israel proper by over 90 percent, not only leaving less people blind, but fewer innocent Israeli men, women and children dead.
There were other parts of Munich which reminded me that Spielberg lives in Hollywood and exists in a land of make-believe where anything is possible. Nothing reminded me of this more than the question raised at the end of the film by the leader of the Israeli team charged with taking out the Munich terrorists. As he begins to regret his actions, he questions why Israel couldn't have simply arrested the terrorists and put them on trial. As if Israeli agents could go from Paris to London to Athens to Beirut with police badges and say, "Mr. Terrorist, we are here to take you to Israel and put you on trial. Please come with us." Maybe this is plausible in Mickey Mouse land, but not on planet earth.
Munich had the potential for being a truly phenomenal and important film. And some parts of it were, especially the very beginning. But the film, with its childish political message and moral relativism, trivialized the barbaric massacre of 11 completely innocent men.
Spielberg should have saved his thoughts on terrorism for his dinner parties with Barbra Streisand. Why couldn't he have just made a movie about gay cowboys?
© Jamie Weinstein
© 2006 Cornell Daily Sun
There is so much the Hollywood crowd could teach us and even more they could teach our President and his advisors. Take this for example:
It seems like just yesterday our President was being derided by many on the left for being a "cowboy" — to the disbelief of little children everywhere. But with the enormous success of Brokeback Mountain, we now know that being a cowboy is only a bad thing if you are a straight cowboy. Had President Bush embraced his cowboy image, and also proclaimed his gayness, then he just may have succeeded in winning the Hollywood crowd over — and maybe even an academy award. And you thought Karl Rove was smart. Bush's Brain has nothing on those wizards in Hollywood.
But I digress. This column has nothing to do with gay cowboys. Just Steven Spielberg (I am pretty sure he is neither gay nor a cowboy).
Over winter break, Spielberg released his highly anticipated film Munich, which purports to tell the story of how Israel dealt with the Black September terrorists responsible for the massacre of 11 Israeli athletes and coaches at the 1972 Olympic games. In truth, no director or screenwriter could create a movie portraying the Israeli response accurately since the details of the response are a state secret. So Spielberg admittedly created a fictional account of what happened and inserted his (and anti-zionist screenwriter Tony Kushner's) political beliefs and biases into it.
The movie's central philosophy is essentially this: an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. This is something that may be interesting if you heard it from Barney the Purple Dinosaur, but it leaves something to be desired from a director who believes his film is a "prayer for peace," as he told Time Magazine.
The Palestinian Arabs in 1972 targeted innocent Olympic athletes. They targeted them and killed them in cold blood. Massacred them. For being Israelis. For being Jews.
In the aftermath of the 1972 Munich Massacre, Israel, it is said, targeted those responsible for the ruthless bloodbath — those who physically perpetrated the attacks and those who helped plan and finance them. Those with blood-stained hands were found and eliminated — some some estimate that 18 terrorists in total were ultimately done away with.
To most (hopefully), the distinction is obvious between the two cases, though it wasn't evidently apparent to Spielberg. For starters, the Israeli athletes were innocents. They were killed for who they were, not for what they did. The Palestinian Arabs killed by Israel, on the other hand, were targeted for the acts they committed, not for who they were ethnically or religiously.
But here is the crucial distinction that flies right over Spielberg's head and tears apart his "eye for an eye makes everyone blind" theme. The Israeli response was not primarily motivated out of revenge. They did not kill Palestinian Arabs because some Palestinian Arabs killed Israelis.
No. Israel targeted strategic people. Those who carried out the operation, those who planned it, and those who financed it. By eliminating these people, Israel was making it harder for the next operation against innocent Israeli citizens to occur. By taking out these criminals, these murderers, Israel was fulfilling the number one obligation that any government has: protecting its citizens.
We hear in Munich repeatedly that those targeted by Israel will simply be replaced. If only it were that simple. When you take out crucial members of any organization (like the masterminds and financiers) it makes the organization harder to operate and often less efficient. You eliminate, among other things, experience and expertise. Who could say that doesn't make a difference?
Ten years ago this month, Israel found and killed chief Hamas bomb maker Yahya Ayyash. His elimination was surely a serious setback for the terrorist group. More recently, we have seen contemporary examples of this. In March and April of 2004, Israel targeted and killed Hamas leaders Sheik Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz Rantisi. These leaders were pivotal to the functioning and inspiration of Hamas, a terrorist organization which calls for the destruction of Israel and ruthlessly targets innocent Israeli men, women and children on busses and in cafés for death.
As a result, the group was left in disarray. Such targeted assassinations, along with the building of a security barrier along on the West Bank, helped reduce terrorist attacks within Israel proper by over 90 percent, not only leaving less people blind, but fewer innocent Israeli men, women and children dead.
There were other parts of Munich which reminded me that Spielberg lives in Hollywood and exists in a land of make-believe where anything is possible. Nothing reminded me of this more than the question raised at the end of the film by the leader of the Israeli team charged with taking out the Munich terrorists. As he begins to regret his actions, he questions why Israel couldn't have simply arrested the terrorists and put them on trial. As if Israeli agents could go from Paris to London to Athens to Beirut with police badges and say, "Mr. Terrorist, we are here to take you to Israel and put you on trial. Please come with us." Maybe this is plausible in Mickey Mouse land, but not on planet earth.
Munich had the potential for being a truly phenomenal and important film. And some parts of it were, especially the very beginning. But the film, with its childish political message and moral relativism, trivialized the barbaric massacre of 11 completely innocent men.
Spielberg should have saved his thoughts on terrorism for his dinner parties with Barbra Streisand. Why couldn't he have just made a movie about gay cowboys?
© Jamie Weinstein
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
