Skip to comments.HISTORY REVISITED -- OR HISTORY REVISED? (LETTERS TO EDITOR: Steven Spielberg's "Munich")
Posted on 12/31/2005 11:45:42 AM PST by Mia T
Lou Lumenick starts his gushing review of "Munich" by noting that Steven Spielberg dares to present "Palestinian terrorists as human beings with possibly legitimate gripes" ("Tragedy's Wake," Dec. 20).
Spielberg is wrong to suggest that the murderers at Munich had some plausible justification for what they did.
The Arabs refused to live in peace with Israel and invaded them four times between 1948 and 1973.
The world made a mistake in 1972 when most people reacted to the Olympic massacre, not by condemning it as the heart of evil, but instead by asking why the Palestinians did it.
Thus began a 30-year romance with terrorism that ended on 9/11.
Spielberg is trying to revive this romance for glory and gelt. I fervently hope he loses his shirt.
I am tired of the typical left-wing bias in The Post's movie reviews.
Lumenick's four-star appraisal of "Munich" was hardly a surprise.
A movie that human-izes villains and questions an effective response to terrorism is hardly what we need these days.
As a kid, I used to hate the simple-mindedness of the pro-American military films like "Rambo." But at least Rambo was on the right side of history.
Spielberg made his movie into a tale of moral equivalency: The killers who murdered the unprotected Israeli athletes at Munich are portrayed as family men, like the Israelis.
Had Spielberg turned his war movie "Saving Private Ryan" into a similar moral-equivalency tale, he would have been lynched.
If the Muslim killers instead had executed football players at the Super Bowl, would America be welcoming the movie with open arms?
I, for one, will NEVER give my money to see this film.
Today's Wall Street Journal has an editorial on this movie.
It points out the bias against Israel and Jewish values in the movie:
The rewrite screenwriter Spielberg hired (both Jewish) believes the creation of modern Israel was bad and wants Saharon to be found a "war criminal."
The movie plays on Jewish stereotypes, it shows the Israelis totaling up the cost of every killing.
The Palestinian targets are shown as old, kindly, infirm or shot in bed and no connections are made as to how bad they were to merit being targets.
The actual slaughter of the athletes is at the end of the film and makes the Olympic massacre seem like a reaction to the Israeli killing of the Palestinian targets, not the other way around.
Why do American liberal Hollywood Jews like Steven Spielberg seem to hate modern Israel? Why do they think being Jewish means being a pacifist patsy? Have they forgotten Hanukkah is based on the Maccabees victory over the Persian Seleucid empire?
The lefts romantic look at terrorism did not end with 9-11.
"Can" the rest of the post and the question mark for it is just a waste of bandwidth to the pragmatic truth of history.
it's amazing even Hollywood could be this blatant in it's revisionism.
"Why do American liberal Hollywood Jews like Steven Spielberg seem to hate modern Israel?"
Becaeuse they are JINO's and ZIMRIS
Side note: I was a young Army medic stationed in Germany in 1972 and went to the Olympics for 3 days just before the terrorists' raid on the Olympic Village. My buddy and I schemed for awhile about sneaking into the village, but thought better of it. Since then, I've wondered "who else was sitting outside that fence, casing the situation along with us?"
consult parshat Pinchus.
The Weekly Parsha: A New Dimension
by Rabbi Heshy Grossman
THE ZEALOTRY OF PINCHAS
"....and the people began to commit adultery with the daughters of Moav. And they called the people to sacrifice to their Gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their Gods. And Yisrael joined himself to Ba'al Pe'or, and the anger of Hashem was kindled against Israel. And Hashem said to Moshe, take all the chiefs of the people and hang them up before Hashem, against the sun. And Moshe said to the judges of Yisrael, kill every one of the men who have attached themselves to Ba'al Pe'or. And one man of the B'nai Yisrael came, and brought to his brothers a Midianite, in the sight of Moshe, and in the sight of all the congregation of B'nai Yisrael, and they were weeping at the door of the Ohel Mo'ed.
And Pinchas, ben Elazar, ben Aharon HaKohen saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a spear in his hand. And he went after the man of Yisrael into the tent, and stabbed both of them, the man of Yisrael, and the woman, through her belly. And the plague was stopped from the B'nai Yisrael. And those that died in the plague were twenty-four thousand.
And Hashem said to Moshe, saying. Pinchas ben Elazar ben Aharon HaKohen has turned my anger away from the B'nai Yisrael, in that he was zealous for My sake among them, and I did not consume the B'nai Yisrael in My jealousy. Therefore, say, I am giving to him my covenant of peace. And it will be his, and to his children after him, a covenant of eternal priesthood, because he was zealous for his G-d, and atoned for the B'nai Yisrael." (Bamidbar 25, 1-13)
The deed of Pinchas was one of zealotry, there was no Halachic imperative to kill Zimri, the Nasi of Shevet Shimon. In fact, were Zimri to turn and defend himself by killing Pinchas, he would be acting completely within his rights
Thank you. I was familiar with the bible story of Pinchas and Zimri although I never thought about applying the term generally.