December 22, 2005, - 2:23 am

“Munich”–as Brought to You by Abu Spielberg, Minister of Disinformation

By Debbie Schlussel

When Steven Spielberg began filming “Munich” in June 2004, he set the tone for his fictional movie about Israeli agents who hunted down the Palestinian terrorists responsible for the slaughter of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.

Spielberg abruptly stopped filming and closed up shop. Why? Because the 2004 Summer Games were happening in August, and Steven Spielberg didn’t want to upset the terrorists.

That’s what “Munich” is about–not upsetting the terrorists. And rolling over while they attack and kill us. In Steven Spielberg’s world, not going after terrorists brings peace. In the real world, not going after them brings more bloodshed.

When Spielberg began filming in 2004, it was well known that his film was based on George Jonas’ “Vengeance”–a book discredited as bunk by both Israeli Mossad agents and Palestinians with actual knowledge of the events depicted. So Spielberg claimed the movie was not based on “Vengeance.” If it’s not based on the book, then why do the credits of this film say it is? Spielberg lied.

But not as much as he and admittedly anti-Israel scriptwriter Tony Kushner lied in this two-and-a-half-hour plus celluloid fairy tale. Like the book on which it’s based, “Munich” is long, boring, and filled with fakery.
Spielberg’s Golda Meir is unsure about going after the Munich terrorists. She wavers and constantly seeks reassurance that this is the right thing. But the real-life Golda Meir could not have been more certain and intent on killing these terrorists.

Spielberg’s “Black September” terrorist group is named after the Munich terrorists, who murdered the Israeli athletes in September. The real-life “Black September” is so named after Jordan’s massacre of 10,000 Palestinians in September 1970–causing many Jordanian Palestinians to flee for safety in the West Bank and Israel.

Spielberg’s Palestinian terrorists have deals with CIA officials in which they are paid not to harm American diplomats. Real-life Palestinians in 1973 beat to death U.S. diplomats, like Cleo Noel and George Curtis Moore in the Sudan, with Yasser Arafat personally giving the orders. (They were tortured to death and beaten so badly, authorities could not tell which of the two was the Black man and which was White.)

Spielberg’s Palestinian terrorists have cute, young, innocent, piano-playing daughters who will be fatherless. But he never shows the cute, young, innocent daughters of the Israeli athletes who were made fatherless–and whose fathers, unlike the Palestinian terrorists, were innocent victims with no choice in the matter.

Spielberg’s Mossad agents say bigoted things like, “The only blood that matters to me is Jewish blood,” killing innocent people at whim. The real-life Mossad agents who hunted the Munich terrorists went to great pains to avoid killing innocents (whether or not they were Jewish), a reason it took so many years and financial resources to get all but one of them (Jamil Al-Gashey lives safely in terror-state Syria). In real-life, they killed only one innocent man whom they mistakenly believed to be a terrorist–a Moroccan waiter in Norway–for which those Mossad agents responsible were tried, convicted, and imprisoned–something that does not happen in the Spielberg version of events.

Spielberg’s Mossad agents complain that Israel has no death penalty, so killing the terrorists violates Israeli law. Real-life Israel does have a death penalty for Nazi war criminals, like Eichmann, and recognized that the Munich terrorists were equally worthy.

Spielberg’s Mossad agents cry and brood a lot, unsure of themselves and why they are pursuing terrorists. Been there, seen that before–in the left-wing Israeli film “Walk on Water”. But it bears little resemblance to the real Mossad agents who hunted the terrorists. They were not metrosexual, sensitive guys–as badly as Spielberg and Kushner would like them to be. And thank G-d for that. Like Golda Meir, they could not have been more certain of the just purpose of their mission.

Spielberg’s Mossad agents question why they should kill terrorists who murdered innocent people when they will be replaced by other terrorists. Using that fallacious logic, why have a justice system at all? Bank robbers who go to jail will be replaced by more bank robbers. Ditto for child molesters, rapists, Al-Qaeda terrorists, etc.

Then, there is something I haven’t read in other critics’ accounts of “Munich”–something which made me sick to my stomach. Are the lives of the innocent Israeli athletes so worthless, that the scenes in which they are murdered by Palestinian terrorists must be interspersed with the self-doubting Mossad agent having sex? How would Steven Spielberg like it, if a loved one was shown being bludgeoned, in between scenes of a law enforcement official bouncing up and down on top of the agent’s naked wife? And this happens twice, the first time with a pregnant woman and a sexual position I thought was reserved for NC-17 and X-rated movies. Thanks for blaspheming these murdered athletes’ lives, Spielberg.

From the beginning of this movie, the memories of these innocent victims of terrorism are desecrated, their lives morally equivocated with Palestinian terrorists’ lives. The work Kushner and Spielberg expended to create this undue symmetry of the asymmetrical is the hardest work they did in the entire film.

Using voiceovers from TV and radio news accounts of the Olympic massacre, Spielberg presents the media confusion over whether the Israeli athletes and their Palestinian captors survived. Spielberg shows scenes of families of both Israeli athletes and Palestinian terrorists sobbing–as if their relatives are on equal moral footing. After it is confirmed the Israeli athletes were murdered, Spielberg uses news footage showing pictures and names of the Israeli dead. Interspersed with that, he shows Golda Meir and Israeli generals looking though photos and announcing the names of the Palestinian terrorists. Get it?–They’re equal in this movie.

That’s the message of this movie: An eye for an eye doesn’t work. Instead we should just allow our enemies to take out both our eyes, then our limbs, with no end in sight . . . until death and the onset of rigor mortis. Israel tried Spielberg’s route. And the country’s experience was just the opposite of Spielberg’s message.

When Israel won the Yom Kippur War, when it hunted down the Olympic terrorists, when it invaded Lebanon and had Yasser Arafat in its sites in Beirut, the world respected Israel–and so did its Islamic enemies. And terrorist attacks stopped. When Israel showed weakness–signing empty peace treaties, like Oslo; pulling out of Southern Lebanon in an hour; and giving away Gaza–the world disdained Israel–and so did the Palestinian terrorists. That’s when terrorist attacks escalated. Many more Israeli civilians were murdered and maimed by terrorists in the twelve years after it signed the 1993 Oslo accord than in the twelve years before.

In “Munich,” repeated scenes of the Israeli athletes being taken hostage by the Palestinian terrorists show a poster of Masada in the background at their Olympic quarters. Masada was a famous mountain fortress in Israel, where ancient Jews made their last heroic stand against the Romans. Masada became a symbol of Jewish heroism that inspired the imagination and spirit of the founders of Israel.

But the symbolism of the Masada poster is lost on Spielberg. In his “Munich” vision of the world, he doesn’t want a heroic last stand against terrorists–or any stand at all. He just wants us to roll over and die without a fight.
Steven Spielberg built tremendous political capital with the making of “Schindler’s List.” But he blew it all on “Munich.”

And he just wrote his epitaph with it.

There are a lot of “Abu”s in this film–Abu Youssef, Abu Salameh, etc. But the biggest Abu is the one in the credits, Abu Spielberg–Minister of Disinformation.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

56 Responses

I don’t plan to see ‘Munich’;everything I’ve read about it says,the forgettable ‘Sword of Gideon'(1986/’Munich’I) based on Jonas’s fraud ‘Vengeance’ was bad enough.And, while I’m no fan
of Golda Meier’s, she was honest.In her autobiography,she regretted not be in favor of Israel throwing the first punch-as in ’67-and
unlike today’s form of liberalism and moral appeasement ala Spielberg-she was not in favor of a “Palestinian State”.She knew scum,when she saw ’em.

jaywilton on December 22, 2005 at 7:56 am

Debbie, They just don’t get it, do they? Wait and watch Iran, world! Oh it is coming. That liberal ignorance of who is your enemy and what they will do to kill you and your family. Liberals would give the terrorists group therapy and try to understand them. We are going to need the Mossad and our military men and women wearing a set. Not Kerry, Reid, Rockefeller,Kennedy,Gore,Clinton,or Bryd liberal balls, but to kill as many terrorists as we can and run them off the face of the earth. Merry Christmas and Jesus would have supported us.

Verno on December 22, 2005 at 8:32 am

Great and necessary piece but please do a little research on your punch line. Abu means, “father of” in the Arabic usage. Speilberg may be a Mother but he’s not his own father.

Gaylan on December 22, 2005 at 8:54 am

Spielberg showed elements of a prediliction for pornography in SCHINDLERS LIST and apparently he has larded this latest with the same thing. I do not intend to see it and I thank Debbie for this article.

cuinne on December 22, 2005 at 8:55 am

Hi Debbie
Many thanks for making the message so clear to me.
So sad to see a Jew like Spielberg throwing in his lot with all those other anti-Zionest, anti-Israel leftist liberal Jewish scumbags of the world today.
I certainly won’t see the movie – it pains me when truth can be so distorted & manipulated on the whim one man’s preverted vision of reality.

Snake Plissken on December 22, 2005 at 9:01 am

What concerns me is the apparent stream of movies coming out of Hollywood lately that take historical events or people and re-cast them in the worldview of the directors, producers and writers at the expense of the facts. Too many people are too lazy to seek out the facts and rely on movies as their source of historical knowledge.

Jim on December 22, 2005 at 10:11 am

Magnificent piece.Of all the reviews of this film, I’ve read, this is the best. G-d bless you Debbie, keep up the great work and the passion.

Tim Johnson on December 22, 2005 at 10:32 am
It isn’t just one person, it is almost all of hollywood.

hunkpapa on December 22, 2005 at 10:42 am

Anyone who is paying attention to reality knows that the communists invaded Hollywood (not to mention our higher education system and the media) many decades ago. Remember the quote of (was it?) Stalin, who said “We will defeat America without ever firing a shot”. Mind programming via the media and education are the tools. Pay attention class !

Dave in CA on December 22, 2005 at 1:46 pm

Quote from hunkpapa’s link to Yahoo, “Syriana, for example, “simply doesn’t want to paint things in black and white, because the world isn’t that way,” Clooney says. “The world is complicated, and good movies try to show that.””
Brilliant! George Clooney….Brilliant!
Wow, the world is complicated. You think? Thanks for that brilliant observation, overrated hack Clooney. The old world isn’t black and white lefty argument, code words for we don’t believe in moral absolutes and make it up according to our “feelings”, as long as it doesn’t affect our paychecks.
I vote with my money when it comes to Hollywood. I just don’t see movies by these other pinkos and Speilberg, and I know I catch heat for this but I still say Speilberg’s an overrated hack. Clever yes, a genius, no.
Said it once, I’ll say it again, the terrorists ever take over and the first they will execute is the media, especially Hollywood.

Jeff_W on December 22, 2005 at 1:48 pm

I’ve seen “Munich,” and I wonder if you have (since even here you’re quoting things you wrote about the movie last JULY, before it had been made). Seems like you may have read a script, but not seen the film itself. Because you’re just wrong, for example, when you write:
“Spielberg’s Golda Meir is unsure about going after the Munich terrorists. She wavers and constantly seeks reassurance that this is the right thing.”
In the film Meir says: “Every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values.” She doesn’t hesitate. She has good reasons for taking actions, to show that Israel is strong, and to demonstrate (as she later says) that the price of killing Jews has to be made more expensive.
But she’s talking about civilization, and the trade-offs that come with it. Just because soldiers know they are fighting because they must doesn’t mean they don’t have human ambivalence and doubts. You’re a polemicist; Spielberg is an artist. You sit back and play with righteous theoretical absolutes, but artists explore the truths about the human soul. “Munich” is in no way about “moral equivalence” — it makes no argument for or against assassination as a tactic of war, but examines the idea of “necessary evil.” You would argue that evil resides only in The Other, and there’s no evil in retaliating for murder. That’s not exactly a mainstream theological position, but it’s yours; don’t foist it on Spielberg.
Here’s something else the real Golda Meir said that I’ll bet you can’t understand: “We may someday forgive Arabs for killing our children but not for making our children killers.” That’s not some idealistic pacifist statement; it’s just facing reality.

Oyveh on December 22, 2005 at 9:01 pm

Oyveh; you are so deep,wrong but deep.How your back must hurt from the size of that head you have.Telling Debbie,”I’ll bet you can’t understand”

danny on December 22, 2005 at 10:43 pm

Spielberg as a jewish artist who says what he does in his love of Israel, has failed with this film.But at the parties and stuff he goes to, he will fit in fine ,and be slapped on the back for a job well done

danny on December 22, 2005 at 10:50 pm

Oyveh said, “You’re a polemicist; Spielberg is an artist. You sit back and play with righteous theoretical absolutes, but artists explore the truths about the human soul.”
Wannabe elitist nonsense. What are these supposed “truths about the human soul”?
“You would argue that evil resides only in The Other, and there’s no evil in retaliating for murder. That’s not exactly a mainstream theological position, but it’s yours; don’t foist it on Spielberg.”
What is this “mainstream theological position”, then? What is the Old Testament position?
Why is Spielberg an artist? Was there a vote? Are there any rules an artist has to follow, or is just anything goes because an artist says so?

The_Man on December 22, 2005 at 11:18 pm

Jeff W. has it right: Liberals in Hollywood are moral relativists.
Oyveh is telling us that he is one, too. He says, “You sit back and play with righteous theoretical absolutes, but artists explore the truths about the human soul. “Munich” is in no way about “moral equivalence” — it makes no argument for or against assassination as a tactic of war, but examines the idea of “necessary evil.” You would argue that evil resides only in The Other, and there’s no evil in retaliating for murder. That’s not exactly a mainstream theological position, but it’s yours; don’t foist it on Spielberg.”
In other words, “you (Debbie) play with moral absolutes, but we intelligent liberals are too smart to believe in moral absolutes.”
Oyvey also said that you (Debbie) would argue that there is no evil in retaliating for murder. Such a view is that anyone who defends himself and/or others from murderous aggressors or any nation that retaliates to protect/deter further murderous actions by unilateral aggressors is equally evil. That makes police, soldiers, and bodyguards morally equivalent to terrorists, home invaders, rapists, armed bandits, and murderers. Talk about making Debbie’s point! What better illustration of left-wing lunacy can you find than Oyvey?

Loser on December 22, 2005 at 11:21 pm

Loser: Does the term “straw man” argument mean anything to you? Do you really think “police, soldiers, and bodyguards morally equivalent to terrorists, home invaders, rapists, armed bandits, and murderers”? Because I don’t. And neither does Spielberg. And I don’t know anyone who does think that, or why they would — except when you put words in their mouths. Your assertion is just nutty, as you wingnuts tend to be. If you knew any police or soldiers (I am longtime friends with both), you might know that they are justly proud of fighting the good fight; but that doesn’t mean aren’t troubled by the things they have to do in the line of duty. Does that mean they should just give up and “surrender” to the criminals or the terrorist? Don’t be stupid.
Nobody’s saying “liberals are too smart to believe in moral absolutes” (because some liberals believe in moral absolutes, too, and they’re just as wacky and immoral as those on the right).
The fact is, “Munich” has been attacked (by people like Debbie Schlussel, starting way before she’d ever seen it) and praised (by widows of the murdered Israeli athletes who were shown the film before anyone else). It’s designed to provoke arguments (though what you’ve put forward doesn’t qualify as an argument, since it’s based on nothing). If you don’t want to see the movie, don’t see it. And if you haven’t seen it, then you have nothing to add to any discussion of it.
Meanwhile, if you want to believe people are divided up at birth into 100 Percent Good (“Baby Bob is the Messenger of God!”) and 100 Percent Evil (“Baby Betty wants to grow up to be a terrorist martyr!”), and that there are no difficult choices to make in fighting a war, or that there’s no such thing as “collateral damage” or “unintended consequences,” then go ahead and live in your cloud cuckooland. Anybody (particularly any Jew) with a sense of morality will only consider you an object of pity and shame.

Oyveh on December 23, 2005 at 12:26 am

To “The Man”: You can label things “liberal” all you want, but you don’t address any serious points.
People don’t become artists by election, silly. Artists are people who create work that is worthy of being interpreted as art. You can argue all you like about what does or does not qualify as art, or who is or is not an artist. But to equate somebody with terrorists because they make a movie about the necessity of hard choices in war (you think it’s easy to kill, even in war — and that there are zero after-effects?) is ridiculous. Well, OK, that logic might wash in Iran or under the Taliban, where “art” (or anything that questions moral absolutes — which, in their case, means Islam is Good and Israel is Evil) is forbidden. I’m sure “Munich” — which affirms Israel’s right to exist and to protect itself — will be banned by many Muslim and Arab governments.
As for the Old Testament (aka the Torah), what do you know about it? Check out the exchange between Abraham and God, starting at Genesis 18:23:
And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?

Oyveh on December 23, 2005 at 12:44 am

Why of all times did he have to do this movie now? Every movie, every book, every commentator is picking at Israel like scavenging birds. Why another one? I keep hearing the excuse of ‘gray area’. Its not gray, there’s no ambiguity in PC thought. Terrorists are humans and those dirty Jews, er, I mean Zionists are crazy murderers. But really, Schlinder’s List was no better. Three hours of actors playing holocaust victims being denegrated while a man who was a Nazi, but a weak one, ineffectually flails at the ‘tragedy(TM) of it all’. No, he’s not Abu Spielberg. He’s Abu Kapo. He’s another resayim who makes his fortune reinforcing the view that Jews are only worthy of human faces when victims.
“It’s designed to provoke arguments…”
Yeah, we need another argument about the Israel-Arab conflict. No, its another movie for all anti-zionists to watch, furrow their brow at, purse their lips at, and nod knowingly in response to. Arguments will be not be tolerated.

Melek Taus on December 23, 2005 at 1:28 am

“…praised (by widows of the murdered Israeli athletes who were shown the film before anyone else…”
Interesting point. In Saving Private Ryan, American WW2 vets praised the D-Day Invasion scene. The storming of the beach. I know nothing of WW2 history or anything, I have no family who fought in WW2, but when I saw the opening scene I was offended. It was like slap-schtick. A soldiers gets shot in the helmet, he takes his helmet off to look at the bullet hole and his face explodes. I almost expected a laugh-track. At best, Spielberg is too Hollywood, finding complication where it doesn’t exist, adding nuance that isn’t appropriate. At worst, he’s a secret sadist.

Melek Taus on December 23, 2005 at 1:33 am

All you need to know about “Munich”

Munich–as Brought to You by Abu Spielberg, Minister of DisinformationDebbie Schlussel When Steven Spielberg began filming Munich in June 2004, he set the tone for his fictional movie about Israeli agents who hunted down the Palestinian terrorists resp…

Small Town Veteran on December 23, 2005 at 1:40 am

My dear fricking idiot (that means you, “Oyveh”):
Yes, I saw the movie. You apparently don’t read my stuff as closely as you claim. As I’ve previously written, I don’t review movies unless I’ve seen them. I don’t need to ask whether you saw the movie, because clearly, seeing it or not wouldn’t make a dent in your thick but vacant skull. Meir does waiver in the Spielberg fiction. You didn’t pay attention. Again–Skull. Thick. Empty. Yours.
Debbie Schlussel

Debbie Schlussel on December 23, 2005 at 2:30 am

Have it your way, folks: Spielberg clearly hates Jews and wants Israel wiped off the face of the earth. Hollywood Liberals LOVE terrorists and HATE morality and want to surrender to Islamo-fascists who will take away all their freedoms and subject them and their loved ones (if they have any) to torture and execution, while Heartland Conservatives know exactly how and where to locate Pure Evil and expunge it from the face of the Earth, but the damned bleeding-heart liberals and Democrats are holding them back because they hate America and want it to lose.
Now is not the time to argue about what we’re doing — we can always do that long after the fact, in the distant future when now is history. Meanwhile, we all know who and where the terrorists are, or who and where they’re going to be, don’t we? Well, then, as some woman with long blonde hair once wrote, let’s “invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them all to Christianity.” Voila! Problem solved.

Oyveh on December 23, 2005 at 2:32 am

“When Steven Spielberg began filming “Munich” in June 2004… Spielberg abruptly stopped filming and closed up shop.”
This just isn’t true. No filming actually started until this year, after Kushner delivered his draft of the script.

brickabrat on December 23, 2005 at 2:36 am

Brickabrat . . . or is that Bricka-lie:
What you wrote is a flat-out lie. What is this–are you and Oyveh part of the Spielberg disinformation jihad? You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. In fact, Kushner’s script was the second version–Spielberg felt the first script was not nice enough to the Palestinian terrorists, not “balanced” enough. Filming began in June 2004. Ask Spielberg’s PR person, who acknowledged (in fact, announced) it to the press. The start of filming, then abrupt stop, and later, the new script by Kushner, were ALL very well DOCUMENTED and reported in the New York Times, New York Post, etc. Facts are stubborn things.
Debbie Schlussel

Debbie Schlussel on December 23, 2005 at 9:57 am

In the mid 70’s a reporter David B. Tinnin wrote a book called the Hit Team. I don’t remember everything about it but it did cover the effort to exact revenge against the Munich terrorists. One incident I remember was when the Israeli agents boobytrapped a PLO official’s car and watched in horror as he brought his niece – an innocent – into the car with him. As I recall it was a generally positive portrayal of the Mosssad. Unfortunately I read it about 30 years ago so I don’t remember a lot of it.

soccerdad on December 23, 2005 at 10:04 am

Hopefully,post- ‘Munich’, Spielberg’s ‘Shindler’s List’based on his “Jewish” moral sense will be looked at as simply another indictment of “Christian Europe”.The “art” in it was simply a matter of luck.Hopefully, The US will pursue the murderers of Robert Stethem and,if they wanna take a film
seriously,check out,’Entebbe:Operation Thunderball(1977)-an Israeli film with Jewish values which outs Spielberg & Kushner as amoral non-artist sissy’s.

jaywilton on December 23, 2005 at 10:06 am

Oyveh, I did address your points. You just don’t think they’re serious because I am not in lockstep with yours.
Oyveh said, “But to equate somebody with terrorists because they make a movie about the necessity of hard choices in war…”
Now who is being silly. Neither I nor anyone else here never said or implied that. I’m not equating Speilberg with terrorists. Equating him with amoral non-artist sissy’s (LOL, Jay Wilton!) perhaps, but not terrorists.
My take on your argument is that Speilberg and his types are artists who should have a free hand to explore all sides. Just calling yourself an artist doesn’t insulate you from criticism or having to be honest. Yes, the world is complicated, and yes there are two sides to an argument, but sooner or later you just have to make a stand for what is right. Massacring innocent athletes is wrong, retaliation for those acts was right.
Thankfully, our country isn’t being run by “artists” who would still be sitting around twiddling their thumbs trying to understannnnnnnnnd the enemies instead of defeating them.

The_Man on December 23, 2005 at 11:59 am

Again, Debbie Schussel’s memory is faulty. She insists “Munich” began shooting in July of 2004 and that it’s all very well documented. Yes it is. Here’s the opening of the official Universal press release announcing the start of principal photography:
Steven Spielberg Begins Production on His 1972 Olympics Film
From Universal Pictures
“Munich” Stars Eric Bana, Daniel Craig, and Geoffrey Rush
UNIVERSAL CITY, Calif., July 5, 2005 – Three-time Academy Award(R)-winning director-producer Steven Spielberg has commenced production on “Munich” set in the aftermath of the 1972 massacre of 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. Universal Pictures will release the film in the United States and Canada on December 23, 2005; DreamWorks Pictures will handle international marketing and distribution….
Schlussel also says (just to choose one more falsehood) that Golda Meir “waffles” in the film. Here’s how Meir waffles, by saying: “These people want to destroy us. To get peace, we must show them we’re strong.” She makes up her mind and takes action. If that’s “waffling,” we should all have such wafflers for leaders.

Oyveh on December 23, 2005 at 1:04 pm

Spielberg is a horrible director. I’m SHOKCED….just SHOCKED that he made a film that actually gets you to think for once. This guy doesnt know how to make a thought provoking film. All of his movies are manipulative and tell you exactlty how you are supposed to think and feel. Its amazing that from Debbie’s report that he’s changd his tune for this movie. But there the problem, of all the time to do this, he chose this subject matter in which to do it. What an ass.
Spielberg is a great technical director but when it comes to story telling and letting the audience have their own feelings, he’s crap.

Avatar on December 23, 2005 at 1:20 pm

Dear The_Man: I apologize if I was unclear. I didn’t mean to say that you were directly equating Spielberg with terrorists — only that Ms. Schussel was accusing him of being a terrorist sympathizer: “…Steven Spielberg didn’t want to upset the terrorists. That’s what “Munich” is about–not upsetting the terrorists. And rolling over while they attack and kill us.”
But nobody ever said that you should confuse artists with political leaders. Except for Vaclav Havel, you rarely find both in the same person.
Meanwhile, you make your position clear when you write: “Massacring innocent athletes is wrong, retaliation for those acts was right.” The movie “Munich” doesn’t refute that statement. Golda Meir understood the price of “doing nothing” and chose to take retaliatory action. But, as we know, it didn’t end there. The retailiation brought further retaliation in response. That’s a simple reality. What’s the answer? Where does it stop? Israel finally put up The Fence, but even that is seen as only a temporary defensive measure. What’s next? Israel has nukes — should they use them? These are the kinds of questions that need to be asked, not avoided by pretending that any one person can decide where “tit for tat” begins and ends.

Oyveh on December 23, 2005 at 1:46 pm

The original error was bringing Arafat and his troops to the west bank and Gaza, and supplying them with 40,000 rifles. Arafat was discredited in the Arab world ,as well as the west for his support of Iraq during the first Gulf War. He also supported the Soviets in their war against the mujahadin in Afganistan, which did not endear him to the Fundamentalists. Rabin and Peres revived him, with the unbelievably generous Oslo aggreement.Instead of setting up a peaceful ” Palestinian State”, he turned those 40,000 rifles on the Israelis and supported all kinds of terror groups against Israel. Prior to this, the Palestinian Arabs, who opposed Israel,were armed only with stones and violence was at a relatively low level. Most of the settlements were on state land, and relations between Israelis and Arabs were relatively good. Misguided “peace moves” have led to an exponential escalation in violence and emnity in the middle-east and throughout the world. “Cycle of violence” my ass.

Tim on December 23, 2005 at 2:20 pm
From the link, “New Republic literary editor Leon Wieseltier wrote that “‘Munich’ prefers a discussion of counterterrorism to a discussion of terrorism; or it thinks that they are the same discussion. This is an opinion that only people who are not responsible for the safety of other people can hold.””
Again, to reiterate, “This is an opinion that only people who are not responsible for the safety of other people can hold.”
This summarizes my view exactly.

The_Man on December 23, 2005 at 3:47 pm

“‘Munich’ prefers a discussion of counterterrorism to a discussion of terrorism; or it thinks that they are the same discussion. This is an opinion that only people who are not responsible for the safety of other people can hold.””
I’d have to agree with this. Decisions made by leaders who are responsible for the safety of other people are going to be different from those made by artists and social critics. They have different roles and responsibilites. “Munich” DOES posit that the discussion of terrorism is inextricable from a discussion of counterterrorism — just as any discussion about a problem is inextricable from discussions about the solution.
Does “Munich” pretend that “peace” or “surrender” or “non-violence” is the answer to terrorism? The movie’s not that naive. But actions do have unintended consequences. Right or wrong, we know there IS such a thing as blowback (somebody above mentions the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” foreign policy that has come back to haunt us again and again). Supporting the mujahadeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan made sense in the short term. But then they became the Taliban. And they provided sanctuary and training grounds for Al Qaeda. And what came from that? Is that good, forward-looking self-defense? Did that help “fight terrorism”? In the end, we enabled the very people who attacked us on 9/11. It’s not our fault, but we didn’t do enough to prevent it. Is that a mistake we should repeat again and again without question?
“Munich” doesn’t “sympathize” with or “humanize” Palestinian terrorists; it sympathizes with and humanizes the Israeli agents who retaliated against those Israel implicated in the Munich Olympics murders. The actual agent upon whom the main character is based consulted with the filmmakers about their portrayal. The movie is fiction, based on a true story; it’s not a documentary.
Why is it so difficult for ideologues like Schlussel sympathize with the psychological wounds suffered by some of our soldiers who go into battle and do the things we need done, but don’t want to think about? There are thousands of them in treatment after serving in Iraq, for example, but perhaps she’d rather not think about them, either.
Meanwhile, see if you can get your hands on the Department of Defense film “Let There Be Light,” directed by John Huston in WWII, about shellshocked soldiers, and then perhaps you won’t be so smug about the price they pay on our behalf. Am I saying there is no price, or that we shouldn’t have soldiers (and spies) who pay it? No. Just acknowledging that they DO.

Oyveh on December 23, 2005 at 4:26 pm

For Oyveh and other disinformation scam artists, I did NOT say that Spielberg began filming in July 2004. It was June 2004. But he shut down–to please terrorists, and as I wrote in my column, got Kushner to write a new sympathetic-to-Palestinians script, and then began filming again in 2005. Golda Meir asks if what she’s doing is right, etc. throughout the film. She waivers. Quoting one quote from the film does not change that fact. Again, facts are stubborn things–and the Spielberg jihad members can’t change them. Sorry.

Debbie Schlussel on December 23, 2005 at 4:54 pm

Another good article that includes insight from the very people involved in tracking down those 7th century barbarians is;
It debunks the historical revisionism that $pielberg is trying to pawn off as fact. I wonder if $pielberg got any of his “facts” for this movie from Oliver $tone. Oliver $tone’s movies; “Nixon”, and “JFK” are complete fabrications. The only facts that $tone got correct in each of those movies were;
A. There was a Richard Nixon,
B. There was a JFK.
Other than that, the rest of the movies are fabricated bull$hit.

Thee_Bruno on December 23, 2005 at 5:21 pm

On behalf of Spielberg, Debbie, we apologize for offending you with the on-screen depiction of non-missionary-position sex.

The Liberal Avenger on December 24, 2005 at 12:28 am

Debbie, I think you may be mistaking pre-production, which includes screenplay development and casting, with actual photography. Since the only announced casting in the summer of 2004 included Ben Kingsley (in what was likely the Geoffrey Rush role) and since Kushner wasn’t yet involved, what exactly was Spielberg filming?
He pushed back principal photography, yes, but didn’t “abruptly stop” it. I know I’m right because you can’t quote any specific sentence from any specific source that claims he had already started filming. But this fact doesn’t question anything else you said regarding the matter. Rescheduling vs. abruptly stopping is the only issue I brought up. Facts may be stubborn, but so are you. Your point doesn’t need to be exaggerated for it to have impact. Let the real facts speak for themselves.

brickabrat on December 24, 2005 at 1:14 am

More mistakes made by Spielberg in promoting Munic

The ultra-establishment Haaretz daily reports that Steven Spielberg is hiring Eyal Arad to help promote Munich, which, as some sources mentioned in the earlier post have said, is a classic disaster of the morally equivalent type

Tel-Chai Nation on December 24, 2005 at 4:37 pm

I’m not mistaking anything. Spielberg shut down filming in 2004 so as not to incite terrorists. I can cite many sources for this. It was first reported in early August 2004 in the New York Post’s Page Six. Also reported by World Entertainment News Network (WENN). Also reported in the Detroit Free Press by John Smyntek on August 4, 2004: who reported that further filming was “postponed” because “Insiders say Spielberg is concerned the film will incite Muslim terrorists” right before the Olympics in Greece.
Spielberg’s spokesman, in several of the news accounts, confirmed that filming had been abruptly shut down, but used the lame excuse that the script pages “were getting to Spielberg.” Girlie-man. The script then used was by Roth–but it was not “balanced” (ie., pro-Palestinian) enough and the Mossad agents were not self-doubting enough, so anti-Israel, gay Kushner was brought in to do the trick on both counts. Yes, facts are stubborn things, and in this case, they are stubbornly NOT on your side.
If you and the other Spielberg Jihad disinformation specialists emanating from Dreamworks’ nightmare factory have anymore lies to spew about this absurd movie, please do them on another site, as further disinformation on this one will be deleted. I really cannot spend my life refuting disinformation.
Debbie Schlussel

Debbie Schlussel on December 25, 2005 at 2:32 pm


danny on December 25, 2005 at 3:12 pm

Debbie, I have a great source that proves I’m right and you wouldn’t have the chutzpah to delete.
Notice the word “set?” I figured you would.

brickabrat on December 26, 2005 at 1:21 am

What is up with Spielberg? Is he betraying my relatives who helped liberate his relatives?
Goddamn, I’m getting the impression that my uncles who served on the 442nd RCT and my dad’s cousin who died fighting Nazis as well as the 522nd Field Artillery Battalion who helped released the Jews from the concentration camps as well as th other thousands of Americans of Japanese ancestry who were also placed in concentration camps (by a Democrat no less) during WW2, was just a waste of time. Hearing the oral history of how Japanese American soldiers liberated places like Dauchau and Auschwitz made me proud of the soldiers and guess what, the same Democrats ordered the men to not say anything about Dauchau and Auschwitz and its liberation until the 80s, because, the Democratic leadership were no different than the Nazis, and guess what, there were ovens like the Nazi concentration camps in Tule Lake Ca. Liberating the Jews was important and getting the story out is even more important and vets from the 442nd for example went back to Europe and the Jews welcomed them with open arms. There was more love and happiness for my people than when they went back to the States. It’s a sad day when money is mpre powerful than morals

KOAJaps on December 26, 2005 at 5:35 am

King Of All Japs(KOA)as you like to call yourself:”the Democratic leadership were no different than the Nazis”? “Ovens like the Nazi concentration camps in Tule lake Ca”? What a #%$&**&%$# you are,to trivialize the Shoah.

danny on December 26, 2005 at 12:30 pm

Spielberg doesn’t hate Jews he just loves his artistic craft more. Even at the expense of being so liberal as to not stand up and call a spade a spade or a terrorist a terrorist.
No one said, not even Debbie, that Hollywood Liberals LOVE terrorists and HATE morality. You appear to like to exaggerate so it makes you look good and Debbie look bad. Such exaggeration is ignorance in itself.
Truth is Hollywood is involved with politics so it may defend it’s right to continue making films that will not be restricted by government. Their personal motive is to continue their own life style of decadence and excess. They do not have touch with the reality of the world. They may visit the affected areas of evil and terrorism but go right back to live in riches that not even Kings of the Old World possessed. They are selfishly motivated but unconsciously label their political efforts as a stand for the people.
Making fun of Heartland Conservatives knowing where to find Pure Evil and expunge it from the face of the earth, is just sad sarcasm added to your ignorance. We have acted in defense of 911. We acted in advance to stop what could be a major disaster. Netanyahu said it right, to parahprase, ‘On 911, If the terrorist had access to weapons of mass destruction, we would not be discussing the destruction of two buildings but the entire city of New York.’ Judeo-Christian principles have placed upon us as a nation, the responsibility to protect human rights. Where else would it come from? Certainly not liberal concepts of “Live and Let Live”.
You suggest that we are shoving Christianity down other’s throats. We are showing Christianity by helping people become free as all humans were meant to be. Fact is that the Judeo-Christian principle of religion is the dominent religion of the world. Fact, look it up by the numbers.
You wrote we could reveiw the results in the distant future when now is history. That is an intelligent statement. So in keeping with that same intelligence look back at history and learn why we as a country, act as we do.
Look at our enemies of the American Revolution, England, World War’s I & II, Germany, Italy, Japan, and then South Korea and Viet Nam. Those nations today are our allies and or trade partners insome form or another. They are no longer our enemies.
Those countries have prospered politically and financially as a result of our help. We never went in to take over their government but to show them ours to help them set up a better system. We did not shove Christianlty down their throats, we merely showed them acts of kindness with a Judeo-Christian based example. They saw that it works for us and that it could for them. They chose to continue in a healthy alliance with a nation under God, America.
If the United States was never formed, the world would still be under the systems of government tyranny that ruled the earth for thousands of years. But we did and it was established with the Biblical Judeo-Christian principles, principles that work for our country and our people. Why do you and others not understand what our purpose is? As Lincoln said “A Freedom…that shall not perish from this earth”.

Deep Throat on December 26, 2005 at 4:08 pm

King Of All Japs(KOA)as you like to call yourself:”the Democratic leadership were no different than the Nazis”? “Ovens like the Nazi concentration camps in Tule lake Ca”? What a #%$&**&%$# you are,to trivialize the Shoah.
Posted by: danny at December 26, 2005 12:30 PM
Danny, before you go on that anti-me diatribe, first of all, do you believe that concentration camps did exist in America? Here is a link to some photos:
This from the University of Dayton
This from the Cleveland State University
This from the San Francisco Museum,1,5004142.story?coll=la-headlines-magazine
And Google photos so you can see the evidence. I’m sure you believe, but keep this in mind,This was not supposed to happen in America. Also, it was a Democrat who put the Japanese Americans in concentration camps in America, yet it was a Republican (Ronald Reagan) who signed H.R. 442 to pay back 60,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry $20,000.
Now if you’re saying I’m trying to compare what happened to the J.A. to the Jews, boy, are you reactionary. What I’m saying is, America had its own concentration camps (it was a concentration of Japanese Americans), it had .50 caliber machine guns pointing inwards and rounds were shot off killing grandfathers and grandmothers who got too close to the fence. It was also the same Japanese Americans who were placed in concentration camps, fought the Nazis and liberated Dauchau. And get this, the Republican back in 1942 as well as today saw the evil behind the camps. So what was not supposed to happen in a free America, did.
And if you’re not satisfied by this answer, then call me an anti-semite and I’ll call you a racist. Don’t call me an anti-semite and you are not a racist.
And the movie Munich blows, I saw it for free.

KOAJaps on December 27, 2005 at 2:43 pm

King Of All Japs (KOAJaps);Read what you wrote and that I quoted of you.I’m not saying you’re an Anti-Semite although you are a lot of things.In my own house as well as the people I’m around -one in four- have #’s on their arm.Some went on to be great and many still have great health(body+ mind).I turn them all onto Debbie Schlussel,them and others.Be it Israeli’s,Rabbi’s teachers,folks in all walks of jewish life and pal you come off none to good.

danny on December 27, 2005 at 5:35 pm

Oyveh, you made some exceptional comments and its good to see someone else in here that is willing to call her out. It’s funny because she called you her “dear fricking idiot” and a “disinformation scam artist” and yet she didn’t respond to a single point you made except for when movie production started- how gutsy of her. Well ya know what they say, “When the debate is over, slander is the tool of the loser.”

nicholasedward on January 16, 2006 at 12:26 am

**slander becomes the tool of the loser.

nicholasedward on January 16, 2006 at 12:27 am

Debbie has some insightful comments but largely takes a very narrow view of the scenes and expression that are Munich.
She continually points out that the Israel Mossad agents are portrayed as being “unsure” about their actions. Yet, in my mind, their ethical concerns make them, and their leader, seem more honourable and worthy of the heavy mantle to bring justice in the form of brutal executions.
Debbie misinterprets the sex scenes as well. Or at least has a different interpretation. In my mind, they are not callous but instead show how the passionate agent cannot expunge the horrid images from his mind even when he is with his wife.
The fact that fighting fire with fire has worked in the past, does not make it ethically right. Any good film should strive beyond such a simplistic view of the world, despite the passions involved in this brutal war between two people.
Debbie has not made an important fact/value distinction and therefore has (intentionally?) missed a central point of the film.
Can you really condone a view point which clearly supports ruthless action, without first considering all of the factors involved? This is all Spielberg would like you to do. This movie does not show him to be a sympathizer for the terrorists.
This is my first time posting on this site but it seems as if the author has let emotion rule reason in reviewing a movie.

rom66 on May 12, 2006 at 9:37 pm

Is this a serious response? I am somewhat flattered that the author has responded but also troubled that the writer of such an eloquent and insightful article would resort to such a baseless accusation that I was delusional while watching the movie.
No, Debbie, (if this is really you), I simply watched it with an open mind without a political agenda.
You object to me trying to understand the movie’s intent but at the same time assume that Spielberg set out to make a documentary. Do you really believe that the people who know what actually happened with respect to the reprisals would ever let that information see the light of day? Are Palestian terrorists or even the Mossad a credible source??
Movies are a form of artistic expression and criticizing one for its lack of historical authenticity is suspect.
Are you really saying that there are not two sides to this war? Most nations, especially your own, would strongly disagree.
When I read your article I thought you were trying to provoke debate. In maligning your contributors for expressing their view point your are undermining your very raison d’etre.
But, let’s stick to what this forum is all about, discussing a MOVIE. I myself questioned whether the Mossad agents would care about that young palestinian boy or girl who stood in the line of fire. Does this make the movie less accurate? Probably. But, what are you asking for, a Commando/Arnold type of affair where no questions are asked in the course of revenge?
In the end, Munich does a credible job of bringing the Israel/Palestinian conflict to the masses, from both sides, no matter what your view point.
A movie that provokes debate and understanding should not be villified, but embraced.

rom66 on May 13, 2006 at 9:10 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field