 |
During the most recent "Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People" at the
United Nations, Kofi Annan rose with the other attendees to observe a moment of
silence in honor of the Palestinian suicide bombers who have caused so much
death and destruction on innocent Israeli civilians. At the same time, the
organization was actively refusing to condemn the deadly bombing at an Israeli
shopping mall that occurred just days earlier.
Though it's hard to believe, the UN was originally intended to function at the
highest level of international objectivity when created in its modern form after
World War II. One of its first major acts, in fact, was to partition the
Middle East and form the State of Israel in an arrangement that was fair to both
Jews and Arabs. Israel remains one of only two countries in the world to be
legally created. Her citizens continue to court international favor by
exhibiting the highest measure of restraint when attacked, limiting their
military response as much as possible to enemy combatants - the leaders of
terror.
By contrast, the enemies of Israel show not the slightest respect for human
rights, as they manage to maximize civilian suffering with an array of cafe,
disco, hotel and shopping mall bombings in spite of the monumental security
efforts of Israelis to protect themselves. Palestinians have even resorted
to shooting very young children to death in their beds without a hint of remorse
or trace of humanity.
How is it that the international community overlooks this barbarity and
entertains the delusion that Israel (a country that could destroy its enemies in
an hour if it adopted their tactics) is worthy of condemnation, while
mass-murdering Muslims are guilty, at worst, of moral equivalence?
The explanation is complicated, of course, and involves the time-tested formula
through which enemies of the West achieve their goals in the modern age by
adopting language that appeals to the moral sensibilities of those too gullible
to recognize that these same schemers have not the slightest obligation toward
such principles themselves, either in past history, present action or future
design. But they are aided and abetted by the efforts of others who work
behind the lines. Some, such as CAIR, take on their 5th column duties with
a sort of shamelessness that belies their own amazement at being able to get
away with what they do. Others operate under a misguided sense of
broad-mindedness, not realizing that they are ultimately undermining the very
principles they are assumed to be upholding. They use democracy to destroy
democracy, or employ the vocabulary of human rights to defeat human rights.
 Enter
Steven Spielberg and his "Munich," a new movie that is specifically intended to
turn attention away from the cold-blooded murder of thirteen Israelis at the
1972 Olympics and squarely onto their own country's response. Not surprisingly,
the movie is CAIR-approved.
Quite frankly, a Hollywood movie that criticizes Jews who kill Muslims who kill
Jews could only be made by either a Muslim or a Jew. As we've pointed out,
Muslims are curiously exempt from charges of racism or anti-Semitism, even when
they condone or carry out the worst acts of homicidal bigotry against innocent
Israeli citizens. A Jew, by definition, is immune from being labeled an
anti-Semite, regardless of how self-loathing the behavior appears.
Hollywood apparently reserves its highest standards of moral petulance for
openly Christian projects like Mel Gibson's "Passion."
Spielberg is certainly not anti-Jewish, as his support of the Shoah Holocaust
archives attests. In his movie, "Private Ryan," he actually exaggerates
the Jewish presence at Normandy and uses over-the-top casting to dramatize a
contrast between bespectacled Jewish intellectuals and thick-necked German
brutes. He makes no attempt in "Munich" to imply that the Israeli athletes
deserved their fate as individuals, but he severely manipulates the historical
record in order to condemn the country they represent.
A popular misconception is that a movie billing itself as a "docudrama" is
supposed to present fact, but Spielberg only presents fiction with the
disclaimer that it is "inspired by real events." "Munich" is based on a
1984 book that was written from the perspective of a single source and was
almost immediately discredited by both Palestinian and Israeli insiders shortly
after being published. It is used as a foundation for the film merely
because it provides the preferred conclusion that the Spielberg's audience is
meant to reach.
Spielberg wants people to believe that the "Wrath of God" operation, approved by
Prime Minister Golda Meir to hunt down the terrorists responsible for the Munich
slaughter, was at least as bad - and perhaps worse than - the actual mass murder
of innocent Israelis. Toward accomplishing this goal, he employs what
we'll refer to as the "Singapore Strategy."
Many people remember the well-known case of Michael Fay, the 18-year-old
American arrested and caned in 1994 by Singaporean authorities for vandalizing
cars. The authorities did something rather clever at the time to spoil
public outrage even as the punishment was administered. They announced
that Fay "took [the beating] like a man" and "shook hands" with the person who
caned him afterwards. Whether this was true or not, painting this noble
picture of Fay brilliantly reduced the likelihood that he would perpetuate the
controversy by whining about his treatment, as it would tarnish the image.
Spielberg anticipated outrage from the Jewish community over his framing the
response to the terror attack in morally equivalent terms with the actual
killing of the athletes. One heavy-handed way that he sought to neutralize
it was by casting the son of one of the victims in the role of his father, thus
giving the film an air of legitimacy. But a more subtle tactic of blunting
criticism was to appeal both to the ego and dignity of the Mossad agents tasked
with the operation and the larger Jewish community in general.
In the movie, the Mossad characters become angst-ridden with their assignment.
They go beyond feeling guilty over the loss of innocents in the operation (which
in real life was both minimal and unintended) and actually begin to empathize
with the terrorists they are hunting. The director naturally tries to make
the Palestinians sympathetic characters, who kill Jews not out of any social
conditioning or Qur'anic imperative, but simply because they want a homeland.
The real emphasis, however, is on the sensitivity and moral sensibilities of the
Jewish agents, who are such decent human beings that they begin to hate
themselves for taking human life "in vengeance."
Ironically enough, a movie that tries to blur the distinction between peoples
ultimately shouts, "We're Jews. We're better than that!"
Many of those who participated in the "wrath of God" operation are still around
to dispute Spielberg's interpretation, and fortunately most don't mind speaking
out about their pride of involvement in what they firmly believe to have been a
righteous cause. Though Spielberg blatantly distorts the way they are
portrayed in his film (the character of one, for example, eventually refuses to
live in Israel out of conscience - while his real-life counterpart is actually
quite happy and proud to make his home there!) it doesn't mean that the former
agents are less noble than their fictional counterparts.
The reason for this is that Spielberg entirely misses the point of the Israeli
response to Munich. It wasn't about vengeance. It was about justice.
 After being captured and imprisoned by the authorities, all of the Munich
terrorists were released only weeks later as the German government capitulated
to a hijacking demand by Palestinian terrorists. They received safe haven
in a series of Muslim countries, which made no effort to try them for their
crimes and instead treated them as heroes.
What choice did the Israelis have?
Steven Spielberg is one of the wealthiest and most privileged men in the world.
He grew up in comfortable circumstances and has never known tragedy. In short,
he is well insulated from the realities of life that most of us have to deal
with. He's able to wine and dine with Fidel Castro, who imprisons and
executes political dissidents, and call it the "eight most important hours of my
life."
It's easy for him to tell others to be all-forgiving because this magnanimous
advice, while granting him the esteem of Hollywood peers and like-minded
elitists, costs him absolutely nothing.
"What is the point of killing a terrorist when
another is there to take his place?" muse
the characters in "Munich." Maybe
because there'll be one terrorist instead of two, perhaps? Why not substitute
the word 'terrorist' with 'Nazi' and see how that
sounds? The logic is no different.
Either we confront evil in the world or pretend
that it will just go away if ignored or appeased. Those of us who can't afford personal
security guards the way that Spielberg can (and
does) depend on our government to protect and defend
us from enemies foreign and domestic.
Although "Munich" wasn't intended to excuse the actions of terrorists, or the
countries that harbor them, it does exactly that by reducing the Israelis to the
level of terrorists in the minds of the audience. It would have been more
courageous (and constructive) to confront the erroneous reasoning that lies
behind the unceasing effort to wipe Israel off the face of the globe and boldly
challenge Muslim countries (and the PA) to extradite terrorists. As it is,
Spielberg merely lends credibility to their position, thus fueling the bigotry
against Israel and perpetuating the violence.
With Jews like Spielberg creating films that dismay supporters of Israel while
delighting her enemies, is it any wonder that the UN shamelessly honors
terrorists and shuns their victims?
(For a
balanced account of Black September and the Israeli
response, we recommend One Day in September : The Full Story of the 1972 Munich Olympics Massacre and the Israeli Revenge Operation "Wrath of God" )
Go back to the List of Islamic
Terrorist Attacks
|
