Is movie \"Munich\" propoganda?
 

My pops and I were discussing Munich, and he feels it is a propoganda anti-war film that is borderline treasonous to debut in a time of war with islamic terrorists.

My beliefs are generally conservative, but i disagree with him, as freedom of speech is a backbone of our nation.

But I do think he has a certain point that such movies act against what I believe is an important war effort.

Your INTELLIGENT opinions?...

Re: Is movie \"Munich\" propoganda?
 

Ask him how long he thinks this war is going to last.

No free speech for 20, 30, even 100 years?

If we can't be critical of our politicians, then we are the same as Iraq, China, USSR, etc.

Not to hi-jack, but what army, nation etc. are we at war with? It sounds like many people think we are at war with a religion.

Re: Is movie \"Munich\" propoganda?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ask him how long he thinks this war is going to last.

No free speech for 20, 30, even 100 years?

If we can't be critical of our politicians, then we are the same as Iraq, China, USSR, etc.

Not to hi-jack, but what army, nation etc. are we at war with? It sounds like many people think we are at war with a religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

we're at war with terrorism, they dont have a nation or flag, but they obviously have a willing army.

...but i like your point about "how long would free speech be curbed.

Re: Is movie \"Munich\" propoganda?
 

"we're at war with terrorism"

Terrorism is abstract. How is it defined? What if Bush said the democratic party was a terrorist organization?

Re: Is movie \"Munich\" propoganda?
 

i'll start by defining terrorism as "a group that hijacks passenger airplanes and crashes them into buildings?"

Re: Is movie \"Munich\" propoganda?
 

[ QUOTE ]
i'll start by defining terrorism as "a group that hijacks passenger airplanes and crashes them into buildings?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think we'll ever completely wipe them out? Also, we're at war with numerous abstract sructures and ideas, can we curtail freedoms for the sake of the war on drugs?

Re: Is movie \"Munich\" propoganda?
 

we can never "cure" terrorism, but we can contain it.

and personally, i think all recreational drugs should be legal.

Re: Is movie \"Munich\" propoganda?
 

I'm about as left as they come and would read anti-war messages into anything, but I can't say Munich is a truly anti-war film.

There is simply too much gratifying killing, too many satisfying war action scenes to be anti-war.

Yes, the overall theme was anti-vengeance and possibly anti-war, but it's far from propaganda. An anti-war film would have a lefty like me leaving the theater ready to protest. Or leave me in tears. The film did neither.

Re: Is movie \"Munich\" propoganda?
 

I walked away with the impression that Spielberg intended to point out that violence solves nothing (especially in regards to the Israel-"Palestine" conflict).

I wonder what Spielberg, given his brazen assertions regarding violence (despite the billion dollar fortune it has aided in giving him), feels is the appropriate solution to the continuing bloodshed, where one side simply wants to live in peace and solidarity from the world for once, while the other side (and allies) simply wants the outright elimination of said first side.

Re: Is movie \"Munich\" propoganda?
 

[ QUOTE ]
where one side simply wants to live in peace and solidarity from the world for once,

[/ QUOTE ]

It is easy to want to accept status quo when you are the oppressor, tougher to do so for the oppressed.

Re: Is movie \"Munich\" propoganda?
 

[ QUOTE ]

we're at war with terrorism

[/ QUOTE ]

We're in a war against fundamentalist Islam. We're not attacking militia groups in North Dakota, or Chechnyan separatists, or Basque separatists or FARK or the IRA. We're fighting Al Qaeda, Hamas and the PLO because they're the only ones our government cares about. The fact of the matter is, they understand that declaring war on Islam would be politically disastrous, so they mask their attack on Islam in the pretenses of a war on terror.

Re: Is movie \"Munich\" propoganda?
 

The movie was about the murder of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics and the hunting down of the murderers by an Israeli assassination team. How is that treasonous because we're at war in Iraq? Spielberg's message, as I read it, was that violence usually leads only to more violence, and that a black and white picture of good and evil is a simplistic way to look at complicated situations. Spielberg showed the utter evil of the Munich murders, and the humaneness of the Israeli agents.

Closer to reason, to me, would be taking a country to war under false pretenses and failing to prepare the country's soldiers for an occupation, despite knowing full well the dangers and pitfalls that the occupation would bring.

Re: Is movie \"Munich\" propoganda?
 

[ QUOTE ]
... it is a propoganda anti-war film that is borderline treasonous...

[/ QUOTE ]

Currently the most overused word in America...for all the wrong reasons. The movie clearly isn't treasonous because it doesn't provide "aid and comfort" to the enemy, unless Al Qaeda is shelling out $10 to sit in an air-conditioned theater and watch a movie made by a Jew.

Re: Is movie \"Munich\" propoganda?
 

Most jews don't want to be in Palestine. It is an unfortunate that repeated invasion attempts and terrorist aggression have forced them to remain there. If the Palestinians would stop bombing people and Isreals arab nieghbors would publicily give up thier grievences they would have thier own country in a decade.

If I had to place blame it would be 95% arab, 5% isreal. If people had just left isreal alone to begin with instead of trying to kill every man, women, and child living there just because they aren't Arab then Isreal would never have expanded, Palestine would be its own country with much larger borders.

Re: Is movie \"Munich\" propoganda?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Most jews don't want to be in Palestine. It is an unfortunate that repeated invasion attempts and terrorist aggression have forced them to remain there. If the Palestinians would stop bombing people and Isreals arab nieghbors would publicily give up thier grievences they would have thier own country in a decade.

If I had to place blame it would be 95% arab, 5% isreal. If people had just left isreal alone to begin with instead of trying to kill every man, women, and child living there just because they aren't Arab then Isreal would never have expanded, Palestine would be its own country with much larger borders.

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG...do you honestly believe that Israel and Palestine are two separate places?

Re: Is movie \"Munich\" propoganda?
 

I'm pretty much pro-War on Terror and didn't think this movie was at all treasonous or even propoganda. The Israeli's were pretty much portrayed as the good guys and their actions were presented as worthwhile and heroic.

Even if the message were propoganda, I would not consider it treason. I don't consider Michael Moore treasonous (just a terrible American). Everyone has the right to mislead people who are naive enough to be misled.... but also, it's worth exposing when you do see it.

The Movie Lies; Therefore Spielberg Lies
 

The murder of Olympic Athletes in the Munich Olympic by Arabs was one of my earliest recollections of international politics as a young boy. This event and many other attrocites that followed formed my beliefs that the Arab culture is decadent and only worthy of disgust and contempt.

Spileberg's ego is out-of-control. He said in a Time magazine interview that he hopes his movie will help bring peace to the middle east. For this fantasy to come true he has to make sure Arab audiences enjoy his film as much as Jews. So what does Spielberg do?....... He changes the story from what really happened to make the film more 'friendly' to Arab audiences and then he interjects his personal view that revenge does not solve anything. For example, one of the Israeli agents that executed the Arab murderers was portrayed in the film as regretting his role in the executions when in reality he is STILL PROUD to this day for bringing justice to the families of the murdered athletes. When interviewed he was shocked by Spielberg's portrayer of his character. There were other liberties taken by Spielberg in this story as well.

My question to Spileberg is why alter the story from the truth? If you want to make a fictional movie then make a fictional movie. To take a true story and alter some key facts to tell a different story is dishonest. In fact to tell a good lie you need to include a good dose of facts so that the lie can be more easily swallowed. Many ignorant people will see this movie and believe that the story is 100% facts when it is not. Spielberg, you are a liar. The story was good enough to make a movie without you taking liberties with the truth....

Stick to ET and Raiders of the Lost Ark

Re: The Movie Lies; Therefore Spielberg Lies
 

[ QUOTE ]
Stick to ET ...

[/ QUOTE ]

please no

Re: Is movie \"Munich\" propoganda?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I had to place blame it would be 95% arab, 5% isreal. If people had just left isreal alone to begin with instead of trying to kill every man, women, and child living there just because they aren't Arab then Isreal would never have expanded, Palestine would be its own country with much larger borders.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the Palestinian may be have been trying to kill the Israeli people, but surprisingly the ones that have done the most killing are the Israelis. You know the body count in this conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, right?

But I agree that the Palestinians have made just so many mistakes in this conflict since the beginning for their own detriment.

Double Down, otherwise Hit
 

[ QUOTE ]
I can't say Munich is a truly anti-war film. There is simply too much gratifying killing, too many satisfying war action scenes to be anti-war.

[/ QUOTE ]

The most gruesome and violent war films have been the anti-war films. Whenever we were in the mood for some sincere gutting, maiming and cruelty, we chose the movie that was promoted that week as being the most sincerely anti-war film!

Re: Is movie \"Munich\" propoganda?
 

Liberals in Hollywood? The HELL you say....

Re: The Movie Lies; Therefore Spielberg Lies
 

[ QUOTE ]

My question to Spileberg is why alter the story from the truth? If you want to make a fictional movie then make a fictional movie. To take a true story and alter some key facts to tell a different story is dishonest. In fact to tell a good lie you need to include a good dose of facts so that the lie can be more easily swallowed. Many ignorant people will see this movie and believe that the story is 100% facts when it is not. Spielberg, you are a liar. The story was good enough to make a movie without you taking liberties with the truth....


[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't agree more. Well said.

Re: The Movie Lies; Therefore Spielberg Lies
 

Any time I see, at the beginning of the film, "Based on True Events," I beware. Isn't everything based on true events? Every filmmaker alters the facts to fit his story. I believe Ron Howard, for example, had to apologize to Max Bear for the portrayal of his father in Cinderella Man. I'm sure there were artistic conceits in The New World.

Spielberg doesn't claim to be an historian. I haven't read the book on which he supposedly based his story. His portrayal of the murder of the Israeli Olympic athletes was shown in all its brutality. I don't find his comment that he hoped his film would bring peace to the Middle East to be one of an out-of-control ego. He has been very philanthropic towards Israeli and Jewish causes. I believe he does indeed hope that his film contributes to dialogue. His point of view, from what I saw in the movie, was that violence is an endless cycle and will only end up with ever greater violence. (At least that's the way I saw the significance of the final shot.)

Re: The Movie Lies; Therefore Spielberg Lies
 

[ QUOTE ]
an historian

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: Is movie \"Munich\" propoganda?
 

One poster: [ QUOTE ]
...one side simply wants to live in peace and solidarity from the world for once, while the other side (and allies) simply wants the outright elimination of said first side.


[/ QUOTE ]
Another:[ QUOTE ]
Most jews don't want to be in Palestine. It is an unfortunate that repeated invasion attempts and terrorist aggression have forced them to remain there. If the Palestinians would stop bombing people and Isreals arab nieghbors would publicily give up thier grievences they would have thier own country in a decade.

If I had to place blame it would be 95% arab, 5% isreal. If people had just left isreal alone to begin with instead of trying to kill every man, women, and child living there just because they aren't Arab then Isreal would never have expanded, Palestine would be its own country with much larger borders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh my. Could you guys wikipedia some history maybe? This thread might help.

Re: Is movie \"Munich\" propoganda?
 

[ QUOTE ]


But I do think he has a certain point that such movies act against what I believe is an important war effort.



[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're right the movie does make you question the War on Terror, so that means the movie is somewhat dishonest or the War on Terror is somewhat questionable. How do you think the movie is dishonest?

The movie was very well done I thought as was its illustration of the inability of violence to solve problems in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Similarly, the most important part of wining the war against Al-Queda and its affiliates does not involve military action. The crucial battle will be the one for hearts and minds of moderate muslims. Of course, OBL and the leaders should be brought to justice, but undermining their recruitment would be far more detrimantal to their cause then merely killing their recruits, their replacements, and their replacements. The Israelis in the movie eventually wondered where it would end, as when they kill one prominient Palestinian, another would replace him and Israelis back home would be subject to reprisal.

No amount of force will convince Al-Queda the US is too powerful to be messed with, more force typically leads to more death and better recruitment. The real battle is for hearts and minds and we are losing that one badly at this time. It will take years to unravel the mess in Iraq and turn the tide of the real battle; I hope the next administration is up for it.

Re: The Movie Lies; Therefore Spielberg Lies
 

I was British in my last life. My favorite is when they say, "an hotel." [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Re: The Movie Lies; Therefore Spielberg Lies
 

[ QUOTE ]
I was British in my last life. My favorite is when they say, "an hotel." [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember once having a discussion with a linguist about whether or not the use of the article "an" before the consonant h caused the cockney habit of dropping the h altogether. Unfortunatley that was 15 years ago and I can't recall exactly what he said. It makes sense, though.

Re: Is movie \"Munich\" propoganda?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i'll start by defining terrorism as "a group that hijacks passenger airplanes and crashes them into buildings?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think we'll ever completely wipe them out? Also, we're at war with numerous abstract sructures and ideas, can we curtail freedoms for the sake of the war on drugs?

[/ QUOTE ]

We already have.

Re: Is movie \"Munich\" propoganda?
 

I find it truly frightening how many people are buying into the notion that because a few nuts hijacked some planes and flew them into buildings a few years ago, that any dissent or criticism is now somehow treasonous.

Point number one: We are not legally at war. The United states has not declared war since 1941. That war ended in 1945. We have been involved in several military operations since then, some authorized by Congress (Vietnam (sort of), Gulf war, the current Iran fiasco), some not (Korea, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Lebanon, Bosnia, Kosovo to name some). The authorization to use military force in Iraq was not a formal declaration of war. The "war on terror" is not legally a war. Also, the notion that a state of war suspends constitutional liberties is IMO, an erroneous and dangerous one. Yes, I know there is precedent. Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt all took actins that were, IMO clearly uncontitutional in wartime. This doesn't make it right, and it's doubtful that those actions were necessary to win the wars or that they substantially contributed to our eventual victory.

There will always be people with a grievance against the U.S. (reasonable or otherwise) who think that their grievance entiltes them to set off bombs, fly planes into buildings, release poisons or pathogens, or otherwise atack our civillian popultation. Some of them will almost certaionly succeed again some day. Should we make every reasonable effort to identify and arrest or kill such people? Absolutely. Should we take military action against countries that harbor or aid terrorists who attack us, or plan on doing so? Again, absolutely. Should we invade countries that had nothing to do with terrorist attacks on us (Iraq), while ignoring countries that aided the terrorists (Saudi Arabia) and try to force "freedom" on those countries while doing everything possible to eliminate it in our country? Hell no. Somewhere between the head-in-the-sand pre-9/11 state of oblivious denial, and the current state of rampant paranoia and creeping Fascism, there is a rational policy toward terrorists. I sincerely hope the next President, whoever he may be, can find it. This of course assumes that Bush does not establish himself as dictator for life and cancel the next presidential election.

The current administrations over-reaction to 9/11 is now a much more serious threat to the survival of America as we used to know it than anytihing Al Queda is capable of doing.

Re: Is movie \"Munich\" propoganda?
 

I think the fact that the twin towers are in the final scene of the movie pretty much answers your question.

Re: Is movie \"Munich\" propoganda?
 

The history is pretty straight foward. The UN partitioned the country in 1948. The side that was mostly Jewish residents was made into Isreal, and the side that most mostly Arabs was made into Palestine. The arabs didn't except this, and about 7 countries invaded Isreal. Isreal defeated them, and slightly expanded its borders. The land that was suppose to be Palestine was conquered by Jordan and Eqypt.

There were smaller conflicts until 1967 when there was a major war between Isreal and its neighbors. The terms of the earlier UN treaty were broken by Eqypt who allied itself with Syria and Jordan who all built up large military forces to invade Isreal. The goal was the same as it was in 1948 and other times, kill every Jew in Isreal. Once Eqypt moved troops into what was suppose to be the nuetral Sinai Isreal launched a devestating pre-emptive attack. Despite being vastly outnumbered they completely devestated the Arab invaders and in the process of driving them back took over the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Hieghts. This has roughly been the borders since then, even after an addition major war in 1973 that ended in a draw.

Re: Is movie \"Munich\" propoganda?
 

Well, I bolded everything that is definitely incorrect or significantly inaccurate to get you started. Also, starting your story perhaps 20 years earlier might give you a better picture of the situation. I know this is kind of a dick post on my part, but I guarentee that you are far, far away from a balanced account of the history of this conflict.

[ QUOTE ]
The history is pretty straight foward. The UN partitioned the country in 1948. The side that was mostly Jewish residents was made into Isreal, and the side that most mostly Arabs was made into Palestine. The arabs didn't except this, and about 7 countries invaded Isreal. Isreal defeated them, and slightly expanded its borders. The land that was suppose to be Palestine was conquered by Jordan and Eqypt.

There were smaller conflicts until 1967 when there was a major war between Isreal and its neighbors. The terms of the earlier UN treaty were broken by Eqypt who allied itself with Syria and Jordan who all built up large military forces to invade Isreal. The goal was [to] the same as it was in 1948 and other times, kill every Jew in Isreal. Once Eqypt moved troops into what was suppose to be the nuetral Sinai Isreal launched a devestating pre-emptive attack. Despite being vastly outnumbered [note: Israel had significant military superiority over 3 adversaries] they completely devestated the Arab invaders and in the process of driving them back took over the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Hieghts. This has roughly been the borders since then, even after an addition major war in 1973 that ended in a draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Is movie \"Munich\" propoganda?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Chechnyan separatists

[/ QUOTE ]

Russian terrorism is much worse, but we all don't like to bite off more than we can chew, right? The way I see it our definition of what is terror changes only with our own allegiances and not by the actions of the group or individuals involved, so if we can be convinced that their cause is unjust or trivial then they become terrorists. At the same time if they commit such acts against us personally or against our families then it takes a strong mind to see the justness of their cause, regardless only a hypocrit is going to chance his mind for this reason.

Mack

Re: Double Down, otherwise Hit
 

Until people finally admit that killing is fun and that "causes" give meaning to meaningless lives, we have resolved nothing. It is the morality or immorality of the cause which determines whether the killing is justified.

I like the old French Papa in the movie. He was allowing his enemies to kill each other. That's smart. But he also did it with humanity and a taste of fine cuisine.

Re: Is movie \"Munich\" propoganda?
 

I don't know why you think they are incorrect. If you can provide links to the contrary go ahead. I'll go down the line:

Here's a basic reference point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab-Israeli_conflict

"The side that was mostly Jewish residents was made into Isreal, and the side that most mostly Arabs was made into Palestine."

At the time of partition the whole region was 1/3 Jewish and 2/3 Arab (remeber, huge numbers of Jews had immigrated to Isreal over the last 50 years, and more were comming). Isreal was to take 55% of available land, but the vast majority of it was uninhabited desert in the south.

From the map you can tell that the partition palestine is much larger then the current west bank and gaza strip. Most of Isreal proper was sparsely inhabited desert in the south that niether side used. The rest of Isreal roughly follows where the Jews had settlements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan

"about 7 countries"
Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Eqypt, and Iraq provided the main thrust with the support of two other countries.

"The land that was suppose to be Palestine was conquered by Jordan and Eqypt."
It was, there is no dispute to be had here. Check the main source I listed at the beginning.

"The terms of the earlier UN treaty were broken by Eqypt who allied itself with Syria and Jordan who all built up large military forces to invade Isreal."

following the Egyptian closure of the Straits of Tiran (a casus belli, according to a possible interpretation of international law), a build up of troops along the Syrian border, expulsion of U.N. peacekeepers from the Sinai, stationing some 100,000 Egyptian troops at the peninsula, and a public announcement by Nasser that he intended to destroy Israel.

"The goal was [to] the same as it was in 1948 and other times, kill every Jew in Isreal."
These quotes would be easy to find. They won't be hidden, the constant call for the destruction of Isreal has been uttered in every Arab country since 1947. Recentely it was the loudly proclaimed official policy on Iran's democratically elected president.

But here's a quick one from 1947:
"This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." (by Abdul Rahman Hassan Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, in anticipation of victory over the new Jewish state in 1948 by the five invading Arab armies.

"suppose to be the nuetral"
As part of the 1956 peace agreement. The UN stationed a peacekeeping force there. Eqypt expelled it and stationed its own troops there for an invasion.

"[note: Israel had significant military superiority over 3 adversaries]"
Isreal was outnumbered in manpower, tanks, equipment, economies and populations of its enemies. Eqypt had a large modern air force and nearly all the Arab states had been trained and supplied by the Soviet Union. Isreal was outnumbered and outgunned as it was in 1947-48, and succeeded only through its own cunning strategy and the complete incompetence and uncoordination of its foes.

"This has roughly been the borders since then"
You are correct in finding an error. Isreal returned the entire Sinia, far larger and more resource rich then the entire naiton of Isreal, in exchange for a peace treaty with Eqypt that they no doubt will honor until they see another chance to destroy Isreal entirely.

Re: Double Down, otherwise Hit
 

I like that guy as an actor a lot. He played basically the same role, IIRC, in Ronin.

Re: Double Down, otherwise Hit
 

[ QUOTE ]
Until people finally admit that killing is fun and that "causes" give meaning to meaningless lives, we have resolved nothing. It is the morality or immorality of the cause which determines whether the killing is justified.

[/ QUOTE ]Anyone here familiar with the character of the old man in the whorehouse, in Catch-22, conversing with the character of Art Garfunkel?

Methinks that's the spirit that could save humanity!

Actor Marcel Dalio

What About Israel Murdering The Wrong Guys?
 

The most recent book about the kill squads Mossad sent out after Munich, Striking Back, by Aaron J. Klein, apparently just came out on December 20. Klein asserts that nearly all of those Israel murdered did not plan and had nothing to do with Munich (to say nothing of the Moroccan waiter in Norway murdered in case of mistaken identity, a story that's been known for years). Indeed, the only Black September member directly involved in Munich wasn't killed until 1992. Klein also claims that Israel's operational goals had more to do with "deterrence" than actual revenge, although whether Israel sought to deter "terrorism" from those who weren't involved with terror rather than political activism by those who were politically active remains an open question. The book isn't moralistic or judgmental, according to the reviews, but raises questions about the nature and effect of assasination. Klein's bona fides appear sound: he's an Israeli journalist specializing in intelligence topics and reserve captain in IDF intelligence. He had unprecedented access to the Mossad guys who carried out the killings. In his NPR interview Klein points out that much of the movie is pure invention, such as the use of only one hit squad and the weirdly apolitical French family that supplies "Avner" with much of his intelligence.

The movie Munich isn't based on Klein's book but on another that came out in 1984 (republished last November), Vengeance, by right-wing Canadian journalist George Jonas. According to the Amazon blurb, it purports to be the account of only five "ordinary Israelis" (?) who embark on "a heroic endeavor . . . bought at a terrible cost to the idealistic volunteer agents themselves." Like the movie, it's basically a LaCarre tale "inspired" (as the movie puts it) by other facts.

I haven't read either book but just returned from the movie. There are several telling hints about the bigger and more important story that Klein reports but they're basically smothered by the spy movie stuff. Spielberg has claimed in interviews that he wants to raise questions about the cycle of Israeli-Palestinian violence, but other than some rhetorical dialogue it's hard to find where he did. After all, the victims in the movie are all psychotic Arab terrorists or their enablers, and the Israelis are reluctant and filled with angst about being sure to get the right guys and no civilians. Palestinians murder innocents, and Israelis murder those guys. It's the same old black-white propaganda line you see everywhere. There is one admission that maybe Israel shot some of the wrong guys, but the Mossad character who acknowledges it washes it away with the standard excuse, which goes uncontradicted: if the targets weren't involved with Munich they were involved with other specific terror acts.

All in all, Munich is just another layer of shmaltz on the ossified morality fable that constitutes popular understanding of the conflict, with all the trappings: Israel wants peace, never deliberately kills innocents, acts righteously if zealously in self-defense, cares not a fig for territorial aggrandizement, and so on. The notion that Munich bravely "humanizes" Palestinian terrorists to the point of challenging Israel is a joke.

Any real movie about this conflict would at least mention the following, all of which are forbidden in mainstream discourse:

1. Zionism was not a response to the holocaust but a direct offshoot of 19th century racial-supremacist colonialism. Israel remains a proud and determined ethnically supremacist state, unabashedly pledging perpetual adherence to the racist ideology of its founders.

2. Israel was born through an act of mass ethnic cleansing, precipitated by massacres, indiscriminate killings and rape, and throughout its history has been a serial cross-border aggressor.

3. Israel has killed more innocent civilians than all Arab terrorists in history and terrorism, defined as the deliberate use and threat of violence against civilians to accomplish political ends, has been a continuous Israeli practice since its founding and before. The worst offenders (Begin, Shamir, Sharon) rank among Israel's most powerful and respected leaders.

4. Israel has never accepted that the Arabs of Palestine are entitled to the same national right that Israel considers absolute, inviolable and even sacred for Jews: a national home in the land where they and their ancestors were born.

A movie in the 1980's, Little Drummer Girl, an actual LeCarre story, at least mentioned Deir Yasin. Don't expect Hollywood to do that anymore. Too many people who think we're at war with terrorism will call it treason.

Re: What About Israel Murdering The Wrong Guys?
 

1. Zionism was not a response to the holocaust but a direct offshoot of 19th century racial-supremacist colonialism. Israel remains a proud and determined ethnically supremacist state, unabashedly pledging perpetual adherence to the racist ideology of its founders.

So what, most ethnically monotone countries are like that. Try not being Japanese in Japan and see how far you get. Arabs with Isreal citizenship can own businesses, run for office, vote, and generally not be stoned in the street just for being a different race. How would a Jew fail in any Arab country in the world?

2. Israel was born through an act of mass ethnic cleansing, precipitated by massacres, indiscriminate killings and rape, and throughout its history has been a serial cross-border aggressor.

Isreal was born of a 1947 partition by the UN. Isreal accepted it, and Arabs didn't. There was a war where lots of people died and were misplaced. If the Arabs hadn't invaded there would be no war and no one would have died.

3. Israel has killed more innocent civilians than all Arab terrorists in history and terrorism, defined as the deliberate use and threat of violence against civilians to accomplish political ends, has been a continuous Israeli practice since its founding and before. The worst offenders (Begin, Shamir, Sharon) rank among Israel's most powerful and respected leaders.

There is a difference between targeting civilians and civilians getting caught in the cross fire. Isreal just wants peace, it goes after terrorists who surrond themselves with women and children for protection and to raise international backlash. If the Hamas doesn't want to have peoples houses bombed they have to stop operating out of peoples houses.

4. Israel has never accepted that the Arabs of Palestine are entitled to the same national right that Israel considers absolute, inviolable and even sacred for Jews: a national home in the land where they and their ancestors were born.

They did. They accepted the 1947 partition. Palestine was denied by Jordan and Eqypt from 1947-1967, not Isreal. Since then Isreal has made numerous attempts to have a Palestinian state, but the terrorism never stops. The reason is simple, the Palestinians don't want a two state solution. They want every Jew in the middle east dead. Isreal gave them Gaza and they use it to launch missles at them.