Is movie "Munich" propoganda?

[Gamblor]

What I see when I see you and Chris Alger argue is that both sides refuse to even acknowledge the other side's point of view.

What I see is complete misinformation by Arab governments who have total state control of all media and information, contrasted with an Israeli government that at least preserves some degree of freedom of the press.

We do have Israeli and Jewish authors who have made it their mission to rebel against the entire establishment in the state of Israel by denouncing every action and policy from the get go. But the saddest part of this whole thing is that I still have yet to hear a single Arab denounce terrorism on the grounds that it is an act of pure evil and not simply a bad way to achieve political goals.

Thanks for the good, thoughtful, and historically informative post, Andy.

Let me give a hypothetical example of what I think would be "right and justified" in America, had America not moved beyond its oppressive treatment of the Indians. They should get all of, say, Rhode Island for their own country, and the current inhabitants there would just have to leave. Not today, because the USA did redress many wrongs and stopped oppressing the Indians. However, if oppressive laws and customs were still in force today against the Native Americans, and Americans showqed no sign of changing those laws and attitudes, I'd say the Indians should get all of a state, perhaps even Connecticut or Massachusetts (guessing at size as relates to respective population).

Now that's obviously a contrived example, and somewhat ill-fitting, but hopefully it should serve to illustrate a point. The FAULT lies with prior American attitudes and laws--and the size of Rhode Island is quite small compared to the rest of the country. Likewise, the FAULT of long-standing Arab/Muslim oppression and oppressive laws against Jews in the Middle East, lies with long-standing Arab/Muslim laws, attitudes and customs. Israel is even smaller in size compared to the Arab land mass, than Rhode Island is compared to the United States. So I think the Jews simply deserved and needed such a sanctuary even if necessarily and unfortunately at the expense of some Arabs. And as I've previously posted, if American treatment of blacks had not reformed, before now the blacks would have a similar moral claim to a place of sanctuary within the United States--to even have as their own country, something say the size of Wyoming (again guessing at population vis-a-vis respective land mass size).

So yes, the Jews did contribute to some of the mutual antipathy with Arabs in the latter half of the 20th century, as you point out. However, the initial fault lies very much with the Arabs and their customs and beliefs and traditions and laws.

Likewise, if Europe had not reformed its laws and treatment of the Jews, Ahmadinejad's suggestion would have more merit. If, hypothetically speaking, Germany had never truly reformed its oppression of Jews, perhaps carrying over anti-Semitic laws and customs even after defeat in WWII, then I can see good reason that the Jews might well be entitled to some land in Germany as a sanctuary as well or instead (f they so wished). But Europe and Germany did enact reform to the largest extent in their actual treatment and laws regarding Jews, and the Jews wanted their ancestral homeland instead.

Jordan (and Syria?) should not have stolen parts of the Palestinians' partitioned land, either. Why aren't the Palestinians in an uproar and intifada against that?

[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with your assertion that the Arab alliance was not a serious threat in 1967, and that they weren't planning to invade Isreal. It is clear they had the equipment, manpower, and training to do so, as well as support from the Soviets if anyone tried to come in on Isreal's behalf.

If they had been able to coordinate thier offensive, if the Eyptian Air Force hadn't been destroyed on the ground, the effort would likely have been successful and Isreal wouldn't exist today.

This all seems rather straightfoward to me looking at the relative strength of both sides, thier stated goals, and thier actions leading up to the war. You can disagree, but I think you are in error. In fact, I think your a little nuts if you think the Arabs wanted to play nice or didn't have the capability for war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok lehigh. Look up "six day war" in wikipedia and read it all, or preferably read a history book. I guarentee that either will dissuade you from your perception of a pre-emptive war. Although undoubtedly, your impression of a "preventive" or otherwise "justified" war will remain and would take a long discussion to unravel.

[lehighguy]

I've read about the six day war before. One of my best friends fathers fought in the war. I've talked about it in length.

[twowords]

My definition of pre-emptive war:

"Attacking an enemy which is expected to launch an imminent attack in order to gain some military advantage in the imminent conflict."

From wikipedia:

"On 26 May 1967, Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban landed in Washington with the goal of ascertaining from the American administration its position in the event of the outbreak of war. As soon as Eban arrived, he was handed a cable from the Israeli government. The cable said that Israel had learned of an Egyptian and Syrian plan to launch a war of annihilation against Israel within the next 48 hours. Eban met with Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, and finally with President Johnson. The Americans said their intelligence sources could not corroborate the claim; the Egyptian positions in the Sinai remained defensive. Eban left the White House distraught. Historian Michael Oren explains his reaction: "Eban was livid. Unconvinced that Nasser was either determined or even able to attack, he now saw Israelis inflating the Egyptian threat - and flaunting their weakness - in order to extract a pledge that the President, Congress-bound, could never make. 'An act of momentous irresponsibility... eccentric...' were his words for the cable, which, he wrote, 'lacked wisdom, veracity and tactical understanding. Nothing was right about it'."

...

"On 30 May Nasser responded to Johnson's request of eleven days earlier and agreed to send his Vice President, Zakkariya Muhieddin, to Washington on 7 June to explore a diplomatic settlement in "precisely the opening the White House had sought". [42] US Secretary of State Dean Rusk was bitterly disappointed by Israel's pre-emptive strike on 5 June as he had been certain he would have been able to find a diplomatic solution if the meeting had gone ahead. [43] Historian Michael Oren writes that Rusk was "mad as hell" and that Johnson later wrote "I have never concealed my regret that Israel decided to move when it did"."

(Note: the use of the word "pre-emptive strike" is not acurate by the article's own desription)

Two weeks of trops in the Sinai with no attack.
Nasser sends his VP to US to negotiate.
Rusk is "certain" that in fact it was an agreement which was imminient and not war.
Israel manufactures intelligence to try to gain US support for an attack.
American intelligence predicts an easy Israeli victory versus all three adversaries should war break out, regardless of who attacks first.

This was not legitimate pre-emptive war. Israel had more interest in war than in an agreement, so they attacked.

I am only continuing the argument since I hear this given erroneously as an example of legit pre-emptive war fairly often.

[Chris Alger]

"Even if you are right that Zionism was a response only to European oppression of the Jews, it DESERVED to be a response to Arab oppression of the Jews as well."

Zionists have forfeited a gunpoint the lives and property of millions of Palestinians for more than 50 years. You contend that this was and remains justified because, among other reasons, Jews "under the Arabs" suffered persecution. You must also mean Jews "under the Arabs" in countries other than Palestine because Jews had not been "under the Arabs" in Palestine for 500 years before Israel's existence, and were "under the British" for the two generations prior to independence.

On the basis of your status as an American, which rights, if any, should you be compelled to forfeit at gunpoint to some group on the grounds that Americans oppressed that group? Which rights should Israelis forfeit on similar grounds? Or does your rule of rights forfeiture only apply to Arabs?

[laurentia]

[ QUOTE ]
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?...

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, this was such an INTELLIGENT statement that I am scared to contribute....(you fukking retarded backbone)

[PITTM]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah! lets go get those guys! oh wait, we;re fighting a war in iraq. bummer. none of those guys are there. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

rj

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Even if you are right that Zionism was a response only to European oppression of the Jews, it DESERVED to be a response to Arab oppression of the Jews as well."

[/ QUOTE ]

Zionists have forfeited a gunpoint the lives and property of millions of Palestinians for more than 50 years. You contend that this was and remains justified because, among other reasons, Jews "under the Arabs" suffered persecution. You must also mean Jews "under the Arabs" in countries other than Palestine because Jews had not been "under the Arabs" in Palestine for 500 years before Israel's existence, and were "under the British" for the two generations prior to independence.

On the basis of your status as an American, which rights, if any, should you be compelled to forfeit at gunpoint to some group on the grounds that Americans oppressed that group? Which rights should Israelis forfeit on similar grounds? Or does your rule of rights forfeiture only apply to Arabs?

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, it is not solely the historical oppression that matters in my view, but also the continuing oppression and the likelihood of continuing oppression. As I've started in other posts, if the USA had not reformed its laws and treatments of American Indians and blacks, and the future looked to be as bleak in that way as the past, then I believe those oppressed groups would be entitled to a state or two of the United States as their own countries----(the rationale being not so much a punishment for the oppressors, but rather a reasonable place of sanctuary for the oppressed, since the fault lies with the oppressive laws and customs).

Arab states, laws and customs, however, had not and still have not reformed, and so can be expected to continue to oppress non-Arabs/non-Muslims in the Middle East. Hence Israel is a place of sanctuary from that oppression as well as from European oppression. If the USA had not reformed its laws and treatment of Native Americans and blacks, I would believe that it would have been appropriate as a last resort to forcibly gift each group a state or two of the USA as their own countries, therein to be able to live free of such oppression.

A key point here is that such a sanctuary is not so much a punishment per se or a means of redressing prior wrongs, as it is a vehicle for the oppressed to have a rightful place to be left alone and neither be oppressed nor bothered by barbarians (and yes I'm calling those Americans, Europeans and Arabs who endorse to such unequal laws and customs "barbarians." It is regrettable in this hypothetical scenario that some Americans would have had to be displaced, but that is better than the alternative of continued oppression.

If the countries with horribly anti-Semitic laws and the people with horribly anti-Semitic customs (applies foremost to Europe in the past, and foremost to Arab/Muslim states in the present) would simply ditch their backwards and bigoted laws and views, Israel would not be necessary. But when there are yet today many prominent imams calling Jews the sons of monkeys and pigs, and calling for their deaths; and laws denying Jews and Christians equal legal status, civil rights, and rights in court in Muslim countries; well, that today is where most of the fault just lies. And that is a significant part of the reason why the tiny sanctuary of Israel is necessary even today.

[andyfox]

Thanks for the kind words.

The problem with giving the "Indians" Rhode Island is that most of them didn't live there to begin with. There was, in actuality, no such thing as the "Indians." The original inhabitants of the Wesern Hemisphere neither called themselves by a single term nor understood themselves as a collectivity; the idea of the Indian was a White conception. Native Americans were and are real, but the Indian was a White invention.

The same holds for the argument that the Arabs have all this land, why can't the Palestinians live there? It makes as much sense as saying the Pequots should live in Colorado. (And, anyway, the Pequots have a perfectly good casino where they are now.)

There's blame aplenty on all sides for the situation as it stands today. The Israelis claim, wrongly, that the Palestinians are completely to blame. And the Palestinians claim, wrongly, that the Jews are completely to blame.

It's ancient history now, so I'm not sure just how relevant it is, but the initial fault is that the Zionists looked on Palestine as a land without people. Which it was not.

Here's hoping that the next generation of leaders post-Sharon and post-Arafat can move beyond the ugly history to a better future.