Is movie "Munich" propoganda?

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just so curious to why you think the arabs are free of blame. Thye massacred, raped and ethnically cleansed jews, but i wouldn't expect you to mention that. Neither would you note that the arabs wanted a one state-solution that would probably ethnically oppress and cleanse the jews.

[/ QUOTE ]
1. I think "the Arabs" are free of blame for the same reason I think "the Jews" are free of blame. These terms are meaningless and dangerous abstractations. The significant decisions were made by a relative handful of people acting under considerable pressure who tended to do what they think they had to for the greater good, however short-sighted, misguided or mistaken they were or have been judged to be. Whether long-dead leaders should be judged morally culpable doesn't interest me. My point in highlighting atrocities committed by Israel's founders is in rebuttal to the claim that it never happened, so that people should assume that Palestinian animosity toward Israel results from irratinal prejudice. My interest is in figuring out what happened to get us where we are today in the hopes that this will shed some light on how best to fix it. Speculating about what bad things the Palestinians or other Arab states would have done had they "won" is equally pointless.

2. Your claim that the Arabs "initiated" the conflict is silly given Zionist goals and ideology. The whole point to the enterprise was to import settlers to build the institutions necessary for a national Jewish homeland on the homeland of others. By the 1930's the consensus among the Yishuv's leaders was that this required displacing much of the Arab population and replacing it with a state and national institutions run by and for Jews. How could any rational Arab in Palestine could view this as anything other than a threat? Your argument that "the Arabs" started the conflict is absurd. Your implication that the Palestinians therefore deserved what they got is sadistic.

[ QUOTE ]
I see your points M, and you really put all your emphasis on this theme of minority rights in Arab nations so I have a question.

How do the lack of rights in Arab countries for Jews impede or in any way directly affect the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure exactly what you are asking here, but I think "rights" are sometimes (often) more important than "peace."

[ QUOTE ]
I cannot see why you can't both denounce the treatment of Jews in Arab countries AND denounce Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and join myself and much of the world in calling for a two-state solution with a withdraw from settlements, end of occupation, and return to the 1967 borders.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have in the past posted that the Palestinians should have their own state, and that they must stop terrorist attacks against Israelis. I don't know if the 1967 borders are optimal or not, but if the Palestinians insist on launching attacks against Israel from the nearest vantage point they can acquire (which, apparently, they do), there might be something to be said for keeping that "nearest point" an extra bit further away.

[ QUOTE ]
This is were your one-sidedness comes into play I think. Andyfox is right, whenever you blame just one side while justifying the others side's actions you undermine the peace process just as Israeli hardliners and Palestinian extremists do.

[/ QUOTE ]

What peace process can truly and ultimately succeed if religio-supremacist views from amongst the Arabs demand Islamic dominance over Israel and over the Jews--(and as well, actually, over all non-Muslims)?

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually it was called the Zionist movement, whose mission was to find a home for the Jewish people. There were about 5,000-10,000 Jews in Mandate Palestine at the turn of the Century, and those Jews had lived there is peace under the Ottomans for hundreds of years. They were not fighting them. They were second class, but had right such as freedom of worship. The fighting began after the huge population transfers, since the Arabs in British Palestine had no control over their own borders and began to suspect it was a western conspiracy to take their land.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes the population increased from about 10,000-80,000, prior to the fighting. This increase was justified because the jews had legitimately purchased land, no? I may have no idea what i'm talking about, so, correct me if i'm wrong. Further, i am of the understanding that this increase in population is what fueled the revolts. The revolts caused more jews to come to increase jewish support. the pre 48 battles demanded more troops for the jewish militias from outside countries and in these battles, the jews were responsible for conquering land by means of war. Then 650 thousand jews came in from other arab lands and at this point tons more from europe came in as well.

[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]

What peace process can truly and ultimately succeed if religio-supremacist views from amongst the Arabs demand Islamic dominance over Israel ...

[/ QUOTE ]

A peace process driven by moderates. The extremists are kept alive by the continued conflict, and will be undermined most by an agreement, so making that a requirement for an agreement only delays peace and reconciliation and the end of the violence.

A couple more things.

1) You speak of the Palestinian extremists who desire only to the complete destruction of the state of Israel as if they reflect the entire Palestinian people, a majority of whom would settle for a fair two-state agreement peacefully.

2) Look at your statement above again. What if I told you that "religio-supremacist views from amongst the [Jews] demand [Jewish] dominance over [Palestine]?" The whole conflict is based on both sides' belief of these statements in the past, although of course before the conflict one sides' case was considerably weaker having not lived in this holy land for centuries. Today, moderates on both sides have let them go, leaving only the peace rejectionists with theses views (Hammas, Greater Israel movement). So care to join me in calling for the undermining the extremists on both sides through an agreement? To do so, you must abandon the current Israeli path which is delaying peace and reconciliation, perhaps indefinitely. The Palestinian extremists only maintain any legitimacy amongst their people if the conflict continues unsolved.

[Gamblor]

1) You speak of the Palestinian extremists who desire only to the complete destruction of the state of Israel as if they reflect the entire Palestinian people, a majority of whom would settle for a fair two-state agreement peacefully.

This is 100% true. However, the problem is not those people. The problem is that the moderates have no control over its citizens. The problem with negotiating with organizations like the Palestinian Authority is that the PA has absolutely no control over the true problem, the extremists, and as such, Israel must take security control over them. For example, there is no question Israel and the PA could work out mutually beneficial economic treaties. The problem is the terrorist militias that sabotage any and all possible collaboration attempts. I have no question the current incarnation of the PA would try to provide for the safety of any Israeli civilian - after all, how better to convince the Israeli government that they mean peace? However, they can not make any guarantees that the Al-aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Hamas, or any of a dozen other terrorist groups would certainly take the chance to murder any Israeli citizen.

As an aside, a tour-guide friend told me a story about the first intifada, where he was guiding a Jewish tour bus through the West Bank south of Jerusalem. Some Arabs were throwing rocks at passing Jewish commuter cars. When the tour bus passed through, it was like a movie, the rocks simply stopped flying for a minute. Most of the Arab violence is for the cameras, not because they think it will actually drive Israelis to Europe. The same is for the suicide bombings - the Palestinian leadership realized they would inspire more world sympathy than simple shooting rampages, and it was easy to brainwash youngsters living in poverty with promises of eternal paradise.

What if I told you that "religio-supremacist views from amongst the [Jews] demand [Jewish] dominance over [Palestine]?"

They don't. They only demand the right of Jews to live in all areas of Israel in safety and full equality. There is simply no incarnation of any Arab government in history that has allowed or would ever allow this, and as such the religious have turned to military protection and Israeli sovereignty as the only way to protect their safety.

[El Diablo]

Andy,

I saw this on Sunday and thought that Marie-Josée Croze was super hot. That was probably the main takeaway from the movie for me.

I also thought that it was a very good movie, very intense in parts. The only negative thing I felt about the movie was that Spielberg was a little over-the-top with his "violence begets violence and all sorts of people can be driven to do morally repugnant things for different reasons" message. I also felt like he showed how both the Jews and Arabs had their reasons that drove them to commit their evil acts, but overall the Jews seemed angst-ridden and sad after doing bad things, while the Arabs seemed to be sort of cool with it.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Spielberg was a little over-the-top with his "... all sorts of people can be driven to do morally repugnant things for different reasons" message.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good for him - if that's what he meant.

Remember John Houston's character in Chinatown ?

"Most people never have to face the fact that, at the right time and the right place, they're capable of... anything!"

[El Diablo]

Cyrus,

What did you think of Marie-Josée Croze's performance? I thought it was excellent.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
What did you think of Marie-Josée Croze's performance? I thought it was excellent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah. Now I have to see the movie.

[John Cole]

Explanation:

Link