Is movie "Munich" propoganda?

[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm starting to believe Cyrus' assertion that this is the most destabalizing conflict in the world.

In the context of the conflict, one person can see Munich as "another layer of shmaltz on the ossified morality fable" heavily tilted towards Israel, while another can see it as "the ultimate obscenity" which "judges the murderers and those who fight such criminals as morally equivalent."

Incidentally, this guy points out a few occassions where 'Munich' does manage to stray from the mainstream American misteken view of Israeli actions, through the main character's demons/misgivings and in the negative portrayal of Geoffrey Rush's character. However, I certainly agree that it could/should have been tougher on the government of Israel, while preserving the goodness of the Israeli killing squad.

[lehighguy]

1) Do you really think the UN partition plan failed because the Arabs wanted the spasely populated underdeveloped desert in the south, or because they didn't want to Jews there at all.

2) Nasser did close the straight to Isreali shipping. Check your facts.

3) The forced withdrawal of the UN peacekeepers and the stationing of troops in the Sinai was a direct breach of the most important part of the peace treaty. There was no excuse for it and the fact that it led to war is no shocker.

4) If there was no plan to invade Isreal why would Nasser say this upon finalizing his military alliance with Jordan:
"Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."

Rhetoric, I think not. You don't openly call for the destruction of a country, make military alliances with its nieghbors, station huge troop contingents on its borders, and blockade its ports because you want to make a statement.

We are lucky Isreal's leaders had the foresight to launch a pre-emptive strike, because if they had not the war could have turned out much differntly and Isreal might not exist today.

[lehighguy]

There are many countries with such an unofficial policy regarding thier ethnic identity. If you live in Japan and you aren't japanese you face persecution, but they are generally tolerant. The condition of a non-Japanese in japan and a non-Jew in Isreal are fairly similair.

When you fight a war of survival, and your enemies are Arabs, are you really surprised when they tried to push Arabs out of thier borders. As stated, if the Arabs had accepted the 1947 partition none of those people would have needed to leave. The Arabs drove them out by attacking and forcing a war.

Isreal did not grab land in 47 or 67. If defended itself, and in the process drove back its enemies. Isreal is a tiny country with very little land to defend. A single Arab push could annihilate the country in a matter or hours. I would want a buffer zone too if I was constantly being invaded.

There is a big difference. The Palestinians aren't targeting the bus because there is an off-duty corporal there. They don't have a clue whose on the bus, they just know it is a bunch of Jews. By contrast if the Isrealis bomb a house it is because they have intelligence indicating a member or Hamas is there at the time.

The end political goals of the two groups come out in thier fighting tactics. THe Palestinians kill indiscriminantly because they want to kill all Jews. Isreali's try to kill militants because if the terrorism would just stop everyon could live in peace.

[Chris Alger]

Your source's evidence for the claim that the film ""judges the murderers and those who fight such criminals as morally equivalent" amounts to Spielberg's statement in an interview that terrorists portrayed in the movie "are individuals. They have families." Therefore, portraying terrorists as people (as they inarguably are) makes terrorism and its prevention and punishment morally identical, "the ultimate obscenity."

Not one person on the planet believes this. The most hysterical propaganda isn't written because anyone believes it, but to circulate the notion that someone actually does.

[Chris Alger]

I haven't seen Paradise Now. I'd be interested in your thoughts.

When Meir says that there should be a price to be paid for killing Jews, she is implicitly saying that those who were targeted were culpable, a theme that's constantly echoed throughout this "revenge" movie, although the occasional doubt surfaces. The real story is that Israel murdered people who were just as innocent as the Israeli athletes. That point didn't come across in the movie. As for the portrayals of the assassination victims as gentle people, you'll recall that Rush claims without contradiction that all of them were actually terrorists guilty of specific acts of terrorism if not Munich itself, and that their deaths saved innocent lives. The movie leaves the viewer wondering why anyone should care if the victims were guilty of other murders instead of those at Munich. It's a variation on the theme that when confronting terror, one can't expect the Israel or the West to obsess over legal nicities and neatness, a view that is as conventional as it is dangerous. It's hard for me to imagine anyone leaving this movie with new second thoughts about U.S. support for Israel's killing machine.

[Chris Alger]

I doubt that many would accept that killing the perpetrators of Munich and other acts of terror is "pointless and wrong," or that the movie portrays it as such. At most, the movie acknowledges the cliche that real-world violence, even when justified, is sickening and cruel, doesn't solve much, tends to breed more violence, kills people caught in the crossfire, none of which detracts from Israel's "righteous" image.

[acekingoffsuit]

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

[/ QUOTE ]

pretty funny response. lol.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt that many would accept that killing the perpetrators of Munich and other acts of terror is "pointless and wrong," or that the movie portrays it as such.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't doubt it in the least.

[ QUOTE ]
At most, the movie acknowledges the cliche that real-world violence, even when justified, is sickening and cruel, doesn't solve much, tends to breed more violence, kills people caught in the crossfire, none of which detracts from Israel's "righteous" image.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your opposition to Israel blinds you. One of the movie's points is that the practice of Judaism is "righteous" but the actions of Israel are not. Thinking that the two are inseparable i.e. the devout practice of Judaism and the actions of the Israeli government go hand in hand is well ... bigotry.

[Cyrus]

Shahak some.

[ QUOTE ]
The practice of Judaism is "righteous" but the actions of Israel are not. Thinking that the two are inseparable i.e. the devout practice of Judaism and the actions of the Israeli government go hand in hand is well ... bigotry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Religious fundamentalism has been prevalent in Israeli policies (and politics) for decades, disproportionally to the percentages that the religious parties are scoring in elections. The religious fundamentalists in Israel supposedly represent "the conscience" of Israel and, thus, remain immune to serious criticism about their statements or actions. The religious fundamentalists in Israeli politics have been using and interpreting the holy texts in a manner which is, in context, very similar to how Khomeini uses the Koran or Pat Robertson the Bible. And worse.

For more on this extremely important insight on how Israeli policies towards the Arab goyim have been shaped, one should turn to a Jewish survivor of the Holocaust who saw with his own eyes what bigotry and fanaticism can do to humans : Israel Shahak is essential.

link

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Shahak some.

[ QUOTE ]
The practice of Judaism is "righteous" but the actions of Israel are not. Thinking that the two are inseparable i.e. the devout practice of Judaism and the actions of the Israeli government go hand in hand is well ... bigotry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Religious fundamentalism has been prevalent in Israeli policies (and politics) for decades, disproportionally to the percentages that the religious parties are scoring in elections. The religious fundamentalists in Israel supposedly represent "the conscience" of Israel and, thus, remain immune to serious criticism about their statements or actions. The religious fundamentalists in Israeli politics have been using and interpreting the holy texts in a manner which is, in context, very similar to how Khomeini uses the Koran or Pat Robertson the Bible. And worse.

For more on this extremely important insight on how Israeli policies towards the Arab goyim have been shaped, one should turn to a Jewish survivor of the Holocaust who saw with his own eyes what bigotry and fanaticism can do to humans : Israel Shahak is essential.

link

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the link. Would you consider Mr. Shahak to be a "devout" practionar of Judaism? I would guess that he is. If so there's one that finds fault with Israel. There are many others.