Regarding "Munich"

The following article from The American Thinker is worth the

long read.



December 19th, 2005



Steven Spielberg's Schindler's List taught a new generation

of movie-goers the reality of the World War II Holocaust.

Spielberg's new movie, Munich, regrettably undoes some of

his earlier good work, in recounting Israel's response to

the slaughter of 11 Israeli athletes by the Palestinian

Liberation Organization at the 1972 Olympics. Israel's Prime

Minister Golda Meir ordered Israeli agents to hunt down and

liquidate the PLO assassins, as a "Never Again!" message of

life affirmation to the evil forces of the world.



Recent statements by Mr. Spielberg (Los Angeles Times, LA

Weekly, Time) regarding his new movie suggest that his

"close encounters" with "extraterrestrials" are taking their

toll. We all know that Hollywood history is not history,

but Steven Spielberg is taking great pains to carefully

position his new movie as "historical fiction."



"Historical Fiction"



Historical fiction means some of the events in this movie

are real, but the story is imagined. Specifically, this

means that the horrific murders that occurred at the

Olympics in 1972 actually happened, but the story Steven

Spielberg is telling about the Israeli response to those

murders is fictional, that is, imagined by the writers and

director.



The presumed name of the Israeli Mossad's secret team was

"Caesarea," although there is rumor of another undisclosed

"X" name, and the media called their mission "Wrath of God."

There is very little known about this secret unit because

Israel has not opened its intelligence files to the public.

Steven Spielberg's movie is based on a book called Vengeance

by George Jonas. According to press materials, there were no

Mossad consultants to this movie, nor were there PLO

consultants. But there were political consultants who

assisted the writers, producers and director. Their

collective representations about the people and events of

this secret unit are the imagined part of the story.



Munich vs. Vengeance



The American movie is entitled Munich, however, the French

release of the film reportedly is called Vengeance.



The word "Munich" is synonymous with appeasement. In

history, The Munich Pact of 1938 is viewed as the

catastrophic mistake of the 20th Century that paved the way

for The Final Solution - Hitler's extermination of 6,000,000

Jews. Great Britain's Neville Chamberlain, together with

Daladier of France and Bonnet of Italy, appeased Adolf

Hitler in Munich, with the ceding of parts of Czechoslovakia

to the Reich. When Chamberlain arrived home in London, he

announced that he had secured, "Peace in our time!"

Abandoned by its allies, Czechoslovakia surrendered to

Hitler. World War II began shortly thereafter, and even

today, the word "Munich" remains the international symbol of

appeasement that encouraged Hitler to invade Poland and

Russia, in his fascist quest to exterminate the Jews.



The word "vengeance," as commonly understood, is reserved

only for God. But justice is the universal window into the

human condition. To characterize the Israeli response as a

"response to a response" as Spielberg states in Time

Magazine and his new movie implies, is a clear effort to

deny the objective morality of what happened, not only in

1972, but throughout history. Justified Deterrence is the

moral precept that Israel relies upon to defend itself and

prevent its destruction from terrorism and other forces of

aggression. Reducing the events of September, 1972 and its

aftermath to an existential melodrama about manmade

vengeance denies the political nature of the Olympic

assassinations and its implication for the safety of all

Jews.



"Intransigence"



According to Time Magazine, Steven Spielberg is attempting

to create a "prayer of peace" - an analogy to correct the

"stalemate" of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He cites the

biggest enemy as "intransigence." The cause of the

conflict - as he would have his audience believe - is that

neither Palestinians nor Jews are willing to make any

changes in their approach to one another.



The Middle East conflict is neither vague, nor abstract.

This is not an "eye-for-an-eye" battle of humanity. This

conflict has existed since the 7th century. While people in

the media and political consultants refer to the

"Arab-Israeli" conflict, the source of the Middle East

conflict originates with Jihad

<BLOCKED::http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?articl

e_id=5024&search=Jihad> , the force that drives the modern

terrorist organizations and Muslim regimes that support the

destruction Israel and all non-Muslim civilizations,

including the United States of America.



Militant Islam is not limited to the Middle East-nor are its

tactics-as America learned on September 11, 2001.



Islamic Jihad and The "Schism" of Civilization



The Israeli athletes who were assassinated by the PLO in

Munich in 1972 did not die by tragedy, nor by moral

failings. They were slaughtered. This was a massacre of

innocents. At that time, and today, there are no doubts

about what happened at the Olympics. We saw much of it live

on television. Creating a fictional story about the secret

Israeli response-based on speculative feelings of a

fictional protagonist - distorts the truth of what actually

happened in history.



The command to "Convert by force, subjugate as dhimmis

<BLOCKED::http://www.dhimmitude.org/> or kill the Infidel"

is a core

<BLOCKED::http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?articl

e_id=4013&search=Arlandson> belief of Islam. This Jihad, or

Holy War, is 1400 years old, not just a few decades. This

command is the basis for what is universally recognized as

the "schism" of civilizations. Jihad is not like blasphemy

or heresy, which can be debated and rejected by theologians.

Jihad is fueled by the Islamic belief that murder is a holy

act. Jihad is a permanent theological imperative as well as

a political tactic to destroy freedom-loving people

everywhere, not just Jews and Christians, as the world has

learned since 9/11.



It is important to understand that Osama bin Laden publicly

declared war on America well before 2001. Officially, he

declared "Holy War" on America in August of 1996, but there

were other provocations before and after. In fact, the

early 1970s saw a major rise in terrorism throughout Europe,

the Middle East, and the Far East. The 1972 PLO killings at

the Olympics occurred in this contemporary context, but they

originate in modern Islamic Jihad, arising from the ashes of

Hitler's Holocaust. This is why recasting the present day

Middle East conflict as a "tragic stand-off" or as a

"stalemate" of the last few decades is historically

incorrect.



In real history, there is an enemy. The enemy is Islamic

Jihad, although sometimes Jihad is called Militant Islam or

Islamofascism. Jihad is a permanent war. This means Jihad

excludes the idea of peace, but allows for truces (hudnas)

to regroup, infiltrate, and attack again. Ignoring the

facts of history is dangerous, but recasting the facts of

history into a relativistic "fiction" leads audiences to

scream, "Steven Spielberg.phone home!"



Jihad-like fascism and totalitarianism - destroys the moral

order of humanity. This Jihad is same evil force that

denies Israel the right to exist. If Israel has no right to

exist, then be my guest, declare that this is a narrative

about manmade vengeance. But if Israel does have the right

to exist-and there is a moral order to humanity-then the

moral compass of civilization drives this story - for all

mankind-and commands that Israel defend herself and the

safety of all Jews, despite any personal struggle.



Now, let's enter the make-believe world of Steven

Spielberg's movie, Munich.



The Munich Narrative



This is the fictional story of a young Israeli named Avner

(Eric Bana) who relinquishes his identity as a Mossad

officer to lead the secret Israeli mission to track down 11

PLO operatives presumed to be responsible for planning and

executing the Olympic slaughter. Because the mission is

secret, Avner operates through highly paid informers.

Neither Avner, nor his four-man team is privy to the

Mossad's strategy, nor are they apprised of the specific

history and deeds of each targeted Palestinian.



Of the 11 PLO targets, only one - Al Hassan Salameh -

commands our complete attention and fascination, as a worthy

screen antagonist. He is the chief architect of the

horrifying PLO assassinations, the front for Yasser Arafat's

PLO, along with another uncredited PLO master planner.

Unfortunately, Al Salameh operates off-screen, jet-setting

around the globe, negotiating his security with governments,

aligning with adversarial regimes, and eluding Avner

throughout the movie, with little tidbits of information

conveyed through highly paid informers. But we never see

any of this, nor do we understand what drives Al Salameh, so

the narrative moves forward in journalistic fashion, with

riveting sequences, without Al Salameh's onscreen conflict

and story participation. This error is fatal to the story,

and robs the film of momentum.



The primary narrative is Avner's internal story, expressed

as conflict with Ephraim, the Mossad Chief (Geoffrey Rush),

and Avner's four-man team. Without a powerful onscreen

antagonist who presents conflicting story values, Spielberg

relies on flash-cuts from the opening sequence of the Munich

slaughter to create tension. Unfortunately, story

motivation cannot substitute for onscreen conflict, so the

audience drifts away from the Israeli mission's strategic

assassinations, and instead redefines and experiences them

as a series of consecutive murders Sicilian style. What

begins as an extremely well-motivated story deliberately

descends into an episodic narrative about vengeance, framed

by rationalization.



In the end, there can be no satisfying climax. In fact, the

end credits state that Al Hassan Salameh was captured in

1979.



What is Munich About?



Writers Tony Kushner and Eric Roth boldly present an

existential story-form about "the struggle" to track down 11

Palestinians "in response to" the loss of 11 Israeli

athletes, but they purposely deny the audience the most

gripping layers within the "thriller story" to track down Al

Salameh. The compelling curiosities about Al Salameh's

personal habits, his mastery of deceit, his layers of

depravity, remain unexplored. There is no depiction of any

internal struggle for Al Alameh to match that of Avner.



Above all, the audience cannot help but wonder about how the

glamorized Al Salameh understands the underpinnings of the

Arab and Muslim cultures that abandon the voices of their

own poorest and most oppressed. What does Al Salameh think

of a religion where Sunnis refuse to believe that their own

brethren, Shias and Kurds, are human? How does he feel

about the poorest Palestinians who claim to use terrorism

because they are screaming to be heard? Is he listening to

them? What is missing from his own mindset - or is it the

mindset of Islam-that the world's wealthiest Muslim Arabs

cannot take care of their own? What is inside this

mysterious wealthy world of Arab jet setters who refuse to

create their own society to respond to the cries of the

Palestinians?



These opposing story values might have been a worthy journey

to challenge Avner's struggle. It's as if the writers and

director were intent upon ignoring the questions of interest

in favor of creating a politically correct "Mein Kampf" ("My

Struggle") for our time. Literally, the "struggle" is the

story. The message is that the Israeli struggle to defend

itself is morally equivalent to the Palestinian struggle to

be heard. The end result is that Avner's struggle fizzles

into a type of self-inflicted relativistic anti-Zionist

propaganda.



With due respect, there are many outstanding moments,

including an amusing character named Yvonne who presents the

"dialectic" philosophy of Georg Hegel as dialogue with

Avner, foreshadowing that this is a story about "rethinking

right and wrong."



Ironically, this is the story clue. The Hegelian system is

predicated on the unity of opposites and exploration of the

negations that comprise these opposites. This unity of

opposites - the dialectic - is ultimately tested by the

"negation of the negation" and forms the synthesis of the

dialectic. In Munich, the psyche, deeds, and strategy of Al

Salameh represent the opposing forces to Avner's story, both

literally and figuratively. Without a comprehensive

exploration of this set of opposing story values, there can

be no Hegelian process of the dialectic, nor its synthesis.



As a result, Munich is overflowing with good character

choices and superior filmmaking, but fails as storytelling,

even in the friendly audience of peers at the Directors

Guild of America. The audience exited, speechless.

Personally, I felt like the character Carl (Ciaran Hinds),

the worrier who is constantly "chasing the mice" inside his

skull, only Carl solved his mice cravings with alcohol and

affection.



Instead, I went home and wrote this. Then, it became clear

that "the (three) mice" are all blind. They are spinning

around a treadmill of moral confusion, exhausted by

politically correct thinking. By negating curiosity, they

negate thought. By transposing history into a morally

equivalent humanist struggle, "the three blind mice" took us

into a world where there is no relief, let alone insight

into the complexities of the human condition.



Now, fasten your seatbelt and hook your shoulder strap. You

are about to exit the world of make-believe, and re-enter

the real world where history rules, and truth prevails. Stay

tuned for the historical overview that is missing from this

movie.



Where Islam Meets Nazism



The nexus between Islam and Nazism exists in the "Never

Again!" timeline of the 20th century, officially dating to

November 28, 1941, when Hitler made a pact with the Grand

Mufti of Jerusalem - the grandfather of the PLO - to effect

The Final Solution.the extermination of all Jews from the

face of the earth. As a reminder, the Grand Mufti had

declared Jihad on the Allied Powers (our side) on November

25, 1941, and the United States of America was attacked two

weeks later by the Axis Powers (their side) at Pearl Harbor

on December 7, 1941.



Tracing the roots of 20th century Islamic Jihad begins with

the Balfour Declaration of 1917. After World War I, Great

Britain was granted control of the "Mandate of Palestine"

and sought to create a permanent home for Jews. In 1920,

anti-Zionist Hajj Amin al-Husseini rose from Islamic Arab

ranks and began a campaign to exterminate Jews.

Concurrently, an Egyptian named Hasam al-Banna founded the

Muslim Brotherhood, and began supporting Al Husseini who was

elevated to "The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem" by the British.



Al Banna and The Grand Mufti continued inciting violence

against Jews through the 1920s, and as Nazism spread through

Europe, Jews fled to Palestine. Their next move was to make

overtures to Adolf Hitler, and the influx of Jews set off

the "Great Uprising" or "Arab Revolt" of 1936-1939. After

the 1938 Munich Pact, Hitler moved swiftly into Poland and

Russia, advancing "The Final Solution." Then, in 1941, he

cemented his alliance with The Grand Mufti, after which The

Grand Mufti moved to Germany and traveled regularly to

present-day Bosnia (establishing the roots of the modern-day

Bosnian conflict).



When World War II ended in 1945, the Grand Mufti colluded

with intelligence communities (reportedly French and

British) and avoided prosecution for war crimes by fleeing

to Egypt. The United Nations was established, and as

reparation for the Holocaust, called for the establishment

of the State of Israel. On May 14, 1948, after the British

Mandate expired, David Ben-Gurion formally established the

modern State of Israel, which was immediately invaded by

Arab armies, though Israel prevailed. The Grand Mufti and

his Muslim Brotherhood regrouped in Egypt, as the modern-day

anti-Zionist Jihadist movement that spawned other militant

anti-Zionist organizations, including the Fatah Party,

Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Liberation Organization that

architected the 1972 Olympic killings, Hamas, Hezbollah, and

Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda.



The events of Munich, 1972-like the events of September 11,

2001-originate from the Islamic Jihad of the 20th century

Muslim Brotherhood. This is why those who have witnessed or

studied history feel compelled to clarify the origins of

this conflict, because we know that murder is not a holy

act. We know that Jihad is a permanent political tactic

to convert or destroy all non-Muslim humanity.



Jihad is not equal to justified deterrence. The Munich

slaughter is not equal to Israel's moral imperative to

liquidate Jihadists. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem is not

equal to David Ben-Gurion. Adolf Hitler is not equal to

Simon Wiesenthal. Yasser Arafat is not equal to Golda Meir.

The PLO is not equal to Israel. The "culture of death" that

is Jihad is not equal to the "culture of life" that is

L'Chaim.



Is anyone really surprised that this outrage happened in

Munich, the birthplace of Adolf Hitler's Third Reich?

Jihadists, who are fighting an ancient struggle, are

particularly cognizant of history, and pay obsessive concern

to dates and places.



In history, there are no regrets about what happened to

Adolf Hitler, no confusion about what happened at the 1972

Olympics and no legitimate voices that defy the necessity of

Israel's strategic response to the Munich slaughter. The

Israeli response to the 1972 Olympics transcends the

timeline of history as a "Never Again!" morality tale of

good vs. evil. This is not a story about negating life.

This is not a story about vengeance. This is a story about

the painful regrets and compelling issues that comprise the

profound decisions involved in defending..the sanctity of

human life.



"Implacable Resolve"



Steven Spielberg describes his movie as a "prayer for

peace." Although he defines the enemy as "intransigence," he

refers to the "implacable resolve" of the agents who hunted

down the PLO assassins. According to Webster, "implacable"

means "incapacity for appeasement." Is Spielberg hinting

that it is Israel's incapacity for appeasement that drives

the Jihad? Is he implying that if only Gold Meir had

appeased the terrorists this one time in 1972 - like

Chamberlain appeased Hitler at Munich in 1938-there would be

no modern-day conflict? Is he suggesting that Israel's

vengeance triggered the 3rd act of the 1400-year old Jihad?

Is he stating that America - like Israel - is to be reviled

for affirming the sanctity of life? Or is he condoning that

America and Israel are to be hated for defending freedom?



Perhaps Mr. Spielberg is entranced by what Professor Jeane

Kirkpatrick described

<BLOCKED::http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorphilosoph

icalissues/libertarianism/mythmoral.shtml> as The Myth of

Moral Equivalence, the humanist claim that all

sides-regardless of core beliefs, tactics and genocides-are

somehow valid. Otherwise, Spielberg seems convinced by

moral relativism, the position that there is no

comprehensive moral truth or truth value, that only personal

subjective morality, deriving from social convention, is

truly authentic. Even Hollywood publicists will have

trouble extricating him from this self-inflicted

philosophical quagmire by suggesting that he fall back on

the obscure concept of moral pluralism which acknowledges

the co-existence of opposing ideas and practices - but does

not require that they be equally valid. As a last resort,

he may be tempted to gravitate to the nouveau concept of

value pluralism. But this stimulates the little mice into

over-drive, and begs the fundamental question of our time.



If Israel has no right to exist, then who does?



Otherwise, Mr. Spielberg is committed to persuading the

world that Israel is at fault for its intransigence. He

would have us believe that Jihad - the core belief of

Militant Islam-is equal to Israel's justified deterrence to

wage its own strategic defense. He would have us believe

that Jihad is equal to The Ark of the Covenant.



Refusing to appease the anti-Zionist Muslim regimes that

seek to destroy Israel is the litmus test for the 21st

century. Maturity teaches us to recognize the origins of

the creator-based concept of the individual. Righteousness

teaches us to acknowledge the sanctity of the moral compass

of civilization. Courage teaches us to defend these

concepts, from which freedom derives. We are inspired by

the wisdom of the ages to defend Israel's right to exist,

because this "creator-based right to exist" is a gift to all

mankind, not only "the chosen" few. The new anti-Semitism is

anti-Zionism.



What Really Matters



Perhaps we can learn "something important" after all-not

from movies-but from the moral compass of history itself.



We are in a war of ideas. Freedom, Justice, and Truth

transcend the movies. What really matters will survive the

motives of movie studios. What really matters will survive

all of us, especially the appeasers. What really matters

will transcend the timeline of history.



The Muslim World is in a civil war of sane ideas vs. insane

ideas. Baathists, Sunnis, Wahhabists, and Shias are

scrambling for certitude, trying to figure out what side of

history they are on. The insanity of Jihad is startlingly

clear, once the moral compass of civilization is irrefutably

in place. King Abdullah laid down the gauntlet by defining

the "War on Militant Islam," challenging sane Muslims to

renounce the insanity of this "culture of death" that is

Jihad. Now that Iraqi Muslims have declared their future,

it is possible for sane Muslims to declare that freedom

rules. It is time to negate the schism of civilization,

reverse the schism inward, and break "Militant Islam" at its

very core belief. Murder is not a holy act. Jihad is not a

Holy War. Jihad is evil. Only Muslims can declare moral

victory in their own civil war of ideas. Jihad-like all

"cultures of death" - is dead on arrival.



Steven Spielberg's "prayer for peace" appears to be earnest.

Yet he misses the point of real history. By naming his movie

Munich, he advances the message of appeasement. By

promoting moral relativism as moral equivalence, he propels

his audiences into moral clarity. By selling intransigence

as the enemy, he invites history to define the constant

enemy. The "Jihad to liberate Jerusalem" - like all fascist

and totalitarian genocidal schemes that deny freedom and

dignity of the individual - is the true enemy, not just of

Israel, but of all mankind.



Meanwhile, all human beings get to decide which side of

history they are on. Dreamworks appears to have made their

decision

<BLOCKED::http://www.jerusalem-archives.org/period3/3-25.htm

l> .



Creating a dialogue that bridges the Muslim and the

non-Muslim world is admirable, but the "true" dialogue-like

the events of 1972-begins with the value of life.



__________________________________________________

The following does NOT appear in the article



Friends,



The raging debate over Spielberg's "Munich," continues.

Spielberg says in a Time Magazine interview, that he thinks

the Israeli act of going after the Palestinian murderers

"was a reponse to a response." Let' see, that means killing

the Israeli athletes in the first place was a response, but

to what? Ah, think about it. It's pure Muslim propoganda.

It's "you took our Holy Land" baloney.

It's the "Jews are taking over the world," Nazism.



For that way of thinking, the very fact that a Jew lives is

a provocation, which people will "respond" to by trying to

kill us.

And if we "respond to this response" by hitting back, that's

just a useless continuation of the "cycle of violence."



Have I got that right,Steven?



I guess then that World War II was also a "response to a

response." We should have talked to Hitler instead

of bombing the hell out of Germany, instead of landing in

Normandy. And the trials in Nuremburg? Wasn't that just

revenge?

Another "response to a response" that promotes bad will and

continues the "cycle of violence?"



Please quietly boycott this movie without giving it

publicity it doesn't deserve. Just quietly, spread the

word.

Most interesting, is that while the murder of Israel's

athletes in Munich was all too real, the "revenge" of

Israelis, Spielberg

admits, is entirely fictional, made up by a bunch of

political hacks looking for another way to slam Israelis for

their crime of trying

to survive.

My wife dragged me to see Narnia. Have to admit that I enjoyed it, there is some moral messages there that applied to todays world. Like Lord of the rings, it just convinced me that I "must" visit NZ South Island sooner than later.

The shortened version of the longer post is that Munich is not historically accurate (on the whole) and shouldn't be treated as such.