Replies

I just saw this movie last night, and I did NOT see all the so-called moral equivalency that people are screaming about

I saw an honest attempt to portray people as people

By the way, the movie makes it clear: THE JEWS ARE THE GOOD GUYS!! The Jewish soldiers and athletes are heros in the movie, show genuine bravery, spare the lives of innocents who could have been just shot dead with total acceptance for the situation but were spared due to a strong morality on the part of the Jewish Soldiers...

This movie is NOT some anti-semitic screed

Thanks for the ping, but no one said it was an anti-Semitic screed. It seems to be far more dangerous than that, softening our edges and appealing to our compassionate hearts, which want desperately to love everyone equally--in order to speak a lie. (I haven't seen the film. Going by Medved and others.) But I respect your take on it too. I am boycotting, otherwise I would go and judge for myself.

I just saw this movie last night, and I did NOT see all the so-called moral equivalency that people are screaming about.

"If we had not killed those people, what would have prevented Black September from continuing its reign of terror?" askes Michael Bar Zohar, co-author of "The Quest for the Red Prince," a 1983 book that deals with the Munich aftermath... (quoted in The Jerusalem Report, 1/9/06)

Spielberg again has warped the historical facts to fit into the Hollywood movie frame for a "blockbuster" ("Schindler's List" was another example). His movie does not argue the real issues that were involved, but SS's own sophomoric plot devices. You are the poorer for more than the cost of admission and your lost time, if you watched this as a basis for engaging yourself with a situation that demands our urgent attention.

I am willing to consider that point of view but for two issues. I read a review (Jason Apuzzo)that described the movie the way you did, but for the last half hour, which he described as a didatic polemic on moral equivalency and the intransigence of both sides. Is that innacurate?

Two, why did Spielberg choose Kushner who is openly hostile to the existence of a Jewish State?

The problem of moral equivalency is not the same as the disease of anti-Semitism. I don't know anyone who has faulted Spielberg for the latter. Nevertheless the tyrants of the world find the utopian naivete, the lack of moral clarity, and concommittant hubris of the Spielbergs of this world to be useful idiocy. I just find them dangerous.

It certainly wasn't antisemitic. I don't know that anyone has made that charge. I think the moral equivalence was certainly there, but much less of an issue to someone familiar with the events and with formed opinions. I thought the terrorists came of looking like terrorists. From what I've read, and no one can no, the concerns about their actions on the parts of the participants, particularly "Avner" are fabrications, as I understand it is his move to New York. He still lives in Israel, his dispute with the Mossad was purportedly about his compensation, and an unwillingness to continue in his Mossad role. Plenty of reasons unrelated to conscience for a decision like that. Family might be at the top of the list. For what it's worth, the Jonas book Vengeance isn't considered to be reliable. For an interesting look you might like reading COUNTERING TERRORISM: THE ISRAELI RESPONSE TO THE 1972 MUNICH OLYMPIC MASSACRE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDEPENDENT COVERT ACTION TEAMS . It's a masters thesis from the Marine Corps Command and Staff College. Also relies heavily on the Jonas book.