Tuesday, December 27, 2005
I'm sure this is a big misunderstanding. This fellow couldn't really be spurning a sincere hand of peace. I'm also certain that he, even more than the Mossad agents that bumped off his compatriots, must really, really regret what he did all those years ago, doesn't he?
After all, we all have similar goals and motivations, all we need to do is be sincere toward each other...or not.
Munich mastermind spurns Spielberg's peace appeal
GAZA (Reuters) - The Palestinian mastermind of the Munich Olympics attack in which 11 Israeli athletes died said on Tuesday he had no regrets and that Steven Spielberg's new film about the incident would not deliver reconciliation.
Mohammed Daoud planned the Munich attack on behalf of PLO splinter group Black September, but did not take part and does not feature in the film.
He voiced outrage at not being consulted for the thriller and accused Spielberg of pandering to the Jewish state.
"If he really wanted to make it a prayer for peace he should have listened to both sides of the story and reflected reality, rather than serving the Zionist side alone," [IOW, he should have continued our work for us. -S] Daoud told Reuters by telephone from the Syrian capital, Damascus...
...Several Israeli historians have also complained about what they see as a moral symmetry in the film between slain Olympians and the Palestinians assassinated by the Mossad spy service [At your service!].
"Spielberg showed the movie to widows of the Israeli victims, but he neglected the families of Palestinian victims," said Daoud. [Always the victims, even of this.] "How many Palestinian civilians were killed before and after Munich?"
Daoud used different terms.
"We did not target Israeli civilians," he said.
"Some of them (the athletes) had taken part in wars and killed many Palestinians. Whether a pianist or an athlete, any Israeli is a soldier." [Take note -- common definition of terms is basic to any communication.]...
... Though Israel allowed him to visit the occupied West Bank after 1993 peace accords, and Mossad veterans say the reprisals are over, Daoud said he feels he could still be targeted.
"When I chose a long time ago to be a revolutionary fighter I prepared to be a martyr. I am not afraid, because people's souls are in God's hands, not Israel's," he said. [All dressed up and no place to go.]
Daoud, you may recall, is the guy who said that Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) was the 'unwitting' fund-raiser for the Munich massacre.
The comment below is a bit of a spoiler. If you haven't seen the film, don't read further.
I saw Munich a couple of days ago, and I think that it was a subtly anti-Israeli movie. Although there are frequent flashbacks to the violence committed by the Munich attackers, and though there are references to further attacks by Black September, the film questions Israeli violence more forcefully.
When the Palestinian guerrilla talks about his desire to get Palestine back, even if it takes 100 years, our Israeli protagonist has no effective response to give him, and the Palestinian seems to carry the argument. The Palestinian's determination seems to be enough of a justification for his own actions. He has no second thoughts, no feelings for his victims. Quite the contrary, he has nothing but contempt for his victims. Yet the film does not invite us to condemn this guy.
On the other hand our protagonist, Avner, and some of his colleagues do question the endless violence. But they question only their own role in it, not that of their opponents.
That Spielberg questions the cycle of violence and suffering is understandable. That the Israeli protagonist is worried about his family is also understandable. But Spielberg seems to confuse questioning Middle East violence with questioning Zionism itself. The implication is that Zionism isn't worth it.
At the end, we get the sense that the film's hero, who was then in New York, will not go back to Israel. And the film seems to approve of his decision, something which I found very sad. Yet the film never questions the Palestinian's desires. I guess that Spielberg finds the Palestinian's goals are more worthwhile because they're more legitimate to begin with. Or he identifies with the Jews/Israelis so much that he is concerned with their morality and doesn't consider the moral ambivalence of the Palestinians.
Another sign of the film's moral confusion is the role of the old man whose family sells information. He is made out to be something of a philosopher, a sage who is above the fray. He had fought in the resistance, he refuses to deal with governments, he spouts all sorts of opinions. Yet he is someone who deals in death. Let's not forget that. We hear that he won't deal with governments. Big deal. Governments are not necessarily the worst actors out there in the world. They do nasty things and good things, and legitimate things. What clients does he deal with who are better than governments? Guerrilla groups, mostly. So that doesn't make him especially moral.
I didn't find the movie boring, though it began to drag toward the end. To me, it was a better-than-average Hollywood action flick that tried unsuccessfully to make a profound statement. The characters are thinly drawn so that we barely know them, the philosophy behind the film is confused, and most of the emphasis is still on action.
This is a forgettable film, but it may do some subtle harm during its run. Some viewers won't leave the film thinking that Palestinian radicalism isn't worth the endless violence. Or even that the fanaticism of the Israeli settlers isn't worth it. They'll leave thinking that the fight for Israel isn't worth it.
Thanks for that report, Joanne!
You're welcome! I'm glad I had an outlet to express my opinions; actualy, mine and those of my friend who accompanied me.
By the way, where I said "What clients does he deal with who are better than goverments," I should have said "...who are supposedly better than governments." (I'm not great on proofreading) My view is that he and his son are cheerfully dealing with terrorists but are *above* working with government agents. A dubious moral distinction, yet one that Spielberg seems to think is notable.
There is one other point that I forgot to mention, one that actually comes from my friend. With all the implicit criticism of Israel in the film, Spielberg doesn't address one overriding question: What else can Israel do? What are its other options in the face of an implaccable enemy? Actually, a lot of criticism of Israel (even criticism that has validity) fails to address that central point.
Another thing...sorry, more spoilers here:
There is a notation in the opening credits that the film is "inspired by" the real story. I would like to know how much of the account is based closely on fact.
* Was the Mossad team leader in real life as inexperienced as the one in the film (Avner)? Is it possible that Mossad would appoint someone like that for such important missions?
* Were some of the real-life Mossad team members as ill-trained as those in the film? For instance, a toymaker was hired to be the bombmaker on their missions. He had only disassembled bombs before, never made them. But he lied to Mossad and, wonder of wonders, they never checked him out. His incompetence caused most of the tragedies in the movie.
* Did these tragedies (the blinded newlywed, for instance) actually happen in real life? I heard that the only mishap was the death of an innocent Moroccan waiter in Sweden; he was mistaken for someone else.
* Did the actual team leader really become disillusioned by his role, as did Avner in the film. I heard that this wasn't the case. We may have a case here of Spielberg's words coming out of his protagonist's mouth in the film.