Munich, then and now

Reader Hugh S. sent me to this Spielberg interview with Der Spiegel about the film, Munich. The interview is pretty much what has already been said, with Spielberg insisting that he’s being misinterpreted, bullied, misunderstood, and attacked by — wait for it — “right-wingers.” Yeah, okay.

But that isn’t what I found interesting. Der Spiegel also decided to bring back the editorial they wrote after the Munich Massacre occurred. And I read this paragraph, written before the bodies had cooled:

The conflagration in the Middle East, prematurely thought to have been extinguished, was raging once again. Israeli bombers penetrated more deeply than ever into Syria, almost reaching the Turkish border. The extreme “Jewish Defence League” called for the murder of Arab diplomats. The Jewish state found itself once again fixated on the revenge that its political survival, but not its moral integrity, demands.

The Arab governments, halfway willing to compromise, again felt forced into at least a verbal solidarity — against the Jews and the Germans — with the Palestinians, whom they had already abandoned before.

What is missing from these statements is any Arab responsibility for the situation in the Middle East. Five years after the Six-Day War — five years after the infamous three no’s from the Arabs (No recognition of Israel. No negotiations with Israel. No peace with Israel.) — the damage had already been done. It wasn’t the terrorists’ fault. They were driven to it by Israeli actions. I’m sorry, Israeli “revenge,” because as everyone knows, retaliation is for everyone except the Jews.

Interesting reading, no? The more things change….

This entry was posted in Israel, Media Bias. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Munich, then and now

  1. Gary Rosen says:

    The Economist had an incisive review of “Munich” (surprising since they are usually none too fond of Israel). It had this great passage:

    “We are told the Palestinians carried out the Munich massacre but they are never portrayed doing anything unsympathetic. [One of them] could at least have been shown kicking his dog before he was blown up in bed.”

    Disclaimer: the above is paraphrased from memory but definitely not Dowdified, it accurately conveys what the Economist was saying.

  2. Jack says:

    People like simple black and white explanations. It is much easier for them to imagine a David versus Goliath situation than to look at layers upon layers of information and make a determination from that.

  3. Jim Wilkinson says:

    Here is an interesting article written by the authour of the book “Vengeance”. “Vengeance” was the story that Spielberg (loosley) based “Munich” upon.

    http://www.georgejonas.ca/recent_writing.cfm?id=382

Comments are closed.