I can't criticize("Munich") until I've seen it, but this film has all the hallmarks of a high-handed, elitist, Hollywood view of foreign policy.
Got that? He can't criticize it until he sees it, but it's almost certainly a snobby, high-toned liberal piece of crap. America thanks you for your open mind, Ben.
Tony Kushner, the virulently socialist playwright and author of the homosexual propaganda piece "Angels in America," penned the screenplay to "Munich."
Nice use of the word 'virulent', there, to describe a guy who wrote a play about AIDS. And who is also a homo commie propagandist. I'm just positive Ben will enjoy this film!
He slanders the Israeli Defense Forces, snootily declaring, "I deplore the brutal and illegal tactics of the Israeli Defense Forces in the occupied territories … Jews, of all people, with our history of suffering, should refuse to treat our fellow human beings like that."
I'm not sure how calling the IDF 'brutal' constitutes slander; there's probably a lot of Palestinians who would testify as to their brutal tactics if they weren't dead. 'Illegal' is likewise non-slanderous if you ask the people who have found that the tactics of occupation forces violate international law. And I'm also sort of perplexed about what's snooty about saying the Jews, who have suffered in unprecedented ways, should be more keenly aware than anyone of the dangers of causing suffering in others. But what do I know? I'm not a Jew.
Allowing Kushner to write what will probably be seen as the definitive movie on the slaughter of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics is somewhat like allowing Ramsey Clark to write the definitive account of United States foreign policy in the Middle East.
ZING! Take that, Tony Kushner and Ramsey Clark! And Arabs!
This is the problem: Today's left, and the Hollywood left in particular, sees everyone as human.
Hitler was an individual; Hitler had a family. Presumably, Hitler's mother was fond of him as a child. Hitler had a woman who loved him. He liked animals. Does this make Hitler less of a demon? Does it make him more worthy of sympathy? It does not.
Hey, clever idea, there, Ben! Using Hitler in your comparison! That's really effective. No one could possibly argue with you now!
"Somewhere inside all this intransigence there has to be a prayer for peace," Spielberg explained. "Because the biggest enemy is not the Palestinians or the Israelis. The biggest enemy in the region is intransigence." In a sense, this is true -- but only in the same sense in which Polish intransigence in failing to immediately surrender to Hitler was the cause of World War II.
In case you're missing the nuance here, in this analogy, the government and military of the state of Israel are the Poles, and the Arabs of Palestine are the Nazis. But wait! Can Ben make this tragic, complex situation even more moronically monochromatic? You bet he can!
The Arab-Israeli conflict is not all that complicated, despite the "nuanced" gloss leftists like Spielberg wish to place upon it. One population, the Jews, wish to live in peace and security in their homeland -- and they have repeatedly demonstrated, to the point of insanity, their desire to be left alone (see Oslo Accords). Another population, the Arab population, wishes to throw the Jews out of their homeland and into the sea, and will brook no compromise in pursuit of that goal.
See? It's just that simple. The people of Israel, with their tanks, jet fighters, prison camps and military occupation, simple wish to live alone in peace, as evidenced by the Oslo Accords which they failed to sign. Whereas the Arabs are just a bunch of murdering genocidal swine who want to drown all the Jews in the ocean. So clearly, there is no nuance: it is simply a case of one side that is entirely good and one that is entirely evil.
Are there human beings on both sides? Of course there are. But every human conflict involves human beings. Only human beings are capable of moral evil, because only human beings are capable of moral choice. Evil doesn't make someone subhuman -- it makes them all too human in their decision to exercise free will in pursuit of wickedness. Just because we are all human does not mean all of our behavior deserves the same moral treatment.
Once again, in case you're missing the subtlety: just because the Palestinians are human doesn't mean they're not all evil, what with their "decision to exercise free will in pursuit of wickedness". And A, I might add, equals A.
There comes a time when the idle luxury of humanizing all forms of evil, reserved for elite members of Western countries, must come to an end. There comes a point when a moral choice must be made.
Ben, himself an elite member of a Western country, has never lived in Israel as a Jew or a Palestinian, but he nonetheless knows a moral choice must be made. Oddly enough, with all his analogies (snipped due to Godwin's Law) to Churchill, he doesn't seem to have noticed that Winston gave a number of speeches in which he took special care to mention that the Germans were not an evil people and that the German was not to be hated -- they were simply, if foolishly, fighting for an unjust cause and under the sway of evil and tyrannical leaders. (See also Lileks today, who notes that "Roosevelt didn't spend much time trying to convince us that Shintoism was a religion of peace" -- possibly, as Lileks fails to mention, because no one in their right mind thought that the war against Japan was a war on Shintoism.) Churchill's and Roosevelt's mature thought process are sadly out of vogue these days in the leadership of the U.S. and Britain (and, for that matter, Israel).
When we stare into the face of a Hitler, a Stalin, a Palestinian terrorist bent on murder, we must make that choice. If we do not, we fall into the same trap as Kushner and Spielberg -- for at some point, sympathy for evil is, in and of itself, evil.
Evil: Hitler, Stalin, Palestinians, Tony Kushner, Steven Spielberg. Who, let us never forget, painted such a sympathetic portrait of the Nazis in Schindler's List.