With tidbits of James Risen's newest critique disguised as a book hitting the press, numerous questions should arise. Did the New York Times withhold the story in order for Mr. Risen to complete his book? Will the Democrats begin to squash the book because of the book's revelations that the Clinton administration knew Iran was working with the Russians on a nuclear arms program AND DID NOTHING TO STOP IT?
If that last statement makes any resonance at all, then Senator Clinton may have some explaining to do. After all, when Bill Clinton ran for President, wasn't it with the idea that we would get a "two-for-one" deal? Every American knows that Hillary was aware of everything going on in the Oval Office. Well, nearly everything that is.
Risen's latest contribution to the Bushwhacking strategy could very well result in special investigations with journalists being called to testify and asked to reveal their sources whom Risen describes as patriotic but will keep them anonymous.
If Mr. Bush did anything illegal or criminal, isn't he given the Constitutional right to confront his accusers?
Although unread by this writer, it will be interesting to see how accurate and well researched is Mr. Risen's book. Skeptics might be a little bit leery about journalists writing books these days; especially books written by New York Times reporters and affiliates. Seems the Times has a little bit of a credibility problem of late.
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Friday, January 06, 2006
Spielberg and Munich
Will The World Go Silent?
From an artistic and cinematographic perspective, Steven Spielberg’s Munich is good. From a historic and political perspective, Munich is discursive and distorted.
Perhaps Mr. Spielberg would have been more accurate if he had issued a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie that this was a work of fiction and overgeneralization as well as glorification of the Palestinian causes. Throughout the movie, Spielberg goes to great pains to portray the Palestinian cause as justified. Depicting the Palestinians as the victims rather than the perpetrators of terrorism manifests the different standard used to judge Israel than those used to judge the Arab world. Why are Palestinians allowed to use terrorism to kill and torture innocent victims, but Israel is portrayed as evil and wicked for hunting down and killing those responsible for Olympic murders in 1972?
Spielberg painted a very different picture of Prime Minister Golda Meir than history records. In reality, Meir was absolutely adamant that Israel would extract retribution “at the time and place of Israel’s choosing” for the Munich slaughters, but not in Spielberg’s world. Spielberg’s Munich did not show outrage at the Olympic murders. Instead, Spielberg joins in the anti-Semitic accusation of painting the Israeli behavior as cosmic, satanic evil.
Maybe Mr. Spielberg should do some reading other than George Jonas’ Vengeance which has been reviewed as a biased and inaccurate book. One excellent source for Mr. Spielberg to consult is Bernard Lewis who maintains that “hatred and persecution are a normal part of the human experience”. Spielberg could read Jessica Stern, an expert on terrorism, to get a better understanding that terrorism cannot be negotiated with because they are blinded by their narrow perspective. Mr. Spielberg should read Walter Laqueur’s The New Terrorism to understand the fanaticism of the Islamic jihadists.
If it would help Mr. Spielberg, perhaps he should think of terrorists as bullies in a neighborhood. The truth is bullies only understand reality and not negotiations and pacifism.
From an historic perspective, Mr. Spielberg would be better served had he reviewed the Munich Pact of 1938 which promulgated an anti-Semitic environment not only in Germany but throughout the Middle East. Mr. Spielberg also needs to review the actions and policy of the Arab League in December 1947 which vowed to use all means at their disposal including armed intervention to stop the creation of the state of Israel. Like Mr. Spielberg, the UN and the world did not react nor criticize the Arab League. The world went silent.
The creation of the state of Israel in 1948 brought an Arab League agreement to destroy Israel. The world did not react nor criticize the Arab League. The world went silent.
Spielberg’s Munich portrays the right of nations to defend itself and its people as evil and immoral. There is a line in the movie about homes and families being costly, but Spielberg failed to grasp the significance of that poignant statement. Home---a nation---is costly. Freedom is costly. Israel is more keenly aware of the cost of freedom than other nations. It is surrounded by enemies who have vowed to destroy Israel and wipe her from the face of the earth. That alone justifies Israel’s right to avenge the Munich killings.
Under the law of nations, nations have the right to defend themselves from those nations and groups that threaten their existence. In 1972, Palestine was not considered a nation so Israel did not have to respond by the Geneva Convention. Unlike Palestine, Israel does meet the criteria for being a nation, and thus, has the right and the moral obligation to protect and defend not only its nation but more importantly its people.
Too bad Mr. Spielberg has fallen under the influence of those who oppose Israel’s rights as a nation. Too bad Mr. Spielberg has chosen to support the Palestinian cause and terrorism. Too bad Mr. Spielberg has chosen to portray Israel as evil. Too bad Mr. Spielberg’s Munich is not only politically inaccurate, but is also historically inaccurate. Too bad Mr. Spielberg advocates a different standard for judging Israel than used to judge the Palestinian movement. Too bad Mr. Spielberg does not understand history.
Israel’s very existence depends on her right to protect itself from terrorists who have pledged their life to destroying Israel. Too bad Mr. Spielberg doesn’t understand that how Israel goes determines freedom in the world. Too bad Mr. Spielberg just doesn’t get it in Munich.
From an artistic and cinematographic perspective, Steven Spielberg’s Munich is good. From a historic and political perspective, Munich is discursive and distorted.
Perhaps Mr. Spielberg would have been more accurate if he had issued a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie that this was a work of fiction and overgeneralization as well as glorification of the Palestinian causes. Throughout the movie, Spielberg goes to great pains to portray the Palestinian cause as justified. Depicting the Palestinians as the victims rather than the perpetrators of terrorism manifests the different standard used to judge Israel than those used to judge the Arab world. Why are Palestinians allowed to use terrorism to kill and torture innocent victims, but Israel is portrayed as evil and wicked for hunting down and killing those responsible for Olympic murders in 1972?
Spielberg painted a very different picture of Prime Minister Golda Meir than history records. In reality, Meir was absolutely adamant that Israel would extract retribution “at the time and place of Israel’s choosing” for the Munich slaughters, but not in Spielberg’s world. Spielberg’s Munich did not show outrage at the Olympic murders. Instead, Spielberg joins in the anti-Semitic accusation of painting the Israeli behavior as cosmic, satanic evil.
Maybe Mr. Spielberg should do some reading other than George Jonas’ Vengeance which has been reviewed as a biased and inaccurate book. One excellent source for Mr. Spielberg to consult is Bernard Lewis who maintains that “hatred and persecution are a normal part of the human experience”. Spielberg could read Jessica Stern, an expert on terrorism, to get a better understanding that terrorism cannot be negotiated with because they are blinded by their narrow perspective. Mr. Spielberg should read Walter Laqueur’s The New Terrorism to understand the fanaticism of the Islamic jihadists.
If it would help Mr. Spielberg, perhaps he should think of terrorists as bullies in a neighborhood. The truth is bullies only understand reality and not negotiations and pacifism.
From an historic perspective, Mr. Spielberg would be better served had he reviewed the Munich Pact of 1938 which promulgated an anti-Semitic environment not only in Germany but throughout the Middle East. Mr. Spielberg also needs to review the actions and policy of the Arab League in December 1947 which vowed to use all means at their disposal including armed intervention to stop the creation of the state of Israel. Like Mr. Spielberg, the UN and the world did not react nor criticize the Arab League. The world went silent.
The creation of the state of Israel in 1948 brought an Arab League agreement to destroy Israel. The world did not react nor criticize the Arab League. The world went silent.
Spielberg’s Munich portrays the right of nations to defend itself and its people as evil and immoral. There is a line in the movie about homes and families being costly, but Spielberg failed to grasp the significance of that poignant statement. Home---a nation---is costly. Freedom is costly. Israel is more keenly aware of the cost of freedom than other nations. It is surrounded by enemies who have vowed to destroy Israel and wipe her from the face of the earth. That alone justifies Israel’s right to avenge the Munich killings.
Under the law of nations, nations have the right to defend themselves from those nations and groups that threaten their existence. In 1972, Palestine was not considered a nation so Israel did not have to respond by the Geneva Convention. Unlike Palestine, Israel does meet the criteria for being a nation, and thus, has the right and the moral obligation to protect and defend not only its nation but more importantly its people.
Too bad Mr. Spielberg has fallen under the influence of those who oppose Israel’s rights as a nation. Too bad Mr. Spielberg has chosen to support the Palestinian cause and terrorism. Too bad Mr. Spielberg has chosen to portray Israel as evil. Too bad Mr. Spielberg’s Munich is not only politically inaccurate, but is also historically inaccurate. Too bad Mr. Spielberg advocates a different standard for judging Israel than used to judge the Palestinian movement. Too bad Mr. Spielberg does not understand history.
Israel’s very existence depends on her right to protect itself from terrorists who have pledged their life to destroying Israel. Too bad Mr. Spielberg doesn’t understand that how Israel goes determines freedom in the world. Too bad Mr. Spielberg just doesn’t get it in Munich.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
