Opinion  Others
Spielberg is no friend of Israel
Jack Engelhard
Published: 11.12.05, 15:35
Comment Comment
Print comment Print comment
Back to article
68 Talkbacks for this article
31. Speilberg
Hilda ,   US   (12.12.05)
Apparently Hollywood adulation has gone to his head. He is afraid to go against the liberal tide of Hollywood. With one movie he has wiped out all the good he has done with Shindler's List and his Shoah videos. Haval. he can't see the differences between murderers and justice.Steven Isreal never deliberately targetted innocents. If they inadvertently kill an innocent , they sincerely regret it and do everything to make things better.
32. Jack Engelhard = Propagandist
Schindler ,   USA   (12.12.05)
Israel, land thieves!
33. Spielberg's 'Munich': WILL HE FEEL GUILTY?
Judy Silver-Shapiro ,   California   (12.12.05)
I read this morning that Spielberg will go to Israel when 'Munich' opens, in mid-January. No doubt he will arrange to have Munich survivors, widows and children, et al accompany him, even though he never bothered to consult or interview any of them about Munich. This event changed their lives forever. He humanizes individuals whose sole purpose is to murder Jews, and make this a Jewless world! I recall that when 'Schindler' opened, students at a Castlemont High School in Oakland,Cal mocked the movie: Spielberg personally went and viewed the movie with the students, and they had what he called a "rap " session. In an interview this week, he announces a project where he will give 50 cameras to Israeli students and 50 to Palestinians, so in his own words, "they can see how parallel their lives are." This is pure fiction! Didn't he see the brutal carnage in Netanya last week? Then surely he knows that the Jews die. If any act of terror against a Jew anywhere occurs as a result of Spielberg and his Munich, how will he feel? WILL HE FEEL GUILTY? As for the personal attacks against Jack Engelhard: Read his bio. He has volunteered in the IDF, and he and his famiy are survivors.
34. RE:Munich
Rick ,   Philadelphia   (12.12.05)
I suppose you get a real kick out of seeing all these films and shows like "24" that depict those dirty Ay-Rabs as real nasty. Or, maybe you enjoy the "Sopranos" and all those dirty WOPS stereotypes, but make a Jew the bad guy and you're all up in arms. Like a Jew has never done anything wrong or bad to anyone else. Geez, enough of the victimization already!
35. What has he done for Israel?
Rick ,   Philadelphia   (12.12.05)
Why should he do anything for Israel? He's an American! You cannot serve 2 masters. I'm Catholic, does that mean I have to serve Italy?
36. Speilberg IS America's best storyteller
Tony ,   US   (12.12.05)
The UN Charter called for the creation of a TWO-state solution. Israel chose not to accept a Palestinian state, and in return neighboring Arabs refused to accept the 'nation' of Israel. And the rest, they say, is history. And some, like Speilberg, prefer to give us a glimpse of BOTH sides of the issue. I don't see how this makes Steve a "self-hating Jew".
37. Anti Jew, Spielberg ?
Joshua ,   NewYork   (12.13.05)
I am amazed at how quickly we all draw lines in the sand ( snow this time of year ) when someone says or portrays something that goes against the the larger grain. To say that Steven Spielberg is left wing is preposterous ( watch War of The worlds ) to say that he is going Hollywood is like saying George Bush is flirting with neo-conservatism. As Jews we shoulder the burden of compassion and empathy for our fellow man.. or at least we should try. have we learned nothing ?
38. Steven Spielberg is God
barnes ,   hollywood CA   (12.13.05)
39. Tony
Toni   (12.13.05)
The UN Charter called for the creation of a TWO-state solution. Israel chose not to accept a Palestinian state, and in return neighboring Arabs refused to accept the 'nation' of Israel. And the rest, they say, is history.
40. To 39
Shai ,   Israel   (12.13.05)
Just like that, huh? Very clever, and wrong. First, the Arab opposition to Israel didn't begin or end with any stance that Israel or Jews took to a UN Resolution. It started well before the UN and its Charter came into existence and continues to this day. If I recall, the Arab representatives all walked out of the UN Assembly when it became clear that Israel would be allowed into the UN. Not very hospitable, Toni. Next, The UN Charter says nothing about Israel or Palestine. You might want to read it. What you're probably referring to was the General Council Resolution proposing the partition into Jewish and Arab states, a Two State Solution, which the Jews accepted and the Arabs did not. Look it up, Toni. Still, General Council Resolutions carry no legal weight, and Israel's legal existence as a state, began with the armistice agreement following the Independence War in 1949. From then on, just as before, Arabs and their allies have been working to undermine Israel, not the reverse. The Arab League was, in fact, founded precisely to assist in this. And the rest, they say, is history. What I'd really like to see you defend, since you're such a history buff, how Palestinians got a right to be a country in any case. Montevideo conference? Why for example couldn't they just be Jordanians? Why another Arab state? I'm not arguing here that the Jews would get the West Bank for the moment. Rather, why specifically a Palestinian state? Try arguing a case on facts, not misunderstandings, Toni.
41. Steve Speilburg
Erik ,   Milwaukee, USA   (12.13.05)
Remember: It's not okay when it happens to Jews, but OKAY when they do it to someone else...
42. TO HILDA - US
Non-Moron ,   Florida   (12.13.05)
Hey Hilda, you said that "Isreal (sic)never targeted innocents" and that "if they inadvertently kill an innocent , they sincerely regret it and do everything to make things better." So what has Israel (note spelling) done to atone for the King David Hotel bombing (other than posthumously giving the bombers IDF medals), the Lavon Affair, or the USS Liberty attack? And isn't Israel guilty of massacring plenty of innocent Palestinians, even to the point of using the term "collective punishment?" Are you suggesting that 8-year old children are terrorists? It wouldn't bother me as much if you lived in Israel. But as you are American, I am troubled by your cavalier dismissal of Israel's countless atrocities. You ought to keep quiet until you have some more knowledge.
43. #34 Rick
(12.13.05)
11 Israeli athletes killed by Palestinian terrorists at the Olympics in Germany is not equal to simply "doing anything wrong or bad". Or maybe you were cheering; was that the case?
44. To non-moron moron #39
(12.13.05)
King David Hotel was a location of the British military headquarters. British at the time were engaged in acts of crimes against humanity against Holocaust survivors -- they sunk ships with Jewish children and other civilians on board -- all Holocaust survivors, and kept Jews incarcerated in concentration camps on Cyprus and other camps throughout Europe. British policy was blatantly anti-Jewish, just count the ##s of Jews hanged by the British in Palestine. Under those circumstances, you then consider British military personnel to be “innocent victims of terror?" Besides there was plenty of warning given in time to evacuate the hotel, only the British were too arrogant to listen. Study the history of 1945-1948 and you'll realize that while the world had been celebrating the peace, for the poor Jews of Europe, the war was still on-going condition -- they were still being kept behind the barbwire, with the machine guns in the observation towers being men by the British. As to the USS Liberty, check with your own government why that ship was shot at and there were no protests from your government -- and my hint: friendship was not the reason. Ask who they were spying for?
45. To Non-Moron (42)
Shai ,   Israel   (12.13.05)
1) King David Hotel - this was before Israel was a state. The Etzel paramilitary group, which was not under control of the Palmach (Israel's pre-state army), was responsible for this attack on the a British military office that was primarily manned by non-combatants. Etzel claims that their ethical obligation was to warn the people in the office in advance of the bomb, which they did (it was ignored). Nevertheless, given that Etzel's act was roundly criticized even though the British were our enemy at the time, what sort of atonement do you think is necessary? Why does this act of six decades ago hold us any more guilty than the British, whose capitulation to the Arabs caused the death of MILLIONS of my brothers and sisters? As for your other claim, provide proof of giving the bombers medals FOR THIS ACT rather than something else. 2) The Lavon Affair was five decades ago. It wasn't even made public for two decades after it happened. It was the brainchild of an Israeli double agent (supporting the Egyptians), and the people who most need apologizing to are the Egyptian Jews who were abandoned by Israel to rot in Egyptian prisons. Why do we need to atone to the Egyptians, who of all nations, were amongst the most anxious to wipe us off the face of the planet? 3. The USS Liberty was the subject of 10 investigations by the US government and 3 by the Israeli government. Each and every one of them concluded that the event occured because of a communications blunder. Israel paid compensation for their error as well, and DID apologize to the US Government. So what additional atonement to you require, Non Moron? 4. No, Israel is NOT guilty of massacring "innocent Palestinians". Yes, innocent Palestinians died, no doubt. But you ignore that we are at war with Palestinians, and no matter what we do, no matter what borders we pull back to, no matter what agreements we both sign, the Palestinians REFUSE to act like a normal state and take responsibility for itself. Israel, by way of atonement for Etzel, at least overpowered that military group and had one army when Israel became autonomous. In contrast, the Palestinians "even to the point of" not collecting weapons (as the agreed to do) or closing down the terrorist groups (as they agreed to do), continue to allow these bellicose forces to attack us. What the hell do you expect us to do, just sit there and let our kids and brothers and sisters get blown up in malls and allow them to lob missiles into our living room? I'm not sorry at all, Non Moron, for anybody who dies when they come to kill me. They can all go to hell until they're more afraid of me than they are of their own terrorists and actually do what they've promised to do. I frankly could give a damn whether there's a Pal state if I don't have secuirty, and I don't trust them at all based on their actions thusfar to give them anything else, not even the benefit of the doubt. Lastly, I'm not Jesus Christ and I have no obligation to die for you. I am not Judas and I have no obligaton to take the blame on behalf of him for my people for deeds we did not commit, whether it be for 2000 years or for 60 years or 50 years or 40 years. And I and Hilda have no obligaton to "keep quiet" while you offer your "cavalier dismissal" of the Palestinians "countless atrocities". If you're a non-Moron, non-Moron, earn the the moniker.
46. Spielberg's attitude towards the Jews
NS ,   Long Island, NY   (12.14.05)
One of the great ironies of this film is that in order to criticize it you have to see it. In order to see it you have to fork over $10 (or 40 Shekels) which will fatten the wallet of Spielberg. I will wait until it comes out on DVD and have my friend who works in Blockbuster Video give it to me for free. Anyway, lets review what we do know. Spielberg made a movie based on a book of questionable academic facts. He chose a screenwriter who questions the entire need for a state of Israel. He then gives an interview to Time Magazine where he basically says that Palestinian terrorism and the Israeli response are the same. David Brooks said it correctly in his Op-Ed piece in last Sunday's NY Times. Spielberg is a man with no moral compass. He literally can't tell the difference between good and evil. It is like he lives in a bubble where there is no Hamas or Islamic Jihad or Hizbollah and the President of Iran didn't make statements threatening to wipe Israel off the map. The terrorist attack in Netanya the other week; that just didn't happen. Finally, Spielberg's attitude towards Jews in his movies has always been alittle twisted. He can't deal with Jews as strong and independent people. Take a look at one of his earlier films "The Goonies". To be contrinued.
47. to Shai
Hilda ,   US   (12.14.05)
Shalom Shai and todah. You did a nice job of explaining things to that not moron. Of course he is no moron,Morons have an IQ of 90 and his must be under 50 which makes him an imbicile or idiot. The Liberty happened more than 25 years ago and US agrees it was an accident. What about the Cole? What about the American ambassador which the Palestinians murdred. What about the American peace convoy which the Palestinians abushed and bombed? I won;t even mention the marines in Lebanon etc etc etc. The stupid non moron started this and I m will make him eat his words.
48. Munich
Iain Campbell ,   Winnipeg, MB.   (12.14.05)
Kudos to Engelhard for deftly giving us a synopsis of the malaise that afflicts western culture and western liberal-democratic society. Our culture is indeed reflected in what Hollywood champions as social commentary. Islam persecutes, and Democrats, Jews, Christians, Animists, Bhuddists, Bahais and Hindus apologise. This culture of what Charles Moore calls pre-emptive self-abasement (before the altar of islamic fundamentalism) will only result in greater persecution of all non-muslim peoples. Just keep saying "sorry,"and perhaps they will not attack. Neville Chamberlain tried that tactic with European facism and it did not work. The same ploy will equally fail before the islamofascist bloc. Its time to wake up.
49. #37
Jane ,   New York   (12.14.05)
Compassion and empathy for our fellow man is one thing. Turhing a blind eye to the machinations of our enemies is another. The goodness we have within us should be extended where it is recognized and welcome and can spread for the benefit of many. To give it where it will be twisted and used against us is the activity of fools.
50. Shai
Jane ,   New York   (12.14.05)
You are a light unto the ignorant. Probably wasted on them, but much appreciated by me.
51. 216 Palestinian civilians killed
Joe Mani ,   Italy   (12.14.05)
less than 48 hours after the Munich killings in the Airport ....Israeli fighter jets bombed Ain El Hilwa refugee camp in southern Lebanon killing 216 unarmed inoccent Palestinians ,those poor Palestinians have any rights or even names ......not to forget the Palestinian poet who was killed in cold blood in the streets of Rome that same year ....he was never a threat to anyone he was killed for his views and his poetry ...of course the Mossad never take credit for these killings
52. Can we see the movie first?
Earl ,   USA   (12.14.05)
Guys, for how long are going to trust the media to conveniently supply you with opinions? The movie opens in 2 weeks! Maybe we need to see it first? I remember media branded Mel Gibson as Anti-Semite to his "Passion of the Christ". And when I saw the film I found out that the only good guys in the film were Jews(not all of them but it didn't have to be). Cudos to Mel Gibson. And let's see "Munich" first! I am Jewish by the way.
53. To 51
Shai ,   Israel   (12.14.05)
Let's assume your facts are correct about them being unarmed and innocent, and that the bombing took place as you said - I didn't check them. Is your concern that they were "unarmed" and "innocent", or that they were "Palestinian", or that the number was 216 or all of them? a) If it was that they were unarmed, were they targeted? b) If they were not targeted, were legitimate combatants targeted, and how many of them died, and who were they? c) If they were combatants, what were they doing shielding themselves with non-combatants? d) If combatants were killed, were Israeli lives saved by the action? e) If "unarmed innocent" Israeli lives were saved, are you claiming their value relative to "unarmed innocent Palestinians" is so low as to warrant no military reprisal that could result in Palestinian deaths? f) If the quantity of death is what concerns you, why focus on the Palestinians when there are hundreds of conflicts and famines you can focus on, especially those between or by Muslims, where many more than 216 died anonymously? Or why not focus on how Israelis just defend themselves better than Palestinians? (I assure you a lot more Israelis would be dead if we couldn't defend ourselves, but we would rather live than be called "poor"). I'll put it to you this way, Joe - war sucks. But this is a war. Non-combatants, or any human, should never die if we can help it. But you need to be a bit more realistic - you can't expect a military operation designed to save Israeli lives to ALWAYS be cancelled when terrorists embed themselves in civilian populations. The US and Britain are involved in many, many more such operations than we are and nobody says much about it, because the deaths are not "Palestinians", which you seem to think deserve protected status that nobody else deserves. It's a severe ethical problem, but in the end you have to defend your own and if you want to save "unarmed innocent Palestinians", then your focus should be dearming the uninnocent Palestinians who terrorize the Israelis, and whose organizations were to be dismantled by the Palestinian Authority, who ultimately are the targets of Israeli reprisals. It's impossible to be empathetic to the Palestinians when they REFUSE to take any responsibility for ANYTHING these groups do, because they believe that taking any move would result in fraternal conflict. Well, maybe they'll remain lily white for you while they kill my people and not their own, but to my mind they are cowards who cannot cower under poetry or "poor" or behind the skirts of terrorists and expect to end up unscathed. They expect us to do their dirty work for them. Well, we're doing it, and no thanks for fobbing off the obligation onto us.
54. 51- correct
(12.14.05)
And this is typical of jew propoganda- they are ALWAYS good and INNOCENT- never mind SHARON and his LEBANON massacre in 1982- or the torture the ISarelis jails do daily-etc etc. Jews should just move out of PAlestine and the whole war would go away.
55. To 54
Shai ,   Israel   (12.14.05)
No, rather your comment is typical of third-worldist Palestinian propaganda. You make the Jews guilty until the 100th generation for something they didn't do, like Christians did with the death of Jesus. It's typical Jew-hating, Jew baiting bullshit. The fact is that the massacre of 1982, Sabra and Shatilla, were committed by fellow Arabs, the Phalange militia, something that you ALWAYS ignore. The guilt by omission is something that we ourselves admitted to, and Sharon was censured for it for decades. It was a national blight, even this guilt by omission. I have ONCE to see an Arab country tortue itself over the ethics of the way it conducts war, noname. In the end, maybe the "Jew propaganda" is right. Compared to the Arabs, maybe we really are always good and innocent. Or, alternatively, maybe we're not always good and innocent. But what's clear, is two things: 1) it won't make a difference whether we move, the evidence from other Arab countries is that you'll torture each other and blame the Jews anyway, irrespective of where they live. 2) Compared to most Arabs and Muslims who are autonomous states, we're absolute saints.
56. Bad Form
Paul Wise ,   Novato, CA, USA   (12.16.05)
Making ad hominem attacks on the director without even having seen the movie? Bad form does not even BEGIN to describe this.
57. To David # 8- From My Hometown
Adina Kutnicki ,   NJ,US   (12.16.05)
As a fellow New Yorker may I take the liberty to suggest to you the following - if a Jew decides not to fall under the jack boot of political correctness, decides to tell the world that following the left wing script is not a good idea, and then decides to "out" those Jews who grovel for acceptance, then, consider me guilty. If you knew anything about Tony Kushner's views on Israel I suspect you might be a tad upset with yourself for championing him. Or, is it that you agree with his views? This "non self-hater" actually stated in several venues that the time has come for Israel to cease to exist. Do you have any idea what that means, for yourself included? As for Spielberg, his being the most successful director in Hollywood sans Munich is beside the point. Up until now he has walked a fine line between his Jewish roots and his Hollywood mental entrapments. Clearly he has decided to place himself squarely in the camp of those who see very little difference between the aggressors and the victims. No short supply of moral equivalence for Steven. You can put your lot in with him, afterall the US is a free country. However, be aware that a dhimmi status is not far off for those who grovel for the ultimate acceptance. One more suggestion. You should urgently read "The Oslo Syndrome:Delusions of a People Under Siege". You just might find someone you know described within its well documented pages. By the way, the bagels and lox remark is superfluous.
58. #56 Bad Form?
NS ,   Long Island, NY   (12.17.05)
Nobody wanted to pre judge Spielberg but he is the one that opened the door giving interviews to Time Magazine and have previews shown to "select" members of the press. If you don't want to be prejudged don't publicize your opinions. Anyway Spielberg has always had trouble looking at Jews as anything other than weak victims of the world. Even the movie "Goonies" shows the fat, weak little Jewish kid called Chunk being captured by the bad guys and needing the strong Aryan Christian friends to save him. "Schindler's List" goes without saying with the strong blond Christian man saving the small little Jews. At least Schindler was based in fact and he was a righteous Gentile. In "Saving Private Ryan" the death scene of the Jewish soldier played by Adam Goldberg really shows his sick demented side. If you remember Goldberg was knifed by an SS soldier who slowly stuck the bayonet in him while singing German lullabies to him. The bottom line Spielberg has some serious problems. The only people I feel sorry for because of this movie are the victims of terrorism and the thousands of Jewish students who are fighting uphill battles on numerous campuses around the world against the forces of hate. This movie will be a main fundraising device of every Muslim/Arab student organization.
59. #58 - Yes, bad form
Paul Wise ,   Novato, USA   (12.18.05)
Here's the thing: I don't care what you think of the director. I am not interested in what you think of Steven Spielberg. Doing interviews for magazines in an effort to build excitement for your movie, and having press screenings for those whom you think will generate favorable reviews for your movie is standard practice. Movie making is, in fact, a business. For all the artistry of movie-making, if a movie does not make money, from a business perspective, it has failed. If what you heard in the interviews, or from those who saw the advance screenings interests you, go see the movie. If it doesn't, then don't. But making personal attacks on the director without even having seen the film only makes you appear petty. Heck, making personal attacks on the director WITH having seen the film ALSO makes you seem petty. Remember also that a movie is not about what it's about - it's about how it's about it. A movie's treatment of its material is far more important than the material itself. In any case, I have not seen Munich, and unless you are one of those few members of the press who were shown an advance screening, neither have you. Claiming that this movie will be a main fundraising device of every Muslim/Arab student organisation is not only baseless, it is cowardly. The trailers and interviews may give you a fairly good idea what the movie is about, but how it's about it makes all the difference in the world. Judge the movie on its merits as a movie, or else don't pretend that you have a worthwhile, informed opinion to share about it.
60. joan peters" from time immemorial"
bob ,   l.a., calif   (12.22.05)
WHEN will people start reading the one book that solves everything??? "from time immemorial" by joan peters you want a solution? try benny elon's "right road to peace"..... nuff said
Previous talkbacks
Next talkbacks
Back to article