Munich is really an attack on Bush and his anti-terrorist policies but of course Stevie had to use Israel as a cover because he thought the Israelis would kiss his ass because of Schindler's List. Well Speilberg was wrong and I'm glad that the Israelis, both on the left and right, saw his film for what it was. If Speilberg was a real man he would make a movie that really attacked President Bush and his war on terror like Michael Moore.

They were actually entertaining. On a related note, why did Spielberg make ET look like a cross between a turd and an aborted fetus?

I guess most people posted here without actually SEEING the movie because I was against the movie as well, before I saw it. The film wreaks with what is known to our enemies as "Zionist propaganda". I mean come on...the scene with Avner and his mother. Speilberg in no way casts a negative light on Israel but rather poses a very tough question to the world and especially to Israelis : How do we deal with terrorists? I guess because so many Israelis were convinced for so long that there is no way to deal with them, they took offense to the fact that an american would have the gall to ask such a gutsy question. This is complicated by the fact that he also gives us a dose or two of the palestinian propaganda (to be fair to both sides). But as I said on my previous post he in NO WAY makes them look like the good guys. I saw the film with a friend of mine, a staunch right-winger ,and we both thought the movie was fair to both sides(although as far as historical accuracy we can never be sure, after all we're talking about the mossad). Watch the movie carefully people, before you shoot off at the mouth. #29 : You read 1 interview by Ofer Shelah (which has nothing to do with party politics) and you're sure that he's a Meretz voter... Don't be stupid...Go read some more of his political commentary and you will see he is as right as it gets....Constantly attacking the left...Just another example of someone jumping to conclusions.

First, the paragraph I quoted is indeed political: hinting that the criticism on Spielberg is exaggerated, implies that the moral comparison between terrorists and Mossad agents is legitimate, and that implies, that our fight against terrorism makes us no better than the terrorist themselves. Trust me, I've read enough columns by Ofer Shelach to know exactly what I'm talking about. There is no way on earth he is "as right as it gets", I'm afraid you are deeply misinformed. I advise you to read the following examples: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3188643,00.html (read especially the last paragraph) http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3101532,00.html http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-2850649,00.html Enjoy.

Maybe it's just me, but I thought the movie sucked. Granted, I thought a much better movie could have been made about the actual events of Munich (I mean, hell, why else would you use that title), such as the attack by Black September, the fact that the Olympics went on despite these events, and the series of incessant IOC and German screw-ups that contributed to the deaths the hostages. There's plenty of material in that alone to fill up two, very entertaining hours. And an audience could be captivated by...stay with me here...sticking to the facts of a historical event (shocker!). Despite this, I was subjected to one of the most boring movies to get Oscar buzz since . . . well . . . "AI" (another Spielberg success...; Haley Joel Osmand, how could you???). After checking my watch five times, I almost walked out. What a snoozer. So yeah, the self-pity directing, the justified criticism, the whiny Speilberg response ("But I really like Israel. I promise!") Expected it and heard it all. And I thought it was hilarious that "Vengence," the book the movie was based on, ended up being as truthful as "A Million Little Pieces." Nevertheless, at the end of the day, I have one response: I want my $9 and two-and-a-half hours of my life back.

Joining you in all your claims! Mr. Spielberg, invoking his Jewishness, his Rabbi and his commitment to die for Israel, adds-up to a pathetic whining little baby in need of appeasement and and a desire to be liked by everybody in the kindergarten...A wonder he didn't also bring his mother Leah's Kosher deli, in L.A., as another testimony of his ertshile love of his brethren in Israel and his struggle to do justice by the Israeli Athletes...Presumably, that kind of love of his, is closely associated with an incontrollable sexual urge - for how elese can he explain the last scene, where Avner, humping his wife, is remembering his murdered countrymen...Nothing short of disgust could accompany this scene...Spielberg baby, go back to your hi-class West L.A. schul, where your large monetary donations earn you the star status you like to wallow in - but do leave history, philosophy and spirituality alone. In those arenas, you earned the status of a "gornisht."

1)When Shelah implies that criticism in Israel of his movie is exagerrated do you think that is wrong. Just look at some of the posts written here, many of which contain the word "traitor". If anything it only implies that Israelis are too critical of people who have a political message and are not Israeli. 2) WHAT COMPARISON !?!?I mean, come on, have you actually seen the movie..? The movie does NOT draw any moral comparisons between the Mossad agents and the PLO terrorists. That is NOT the question the movie raises. Perhaps you were stoned or drunk when you saw the movie..? Maybe both..? 3)All those articles do not really show Shelah as leaning towards any political party or ideology. In fact, I was glad to read them because now I know that Shelah is actually more centrist and objective than I thought. However, I distinctly recall an article he posted on the English site attacking everybody on the left from Peretz to Meretz... He is NOT a left-wing journalist.

Avner's scene with his mother was nothing short of ridiculous..How can anyone see Gila Almagor 's(finally represented in what can be only viewed as her authentic average Israeli a "Polaniyah"), spouting of slogans which sounded as if they were lifted straight of off some ancient pamphlets issued by Aliyah centers from the 50's, as the epitome of Spielberg's sympathy for Israel? This scene was one of the biggest turn-offs in that movie - which was otherwise, simply boring.

Maybe you didn't see the moral equivalence in the movie because you didn't want to see it or are too dumb to see it. Besides that issue, there were so many parts of Munich that were offensive including the hero's decision to abandon Israel for a more fulfilling life in Brooklyn and the movie's refusal to acknowledge the historical, spiritual, physical, and religious attachment of thJewish people to Israel. That's right. There are some Jews who are spiritually attached to Israel. However, Spielberg's whining and and lying interview take the cake. If he really believes that criticism of Munich is primarily from right-wing fundamentalists, then I would like him to define what he means by that term. Probably, he defines those who are right-wing gundamentalists as those people who don't agree with Kushner's sadness at Israel's existence.

1. Most of the comments here are very legitimate (24 is a great examle). Even the "angrier" comments do make a lot of sense. It is very easy to cling to the few provocative ones to make your point. You cannot shut out criticism by saying all the critics are exaggerating and ungrateful. 2-3. Thank you, but I don't need your diagnosis about my sobriety, as I actually never get stone drunk. As for the movie, when it shows the agents as killers much like the terrorists, it does make a moral equivalence. If you can't make this conclusion yourself, and if you can't make the coclusion that Ofer Shelach is a big leftist from the articles I gave you - then the only way to describe you is Kshe-havana, I'm sorry if I'm blunt. Any further argument on would be redundant and pointless.

Let's understand what this interview was all about. Spielberg's movie was a financial disaster in Hollywood terms. It only made back the money he spent on it and he knows that only way it will make a profit is thru rentals and purchases of the DVD. In order for that to happen, Spielberg must win something at the Academy Awards in two weeks. So far, because of the strong movies such as "Brokeback Mountain", "Capote" and "Good Night and Good Luck" he is in danger of going 0 for 5 that night. Therefore, he must mend fences with the Israel and the Jewish Community in America. Hence the interview in Yediot. Chevre it was a bad movie. Let teach Spielberg a lesson and not fatten his wallet anymore than it already is. A little humility might make a man out of him.

Many of you people are only reinforcing one the points Spielberg was trying to make in this interview. You're viewing the article and the film from such an extreme point of view that you won't even acknowledge a contrary opinion. If you were a little more open-minded, you might be able to see that a differing perspective isn't a threat unless you make it one, as so many of you obviously have. Many of you also make Spielberg out to be some sort of devil, and instead of actually thinking about what he has to say in response to the criticism of Munich, you continue to ignorantly dismiss it all as baseless nonsense. I'd suggest trying not to let you're prejudices get in the way of seeing the film for what it is and furthering your understanding of it and Spielberg's point of view. I respect everyone's right to freely speak their mind, but I think that in the future, you all should take a step back, truly listen, and maybe learn a thing or two before so venomously attacking somone for no reason beyond reinforcing your own personal biases.

He is one of those joews hating jews.

No filmmaker (or artist in general) living today has done more for Jews and Israel as Steven Spielberg. He's made Schindler's List, he's created SHOAH - and in Munich he reflected his fears, his doubts, his beliefs about the complex world we live in, about terrorism and about the very human doubts about what can and should be done. It is first and foremost a humanistic film, more akin to Saving Private Ryan in that it tells the story of ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances that desperately try to preserve their humanity. Meanwhile, there hasn't been ONE Israely movie about neither the Holocaust or the threat of terrorism. As a Jew, I'm ashamed of the way the Israelish and Jews in US have treated him. Ungrateful and cruel!

I haven't seen neither you nor any other Israely make a film about terrorism or Holocaust for that matter. Instead you criticise the only man who does. Shame on you!

I have a great movie idea for this "gifted" director:make a movie called "Bagneux",after the town in France,where the beginning would be the murder of Ilan Halimi,zihrono livraha,but then switch to the guys responsibles for finding Yosef Foufana,imah chemo vezihro,who would slowly discover that since the murderes of the gang have families,feeling,sentiments,problems in their life (he could even invent a so innocent little sister to fofana,of course dressed in red),it would be so wrong to punish them,and draw an equivalence between the tortured victim and his murdered.That would prove the whole world how open minded and intelligent he is.Obviously,someone need to get over his desperate jealousy of Martin Scorsese (who,as a matter of fact,cared so much about accuracy while preparing the last temptation of christ that he visited Israel several times,probably more than Spielberg anyway,to make sure he wouldn't offend anyone from that point of view).The murder of Ilan is there to remind us that they will never,never,never like us,so Steven,stop trying to pleasing them and join finally the good side,please.

Well 0 for 5! Way to go Steven. Next time you want to tell the story of the State of Israel or the Jewish People here is a bit of advice; FACTS! FACTS! FACTS!