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
1. Munich
sw ,   israel   (12.11.05)
Read NY Times columnist David Brooks today as he finds Speilberg's movie lacking in understanding of the nature of terrorism. Speilberg doesn't recognize the difference in blowing up people in a mall in Netanya versus the self defence methods of the IDF
2. Disgraceful Betrayal By Spielberg
Adina Kutnicki ,   NJ,US   (12.11.05)
The very fact that Tony Kushner was chosen for this project speaks to its message and intent. Simply put, it is awful news for Israel. Kushner is an open self hating Jew and a rabid antizionist. If Spielberg was not looking to go Hollywood, and not seeking to create moral equivalence when there is none, he NEVER would have tasked Kushner for the most important job in the film. No matter how hard he spins it and how hard his handlers spin it, this movie was meant to "humanize" the killers. That is, to show that even killers are "real people too". He also wanted to show self doubt in the Mossad's rightness of its mission. Rumor has it that they were not even consulted on this film. Disgraceful betrayal by another Jewish Hollywood "elite".
3. He has made a fair movie therefore he must be an anti-Semite
accessol ,   Spelthorne, England   (12.11.05)
Know matter what contortions an artist of writer or politician might do to prove their Zionist credentials, what burning hoops they might have jumped through to prove their solidarity with the settlers, let them just once in their life say a single word in favour of a fair solution to the disaster brought upon humanity by the Zionists, and they immediately become, like Jack Straw, like Spielberg and a thousand others either rabid anti-Semites of despicable selt-hating holocaust denying renegades or both.
4. Spielberg is a friend of Israel
Michael ,   Haifa   (12.11.05)
Spielberg gives hundreds of millions of dollars to Jewish or Israel related causes. Engelhard is obviously an envious guy that feels inferior as an artist as well as morally to Spielberg. What did Engelhard do for Israel and the Jewish people ? Nothing. His views are contradictory since he is telling us that Spielberg is doing a politically correct film. First he is a liar since he hasn't seen the film.He doesn't know anything about the film.He doesn't bother to review the film.He doesn't even bother to say he has seen the film. Second ,the film is obviously not politically correct since from the moment the film was announced ,it has created a lot of controversies from all the political spectrum. No feature film , except a few mediocre TV films and Exodus decades ago, has been made in the US about Israel.Spielberg is the first and only one.He is ballsy. Ilana Romano , widow of a murdered athlete, has praised the film highly. Spielberg is a victim of his genius and courage.
5. Munich
Joe Levy ,   USA   (12.11.05)
Everyone should write and call the company that developed the movie and express our disagreement at the movie. I will not waste my money to see it.
6. Stay home or ...
DC ,   Jerusalem, Israel   (12.11.05)
...go see King Kong with me.
7. Bizarre Fantasy World of the Right
David ,   New York   (12.11.05)
In the world of Adina Kutnicki and friends, Jews as human beings are unfeeling automatons in the service of her ideology, and if they fail in this mission, or if an artist portrays even the slightest human doubt, this to her is a betrayal, by both of them. How utterly absurd. And how utterly sick and twisted. She lives in a world where Tony Kushner, loved and celebrated by the Jewish community in the United States, is "an open selfhating Jew and a rabid antizionist." She lives in a world where Spielberg is "looking to go to Hollywood." Adina, my dear, Spielberg is already the most successful and famous director ever. And if you're so concerned about being Jewish Adina, why don't you start by observing some precepts of Judaism? What are you so worked up about - protecting bagels and lox from the anti-semites and self-haters you see everywhere? We're in psychiatrist territory here. While Spielberg and Kushner may have betrayed Adina, they haven't betrayed their millions of (Jewish) fans. I suggest the following: Adina and her pals (perhaps 1% of the Jewish people) should go off to an island where they shriek hysterically about how they've been betrayed by every Jew they want, from Ariel Sharon to Tony Kushner. The rest of us will continue to live our lives in the real world, and be the Jews we want to be.
8. Thank you Jack!
9. Kushner not a self hater but
David ,   NY, USA   (12.11.05)
He is a person who mythologizes Jewish history pre 1948. In his opinion, Israel destroyed the Jewish world that came before it, and this he sees as highly regrettable. He will try to show in this film that turning Judaism into a state form opened us up to all the problems of a state. I guess tony would have us go back to a time when we were perpetually victims, living in ghettos in countries that hated us.
10. Betrayal???
Daniel ,   Yerushalayim   (12.11.05)
So the murdered athletes' family members have praised the movie, but to Adina it's a betrayal? Does this woman know no bounds?
11. Sour Grapes From A Loser
Daniel ,   Yerushalayim   (12.11.05)
This article is full of sour grapes because the guy's latest book got turned down. It's so obvious he should make that his title: "Sour Grapes." "The Largest of them all put together." Whatever. And what has he done for the Jewish people or Israel? Write "Indecent Proposal?" OR maybe he has given millions of dollars to Jewish causes, like Spielberg? Or maybe not...
12. Accessol&Kushner
imdb ,   san jose,usa   (12.11.05)
opinions are like ah's. Everybody has one. Mssr's Accessol&Kushner love theirs. 'Kushner "married" his boyfriend Mark Harris, editor at large of Entertainment Weekly; they were the first gay couple to be featured in The New York Times' "Vows" column.'
13. Hey, if Gibson could make a killing with "Passion" why not
AK   (12.11.05)
Spielberg with "Munich." Gibson is now making a "Holocaust" flick and Spilberg can donate a million to Israeli left, to "redeam" his soul. P.S. Relatives of the murdered Israeli athletes don't own a copyright on truth by virtue of their loss, over 30 years ago.
PILPELET ,   H ISRAEL   (12.11.05)
15. Megalomania
has entangled Steven very sad
16. Spielberg is no friend of Israel
A Atkinson ,   Ballyclare, Northern   (12.11.05)
I suggest that the name Spielberg be substituted in the above article with the name Tony Blair, the name Palestinians be replaced with Provisional IRA and the name Israeli Secret Services be replaced with RUC. What is unfolding in Israel is a mirror image of the capitulation to terrorism in Northern Ireland by Tony Blair and the unrevealed rewarding of Hamas terrorists.
17. So Engelhard hasn't seen the film?
LifeOfBrian ,   U.K.   (12.12.05)
I guess this means we no longer have to see/read/hear a work of art in order to judge it. It'll certainly save time. It means I won't have to read any of Engelhard's books for a start. But I can still call them rubbish! How great is that?! Engelhard states that according to Munich 'there isn't much difference...between killers and avengers.' But actually what the film seems to be positing is that there isn't much difference between THE EFFECTS of killers and avengers. Blood breeds blood. Nothing changes. I'm bemused by this accusation of moral equivalency. Surely by showing the psychological toll that the killings have on the Mossad agents Spielberg is already providing a definite moral difference between them and the terrorists – is there such a thing as a terrorist who feels guilt or pity or doubt? It is in that guilt, that pity and that doubt that Spielberg seems to be drawing a clear moral boundary between the killers and the avengers. Ironically if Spielberg had shown the Mossad agents as Engelhard would have us see them - ruthless, unflinching, without pity - that in itself could be viewed as a kind of moral, or at least behavioural, equivalency with the terrorists. It's swings and roundabouts. But these are the kinds of issues we SHOULD be talking about and I'm certain it was part of Spielberg's plan to get people thinking about this problem. Ultimately I don't think the answer is as important as asking the question.
18. schpielzakh mit david & spielberg
yaakov ,   New Zealand   (12.12.05)
yeah shalom brother david, we are jews and our trademark is arguing and debating not blindly believing everything we are conditioned to. these folks who get so anal about a fairly objective and in fact pro-israel (albeit apologetically, with reason) director's film mirror the one-minded, fanatical adherence to regressive, idiotic and paranoiac ideologies common to their supposed "nemeses", fascist anti-semites and fascist islamists. it is always the liberal artist who tries to portray an honest view of reality or history who is slandered by the little suckling pigs of goebbels' and stalin's propaganda. if you are so angry at "lefty" artists, maybe you should reconsider your opinion the planet's most under appreciated right wing "artist"/"philosopher", you-know-who... Adolf Shitler!
DACON9 ,   OUT LIST   (12.12.05)
20. Spielberg, Terrorist Sympathizer
Linda Rivera ,   New York   (12.12.05)
In Yitzhak Benhorin's article, Spielberg declares that, "he is proud Munich doesn't demonize either side. They're individuals, they have families." Apparently, Mr. Spielberg doesn't consider the kidnapping and murder of 11 Israelis to be wrong and evil. Mr. Spielberg is using his movie as a very powerful tool to influence moviegoers that there is nothing wrong with kidnapping and murdering Israelis. Mr. Spielberg is a dangerous man.
21. way to go SPIELBERG
ISAREL_USA   (12.12.05)
I was so afraid he may have made some pro- jew racist flick about how perfect jews are and how evil arabs are- . i guess I underestimated him- -hats off.
22. You got what you voted for
richard Hitchings ,   methil   (12.12.05)
why is it that 'To critisise Isrreal' is regarded as anti-semitisim.... Is it that Isreal is so insecure? or maybe imature? why cant israelis have a proper look at their own country.... and make the necessary critisisims ... that any mature country would do in order to go forward..... Why do Israelis choose under a democratic system... a Flawed war- monger to lead them.. I would like to remind Israelis that Hitler came to power not through Dictatorship, ..... he came through to lead under democracy..... Israelis have given the mandate for Sharon to ensure that the world hate Israel and for the world to be happy for its destruction...... You got what you voted for
23. #11
Dorothy Friend ,   Tel Aviv   (12.12.05)
I agree. Perhaps the writer of the article would like a little cheese with his whine.
24. Interesting things about Engelhard's original story
Dorothy Friend ,   Tel Aviv   (12.12.05)
25. Its quite logical, if he would have told the truth, fatwa!
Ignacio ,   Zaragoza, Spain   (12.12.05)
Considering the killing habits of the muslim side of this story, its quite logical to make this film this way. The ironical point of view is that currently, Europe is to turn islamizied soon, so in a matter of 10 years maximum, this same "peace, solidarity" and leftist nosenses are to be chanted at Europe's doors. What I do not get is why arabs and leftist can be antisemitic while all you do is stuff about the Holocaust. Antisemitism exists, and its here, it does not come from the left, and its time for you to expose it.
26. If he has problems with Spielberg's Mossad
Dorothy Friend ,   Tel Aviv   (12.12.05)
He can try this take http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0352994/
27. I've been saying this for years
Digital Heretic ,   The Holy Land   (12.12.05)
Spielberg represents all that is evil about liberal pseudo politicians in America. He is on the "hate Israel bandwagon" that either the very rich or the very uneducated seem to cling to. It's embarassing to him and does Israel an a serious injustice. I will not see this movie. Besides, wasn't it already made by someone else? Twice?
28. The material or the maker?
Stephen ,   Raleigh   (12.12.05)
What outrages you? The material or the maker? I would not bother too too much if such a film were made by anyone else and so would not mind of Spielberg made it. You're not forced to watch, and anyone who wants to wave it over their own head like a bloody shirt as 'proof' of all the evil Jews, really isn't going to be convinced of anything else anyway. At least he didn't craft a paen to the glorious man of peace Yasser Arafat.
29. Engelhard has it right.
Gerald Etter ,   Philadelphia, USA   (12.12.05)
I read Jack Engelhard’s piece on Spielberg’s “Munich” and am amazed at some of the reactions. Engelhard is entitled to his view, which I happen to agree with. And Spielberg certainly is entitled to his as well, which I just happen not to agree with. I’ve not seen the film but I have access to sources who have, and Engelhard, from what I understand, is right on. I imagine “Daniel -- Yerushalayim” is Jewish, and that, unfortunately is his problem. What I mean by that is we Jews invented moral equivalency because we are obsessed with social justice, and because we see humanity as something so much larger than ourselves. That’s our greatness, and it is also, sometimes, our downfall. Spielberg is a kind, thoughtful Jewish guy, but Engelhard is a survivor. There are times when we have to standup for ourselves first.
30. Actually, Engelhard ISN'T right.
LifeOfBrian ,   U.K.   (12.12.05)
I mean, FACTUALLY isn't right, at least according to a review of the film in Slant magazine. I know it's unfashionable to wait until you actually SEE a film before critiqueing it, but according to Slant's reviewer the film is very balanced and levelheaded. I quote: 'Yet refusing to wholeheartedly champion Avner's doubt, Spielberg ultimately ends his narrative on an indeterminate final note in which the Mossad executioner's disillusionment is matched by Rush's sober reasoning about combative reprisal ("These guys live, Israeli's die"). With Munich, the director makes the case for peace without denying the necessity for aggressively fighting hostile enemies. And as such his film might be the year's most levelheaded cinematic dissertation on our ongoing war on terror.' http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=1964
Next talkbacks
Back to article