You're right! Spielberg's movie isn't anti-Israeli at all. It is an important and powerful movie.

then you wouldn't have to apologize. isn't that called "journalism"?

Much of what David states is true, regarding the moral confusion of many Israeli soldiers . When one doesn't know what they are fighting for and has little knowledge of the enemy, moral confusion, constant doubts and even guilt for surviving a war becomes the norm. However, I also saw the movie and one message is abundantly clear - the stone cold Munich killers were purposefully given a "human" face by Spielberg. That is a fact. In a very gratuitous manner Spielberg made sure that the older terrorist who eventually gets blown up by answering his rigged home telephone, is seen as a regular family man with a beautiful wife and adoring daughter. There is no sense at all of his malevolence and murderous ways. In addition, the scene at the end of the twin towers burning is a clear message that the "conflict" is what caused 9/11. Even a moron was able to make that connection & Spielberg wanted that message to come across loud and clear. Moral equivalence reigned supreme throughout.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to suck up to Spiesberg and why you're putting down the Israeli intelligence. Soldiers who give up at least 3 years of their life, many even more, risking injury and death. Very few are confused about why they do what they do and who the enemy is. In addition, today's army has ways to identify the troubled few and not place them in circumstances where they may not be able to carry out their work. If you want to become friends with Steven spell out your true reasons and don't misrepresent the Israeli Army and Intelligence Services.

This is an example not just of moral equivalence, it seeks to put a pretty face on the mass-murderers. It is an example of Stockhom syndrome. There was no seeking of root causes in 'Schindler's list'. No seeking of underlying reasons for mass-murder. But when it comes to arabs, the leftest ani-jews fall over themselves to put the homicidal hamites in suits, put 'em on a 12 step plan to bring them to the table of nations and negotiate the terms of the Jew's suicide.

I believe that as soon as Omri Sharon will live with his brother for Bryklin to live closer to their ant. He will make a few trips to Holliwood to collect money as Rabin's son did. I believe Olmert and his family has a better future in USA or Virgin Islands because he is more respected by Virgin Islands types. I even suspect that Olmert's kids wouldn't even associate with Sharon's.

Adina, he is talking about people like you - full of it.

To me the movie based on what you are telling me is even more Anti israel and to some degree anti semitic. Why the sudden change of attitude??

Each Monday, the NY Times ranks movies (Source: Nielsen) according to box office receipts. As of 20/2/06, Munich, after 9 weeks in US and Canada theatres produced $45,415,655 ranking 21st, while The Pink Panther, after only 2 weeks ranked 3rd with $46.5 million.

Consider that Hamas et al have no problem with qualms of conscience and are determined to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. They are the "barbarians at the gate" with whom Spielberg proposes that Israeli soldiers be bogged down with confusion indecision. A clear way to surrender and defeat for Israel. Shame on Spielberg.

What is David's agenda in telling this tall tale? Elections coming up. All journalism is political now. Who can David weaken with this piece and why.

All right, let me get is straight, Spielberg should be applauded because he recognizes moral collapse of the Israelis, who have lost all will for self preservation. At the same time the arabs, the supposed victims, are the mentally strong ones with a cause they believe well worth killing and dying for? But Spielberg wasn’t critiquing the lack of moral fortitude in the Israelis, was he? He simply says, don’t bother fighting it. It’s not worth it. If strong people like Avner can be licked, don’t even bother resisting; just pack your bags and leave. – the experiment is over, and the Jews have lost . And Bedain agrees, that the experiment is done for, based on his observations of the Israelis. So, did I get it right? There is no moral equivalency, Spielberg believes that the Arabs calling themselves Palestinians have fortitude to created a new nation that never before existed and the Jews have no believe in their cause and are heading for the heap of history and Bedain, from his experience affirms that it is the truth. Depressing. In 1967, Israelis were poorer but seemed to have faith in themselves. Now, we are told that they do not believe they deserve a country, nor do they need a country nor have they right to defend Jewish lives or avenge them. Perhaps those who see no future should leave Israel immediately and leave everything to those wearing orange ribbons. They appear to believe in their cause and are willing to fight for it -- as a matter of fact, they are already fighting for it, against their own government.

than you deserve.

http://zionismontheweb.org/boards/viewtopic.php?t=354 Not exactly what I think of it, but close and without the political hype.

As a current reserve soldier (who was in a combat unit) I can tell you that it is not always that simple. I can recall a number of instances where I definitely felt that what I was a part of was questionable. If you want specific situations I will be happy to describe in detali if you wish to contact me. Suffice it to say that we always knew who the enemy was, but sometimes you couldn't help but wonder if what you're doing is the solution or if it only adds to the problem. In that respect I can identify with this movie and the quetion it raises. As for the writer of the article -- Apology shmapology , you should retire from journalism . Writing an article critisizing a movie you didn't even SEE...!? Come on, thats pathetic journalism..Go bury your head in the sand!

I didn't see the film yet so I won't comment on it, but when Olmert makes public speeches about how "we're tired of fighting", what can one expect from a Mosad operative, even if that angle might be more appropriate for today than back then. As for soldiers questioning what they're doing - halevai! It would be a better country if they WOULD question orders once in a while! At the far, far, other end of the spectrum from Munich - who would have believed that security forces in the State of Israel could have behaved like they did at Amona? And who would have believed that soldiers could have been turned into automatons at Gush Katif, trained like zombies to not look into the eyes of the heroic pioneers who they were throwing out of their homes? I'm sure that what Eden wrote is true - the "truth" is not so simplistic. Obviously Israel is in big trouble. Maybe, like a light shining through the back of a curtain rather than the front, on stage, Speilberg is "back-lighting" an identity crisis that some people are too afraid to admit exists. As for Bedein writing about the film before he saw it and some of the responses about how he should "retire from journalism", kol hakavod to Bedein for not being afraid to swim against the stream (again). This is the first time I saw a journalist apologize in public when he discovered that he was misinformed and decided that he was wrong about something. I can tell you first hand, both as a journalist myself and as a source of background information, who is often contacted by other journalists, that some of the journalists out there that you read are among the laziest creatures on the face of the earth, when it comes to checking facts, or relying, depending on THEIR political opinions, on one-sided versions of stories. (My "favorite" story was about a journalist who, years before Israel spoke to the PLO, wanted to write a NEWS (not opinion) piece about speaking to the PLO and she told me, "I finally found someone at Tel Aviv U. who was willing to say what I think so he was the expert I quoted in the article." She wrote for a Washington D.C. paper that shall remain nameless.

Or more accurately, not all of it, just the sick part of it, is against films that show reflection of left wing thoughts (in this case center left). Being against a film because you don’t like its politics is SICK. I know what we’re fighting for, our lives, and so do many on the left. Questioning, what and how id legitimate, it make the decisions better, and insurers that policies will be calculated and not hot headed. I’m for a though stand on Hamas, and the other terror groups. But I’m not for silencing, slandering, and insulting those who think otherwis

Kol HaKovod on an honest re-evaluation, but what's the difference? A movie is a movie and this one will have about as much effect as "The Passion" caused pogroms. Movies are commercial, mass entertainment. Enough angst about movies.

Dear Adon Speilberg, You took a poor and vastly flawed book, by a discredited author who based in on the bubbuh mizes of a former Airport Checker, which was already made into a mediocre film ten or more years ago, hired an anti-israel anti-Jewish feigleh to write the story and assembled a series of "film tricks" to tell a story already shown to be rank fantasy. Morally equivalance is not what I pay to see. Your point is dulled if not missing altogether. Poor try. Sorry, but you do not get your tuchis kissed from this Jew, and certainly no apology. I'll let the sitzpinklers of the media/pres/critic sphere to that job. Certainly your screenplay writer is up for that task.

I had to see the movie twice to catch the incredible Nuances that Steven Spielberg installed in this mnovie. The first time I saw it, I was very upset. The second time, I was astounded. Probably because I was just ready to be upset based on media repoprts of moral equivalency. Yes, it does show us a bit as "Bumbling Bomb Makers" but it also shows us as painfully aware that we despise taking a human life. Even though we need to Defend ourselves, we pray to Hashem to alleviate us from the terrible burden of having to "cleanse the world" of the enemies of peace and tranquility. The only thing I would ask of Steven Spielberg is to give everyone a two-for-one ticket, to see it a second time, than you can truly understand the "masterpiece" of his work. Tzvi Fishman

Spielberg was way out of line and deserves the critisism. How would he feel if they did a movie about him portrayed as a junky? He'd be offended just as Israel is offended by this obvious rubbish.

The movie is garbage because the specific Israeli fighters who went after the Munich Nazis, by all accounts, had noregrets for their important acts of Israeli self-defense (the movie also suggests the brilliant moral insight that all acts of violence are the same--if I see someone raping someone on the street, and I punch the rapist, I and the rapist are the same because we both used violence). However, David of course has a point that Israel is awash in moral confusion. One after another top fighter who showed real courage on the battlefield becomes a top politician and turns to moral cowardice and jelly. The reason is that except for the national-religious, Israelis don't have enough Jewish background to stand up to a hostile world. They do have some Jewish background, but considerably not enough. A few individuals with high personal character and understanding like Boogie Yaalon are better than others, but they're fewer and fewer and most of them fold eventually.

in a nutshell - what is missing in the IRON WALL of Jabotinsky is the IRON WILL !!!!

Movies are not just entertainment; for many, if not most, they're the sole source of information. After all, most people until the recently believed that American West was exactly as presented in the westerns or that all Americans looked and lived exactly like the characters in the old Doris Day movies. Similarly, Spielberg created and infomercial to inform many who have neither specific interest nor inclination to seek independent answers about the nature of the conflict between the Israelis and the Arabs. He allowed the platform for the Arab arguments and presented what he considered the strongest Israeli argument and it appears that he believes the arabs have a far stronger claim – they may commit crimes for a cause and die for a cause, but they don’t abandon their cause of their own will– move to Brooklyn. If Spielberg’s assessment of Israelis is true, then Israel is doomed and if he is wrong than he is deliberately setting out to undermine the morale of his own people and slander the Israelis before the world’s audience. Now, only the Israelis can answer which is it. As to why the Passion did not cause pogroms, it is because many Western Christians deliberately chose to mentally edit the uncomfortable parts of the movie and interpret the movie differently from what its director intended and did so for a very specific reason – to reconcile their support for Israel and the Jews with the need for a Christian religious movie. That does not of cause mean that in the future, the same movie could not be used exactly as intended, to incite Jew-hatred.

Here are the facts. Spielberg isn't anti-Israel and neither was the movie intended to be anti-Israel. Yet, its message it unintentionally anti-Israel. Spielberg and Kusher have admitted on many occassions that they see the conflict from the idea of a "cycle of violence". The very notion conveys a sense of moral equivalancy though not meaning to be anti-Israel. People like Spielberg see the violence as pointless yet think we should strike back. It sounds like people who espouse this theory of cyclical violence are confused. I have not seen the film but I have not read the "Protocols..." either and I have a good sense of what its about. Furthermore, every comment and critc I have read in regards to Munich either praises it for its moral equivalency or condems it for the same reason. The fact is many Israelis may feel as Spielberg does but the real questions is what do you believe is the truth. My reality says that yes, Israelis are tired of the fight but that doesn't make the fight any less improtant or any less moral. Questioning our fight is fine but imortalizing this question does a disservice to the fortitute our our right as Jews to protect our homeland and our lives.

I haven't seen the movie, but...I have been in israel for 6 months, love this country, but it is true that many young people feel a little disoriented. Don't think 23 is right, as historically jews never were warriors. Just look anywhere else. In spain youngs do not almost remember anything about the civil war or about Franco...some of them don't even know who was him...same happening in germany...it's a completely normal process. The founders of Israel fought for a strong feeling of country, to build a jewish country for the first time since 3000 years! now israelis give the country for granted, and fight for their individual goals, for their inner goals...when in europe when we are 18 we are going out party, living with our parents, and your kids are sent to the army for at least 2 years...all of them give 3 years to the state! boys and girls! risking life most of them many times...being 18! ...and they do so with the feeling they will never know peace! ...they would be really sick if they wouldn't start asking questions. The founders of israel came from a place where they had been at war for almost the first 30 years of the 20th century!...peace was not known anywhere then....but now it's different, and many places live under a relatively peace...and i guess they just want the same and wonder if fighting is always gonna be the best way. I do not live israel, so i am not gonna question the best way, but i can say that if my government needs to do concessions and release from prison all terrorists from ETA in exchange of peace, guys, i will be for it...שלום לישראל...and sorry bout my english. Peace

to another planet he is not on Mars and not of this earth... if he thinks Israeli kids have night sweats about doing what is right or great moral doubts about what they have to do to protect their homeland Spielberg was a peacenick in the 60s-70s and has the particularly Jewish doubt in the mist of war. The only war he ever knew was the struggle to buy a pastrami . he has about as much credibility on moral compasses as a Nazi in a synagouge. The only thing left for Spielberg to do is repent, recant, and go talk to the Pope about morality

I did a talk back with previous critique and told you I saw movie 3 times and I'm Israeli / American and I did background research on this movie and found out it's based on a true story from Avner and found out interesting things. He wasn't compensated at the end which is not mentioned in movie and that is related to why he didn't return to Israel. He felt abandoned by Israel. Also the movie is realistic in portraying a newly wed man who loves his wife and doesn't want to be like his dad, separated from his kid growing up. His wife tells him "I'm not a hero's wife," meaning she will not stay waiting forever. Also he was hunted and became too visible which is when you have to quit field spying. His doubts about not eliminating all the enemies wasn't his main reason for quitting. He even expressed how he wanted to stay it to the end of his life, if that's what it took. And his mom kept strengthening his belief by saying how proud she was of him and how even his ancestors are proud of him. The only logical criticism of movie is when the mossad guys fumble shooting people. But it's not that they don't know how to shoot. They are not sure WHEN to shoot and are trying to be too sure which puts them in harm's way. Another point that makes the Israelis that much more humane than the other side. And again I have to say how I love how Spielberg shows the end of the hostage taking and the murders at the END of the movie, so that no one walks out of theater thinking it's about equal revenge. It's about stopping savages who are unstoppable and will do anything to commit the most horrible crimes. This was a lesson for all terrorists and not revenge in the true sense.

What kind of editorial standards foes Ynet have if it continues to run articles by a "journalist" who admits who admits to never having seen the movie he "reviewed"? This should be his last appearance here and any other sel-respecting news venue.