December 24, 2005
“Munich” Stands for “Appeasement”
By Kate Wright
Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List taught
a new generation of movie-goers the reality of the World War II
Holocaust. Spielberg’s new movie, Munich, regrettably undoes
some of his earlier good work, in recounting Israel’s response
to the slaughter of 11 Israeli athletes by the Palestinian Liberation
Organization at the 1972 Olympics. Israel’s Prime Minister
Golda Meir ordered Israeli agents to hunt down and liquidate the
PLO assassins, as a “Never Again!” message
of life affirmation to the evil forces of the world.
Recent statements
by Mr. Spielberg (Los Angeles Times, LA Weekly,
Time) regarding his new movie suggest that his “close
encounters” with “extraterrestrials” are taking
their toll. We all know that Hollywood history is not history,
but Steven Spielberg is taking great pains to carefully position
his new movie as “historical fiction.”
“Historical
Fiction”
Historical
fiction means some of the events in this movie are real, but the
story is imagined. Specifically, this means that the horrific
murders that occurred at the Olympics in 1972 actually happened,
but the story Steven Spielberg is telling about the Israeli response
to those murders is fictional, that is, imagined by the writers
and director.
The presumed
name of the Israeli Mossad’s secret team was “Caesarea,”
although there is rumor of another undisclosed “X”
name, and the media called their mission “Wrath of God.”
There is very little known about this secret unit because Israel
has not opened its intelligence files to the public. Steven Spielberg’s
movie is based on a book called Vengeance by George Jonas.
According to press materials, there were no Mossad consultants
to this movie, nor were there PLO consultants. But there were
political consultants who assisted the writers, producers and
director. Their collective representations about the people and
events of this secret unit are the imagined part of the story.
Munich
vs. Vengeance
The American
movie is entitled Munich, however, the French release
of the film reportedly is called Vengeance.
The word
“Munich” is synonymous with appeasement. In history,
The Munich Pact of 1938 is viewed as the catastrophic mistake
of the 20th Century that paved the way for The Final Solution
– Hitler’s extermination of 6,000,000 Jews. Great
Britain’s Neville Chamberlain, together with Daladier of
France and Bonnet of Italy, appeased Adolf Hitler in Munich, with
the ceding of parts of Czechoslovakia to the Reich. When Chamberlain
arrived home in London, he announced that he had secured, “Peace
in our time!” Abandoned by its allies, Czechoslovakia surrendered
to Hitler. World War II began shortly thereafter, and even today,
the word “Munich” remains the international symbol
of appeasement that encouraged Hitler to invade Poland and Russia,
in his fascist quest to exterminate the Jews.
The word
“vengeance,” as commonly understood, is reserved only
for God. But justice is the universal window into the human condition.
To characterize the Israeli response as a “response to a
response” as Spielberg states in Time Magazine and
his new movie implies, is a clear effort to deny the objective
morality of what happened, not only in 1972, but throughout history.
Justified Deterrence is the moral precept that Israel
relies upon to defend itself and prevent its destruction from
terrorism and other forces of aggression. Reducing the events
of September, 1972 and its aftermath to an existential melodrama
about manmade vengeance denies the political nature of the Olympic
assassinations and its implication for the safety of all Jews.
“Intransigence”
According
to Time Magazine, Steven Spielberg is attempting to create
a “prayer of peace” – an analogy to correct
the “stalemate” of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He cites
the biggest enemy as “intransigence.” The cause of
the conflict – as he would have his audience believe –
is that neither Palestinians nor Jews are willing to make any
changes in their approach to one another.
The Middle
East conflict is neither vague, nor abstract. This is not an “eye-for-an-eye”
battle of humanity. This conflict has existed since the 7th century.
While people in the media and political consultants refer to the
“Arab-Israeli” conflict, the source of the Middle
East conflict originates with Jihad, the force that drives the
modern terrorist organizations and Muslim regimes that support
the destruction Israel and all non-Muslim civilizations, including
the United States of America.
Militant
Islam is not limited to the Middle East—nor are its tactics—as
America learned on September 11, 2001.
Islamic
Jihad and The “Schism” of Civilization
The Israeli
athletes who were assassinated by the PLO in Munich in 1972 did
not die by tragedy, nor by moral failings. They were slaughtered.
This was a massacre of innocents. At that time, and today, there
are no doubts about what happened at the Olympics. We saw much
of it live on television. Creating a fictional story about the
secret Israeli response—based on speculative feelings of
a fictional protagonist – distorts the truth of what actually
happened in history.
The command
to “Convert by force, subjugate as dhimmis
or kill the Infidel” is a core belief of Islam. This
Jihad, or Holy War, is 1400 years old, not just a few decades.
This command is the basis for what is universally recognized as
the “schism” of civilizations. Jihad is not like blasphemy
or heresy, which can be debated and rejected by theologians. Jihad
is fueled by the Islamic belief that murder is a holy act. Jihad
is a permanent theological imperative as well as a political tactic
to destroy freedom-loving people everywhere, not just Jews and
Christians, as the world has learned since 9/11.
It is important
to understand that Osama bin Laden publicly declared war on America
well before 2001. Officially, he declared “Holy War”
on America in August of 1996, but there were other provocations
before and after. In fact, the early 1970s saw a major rise in
terrorism throughout Europe, the Middle East, and the Far East.
The 1972 PLO killings at the Olympics occurred in this contemporary
context, but they originate in modern Islamic Jihad,
arising from the ashes of Hitler’s Holocaust. This is why
recasting the present day Middle East conflict as a “tragic
stand-off” or as a “stalemate” of the last few
decades is historically incorrect.
In real history,
there is an enemy. The enemy is Islamic Jihad, although sometimes
Jihad is called Militant Islam or Islamofascism. Jihad is a permanent
war. This means Jihad excludes the idea of peace, but allows for
truces (hudnas) to regroup, infiltrate, and attack again.
Ignoring the facts of history is dangerous, but recasting the
facts of history into a relativistic “fiction” leads
audiences to scream, “Steven Spielberg…phone home!”
Jihad—like
fascism and totalitarianism – destroys the moral order of
humanity. This Jihad is same evil force that denies Israel the
right to exist. If Israel has no right to exist, then be my guest,
declare that this is a narrative about manmade vengeance. But
if Israel does have the right to exist—and there
is a moral order to humanity—then the moral compass of civilization
drives this story – for all mankind—and commands that
Israel defend herself and the safety of all Jews, despite any
personal struggle.
Now, let’s
enter the make-believe world of Steven Spielberg’s movie,
Munich.
The
Munich Narrative
This is the
fictional story of a young Israeli named Avner (Eric Bana) who
relinquishes his identity as a Mossad officer to lead the secret
Israeli mission to track down 11 PLO operatives presumed to be
responsible for planning and executing the Olympic slaughter.
Because the mission is secret, Avner operates through highly paid
informers. Neither Avner, nor his four-man team is privy to the
Mossad’s strategy, nor are they apprised of the specific
history and deeds of each targeted Palestinian.
Of the 11
PLO targets, only one – Al Hassan Salameh – commands
our complete attention and fascination, as a worthy screen antagonist.
He is the chief architect of the horrifying PLO assassinations,
the front for Yasser Arafat’s PLO, along with another uncredited
PLO master planner. Unfortunately, Al Salameh operates off-screen,
jet-setting around the globe, negotiating his security with governments,
aligning with adversarial regimes, and eluding Avner throughout
the movie, with little tidbits of information conveyed through
highly paid informers. But we never see any of this, nor do we
understand what drives Al Salameh, so the narrative moves forward
in journalistic fashion, with riveting sequences, without Al Salameh’s
onscreen conflict and story participation. This error is fatal
to the story, and robs the film of momentum.
The primary
narrative is Avner’s internal story, expressed as conflict
with Ephraim, the Mossad Chief (Geoffrey Rush), and Avner’s
four-man team. Without a powerful onscreen antagonist who presents
conflicting story values, Spielberg relies on flash-cuts from
the opening sequence of the Munich slaughter to create tension.
Unfortunately, story motivation cannot substitute for onscreen
conflict, so the audience drifts away from the Israeli mission’s
strategic assassinations, and instead redefines and experiences
them as a series of consecutive murders Sicilian style. What begins
as an extremely well-motivated story deliberately descends into
an episodic narrative about vengeance, framed by rationalization.
In the end,
there can be no satisfying climax. In fact, the end credits state
that Al Hassan Salameh was captured in 1979.
What
is Munich About?
Writers Tony
Kushner and Eric Roth boldly present an existential story-form
about “the struggle” to track down 11 Palestinians
“in response to” the loss of 11 Israeli athletes,
but they purposely deny the audience the most gripping layers
within the “thriller story” to track down Al Salameh.
The compelling curiosities about Al Salameh’s personal habits,
his mastery of deceit, his layers of depravity, remain unexplored.
There is no depiction of any internal struggle for Al Alameh to
match that of Avner.
Above all,
the audience cannot help but wonder about how the glamorized Al
Salameh understands the underpinnings of the Arab and Muslim cultures
that abandon the voices of their own poorest and most oppressed.
What does Al Salameh think of a religion where Sunnis refuse to
believe that their own brethren, Shias and Kurds, are human? How
does he feel about the poorest Palestinians who claim to use terrorism
because they are screaming to be heard? Is he listening to them?
What is missing from his own mindset – or is it the mindset
of Islam—that the world’s wealthiest Muslim Arabs
cannot take care of their own? What is inside this mysterious
wealthy world of Arab jet setters who refuse to create their own
society to respond to the cries of the Palestinians?
These opposing
story values might have been a worthy journey to challenge Avner’s
struggle. It’s as if the writers and director were intent
upon ignoring the questions of interest in favor of creating a
politically correct “Mein Kampf” (“My Struggle”)
for our time. Literally, the “struggle” is the story.
The message is that the Israeli struggle to defend itself is morally
equivalent to the Palestinian struggle to be heard. The end result
is that Avner’s struggle fizzles into a type of self-inflicted
relativistic anti-Zionist propaganda.
With due
respect, there are many outstanding moments, including an amusing
character named Yvonne who presents the “dialectic”
philosophy of Georg Hegel as dialogue with Avner, foreshadowing
that this is a story about “rethinking right and wrong.”
Ironically,
this is the story clue. The Hegelian system is predicated on the
unity of opposites and exploration of the negations that comprise
these opposites. This unity of opposites – the dialectic
– is ultimately tested by the “negation of the negation”
and forms the synthesis of the dialectic. In Munich,
the psyche, deeds, and strategy of Al Salameh represent the opposing
forces to Avner’s story, both literally and figuratively.
Without a comprehensive exploration of this set of opposing story
values, there can be no Hegelian process of the dialectic, nor
its synthesis.
As a result,
Munich is overflowing with good character choices and superior
filmmaking, but fails as storytelling, even in the friendly audience
of peers at the Directors Guild of America. The audience exited,
speechless. Personally, I felt like the character Carl (Ciaran
Hinds), the worrier who is constantly “chasing the mice”
inside his skull, only Carl solved his mice cravings with alcohol
and affection.
Instead,
I went home and wrote this. Then, it became clear that “the
(three) mice” are all blind. They are spinning around a
treadmill of moral confusion, exhausted by politically correct
thinking. By negating curiosity, they negate thought. By transposing
history into a morally equivalent humanist struggle, “the
three blind mice” took us into a world where there is no
relief, let alone insight into the complexities of the human condition.
Now, fasten
your seatbelt and hook your shoulder strap. You are about to exit
the world of make-believe, and re-enter the real world where history
rules, and truth prevails. Stay tuned for the historical overview
that is missing from this movie.
Where
Islam Meets Nazism
The nexus
between Islam and Nazism exists in the “Never Again!”
timeline of the 20th century, officially dating to November 28,
1941, when Hitler made a pact with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem
– the grandfather of the PLO – to effect The Final
Solution…the extermination of all Jews from the face of
the earth. As a reminder, the Grand Mufti had declared Jihad on
the Allied Powers (our side) on November 25, 1941, and the United
States of America was attacked two weeks later by the Axis Powers
(their side) at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.
Tracing the
roots of 20th century Islamic Jihad begins with the Balfour Declaration
of 1917. After World War I, Great Britain was granted control
of the “Mandate of Palestine” and sought to create
a permanent home for Jews. In 1920, anti-Zionist Hajj Amin al-Husseini
rose from Islamic Arab ranks and began a campaign to exterminate
Jews. Concurrently, an Egyptian named Hasam al-Banna founded the
Muslim Brotherhood, and began supporting Al Husseini who was elevated
to “The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem” by the British.
Al Banna
and The Grand Mufti continued inciting violence against Jews through
the 1920s, and as Nazism spread through Europe, Jews fled to Palestine.
Their next move was to make overtures to Adolf Hitler, and the
influx of Jews set off the “Great Uprising” or “Arab
Revolt” of 1936-1939. After the 1938 Munich Pact, Hitler
moved swiftly into Poland and Russia, advancing “The Final
Solution.” Then, in 1941, he cemented his alliance with
The Grand Mufti, after which The Grand Mufti moved to Germany
and traveled regularly to present-day Bosnia (establishing the
roots of the modern-day Bosnian conflict).
When World
War II ended in 1945, the Grand Mufti colluded with intelligence
communities (reportedly French and British) and avoided prosecution
for war crimes by fleeing to Egypt. The United Nations was established,
and as reparation for the Holocaust, called for the establishment
of the State of Israel. On May 14, 1948, after the British Mandate
expired, David Ben-Gurion formally established the modern State
of Israel, which was immediately invaded by Arab armies, though
Israel prevailed. The Grand Mufti and his Muslim Brotherhood regrouped
in Egypt, as the modern-day anti-Zionist Jihadist movement that
spawned other militant anti-Zionist organizations, including the
Fatah Party, Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Liberation Organization
that architected the 1972 Olympic killings, Hamas, Hezbollah,
and Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda.
The events
of Munich, 1972—like the events of September 11, 2001—originate
from the Islamic Jihad of the 20th century Muslim Brotherhood.
This is why those who have witnessed or studied history feel compelled
to clarify the origins of this conflict, because we know that
murder is not a holy act. We know that Jihad is a permanent political
tactic to convert or destroy all non-Muslim humanity.
Jihad is
not equal to justified deterrence. The Munich slaughter is not
equal to Israel’s moral imperative to liquidate Jihadists.
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem is not equal to David Ben-Gurion.
Adolf Hitler is not equal to Simon Wiesenthal. Yasser Arafat is
not equal to Golda Meir. The PLO is not equal to Israel. The “culture
of death” that is Jihad is not equal to the “culture
of life” that is L’Chaim.
Is anyone
really surprised that this outrage happened in Munich, the birthplace
of Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich? Jihadists, who are fighting
an ancient struggle, are particularly cognizant of history, and
pay obsessive concern to dates and places.
In history,
there are no regrets about what happened to Adolf Hitler, no confusion
about what happened at the 1972 Olympics and no legitimate voices
that defy the necessity of Israel’s strategic response to
the Munich slaughter. The Israeli response to the 1972 Olympics
transcends the timeline of history as a “Never Again!”
morality tale of good vs. evil. This is not a story about negating
life. This is not a story about vengeance. This is a story about
the painful regrets and compelling issues that comprise the profound
decisions involved in defending….the sanctity of human life.
“Implacable
Resolve”
Steven Spielberg
describes his movie as a “prayer for peace.” Although
he defines the enemy as “intransigence,” he refers
to the “implacable resolve” of the agents who hunted
down the PLO assassins. According to Webster, “implacable”
means “incapacity for appeasement.” Is Spielberg hinting
that it is Israel’s incapacity for appeasement
that drives the Jihad? Is he implying that if only Gold Meir had
appeased the terrorists this one time in 1972 – like Chamberlain
appeased Hitler at Munich in 1938—there would be no modern-day
conflict? Is he suggesting that Israel’s vengeance triggered
the 3rd act of the 1400-year old Jihad? Is he stating that America
– like Israel – is to be reviled for affirming the
sanctity of life? Or is he condoning that America and Israel are
to be hated for defending freedom?
Perhaps Mr.
Spielberg is entranced by what Professor Jeane Kirkpatrick described
as The Myth of Moral Equivalence, the humanist claim
that all sides—regardless of core beliefs, tactics and genocides—are
somehow valid. Otherwise, Spielberg seems convinced by moral relativism,
the position that there is no comprehensive moral truth or truth
value, that only personal subjective morality, deriving from social
convention, is truly authentic. Even Hollywood publicists will
have trouble extricating him from this self-inflicted philosophical
quagmire by suggesting that he fall back on the obscure concept
of moral pluralism which acknowledges the co-existence of opposing
ideas and practices – but does not require that they be
equally valid. As a last resort, he may be tempted to gravitate
to the nouveau concept of value pluralism. But this stimulates
the little mice into over-drive, and begs the fundamental question
of our time.
If Israel
has no right to exist, then who does?
Otherwise,
Mr. Spielberg is committed to persuading the world that Israel
is at fault for its intransigence. He would have us believe that
Jihad – the core belief of Militant Islam—is equal
to Israel’s justified deterrence to wage its own strategic
defense. He would have us believe that Jihad is equal to The Ark
of the Covenant.
Refusing
to appease the anti-Zionist Muslim regimes that seek to destroy
Israel is the litmus test for the 21st century. Maturity teaches
us to recognize the origins of the creator-based concept of the
individual. Righteousness teaches us to acknowledge the sanctity
of the moral compass of civilization. Courage teaches us to defend
these concepts, from which freedom derives. We are inspired by
the wisdom of the ages to defend Israel’s right to exist,
because this “creator-based right to exist” is a gift
to all mankind, not only “the chosen” few. The new
anti-Semitism is anti-Zionism.
What
Really Matters
Perhaps we
can learn “something important” after all—not
from movies—but from the moral compass of history itself.
We are in
a war of ideas. Freedom, Justice, and Truth transcend the movies.
What really matters will survive the motives of movie studios.
What really matters will survive all of us, especially the appeasers.
What really matters will transcend the timeline of history.
The Muslim
World is in a civil war of sane ideas vs. insane ideas. Baathists,
Sunnis, Wahhabists, and Shias are scrambling for certitude, trying
to figure out what side of history they are on. The insanity of
Jihad is startlingly clear, once the moral compass of civilization
is irrefutably in place. King Abdullah laid down the gauntlet
by defining the “War on Militant Islam,” challenging
sane Muslims to renounce the insanity of this “culture of
death” that is Jihad. Now that Iraqi Muslims have declared
their future, it is possible for sane Muslims to declare that
freedom rules. It is time to negate the schism of civilization,
reverse the schism inward, and break “Militant Islam”
at its very core belief. Murder is not a holy act. Jihad is not
a Holy War. Jihad is evil. Only Muslims can declare moral victory
in their own civil war of ideas. Jihad—like all “cultures
of death” – is dead on arrival.
Steven Spielberg’s
“prayer for peace” appears to be earnest. Yet he misses
the point of real history. By naming his movie Munich,
he advances the message of appeasement. By promoting moral relativism
as moral equivalence, he propels his audiences into moral clarity.
By selling intransigence as the enemy, he invites history to define
the constant enemy. The “Jihad to liberate Jerusalem”
– like all fascist and totalitarian genocidal schemes that
deny freedom and dignity of the individual – is the true
enemy, not just of Israel, but of all mankind.
Meanwhile,
all human beings get to decide which side of history they are
on. Dreamworks appears to have made their decision.
Creating
a dialogue that bridges the Muslim and the non-Muslim world is
admirable, but the “true” dialogue—like the
events of 1972—begins with the value of life.
In Memorium
Moshe Weinberg,
33
Yossef Romano,
31
Yossef Gutfreund,
40
David Berger,
28
Mark Slavin,
18
Yacov Springer,
51
Ze’ev
Friedman, 28
Amitzur Shapira,
40
Eliezer Halfin,
24
Kehat Shorr,
53
Andre Spitzer,
27
Kate
Wright is an American. kate@americanstorytelling.com
