A new challenge

one comment

Munich

Steven Spielberg’s latest film is a milestone in American mainstream culture. The story of the 1972 Palestinian attack on Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics, the movie is less concerned about the massacre and focuses instead on the aftermath. Many prominent Jewish groups and Zionists have condemned the work, clearly a sign that Spielberg has created something worthwhile.

The director says this about himself and his motivations:

“I made this picture as a committed Jew, a pro-Israeli Jew and yet a human Jew. I made this movie out of love for both of my countries, USA and Israel.

“Some political critics would like to see these people [Palestinians] dehumanised because when you take away someone’s humanity you can do anything to them, you’re not committing a crime because they’re not human. This film clearly states that the Black September of the Munich murders were terrorists. These were unforgivable actions but until we begin to ask questions about who these terrorists are and why terrorism happens, we’re never going to get to the truth of why 9/11 happened, for instance.”

The film tells the story – “inspired by real events” – of the Mossad-led retaliation team directed by Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir to hunt down and kill the organisers of the massacre. Eric Bana plays Avner, the leader of the squad. In the beginning, the team finds its targets with vigour but soon doubts start creeping in. Avner becomes the moral compass of the film, left defending a homeland he no longer recognises, loves or respects. In the end, he turns his back on the Jewish state entirely and settles in Brooklyn.

It is clear why the film has generated such animosity in the Jewish community. Writing in the Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer could barely believe that Spielberg had dared humanise Palestinians at all:

“Spielberg makes the Holocaust the engine of Zionism and its justification. Which, of course, is the Palestinian narrative. Indeed, it is the classic narrative for anti-Zionists, most recently the president of Iran, who says that Israel should be wiped off the map. And why not? If Israel is nothing more than Europe’s guilt trip for the Holocaust, then why should Muslims have to suffer a Jewish state in their midst?”

Spielberg is no better than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Krauthammer’s Zionist paranoia. Does he not realise that such delusional words only make him look like an extremist? Perhaps he doesn’t care, such is his desperation to prove Israel’s moral case.

Harvard Law Professor and Israel apologist Alan Dershowitz was equally concerned and Mark Baker, a course lecturer in terrorism at the University of Melbourne (writing in the Australian Jewish News on January 27) was incensed that Spielberg had “created a flattened universe where there is no moral compass of right and wrong”:

“Munich, the byword since 1938 for political appeasement against evil, is exactly that: a film that appeases the evil of terrorism by equating the blood of victims with the blood of perpetrators. I never expected to be sitting through another Exodus, in which the certainties of Zionism ignore that Palestinians could just as easily be singing ‘this land is mine’. Yet Steven Spielberg’s new film tries to make up for the stupidity of Hollywood’s cowboy-and-Indian polarities by creating a flattened universe where there is no moral compass of right and wrong.

“The moral confusion is there from the outset, with the juxtaposition of the reactions of an Israeli and a Palestinian family to news of the loss of their sons – one a victim of terror; the other a murderer. The film is obsessed with these kinds of narrative symmetries: there are 11 terrorists in Spielberg’s list to match the 11 murdered Israeli Olympians, signalling that counter-terrorist strategies could only be invented by Jews who live by the vengeful ethos of an eye for an eye.”

The paper’s editorial thankfully took a more measured, and revealing, line:

“Much has changed since the pioneering days of Exodus and Cast a Giant Shadow, when Hollywood was a source of comfort and sustenance for Israelis and Jews, as witnessed in the once-unthinkable Golden Globe Award given last week to the Palestinian movie Paradise Now. It is a change that some of us, understandably, find hard getting used to.”

The Zionist Organisation of America called for a boycott of the film and in perhaps the most hysterical analysis, Jack Engelhard, author of the novel “Indecent Proposal”, wrote that Spielberg is “no friend of Israel“:

In Hollywood today, where David is Goliath and Goliath is David, you never want to be labelled a conservative or a fan of Israel. Hollywood is all about being trendy and Israel is not the trend. You won’t get invited to the right parties and you won’t win any Oscars if your heart bleeds for a nation that is always on the verge of being wiped off the map.

“Jews pioneered Hollywood. If, as our enemies say, we own Hollywood, well, here’s the plot twist – we have lost Hollywood, and we have lost Spielberg. Spielberg is no friend of Israel. Spielberg is no friend of truth. His “Munich” may just as well have been scripted by George Galloway.”

“Munich” has many faults. The film is too long, supposedly factually inaccurate and the Palestinian narrative isn’t given nearly enough time to breath, but Spielberg has articulated a view long held by many, but furiously denied by Israel-apologists: the Jewish state’s actions are immoral and breeding even greater hatred. Robert Fisk says the film is almost revolutionary:

“But Spielberg’s movie has crossed a fundamental roadway in Hollywood’s treatment of the Middle East conflict. For the first time, we see Israel’s top spies and killers not only questioning their role as avengers but actually deciding that an ‘eye for an eye’ does not work, is immoral, is wicked. Murdering one Palestinian gunman – or one Palestinian who sympathises with the Munich killers – only produces six more to take their place. One by one, members of the Mossad assassination squad are themselves hunted down and murdered. Avner even calculates that it costs $1m every time he liquidates a Palestinian.

“So now the real challenge for Spielberg. A Muslim friend once wrote to me to recommend ‘Schindler’s List’, but asked if the director would continue the story with an epic about the Palestinian dispossession which followed the arrival of Schindler’s refugees in Palestine. Instead of that, Spielberg has jumped 14 years to Munich, saying in an interview that the real enemy in the Middle East is ‘intransigence’. It’s not. The real enemy is taking other people’s land away from them.

“So now I ask: will we get a Spielberg epic on the Palestinian catastrophe of 1948 and after? Or will we – like those refugees desperate for visas in the wartime movie Casablanca wait, and wait – and wait?”

There were times I was moved to tears while watching the film. Spielberg’s film-making skills – I’ve never been a huge fan of his work, though ‘Schindler’s List’ was a flawed exercise in Holocaust remembrance – caused me to feel ashamed of the Jewish state. For an American Zionist to make such a statement means that Israel can no longer rely on its supposed higher morality and victimhood to survive and prosper. Those days are long gone. The Holocaust cannot be used to justify every Israeli move (as the film ably demonstrates.)

Spielberg’s film is also an essay on the morality of the use of state terrorism. The director, along with screenwriter Tony Kushner, argues that such behaviour is useless, morally bankrupt and counterproductive. State-sponsored terrorism, the greatest scourge of our time, is usually ignored in the mainstream media or relegated to the backpages. It is therefore significant for Spielberg to debate such actions.

The “crime” of Spielberg is daring to articulate an alternative perspective in the Middle East conflict. Such revelations are a direct threat to Zionist supremacy in media, government and public circles. I’ll finish with Kushner’s recent essay on his motivations behind the film:

“I think it’s the refusal of the film to reduce the Mideast controversy, and the problematics of terrorism and counterterrorism, to sound bites and spin that has brought forth charges of “moral equivalence” from people whose politics are best served by simple morality tales. We live in the Shock and Awe Era, in which instant strike-back and blow-for-blow aggression often trump the laborious process of analysis, investigation and diplomacy. “Munich’s” questioning spirit is an affront to armchair warrior columnists who understand power only as firepower. We’re at war, and the job of artists in wartime, they seem to feel, is to provide the kind of characters and situations that are staples of propaganda: cleanly representative of Good or Evil, and obedient to the Message.

“Contradiction in human affairs, such as the possibility that injustice can drive people to do horrible things, is routinely deplored and dismissed in these troubled times as just another example of the naivete of the morally weak (a.k.a. liberals and progressives). But there will always be pesky people who, when horrific crimes are committed, insist on asking, “Why did that happen?”

“This is a great annoyance to the up-and-at-’em crowd, whose unshakable conviction is that the only sane and effective response to terrorism is savage violence commensurate with the original act. To justify this conviction they offer, as so many of the political critics of “Munich” have done, tautologies on the order of “evil deeds are done by evil people who do evil deeds because that’s what evil people do.” If that’s helpful to you as a tool for understanding terrorism, you won’t like “Munich.”

“In the film, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is presented not as a matter of religion versus religion, or sanity versus insanity, or good versus evil or civilization versus barbarism or Judeo-Christian culture versus Muslim culture, but rather as a struggle over territory, over geography, over home.

“We’ve followed the lead of many Israeli historians, novelists, filmmakers, poets and politicians who have recognized and described the Israeli-Palestinian struggle this way — as something tragic and human, recognizable. We’ve incurred the wrath of people who reject, with what sounds like panic, an inescapable fact of human life: People do terrible things in the name of a cause they believe is just, even in the name of a cause that actually is just.

“”Munich” insists that this characteristic of human behaviour is not meaningless in the struggle against terrorism. In other words, we believe that one aspect of the struggle against terrorism is the struggle to comprehend terrorism. If you think understanding the enemy is unimportant, well, maybe there’s a job in Washington for you.”

10 comments

On the hustings

Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – and Likud’s failed leader – has compared the rise of Hamas to the success of the Nazis in 1930s Germany:

“A few days ago, a new foe arose. When Hitler rose to power, it was said that ruling would moderate him, and it was also said in regards to the Ayatollahs regime and the Taliban. There are urgent warning signs that [scream] out a lust for murder and destruction.

“The Likud will not continue transferring territory, [we] need to stop giving them money – neither ours nor the world’s – and [we] must prevent them from establishing an army any which way possible.”

Netanyahu says that international pressure will convince the Palestinian government to change direction. Perhaps the more extreme elements of the Arab world – likely to become key benefactors of Hamas – will attempt to pressure the Western world to isolate the Jewish state. Extreme rhetoric on either side is counterproductive and pointless.

Netanyahu seems to believe that Israel has the right to dictate candidates and political platforms for the Palestinian people, criticising the current Israeli government for allowing Hamas to participate and allowing Palestinians to vote in East Jerusalem. Netanyahu rants like a colonial master off the leash.

7 comments

About race

Tim Wise, Znet, January 27:

“If you’re looking to understand why discussions between blacks and whites about racism are often so difficult in this country, you need only know this: when the subject is race and racism, whites and blacks are often not talking about the same thing. To white folks, racism is seen mostly as individual and interpersonal – as with the uttering of a prejudicial remark or bigoted slur. For blacks, it is that too, but typically more: namely, it is the pattern and practice of policies and social institutions, which have the effect of perpetuating deeply embedded structural inequalities between people on the basis of race. To blacks, and most folks of colour, racism is systemic. To whites, it is purely personal.

“These differences in perception make sense, of course. After all, whites have not been the targets of systemic racism in this country, so it is much easier for us to view the matter in personal terms. If we have ever been targeted for our race, it has been only on that individual, albeit regrettable, level.”

3 comments

The truth lies behind

While some in the Australian mainstream media seem to naively believe that the Hamas win in the Palestinian elections was a great surprise – read Amira Hass to discover why so many Palestinians voted for the militants – veteran Israeli commentator Aluf Benn articulates an official, yet revealing, view:

“The Israelis warned the Americans that that unsupervised Arab democracy will bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power, not pro-Western liberals. But Washington refused to listen and insisted on holding the elections on schedule. The new reality requires both Washington and Jerusalem to re-evaluate the situation, before the Hamas effect hits Amman and Cairo. In any case, it will be hard to turn back democratic change and resume the comfortable relations with the old dictatorships.

“Israel will have to formulate a new foreign policy and strive for peace between nations, not merely with their rulers. And that will be much more complicated.”

Putting aside the fact that the Americans and Israelis seem to believe they have right to “supervise” Arab democracy – Robert Fisk recently said that, “The Arab world, which is principally what we’re talking about, would love some of this shiny beautiful democracy which we possess and enjoy. They would love some of it. They would like some freedom. But many of them would like freedom from us – from our armies, from our influence. And that’s the problem, you see. What Arabs want is justice as much as democracy. They want freedom from us, in many cases. And they’re not going to get that” – the rise of Hamas signals a radical shift in the Middle East conflict.

Although one Hamas official has already signalled that Islamic law would be a source for legislation in the occupied territories – Gideon Levy rightly says that a “secular, moderate and uncorrupt movement would have been preferable” – last week’s election result certainly offers the Israelis and Americans a lesson: force will never work. The Israelis may have assassinated any number of Hamas “terrorists”, and yet such moves only led to a stronger resistance movement.

Besides, Israel once funded and supported Hamas. Read this UPI report from 2002:

“Israel and Hamas may currently be locked in deadly combat, but, according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years.

“Israel ‘aided Hamas directly – the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization),’ said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies.

“Israel’s support for Hamas ‘was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative,’ said a former senior CIA official.”

The future path of the Middle East peace process is certainly in question, but to suggest, as many Western commentators seem to believe, that the election of Hamas has ruined any chances of peace, conveniently forgets the fact that the PLO and Israel were not moving in that direction for years.

28 comments

Convincing the non-believers

The following article appears in this week’s Australian Jewish News (January 27):

NSW Education Department dumps Mid-East simulation
Mark Franklin

“The NSW Department of Education and Training has dumped a controversial program, developed by Macquarie University, in which students simulate the main players in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“In the computer simulation, university students, as well as Year 11 history students at seven NSW high schools, role-played leading figures in the conflict.

“According to Dr Andrew Vincent, the director of Macquarie University’s Centre for Middle East and North African Studies, the simulation enables students to ‘gain an insight into views from all sides of the argument’.

“But a review by the NSW Department of Education, prompted by the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, found the course to be unsuitable for high schools. However, it will continue at Macquarie University.

“The board said the simulation’s background information on the figures represented was heavily biased against Israel. The seven schools which had used the simulation included North Sydney Boys High School and Killara High School, where Jewish students complained about it.

“Board of Deputies president David Knoll told the AJN: ‘Our community welcomes the government’s continuing commitment to balance, factual accuracy and objectivity in educational programs.’

‘The simulation exercise did not meet the government’s own standards on teaching controversial issues in schools,’ he said.

“The federal member for Melbourne Ports, Michael Danby, said the university’s simulation was an indictment of the anti-Israel bias displayed by its Centre for Middle East and North African Studies.

“He also criticised Dr Vincent over the appointment to the centre’s board of Jewish left-wing commentator Antony Loewenstein, whom Danby previously attacked over his vehement criticism of Israel.

“‘I’d like to know how the vice-chancellor of Macquarie University can justify either Loewenstein’s appointment or the kind of bias the NSW Department of Education’s decision points to’, Danby said.

“‘One wonders what kind of graduates are being churned out by such biased facilities and I think the funding of such one-sided courses at Macquarie University, at the Australian National University, and other places, ought to be investigated by parliament.’

“Dr Vincent rejected charges that the simulation has been biased and defended the appointment of Loewenstein, who hosts an internet blog that deals largely with Israel and is writing a book about the responses to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, scheduled to be published later this year.

“‘We wanted a Jewish person on the board. We didn’t have any Jews on the board and it seemed to be an absence’, Dr Vincent said.

“‘He was a fairly well qualified person who writes extensively about the Middle East…It seems an ideal choice.’”

Meddling MP Michael Danby – who has a history of trying to quash dissent – and the leading Jewish organisation in NSW seem to believe that any reading of the Israel/Palestine conflict that doesn’t subscribe to a strict interpretation of Zionist dogma is biased. This skewed logic also extends to complaints about my appointment to the board.

It is about time that Danby and his Zionist defenders understood that their reading of the conflict – never-ending excuses for a brutal and illegal occupation – is starting to wear thin in the wider community.

13 comments

The problem with democracy

Robert Fisk, The Independent, January 28:

“Oh no, not more democracy again! Didn’t we award this to those Algerians in 1990? And didn’t they reward us with that nice gift of an Islamist government – and then they so benevolently cancelled the second round of elections? Thank goodness for that!

“True, the Afghans elected a round of representatives, albeit that they included some warlords and murderers. But then the Iraqis last year elected the Dawa party to power in Baghdad, which was responsible – let us not speak this in Washington – for most of the kidnappings of Westerners in Beirut in the 1980s, the car bombing of the (late) Emir and the US and French embassies in Kuwait.

“And now, horror of horrors, the Palestinians have elected the wrong party to power. They were supposed to have given their support to the friendly, pro-Western, corrupt, absolutely pro-American Fatah, which had promised to “control” them, rather than to Hamas, which said they would represent them. And, bingo, they have chosen the wrong party again.

Result: 76 out of 132 seats. That just about does it. God damn that democracy. What are we to do with people who don’t vote the way they should?”

4 comments

Teaching the kids

The latest educational development in Tajikistan is causing waves:

“Tajikistan’s secondary school system will be placing an increased emphasis on Islam, as per a new government initiative.

“The move pleases Islamic parties in the country, which unlike those in other countries in Central Asia, are allowed to participate in the government.”

Some secularists are unhappy but New Eurasia explains the rationale:

“The importance of Islam to Tajikistan’s history and culture is self-evident. It seems only natural, therefore, that it should be covered in the school system. So long as students are learning about Islam from an academic perspective, as opposed to a religious one, this move does nothing more to threaten the secular nature of the regime. Furthermore, increased knowledge about Islam may diffuse some of the more extreme elements of Tajik society, as their inclusion in the political process arguably does.”

When Murdoch’s Australian, claiming to represent the popular majority, argues that schools in Australia should focus on the positives in our history – stressing the negatives is clearly a “leftist” conspiracy – it’s reassuring to think that countries on the other side of the world are equally struggling with the changing face of religion in contemporary life.

one comment

Selective memory

The Australian Jewish News editorialises on the significance of Australia Day:

“We Jews – whose narrative has so much in common with Aborigines in terms of our associations to land, history and memory – know more than most the meaning of dispossession and, if not stolen generations, then massacre and, yes, genocide. It is here that the proximity to Australia Day of the United Nations-sponsored International Holocaust Remembrance Day resonates loudly, without in any way comparing the tragedies that have befallen both peoples. And while we can be rightly proud of our outstanding achievements Down Under, it is the injustices that continue to prevail that we must urgently redress.”

Jews have indeed suffer attempted genocide, discrimination and stereotyping over the centuries and our contribution to Australia has been significant, considering a relatively tiny population. Many have worked tirelessly for Aboriginal rights and the 1992 Mabo case was at least partly due to Jewish legal know-how (and moral certitude.)

The editorial, however, is dangerously selective when discussing “injustice.” While ongoing support for the Aboriginal community is vital, equal effort is not being spent attempting to readdress another tragedy within the Jewish state itself. If an Aboriginal person is dispossessed and disadvantaged, which many certainly are, the Palestinian people are also in need of international support and solidarity. Indeed, it was the formation of the Jewish state in 1948 that directly caused the dispossession of untold Palestinians. This injustice is yet to be resolved.

If some Australian Jews care about refugees, Aboriginals and low-income earners, they should not forget about what their silence is condoning in Israel.

20 comments

Another world is possible

Tens of thousands of people descend on Venezuela for the ever-growing movement against imperialism and the mainstream media closes its eyes:

“The overarching WSF [World Social Forum] theme ‘Another World Is Possible’ and opposition to ‘imperialism’ and war are the common denominators among the broad range of organisations and individuals gathered in Caracas this week, where one of this year’s three Forums is taking place. The first phase was held Jan. 19-23 in Bamako, Mali, and the third is scheduled for late March in Karachi, Pakistan.

“he wide variety of organisations and participants was expressed by the multicoloured march, in which some 15,000 activists representing dozens of local and visiting organisations took part starting on Tuesday evening and stretching into the wee hours of the morning along two avenues in the southern part of the capital.

“Some 70,000 participants had registered for the WSF as of Wednesday, for around 1,800 activities organised by just over 2,000 different civil society groups.”

For more information, see here, here and here.

3 comments

News bytes

- The Iraqi blogosphere explodes with a range of opinions.

- US Jewish groups are campaigning for action in Darfur. “Darfur hit a heartstring in the Jewish community,” said Steve Gutow, executive director of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs. “It shows that when we say ‘never again,’ we mean it…It is one of those moments when everybody seems to be saying the same thing and we see an extraordinary force coming about.”

- Prime Minister John Howard gives invaluable advice to Hamas. Perhaps he would like to travel to Ramallah and offer his insights personally.

- Germany plunges into a baby crisis:

“Germany was plunged into an anguished debate yesterday about how to encourage reluctant couples to breed after new figures showed Germany with the world’s highest proportion of childless women.

“Thirty per cent of German women have not had children, according to European Union statistics from 2005, with the figure rising among female graduates to 40%. Germany’s new family minister, Ursula von der Leyen, said that unless the birth rate picked up the country would have to ‘turn the light out’.”

- Medialens challenges the accuracy of Iraq Body Count.

9 comments

A victory for clarity

Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, 26 January:

“Hamas’ victory in the Palestinian Authority legislative elections has everyone asking ‘what next’? The answer, and whether the result should be seen as a good or bad thing, depends very much on who is asking the question.

“Although a Hamas success was heavily trailed, the scale of the victory has been widely termed a ‘shock.’ Several factors explain the dramatic rise of Hamas, including disillusionment and disgust with the corruption, cynicism and lack of strategy of the Fatah faction which has dominated the Palestinian movement for decades and had arrogantly come to view itself as the natural and indisputable leader.

“The election result is not entirely surprising, however, and has been foreshadowed by recent events. Take for example the city of Qalqilya in the north of the West Bank. Hemmed in by Israeli settlements and now completely surrounded by a concrete wall, the city’s fifty thousand residents are prisoners in a Israeli-controlled giant ghetto. For years Qalqilya’s city council was controlled by Fatah but after the completion of the wall, voters in last years’ municipal elections awarded every single city council seat to Hamas. The Qalqilya effect has now spread across the occupied territories, with Hamas reportedly winning virtually all of the seats elected on a geographic basis. Thus Hamas’ success is as much an expression of the determination of Palestinians to resist Israel’s efforts to force their surrender as it is a rejection of Fatah. It reduces the conflict to its most fundamental elements: there is occupation, and there is resistance.”

one comment