Ok, so first of all, I saw Munich last night. I thought it was an ok film up until the last scene. In it, the Israeli guy who's assassinated a bunch of the Munich kidnappers is talking to his director in Brooklyn in the 1970's. They have the following conversation:
Avner: Did we kill to replace the terrorist leadership, or the Palestinian leadership? You tell me what we've done!
Ephraim: You killed them for the sake of a country you now choose to abandon. The country your mother and father built, that you were born into. You killed them for Munich, for the future, for peace.
Avner: There's no peace at the end of this, no matter what you believe, you know this is true.
Then there's a little bit more about how Avner should go back to Israel, he says no but invites Ephraim over for supper, he declines and they both walk away as the camera pans up to this image:
I know Spielberg (who is an American Jew) claims that he was trying to address both sides of the issue, however by ending with this image, it seems to suggest that Palestinians had something to do with September 11th, or that the Palestine-Israel conflict was somehow the motivation for the attack. This, despite the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian, and that NONE of them were Palestinian nationals. The only, ONLY connections I can see between the Munich kidnappings and September 11th is that both were carried out by groups of Islam extremists. However, even there, they had different motives and different goals. I suppose it could be argued that the September 11th attackers were angry with the US for supporting Israel, however I think the issue is much larger and more complex than that. By making this tenuous link, Spielberg seems to paint all Arabs with a broad stroke which I am uncomfortable with.
On the other hand, I turn to the protests and riots (which are now killing people) over the Muhammad cartoons originally printed in Denmark and Norway. What baffles me is why people in Muslim countries would boycott Danish brands like Arla, when in fact, Arla has nothing to do with the newspaper that printed the cartoons in the first place. And actually, the only thing they DO have in common is their nationality. Why should they be punished for something in which they had no part contributing? Such behaviour is akin to, oh, I don't know, suggesting that all Arabs are terrorists...
2 comments:
I haven't seen the film so my comments are to be read with a grain of salt.
There seems to me to be a 'reap what you sow' aspect to the connection wih 9-11. I'd heard that the ending was done like this and I can't help but feel that this was done as some sort of dig, although I can't be sure if it was done in the direction of islamic terrorists or in the direction of the US and their continued intervention in the middle east. Irrespective of the people at the end of his finger, I think it is a tenuous link. but, I think, as tenuous as your link to the hijackers being Saudi as opposed to Palestinian. I get the feeling that national boundaries somewhat cease when battle departs from the football field. Maybe I'm rong about that, as I'm no fancy big city middle east expert.
My feelings about 9-11 is that it is just part of long string of connected events, but where none are necessary caused by any other. Admittedly since 9-11 that has changed somewhat as there are a lot of things that can be seen to have been caused by 9-11, such as the invasion of Afghanistan but possibly not including the invasion of iraq. But just as 9-11 is part of that chain, so was the Munich attacks. Maybe the root causes are different. From watching the excellent 'one day in september', which is a documentary rather than a movie of the events, there seems to be a deep frustration in the living conditions of the palestinians. Very interestingly whenever there was a sense of 'those poor athletes' in the film, there quickly followed images of the refugee camps, which is not to say that you could pardon the actions but you could possibily understand those actions. For 9-11, I am a bit lost as to what the causes were, but I would suspect that they have a more fundamentalist islam basis. Maybe that is part of it, there has been a movement from a resnetment of Israel and it's place in the middle east and how it has denied the palestinians to a religious cause. Hmmm, maybe it's evolution.
And it seems to me that Israel going away will not bring peace in the middle east. It might have twenty years ago but not anymore. Now it would seem that the west has to get out of the middle east...
You have a valid point about the trashing of all things Danish. Although very similar to my grandmother and a friend of mine who do their damndest to boycott all things american. Which brings us to sanctions. It would seem on the surface that sanctions worked against South Africa. But from talking to south african friends of mine this is a straw argument. As far as sporting sanctions went this was fundamentally floored by the selfish desire of the world's sporting elite to go and test their skills against the mighty south africans. NZ toured there in rugby several times (we caused the boycott of the Montreal Olympics), they toured us (although to massive protest within NZ) and the best cricket players toured there and most of their best played in England. So sporting sanctions were meaningless. As far as economic sanctions went, they were always circumvented and when it came to arms, the south africans just made their own. and then sold them to african nations. smart. From what my friends tell me, the change that happened in SA was a consequence of the development of a real desire for justice within the country itelf, rather than as a consequence of international pressure.
complicated world....
Excellent points mate. I certainly don't purport to be any expert on the middle east either, but I guess my issue with the film was that it dealt with israel-palestine relations throughout, and had little or nothing to do with with America/the West until that shot at the end. So what was the purpose of including it then? I agree when you say that they are joined in a long string of connected events, but what precisely is the connection? And why bother pointing it out at the very end without dedicating any more time to explore it? Although, maybe that was his goal then, to generate discussion. In which case, he seems to have succeeded...
Post a Comment