Answering two criticisms

Rating: 7/10 (12 May 2020)

My colleagues here have given us some excellent descriptions and reviews, so i will just focus on these two aspects:
Firstly, there is the creation of the imaginary (?) French organization with international tentacles, which seems like a device that avoids revealing Mossad's real methods of going about occumulating information, including through the infiltration of 'enemy' organizations by operative who may well still have been in place at the time the film was made. It also serves as a useful device to deliver a few messages about ethics and political workings.
Secondly, there is the omission of the Lillyhammer and Salameh assassinations, both of which involved errors on the part of Mossad. But I don't think it was to protect Mossad that Spielberg didn't address them directly. I believe it was because they would detract from the basic point he was making in the film about the way vengeance exacts an emotional and moral price on the perpetrator, regardless of how justified their acts may seem to be. After all, even official state executors are changed fairly regularly, so how much more difficult must it be for agents hunting down their quarry amidst the goings on of ordinary human life? Indeed we would find it monstrous if they didn't suffer from conflicting emotions, since the alternative would be regarded as cold blooded fanaticism.
Spielberg has delivered an excellent work in the thriller genre, but there is a lot more going on here, for those who want to scratch below the surface and study the interweaving of complex psychological and political threads.