Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Il razzismo "liberale":  Il caso di "Munich", film di Spielberg

Il review sotto va letto integralmente  (anche se non e' proprio ben
scritto) per diverse ragioni.
L'autore e' un Libanese (professore di studi medio-orientali.  Qualcuno
chiami commentary!) "estremista arabo", tiene un blog
(
angryarab.blogspot.com
 Vale la pena leggere anche quello, sia perche'
probabilmente NON e' prezzolato dalla CIA, sia perche ci sono molti
commenti originali dell'autore, e rapporti sulla stampa araba
difficilmente trovabili in altri posti), e ha conosciuto personalmente
alcuni dei Palestinesi assassinati in rappresaglia per Monaco (nota
cosa significa la stessa parola nel contesto Italiano: Fosse Adreatine
et cetera).
Il film ("Monaco", di Spielberg) e' caratterizzato universalmente dai
media (perlomeno qui' in Nord America) come "liberale" (persino, e'
criticato dai neocon per essere troppo liberale).
Eppure, aldila' della sua descrizione dei fatti e del contesto,
contiene una tale miriade di stereotipi razziali che un film simile su
qualsiasi altro gruppo etnico, nazionale o culturale sarebbe stato
semplicemente impensabile.  Il bello e' che probabilmente, Spielberg e
molti altri "liberali" non si accorgono neanche che il loro film
"liberale" e' capace di mandare un'Arabo ateo, "occidentalizzato"
e politicamente accorto su tutte le furie.
Il conflitto continua anche per questo.   Perche, se non si riesce a
privare il nemico della sua umanita', diventera' anche impossibile fare
le cose che un'occupazione tipo quella Israeliana
(e USA in Irak.  E le colonie Francesi.  E le nostre colonie in
Etiopia, ricordate con nostalgia da quell'"antifascista" di Montanelli)
richiedono.
---------------------------------------------------
Spielberg on Munich: the humanization of Israeli killers, and the
dehumanization of Palestinian civilians.
Angry Arab
posted by As'ad @ 2:32 PM l
Spielberg on Munich: the humanization of Israeli killers, and the
dehumanization of Palestinian civilians. Or the Celebration of the
Israeli Killing Machine. And who is retaliating against whom in the
Arab-Israeli conflict? THIS is the question. It reminds me of a line
that George Carlin-yes, that Carlin-used to use in his comedy
routine and went roughly like this: "why do "we" call Israeli
terrorists commandos, and we call Palestinian commandos terrorists?"
That line never got a laugh the two times I saw him use it with a live
audience.
The thrust of the Spielberg movie is simple, fanfare notwithstanding:
Israeli killers are conscientious and humane people, while Palestinians
are always--no matter what--killers. But a Spielberg movie about
current affairs is like a Thomas Friedman's column about...Emanuel
Kant. What do you expect. But you know? Did you notice how one lone
critical opinion of the movie by one Israeli diplomat, which only
mildly criticized the movie, got so much press in the US? It was
needed; and it even helped to promote the movie to give a
"balanced" cast to the narrative, that it of course does not
deserve.
This one critical opinion reminded me of O'Reilly; how he every night
finds one email from somebody in Montana who tells him that he is too
liberal. He needs that to maintain an image that does not exist, just
as Spielberg needs to maintain an image that he does not deserve. This
movie could easily have been a paid Israeli advertisement for its
killing machine. In fact, it could be a recruitment movie for Israeli
killing squads. I mean that. In fact, it is a celebretary movie of
Israeli murder of Palestinians. Israel killing is always moral, and
always careful, and always on target.
Today, yet another New York Times reviewer who also thinks that
Spielberg was not sympathetic enough to the Israeli killers, even had
the audacity to describe Israeli killings at the time as "targeted
assassinations" when even Israel had not invented that propaganda term
back then. He must have forgotten to remember. That's all.
Where do I begin.
I mean yes, I was quite angry watching it; and I got more angry as I
watched the Berkeley liberal audience react sympathetically to the
movie, rooting for the Israel head killer, as he went about his
"civilized" killing. I watched the audience root for an Israeli killing
team, and this WAS a true story, and Palestinian victims were real
people, with real blood. The most emotional moment for Spielberg, and
presumably for American audiences was when the head killer talked with
his baby daughter in New York, that he missed very much. Oh, ya. That
was the point at which you were expected to shed a tear or two; the
music got particularly sentimental at that point. It had to be.
But where to begin; the movie was based on a book that took the Israeli
account as it was delivered. But the book was honest and more accurate
at least on one count: in the book by George Jonas titled Vengeance
None. In the book but not in the movie, the killers, according to
Jonas, had "absolutely no qualms about anything they did." How could
Spielberg miss that. Well, he just managed. Hell, that was the whole
movie, and the whole political project behind it. Of course, it was not
easy for me to watch this movie, I mean not only at the political and
intellectual levels, but also at the personal level. I can connect to
the story, in its details and personalities. The first victim of the
movie was Wa'il Zu`aytir, and I knew his niece; I went to school with
Abu Hasan Salamah's son--he was younger; and I knew the street and
building where the three PLO leaders were massacred in Beirut. And let
me tell you that NONE of the five people mentioned here had anything to
do with Munich--but more on that later.
NONE.
But why should this movie, a Spielberg's movie for potato's sake,
bother with facts, especially if they come in the way of a smooth
pro-Israeli narrative? But this movie is intended for mass audiences
who know nothing about the facts of the conflict. That is exactly why
it will work, and why it will deliver the (propaganda) goods.
Let me start by saying this: this, Munich that is, was not as planned
an operation as has often been maintained. This was not planned months
in advance, as Abu Iyad maintained in his account with Eric Rouleau
(translated into English as My Home, My Land by dear Linda Butler). Abu
Iyad for years exaggerated the claims about the "carefully planned"
operation, and PLO media at the time lied about how the PLO gunmen
threw grenades into the helicopters, so as to make the last shootout
more of a fight that it actually was. Angry Palestinians who were being
hit by Israeli fighter jets in their refugee camps demanded heroes and
heroism, and the PLO had to give them some, even if they were not
legitimate heroes. The German troops were going to take them out, no
matter what, and no matter how much they, the Germans in this case,
endangered the lives of the hostages, and they presumably had Israeli
consent.
The Arab League diplomat talked about this recently when he broke his
silence in an interview on Ziyarah Khassah on Al-Jazeera. He should
know: he was the negotiator with the the Palestinian team in Munich.
Yes, I know. It can be argued that the Palestinian attackers risked the
lives of the hostages by taking them hostages, even if they did not
intend to kill them. That is true. This is like hijacking: the
hijackers, any hijackers, are responsible, and should be held
responsible for whatever endangerment to the lives and health of
victims. That is true. But it is also true that the State of Israel has
taken a nation as a hostage, and has been endangering the lives of
Palestinians since the inception of the state of Israel. This is why it
is all a question of who is retaliating against whom?
One of the many false premises of the movie is that Israel only went on
a killing rampage-and only against Palestinian "killers"--after
Munich. That Munich was a watershed. Watershed it was not, except in
Israeli propaganda brochures. Israel has been going on killing rampages
against Palestinians, civilians mostly, since before the creation of
the state of Israel. And how could you even talk about Golda Meir and
forget to mention her most memorable quote: that "there is no such
thing as the Palestinian people." Spielberg must have missed that,
just as he needed to show her as grandma goodness who was pushed into
vengeance by Palestinian cruelty. More humanization. That is why we had
to see the head Israeli killer with his child: you need to see him as a
human being. Do you know that not a single Palestinian in the movie
appeared unarmed? They all were terrorists, and their murder had to be
justified, and Spielberg did a great service for the state of Israel in
that regard.
They should name some stolen Palestinian property in Israel in his
honor, I argue. A street, a destroyed Arab village, or a stolen olive
tree. Anything. He deserves it. And let us see what Israel was doing
before Munich.
Before Munich, NOT AFTER-did you get that, Israel placed a bomb under
the car seat of Palestinian writer/artist, Ghassan Kanafani and killed
him and killed his niece (14). The niece was not plotting the Munich
operation when she was murdered by the Israelis; nor was her uncle.
That was BEFORE Munich. Kanafani was best friends with my uncle; they
both used to write in Al-Hurriyyah magazine during their days at the
Movement of Arab Nationalists.
Israel also-BEFORE Munich-sent a letter bomb to Bassam Abu Sharif
(a writer and journalist with the PFLP), and left him with life-long
scars and bodily damage, and they also sent a letter bomb to Anis
Sayigh, a scholar and researcher, who was not a member of any group.
But he was a really diligent researcher, and Israel did not appreciate
it--I am assuming.
This is not easy for me; I have shaken the hands--or what was left of
their hands--of both of those men, and Abu Sharif never had a military
role-I say this although I never liked Abu Sharif or respected him
(read my review of his memoir in Journal of Palestine Studies a few
years ago). But those were innocent victims of Israeli killing. They
never held guns those two, or those three, or four. This story is
personal for me, of course. I see them as human beings, and not as
armed and vengeful characters that they appear in Spielberg's movie.
And typical of US movies where Arabs appear, Arabs when they speak
Arabic never need subtitles. We need them when people speak in French
and German, but Arabic is not important. It is not important to know
what cheap natives say; we only need to know what expensive people say:
Europeans and Israelis. And do you notice that Hollywood still portrays
Israelis as Europeans: they still don't want to accept that some half
of all Israelis come from Asian and African countries. This makes it
easier for the White Man to identify with them.
And there is this element that is never mentioned about Palestinian
attacks: and this is true of the present and of the past. It is not
that some Palestinian leaders recruit or compel Palestinians to attack
Israelis. It is the other way round. Palestinians, regular
rank-and-file and sometimes civilians, pressure Palestinian leaders and
commanders to send them on military or suicidal missions against
Israeli targets. Munich occurred exactly like that. Palestinians in the
camps in Lebanon, those who were trained by Fath and by other groups,
were lobbying for "action." Why?, you may ask? Well, not only for
the loss of Palestine but also because Israel was KILLING Palestinians.
In February of the same year PRIOR to Munich, Israeli jets bombed
Palestinian refugee camps, and killed tens of innocent people. This is
what is missing in the movie, among many other things. Most
Palestinians who are killed by Israelis are unarmed and are killed not
by assassins who are conscientious and sensitive-as they are
outrageously portrayed in this movie-but by pilots who bomb refugee
camps filled with unarmed civilians. Palestinians who are bombed from
the air, long before Munich, are elderly and people and children in
their beds. These are the victims that you will never see in a
Spielberg movie.
So Israel was killing Palestinians, and this was the context of
pre-Munich. So a small group decided to do something, but they were not
sure what, and this was only 3 months before Munich. And one of the
handful of people who knew about this, and this will never make it into
the press was Abu Mazin--yes, that Abu Mazen the head of the puppet
Palestinian Authority. But do you notice that US/Israel always forgive
the past of those who submit to Israeli dictates? Look at how US and
Israel forgave Anwar Sadat for his anti-Semitic Nazi past. Abu Mazin
was the money guy, and he dispersed the funds for Abu Dawud, who
engineered the operation. And the American public in US media and
popular culture is so enamored with the Mossad, that the image of the
Mossad does not match its actual reality.
The best evidence is this movie: look at this obsession with Abu Hasan
Salamah as the "mastermind" of Munich when he had nothing,
absolutely nothing, to do with Munich. To be sure, Abu Hasan was a
braggart, and had a big mouth, and would take credit for things he did
not do, and would distance himself from failed "operations" that he
planned, like the Sabena failed hijacking in 1972. That was Abu Hasan:
he lived the life of a playboy, and enjoyed a unique indulgent
pampering from Abu `Ammar who treated him like a son. Abu `Ammar would
never say no to Abu Hasan, on anything. But Abu Hasan had nothing to do
with Munich, and this ostensibly all-knowing Mossad, did not know it,
and probably still does not know it.
Former CIA director, Stansfield Turner, once said that the Mossad is a
mediocre organization, but that it is outstanding in PR--only in PR.
Former CIA man in Beirut Robert Baer said this about the Mossad--I am
translating this from an interview he gave to Al-Jazeera: "Let me
tell you something, what people most err in in the Middle East, and I
am responsible for my words to the end, is related to Israeli
intelligence. To be sure, they can kill somebody in Paris or Rome or
killing the wrong person in Finland or wherever else they did that in
[he meant Norway]. To be sure they know Europe and Palestinians, and
they know many things about Palestinians, but when it comes to the rest
of the Middle East, I have not seen anything from their part that
indicated their knowledge of those countries." But this can never be
maintained in a country that wants to exaggerate the prowess and
knowledge of an intelligence agency not only to help feed the Israeli
propaganda myth, but to also prepare the American public for more
ruthless times and ways.
So a very small number of people knew about it, and of course Abu Iyad
was one of them. And Abu Iyad is the most important person on the list,
and yet his name was NOT on the list, just to show you about how
much--or how little-- Israel knew. Abu Iyad spoke more than he needed
not only because he wanted to send a message to the enemy, but also
because the wars of factions and "Abu"s within Fath necessitated a game
of one-up-manships, and of wild exaggerations at times. And while Black
September was a paper name, and did not have a separate organizational
existence or structure, several factions used the name for their own
ends.
Nobody consulted with Abu Iyad about Abu Hasan's use of the name for
the Sabena's failed hijacking mentioned above. Abu Dawud is a key
person here. And while his name was mentioned in passing, it was added
after the fact in Israeli propaganda accounts. Abu Dawud was arrested
in France for another reason in 1977, and he was released because there
were no German or Israeli warrants about his involvement in Munich.
That shows you.
Now, I will not give a blow-by-blow account of Munich. But I personally
believe the account of Abu Dawud more than I believe Spielberg, i.e.
Israeli propaganda claims, or even German police. (Abu Dawud's account
is found in Abu Dawud, Filastin: Mina-l-Quds Ila-Muikh (Beirut: Dar
An-Nahar, 1999)). German police lied quite a bit about the case; they
leaked to the press fanciful accounts of Palestinian infiltration of
the workforce at the Olympic city, when none of that actually took
place. They were too embarrassed to tell the truth. Similarly, the
Israelis wanted to back the German account, especially as the violence
at Munich was a propaganda bonanza for the Israelis in the West, just
as Munich-this is not known in the West-was a propaganda bonanza
for Fath in the Middle East, as horrrific as the outcome was for all.
And in that sense, the Germans, the Israelis, and Abu Iyad (and
certainly Abu Hasan) lied about Munich, but not Abu Dawud, in my
opinion.
Abu Dawud is one of those 2nd tier PLO leaders who did not get
corrupted in the messy Lebanese scene, and who did now allow the Gulf
money that corrupted many PLO leaders to affect him. This was a man who
was in charge of Beirut during the Lebanese civil war, and yet his name
does not appear in any chronicle of the war because he was too low key,
and because he never bragged. (Hell, he never talked even when the
brutal mukhabarat in Jordan held him from his feet for days, while
torturing him. People who saw him in jail at the time did not recognize
him. But you know this: your reliable "moderate" friends in Jordan are
quite "good" in torture. They are probably the best; they are helping
you in that regard as we speak.) Most Lebanese did not even know his
name. But this also explains why he survived, unlike say Abu Hasan
Salamah, who married a Lebanese former Miss Universe, who introduced
him to Lebanese bourgeois society, and he could not get enough of that
life. He developed a routine, and lived in a fancy apartment on Madame
Curie Street in Beirut, and the routine he developed (going to the GYM
at the same time every day), made him an easy target.
Abu Hasan could get all the money he wanted for his own group from
`Arafat, and was doing a good job of maintaining not only good
relations with the CIA but also with Lebanese right-wing groups. He
became good friends with some right-wing militia leaders. Read the
novel by Navid Ignatius, Agents of Innocence: it is about Abu Hasan,
although the author does not admit it.
It is interesting that in the movie, the Israeli head killer (who was
in the movie Troy), was cast to be most appealing to the audience: a
good looking and charismatic figure. But say what you want about Abu
Hasan (and many people in Palestinian struggle, like Abu Dawud, did not
like him) but he was a good looking and charismatic figure in real
life, but not the actor who played him in Spielberg's movie. But
Spielberg did not want the viewer to identify with any Palestinian in
the movie: that was contrary to him and to his political goal. He just
wanted to identify with the expensive human beings: the Israelis.
The Arabs are worse than they were in Renoir's painting, the Mosque,
as an unidentifiable blob. They were just armed, with no humanity. They
were not supposed to evoke emotions, and you were not supposed to see
them bleed, and if you did, you had to cheer for their killers. The
only ones that you had to feel sorry for: were the Israelis who get
killed, including the killers when they kill. The music that played
when Israelis die, was different from the music that played when
Palestinians died. And no speaking roles for Palestinians were
necessary. Why bother. Give one a line, and you have done your
"objective" duty.
And the list of prisoners that attackers submitted to German
authorities did not have "200 Arab prisoners" on it, as the movie
said. It had some 234 Arab and NON-Arab names on them, including
Japanese and German prisoners, but that was not in the movie. And the
statement that was issued by the attackers gave a name to the
"operation": Bir`im and Ikrit, names of two (predominantly
Christian) villages in northern Palestine, the people of which were
expelled by Israeli occupation forces in 1948 for "security
reasons."
In 1972, the people of those villages petitioned the courts to return
to their villages, and the courts of course turned them down. But if
you were to use the name of the "operation" you would have to tell
the audience those burdensome details that would have distracted from
the celebration of the Israeli killing machine. But this begs the
question: why is Munich more famous than the savage bombardment of
Palestinian refugee camps back in February prior to Munich? And why did
the letter bombs to three Palestinian writers not get any world
attention? Why did American liberals and PEN not notice it back then?
Could you imagine what would happen if a Palestinian threw even a rose
at an Israeli writer? Could you imagine what would happen among
American leftists if a Palestinian were to say even a bad word to Amos
Oz for example? That was the stature of Ghassan Kanafani among
Palestinians and Arabs.
Now, I will not get into the military/intelligence background of the
Israeli hostages as Abu Dawud does in his memoirs because the attackers
did not know that information prior to the "operation." Abu Dawud
gives many details about the military backgrounds of some of the
hostages, but I do not think that this is appropriate because even Abu
Dawud did not know that before hand.
I will not get into what actually happened at the site at the airport
when the hostages were being transferred by their captors not only
because the captors were responsible by virtue of the hostage
"operation", but you can raise questions regarding the actual
responsibility of the killing of the hostages.
Abu Dawud cites Israeli newspapers from the 1990s in which writers
raised questions about German responsibility, and on how the German
government never published autopsy reports of the hostages, etc. The
Israeli government also did not want to examine the bullets that killed
the Israeli hostages. That would have settled the question, of course.
Abu Dawud stressed that the attackers were under strict instructions to
not shoot at the hostages, and you noticed in the scene, even in the
movie, that when they were storming the compound, they clearly
struggled with the door and avoided shooting, while that could have
shortened the time of entry, and Abu Dawud says that they were under
strict instructions to avoid using the grenades. And Abu Dawud raises
the possibility that the helicopter may have exploded from a bullet
that hit it gas tank, but I don't know, and I have never relied on
Spielberg, or on the silly book on which he based his account, for
historical accuracy.
And another thing comes to mind: Palestinians also have managed to
assassinate Israeli military and intelligence leaders but that never
gets attention because the trend in US media and popular culture is
that you should only show Palestinians when they are killing civilians.
And it is not true that the Israeli response was confined to the
assassination of the 11 Palestinians as was shown in the movie: Israel
was also killing other Palestinians.
Israeli "response" or initiative we should call it, was more
massive and brutal that the operation of the secret team. Three days
after Munich, Israel ordered an air strike which required the use of
some 75 Israeli aircrafts (the largest attack since 1967) and the
attacks on Palestinian refugee camps in Syria and Lebanon resulted in
the killing of more than 200 mostly civilians. And this is not because
the Israelis knew that there was a camp north of Sidon that was used
for training the Munich attackers. That camp was not even hit (another
sign that Israelis had no information about the real culprits of
Munich) and other camps with civilians were hit. And then while the
assassinations were taking place, Israeli bombing of camps continued
uninterruptedly. And the most glaring omission in the film, which shows
you that the Israeli team was not only savage but also ignorant of
their targets, was what happened on July 21st 1973, when `Ali Bushiki,
a Moroccan waiter resting with his pregnant wife around a swimming pool
in Norway, was murdered by that assassination team merely because `Ali
resembled what the hit team thought Abu Hasan Salamah looked like. (The
Norwegian police tracked and arrested the killers, but they were all
released in a secret deal with the Israeli governement--is that not
nice?) Should that not have made it to the movie? But that would have
made them look more brutally clumsy than Spielberg wanted them to look
like.
And even Wa'il Zu`yatir, the PLO representative in Rome. He knew
nothing about Munich, and was an academic with close ties to socialist
circles in Italy. Zu`ytir was shot 14 times. He never held a gun in his
life. These Israeli team members were killers who really relished
killing, and did not seem susceptible to moral second-thinking as was
stressed over and over again in the movie. Zu`ytir was more interested
in literature than he was in military affairs, on which he knew
nothing. And PLO representative in France Mahmud Hamshari also had
nothing to do with Munich; Israeli propaganda later had to contend with
that, and claimed after killing him that the attackers passed through
France on their way to Munich. In reality, the attackers never stepped
on French soil when they went to Germany.
And the movie, it seems really enjoyed covering the 1973 massacre in
Beirut. Spielberg I could tell really enjoyed learning and covering
that massacre by Israeli terrorist squads. But who were the three PLO
personalities killed in that "operation"? And who cares about the
details? Kamal `Udwan was the Fath/PLO leader responsible for the West
Bank and Gaza. He not only had no responsibilities in Europe, but he
opposed "operations" in Europe, and even those by Black September.
More than that, `Udwan was one of the most moderate Fath leaders having
accepted the two-state solution back in 1970, before any of his
colleques in Fath. Abu Yusuf An-Najjar was in charge of intelligence in
Lebanon-Lebanon, not Europe. While `Udwan had no knowledge of Munich,
Abu Yusuf may have heard about it but had no role whatever in it. The
third person was a poet: and you know how much Israelis like to murder
Palestinian poets, artists, and writers. Kamal Nasir was a poet, and
was killed in his bed.
The movie did not tell you that by the time the Israeli terrorists
finished with their "mission," some 100 Palestinians and Lebanese
were murdered on that day in April 1973. I also was amused--not
really--how Spielberg portrayed the neighborhood where the PLO leaders
AND others were killed: it had all the features of Orientalist
imagination. It was traditional and the houses were old styles with
arches, and the place was protected like a military base. In reality,
the PLO leaders lived in a residential building in the most modern and
upper class neighborhood of Verdun in Beirut. But why bother with that
detail too. And the Fath representative in Cyprus also had nothing to
do with Munich; he was the intelligence envoy of Abu Yusuf An-Najjar.
And some people on the list of the Israeli murder team were not only
not involved with Black September, but some were not even members of
the Fath organization.
Basil Al-Kubaysi was a Palestinian scholar who had just completed his
PhD in political science; I recently had dinner with Basil's best
friend in college in Candada. Kubaysi was in the PFLP and not in the
Fath organization. The same for Muhammad Budia: he was with Wadi`
Haddad, and not with Black September. But then again: I read that
Spielberg offered the script to Dennis Ross and to Bill Clinton to
verify the "accuracy" of Middle East political and historical
references. The two are experts on the Middle East, in case you have
not heard. More than that, the movie did not tell you that on September
16th, and 17th, Israel launched a savage invasion of South Lebanon,
erasing the refugee camp of Nabatiyyah, and the Lebanese newspapers at
the time (I even remember that as a 12 years old) had on the first page
that famous picture of a smashed civilian car with seven Lebanese
civilians smashed inside when an Israeli tank ran over the car near
Jwayya in South Lebanon. That must have been too messy for Spielberg to
cover. Why bother? And the car had stopped at the Israeli checkpoint
that was set up at the entrance to the village. Were those civilians in
the car also involved in Munich?
Later, as the movie ended, it was written on the screen that Abu Hasan
Salamah was later "assassinated." Spielberg forgot to add that he
was "assassinated" by a massive car bomb in a crowded street in
Beirut, which killed and injured tens of people-oh, and those people
also were not involved with Munich.
The reviews of the movie in US media almost expressed frustration that
Spielberg did not express enough sympathy for the Israeli killers. Only
Michelle Goldberg of Salon to her credit (great review Michelle)
pointed out that contrary to that lousy review by Leon Wieseltier in
the New Republic "many of those [Israelis] in Munich are, if
anything, slightly unbelievable in their constant self-interrogation
and closely guarded humanism." I was thinking after the movie that
public ignorance of the Middle East greatly helps Israeli propaganda;
this explains why Zionist organizations express contempt and wrath at
Middle East expertise and specialty (as in MESA) because those who get
to know and learn about the Middle East overwhelming find it difficult
if not impossible to consume the unbelievable dosages of Israeli
propaganda delivered via US media and popular and political cultures.
*Three of the Munich Palestinian attackers survived. One died from a
heart attack; the remaining two are...somewhere in the Middle East.
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2005/12/spielberg-on-munich-humanization-of.html

 scritto) per diverse ragioni
Al contrario: trovo che sia scritto molto vivacemente. Certo e' una 
versione di parte. Ma se e' vero quel che dice rispetto al *film* , 
quello di Spielberg e' un altro siluro per il  processo di pace.
Da questo punto di vista continuo a pensare che 'La Tamburina' di Le' 
Carre', con tutti i limiti di un romanzo, affrontava i dilemmi morali 
del terrorismo delle due parti in modo assai meno edulcorato.
Am.

 Il review 
[yawn]
Che palle questo negazionista. Perché non si spara, se si fa tanto schifo?
Tb
-- 
L'EUROPA E GLI "EBREI BUONI"
http://tonibaruch.blogspot.com/2005/12/leuropa-e-gli-ebrei-buoni.html

 del terrorismo delle due parti in modo assai meno edulcorato.
Non credo che tu abbia capita il libro. Comunque è ottimo.


 quello di Spielberg e' un altro siluro per il  processo di pace.
PS:  il succo del commento sta in questo articolo per il Jerusalem Post
(giornale neocon Israeliano ma non troppo, vedi PPS )
-----------------------------------------------
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1134309618331&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Foxman: Spielberg's 'Munich' treats Israel fairly
Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman on Tuesday
defended Steven Spielberg's new film Munich
...
    He said the movie, which recounts the murder of 11 Israeli athletes
by the Palestinian group Black September at the 1972 Munich Olympics,
portrays that tragedy as an act of "brutal terrorism" with no
humanizing of the perpetrators.
...
    But Foxman - who pointed out that, unlike him, many of the critics
hadn't seen the movie - said the Israelis are portrayed in human terms
-----------------------------------------------
Insomma, il film e' OK perche' "gli Israeliani sono umanizzati" mentre
"i terroristi non lo sono".
E questo secondo il direttore dell'"Anti-defamation league" dimostra
che "Israele e' trattato
con correttezza".
Ora, almeno secondo me gli unici che dividono gli esseri umani in umani
e non in base alla nazionalita' sono i razzisti.   Invece si scopre lo
puo' fare anche una sedicente
"anti-defamation league" il cui scopo, secondo la webpage (
www.adl.org
)
"is to fight bigotry and
extremism".
PS:
cinquant'anni fa la ADL era un'organizzazione per la difesa dei diritti
umani.
Oggi e' un'outfit neocon, che fra l'altro e' stato beccato a spiare su
gruppi Ebraici progressisti
per conto dell'intelligence Sud-Africana durante il periodo Apartheid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Defamation_League#Collaboration_with_South_Africa.27s_Apartheid_Regime
PPS:
Il Jerusalem Post era un giornale Israeliano abbastanza progressista.
Oggi fa parte dell'impero
editoriale della destra Neocon di Conrad Black.   Un Canadese in questo
momento processato
per truffa, e spero a due passi dalla galera.

 Che palle questo negazionista.
Il tizio del review?  Questa fa a paio con "Lenni Brenner l'antisemita"
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2005/12/lebanese-civil-war-ayatollah-and.html
 On the stupid statements of the Iranian president, he expressed
surprise and dismay that people can't dispute the number of the victims
of the holocaust. This is what I have to say about this: aside from all
the obvious reasons, why? I mean, why do you want to dispute the number
of the victims of the holocaust? Don't we also condemn those Zionists
who want to prove that Jenin was not a massacre because "only" 54 were
killed--which was the line of the US government by the way? I know that
it is difficult for many Arabs to address the issue of the holocaust
because Israel has used, abused, and exploited the holocaust for cheap
political reasons. But if that is true, and it is, why do we have to
punish the victims of the holocaust? The victims of the holocaust are
not responsible for Zionist exploitation. We should let them rest in
peace, and be respectful of their memory, and leave the holocaust out
of our polemical squabbles and ideological wars. We have to reach a
point where we--as Arabs--can understand Jewish suffering in the
holocaust, and even be sensitive to anti-Semitism in general without
having to worry about Zionist political exploitations. The two are--or
should be--separate. And when we engage in the hateful talk that seems
to either denigrate Jewish suffering or question the magnitude of
suffering of the victims of the horrors of the holocaust, we only
supply Zionist exploitations with more weapons. And I wish I can make
this point without references to the polemics of the Arab-Israeli
conflict. Most importantly, those who engage in anti-Semitic
questioning of the methods or numbers of the holocaust only reveal
their ignorance, let alone their insensitivity, just as those who
decide to "cite" the trash named The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,
as Hamas does in its charter, also reveal their ignorance. Having said
that: this bothers me about Arab "liberals" like Hazim Saghiyyah and
the crowd of Mulhaq An-Nahar. They show more outrage at the stupid talk
of Middle East anti-Semites, than they do at actual Israeli killing of
Palestinians. But then again, Arab "liberals" more than anything else,
they write to impress Western readers. `Abdur-Rahman Ar-Rashid now has
an English site just so that Thomas Friedman can read him and praise
him, which he does, along with David Ignatius, with predictable
regularity. But I notice that the English site of Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat
does not carry this article by this columnist who does not accept the
number of holocaust victims. (I notice that MEMRI tends to go easy on
Middle East publications that are pro-US and anti-Palestinian like
Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat). Supporters of Palestinian liberation, and I count
myself as a fierce supporter of the Palestinian cause, should not
hesitate from vehement rejection and denunciation of anti-Jewish trash
talk. And let me say this, please end this cult of Roger Garaudy among
some circles in the Arab world. He was a Stalinist fanatic as a
communist; and became a fanatic crackpot as a Muslim. OK? Also, don't
you hate it when Israel and Zionist organizations act sanctimonious
about hate speech? I mean, what is Zionism if not an institutional
practice of persecution and denigration of another people in order to
uproot them, and justify the theft of their lands?

 e non in base alla nazionalita' sono i razzisti.  
Poveraccio, a cosa deve arrivare.
Sveglia Torrieri.
A Monaco ci sono stati assassini e ci sono state vittime. C'erano atleti 
ammazzati e c'erano terroristi omicidi.
Solo un idiota negazionista come te non riesce a vedere la differenza e 
desidera che l'assassino e la vittima siano messi sullo stesso piano.
Hai provato con l'acido muriatico?
E' il massimo, per chi ha il disgusto di sé e vuole infliggersi il 
massimo della pena.


 ammazzati e c'erano terroristi omicidi.
Bravo il furbetto.  Il film non parla di Monaco.
Parla di Palestinesi assassinati dal Mossad DOPO Monaco, vittime di un
crimine premeditato quanto quello contro gli atleti di Monaco e forse
anche di piu'
(visto che a Monaco probabilmente la maggior parte degli atleti
Israeliani fu uccisa dalla polizia Tedesca, e gli assassinati dalla
rappresaglia spesso non avevano assolutamente nulla a che fare con
Monaco).
GT

 PPS:

una specie di craxiano canadese? piacera' sicuramente al tonigoebbels...
-- 
 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 Questa fa a paio con "Lenni Brenner l'antisemita"
Appunto.
Quell' idiota negazionista plurisputtanato, a cui Walter Lacquer ha 
dedicato il saggio
"ANTISEMITISMO PER IMBECILLI".
Uno dei tuoi autori preferiti, insomma.


 anche di piu'
Forse anche di piů... povero Torrieri, che tristezza.
Il nanetto negazionista continua a dimenticare la differenza tra 
assassinare civili (ad esempio atleti olimpici) e uccidere nemici (ad 
esempio terroristi che organizzano l' uccisione di atleti olimpici).
Continua a cercare di confondere nazisti genocidi e gente che ha salvato 
quante piů vite era possibile dal genocidio.
Banalizza antisemiti di merda il capo dell'Ufficio Razza del Minculpop, 
epuratore e mai epurato.
Vuole che si mettano sullo stesso piano le vittime di un attentato 
terrorista e quelli che l'hanno organizzato ed eseguito.
Dovevano fargli il presepe, da piccolo. Forse adesso non sarebbe ridotto 
cosě, a sbavare dietro ad ogni killer antisemita.


 Tonibaruch wrote:


siamo alla solita cialtronata alla goebbels di tonibaruch.


 Non credo che tu abbia capita il libro. Comunque è ottimo.
Ah, e da che cosa lo evinci? Dalla mia scarsa conoscenza dell'inglese? <g>
Am.

 Ah, e da che cosa lo evinci? Dalla mia scarsa conoscenza dell'inglese? <g>
No, dal commento un po' svizzerotto.
