« E.U. arrest warrant at work against terrorists |
Blog Home Page
| Deja-vu, all over again »
December 23, 2005
NYT reviews Munich
The New York Times plays its scripted role well today, in lavishing praise on Steven Spielberg's movie Munich in its film review. It is all about "vengeance." The old "cycle of violence" theme, equating Israel's defense of its survival with the aggression of those who want to eradicate it and slaughter Jews.
How's this for condescension?
Then there are these outrages:
Not a bloodthirsty murderer, but an old intellectual who translates Scheherazade. Sick.
OKAY ...so the reviewer and Spielberg go out of their way to avoid stereotyping Palestinians terrorists as murderers but accepts the stereotypes of Jews as argumentative, wandering and bickering.
WORD COUNT: VENGEANCE is mentioned 5 times; Deterrence — zero times; Justice — zero times
Ed Lasky 12 23 05
Richard Baehr adds:
Note the two issues that the reviewer says are unaddressed in paragraph 6: whether the Palestinians have a right of return,and Israel a right to exist.
Regarding the "older man" intellectual who translated classics: in reality he was a 36 year—old who facilitated the development of the terror infrastructure in Europe — an aider and abettor, though he may not have been directly involved in Munich.
The older man makes him a more sympathetic character — like Sheikh Yassin, who was old and crippled, but the founder of Hamas (a Muslim Brotherhood franchise) and the planner of numerous terror attacks that killed hundreds of innocent people.