I Opinion

OTHER VIEWS

;

'Munich' Raises 'Passionate' Questions

Philadelphia

goes out of its way to portray Palestinian
terrorists in a flattering light and whose
believer questions are raised
conclusion centered around rejection of
about the accuracy or the truth
Israel on the part of a disillusioned member
of something por-
of that country's intelligence serv-
trayed in a film, the moviemak-
ices. Foxman only praised it.
ers and/or their public-relations
"The film presents the issues in
representatives have a ready-
a sensitive light," said the ADL
made response. "It's just a movie,"
head in a USA Today article. He
they say.
was quoted in the Jerusalem Post
The exchange invariably con-
as asserting, "We do not think
cludes with the film's people
this is an attack on Israel. We do
advising critics to "Lighten up —
not think this is a film of moral
nobody expects movies to be his-
equivalency."
Jonathan S.
torically accurate or true." That
Nor was Foxman deterred by
Tobin
answer has a lot of resonance
the fact that the source for the
Special
with the public. Movies are a big
movie is bogus and has been
Commentary
part of our imaginative life, but
roundly refuted by virtually
by and large, they exist in a fan-
everyone in Israel in a position to
tasy world, not the one in which we live and
know about the events. "This is not a docu-
work.
mentary, and nobody's pretending it
Yet, there are times when some of us do
Foxman responded in a line straight out of
get pretty worked up about the impact a
the film's P.R. playbook.
film might have.
Instead, he chose to use the questions as
Witness the reaction of the Jewish corn-
an opportunity to renew his attacks on the
munity to the 2004 release of Mel Gibson's
pro-Israel Christian right while asserting,"If
The Passion of the Christ. It's true that those
I had my choice, I would choose Spielberg,
who predicted the film would foment vio-
not [Mel] Gibson to do such a movie."
lence misunderstood their non-Jewish
A dispassionate viewer might think it odd
neighbors, if not Gibson. But that sort of
that a man who was prepared to go to the
hysteria aside, the Anti-Defamation League
barricades about the potential impact of a
and its national leader, Abraham Foxman,
film only a year ago would be so willing to
were right to raise questions about The
give Munich a pass. After all, it's not as if
Passion and to speak out about the danger
most Americans had never come across a
of the deicide myth that Gibson's film
passion play before Mel Gibson and the
seemed to be raising anew.
always-troubling portrayal of Jews in even
But when another flick with the potential
the most sensitive versions.
for damage to the interests of the Jewish
This is a time when the right of the State
community opened last month, the ADL
of Israel to defend itself against terrorism
frontman was taking quite a different line.
has never been under greater attack in the
When asked about whether he was con-
news media and from the liberal Christian
cerned about the release of Steven
denominations that wanted no part of Mel
Spielberg's Munich, Foxman wanted no part Gibson. At such a moment, doesn't Foxman
of the dustup. This is, mind you, a film that
think a movie that invokes the image of the

W

World Trade Center's twin towers "in a not-
so-subtle reinforcement of the idea that
Israel is the reason America was attacked "
is at least as incendiary a notion as the idea
that the Jews killed Jesus?
If the potential for a distorted view of the
history of the first century was so great in
The Passion, why is the ADL so disinterested
in a slanted view of the events of the last 35
years? Doesn't the fact that the movie por-
trays Arab attacks on Jewish targets as
being merely a response to Israel counter-
terror operations "the horrendously mis-
leading cliche about a 'cycle of violence—
something that should have restrained this
leader's praise?
Arab terror directed at Israeli and Jewish
targets predated the Munich atrocity and,
contrary to the film, subsequent attacks
were not predicated on Israel's counterat-
tacks. Palestinian terrorism continues
whether Israel is making peace or making
"war" or whether it's undecided about what
it should do.

The Real Story

That's why an insistence on the truth
ought not be treated as a minor detail to be
dismissed. So, rather than watch Spielberg's
fable of moral equivalence, the public would
be far better off reading a new book that
tells the real story of the response to the
Munich tragedy.
Aaron J. Klein's Striking Back: The 1972
Munich Olympics Massacre and Israel's
Deadly Response is a dispassionate account
of the security blunders that allowed the
crime to succeed, as well as the subsequent
efforts to hold the Palestinians accountable
for their deeds.
Klein's book is a powerful antidote to the
fraudulent Vengeance by George Jonas,
which Spielberg used as his primary source.
Klein, an Israeli who works as a reporter for

Time magazine, interviewed the actual par-
ticipants in the Mossad's counterattack,
something Spielberg didn't bother to do.
And unlike the protagonist of the film, the
Mossadniks admit to no misgivings about
their efforts to track down key figures in the
hierarchy of Palestinian terror.
But that story, while riveting, doesn't tell
the story that Spielberg wants us to hear.
The real problem here is that Munich is not
the work of a wacky extremist like Mel
Gibson or even a talented conspiracy maven
like Oliver Stone. It is a movie made by a
man who has been lionized by the Jewish
community for an award-winning film
about the Holocaust.
Seen in that perspective, maybe taking on
Gibson and The Passion as Foxrnan did
wasn't as daring as it seemed at the time.
Maybe the real test of institutional courage
comes when the director of Schindler's List
puts forward an "offensive film" not when
it's done by an easy mark for the organized
Jewish world.
With major Israel and American Jewish
personalities on Spielberg's payroll, it would
take guts for a group to challenge this film.
But that's a test the ADL has failed in this
case.
When all is said and done, like The
Passion, Munich is just a movie — and even
if it wins some Oscars, it will be gone soon
enough from theaters. But if the defenders
of the Jewish community and Israel have
understood anything in the past, ifs that a
defeat in the world of ideas and popular
culture can be as dangerous as one on the
battlefield.
It's just too bad that some of our leaders
were unprepared to fight when the battle
didn't look like an easy one.

❑

Jonathan S. Tobin is executive editor of the

Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia. His e-mail

address is: jtobin@jewishexponent.com .

Can Sharon's Party Stay The Course?

Jerusalem

t was not so many years ago that he
was a national and international pari-
ah, barred from ministerial office,
reviled and spent. Yet as Jan. 4 turned to
Jan. 5, and the full extent of Ariel Sharon's
incapacitation became plain, it was already
clear that ours is a changed and uncertain
country without him at its helm and that
many Israelis feel thoroughly bereft with-
out his massive, overwhelming presence.

I

42

January 12 • 2006

His convictions altered utterly in recent
years. The architect and advocate of Jewish
settlement in territories we captured in the
1967 war became the only prime minister
to forcibly dismantle long-established
communities there; Yitzhak Rabin never
did that. But if politicians changing their
spots is commonplace, what was unique
about Sharon was the assurance he man-
aged to exude that his new convictions
were the sensible ones, and never mind
what he had advocated before.

Sharon was on the brink of making his-
tory here and winning three successive
elections not by following a consistent
political path. Anything but. He was strid-
ing to victory because — unlike any of his
rivals, ordinary men and women with
ordinary frailties and flaws — he had per-
suaded Israelis that he was of a different
league, a political superman, immune to
the limitations of other mortals. He was by
no means universally admired, but he had
a vast middle ground of confused Israelis

wanting to believe
that he knew what he
was doing — that
he, and only he,
could steer the coun-
try to security and
tranquility.
He achieved this
following despite
never fully detailing
the course he was
pursuing; indeed,

Horovitz on page 43

David Horovitz

Special
Commentary