Soccer Dad

Too much munich?

The Ignoble Experiment in a thoughtful post last week, Hasbara Management Central questioned why pro-Israel critics were so quick and insistent to lambast Stephen Spielberg's "Munich."

Whatever we think of the director's/screenwriter's ideology and personal beliefs in producing what we consider an anti-Israel or at least cowardly movie, we ought to be using that very movie to push forward our interests, instead of wasting time on endless complaints, and attracting the negative attention we don't need.

I did not see the movie, nor do I have any interest in the movie. When I heard that screenwriter Tony Kushner was hired to do the script and that his view was that Israel should not have been created, that really threw cold water on any interest I may have had.

Actually, there was a commenter who wrote that the Wall Street Journal blasted Spielberg in an editorial. I don't believe that's correct. The WSJ though had competing op-eds on the movie.

The second one to appear was What's Right With 'Munich' by Heather Robinson that argued

Avner Kaufmann, the reluctant warrior and protagonist of Steven Spielberg's movie "Munich," is honorable, strong, a family man--that is, a typical Israeli. That is why "Munich," although intensely criticized by pro-Israel commentators, ultimately does Israel and the civilized world at least one service: At a time when anti-Semitism is all-too-often repackaged and sold in politically correct form as "anti-Zionism," "Munich" offers mass audiences a compelling portrait of an Israeli struggling courageously to confront evil. Despite its lapses, "Munich" still has value for illuminating Israel's position--and that of all civilized people confronting terrorism.

Robinson's piece appeared in response to Bret Stephen's Munich - What's wrong with Stephen Spielberg's new movie a month earlier. Stephens wrote:

So why is his movie raising such hackles among Israelis and those generally known as the "pro-Israel" crowd?

Maybe it has something to do with his choice of a screenwriter, Tony Kushner, the Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright brought in by Mr. Spielberg to rework the original screenplay by Eric Roth. Mr. Kushner (who, like Mr. Spielberg, is Jewish) believes that the creation of the state of Israel was "a historical, moral, political calamity" for the Jewish people. He believes the policy of the government of Israel has been "a systematic attempt to destroy the identity of the Palestinian people." He believes that responsibility for making peace between Israelis and Palestinians lies primarily with the Israelis, "inasmuch as they are far more mighty." He believes Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is an "unindicted war criminal."

Stephens cites another few reasons. Each of which could be dismissed on its own but together made a compelling case for criticizing the film.

But I found the argument of George Jonas most compelling. (And he takes issue with some of Stephens's arguments.) George Jonas is the author of "Vengeance," the book on which "Munich" is based.

Inevitably, Spielberg's film will have 21st- century answers to 20th-century questions -- and progress isn't necessarily for the better. I researched and wrote my book in 1982 and 1983. By the time Spielberg's film went into production in 2005, the world had become a different place. People had adjusted considerably their sense of right and wrong. In 1984, when Vengeance was first published, no state admitted sending hit teams abroad to perform extrajudicial killings. But while the morality of counterterrorist violence would have been questioned, the immorality of terrorist violence would have been beyond dispute.

Indeed (though I don't remember it from 1972, I recall reading others writing about it) the late Peter Jennings - then a sportscaster - was (in)famous for his fuzzy focus on terrorism at Munich.

Martin Peretz, publisher of The New Republic, wrote (Sept. 13, 2001):

"I first saw Jennings on ABC when, as a young TV journalist, he reported from the Munich Olympics. And I was filled with disgust that his subsequent career has only deepened. At Munich -- I still remember it, 30 years later -- Jennings tried to explain away the abductions and massacre of the young Israeli athletes. His theme: The Palestinians were helpless and desperate. Ipso facto, they were driven to murder. That's life..."

(Peretz had written something very similar in the mid 80's about Jennings. At that time Jennings defended himself in a letter to the editor of the The New Republic, but Peretz didn't buy his explanation.)

And this is the problem, when a certain impression is introduced into the public conciousness - as news, art or entertainment - it has a staying power. Mistake made will be perpetuated and will affect how people view events, people and countries. A problematic cinematic portrayal does have an effect on the public and that can be reflected in political shifts. So when Spielberg or anyone else makes a grave historical error, it's important to point out that error so its effect will be minimal.

To my mind one of the villains of the Olympic massacre was Avery Brundage then president of the International Olympic Committee. It was Brundage who refused to mix politics with the Olympics - even when politics rudely intruded on the games - who insisted that the games continue even after the terrorist outrage. Here's another review that gives some of the less savory aspects of Brundage:

And yet, even if Munich had gotten the dialogue, plot, and tone right, there would still be something missing. Rather, there would be someone missing, a character, Avery Brundage. The reason Munich matters so much to American Jews has nothing to do with Arab terrorism or European appeasement. Those complementary stories were familiar to the world decades before Munich. It was Avery Brundage, an American, who so outraged. The same Avery Brundage who, as head of the U.S. Olympic Committee in 1936, had insisted on sending an American delegation to "Hitler's Games" in Berlin; the same Avery Brundage who, in 1941, was expelled from the anti-war America First Committee for his Nazi allegiance; this was the man who, in 1972, was president of the full International Olympic Committee. According to Time Magazine, during the standoff, Brundage's chief concern was with "remov[ing] the crisis from the Olympic Village," as if to say, "There's no way we can save the hostages. Let's at least save the Games." After the murders, despite strong opposition within the IOC, including from the German organizers, Brundage insisted that everything go on as if nothing had happened. He refused even to mention the dead Israelis in the following day's memorial ceremony. Los Angeles Times columnist Jim Murray summed up Brundage's decision like this: "Incredibly, they're going on with it. It's almost like having a dance at Dachau."

To this day Avery Brundage is honored in this country. There's an Avery Brundage scholarship at the University of Illinois. There are museums with Avery Brundage collections. And how did Encarta describe Brundage?

It was believed that the Nazi Party, then in power in Germany, was preventing Jewish athletes from participating on the German Olympic team, and many Americans wanted the United States to boycott the games. Brundage, a believer in the purity of amateur sport and the importance of separating politics from the Olympics, pushed for the American team to compete, which it eventually did. Brundage's stance drew criticisms that he was a Nazi sympathizer and an anti-Semite.

Brundage's shameful actions in 1936 revealed him for what he was. Those "criticisms" that Encarta refers to were accurate. But Encarta can't quite call him an antisemite. And this is how history gets rewritten.

And that's why it was necessary to criticize "Munich."

Blogdigger tags: Munich, Stephen Spielberg, George Jonas, Avery Brundage.