|
 By
Frimet Roth
Published on December 26, 2005
Ilana Morano has viewed Steven Spielberg's movie, "Munich", and is
impressed with it. She says it satisfies her three-decades long
desire to have the massacre of her husband and ten other Israeli
Olympians remembered. I can hear Steven Spielberg's sigh of relief.
As the
mother of a child murdered by the very same brand of terrorists as
the Munich eleven, I would remind Mrs. Romano that sometimes no
publicity at all is best. To Spielberg I would say: "Spare my child
your tributes". I hope he never entertains the notion of a film
about the bloody 2001 terror attack on a Jerusalem restaurant,
Sbarro. In it Hamas murdered fifteen innocents, including 8 children
and babies. My fifteen year old Malki was among them.
I have
heard and read Mrs. Romano's reactions to the film repeatedly.
Spielberg is not about to waste this golden PR coup. He is parading
it everywhere.
It is
very "Hollywood-y", the widow concedes, on television interviews and
to journalists. But that's all right, she concludes. "I feel Mr.
Spielberg has put the tragedy of our loved ones into a billion homes
the world over."
In
truth, Mrs. Morano herself is a victim. She has been duped by
Spielberg and his slick publicity machine.
Mrs.
Morano tells us she was impressed by that PR team's "sensitivity".
"After the screening", she added, "everyone's tears just poured out,
including Kushner, Kennedy and Eyal Arad." She was also moved by
their report that at the start of the movie's filming, Spielberg
gathered his entire cast for a solemn, full moment of silence in
memory of the victims. I would remind her of crocodile tears and
empty moments of silence - tactics that as a terror victim I have
often been exposed to.
She
cites Spielberg's accurate re-enactment of the Munich terror attack,
but ignores the fact that that event is just a footnote in the
movie's tale. Most viewers will follow Spielberg's lead and zoom in
on the film's real target: Israel's reprisal mission and the
presumed moral dilemmas that plagued the Mossad agents. Therein lies
the drama of the film, not with Yossef Romano's murder.
There
was a time when Spielberg felt differently about terror and murder,
a time when he touched me and my family without offending us.
Fifteen years ago when our aunt and uncle, survivors of the
Holocaust, visited with us in Israel, they had just seen Spielberg's
"Schindler's List". They told us they were satisfied that it had
dealt with the horror they had personally experienced, fairly and
accurately.
Spielberg has clearly been through some changes since then. He has
seen and read about a decade and a half of violent terror attacks by
fundamentalist Muslims throughout the world. But he has done so
through the prism of Hollywood. Like his celebrity neighbors, he now
parrots the soothing sound bites that fill the moral vacuum of
Tinseltown.
He
boasts that this movie has no villains, that "you feel for them
all", as a Time magazine interview put it. Spielberg added: "I'm
very proud that? We don't demonize our targets. They're individuals.
They have families. Although what happened in Munich, I condemn."
From the comfort of Hollywood, with all his children safe and sound,
I suppose that is easy. From that vantage point you can refrain from
demonizing cold-blooded murderers of innocents. And be proud of it.
No doubt
Spielberg's candy-coated, puerile production will satisfy the
appetites of most of his fans. There is a craving these days for
valium-like messages. And that's understandable. Facing up to the
reality of militant Islam's demonic threat to our civilization, to
our very lives, can be depressing.
For
those who have the strength to confront that harsh reality, this is
a film that will infuriate.
But even
more infuriating than this film's treatment of Israel and its plight
is Spielberg's careful dodge of any personal accountability. This is
not a documentary, he insists, but fiction "inspired by real
events." Come on, do we look that dumb? Obviously the film will
impact like a documentary and Spielberg wouldn't have it any other
way.
The fact
that heavyweights like Dennis Ross, former US envoy to the Middle
East under two former presidents, and Eyal Arad, a current political
advisor to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, have been hired by Spielberg
to mollify his Jewish audience leaves us in no doubt. It tells us
precisely how much weight Spielberg wants this work accorded.
Some
influential Jewish spokesmen have lauded the film. The Jerusalem
Post reported that Anti-Defamation League national Directory Abraham
Foxman assured us "We do not think this is an attack on Israel." In
the same breath, however, he said it asks the same sorts of
questions? as Israelis today ask about their government's response
to terrorism."
Israel
doesn't need its morality assessed by condescending Hollywood movie
producers, thank you. It is the only democracy in the Middle East
and does an exemplary job of retaining its morality in the face of a
relentless and immoral enemy. We punish every reported misconduct
within our army's ranks. We have checks and balances that ensure the
juggling of the security of our people with our compassion.
This
film is bad news in itself. Let's not exacerbate the damage, as the
Prime Minister's office already has, by joining the sycophant
bandwagon. The Prime Minister has got more important issues to deal
with. Spielberg may be convinced that the biggest enemy in the
Middle East is, in his words, "intransigence."
We, who
have actually felt the enemy, know he is far more lethal and demonic
than that. And that's what should be engrossing our government. Not
appeasing a Hollywood hero. |
