Saturday, January 28, 2006
Steven Spielberg Takes Pride in His Courage
When I think of courage, Steven Spielberg and his latest movie does not move me.
What is courageous about his blithe assumption that Israel's "moral superiority" first started to crack in the aftermath of Munich?
"You show agents who have doubts about their moral superiority when liquidating their enemies," Der Spiegel inquires. "Did you deliberately set out to offend -- or at least consciously risk offending -- your many Jewish friends whose admiration for you was almost unlimited following 'Schindler's List'?"
Hasn't Spielberg heard of Deir Yassin or the countless other massacres that spurred Israel's birth? Perhaps he's not familiar with Asher Ginsberg's account of the ill treatment the earliest Zionists colonists afforded the indigenous people.
Or perhaps his paen to Palestinians showing one of the Israeli death squad's victims' children playing the piano he sees as an act of supreme courage. It sure got Krauthammer, David Brooks and other paid shills for the Zionist entity on his back. And a whole lotta publicity for his latest blockbuster.
The woefully ignorant Spielberg recounting Olympic sportscaster Jim McKay's commentary says "I think it was then that I heard the words 'terrorist' and 'terrorism' for the first time - they hadn't been part of my vocabulary up to then." Probably not. Can't really fault Spielberg there since only a student of the tragedy the Zionists wreaked upon Palestine since the 1880's would have had familiarity with the works of say Alfred Lilienthal or Israel Shahak in the United States then.
All of the media coverage after 1967, in a deliberate and shameful manner, dehumanised Palestinians and Arabs. And the abuses in Guantanamo and Iraq, the abuse upon abuse that has been heaped upon the Palestinians, are the results of this virulent journalism. I remember, in college at the time, when Mike Wallace of Sixty Minutes, did a sympathetic human interest story on Palestinians in Detroit, my father and I were crying together on the phone, having NEVER seen Palestinians depicted as anything other than bloodthirsty terrorists before then.
Spielberg says, "As a Jew I am aware of how important the existence of Israel is for the survival of us all. And because I am proud of being Jewish, I am worried by the growing anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in the world."
I would like for Spielberg to clarify why the "existence of Israel" is paramount to his survival. He seems to be doing OK financially and otherwise, as is Lawrence Summers, the president of Harvard, who also equates anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. I would proffer that the "existence of Israel" does threaten the survival of say, a kid in Gaza, who ventures too close to what Israel deems "no man zones," or the farmer in Qalqilya, whose surrounded on all sides by a wall in order to make way for the influx of yuppie Zionist Jews from the US, Canada, Brazil, et al, who decide that it might be cool to settle down in Israel, with nary a thought for the hapless Palestinians they just might inconvenience.
But Krauthammer and Brooks need not fret too much over their wayward boy. Spielberg's "moral values" require his "ardent" defense of Israel. Spielberg says "If it became necessary, I would be prepared to die for the USA and Israel."
One has to wonder just what would precipitate Spielberg's supreme sacrifice?