Munich: No Dialogue Allowed
by John Zavesky
www.dissidentvoice.org
January 26, 2006



 

The question: “What’s the matter with Munich?” was posed by a Los Angeles Times Calendar cover story. The answer to the newspaper’s query and accompanying article is very simple; Steven Spielberg and playwright Tony Kurshner chose to make the wrong film. When it comes to all things critical of Israel western media in general and the American media in particular become extremely defensive even to the point of libelous at times in their counter-attacks on the subject and its author. The legal and censorship attacks on award winning British playwright Jim Allen by Zionist organizations which ultimately had his play Perdition banned from performance in England in 1987 is one of the best examples of a well orchestrated effort to keep a work of art critical of Zionism and Israel from being viewed by the public.  

In the case of Perdition, Allen, an avid socialist and successful playwright, chose to tackle the controversy surrounding Hungarian Zionist leader, Rudolf Kasztner and his collaboration with Adolf Eichmann. The reason for the play’s controversy: it shows how some of the leaders of the Zionist movement in occupied Europe collaborated with the Nazis in the Final Solution of the Jewish people of Hungary. The play is based on an infamous libel trial in Israel during the 1950s, and centers on the head of the Zionist Rescue Committee, Rudolf Kasztner. He sued a pamphleteer for claiming that he helped the Nazis exterminate 500,000 of his own people after admitting to negotiating with the SS war criminal Adolph Eichmann for the safe passage out of Hungary of some 1600 Jews -- many of whom were fellow Zionists from his hometown in Hungary. After meeting with unprecedented threats and protests in London Allen and his producer, Ken Loach attempted to mount the production in Ireland with actor, Gabriel Byrne in 1989. They met the same unrelenting resistance and failed to open at Dublin’s Olympia Theater. Even in 1999 when the play finally enjoyed a successful run at the Gate Theater, Notting Hill, just before Allen’s death, it was condemned by Neville Nagler, the director general of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and author, David Cesarani. Perdition was described in London’s Guardian as “the most controversial play of the 1980’s.” 

Ironically on 3rd March 1957, Kasztner was shot dead by Zeev Eckstein. According to Ben Hecht, writing in Perfidy Eckstein was a paid undercover Israeli Mossad agent. With Kasztner assassinated, Israel moved against the Nazi mass-murderer Adolph Eichmann who was living in Argentina in 1960. He was abducted by Mossad agents and taken back to Israel for trial where he was subsequently found guilty and executed in 1962. One is left wondering whether it was a coincidence that Israel had silenced the two people who knew the most about the Nazi-Zionist collaboration in the Second World War.  

The Times touched briefly on the political backlash Munich has encountered. Rob Eshman, editor of the Jewish Journal is quoted, “It’s not a must-see movie like Schindler’s List.” This certainly indicates that as long as Spielberg stuck with the Holocaust he was on sanctified ground, to approach a topic where the lines are not as clearly drawn when it comes to Jews being victims is another matter altogether. Charles Kauffman in the Washington Post equating Spielberg to Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Andrea Peyser’s New York Post article attacking the director and accusing him of being too dumb to tackle a controversial theme such as Israel’s survival are perfect examples of the extremes and near libel used to discount an artist who dares to present anything other than the “accepted” role of Jews as victims.  

To imply that Spielberg is anti-Semitic as Kauffman’s jibe does is ludicrous. The man is the creator of the Shoah Foundation and is on record as being a strong supporter of Israel. To attack him as being “too dumb to tackle complex themes” as Peyser did is inane as well. Obviously Mr. Spielberg had plenty of intelligence when he directed Schindler’s List. These same types of tactics and accusations have been continuously employed against other Jewish writers such as Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein and Lenni Brenner who have had the temerity to challenge the traditional Zionist party line. There is no room for debate or even considering the issue that possibly Israel and Jews might be guilty of terrorism and crimes against humanity as well. To approach this topic instantly brings condemnation from nearly every Jewish organization from the Anti-Defamation League to the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

In the case of demythologizing and demonizing Steven Spielberg and Munich it has been a tricky road to tread. Spielberg is undoubtedly one of the most popular directors of the last four decades. The collective total box office receipts his films have generated are certainly somewhere well north of a billion dollars. The director is outspoken in his support for the nation of Israel. What Spielberg did with his film, Munich is the very thing that has made Jews unique and often put them at the forefront of social and political change. He dared to debate.

The very concept of asking why? is one of the characteristics that has made Jews a driving force throughout history. The culture puts high value on education and in general holds a progressive attitude when is comes to social justice, both of which are extremely admirable characteristics. Unfortunately over the last fifty years the Zionists have made such headway as to stifle nearly all criticism of their right-wing political agenda let alone to even allow for debate. In 1948, Albert Einstein wrote in the New York Times, denouncing Menachem Begin and his Zionist Herut/Freedom Party as “closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties.” That is strong criticism coming from a man whose last will called for him to be buried in Israel and all of his papers to go to that country. 

The American media bears much responsibility in going along with the status quo of suppressing all debate on Zionism and Israel. Fear of job loss is undoubtedly the greatest factor in not reporting or ignoring any topic where Israel and Jews are not cast in the role of being the victim. Otto Preminger’s bloated adaptation of Leon Uris’ Exodus is the only American film that ever dealt with the birth of Israel. To deal with the topic of Palestine under the British Mandate system brings up too many questions that continue to resonate today, such as rights to the land and the tactics that Zionists employed in their war against Britain. Preminger portrayed the terrorist bombing of the King David Hotel as two Jews being responsible and making their getaway on a motorcycle, something that was as far from reality as Fess Parker’s rifle swinging Davy Crockett confronting hordes of Mexican soldiers storming the Alamo. When the History Channel aired a documentary dealing with Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty the network came under severe attack from Jewish groups. To this date the program has never been repeated. Likewise the PBS series Frontline was condemned for airing of Israel’s Next War? which documented the right-wing settler’s crimes against the government of Israel and their terrorist acts against Palestinians. This episode has yet to be repeated yet many other episodes have.   

Unfortunately America’s media cowers from criticism instead of demanding that there should be dialogue given to the actions of Israel and her citizens. Eshman is allowed to dismiss a powerful film like Munich, “I know a lot of people who won’t go see it [Munich] because it’s difficult subject matter… Most of us were born after the Holocaust, but most of us remember Munich. A lot of people don’t want to experience it on film.” Obviously the depiction of thousands dying in Germany’s concentration camps isn’t to difficult to watch in a Hollywood film like Schindler’s List or The Pianist since there were only praises and awards heaped on those films. Even documentaries such as Night and Fog and Shoah do not garner the criticism of being too horrific to view, and those are real bodies being tossed into mass graves. This contradiction only shows how criticism like Eshman’s is illogical and supports the fact that situational ethics are regularly employed when it comes to Israel.  

To question authority and the status quo is the duty of an artist. To allow debate is the duty of a true democracy. Steven Spielberg has remained true to his Jewish roots and American sense of fair play by raising the debate regarding Israel’s righteousness. Munich is certainly the strongest and finest film the director has ever made. Spielberg has taken the high road in his depiction of violence only begetting more violence. It is the duty of the American media to ensure that such a debate occurs instead of bowing to outside forces seeking to stifle the artist’s freedom of expression and right of free speech. Unfortunately the American media is owned by corporations and in the case of Israel the corporate bottom line mentality will always take precedence over democratic rights and freedoms.      

John Zavesky is a freelance writer living in California with his wife and two cats. His material has appeared in Z Magazine and the Los Angeles Times.
 

HOME