The Forum > Article Comments > 'Munich' and moral equivalence > Comments
'Munich' and moral equivalence : Comments
By Colin Andersen, published 2/2/2006Colin Andersen reviews Steven Speilberg's film 'Munich'.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Page 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
-
- All
I personally think that the Jewish journalist had a very good point. Movie producers should stop presenting fiction as historical fact.
But Colin Anderson criticises the movie for it's moral equivalence. Colin is obviously a supporter of the Islamic domination of Palestine/Israel, and he attacks the notion that Israeli's could be presented in any way which might suggest that the presense of Israel has any validity.
Now Colin's viewpoint may strike a chord in the readership of the Green Left weekly, but his logic would hardly impress the readership of mainstream newspapers. Such readers might be impressed by Speiberg's even handed approach to the moral equivalence of the Israeli and Palestinian causes.
Colin Anderson attempts to justify his view that there is no moral equivalence between Israel and Palestine, by trotting out the usual stories of atrocities and oppression. What he fails to understand is that most readers are fully aware that what he says may be true, but that they are also aware that the Israeli's can do exactly the same thing.
For forty years, the Palestinains have done everything they could do, to drive Western public opinion to favour the Israeli's. Olympic athletes have the status of emmissaries. And civilised societies, even those at war, consider them untouchable. For the Palestinains or their supporters to now claim that the presumed moral supremancy of their own cause should have been highlighted in any movie about "Munich", is more worthy of hilarity than serious consideration.