Wait! The unprovoked atrocity carried out by Arabs in Munich is a "response?" To what, exactly? To the existence of Israel?
Here he's twisting Speilberg's comments without context.
Just curious - how is this taking Speilberg's words out of context? Granted, I don't know where the Speilberg quote came from (so maybe by definition I'm taking them out of context, too?) but the message seems to be pretty clear: Speilberg would like to see the Arab-Israeli conflict as some endless action-response-reaction thing that gets us nowhere. He says: "A response to a response doesn't really solve anything." I mean, that seems to be the point of his film, right?
Problem is, at least as far as Munich is concerned, is that this was a measured response to a specific act of terror. The perpetrators of the massacre were in fact motivated by Israel's very existence (peep One Day in Semptember). In that context Speilberg's cute little relativism is pretty weak. Going after the perpetrators of a massacre is not really the same as carrying out the massacre in the first place, is it?
Hat me now. Sorry to hijack (no pun intended).
But how do you feel about Tookie?
Really though, I have no true say in this other than I think Speilberg's point is "stop the violence" from what I can gather from the quotes.
Saying one act of violence begets another and at some point, someone needs to end it.
Wait! The unprovoked atrocity carried out by Arabs in Munich is a "response?" To what, exactly? To the existence of Israel?
Here he's twisting Speilberg's comments without context.
Just curious - how is this taking Speilberg's words out of context? Granted, I don't know where the Speilberg quote came from (so maybe by definition I'm taking them out of context, too?) but the message seems to be pretty clear: Speilberg would like to see the Arab-Israeli conflict as some endless action-response-reaction thing that gets us nowhere. He says: "A response to a response doesn't really solve anything." I mean, that seems to be the point of his film, right?
Problem is, at least as far as Munich is concerned, is that this was a measured response to a specific act of terror. The perpetrators of the massacre were in fact motivated by Israel's very existence (peep One Day in Semptember). In that context Speilberg's cute little relativism is pretty weak. Going after the perpetrators of a massacre is not really the same as carrying out the massacre in the first place, is it?
Hat me now. Sorry to hijack (no pun intended).
I think Day pretty much captured what Speilberg seems to be saying about the use of violence in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
1) To be specific, when Speilberg was talking about "responses" he was talking about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in general, not this specific act.
2) The Israelis ended up killing only about 1 or 2 of the people who actually carried out the attack on Munich. The other people they killed weren't even involved, they were just supporters of the PLO. One person they killed Mossad even now considers a mistake. So if you REALLY want to be relativist to this specific situation, the Palestinians killed some innocent Israeli athletes and Israel went and killed a few perpetrators, but more innocent people in the end.
3) Did this operation stop either terrorism or the PLO?
1) The first person Mossad, Israeli intelligence, killed was Wael Zwaiter in Rome 6 weeks after Munich. Mossad told Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir that Zwaiter was the head of Black September in Rome, the PLO offshoot that carried out the Munich attack, and had helped in the attack. Turns out he wasn't and Mossad now thinks the assassination was a mistake.
2) The following assassinations were pretty much of PLO supporters in Western Europe rather than the actual perpetrators of the attack. Most of those had gone to Eastern Europe or Arab countries where Mossad couldn't act so they ended up going after whoever they could as targets of opportunity. Few of them actually were any kind of major operatives in the PLO, although Mossad claimed each one was involved in Munich. Mossad decided that one dead PLO members was as good as another and hoped that their revenge operation would deter further terrorism against Israel.
3) Out of the actual Palestinians who killed the Israeli athletes in Munich, Mossad only killed one of them, Atef Bseiso, shot in Paris in 1992. Abu Iyad, the leader of Black September was actually killed by a rival Palestinian group in 1991. Abu Daoud who was the commander of the Munich attack was allowed to return to the Gaza Strip in 1996 so he could go to the meeting about getting rid of the article in the PLO charter that calls for the destruction of Israel. The rest are either still alive or died of natural causes.
4) From a Time magazine article on Munich and the following reprisals by Israel, "The story of the reprisal missions, on the other hand, has been befogged by mystery. The notion persists that the Israelis drew up a list of those responsible for Munich, then, one by one, knocked them off. But that's largely a myth, according to an upcoming book by TIME reporter Aaron J. Klein, Striking Back: The 1972 Munich Olympics Massacre and Israel's Deadly Response (Random House; 272 pages)."
1) The first person Mossad, Israeli intelligence, killed was Wael Zwaiter in Rome 6 weeks after Munich. Mossad told Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir that Zwaiter was the head of Black September in Rome, the PLO offshoot that carried out the Munich attack, and had helped in the attack. Turns out he wasn't and Mossad now thinks the assassination was a mistake.
2) The following assassinations were pretty much of PLO supporters in Western Europe rather than the actual perpetrators of the attack. Most of those had gone to Eastern Europe or Arab countries where Mossad couldn't act so they ended up going after whoever they could as targets of opportunity. Few of them actually were any kind of major operatives in the PLO, although Mossad claimed each one was involved in Munich. Mossad decided that one dead PLO members was as good as another and hoped that their revenge operation would deter further terrorism against Israel.
3) Out of the actual Palestinians who killed the Israeli athletes in Munich, Mossad only killed one of them, Atef Bseiso, shot in Paris in 1992. Abu Iyad, the leader of Black September was actually killed by a rival Palestinian group in 1991. Abu Daoud who was the commander of the Munich attack was allowed to return to the Gaza Strip in 1996 so he could go to the meeting about getting rid of the article in the PLO charter that calls for the destruction of Israel. The rest are either still alive or died of natural causes.
4) From a Time magazine article on Munich and the following reprisals by Israel, "The story of the reprisal missions, on the other hand, has been befogged by mystery. The notion persists that the Israelis drew up a list of those responsible for Munich, then, one by one, knocked them off. But that's largely a myth, according to an upcoming book by TIME reporter Aaron J. Klein, Striking Back: The 1972 Munich Olympics Massacre and Israel's Deadly Response (Random House; 272 pages)."
yeah I'm pretty familiar with the history (good summary, though). One can obscure the difference between killing innocents intentionally and innocents being killed incident to the pursuit of those responsible for the killing of the innocents in the first place. To many (including Speilberg aparently), it's the same. To me it's different.
And Israel's deterrent posture (including pursuit of PLO terrorists abroad) is widely recognized as an unfortunate - yet effective - tool, particularly in the early years. The death penalty analogy simply doesn't hold up (though I think that was suggested in jest anyway). Again, One Day in September interviews a terrorist involved in Munich that acknowledges having been forced underground. The targeted killings in the last four years also have gone far to hinder the terrorists' efforts. They themselves have acknowledged this.
just saw this, was a bit disappointing, but the mulatu-soundtrack made up for a lot.
I hear you but 1) it was the same SINGLE song being replayed about a dozen times and 2) I'm always a bit suspect of any movie where the soundtrack is lauded more than the movie itself.
It wasn't a bad movie but I find that people in their 20s liked it more than older folk.
as a person in his 20s, i'd like to weigh in and say i most definitely did not like garden state. even though i think natalie portman's especially cute with big headphones.
i just got back from seeing capote finally. it was real rough and rugged, yet simultaniously managed to shine like a gold nugget.
a definite contender for my favorite movie this year, but i'm a pretty die hard fan of the book, so i might be a bit biased.
as a person in his 20s, i'd like to weigh in and say i most definitely did not like garden state. even though i think natalie portman's especially cute with big headphones.
Co-sign. Definition of "a good look."
I'm just glad Star Wars hasn't completely destroyed her credability as an actress.
I'm not sure what can be done for this dude though:
yeah I'm pretty familiar with the history (good summary, though). One can obscure the difference between killing innocents intentionally and innocents being killed incident to the pursuit of those responsible for the killing of the innocents in the first place. To many (including Speilberg aparently), it's the same. To me it's different.
1) You're assuming that the message of the Munich movie is that Israel and the PLO are equals because they both kill innocents. And the only thing you're going on is his statement from this editorial. Do you know that that's even in the movie? Again, Speilberg's comment was that he was always for a strong Israeli response to terrorism, but with age he's come to see the tit for tat as just leading to more tit for tat rather than a solution to the problem. You seem to be taking this editorial's position without even knowing what the original context of the quote or even what the movie is going to contain. You're jumping from Point A) He just made this movie about Munich, to Point B) In an interview with Time magazine he said that he's come to see that attacks and counterattacks aren't the answer to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, to Point C) Well he must be a moral relativist on Munich then because he must be saying that the Munich retaliations weren't justified. Maybe he shows the moral qualms that go along with becoming an assassin, but it's what must be done, or maybe he does show that in the end, killing is just killing, who knows? I don't because I haven't see the movie and I don't think you've seen it either.
2) I'm not an expert on this Mossad operation, but from the little I've read EVERYONE they ended up killing in the 1970s wasn't even involved in the Munich attack. The only person they got wasn't even killed until 1992, so your comment that "innocents being killed incident to the pursuit of those responsible for the killing of the innocents in the first place" rings pretty hollow to me, because that's apparently all they did at first, kill activist Palestinians and members of the PLO living in Western Europe because that's all they could do. If the goal was to kill the people who carried out the Munich attack they pretty much failed didn't they? Or maybe you take the position that one dead PLO member is just as good as another.
And Israel's deterrent posture (including pursuit of PLO terrorists abroad) is widely recognized as an unfortunate - yet effective - tool, particularly in the early years. The death penalty analogy simply doesn't hold up (though I think that was suggested in jest anyway). Again, One Day in September interviews a terrorist involved in Munich that acknowledges having been forced underground. The targeted killings in the last four years also have gone far to hinder the terrorists' efforts. They themselves have acknowledged this.
3) I fully recognize the right of a country to defend itself. When 9/11 happened, I was all for the war in Afghanistan and going after Al Qaeda. However, in Israel's case I don't see anything they've done counterterrorism wise ending the terrorism against Israel. Mossad has a bad ass image, which they basically promoted themselves as, yet there are still attacks against Israel to this day. I'm sure the PLO and Hamas and all the other Palestinian groups are watching their back or the skies for an Israeli attack, but that hasn't stopped them has it?
4) I can't believe I just wasted 2 days defending goddamn Steven Speilberg?!?!?! Rootless I concede the floor to you because I don't want to talk about this guy anymore.
3) I fully recognize the right of a country to defend itself. When 9/11 happened, I was all for the war in Afghanistan and going after Al Qaeda. However, in Israel's case I don't see anything they've done counterterrorism wise ending the terrorism against Israel. Mossad has a bad ass image, which they basically promoted themselves as, yet there are still attacks against Israel to this day. I'm sure the PLO and Hamas and all the other Palestinian groups are watching their back or the skies for an Israeli attack, but that hasn't stopped them has it?
Well, in all fairness, you can't compare America's counterterrorism efforts with Israel's since the threats to each space is different. People may hate America but save for AIM, it's not like Canada and Mexico is trying to contest the country's very right to exist. For all the talk that Team Bush??? spouts about "fighting the enemy abroad vs. here" it's just not that easy to attack America (9/11 aside). You can't really set up rocket launchers in the West Bank and start dropping bombs on D.C. As bad as the militarism might seem in the U.S., if we were actively being attacked on a weekly basis - suicide bombings, the whole 9 - the pro-hawk attitude would likely make Iraq look like Grenada (though I'm not sure who we would attack more than we already have).
I'm not defending Israeli counter-terrorism policy outright: I am suggesting though that it's not that easy to suggest that their strategy has failed simply because terrorism continues. I'm fairly sure everyone involved in the conflict: on all sides of the geographic lines, would presume that even under the most optimal peace negotiations between Palestine and Israel, you'd still have many crazy ass people willing to die to see Israel destroyed.
I haven't see the movie and I don't think you've seen it either.
true. mine was an emotional response to a) the trailer, b) the movie poster and c) pronouncements Speilberg has made in the past and recently in relation to the movie. the movie poster says a lot to me about the philosophy behind this film. to paraphrase: "In 1972 some terrorists massacred the Israeli olympic team. here's what happened next." The message seems to be: "Sure, a bunch of innocent Israelis got got, but wait! Israel did some fucked up shit, too!" It seems pretty clear that he is trying to relativize a murder and a response to a murder. I just don't see a need to make a movie like that. especially not now. there's enough hatters in the world these days.
I'm sure the PLO and Hamas and all the other Palestinian groups are watching their back or the skies for an Israeli attack, but that hasn't stopped them has it?
the scholarship I've read seems to suggest that the strikes have seriously hampered the terrorist networks. I hear a lot of moral arguments against them, but no one seems to seriously dispute their effectiveness. there will always be more terrorists so that doesn't really prove the ineffectiveness of the tactic. i can tell you that Israel is a lot safer place than it was four years ago, in large part due to targeting of terrorists and the security fence.
I can't believe I just wasted 2 days defending goddamn Steven Speilberg?!?!?! Rootless I concede the floor to you because I don't want to talk about this guy anymore.
word. I don't want to talk about him either. Dude's obviously got some issues and despite the good he's done he often seems like he's just trying to make a buck.
I can't believe I just wasted 2 days defending goddamn Steven Speilberg?!?!?! Rootless I concede the floor to you because I don't want to talk about this guy anymore.
word. I don't want to talk about him either. Dude's obviously got some issues and despite the good he's done he often seems like he's just trying to make a buck.
Recently saw Luis Bu??el's - Los Olvidados... fucking AMAZING movie. Do yourselves a favor and rent/buy it. Its sort of a more primitive version of "City of God", from 1950, and dare I say, even better. One of those movies that stays floating around in your head for a few days after you see it.
Aeon Flux - This might be dope. I've heard a lot of good things about this flick. Funny how the studio didn't want to do pre-screenings for critics. Made people think it was going to be a disaster.
I just watched this (thank you USENET). It's pretty crappy, seriously. Charlize looks good as a brunette but that's about the highest praise you could give it. I loved Karyn Kusama's first film ("Girlfight") but this was a real bad look for her sophomore project. I hope she at least got some chingo bling for it but good gawd, it was terrible (the script and acting are especially bad and the action sequences are not as enthralling as one might hope).
It wasn't a bad movie but I find that people in their 20s liked it more than older folk.
as a person in his 20s, i'd like to weigh in and say i most definitely did not like garden state. even though i think natalie portman's especially cute with big headphones.
Big co-sign. Films that set themselves out to be intentionally quirky-with-a-heart-of-gold have to really good otherwise they're just a real pain in the ass. The only trick this claptrap missed was making Portman have epilepsy when it really should have gone all out for a terminal illness. When even Portman can't save a movie you know it's in trouble.
Just checked and it's rated in the top 250 movies of all time on IMDB, people really need to step their game up.
word. I don't want to talk about him either. Dude's obviously got some issues and despite the good he's done he often seems like he's just trying to make a buck.
Steven Spielberg, the Hollywood director/producer, out to make a buck? I'm shocked. It's funny that the guy who gave us Schindler's List now gets the gas face from his people. At least SS can criticize the actions of the Israeli Govt (barely) without accusations of genocidal intent. Let's face it, it's hard to call Speilberg anti-semetic. But in this case, he probably is "mentally unstable." I hope he doesn't commit suicide soon.
In case you missed it:
Just a few of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions against Israel since 1955:
* Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid". * Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people". * Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem". * Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions". * Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria". * Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control". * Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees". * Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan". * Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem". * Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250". * Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital". * Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation". * Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation". * Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport". * Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan". * Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem". *Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon". * Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem". * Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon". * Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon". * Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon". * Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem". * Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon". * Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon". * Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon". * Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon". * Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty". * Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon". * Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon". * Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon. * Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces". * Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention". * Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon". * Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories". * Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program". * Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon". * Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return". * Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians". * Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention". * Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'". * Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'". * Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors". * Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility". * Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith". * Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon". * Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops". * Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon". * Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in". * Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon". * Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon". * Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut". * Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters. * Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw". * Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops". * Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians. * Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention. * Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians". * Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians. * Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians. * Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount. * Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations. * Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians. * Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return. * Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians. * Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
Just a few of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions against Israel since 1955:
* Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid". * Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people". * Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem". * Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions". * Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria". * Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control". * Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees". * Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan". * Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem". * Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250". * Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital". * Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation". * Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation". * Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport". * Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan". * Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem". *Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon". * Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem". * Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon". * Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon". * Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon". * Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem". * Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon". * Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon". * Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon". * Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon". * Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty". * Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon". * Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon". * Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon. * Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces". * Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention". * Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon". * Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories". * Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program". * Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon". * Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return". * Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians". * Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention". * Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'". * Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'". * Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors". * Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility". * Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith". * Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon". * Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops". * Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon". * Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in". * Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon". * Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon". * Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut". * Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters. * Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw". * Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops". * Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians. * Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention. * Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians". * Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians. * Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians. * Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount. * Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations. * Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians. * Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return. * Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians. * Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
Yup, and all this does is prove the bankruptcy of the UN. Thanks for that. I'm sure all the folks in this world starving and suffering under real tyrannical regimes didn't "miss" these either.
It's funny that the guy who gave us Schindler's List now gets the gas face from his people.
just saw this, hundred different comedians tell the same joke. I can see why a lot of people would hate this, but it was really entertaining to me. Best part was Bob Saget telling his incest-ridden tale while making Full House references.
Comments
But how do you feel about Tookie?
Really though, I have no true say in this other than I think Speilberg's point is "stop the violence" from what I can gather from the quotes.
Saying one act of violence begets another and at some point, someone needs to end it.
day, you're fucking hilarious.
and it has nothing to do with your sitcom with that hot leah remini chick either.
I would love to say "no way in hell a dude like that could pull her" BUT, I'VE SEENT IT.
Foolio, I still can't see the resemblance. I weigh 194 and I'm closer to 6' than 5' 11".
HOLLOR.
I think Day pretty much captured what Speilberg seems to be saying about the use of violence in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
1) To be specific, when Speilberg was talking about "responses" he was talking about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in general, not this specific act.
2) The Israelis ended up killing only about 1 or 2 of the people who actually carried out the attack on Munich. The other people they killed weren't even involved, they were just supporters of the PLO. One person they killed Mossad even now considers a mistake. So if you REALLY want to be relativist to this specific situation, the Palestinians killed some innocent Israeli athletes and Israel went and killed a few perpetrators, but more innocent people in the end.
3) Did this operation stop either terrorism or the PLO?
1) The first person Mossad, Israeli intelligence, killed was Wael Zwaiter in Rome 6 weeks after Munich. Mossad told Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir that Zwaiter was the head of Black September in Rome, the PLO offshoot that carried out the Munich attack, and had helped in the attack. Turns out he wasn't and Mossad now thinks the assassination was a mistake.
2) The following assassinations were pretty much of PLO supporters in Western Europe rather than the actual perpetrators of the attack. Most of those had gone to Eastern Europe or Arab countries where Mossad couldn't act so they ended up going after whoever they could as targets of opportunity. Few of them actually were any kind of major operatives in the PLO, although Mossad claimed each one was involved in Munich. Mossad decided that one dead PLO members was as good as another and hoped that their revenge operation would deter further terrorism against Israel.
3) Out of the actual Palestinians who killed the Israeli athletes in Munich, Mossad only killed one of them, Atef Bseiso, shot in Paris in 1992. Abu Iyad, the leader of Black September was actually killed by a rival Palestinian group in 1991. Abu Daoud who was the commander of the Munich attack was allowed to return to the Gaza Strip in 1996 so he could go to the meeting about getting rid of the article in the PLO charter that calls for the destruction of Israel. The rest are either still alive or died of natural causes.
4) From a Time magazine article on Munich and the following reprisals by Israel, "The story of the reprisal missions, on the other hand, has been befogged by mystery. The notion persists that the Israelis drew up a list of those responsible for Munich, then, one by one, knocked them off. But that's largely a myth, according to an upcoming book by TIME reporter Aaron J. Klein, Striking Back: The 1972 Munich Olympics Massacre and Israel's Deadly Response (Random House; 272 pages)."
One of the best directors out there, Heath gets Oscar, Michelle Williams is the shit, cinematography is off the hook.
It's good, seriously. But if you're prone to laugh and/or make grossed out sounds when two men kiss, prolly not for you.
Will we ever forgive him for the "Hulk," though?
Haven't seen BBM yet, but will soon.
This came out four or five months ago...Is it just hitting the theaters in your area?
About 45 minutes I was like "show me the monkey, show me the MONKEY, SHOW ME THE MONKEY".
Jesus, that type of touching is not quite appropriate for the workplace. If you continue I will have to report this to human resources.
I actually really liked the Hulk. I may have been one of the few, though. It wasn't candy like most other superhero movies.
just saw this, was a bit disappointing, but the mulatu-soundtrack made up for a lot.
yeah I'm pretty familiar with the history (good summary, though). One can obscure the difference between killing innocents intentionally and innocents being killed incident to the pursuit of those responsible for the killing of the innocents in the first place. To many (including Speilberg aparently), it's the same. To me it's different.
And Israel's deterrent posture (including pursuit of PLO terrorists abroad) is widely recognized as an unfortunate - yet effective - tool, particularly in the early years. The death penalty analogy simply doesn't hold up (though I think that was suggested in jest anyway). Again, One Day in September interviews a terrorist involved in Munich that acknowledges having been forced underground. The targeted killings in the last four years also have gone far to hinder the terrorists' efforts. They themselves have acknowledged this.
Anyway not trying to peep this movie.
I hear you but 1) it was the same SINGLE song being replayed about a dozen times and 2) I'm always a bit suspect of any movie where the soundtrack is lauded more than the movie itself.
Example:
hey... i kinda liked it... (shut up, dicksnot)
It wasn't a bad movie but I find that people in their 20s liked it more than older folk.
as a person in his 20s, i'd like to weigh in and say i most definitely did not like garden state. even though i think natalie portman's especially cute with big headphones.
i just got back from seeing capote finally. it was real rough and rugged, yet simultaniously managed to shine like a gold nugget.
a definite contender for my favorite movie this year, but i'm a pretty die hard fan of the book, so i might be a bit biased.
Co-sign. Definition of "a good look."
I'm just glad Star Wars hasn't completely destroyed her credability as an actress.
I'm not sure what can be done for this dude though:
1) You're assuming that the message of the Munich movie is that Israel and the PLO are equals because they both kill innocents. And the only thing you're going on is his statement from this editorial. Do you know that that's even in the movie? Again, Speilberg's comment was that he was always for a strong Israeli response to terrorism, but with age he's come to see the tit for tat as just leading to more tit for tat rather than a solution to the problem. You seem to be taking this editorial's position without even knowing what the original context of the quote or even what the movie is going to contain. You're jumping from Point A) He just made this movie about Munich, to Point B) In an interview with Time magazine he said that he's come to see that attacks and counterattacks aren't the answer to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, to Point C) Well he must be a moral relativist on Munich then because he must be saying that the Munich retaliations weren't justified. Maybe he shows the moral qualms that go along with becoming an assassin, but it's what must be done, or maybe he does show that in the end, killing is just killing, who knows? I don't because I haven't see the movie and I don't think you've seen it either.
2) I'm not an expert on this Mossad operation, but from the little I've read EVERYONE they ended up killing in the 1970s wasn't even involved in the Munich attack. The only person they got wasn't even killed until 1992, so your comment that "innocents being killed incident to the pursuit of those responsible for the killing of the innocents in the first place" rings pretty hollow to me, because that's apparently all they did at first, kill activist Palestinians and members of the PLO living in Western Europe because that's all they could do. If the goal was to kill the people who carried out the Munich attack they pretty much failed didn't they? Or maybe you take the position that one dead PLO member is just as good as another.
3) I fully recognize the right of a country to defend itself. When 9/11 happened, I was all for the war in Afghanistan and going after Al Qaeda. However, in Israel's case I don't see anything they've done counterterrorism wise ending the terrorism against Israel. Mossad has a bad ass image, which they basically promoted themselves as, yet there are still attacks against Israel to this day. I'm sure the PLO and Hamas and all the other Palestinian groups are watching their back or the skies for an Israeli attack, but that hasn't stopped them has it?
4) I can't believe I just wasted 2 days defending goddamn Steven Speilberg?!?!?! Rootless I concede the floor to you because I don't want to talk about this guy anymore.
Well, in all fairness, you can't compare America's counterterrorism efforts with Israel's since the threats to each space is different. People may hate America but save for AIM, it's not like Canada and Mexico is trying to contest the country's very right to exist. For all the talk that Team Bush??? spouts about "fighting the enemy abroad vs. here" it's just not that easy to attack America (9/11 aside). You can't really set up rocket launchers in the West Bank and start dropping bombs on D.C. As bad as the militarism might seem in the U.S., if we were actively being attacked on a weekly basis - suicide bombings, the whole 9 - the pro-hawk attitude would likely make Iraq look like Grenada (though I'm not sure who we would attack more than we already have).
I'm not defending Israeli counter-terrorism policy outright: I am suggesting though that it's not that easy to suggest that their strategy has failed simply because terrorism continues. I'm fairly sure everyone involved in the conflict: on all sides of the geographic lines, would presume that even under the most optimal peace negotiations between Palestine and Israel, you'd still have many crazy ass people willing to die to see Israel destroyed.
true. mine was an emotional response to a) the trailer, b) the movie poster and c) pronouncements Speilberg has made in the past and recently in relation to the movie. the movie poster says a lot to me about the philosophy behind this film. to paraphrase: "In 1972 some terrorists massacred the Israeli olympic team. here's what happened next." The message seems to be: "Sure, a bunch of innocent Israelis got got, but wait! Israel did some fucked up shit, too!" It seems pretty clear that he is trying to relativize a murder and a response to a murder. I just don't see a need to make a movie like that. especially not now. there's enough hatters in the world these days.
the scholarship I've read seems to suggest that the strikes have seriously hampered the terrorist networks. I hear a lot of moral arguments against them, but no one seems to seriously dispute their effectiveness. there will always be more terrorists so that doesn't really prove the ineffectiveness of the tactic. i can tell you that Israel is a lot safer place than it was four years ago, in large part due to targeting of terrorists and the security fence.
word. I don't want to talk about him either. Dude's obviously got some issues and despite the good he's done he often seems like he's just trying to make a buck.
We have a consensus here folks. Issue resolved.
I just watched this (thank you USENET). It's pretty crappy, seriously. Charlize looks good as a brunette but that's about the highest praise you could give it. I loved Karyn Kusama's first film ("Girlfight") but this was a real bad look for her sophomore project. I hope she at least got some chingo bling for it but good gawd, it was terrible (the script and acting are especially bad and the action sequences are not as enthralling as one might hope).
Big co-sign. Films that set themselves out to be intentionally quirky-with-a-heart-of-gold have to really good otherwise they're just a real pain in the ass. The only trick this claptrap missed was making Portman have epilepsy when it really should have gone all out for a terminal illness.
When even Portman can't save a movie you know it's in trouble.
Just checked and it's rated in the top 250 movies of all time on IMDB, people really need to step their game up.
Steven Spielberg, the Hollywood director/producer, out to make a buck? I'm shocked. It's funny that the guy who gave us Schindler's List now gets the gas face from his people. At least SS can criticize the actions of the Israeli Govt (barely) without accusations of genocidal intent. Let's face it, it's hard to call Speilberg anti-semetic. But in this case, he probably is "mentally unstable." I hope he doesn't commit suicide soon.
In case you missed it:
Just a few of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions against Israel since 1955:
* Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
* Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
* Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
* Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
* Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
* Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
* Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
* Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
* Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
* Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
* Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
* Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
* Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
* Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
*Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
* Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
* Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
* Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
* Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
* Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
* Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
* Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
* Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
* Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
* Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
* Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
* Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
* Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the
council's order not to deport Palestinians".
* Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide
by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
* Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
* Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported
Palestinian mayors".
* Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
nuclear facility".
* Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
* Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
* Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
* Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
* Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
allow food supplies to be brought in".
* Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
* Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
* Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
in attack on PLO headquarters.
* Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
* Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students
at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
* Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
denying the human rights of Palestinians.
* Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
* Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
* Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
* Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
* Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.
* Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
Palestinians.
* Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
* Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
Guess how many of these was vetoed by the USA?
Peace,
Cortez
best flic, i saw in the last months
Yup, and all this does is prove the bankruptcy of the UN. Thanks for that. I'm sure all the folks in this world starving and suffering under real tyrannical regimes didn't "miss" these either.
Eat a dick.
just saw this, hundred different comedians tell the same joke. I can see why a lot of people would hate this, but it was really entertaining to me. Best part was Bob Saget telling his incest-ridden tale while making Full House references.