CHILDREN OF MEN , a review
As a movie, d
irector Alfonso Cuarón’s Children of Men is state-of-the-art. It has incredible action, sound and visual effects. The acting is believable and compelling. However, as a story, it is a promise unfulfilled. It starts with a premise pregnant with questions, implications and possibilities. They are left unasked and unanswered.
The plot is charged by the human world becoming infertile. We are led to believe that everyone responds with despair and chaos as the population ages, perceiving its collective demise with each individual death. The only place that has a semblance of order is England where the people allow a fascist-like rule solely, it would seem, to prevent immigration and remove those who got there. The screen is inundated with exposed animal cages filled with people. This is predictably opposed by a terrorist group, called Fish, who would see freedom for all by violent overthrow.
The story revolves around Theo ( Clive Owen) who is contacted by his ex wife and former fellow activist, Julian (Julianne Moore) who is presently leading Fish. She has a special project for him- to smuggle the only pregnant woman in England, a black immigrant named Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey) to the coast. They must take a perilous trek across the countryside, avoiding the police and the terrorists. It is a trip which gives the audience a slice of this dark land and era, purportedly the best the world presently has to offer.
Upon reaching the coast, Kee will be picked up by a clandestine ship sponsored by a mythical organization called the Human Project. It appears that all of humanity’s hopes lie with this child, and everyone wants her for their own purposes. The Human Project, about which no one appears to know the truth- even of its very existence- becomes the Holy Grail for the few honest brokers in this morass. Considering the remarkably areligious and sometimes anti-religious attitude in the film (religious expression is characterized by Islamic extremists or kook cultists), the messianic implication of this ‘only hope’ is ironic and discomfiting. When it appears that they are safe (mother and child are the only ones to get there), the movie ends with the promise fulfilled. The closing credits are accompanied by the sounds of children and an anti-war, anti-establishment song.
I have had to read several reviews just to assure myself that I did not miss something significant. But if I did, so did they, both supporters and detractors. The supporters appear to swallow whole the anti-war message suggesting that none of this would have happened if we could only just get along. One even felt compelled to insert what Cuarón may have wanted to imply, that this looks like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo without actually having seen either. I have worked in prisons in the US and can confidently say that nothing I have experienced comes remotely close to the horrors depicted in the movie. Of course, no one is talking about Nazi Germany, Iraq under Hussein, or any of the numerous other tinpot dictatorships which presently dot the globe. If that reviewer knows otherwise, I am eager to see his evidence. The detractors expose the existence of unanswered questions, poor characterizations of the protagonist, and a murky plot. But they do not explore this more deeply. I will attempt to do so.
There are questions regarding what has happened to this world, what is happening and what will happen, and most central, who is responsible. The flow of the movie demands someone other than the individual to be responsible. It’s the infertility, the government, the war in Iraq, whatever. And it looks outside the individual for the cure- more babies. Even the protagonists rest their only hope on an infant. This would have a bigger impact if it were reminiscent of Joni Mitchell’s song “Big Yellow Taxi” (“You don’t know what you lost ‘till it’s gone”). But there is none of that. There is no reflection of what the world looked like with or without babies, just a mission to get an infant ‘out of Dodge’, and somehow, He will save the world.
For some inexplicable reason, only humans became infertile. There was no plague, no nuclear explosion, no increase in the ozone- it just happened. This is an event of Biblical proportions, like the Death of the First Born. How can science explain a disease or event that singles out only humans, and all over the world simultaneously, not spreading to reveal some epidemiological source? It doesn’t occur in animals or plants. The world’s food supply appears to be intact. In fact everything appears to be intact except this single, and singular, event. Yet there is no peep of wonderment about this gargantuan, universal, and still personal, catastrophe. The only response offered comes out of a B.F. Skinner laboratory. The stimulus is infertility- the reaction is despair, aggression and rage. The egocentricity of this society reeks. Everyone is feeling sorry for himself for not seeing a future in progeny. In this self pity, they destroy their personal future and well-being. It is no surprise that this self-indulgent society’s favorite drug is a suicide pill.
Are these truly the only possible human responses to a severe crisis? Does Cuarón really believe there is no nobility in humankind, that the sum of his miseries point to governments, militias and events beyond his control? Are peoples’ resources really exhausted when science fails to come up with a solution? Is there nothing an individual can do to elevate himself? This appears to be more a reflection of the director’s own cynicism than the reality I live in. If the viewer accepts this premise, to what extent has he limited himself?
Whatever the cause of the disaster, the response to it is adolescent. Peoples’ willingness to allow themselves to be further subjugated in order to maintain the comforts they have condemns them further. Cuarón would have you believe that dignity was wrested from them, but they removed their own dignity. When Theo and Julian lost their own child, they resorted to indulgent self-pity instead of finding comfort in each other. They exemplified the world who refused to find meaning in their lives, after having discovered that the things they amassed gave them nothing in return.
If anything, this is a deep condemnation of our modern world which promises fulfillment with things, removal of distress with drugs, relationships without commitment, and its concomitant decreasing demographic. If the movie is any reflection of an outcome to our present circumstances, it is to show how detached we are our from feelings and actions, and how irresponsible we have become as a result.
But Cuarón painted a monochromatic picture. There are people who live with meaning. Some genuinely believe in a Creator who is intimate with the world and who deliberately placed us as stewards of the earth. They will say that there are no coincidences and no accidents. They see themselves as responsible for their actions and that they do affect the world around them, even when they do not know precisely how. In response to the catastrophe, some may pray for forgiveness for themselves and all mankind in the belief that redirecting thought and vision does manifest in the concrete. And they know that thought precedes action. Some may accept personal responsibility for not having done enough to ease the suffering of their fellow humans and redouble their efforts to reach out. And they are not for themselves alone. Some may work to find those in despair and offer personal comfort and support, not the anonymous chemical soporifics which offer only unconsciousness and death. And they are the ones who would burst Joy's grape, knowing full well that its companion is melancholy; so would empathize with the despairing.
Some may even take measures to defend the oppressed, hide them, defend them publicly, in media, politics and demonstrations; and protect them against the victimizing authority, even to taking up arms not in terror, not to murder, not to wreak havoc for a ‘greater purpose’, but to defend. One can fight with pure motives, contrary to Cuarón’s apparent beliefs. Again, it is a severe condemnation of a society who would overwhelmingly support such a government, the only one left in existence, and a devastating condemnation of a world who would degenerate into barbarism over such a scenario. If we humans are still that shallow after all that we have experienced in our history, perhaps we deserve extinction for not having aspired to our nobility- the spiritual greatness which makes us unique in the universe.
Of course, the movie has an ulterior motive. Jasper (Michael Caine), a former political activist turned dope dealer, is the amiable control of the movie, a seeming place of sanity. A pan of his wall shows highlights of his career, including his opposition to the war in Iraq. It appears he was ‘drummed out of the corps’ for his defense of immigrants. But regarding the unfair treatment of immigrants, one should reflect that the audience is given no gram of information regarding their presence in England. We know they are newly arrived. How did they get there? England is, after all, an island whose power lies with the sea. How inundated could they actually have gotten? Are they straining England’s resources, or enhancing them? What does continental Europe look like, and what are and were England’s efforts there? How did the other democracies succumb? Are there no other civilizing elements left in the world that England can bolster? We are looking at a black box and asked to make conclusions about it.
As to the future, there is an unbearable focus on a single baby being the salvation of the world. The Christ-like image oozes like a sour sauce from old meat hoping to be made fresh by removing traces of spirit. People fighting and killing each other pause in their killing at the sound of an infant’s cries, momentarily fascinated by their vaunted hope. Clearly it is only a passing fancy, for the baby barely moves beyond the perilous domain when the shooting resumes. If their aggression and despair was for lack of progeny, it would seem that the presence of a baby would attract more than a passing interest.
If Cuarón’s hope prevails, there will be more babies. But to what benefit? It did not change peoples’ behavior before. It did not even effect them when the only one in existence graced their present. What possible lunacy can conclude a whole slew of babies will change their future? To claim that one’s future salvation lies in someone else removes responsibility, and invites enslavement. To claim the problems of the world lie with others is morally reprehensible and the way of the hypocrite. To claim to be caught up in events is the way of the victim. As Shakespeare’s Henry V said, “Every subject’s duty is the king’s, but every subject’s soul is his own.” In our world view where governments exist by consent of the governed, even the “king’s” duty is the subject’s. No baby is going to save us from the consequences, or rewards, of our own actions, individual or collective. Too often people focus on the grand scale where their influence is minimal rather than on their individual lives where the effects can be more greatly felt. Of course, it is harder to change oneself. Ironically, it is the individual efforts that change the world.
On initiating this review, I was convinced that Alfonso Cuarón was using cinematic technique as a substitute for real substance. But his story does reveal these elements of darkness about the way we live as a consequence of how we believe. Perhaps it was part of his design for the viewer to get below the superficial political and social propaganda to Pogo’s oft stated observation, “We have met the enemy and it is us.” Nah!
Labels: movies, politics, world events
“What’s wrong with this picture???”.
Good Evening ladies and gentlemen and welcome to another episode of -
“What’s wrong with this picture???”.Today we feature Pope Benedict XVI, who said what was perceived by some to be offensive.
His words, quoting a 14th-century Byzantine Christian emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, and a Persian scholar, “The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war. “He said, I quote, ‘Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached,’”.
The pope went on further to explain that Jihad which advocates “holy war” goes against the concept that violence in the name of religion goes against God and nature.
His conclusion was a call for dialogue amongst the cultures and religions of the world.
Many Moslems responded to this outrage against their religion and prophet by burning churches, rioting in the streets and burning the Pope in effigy. Some nations threatened breaking off diplomatic relations with the Vatican, and one cleric, Sheik Abubakar Hassan Malin, told worshipers in Mogadishu that the Pope should be killed for insulting the Prophet Mohammed.
The Pope immediately retracted his words, claiming they were taken out of context.
What’s wrong with this picture???Well, if I say that someone is violent, and he responds by punching me in the nose, what does that say about my assertion?
It is no different than the pathetic, and outraged reaction of many Moslems when cartoons depicting Mohammed were displayed in Denmark, the media, and blogs throughout the world. Actually, their spread was more the result of the 'outrage' than the content of the cartoons.
It began on September 30, 2005, when the daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten challenged the call for self-censorship in the case of a group demanding special considerations. They asserted these demands were contrary to the Western concept of freedom of speech and self expression. They called for cartoonists to lampoon Islam just as they had the other religions from time to time, then published the results.
Several Imams in Denmark objected, and made formal complaints to the Denmark police, citing specific criminal codes against blasphemy- aimed at preventing malicious insult of a group; and another criminalizing degradation, insult or threat against an individual. The complaints were dismissed citing the right to free speech and recognizing no malice of intent.
The imams took their cause on the road, writing a 43 page document intended to enlist Islamic and world support to their cause. The reaction was so great that it included many Moslem groups, several Moslem nations and the UN, all demanding a retraction and apology. Jyllands-Posten defended itself well against the detractors and attackers, but the consequences went well beyond the newspaper. Worldwide demonstrations abounded, and many people died. Plots of destruction and murder, in reaction to the cartoons, were discovered and foiled. Danish (and a Norwegian) embassies were set ablaze in Beirut and Syria (well- you see one Scandinavian and you’ve seen them all). A Moslem consumer boycott against Denmark cost millions.
In reporting the incident, many major British and American newspapers refused to print the cartoons, thus preventing their public from making their own judgments. Many editors who did were fired for doing so.
It was no different than the reactive murder of the equal-opportunity basher, Theo Van Gogh. He had scandalized polite society for decades. His website “The Healthy Smoker”, epitomized his stance by its criticism of the politically correct anti-smoking crowd. He insulted a Jewish historian, inferring she got excited by the prospect of sleeping with Dr. Mengele. This did not make him a favorite at political and social fundraisers, but it was not a sentence of death, until he bashed Islam.
He produced a short film called “Submission” which told about the violence of women in the Muslim world. As a result, he had several death threats. Van Gogh did not take these very seriously and refused any protection - reportedly telling Hirsi Ali: "Who would want to kill the village idiot?" A university educated, supposedly well integrated member of Dutch society apparently would. His name is Mohammed Bouyeri. He shot Van Gogh eight times, slit his throat and stabbed him in the chest pinning on him a five page note. The note was essentially a diatribe against Jewish influence in politics.
As you know, faithful fans to this show, it is not our objective to answer but to ask questions to the show’s title. So, in all, we have several questions.
First, if Islam is a peaceful religion, why do the three instances mentioned evoke violent reactions?
Second, If the reactions are by only a violent few, where are the peaceful ones to at least criticize their acts and words? Corollary- Why are some of the biggest perpetrators of violence people of power and influence in the Moslem world who not only continue to maintain that influence, but through such acts, enhance it?
Third, why do these same people who are so offended by acts of blasphemy against themselves perpetrate acts of blasphemy, desecration, discrimination and murder against religions and people of religions not their own?
Fourth, why do those people who are not Moslem and who claim to want peace and justice, not condemn these words and acts of violence wherever they occur, even when they are done by people who claim to be peaceful?
And you, dear Pope Gregory XVI, since do you not stand by your words to point out that your detractors proved your point,
What’s wrong with this picture???
Tune in at some unknown time to discuss an unknown theme on you’re favorite comedy talk show-
What’s wrong with this picture???
Hostages and Hamas. Politics as Usual? Maybe Not
I have been silent over the kidnapping of the Israeli soldier Cpl. Gilad Shalit and the kidnapping and murder of Eliahu Asheri, and I intended to stay that way, even though prominent rabbis considered these incidents of sufficient importance to forbid hitchhiking, the mainstay of many travelers here. After all, we are in a war that no one wants to acknowledge and pursue but our enemies. It seems apparent that the threats on our well-being will not be addressed by our government in any substantial way. Certainly, the world has no concern for the lives of a few Jews over the inconveniences of a few Muslims. We in Israel, I surmised, must hold out until the bitter brink, when a significant portion of us will say, “Enough!”
It did not seem that time had come. Even when the IDF moved into Gaza (ostensibly to put pressure on Hamas to secure the release of Shalit), I thought, “It is a token effort.” But this time has a new twist to it which I could confidently predict would come to nothing. But it is new. It happens when significant changes are about to be made - when coups are executed, and revolutions are reaching their apex. Members of a democratically elected government were arrested en masse on the charge of membership in a terrorist organization.
The New York Times quotes the Israeli defense minister, Amir Peretz, "The masquerade ball is over. The suits and ties will not serve as cover to the involvement and support of kidnappings and terror…. The seizures of the Hamas political leaders, under criminal law, for alleged membership in a terrorist organization and involvement in terrorist acts, were approved this week by the attorney general, Menachem Mazuz, "because he agreed that the public interest has changed, and there are moments a state can say, 'We have a public interest in activating the criminal law,' " said Jacob Galanti, the Justice Ministry spokesman, in an interview.”
Arutz Sheva reports, “Israel emphasized that the arrests were not in order to obtain "trading cards" in exchange for the abducted soldier Gilad Shalit, but were rather routine police arrests of criminals suspected of membership in a terrorist organization. "Anyone who is found to be innocent will be released," Israeli sources said.”
It continues, “While top Hamas leaders in Gaza have gone into hiding, Hamas spokesmen responded publicly with hysteria. "This is a revolution against human and democratic values," Hamas spokesman Mushir Al-Masri told Al-Jazeera. "This is an international crime and an open declaration of war against the Palestinian nation [sic]... The international community must speak out. Where are the Arab and Moslem countries? The arrrest of the ministers and legislators is not just a blow against the Palestinian Authority, but against the sovereignty of the parliaments and governments of all the Arab, Moslem and free nations."
Even Mubarak is supporting Israel’s stance. The Jerusalem Post – “Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak demanded from his Syrian counterpart Bashar Assad to deport the Syrian-based Hamas leadership unless it agrees to release kidnapped IDF soldier Cpl. Gilad Shalit, Palestinian sources said on Friday.” WOW!
JP – “MK Ephraim Sneh (Labor) dismissed the Egyptian initiative, saying "a diplomatic option is when someone brings about the unilateral, unconditional release of the kidnapped [soldier], not when someone serves as a mediator between us and the Hamas head in Gaza," Army Radio reported.” Of course, he is right, but when did we see an Arab leader support Israel in anything, even if for the wrong motives.
Something’s afoot.
As much as I try to say, “It’s war, even though most people will not acknowledge it. War has it’s casualties.” It hurts me every time one of us succumbs to the evil people around us. I’m sorry for people who feel they need to have a scapegoat for their misfortunes. I pity them and their misfortunes, but not enough to take responsibility for something I, collectively and individually, did not do. I absolutely reject murder and terrorism as a means to any end, and as vehemently reject all criticisms that when we respond to these outrageous acts we contribute to a ‘cycle of violence’. Though I haven’t seen it in the press recently, I am still afflicted with this idiotic charge in conversation and debate.
We must respond- appropriately, not reactively. We must be consistent, not just in Israel, but in the world, wherever we can. Certainly the US would not allow this type of criminal behavior to go unpunished. I can only attribute Europe’s collective psychopathology over this to come from 1500 years of infighting, culminating in the most devastating war the world has ever seen. They still don’t know what justice, true law and order really is. They only understand fighting and not fighting. And from them we got Mozart? Amazing.
The response is simple. If someone commits a crime, he must be arrested, tried, and if convicted, punished. It matters not whether he is a local dirt bag, or the deputy prime minister of a duly elected government. If he commits murder, he should count himself lucky he is being tried in Israel, where the is no death penalty for murder. If he is killed in a gunfight, or continues to elude the police, they should use all legal methods to apprehend him, or kill him if he eludes or resists arrest.
Finally, Israel is acting like this, maybe. Or maybe it is a silly hostage-for-hostage trade-off. We will see to what end and for how long Israel will keep these people. But we can certainly conjecture. Asheri’s kidnappers claimed that he was alive, whereas forensic evidence now shows that they killed him soon after being kidnapped. What if Shalit is dead, Chas v’shalom? There would be no proximate reason to release the Hamas people now under arrest. What would they do with them? Just holding them without specific charges will create a diplomatic disaster. The longer they are detained without specific charges, the greater the disaster
And what if Hamas does release Shalit? As stated by Israel’s defense minister and attorney general, they were arrested as a result of the ongoing terror and murder in and around Gaza, Judea, Samaria and Israel proper since at least Israel’s unilateral evacuation from Gaza last Summer. To release them if an exchange is made would make their words weak and silly. Of course, this is nothing new with Israeli leaders and their shotgun mouths.
But what would happen if such bold statements and actions were actually followed up by charges? It has been done at least once. Marwan Barghouti, leader of the Al-Aksa Brigade and member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, is serving five consecutive life sentences for murder. The Hamas leadership could be gutted through this process; Israel requiring only the usual violence associated with apprehending and trying a criminal, even if it’s a S.W.A.T. team.
And it would significantly change the face of the Middle East and the way we do things. We would actually have to live within the rule of law. We could use these trials to expose to the world the atrocities they have inflicted on us; just like we did with Adolf Eichmann. It would establish a precedent which would pressure our allies, even Europe (are they allies?), to take the high road as well.
And it would send a warning signal to our enemies that ‘if there must be war, let it begin here’. The longer we wait, the stronger radical Islamists become, and the more widespread their reach. Following rule of law serves our purpose to mitigate the pressures against us without committing ourselves to a war or attrition.
Of course, Israeli leaders have succeeded in taking the worst position possible in the past, even backing down from their words, without blushing. This could happen again , and we will be worse off than before.
And so my friends, let us pray.
Cherry Picking in Rosh Tsurim
There is an annual happening in Gush Etzion. People from all around are invited to go to the kibbutz Rosh Tsurim to partake from their cherry orchard. For 20 shekels, one can eat all you want from the trees. Another 15 shekels per box, you can carry some away. Some say they eat so much that they get sick. I ate a lot, and it was only satisfying.
The kibbutz itself is just around the corner from Alon Shevut. You can see the Matnas (regional government buildings) of the Gush on the opposite hill, and a beautiful view of the valley going down to the coastal plain.
Inside, it is the usual intimate pleasant atmosphere which comes from places where people know and trust each other. Those who do not live there feel we are coming on a family visit. It is a fair, with inflatable play pads for the kids, people selling arts and crafts, foods, and other fair-type stuff. The park has a lot of canopies for people to sit relaxed on the grass, eating the food around, or their own. Some kids and parents are surrounding a snake which is about to partake of his own lunch-a dead unskinned mouse.
The orchard is just across the street, covered with netting to keep out the birds, and some insects. It keeps us cool. They spray only before the fruit comes out, so there is no poison to wash off. With my untrained eye, I found at least three different species of cherries. Two are the traditional red and white cherries found in the grocery stores. The third was smaller. In exchange for its size, twice the cherry-sweetness.
I came with my daughter, granddaughter and some of our friends, but that is really moot. There were so many of our friends there. It is just the thing to do on a pleasant Friday morning, just before preparing for Shabbat. Even displaced Gushites from Ranana took the time off to partake in the festivities. In all, it was a great time.
But further, it is a reminder. These trees are rich and abundant. And this on land that is special. The land is not like Maryland and Virginia, where Old George chopped down one of the same species. The land here is dry, rocky and sparse. Goats have grazed and vines have grown wild here for centuries. But the ability to cultivate has been limited over the past 2000 years. Whether it was because of the people living here, the systems under which they had to live, or the desire of the land to give of it’s abundance, nothing grew past subsistence.
When the Jews returned, the land flowered again. They turned the swamps around. Though warned that the land around Jaffa and in the Jezreel Valley had mosquitoes that eat humans for breakfast, they beat back the swamps and turned them into some of the most fertile land in the world. Anyone seeing the Negev would rightly wonder how anything, even scrub, could grow. But kibbutzim and moshavim spot the desert with green from grass and export crops.
Gush Katif was sand. The Arabs living in the Gaza would complain that it could produce nothing, so demanded Israel proper as their rightful place. But the Jews moved in and made greenhouses for crops that are the envy of the world. When forced out, those greenhouses were either destroyed or went into disuse, because the indigenous people sometimes would not, sometimes could not work them. And the land returned to fallow within months.
Isaiah says of this:
“And now come and I will tell you What I will do to my vineyard;
I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up;
I will break down the fence thereof, and it shall be trodden down;
And I will lay it waste:
It shall not be pruned or hoed, but there shall come up briars and thorns;
I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it.” (6:4, v.5-6)
He says about us:
Comfort ye, comfort ye, My people, Saith your God.
Bid Jerusalem take heart, and proclaim unto her, That her time of service is accomplished, That her guilt is paid off;
That she hath received of the Lord’s hand double for all her sins.” (40, v.1)
Then:
“For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace:
The mountains and the hills shall clap their hands.
Instead of thorn shall come up the cypress, and instead of briar shall come up the myrtle:
And it shall be to the Lord for a memorial, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off. (55.3 v.12-13)
It has started in places like Rosh Tzurin, Ketura and Rosh Pinna. And hundreds of others throughout the land. The trees and plants grow and flourish, nourished by the God who has returned us to the land. It is no mistake or accident that the land grows with the Jews and not with others. The plan was laid out long ago. We are here as agents of a power greater than any who would deign to displace us.
Our proof – the cherry trees of Rosh Tsurim.
Zionism is Dead, Long Live Zionism
Most of the citizens of Israel are suffering from major fatigue. People have been living in a state of war since before its inception. Many have fought in three or four major conflicts which have truly threatened the existence of the state and the well-being of its inhabitants. All citizens are required to spend a goodly portion of their developmental years in active duty – both men and women. During this time, they are exposed to major risk of injury or death. It does not matter that the proportion compared to, say auto accidents is small, because behind the deaths while defending the country is a heinous motive from a hateful enemy. There is always the very real risk that this will accelerate into another major conflagration. Though this battle may be worldwide, everyone knows the brunt will be borne by the Jewish State.
It is no wonder that the government is committed to pulling back into a defensive perimeter in order to be prepared for this possibility. In fact, considering this scenario, one may truly question the sanity of anyone who would object to such a move. The smart money goes to self-protection. Everyone recognizes the unfairness of uprooting citizens to do so, but it is no different than a wolf chewing off his foot which got caught in a trap.
But who are the insane who demand to remain in their homes for a motive either poorly understood or considered ludicrous by the majority who elected the present government? Mostly they are dreamers of a grand past made manifest by Israel’s reincarnation. They believe in invisible forces controlled by an unknown power driving the world to a fantastic destiny.
Both sides are Zionists, but one is tired and the other is new and untried. They are two different kinds of Zionists. The tired ones are those who have lived with a failed idea- secular Zionism. By examining the movement we can see why it was doomed for the long haul even while it had such power and impetus at its onset. Make no mistake. Secular Zionism created and built the state which is now Israel. It was not done by the religious, nor could it have been.
In 1895, Theodore Herzl wrote a pamphlet called “The Jewish State”. He emphasized that Jews around the world were in constant danger, even in his enlightened period. Herzl believed that Anti-Semitism arose out of a disrespect for a people who though maintaining their identity had no state. Immigrants from Italy, Germany and Russia could derive their origins from their native country, wherever they were, thus maintained both respect and a sense of power. Jews had no state, so could be preyed upon regardless of the place they resided. If Jews had a state, they would be respected as a nation, peer to nations.
Israel would be a state that would accept all Jews from the oppression of the countries of the world and elevate them to safety, security and respect. All the work of the founders was to establish Israel as one which could defend itself, proffering respect, and simultaneously, as one who would give of itself and its resources, proffering gratitude and love.
Ultimately, Israel’s self-respect would depend on the attitude given to it by others. For a while, despite rigorous opposition from regional forces, it did indeed get the recognition it craved. In its early years, Israel was lauded as a miracle- an underdog who prevailed. The affection did not last long. It is called a pariah state, an apartheid state, an oppressor and occupier. It receives almost weekly sanctions from one official body or another. It is the victim of boycotts, even from respectable academic institutions. It is reviled in many liberal newspapers and broadcast media. It is the subject of conferences on many college campuses, whose sole agenda is to vilify it and plot to undermine it. It is the only country in the world whose legitimacy as a nation is put into question.
It is no wonder that those Zionists who depended on the world’s opinion for their own well-being should be depressed and fatigued. They should be disillusioned. Further, they should question their premises. If the creation of a Jewish state is to bring respect and honor among nations, and it does not, why should it exist? By depending on external acceptance to gain ones own self-respect, the present inhabitants of Israel, present and former Secular Zionists, have painted themselves into a corner.
Obviously, they are not going to conclude that they should no longer exist. But absent world approbation, they slink into a defensive position and wait for the attack. This is the mark of a doomed country. This is how Greece, Rome and Byzantium fell. If it were the only belief in Israel, it would be the source of Israel’s demise- a suicidal depression. Many from this group say that Zionism is dead. From their point of view, it is.
This is not the only Zionism in Israel. The other predates Herzl’s by 3000+ years. Today it is called Religious Zionism. It’s essential premise is that Hashem ( a word used to identify God- It means “the name”) exists and He gave us this land. Period. Rashi’s commentary on the Torah begins with a justification of Israel’s existence, written almost 1000 years ago. His comments regarding Hashem’s creating the world is that the world is perforce Hashem’s and He can do what He wants with it. Hashem gave the land where Israel now stands to the Jews, His chosen people. It was not said once, but numerous times in the Tanach (Torah, Prophets and Writings); emphasized time and time again that its possession did not depend on other nations, but on the Jews’ behavior, and His own Will. This is the same Torah which is considered holy and true by Christians and Moslems alike.
To those who do not subscribe to the existence of Hashem, this is ludicrous, anachronistic, and suicidal; the latter because the adherent is likely to take risky and potentially garrulous chances. It embarrasses many Jews and Israelis to be called ‘chosen’, and it angers many others. Its detractors claim that this philosophy is no different than the radical Islamists Israel is fighting, and justify all the villainous claims against it.
But the facts must be recognized.
Israel is the only nation which existed in former times, in fact ancient times, was totally destroyed and its inhabitants scattered throughout the globe, maintained its identity as before and came together again as a new nation. Even at its inception, one can see only a three year window, at best, where they would have been given world recognition, as they received from the UN. Many voted out of guilt for the Holocaust. It was the only time the US and the USSR voted in concert for anything. After 1949, the Cold War began, and the time for acceptance of the Jewish State would have ended. The UN’s generosity towards Israel has vanished
It fought several wars, whose campaigns border on the miraculous. There were no less than five battles Israel fought during the ’48 war where the opposing armies retreated after the defenders were down literally to the last bullet. The onset of the ’67 war saw Israel’s airspace virtually devoid of defensive aircraft, all of which were sent to destroy enemy airfields. Had any group of enemy aircraft taken to the air during that time, Israel would have been defenseless, and would have been destroyed. The ’73 war saw a 47/1 ratio of tanks in the Golan, yet they were able to maintain a defensive line for two weeks, before being able to take the offensive. Any break in the line would have allowed the enemy to move unopposed to Haifa and Tel Aviv. West Point teaches the campaigns of Judah Maccabe , but will not teach the campaigns of modern Israel. It is not due to prejudice. Their analysts cannot see the military logic in them. They see the campaigns as long shots and they are not prone to taking unnecessary risks, certainly not disposed to teaching them.
In its nascent years, Israel accepted three times its population from Yemen, Iraq, Europe and many other parts of the world. To illustrate the enormity of this endeavor, it would be like the United States accepting and absorbing 780 million people. The Israelis did this over a ten year period. Later it was to do it again for over 1 million Russians, and tens of thousands of Ethiopians.
During all these times, despite a humongous military budget, Israel’s economy has greatly expanded, and is considered one of the most robust in the world. It is at the forefront of development in agriculture and water use, medical and hospital systems, pharmaceuticals, banking, development of towns and settlements, hotel management, general construction, computer and communications technologies, and military advances.
Many do not even recognize these developments, seeing only the superficial, sometimes scurrilous media reports. But recognize the slanderous reportage to be the result of a jealous reaction to a too successful society which everyone expected to die in its infancy.
Religious Zionism recognizes these developments as a natural and miraculous outcome of Hashem’s promise to give Jews the Land. It embodies within it all the predictions and conditions set down in Torah. Among them are the ingathering of Jews to Israel, which is presently happening. Those conditions include anti-Semitism which is expected to persist until the coming of the Messiah. We can hasten his coming by following the Torah’s directions, or it will happen in Hashem’s time- but he will come.
The religious Zionists are ‘fresh troops’. They are not afraid to say “this is our land”, like the intrepid grandfathers of today’s majority. They are willing to stand by that statement. Whereas the older Zionists have gotten weary, the newer ones are ready to raise the flagging banner. They fill the army’s ranks, are counted in public affairs, including politics, and contribute to the general welfare in many ways.
On the one hand it could be said that they are at the beginning of the road to defend and support Israel. They have not been tested by coming up to the pressures that beset the leader whose responsibility lies the very lives of his countrymen. It could be said the religious Zionists are naïve and act in dangerous and risky ways – permissible perhaps for a fringe group in a free society, but not fitting for responsible leadership.
On the other hand, the religious Zionists have been around for far longer than the secular Zionists- at least 1800 years longer, depending how you define them. I define them as those Jews who though in exile, never gave up on the belief that Hashem gave the Land to them, and because of their own evil actions, He took it away. But He promised to give it back in our time, or His.
They have survived through this belief in Hashem in situations much more harrowing than today. They maintained their belief in Hashem and His promises through numerous edicts restricting their movement, lifestyle and freedom. They suffered from expulsions from many countries, after being systematically looted of their possessions. They endured massacres during the crusades and other wars throughout the centuries including the Holocaust when one third of their whole number were brutally tortured and killed. In each case, the remnant took up in another place, and thrived. In fact, were it not for the staying power of the religious Zionists, there would have been no secular Zionists to create the state at all.
Religious Zionists are from all walks of life, usually olim, new immigrants, who have come to Israel because they are drawn there by their belief. Today, they do not come from places of oppression, but from places that are free and convenient to live in. They are usually well educated, middle class, and responsible members of both the communities they came from and those in which they now reside. Usually, they must take a step down in their standard of living to be in Israel. This speaks more of a hearty and capable group than its opposite.
They believe that the state should not follow the currents of world opinion, but follow the rule of law according to Torah. Most do not see this rule as a theocracy, but as a guide in which all people will be given Torah education, while having personal freedom to do as he wishes within the parameters of any civilized society. They would allow the wisdom of the Torah to be its own self-evident truth as an ideal to follow. Above all, they believe it is time to proclaim to the world that their existence on the land as a sovereign Jewish state is not negotiable, and opposition to it will be met measure for measure.
Since, they are coming in continuous and greater numbers, raising children at a greater rate than the average secular Israeli, and are not prone to leave the land to find opportunities elsewhere, as so many indigenous Israelis are doing, it will not take too many generations before they will rule the state.
However, since the ruling parties and the constituencies they represent admit their exhaustion, it is in everyone’s best interest that they resign to hand over the mantle to the more robust. By doing so, they will promote both the well-being of Israel and the world in which it resides, in truth and ultimate peace.
Editorial goal
It is my hope and intention that I will place something on the blog at least once a week, and try for twice.
I look forward to your comments.
Sincerely,
Tiresias
Ponderings on Poland
It is not hard to feel that Poland is one vast graveyard if one had never been there. The history of the Shoah comes before it with force and clarity. It is harder to grasp this image when in Poland because of the beauty of the land. It is full of forests, rich and fertile soil, and abundant rivers and rain. How can such a land so full of God’s gifts harbor a people who would allow this to happen? And so fully as to virtually decimate one tenth of its population. One tenth. Ten percent. Three and a half million men, women and children from Poland alone. The flower of an ancient people.
I saw the forests that house mass graves, and the compounds which systematically collected, separated and confiscated (in many different ways), exterminated and disposed of the millions. I saw the synagogues, yeshivas, houses, city neighborhoods, and small towns – shtetls- the victims used to live in.
The Poles, of course, did not cause this. They did not build, collect, transport, or organize. It was the Germans, the Nazis- a people devoted to self-centered mastery over all. They had the state-of-the-art science, engineering, and organizational know how. Before World War II, it was that Germans who led, not the Americans, though time and
distance can shadow this awareness.
Imagine the billions of dollars (in today’s money) and thousands of man-hours it would take to collect a group of people from every neighborhood in every city, town, village and hamlet to the smallest collection of people on the European continent, and move them from their homes to concentration points within their region, as a first step. Then imagine the financial and organizational effort it would take transport them on the already existing infrastructure of train tracks (after adjusting them to fit this particular purpose), requisitioning trains organizing embarkments and disembarkments from places remote and close to Poland, their destination.
Then imagine the financial, human and organizational resources required to invent a new, efficient way to kill these people. To see the extent of this ingenuity, I am offering a context and time-line.
The killing didn’t begin in earnest until Germany invaded Russia in June of 1941. They just relied on the natural effects of crowding and poor resources to kill the collected Jews. It was effective, but slow and incomplete. It would not fulfill the ultimate goal of making the land ruled by Nazis free of Jews. By the way, no other group was collected and systematically and stolen from, like the Nazis did to the Jews. They were taken from their homes, allowed to bring what a suitcase would carry. Some brought carts. No cars, trucks, or other means of conveyance was allowed. All that was left behind was taken first by the Germans, then the indigenous peoples. Scattered apologies aside, there has been no talk of compensation for these stolen goods. In fact, Jews were still killed after the war by Poles who did not want to return their ill-gotten goods.
The Invasion of Russia began the germ of an idea which became concrete six months later at Wannsee, Germany. The problem- The Nazis inherited 3.5 million Jewish Poles and 2.5 million Jews under Soviet influence. No one else wants them, and Madagascar is too remote for an immediate solution. The answer– the most efficient way to remove the Jews from the Fatherland is to kill them. They started with trained SS units called Einsatzgrupen, who systematically killed mostly Jews in the Soviet occupied areas of Europe, including Eastern Poland. Mass graves containing from 800 to 33,000 Jews now mar Poland, and Eastern Europe. A good start, think the German scientists and planners, but it wastes bullets and some (not all or most) of their proud ‘soldiers’ are becoming demoralized from such close contact with their victims. Still almost 1.5 million killed this way is effective.
Next step- Chelmno, whose operations began on December 7,1941- moved Jews to their graves in sealed trucks, while pumping the carbon monoxide back into the cabin. It was a good start, the Nazis surmised. But it will kill only 800-1000/ day. And disposal is still an issue. Only about 300,000 were killed there. Not efficient enough for an advanced German scientist.
OK, now crank it up. Keep the carbon monoxide, but bring the people to chambers in camps where they can be gassed, then buried in mass graves. Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec did this effectively killing 1.5 million. Don’t let my glossing over diminish the amount of money and manpower needed to finance, build (both the camps and the connections to them) and staff these camps. The scientists are impressed, but they still can’t accept this as the epitome of achievement. More resources were devoted to a conjoint idea- using a concentration camp for labor and extermination as well.
Enter Majdanek, just outside Lublin. The other camps were far from urban areas, but this was an attempt to reduce travel time and be closer to resources. This was the first camp to use Zyklon B, a cyanide salt which aerosolizes upon exposure to air. I could see the characteristic cyan blue staining on the walls of the gas chambers. One could hold 100 people, another 200. The new gas reduced the total killing time from one hour to 20 minutes. At Majdanek, they started with mass graves (the old fashioned way), but introduced crematoria as another advancement. The ashes were spread over the adjacent fields. It was easier than mass graves. Furthermore, when the Nazis realized they might lose the war, they exhumed the graves they could find and burned the rotting bodies. 300,000 were killed there in this fashion.
All these led up to Auschwitz. There was a camp in operation already, were unspeakable atrocities were performed, (and they did have a small gas chamber) but it wasn’t until the construction of Auschwitz II- Birkenau that the killing began there in earnest. This was an area of 40 sq. km. newly constructed to accommodate all the ideas and experiments for killing from the previous sites, and only one year after the decision for the Final Solution was made. It would kill 1.1 Million Jews. Expansion plans were made for collecting and killing the world’s Jews in a section of Auschwitz called “Mexico”- a subject for a different time.
Auschwitz II- Birkenau was a concentration camp for labor in factories surrounding it. Mostly the slaves worked to death at the I.G. Farben synthetic rubber plant some kilometers away. They were tattooed with a number upon arrival and showering (in a large building in the compound called ‘Canada”). Most never got there, but were immediately separated at the disembarkation station in the center of the camp to be stripped naked and go directly into one of four gigantic gas chambers. Each was capable of gassing 2000 people at once. 15 crematoria supported each crematorium and when than was not enough, the remainder of the corpses were burned in pyres, like Belzec and Majdanek.
This was literally accelerating on from December, 1941 to the time when each camp was liberated by the opposing force. In other words, despite decreasing resources to fight a war that was going against them, the Nazis consistently diverted those resources to kill Jews. Some say the diversion was the decisive factor in their losing the war. I don’t think so, but for me, it talks about priorities. It was more important for Hitler and his minions to destroy Jews than to destroy opposing armies.
But what does that say about the Poles? Were they really as overwhelmed, and incapable of fighting the invaders? I heard many accounts of Poles who both protected Jews, and those who turned them in or killed them themselves. It’s a mixed bag. There is no doubt, however that what complicity an individual may have had, few were sorry to see the Jews go. As the old saying goes, “ Don’t go away mad, just go away.”
It did not end there. Of the 3.5 million Polish Jews before the war, only 200,000 survived. Many who tried to return to their homes were murdered in the attempt. Eighteen months after the Russian army freed Western Poland, something happened in the city of Kielce, where 75,000 Jews lived before the war, became a crushing denouement. 200 Jews who had been in hiding, or escaped to Russia, returned to their former city to try to reestablish their lives. On July 6, 1946, a rumor spread that Jews were murdering Polish children to make matzos for Passover- the traditional ‘blood libel’ (no one particularly cared that Passover was already three months past). Within a short time crowds gathered before the building starting a bloody pogrom in which 42 Jews were massacred to death and twice as many wounded. Participating in the massacre were people from all walks of life: peasants, factory workers, house wives, soldiers , students and even members of the intelligentsia. Thousands rushed out into the streets to actively take part , or at least to see the horrors.
This incident convinced the great majority of Polish Jews that there was no home to come back to. And they left for good. It is estimated that there are only 2000 Jews living in Poland today. It left a black mark on Poland and the Church, whose local bishop refused to intervene, though given timely warning, claiming the it was the Jews who brought Communism to Poland.
Anti-Semitism has continued to persist from incidents around Auschwitz to Lech Walensa’s 1991 presidential campaign where he claimed to be 100% Polish in contrast to his opponent’s staff who were ‘hiding their Jewish origins”. It is believed that this turned the tide of his last successful campaign to a victory.
I myself saw many people looking at us, a very Jewish tour group. Most looked with benign curiosity, one in Crakow greeted me with a “shalom”, but a number looked at us, and me directly, with disapproval and rancor. They were older, for the most part. Ironically I saw most of these looks from people who apparently lived in the area which housed the former Warsaw Ghetto, where 500, 000 to 600,000 people were forced to live in a space which formerly housed 130,000 people. At its height 5000 people per month died of starvation.
There is a story of Alexander the Great who visited with the seventy rabbis who translated the Torah from the Hebrew to the Greek. In the course of his visit, two farmers came before the rabbinical court with a problem. One man sold land to the other. Shortly thereafter, the buyer found a large treasure on the land and tried to give it back to the seller.
“I only bought the land”, he claimed.
The seller refused the treasure, saying, “When I sold you the land, I sold you everything in it.”
The rabbis considered the argument, and asked one, “You have a daughter, do you not? And you, a son?” Both answered in the affirmative.
“Then marry them to each other and give the treasure to them as a dowry.”
Alexander laughed, “I would have disposed of them both, and taken the treasure for myself.”
The rabbis asked, “Does the sun shine in your country?”
“Of course,” Alexander responded.
“Does the wind blow and the rains fall?”
“All in their time, and in abundance?”
“Do you have animals and plants there?”
“Of every kind and variety,” Alexander exclaimed.
“That must be it.” said the rabbis. “It is for the sake of these plants and animals that Hashem allows the sun to shine, the wind to blow and the rain to fall.”
It is said that to know how civilized a country is, one need only look at how it treats its prisoners. I would paraphrase that to say to know how civilized a country is, one need only at how it treats its Jews. So it must be in Poland, a beautiful country whose civility must be questioned because its inhabitants have lost their rudder, that Hashem protects its plants and animals.
The Heart of Darkness -a review of “Munich”
Nothing is more tragic than for a humane person to be entangled in the existential dilemma to kill or be killed. One enters into his heart of darkness, a place where few return. Many have written about this since Conrad, and it has been eloquently expressed in a number of movies. Judah Rosenthal (Crimes and Misdemeanors) and Colonel Walter E. Kurtz (Apocalypse Now are among those who never returned. Avner is about to enter.
Avner loves his wife and his child and sees them as his only home. They are for him a way to the heart of his mother, nearby but emotionally distant, loving but not nurturing; desperate to survive when all of her family succumbed in the Holocaust. He has another mother, Israel, who he has pledged to protect, first by being the bodyguard of Her prime minister, Golda Meir, then by avenging the cold-blooded murders of her sons, 11 Olympic athletes at Munich. His father is there in legend but not in fact, like the God who took the Jews out of Egypt only to seemingly leave them victims of other enemies for the rest of their existence. Avner’s father is shrouded in mystery and questions are raised about why he was never there for him. Avner will accept, nay insist that it was because his father was in prison. No more is said.
Avner is commissioned by PM Meir to find and assassinate the Munich murderers, which he does with a focus that becomes so intense that he becomes consumed, while he sees it consuming him. Avner struggles to preserve his humanity in the face of an inhuman enemy, and the very struggle reaffirms it
The objections to Spielberg’s movie lies in his portrayal of the enemy as having a human face. We see a flash of a Palestinian family grieve alongside flashes of a Jewish family. But we also see flashes of Arabs celebrating in the streets over this atrocity, and not Jewish crowds for the retaliatory bombings. We hear the same canned speeches of the Arabs on television interviews, just as they were when first broadcast. We see the targets – well dressed, urbane, incredibly wealthy Arabs, one with a family (whom Avner and his group work assiduously to protect). Though Avner demands proof of his targets’ culpability (to assuage his own guilt) the audience feels reassured that there is no doubt of their participation in this and other murders against Jews.
The one conversation which alleges a motive for the Palestinian cause is a bundle of contradictions. A Jordanian says that all the Arab nations are united in their desire to destroy Israel, but consider the Palestinians to be unimportant and a nuisance. He ends with an assertion that his dream is to sit under his proverbial olive tree (which exists only in Israel, of course). But the viewer is left with the vague impression that he is reciting dogma rather than stating a deep belief, and the life he now has is the life he wants.
There are deep questions about the efficacy, even the morality of fighting such a war. The enemy is equated to a Hydra- cut off one head and five more crop up. Though these comments reflect a sense of futility over the fight, they are balanced by the assertions that this Hydra was evil and murderous from the start and that ignoring it, or talking to it does not stop it. It is an evil monster, not human, but animal, and driven by the impulse to kill. This just happens to be the dilemma Israel continues to face. Spielberg is just calling it by its real name.
Avner, on the other hand, is left with nightmares of the horror for which he was seeking revenge- seeing over and over again the Israeli Olympic athletes being murdered. He is plagued by his own actions and develops paranoia. He fears that the Hydra is now after him and will use the same methods he used against his enemies. He sees no way to live in Israel without being part of their struggle.
Avner is given a face and a heart and a soul. He is trying desperately to keep his soul alive- a Jewish soul. Though he knows that one must fight to preserve one’s life and place in the world, he determines it is worth nothing without valuing life, family and peace. Failing to continue doing that, he opts out. One feels deep empathy for a man in such a struggle. He lives inside the heart of darkness, and battles to break out
But it’s hard to feel sympathetic to Avner’s angst outside of the theater. It is not because his angst is not righteous, but because we are still fighting the war against the Hydra. The enemy is spreading throughout the world widening the front to London, Paris, Madrid and New York, and as always, Israel.
Hamas, an avowed and unrepentant mortal enemy of Israel and Jews, has just gained political power. Hitler gained power with half the votes Hamas got, then turned democracy on its head. All the while Hitler was promoting the humiliation, disenfranchisement and ultimate destruction of the Jews, he was also promoting a high sense of national unity, individual pride in performance, and social and economic support for all Germany’s citizens (sans the Jews, of course). Hamas gained power with the same platform- “destroy the Jews and unite in mutual support and power”. What better call to power in a disenfranchised society than to identify an enemy, and promise revenge and reward. This has been the game plan of the Arabs in general since the beginning of the 20th Century.
But as bad as it looks, it was no different under the PA. The world was willing to dismiss the incongruities that slap them in the face regarding the PA and PLO. Like Hamas, the PA uses terror through their proxies Fatah and Islamic Jihad. But both insist on the State killing Palestinian ‘right to return’. They both demand Jerusalem as their capitol. And though only Hamas states it outwardly to the English speaking West, they both demand the destruction of the State of Israel through the schools, the pulpit, the media, and their respective charters. To this day, the PLO charter still contains the original passages demanding the destruction of Israel as their ‘raison d’etre’. The Heart of Darkness.
Further, Hamas did not get elected through terror, selected assassinations and riots in the streets. The Hamas mandate reflects the Palestinian public’s desires. Furthermore, the power in third place is the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). It is more vicious than Hamas. These parties are a reflection of the will of the people. They are not terrified pawns reacting to the threats of a belligerent minority. To be sure, the Palestinian polls reflected their attitude towards Israel many times, but were ignored when the results did not fit the fancy of those willing to be deluded.
And most people in the world appear to prefer delusion to the stark truth. Europe, the US and even the Israeli government are already preparing to recognize the monster as the legitimate ruler of the yet unborn Palestine. Monies will pour in within two weeks without even the rumor of a change in their terrorist stance.
And there is a new front. Israeli governmental power against Israeli Jewish citizens. Reflecting Gush Katif, they are in a frenzied effort to pull back from all territories where they feel vulnerable, by beating and clubbing their own people rather than confront the real enemy. In Amona, over 100, mostly teenagers, were wounded, including a 15 year old boy in a coma due to a fractured skull. This occurred despite a negotiated compromise which would have gotten the residents out in a few weeks. One wonders whether the Jewish citizens of Israel should feel more imperiled by their enemies, or their protectors who insist on a peaceful settlement for all but their own. The Heart of Darkness.
Yet these same people who hide from Hamas and attack their own will jump all over Steven Spielberg for trying to make some sense of it all. Frankly, I believe he did a remarkable job of making the incomprehensible comprehensible. I was able to stand in the shoes of a man who left the field wounded and confused. I can more understand why a person who has gone through three to five wars, as so many Israelis have done, would not want to encourage another. Whether they are right or wrong about the enemy, I can apprehend their desperation.
In an interview about this movie, Spielberg said, “There is no connection between the Palestinian terror of that time and the al-Qaida terror of today. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Jihadism have nothing to do with each other..” With Al-Qaida now in Gaza, Syrian sponsored Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Iranian sponsored Hamas in power, Spielberg needs a severe reality check.
So reality and art clash once more. Many artists have demonstrated an ability to distinguish the difference between good and evil in their art, yet consistently choose the low road. Woody Allen is the classic example of this in our age. Steven Spielberg is on the fence- he could go either way. But his movie “Munich” is not a slide to the dark side.
