Sappy Steven Spielberg Ignores The Lessons Of History
As Rothstein points out, the Spielberg argument that retaliation for terrorism, fighting the terrorists, only begets more terrorism, is not, as far as Israel is concerned, accurate.
He quotes from Aaron J. Klein's new book, "Striking Back: The 1972 Munich Olympics Massacre and Israel's Deadly Response," as demonstrating from the historic record that Israel's retaliations resulted in "a steep slide in the frequency of terror attacks against Israelis and Israeli institutions abroad from 1974 to the present."
The same is true in suicide bombings. Israel is the only place where the number of such bombings has been sharply diminished in the last three years, pursuant to a strong Israeli policy of going after the people who have organized such bombings with a well-directed policy of targeted assassinations.
When Israel, by contrast, has retreated in a show of peaceful intentions, such as from Lebanon, or, more recently, the Gaza Strip, the reaction has only been more terrorism. Now, Israel is faced with the necessity of striking back against new rocket attacks from Gaza, and, as in the past, it will soon get around to doing so.
A failure of Israel to respond as it has would long ago have led to the destruction of the Jewish state. People will not continue to live in a place where murderous assaults go unanswered.
At the end of his movie, which I believe should be boycotted in every way possible, Spielberg shows a picture of the New York World Trade Center, as if to suggest that its destruction on 9-11 somehow proceeds from the Israeli retaliations for the murders at the Munich Olympics.
This is a variation on the argument from the ignorant Left that somehow the New York victims of the terrorists acts were responsible for them, that they were an appropriate retaliation for imperial American policy in the world.
It is the same kind of argument that the pernicious Spielberg movie makes, that terrorism is somehow justified as a response, that it is legitimate. This is utterly wrong and will lead only to destruction of our way of life.
As Rothstein points out in the New York Times today, neither the Munich massacre nor the 9-11 attacks came in isolation. They were part of a series of escalating attacks on democratic values in Israel and the U.S., and it seems clear that unless the attackers are resisted effectively, they will only escalate their offensive to the use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
You can't stop psychopaths by turning the other cheek. That's where the Spielbergs of the world are so wrong.
I'm not surprised, incidentally, that the Rothstein argument has not yet found its way into the L.A. Times Calendar section, because the director of that section, John Montorio, is a liberal of the Spielberg, Bob Scheer type, and his section is a constant apology for mistaken liberal views.
However, Nick Goldberg, editor of the LAT Op-Ed page, ran a pointed critique of Spielberg and "Munich" by columnist Max Boot on the editorial pages Wednesday, Dec. 28.
I am surprised that Time magazine called "Munich" a masterpiece, because Time has been fairly constant in its support of what the U.S. is trying to do in the War on Terror.
The Spielberg argument is specious. It can only lead to the destruction of the West, as Rome was once destroyed by the barbarians, and the plunging of the world into new and protracted Dark Ages.