To the editor: Michelle Goldberg's unconvincing The War on "Munich" is indicative of the left's typical reactionary and dishonest smear campaign against those of us who raise points about the film that are not easily refuted. Labeling all critics of the film as neo - cons is one of them - if they're so - called neo - cons they must automatically be wrong. So is calling terrorists militants - union reps who are itching to go out on strike are militants, people who murder innocents are terrorists - a distinction I should not have to make were not the likes of Goldberg dominating the discourse on this subject. Had Steven Spielberg and Tony Kushner paid proper attention to George Jonas' book, which, contrary to Goldberg's assertions is still considered by most experts to be a credible one, they would have read Jonas' statement, in its last paragraph, that terrorism and counter - terrorism are not equivalent. But you wouldn't know it from the film or Spielberg's interview in Time where he made clear that he wasn't going to make a good guys versus bad guys movie. The logical question is why not? In fact, in this equation, the Israelis are the good guys and always have been, despite Goldberg's bleatings to the contrary.

The fact is Mossad agents would not be questioning their mission from day one; they, Avner included, never doubted it for a second, which is not saying they didn't have some qualms about aspects of what they are doing. (That's where Jonas' smart shades of grey came in.) The so called 'humanising' of the Palestinians, in a contrived and false scene where Avner has a poltical discussion with one of them, is typical of many Jewish, and, sadly, Israeli filmmakers, who feel the need to always add the other side to their argument, for fear that they might come across as too pro - Israel. You never see Palestinian filmmakers, as in Paradise Now, compelled to present the Israeli side, nor should they be obligated to do so. Only liberal Jews, like Spielberg et al, do that.

Munich, if Spielberg were not such a coward (remember he ducked out of confronting Mel Gibson over his anti - Semitic Passion) - could and should have functioned as a reminder of the evils of Palestinian terrorism, which is still afflicting countless Israelis today. Instead, his long, tiresome, movie lifts moral equivalence to new offensive heights, besmirching the memory of the Israeli victims Spielberg claims to care so much about. All the moral good - and good will he engendered- by making Schindler's List has now been cancelled out by Munich. He should be ashamed of himself. But as long as the Michelle Goldbergs of the world can insult those of us who find the film revolting, he can rest easy.

Shlomo Schwartzberg

shlomo1959@hotmail.com

tel; 416 928 2179

Toronto, Canada

Incidentally for full disclosure I am a journalist and film critic.

A man, educated and well-traveled, remarked to me recently, "What has Israel gotten us into?" when remarking on the state of the world today. Too frequently I encounter this perception, but I think Munich, for all its good and bad, will perhaps serve to counter this flawed perspective.

This is not a story solely about Israel or Palestine. From the opening titles, a montage of international Olympic cities to the actual events, to the cities that serve as backdrop for the conflict (until the shot of New York in the end), this is an international problem, one which the international community has done comparatively little (after all...Avery Brundage's speech was hardly compassionate to the dead and the games continued, never mentioning or obseerving even a moment of silence for the death of 11 athletes until Atlanta in 1996). And the cycle of violence is both encouraged by supposedly impartial neutrals (Germans, Americans, Dutch, Soviets, Cypriots, Spaniards) and consumes those same people (i.e. NYC).

The David Brooks' might have been hoping for a cleaner movie, one in which the bombmaker is indeed cold and ruthless, rather than righteous, while the guns guy has that Tinsletown capability of busting off 40 rounds from a 9mm handgun. Nevertheless, the historical record, as well as that advocated by the film, is far too complex. Ehud Barak, leading Israeli peacenik, is seen as the leader of an Israeali commando team, while current PLO Chairman, M. Abbas, is suspected of being Fatah's and Black September's lead banker in the 1970s. How can a world such as ours be so black-and-white?

Let us remember that the Munich attack also came at a time of global unrest and suspicion of governments. Governments fought with some terrorists, but negotiated with others, casting skepticism on all. As the cost of revenge escalates, Michael Lonsdale's character and movement, focusing on family rather than governments, naturally shows that family is a stronger bond than notions of state, law and morals. But what is family? Indeed, Avner's mother is cold in her insistance on the state of Israel's legitimacy in the wake of WWII, but these people were all Sabras, born and raised in Israel before the war, evidence that the notion that Israel as pennance for European sins is false. But in Israel, by virtue of the kibbutz, the state is family, family is the state. Yet surprisingly, Brooks and his colleagues miss this chance to align with Spielberg family values.

jbt

Or, do I miss the point? Is this a serious review or just a spoof? If it's the former, what a shocking, apologist-for-Israel/Jews review. I heard good things about Salon and this was the first ever story I read on the website. What a letdown! Salon is only liberal by Americna standards, looks like. Which means, to the rest of us in the world not brought up on neocon rantings, it is still too rabidly right.

thank god i got an early warning. i'll remember never to read salon again.

Here's a question (or two). The film is based on the book "Vengeance" by Yuval Aviv & George Jonas. Why did someone as meticulous as Spielberg choose this source when a court case revealed that Aviv never--as he claimed--served in the Mossad or any other Israeli intelligence agency? In fact, he was merely a guard for El Al airlines. Arguments about the film's POV aside, if the source is bogus, doesn't that shape the end product? And shouldn't all reviewers mention the shakiness of the source material, whatever they make of the film?