links to this post

AMSHINOV- no quarter asked,no quarter given

Think of me as perpetual Shil'shel Peh

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Rated G

For G -ive me a break.

As you probably heard by now Steven Speilberg’s movie, “Munich”, depicts the Mossad as trigger happy militants.

The facts remain that 11 Israeli Olympians were murdered. Their murderers were snuffed out by the mossad. Justice, albeit fractionally, prevailed. This is rudimentary humanism. What, pray tell, could have contorted Spielberg’s imagination to produce this drivel?

Sorry Steve, the concept of good and evil exists. People killing people is evil. Arabs killing Jews is evil. Evil is bad. Do you subscribe to relativism? Would relativism suit you if one of these lowlives were to violently malign you or your family? Is relativism your opium for appeasement?

Or are you petrified like the rest of us?




  • At 12/28/2005 12:10 PM, Anonymous stoliner said…

    hey!! shragie!! did you actually see the movie?

    a freilichen chanuka!

  • At 12/28/2005 1:04 PM, Blogger Shragie said…


    Why would I want to see the murder of Jewish souls being justified? Will Spielberg's next movie show the Nazi side of the Holocaust?

  • At 12/28/2005 3:22 PM, Blogger chuck said…

    let me qoute reuvain
    'al tishpachi dam'
    the bros just deceided that yosef is a BAD GUY were gonna kill him

    whether or not they were right is a different issue
    reuvain says 'al tishpachi dam' ya wanna know why?
    good cause im gonna tell ya
    even if they are right about yosef the ack of killing effects ones nature/nashama
    like any aviera its ALWAYS aviera goreres aviera why? cause its always easier the 2nd time around and even easier the third time
    so says reuvain 'dont start any nastiness its not for you my holy brothers'
    and guess what they all agreed!
    if scum killed our cousins in munich they are wrong but i dont think daas torah would agree to what the state of israel did

  • At 12/28/2005 5:19 PM, Blogger Still Wonderin' said…

    "chuck said......did"

    Is it just me or am I not alone in having absolutely no idea what any of that means...?

  • At 12/28/2005 9:55 PM, Anonymous Uri said…

    The problem with your analysis, Shragie, is that you haven't seen the film. I can see your not wanting to see it because of what you've heard about it, or telling others what you've heard about it, but climbing on a soapbox to assert that Speilberg depicts the Mossad as trigger happy militants and to announce the film is drivel produced by Spielberg's contorted imagination is a bit too much. No, it's a whole lot too much.

    See the film first and if then you want to call Spielberg a relativist and appeaser who might someday produce a film defending Hitler, tell us about it.

    Right now you come off as a wind bag blowing smoke--and a second hand one at that.

  • At 12/29/2005 9:49 AM, Blogger Shragie said…


    I don’t know if your explanation of Reuvain’s exclamation is original or not but its interesting. In fact, we see that a Sanhedrin that sentences more than a few people to death over a period of time is considered to be a murderous one. Thus, avenging murder is likely to run the risk of negative behaviors. True.

    I agree with you until the point of aviera goreres aviera. Certain acts can develop bad character traits. However, I believe you assume that what the Israelis did was wrong. Why?

  • At 12/29/2005 11:36 AM, Blogger Shragie said…

    From your shades of contempt I‘ll assume that discussing points with you or arguing with you will prove itself nothing short of futile. BUT here goes.

    While I haven’t seen the movie I have read enough critics with a common thread. It doesn’t afford me the right to analyze and critique the movie but it does allow me to acquire an opinion about the issue.

    I am coming from the point of view that murdering people is wrong. I also believe that murdering murderers is not. If you disagree with these premises then we cannot agree to any implication thereafter. Agreed?

    There were a few points I gathered from the critics which allow me the justified opinion about the movie. I wish to only point out one.

    The writer of the script is a man by the name of Tony Kushner. Kushner’s motives of anti-Israel pro Palestinian rhetoric would be consistent with his views.

    Kushner has the belief that “the founding of the State of Israel was for the Jewish people a historical, moral, political calamity.... I wish modern Israel hadn't been born."

    He also said, "I deplore the brutal and illegal tactics of the Israeli Defense Forces in the occupied territories. I deplore the occupation, the forced evacuations, the settlements, the refugee camps, the whole shameful history of the dreadful suffering of the Palestinian people”

    He also sits on the advisory board of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), an outfit that boasts of its public support for the Presbyterian Church's decision to consider selective divestment measures against Israel.

    Let me turn the tables on you Uri. I implore that you read the critics and commentaries regarding the movie. What do you say not about the movie but about the ills the movie may contain.

  • At 12/29/2005 11:51 AM, Blogger Chandira said…

    It's a pity Speilberg made it a little anti-Jewish, even to my untrained eye, but I really don't agree with the concept of vengeance. Violence never creates peace, history has shown that, no matter who does it or what excuse they have.. It just escalates til everybody ends up dead.
    I'll always be a pacifist. Defence is another matter, I'll admit. And to be honest, I'm not sure if that would change if somebody murdered my family. But for now, nobody has. I'm lucky.

    I knew nothing about what happened in Munich, not sure I do now, but it was a good action film. It kept my attention for 3 hours.

  • At 12/29/2005 12:08 PM, Blogger Shragie said…


    How do you categorize defence (Is that British) and vengeance? WHere do you draw the line and why do you accept one and not the other?

  • At 12/29/2005 3:24 PM, Blogger The Jewish Freak said…

    Art is about perspective. Why isn't Speilberg's perspective one of a Jew whose brothers have been murdered? Maybe non-Hollywood Jews are no longer his brothers. - JF

  • At 12/30/2005 10:05 PM, Anonymous Uri said…

    Shragie: I apologize if my previous post implied contempt or even shades of it. I very much admire your blog and certainly don't have contempt, or anything close to contempt, for you.

    I wish you had made the points about Kushner in your original post rather than lambasting Speilberg for what was in his film--which I repeat, you hadn't seen. THAT would have been informative and certainly not "blowing smoke."

    If you want to accept viewpoints of critic you trust and share them, do that. But hand them on as that (as you have done in this last post), as viewpoints of those you trust. But please please please don't adopt their views as your own and then rant against a film you haven't seen--or a book you haven't read--or a play you haven't watched--until you've seen/read/watched it. You're better than that.

    Summarizing: I accept your conclusion that Spielberg has involved some extremely anti-Israel figures in his film production. But I will wait until I've seen the film before I decide whether he has adopted their views, or mitigated their views, or undercut their views, in his own work.

    I--non-contemptuously--suggest you do the same.

  • At 1/03/2006 8:42 AM, Blogger Shragie said…


    NO need for the apologies. Really.

    I will agree with you half way. To grasp a true understanding of anything you must hear the person out completely. In this case, to better understand Spirlberg’s point I would have to see the movie.

    However, I can muse over his intentions without seeing the movie. He isn’t hiding his motives for “MUNICH”. The movie ads themselves question the legitimacy of vengeance and self defense. Specifically, the vengeance and self defense of Jews. The critics merely reiterate this.

    The fact that he got Kushner to do the movie among other facts doesn’t necessarily mean anything. However, it does permit people to further question Spielberg’s judgments and offer conjecture to what makes him tick.

    I look forward to your next comments.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Free Counters
Free Counters
<< List
Join >>
Homer Simpson:Because sometimes the only way you can feel good about yourself is by making someone else look bad. And I'm tired of making other people feel good about themselves Who Links Here
Track referers to your site with free referrer feed. More blogs about judaism.
Technorati Blog Finder