MUNICH REVIEW

I saw Munich a few days ago, and have been holding out on writing about it. Partly because I anticipate it to be a lengthy post (which most people won't read), and partly because I was waiting for more of my friends to see it, to hear their thoughts. Few of my friends and family have bothered to see the film, and since Noah is the only regular reader of my blog I guess it doesn't matter if this post goes long.

I think Munich is an extremely significant film. I think it is important to note that there are at least two possible readings of the film. The first is a straightforward story of a terrorist attack and the subsequent actions taken by the Israeli government and military. Another take sees the story of the Munich as an allegory for the historical development of the State of Israel. The gradual descent of the protagonists into the depths of rage and vengeance can be seen as a comment on the long-term impacts of occupation on the soul of the Jewish people as they pursue the dream of a homeland.

Though not Spielberg's best, the importance of this film lies in its potential to change Jewish public discourse about Israel in the diaspora. By this I mean that Spielberg- a well-loved Jew of almost heroic proportions -has brought to the public a story that questions the means and methods that Israel has employed in the pursuit of statehood and security. As we all think, talk, and debate about the film, these existential questions form the basis of our discussions. And it's about time.

For too long in the diaspora our approach to Israel has been one of blind support and blind love. This kind of narrow-minded allegiance is not to be found in Israel, where debates (on both the left and right) about the efficacy of the security wall, the occupation of Palestinian territories, and expansion of settlements (to name just a few), make up the rich, democratic fabric of the public sphere. Unfortunately, in the diaspora, more often than not critiques of Israel are perceived to be anti-Zionist at best, and anti-Semitic at worst.

However, the protagonists in Munich (dedicated Mossad agents) demonstrated that the most difficult questions - what degree of violence is justified in the pursuit and defense of our homeland and what are the impacts of these kind of security measures on the souls of those responsible - are asked by those who's entire lives have been dedicated to the country they love. Does being a good Zionist mean accepting all decisions made by the ruling party? If criticisms are aimed at policies and practices that one believes to be diminishing the integrity and honour of the Jewish State, is the person launching those criticisms a self-hating Jew?

I have spent the past year doing fieldwork with Zionist university students. During a trip to Israel, our group was taken on a tour of the Green Line on the north west edge of the West Bank. Here we were shown how the security barrier and Green Line zig-zag and interconnect, leaving entire Palestinian villages trapped in between. We saw a village cut in half by a wall, and the checkpoint where a women had died in labour. We also saw the site of a suicide bombing that left 12 innocent Israelis dead.

Later on, I was chatting with a student about the day's events. Having been brought up in a conservative Zionist home, his knowledge of Israel was comprised of standard day-school Zionist history and - of course - his Birthright trip to Israel. However, the tour of the Green Line had been an encounter with an Israeli reality that he had not experienced before; sometimes innocent people suffer so that Israel can exist. As he reflected on this experience, he made a comment that stayed with me, and I think applies here. He said, "you know Emma, when I think about how we've all been taught about Israel, I'm not so sure that there is any difference between blind love and blind hate." To those who might condemn Munich for the difficult questions it raises, I ask you to think about that for a while.

Tragedy in Toronto

Yesterday in downtown Toronto there was a terrifying gunfight which left six people injured and one 15 year-old girl dead. All seven of these people were innocent bystanders. The area in which this horrific shooting took place is not some out-of-the-way slum or project neighborhood, but in the centre of our city. Don't misunderstand me- I absolutely do not mean that this would be ok if it were at Jane and Finch; I mean that it is time for us Torontonians to wake up and realize that gun violence is a problem for everyone, not just poor black disaffected youth.

Clearly we have a problem in this city, and clearly, we have not yet figured out how to deal with it. Enter Steven Harper: Now here's a guy who's running for the country's top job, and god forbid something like this should happen and he not use it to his political advantage. In response to the shootings, Harper makes the following statements:

"I've said before: Mr. Martin's proposed ban on handguns is really no different than the current law," ..."We've basically banned handguns in this country. The problem is this is the first government in our history that seems unable to enforce our gun laws, and I think obviously this is just the consequence of 12 years of lax criminal justice law enforcement."

Wow. Stephen Harper knows what the problem is! It turns out that gun violence in Toronto is all Mr. Martin's fault. If only this were true! It would mean that all we would have to do is get rid of Martin's Liberals, and poof!, gun violence in Toronto would disappear. Perhaps if Mr. Harper could move beyond blaming his competition and actually offer a positive suggestion as to how his government might deal with this extremely complex social problem, I might believe him. Until then, it would probably be best if he refrained from using other people's personal tragedies as part of his electoral strategy.

THE CHRISTMAS INSTALLMENT

So, for those of you who are believers, perhaps this post is not for you. Ok. Consider yourselves forewarned.

Here's what I'm thinking: What if the whole thing was a set-up? I mean, what if the whole thing was pre-planned, and Jesus was just a tool in some ornate plan to unseat the Jewish religious authority? Yes, I know- this sounds like a paranoid conspiracy theory (which it is), but just go with it. Let me set the scene....

Jesus, or Yehoshua in Hebrew, is a somewhat eccentric, charismatic, and disaffected Jew from the holy land. He hears about a bunch of hippies hanging out in the mountains, and thinks he'll go check it out. He gets there, and meets fellow yid, John (Yonatan, or Yoni for short). Yoni was a pretty rugged guy- smoked a lot of mountain sheesh, and was really into experimenting with a particular type of Jewish ritual purification known as the Mikvah. So, one day Yoni and Yehoshua get really baked, and Yoni's like, "dude, you're the fucking messiah"!

As it turns out, Yoni, Yehoshua and the rest of their tripped-out buddies were pretty pissed off with the Jewish political conservatives in charge in Jerusalem, the Shemmaites. They much preferred the teachings of the late spiritual leader of Jerusalem, Hillel. Unlike the strict orthodoxy espoused by Shemmai, Hillel had preached about tolerance and love. Having decided that it was time to get rid of the hawkish leaders in Jerusalem, the mountain hippies decided that they would go to the city, and with their new messiah in hand, they would spread the good word of Hillel.

So to Jerusalem they went. It was a tough time in the holy city- besides the strict Shemmaites in control of the Temple, the Roman occupation was extremely oppressive. As Yehoshua and his band of merry messianists move through the city, they encountered many groups of poor and downtrodden Jews. The poor and oppressed Jews were quite attracted to this man who preached Hillel's teaching of love, tolerance and the Kingdom of Heaven: "judge not your fellow man until you yourself come into his place", "What is hateful to yourself do not do to another, that is the whole law", and of course, "Hear o Israel, the Lord is God, the Lord is one". Before long, the band of merry messianists had a tremendous following.

When the religious Jewish authorities got wind of what Yehoshua was up to, they were PISSED! So were the Romans- how dare anyone challenge the authority of Rome! Yoni realized that due to Yehoshua's extreme popularity (and the ire it caused the political and religious elite), there was a real possibility that they could really create a viable alternative to the status quo in the holy land. The time was right for the next phase of the plan: the messiah must be sacrificed. By dying for the sins of man, they would avoid the inevitable plateau-effect that befalls many a political party.

They devised a careful plan: Yehoshua would go to the temple, and do some major shit-disturbing. The idea was for him to do something bad enough to cause the Pharisees to call in the Roman authorities. They knew if that happened, it would just be a matter of time before Yehoshua would be "taken out of the picture". Yoni had some connections with the Roman guard- some non-unionized workers who were sick and tired of the low pay, shitty working conditions, and lack of benefits. For a generous sum, they agreed to go easy during the crucifixion and to help remove Yehoshua long before he could succumb to his injuries.

The plan was hatched. Yehoshua wasn't entirely thrilled, but Yoni convinced him that it was the right thing to do. So he went to the temple, and had a real hissy-fit. He screamed and yelled about how corrupt the rabbis were and then started to throw around the furniture. It didn't take long for them to call the cops.

From there, the story progresses as per the traditional account, except for what I mentioned about the disgruntled Roman guards. About six hours after being put on the cross, they removed Yehoshua and brought him to a cave in the mountains were Yoni was waiting with several healers. After three days, he was well enough to walk. They decided it was time for the resurrection. Yehoshua was taken out of the cave and brought before his followers and spoke the words, "Peace to you". Presto! The messiah lives for eternity, and so does Christianity!

Yoni realizes for this to work, they've got to get Yehoshua out of town. Yehoshua was taken to France where he met Miriam of Magdalene and lived the rest of his natural days. Back in the holy land, the followers of Yehoshua traveled throughout the land, preaching Yehoshua's take on Hillel's messages of love and tolerance.

Merry Christmas, Everyone!

P.S. For those of you reading this who might be Christians, please know that this is just my own personal re-imagining of the story of Christ, meant for my own personal entertainment. This is not to be taken seriously, and if I have offended you, I am truly sorry.

If you're a Canadian, perhaps you've noticed the recent spate of news stories about how few people seem to be paying much attention to the current election. Pundits and analysts are busy yapping about why Canadians are not following the election with much enthusiasm.

It doesn't take a political scientist to figure out why Canadians aren't paying attention; we don't give a shit! And why don't we give a shit? Because we're bored. And why are we bored? Because we know this is a two-party race, and that after a year of watching the Conservatives try to make the Liberals look stupid, and the Liberals trying to defend themselves and keep their heads above water, we've heard it all. The truth is -no matter who is in power- those in charge will probably abuse their authority, and those who are not are too busy trying to expose them to actually contribute anything productive to the political landscape.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR:

L. Galvez of Calgary argues against removing all religious terminology from the holiday season (letter to the editor, Globe and Mail, Dec. 23). Employing the notion of tolerance, Galvez suggests that we should all respect each other’s cultural and religious practices, and that if he or she “were in another country, [he or she] would joyfully celebrate Diwali, Hannukkah, Ramadan or any other holiday with the citizens”.

Without sounding like too much of a Grinch, I have to ask: Does this mean that in our country, the “citizens” celebrate Christmas? Ironically, the invisibility of the non-Christian other in Galvez’s argument is exactly why many Canadian “citizens” resent the portrayal of Christmas as the “Canadian” holy day.

Love the Thugs

So, the big news today is the announcement of the Canadian Olympic hockey team. It seems that some of the selections have proven to be somewhat controversial; specifically, the inclusion of Todd Bertuzzi and Dany Heatley in the Canadian Olympic lineup.

Without going into detail, these two dudes have both achieved some measure of notoriety as a result of questionable conduct; Bertuzzi's unfortunate run-in with Steve Moore, and Heatley's extremely unfortunate run-in with a wall, and the subsequent tragic death of teammate Dan Snyder.

The thing is, I really don't get what the big deal is. So these guys are kinda thug-ish. Who cares! Why is it that we expect athletes to be anything other that ruthless competitors? If these guys are good enough to be in the NHL, why shouldn't they represent Canada in the Olympic games? How is it that the concept of nobility (as in honour, not royalty) has been attached to the Olympic games?

According to the World Anti-Doping Agency, the incidence of adverse analytical findings (read: dumb jocks who got caught doping) increased 25.7 % between 2003 and 2004 (http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/LABSTATS_2004.pdf ). This stat is anything but noble. This many athletes trying to cheat in order to win doesn't say much for values like honesty, integrity, sportmanship, etc...but really, who cares? Who says that as professional competitors they need to be honest?

I say let them do drugs! Let them cheat, behave inappropriately, and let us watch! If we were honest with ourselves, we would realize that we are not too unlike our ancient Roman cousins- just another angry mob waiting to see two gladiators fight to the death. And what the hell- if you let them use drugs, it'll probably be a better show.

Poor Jack. Look at him- well spoken, totally likeable, handsome...it seems that no matter how much of superstar he is, he just can't get the votes for the NDP. If you've been following the campaign at all, no matter what your political leanings, you'll agree that Jack's performance thus far has left the other contenders in the dust. He's always on message, composed, articulate- even funny.

Look at him here- riding the beleaguered TTC with his wife and fellow NDP candidate at his side. Ironically, the NDP is a lot like the TTC; people know that the TTC offers solutions to many of problems associated with city life. Traffic and air quality would be vastly improved if the TTC had more support and could provide a more robust service model. But sadly, like the NDP, the TTC does not receive the support it deserves and our health and quality of life are diminished as a result. To our peril, we continue to starve the public transport system of the largest city in the country. Unfortunately, we treat the NDP with the same disdain. Despite Jack's obvious leadership abilities, it seems that we will likely continue to partake in electoral practices that will hurt us in the long run.