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.