Wednesday, December 21, 2005

The Millionaire Peacemakers of Ignorance

It seems to be a rule of nature. No sooner does some Jewish buisnessman make his first million, then even though his knowledge of Judaism extends only as far as not eating pork, which he eats anyway, he declares his dream of bringing peace to the middle-east.

In this month's stupendous outpouring of benevolence down upon the proliteriat, Steven Spielberg proclaimed his plan to bring Middle East peace by making a movie. No not 'Indiana Jones VI - The Quest for Arafat's Swiss Bank Accounts,' it's a movie that explains that fighting terrorism is really pointless. Had Spielberg made a movie about the Holocaust that featured Jews and Nazis realizing they're both stuck in a rut and need to make friends with each other instead of fighting, that would be the rough equivalent of Steven's new opus, Munich.

The irony that Munich is traditionally known for Prime Minister Chamberlain's craven appeasement of Nazism and that the Munich terrorists who killed the Jewish olympic atheletes were set free escapes Spielberg. As with all deep thinkers whose deep thinking ends at the border of liberal dogma, Spielberg comes up with a predictable scenario in which fighting terrorism is shown to be difficult and problematic and the only real solution is yes, peace. This Spielberg believes will finally save the Israelis from themselves. Mel Gibson wanted to convert everyone to Jesus, Steven wants to convert everyone to Oslo. Never mind that both are dead and discredited, a false god's worshippers never give up easily.

Now granted being forced to sit through Hook has touched off some wars in small African countries but Spielberg's last few movies have been mostly ignored. A.I. bombed at the box office. Minority Report was greeted with yawns. Catch Me If You Can has long since been forgotten. The Terminal bombed despite the presence of Tom Hanks. War of the Worlds was best known for its Scientology associations. The odds of anyone, let alone a nation caring about a Spielberg movie at this point are roughly the odds of Jesus coming back from the dead to appear in the next Indiana Jones movie. Now Spielberg's studio was sold to Paramount for a measley 1.6 billion dollars. After over a decade of striving, SKG Dreamworks has managed to sell for less than the world gross of any three Pixar films. Good luck bringing peace, Stevie.

But this largess isn't enough. Craig Newmark of Craig's List too emerges with a plan for Middle East peace. Craig's List is best known as a place to sell stolen goods, run various cons and for perverts to meet up with each other. Craig's plan for Middle East peace isn't held up by such petty things as knowledge of Judaism which he freely admits he doesn't have. He's not even too sure what Tikkun Olam, the unholy focal point of liberal Judaism, means. He's completely secular and lists Israel as being in asia. He compares the Bush administration to Stalin and from this well of brilliant sociopolitical knowledge, he decides it's 'incumbent on him to help achieve peace there.'

If only Craggie had decided to pitch in sooner. For decades the Israelis and Arabs were waiting for Craig Newmark who can barely spell Judaism on a good day, to come along and solve all their problems. In Craig's enlightened wisdom, the problem is ",more of perception than substance." This may be something like the perception that half the people who use Craig's List are registered sex offenders and the other half the retired widows of deceased Nigerian Generals looking for someone to deposit their money in a Swiss bank account.

According to Craig you see the problem is that both Israelis and Palestinians want peace but they haven't realized that the other side wants peace too. Now he believes, if there's a survey that shows both sides want peace; there'll be peace. Sometimes you wonder why Dot Com buisnesses go out of buisness and then sometimes you stop wondering.

Fortunate are the Jewish people. We no longer have prophets among us or Kohanim to bring our sacrifices or even large numbers of good people who will stand up for Israel and the Jews but we have no shortage of ignorant millionaire peacemakers whose only contribution to the Jewish people is to find ways to further undermine Israel's attempts at defending itself with moral relativism.


  1. I've read numerous articles about Spielberg's film Munich, which many claim is an inaccurate protrayl of the events following Black September (September 5, 1972) and the assasination of the terrorists responsible for murdering the Israeli athletes.

    According to most reviews of the film, Spielberg's version is based on the book Vengence, which gives the wrong impression that the Israeli response was as the book's title implies--revenge--not self-defense and the protection of innocent lives.

    This warped point of view could only serve to fuel the flames of hatred against Jews.
    Obviously, there is a vast difference between murdering innocents versus killing blood-thirsty terrorists, something most liberals tend to forget.

    Spielberg calls the film his "prayer for peace." Having risen as far as he can financially and in status, Spielberg (and other millionares like him) want to go one step further, another step higher ..they want to be revered now for bringing peace to the world. Furthermore, it seems they want to take on the role of religious advisors to the world as if money and fame are on par with intelligence, and spiritual wisdom.

    They don't have a clue. Israel has tried repeatedly to make peace with the Palestinians and other terrorists so many times I've lost count. In case after case the peace treaties are broken by terrorists, not the Israelis.

    Christian ministers try to understand and show compassion for the terrorists--and get taken hostage and are often killed.

    Ariel Sharon tries to make peace, forces Israeli Jews from their homes and hands the land over to terrorists.

    And yet...Rockets from Gaza continue to rain down on Israelis. Malls are bombed. Innocent people are shot to death, including a father of five.

    The Palestinians showed "concern" for Ariel Sharon's ill health by firing guns into the air and handing out pasteries in celebration.

    Anyway, Spielberg had an excellent opportunity to be objective and truthful as he was with Schindler's List, but instead chose to go the route of moral relativism.

  2. Those who seek to paint fighting terrorism as a difficult and almost impossible task are only one thing: scared. They feel that talking and appeasment will cause the least harm to themselves and their interests.

    When you have people who've never picked up a book about the Middle East ( Edward Said does not count), trying to come up with a solution, you know you're in trouble.

    I personally loved A.I. I thought Teddy was adorable and I felt horrible for him. Oh yeah, and Hook was a good movie too:)

    Spielberg is just one of the many disappoinments as far as I'm concerned. As soon as people feel comfortable enough they let their true colors show. He is doing more harm than good by painting a picture that no one wins when you result to violence. I say the Israelis didn't do enough to them. There was no coverage, no torture nothing. It was a quick death for filth who deserved more. And yes, Israel did win when they decided never to allow terrorism to go unpunished.

    The rest of the world will only go the way of Spain. We will do and say what you want, just don't hurt us.

  3. I recall reading a couple years ago that the CIA had an assasination manuel. That generated a modest amount of media attention at the time, but I doubt many people watching the film Munich will remember that.

    The film is released today. I wonder if there will be a tag at the end dedicating the movie to the victims? Will this be enough to mitigate the overall negative impression of Israelis?
    Good, bad, or indifferent, Spielberg has a lot of clout in Hollywood and the US in general. If he speaks out on a Jewish issue many Americans will take it as the authoritative Jewish position.

    The mossad agent has a crisis of conscience about killing a terrorist. Why didn't the terrorist have a crisis of conscience about murdering innocents? It would be wonderful if all terrorists would have such an experience, but that doesn't appear to be happening in the world.