Spielberg: Coward or Wimp?
March 4, 2005
By Avi Green
When I read an
by the radio columnist Debbie Schlussel recently, on how
Steven Spielberg backed off of his project to biograph the 1972
Munich Olympics, I sure can’t say I was pleased to hear about
Spielberger’s latest act of cowardice.
I recall when back in 1998, the Detroit
News reported that his production company, Dreamworks,
simplified the animated Prince of Egypt into superficiality, “in hopes of not offending the Arabs,”
as the Boston Phoenix once
argued. Which is utter nonsense, of course, and totally obscures
once more the fact that the Jews are natives of the Land of Israel,
and at the time were travelling back to live in their own native
country of Canaan.
Sadly, as a result of this succumbance which Spielberg committed,
the movie ended up becoming so superficial in execution that dwelled
on nothing of that sort. In fact, the word “Jew” was probably only
Now, Spielberg continues his cowardly act by backing off what could
be a very bold and informative project, and makes me end up losing
faith in him yet again.
I initially wondered if to say that Spielberg panders to terrorists
was being a bit hard on him. But now that I think of some more, the
description given by Schlussel to Spielberg is richly deserved, as
he continues to lose more and more ground as a favorite filmmaker of
As an expert in research on world terrorism once said, "Without
knowledge, there is no defense." And if Steven Spielberg cannot
provide any either, than just how does he for one ever expect to
help defend the innocents?
Europe: Not a good partner for the
US (or even Israel)
2005 issue of Wall Street's Opinion Journal, Victor Davis
Hanson explains why "America
cannot long be partners with a weak and self-righteous Europe."
This is true, more so than you think, however, even Israel cannot
long be partners with a continent whose weak governments are only so
self-righteous towards Israel. The most offending country in that
disrespect is probably Britain, which despite its willingness to
contribute to bringing down Saddam in Iraq, still continues with its
one-sided position towards Israel, backed by the
ultra-establishement BBC, which works round the clock to supress
crucial information from a public that in its own way suffers the
problem of not just taking what its disloyal leaders tell them for
granted, but also advocating and going out of their way to act as
spokespersons for as well.
As is said in the article:
"America is watching enormous
historical forces being unleashed on the continent from its own
depopulation, new anti-Semitism, and rising Islamicism to
Turkish demands for EU membership and further expansion of the
EU into the backwaters of Eastern Europe that will bring it to
the doorstep of Russia. Whether its politics and economy will
evolve to embrace more personal freedom, its popular culture
will integrate its minorities, and its military will step up to
protect Western values and visions is unclear. But what is
certain is that the U.S. cannot remain a true ally of a
militarily weak but shrill Europe should its politics grow even
more resentful and neutralist, always nursing old wounds and new
conspiracies, amoral in its inability to act, quite ready to
preach to those who do."
And not just the US that is watching this atrocious spectacle come
to, but also Israel as well. In all due honesty, do we really need
partnership with Europe, let alone perhaps a business relationship?
Speaking of the BBC, in fact, here is an old
article by the excellent Tom Gross in National Review on how the BBC
not only maintains a bias against Israel, but against the US as
well, right down to the dwarfing of Ronald Reagan's image as
president of the US in his time.
It gets worse, of course: as told in the article, BBC's bias against
racial minorities prevents them from condeming the Arab world for
its oppression of blacks in the Sudan, and why they would rather
attack Israel instead:
efforts not to "offend" Arabs extremists even extend to their
reports on ethnic cleansing and genocide. On both the occasions in
the last week when I heard BBC World Service Radio refer to the
ongoing genocide and ethnic cleansing in Sudan, the BBC took
scrupulous care to avoid saying who the perpetrators were (they
are Arab militias) and who the victims are (hundreds of thousands
of Black Sudanese Africans — Muslims, Christians, and Animists).
The BBC didn't make any mention whatever of the long history of
mass slavery in Sudan, carried out by Arabs with non-Arabs as
their victims; nor of the scorched-earth policies, and systematic
rape being carried out there by Arabs.
one of these very same news bulletins, the BBC mentioned that
"settlers" in Gaza were "Jewish" and the land they were settling
is "Palestinian." I don't think I have ever heard the BBC refer to
settlers in Gaza without mentioning their ethnicity or religion —
which is, of course, relevant to the story (though many would
dispute the historical and legal accuracy of referring to the
territory as Palestinian). But the BBC doesn't appear to think
ethnicity is relevant when it comes to real killing or
That just shows you how stereotypes are easy for the BBC when it
comes to what they'll report. And the ultimate irony is that, when
it comes to a lot of other areas in the Middle East like Iran, where
women are opressed and under threat of torture and death virtually
daily, and in Iraq, where many Arabs as well as Kurds were tortured
by its now deposed dictator, the BBC cares nothing for when Arab
human rights are violated. Only when Jews and other minorities do it
does it concern them.
This is just one thing to show how dangerous the BBC is, and why
it's strongly advised to speak out against them whenever possible.
Coming across Rich Johnston's Lying
in the Gutters column over on Comic Book Resources recently, I
found this interesting little tidbit:
Realm is the site that Bill Jemas bought, that runs his own and
the 360EP site to boot. They also run a review column of mine, Read My Johnston, currently
reviewing Astonishing X-Men #8.
news sites, they receive advance solicitations covering company
products, with a date when they can go "live."
HeroRealm have decided not to make those pages inaccessible until
the scheduled date. And every month you can pop along and read the
solicitations well before their due date.
of rival news sites who do play ball have complained. But little
seems to be happening.
me, if I had 'em early, I'd plaster them all over the skyline of
New York City. With a big brush.
I do wonder if Mr. Johnston is still working with them now, since,
not only does there not seem to be review by him there just now of AXM #8, but who knows if he
would be reviewing for them at the same time as he writes a report
on something negative they've done? I don't know, but, what did Alex
Hamby have to say about this, I wonder? From
his site's own board:
"I expect we'll be making another appearance
in tomorrow's column. Then, maybe, Rich will find something else
to write about."
Nope, he sure ain't happy. Not that I could really care though. He
did after all take the wrong tack. But one sure thing, from what
he's saying here, it's not too hard to figure out that he no longer
wants to employ Johnston as a contributor.
In any case, if that's how Hamby is going to go about his business,
well then, he sure ain't no autonomist. Quite on the contrary, he's
Copyright 2005 Avi Green. All rights reserved.
Home FAQ Columns
Blog Food Blog