Firstly, he is insulted for not being called upon to consult on the movie (for that matter, he is not mentioned in the film either):
Secondly, there is his review of the movie, where Daoud finds the movie lacking in 'balance':He voiced outrage at not being consulted for the thriller and accused Spielberg of pandering to the Jewish state.
"If he really wanted to make it a prayer for peace he should have listened to both sides of the story and reflected reality, rather than serving the Zionist side alone," Daoud told Reuters by telephone from the Syrian capital, Damascus.But Siskel and Ebert this ain't. Daoud's review has only one flaw:
Daoud said he had not seen the film, which will only reach most screens outside the United States next month.But that accusation of lack of balance apparently got under someone's skin. Spielberg's producer, Kathleen Kennedy says:
"I do feel that we spent an enormous amount of time in discussion and put effort into exploring a fair and balanced look at the Palestinians that were involved in the story," she said, according to an official transcript of the event.I just wonder whether this much concern about "fair and balanced" went into Schindler's List--or, as Stephen Hunter points out in a review, into Saving Private Ryan:
In the end, Avner becomes a self-imposed, bitter exile. At one point, when two young Israeli soldiers express admiration for what he's done, he recoils in horror. It's worth repeating, however, that this is a theme Spielberg didn't sound in "Saving Private Ryan." In that film, he argued quite the opposite: Kill them until they're all gone.Just what is "fair and balanced" anyway, and how should that figure into the movie--and who is Spielberg trying to be 'fair' to anyway?
[Hakaras HaTov to Powerline]
We live in a time where Sports Illustrated not only has a swimsuit issue, but also has interviews with terrorists:
Abu Daoud openly acknowledged his role in the Olympic attack, both in his memoir, Palestine: From Jerusalem to Munich, published in Paris, and in an interview with the Arab TV network al-Jazeera.Abu Daoud, terrorist and celebrity.
Now that's balance!
See also: Gibson...Now Spielberg
Crossposted at Israpundit
I actually was impressed with the SI interview of Daoud. They didn't pull any punches and let him stick his foot in his mouth. And it brought up that Abbas was the money man for the operation.
ReplyDeleteBut the way Daoud puts it--Abbas was the money man, but did not realize what the money was for--makes Abbas look good in the eyes of the Arab world, while leaving him off the hook as far as the west is concerned.
ReplyDeleteOf course it may make him look clueless in the eyes of the the arabs as well.
Ever watch one of those legal shows where one attorney (usually the prosecutor) goes too far and opposing counsel shouts "objection" to which the original attorney slickly says "withdrawn?" Of course the guy who went too far didn't expect to get away with it; just to plant an idea in the jury's head.
ReplyDeleteSo to here. If Abbas is associated with a terrorist act - especially this one - it really doesn't matter if he was aware of its scope in advance. (He almost certainly had to realize he was financing a terrorist action even if not a massacre.) The suave well groomed Abbas may not receive condemnation for his Holocaust denying doctorate, but mention enough times that he was a terrorist bagman, and it might stick.
In theory you are right, of course.
ReplyDeleteBut in an age where the mastermind behind the massacre is a celebrity who gets his book published and gets interviewed--where an 'even-handed' movie is made (can you imagine such a think being done around the time it happened?)--where Abbas is given all kinds of slack--where a terrorist is a freedom fighter--in an age such as hours I don't think anyone cares.
I wish I were wrong...I hope I am.