Steven Spielberg: Coward or Wimp?

March 4, 2005

By Avi Green

When I read an article 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 used once!

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 mine.

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)

In the February 27, 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 but very thoughtful 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:

"The BBC 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.

Yet in 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 ethnic-based cleansing."

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.

Autocratic Realm

Coming across Rich Johnston's Lying in the Gutters column over on Comic Book Resources recently, I found this interesting little tidbit:

Hero's 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.

Like many news sites, they receive advance solicitations covering company products, with a date when they can go "live."

Sadly HeroRealm have decided not to make those pages inaccessible until the scheduled date. And every month you can pop along and read the latest Marvel solicitations well before their due date.

A number of rival news sites who do play ball have complained. But little seems to be happening.

Although 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 an autocrat!

Copyright 2005 Avi Green. All rights reserved.

Home FAQ Columns Reviews Links Favorite Characters Special Features Politics Blog Comics Blog Food Blog