SustainabiliTank has reviewed in December 2005 the movies “Munich” and “Syriana” - see the attached. Now we were amazed by the New York Sun article by Youssef Ibrahim who describes the effects a movie like Munich can have in order to promote more peaceful behavior - specially on the part of the very vulnerable monied youth of the Arab world. Ibrahim describes his observation in a movie theatre in Dubai.

We remember clearly how Washington is talking down on Hollywood as it sees there a bunch of “leftist rabble rousers.” We hope that Washington will read the Ibrahim article - see how effective Hollywood could be, and also realize that had Washington taken Hollywood advice on such issues as GLOBAL WARMING, the whole face of the US in the world, not only in the Middle East, could have been prettier and our lives, as well as the lives of the people “over there,” could have been much better.

Yes, I observed that Ibrahim suggests that US Ambassadors should make it their business to help Hollywood fight off the local censors “over there.” I also noticed that they did it for “Munich” in Dubai but did not do it yet for “Schindler’s List.” This is not just a blemish - rather lack of courage I would say. How can the US fight off prejudices in a region it considers all-important to this country because of its oil resources, and can agree to let those people continue their insistence on ignoring catastrophic events like the Holocaust. The same people that ignore the Holocaust are also the people that ignore Sudan and Darfur. The fact that I heard last week, at a UN press conference, a corespondent for Saudi Arabian press ask why does the UN call in Darfur for a regional African military intervention, but not for regional Arab forces, just shows the depth of intent ignorance on the part of her employers of the Saudi Arabian press. There is here an intent of not looking the truth in the eye and the US, usually, looks aside and does not even blink when the locals tell the sovereign US what shell be the gender and the religion of the troops that the US was sending in order to guarantee the life of the leaders of this oil source. The fact that the country is in effect an oil business rather then a nation-state, does not matter to us at all. It seems fine with Washington. I have thus more then a hint of suspicion that some members of the Administration may have second thoughts about the Youssef Ibrahim article - and I wish him that the Sun does not put him in the shade.

“The “Sopranos” - “Munich” and “Syriana” - On To Petrocollapse - ???”

New York City, December 31, 2005

I returned from Tel Aviv December 24 and my first order of business, for the end of this year, was to see the two newly released movies - “Syriana” and “Munich” - released just in time to become potential contenders in the Oscar stakes. I felt that there was a connecting line between these two movies, and no surprise, my instinct told me that the connection was oil. I looked over the writings by all movie critics I could get my hand on, but very soon I realized they completely missed that point - one more case showing that reality is more then a neat thriller.

“Syriana” had three prestigious co-producers - Steven Sonderberg, Ben Cosgrove and Jeff Skoll. Stephen Gaghan directed the production, and he used a screenplay based on “See no Evil” by Robert Beer - a book that is about Saudi Arabia and its oil. The movie name Syriana is for a fictional state in the Middle East. It looks like Saudi Arabia but sounds like Syria. Syria has no oil, but then it is on the Washington list of evil states, while Saudi Arabia has lots of oil and is a Washington favorite - that is if you really accept this distinction.

The Onion writes that this potent drama connects the dots between various players in the oil trade, telling a lot of small stories that form a bigger tale of dangerous ideals, religious extremism, blind-eye governmental policies, and the casualties they combine to create. The Onion does not get to mention the CIA which is an integral part of the plot.

“Munich” is the brainchild of Steven Spielberg who uses a screenplay by Eric Roth and Tony Kushner and the film critic for the New York Times mentions in parentheses “Forrest Gump meets Angels in America”. The movie does not mention oil but in a crucial place mentions the CIA, and that is why I find vindicated in my suspicion.

The Onion writes: “Spielberg’s electrifying thriller isn’t a sober memorial to the 11 Israeli athletes killed at the 1972 Munich Olympics, but a clear and powerful elucidation of the current cycle of violence in the Middle East. Through the story of a Mossad agent who leads a retaliatory effort against Black September, Spielberg comes down against all nations and groups that perpetuate violence in an effort to repress it.” Similar lines one finds in many longer reviews and literally all these reviewers have missed the mention in the film that the CIA has protected the Black September terrorist group because of an agreement with them not to harm American interests. In the movie it becomes clear that Saleh, the founder of Black September, was saved from the Israeli revenge-team as shown in one of the scenes in the movie. Now the oil link between the movies is in the CIA activities.

December 27, 2005, Thane Rosenbaum in the New York Sun article “Grim Realities” writes: “Germany is perhaps the only country in the world where the mere mention of its cities casts a wide and unwanted shadow of national shame. Dachau has become a symbol of death. Nuremberg is a metaphor for universal judgment. Dresden is synonymous with the victor’s vengeance. And, of course, Berlin and Munich are remembered as much for their problematic connection to Olympic history than anything else. In 1936, the Third Reich realized that world domination was more likely on the battlefield than in track and field. And in 1972, the Germans failed to protect the Israeli Olympic team from Palestinian terrorists who massacred 11 of its athletes. Munich was also once known as the site of an infamous appeasement when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain declared “peace in our time.” Rosenbaum continues trying to make his point - “Steven Spielberg, who is an American Ambassador for a certain conciliatory message, cinematic message, also wishes for peace. With his latest film, “Munich” he may finally have recast the city so that it will no longer be synonymous with defeat. What remains is a metaphor for ambivalence and ambiguity.” Rosenbaum then picks himself up and remarks further - “Yet, in many ways, ‘Munich’ is an invaluable film, precisely because it exposes the severe moral contradictions and competing visions of morality that the war on terrorism presents, terrorists arguably deserve to die, but the human cost of exacting revenge is great. And the world is a better place when we are at least mindful of that cost. My question extends this further - is Munich now going to be also the symbol in what concerns the metaphor for appeasement of the oil industry - the Washington folks guarded by the CIA as well as the oil country despots?

In “Syriana” we see a cabal made up of American oil people, their lawyers, and the CIA, on the one hand and an oil rich old despot on the other hand. The king has two sons. He leaves the country to his younger playboy son who is under the American influence - thus taking it away from the older son who is western educated, progressive, and shows a clear understanding of the misery oil has brought to his country. We hear that the oil will eventually end and there is a need to prepare for those times.

The Prince speaks of Petrocollapse and the future return of his people of the sands to the old camel-driving past. Eventually the good prince is assassinated by the CIA so the oil company and Washington will not have to face reality in the short run.

In “Munich” we have the CIA making a deal with the Al Qaeda forerunners from the Black September - all so that the oil from the Middle East continues to flow. No attention here to any morality or to the real interests of the countries or people involved. I wish, professional film critics, like Andrew Sarris of the New York Observer, could start seeing the world as it is and not just by reading into the screen images their own prepared visions. The figure of Golda Meir, the Israeli Prime Minister who said that she does not hate the Arabs for their killing Israelis, but she hates them for turning the Israelis into killers, she took responsibility for the decision to send out the revenge-team. She had to do this in total secret and told the leader of the team that Israel will not be able to acknowledge having sent them on this mission - it is only reasonable to assume that she had to behave this way in order to avoid any conflict with the Americans. CNN.com saw some justice in the fact that Guri Weinberg, now 33, plays in the movie his father, the Israeli wrestling referrer and former champion who died in the massacre when Guri was just one month old.

Yes, if you worry because of the world dependence on oil, go and see these two movies and think what they say when taken in tandem. Reality is even worse then what was presented to us as fiction.

Thank you.

____________________________

A Postscript that delves further into part of the Middle East Quagmire:

In a Reuters release titled “Palestinian architect of Munich attack slams Spielberg’s film”, we find that in a phone call from Damascus Mohammed Daoud claims that he planned the Munich attack on behalf of the PLO splinter group Black September, but did not take part, and does not feature in the film. He voiced outrage at not being consulted for the thriller and accused Spielberg of pandering to Israel. Reuters quotes him as saying: “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.” Spielberg’s producer, Kathleen Kennedy said that a Palestinian consultant was used for the movie and that they did indeed spend 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; a fact that is corroborated by the general feeling that the movie may have gone overboard in its attempt at “correctness”.

Reuters knows that Daoud survived a 1981 shooting in Poland that he blamed on a Mossad mole in the rival Palestinian faction of Abu Nidal, but after the 1993 peace accords, and what the Mossad veterans say that the reprisals were over, Daoud was allowed by Israel to visit the West Bank; nevertheless, Daoud claimed he feels he could still be targeted. He also complained about Spielberg showing the movie to widows of the Israeli victims, “but he neglected the families of Palestinians assassinated by the Mossad spy service.” He also said “We did not target Israeli civilians … whether a pianist or athlete, any Israeli is a soldier.” Now that is something that can further feed our imagination when thinking about Al Qaeda and the fact that any American is a possible target. Why is that? - Very simple, it is Americans who came to the Middle East in order to buy their oil and oil money caused changes in the region; terrorism is a reaction to these changes. Correctness is the fudge factor that hides this reality.