Talking about his last provocative film, Munich, Steven Spielberg affirms that he does not tell us what to think about the problems he presents for he only asks questions. When you see the film and read Steven Spielberg’s statements, you see that it is not true. Actually, the film maker makes emphasis on the fact that retaliating an attack with another attack does not solve anything. The film supports this point of view and even when Steven Spielberg says he has no solutions to fight terrorism, at least with this film, he is saying that retaliating is not a solution. Obviously, this evidences that the film is the expression of a thesis not only about terrorism but about the description of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The film maker acts as a neutral mediator in the conflict and affirms that peace would only be achieved when both parts start negotiations. Spielberg presents a Palestinian talking about his suffering for having lost his home. He also presents an Israeli making emphasis on the fact that Jews should have a place to live, which they should have been got by themselves. But he misses to point out that if Jews establish themselves there it’s because that land has belonged to them historically. Spielberg does not say it and this fact is likely to go unnoticed for millions of people that will watch the film.
“Something’s Missing In Spielberg’s ’Munich’”, by Walter Reich, Washington Post, January 1st, 2006.