Every generation of Americans casts Israel in its own morality tale. For a time, Israel was the plucky underdog fighting for survival against larger foes. Now, after the Munich of Steven Spielberg, Israelis and Palestinians are seen as parallel peoples trapped in a cycle of violence. In his rollout interview, Steven Spielberg urged for a good sense and discussion between the two parties. He wants his movie to prove this point of view, by filming the loss of faith in Israel and the Zionism of a Mossad agent. In order to achieve that, Spielberg changes reality and comes up with his own conceptions.
He started filming a story that took place in 1972, when Islamism had not gained importance. In the Middle East of Spielberg, there is no Hamas, Islamic Jihad, intransigent anti-Semitists, those who resort to denials like the Iranian President or people who want to exterminate the Israelis. But Spielberg fails especially to see the existence of the evil. In the Middle East of Spielberg, the best way to achieve peace is by renouncing violence. However, in the real Middle East, the only way to achieve peace is through victory over the fanatics. Similarly, by deciding to tell a story of the 70’s, Spielberg represents the premises of Israeli counter-terrorist actions, when Israel practiced selective murders and not the arrests of which it was unable to come up with an evidence.
Contrary to what Spielberg has stated, not all violence should be rejected. There are constructive kinds of violence.

New York Times (United States)

What ’Munich’ Left Out”, by David Brooks, New York Times, December 11, 2006.