Rumors and criticisms, yes. Suggestions that Spielberg was too pro-Israel to a make a fair movie? Heh! Well that shows which part of the media universe the writer of this piece, forthcoming in Time Magazine, has consulted for his "research". Fair and Balanced, it ain't. Globally lefty, it is. Which of course surprises no one.

The Jerusalem Post takes another perspective on this story, far more in line with my own:

There is considerable Israeli concern that the terrorists will be portrayed in too favorable a light and some Mossad agents as conscience-stricken by their mission.

Even Mohammad Daoud, the mastermind of the massacre, let it be known from his hiding place that he was displeased at Spielberg's failure to check the facts with him. [Which is its own wonderful irony. Ed. ]

Spielberg himself seems to anticipate some flak, not least from the American Jewish community which has long idolized him, and has engaged three crisis strategists, including former Mideast trouble shooter Dennis Ross.

Noam Chomsky? The Arab League? The BBC? And why should we care?

As Spielberg himself said about his little pet project and that we first noted months ago: "By experiencing how the implacable resolve of these men to succeed in their mission slowly gave way to troubling doubts about what they were doing, I think we can learn something important about the tragic stand-off we find ourselves in today."

Autobiography and self-justification for weakness in a hard fight on the left is what that sounds like to me.

But I won't be surprised at all if the left academy gives him an Oscar for being their self serving standard bearer. A monument to their deep ambivalence about the West's attempts to defend itself. Which would make it a very fitting award, in fact.

Former posts on this subject:

An Oscar For Munich?
Not Faster Please
The Final Irony
Updating Spielberg
Et tu, Brute?