Firstly, he is insulted for not being called upon to consult on the movie (for that matter, he is not mentioned in the film either):

He voiced outrage at not being consulted for the thriller and accused Spielberg of pandering to the Jewish state.

Secondly, there is his review of the movie, where Daoud finds the movie lacking in 'balance':

"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," Daoud told Reuters by telephone from the Syrian capital, Damascus.

But Siskel and Ebert this ain't. Daoud's review has only one flaw:

Daoud said he had not seen the film, which will only reach most screens outside the United States next month.

But that accusation of lack of balance apparently got under someone's skin. Spielberg's producer, Kathleen Kennedy says:

"I do feel that we spent 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," she said, according to an official transcript of the event.

I just wonder whether this much concern about "fair and balanced" went into Schindler's List?

Just what is "fair and balanced" anyway, and how should that figure into the movie--and who is Spielberg trying to be 'fair' to anyway?

We live in a time where Sports Illustrated not only has a swimsuit issue, but also has interviews with terrorists:

Abu Daoud openly acknowledged his role in the Olympic attack, both in his memoir, Palestine: From Jerusalem to Munich, published in Paris, and in an interview with the Arab TV network al-Jazeera.

Abu Daoud, terrorist and celebrity.

Now that's balance!

See also: Gibson...Now Spielberg

Crossposted at Daled Amos

Technorati Tag: Terrorism and Munich and Spielberg.