Yes, it may look that way. But there is something very much to refute. You completely misstate the idea. It's not about "enjoying killing Arabs," but approving the slaughter of Palestinians -- while now feeling bad about feeling good about(approving) it. It is only about being an observer, not about being a participant, that Spielberg takes this stand. For the participants, I take it his point is clearly made that killing fucks you up pretty bad. If you misstate the idea, you will not grasp its point. I can assure you there is one. I know Rosenbam's statement is coached in cynical terms, but this a subject where one is driven to cynicism. On intentions, Spielberg's Munich is admirable -- though maddenlingly naive. But in my view, and I think Rosenbaum's, Spielberg's perspective is too limited (and naive) to bring a satisfactory result. And in my view, his result is a film that is ultimately more a muddle than a clarification, for all its dramatic effects and apparent desire to depict moral complexities.

Some additional statements I've recently found that flesh out my point of view on the film, which may arouse your further derision, no doubt? Also to be refuted by dismissive laughter? --

Robert Fisk: "My challenge for Steven Spielberg: 'Munich' suggests for the first time on the big screen that Israel's policy is immoral." (An article in The Independent, London, January 21, 2006.)

Mas'ood Cajee: "Imagine if we were in a parallel universe in which Hollywood gave Arabs and Muslims a fair shake. Here are ten films (all based on true stories) that are just waiting for Spielberg's magic." ("Beyond 'Munich': The Ten Movies Steven Spielberg has yet to make," altmuslim, December 8, 2005).