As predicted in this column, matters are heating-up with respect to Steven Spielberg's forthcoming terror-themed thriller "Munich." A lot of prominent figures in the Jewish community (both in America and in Israel) are getting a look at the film, and they're not liking what they see - in contrast to what Mr. Spielberg's boosters in the entertainment press are saying.

For example, New York Times columnist David Brooks has written one of the most damning pieces on "Munich" that we've read so far. Here is an excerpt from Brooks' column:

"In Spielberg's Middle East the only way to achieve peace is by renouncing violence. But in the real Middle East the only way to achieve peace is through military victory over the fanatics, accompanied by compromise between the reasonable elements on each side.

"Recent history teaches what Spielberg's false generalization about the 'perpetual motion machine' of violence does not: that some violence is constructive and some is destructive. The trick is knowing the difference. That's a recognition that comes from reality, not fables."

Spielberg's film has also been denounced by Israel's consul-general in Los Angeles - a not insignificant matter. WENN reports the following:

"Ehud Danoch fears the film delivers an incorrect moral message, by comparing the Mossad secret service agents with the terrorists. He says, 'As a Hollywood movie, I assume that it will be defined as a well-made film, but from the standpoint of the messages it sends, the messages are problematic. This is an incorrect moral equation. We in Israel know this. There is also a certain pretentiousness in attempting to treat a painful decades-long conflict by means of quite superficial statements in a movie.'

"Spielberg has also been attacked by Jewish author Jack Engelhard - who accuses him of being 'no friend of Israel.' The 'Indecent Proposal' writer says, 'Jews pioneered Hollywood. If, as our enemies say, we own Hollywood, well, here's the plot twist - we have lost Hollywood, and we have lost Spielberg. Spielberg is no friend of Israel. Spielberg is no friend of truth.'"

Reading this and much of the other coverage about the film, it's difficult to form any other conclusion than that Spielberg's "Munich" is going to suggest some kind of moral equivalence between Palestinian terrorists and those who hunted them. In fact, if 'moral equivalency' isn't the underlying question broached in the film - then what is? It's hard to understand what the source of drama would otherwise be.

Such 'moral equivalency' is an extremely dangerous thing for a major filmmaker like Spielberg to suggest in these times - especially when the facts of the Mossad raids on the PLO terrorists (especially as depicted in the book "Vengeance," on which this film is partially based) remain very much in dispute. Although film critics are already lining up to praise Spielberg's film, it's conceivable that over the long term "Munich" may be the greatest mistake of Spielberg's otherwise commendable career - risking as it does the loyalty of mainstream audiences, and also of many American and Israeli Jews who've supported Spielberg's Shoah Foundation.

We'll keep a careful eye on this one.