After '72 - But Before '06

I needed something sobering to ruin my pre-New Year mood, and I figured that there would be no better way to do it than by going to see Steven Spielberg's new movie, "Munich". By now, I've heard so much about the movie that I could practically quote the most controversial lines from it even before I saw it. The only reason why I decided to see it in the movie theaters was because I firmly believe in seeing the controversy-makers with my own eyes, so I could justifiably make up my own opinion. Most of the time, I wind up agreeing with the harshest critics, nevertheless I like to "fight fair". TO be honest, deep inside, I had trouble believing that someone like Spielberg woudl put terrorists and Mossadniks on the same moral level.

Well, for all of you who are expecting me to say "Oh the movie was great; nothing like those fearmongers blabbed" or "Do NOT see that movie; it's the most horrible, morally relativistic movie in the history of Hollywood leftism", I'll have to disappoint you. I have no intentions of saying either, because, frankly it wasn't quite as bad as what some of the harshest reviews claimed it was. At the same time, however, it clearly followed an idealistic, leftist path of "least resistance", pardon me, "moral high ground and support for peace", and thus automatically had the flaws I cannot help but condemn.

However, I also have to put my own disclaimer. What I saw wasn't the movie itself. What I saw was my own stream of thoughts, released back to me through the images in the movie. As I was watching, I was automatically re-interpreting each sequence according to my OWN morals, and basically, I saw what I wanted to see, and not necessarily what Mr. Spielberg wanted to show. Which means, I probably got the movie all wrong, and there's no point listening to me, unless you want to hear my own version of the events. For a good review of the movie, please check out someone else.

Here's what I saw.

I saw absolute cruelty unmasked.

To his credit, Spielberg showed the '72 Olympics tragedy in its horror, without trying to humanize the terrorists or search for "root causes". He showed creatures with no mercy... The only morally ambiguous episode I can criticize was the showing of the family of one of the terrorists, and their reactions to the news that all the terrorists have been destroyed. I didn't think that was appropriate. It reminded me of the way the news often treat aftermaths of a terror attack in Israel, giving as much time to the relatives of the terrorists as to the victims (sometimes more).

I saw different opinions voiced - during the conference with Golda Meir, during the various episodes showing the different reactions of the Mossad team members, and during the final confrontation between Avner and Ephraim. Although such diverse reactions may not have been realistic for Mossad agents, such voices are probably heard throughout some portions of Israeli society, as well as among various representatives of American Jews. Of course, the classic Hollywood tradition of "violence is not the answer" was quite obvious to the naked eye. Nevertheless, since I chose to view the movie selectively, I easily ignored the annoying hindrance and focused on the parts of the movie Mr. Spielberg got right.

Such as the dialogue between the undercover Avner and the Palestinian, who flat out rejected any reasonable arguments against his dream to see Israel destroyed and the descendants of the Palestinian refugees return to the land. Of course, some people could arguably find a completely different interpretation for this scene. They could, for instance, use it to *support* the Palestinians in their endeavor. I chose to see it differently; something's telling me, Spielberg wasn't supportive of terrorism either.

I saw Avner and the other team members as ethical human beings faced with a task no one should have to face - but, which, unfortunately, the necessity called for. Seeing them in action reminded me that Israelis are, indeed, human beings, with the same thoughts and emotions as everyone else. Just because they have had to struggle to survive and persevere in completely hostile conditions, doesn't mean that they *enjoy* having to live in these conditions and act like superheroes all the time. Both the supporters and critics of Israel often forget about it as well, preferring to see Israelis an an obscure mass, rather than an ordinary society made up of distinct individuals, entitled to their own points of view.

I also remembered that the terrorist masterminds and their supporters aren't all USB-like characters with scary beards, who hide in caves. Most of the time, they blend in the mainstream society quite successfully. The first guy the team assassinated looked like a mild-mannered, cultured fellow. I could hardly believe he was a terrorist. He could have been one of my professors. Talked about literature and stuff. And then, in another, hidden aspect of his existence, he plotten to murder innocent civilians. There's this disconnect between his dual identities that the audience forgets about... so when justice finally gets him, the audience may think that the director is deliberately trying to portray the terrorist as sympathetic, in order to degrade the counterterrorists to his level. I thought the idea behind it was quite the opposite, actually. I thought it was a reminder to us all - not to be fooled by the appearances and sweet-sounding speeches.

But I also saw a clear answer to a question raised by Avner (and various other characters) during the movie.

Why? Why respond with vengeance? What good does it do? What will it change?

Although the director chose to see the answer in the form of a meaningless, self-perpetuating cycle of violence with no clear beginning and no visible end, that's where I have to disagree.

The forceful response to the Munich massacre was one of several alternatives, which were suggested.

1) Israelis could have done nothing at all. In which case, the masterminds of the Munich massacre would have gone on plotting new terror attacks.
2) Israelis could have arrested the suspects. The problem with that is Israel has no death penalty except for the Nazis, such as Eichmann, and life imprisonment wouldn't have been an option for the terrorists. They would have spent a couple of years in prison and then, under political pressure, either released or exchanged for Israeli abductees or bodies. That happened a number of times in recent years.

3)Israelis could interpret the massacre as a declaration of war. In which case, the war would be a non-conventional one, with no army, no uniforms, and no rules - as the terrorists themselves preferred. In which case, ordinary morality wouldn't apply at all, because a non-conventional war is not an ordinary court of law, with its presumption of innocense; it's not even an ordinary war, with its own sets of laws. On the contrary, it appears to be a free for all. It's not about democracy, or moral values, or being better than the terrorist. It's about bare survival and protection of your citizens at any cost.

In such a war, you have to show the enemy that you're strong enough to take on whatever tactic they prefer to attack you with, that you'll match them and more. You cannot show weakness or qualms. Otherwise, you'll die, morally perhaps, but you'll die - and the enemy will outlive you and laugh over your bodies. A cruel, ugly truth, which I don't like to admit, but which, nevertheless is clearly the only truth terrorists recognized. Israel wasn't the one who started the cycle Spielberg points out; Israel wasn't the one kidnapping Palestinian athletes and murdering them in cold-blood. Its assassination of the terrorists was a logical response to an attack. Anything less would have been a show of weakness no country in Israel's position could ever afford.

What has Israel achieved through these actions?

I think, a better question would have been: what would it have achieved had it NOT responded the way it did? What would have happened had it ignored the growing terrorist network and allowed the organizers of the violence to walk? Would that have been "justice" - justice to the victims of the massacre, justice to the future victims of terror attacks those monsters were plotting? I think we all know the answer to these questions. Those terror attacks would have continued either way... but at least some have been prevented by the assassination of the conspirators. And meanwhile, Israel also explored other roads to resolve its conflicts.

Years, later...

We are where we are.

I left the theater frustrated and depressed. Perhaps, this was a wrong movie to watch today.

But I also left, realizing that this was just a movie. I left, hungry to find out what *really* happened, wanting to know more, more. I left, grateful to the Mossadniks, for what they had done - not just for Israel, but for the world in general. I left, feeling sorry that they, normal human beings, had to do what they had to do. Such actions take their toll, no doubt.

I urge you to see the movie for yourselves, no matter what your politcal position is. And more than that, I urge you to learn, to read as much as possible, to think. In the end, neither I nor Mr. Spielberg have been involved in these events... and in the end, whatever the truth there is, it is to be found in the participants themselves. Search for the truth. You may only find a small portion of it, or none at all... but don't limit yourselves to retellings of the impressions of interpretations. Look for the facts.

I hate concluding the year on such a pessimistic note. Let's admit it, 2005 sucked in so many ways. I lost my grandmother this year, and went through a hell of my first LSAT experience. Which was followed by a stressful and depressing first term of my senior year and the strike. Meanwhile, the world had greater tragedies to recon with - natural disasters, terror attacks, epidemics, and stupid politicians.

What can I say.

We have nowhere left to go but up.

Here's to a much better, much happier, 2006.

Pessimistically optimistic,
Irina