Amazon.com Widgets

Monday, December 26, 2005

I've more or less had enough of Munich for the moment, but this New York Times(!) piece has some good generic points I thought were worth posting up (thanks to an emailer).

Seeing Terrorism as Drama With Sequels and Prequels

...The theory asserts that terrorism is a violent and extreme reaction to injustice - the last resort of the oppressed. Typically, this injustice theory is used to explain left-wing terrorism. It not only coincides with the justifications offered by terrorists themselves, but it also accompanies a belief that a just cause lies behind the terrorist attack. The theory is never applied to right-wing terrorism - whether of the brown-shirt or Timothy McVeigh variety - and thus pre-selects its proofs.

Accepting the theory also leads to other convictions. If terrorism is solely the result of injustice, then without the injustice there would be no terrorism. So the best response is to work for justice. Threats, vengeance, security strictures - anything other than the addressing of legitimate grievances is ultimately futile. In particular, since killing terrorists does nothing to alter injustice, it will do nothing to alter terror. Instead, it only leads to more injustice, turning the victims of terrorism into mirror images of the terrorists themselves...

...the film is so intent on its theory that it eagerly departs from previous accounts - or even plausibility about how Mossad agents might act. It supposedly takes its guidance from George Jonas's contested 1984 book, "Vengeance: The True Story of an Israeli Counter-Terrorist Team," which is itself presented as an account based upon the recollections of the disenchanted head of the Mossad team. But Mr. Jonas's Avner, unlike Mr. Spielberg's, is not paralyzed by moral doubt; Mr. Jonas writes that he has "absolutely no qualms about anything they did."

Moreover, the film, to make its argument about the cycle of violence, ends up treating the Munich massacre almost as if it were the original act of Palestinian terror. The elimination of context makes the Israeli response seem intemperate, while all future acts of Palestinian terror are treated as if they were responses to the Israeli assassinations. But as the historical Meir well knew, in the years before Munich, maniacal terrorists aligned with the Palestinian cause had bombed a Swissair jet, thrown hand grenades into crowds at Israel's airport, hijacked planes and associated themselves with other terror groups trained and partly financed by the Soviet Union. These, like the attacks that followed Munich, were part of a continuing war, not evidence of an amorphous cycle of violence that developed out of Israel's attempts to undermine terror.

Aaron J. Klein's new book, "Striking Back: The 1972 Munich Olympics Massacre and Israel's Deadly Response" (Random House) based on interviews with unnamed Mossad agents, casts doubt even on the existence of Avner's assassination team, portraying instead a series of individual acts that had mixed success. But Mr. Klein suggests that one of the attacks portrayed in the movie actually succeeded in making a "searing impression in the Arab world," helping increase fear and deter terror. He points out: "The numbers show a steep slide in the frequency of terror attacks against Israelis and Israeli institutions abroad from 1974 to the present."


3 Comments

As Captain's Quarters post reviewing the film
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006002.php

"At some point in time, one hopes that Hollywood will grow up and realize that nihilism doesn't have a moral equivalency with Western values that celebrate life and civilization."

points out that there are other ways to protest injustice.
Funny how Europe did nothing to help the Israelis From resorting to vengeance.

Powerline also has a good post

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012652.php
Webber's take: "The truth is just the opposite. Meir understood that Israel's chief obligation is to ensure that Jews will never again be slaughtered with impunity, simply for being Jewish. Holding mass murderers accountable is not a compromise; it is Israel's reason for being."

Powerline:
"My only quibble with Mitch is the high estimate he places on "Angels in America," the award-winning play by "Munich" screenwriter Tony Kushner. I think "Angels in America" is what is referred to in Yiddish as "dreck."

Solid commentary by the author.

When Spielberg's and Kushner's feel-good, pious simplisticus, moral arrogations are brought into focus and contrasted with the realities which need to be faced, a low level revulsion sets in. An indulgence in aesthetic and fantasist, Oslo-like imaginings is contrasted with a virtually nihilistic willingness to deploy mayhem and murder against women and children and civilians in general. All this and more, while huge and pivotal aspects of historical, social and political relevance are elided, are relegated to the memory hole.

Nonetheless, and typical of self-indulgence, they're revealing their "politics as reified egoism and abstracted aesthetic" for all the world to see; though that assumes the world will choose to see what is placed right before their eyes.

Those who engage in the idea of moral equivalence have taken the first and biggest step to complete NIHILISM

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Search


Archives
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]