Munich72 Real World, Spielberg's Film

Rating: 8/10 (2 January 2006)

There's "Munich" the film, and Munich Olympics 1972 the event and its real-world aftermath; getting the two together would be impossible under the best of circumstances.
For those who weren't there - the World in 1972 - or unaware of Israel's various policy responses to threats, conflict and terrorism since 1948, Spielberg's powerful dramatization of the Black September terrorist Israeli hostage taking and tragically bungled "rescue" attempts by German federal and regional government cannot but generate powerful emotional and political responses.
His sub-text, what "violence" does to those who seek justice and whether counter-terrorist violence only encourages a continuing cycle of violence, may be right or wrong, effective or ineffective. As a film - exempting Spielberg's over-the-top closing sexual scene - and as art, it has and will continue to provoke an important discussion. One can only hope that discussion's heat throws "light" rather than burning everyone involved.
One ( or two ) very important - and it appears reflexively overlooked - reality checks.
No one on the Black September ( terrorist ) side has said they would not repeat the hostage taking, in fact one planner still standing complains Spielberg has slighted his role by not including him! And - perhaps more to the film's probing point and where Spielberg takes off from less disputed fact - no one on the Israeli side, including both "Avner," the Mossad first- among-equals Mossad agent of George Jona's very thoughtful and questioning account, and not Jonas, either, has disagreed with both the counter-terrorism idea or the counter- terrorism actions.
So despite journalist/Israeli military intelligence expert Aaron J Klein's just-published "Striking Back," there's agreement - any "doubts" about either the righteousness or the efficacy of that Israeli counter-terrorism while they may have been in the air, in every participant's final judgment the mission was wholly justified. Doubts for discussion, maybe; doubts about efficacy, maybe - but no doubts sufficient to stall or withdraw from completing the counter-terrorism mission.
Secondly, why were the "beans" spilled in the first place?
Spielberg's film dramatizes one reason - doubts as to whether counter-terrorism responses in fact become a successive stage of terror, perpetuating the "cycle" of violence. But Jonas - and a number of other military intelligence accounts - suggest another, just as old and just as serious, set of reasons. "Politics," general, organizational, internal and just plain personal. Whomever disputes Jonas' account must concede, handling the material in a fair-minded way, those complex political realities. Mossad is no less immune to internal strife than the CIA or KGB.
If some terrorists believed they were "removed" by an opposing faction, what was supposed to prevent Avner from bailing when the Hunters not only became the Hunted, but the Israeli support - and funds - became more and more restricted, when the strings became tighter, more controlling? Spielberg gives some credence to this second set of reasons, including concerns about both Avner's family in Israel and his wife - and child - in New York City. But where Spielberg must necessarily sketch these - the fish Spielberg's frying is that first reason - Jonas and others simply have more time, and space, to lay out what for this Reader are more persuasive arguments about how the political devolves into the personal.
While Spielberg worries about the ancient Ends vs Means, the tired, frustrated, frightened foot soldiers lack either the luxury or the means to engage in political philosophy - they signed on for themselves, not their families.