One Day in September remains one of my favorite movies/documentaries. The Olympic committee nor the Germans come out looking competent or compassionate in it. The terrorist come out looking ruthless and preening.

Or that Germany, in a fit of appeasement that would have made Bismark gag, staged an exchange that let the bloody handed murderers walk. Mind you this is a bare 30 years after the holocaust. Innocent jews with guestright in Germany, under the Olympic flag no less, are savagely assassinated and instead of flying into an indignant rage that their hospitality was violated, Germany begs forgiveness from the murderers and sends them on their way. I dont have the words to describe the cowardice and dishonor in that act. If you want to understand what Europe has become today, study Munich and you will see what we are dealing with there.

I'm hoping we'll have some comprehensive comments posted here that indicate less flame and more balances analysisis.
Knowing the thoroughness and diplomatic maturity of the Bonn government of the time, I find it hard to believe the scenerio painted thus far was as simplistic as indicated.

Well, Tom, read the links and come to your own conclusions. A lot of analysis has been done.

Go research it. It is entirely justified. If you're seeking your nuance and balance im sure the Palestinians have concocted some ridiculous propaganda you can swallow whole cloth and feel comfy with. The truth is the truth

Tom i know you'd like to live in a world where everything is nice and neutral grey but in this instance there simply are good guys and bad guys. And unfortunately its doubly hard on this one because you cant blame the US for it.

"Knowing the thoroughness and diplomatic maturity of the Bonn government of the time, I find it hard to believe the scenerio painted thus far was as simplistic as indicated."

Germany's handling of the crisis was unquestionably incompetant on all levels. I don't think anyone disputes that.

Germany did release the surviving murderers, after which they returned to a heroes welcome. Most historians agree that primarily they did so because they didn't want the trial to create a domestic dispute with the still quite large resident anti-semitic and neo-nazi population. Also, its probable that they worried about becoming a target of retaliation by other Arab groups.

Sometime a balanced analysis is harsh. If you don't like that, then tough. Read up on the events yourself and come to your own conclusions. If you can support counter claims with substantial evidence, then we are likely to listen.

Or, you can just go the moral equivalence route and bring up Israeli embarassments like the Lillihammer incident.

However, regarding that, the important point that Mark is making is that Israel should have never had to embark on Operation Wrath of God in the first place. It should have had the full cooperation and support of the governments of Europe in tracking down the men behind the murders, to say nothing of assurances that the murderers themselves would be brought to justice.

"And unfortunately its doubly hard on this one because you cant blame the US for it."

Trust me, the Left finds a way.

It goes something like this, "...the US atheletes that had helped the murderers into the compound weren't just niave Americans offering a friendly helping hand to percieved foreign comrades, they were actually CIA. You see, the CIA and the Mossad was behind the whole affair. They needed an excuse to justify thier murdering of the peaceful Palestinian leadership, and..."

Well, like I said. The Left finds a way. You don't need facts, you just need a burning conviction that America is at the root of all evil.

Actually Tom that's an accurate assessment. The Brandt Government was overtly anti-Semitic and engaged in a serious courtship with Arab governments to sell weapons and allow it's territory to be used to stage attacks on Israelis and Jews in exchange for oil money and investments. This was as noted barely thirty years after the Holocaust and many low-level Nazis who were part of the final solution rose to prominent positions in the Brandt Goverment.

Brandt's government was also penetrated deeply by Erich Honeker's spies, and Brandt in the historical record seems to be aware of both specific spies and the general scope of Honeker's penetration of his senior staff. Brandt did not move against them because he found them useful in his "national liberationist" sympathies and anti-Israeli tendencies. Brandt himself was sympathetic publicly to the terrorists and viewed their cause and actions as "just" in public statements.

The story of Munich and the retaliation is a good one, and one that Kushner and Spielberg can't understand or tell. It violates their moral universe. Israel started the program to pursue Nazis who were beyond justice because they were sheltered by hostile regimes: Argentina, Brazil, Syria. Eichmann had to be "extra-ordinarily rendered" out of Argentina where he was explicitly sheltered by the government.

The pursuit of the Munich terrorists was an outgrowth of that initial effort; as the Nazis were mostly dead and the terrorists the new threat. The terrorists aim was to make Israelis fair game for killing ANYWHERE in the world: Vienna, Rome, Lod, etc. They were sheltered and protected by European governments who wanted in return no terrorism on their soil and preferential deals with sponsoring Arab countries. Law and diplomacy failed as Europeans generally felt that if the Israelis were just dead it would be more convenient for everyone (an attitude still held today, and now shared by a majority of the Democratic Party).

The REAL people involved in killing the killers harbored not a shred of remorse for killing them; they viewed them as just more of the same Nazis they'd hunted previously (left out in the film). They were then and remain now aghast at killing the wrong and innocent man in Norway, but they did not stop and eventually got all but one AFTER that event.

Liberals cocooned in hereditary elites have no idea on how to handle physical threats to their very lives. They can't understand that some men are evil and can neither be bought, reasoned with, or talked into not killing people. Outside of cartoon Nazis they are incapable of presenting Evil as it exists in the World.

Which is doubly ironic because the effort to get guys like Eichmann simply shifted to the Munich terrorists. For the SAME reasons.

Excellent commentary and rebuttal to Tom's feint towards "balanced" commentary. I echo the sentiment, balanced by definition (as in truth) will sometimes be harsh. Tough.

I would only add, I believe that the difficulty in allowing a "good versus evil" dichotomy to remain a fixture in one's moral universe might be directly related to a society's (or government's) own culpability in acts of evil.

This could apply as well to the current UN or a majority of governments in Europe.

May I suggest that the distinction between “favoring the Israelis” or “demonizing the Palestinians” is way too subtle, too nuanced, for the NYT and its acolytes, whose anti-Semitic arrogance runs way too deep to allow for such distinction.

Furthermore, I respectfully question your last statement… that “the Olympic Committee is still behaving as though nothing serious happened” back 33 years ago. Your description is far too kind, and does not fully acknowledge the truly odious nature of the international community’s attitudes. The indifference, the coy excuse that it is all just about politics, this is but a studied and deliberate pose, as reiterated yesterday by Ambassador Bolton in his remarks once more castigating the UN’s unwillingness to formally decry the continued murder of civilians by Palestinian terrorists.

Jim,

bullshit. Brandt was anything but an anti-Semite.

Mark,

Germany back then simply wasn't prepared to deal with terrorism. Germany police also wasn't supposed to be that highly trained, for historical reasons.

After Munich, that chnaged. A couple of years later German commmandoes stormed a hijacked Lufthansa plane and killed and captured the Palestinain hijackers:

Unbeknownst to the terrorists, GSG-9 had been following the aircraft, on board a modified Lufthansa 707, since it had landed in Cyprus . The "alert" 30-man group had been airborne soon after the German government learned of the airliner's destination. This group flew from Bonn to Cyprus then on to Ankara and back home after learning. A second 30-man unit, which included commander Ulrich Wegener, had meanwhile flown from Germany to Dubai. The cooperative Somali government permitted Wegener's GSG-9 flight to land. Upon arrival, the troopers were surprised to find that the Somali commandos had set up a security perimeter around the airport and were able to provide much-needed intelligence. Following procedure, GSG-9 deployed sniper and reconnaissance teams, and prepared to assault the plane immediately, in case such event dictated that such an emergency response was required. It was not, and along with the the recently arrived second element of GSG-9, planning began in earnest. As the night wore on, officials came to the conclusion that, given Mahmoud's growing instability and having already proven his willingness to execute hostages, a rescue operation would be authorized. At 2315, sections of the assault element began their covert approach to the aircraft. Two SAS men, who had accompanied GSG-9 and were skilled in the use of "flash-bang" grenades, accompanied the assault teams. At 205, In an attempt to cause at least some of the terrorists to come to the cockpit (thereby establishing their whereabouts), the Somali commandos lit a bright signal fire a few hundred feet from the front of the plane. The reconnaissance team assigned to that section of the aircraft reported that in fact two of the terrorists, including "Captain Mahmoud", had gone to the cockpit and were confusedly observing the fire

As to Willy Brandt

On December 7, 1970, West German Chancellor Willy Brandt travelled to Warsaw, Poland on a state visit meant to improve relations with Poland and the USSR. On that day, Brandt attended a commemoration of the Jewish victims of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising of 1943. Although it had been decades since the historic uprising and the end of the Holocaust, Brandt was aware of the importance of this official state visit. He would later describe his thoughts leading up to the event:

An unusual burden accompanied me on my way to Warsaw. Nowhere else had a people suffered as in Poland. The machine-like annihilation of Polish Jewry represented a heightening of bloodthirstiness that no one had held possible. On my way to Warsaw [I carried with me] the memory of the fight to the death of the Warsaw ghetto.1

Filled with emotion on the day of the ceremony, and taken by the enormity of the moment, Brandt spontaneously dropped to his knees before the commemoration monument, a profound act of apology and repentance. (Click on the image to the right if you would like to see a larger version.) Although he spoke no words, the image of this silent apology, seen in the news by so many Poles and Germans, had a powerful effect on both nations. Later, when Brandt described the moment, he wrote that he felt as though he "had to do something to express the particularity of the commemoration at the ghetto monument. On the abyss of German history and carrying the burden of the millions who were murdered, I did what people do when words fail them."

H e also had resisted the Nazis and had had to flee to Norway. And far from welcoming East German spies, he stepped down when he realized that his governmemnt had been infiltrated by them.

Ralf: I'm no expert on the Brandt government, so I'll leave that argument to ones more knowledgable in the subject than I am.

However, on reading your rebuttle I was struck by the fact that it did not in fact answer the charge. I can believe all of what you wrote, and all of what Jim wrote and find no inherent contridiction in that.

If that statement seems strange to you, consider the question of the East German spies you mention. I can believe both that Brandt himself was not an East German spy, and that the Brandt government was inflitrated by East German spies without any contridiction.

For example, while you and I mentioned the inneptness of the German rescue attempt, the inneptness of the German rescue attempt is not really an issue in either Jim or Yehudit's argument. The actions that they take offense to, the actions which they ascribe perfidy to, are the latter actions by the German government. Therefore, any real counter argument to Jim or Yehudit must address not the hostage rescue attempt, but what happened in the wake of Munich and by that I mean not merely Germany's improved ability to handle a hostage crisis.

Understand, I'm not yet taking sides in this issue. I don't know which side to take. I'm listening with interest, and my critique of your responce is do not to a feeling necesarily that you are wrong, but a desire to see all the pertinant facts and arguments laid out before me so I can make up my own mind.

celebrim,

the claim that Germany released the terrorists on a pretxt is base on a grotesque conspirarcy theory. Palestinians had abducted a Lufthansa plane in '72, and to preserve the lives of the hostages, the surving terrorists had been set free. There was no colusion between the German government and the terrorists. Willy Brandt convinced Golda Meir of that fact in a personal message.

There also was no colusion with the East German services. Brandt had been mayor of West Berlin in the 60s, and Kennedy went there on his invitation. Brandt wanted detente with East Germany, and for that he was reviled, as Jim Rockford does above.

"the claim that Germany released the terrorists on a pretxt is base on a grotesque conspirarcy theory"

A conspiracy theory admitted to by one of the surviving terrorists.

"One startling allegation that Jamal did make was that the West German government knew about the hijacking of a Lufthansa passenger plane eight weeks after the Olympics. The plane was diverted from Beirut to Munich to pick up the three surviving terrorists. It was, Jamal claims, all part of an elaborate charade to get the terrorists off German soil."

Not to mention this from Alan Dershowitz's book:

"Less than two months after the murders, Chancellor Willy Brandt made a secret deal with the Palestinian terrorists. Together they arranged for other Palestinian terrorists to hijack a Lufthansa plane from Beirut carrying eleven German men and a skeleton crew and to hold these Germans hostage, threatening to kill them unless the three Munich murderers were flown to freedom in an Arab country... Feigning terror at the prospect of Germans being murdered on a Lufthansa plane, Brandt gave in to the "demands" of these terrorists. Many observers suspected that the Lufthansa hijacking had been staged by the Brandt government to concoct an excuse for releasing the three terrorists, as a way of avoiding a real hijacking. Until recently there was no proof of this cynical secret deal between the government that had botched the rescue of the Israeli Olympic team and the terrorists who had murdered the Israelis, but it has now been confirmed by both Palestinian and German sources that the Lufthansa hijacking was a sham and that the Germans were all too eager to free the murderers.

The captured terrorists were released, receiving a hero's welcome when they returned home. "

No, this is not some wacky conspiracy theory. It really happened.

Mark,

a terrorist is no credible source, sorry. And Dershowitz' books is no proof, just more claims. Brandt would never have done something like that.

It basically comes doen whom you trust more - Brandt or Dershovitz.

And I have serious doubts about the latter ever since the latter called for the legalization of torture.

"Brandt would never have done something like that."

Now there's a great argument.

Does the fact that Ulrich Wegener, founder of GSG9 confirmed it in the movie One Day In September count? Did it not raise your eyebrows a bit that only 13 passenger were on the jumbo jet, all of them adult males? The fact that the exchange was arranged almost instantly? Ralf you are entitled to your belief, but the evidence is overwhelmingly against you.

Mark: I have to admit that I tend to not even consider conspiracy theory claims worth discussion, but dismiss them as ridiculous on the face of it. If that is where you are coming from, I'm going to need to see some extraordinary documentation. What you presented doesn't qualify.

I consider it extremely shameful and dishonorable to release terrorists in the face of terrorist demands even to save the lives of the innocent. I was under the presumption that you were arguing from this basis. If you are trying to establish some extra degree of cowardice and perfidy on the basis of what looks like a shaky conspiracy theory, I'm afraid I'd have to oppose that until you can actually produce overwhelming evidence.

For my part, I think cooperating with murderers even for superficially honorable reasons is sufficiently dishonorable and cowardly not to need create a conspiracy theory to discredit it.

If the cost of my rescue had been the release of murders from prison, I would be utterly furious. I'd rather die in a botched attempt at my rescue than live life knowing a gang of murderers was rewarded for taking me hostage and another gang of murderers was set free. The only way I could live with myself knowing that through my cowardice I allowed this to happen, is if I dedicated my life to bringing to justice those that were set loose, and I wouldn't want to live like that. Much better to end it then and there one way or the other.

"Furthermore, I respectfully question your last statement… that “the Olympic Committee is still behaving as though nothing serious happened” back 33 years ago. Your description is far too kind, and does not fully acknowledge the truly odious nature of the international community’s attitudes."

I agree, but I felt if I said anything more negative I would have to include a link to back it up, and I have them, believe me, but I wanted to get the post up and not spend an hour looking for the evidence. But if you go back to the original blogburst you'll find many examples of the odiousness of the olympics people.

I agree with some of Ralf's assessment of Willi Brandt. There's no need to posit anti-Semitism for things that can be explained by pure and simple cowardice.

The question is whether Brandt's cowardly, treacherous, and obscene dealings with the terrorists paid off. Did he succeed in buying protection for Germany at the expense of the rest of the world?

If so, then the German national conscience was a small price to pay, being such a cheap commodity.

I agree with some of Ralf's assessment of Willi Brandt. There's no need to posit anti-Semitism for things that can be explained by pure and simple cowardice.

The question is whether Brandt's cowardly, treacherous, and obscene dealings with the terrorists paid off. Did he succeed in buying protection for Germany at the expense of the rest of the world?

If so, then the German national conscience was a small price to pay, being such a cheap commodity.

A resistance fighter like Brandt can hardly be called 'cowardly' and 'treacherously' and obscene.

Remember, Mark hasn't proven his allegations. And Germany wasn't exactly immune against Palestianian terorism. Our commndoes became so good at killing them that these terrorists went out of their way to not offend Germany in later years.

Read what I posted about Mogadishu.

Well, im at a loss. If admission from two of the principles on opposite sides isnt enough evidence I have to question what would be. Unless someone tape recorded a conversation between Bradt and Arafat I guess the entire episode has gone down the memory hole. I can only advise seeing One Day in September and seeing these folks speak for themselves. It is extremely compelling.

Regardless, Celebrim has the right of it. The simple fact that Germany was willing to make this exchange speaks volumes. Refusing to allow expert Israelis to participate in the rescue when their own forces were clearly not up to it is another fiasco in itself.
To call the entire episode shameful doesnt do it justice.

Our commndoes became so good at killing them that these terrorists went out of their way to not offend Germany in later years.

Ralf, seriously, you are kidding yourself here. I'm not running down GSG9, who are infinitely better than the German police who bungled Munich. They are not as good as the British SAS, but they are plenty good enough. It doesn't matter - terrorists are not deterred by commandoes, and all those superbly-trained counterterrorism troops have not bought security for the West.

Do you seriously believe that Palestinian terrorists fear Germany more than Israel? More than they fear Jordanian and Egyptian security forces? Grab a clue.

As for Brandt, I don't care what heroic deeds he did during WWII; past distinction is not an excuse for dishonorable conduct, and his government's dealings with the Palestinians (and their conduct throughout Munich) ranged from incompetent to despicable.

Glen, I wasn't talking about completele safety, but the safety we had wasn't 'bought'

There wewre reported instances where Plastinian hijackers told pilots to stay away from certain locations because the GSG9 was there

And Glen,

everybody had to learn how to cope with terrorism.

Reagan withdrew the Marines after the bomb attack on them, and after the CIA station head in Beirut was tortured to death. He didn't take revenge for the dead, except have that old battleships shoot some rounds into the general direction of the terorists.

When domestic terrorists abducted a German politician to get some of their 'comrades' free, the government foolishly agreed to an exchange. But after the freed terorrists commmited some more terrorism, the government refused to exchange the abducted head of the German industrial associaltion, who was then murdered.

Don't forget, there were a lot of terorist attacks on Americans and Americans targets, like the USS Cole. the '93 WTC bombing etc, etc, before 911

It takes experience to become as tough on terrorism as necessary

#7) Well, like I said. The Left finds a way. You don't need facts, you just need a burning conviction that America is at the root of all evil

Look, Celabrim, I would speak my mind right now, but you never know, this is probably a 'family friendly' server and probably wouldn't like any of the words I would choose.

As a lefty, I do like this country, but I strongly disagree with many of the foreign policy decisions this country makes, this seems to be the most common when the public isn't notified: ex) rendition, torture, black cites, funding bin laden against russia etc etc etc. We are not innocent bystanders in the world, but I don't assume we're responsible for every world fiasco either.

Ralf,

There is no parallel between not responding forcefully enough, and actually colluding with terrorists in order to spare yourself harm.

"funding bin laden against russia"

I'm really gotten sick of that lie. I got the oppurtunity to meet some of the (native) Afghan Muhajideen that we were funding, and they were no Bin Ladin's. At least what I saw of them, they were honorable men who loved thier country, and thier family, and who had come to a sincere respect for America (and Christians) for the help we were giving them. The (foreign) Arab Muhajideen that Bin Ladin was a part of never recieved CIA aid or US money, but were instead funded by Saudia Arabia. Both the CIA and Bin Ladin concur on this in public statements. The US was careful to confine its direct aid to native groups. A portion of these groups would latter become the 'Northern Alliance', which was why it was so easily to reestablish ties with them. It's those same people who are building Afghanistan today.

Look the US makes mistakes all the time. Even if the US had have funded Bin Ladin at some point against the Soviets incidentally as part of the operation, it still would have been justified. Just ask any Afghan under the Soviet occupation. You tell a man whose son's feet have been twisted by a soviet land mine that he doesn't deserve our help. You tell it to his face. You don't know what the hell you are talking about.

We don't have a crystal ball. We are never going to be perfect. But as long as we are on the side of freedom, I'm going to back it. The real mistakes that the US has made has always been with siding against freedom. If what you know about the rest of those subjects you mention is as meager and as wrong as what you know about the Soviet-Afghan war, then I don't see why I should credit you for anything.

Hell, if your so upset with what I said, don't worry about going to Afghanistan. You find me and tell me to my face about whatever it is that is bothering you. You think that our involvement in the Afghan was was dishonorable, you come and tell me that that kid didn't deserve US help, and that his father wasn't a freedom fighter and an honorable man. You want to speak your mind in a way that isn't 'family friendly', well you come find me. You don't happen to live in south LA, do you?

no sorry, phoenix.

Maybe that wasn't the best example; but yes, we gave money to pakistan to give money to Afghani rebels. To our shock, they gave money to the most Islamicly strict groups, which shouldn't surprise us. Of course, those groups were also left over with the most weapons, forming the taliban (not neccessarily al-quida)

Look, alot of the time I'm not happy with choices we make. That's fine, that's a democracy. We have made serious mistakes in the past, and in order to try and make fewer mistakes in the future, we should acknowledge them. I don't think that's a sin.

I should be able to say that without being called an 'america-hater'. That's when I get offended. (sorry to get off post everybody)

You fund a bunch of Afghan rebels, one Saudi flips on you and gives the whole enterprise a bad name. What about the 99 warlords that didnt fly planes into the middle of NYC?

lol

BTW the URL to the blogburst should end with .html, not .php. I'm going to change it in the post. Not sure how that happened.

There is no parallel between not responding forcefully enough, and actually colluding with terrorists in order to spare yourself harm.

Well, that didn't happen, I think. Nothing mark put forth her convinced me of that.

Well Rolf --

Brandt WAS the architect of Ostpolitik at the time when his government was penetrated by the Spies of Honecker, and Brandt knew of this penetration.

Brandt seems to have chosen Ostpolitik and co-operation with Honeker in the Palestinian wave of terror in order to curry favor with the Ossies and gain immunity from the Palestinians.

What is so remarkable about Germans turning away from the knowledge of terror attacks against Israelis and providing shelter to these terrorists?

From the nation that had only recently (thirty years) thrown Jews into the ovens of Auschwitz it's not even remarkable. Brandt certainly was not punished for his "incompetence" in handling Munich all around; I don't doubt for a second that most Germans heartily approved of the Palestinian terror project and it's outcome.

The line from the Final Solution to the various terror super-Krystallknachts that Palestianian and Islamist groups pursue and the general approval they find in Europe should surprise no one.

That Spielberg falls for this is unsurprising; many Americans on the Left above all WANT TO BE VICTIMS. Being a Victim is the highest social accolade the Left can bestow. The worst thing in the world for a Leftist is to reject victim status (and sympathy / money from guilty rich white Liberals) for an active course designed to prevent victimization in the future.

When Israel absolutely committed itself to a program of avoiding victimization and achieving it's own deterrence / justice, the Left viewed it as somethign to be destroyed. There is nothing worse (see: reactions to 9/11) than rejecting victim status.

Jim, you are delusional.

The problem with your post is that "Munich" is about the Israeli's assassination of 11 people affiliated with the Palestinian terrorist groups. The movie isn't about the massacre of the 11 Israeli athletes, which it goes without saying is a heinous act. The real moral question is whether the Israelis were acting as terrorists by assassinating individuals on foreign soil (all the assassinations happened in Europe and several in Lebanon).

Get your stories straight.

Ronald, you dont think the two parts are intertwined? You cant tell the story of the Wrath of God without the context of the massacre and the aftermath when it became clear no-one else had any interest in bringing the guilty to justice. The extraordinary lengths the Israelis went to for justice/revenge is only matched by the lengths Germany and the Olympic committee went to sweep this under the carpet and get away from it.

Mark,

btw, I have to repeat agin that your sources are biased to the point of being completely useless.

If I remember correctly, 'One Day In September' sugested equivalence of 1970's West Germqany with Nazi Germany, while Dershovitz simply wil believe anything unquestioningly what sources, even terrorists, will tell him.

Yes, the Munich massacre was due to officla German incompetence, but why do you never even acknowledge the GSG9's raid in Mogadishu, whilen harping on alleged German 'appeasement'?

Mark, most of the 11 targeted by the Israeli hit men were not responsible for the Munich massacre - they probably applauded the massacre, but that does not make them guilty of it.

I do think the two are intertwined, but it sounds like the movie focuses on the Israeli hit squads. And the original post was about the movie, wasn't it? As I said above, without a doubt the Munich massacre was a heinous and despicable act. However, the muddier and more difficult moral question is whether the Israelis were justified in breaking the law themselves by sending terrorist style hitmen into Europe to assassinate enemies of Israel on foreign soil. This is a question it looks like you never had to make a decision on.

Well, that didn't happen, I think.

You think the German government didn't collaborate with the PLO in order to release the captured terrorists? Despite statements from both the captured terrorist and members of the German government to the contrary? I didn't realise you thought it didn't happen. So I guess that means the PLO and German sources are wrong, and you are correct.

Ronald Jon,

However, the muddier and more difficult moral question is whether the Israelis were justified in breaking the law themselves by sending terrorist style hitmen into Europe to assassinate enemies of Israel on foreign soil.

'Terrorist style hitmen'? You can't be serious.

Mark, most of the 11 targeted by the Israeli hit men were not responsible for the Munich massacre - they probably applauded the massacre, but that does not make them guilty of it.

They were part of the organisation who carried it out. And the point wasn't to simply punish the ones directly involved, but to (a) put a dent in the capabilities of the PLO's abilities to commit terror attacks and (b) scare the shit out of them.

You think the German government didn't collaborate with the PLO in order to release the captured terrorists? Despite statements from both the captured terrorist and members of the German government to the contrary? I didn't realise you thought it didn't happen. So I guess that means the PLO and German sources are wrong, and you are correct.

Got some proof?

"'Terrorist style hitmen'? You can't be serious."

What would you call it? These men didn't work officially for Mossad, they had unlimited bank accounts, and they were on their own, with a list of hits, or targets. They also tapped into terrorist networks- paying them for information, buying weapons and other services, such as disposing of bodies. This is the "terrorist-style" that I mentioned.

The word "hitmen" described their assassinations. They killed men without trial, on foreign soil, as they walked home, talked on the phone, drove their car, etc. Would you prefer assassins?

"They were part of the organisation who carried it out. And the point wasn't to simply punish the ones directly involved.."

I know what the point of the operation was - and that's not the point of my posts. The point is whether or not this was morally right, legally right, and even effective. I believe a sane person would have to agree that it was none of these.

Again, at this point all i can do is urge everyone to watch One Day in September. Not to hear opinions, or 'experts', or data, but to hear the testimony of the actual people involved in the events from their own mouths. This, as I have said, includes the one surviving terrorist (with no motive to indict Brandt or Germany) as well as Germany's most famous and experienced anti-terrorism agent intimately involved in the case, both confirm the fact that the hijacking and exchange was pre-arranged. DONT BELIEVE ME, JUDGE FOR YOURSELF.

After that, and seeing the entirely blase attitude adopted by the rest of the world, judge the Israeli reaction accordingly. Again, much like our current situation, judge by the information available at the time, not in retrospect. The Munich response bears much resemblance to our response to 911. Did every Al Qaeda operative we have killed since have knowledge or influence on 911? Of course not. An act of war was carried out, and hence all members of the organization organizing that act are fair game. Same deal for the Israelis after Munich. And the fact that they had to carry these acts out in soveriegn nations simply speaks further to the fact that Europe was utterly ignoring and enabling the terrorism.

Intreasting, next to a time article on spielberg is a book by Aaron J. Klein called 'striking back'. He claims that the israeli response to Munich did not hit the key players; most of whom were bunkered down and out of sight. Instead they hit small players, or unlinked palestinian activists.

Anybody know anything more about that story or the writer?

However, the muddier and more difficult moral question is whether the Israelis were justified in breaking the law themselves by sending terrorist style hitmen into Europe to assassinate enemies of Israel on foreign soil.

The terrorists' actions in Munich were an act of war, financed by nations that were enemies of the state of Israel.

Their actions in Munich were also designed to be a threat to the West, to demonstrate their powerlessness in response to these Arab-funded terrorist actions. It was a lesson that Europe learned very well.

Your suggestion, that Israel should have made everything legal, following the rules of war, is valid. If Israel had followed your suggestion that their actions be legal and if they'd responded to this attack, not with targeted assasinations, but by declaring war and subsequently bombing and defeating the militarily weak Arab states who sponosored these terrorist acts of war, the results, for the west and for Israel, might have been very beneficial.

Unfortunately, we can only see these things through the benefit of hindsight. In the early 70's, the results of Arab state sponsorship of terrorism wasn't as evident as they are now.

But thanks for making the suggestion!

oops - that should be "the results of Arab state sponsorship of terrorism weren't as evident as they are now."

Mary,

"Your suggestion, that Israel should have made everything legal, following the rules of war, is valid."

It wasn't a suggestion, it was a question. Was it the right course of action? Was it worth it, or even effective? Effective being a key word here.

"declaring war and subsequently bombing and defeating the militarily weak Arab states who sponosored these terrorist acts of war..."

I see who I'm talking with - someone who seeks full-scale aggression to feel a sense of justice. An eye for an eye for an eye for an eye, ad infitum. Keep supporting those eye pokings, maybe someday we'll all be blind and nothing will matter anymore!

"The Munich response bears much resemblance to our response to 911."

They do, except that our response to 9/11 was probably even less effective tactically. To top it off with an invasion of Iraq only resulted in a recruitment windfall for terrorism in the Middle East. If our objective is to rid the world of terrorists, we have failed miserably, as have the Israelis.

#51 Ronald Jon,

You deride Wrath of G-d for not being effective, a quality you say is more important than being right. But suggesting the destruction of the regimes who sponsored the terrorist group responsible sparks the 'eye for an eye' moral equivalence that is the subject of Yehudit's displeasure?

What an interesting position to take.

I see who I'm talking with - someone who seeks full-scale aggression to feel a sense of justice. An eye for an eye for an eye for an eye, ad infitum. Keep supporting those eye pokings, maybe someday we'll all be blind and nothing will matter anymore!

I see who I'm talking with - So, what do you have against the concept of self-defense in response to totalitarian aggression?

The 'eye for an eye' I wrote about is not moral equivalence - it is endless retribution and bloodshed. If you prefer, let me say an eye for a finger for an eye for a finger- an enemy puts out your eye, you cut off his finger, he puts out your eye...

If you have read my previous posts, Colt, then you would know that I don't subscribe to 'moral equivalency.' I have already written that the slayings in Munich were "a heinous and despicable act." And yes, much more heinous than assassinating terrorists in Europe. I then wrote that it is obviously a cloudier issue whether the Israeli retribution in Europe was a correct response, since any sane person realizes that murdering innocent people is without a doubt wrong. I am not ascribing equivalence.

I also never said being 'effective' is more important than being right. No one was answering my question of the morality of Israeli assassinations, so I thought maybe someone would venture to answer a question regarding its effectiveness in combatting terrorism- hence I highlighted effectiveness. I am actually more interested in morality and what is right, than cold effectiveness. It seems, since no one has responded to my questions, that those I am discussing with here don't think that Israeli assassinations on foreign soil were immoral. In which case we are left with effectiveness - were the assassinations actually effective at combatting terrorism?

were the assassinations actually effective at combatting terrorism?

Do you think the assassinations were effective at combatting terrorism?

If not, what do you think would be a militarily effective response? Bombs? Nukes? Imprisoning enemy combatants according to the rules of the geneva convention? (which really offer no rules at all for those who don't wear uniforms).

Or should Israel have tried harder to feed the crocodile, to give them everthing they wanted? Should we all, as Speilberg suggested talk and talk and talk to these fascist totalitarian wannabes?

Hey, let's all do lunch. That's how wars are won!

You still didn't answer, Mary. Was it effective or not? Was it worth breaking with morality or not? Did "The Wrath of God" reduce the number of terrorists intent on destroying Israel? I ask a question and am responded to only with defensive sputters and defensive counter questions.

were the assassinations actually effective at combatting terrorism?

The program was aborted before any obvious improvement could be ascertained. 11 fewer terrorists is obviously a plus, but, given the size of the PLO, not enough to change all that much.

You still didn't answer, Mary. Was it effective or not?

I already did answer that part of your question. A more effective solution would have been for Israel to have legally recongnized that the surrounding Arab states were financing Palistinian paramilitaries, declared open war and defeated their remarkably weak opponenents.

But that's a realization that we can only come to through hindsight, after viewing the results of decades of Arab/Muslim nationalism, supremacism and support of terrorism.

Was it worth breaking with morality or not?

I was discussing definable laws. Whose morality are we supposed to be discussing here? - talumdic law? papal decrees? the Marxist/atheist model? Gandhiesque pacifism? Sharia based fatwas? Peter Singer's pro-chicken anti-speciesism? a personal Jesus?

I ask a question and am responded to only with defensive sputters and defensive counter questions.

If you believe that I'm on the defensive, I guess you're offensive? Don't you realize that aggressive, offensive tactics are singularly reponsible for starting these neverending cycles of attacks and counterattacks?

"Was it effective or not?"

I dont think you can question that Israels reputation as a nation not to F around with was enhanced. Would Israel be better off in its neighborhood without the reputation of being the one kid on the playground that always gets even? Somehow I doubt it. While it may not have deterred the Palestinians much, European nations certainly think twice before looking the other way from Palestinian shananigans on their soil, knowing to do so invites Israeli hit squads into their streets. It certainly weighs on the decisions of Arab nations as well, who must account for the fact that Israel is never going to let the Arabs UN accomplices tie them down with international law when their vital interests are on the line.

"Was it worth breaking with morality or not? Did "The Wrath of God" reduce the number of terrorists intent on destroying Israel?"

Morality? A nations most (ultimately only) vital interest is defending the lives of its citizens. I would argue that not attacking the terrorist network actively assassinating innocent Israeli civilians would be immoral. Israel couldnt (and cant) help the fact that European nations saw fit to harbor individuals actively engaged in war against Israeli civilians.

#60 Mark Buehner

European nations certainly think twice before looking the other way from Palestinian shananigans on their soil, knowing to do so invites Israeli hit squads into their streets.

Perhaps once. One word: Interpal. Time to remind the Euros, methinks.

Mary, witty comment in your last paragraph - except that we are talking, thank God, not bombing or shelling.

Mark, If killing terrorists is a moral act designed to save innocent civillians, does it become an immoral act when it really isn't effective at saving innocents? You yourself don't seem convinced of its effectiveness.

What if the tit-for-tat nature of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is immoral in itself because it sustains violence? What if the moral decision is breaking off retribution, becoming purely defensive, and giving the Palestinians some kind of a concession (one that improves their lives enough that suicide missions don't come up as any kind of option)?

"Mark, If killing terrorists is a moral act designed to save innocent civillians, does it become an immoral act when it really isn't effective at saving innocents? You yourself don't seem convinced of its effectiveness."

Even if that is true, morality cant be judged in retrospect of the effectiveness of the policy. That is a pragmatic argument, not a moral one.

"What if the tit-for-tat nature of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is immoral in itself because it sustains violence?"

What if. That is an unproven theory taken as gospel by some.

"What if the moral decision is breaking off retribution, becoming purely defensive, and giving the Palestinians some kind of a concession"

That logic has won out again and again in this conflict, at least on the Israeli side. The Israelis have made concession after concession, but the violence never stops for long. Apparently the abandoned Jewsish settlements in Gaza are being used as terrorist training camps and rocket factories. Nice. As they say, it takes two to tango, and rewarding terrorism simply guarantees its repitition.
Israel's best, most moral, option at this point is to complete their defense barrier as close to the green line as practicle, withdraw behind it, and treat any further agression by the Palestinians as an act of war to be responded to accordingly. To this day, if Israelis are killed overseas, I wouldnt hesitate for a moment to track down the network that ordered it and kill everyone of them i could, just as I would with American lives.