A moral price to pay? Leave anguish for a later day

Controversy over Steven Spielberg's film Munich?

Most Certainly!!!

For this is a film which dramatizes issues in today's war on terrorism -- as much as it reflects controversy over Israel's secret campaign of assassinations against terrorists held responsible for killing 11 of its athletes in Munich in 1972.

The purpose was not only revenge, to let the world know that there would be a price to be paid for the killing of Israelis -- but also to create a climate of "counter-terror." The aim: that any persons who dared plan terror against Israelis would think twice -- knowimg they might be marked for death. In short, both revenge and deterrence.

Pro Israel zealots such as Charles Krauthammer have sometimes eloquently denounced "Munich" as a film of moral equivalence which puts Israel's efforts at self defense in the same basket as ruthless Arab terrorists who systematically kill civilians to annihilate Israel.

The film clearly "humanizes" the targets of the Israeli assassins. But the charge of moral equivalence makes no sense. Spielberg tells the story from an Israeli point of view and focuses always on Israeli issues and values.

Spielberg gives to Israelis a higher sense of conscience, focusing frequently on how far Jewish assassins went to avoid harming "innocents." He also portrays several Israeli terrorists as plagued by concerns their revenge killing might compromise historic Jewish values. All this clearly puts Israeli fighters on higher moral ground than terrorists who deliberately target civilians.

Central, if subliminal to the movie, is the controversy over George Bush's willingness to adopt Israeli tactics.

At the heart of the Bush approach are both preemptive and retaliatory actions to hunt down suspected terrorists, to kill them with gunfire, bombs or rockets -- or secretly kidnap and imprison them, where they may face torture.

The Bush approach is in part a campaign of "counter-terror" aimed at deterrence. The message to be sent: anyone who picks up the terrorist cause against Americans may pay the ultimate price.

The US has not fully adopted Israeli tactics, but has gone a far way down that road. The President still is subject to congressional and court challenges over just how far he can go. And over whether his actions are compatible with the constitution or with American committments to international law.

******

So where does the movie "Munich" leave us?

Fighting back may be necessary -- but "counter-terror" can be costly not only to our enemies but to our moral sensibilities. That is IF we CHOOSE to be anguished when we inflict death and suffering.

There are no free lunches in wars where murder is a tool of state. Even when human beings we kill are not "innocent," they are still human beings.

As someone puts it in the movie: "for every civilization there is a time when it may have to compromise its own values."

There is, of course, little sign the Bush Administration shows anguish.

There is plenty of anguish in Spielberg's "Munich." Still, the challenge for every generation is to "get on with it," to do the killing as quickly and as efficiently as possible so that the values of peace can be restored.

Even when a cause seems righteous, there is a cost. In today's world, as in the past, a moral price must be paid.

Leave anguish for a later day.

*****************
See:
"The Munich Syndrome," Weekly Standard
"War on 'Munich,'" Spiegel
Charles Krauthammer, "Terrorists Win in 'Munich,'" Real Clear Politics
George Jonas, Vengeance (book on which the movie is based)
"An Action Film About the Need to Talk," The New York Times
Spielberg calls his film "a prayer for peace" (BBC)
Spielberg hires a key Sharon aide to promote his film (BBC)