Dennis Prager: "Munich" and revenge

townhall.com ^ | Jan 10, 2006 | Dennis Prager

[Tolik]

Nearly every review of the Steven Spielberg film "Munich," especially those that are sympathetic to the film's "stop the cycle of violence" message, describes the movie as a story about Israeli "revenge" for the Palestinian murder of the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.

 In so doing they reveal their instinctive ambivalence, if not antagonism, toward what Israel did: sending out a hit team to kill those involved in the Munich massacre.

 So let's deal with this whole question of revenge and the widespread assumption -- from the secular Left to the religious Right -- that revenge is by definition morally wrong.

 Revenge is defined by the Cambridge University dictionary as "harm done to someone as a punishment for harm that they have done to you." Now, in general, especially in personal life, this is not a good policy. If someone steps on your toe, it is not wise or good to do the same to him.

 However, the desire to see identical harm inflicted on the evildoer is not only not wrong, it is at the essence of an empathetic, moral and just heart and conscience. What sort of person reads what a torturer did to an innocent victim and doesn't want to see that torturer suffer? Those who have no desire to see such people suffer commensurate with the evil they have inflicted have blunted the natural human desire for justice.

 And talking about justice, what sort of justice would it have been for Israel not to seek the death of the murderers of their athletes? Would the world be a finer, kinder, let alone more just, place if all those murderers had been allowed to live?

 That argument is never advanced in the screenplay of "Munich." Instead, all the arguments put into the mouths of the Israeli hit team are about "Jewish blood is not cheap" and other nationalistic -- as opposed to moral -- defenses. This is because the chief writer, Tony Kushner, is a man of the Left; and the Left has lost its hatred of evil, its ability to recognize evil and, most of all, any desire to wage war against it.

 That's why the movie is a paean to "stop the cycle of violence." Its leftist writers and well-intentioned but naive director reduce wars against perpetrators of evil to "seeking revenge" or becoming "no better than their enemies," and other cliches that literally demoralize wars fought by good societies. The same arguments are given by the same people against executing murderers: "When we kill murderers, we are no better than them." As if killing Timothy McVeigh was morally equivalent to his murder of innocents in Oklahoma City.

 Of course, none of this means that all revenge is moral. When revenge is unjust -- if, for example, the Israelis had murdered a group of Palestinian athletes -- it is immoral.

 But what could be more just, more moral, than Israel targeting only the murderers for death? Though the film attempts to portray the Israeli response as morally useless -- with "cycle of violence" and "it accomplishes nothing since they just substitute a new terrorist for the one last killed" arguments -- the film is nevertheless a tremendous compliment to the Israelis.

 First, it shows how careful the Israelis were to kill only the murderers (though the Israeli hit team did in fact kill one innocent Moroccan in Norway, which is not shown in the film).

 Second, while the Israelis are constantly asking themselves if they are doing what is right, there is not a hint of moral self-inquiry among the Palestinians. For good reason.

 So while the film is dedicated to the proposition that men involved in killing murderers become themselves morally inferior beings and therefore pay a great personal price for their war on evil, the facts of the film, as opposed to the made-up dialogue, suggest quite the opposite: That the world is a better place when revenge and justice are the same.

Dennis Prager is a radio talk show host, author, and contributing columnist for Townhall.com.

[Tolik]

Nailed It!
Moral Clarity BUMP !

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.  

[satchmodog9]

I could never see Israels response to this event as wrong. The terrorism against the Olympians was an act of war and if Israel wanted to hunt them down, good for Israel. More countries should do things like this. Exterminate the filth off the planet one at a time.

[ClearCase_guy]

That's why the movie is a paean to "stop the cycle of violence."

The Muslims who wish to push all the Jews into the sea will not stop the cycle of violence. It's what they are all about.

If the Jews were to listen to Spielberg and unilaterally "stop the cycle of violence" then they would be committing suicide. Bit by bit, murder by murder, the Muslims would kill all the Israelis and the Jews wouldn't fight back, because they wouldn't want to contrinute to the "cycle of violence".

It's asinine. Spielberg is no moralist and no pragmatist. He's child-like in his approach to this problem.

[Kenton]

There's this essential problem with "turning the other cheek". You quickly run out of cheeks.

[docbnj]

Spielberg is a skillful movie-maker, and has some good ideas. However, when it comes to common sense, he is a complete DUNCE!

In short, he is an artist.

[randita]

Why should those terrorists not be brought to justice just because they were "international" and committed the crimes in another country than their own against athletes who weren't in their home country?

When a domestic legal system is not at your disposal to guarantee justice, justice has to be sought through other means. That's not a cycle of violence nor is it revenge. It is simply justice.

[Publius6961]

I always have fun with the "we are no better than they are" school of argumentation.
At best it is a cover for cowardice and the application of the "I am a victim" mindset.

At worst a very poor substitute for thinking, an invitation to world predators and a road to eventual cultural suicide.

[JamesP81]

The primary reason for doing what Israel wasn't about and shouldn't have been about revenge. Oh, I'm sure it made a nice fringe benefit but the point is this: they needed to make the world understand that if you do BS things like this then, no matter what happens, you will not profit from it. The only possible result for you is pain, suffering and death. This helps deter future aggression.

[Straight8]

Libs,et.al., call it revenge. I call it justice!

[brownsfan]

"So while the film is dedicated to the proposition that men involved in killing murderers become themselves morally inferior beings and therefore pay a great personal price for their war on evil"

Which makes the film incorrect and irrelavent.
I'm not a hunter. I don't see anything wrong with it, but I don't enjoy killing. However, if I were in a group such as these fine Israelis, I would have no problem and no remorse. For civilization to remain civilized, justice is a requirement. In the case portrayed in this film, I have no doubts, none, that I could kill and not pay "a great personal price".

[originalbuckeye]

What's dangerous about 'Munich' is that many uninformed will believe it to be the truth. The idea that we create more terrorists by killing current ones is specious. Attributed to Golda Meir (paraphrased) 'If the Palestinians (read Islamofascists) put down their weapons, there will be no more war. If the Israelis put down their weapons, there will be no more Israel'. You cannot negotiate with terrorists who have no regard for their own lives. You simply must eliminate them. Not PC, but true.

[JamesP81]

Libs,et.al., call it revenge.

They can call it whatever they please. I call it sensible survival techniques in a hostile world.

[TChris]

There's this essential problem with "turning the other cheek". You quickly run out of cheeks.

The instruction to "turn the other cheek" is not a call for pacifism toward the threat of death and destruction. A smite upon the cheek is an insult; bombs are far worse. Jesus knows that better than anyone. He did not instruct us to ignore serious violent threats, avoiding self-defense.

[ncountylee]

Hey Steven...lots of us would take very poorly to those close to us being harmed by anyone, which includes the death cult, pedophile following mindless robots.

[.cnI redruM]

People that buy into Spielberg's reasoning misunderstand the GWOT. The question isn't "Why do they hate us?" It's "Why do they think they can try such a thing on us and live?"

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

I saw the movie and as usual the Spielberg was great. However, I don't agree with the implicit statement of the movie that violence doesn't accomplish justice. When the perpetrators were running free after the Munich attach, Justice cried out for punishment.
Does violence beget violence. Perhaps it does, but in this case it did away with Black September. Also, had these terrorists not been killed, the world would still be facing terrorists of this kind.

[originalbuckeye]

Agree completely.

[Tolik]

I like very much another Golda Meir's saying: The war will stop when Arabs will start loving their own kids more than they hate ours.

[Drammach]

In short, he is an artist.

Please, do not put all artists in the same jar of urine...

You will find there are both conservative and liberal artists..
The liberals are probably the majority, I will admit..
But there are far more conservatives than are likely to admit it..
Many conservative leaning artists remain publicly silent concerning their political beliefs due to the high amount of liberal clientele..
At best, when confronted with liberals espousing their socialist beliefs, we just mumble something incomprehensible and grunt noncommitally...

After all, we have to daily deal with these idiots coming in and demanding changes to perfectly good ad art at least a dozen times before it goes to print, on a regular basis.. and maintain a professional demeanor the entire time..
We are quite skilled at making it look like we agree with them... As long as they pay us for our artwork..

"Fine" artists do the same thing..
They develop a "patter", a stand-up routine, that they use at their showings, in art galleries, etc..
They play to their audience..
The opinions expressed therein should not be construed as those of the artist.. even though spoken by him...
They are simply a sales technique, similar to that used by automobile salesmen, ad marketers, etc..

Spielberg is, however, a hollywood film maker..
And they are, indeed, dunces, with no common sense..