The warning and image are meant to suggest that militant attempts to destroy terrorism lead not to peace but to cycles of violence, and that the 9/11 attacks may even be consequences of Israel's response to the Munich massacre. A war on terror amplifies terror. Moreover, the movie teaches, opposing sides begin to resemble each other. Moral credibility is destroyed along with hope.

The same argument is being made now about the war in Iraq, of course, as well as about Israel's continuing responses to terrorism. Indeed, before “Munich” opened, when it was reported that the film would emphasize the ethical qualms of the Mossad assassins, Mr. Spielberg explained, “By experiencing how the implacable resolve of these men to succeed in their mission slowly gave way to troubling doubts about what they were doing, I think we can learn something important about the tragic standoff we find ourselves in today.” But can we? Though said to be “inspired by real events,” Mr. Spielberg's film taps into a highly influential theory about terrorism that itself bears little relation to what is known about this history.

Edward Rothstein then goes on to drive a stake through the “blame the victim” “cycle of violence” theory of terrorism. He knows his history:

. . . . 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.

I expect to see a herd of airborne porkers flapping past my window any minute now. . . .

Abe Foxman is the matter to the NYTimes anti-matter: He likes it, go figure. But the Times has a lot more clout than Foxman, who is already on the ropes for thinking that the Christian Right in the US is worth more fear-mongering rhetoric than the Islamist/Arab terrorist global network. (In fact, that explains why he liked “Munich.”)

Debbie Schlussel hates it, of course: Spielberg's Munich Pact is one long fisking.

Another cautiously positive review from Judea Pearl, Israeli-born father of journalist Daniel Pearl, murdered by Islamofascists in Pakistan. Pearl founded a Muslim-Jewish dialogue group after his son's murder, and has been understandably reluctant to modify his hopes for peace through mutual understanding. He did get a reality check earlier this year, but his review shows a man still desperately trying to see the good in everyone. He acknowledges all the moral equivalence Spielberg dishes out, but claims that any viewer is going to come away understanding what's what:

Fortunately, Spielberg the artist does not let Spielberg the philosopher or debts to political correctness obscure the inherent asymmetry in the Middle East violence. The moral distinction between those who pride themselves on maximizing innocent casualties and those who labor to minimize such casualties shines through the action itself, the development of the plot and even the tone of the speakers.

. . . Indeed, what makes Munich a strong film is that, despite the sophistry on the symmetry of violence, one cannot but leave the theater with thoughts that are nobly asymmetrical.
“Two of the Munich murderers are still at large,” I kept telling myself, “Will the wheels of history honor our generation with an opportunity to bring them to justice?”

Whether Steven Spielberg meant to implant such provocative thoughts subliminally, or they surfaced naturally in reaction to sophistry and platitude, Munich should be commended for evoking healthy, commonsensical, and civilization-preserving thoughts in viewers' mind.

I could see making a case that Spielberg did this, although it presents a heavy growth of stubble to Occam's Razor. But Tony Kushner? No way.

Powerline posts another review, that points out another fact I had forgotten in my exhaustive history:

In March 1973 Black September proceeded to murder the American ambassador to Sudan and his deputy in Khartoum. Those murders occurred on the direct order of Yasser Arafat, who of course lived to become the most frequent foreign guest in the Clinton White House.