Me, too, David.  There are some things that happened when I was younger that I have faint memories of adults discussing, radio and television news briefly flashing in my mind.

I was telling a friend the other day that of all the histories of the world of which I am least familiar, Israel is number one.  I would like to find a trustworthy historian and rectify my ignorance.  Well, at least diminish it a bit.

I’ll wait for a rental, but judging by the trailer, it looks pretty good.  I’d second that “not all too familiar with Israel” that the other poster put forward.

Rae, I’d recommmend this book.

The trailer looks good.  (Mythical?  Mythical?  Don’t tell me Santa ain’t real, just don’t.)

Dorkafork, why just yesterday my eleven year-old and I were discussing how people throw accusations of restricting imagination at parents who teach their children that Santa isn’t real, but just a cool story ( my personal favorite is the one by L. Frank Baum), but those same Accusers then go out and buy complete fluff in the form of “books” (read:  Scholastic) for their children.  And they have the audacity to accuse us of stifling imagination?  I repeat:  Cash and The Man in the Year ‘Round Brown Shorts. 

Hmph!

Now, on the more serious matter, thank you for the book recommend.

I thought that was a very cruel recommendation, myself.

Israel’s response to Munich isn’t so much mythical (there were definitely members of the PLO assassinated by Mossad agents) as it is shadowy. Of course, it’s shadowy for a reason, one of the three terrorists that survived Munich is still loose, and presumably still being hunted.

This is actually a great story for a movie (especially now, since all the questions raised neatly parallel the current debate in our country about legal remedies for terrorism vs. military ones), and it’s guaranteed to be controversial. How could it not be? Israel sent agents into other countries, with or without the permission of that government, to kill men (at least once, the wrong man) who’d never been convicted of a crime. Is extra-legal assassination always wrong? Presidents Ford through Bush II seem to think so.

But what was Israel supposed to do? They’d lost 11 citizens in a terrorist attack, and the only three men personally involved were released without trial. Other than by hunting down those responsible, I don’t see how Israel could guarantee the future safety Israelis from similar attacks.

This story could be told at least three very different ways. It could be very pro-Israel, and defend everything done. It could be very anti-Israel, and make the Mossad agents out to be monsters. Or it could be somewhere in the middle.

Obviously it will probably be somewhere in the middle, and I don’t have a problem with that at all. We should be leery of governments acting this way while being aware that sometimes it just might be necessary.

I probably should have said “members of Black October” rather than the PLO, just for clarity.

Also, the “seem to think so” link should have gone directly to section 2.11.

"Mythical” in the sense that the book that the movie uses as it’s starting point has been discredited--not that the events didn’t happen, but that the book was, apparently, not a representation of the actual covert actions. Vengeance: The True Story of an Israeli Counter-Terrorist Team by George Jonas is apparently based on the story of a man who claimed to be part of Mossad but wasn’t.

Of course, I don’t know how much of the movie was based on that book.

Ah, I didn’t know Juval Aviv was proven a liar. Do you have a link to that?

Hold on, the old string of links that I followed to source just got me a 404 error. Let me see if I can find it somewhere else.

In this, the NYTimes simply says that “an important source for Mr. Spielberg’s narrative is a 1984 book by George Jonas, “Vengeance,” based largely on the account of a purported member of the Mossad’s assassination team, whose veracity was later widely called into question.” That’s not quite as good as the other article I remember.

Okay, apparently the Haaretz article has expired, but I found this blog that reprints a good chunk of it:

After [his] identification [as the source of Jonas’ book], the international press began to publish articles about Aviv. Investigative reports about him revealed that he represented himself as a Mossad agent even though he had never worked in the Mossad and certainly had not participated in operations to kill those involved in the athletes’ murder. Aviv, as he emerged from these investigative reports, had a special fondness for conspiracy theories, and it turned out that he was willing to hire out his services to anyone who was willing to pay, even to both sides of the same dispute.

Aviv was born in Kibbutz Kfar Menachem in 1947 as Yuval Aviof. He enlisted in the naval commando but did not complete the training program and transferred to the Armored Corps. A few years after his military service he went to the United States. He worked as a cabdriver and as security guard for El Al in New York; apparently this is his only “security experience.” Senior security sources have told Haaretz in the past that they do not know anyone named Yuval Aviof or Aviv. “Had he been in the Mossad or involved in the operation, we would know him,” they added. Zvi Zamir, who was head of the Mossad during that period, has also stated on several occasions (including to this writer) that he has never known Aviv and that there is no connection between what is related in Jonas’ book and what really happened.

Yes, that sounds like “questionable veracity.”

But it does leave the meat of the story--the terrorist attack and the follow-up assassinations--to work with.

I am seriously concerned that the guy who wrote Angels in America did the script, though. In fact, that’s probably the most worrying part to me.

I do like this comment from the IMDB messages boards:

Please, without going into “he’s a dirty Jew who will tell pro-Israeli lies” or the opposite view of “He’s gonna be soft on those dirty, anti-semetic terrorists”, what do you guys think this movie will be like? Will it redeem Steven or will it be a flop? Will the quick pace keep it frombeing bogged down or will it be too sloppy and unrefined?

Pretty much says the same thing as your post but also captures that there are some lefties worried it will be too pro-Israel.

BTW, what’s so hard about spelling the word Semitic correctly?

Good freakin’ question.

This whole conversation convinces me, though, that I really do need to go see the movie for myself. Maybe you and your wife would like to go see it with girl and me?

Matt:  Cruel recommendation?  How so?

I’ll go out on a limb and say that the politics won’t play a big role in the movie.  I think it will portray the terrorists themselves as unsympathetic, but it will deal mainly with the practical problems of assassinations.  Sort of like the Lord of the Rings line:  “Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends.”

You recommended she read The Complete Idiot’s Guide…

Do they make a complete idiot’s guide to writing funny blog comments that don’t have to be explained using a flowchart?

Glad I didn’t go on about how much I liked it.

I’ve only used Dummies/Idiot’s books for technical stuff, but I have to admit that I’ve always been pretty impressed with their quality.

So, yeah, i could see it being good.

Have I insulted, confused, and/or bored everyone now? Good, my job is done.

Dorkafork- it is actually in tune with what I can read.  I have about three weeks worth of The New Yorker, two months of The Atlantic, two quarters of Modern Age, and the newest The American Scholar sitting next to my bed because almost every night I am reading from one of the Norton Tomes, or writing a paper comparing Petrarch and Catullus, or studying the sentence patterns (and I think I have the Ns+MVtrans+Noc form finally figured out).  If am not reading, or writing, I am trying to read to my daughters; find fast but healthy ways to feed them, make sure they practice piano, running them to swim team, going over math lessons, helping them understand humanity (and that does include the puzzelingly simple group of males 15 and under), talking politics and policy debate with the older ones, and maybe, if we’re all lucky, I do a load of laundry and change the sheets. 

So, your recommendation offends neither my intelligence nor my sensibilities.  See, it’s O.K.  Matt.  It’ll do.  For now.  I am very aware of how my vanities are truly measured against my abilities.  :D

Matt, I think people frequently confuse Semitic and semantic. 

“He is very anti-Semantic.” This could be a true statement.

“Semitics can be difficult to understand.” This could also be true.

It has been my personal experience that many who struggle with semantics also struggle with Semitics.  (Not to be un-PC or guilty of stereotyping, or semantically anti-Semitic).

My uncle’s anti-Symantec.  And I am unabashed anti-simiantic.  Damn dirty apes!

And I am unabashed anti-simiantic.  Damn dirty apes!

Me, too.  Especially disgusting are Bonobos.  Although I find them amusing....

See, David J, who needs shots?  We have your place and your words that kind of just have the same effect on conversations :D

I’m anti-semiotics, mostly because I don’t have any idea what semiotics are. That’s probably a sign of something.

That’s probably a sign of something.

You are too funny.

A lot of anti-semiotics are also anti-semaphoric.  It’s considered a red flag for that sort of thing.

I’m also anti-Seti Alpha V.  KHHHAAAAAAAAAANNNNN!!!!!

Oh boy…

Oh boy...

Dorkafork- heh.  You, too, are too funny.

I just saw Munich.  I thought it was powerful but not a truly great movie.  The script was excellent, albeit flawed.  The principal source for the movie was George Jonas’ account of the hunting down of Black September operatives. 

Julal Aviv has often been attacked.  It should be noted that people who work for Mossad and other such organisations are trained to lie and mislead.  Julal has angered U.S.-Israeli intelligence organisations by alleging that besides Mossad deliberately violating the sovereignity of other countries in killing enemies of the State of Israel, the C.I.A. actually paid Black September not to attack U.S. citizens. 

Most of you will recall Iran-Contra, that “secret” operation in which missiles were traded for cash.  The C.I.A. has used unusual methods to achieve its objectives. 

In the smear campaign launched against Julal he is described as a private detective or private investigator.  The fact that he is the head of a highly regarded intelligence and security company Interfor is hardly touched upon.  He is credited by apparently El Al itself with having analysed and upgraded their security procedures. 

He was hired by Pan-Am as their investigator for Lockerbie. 

That people affiliated with Mossad say “we have never heard of him” and then decide that they have heard of him but he was never involved in anything. .. and was dismissed. . . is typical of the lies that Spymasters offer to Media sources. 

I have personally known someone who killed in Palestine for the State of Israel. He was in Special Forces and his “secret” work troubled him deeply.  Years ago he wanted me to write a book about what he went through. . . 

Munich is a good movie with some powerful scenes.  It does not approach the terribly harmony of “A Color Purple” or “Schindler’s List.” Amistead is, incidentally, one of my favourite Spielberg films.