A few weeks ago, I spent the money and bought a ticket to see Steven Spielberg’s latest masterpiece, “Munich.” As I have come to expect, it was a wonderful film: technically superior, with a compelling story, excellent cinematography, and compelling, well-wrought characters (and, NO, I am not promoting Spielberg’s work).

The story details what happened after 11 Israeli Olympians were taken hostage and killed by Black September, and the 5 Israeli men who were chosen to eliminate those responsible. You can read more about it at the IMDB entry.

While I enjoyed the movie complely, my curiosity was aroused. During the course of the movie, a theme is repeated. The main character (and narrator) comes face-to-face with the leader of a Terrorist group on the other side. It is through a series of interesting events how it occurs, but the other leader does not know who both of them are, while the narrator has full awareness.

The conclusion that the narrator reaches is that the two of them are roughly the same person–or, very similar. They are both passionate about their country and their cause. They are both willing to die for their country and their cause. And, they are both in a dangerous place with few people to trust. This interesting exchange is punctuated by the other leader’s death during one of the narrator’s operations.

Later in the movie, another interesting issue arises. There is dissent amongst the group. One of the team members has been hunted and killed. The remaining team knew who did it, and they decided to kill the hired assassin who did it. The dissenting member pleaded with the narrator: This is not the behavior of a good Jew. What we are doing is bad, and there has to be a time for us to draw the line and stop the killing. While the narrator listened to arguments, he was resolute in his decision. And, he gave the dissenting team member time off. While the team was away on this mission, the dissenting member was also killed.

The sentiments expressed by the dissenting member are not knew. I believe it was Neitsche who said, that when fighting the dragon, be fearful of becoming the dragon itself. Albert Camus argued that we, as a civilization, must become murders when we enforce capitol punishment upon murders–and, it is an unacceptable premise to punish and sanction killing in the same action. In this character’s lines, however, we have the same arguments being dramatized in a contemporary setting. One that is both compelling and pertinent to our current situation in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Lastly, after team members have started to die, personalities have started to change, and the mission is nearing the end, another issue arises. The lines of the movie actually articulate perhaps the most important point of the movie. One character says that for every [Black September member] that we kill in retaliation, 10 more of our own die. They agree and admit that their actions are not solving the problem, but rather making it worse.

In our current situation in Afghanistan and Iraq, an identical argument has been made about the US military presence and operations in the Middle East. Do you think that Spielberg was applying the same argument in film? Can we, as a nation and as a world, learn something from the Israeli past?

What do you think? I am dying to know . . . .