Critic Edward Rothstein takes on the thesis of director Steven Spielberg's new film Munich, which is basically that violence begets violence.

Some excerpts from the NYT article:

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.

The theory asserts that terrorism is a violent and extreme reaction to injustice - the last resort of the oppressed. Typically, this injustice theory is used to explain left-wing terrorism. It not only coincides with the justifications offered by terrorists themselves, but it also accompanies a belief that a just cause lies behind the terrorist attack. The theory is never applied to right-wing terrorism - whether of the brown-shirt or Timothy McVeigh variety - and thus pre-selects its proofs.

Accepting the theory also leads to other convictions. If terrorism is solely the result of injustice, then without the injustice there would be no terrorism. So the best response is to work for justice. Threats, vengeance, security strictures - anything other than the addressing of legitimate grievances is ultimately futile. In particular, since killing terrorists does nothing to alter injustice, it will do nothing to alter terror. Instead, it only leads to more injustice, turning the victims of terrorism into mirror images of the terrorists themselves.

Gradually, as the assassinations begin, the moral weight of their acts brings the team of assassins close to breakdown. Avner (played by Eric Bana) hesitates before shooting one of his targets. The Mossad agents argue about whether they should rejoice in their success. One suggests that the Palestinians learned their tactics from the Israelis. Another, pointing to increasing acts of terror around the world in apparent response to their success, says, "All the blood comes back to us." By the end of the movie, Avner thinks the Israelis are going to kill him. He renounces his country. And he warns of a cycle of violence.

But the film is so intent on its theory that it eagerly departs from previous accounts - or even plausibility about how Mossad agents might act. It supposedly takes its guidance from George Jonas's contested 1984 book, "Vengeance: The True Story of an Israeli Counter-Terrorist Team," which is itself presented as an account based upon the recollections of the disenchanted head of the Mossad team. But Mr. Jonas's Avner, unlike Mr. Spielberg's, is not paralyzed by moral doubt; Mr. Jonas writes that he has "absolutely no qualms about anything they did."

Moreover, 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. These, like the attacks that followed Munich, were part of a continuing war, not evidence of an amorphous cycle of violence that developed out of Israel's attempts to undermine terror.

I personally don't fully buy into the argument that terrorism can be explained as a natural response to injustice. For one thing, who is to define injustice? In some cases, injustice is abundantly clear and well-defined (South Africa in the apartheid years).

However, what if the terrorist acts are carried out by a very small group in a free and democratic society over an issue for which there is wide social consensus (the freedom to choose and have access to an abortion)?

Between the two extremes are difficult situations like the Palestinian conflict.

At this point in history, majority on both sides want negotiated peace, but there are minorities on both sides who see the other's existence as an injustice. For example, Hamas, the militant Islamic group, sees all of Israel as occupied land. Some right-wing Israelis have argued there is no such thing as a Palestinian people.

At the time of the Munich attacks, the official position of the Palestinian Liberation Organization called for the destruction of the state of Israel.

I don't think I can buy the argument that a violent response to a terrorist incident simply begets more terrorism, either in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or in other such political quagmires. For one thing, the absence of a violent response can also beget more terrorism. If the point of the terrorist group isn't to force a just settlement, but to take power on its terms, any state must fight back -- something that could be seen as either just or violently oppressive, depending on one's prism.

I haven't had an opportunity yet to see Munich, so for the purposes of this post, I'm accepting Rothstein's interpretation of the film as correct.

Later this week, I'll see it for myself and decide whether Rothstein treated Spielberg's film fairly.