The Evocative Ethical Quandary of Steven Speilberg s Masterfully Organized Munich
In Steven Spielberg's superb political thriller "Munich," the Mossad, or the Israeli secret death squad, is assigned to hunt down and assassinate the 11 Palestinian terrorists who masterminded the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre of 11 Israeli athletes.
Avner (played by Eric Bana) is the leader of the secret police, and he has to leave his wife and newborn son to carry out this secret mission. The most significant internal ethical dilemma in the film is that he's forced to murder those responsible for an unprecedented terrorist act, in opposition to his own moral code. Yet he knows just how rewarding (and challenging) this task can be if he's willing to stick up to this ultimately risky ordeal and get the job done in association with other intelligence agents. Later on in the movie, however, he begins to realize how just far this reprisal has had on his own sense of overarching decency.
It is clear to say that the main character in the film abides by many complex ethical decision-making principles in a particularly blurred fashion. Since he is not willing to take a strong leadership position in a potent act of revenge in the beginning, his own virtues and interests are put to the test when the Israeli intelligence agency requires him to do something they think doesn't violate their country's edicts. Nonetheless, he finally decides to leave his civilian life behind and go on the trail of the elusive Palestinian guerrillas. In the end, he might as well prove to himself and his fellow Mossad collaborators that what's unethical in their own world is not so unethical in terms of the external environment (i.e. the Israeli government). The act of vengeance against their greatest enemies can improve upon their sense of community and brotherhood. The act of vengeance can also make the lives of other Israelis affected by the Olympics tragedy safer and more secure. Yet, despite all of these promisingly positive outcomes, they come to bear with the "flip-sided" consequences of their actions as well. And, in the end, it happens to be that the latter rings all too more truly than the former.
To be honest with you, abiding by the rules and regulations of the external environment against the will of your own ethical code of conduct is a fact of life I refuse to abide by. Although acts of vengeance or revenge in the aftermath of a catastrophic socio-cultural and political event may not be as highly publicized as the devastation itself, I don't contemplate myself being a managerial leader of a secret agency. It is in my long-term self-interest not to carry out attacks against people who may not be directly responsible for carrying out an act of terrorism, based on possibly faulty intelligence. No matter how "good" his counter terrorism partners thought the mission was handled overall, I would have to say that the protagonist in "Munich" believes he has violated the personal human rights and social justices of Palestinians who were not directly involved in the Munich Massacre. In other words, it is not hard to admit that he has violated the managerial principle of distributive justice among both his friends and his Palestinian targets. That said, I couldn't attest to him more.