Moisés Naím: Kathleen, the story goes that you read the book on which this movie was inspired, by George Jonas, called Vengeance, and brought it to Steven Spielberg. What drove you? What moved you?
Kathleen Kennedy: My coproducer, Barry Mendel, came upon this book before both Steven and I did. I thought it was something that Steven might find interesting. It’s important to understand that we don’t look at things and necessarily think about the political context. We’re usually looking for stories that might make interesting movies. We were obviously aware of what had happened at the Olympics in 1972, but what happened after the attack was new to us. And around 2000, we started doing research and talking to people. When 9/11 happened, Steven backed away from the project and said, “I don’t think I can do this. I think it will be viewed as something that looks like it’s exploiting the topic of terrorism.” So we tabled the project for about eight or nine months. Later, we realized that perhaps it was exactly what we should be doing and was a story that needed to be told.
The other day I had a conversation with Steven, and he made a comment that he had never made to me before. He said that, for whatever reason, he felt that this was a movie that kept drawing him into it. He felt that it was a subject matter that he needed to tell. Usually the movies that he’s made, he’s really been the force behind making them happen. But with this, he felt it was something that was really controlling him. So, I think the power of the film is a direct reflection of that.
Naím: Dennis, you have been in the middle of the Israel-Palestine conflict under two presidents. What is your reaction to the film?
Dennis Ross: My reaction to it from the beginning was much more about terror and the responses to terror, and much less about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While it will be emotional to many Israelis and Palestinians, you look at the demographics of both peoples, and you’ll find Munich is ancient history for them. So, it doesn’t have an immediate relevance for them per se. But it does have a relevance in terms of highlighting what happens when you’re confronted with a horrific act of terror and you have to do something about it.
It’s a movie that suggests that you have to respond—it’s understandable that you respond—but when you respond, you’re actually confronted with real dilemmas. And I saw dilemmas built in. The choices are hard, and sometimes you pick the best of the bad alternatives. And it has an effect on the people who do it. I thought that was actually a very interesting story to tell.
Naím: Yes, and in fact Steven Spielberg has said that a response to a response does not solve anything. It just creates a perpetual motion machine of hatred and revenge.
 |
 |
| Dennis Ross, former Middle East envoy | |
 |
Ross: I think that is a perspective that he brings to bear. But I don’t think that every action is morally equivalent. And I don’t think the movie suggests that. In fact, I think the movie creates a context that explains why the Israelis do what they do. Look at how Munich is replayed in [the main character] Avner’s mind throughout the whole course of the movie.
When you respond, you really have to craft your response with care. We confront some hard choices. And not responding to terrorism sends a message that somehow it’s okay—that terrorists can act with impunity. That’s unacceptable. But the nature of your response also has to factor in where you go. What are the implications? Are you better off for having done it or not?
This movie provokes a discussion about targeted killing—but not whether it’s wrong or right. Its message is simply that we ought to talk and think about it. Personally, I don’t view targeted killing as being immoral. I think there are scenarios that I can construct where, in fact, it’s highly moral to kill because you are saving people when you do it. The questions to ask are: Is it practical? Are you better off? And how do you come to a conclusion? I think that’s a really useful discussion to have.
Naím: Anne-Marie, Dennis brings a very pragmatic perspective. What’s your reaction to the idea that targeted killings can be justified and perhaps moral?
 |
|
| Anne Marie Slaughter, dean of the Woodrow Wilson School | |
|
Anne-Marie Slaughter: I watched the movie on one level as a lawyer who has thought about a lot of these issues. But it’s impossible not to watch this movie in terms of the deeper message it’s sending about what violence ultimately does to a society and to the individuals within it. On the targeted killings issue, what kept running through my mind was the parallels to the way we’re trying to fight terror today, and the initial response to Sept. 11, 2001, which of course was Afghanistan, which was a conventional war.
