Book review: Vengeance by George Jonas

I addressed the following to my partner, Bill Shang, who gave me the book "Vengeance" as a Christmas gift:

What a great choice you made! I thoroughly enjoyed the book. I was also glad to read the author's epilogue (that might have been in the original, I'm not sure) and after word (called "Notes on a Controversy", new to this edition). The latter includes his responses to criticisms leveled at the time (unsurprisingly, this did include quite a bit of author-bashing on the point that the Soviet Union was behind - or at least supportive of - much of the terrorism that was occurring in the 1970's), including the veracity of the account. He makes a very strong case for his account, and his critics look to me to be agenda-driven boobs. Yes, he is the writer, and can create an impression that is self-aggrandizing, but I don't think that's it. I think he was as honest as he could be, including stating when events or details are at odds with another's writing on the same subject, or if he could not independently verify things himself. The critics seem motivated by a desire for him to be wrong, regardless of whether what he was writing about was true.

I am, if anything, even more reluctant to see "Munich" now than I had been previously. My initial reluctance was based on the response of those whose writing I admire to the movie, many of whom viewed at as an exercise in post-modernist moral equivalence. Here is an example. (A quick note on this column: I am with him until the last paragraph; what he states there is what Jonas claims to have happened, so the earlier parts of the column decrying ignorance of the historical record make the last paragraph, um, ironic.) Perhaps if you read the book, you can tell me if you think that the movie is as bad as all that.

I do have ambivalence about the way in which Israel conducts its affairs, especially the way in which they stiffed "Avner" and then threatened to do something excruciatingly painful to his family (I don't want to give away something that might not have been treated in the movie, in case you want to read the book). I don't begrudge Israel having carried out this operation - not in the least. What happened in Munich, had it happened to the US, probably would have led to a much more devastating response than what Israel undertook, although that might in largest part be due to the nature of Israel's enemy (i. e., being a non-state actor). If anything, Israel comes off as being on a higher moral plane than the terrorists who attacked it, although the author does not gloss over the Zionist terrorism that led to Israel's founding. If Spielberg wanted to create a genuine moral dilemma (assuming Krauthammer's presentation of the movie version as being facile is accurate), he could have contrasted the terrorism that led to Israel's founding with the counter-terrorism in which Israel/Avner engaged in the 1970's. That, to me, would leave me struggling with internal mental conflict over the morality of terrorism and counter-terrorism.

As I said earlier, reading this makes me think that my life is incredibly boring. However, everyone involved in this game of espionage must have some very weird psychological interest in being a player, as they must know that they are the hunted as well as the hunters. Any double-cross could lead to their demise at any moment. Things that they did 20 years ago could still motivate someone to exact revenge, so they can't escape it by "retiring". Who wants to live that way? It is analogous to my reaction as a younger person to the Corleone family in "The Godfather": all that power, all that wealth, and how did they live? Locked in their compound, fearful of going out in public, preoccupied constantly by threats to themselves and their families. Boring doesn't seem so bad in comparison.

So that's my instant reaction. If Krauthammer's review of Spielberg's "Munich" is generally on point, then I urge you to avoid the movie and read the book. A real-life spy thriller which raises many questions, it is very well-written and fast paced. And any author whose "New Left" (as he calls them) critics accuse him of "Reagan-itis" must be doing something right.