Here’s a graph by New York Times arts and cultural editor Edward Rothstein in a 12.26 piece that’s critical of Munich, and it’s worth quoting: “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.” For what it’s worth, this sums up what I like the most about this Steven Spielberg film…what it rhetorically says about the Israeli-Palestinian quagmire rather than what it delivers in dramatic/cinematic/European thriller absorption terms. This makes it “worthy” in a very sincere and genuine sense, but anyone who says Munich truly knocked their socks off and rang their bell as a visceral cinematic thing is…well, I don’t see how anyone can say that with any sincerity.