Justice...or Revenge?

In his article "Justice Must be Done," President of the Daniel Pearl Foundation and father of murdered journalist Daniel Pearl argues that Steven Spielberg's film "Munich" succumbs to moral relativism in its portrayal of Middle Eastern terrorism and fails to impart the message that killing of the innocent is wrong.

I find this evaluation wrong on several bases. The conflict of the movie is an internal one within the hero as he struggles with the notion of assassinating the Palestinian terrorists responsible for the murders of nine Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich. He calls the morality of his actions into question, and by doing so, displays a problem with killing. The fact that Mr. Pearl finds offense with is that the hero is not unequivocally in favor of killing those who have killed.

He goes on to frame the argument this way: Since the hero has this internal battle, the film justifies terrorism. He makes this leap of logic based on the assumption that the only proper resolution of a murder is to have the murderer murdered. He never considers that there are other ways of handling the person; he puts forth that the murder of the innocent is wrong, but the murder of the guilty is the only RIGHT thing. Since the hero is not completely committed to this resolution, he finds no fault with the actions taken by the Palestinians, and therefore tacitly condones it.

In the very next paragraph, Mr. Pearl states that "The killers do not interest me. I would rather seek effective ways of lessening the hatred that took Danny's life." Pursuing the murder of the those who beheaded Danny Pearl (the course of action he implies is right through his evaluation of the film) would certainly NOT lessen that hatred, nor does this view support at all the statement that the killers do not interest him.

I submit that the taking of a human life is wrong, regardless of the circumstances. Everyone possesses the right to life, even if they have disregarded this right in others. The view taken by Mr. Pearl is not one of justice, it is of revenge. Justice, a word which he attempts to monopolize in his article, does not advocate the taking of any life. The view that some lives should be taken, even if it's only those of the most guilty, means that not everyone is entitled to theirs, and this is exactly the view taken by the terrorists whom Mr. Pearl condemns.