Friday, August 03, 2007

The man behind "Munich" on Big Wedding II

I caught this over on Covert History:
Fox News speaks with Counterterrorism expert Juval Aviv:
Do you believe another terrorist attack is likely on American soil?

I predict, based primarily on information that is floating in Europe and the Middle East, that an event is imminent and around the corner here in the United States. It could happen as soon as tomorrow, or it could happen in the next few months. Ninety days at the most.
The Independent describes Aviv as one of Mossad's 'Wrath of God' hitmen.

Update: this story was published in 2005. Guess the 90 days is up!
The "Wrath of God" remark deserves further explanation. Juval Aviv was the original of "Avner," the character played by Eric Bana in Spielberg's film "Munich." I had planned to write at length about this superb film during its release, but other matters got in the way.

Among the movie's many terrific performances, the standout is Michael Lonsdale as "Papa," a former French Resistance fighter turned cynical information trader and warm-hearted gourmet cook. If I were hipper, I'd know the real life model for that character. In fact, part of me would like to be that guy.

The "communal dining" motif, which no critic seems to have noticed, is key to the film's meaning. Like Spielberg's War of the Worlds remake, this is a film about family -- and by the story's end, family is defined as those with whom one breaks bread. Ties of race and blood are not necessarily the deciding factors. (None of this should surprise anyone who knows about the makeup of Spielberg's own household.) At the start, Avner regards Ephraim, his Mossad controller, as a pseudo-father. By film's end -- when Ephraim refuses one last request to share a meal -- he has become a stranger; "Papa" is the true substitute parent. Avner also seems alienated from his mother, whose cliche-ridden "Why we must always support Israel" speech doesn't penetrate her son's stone ears. We never see Avner break bread with her, either.

Ephraim, played by Geoffrey Rush, remains something of a mystery. Various sources identify him as the notorious Mossad agent Mike Harari, who was "running" Noriega before his capture. However, the original script identifies Harari by name and makes clear that he is supposed to be someone very different. The writers may have gone down this road for legal reasons. (Early in Citizen Kane, one of the newsmen refers to Hearst, thereby allowing the filmmakers to argue in court, if need be, that they never intended Kane to be seen as Hearst.)

I posit that one spiritual model for Rush's character is Ephraim Halevy, who was the head of Mossad not long ago. In his must-read memoir The Other Side of Deception, Victor Ostrovsky recounts how he was manipulated by Halevy in the days after the former broke with Mossad and before the latter assumed the seat of power. (Ostrovsky never gives Halevy's full name, but he ain't foolin' nobody.) If you read that fascinating book and see Munich in rapid succession, the parallels should be obvious.

Back to Juval Aviv: Many people do not know that he was also the prime mover behind the Interfor report, the key document for those exploring alternatives to the official account of the Lockerbie affair. (See also here.)
Aviv insists that from the start he's been willing to listen to proof that his report is all wrong. But Scottish police investigating Lockerbie have never interviewed him or asked him for his sources.

"I was never told directly that [my report] was wrong," Aviv says. "I was always attacked as the messenger, as somebody who was a fabricator, a lunatic, whatever."
I don't think he is a fabricator. Still, he was wrong about Big Wedding II occurring in 2005. Does that fact affect the credibility of his previous work?

For what little it may be worth, I also felt pretty certain that Big Wedding II would occur in that year. Call it a hunch -- really, a daily gut-level sickness -- that did not pan out. Thank god.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

WOW.

Great post, Joseph.

I loved every second of Munich, which I own, and had really longed for a good critical analysis. I was going to ask some questions of screenplay author Tony Kushner at a lecture of his I attended this past March, but I chickened out. So, thanks for that.

Thanks also for filling in the little ankle-biters like me on the film's historical background. I'd been attempting to piece it together on my own, without great success.

I may have asked you this before, but have you ever seen Sword of Gideon, a film which (I believe) tells essentially the same story? It pales in comparison to Munich in terms of quality, but is still a decent movie. I saw it a week or so after 9/11, when HBO was daring enough to work it into its broadcast schedule. It's got a killer ending.

Anonymous said...

Also...about Big Wedding II's possible "start date" having been in 2005...

I was absolutely convinced it was going to happen in May, or in the first week of June. Everything in the media had been subtly building up to it since January, and you could see the neo-cons, especially in the WH and the Pentagon, positioning themselves.

As for why it didn't...welp, my pet theory has always been that someone influential on the right-wing side of the fence pulled the plug somehow. Maybe that person or group of persons was just a little nervous about the scandal-ridden Bush and history tying the knot in such a permanent way. Maybe he or they simply didn't want to be incinerated along with the rest of us. Don't know. But I've never thought it was an accident that Bill Clinton and H.W. went on that extra-long golfing trip right around the time Big Wedding II was allegedly supposed to happen and then Big Wedding II didn't happen.

A friend who has heard my theory thinks the neo-cons just got greedy, and postponed moving into Iran because they wanted to confirm Roberts as well as nail down a couple other loose boards, but then Katrina hit and Bush's approval tanked and then Fitz descended upon Libby and they were forced to wait until they could find a better window. She sees them continuing to try for an Iran invasion, which, well--regardless of how we got here, is what I see them doing, too.

Anonymous said...

His alternate Lockerbie scenario is one that has corroboration from overseas sources, German intel for one, as I understand it, who stood in mute witness but saw the drug courier's bag(s) being detoured past the security check, as had been the practice they'd seen before with this particular courier on that particular drug route.

This had been all but wrapped up, with even the US government's tacit agreement on the basic facts, until Bush 41 needed Syria's participation in the first Gulf War coalition. Then, it became highly embarrassing for some Bekaa Valley smuggling arrangement run out of Damascus to show up in that bombing, and an alternate scapegoat was found in Libya.

Another claim is that the reason for the bombing was the returning squad of special forces or military intel types, who had been around the Bekaa Valley and had seen the smuggling that had corrupted local US officials and/or the military there, and they were being silenced prior to their arrival back home to tell their tale.

sofla

Hyperman said...

A very interesting text on the topic of conspiracy theories
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/07/ones-divine-incipience.html