MovieChat Forums > One Day in September (2001) Discussion > Golda Meir

Golda Meir

posted 18 years ago by KellyBundy
13 replies | jump to latest

Was Golda Meir ever criticized for not agreeing to the terrorists allowances?
Because normally you try to negatioate. She could have freed 25 or 50 of the palestinian prisoners - as a sign of good will in exchange of some of the hostages. After all this "no negotiations with terrorists" policy didn't work out too well. And it would be too easy to only blame the german police and low security standards at the olympic village.
When it was possible for the Mossad to hunt down 2 of the surviving terrorists it shouldn't have been such a big problem to recapture a couple of those freed palestinians.

[–] Ninja839 18 years ago

I think the problem with dealing with terrorists is that when you make deals with them, it sends a message that this can be repeated and work out, only inspiring more attacks similer to this one.

[–] Ellsass 18 years ago

I agree. Also, it probably encourages governments/groups to seek out "collateral" to hold on to in case another event arises. For example, a gov't could grab some more hostages just for the sake of freeing them later to bargain with a future terrorist attack.

[–] evixir 17 years ago

Bravo -- excellent response.

You can't set that precedent whereupon you cave and release any prisoners as a negotiation tactic, because then it will compel others to initiate their own hostage crises in order to release other prisoners, and so on and so forth ad nauseum. One thing I learned in my studies is that there are certain negotiation tactics that are always off-limits, and one of those is acquiescing to the release of prisoners. You simply can't allow it or else you set a tone for all future hostage crises that puts you at a severe disadvantage, not to mention the rest of your populace that must then deal with criminals walking free yet again. It's a hard-line approach, but it's completely unavoidable. Bending the rules on this particular deal is #1 on the no-no list.

[–] stustreet 18 years ago

The moment you give in to the terrorists demands, it will send a message that terrorism works. This is why Golda Meir's reponse that no Israili will be safe anywhere in the world was the right response.

[–] Bry-2 16 years ago

Too bad terrorists don't learn... and that some governments apparently DO negotiate. Q.v. Neville Chamberlain, 1938.

--The important thing is Post-its.-- M. Scorsese

[–] ds9-3 16 years ago

Britain also negotiated during Dawsons Field hijackings and even released Leila Khaled.
Gold Meir was criticised greatly from all corners of Israel for refusing to negotiate. She did the completely correct thing though. You can't be seen to be giving in when your held to ransom.
Israeli policy has seen an almost non existant threat of hostage situations in my lifetime because of this.

[–] Nglas 16 years ago

considering Israel is located between a bunch of third world countries that claim their religion is about peace and then in the same breath say their religion tells them to murder and kill anyone from Israel, she was right not to negotiate. They would have all the nutjobs freed from prison where they belong to wreak more havoc amongst the world. If she had given in they would have intensified their hijackings and their ransoms would have bordered on evacuating Israel. Those people are nutty enough to believe they could do it.

[–] Pearl_Jade 16 years ago

My feeling is that Meir's stance didn't make a whit of difference to Palestinian extremists. Just 4 years after Munich, where 11 athletes were taken hostage, Palestinian terrorists DID IT AGAIN but took 105 people hostage by hijacking an Air France jet* (until the kidnapped passengers -- Israeli and non-Israeli Jews -- were later rescued by Israeli forces at Entebbe, Uganda, where the plane had been forced to land). If extremists are going to graduate from hostage-taking to suicide bombings no matter what Israel does, then shouldn't negotiations at least be tried -- even as a strategy to buy more time or to wear down the terrorists?

There is something cold about a government that values its individual citizens' lives so little that it would let them be killed for the good of the political cause. Doesn't that come uncomfortably close to resembling their terrorist enemies? Doesn't a government have a duty to protect its citizens abroad? At least Meir could have pretended to negotiate, as Rabin and Peres did at Entebbe when they used the delay to give Israel's defense time to consider and co-ordinate a rescue operation. In Munich, negotiation perhaps would have exhausted the opposing side; or Meir may have even eventually worn down the Germans until they accepted Mossad intervention.

* initially 246 passengers (not counting crew) were on the hijacked plane, but the 148 of those who were not Jewish were allowed to leave.

[–] dkgambler 13 years ago

She was quoted in the film, idiot. If you appease the filthy terrorists it would be open season on Israelis everywhere. How much more clear did she need to be?

[–] Pearl_Jade 12 years ago

You don't read so well. I'm not asking what Meir's stand was. I'm not asking her reasons for that stand. Those issues were made pretty clear in the film. What I am doing is giving my opinion on that stand. I'll repeat it for you: her stand didn't make a whit of difference to terrorists. They just got bolder (or more desperate). Israelis became no safer.

And for the record, I don't agree with appeasing terrorists. But one can negotiate (or, more precisely, pretend to negotiate) without any intention of giving in to their demands. And one does this to (1) buy time to plan another strategy, (2) wear down the terrorists, (3) learn the terrorists' weak points and exploit them.

[–] dkgambler 12 years ago

LOL, I didn't even respond to you. So what shall I say, you don't respond so well?

[–] Pearl_Jade 12 years ago

Sorry. I assumed your post was a direct reply to mine. My opinion on Meir's stance is the same (as, I'm sure, is yours). But I retract my statement that "you don't read so well."

[–] Buff70 11 years ago

Golda Meier explains in the movie, that freeing the prisoners would only make life more dangerous for Jews/Israelis in the world. It would be the absolute wrong message if they gave in, it would show weakness and fear on their part.

Following the ordeal, the Arab world was celebrating their ''heroes'' even without the prisoners being freed, now imagine what euphoria they would be in if hundreds of their goddamn prisoners were out roaming on the streets. Don't you think we have enough of that scum to deal with to this day as it is ??? Does the world need more scumbag generations of terrorists ??