On September 5, 1972 during the Olympics held in Munich, West Germany, a Palestinian

terrorist group by the name Black September took hostage and eventually murdered eleven

Israeli athletes. The Games of the Twentieth Olympiad, which came to be known as the Serine

Games, were tragically disrupted by this act of brutality causing the spill of Jewish blood on

German soil once again. The symbolism of this event gives way to a range of issues that only

complicated and heightened the level of significance this act of terror already had. This incident

was labeled as a devastating international crisis and was quickly responded to by the Western

World. In response, the entire Arab population was left responsible for the actions of a few

Palestinian militants. The events that happened in Munch presented to the world a set of issues

that have been deliberated over and required immediate attention. But while the factors that

influenced the events at Munich were diverse, attention in the West heavily emphasized a

ruthless picture of the Arab people.

The media, popular, and political representation of the events of the Munich Massacre

and its causes blatantly reinforced traditional Western stereotypes about Arabs. The media

presentation of the events in Munich resulted in a picture of Jewish victims and Palestinian

aggressors that reinforced traditional stereotypes of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The

negligence of the media output to fully understand both sides of the argument presented the

Western people with content that was only in support of the Israeli cause. Simon Reeve, author

of One Day in September, reminds us that until we can fully comprehend the struggles of both

the Palestinian and Israeli people we cannot discriminate against the Arab race.

The West typically views such barbarous attacks with disgust, and the perpetrators as “evil terrorists.” But the roots of the anger and frustration that gave birth to Black September, and led to that assassination of Wasfi Tell1 and the attack in Munich, run deep, back through centuries, to the very heart of the dispute between the Israelis and the

1 Wasfi Tell, Jordan Prime Minister, 1970.

2

Palestinians. It is impossible to comprehend either the anguish felt in Israel when Black September occupied 31 Connollystrasse2 or the desperation of the Munich attackers without understanding the tragic history of both sides.3

The perspectives of the Palestinian people regarding the attack were essentially obsolete in

Western media. In using Edward Said’s concept of Orientalism as an analytical tool, one can

project the negative preconception Arabs were exposed too in Western publication. In

simplistic terms, Orientalism is the depiction of the “Other” as strange and therefore potentially

dangerous. Through an Orientalist perspective, Western media presentation depicted an

overwhelmingly negative connotation of the Arab people and failed to give identity to the

Palestinian society which resulted in a biased portrayal. Therefore, the perspective of the English

language media reporting on the Munich Massacre was shaped by Orientalist preconceptions

about Arabs, and in turn the media attention reinforced negative attitudes toward Arab people in

the general western population. The significance of these events portrayed in an Orientalist

approach only further isolated the Palestinian cause from any intervention by Western political

action. The geopolitical significance of the Munich Olympics is the result of the longstanding

history in the Mideast region.

Edward Said, author of the seminal 1978 text Orientalism,4 argues that the depictions of

"the Arab" is seen as “irrational, menacing, untrustworthy, anti-Western, dishonest, and--perhaps

most importantly—prototypical.5” Orientalism, as Said defines it is “a manner of regularized (or

Orientalized) writing, vision, and study, dominated by imperatives, perspectives, and ideological

biases ostensibly suited to the Orient.”6 The Orient is created by the West and serves the West as

2 Address of building in the Olympic Village that housed the Israeli delegation.3 Simon Reeve, One day in September: The full story of the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre and the Israeli revenge operation Wrath of God, (New York: Arcade, 2000), 21-21.4 Edward W. Said, Orientalism, (New York: Random House, 1978).5 Said, Orientalism.6Said, Orientalism, 202

3

an image of what is inferior and alien, but it is the Oriental, or person who represents this image.7

The image of an Oriental comes from the contemporary Orientalist attitude which is dominated

by the press and the popular mind. According to Said, this image is typically that of Arabs being

“camel- riding, terroristic, hook-nosed, venal lechers whose undeserved wealth is an affront to

real civilization.”8 Because of the construct of everyday Orientalism in the Western World, this

generalization exists for the entire Arab culture and identity. Westerners start by describing one

individual to generalizing about a country to then stereotyping an entire region of the world.

The everyday Orientalist has the illusion that they know and understand Arab culture but

in reality Westerners fail to comprehend Arabism and differentiate it from terroristic action. This

notion of the “other” is due to ignorance combined with plain prejudice that makes Westerners

vulnerable to predetermined generalizations of Arabs. Western society is consumed with

influential journalists and media publications that portray these stereotypes to the public and

continue to present the Orient or “other” as weak, irrational, and dangerous. This creates the fear

many Westerners have towards Arabs which is that of an Orientalist viewpoint where Arabs are

seen as a threat to democracy and Western ideals. Edward Said’s notion of Orientalism provides

an analytical construct that helps us make sense of the media response to the Munich Massacre.

As one of the many outcomes of the on-going Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the events that

happened on the day of September 5, 1972 left the world in suspense. The Munich Olympics

had been monumental for a number of reasons, one specifically being the first event of the

century to display new satellite technology in which media sources could output the Games to an

astonishing television audience of nearly one billion people in over one hundred different

7 Said, Orientalism, 202-38 Said, Orientalism, 43

4

countries.9 This mass amount of media attention presented an ideal international stage for radical

groups to bring their grievances to anyone watching around the world. Seizing this opportunity

were members of the Black September Organization (BSO), an extremist faction within the

Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).10 The formation of the BSO was a result of the

slaughtering of thousands of Palestinian guerillas in Jordan by King Hussein’s Hashemite

regime. At the time, sixty percent of the Jordan population consisted of Palestinians who were

committed to overthrowing his administration.11 The massive strike ordered on the Palestinian

militants occurred on September 17, 1970 and ended with the death of at least four thousand

Fedayeen.12 As a result, this event came to be known by Palestinians as Black September, the

namesake of the organization.

Many of the Palestinians residing in Jordan during the early 1970s fled to Syria and the

Lebanese capital of Beirut, where activists began to rebuild their terrorist infrastructure.13 As the

BSO continued to grow in strength and size, their attacks became more structured and deadly.

Recruits from the PFLP14 and as-Sa’iga15 added to the massive increase in power as people

around the world were finally becoming more exposed to its deadly operations. One of which

was the Munich Massacre, Black September’s most prevalent attack.

On the morning of September 5, 1972 at approximately 4 A.M. Munich time, eight

Palestinian members of the BSO entered the Olympic Village at an unguarded location.

9 Reeve, One Day in September, 110 Reeve, One Day in September, 2211 Aaron J. Klein, Striking back the 1972 Munich Olympics Massacre and Israel's deadly response. (New York: Random House, 2005), 34-34.12 Reeve, One Day in September, 2113 Reeve, One Day in September, 3114 Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) is a Marxist-Leninist, secular, nationalist Palestinian political and paramilitary organization, founded in 1967. Second in size to Fatah. (Sela, Avraham, and Moshe Ma'oz, eds. PLO and Israel from armed conflict to political solution, 1964-1994. New York: St. Martin's, 1997. Print.)15 A Palestinian Baathist political and military faction created and controlled by Syria. (Avraham & Ma’oz)

5

Disguised as athletes dressed in track suites the small brigade, along with their duffle bags filled

with artillery, began to head in the direction of 31 Connollystrasse, the building that housed the

Israeli delegation. With prefunded efficiency group leader Luttif Afif (a.k.a Issa) had his squad

of terrorists in place and ready for takeover of the Israeli unit. The first apartment the terrorists

approached was occupied by Israeli wrestling coaches and weightlifting referees. Yossef

Gutfreund, wrestling referee and Moshe Weinberg, wrestling coach, were the first casualties of

the attack. Both men resisted the Palestinian take over and gave opportunities for their fellow

countrymen to escape, two of which successfully accomplished.

After a short period of Israeli resistance the BSO members eventually captured nine

Israeli hostages from the multiple Jewish apartments in the complex. The demand of 200

Palestinian terrorists released from Israeli prisons was then given. However, Israeli Prime

Minister Golda Meir stood firmly behind Israeli policy to resist negotiation with any terrorist, “If

we should give in, then no Israeli anywhere in the world can feel that his life is safe.”16 With full

support of the Knesset, Prima Meir turned the responsibility of her athlete’s safety over to the

German government who was beginning to feel directly at fault and unprepared to resolve the

crisis. East German journalists who were watching the events unfold at Connollystrasse recorded

a chronology of events that was recently uncovered in the files of the Stasi17, which read, “at 11

A.M. Munich Police appear more hysterical than in control.”18 With the entire world watching,

German officials had begun to panic and became irrational with fears of another Jewish massacre

occurring on German soil only 27 years apart. Under immense pressure from an international

audience who had been watching the events unfold live, German rescue officials made one

16 Reeve, One Day in September, 6117 Ministry for State Security of East Germany 18 Reeve, One Day in September, 62

6

mistake after another. This series of mistakes eventually led to the deaths of all nine Israeli

hostages as well as one German police officer.

Initial reports of the crisis which had been published world-wide had said that all

hostages were saved and that the German rescue attempt was successful. This misleading report

was given by a spectator who stood up in front of the thousands of media and German spectators

outside of the airfield where the hostages had been taken and announced for an unknown reason

that “everything is fine, the hostages have been released!”19 Almost immediately following the

announcement media officials broadcasted the story world-wide alluding even the highest of

government officials. The headline of the Jerusalem Post on September 7th had read:

“HOSTAGES IN MUNICH RELEASED – ALL SAFE AFTER GERMANS TRAP ARABS AT

MILLITARY AIRPORT.”20 The suffering this headline brought to the victims’ families was

cruel and traumatizing. Whether the false report was a failed attempt at saving the German

reputation or an Olympic fan hoping to restore the Olympic spirit, the media’s reaction will be

remembered as a terrible moment for television history and an example of the media’s

overwhelming desire to be present.

Among the literature surrounding the Munich Massacre few publications delve into the

significant role the media played. This is astonishing because it was of the media’s

overwhelming presence that the BSO chose the Munich Olympics as their place of attack. With

an international audience of nearly one billion the PLO had a perfect opportunity to express the

Palestinians grievances to the world. One Day in September by Simon Reeve accentuates the

importance of such a large audience better than any of the other leading scholars of this event.

Reeve also establishes the most impartial stance between the Israeli concerns and the Palestinian 19 Reeve, One Day in September, 128.20 Jerusalem Post, “Hostages in Munich Released,” September 7, 1972.

7

motives of the attack. Aaron J. Klein, former Israeli Intelligence officer and correspondent in

Time Magazine's Jerusalem bureau wrote Striking Back from an entirely different stance than

that of Reeve.

From the beginning Klein writes in an angered and frustrated manner addressing the

mistakes made by both the German and Israeli governments. He argued cowardice of the

German government because of their unorganized response to the crisis and also placed blame on

the Israeli government for using Munich as reason to attack PLO officials and thus further the

Israeli agenda. His arguments were based on facts he garnered from his past experience working

in Mossad. George Jonas, a Hungarian-born Canadian author had challenged Klein’s position

and argued in his book Vengeance21 that the Israelis response, Wrath of God22 had been wrongly

perceived as an act of terrorism rather than a legitimate military action. This is supported by

Steven Spielberg who is Jewish-American and director of the controversial film, Munich, were

he centers the bases of the movie from the arguments formed in Jonas’ book, Vengeance. Pro-

Zionist Organizations in America had placed several complaints about the pro-Palestinian

distortion in Spielberg’s film. Groups such as the Zionists Organizations in America (ZOA)

argued that the movie portrayed the Israeli revenge operation too closely to Palestinian acts of

terror. Attacks were specifically directed at Tony Kushner, a screenwriter for Munich and a Jew

that radically opposes the Israeli mistreatment of Palestinians. The significance of Israel’s

beloved Spielberg producing a movie with such a radical position speaks forcefully of how he

feels towards the Israeli foreign policy. The revenge operation and Israel’s stance towards the

Palestinians continues to be a principle debate in the events surrounding the Munich Massacre.

21 George Jonas. Vengeance. (New York: Bantam, 1985).22Wrath of God was a covert operation directed by Israel and the Mossad to assassinate individuals who they believed to have been directly or indirectly involved in the 1972 Munich massacre.

8

The Blood of Israel,23 written by Serge Groussard is about the only publication to not discuss in

great detail the controversial Wrath of God operation.

Instead Groussard directs attention to areas such as Palestinian refugee camps and the

diplomacy of Arab governments. Groussard and Reeve are similar in that both are impartial and

both focus on the political issues that they believe were the principle reasons for this conflict. As

both authors highlight great points, both have weaknesses as well. Groussard goes into greater

detail than Reeve but is handicapped by the amount of information available to him at the time of

his publication in1974. Reeve has access to the newly released Kopel Reports and has a better

understanding of the political agenda of both the Israeli and Palestinian sides. Abu Daoud, sole

survivor of Black September and mastermind behind the Munich attack, wrote Memoirs of a

Palestinian Terrorist,24 a book that highlights the history of the Palestinian resistance movement.

Being that this publication is written from the Palestinian perspective makes it unique from all

the others published. Essentially Memoirs develops into the conclusion that everything the PLO

is doing is legitimate and necessary in order to further the Palestinian movement. Without

question Daoud contradicts many of the prior viewpoints and expresses his satisfaction towards

the Munich events as he perceives this crisis not as a massacre but rather as plain justice.

This seems to be the central argument of most literature surrounding the Munich

Massacre. Although Reeve and Groussard simply address the issue of media, no expert seems to

delve into the significance of the media in the larger picture. Black September hoped to harness

media attention and with it draw the eyes of the West to the plight of the Palestinians. So media

23 Serge Groussard and Harold J. Salemson. The Blood of Israel: the Massacre of the Israeli Athletes: The Olympics, 1972. (New York: Morrow, 1975).24Abou Daoud. Palestine: A History of the Resistance Movement by the Sole Survivor of Black September. (New York: Arcade Publishing, 2007).

9

reaction was a central goal of the project from the beginning. However, what the BSO did not

recognize and few scholars have noted is that western journalistic perspectives were so heavily

shaped by the legacy of Orientalist perspectives that the events had an effect opposite to that they

were intended to have. The media portal of the Munich Massacre has made it evident that the

world was enraged at the “Arab” people and “their” acts of terrorism. The frustration of their

attack which had disrupted the “Peaceful Games” annoyed the world and left people outside of

the Arab culture to partake in the traditional stereotyping of Arabs. Among the literature that

has been published discussing the Munich Massacre few scholars have yet to delve into the

Western perception of Arabs associated with the Munich Massacre using Orientalism as a tool or

concept to recognize the prejudice Arab culture faces.

The media coverage of the Munich Massacre presented an Orientalist perspective

towards Arabs. Newspaper and magazine titles such as “Horror and Death at the Olympics,”25

“Black September’s Ruthless Few,”26 “Terror at the Olympics,”27 and “Shadow of Death at

Munich,”28 are sources that depict the Black September terrorists as “barbaric,” “evil,” and

“vicious.” Said argues that Islam and the Middle East regions are too often depicted as dangerous

and threatening and therefore pose a threat to Western ideals which reflects how the perception

of Arabs are presented in Western media. Said’s argument confirms that the West feels the need

to demoralize the Orient in order for it to feel secure.29

In conjunction with Western media, other government news agencies around the world

perceived the Massacre as an international crisis and an unnecessary disruption to the Games.

25 Time, “Horror and Death at the Olympics”, September 18, 1972, 22-30.26 Time, “Black September's Ruthless Few," September 18, 1972, 33.27 Newsweek, "Terror at the Olympics," September 18, 1972, 24-32.28 Life, "Shadow of Death at Munich," September 15, 1972, 4-14.29 Said, Orientalism, 22.

10

This reaction to the events at Munich consequently condemned all Arabs around the world.

Western thought still considers Arabism responsible for the attack. B’nai B’rith,30 the global

voice of the Jewish community had said that “the murders and barbarism are not isolated acts but

are a repeated consequence of the overt and tacit support and encouragement, and the

comfortable sanctuary, which Arab governments have given to terrorist groups.” Bertram

Zweibon, National Chairman of the Jewish Defense League made the statement that “retaliation

can only be done by the assassination of Arab diplomats all over the world” It went on to say that

Arab nations “harbor, train, and finance Arab ‘butchers’ and that the world “continues to be the

silent witness of Arab barbarity.”31 This statement by Zweibon reinforces the Western perception

of Arab culture and society. The label, “Arab butchers” speaks forcefully about the lack of

understanding Western people have regarding the Arab people. Media coverage was attracted by

stereotypes such as this and therefore relayed such Arab generalizations forward to Western

headlines. When discussing the attack with other athletes, American distance runner Frank

Shorter exhibits the typical Oriental attitude towards the Arab people. “Imagine how it must be

for them in there, some maniac with a machine gun saying, ‘Let’s kill ’em now,’ and another one

saying, ‘No let’s wait awhile.’” This comment ascertains how Western people perceive Arab’s

to be merciless, indiscriminately and exceptional brutal. Shorter arrives at this perception as a

result of being surrounded by Western media and its biases towards people of the Mideast.

When using Orientalism to conceptualize this event, this is the expected response from the

Western World.

30 B'nai B'rith International (BBI) is the global voice of the Jewish community, is the most widely known Jewish humanitarian, human rights, and advocacy organization. BBI has been established since 1843 and has worked for Jewish unity, security, continuity, and tolerance.31 Arnold, Martin. 1972. “Head of U.N. Condemns Raid as a ‘Dastardly Act,’” New York Times, September 6, 1972.

11

However, this is not an accurate generalization of the Arab culture. In a letter written to

Chancellor Willy Brandt of West Germany, King Hussein wrote, “it was a horrible crime” and

“in the name of the Jordan Government and people, I convey to you our affliction and our anger

at this act of violence perpetrated against the civilized world.” Hussein added that the crime was

the work of “sick minds, who are opposed to humanity, the Palestinian people and Jordan and

opposed to Arabism, its traditions, its values and its cause.”32 To an everyday Westerner Hussein

appears to recognize the danger Arabism faces in the Western world and the fear that Orientalist

preconceptions will destroy its image in the international community. His comment is certainly

an act of defiance against the PLO and without doubt helps to separate the Arab culture from that

of the Oriental stereotypes. Hussein condemns the terror that was used to try and further the

Palestinian cause but interestingly enough does not speak out against the cause itself. Hussein

even identifies the Palestinians as a people with an identity. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect

to consider regarding Hussein’s comment is that Jordon is an authoritarian regime that receives

support, trade, and aid from Western countries, in particular the United States.33 Sankaran

Krishna, author of Globalization & Postcolonialism argues that “such autocracies have been

crucial in the maintenance of Western capitalist development and the sustained growth of their

economies, whether through import of cheap oil or sale of military equipment or other means.”34

This evidently proves why other authoritarian governments such as Egypt, Syria, Cairo and

Lebanon had their national media sources condemn or remain silent about the massacre despite

any possible satisfaction Arab people may have felt about this “act of liberation.” Despite the

32 Arnold, New York Times, September 6, 1972.33 Sankaran Krishna. Globalization and Postcolonialism: Hegemony and Resistance in the Twenty-first Century. (New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2009).34 Krishna, Globalization and Postcolonialism, 140

12

decision of Arab governments to remain silent or even condemn the Munich attack, the

Jerusalem Post presented the entire Arab culture in a stark Orientalist fashion.

The Jerusalem Post, predominantly a publication that aligns it’s self with the Israeli

government and traditionally supports its agenda, had published an article on September 7th 1972

that distinctly and fallaciously presented the Arab people in a typical Orientalist concept. The

article titled “Arab press condones Munich killings” states from the beginning that the brutal

slaughtering of Israeli athletes by the Palestinian militants was essentially “alright” in the

perspective of the Arab people. However an oriental prejudice by Jerusalem Post journalists

created media inaccuracy in their publications. Even though the headline of the article stated that

the Arab press condoned the terrorist attack in Munich the evidence presented did not support the

argument. The Post stated that the front pages of two of Cairo’s three Arabic-language

newspapers had head representatives of the Syrian and Lebanese Olympic missions speaking

negatively about the crisis.35 They were quoted as saying the “terrorist action should not have

happened and did not further the Arab cause.”36 In no way does this statement convey the

message that Arab people had accepted the attack committed by the BSO. In the same Jerusalem

Post article the “AL Ahram” was quoted saying that the action of the BSO was a “daring and

sudden operation which stunned the entire world.”37 Even though this statement eludes readers to

believe that the Arab people see the BSO militants as “daring” or even brave, the AL Ahram

published this statement without knowledge of the airport deaths. For the Jerusalem Post to

include this statement already aware of the Israelis deaths was for them to publish with the

intention of creating an image of Arab barbarity. Another article published in the Post on

September 6th titled “Most Arab news media condone the massacre” used language that was not 35 “Arab Press Condones Munich Killings,” Jerusalem Post, September 7, 1972.36 “Arab Press,” Jerusalem Post, September 7, 197237 “Arab Press,” Jerusalem Post, September 7, 1972

13

strong enough for conviction of the Arab press. Phrases such as “tended to” and “appeared that”

were used to describe Egypt’s attitude as well as the rest of the Arab world saying that “The

news media of the rest of the Arab world tended to justify the terrorist outrage… and appeared to

identify itself with the massacre carried out by the BSO…”38 It is evident that the media was

desperately attempting to create an Orientalist image of the Arab using media negativity to gain

public support against the Palestinian and Arab dispute. When looking at the Massacre through

the concept of Orientalism this is exactly what the media was intending to do.

In the same article (which takes excerpts from several different Arab news agencies) the

AL Moharer stated that the Munich attack would harm the Arab image and that “public opinion

has always been against the Arabs, never taking their side in the (Israeli) dispute into

consideration”39 When reporting on the Munch attack through an Orientalist lens this is exactly

the message that is perceived. Peter Jennings, former ABC broadcaster who had experience

reporting from the Middle East had sarcastically said, “I kept saying to people, well, you know

there’s nothing in the Palestinian nature which suggests they’re going to murder these people.”

Western people have been culturally trained to categorize the Arab and think in this mindset.

The article from the Post reinforces this thought and continues to further demonize the Arab

governments and lure the world to see the Arab as heartless and insensible. Both the Al Ahram

and Al Akhbar refrained from editorial comments on the Munich crisis but allowed editorials for

what they called Israel terrorism. In doing this, Arab media was attempting to draw world

attention to the supposed Israeli barbarism instead of the negative image of the BSO in Munich.

To the many Arab countries receiving support from Western governments, official acceptance of

the Munich attack would negatively impact their countries welfare in the international

38 Anan Safadi, “Most Arab News Media Condone the Massacre,” Jerusalem Post, September 6, 1972.39 “Arab Press,” Jerusalem Post, September 7, 1972.

14

community. Involvement of the US and that of other Western governments leads one to the

conclusion that conflicts of the Mideast region are no longer becoming strictly Mideast affairs.

These conflicts are beginning to draw the attention of other countries around the world thus

developing an Orientalist interpretation of Mideast concerns in Western publics because of

prejudice journalistic writing styles. Arabic leaders recognize the danger Arabism faces in the

Western world and fear that Orientalist preconceptions will destroy its image in the international

community and therefore destroying any or all Western support.

The media presentation of the cruelty of the Munich Massacre reinforced an already anti-

Arab perspective in the West. Despite a wealth of literature relative to the Munich crisis,

Western media presented limited publications on the Palestinian perspective. Those that were

released mentioned possible motives of the BSO but eventually condemned their actions. Even

though some articles released exposed the Palestinian viewpoint it inevitably drew attention to

how Palestinians and other Arabs rejoiced at the news of the Munich tragedy. This image only

alienated the Palestinian people and reinforced an already “barbaric” identity. Too often the

Western public is exposed to media that has the predetermined assumption that “they hate us

because of who we are, with the word “they” standing in for Arabs all over the world40. Because

the vast majority of Western civilization lacks an understanding accurate enough to fully

conceptualize the Palestinian culture and its principles, Western media is to easily able to create

this barbaric image. Consequently an Orientalist interpretation is created and therefore used to

generalize the entire Arab and Mideast world without concern or knowledge of Palestinian

history.

40 Krishna, Globalization and Postcolonialism, 138.

15

The media coverage of the Munich Massacre lacked the understanding of Palestinian

concerns and affairs. The Western perception of the Munich Massacre is deliberatively different

than that of the PLO. In an article written by Jerusalem Post correspondent Jack Maurice, the

Palestinian viewpoint is raised when he quotes the French newspaper La Nation saying that

“Alas, we are in a world where too many governments among those who are indignant over the

Munich crime admit that the ends justify the means. Israel, which today denounces terrorism,

resorted to it in the past in order to obtain independence like so many other peoples since the

war.” This perspective is rare in media circulation and almost completely absent in Western

publication. Despite its common absence, the position it raises has meaning in the image of how

Arabs and even Palestinians are portrayed. The acts of terror committed by the Palestinians are

often considered as indiscriminate Arab terror and senseless murder of all walks of life.41 La

Nation states in reference to the excelled Palestinians that, “however horrible the acts committed

by the Palestinians all over the world… how can we fail to recognize that this violence is merely

fighting against another form of violence; blatant injustice.42 Dr. M. T. Mehdi, secretary general

of the Action Committee on American-Arab relations also condemned the attack but blamed

Zionism for the murders saying that “if the Zionists had not invaded Palestine and killed or

expelled its people, there would have been no Palestinian terrorism and no invasion of an Israeli

village.”43 Beliefs such as these are commonly rejected by Western thought and inadvertently left

unpublished in Western media. Dr. Mehdi’s comment was published in the New York Times and

was the only opinion that considered an alternative reason other than unorganized terror.

This occurred because Western media failed to recognize the call to action Palestinians

felt was necessary in order to further the Palestinian liberation movement. American magazines 41 Jack Maurice, “Pompidou expresses France’s Anger,” Jerusalem Post, September 7, 1972.42 Maurice, “Pompidou,” Jerusalem Post, September 7, 1972.43 Associated Press, “Guerrillas in Cairo Take Responsibility for Attack,” New York Times, September 6, 1972.

16

such as Time, Newsweek, and Life all tended to demonize the events in Munich with an orient

perspective which essentially supported the generalization of Arabs in Western culture. Said

states in his book, Blaming the Victims44 that “violence against the Palestinians who are the direct

victims of Zionist theory and Israeli policy, is both enabled and fueled”45 by Western policy-

makers. It is obvious that Western audiences see the Arab nations as a society completely

separated from humanity. Internationally the Massacre was condemned by world leaders such as

Foreign Minister Maurice Schumann of France, President Gustav Heinemann of West Germany

and Prime Minister Heath of Britain as well as “virtually every American political leader from

President Nixon on down.”46 Many of these world leaders made statements mentioning the

“civilized world” which in fact infers that those of Arab countries are not considered “civilized”

because of their barbaric and inhumane forms of settling deputes. In this case, the Munich

Massacre serves as are primary example. Directly following news of the Massacre, the United

States Senate and House of Representatives, under President Nixon’s encouragement, voted to

pass the resolutions that “all means be sought by which the civilized world may cut off from

contact with civilized mankind any people or any nation giving sanctuary, support, sympathy, aid

or comfort to act of murder and barbarism such as those just witnessed at Munich.”47

Through reinforcement of western media publications isolation of Palestinian oppression

was widely disregarded. This consequently made much of the Western world negligent to the

alleged Israeli mistreatment of the Palestinian people. “We shall continue the struggle,” said a

member of the Arab commando Central Committee for which has long been “using violence to

44 Edward W. Said, and Christopher Hitchens. Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question. (New York: Verso, 1984), 3. 45 Said and Hitchens, Blaming the Victims, 3. 46 Arnold, “Head of U.N. Condemns,” New York Times, September 6, 1972.47 Elleen Shanahan, “Terrorism Curb is Sought by the U.S.,” New York Times, September 7, 1972.

17

dramatize their grievance and to harry Israel and her supporters.”48 Daoud expressed several

times in interviews with Germany’s Spiegel TV that he has no regret or apologue for his

actions.49 In an interview with Al-jazeera50 in 1999, Daoud stated he had no regrets and would

carry out the Munich attack all over again, remaining militant to the end. "Today, I cannot fight

you anymore,'' he said in a statement to the Israelis shortly before his death of a kidney failure,

"but my grandson will and his grandsons, too."51 Daoud makes it clear that the Palestinian

perspective of the Munich Massacre is quite different from that of the rest of the world.

On the list of demands presented to the Israeli government on September 5, 1972, one

read that “they [Israeli government] will pay for their arrogance and their disregard for human

rights and lives.”52 The failure to publish this perspective in western media created a one sided

bias against the Palestinians. The following statement from the Jerusalem Evening Standard

supports Western public opinion regarding the ruthless actions of the Palestinian terrorists,

stating that “the murders will further establish the Palestinian liberation movement as without

doubt one of the worlds most callous and sinister terrorist groups… whatever their motives, their

methods are unspeakable.”53 This state of mind is reiterated over and over again in Western

publications. Therefore, in order to achieve the attention of the international community,

Palestinian militants felt they must resort to efforts of brutality. The Olympics served as their

means to demonstrate to the world the hardships Palestinian people believed they had undergone.

48 Eric Pace, “Fedayeen Fulfill 71’ Vow by Major Raids Abroad,” New York Times, September 6, 1972.49 “Suspected Munich Massacre Mastermind Dead,” CNN News Agency, July 3, 2010, http://articles.cnn.com/2010-07-03/world/munich.mastermind.dead_1_ankie-spitzer-andre-spitzer-israeli-athletes?_s=PM:WORLD (accessed November 12, 2010).50 The English-language version of the Arabic news network.51 Adel Darwish, “Abu Daoud: Palestinian terrorist who masterminded the 1972 Olympic massacre,” The Independent Newspaper, July 6, 2010, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/abu-daoud-palestinian-terrorist-who-masterminded-the-1972-olympic-massacre-2019092.html (accessed November 12, 2010).52 Arnold, “Head of U.N. Condemns,” New York Times, September 6, 1972.53 “Arab Press Condones,” Jerusalem Post, September 7, 1972.

18

Terrorism has been described as “an effort to speak to audiences with a greatly amplified voice.” Measured purely in terms of publicity, the attack on the Israelis in Munich could not have been more effective. Journalists and TV crews began to arrive in numbers at No. 31 and thousands of people drawn by concern and curiosity began to collect around the village. For almost two weeks the Olympic Games had occupied the world’s attention. Within a few hours that attention had shifted to Connollystrasse. The context of an attack, the very idea of a planned assault on defenseless sportsmen at an Olympic Games, seemed so cynical as to be beyond comprehension. It awakened the world to the fact that in the sphere of international terrorism nothing is impossible.54

The attention of the world was certainly achieved, but the results the Palestinian guerillas had

hoped for came at a surprise. Black September terrorist Abu Iyad had said, “we were obliged to

note, with considerable sadness, that a large segment of world opinion was far more concerned

about the twenty-four hour interruption in the grand spectacle of the Olympic Games than it was

about the dramatic plight endured by the Palestinian people for the past twenty-four years or the

atrocious end of the commandos and their hostages.”55As much as the Olympics garnered

attention for the “Palestinian struggle” the reaction from the international community was far

from sympathetic.

Due to the media presentation of the crisis in an Orientalist fashion, the Palestinian

militants only distanced themselves from the rest of the international community. In the words

of Shmuel Lalkin, chief of mission for the Israelis, the Arab attack was “the barbaric rape of the

Olympic spirit.”56 Other key Olympic figures agreed with Lalkin and felt that the Olympics had

been abused and mistreated. Avery Brundage, President of the International Olympic Committee

(IOC) said in his speech at the Israeli memorial service on September 6th that “sadly in this

imperfect world, the greater and the more important the Olympic Games become, the more they

are open to commercial, political and now criminal pressure.”57 In an article published by US

54 Paul Taylor, Jews and the Olympic Games: The Clash between Sport and Politics. (Portland: Sussex Academic Press, 1988), 170.55 Reeve, One Day in September, 14956 Arthur Daley, “A Day of Mourning and Sorrow,” New York Times, September 7, 1972.57 Reeve, One Day in September, 139-139.

19

News and World Report, the attack on the Israeli athletes is said to have changed the Olympics

forever. Dan Gilgoff, author of, The Meaning of Munich,58 interviewed Olympic historian John

MacAloon who claimed that, "A political terrorist attack at the world festival of peace and

international collaboration was unprecedented—and sacrilegious.”59 MacAloon’s comment

expresses his frustrations that the Munich Olympics and its ideals had been ruined. In agreement

was the Vatican who proclaimed the attack as “a betrayal of the Olympic spirit and an unjust

injury to the West German Government.”60 The front page of the L’Osservatore Romano stated

that “the attack had broken political truce traditionally represented by the Olympic Games.”61

Because of the murder of eleven unarmed, innocent men, stereotypical attitudes towards Arabs

began to surface as well as an Orientalist preconception.

The tragic disruption of the Games left much of the world to resort to their initial

generalizations of a heartless Arab rather than feel sympathetic and willing to intervene in the

Israeli/Palestinian struggle. “We intended a bloodless operation,” stated Daoud who was aware

of the repercussions a tragic ending would have.

The plan was for international pressure to be brought to bear though five hundred million TV sets, so that the Israeli government could not get away with stubbornly pursuing its own agenda without giving any thought to other human issues… We really never intended the bloodshed. Our plan was for it to pass peacefully. We even planned for a safety valve, that in the event of everything being refused, we would move the hostages to another Arab country and release them there.62

This perspective has been challenged and rejected by much of the world who insists on viewing

Arab terror as a merciless act. “The world may call these crimes but it must expect them to

continue until Palestinian rights are restored,” stated the “Egyptian Gazette.”63 It went on to say 58 Dan Gilgoff, "The Meaning of Munich." U.S. News and World Report, June 14, 2004, 39. 59 Gilgoff, The Meaning of Munich, 39.60Martin, “Heads of U.N. Condemns,” September 6, 1972.61Martin, “Heads of U.N. Condemns,” September 6, 1972.62 Reeve, One Day in September, 137.63 “Arab Press,” Jerusalem Post, September 7, 1972.

20

that “the Palestinians and their fellow Arabs have sought every possible means of winning back

their rights from Israel but every peaceable method has failed.”64 Statements such as these serve

as reminders to the world that Palestinian motives are drastically different than the perspectives

Western media creates because of Oriental preconceptions.

Publications in the West tend to create an image of Israel being a valiant and tenacious

state that heroically fends off evil terrorists. This image is welcomed in Western nations and

seen as an alliance against Arab brutality. However, because this image is blinded by Orientalist

prejudice, Western people are unaware of the Palestinian concerns that provoked such a

desperate action. Publications in Arab states view the formation of Israel as having a “bloody

birth” and being inattentive to justice.65 Because Western media publishes with such an

Orientalist fashion, this position of Palestinian injustice is only seen as fanatical aspiration. Arab

governments recognize the battle Arabism faces along with the struggle for Israeli/Palestinian

peace in Western society. With Western media continually portraying the Arab as merciless and

barbarous any hope of intervention or resolution is almost nonexistent. “As long… as Israel

refuses justice it cannot expect the Arabs to leave it in peace. The Arab governments should now

ask themselves if they are doing enough to prod the world into action for justice and peace. The

honest answer can only be no...” said the paper that neither condemned nor supported the BSO

attack at Munich.66 This statement from the “AL Moharer”67 calls the “world into action for

justice and peace” because it feels that the world is ignorant to the inequality and discrimination

Palestinians face. Because Western publications commonly use words such as: “barbaric,”

“ruthless,” “inhumane,” “merciless,” and “butchers,” to describe the Munich attack and Arabs in

64 “Arab Press,” Jerusalem Post, September 7, 1972.65 “Arab Press,” Jerusalem Post, September 7, 1972.66 “Arab Press,” Jerusalem Post, September 7, 1972.67 Australian English-Arabic BI-lingual newspaper from Australia

21

general we can see how media influence is powerful enough to prevent intervention or aid to the

Palestinian struggle. Orientalism can therefore be used and seen as an influential concept in the

greater representation of world events. The use of Orientalism in media to depict others as

strange and potentially dangerous can also be applied to how journalists connect other events and

people in history to create an already negative image of the Oriental.

The Western media connects the Munich Massacre to the Holocaust which consequently

demonizes the Palestinian terrorists to an even further extent. The symbolism of the Israeli

deaths happening only a few kilometers from the site of Dachau concentration camp only raises

the level of brutality the BSO terrorists were be labeled with in Western media. As tragic as the

Munich Massacre had been for the Israeli people, the German government as well felt the pain of

their past and international embarrassment for allowing such a crisis to transpire. Arthur Daley,

journalist for the “New York Times” had said, “The Arab attack on the Israelis had to be the

cruelest blow an unkind fate could possibly deliver to the Germans. They have had a guilt

complex about Jews ever since Hitler and his concentration camps.”68 For Western media this

served as another way in which the Arab population could be labeled as heartless, insensible and

inhuman. By connecting the Munich Massacre to the Holocaust journalists were able to create

sympathy towards the Jews and more simply construct an image of Arab barbarity. In a

statement from West German Ambassador, Mr. Jesco von Puttkamer, the symbolic issue of the

Israeli deaths and the connection to the Holocaust are addressed:

I find no words to express the deep shock I feel after this night of horror. I share the deep grief in the hearts of the Israeli people, knowing that last night’s events make thoughts go back to those dark days which were the time of my peoples disgrace. In this grieves hour I, as the representative of a different, a new Germany, can only beg for a fair judgment. This is a detestable, an abominable crime, committed on German soil by

68 Daley, “A Day of Mourning,” September 7, 1972.

22

barbarians, by Arab terrorists. The German people are deeply grieved. All out sympathy is with the people of Israel.69

Here Ambassador Puttkamer directs attention to the “detestable and abominable crime”

committed by “barbarians” and how the German people remorse over the murders of the Jewish

athletes. This statement has an underlying message that persuades the reader to feel as though it

is “us” versus “them.” In a special message from German Chancellor Willy Brandt, Puttkamer

presented Prima Meir a regretful statement which said, “I want to assure you that this incident is

felt as a deep shock throughout my country. Please be convinced that this event is considered by

every German as much as by every Israeli as what it is: a brutal and detestable act of violence.”70

Statements such as these along with notes of sympathy and condemnation from leaders around

the world demonstrate that Arabs are portrayed as an outsider to the civil world. There are no

media sources that openly express sympathy towards the Palestinian struggle. This is directly

linked to the use of Orientalism as a concept to demonize the “other.” Western media left out

certain words and phrases and only included stories that would create a barbaric image of the

Arab person. The application of Cold War politics also served as a means to degrade the foreign

imagine of the Middle Eastern society.

Even before the BSO attack on the Israeli delegation the significance of the Munich

Games was already unprecedented. The Munich Games marked the first time Jews had

symbolically entered the German state after Hitler’s Nazi regime and represented the

technological advancements in media and communication services. The Games of the Twentieth

Olympiad also served as an extension of the Cold War were the Americans and Soviets

competed for sporting supremacy and ideological influence on the world.  One can certainly

69 Jerusalem Post, “German Ambassador Condemns Massacre,” September 7, 1972.70 David Landau, “Jerusalem, Bonn in Close Consultation,” Jerusalem Post, September 6, 1972.

23

argue that the BSO attack was more than just an attack on the Israelis delegation but an attack on

Western democracy. 

BSO officials were cognitive of Western alliances and the support Israel receives from

the US, Britain, and France, especially during the 1948 War. By means of attacking Israel, the

BSO had a direct shot at Western democracy and a chance to display the strength of the Mideast.

Because of Soviet connections to this region of the world, communism appeared superior and

capable of expanding its influence. An example of the Soviet persistence during the Olympics

was when communist athletes began to excel in almost every event leaving all other nations

behind.  Their dominance in competition seemed to have surged directly following the BSO

attack when at this time Western countries tended perform at a lower level than expected or had

decided to leave. At the conclusion of the Games the Soviets had acquired a total of fifty gold

medals leaving the US to finish second with thirty-three.  The success of the Soviets over the US

symbolized yet another disaster to the Games. With Orientalism being used as an agent of

discrimination of others who are different, the West was able to categorize the Arab into a

communist supporter and even further create an image of a fearful and oriental person

completely opposed to Western ideals. 

The relationship between the US and Israel created a biased media presentation of the

Munich Massacre and formed a comradely of Western democracy against the Oriental. The

Western interpretation of Israel tends to be viewed in a positive and valiant fashion and leads

most Westerners to believe that Israel is the target of unnecessary Palestinian rage. This mindset

is that of an Orientalist who sympathizes for the Israeli state and in turn becomes enraged at

Palestinian culture. The Western public perceives resistance to Israel not only as terrorism and

communism but also with an anti-Semitism attitude. The vast majority of Westerners tend to be

24

naïve towards the political motives of both Palestine and Israel simply because they are

unknowledgeable or blinded by an Orientalist image of Arabs.71 The media output from the

Munich Massacre in the Western World can reinforce why Westerners tend to be ignorant and

unaware of the Palestinian/Israeli situation. With repeated Orientalist journalistic sytle, the

stereotypical image of Arab’s and terror can be easily created to an uninformed Western public.

The relationship between the Western World and Israeli is significant and carefully

protected. Without the support of the United States as Israel’s closest alliance, the survival of the

Jewish state would be in jeopardy and thus losing the only stable democracy in the Middle East.

According to Edward Said, “US support for Israel is necessary for the Jewish state’s functioning,

which has become almost totally dependent on the US.”72 The violence that is directed at the

Palestinians is essentially accepted worldwide and seen as necessary in order to suppress future

terroristic attacks. The alliance Israel has with the US is critically important in almost every way

and because of this Western media uses its influence to win public support for the Israeli effort.

Because of this attempt at negatively portraying the Arab, Western media publishes with an

Orientalist perspective and stops any other perspective of the Israeli/Palestinian crisis. Said, also

a Palestinian rights activists attempts to educate the public and inform them that because of the

Western institution of Orientalism an anti-Palestinian perspective is created.

Violence against the Palestinians, who are the direct victims of Zionist theory and Israeli policy, is both enabled and fueled. When the US Congress stipulates that because Israel is “our ally” and the only “stable democracy” in the Middle East, it also goes on to fund Israel at increasing levels year after year this in turn tightens the grip of the occupation, allows the Israeli government to create more illegal and deeply provocative settlements to be established on the Occupied Territories of the West Bank and Gaza (the total exceeds 120), allows more Palestinian house to be destroyed, more Palestinian to be jailed, killed

71 Said, Blaming the Victim, 2.72 Said, Blaming the Victims, 3.

25

or deported, allows more Palestinian land to be expropriated, and allows Israel to make Palestinian life more difficult, more unlivable.73

Said argues that the support and aid from the US along with a media presentation supporting

Israel and condemning its enemies only creates a negligence to fully understand the oppression

Palestinians feel they have become victims to over the past decades.

Western ideology of Arab terror is seen more so as careless and nondiscriminatory rather

than an act justified necessary by the Palestinian people. The nationally-circulated Japanese

daily “Asahi Shimbun” said in an article that the “bloody epilogue of the Arab raid in Munich

‘reminded the world that the international situation is still tense despite the peace mood’

produced by the 20th Olympic Games.”74 It went on to explain how “the Arab guerrillas…

probably wanted to demonstrate to the world opinion that the Olympics project a mere fiction of

peace. Millions of Arab refugees expelled from Israel are living a miserable life. The guerrillas

probably achieved their purpose in getting the attention of the world.”75 Means such as this are

seen as necessary to capture Western attention in a world consumed by oriental images of

Middle Eastern politics. The close relationship between the US and Israeli was certainly a factor

in the creation and application of Orientalism to media output worldwide.

The use of Edward Said’s idea of Orientalism for analysis of the media helps us to

uncover certain patterns of Western perception of Arabs and terror. Western media and ideology

was blinded by the actual justification of the Palestinian terrorists. Regardless of their criminal

act, Palestinian intentions are much different than what western thought presumed. Commonly

western ideology interrupts acts of terror committed by Arabs to be senseless, nondiscriminatory

and irrational. Having this preconceived notion of Arab criminal action, the West therefore

73 Said, Blaming the Victim, 2.74 Associated Press, “Japan Students Praise Killers,” Jerusalem Post, September 7, 1972.75 Associated Press, “Japan Students,” Jerusalem Post, September 7, 1972.

26

becomes completely oblivious and senseless to the true meaning and justification behind such

attacks. Regardless of Palestinian intent, the actions of the BSO were criminal and inhumane.

But to be unaware of the Palestinian objective is to be ignorant of a world crisis. This act of

terror not only affects Israel, Germany, and Palestine, but also the entire world community.

When actions of this magnitude take place, conflict between nations and people is apparent and

more than likely responsible. The overall presentation of the Munich Massacre in western

media was unknowledgeable and unmindful of what was truly conspiring. Whether or not media

sources condone or condemn the events that transpired in Munich on September 5th, 1972, the

presentation of the complete account needs to be made clear. In regard to western publication,

news sources failed to give adequate attention to the Palestinian cause and published with an

Orientalist preconception of Arabs and terror.

Bibliography

Primary

Alexander, Shana. "Blood on the Playground." Newsweek, September 18, 1972.

Axthelm, Pete. "The Games after the Tragedy." Newsweek, September 18, 1972.

Daley, Arthur. “A Day of Mourning and Sorrow,” New York Times, September 7, 1972.

James, Timothy. "Rescuing Hostages: To Deal or Not To Deal." Time, September 18, 1972.

Newsweek. Israel's Fierce Reprisals for Munich. September 25, 1972.

Newsweek. Terror at the Olympics. September 18, 1972.

27

Newsweek. The Terrorist International. September 18, 1972.

Pace, Eric. “Fedayeen Fulfill ’71 Vow by Major Raids Abroad,” New York Times, September 6, 1972.

Time. Black September's Ruthless Few. September 18, 1972.

Time. Confusion in Munich. September 18, 1972.

Time. Europe's Black September. September 25, 1972.

Time. Horror and Death at the Olympics. September 18, 1972.

Time. Spitz uber Alles in Deutschland. September 11, 1972.

Life. Shadow of Death at Munich. September 15, 1972.

Secondary

Bar-Zohar, Michael Bar, and Eitan Haber. Massacre in Munich: The Manhunt for the Killers Behind the 1972 Olympics Massacre. New York: The Lyons, 2005.

Beyer, Lisa. "The Myths and Reality of Munich." Time, December 12, 2005.

Bowman, Elizabeth and Jean-Paul Sartre. "About Munich" Sartre Studies International 9.2, 2003.

Christison, Kathleen. The Wound of Dispossession: Telling the Palestinian Story. New Mexico: Sunlit Hills Press, 2001.

Dodds, Klaus. Geopolitics: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Daoud, Abou. Palestine: A History of the Resistance Movement by the Sole Survivor of Black September. New York: Arcade Publishing, 2007.

Gilgoff, Dan. "The Meaning of Munich." U.S. News and World Report, June 14, 2004.

28

Groussard, Serge, and Harold J. Salemson. The Blood of Israel: the Massacre of the Israeli Athletes ; the Olympics, 1972. New York: Morrow, 1975.

Johnson, Peter. "ABC Returns to Munich Olympics, the 'fuse' of Terrorism." USA Today, August 29, 2002.

Jonas, George. Vengeance. New York: Bantam Press, 1985.

Kanin, David B. Political history of the Olympic Games. Boulder: Westview, 1981.

Klein, Aaron J. Striking Back: The 1972 Munich Olympics Massacre and Israel's Deadly Response. New York: Random House, 2005.

Krishna, Sankaran. Globalization and Postcolonialism: Hegemony and Resistance in the Twenty-first Century. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2009.

Mitchell, Ed. "They're All Gone." Perspecta, 2003.

Moore, David L. "Olympics Fall Prey to Politics." USA Today, September 4, 1987.

Munich. Steven Spielberg. Universal Pictures, 2006.

Nasr, Kameel B. Arab and Israeli Terriorsim: The Cause and Effects of Political Violence, 1936-1993. North Carolina: McFarland and Company, Inc., 1997.

One Day in September. Kevin MacDonald. Sony Pictures Classics, 1999.

Raab, David. Terror in Black September: The First Eyewitness Account of the Infamous 1970 Hijacking. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007.

Reeve, Simon. One day in September: The full story of the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre and the Israeli revenge operation “Wrath of God.” New York: Arcade, 2000.

Reyes, Damaso. "Sure-Fire ‘Munich’ shows even Israelis have Doubts." New York Amsterdam News, January 26, 2006.

29

Said, Edward W., and Christopher Hitchens. Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question. New York: Verso, 1984.

Said, Edward W. Orientalism. New York: Random House, 1978.

Sandomir, Richard. "When Innocence Died at the Olympics." The New York Times, September 3, 2000.

Sela, Avraham. PLO and Israel from armed conflict to political solution, 1964-1994. Edited by Moshe Ma'oz. New York: St. Martin's, 1997.

Sharp, Joanne P. Geographies of Postcolonialism: Spaces of Power and Representation. Los Angeles: Sage, 2009.

Taylor, Paul. Jews and the Olympic Games: The Clash between Sport and Politics. Portland: Sussex Academic Press, 1988.

Wolff, Alexander. "Striking Back." Sports Illustrated, August 26, 2002.

Wolff, Alexander, and Don Yaeger. "When the Terror Began." Time Europe, September 2, 2002.