jones_e_d

= =

= D. Analysis (500-650 words) Tips] =

From reading different reviews, watching the film and reading the books, I think that the main differences or debates between historians and commentators the viewer (film vs. book). In the film the characters are viewed as heroes and that they are doing the right thing by assassinating the members of Black September. Hollywood movies typically have their lead role and their hero. In this case it is Avner. This is where the main debate is. There is an editorial review of Aaron J. Klein’s "Striking Back" which was one of my sources in section B. The reviewer says that the book is "a necessary read for anyone interested in Israeli history and politics as well as the birth of modern counter-terrorism." This shows that Israel is just as bad as the Palestinians because it was the "birth of modern counter-terrorism"[1] in Israel. I believe that there are some agreements with the historians and commentators. For example they both agreed that the West German Officials were at fault, It is shown in both film and written text that reactions of German Police during the transfer of the athletes had a negative effect on the outcome. = =

= I think that the majority of my sources are reliable. I have taken editorial reviews and author information for Aaron J. Klein’s book. [1] I have used George Jonas' website where he explains how he got the ideas to write // vengeance  // and what he thought about Steven Spielberg and the film //  Munich. // [2] These sources have strength because of the research performed by the authors. However Jan Mixon's views on the film [3] are his opinions therefore may not be as reliable. Another source which may be based on opinion is "The Israeli response to the 1972 Munich Olympic massacre and the development of independent covert action teams by Alexander B. Calahan" [4] This could be reliable because it is someone who has studied the events of the Munich Olympics in 1972 and someone who had studied a degree of masters of military. Nevertheless I can't tell if this is reliable or not because it was given as a reference from Jan Mixon. However, when I viewed this website I thought that it covered too many areas. = = = = = = =

[1]Editorial review of Aaron J. Klein's //Black September.// [] [2] [] //George Jonas writing about his book and Steve Spielberg// [3] [] ...//Jan Mixon's views of the film "Munich"// [4] []

ANALYSIS (b) Essay skills ▪ This is the main part of the study, and should be written in the same format as an IB essay. You could follow this format 1. Different interpretations: What are the main debates between historians and commentators on your subject? In other words, what are the most obvious points of disagreement between the sources you have used in Sections B and C? (remember quotes and footnotes!) 2. Critical analysis of evidence: In the context of the debates outline above, outline the strengths and limitations of the sources you have used in Sections B and C. Accurately footnote each and every source using the Harvard Author-Date system. 3. Historiography and philosophy in history: Does the study raise any fundamental problems of history? Refer to your TOK sessions on causation and sources here to help. For example: how films necessarily simplify issues; how biographies are too subjective; how statistics are open to interpretation.