Munich 1972 | How Mossad Hunted Black September - YouTube

A four-decade examination of targeted killing, moral choice, and the transformation of counterterrorism

In the early hours of January 22, 1979, a massive explosion tore through Beirut's Rue Verdun, instantly killing Ali Hassan Salameh—the "Red Prince" of Palestinian terrorism—along with his bodyguards and several innocent bystanders. The blast concluded a seven-year manhunt that began with blood on Olympic snow and ended with a fundamental transformation in how nations confront terror.

Operation Wrath of God, Israel's response to the Munich Olympics massacre of 1972, stands as perhaps the most consequential counterterrorism campaign in modern history—not for its body count, but for the paradigm it shattered and the one it created in its place.

SIDEBAR: THE GLOBAL ASSASSINATION PLAYBOOK

How Major Powers Now Execute Beyond Borders

UNITED STATES: The Drone Empire

Since 2001, the United States has conducted an estimated 14,000+ drone strikes across at least nine countries, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism's comprehensive database updated through 2024. The transformation from Mossad's operatives with car bombs to American Predator and Reaper drones represents technological evolution, not moral departure.

The U.S. maintains classified "kill lists" approved through a bureaucratic process dubbed "Terror Tuesday" meetings, where officials including the president review target packages. The May 2011 killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan—a sovereign nation with whom the U.S. was not at war—followed Wrath of God's template precisely: penetrate hostile territory, execute the target, extract before local forces respond.

Key U.S. Operations:

Anwar al-Awlaki (September 30, 2011, Yemen): American citizen killed by drone strike without trial. Two weeks later, his 16-year-old son, also an American citizen, died in a separate strike. Obama administration officials defended the action under the "imminent threat" doctrine first articulated to justify Israeli operations.
Qasem Soleimani (January 3, 2020, Baghdad): Iranian general killed by drone strike at Baghdad International Airport. The strike on Iraqi soil without Iraqi permission violated sovereignty in ways identical to Wrath of God operations. President Trump cited self-defense against "imminent" attacks—the same justification Israel pioneered.
Ayman al-Zawahiri (July 31, 2022, Kabul): Al-Qaeda leader killed by Hellfire missile in downtown Kabul. The strike violated Afghan sovereignty and occurred in a civilian neighborhood, echoing the Beirut operation that killed Salameh.

The New America Foundation's database documents that U.S. drone strikes have killed between 8,500-12,000 people since 2004, with civilian casualties ranging from 1,200-1,700 depending on methodology. Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia bear the heaviest impact.

RUSSIA: Poison as Precision Weapon

Russia has embraced targeted assassination with distinctive methodology—exotic poisons that serve both as murder weapons and calling cards. The brazenness deliberately echoes Mossad's message: we can reach you anywhere.

Key Russian Operations:

Alexander Litvinenko (November 2006, London): Former FSB officer poisoned with radioactive polonium-210 in his tea at a London hotel. The UK inquiry concluded President Putin likely approved the operation. The use of a rare radioactive isotope—traceable directly to Russian nuclear facilities—served as both murder weapon and signature.
Sergei Skripal (March 2018, Salisbury, UK): Former Russian military intelligence officer and his daughter poisoned with Novichok nerve agent. British investigators identified two GRU officers who traveled to Salisbury, applied the poison to Skripal's door handle, and returned to Moscow. A British citizen, Dawn Sturgess, died after inadvertently handling the discarded poison container—collateral damage identical to the civilians killed in Wrath of God operations.
Alexei Navalny (August 2020, Russia; died February 2024, Arctic prison): Opposition leader poisoned with Novichok on a domestic flight. Though he survived the initial poisoning, he died in suspicious circumstances in a remote prison. Bellingcat's investigation, in collaboration with CNN and Der Spiegel, tracked FSB toxin specialists who shadowed Navalny for years—surveillance comparable to Mossad's patient six-year hunt for Salameh.
Zelimkhan Khangoshvili (August 2019, Berlin): Chechen separatist shot dead in Berlin's Tiergarten park by Russian agent traveling on false identity. German courts convicted the killer and explicitly ruled the assassination was ordered by Russian state authorities. The parallels to Mossad operatives using forged passports in European capitals are exact.

CHINA: The Long Reach of Beijing

China's approach combines technological surveillance with traditional abduction, focusing on dissidents, Uyghur activists, and Hong Kong protesters who flee abroad.

Key Operations:

Gui Minhai (October 2015, Thailand): Hong Kong bookseller abducted from his Thailand apartment by Chinese agents and rendered to mainland China, where he remains imprisoned. The operation violated Thai sovereignty without consequence.
Operation Fox Hunt (2014-present): Chinese government program that has "retrieved" thousands of fugitives from over 120 countries, according to Beijing's official claims. Safeguard Defenders, a human rights NGO, documented in their 2022 report "Involuntary Returns" that many operations involve coerced returns, family intimidation, and illegal overseas police operations.
Transnational Repression Database maintained by Freedom House (updated 2024) documents 854 direct physical attacks by China on dissidents in 79 countries since 2014—the highest of any nation.

TURKEY: Cross-Border Strikes

Turkey has conducted extensive extraterritorial operations, primarily targeting Kurdish militants.

Since 2015, Turkey has carried out over 500 drone strikes in northern Iraq and Syria against PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party) targets, according to Airwars monitoring data. These operations occur without permission from Iraqi or Syrian governments.
Turkish intelligence has been implicated in numerous abductions of perceived Gülenist operatives from countries including Kosovo, Moldova, and several Central Asian states, according to Stockholm Center for Freedom documentation.

SAUDI ARABIA: The Khashoggi Precedent

The October 2, 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul represents perhaps the most brazen adaptation of Wrath of God methodology. A 15-person team flew to Istanbul, murdered and dismembered Khashoggi inside diplomatic territory, and flew home the same day.

The CIA assessed with high confidence that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the operation. The execution—bone saw and all—inside a consulate violated every diplomatic norm, yet Saudi Arabia faced minimal lasting consequences. The UN Special Rapporteur concluded the killing constituted an "extrajudicial execution for which the state of Saudi Arabia is responsible."

FRANCE: Quiet Operations

France has conducted targeted strikes with less publicity but similar methodology, primarily in former colonial territories.

French special forces have conducted numerous "neutralization" operations against suspected terrorists in the Sahel region and West Africa, according to reporting by Le Monde and declassified military records.
The 1985 sinking of the Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand by French intelligence agents represented a direct application of Wrath of God tactics against environmental activists.

ISRAEL: Evolution and Continuation

Israel itself has never stopped. The 2010 Dubai assassination of Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh—carried out by a 27-person Mossad team using forged passports from friendly nations—demonstrated the same methodology pioneered in the 1970s.

More recently, the November 2020 killing of Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh employed a remote-controlled machine gun operated via satellite—Wrath of God methodology updated for the 21st century.

The January 2024 strike in Beirut that killed Hamas deputy leader Saleh al-Arouri demonstrates continuity: precision strike in Lebanese sovereign territory, high-value target eliminated, minimal concern for international reaction.

The Statistical Reality

The Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute's 2023 report "Counting the Dead" attempted comprehensive accounting:

At least 47 nations have conducted or been credibly accused of extraterritorial targeted killings since 2001
Minimum 23,000 deaths from state-sponsored targeted strikes globally (2001-2023)
67% of these operations involved drone strikes
18% involved direct action teams
15% involved poisoning, explosives, or other methods

Legal Void, Practical Reality

No international treaty governs targeted killing. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force against other states except in self-defense, but the definition of "self-defense" has expanded to accommodate nearly any justification. The International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction over targeted killings unless they occur during armed conflict and constitute war crimes.

Philip Alston, former UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, warned in his 2020 final report: "The international legal framework established after World War II is collapsing under the weight of state practice. Targeted killing has gone from rare exception to routine practice, and no effective accountability mechanism exists."

Every major power now operates on the assumption that it can kill perceived enemies beyond its borders. Each cites national security. Each claims self-defense. Each points to the others' actions as justification.

This is the world Wrath of God created—not through legal argument but through precedent and practice. The question is no longer whether nations will conduct targeted killings, but whether any limits on such operations remain.

Two Paths Diverging

The contrast could not be starker. In 1945, the Allied powers gathered the surviving architects of the Holocaust before international tribunals at Nuremberg. Despite crimes of unimaginable horror against the Jewish people and millions of others, the Nazis received trials, legal representation, and documented proceedings. The message: even monsters deserve due process. Justice, not vengeance, would mark civilization's response to barbarism.

Twenty-seven years later, when Palestinian terrorists slaughtered 11 Israeli athletes before a global television audience of 800 million, Prime Minister Golda Meir chose a different path. Within 48 hours of the Munich massacre, she authorized Mossad to hunt down and execute—without arrest, without trial, without warning—every individual connected to Black September's attack.

"We do not forget. We do not forgive," Meir declared, invoking an ancient code that predates both international law and Christian mercy.

The Old Testament in Modern Dress

Israel's response reflected the Mosaic principle of proportionate retribution: "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" (Exodus 21:24). This was not unlimited vengeance but calibrated justice—measure for measure, death for death. In the ancient Near Eastern context, this represented a limitation on revenge, not a license for it. Yet it stood in stark contrast to the Christian ideal Jesus articulated in the Sermon on the Mount: "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5:44).

The architects of Wrath of God made a conscious theological and philosophical choice. They rejected both Christian forgiveness and the post-World War II international consensus that even the worst criminals deserve judicial process. Instead, they embraced what they saw as a biblical imperative: the duty to pursue justice when formal mechanisms fail and the enemy remains beyond legal reach.

Dr. Michael Walzer, political philosopher at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study, has written extensively on this moral framework. "Israel faced an opponent that recognized no rules, operated across borders where it could not be legally reached, and would face no consequences from any international body," Walzer noted in his 2015 examination of targeted killing. "The question becomes: does the obligation to protect one's citizens override the obligation to respect another nation's sovereignty and international legal norms?"

The Nuclear Shadow: How the Bomb Changed War Itself

Yet there's a deeper pattern at work—one that extends far beyond Israel's response to Munich. The return to targeted assassination as statecraft may represent not moral regression but strategic adaptation to the most consequential military development in human history: nuclear weapons.

On June 28, 1914, Gavrilo Princip assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo. Within six weeks, all of Europe was at war. The assassination of one man triggered a catastrophic chain reaction: Austrian ultimatum to Serbia, Russian mobilization, German declaration of war, French involvement, British entry. Four years later, 20 million people were dead, empires had collapsed, and the modern world had been born in blood.

The lesson seemed clear: assassination destabilizes, provokes disproportionate response, and can spiral into unlimited war.

Then came August 6, 1945. The mushroom cloud over Hiroshima changed everything. Nuclear weapons made total war between major powers unthinkable—mutual annihilation replaced decisive victory as the likely outcome of great power conflict. Dr. John Lewis Gaddis, the Cold War historian at Yale University, termed this the "Long Peace"—the longest period without direct great power warfare in modern history, enforced not by law or goodwill but by the terrifying logic of nuclear deterrence.

But this created a strategic paradox. Nations still had conflicts, grievances, and enemies. Yet they could no longer pursue traditional warfare to resolution. As political scientist Robert Jervis documented in his seminal work "The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution" (1989), nuclear weapons fundamentally altered the calculus of force. Victory became pyrrhic; war became suicide.

The result, scholars argue, was a return to pre-modern conflict patterns—proxy wars, limited engagements, covert action, and yes, targeted assassination. Dr. Lawrence Freedman of King's College London writes in "The Future of War" (2017): "Nuclear weapons haven't eliminated violence between nations. They've redirected it into forms that don't risk escalation to existential conflict. Precision strikes against individuals represent the ultimate expression of this logic—calibrated violence that achieves objectives without triggering wider war."

Consider the evidence. During the Cold War, the U.S. and Soviet Union never fought directly, yet both engaged in extensive assassination programs through proxies and intelligence services. CIA operations against Patrice Lumumba in Congo, KGB poisonings of defectors, both superpowers funding and directing killings across the developing world—all carefully calibrated to avoid direct confrontation.

The post-Cold War era has only accelerated this trend. With nuclear proliferation extending to Pakistan, India, North Korea, and potentially Iran, the number of conflicts constrained by nuclear calculus has grown. Israel cannot invade Iran to eliminate its nuclear program—the risks are too high. But it can assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists. The U.S. cannot wage total war against scattered terrorist networks—but it can strike individual leaders with drones.

Professor Richard Betts of Columbia University frames it starkly in his 2022 study "Conflict After Combat": "We've returned to an era where assassination serves as a middle option between inaction and war. The nuclear age has made total war too dangerous, but it hasn't eliminated the need to confront enemies. Targeted killing becomes the weapon of choice in a world where conventional war risks nuclear escalation."

The American Experience: Targets at Home

The irony is profound: even as the United States has become the world's leading practitioner of targeted assassination abroad, it has experienced repeated assassination attempts against its own leadership—attempts that have shaped American history and psychology.

The record is sobering:

Abraham Lincoln (April 14, 1865): Assassinated by John Wilkes Booth at Ford's Theatre, dying the next morning. The first presidential assassination fundamentally altered Reconstruction and perhaps extended racial conflict for generations.
James Garfield (July 2, 1881): Shot by Charles Guiteau, died September 19 from infections. The assassination spurred civil service reform but robbed the nation of a president who might have advanced racial reconciliation.
William McKinley (September 6, 1901): Shot by anarchist Leon Czolgosz at the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, died September 14. The assassination brought Theodore Roosevelt to power and shifted American foreign policy toward interventionism.
John F. Kennedy (November 22, 1963): Assassinated in Dallas by Lee Harvey Oswald (according to the Warren Commission, though conspiracy theories persist). The killing traumatized a generation and altered the trajectory of civil rights, Vietnam policy, and American culture.

The near-misses are equally revealing:

Theodore Roosevelt (October 14, 1912): Shot in the chest during a campaign speech but survived, delivering his speech with the bullet still lodged in his chest.
Franklin D. Roosevelt (February 15, 1933): Escaped an assassination attempt in Miami that killed Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak.
Harry Truman (November 1, 1950): Puerto Rican nationalists attacked Blair House where Truman was staying; White House police officer Leslie Coffelt died protecting the president.
Gerald Ford (September 1975, twice): Survived two separate assassination attempts by Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme and Sara Jane Moore within 17 days.
Ronald Reagan (March 30, 1981): Shot by John Hinckley Jr., critically wounded but survived. Press Secretary James Brady was permanently disabled in the attack.
Donald Trump (July 13, 2024 and September 15, 2024): Survived two assassination attempts during his 2024 campaign, the first resulting in a bullet grazing his ear and the death of a rally attendee.

According to Secret Service records and academic compilations, there have been approximately 30 serious assassination attempts or plots against sitting or former U.S. presidents, with four successful killings—a success rate of about 13 percent.

Yet here's the crucial distinction: every presidential assassination in American history was carried out by individuals or small groups, not foreign states. Lincoln was killed by a Confederate sympathizer, not the Confederate government. McKinley fell to an anarchist, Kennedy to a lone gunman (officially), Reagan to a mentally disturbed individual obsessed with an actress.

No foreign government has successfully assassinated a U.S. president, though several have considered it. This reflects nuclear-age restraint—even hostile states recognize that killing an American president would provoke potentially unlimited response. Yet those same states will fund proxy groups, support terrorism, and engage in covert action that stops just short of direct state-sponsored assassination of American leaders.

The contrast with U.S. policy abroad is striking. America maintains kill lists, conducts drone strikes against foreign leaders (Soleimani), and has attempted or succeeded in removing foreign heads of state through covert action (CIA plots against Castro, Allende, Lumumba, among others). The U.S. practices abroad what it has experienced at home—but with a crucial difference: American assassination programs target foreign nationals, while attacks on American presidents have been domestic or non-state actions.

This asymmetry reveals something profound about the nuclear age: major powers have developed an unwritten understanding that direct assassination of each other's leaders risks uncontrolled escalation, but assassination of non-state actors, minor powers' officials, or foreign dissidents remains acceptable—or at least unpunished.

Proportionate Violence in the Nuclear Age

The return to assassination as statecraft can thus be understood as a form of proportionate response uniquely suited to the nuclear age—violence calibrated to achieve objectives without triggering existential conflict.

When Black September killed 11 Israelis, a conventional military response might have meant invading Lebanon, triggering wider war with Arab states, potentially involving Soviet intervention on behalf of Arab allies and American intervention supporting Israel. The nuclear shadow loomed over every calculation.

Instead, Israel killed approximately a dozen individuals over seven years. Proportionate. Targeted. Limited. Precisely the kind of response that could satisfy domestic demands for justice while avoiding wider war.

Similarly, when Iranian-backed militias killed hundreds of American soldiers in Iraq with explosively formed penetrators, the U.S. could have bombed Iranian facilities—risking war with a near-nuclear state that could close the Strait of Hormuz and spike global oil prices. Instead, in 2020, the U.S. killed Qasem Soleimani, the general directing those operations. One man, one drone strike, objective achieved.

Dr. Austin Long of Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs argues in his 2020 study "The Shadow of the Mushroom Cloud" that targeted killing has become "the precision instrument of nuclear-age statecraft—achieving political objectives through minimal force precisely because unlimited force has become unusable."

This explains why assassination attempts have proliferated even as total war has declined. The Correlates of War Project at the University of Michigan documents that interstate wars—formal conflicts between recognized states—have dropped dramatically since 1945. Yet the Global Terrorism Database shows terrorist attacks and political assassinations have increased substantially, especially since the end of the Cold War.

Nations are fighting, but fighting differently. The escalation ladder that once led from insult to duel to battle to total war now stops abruptly at the nuclear threshold. Below that threshold, violence has become more targeted, more precise, more focused on key individuals rather than mass armies.

The Moral Inversion

This creates a moral inversion that would have baffled previous generations.

In 1914, the assassination of one archduke led to the deaths of millions—a disproportionate catastrophe. The lesson learned: assassination is destabilizing, dangerous, and leads to uncontrolled escalation.

In 2020, the assassination of one general led to... a few retaliatory Iranian missile strikes carefully aimed to avoid American casualties, followed by de-escalation. Proportionate. Controlled. Limited.

The nuclear age has made assassination safer than war, targeted killing more responsible than mass mobilization. A single drone strike that kills one individual (and perhaps a few bystanders) is tragic, but it's vastly preferable to conventional war that kills thousands or nuclear war that kills millions.

This is the uncomfortable logic that defenders of targeted assassination embrace. Critics call it extrajudicial murder. Supporters call it proportionate use of force in a world where disproportionate force means annihilation.

Father Bryan Hehir, the Catholic theologian and ethicist who has advised the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on just war doctrine, frames the dilemma: "Traditional just war theory developed in an era when war had limits and peace was possible. The nuclear age changed both. War became potentially unlimited, and perfect peace remained impossible. Targeted killing occupies an ethical gray zone—less destructive than war, more violent than peace, existing in the perpetual twilight between the two."

The Architecture of Assassination

What followed Munich was unprecedented in scope and sophistication. Mossad mobilized a strike team codenamed "Kidon" (Bayonet) and constructed a surveillance network across Europe that combined cutting-edge intelligence with ancient tradecraft.

The operation relied on the "sayanim"—volunteer Jewish diaspora members living as doctors, bankers, hotel clerks, and shopkeepers across Europe. These were not spies but ordinary citizens willing to make a phone call when someone matching a description appeared. Combined with signal intelligence, financial tracking, and deep-cover operatives, Mossad created what former CIA officer Robert Baer called "the most effective targeted killing apparatus the world had seen."

The kills came swiftly. Wael Zwaiter in Rome, October 1972—12 bullets in an apartment lobby. Mahmoud Hamshari in Paris, December 1972—explosives in his telephone. Hussein al-Bashir in Cyprus, January 1973—a bomb under his hotel bed. Basil al-Kubaisi in Paris, April 1973—gunned down returning from a bookstore.

Then came Operation Spring of Youth in April 1973—the audacious Beirut raid that killed three senior PLO commanders in their fortified apartments. Israeli commandos, including a young Ehud Barak disguised as a woman, penetrated deep into hostile territory, executed their targets, seized intelligence documents, and extracted within 90 minutes. The message was unmistakable: nowhere is safe.

When Precision Fails: The Lillehammer Disaster

The operation's defining failure came on July 21, 1973, in Lillehammer, Norway. Under intense pressure to eliminate Ali Hassan Salameh, the mastermind believed responsible for Munich, Mossad agents moved too quickly. They killed Ahmed Bouchiki, a Moroccan waiter, in front of his pregnant wife. He was innocent.

Norwegian police, far more capable than Mossad anticipated, arrested five operatives within 48 hours. The Lillehammer Affair became international scandal. Golda Meir suspended Wrath of God. Diplomatic crisis erupted across Europe.

Yet the mission resumed in shadow. Six years later, a female Mossad agent spent months in Beirut under deep cover, patiently mapping Salameh's routines. On that January afternoon in 1979, the car bomb finally closed the account. Salameh died along with four bodyguards and four civilians, including a British student.

The Cold War Chess Game

What mainstream accounts often omit is that Wrath of God played out against superpower machinations. The Soviet Union had armed and funded the PLO since the 1960s, viewing Palestinian militancy as a weapon against Western-aligned Israel. Black September's weapons at Munich were Soviet-made; their training came from Soviet-backed camps in Libya and Syria.

Meanwhile, the CIA maintained its own relationship with Salameh, using him as a source on Soviet operations in Lebanon. Some accounts suggest American intelligence warned him about Mossad movements after Lillehammer. When Mossad finally killed him in 1979, it sent a message to both superpowers: Israel would pursue its own survival regardless of great power games.

Declassified documents from the CIA's archives, released in 2017, confirm that the Agency maintained contact with Salameh through intermediaries as late as 1978, viewing him as a potential bridge to moderate Palestinian factions. Israel's decision to kill him anyway represented a fundamental assertion of sovereignty—we don't need your permission to defend ourselves.

The Precedent That Changed Everything

Operation Wrath of God broke international norms and enraged European governments. It violated sovereignty, bypassed judicial process, and killed civilians. Yet it also established a new paradigm perfectly suited to the nuclear age—violence that achieved objectives without risking wider war.

After Wrath of God, targeted killing became strategy, not taboo. The United States studied Israeli methods. So did Russia, Britain, and France. Decades later, American drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia; Russian assassinations in London with Novichok; the raid that killed Osama bin Laden—all walk the path Israel carved in 1972.

Dr. Nils Melzer, former UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, has documented this transformation extensively. In his 2020 report "Targeted Killing in International Law," Melzer notes: "Israel's operations in the 1970s established the conceptual framework that democratic nations now use to justify extrajudicial killings. The legal gymnastics we see today—imminent threat, unwilling or unable host states, armed conflict paradigms—all trace back to arguments Israel first articulated to defend Wrath of God."

The International Court of Justice has struggled with this reality. In its 2024 advisory opinion on targeted killings, the court acknowledged that state practice has evolved dramatically since Nuremberg, though it stopped short of endorsing extrajudicial execution as lawful.

Justice, Vengeance, or Strategic Necessity?

Did Wrath of God represent justice or vengeance? The uncomfortable answer may be: strategic adaptation to the nuclear age.

To Israel, it was survival—a message written in blood that Jewish lives could not be taken without consequence. Mossad hunted not just terrorists but the very idea that such attacks could occur with impunity. In this view, when international law fails to protect citizens and formal justice remains inaccessible, and when total war risks nuclear escalation, states retain the fundamental right to defend themselves through calibrated violence.

To critics, it was state-sponsored murder that violated the hard-won post-World War II consensus that even the worst criminals deserve due process. Ahmed Bouchiki's widow, Torill Larsen, who raised their daughter alone after watching her husband die on a Norwegian street, represents the human cost of this approach. Amnesty International's 2019 report on targeted killings cites Lillehammer as a cautionary example of how extrajudicial execution inevitably claims innocent lives.

Both perspectives contain truth. The architects of Nuremberg built a system based on faith that international institutions could deliver justice even for the worst crimes. The architects of Wrath of God lost that faith—or never held it—and chose what they believed was a more responsible path in the nuclear age: limited violence against specific individuals rather than unlimited violence against entire populations.

The Moral Calculus

Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, a leading scholar of Jewish ethics, frames the dilemma starkly: "The Torah commands us both to pursue justice and to be holy. Sometimes these obligations align; sometimes they conflict. When terrorists operate beyond the reach of courts, when they plan further attacks, when international bodies prove impotent, and when full-scale war risks catastrophic escalation, the obligation to protect innocent life may override the obligation to grant even the guilty due process."

This stands in sharp contrast to Christian just war theory, which has traditionally emphasized proportionality, discrimination between combatants and civilians, and the requirement of proper authority (typically meaning a judicial process for individual guilt). Pope John Paul II, in his 1995 encyclical "Evangelium Vitae," explicitly rejected extrajudicial killing even of the guilty, arguing that modern penal systems provide alternatives to execution.

Yet even Christian doctrine has struggled with the nuclear dilemma. The U.S. Catholic Bishops' 1983 pastoral letter "The Challenge of Peace" acknowledged that nuclear deterrence created moral paradoxes that traditional theology couldn't fully resolve. If total war means mutual annihilation, might targeted violence against specific individuals represent the lesser evil?

The Protestant theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who participated in a plot to assassinate Hitler, wrestled with similar questions. He concluded that in extreme circumstances, Christians might need to "take guilt upon themselves" and act outside normal moral boundaries—but they must recognize such actions as tragic necessities, not triumphs to celebrate. Wrath of God's architects made no such concession to moral ambiguity; they saw their actions as justified, not tragic.

Did It Work?

In the short term, undeniably. Black September dissolved. Hijackings dropped. The PLO shifted toward negotiation. For nearly a decade after Wrath of God concluded, no major terrorist attack targeted Israeli civilians abroad.

According to data compiled by the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism in Herzliya, Israel, Palestinian attacks against Israeli targets outside Israel dropped by approximately 70 percent in the decade following the Munich massacre, compared to the preceding decade.

Yet in the long term, the cycle continued. Hezbollah emerged in 1982. Hamas rose in the late 1980s. Palestinian Islamic Jihad followed. The names changed, but the violence persisted. Each targeted killing removed individuals but did not eliminate the underlying grievances, ideologies, or recruitment mechanisms that sustained militant organizations.

Dr. Audrey Kurth Cronin of American University, author of "How Terrorism Ends," argues that targeted killing can be tactically effective but strategically limited. "Decapitation strikes work best against small, hierarchical groups dependent on specific leaders. They're far less effective against movements with deep social roots and readily available replacement leaders," she writes. "Wrath of God succeeded in its immediate objectives but could not address the political conditions that generated Black September in the first place."

But perhaps that's asking too much. In the nuclear age, perhaps the goal isn't final victory but sustained management—keeping conflicts limited, violence calibrated, escalation controlled. Perhaps Wrath of God's real success wasn't eliminating terrorism but demonstrating how to fight enemies without triggering wider war.

The World We Inherited

Today, targeted killing has become normalized in ways unimaginable before Wrath of God—and perfectly suited to the strategic constraints of the nuclear age. The United States maintains classified "kill lists" and has conducted thousands of drone strikes. Russia assassinates dissidents in foreign capitals. Turkey has struck Kurdish leaders across borders. Saudi Arabia murdered journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul.

Each nation claims the same justification Israel pioneered: threats beyond legal reach, unwilling or unable host states, imminent danger, the right of self-defense. Each carefully calibrates violence to achieve objectives without triggering wider war. The legal architecture constructed to justify Wrath of God now supports a global practice.

Human Rights Watch's 2023 report "Targeted Killing and International Law" documents 147 confirmed cases of state-sponsored targeted killings since 2001—a dramatic increase from the preceding three decades. "What was once exceptional has become routine," the report notes. "What was once covert is now openly acknowledged. The normative barriers that once constrained state violence have eroded."

The question is no longer whether targeted killing violates international law—practice has outpaced law. The question is whether we accept a world where every government becomes judge, jury, and executioner beyond its borders, or whether some form of international accountability can be restored. And perhaps more fundamentally: is this world of calibrated assassination actually more stable than the alternative of nuclear-shadowed total war?

Golda's Legacy

Golda Meir died in 1978, one year before Salameh's death. In her final interviews, asked about regrets over Wrath of God, she replied: "I have many regrets, but not about protecting my people."

That statement encapsulates the operation's enduring moral tension—and perhaps its nuclear-age logic. Protection of citizens represents a government's highest duty. Yet the methods used to provide that protection—extrajudicial killing, violation of sovereignty, inevitable civilian casualties—corrode the very legal and moral order that civilized nations claim to defend.

Or do they? Perhaps the real corrosion came in 1945 when the mushroom cloud over Hiroshima made traditional warfare obsolete. Perhaps Wrath of God represents not moral decline but practical adaptation to a world where the alternatives to targeted assassination are either passivity in the face of terror or total war that risks nuclear annihilation.

The philosopher Michael Sandel of Harvard has noted that Wrath of God presents what he calls a "tragic choice"—a situation where every available option violates deeply held principles. "We want both security and due process, both effectiveness and law, both protection of our own and respect for others. When these goods conflict irreconcilably, we're forced to prioritize, to choose which principles will bend and which will break."

The nuclear age has made that tragic choice starker and more urgent. We can pursue justice through international courts that lack enforcement power and cannot reach most terrorists. We can wage total war against state sponsors of terrorism and risk nuclear escalation. Or we can kill specific individuals—violating their rights to due process, accepting collateral damage, corroding international law—while keeping conflict limited and escalation controlled.

There are no good options. Only choices between bad and worse.

The Nuremberg Road Not Taken

Consider the counterfactual: what if Israel had demanded Black September's members face trial at The Hague? What if Mossad had used its formidable capabilities to capture rather than kill, to gather evidence for prosecution rather than execute in the shadows?

Such trials would have been extraordinarily difficult to arrange. The terrorists operated from countries that would never extradite them. International institutions lacked enforcement power. PLO leadership enjoyed state protection. The legal obstacles were immense.

Yet Nuremberg faced similar obstacles. Nazi defendants included sitting heads of state, protected by sovereign immunity. Evidence was scattered across a devastated continent. Legal precedents for international prosecution barely existed. The Allies succeeded through political will and creative institution-building.

But there's a crucial difference: Nuremberg occurred in 1945, before the nuclear age fully dawned. The Allies could threaten overwhelming force to compel compliance. Today, such threats risk nuclear response. The very mechanisms that made Nuremberg possible—the credible threat of unlimited conventional war—have become too dangerous to use.

Israel chose not to attempt a similar path partly because the practical obstacles seemed insurmountable, partly because it doubted international institutions would deliver justice, and partly because raw grief and rage demanded immediate, tangible retribution. But perhaps also because in the nuclear age, the Nuremberg option had become effectively impossible.

Professor Leila Nadya Sadat of Washington University School of Law, who serves on the International Criminal Court's Special Advisory Council, argues that Israel's choice in 1972 represented a turning point. "Had Israel insisted on judicial process, even if ultimately unsuccessful, it might have strengthened rather than weakened international criminal law. Instead, Wrath of God sent the message that when justice is difficult, violence is acceptable. We're living with that message's consequences."

Yet Dr. Tanisha Fazal of the University of Minnesota, who studies the evolution of warfare, offers a counter-argument: "We romanticize Nuremberg, forgetting it was victor's justice imposed through overwhelming military superiority. That model only works when one side can completely defeat the other without risking existential retaliation. Nuclear weapons made complete victory impossible. Perhaps targeted assassination represents the best available alternative in a world where the Nuremberg solution requires force we can no longer safely use."

The Cycle Without End—Or Without Escalation?

Perhaps the deepest question Wrath of God poses is whether targeted killing perpetuates endless violence or prevents it from escalating to total war.

Israeli strikes killed Black September leaders. Hezbollah emerged and killed Israeli diplomats in response. Israel killed Hezbollah leaders. Hamas arose and launched suicide bombings. Israel killed Hamas leaders. Palestinian Islamic Jihad retaliated. On and on, decade after decade, each side claiming justification, each side citing the other's violence.

Dr. Mohammed Dajani Daoudi, a Palestinian professor who has studied the conflict for five decades, observes: "Both sides are trapped in the logic of blood revenge. Israelis cite Munich to justify targeted killings. Palestinians cite those killings to justify resistance operations. Everyone has dead to mourn, grievances to avenge. The Old Testament's eye-for-an-eye becomes an eye for an eye for an eye, until everyone is blind."

Yet defenders of Israel's approach argue that the alternative—restraint in the face of terrorism—merely encourages further attacks while full-scale war risks catastrophic escalation. If Munich had gone unanswered, if terrorists faced no consequences, wouldn't violence have escalated further? And if Israel responded with total war, wouldn't that risk regional conflict drawing in nuclear-armed powers?

Colonel Richard Kemp, former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, argues: "When legal mechanisms fail and enemies operate beyond law's reach, and when conventional war risks nuclear escalation, targeted killing becomes the least bad option. Critics offer no viable alternative except passivity or apocalypse."

This logic leads to a vision of perpetual twilight conflict—neither war nor peace, but managed violence kept carefully below the nuclear threshold. It's not victory, but it's survival. It's not justice, but it's not annihilation either.

Perhaps that's the best the nuclear age offers: not cycles of revenge leading to total war as in 1914, but cycles of limited violence that prevent escalation to unlimited war. A hundred targeted killings over fifty years, versus millions dead in nuclear exchange.

Put that way, the moral calculus shifts uncomfortably.

A Question of Identity—and Survival

Ultimately, Wrath of God forces us to ask what kind of societies we wish to build and inhabit—and whether the nuclear age allows us those choices.

Do we live by ancient codes of retributive justice, accepting that some acts merit death without trial? Or do we commit to legal processes even when inconvenient, even for those who show us no mercy, even when those processes lack enforcement mechanisms in a nuclear-armed world?

Do we accept that nation-states, in extremis, may violate sovereignty and law to protect citizens when total war risks nuclear escalation? Or do we insist that international order, however imperfect, remains preferable to a world where might makes right—while acknowledging that international order has no answer to terrorists protected by hostile states?

Do we see targeted killing as a regrettable necessity uniquely suited to nuclear-age constraints? Or as a dangerous precedent that corrodes legal constraints while failing to address root causes of conflict?

These questions have no easy answers. They require wrestling with tragedy—with situations where every choice violates cherished principles, where moral purity proves impossible, where we must choose not between good and evil but between competing goods and lesser evils.

And they require acknowledging a uncomfortable historical reality: Gavrilo Princip's assassination of one archduke triggered total war that killed millions because no constraints existed to prevent escalation. Today's targeted killings—Soleimani, bin Laden, Salameh, hundreds of others—kill individuals (and tragically, bystanders) but haven't triggered total war precisely because nuclear weapons have created constraints on escalation that didn't exist in 1914.

We can lament that we live in a world where assassination has become routine. But we should perhaps also recognize that we live in a world where the alternative—total war between major powers—has become effectively impossible. The question is whether one caused the other, and whether that trade-off represents moral progress or moral degradation.

What remains undeniable is that Operation Wrath of God transformed counterterrorism from a law enforcement problem into a military operation, from a judicial process into a battlefield decision—but a battlefield carefully limited to avoid wider war. Every drone strike in Yemen, every assassination in London, every cross-border raid traces its lineage to those Mossad operatives in 1970s Europe, operating in the shadow of the mushroom cloud.

We live in the world Golda Meir and her Kidon teams created—a world where the hunter and the hunted stalk each other across continents, where sovereignty bends to security imperatives, where justice and vengeance blur into indistinguishability. But also a world where conflicts that might once have triggered total war remain limited, where violence is calibrated rather than unlimited, where individual deaths substitute for mass casualties.

The hunt, as Israel's current operations demonstrate, never truly ends. It just changes targets. But perhaps—and this is the most uncomfortable truth of all—it also never escalates to the total war that nuclear weapons have made unthinkable.

Whether this represents the triumph of necessary realism over naive idealism, the corruption of hard-won legal principles by the logic of endless war, or the tragic adaptation of limited violence to the constraints of the nuclear age, depends on which testament guides your conscience—the old or the new, Exodus or the Gospels, Sarajevo or Hiroshima, Nuremberg or Wrath of God.

Sources and Citations

Airwars. "Turkish Drone Strikes Database: Iraq and Syria, 2015-2024." https://airwars.org/

Alston, Philip. "Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions." UN Human Rights Council, July 2020. https://www.ohchr.org/

Amnesty International. "Targeted Killings and Extrajudicial Executions." Annual Report 2019. https://www.amnesty.org/

Baer, Robert. See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism. Crown Publishers, 2002.

Bellingcat Investigation Team. "FSB Team of Chemical Weapon Experts Implicated in Alexey Navalny Novichok Poisoning." December 14, 2020. https://www.bellingcat.com/

Betts, Richard K. Conflict After Combat: Lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan. Oxford University Press, 2022.

Black, Ian, and Benny Morris. Israel's Secret Wars: A History of Israel's Intelligence Services. Grove Press, 1991.

Bureau of Investigative Journalism. "Drone Warfare Database." Updated 2024. https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/projects/drone-war

Central Intelligence Agency. "Declassified Documents on US-PLO Relations, 1975-1980." CIA Freedom of Information Act Reading Room, 2017. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/

Clarke, James W. American Assassins: The Darker Side of Politics. Princeton University Press, 1982.

Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute. "Counting the Dead: The Culture and Politics of Human Rights Accountability." Report, 2023. https://web.law.columbia.edu/

Correlates of War Project. "Interstate War Database, 1816-2023." University of Michigan. https://correlatesofwar.org/

Cronin, Audrey Kurth. How Terrorism Ends: Understanding the Decline and Demise of Terrorist Campaigns. Princeton University Press, 2009.

Fazal, Tanisha M. Wars of Law: Unintended Consequences in the Regulation of Armed Conflict. Cornell University Press, 2018.

Freedom House. "Transnational Repression Database." Updated 2024. https://freedomhouse.org/

Freedman, Lawrence. The Future of War: A History. PublicAffairs, 2017.

Gaddis, John Lewis. The Long Peace: Inquiries into the History of the Cold War. Oxford University Press, 1987.

Global Terrorism Database. "Terrorist Attacks and Assassinations, 1970-2024." National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), University of Maryland. https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/

Hehir, J. Bryan. "The Just War Ethic and Catholic Theology: Dynamics of Change and Continuity." In War or Peace? The Search for New Answers, edited by Thomas A. Shannon. Orbis Books, 1980.

Human Rights Watch. "Targeted Killing and International Law: A Global Assessment." Human Rights Watch Report, 2023. https://www.hrw.org/

International Court of Justice. "Advisory Opinion on the Legality of Targeted Killings Under International Law." ICJ Reports 2024. https://www.icj-cij.org/

International Institute for Counter-Terrorism. "Statistical Analysis of Palestinian Terrorism, 1968-2020." Herzliya, Israel, 2020. https://www.ict.org.il/

Jervis, Robert. The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution: Statecraft and the Prospect of Armageddon. Cornell University Press, 1989.

Jonas, George. Vengeance: The True Story of an Israeli Counter-Terrorist Team. Simon & Schuster, 1984.

Kemp, Richard. Attack State Red. Michael Joseph, 2020.

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

Le Monde. "French Special Forces Operations in the Sahel: A Decade of Secret Warfare." Investigation series, 2021-2023. https://www.lemonde.fr/

Long, Austin. "The Shadow of the Mushroom Cloud: Nuclear Weapons and the Transformation of Warfare." International Security, Vol. 45, No. 2, Fall 2020.

Manchester, William. The Death of a President: November 20-November 25, 1963. Harper & Row, 1967.

McKinley, James C. Jr. "The Long Shadow of Presidential Assassinations." New York Times, November 20, 2013.

Melzer, Nils. "Targeted Killing in International Law." UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Report, May 2020. https://www.ohchr.org/

Melman, Yossi. The Master Terrorist: The True Story of Abu-Nidal. Adama Books, 1986.

New America Foundation. "Drone Strikes Database: Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia." Updated 2024. https://www.newamerica.org/

Owen Committee (UK Parliament). "The Litvinenko Inquiry: Report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko." January 2016. https://www.gov.uk/

Pedahzur, Ami. The Israeli Secret Services and the Struggle Against Terrorism. Columbia University Press, 2009.

Pope John Paul II. Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life). Encyclical Letter, March 25, 1995. Vatican.va

Reeve, Simon. One Day in September: The Full Story of the 1972 Munich Olympics Massacre. Arcade Publishing, 2000.

Sadat, Leila Nadya. "Transnational Justice and the International Criminal Court." Washington University Global Studies Law Review, Vol. 19, No. 3, 2020.

Safeguard Defenders. "Involuntary Returns: China's Covert Operation to Force 'Fugitives' Overseas Back Home." Report, September 2022. https://safeguarddefenders.com/

Sandel, Michael J. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009.

Sagan, Scott D., and Kenneth N. Waltz. The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: An Enduring Debate, 3rd edition. W.W. Norton, 2012.

Steven, Stewart. The Spymasters of Israel. Macmillan, 1980.

Stockholm Center for Freedom. "Abductions and Forcible Returns: Turkey's Transnational Repression." Database updated 2024. https://stockholmcf.org/

Telushkin, Rabbi Joseph. Jewish Literacy: The Most Important Things to Know About the Jewish Religion. William Morrow, 2008.

The National Archives (UK). "Documents on UK Response to Munich Olympics Massacre, 1972-1973." Released under Freedom of Information Act, 2022. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/

Tuchman, Barbara W. The Guns of August. Macmillan, 1962.

United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. "Investigation into the unlawful death of Mr. Jamal Khashoggi." Report A/HRC/41/CRP.1, June 2019. https://www.ohchr.org/

United States Catholic Conference. "The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response." Pastoral Letter on War and Peace, May 3, 1983.

U.S. Secret Service. "Assaults on U.S. Presidents and Presidential Candidates: Historical Overview." Department of Homeland Security, updated 2024.

Walzer, Michael. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations, 5th edition. Basic Books, 2015.

Walzer, Michael. "Targeted Killing and Drone Warfare." Dissent Magazine, Winter 2013.

This analysis examines historical events and their contemporary implications without endorsing any particular position on the use of targeted killing in counterterrorism operations.

Search This Blog

Science, Time, and Spirit

The Sword of Vengeance: How Operation Wrath of God Rewrote the Rules of Global Justice