To those of you who are familiar with the situation in the Israeli Palestinian conflict, I would say this film is a "must see".
In short this film features six heads of the Shin Bet (Israel's internal Security and anti-Terror agency) being interviewed regarding the Palestinians, Settlers and anti-Terror activities that these men oversaw. It is very telling in that all of these men talk about the importance and value of negotiations and how all of these men see their roles as both protectors of the Israeli people AND agents in a tactical war of retribution and security.
The interviewees seem to be honest (though there was evident "playing to the cameras in some questions") in their assessments regarding their jobs and the role in politics that they play. Sometimes brutally so. What struck me about all of these men was that none of them seemed to "enjoy" what they did (both good and bad). There is a sense they did what they felt they had to do, but under direct questioning that there was no sense of "triumph" in the long run. There seemed to be an almost sadness to these men as well as a desperate need to make sure that when history views them, it views them through the lens of those who tried to do the best possible job in very extreme circumstances.
Three things stood out for me. They were:
1. I would like to see a Palestinian version of this film if one could exist (interviews with the heads of Hamas security or Fatah security). One thing I saw from these interviews was that there was a great deal of regret over certain tactics that have been employed and the way these things were managed. Particularly when they talk about the assassination of Salah Shahade in Gaza where his wife and children were killed from a One Ton Bomb dropped on his home, and the regret they feel at this not having been a "clean" operation.
I do have to wonder if any of the Palestinians involved in mass killings of Jewish and American civilians would interview and say the same things. I am not sure that they would. I don't see a lot of self-reflection in the public statements from Palestinian leaders regarding this kind of thing. To me this is telling about the societies we live in. It is something that has always stayed with me from the time I lived in Israel. The Israelis may be good at certain things involving warfare, but, I don't know many of them who outright brag about inflicting civilian casualties, at least not the people who actually have been involved in that.
2. The part regarding Jewish Terrorism absolutely bothered me to no end. I remember when I lived in Israel talking with early people involved in the settlement movement (Geula Cohen in particular - I was doing a project on Tehiya while attending Hebrew University) and the things they said. To actually see that some of the people I was talking too (because I did talk to MK's that were hard Rightists) were involved in freeing those on the Hard Right that planned Terror actions is sobering. I mean planning to blow up 250 Arab civilians on buses or to bomb the Temple Mount... Who does these things, and why were those people allowed to run free? I mean, bombing the Temple Mount and bringing down Al-Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock would literally start WWIII. What insane person does this? More than that, what insane people allow these people to go free.
ALSO, on Yigal Amir. The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin shook me to the core. When Carmi Gillon was talking about what happened, I was dumbfounded. And he was brutally honest as to what the Shin Bet thought the role that PM Netanyahu and PM Sharon played in that. Rabin was a great man, who had a vision and the Right destroyed that vision.
3. There will be a Third Intifada (although I pray to G-d it does not happen). I just don't see how with this new government there won't be. The movie gives tactical and somewhat strategic reasoning behind it... But what now for the Palestinians? They will have Gaza and that is pretty much it, at least IF this new administration gets it's way. If it won't then where are the plans on the table. Where even is the table? Moshe Ya'alon is pro-settlement and who is Deputy Minister of Defense... Naftali Bennett, a man who is outright in favor of the "One State Solution". So exactly what are Palestinians in the West Bank "playing" for. The Prime Minister has made vague noises about the Two State Solution but according to U.S. intelligence he is the only one in his party that actually even talks about it.
The GateKeepers is an intelligent film dealing with serious people talking about things they know. They don't screw around with political rhetoric and after dealing with the nonsense that is the internet, (including commentary on this blog), it was refreshing to see.
Please everyone who reads this (all 10 of you), please go see it, and then come back and let's discuss it. What was your "take away" from it?
Thanks for the review. It's hard to say that I am looking forward to watching the film, but I definitely will watch it. Films like this very rarely make it onto screens in NOLA, so I'll have to wait until it's available online. It is not streaming on Amazon yet, as soon as it does, I'll take a look.
ReplyDeleteWhat is your take on the "balance" of the movie? Do they play it down the middle, is it shaded towards the I or P perspective?
--Hey338Too
I definitely recommend that you do go see it.
DeleteAs for "Balance"... I don't think that is operative here. It is what it is. These are interviews with Six former heads of the Shabak (Shin Bet). There are some things that are Pro-P, and some that are Pro-I as is reality itself.
It certainly has moments that would be considered "Pro-P" and it has moments that would be considered "Pro-I". Honestly, I just don't see it as being anything other than a discussion on what is right and wrong with the Shin Bet. I think that both sides could make claims on it.
For my part, I didn't watch it with any slant in mind, I just went into it with an open mind and man, it was intense.
Thanks for the information. I will definitely see it when it's available. I guess my question was based on the concern that certain people will push the narrative to conform with their world view, I certainly saw that in the interview Dror Moreh did with Democracy Now (and the reaction from GOS reactionaries who hadn't actually seen the film). So it's good to know that it came across as balanced to you. That is certainly what it sounded like Moreh was working towards regardless of the narrative being pushed by the interviewers.
ReplyDeleteYeah no worries.
DeleteIt certainly was NOTHING like what that racist Obamalover2012 said it was. Yes, Avraham Shalom did say what Obamalover2012 (aka Romo2Austin, Sal2012, Don't Call It, and a host of other names) said, HOWEVER, Obamalover2012 conveniently left out the rest of what Shalom went on to say when asked that question.
Shalom then clarified by saying that it was NOT like the Nazi's and the Jews. He clearly stated that he felt the Nazi's and the Jews were a unique situation.
He was talking about Occupying powers in general. And whether that is Pro-I or Pro-P sort of is a moot point. It was Shalom's opinion of this one situation.
In re-reading Obamalover2012's diary - he/she/it completely mis-repesents what was said and the context in which it was said. I wish I had seen the movie so I could have destroyed that diary. Oh well....
But again, I wouldn't say it was "Balanced". I don't think the concept of "Balance" enters into it. It was just the experiences of six men and what they thought about regarding operations of the Shabak.
It was a historical document (so to speak) on the workings of the Shin Bet and Six Men. I don't think it can or should be politicized beyond that.
Your point about O'Lover's comment was exactly what I was thinking about. I kind of figured that there was more context to what Shalom said than was presented in that diary - thank you for the clarification.
ReplyDeleteAnd I understand what you mean about "balance", that was my word and not yours. "It is what it is" seemed too wordy at the time, but probably was a more accurate portrayal of how I actually read your take. If I had written my post after I walked the dog I probably would have used "unvarnished".
Yes... "unvarnished" is a very good word. I would say that would be accurate.
DeleteI just read over that diary again and it is pretty obvious that Obamalover20122 is either a White Supremacist (because he is pushing the Khazar theory) or just an outright bigot pretending to be progressive. Either way, he badly misses on the film and on what Avraham Shalom had to say.
That entire diary was written about a single line in _an interview about the film_. That actual part of the film was not shown during the interview (I watched the whole thing looking for that quote). Furthermore, the film hadn't even been released in the US yet. He was just trying to get a rise out of his peeps, and didn't like getting called for the lack of context.
DeleteI'm not sure that white supremacy and outright bigotry are mutually exclusive. He's also an anti-Semite and anti-Israel, the GOS super-fecta.
---Hey338Too