The Gatekeepers (2012) User Reviews

Unique insight into the Shin Bet

[ruben-154 · 9/10 · 24 November 2012]

In this documentary the film maker interviews six former heads of the Shin Bet, the Israeli intelligence service. The interviews paint a picture of the security situation Israel is facing and the decisions it has made in its conflict with the Palestinians.

I was surprised to see that these former Shin Bet heads had a much more nuanced view of the conflict than I expected. Of course, they have been defending Israel and they are still Israeli citizens and they still stand behind decisions that they have made and that have cost Palestinian lives. In that sense they are "pro-Israel". On the other hand some of them openly discussed the possibility of a Palestinian state, they spoke of Palestinians in a much more humane way than many Israeli's do and they were openly critical of Israel's security policy in the past decades, both from a human and from a professional, security perspective.

One of the interviewees for example said that one people's terrorist is the other people's freedom fighter, which is not only very true, but it also shows that these people, through their history in Shin Bet have attained a different way of looking at the conflict. I found that a very surprising and interesting aspect of the movie.

I saw the film at the International Documentary Festival in Amsterdam (IDFA). The maker of the movie was present at the screening and he took questions from the audience after the screening. There was one Israeli woman in the audience that condemned the maker of being anti-Israeli and painting a too positive picture of the Palestinians and right after that there was a Dutch man in the audience accusing the maker of painting a too pro-Israeli picture. It just shows the incredible sensitivity around the subject. I myself was wondering "which side is he on" when the movie started. The movie however doesn't really show the views of the film maker, but the views of the former heads of Shin Bet, which is an entirely new perspective, because most movies about this conflict are created from a certain political standpoint.

I think the maker has done a very good job at getting these six important people to participate in his documentary, because the views of these people are important and hard to ignore. It is not a movie that was inspired by right-wing or left-wing sentiments, it was an unbiased movie that shows the views of the six people that were on the forefront of this war for many years. I am very surprised to see what the reactions to this movie will be in Israel. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Remarkable

[howard.schumann · 9/10 · 11 March 2013]

You would normally bet that the chances of six former directors of the Israel Internal Security Service known as Shabak or, in English, Shin Bet becoming left-leaning proponents of a peaceful solution with the Palestinians would be about as likely as Dick Cheney becoming a political consultant for MSNBC. Yet, as depicted in Dror Moreh's powerful and disturbing documentary The Gatekeepers, this is exactly what happened. The film, one of five Oscar-nominated films for Best Documentary, consists of interviews by the director with Shin Bet spokesmen: Avraham Shalom, Yaakov Peri, Carmi Gillon, Ami Ayalon, Avi Dichter, and Yuval Diskin, interspersed with newsreel footage and CGI graphical recreation of the seemingly endless conflict since 1967.

Moreh asks tough questions and does not let his subjects off the hook, but there is no need to. The men are forthcoming in their candid assessment of the role they played in the Shin Bet operations which included the recruitment and use of informers, the targeting and drone attacks on suspected terrorists (sound familiar?), use of brutal torture techniques, and controlling the threat of Jewish extremists, a threat that became reality when a right-wing opponent of the Oslo peace agreements shot and killed the architect of those agreements, Nobel Peace prize winner Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin.

Two horrific events are dramatized: the assassination of Palestinian terrorist Yahya Ayyash by planting an explosive device in his cell phone, and the skull bashing of two Palestinian terrorists involved in a bus hijacking after they had been subdued and captured, an action that led to the resignations by the Prime Minister and the then head of the Shin Bet. To their credit, however, the security agency called off dropping a bomb on a house filled with Hamas leaders because of the possibility of widespread collateral damage. The men were hardliners to begin with, but each, who has had to deal with the problem first-hand, has come to see the futility of an occupation that seems to lead only to an endless cycle of brutality on both sides.

They insist that continuing to talk with the Palestinians is the only option left and that anything else is a dead end street. Though they favor a two-state solution, they recognize that the opposition to dismantling the settlements might cause a civil war. If you are wondering how the six could have reached the same conclusions, Ami Ayalon tells us that "The six of us reached our opinions from different personal backgrounds and different political outlooks, but we've all reached the same conclusion. Many Israelis and American Jews want to deny it, but this is our professional opinion. We're at the edge of an abyss, and if Israeli-Palestinian peace doesn't progress, it's the end of Zionism." Though these men are patriots who believed they were doing the right thing for their country and still believe that a great number of Jewish lives were saved by their actions, they also acknowledge their struggle with the moral dimensions of the job, the thin line between taking a life and saving a life. Shalom's comments are telling, "We have become cruel to ourselves but mainly to the occupation," he says. "We paid a horrible price for our military successes. We are isolated completely from our neighbors, we cannot go anywhere. We are a thorn in the side of the region." According to Ayalon, "The tragedy of Israel's public security debate is that we don't realize that we face a frustrating situation, in which "we win every battle, but we lose the war." The Gatekeepers shows a side of the Israel-Palestinian conflict that we have not seen before and, considering the ultra-secret nature of the counter-terrorist organization, it is remarkable that Moreh was even able to conduct the interviews. Yet the impact of the film has yet to make much of a difference. In his speech prepared for delivery at the Oscars in event the film won the award for Best Documentary, Moreh said, "We pray that it (the film) will echo in the corridors of power in Washington, Berlin, Paris, London, and especially in Jerusalem and Ramallah." To this date, the only echo heard is the sound of doors being closed.

The Israeli/Palestinian Conflict Rendered Even More Hopeless

[ezr2061 · 9/10 · 10 March 2013]

This film makes a big assumption that its audience has at least a practical knowledge of the history of the Israel/Palestinian conflict. There's almost no context offered other than a brief recap of the 6 Days War in 1967 when Israeli forces under the leadership of the charismatic Moshe Dayan invaded and conquered Palestinian controlled lands on two fronts, including Syrian, Lebanese and Jordanian lands. To the south on the border with Egypt is the Gaza Strip and to the east is the West Bank encompassing the lands extending to the Jordan River and includes the ancient city of Jerusalem. These ostensibly autonomous regions were officially under Palestinian rule but nearly every aspect of daily life was controlled, monitored and regulated by Israeli agencies and forces. Never mentioned are the contentious circumstances of Israel's establishment as an actual nation following World War II, and thus a key aspect of the conflict is conspicuously absent, presumably because it would require at least 2 or 3 hours just to review this subject, even superficially. Needless to say, it's a complex and convoluted history, and prior biases and prejudices are inevitable, and the film is certainly not innocent of this transgression, but this in no way diminishes the impact and resonance of the film's superbly executed theatrics.

Yes, the film relies extensively on the old documentary trope of the well lit talking head, but The Gatekeepers triumphs in its masterful incorporation of actual Israeli military footage of aerial and ground attacks, and even more so by the photographs which through remarkable computer enhancement are rendered sculptural. The way these black & white still photos are made to spring to 3 dimensional life is a sublimely potent metaphor for the ability of artful storytelling to reanimate presumably long dead history. The words of the various former leaders of the Shin Bet carry an undeniable gravitas and echo in the mind and soul as we are visually guided on a tour of their previously little known realm. By focusing on the subtle variations and contradictions of each speaker's version of events and policies and tactics we are made acutely aware of the generations old conflict's profound effect upon the psyches of everyone involved. The most confident and stoic of the former leaders is possessed of a deep sense of tragedy. Avraham Shalom - who headed Shin Bet from 1981 to 1986 during the time of an incident where two Palestinian prisoners were ordered killed while being held in captivity - casually denies his culpability but it's apparent that the incident has inflicted deep wounds which even today are still very tender.

The mind bending paradoxes of the seemingly intractable conflict have left their mark on all these competent, eloquent and even brave men, and some are willing to admit that perhaps they have behaved immorally and even criminally while also acknowledging the irony of their cruel treatment of Palestinians as inexcusable behavior for a people as historically mistreated as the Jews. It's a desperately poignant moment when the individual men all express their doubts and even contempt for the political leaders who so brazenly exploit the horrific conflict for their own ends. These six men who were charged with the gruesome task of eliminating threats to Israel's security are oddly some of the most compelling critics of their nation's treatment of the Palestinians.

An important film

[[e-mail] · 10/10 · 28 February 2013]

Like it or not--and some will despise it--"The Gatekeepers" is MUST SEE for anyone concerned about Israel's future. While it is true, as one reviewer has pointed out, that excerpts from the interviews with six former heads of Shin Bet, Israel's spy agency, have been assembled and, therefore, shaped by the director, what emerges is nevertheless astounding. To be sure there are significant differences of opinion on some issues -- like the efficacy of targeted assassinations, for example--and those differences have been obscured in some reviews of this documentary. But what unites the six is a good deal more significant than what divides them. They all regard the occupation as a disaster. They are all pessimistic about the future. They have contempt for most of Israel's politicians, who, they say, are consumed by tactical considerations but have no strategy. To a man, they want peace and see it slipping away. To a man they blame settlers and extremist rabbis, together with the politicians who have enabled them. (Only Yitzhak Rabin is admired by any of the six.) Yes, it's depressing. But reality is often depressing, and this is a necessary dose of reality from men who have spent their lifetimes in Israel's service.

A Step in the Right Direction

[dmkmb · 9/10 · 3 February 2013]

I saw this film the first weekend it is showing to limited release in LA. The theater was packed. The directer was there for Q and A afterwords which helped get feel of how unlikely it would have seemed to get 6 former Shin Bet chiefs to all agree to speak openly in Public. ShinBet is like THEFBI and CIA together. Each in their own way showed their acceptance that guns and drones don't really get peace. Israel keeps winning battles but not the wars You know it was good film if liberals think it was too accepting of Israeli violence against Palistinians. And hawks think it was too critical of Israel. A friend of mine walked out silent. Politics aside if that is possible it was a talking heads film with lots intersperst videos

All said and done it was a powerful challenge to Israeli and American faith in violence to solve polotical conflicts.

Set aside politics and see the moral struggle

[Jpinkus-580-157561 · 7/10 · 12 January 2013]

The movie is a powerful illustration of Golda Meir's comment, "We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children." I kept wondering if Arab leaders experience any of the same moral struggle when they direct the killing of innocent men, women and children that these Israelis have. These men opened up and showed us their struggle. It would be sad if we only see the moral conflict on one side. Killing is never easy or right. The responsibility to protect is a heavy one.

The documentary is clear and easy to understand. The supporting film clips are well selected and the editing is excellent. Don't expect to leave feeling good, no matter what your political point of view.

the voice of The Gatekeepers

[dromasca · 9/10 · 10 February 2013]

Israelis abide to very few myths. In a young country that is a melting pot of people coming from almost one hundred different countries, where a majority of the population is either born some other place or belong to the second generation of children of immigrant parents, what unites even more than the shared traditions (respected in various manners and to very different levels of obedience) or the common history which is for many yet to be learned (if not to be written) are above all the permanent external menaces perceived in many moments, rightly or wrongly, as existential dangers. In such moments the trust of the nation is not that much focused on politicians but on the people who defend the country, some with the arms in hands, other in wars that are more secret than visible. The heads of the military and the heads of the security services – the legendary spy agency Mossad and the internal Security Service 'Shin-Beth' as it is called in this film are living legends for most of the Israelis. Until recently some of them were known only by their initials as long as they lived and were active. Their opinions count, and when they converge, as seems up to a certain extent to be the case in this film, people listen. The first major achievement of director Dror Moreh and the team that made this film is to have brought together six of The Gatekeepers, the former heads of the internal security service of Israel and make them talk about the history of the service, the war on terrorism, the relations with the Palestinian neighbors of Israel, the situation of Israel today, and the perspective ahead. The convergent views of these men should worry all Israelis who have seen or will see the film.

There is a lot of good and interesting information that is presented in this film, but of course, not all history and the whole complexity of the conflict could have been brought on screen in a documentary that lasts about 90 minutes. Lacking facts will certainly expose the film to critics from all directions, but these critics would be to some extent unfair. In fact for the Israeli audiences there is nothing completely new here, investigative reporting in the Israeli press, TV documentary movies, and books written by political experts and historians have exposed sometimes in much more details different aspects of the stories presented in this film. What is new and different is the candid manner the makers of the movie succeed to make the six different personalities who successively lead the service talk about the events that took place in the last 45 years, their meaning, their implications. Attentive spectators who also know the differences between the views and positions of the six leaders will perceive also the differences between their opinions and their approaches into presenting the facts, but overall a fascinating perspective is built by getting together their testimonies and the history of the area in the period between the Six Days War and today, the initial euphoria, the lost opportunities, the achievements and the mistakes in the fight against terror, the moral dilemmas and the price of the occupation, the human risks and morality of lack of morality of some of the methods – all come together in a perspective which is amplified by the coherent message delivered by each one of the speakers. If you search for information in this film you will not get the whole picture, and I am quite sure that the film will be much better understood from this point of view by Israelis than by audiences abroad. If you look for the historic trends and for indications about things to come, it's mandatory viewing, and it does not look like good news, but rather like a very strong warning signal from people who were in the middle of the policy making and security actions of Israel.

I believe that this film should be seen by as many people as possible and debated in Israel. Best would be probably a screening on prime time TV, but I am not optimistic about this happening soon as prime time TV in Israel seems to be almost fully booked by (i)reality shows. At least, by now The Gatekeepers is distributed commercially and the audiences seem to be interested. However, the more echoes may come from abroad, especially as the film is a candidate for the Oscar in the documentary category, certainly if it also wins the award. The editing of the film is smart, the combination between historical footage and computerized effects puts even more life into the illustrations, and the permanent images of the big screens as a symbol of the technology used to permanently supervise the territories is haunting. I have seen however much more sophisticated technical means put at work in documentaries. 'The Gatekeepers' is eventually a talking heads movie and is important because of the stories that the talking heads tell and the message that they deliver.

Watch real power talk about itself.

[JohnDeSando · 30 March 2013]

"These are philosophical questions, not practical ones," Yaakov Peri

If the Arab-Israeli conflict interests you, then take a close look at The Gatekeepers, a first-rate documentary about Shin Bet, the Israeli security agency primarily responsible for Israel's complicated relationship with Palestine, for both good and bad.

Director Dror Moreh has the six former heads of the agency speak as candidly as is possible for men were cautious in the extreme about safety and negotiation, causing death, destruction, and reconstruction to people who just can't seem to settle their differences.

As a one-time head avers in the quote above, for the leaders of the agency, founded in 1949 immediately after Israel declared its independence, the decisions of Shin Bet most often depended on the tactic rather than the strategy. Such a mode led to the Bus 300 affair in 1984 with Israeli operatives beating two Arab bus hijackers to death upon orders from Avaraham Shalom, head of the agency at that time. The decision, according to him, was a matter of not having to deal with the terrorists in arrest. And you thought drones were cold.

Ruthless and efficient as Shin Bet is, it couldn't stop Israeli Prime Minister Yitzah Rabin's assassination in 1995, even when it knew the identity of the assassin beforehand. Yet the documentary's thrust, ruled as it is by seasoned intelligence officers who lack self-recrimination, is that the agency did what it had to do and was on the whole successful protecting Israel.

As the film moves toward its end and the elderly leaders ruminate, one states he has moved toward the left in his old age, suggesting that decisions to accept collateral damage to civilians were necessary but regrettable. As I watch in fascination, I could only think how nice to be able to live with oneself and shift on the political spectrum with barely a scratch.

The Gatekeepers, deservedly nominated for a 2012 Oscar, does what a good doc should do—lets the subjects talk for themselves and thereby cleanly exalt and exonerate themselves without directorial intrusion (except in the editing room, of course).

Closer to the truth of the occupation's collateral damage, Shalom evaluates himself and his fellow leaders: "We have become cruel to ourselves but mainly to the occupation."

Intriguingly Contradictory Look at the Work of the Israeli Secret Service

[l_rawjalaurence · 7/10 · 3 March 2014]

This documentary consists of a series of interviews with former heads of Shin Bet, the Israeli Secret Service. They outline their work in protecting the country's interests, especially since the Six Day War of 1967, while reflecting on the morality of their actions. The film illustrates some of their maneuvers with the help of archive footage and reconstructions. What makes THE GATEKEEPERS so intriguing is its contradictory viewpoints; on the one hand many of those interviewed believe that it is their duty to protect Israeli interests at all costs, even if it means incurring collateral damage. If they targeted a particular Palestinian suspect, they accepted as a matter of course that innocent people would get killed, however much they tried to pinpoint their campaign. While accepting to an extent the Palestinian claims to their own separate state, the interviewees nonetheless have a jaundiced view of the methods their rivals employ: why should Palestinians believe they have achieved their revenge simply by making the Israelis suffer? Yet perhaps what is most interesting is the way in which the interviewees criticize their own government for perpetually pursuing militarist policies, and refusing to meet the Palestinians round the negotiating-table in a sustained way. The Oslo accords of the mid- Nineties represented a step in the right direction, but they collapsed within seven years. Since then, most Israeli Prime Ministers have been preoccupied with pursuing aggressive policies against the Palestinians. The interviewees understand that they, the Israelis, are the colonists, adopting modes of behavior which they themselves experienced in the past at the hands of the British. Perhaps greater care needs to be taken in the future about pursuing a more liberal policy; but the interviewees seem fairly pessimistic about this actually happening. THE GATEKEEPERS might not be a particularly dramatic film, but it is an invaluable text that helps to unravel the complexities underlying the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Honest Documentary

[JanicePf77 · 9/10 · 3 March 2014]

I was kind of surprised by the candid nature of The Gatekeepers. I was expecting it to be tainted with political correctness or even overt propaganda, given its sensitive subject matter. But instead, all the former heads of Shin Bet seemed genuine to me - admitting to as many embarrassing exploits as heroic ones.

I am sure there will be people on the opposite side of the fence that will still see it as propaganda. And perhaps that is understandable given how much blood has been shed in that region of the world and just how contentious the issues are. But I for one found the perspectives honest, chilling and with a glimmer of hope that things can be better in the future.

Highly recommended.

Thought-Provoking and Surprisingly Unbiased

[nolandalla-447-695930 · 7/10 · 6 April 2013]

Bring up the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and reactions typically vary from indifference to fanaticism -- with little territory in between. Indeed, the chasm of constructive dialog is currently so narrow, that merely reducing tension in this long-troubled region would be considered a historic success.  That's how low the bar has been set.  Stopping all violence is probably next to impossible.  Achieving an everlasting peace between Jews and Arabs seems like a starry-eyed fantasy. Six reprehensible decades of hate have produced way too much blood, far too many deaths, too many cries for revenge, too many walls and checkpoints, too many suicide bombers, too many senseless attacks on innocents, too much pain, and far too few heroes willing to put an end to all the madness and misery. Amidst this backdrop of bleakness, there's a flicker of light.  A documentary has come out which stands as the most unbiased overview of this terrible conflict in recent memory. The film seeks to accomplish what may be impossible -- establishing a consensus that the best way to achieve peace is adapting a two-state solution, which means creating an independent Palestinian nation.  This declaration comes not necessarily from Palestinians, but from very knowledgeable Israelis, which makes the case for a two-state solution all the more convincing.  The exclamation point on this manifesto comes when taking into account the backgrounds and allegiances of these Israelis now trumpeting the loudest for a Palestinian homeland -- who feature prominently in the film.  "The Gatekeepers," released in late 2012 but is just now making its way to theaters in several American cities.  This groundbreaking Israeli film, nominated for a "Best Documentary" Oscar, is a serious-minded look at the history of violence in Israel and the occupied territories since the end of the 1967 Six-Day War.  It's an indisputable historical record of the conflict which unintentionally created what now seems to be irreparable divisions between nations, religions, and cultures. Indeed, if the West's troubles with international terrorism and our burdens in the Middle East have an epicenter, it's neither in Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan.  Long before 9-11 and its two-war aftermath, tempers reached the boiling point a very long time ago over the land once called Palestine. "The Gatekeepers" is almost entirely in Hebrew, with English-language subtitles.  That's because the six key personalities interviewed in the film are all Israelis.  Remarkably, all six of the "stars" of this film are the former heads of Shin Bet, Israel's domestic security agency.  To make things clearer, Shin Bet handles Israel's domestic conflicts, which includes the occupied territories -- comprised largely of Palestinians.  This is a dark (and at times, depressing) movie.  There's not much here to rejoice about.  The substance and style of the film is something you'd expect to see on The Military Channel.  Intelligence gathering, counter-terrorism measures, political considerations, and the day-to-day business of Shin Bet is portrayed here as never shown before.  Alas, other than these six heads of the agency, virtually all Shin Bet operatives remain anonymous. Grainy black and white images from actual targeted assassinations are shown.  One sees precisely how and why specific "terrorist" targets are chosen and the reasons certain enemies are eliminated.  We also see what happens when things go terribly wrong, which does occur with greater frequency than many may realize.  Regardless of one's personal opinion in the conflict, you can't help but be dazzled by the organization and capabilities of this extraordinary organization. But what truly makes "The Gatekeepers" a landmark achievement is the unmasking of former Shin Bet heads who all speak with remarkable candor about what they've done in the past and what they now believe about the best prospects for peace in the future.  The intelligence commandos agreed to be interviewed -- each one independently -- for the first time ever on camera.  What they say needs to be heard, and heralded. "The Gatekeepers" surpasses what's typically expected from this method of storytelling because it ends up challenging so many conventional assumptions.  For instance, I didn't expect to by sympathetic towards Shin Bet or it's former leaders.  I just assumed these intelligence/military operatives would share the dangerous hard-line fanaticism of Benjamin Netanyahu and his Right-Wing followers, who are willing to justify any action necessary for the defense of Israel no matter how much collateral damage is done.  But these assumptions aren't at all reflective of these men or what they now believe.  Indeed, the 90-minute film builds slowly towards that gradual transformation of opinion among all six agency heads -- each independently reaching an identical conclusion.  That each of these men -- of different ages and having served at different periods --  finally came to realize that the Palestinians might actually have a legitimate case for their fury wasn't just surprising, but shocking. This is ultimately why "The Gatekeepers" soars.  It defies expectations.  It reveals things aren't what they seem and most certainly aren't black and white.  They are increasingly gray.  Assuming you care about the future and what is perhaps the most important area of dispute in the world, this is a movie that you'll be thinking about long after you've departed the theater. Unfortunately, few people will get that chance. Few Americans care enough to go see a documentary about some war being fought in a faraway place.  Why try and learn about history and current events when instead you can pay $10 to shut off your mind and become a vegetable for 95 minutes? But this is a movie made for everyone else.  "The Gatekeepers" pulls no punches and gets few style points.  But it sure is thought-provoking.  One can only wish the right people will see it and take note of what these remarkable experts in their field are saying, and then listen.  It might be the only hope we have extinguish the fires of conflict while fanatics on both sides ceaselessly continue to pour gasoline on the flames.

www.nolandalla.com

Eye-opening and rather brave.

[planktonrules · 9/10 · 15 July 2013]

"The Gatekeepers" is an amazing documentary--one that was nominated for the Oscar for Best Documentary Feature (losing to the great film "Searching for Sugar Man"). It's very well made and amazingly insightful--and the film really came to me as a surprise.

This film consists of interviews with several ex-commanders of the Shin Bet--the most top secret and toughest organization in Israel. Their mission is to stop terrorism and they are very, very good at it. However, in such a divided nation, they surely can't stop it all and the six ex-leaders all seem to agree that the mission can never fully be completed. However, what was pretty shocking was the finale, in which ALL of them (including the most die-hard and tough-minded) all seemed in agreement with what the organization SHOULD do but which isn't possible due to politics. I could easily say more, but don't want to ruin the film.

What is really amazing about this is that in "The Gatekeepers" this previously ultra-secret organization is amazingly candid and approachable to the filmmakers--and I'd love to know HOW this occurred. All I know is that it's one-of-a-kind and fascinating throughout--and well worth seeing regardless of your political persuasion. Exceptional.

Excellent documentary!

[petarmatic · 7/10 · 23 March 2014]

I always wondered why did Israel decided to create a state surrounded by the Arabs? It just does not compute. It would of been better that they all went to the USA. We would of been all much happier, and Islamic terrorism probably would of not started. If we only could separate all the different religious groups from each other so they would not make war. Impossible task! Commerce would cease to exist and there would be no global economy which we are enjoying today.

I am sorry for the Palestinians and Israelis alike. If they only could separate like Czech Republic and Slovakia did. But that will not happen. It simply it is not possible. Geopolitical problem.

Nice documentary. Watch it.

Not objective, but could have been worse

[Nozz · 4/10 · 25 January 2013]

When you have half a dozen interviews to edit and splice together with documentary footage from several decades of history, obviously objectivity is not going to happen. What you select, how long you dwell on it, and even how you put a sound track to the footage-- subjectivity enters into it all. There's also what you don't say. For example when an interviewee laments that Hamas spoiled the peace that the PLO and Israel were building, no one appears on screen to remind the audience of PLO-sponsored hate indoctrination and terror attacks. However, the film is not pure anti-Israeli propaganda, and to the extent that it presents the interviewees' view of recent history as a series of lost opportunities for peace, we may disagree with the interviewees but it appears we can trust the filmmaker that they did say what we hear. Meanwhile, we're still waiting for Israeli filmmakers to create, and for Hollywood distributors to embrace, a political movie that depicts Israel with less than an overdose of self-criticism.

The spy chiefs vent their fury at the politicians of Israel

[robert-temple-1 · 10/10 · 3 February 2016]

This amazing Israeli documentary is certainly unique in world cinema history. A group of spy chiefs have come together to complain about their own politicians and express their concerns about the future of the Middle East. All six surviving former heads of Israel's Shin Bet internal security agency (not to be confused with Mossad, the foreign intelligence agency which is not discussed) have clearly made an agreement amongst themselves to put their case to the world public and call attention to the very real dangers of the present situation, which they believe can only get worse. They complain about the spinelessness and lack of leadership of Israeli politicians. (They politely omit to mention the present ones, attacking only the retired or dead ones.) However, all of them strongly supported and admired Prime Minister Rabin, saying that his assassination by a fanatical orthodox Jew destroyed the chance for peace between Israel and Palestine. They all clearly hate and despise the ultra-orthodox Jews whom they call 'the settler movement' and complain that their own politicians have refused to restrain the excesses of those Jewish fanatics. They say that the ultra-orthodox Jews want to bring on Armageddon because they have a mystical conviction that then the Messiah will come. It is obvious that they believe that the ultra-orthodox Jews are totally insane. The Shin Bet aborted a very advanced plot by the ultra-orthodox Jewish fanatics to blow up the mosque on top of the ruins of Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem. But when the leaders of the plot went to prison they were released very quickly and the politicians were afraid to offend them. The former Shin Bet leaders are all very gloomy and believe that there is now no hope for peace. This film seems to be their last and most desperate attempt to change the situation by going public with their worries. They speak very frankly about the security situation and give many specific examples of operations, with a lot of revealing film footage. An enormous number of secrets are revealed in great detail. The film was directed by the Israeli director and cinematographer Dror Moreh and was nominated for an Oscar. Never has such a film been made before, and I wonder if any will ever be made again. Everyone interested in world affairs should watch it. It also offers enlightenment as to how despairing the heads of security agencies, who view themselves as 100% professionals, are about the politicians to whom they are required to answer, and whom they mostly regard as idiots or fools. When Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, an early CIA whistle-blower, published his controversial book THE SECRET TEAM in 1974, revealing that the American intelligence agencies routinely gave false briefings to American presidents, feeding them with misinformation and manipulating their decisions, we had an early taste of American spy chiefs' contempt for their own politicians. Here we see no less than six successive security chiefs speaking in unison in the same manner. But whereas the American examples tended to be aimed at prolonging wars (such as in Vietnam), the Israeli spy chiefs on the other hand seemed to be more interested in ending wars and making peace. They say many flattering things about the ordinary Palestinian people and apparently believe that the Hamas terrorists are harming the Palestinians more than the Israelis. The film presents a picture of Israeli spy chiefs which is just about as far from what one would have expected as can possibly be imagined. All of these men clearly regard themselves as liberals. If you want to be surprised, try watching this.

Incomplete perspective

[Patient0 · 9/10 · 19 January 2013]

Although this film deals with moral conflicts of heads of the Shin Bet it appears to lack the perspective of why we're in this situation in which these people have the power to take a man's life and cause collateral damage or not, no matter that the man in question is considered an enemy.

During the screening of this film my feeling was that this movie is bad for Israel's PR on one hand because it shows a very unpleasant reality to innocent Palestinians directly inflicted by Israel, but on the other hand it also shows that Israel is not this murderous entity some say it is. I think it'd be better if a bit more emphasis on why this conflict exists and why each side does what it does, though that might make it a bit more political.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not as simple as some people think and I think it's important for Israelis to watch this film as well as for people who claim Israel is immoral and simply wants to kill Palestinians.

It doesn't meet its full potential

[proud_luddite · 6/10 · 25 February 2020]

In this Israeli documentary, six former heads of Shin Bet (the Israeli government security service) are interviewed with respect to the history during the times of their authority and their perspectives on current and past states of affairs.

The film includes footage and simulations of events in Mid-East history during the past forty years. This footage helps to add variety as the mainly interview format can sometimes fall into the trap of other "talking-head" documentaries i.e. losing viewer attention despite the interesting topic. Ironically though, watching the footage can also feel depressing at it is a troubling reminder of a demoralizing situation - not only because it has continued for so long but also because no end is in sight.

The real juice happens in the last ten minutes or so when the interviewees make unexpected comments that are shocking and contradictory to the usual rationalizations that often occur with this topic. While this boldness is very refreshing, it would have been more welcome if it had happened near the middle of the film. If so, the film might have continued with reactions to these perspectives and had the benefit of a twist in the second half. As it stands, this is a fine film that didn't meet its full potential. In any case, its boldness might at least provide a bit of hope in the broader situation.

Riveting and Enlightening

[amit_imt2002 · 9/10 · 21 March 2013]

The Gatekeepers is an Oscar nominated and much awarded documentary that brings together six former heads of Shin Bet, Ami Ayalon, Avraham Shalom, Yaakov Peri, Carmi Gillon,Avi Dichter and Yuval Diskin for a free ranging discussion. Shin Bet, better known as Shabak, is responsible for internal security of Israel and its head is one of the top decision makers in the government on security matters.Only he is known to the public by name and the rest of its members are nameless faceless men and women.This documentary is inspired by Fog of War featuring Robert MacNamara, talking about his insights as US Secretary of Defense.

I never thought that I would be captivated by six Israelis talking in Hebrew for 2 hours but all these six men talk with a candidness that is startling and completely engrossing.They sat at the decision making tables to which few journalists have access and knew how a continuous chain of Prime Ministers made the most difficult of decisions.They come across as hardened men whose sometimes brutal jobs gave them insights into the Palestinian problem that few have.For a layperson this documentary is an invaluable tool to gain an insight into the geopolitics of the Middle East and furthermore as a prism to look at the larger interconnected global picture.

In one remarkable segment Amy Ayalon recounts how the psychology of suicide bombers was laid bare to him in a meeting with a Palestinian delegation in Paris.He was told the Palestinians were finally winning when in fact the Israelis were completely crushing them.He was told the more we suffer the more you will loose.It is a philosophy that makes the looser the winner by placing the burden of the losers suffering on the conscience of the winner. Suicide bombings of the 9/11 type only push bigger powers into a corner by making them react in a disproportionate manner, ultimately causing grief to themselves as we have seen in the aftermath of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

This documentary is a very apt companion piece to Zero Dark Thirty which was a remarkable film with documentary elements and this one is a documentary with dramatic elements, the most striking being its editing to string out a story for the layperson from free flowing discussion with security agency bosses.In its own way this documentary also examines the role of bureaucrats and technocrats in the shaping of world events a case in point being the Radcliffe line which divides India and Pakistan. It was drawn by a bureaucrat with little local knowledge and announced after 15th August,1947 to avoid a carnage, which happened anyway.

This is also a commentary on democracy in an obtuse way, the varied actions of the different democratically elected Prime Ministers from Golda Meir to Netanyahu, all represent the will of the people only to an extent.The current government led by Netanyahu has been elected not on a Palestine denominated plank but an economic one. It also introduces us to the men who are the Jewish counterparts of Islamic fundamentalists, they too have long beards and wear skull caps under which hang coiffured religio-chic locks of hair.Now does the US immigration folks separate them for random checks?Probably not.

Dror Moreh, the director. Another interesting thing is that while all of them had differing notions about their job while they were at it they seem to have converged onto the same point of view, namely the perusal of the two state solution combined with never ending dialogue and cessation of the settlement building activity that seems to have permanently deadlocked the peace process.

In a way The Gatekeepers also makes one think about the Kashmir problem which has nuclear powers on both sides yet are as unequal in their overall power as Israel and Palestine.Perhaps India's politicians are as much to blame as the Israelis for refusing to turn the consensus solution into reality, namely turning the LOC into the international boundary.The current generation of young Indians are completely unaware of the historical context of that problem and the legitimate concerns of the actual people involved. That one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, is something lost on most Indians, who only see Pakistan through the lens of propaganda.

The important question in this film is not the elusive political solution but the motivations behind the decision of these six men to face the camera.That Amy Ayalon became a minister in the government and a prominent left wing politician and persuaded the others to participate, must have played a role. So the whole film acquires a political taint, in the process becoming a voice of the Israeli left wing.This is a compromise I can live with.

As Obamas makes his maiden visit to Israel ( last time he skipped Israel while on his "apology tour"of the middle east) he has said, quite diplomatically, that he is more interested in listening to the parties than offering a solution. Perhaps as his inflight entertainment on Air Force One he could have benefited from watching The Gatekeepers.This film is not just for people who are stakeholders in the Middle East conflict, but an invaluable resource for everybody.But come to think of it we are all stakeholders in that centuries old conflict.

Published on my blog mostlycinema.com

Important, assumes prior knowledge

[thunderbold_93 · 10/10 · 27 February 2015]

As outlined in other reviews, the movie is a must-watch for anyone who cares about Israel. These people are not doves, nor any kind of ideologically motivated pacifists/lefties, they all come from different backgrounds and yet they all have the same message : Israel must separate from the Palestinians or it's the end of Zionism.

However, one important fact I must stress out is that the movie assumes knowledge about the conflict, without it - I imagine - the movie, that doesn't follow a strictly chronological sequence of events will either not make much sense or paint a slightly distorted image.

One important inaccuracy (in my opinion) is the statement by one of the heads about how Rabin's "killed hope". That is not true, after the assassination, the Israelis reacted as you'd expect any people to react: with massive support for the legacy of the dead prime minister and endorsement of his successor. Before the 1996 election, Peres seemed poised to win by a significant margin. However, four Hamas terror attacks between February and March gave the win to Netanyahu.

That being said, I do agree that his assassination did incalculable damage to the Israeli peace camp. Most importantly, because of his past as a war hero, he was the only one who could successfully sell the "Make peace as if there was no terror" policy.

Fascinating

[lordahl · 9/10 · 22 July 2013]

This documentary has almost nothing to do with the intricate details of the decades-long Israel/Palestine conflict. It makes almost no attempt at summarizing the history of the conflict. Being an American with a passing knowledge of the conflict, I had some idea of the events being talked about, but I lacked any sort of concrete internal time line of the conflict or anything of that nature.

But that's not the point of this documentary. The various events and tragedies of the conflict are used as conversation points to elicit from the former heads of Shin Bet their moral, ethical, and emotional viewpoints on war and anti-terrorism. The viewer gets to see, first hand, the personal struggles that go on inside the minds of men charged with a nearly impossible task: eradicating terrorism while attempting not to become terrorists themselves.

We see that certain interviewees struggled to no end with the morality behind killing captured terrorists, collateral damage, and military operations that may or may not have been legal under military law. One interviewee appears to operate under the assumption that killing terrorists is always justified, whereas another takes a step back and acknowledges that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

If these types of thorny issues discussed on a personal, sometimes emotional, level do not interest you, then this film is not for you. If you are looking for a war documentary, this is not for you. If you are looking for politicized documentary, this is not for you.

This is a long series of interviews with Shin Bet decision-makers, punctuated only by brief explanations of the events upon which the interviewees are questioned. The viewer sees elements of compassion, struggle, helplessness and even sociopathy in the responses elicited.

Most of all, these men are all human, discussing their actions and decisions on a human level. Their final conclusions act as a fitting conclusion to the film. Even if you hate these men, or disagree with what they have to say, this film is the essence of well-made documentary.

*As a side note, some will argue that this film displays a pro-Israeli stance. However, any film which interviews the commanders of a certain armed force will inevitably present that side's viewpoint. This documentary is not sold as anything but what is -- interviews with the men in charge of Shin Bet.

Confession of former SHABAK detainee - Shireen Essawi

[haosstoposto · 1/10 · 3 August 2014]

In 2010, Shireen was stopped at a checkpoint in Jerusalem and asked for her ID."I gave the Israeli soldier my ID. He said that I couldn't pass and have to take a detour. I asked for directions. He screamed suddenly and told me I was under arrest for three hours.

They put me inside a small room near the checkpoint with large windows. Later a jeep came and they transferred me to a Jabal al-Mukaber police station. Someone identified himself as an officer. He didn't mention his name. No charges were mentioned. Only that I'll be transferred to Talpiot police station.

In Talpiot they interrogated me and accused me of owning a knife, which I didn't. I was under arrest for 24 hours and would be transferred to Maskobiyeh Detention Center. They handcuffed and blindfolded me. Later on, I realised I was in an interrogation room. They removed the blindfold.

An interrogator said: 'Welcome, we've been expecting you for a long time.' They confined me in a cell. Soldiers came later and told me I'm going to court which was comforting. I knew if I meet a judge I will be released. I did nothing wrong. They took me blindfolded through long corridors. I heard Palestinian detainees calling upon me to remain strong. I was confused. What do they mean? Was I not leaving?

I was alone in the cell, which I believe was underground. I had to go down a very long staircase to reach it. It was very small to fit a person. It had a pit-toilet and a sleeping mat. The smell was horrible. The walls were grey and made out of pointed stones. I hurt myself several times trying to support my back or head.

The orange lights were kept lit all day. The AC was mostly on with full power. I felt like I was in a fridge. My whole body turned blue from the excess chill.

The iron door had a small slot they used to talk to me. They switched me between two cells. I knew that because the door location changed. Sometimes they'd get me to a new cell with the lights off. I couldn't even see my own hand there. So, when I approached the door or the pit-toilet, I end up hitting the wall. Only then did I know they switched the cell. They made my meetings with the lawyer difficult. They'd make him wait for hours falsely claiming I'm being interrogated. Other times they claimed I refused to meet him without informing me. They left me alone while the lawyer was waiting elsewhere. They'd intentionally sit very close to me. They almost stick their mouth to my ear and shout loud. One day the interrogator unchained me and approached. His face was almost glued to mine. I asked him to give me my space. But he told me: 'We're the ones who decide here. You have no personal space. Who do you think you are?'

I pushed him away. Other interrogators rushed in and started shouting. They hit me, tied my hands and legs and blindfolded me, repeatedly dragging me on the floor and slamming me against the wall. They chained me with a leash and said: 'I dealt with the likes of you before. You're rubbish. You're worthless.'

During interrogation I asked for a Quran, a book, a pen. Anything to feel alive. I said I'm on strike until I get my demands. When I finally got the chance to buy a pen, I was so happy. I felt like a kid on New Year. I started to write down everything I experienced. I wrote about finally buying a shampoo to use in my cell. I described to my mum the scarce smell of hygiene. Being a girl in the interrogation, they know honour and reputation is something we highly value. So, they use it against us. They threatened to rape me. A colonel once came to me in the later stages and called me nasty names. He gave details on sexual positions, and that he'd bring his dog to do those things to me. As if to say we are worthless, not human. That we're worthy of dogs.

The detention with all its horrors had a positive side. It allowed me to experience things that detainees may hide. If I go back to being a lawyer or working with children, the cases won't be rumours I merely hear about. I lived through it."

Unsettling true...

[jjjust68 · 9/10 · 6 March 2013]

A documentary that really impressed me, through it's subject and it's awesome formal simplicity.

Listening to all these ex-Directors, who didn't hesitate to use literally every possible means during their active years, reconsidering now the effects of a violent intelligence apparatus on civil society, all that intercut with (real?) surveillance footage of observations, assassinations etc., can really give you the creeps. Does that sound unfamiliar? Hello, War on Terror. Hello, Homeland.

"The Gatekeepers" ' breathtaking credibility is achieved with natural ease, it simply highlights reality in it's tragic ambiguity, in contrast to haunting works of fiction dramatizing the conflicts of the region, like "The Hurt Locker", "The Kingdom", "Body of Lies", "Syriana" and others. These are great movies, no easy food, all on the intelligent side of the spectrum - but they're just "stories".

This one is about things and people you only tend to hear about in the news. And the film, decently edited, leaves the necessary space for ambivalence: neither side is let off the hook in this work - neither Israeli politicians, Israeli agents, Israeli settlers, nor the PLO, nor Hamas, nor everybody else, nor violence, nor self-defense. You see the main characters talking about successful missions with an impish smile, likable rascals most of them. Until you go "Wait a moment", remembering that their job was mostly about killing people - mostly bad people, well … but people. And by and by you see every single one of them pondering the pointlessness of a strategy that relies on suppression, because this strategy damages and harms your own people, it's youth, it's minds. Maybe more than you can ever hurt the others.

This movie comes as kind of a helpless legacy of the contemporary intellgentsia of one of Israel's leading intelligence agencies. Premier Netanjahu reportedly refused to watch this movie - which says something about him (and his policy?). But nothing about this documentary.

Sometimes surprising documentary

[Buddy-51 · 8/10 · 30 July 2013]

Those with a deep and abiding interest in the problems of the Middle East will find much food for thought in "The Gatekeepers," an Oscar- nominated documentary about the Israeli intelligence agency known as Shin Bet. And those who are but casual observers of that part of the world may learn a thing or two as well.

The selling point of the movie is that for the first time ever it managed to get a number of the past leaders of Shin Bet to comment on their experiences with the organization. Directed by Dror Moreh, the movie begins with the Six Day War in 1967, goes through the various periods of turmoil and attempts at peacemaking that have gone on there through the decades since (including the assassination of Rabin), and ends in the present day when technological advancements have made surgical drone strikes the preferred weapon of choice in the seemingly never-ending battle against terror. As such, the movie provides a fascinating and surprisingly cohesive history of life in that geopolitical hotspot over the past half-century, all without any voice-over narration, using only the extemporaneous words and comments of the men who played such a major part in that history.

In moments of intense self-reflection, the men offer surprisingly candid comments regarding what they've had to do in their role as protectors of the nation. They re not afraid to delve into the grayer areas of the issues, for instance expressing regret over the "collateral damage" of innocents often caught in the crossfire of war, admitting to the mistreatment of prisoners, and agonizing over the dehumanization that results from sectarian prejudice and fighting. A number of them ponder the distinct differences in motive and approach between the politicians setting the policies and the people assigned to carry them out. Above all, to a one, the men reserve their harshest criticism for themselves, Shin Bet and their own country, often expressing sympathy for the Palestinians for what they've had to endure under Israeli occupation and questioning much of what Shin Bet and they themselves have done over the years, the mistakes they've made. Most agree that the most important thing Israel can do is to keep talking to its enemies. As such, I can't imagine this film went over too well with the hardliners in that country. As one of the men says, the farther one gets from one's time as leader of Shin Bet, the more "leftist" one becomes.

I don't know if that's true, but it makes for a fascinating theory. And there are many more unexpectedly eye-opening and paradigm-shifting moments to be found in "The Gatekeepers."

Anothery very good and courageous Israeli movie

[stefanpuiuro · 8/10 · 3 April 2013]

Israeli cinema has produced quit a few remarkably courageous movies in the last few years - "Waltz with Bashir", "Lebanon", "Defamation", and now this one ("Five Broken Cameras" is also partly an Israeli movie). It's not easy to ask tough questions about some policies and deeds of your country, but thankfully, it seems there are quite a few Israeli filmmakers ready to do that.

It's quite a sound of alarm for politicians when former high up security officials accuse a total lack of direction and political leadership (no "wise old man" at the top), no strategy for the "Palestinian question"; it's also remarkable how most of them point out that winning the war is futile without a political settlement - especially when somebody that had no gripes to order the murder of 2 Palestinian terrorists in Shin Bet custody says it. Too bad I hear the Israeli prime minister has already said he will not see the movie - probably to prove the points these guys were trying to make about the failure of politicians' leadership (or lack thereof) :).

Ami Ayalon seems the most poignant critic of all the six, while it might only be my mistaken impression, but Avi Dichter (the 2000-2005 guy) was the least critical. It should probably be no surprise that the former was the first to be contacted, the first to accept and the one who helped get the others on board as well.

With such a broad subject, it's hard to decide what to discuss and what to leave out. I think the case of the Israeli terrorists that wanted to bomb the Haram was quite shocking - especially when you think that Palestinians are regularly thrown in jail for many years for the same kind of offenses, while these guys got our quickly and got to be interviewed on TV and say they regret nothing. I also didn't see those guys blindfolded and handcuffed. Talk about double standards.

On the other hand, I was a bit puzzled about the film's short, passing reference to Lebanon, only to mention that the same kind of tactics as in the Occupied Territories were used. I would've left Lebanon out completely (since the movie is mostly about Israelis and Palestinians), or maybe mentioned how different the security situation in Lebanon was - that's possibly the only war that Israel lost. At least according to Robert Fisk, the fierce resistance that the Lebanese put up inspired the First Intifada.

All in all, a very good movie that should also be interesting for people who don't care too much about the Middle East or Israel/Palestine (all the more rewarding to those who are interested, of course). A good lesson about the futility of security, which simply can't replace good politics. Very useful in an age of scaremongering.

Brutally honest

[cinematic_aficionado · 8/10 · 29 April 2013]

A documentary about the Israeli secret service was bound to be interesting, but nothing cold prepare me of the experience I had.

It would make sense to clarify that I am not Jewish, nor do I have an informed opinion of the Palestinian issue, much as I know people who support either side and with passion too.

As a viewing experience, it was a brutal one. This is said because the Respective heads of the security service were very blunt about their aims, mission, enemies, etc. It was so to the extent that I remain conspicuous of the aim of this documentary even now. People like that are no supposed to be honest and direct, revealing it all in a documentary. What is it I am missing, or what is it that they are really saying?

An undoubtedly provocative viewing, and worthwhile at that.