Echo Sierra

Thoughts on Conflicts, Peace and Defence policies

Posted by Olivier Jacquemet On March - 6 - 2013 2 Comments

Yesterday, a French TV channel was screening The Gatekeepers, the famous Israeli documentary featuring former heads of the Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security service.

It was thus an opportunity to watch this controversial report (while speaking about the film, the Israeli Minister of Culture & Sport, Limor Livnat, denounced “movies that soil Israel’s image” and called for movie directors to censor their own work…).

The documentary was bound to trigger praises and anger amongst actors and observers of the ongoing conflict. Indeed, Thomas Friedman noticed: “when it comes to discussing the Middle East, people go temporarily insane“. It is thus not surprising the Israeli right wing accuses Dror Moreh of producing a biased documentary.

The documentary depicts the thoughts of former Shin Bet heads on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a low-intensity colonial conflict, in which Israel’s policy is wrong according to the International Law prism (Israel’s colonization policy preventing the achievement of a two-State solution set by International law). Thus, as a jurist, the line adopted by Dror Moreh did not shocked me. Maybe it is also easier for me as I am neither Jew nor Arab.

The Gatekeepers

The Gatekeepers

If the documentary implies that Israel, as a State (thus as a government and communities), has de facto and in fine never really acted in favour of peace, it does not lapse into gullibility. Avi Ditcher (head of Shabak under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon) is interviewed for a long time and he actually appears as a man decided to protect Israel’s security without any qualm, against individuals that do not have any either…

It is in my opinion one strength of the documentary. It is more than a history lesson about Israel Security Agency. It is a depiction of the feelings of men that led this institution. And one can notice four main behavioral characteristics of these men.

First, these men appear bitter. Despite achieving greater levels of security for their country each year, effectively reducing the number of attacks on their soil, they can only contain terrorism, resilience of which is made possible by the lack of a fair peace process. As long as political leaders do not follow a clear strategy towards Palestinians, they will be doomed to contain a permanent threat.

What stroke me was their lack of hindsight, at least for some of them. They admitted it took them time to understand Palestinian violence. It is only after several years that some realized  the basic element of the terrorist relationship: one’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter, and vice versa. It is only during the second Intifada that they understood the Palestinians believed they had nothing to loose and thus could be satisfied just by seeing the Israeli suffer losses.

A third element that is highlighted  is their willpower, their commitment to protect their country and, sometimes, for Avi Ditcher to the point of being blind, when he says that you just have to hit the terrorist groups up to the critical mass so it persuades others not to engage into terrorism…

However, this willpower does not prevent them from adopting daring positions (need to engage their enemies, even Iran, concerns over the future of Israel as a democracy…) by comparison to their political leaders. Men serving in intelligence agencies are often wiser than political leaders, and this documentary proves it.

2 Responses so far.

  1. Guillaume PayreNo Gravatar says:

    J’avais écrit un long commentaire en anglais mais il n’est pas passé à cause du lien qui était trop long.

    Je le refais plus court en français :

    - ton billet est meilleur que le mien
    lien vers mon billet

    - titre 2ème chapitre : « (avec une bombe d’une tonne et demi..) oublie la morale » (« l’incident » du « bus 300″)

    - d’après ce qu’on comprend du film, l’importance du droit de la guerre et du droit dans la guerre a augmenté depuis 30 ans.

    Avraham Shalom (le petit gros, directeur du Shin Bet pendant l’incident du bus 300) n’avait pas grand chose à faire du droit à l’époque alors que les directeurs récents doivent en tenir compte.

    - c’est assez ironique de voir Ariel Sharon dépeint comme “modéré” à propos du bombardement de la “dream team” en 2003

  2. Olivier JacquemetNo Gravatar says:

    Désolé pour la perte de ton commentaire, je vais me renseigner au sujet de la longueur des liens dans les commentaires sur une plateforme WordPress.

    Tu m’honores en comparant la qualité de nos billet, mais je souligne que tu as eu la bonne idée de prendre des notes pendant le documentaire, ce que je n’ai pas fait alors que cela aurait bien facilité la rédaction de ce post =)

    Sur l’importance du droit, j’ai tendance à penser que le véritable déclencheur est la double intervention d’Israël au Liban. L’intervention ayant été particulièrement meurtrirère pour les civils et menée de façon parfois assez peu respectueuses du droit international humanitaire (côté israélien comme “libanais” remarquez), le retour de bâton n’en a été que plus violent pour Israël.
    Terry Anderson, correspondant en chef d’Associated Press au Liban à partir de 1983 avait dit, de mémoire, au sujet des réactions outrées du pouvoir israélien et de Tsahal à ses articles (pourtant objectifs) : “quand vous faites de mauvaises choses, il faut s’attendre à ce que les gens disent de mauvaises choses sur vous”. Propos qui est ôh combien significatif de la “transparence” des conflits actuels.

    Ironique en effet de voir Sharon aussi “modéré” =).

This site is using OpenAvatar based on