"Argo" won Best Picture. "Zero Dark Thirty" best illustrated just how controversial post-9 / 11 policies remain. But 2012's most important movie about the Mideast was the Oscar-nominated documentary "The Gatekeepers," a searing indictment of Israel's policies on Palestine.
Consider the source, some may say, referring to Hollywood's politics. But that's what's most notable about "The Gatekeepers" — the indictment is internal, from those who know best: Six former directors of Shin Bet, Israel's security service.
Revealing methods they used (sometimes lethal), and how counterproductive those tactics now seem, the former security chiefs bluntly criticize governments led by each of Israel's leading parties — centrist Kadima, liberal Labor and conservative Likud. Interspersed in the interviews are archival images and re-creations. But "The Gatekeepers," which opened on Friday, is as much about the future as the past. And the future "is very dark," said Avraham Shalom, director of Shin Bet from 1980-1986. Of the past he says: "There was no strategy, just tactics."
Those tactics are now roundly criticized by those who executed them. "You can't make peace using military means," says Avi Dichter, director from 2000-2005. Some, including Yaakov Peri, who led from 1988-1994, lament missed opportunities. "There were plenty of instances since 1967, when, in my opinion, and I thought it then, too, we should have reached an agreement and got out."
The film's impact in Israel is uncertain. "It seems like this movie is hitting a chord about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and I'm really happy with that," Director Dror Moreh told the Star Tribune's Colin Covert. Whether that chord is hit with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remains to be seen, however: He recently said he has no intention of watching the film.
"I think it's a compliment to the way Israel is willing to check itself, to criticize itself, and check if what we did was the right thing to do," said Roey Gilad, Israel's consul general to the Midwest, in an interview. "I understand, without watching the film, that some of the people were quite critical. But that's fine with us. We are even willing to finance such a film, because we believe that the only way you can do better is to look at what was done in the past, and ask, 'How could I have done it better?' "
Indeed, Israel's internal debate is robust compared to the ones in Palestine and even the United States, according to Daniel C. Kurtzer, ambassador to Egypt during the Clinton administration and to Israel during the George W. Bush administration. Kurtzer, a Princeton professor and editor of "Pathways to Peace: America and the Arab-Israeli Conflict," was in Minneapolis this week in a visit coordinated by J-Street, a self-described "Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace" lobby. In an interview after his presentation at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs, Kurtzer said that "it's much more open in Israel. You can make arguments about the peace process, and you can criticize settlements, and you can criticize and criticize and you're within the mainstream of Israeli politics."
As for Palestine? "It's almost apples and oranges. You make the argument about Israeli society that it should be a greater debate because you know it's a vibrant society that debates everything. Palestinian society doesn't debate much at all. It contributes mightily to keeping them from the table." (Calls to Palestinian representatives at the United Nations were not returned.)
