The Gatekeepers

The dishonesty of “The Gatekeepers “was posted on February 13, 2013 by the Jerusalem Post. In addition, Aish.com –Stand With Us; Roz Rothstein and Roberta Said. The film sends a “simplistic political message, implying that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank stands between terrorism and peace. Dror Moreh’s documentary, The Gatekeeper, could have been a profound film.

Instead, Moreh uses his interviews with 6 former directors of Israel’s top security service to send a simplistic and deeply partisan political message. If Israel withdraws from the West Bank, terrorism will subside and peace will breakout.

The film repeatedly ignores history and context. It blames Israel for the Palestinian hostility and violence that occurred after 1967, when Israel began administering the West Bank. Palestinian Arabs murdered over 1,000 Jews between 1920 and 1967, and they ethnically cleansed all Jewish communities from the areas captured during the 1948 war, including the West Bank, Gaza and eastern Jerusalem.

Visually and virtually, the film portrays Israel as a heartless occupier. The film would have audiences believe the Jewish Underground, which wounded 2 Palestinian mayors, murdered 3 Palestinians, and plotted to blow up 4 Palestinian busses and the Dome of the Rock, is fairly representative of most settlers. It is not. Save for the handful of members of the Jewish Underground, Israel does not have Jewish terrorist organizations.

The audience does not learn that almost 1,100 Israelis were murdered and thousands were maimed by terrorists during the 2nd intifada. Pressed by the interviewer to admit that the Shin bet’s actions were immoral during the tenure [1981-1986], Abraham Shalom finally snaps back:””This isn’t about morality—When the terrorists become moral, we’ll be moral.”

The film never mentions Israel’s offers, to trade land for peace in 1967, 1979, 2000 and 2008, or that Palestinian leaders systematically rejected these offers. Moreh’s efforts to blame Israel and the Shin Bet’s actions for the ongoing hostility to the Jewish state are like blaming the victim who is defending himself instead of blaming the perpetrator.

“Reverse Causality” was posted on March 28, 2013.

By way of an introduction , we read, “The Oscar-nominated film, ‘The Gatekeepers’”, which was intended by its director to be educational, is in fact nothing less than a promotion for shop-warn Left-Wing Israeli politics .[“Oscar hopefuls point a frank lens at Israel”, Feb.20]. Classifying it as being one-sided, is an understatement.

Tom Tugend reports Dror Moreh the film’s director, saying in an interview at an LA hotel, “We Jews are masters of self-criticism. It’s in our genes.”What he does not recognize is that he facilitated Israel’s top security experts, whose primary goal was to ensure Israel’s safety, in an exercise of hanging out “dirty washing” into the public arena at large. Moreh and his subjects have the right to their beliefs, but not the right to assume that they are necessarily correct. Very often, those who are so sure of themselves are found to be suspect.

Should we forget that “land for peace” was fully tested with the withdrawal from Gaza only to realize further terrorism? Did not Israel offer the Palestinians a state not once, but 3 times on substantially all of the West Bank and Gaza with a capital in Jerusalem—only to have the offers rejected?

Without historical context, the movie is an exercise in reverse causality. Professor Phyllis Chesler asserts the film “will cause Israel great harm, great danger “ while Italian journalist Giulo Meotti considers the 6 Shin Bet heads to be “victims of an ‘Oslo Syndrome’, like the Stockholm Syndrome, in which hostages come to identify with their captors.”

TOI “Previewing a History of Israel’s Generals’ Politics Offers Little Comfort “by Alex Rose is dated March 12, 2019. Introduction: ”Deal of the century” or plan to failure? The American’s are working on a “peace plan” based on the way Americans, not Middle Eastern people, think.” [Dr. Mordechai Kedar, Arutz 7, on March 1, 2019]

In referencing former IDF Chiefs of Staff [Gantz, Yaalon and Aashkenazi], “there are great doubts—just how much political acumen they display once elected” [Dr. Martin Sherman, Arutz 7, February 22, 2019].

Attached: Movie- The Gatekeepers by Alex Rose on March 12, 2019.

There is no doubt that Dror Moreh’s film has learned rich reviews and has been universally applauded. As a film director, Moreh has demonstrated exceptional skills. However, in the realm of morality, there is much to be questioned and in particular motives and human behavior. These will be examined through his speech and remarks of his participants.

At the outset, the lack of balance, the omission of historical context and questionable morality, is no credit to Israel as suggested by David Horowitz of ‘The Times of Israel.’ The film is also clouded in reverse casualty, a consequence of Arab cunning. The movie is nothing but a one sided propaganda pitch, whereby identifying with the enemy is trendy. Yet another Leftist polemic, illustrating how Jewish guilt is both cheap and devoid of responsibility.

In short form, a recall of Abba Eban’s UN November 17, 1958 speech, clearly identifies who initiated the modern day Arab-Israel conflict and a fuller understanding of the situation can be found in the works of Winston Churchill.
“The Arab refugee problem was caused by a war of aggression, launched by the Arab states against Israel in 1947 & 1948. Let there be no mistake. If there had been no war against Israel, with its consequent harvest of bloodshed, misery, panic and flight, there would be no problem of Arab refugees today.

Once you determine the responsibility for that war, you have determined the responsibility for the refugee problem. Nothing in the history of our generation is clearer or less controversial than the initiative of Arab governments for the conflict out of which the refugee tragedy emerged.”

David Lloyd George [Paris Peace Conference] – “No race has done better out of the fidelity with which the Allies redeemed their promises to the oppressed races than the Arabs—although most of the Arab races fought for Turkey.”

Arthur Balfour [July 1920], expressed the hope that Arabs-“a great, and interesting, and attractive race” will remember that it was the British who freed them from Turkish tyranny and “remembering that they will not grudge that small notch in what are now Arab territories being given to the people who for all these hundreds of years have been separated from it.”

On July 4 1922, Churchill argued:

“I am told the Arabs would have done it themselves [Rutenberg concession]. Who is going to believe that? Left to themselves, the Arabs of Palestine would not in 1,000 years have taken effective steps towards the irrigation and electrification of Palestine. They would have been quite content to dwell—a handful of philosophic people—in the wasted sun-scorched plains, letting the waters of the Jordan flow unbridled and unharnessed in the Dead Sea.”

The origins of the conflict are clearly announced by the confessions of Arab governments themselves: ”This will be a war of extermination” declared the secretary –general of the Arab League speaking for the governments of 6 Arab states, “it will be a momentous massacre to be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and Crusades.”

Yaakov Perry: “If we go on living by the sword, we will continue to wallow in the mud and destroy ourselves.”

Carmi Gilon: “[ The government] is dealing solely with the question of how to prevent the next terrorist attack—it is clear ”to me that we are heading towards a crash.”

In 2003, the spymasters warned that there would be a “catastrophe if the country did not opt quickly for a two-state solution. Ten years later this prophecy has shown itself to be somewhat bankrupt.

Avraham Shalon called the government policies “contrary to the desire for peace.” We have become—cruel.” He also said “Forget about morality when you are dealing with terrorists.” Avi Dichter: “You can’t make peace using military means.” Ami Ayalon: “We’re winning all the battles, but losing the war.”

In 2003, the Security Chiefs all agreed on a need to take swift steps towards ending the “occupation” by dismantling some Jewish “settlements” in the West Bank and Gaza. This had a profound effect on Sharon to the extent that less than a month thereafter he initiated the Gaza disengagement plans.

In conclusion, the ever-present wisdom of Winston Churchill, “The acts we engage in for appeasement today, we will have to remedy at far greater cost and remorse tomorrow.”

Tomorrow is today as answered by Gadi Taib in Tablet’s, “The Gantz Megillah” of May 08, 2024. He describes fully how America is using ex-IDF Chief Benny Gantz as its Trojan horse to impose US demands—and ensure Israel’s defeat in Gaza.
As an introduction into a detailed analysis, Taub’s words “How America is using ex-IDF Chief Benny Gantz as its Trojan Horse to impose US demands—and ensures Israel’s defeat in Gaza” have since been modified. In fact, Gantz now says he will quit the government on June 8 unless there’s a new war plan.

Taub’s summary is to the point. In the eyes of the Biden administration, Hamas is the smaller problem. The bigger problem is Benjamin Netanyahu. The US is willing to live with Iran’s proxies everywhere, as part of its “regional integration” policy –i.e. appeasing Iran. But they are unwilling to live with Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition. They favor on what Tony Badran has called a Herodian solution: finding a local proxy who will impose the US agenda on a reluctant Israeli electorate.

The planning for October 7 occurred long before Israel’s present government was in place. In fact a study performed by the US Ministry of Foreign Affairs demonstrates the extent of Hamas terrorism over many years prior to October 7.

Time has shown that every war with Hamas has led to the next war, simply because they were not terminated as final. This is what Netanyahu understands.

No diversion of terminating WW2 other than recognizing the most effective manner in terms of life was instituted, even to the point that the US would not bomb the rail track leading to Auschwitz.

The White House appears to be pushing prominent Jewish Democrats, such as Schumer and Nadler to attack Israel’s PM in order to avoid charges of being “anti-Israel” or “antisemitic.” Biden need not worry about his useful idiots, since nothing about them suggests that they are Jewish.

Gadi Taub has produced a truly worthy, balanced and professional Op-Ed.