The Gatekeepers - Israels security service

[Ace Pace]

I've just gotten back from seeing the film The Gatekeepers, a documentary which focuses on Israels interior security force, the Shin Bet (better known here as the Shabac). The twist with this documentary is that this is the first time that the former heads of the service have agreed to speak on the record, what they think about the system.

This film is pretty much a damning indictment of the entire concept of "containment", which has been the bedrock of the Israeli security "mental framework" over the last 30 years. This isn't very much surprising to anyone who has been thinking about this problem, what is somewhat surprising is that the opinions expressed in this film are universal over the last 30 years of Shabac leaders.

Some choice quotes, in no particle order.

This is just tactics. There's no strategy.

When talking about the entire 70s/80s when the first terror campaigns started out. This is later expanded into discussions on how the Shin Bet gradually started torturing Palestinians, some known to be innocent (this infact, has never stopped).
This is later summed up in a chapter titled The Old Man at the End of the Corridor, which focuses on the Service's impact on the political process, and the complete lack of strategic thinking at the state level. Again, not a surprise to anyone following Israeli politics.

Yigal Amir [ Assassinated the Prime minister in 95] won. He succeeded in killing the entire peace process.

To expand on this, at the start of the 90s, whether it would succeed or not, Rabin and Peres truly did want some sort of peace process. Whether they truly intended to give the Palestinians an independent state? I doubt so, but either way, we won't know. Because right afterwards, we got a string of leaders (bar Sharon's short lived shift sane) who have each staked Israel deeper into the occupation. Not out of some specific ideology (well, maybe Bibi) but out of an attitude of "let it be. This problem can be kicked down the road."

These moments end up etched deep inside you, and when you retire, you become a bit of a leftist.

It's somewhat telling that every single head of the Intel services (all three of them) has over the last decade turned sharply left on the peace process.


In a larger summary, Israel has spent the last decade and a half in a holding maneuver versus the Occupation. It has done very little to solve the problem (in any direction), and has expended massive energy on keeping steady. The billions of dollars, alongside the hundreds of thousands of soldiers who have rotated through "peacekeeping duties" have probably permanently left a collection of horrible traits on the national psyche.

[Stark]

Do you think the responsibility for policies like those discussed lies with government, which shape events and attitudes, or the attitude of the public itself?

[Ace Pace]

Do you think the responsibility for policies like those discussed lies with government, which shape events and attitudes, or the attitude of the public itself?

The government. The Israeli public has a "see no evil, hear no evil" attitude towards how the sausage is made, the public doesn't know, and doesn't care, how it's secured from "terror". This despite Israel being the most militarized Western society by far.

The government has done two things. The foremost being a SOP attitude. It's never the right time to deal with the Palestinians. Never the right time, the right place, or the right coalition. So whatever government is in power, kicks it down the road. How do they do this? By giving the security services a blank check. "Do what must be done."

So we end up with Kav 300, we end up with security prisons overflowing with terrorists who arguably could have been handled in police methods, and we end up with a giant, pretty damn efficient security apparatus that stops terror attacks from hitting Israel by infiltrating every aspect of the territories population.

[Stark]

Is it seen as acceptable to defer dealing with the problem because it's perceived as difficult? Costly? Embarrassing?

And I'm curious how the security services keep their activities so 'marketable', in that (I imagine) it doesn't impact enough on normal people for it to seem 'oppressive'.

[Ace Pace]

Is it seen as acceptable to defer dealing with the problem because it's perceived as difficult? Costly? Embarrassing?

And I'm curious how the security services keep their activities so 'marketable', in that (I imagine) it doesn't impact enough on normal people for it to seem 'oppressive'.

It's just never going to be a good idea politically. There are too many possible ways to foul up (as a politician) in anything relating to the Palestinians. If you are sympathetic for a while to the settlers, you lose the international crowd (see, EU sanctions). If you talk about removing settlements, you lose political credit with the religious crowd (unless you're Bibi, then they have no choice but to vote for you). Any move towards negotiations with the Palestinians opens you up to attacks from both left and right wings of the political system.
Any time there has been meaningful movement (92-94, 2004-2005, 2007), it was either done with massive prep work done in total secrecy (Oslo, Annapolis) or by sheer force of personality (Disengagement).

To the second question, well, it works. It's been years since the big strings of bombings in populated areas. The "price" for that is the border guards in the West Bank, the UAV fleet above Gaza. That's in the public image. The underground parts, the infiltration of Palestinian society, the endless snap arrests in the late 00s, is far less talked about. Even today, when the work shows up in a documentary such as The Gatekeepers, it's displayed in a sterile fashion.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

If this is correct, then it would seem that the only plausible way for peace to be achieved in the Israel-Palestine conflict would be for a head of the security services to develop his sense of conscience and concern for the future of Israel before the end of his career.

And then launch a coup.

[Stark]

Jesus fucking christ, get a new move.

Ace, given the attitudes others (like Death) express, isn't it likely it'd take a generation to change these perceptions? Even without the militarism and settlement issues, there's still the ongoing conflict to justify any kind of policy. What would have to happen to create the political possibility of change here?

[The Grim Squeaker]

Ace, given the attitudes others (like Death) express, isn't it likely it'd take a generation to change these perceptions? ?

Them being? (Out of curiosity).

[Stark]

You seem a pretty establishment guy, which isn't very surprising.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Israeli democracy is manifestly incapable of bringing about peace with the Palestinians; in the US we do have the example of Nixon bringing about peace with Red China despite being the least respectful of the law president in the 20th century. It is a serious question, whether or not the Israeli body political is actually capable of bringing about peace or whether or not that peace will essentially have to be imposed on the Israeli nation. Sharon damned near was imposing it, albeit cloaked in a guise of parliamentary legitimacy. With Sharon gone, who is left? It would be very rational at this point to say the chance of a democratically elected Israeli premier bringing about peace is quite low.

[Stark]

Yeah, so the secret police taking over is the solution. All over the world eyes are rolling at yet more Zeon TOUGH SOLUTION posturing.

To be honest, I'd rather not see this thread go the way of every single other thread on this topic, because I've never had the opportunity to hear an Israeli speak on them in this way. I'm much more interested in the situation, culture and attitudes within Israel than whatever IvP dead horse anyone wants to beat, particularly insofar as Ace often posts stuff suggesting there is serious disagreement within the country on issues like these.

PEACE IMPOSED ON ISRAELI

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It's not posturing. It's an attempt at honestly suggesting that the Israeli democracy may be simply structurally incapable of bringing about a peace agreement with Palestine.

[Vendetta]

Aren't you the person who honestly believes that the US populace should be as heavily armed as possible to prevent exactly the scenario you are advocating here?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Aren't you the person who honestly believes that the US populace should be as heavily armed as possible to prevent exactly the scenario you are advocating here?

Just because I think something will lead to better outcomes most of the time in a particular situation doesn't mean I am incapable of acknowledging that one system may in fact be bad for other peoples in other situations. I don't think systems of governance are universally applicable anymore, I grew out of the idea that there was a single best for humanity.

[Stark]

It's not posturing. It's an attempt at honestly suggesting that the Israeli democracy may be simply structurally incapable of bringing about a peace agreement with Palestine.

The thread isn't (and shouldn't, if anyone wants to learn anything) about 'brining about a peace agreement'. It's about how Israelis view this situation and their government's actions and policies from the inside. I hope Ace (and Death, and any others) can talk more about stuff like this without getting dragged into yet another IvP thread locked because 'morons'.

[Vendetta]

Aren't you the person who honestly believes that the US populace should be as heavily armed as possible to prevent exactly the scenario you are advocating here?

Just because I think something will lead to better outcomes most of the time in a particular situation doesn't mean I am incapable of acknowledging that one system may in fact be bad for other peoples in other situations. I don't think systems of governance are universally applicable anymore, I grew out of the idea that there was a single best for humanity.

So, the Israelis can't be trusted with a democratic government despite having one that appears to be able to provide at the very least basic civil services (despite its relationship with its occupied territories), but Americans, proud owners of a deliberately dysfunctional government which can barely govern itself can, as long as they're well enough armed to overthrow it if it ever tries to govern anything? (see also: relationship with comfortably remote occupied territories)

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So, the Israelis can't be trusted with a democratic government despite having one that appears to be able to provide at the very least basic civil services (despite its relationship with its occupied territories), but Americans, proud owners of a deliberately dysfunctional government which can barely govern itself can, as long as they're well enough armed to overthrow it if it ever tries to govern anything? (see also: relationship with comfortably remote occupied territories)

The Israeli people have a right to continue on a course to their own destruction. That may be considered a concession if you wish.

[Ace Pace]

Jesus fucking christ, get a new move.

Ace, given the attitudes others (like Death) express, isn't it likely it'd take a generation to change these perceptions? Even without the militarism and settlement issues, there's still the ongoing conflict to justify any kind of policy. What would have to happen to create the political possibility of change here?

Maybe so, but a generation from what point? If tomorrow some sort of magic peace device floated over the Palestinian territories (and for good measure, over Lebanon as well), everyone born today would still receive the giant mental meme that Arabs are not to be trusted. That at any point, an insurrection may erupt.

Any change right now has to hit on multiple fronts, at once, in order to last. I don't think I'm very much exaggerating this. Back in 94/95, when Oslo was in full swing, this was exactly the time Hamas and co. started to shine. Today, Hamas is in the PLOs shoes and wants peace and quiet, giving the Islamic Jihad and their spinoffs showtime. Can Hamas and the other "legit" governments control their own population? Not really.

"We're not stopping terrorists for you. We don't give a damn about you. We're doing this because this is what the people want. The moment they decide that that the peace-future is not better than a war-future, we'll stop"

This is completely ignoring outside factors, like Lebanon, or Egypt. Who are capable of inciting an uprising against pretty much anyones wishes (refugee camps, large arms suppliers, whatever). This happens pretty much every few months, and leads to the security issues coming back to the forefront, rather than any serious thinking on the state level.

For these reasons, I'm very doubtful of any incremental change leading to some sort of long term improvement. What you'd need is a revival of the Arab Peace Initiative, something with buy-in from all the major players in the region, to impose a strong shift everywhere at once.

[Irbis]

Ace, given the attitudes others (like Death) express, isn't it likely it'd take a generation to change these perceptions? Even without the militarism and settlement issues, there's still the ongoing conflict to justify any kind of policy. What would have to happen to create the political possibility of change here?

You know what would need to happen for permanent Israeli-Palestinian peace to happen? Someone should round up and detain US right wingers. Why? To give just two examples, Ehud Olmert, last Israeli Prime Minister with any sort of peace plan, was thrown out in judicial coup d'etat in 2008. In 2012, the charges were declared completely bogus, and Olmert himself speaks how wast money right-wing/Israeli diaspora supply from USA was used to destroy him. Meanwhile, Tzipi Livni, leader of largest pro-peace opposition party, lost her seat to hawkish Shaul Mofaz. After that, even sane politicians wishing to remain in power will start to bend down for big money.

The truth is, when one side can count on financial propping from huge country dwarfing anything leftists can raise in (relatively) tiny Israel or from outside sources, you'd need either drastic action from US government, or huge opinion shift in Israel to counteract that. Can you tell me how the first is going to happen when Obama has big problems even nominating Israeli-neutral Secretary of Defence? Hell, Israeli/US right wingers acting in tandem almost elected their puppet for PotUS, unless something neutralizes their alliance on both ends of the pond there will be no lasting peace, plain and simple.

[Faqa]

Ehud Olmert, last Israeli Prime Minister with any sort of peace plan, was thrown out in judicial coup d'etat in 2008.

Olmert probably lost a political game or two to have to actually have to stand trial, but saying it was a conspiracy by the right-wing to remove him is ridiculous

The man presided over the clusterfuck of Lebanon in 2006, including boasting about attacks on infrastructure. Especially peace-loving, he was not.

Meanwhile, Tzipi Livni, leader of largest pro-peace opposition party, lost her seat to hawkish Shaul Mofaz.

She lost her seat because she was an incredibly anemic opposition leader and perception was that she had done nothing with Kadima's huge amount of opposition seats.

And Shaul Mofaz is not hawkish. That would imply he has an independent opinion. He's mainly Netanyahu's lapdog, and goes where he points.

The greater fact of this conflict is that democracy works, and the Israeli people don't want to currently give back settlements. They just don't.

Every single winner of the latest elections (exhibit A - Naftali Benet, leader of the terrifying religious right) is either against giving back settlements or firmly refuses to talk about the Palestinian problem. To speak of such things is considered "leftist", which is becoming a slur word in politics. And another generation at war will only make this problem worse, not better.

[DarkArk]

Someone should round up and detain US right wingers.

You're aware that even among left-wing Democrats, Israel has a large base of support? US policy towards Israel is not going to change significantly no matter which side of the aisle is in power, because the vast majority of the population supports them. Also trade with Israel is worth more than anyone else's in the region.

[Sea Skimmer]

In 2012 anyway the US exported more to Saudi Arabia, and of course has long imported far more from Saudi Arabia. If you took away US military aid to Israel, which is mostly recycled back to the US, the last six years would favor Saudi Arabia. US exports to Turkey are also worth more then exports to Israel by a smaller margin the last couple years. So no, Israeli really isn't worth more then anyone else. That might have been true by a signification margin ten or twenty years ago, I don't know on that, as most Mid Eastern economies have grown a lot recently as the populations have risen so much and industrial programs have finally gained some ground.

Economically Israel is maybe 1.5% of US exports and a much lesser sum of imports, though in dollar terms the imports are worth more and the US thus has a major trade deficit with Israel, even with foreign aid excluded. No real surprise since Israel has an economic size about equal to a mid ranking US state. Its not minor, but it cannot be all that important.

[cosmicalstorm]

I've been told that out of the thirty or so ongoing conflicts over land-area, the IvP one has the smallest casaulty-rate. With some bloggers viewing it as an ongoing riot rather than a war. Not sure how true this is, but it does seem like Israel gets abnormaly intense coverage, while conflicts where tens of thousands die every couple of months are hardly mentioned.

[DarkArk]

I've been told that out of the thirty or so ongoing conflicts over land-area, the IvP one has the smallest casaulty-rate. With some bloggers viewing it as an ongoing riot rather than a war. Not sure how true this is, but it does seem like Israel gets abnormaly intense coverage, while conflicts where tens of thousands die every couple of months are hardly mentioned.

Only about 15,000 people have died in the entire conflict going back to 1948, and most of those were before 1980 when actual wars were being fought. It's rather odd when you compare it to conflicts like Sri Lanka, Sudan, or the Congo, all of which have had much higher death rates and more intense conflict in the same period.

Its not minor, but it cannot be all that important.

Israel has the third largest number of companies listed on NASDAQ, behind only China and the United States itself. Dollar amount might be betrayed by the value of it, which is mostly in the realm of high-tech industry that is not easily replaced by any other country. Israel invests more per capita into science research than any other country on the planet (nearly an order of magnitude more than the US which is number two), and Israelis hold a large number of US patents. Keeping this technology trade going is of vital interest to the US.

Also, I would say Turkey and Saudi Arabia are only peripherally related to the conflict. Except for the Saudis sending volunteers (in 1967?), neither has fought on either side or been heavily involved.

[eyl]

A few of things to add/expand on:

1) PArt of the problem stems from the fragmented nature of the Knesset. Up until Rabin's term, the majority party usually had 40+ seats. However, since then, we haven't really had a situation where a single party controls over a third of the Knesset. That means that the ruling party is much more dependent on its coalition partners, which promotes paralysis on the peace process.

2) It's something of an exaggeration to say the peace process died with Rabin. It continued under subsequent PM's (even Netnyahu in his first term, although he had to be dragged kicking and screaming into it). However, the increased terrorism after the Oslo Accords signature, the second intifada, and the post-disengagement rocket fire from Gaza, all served to discredit the peace camp and the peace process in the eyes of the Israeli public, to the point that there's very little faith in the utility of that process and that the public has shifted to the right. Also, it seems to me the Israeli left itself was rather demoralized by the same things; the continuous infighting in the Labor party (which should have been the peace camp's leader) since the end of Barak's term didnt help much.