The Gatekeepers

So I rented this movie about the heads of Shin-Bet a few weeks ago and it left me thinking a lot of different things. Watch the preview first, then read the notes that I took along with my still jumbled thoughts.

-Ami Ayalon talked about seeing another Israel throughout the conflicts. He said "I wasn't aware of the intensity of the chasm and hatred, of the rifts that exist between us." That is such a profound thought. Especially when later there's a discussion about the radicalism within Israel. The rabbis have no reason to learn lessons, oen of them said, and it's sometimes hard to figure out who the true enemy is. Is Israel's enemy the PLO/Hamas or is it the extremist rabbis who seem even more against peace.

-A quote that is found in the previews is from Yuval Diskin is "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." This happens on both sides and this is the crux of the issue. Add this the idea that in terrorism, there are no morals. Who sets the moral code? Do terrorists have their own set of moral codes? And they must, if a terrorist is also a freedom fighter. One is seen as a hero and the other is seen as a murderer or a killer. Who determines the labels that are given and who determines what is right and what is wrong?

-Another quote that really stuck with me was another Ami Ayalon statement where he said "the tragedy of Israeli security is that we win every battle but we lose the war." Where does this end? At what point does one side stop and say that it's time to talk but as Avraham Shalom said, everyone always votes to keep talking since there is no alternative. But talking hasn't seem to work. It works and then something happens and then everything deteriorates. And then the talking starts up again, somethings happens and it's this vicious, vicious cycle. Again, where does it end? How does it end?

-"Victory is simply the creation of a better reality." Is it? Whose reality? Isn't that just like saying one man's reality is another man's nightmare?

-Retaliation is a dangerous game. The status quo in Israel and that entire region is seems like is retaliation back and forth for things that happen. But again, where does it stop? If there isn't retribution for something that happens to a group, is that a signal that change is on the way or is that the opportunity for the first group to try something bigger. And in that case, where does that stop? Where is the balance between pacifism and fighting?

-Something that I appreciated is that these men, who had to make difficult, life-changing, unenviable decisions as the heads of Shin-Bet, didn't apologize for their decisions. One point-blank said that if the press hadn't gotten a hold of an incident, he never would have told anybody about the details. Do I necessarily agree with that? In light of Wiki-Leaks, Brendan Manning, and Edward Snowden, public discourse right now is all about what the general public should know and what is kept hidden. I know that there are a lot of opinions on this but I'm of the opinion that there are some things the public doesn't need to know about. And maybe this is just being naive or putting my head into the sand but if it's for the good of the larger group, then maybe somethings need to happen that we don't know about.

Sigh. I don't know. I'm now all turned around. I don't know what to think. Just thinking about the whole situation is still so frustrating and I wish there was peace on the horizon but ever day I seem to get less and less optimistic. Double sigh.