The Gatekeepers (Film)

The six interviewees are Avraham Shalom, Yaakov Peri, Carmi Gillon, Ami Ayalon, Avi Dichter and Yuval Diskin, all former heads of the Shin Bet.[2] Their testimony concerns the agency’s work, the challenges of their respective terms and their security and moral considerations in counterterrorism.[2] The interviews address Israel’s fight against Palestinian terrorism and, for some of the former chiefs, Jewish terrorism, alongside reflections on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[2]

The documentary’s distinctive access lies in its presentation of former intelligence chiefs speaking on camera about their own work; its novelty was not that they had never previously been interviewed, but that the six had been interviewed on camera.[3] Moreh described the agency heads as “at the forefront of operations, party to all secrets, close to prime ministers,” emphasizing the institutional perspective they could bring to the film.[1] Until relatively recently, a serving Shin Bet director’s identity had been publicly represented only by his first initial, with his name disclosed upon retirement.[4] The film presents informal portraits of retired directors discussing intelligence work and the pursuit of Palestinian terrorists and radical Israeli settlers.[4]

The Hebrew title is Shomrei Ha’saf, and a theatrical review lists a running time of 95 minutes and identifies the language as Hebrew with English subtitles.[10] A 2013 screening listing gives a running time of 97 minutes.[7] A home-entertainment review lists 101 minutes and identifies Sony Pictures Home Entertainment as distributor.[11]

Moreh developed the project from an interest in presenting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from within Israel’s security establishment, rather than relying only on the perspectives of leftists, Palestinians or people who had personally suffered in the conflict.[12] The 2003 documentary The Fog of War inspired him, while conversations connected with an earlier film about Ariel Sharon encouraged him to investigate whether former Shin Bet chiefs would participate.[12]

Ami Ayalon was the first former director Moreh approached.[12] Ayalon had been in contact with a journalist who had written about former Shin Bet chiefs, and Moreh believed that Ayalon could vouch for him with the others.[12] Moreh arranged the interviews chronologically, proceeding from the oldest former chief to the youngest, and sought a comfortable conversational atmosphere rather than an interrogation.[12] Individual sittings lasted four to five hours, with a total of approximately 12–15 hours spent interviewing each participant.[12]

Moreh began filming the five chiefs who preceded Yuval Diskin before approaching Diskin in late 2010.[13] His intention was to tell the story through leaders who had experienced the conflict firsthand and had been present alongside decision-makers at dramatic moments.[13] He described being strongly affected by the contrast between Diskin’s public image and the uncertain, questioning person he encountered during their conversations.[13]

The documentary was released in 2012 and was followed in 2014 by Moreh’s book, The Gatekeepers: Six Heads of the Shin Bet Speak.[1] An English edition appeared in 2018 as The Gatekeepers: Inside Israel’s Internal Security Agency.[1] Drawing on the same first-hand interviews, the book takes a wider view than the film, reviewing the agency’s conduct from the Six-Day War onward, including the First Intifada, the Oslo Accords, Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination and targeted-killing policy during the Second Intifada.[1]

Separate interviews with the six former chiefs are intercut with newsreel footage, archival photographs and news clippings, supplemented by animated or computer-enhanced imagery.[3][4] The film is organized into seven loosely chronological segments, with sections built around particular operations and scandals within the Shin Bet.[10][3] Animation brings still archival material to life and illustrates calculations involved in targeted killings and interrogations.[4]

The historical narrative follows the Shin Bet’s changing role after the Six-Day War and extends through the First Intifada, the Oslo peace process, Rabin’s assassination and targeted-killing policy during the Second Intifada.[2] Other subjects include the Jewish terror underground, Palestinian leadership during the Second Intifada and operations directed against Jewish terrorist organizations.[10][3] The former directors discuss the agency’s intelligence work, secret operations and counterterrorism responsibilities.[2][4]

The Bus 300 affair forms part of the film’s examination of scandals within the agency. A Ynet reviewer described Avraham Shalom as recounting his role in the killing of two captured terrorists and expressing the view that morality had no place in a war against terrorism.[2] Elsewhere, the interviews combine accounts of operational challenges with the participants’ reflections on the morality of their actions and their assessments of the wider conflict.[2]

A recurring argument in the testimony is a criticism of reliance on military force alone to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[4] The film also develops a critique of immediate, tactical security decisions taking precedence over a broader strategic vision.[2] These themes accompany, rather than replace, the former chiefs’ accounts of the practical work of protecting Israelis against terrorism.[3][2]

The Gatekeepers received the National Society of Film Critics’ Best Nonfiction Film award, selected by a group of 60 critics meeting at Lincoln Center in New York.[14] The Los Angeles Film Critics Association also named it best documentary.[6] The film was selected as a Critics’ Pick by The New York Times, whose chief critic praised it as one of the best documentaries of 2012.[4]

In February 2013, the Cinema for Peace initiative presented the film with its documentary award for 2012 at a gala held during the Berlin Film Festival.[5] It was the first Israeli film to receive the award since the initiative’s establishment.[5] The initiative recognizes works addressing major social, political, humanitarian and peace-related challenges.[5]

The film was nominated for Best Documentary Feature at the 85th Academy Awards alongside 5 Broken Cameras, making them two Israeli-produced documentaries nominated in the same category that year.[7][4] They were the first Israeli documentaries nominated in the category since The 81st Blow in 1975.[6] Neither won: the award went to Searching for Sugar Man.[15] Moreh saw the nomination as an opportunity to reach audiences both abroad and in Israel, emphasizing that showing the film to Israeli citizens was particularly important to him.[4]

The documentary also became a reference point in discussion of Israeli self-examination.[16] During a conversation hosted by Makom at the Jewish Agency’s Assembly in late November 2013, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks called it “that extraordinary film about the heads of Shin Bet” and said he was “very moved” by the internal Israeli conversation of self-criticism it exemplified.[16] An essay in Mosaic offered a different interpretation of its impact, arguing that part of its force came from Israeli subjects criticizing their own country.[17]

The film’s editing and political framing drew criticism alongside praise for the candor of its interviews.[8] A senior Likud official accused Moreh of selectively editing the former chiefs’ statements to convey a “Palestinian narrative”; Moreh denied the allegation and said that he and the film represented Israel rather than Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.[8] A Jerusalem Post opinion column defended criticism over what it described as distortions in the film.[18] A Jewish Virtual Library reviewer similarly questioned whether Moreh encouraged his subjects to give desired answers and argued that the editing left the political message confused.[3]

Critical responses also questioned the film’s historical and moral emphasis. The Jewish Virtual Library reviewer argued that it presented only one perspective and left unanswered how Israel should defeat a terrorist ideology.[3] A Ynet reviewer faulted its limited attention to interrogation-room abuse, its insufficient questioning about morality and responsibility, and its treatment of the events preceding Rabin’s assassination.[2] A separate complaint about the documentary series described it as unbalanced and pro-Palestinian; the public broadcasting ombudsman rejected that complaint, finding that it reflected the views of six former Shin Bet chiefs and that a documentary need not follow a prescribed formula of balance.[9]