Gideon's Spies

On trips to Israel, some on behalf of Britain’s Channel 4, the process of interviewing was like any other. The time frame of the story my interviewees had to tell initially encompassed a strange period, somewhere between recent history and fading memory. Gradually, as we came to know each other and their accounts moved closer to the present time, they became more specific, better able to remember the minutiae—who said what, when, and where.

It became clear that even those who had helped found Mossad had vivid recollections of a period that was part of their living history—and that had never been recounted from their perspective. Most important, they could relate those earlier times to the present day. For example, when they identified Mossad’s role in the closing days of the shah of Iran, they translated it as the root of the current scourge of Islamic fundamentalism. When they revealed Mossad’s involvement with South Africa, they were able to juxtapose it with that country’s situation today. Time and again they showed how the past was part of Israel’s present; how Mossad had bridged the gap between then and now.

They showed that legends attributed to Mossad paled into insignificance when placed against what really had happened. I remember Rafael Eitan chuckling and saying, “Almost every published fact about the capture of Eichmann is pure bullshit. I know because I personally am the man who captured him.”

In many ways Eitan and his colleagues turned myths into a compelling reality. They asked I should do no less.

Listening to Eitan, his achievements seemed to be as inexhaustible as his energy. He had fought a great secret war. A man of endless vision, all he asked was to live long enough to see the day when Israel would truly be at peace. In October 2008, Eitan told a German magazine that Iran’s President Ahmadinejad should be kidnapped and brought to trial at the Hague War Crimes Tribunal. Eitan was then the head of the Pensioners Party in the Israeli Knesset.

I learned quickly that there were distinct and acrimonious camps among my interviewees. There were the “Isser Harel” people and the “Meir Amit” people, and the contempt each had for the other was undimmed by the years. I sensed there will never be a mellowing on either side.

This led to an additional problem: weighing the emphasis to be put on their information. My interviewees are also in a race with time. Men like Meir Amit are in the twilight of their lives. It was to his credit that he was willing to endure lengthy interviews and repetitive questions. He granted his last one shortly after he had returned from Vietnam, where he had gone to learn firsthand about how the Vietcong had often outsmarted U.S. intelligence in the Vietnam War.

One of the most fascinating interviews was with Uri Saguy. He sat in Zvi Spielmann’s office and spoke candidly on such diverse subjects as the need for Israel to come to an accommodation with Syria and the problem he sometimes had with “tasking” Mossad when he had been Israel’s overall intelligence supremo.

David Kimche rarely let down his guard, insisting on seeing all questions beforehand. Nevertheless, he did impart important insights regarding his personal attitude toward people and events. My enduring memory of him was watching him feed his dog while elegantly destroying the credibility of those who did not measure up to his own standards.

Yaakov Cohen opened his home—and his heart and mind to me. We sat for many hours in the kibbutz where he now lives as he remembered what he had said and felt at the time. As an example, he alone could recall the fear and remorse he had experienced when killing his first man. His reaction was in marked contrast to Rafi Eitan’s feelings about killing.

Yoel Ben Porat had the mentality of the lawyer’s lawyer, dealing only with the facts and slow to conjecture. In many cases he was able to fill in gaps that had been left open by history. Reuven Merhav was a font of information about Mossad’s position in the framework of Israeli politics.

Among the Israeli journalists I spoke with, two need special mention. Alex Doron was ready to sound off about Israeli intelligence in a way that was candid and refreshing. His support was valuable. On the other hand, Ran Edelist, who had been engaged as a researcher by Channel 4 for the TV film I was to present on Mossad, often paced an office in Zvi Spielmann’s studio complex, insisting it would not be “proper” to give “full details” in many cases. At times he seemed more concerned with what should not be in the program than with what should. In some of the interviews he attended, he frequently interrupted interviewees to caution them to “be careful.” Thankfully, few took his advice. Independently of Ran Edelist, I met with other Israeli intelligence operatives who were able to be open on the understanding they would not be directly quoted.