No Live Files Remain

by Andras Forgach

  Of all the things she heard, those voiced by Zaretsky didn’t sit well with my mother, that’s for certain, and she might well have fallen into a heated, interminable argument with him then and there. But, presumably, as a good student of sorts, Bruria knew full well – as Mihály Rapcsák writes in his masterpiece, Psychological Aspects of the ‘Dark’ Methods in the System of Network Building and Intelligence Gathering – the importance of:

  • Selecting a tone suitable to the conversation. For this it is imperative to accommodate to the partner who is presumably giving the information.

  • Practising in advance the forms of courtesy and the habits of the subject to be studied, and their practical application.

  • Acquiring the propensity to listen patiently and actively by displaying a suitable degree of interest.

  • Initiating contacts and evoking trust and sympathy with ease.

  My mother possessed ease, and she could evoke trust and sympathy in just about anyone. But this in itself is not enough, since one must recognize the other’s ‘human frailties’; for ‘the propensity to pass along secrets’ lurks in certain people (or in us all?), and, according to Szélpál, such people need only be suitably provoked:

  Most important is recognizing and utilizing the chosen individual’s human frailties. These may include, for example, the propensity to pass along secrets, which manifests itself especially in those who can be ‘provoked’ in line with the goal. By exploiting such persons’ vanity or over-emphasizing their human dignity, the intelligence officer can get more or less the desired answer. We may also include the pretensions displayed by some when conversing with others in their field whom they deem less capable than themselves.

  It is worth also mentioning those human frailties which manifest themselves in individuals given to talking more than necessary, especially when in an emotionally charged condition or under the influence of alcohol. In such cases the intelligence officer or the secret colleague, or even another member of the network, may incite the target individual with well-chosen ‘provocative’ comments, and that individual, inadvertently throwing caution to the wind, provides the desired information.

  Much shrewder is the strategy proposed by Rapcsák, the ‘art of the opening’, which goes beyond the realm of human frailties:

  Initiating a conversation is, for example, often called the ‘art of the opening’, since it indisputably embodies certain elements of art. The ability to break the ice determines the conversation’s entire trajectory and, later, the result of the dark information-gathering.

  The introduction itself plays a positive role in the ‘art of the opening’ (especially on the occasion of the first meeting), as does highlighting some detail of the ‘life story’ (cover story), shared or similar experiences, or shared interests. This must be determined in advance, and then, turning the conversation in that direction, expressing heightened interest in the conversation partner’s personal life (e.g. circumstances of house/flat residence, books, children, pictures, animals, stamps, fishing, sports, diplomats).

  But for Rapcsák, ever the perfectionist, a devotee of the ‘dark’ method, this isn’t enough (italics added by the present author):

  The true conversation can be begun only after the proper mood is established. A prominent role is played here by the other’s self interest, which is to say, his feeling that the prospective conversation will be to his (intellectual or financial) advantage. But other key considerations can also come into play, such as an occasion for ‘telling all’, curiosity, or the feeling that rejecting participation would be an indiscretion, an act violating good manners.

  The ideal situation is, however, when the conversation ensues in submission to the intelligence officer’s unequivocally sympathetic behaviour.

  It may happen that the intelligence officer can bear upon his partner precisely by making himself out to be less informed in the given topic. This is especially effective when the intelligence officer has come to understand that his conversation partner will probably be given to speak with complete sincerity to the intelligence officer.

  It is appropriate that the intelligence officer should endeavour through his behaviour to maintain a friendly, somewhat familiar, back-slapping tone, and that through his words and gestures should convince his partner that his person and what he has to say is at the centre of interest. If the partner does not perceive sincere interest in the questions posed to him, then this behaviour will not motivate him to a broader providing of information, and indeed might even lead him to wonder why he is being asked.

  To build up the trust, we too must say something – something of interest to the partner, hence it is necessary to know his interests. If possible this endeavour should not unfold on a give-and-take basis. When, notwithstanding the multi-faceted preparations, we find ourselves confronting a question we must react to but don’t yet know how, we can prepare ourselves for this situation, too, and give evasive answers: ‘I haven’t yet thought about this’, ‘your opinion in the matter is more important than mine’, or perhaps, ‘at the end of the conversation we’ll return to this’, which might even stoke the partner’s curiosity and maintain it throughout.

  The passionate, unending discussion – in other words, the ceaseless provocation of one person by another – was very much a speciality of our family, a kind of dessert after Sunday lunch. Imagine having lunch with the Kafkas, but in contrast to the Kafka family, where the arguments were generally about the exact day and hour when the family had done this or that, or about who was present and who wasn’t, in our home murderous quarrels invariably broke out over the Arabs and the Israelis, the political goals of the Americans and the Soviets, and the whole situation in the Middle East, and they lasted until veins were ready to burst, faces turned purple, throats hoarse. The point was that the two parties should if possible not agree on a single thing, and this disagreement, this irreconcilable difference had a value all of its own: perhaps it evoked the drama of the class struggle, modelling itself on the implacable antagonism between the working classes and the bourgeoisie. I can’t even guess how my mother persuaded Zaretsky to expound on his views in her presence. Did she appeal to his vanity? Provoke him in some way? Or did it occur in a larger group of people, with Bruria merely an observer, lurking unnoticed, gathering all her strength in order not to respond?

  On 9 March 1977, I met with Zev Zaretsky, an employee of Russian origin of the Israeli Weizmann Institute, who directs the institute’s spectrometry laboratory. Zaretsky, who is forty-nine years old, left the Soviet Union in 1971. In Moscow he worked in the chemistry department of the Academy of Sciences. He boasted about the important task he was entrusted with there: maintaining close relations with Zionist activists of the organization in the Soviet Union.

  He vehemently attacked the film Soul Hunters, which had been screened in Moscow. This film was about those young people who – in the words of the film – ‘accepted money from foreign Zionist organizations’. According to Zaretsky, it was the first step in Soviet anti-Semitism, portraying as enemies those fighting for human rights.

  Zaretsky said he deplored the protest gestures taken by the USA (Bukovsky’s reception at the White House, the letter to Sakharov) because they forced the Soviet authorities to take drastic measures. From Moscow’s perspective it cannot keep making concessions, because it is faced with newer and newer demands. If, after this, harder measures follow, it will cut back even more on emigration, which has dwindled substantially already.

  Zaretsky said he and his associates were endeavouring to develop suitable lines of communication towards Zionist activists living in the Soviet Union. One very important channel is regular phone communication. Although the KGB is doing all it can to eliminate telephone conversations, the activists can barely go without them, as it is important for them to feel supported and encouraged. This is now especially necessary because since 1972 Russian-language broadcasts directed at the Soviet Union have been interrupted by counter-intelligence, mean
ing that even where they can be picked up, only in southern regions, they are hard to receive.

  He was sorry to conclude that motivation to emigrate had subsided in the Soviet Union. They are labouring to develop other methods which they anticipate will yield a newer wave of emigration, and for which they need to prepare on time.

  According to Zaretsky, it is a big mistake that Jews living in the Soviet Union know too much about the difficulties awaiting them in Israel, which among other things explains why half the emigrants do not wish to settle in Israel.

  Now that gets an A+.

  Mrs Pápai’s employers are so pleased with her that a short time later they entrust her with a task beyond her abilities. They are rather critical of the result:

  In the course of her travels MRS PÁPAI succeeded in acquiring valuable documents about the 30th World Zionist Congress, and yet her work as a gatherer of political information leaves much to be desired.

  In her reports she answers our questions with generalities, in a journalistic, propagandistic style that does not satisfy the minimal demands of information gathering.

  Her statements and conclusions strongly suggest that her own political orientation and commitment does not allow her to remain objective.

  Noteworthy, however, is the high level of MRS PÁPAI’s Israeli contacts, which can represent fundamental elements of MRS PÁPAI’s future operative assignments.

  Though Mrs Pápai attempted several times to carry out her assignment, admittedly in a burlesque manner, her labours were in vain: not only could she not get in to the closely guarded 29th and 30th World Zionist Congresses in Jerusalem, she didn’t get close to so much as a single delegate. Though I suspect she was secretly happy about this, she did twice, heroically, get an acquaintance to take her there – to whom, in return for the petrol and the favour, she later presented an edition of the works of the great Hungarian naïve painter Tivadar Csontváry Kosztka, a gift she naturally requested the Hungarian secret services buy for her. In the end the scraps of information she paid her employers came from political brochures and the like – she was also tasked with collecting the paraphernalia of the Israeli postal service, including stamps, envelopes and stationery, and did so with ease – but her failure was obvious, even if her handlers didn’t say so right away. It turned out that she was unfit for more complex and delicate matters. She simply could not play a role.

  The biggest problem: Zionism.

  We grouped her tasks in detail under the following categories:

  • The most important decisions of the 29th World Zionist Congress brought against the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries in the interest of the Jews residing there.

  • The nature and essence of specific anti-Soviet measures whose implementation was the responsibility of the Congress.

  • What doctrine are they endeavouring to develop to enhance the effectiveness of the Zionist ideology?

  • What measures and ideas do they intend to implement to draw more Jewish youth into the Zionist movement.

  • Measures and ideas expected to be implemented to bolster emigration and to activate Jews living in socialist countries.

  • Aspects of the Palestinian problem as raised from the side of individual delegates.

  • The nature of possible conflicts between the World Zionist Congress and the World Jewish Congress, as well as Israeli and American and other delegations.

  • The opinions of various sectors of society and various individuals on the special Israeli-Egyptian talks on Middle East peace.

  • We may be interested in her keeping track of measures related to her entry into Israel in the course of border and customs inspections, and generally during her stay. What changes occur? Are they stricter or more favourable?

  • Domestic travel restrictions, and the security measures introduced to protect the Congress.

  • In addition to the above, we request documents and materials that can provide an understanding of Israel’s domestic economic and political circumstances, especially in view of the aftermath of LIKUD’s rise to power.

  Financial matters:

  On the basis of the approved Travel Plan, in return for a receipt, I have given 8,000 forints and 500 US dollars to cover travel and defray other costs. To legalize the latter sum I have also provided her with a foreign currency export permit.

  Mrs Pápai knew she was attempting the impossible, and yet she went. As for myself, I can’t – and I don’t want to – undertake to analyse twentieth-century Middle East developments, Palestinian-Jewish strife and/or the Israeli-Arab wars, and I don’t wish to have my say about world politics. No, here and now I wish only to understand my mother. It is impossible that she would not have sensed – as is perfectly evident from certain pronouncements she issued much later (too late!) – that no matter how strong her political convictions, her faith, no matter what great injustice she saw in her homeland (e.g. expelled Palestinians, bulldozed Palestinian villages and Palestinians languishing in refugee camps), and no matter how irresolvable the situation seemed to her, she was engaged in an endeavour to dig up the faults and sins of the Israelis, sometimes employing the contorted, primitive rhetoric of the lead articles in Pravda. In this Mrs Pápai had something in common with numerous prominent leftists of Jewish ancestry, the most well known being perhaps Noam Chomsky, but then there’s the director Ken Loach and the actress Vanessa Redgrave. My mother took a blind nationalism – this is how she saw Zionism – and confronted it with another sort of blindness, the ideology of the Soviet empire.

  It was with the Arab world that Jean Genet confronted the colonizing French and a French culture he hatefully idolized, and when, at the invitation of Yasser Arafat, he spent some time among Palestinian fighters, for him it was primarily an erotic adventure (and he wrote about it as such). Later still, when he spent two hours in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon and described the sight of massacred Palestinians, even then it was above all the tragic event that concerned him, the description of death, and not necessarily the ideologies facing off against each other, even though he took the side of the vulnerable, not of those in power. At one time Genet even supported the Black Panthers. But all this was, for him, part of his individual mythology, not a thinking rooted in subjugation, subordinate to an authoritarian regime. It just isn’t possible that Bruria never sensed that she was constantly and increasingly crossing borders, not just those of nations but also those of ethical norms. True, she could perhaps rationalize their violation by telling herself that the end justifies the means. Her whole life she’d been surmounting barriers, after all, sometimes radically and bravely, but in the end in a morally indefensible way, even if she did perhaps occasionally draw parallels between her courage as a youth partaking in illegal activities, and the help she provided to Department III/I that was rewarded with money. Her border crossings went on and on, their ripple effect affecting the everyday lives of others; not only of unknown strangers but also of friends and relatives, not always directly perhaps, but they undoubtedly buttressed a corrupt and petty bureaucratic dictatorship that served the interests of the Soviet empire and deprived its citizens of their freedom. Certain slips of hers make clear that she sensed that what she supported, the regime here at home, behind the Iron Curtain, was as inane as it was incorrigible. Why, after all, would Jews feel themselves to be ‘strangers in their own homelands’?

  The realization of every such anti-communist, anti-socialist plan could be neutralized if the non-Zionist Jews in the various socialist countries did not feel themselves to be strangers in their own homelands. The Zionists know this feeling of strangeness well and use it to their advantage. They exploit those cracks that can be found in the bureaucratic apparatus of the socialist camp. And so it’s not merely a matter of strengthening internal security and all that is connected with that, but serious consideration should also be paid to every step that might nourish international Zionism, so it might exploit the remaining rigid regulations found in the so
cialist camp. Hungary’s policies could be exemplary in this area, though there are still faults here too. It is much better if the Israeli papers accuse intellectuals of Jewish descent in socialist countries of anti-Semitism (for example, on 27 January 1983, Maariv accused Mihály Sükösd and András Mezei of being anti-Semitic and also holding ‘hair-raising’ opinions) than if they criticize the Hungarian government or its bureaucratic apparatus.

  Then she sends a message, without commentary, to the eavesdroppers:

  This man is a teacher of astrophysics at Tel Aviv University and just spent a year on sabbatical in the US. Before that he attended an academic conference in Budapest. On returning to Israel he recounted having had pleasant experiences in Budapest, the only thing he disliked being the fact that in the hotel the radio was constantly on, as if on a central system, and whenever he turned it off, a staff member showed up to ask what the problem was with the radio. He thinks there is some connection between this and the bugging of conversations. He thinks people talking in hotel rooms are always bugged, as are telephone conversations.

  And finally the crown jewels, a little snippet on the problem of Judaism that bears witness to my mother’s knowledge of the Talmud. This eternal mental back and forth is by no means unfamiliar to the person filing these reports. No, I will now quote her words as close as possible to the form in which they appeared in her hand in her work dossier, and I can’t stifle my sense that her turn of phrase ‘there probably is such a feeling’ – which is to say, that certain people really do feel themselves to be Jewish, wherever they may live – harbours a touch of irony:

  Let no one delude themselves into thinking that anti-Israel sentiments have taken root in Jews living in the diaspora on account of the aggression committed by Israel. Historical experiences prove that Jews, if they feel themselves to be Jewish (for there probably is such a feeling, true or false, but there is), will find a means to vindicate Israeli policies. Not even if they do voice criticism or are repulsed by certain aggressive acts do they turn away from Israel, from Zionism. Their support, which manifests itself in sympathy and financial support, will continue. Many in Israel are concerned that Jews living in the diaspora will turn away from Israel. Hence they are trying at breakneck speed to organize the brainwashing of the diaspora Jewry with better and better delegates. They organize debating societies small and large (not only in Jewish circles) in which the justification of [Israel’s] acts unfolds. I brought material about one of these. True, a depressing mood prevails in Israel. The right exploits this well for its continuing ends. There is polarization towards positive, fair solutions, but for the time being the aggressive force prevails.