Our Children Are The Guarantors

Defending Zionism from its detractors. Anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism. Let the other side apologize for a change.

Thursday, November 02, 2006

The Legacy of the Assassination

Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin, may HaShem avenge his blood, was assassinated eleven years ago (exactly by the Hebrew calender; on November 5, 1995 by the reckoning of the civil calendar). This is my tribute. I will say forthwith that the Oslo Accords of 1993 were a mistake, but that the mistake of 1995 was the expression of that thought with a gun, and with words inciting the use of the gun, instead of intellectual argumentation. That is the concisest summary I can give of my position.

Did the assassination kill the “Peace Process” of those days? Apart from the obvious disclaimer that I am venturing into the territory of counterfactuals, I would say, in hindsight, that I think not. Arafat’s plan to break the treaties was voiced as far back as the same year the Oslo Accords were signed, in a summit conference in Johannesburg where he announced they would have the same weight as the Hudaybiyah Treaty signed by Mohammed, the prophet of Islam, a ten-year treaty with the pagan Meccans which he canceled after less than two years. Had Rabin not been assassinated, he would probably have met the fate of Ehud Barak: ousted by a right-wing candidate in elections soon after the outbreak of enemy violence. The effects of the assassination, then, were internal rather than external: they set the new rules for disagreement, even on hot topics, rules which I stand by and advocate.

This post will now dwell on two points: first, that the pre-assassination error does not turn into a right move because of the assassination, and second, that the disputation with disagreeing Jews, even those who actively aid the enemy, is never again to be done the way Yigal Amir (shr"y) did toward Rabin.

I supported the Oslo Accords back in the day. Rabin won the 1992 elections in a landslide, the great majority of Israeli Jews having gotten tired of war and ready to repeat the success of the Begin–Sadat land-for-peace deal.

The 1993 treaties were a grave mistake. It was possible to know it already then, with the aforementioned speech of Arafat and with the bus bombs starting in 1994. However, there were circumstances which, although they clearly do not excuse those treaties, lighten the culpability of those who supported them: the success of the peace treaty with Egypt, as I said; the passage of time since 1947, which made for the assumption that the other side too had grown the will to agree to a partition of the land; and, most of all, the pre-9/11 innocence, which meant people at that time could not even imagine the Intifada of the “Palestinians” to be just a small part of a great Clash of Civilizations, the war between shariah-enforcers and shariah-resistors. The Oslo Accords were a gamble on the lands of Israel, a gamble because there was no guarantee that the enemy would ever reward Israel’s cold, hard cash (lands) with their airy, lip-blown promises (peace). (Such is the nature of haggling in the Middle Eastern peace souk.) It was only the circumstances of the day, the lack of experience, that made them acceptable to the majority of Israeli Jews, including the writer.

Those relieving circumstances are now absent. The Second Intifada of October 2000 was the first shot in conclusively proving the worthlessness of those treaties; 9/11 showed us the long grasp Muslims are capable of in practicing their religion; the Danish Cartoon Jihad razed to the ground the idea that there was ever a rational, civilized partner for negotiations in front of us; and the firing of Kassam rockets upon Sderot after the full evacuation of Gaza in August 2005, and finally the Lebanon War of July and August 2006, was the final nail in the coffin of belief in the effectiveness of Neville’s art with regard to our enemies. There is no Israeli Jew who has eyes to see but can stay with the same beliefs of 1993. Indeed, the assassination did nothing whatsoever to shift the Israeli Jewish public’s opinion away from the belief in the Oslo Accords, but rather it was—and that is a point that cannot be stated enough—the treachery of the Muslim enemy and the injustice of world opinion that have done, more than a thousand right-wing election campaigns, to move the Israeli Jewish public to the Right en masse. A friendly reminder to all those left-wing kumbayistas who think their actions could force Israel’s hand to “end the occupation” and all that jazz.

But there are, unfortunately, among those left-wing kumbayistas quite a few Jews, even Israeli Jews (who had assumed the ostrich position from October 2000 onward—I can’t think of any other explanation for such intransigence in the face of the facts). Noam Chomsky and George Soros stand at the top (or should that be the bottom) of that group, with Uri Avneri, Gilead Atzmon, Amira Hass, Tanya Reinhart and Yossi Beilin, to name just a few, gracing the anti-Israel, pro-Islamofascism scene frequently. And many more of no such fame (yet), such as Democrat-supporting Jews joining Jimmy Carter in calling Israel an “apartheid state”.

If there is one thing good that has come from this grave sin, the assassination of Rabin, a sin for which G-d decreed the destruction of the First Temple, it is the recognition of all (or, at worst, nearly all) Jews of the need to change the way of disputing such Jews. I have castigated them for engaging in actions that contribute to Jews being killed (G-d forbid), in Israel especially, but even in the Diaspora. It is in deep anger and great frustration that I read their writings, their lies, their sympathy with the enemy, their total weighting of the scales to Israel’s guilt, their lack of responsibility. In view of this, I am quite sure that if Rabin had not been assassinated, with all the national trauma to follow it, I would now be calling for action against them just as surely as Pat Robertson once called for action against Hugo Chávez. But the assassination formed a taboo: even an arch-quisling such as Noam Chomsky is not to be harmed, not to be incited against with violence. After November 5, 1995, all are agreed that intellectual argumentation is the only lawful course for dispute.

I am not in favor of word-policing; it is Orwellian, it is the first step toward a thought-police. There are words that should be watched because they drive some hearers to act, for example, most graphically, the fatwas given out by Muslim leaders in the Rushdie and Danish Cartoons and Papal Quotation affairs. But those are very, very clear cases; in most cases, the cries of “Incitement!” and “Hate crime!” are but ruses to silence an opposing view. When I call Chomsky a quisling, I mean nothing by that but to point out the fact of his siding with the enemy against his Jewish brothers; I do not call to silence him in any way, not even intellectually, let alone by violence. In a similar way, I do not care about being called an Islamophobe; but the charge of “Islamophobia” often carries the threat of intellectual silencing (or worse) after it, therefore it goes beyond a statement of fact or opinion. Anti-defamation activity, though a far cry from the silencing an opposing view with a gun, partakes of the same mistake of ending intellectual disputes the easy way.

But we are in an age in which free speech—the right to say things that may offend people—is vital. Let the mistake of the Oslo Accords be decried, or the wisdom of the Oslo Accords be extolled, on blog posts and not through the barrel of a gun.

Grant Rabin his heavenly rest, O God.


Blogger kahaneloyalist said...

I have a few points I'd like you to answer without resorting to name calling

1. Shulchan Aruch HaRav volume six laws pertaining to property " If a Jew gives up the land of other Jews to Goyim, and he persists in this, that is he gives up the land of three or more Jews, he is a rodef and can and should be killed by anyone". Why does that not apply to Rabin?

2. Rabin was himself a murderer he led the operation which murdered 17 jews on the Altalena and he bragged about his part in murdering 17 Jews for the rest of his life.

3. The Left to this day openly calls for violence and murder against their opponents. Most notably the Kahanists whose death is openly called for by Leftists.

4. If you want to compare Rabin to a king you should know that a king only has the right to rule so long as he follows the Torah, and many kings were overthrown on orders from the Sanhedrin because they didnt follow the Torah. Rabin never kept the Torah why should his status be exalted above the real kings?

5. If the whole right wing is responsible for Rabin's death isn't the whole left wing responsible for the thousands murdered as a result of their policies?

6. If Avishai Raviv, a Shabak agent, encouraged Amir to kill Rabin, something which even the left wing Shamgar commision has admmitted, Isn't Rabin really responsible for his own death? If his botched attempts to end opposition to his insane plans backfired and got him killed, why should the people who warned about the results of Oslo feel any guilt?

I thank you in advance for your answers

November 06, 2006 7:07 AM  
Blogger ZionistYoungster said...

Here are my answers, but keep in mind I'm not a scholar and have to go back and forth asking a rabbi everything, so I may update it later:

1. It is halacha to execute homosexuals as well, but postponed to the days of Mashiach. I don't know if this applies here, but at any rate there was at least one great rabbi (Ovadyah Yosef) who did not declare Din Rodef on Rabin, and even more, declared it lawful to concede lands if it is for the purpose of preserving Jewish lives (he, of course, now opposes land concessions, for the same reasons I gave above, about the enemy's intransigence).

2. It's not the business of an individual to execute someone as punishment for murder. For his murder of the 17 on the Altalena, he should have been tried by a court.

3. I confess I have not encountered what you mention. Then again, it wouldn't be surprising--the Left has long ceased to surprise me with their hypocrisy.

4. I don't know what G-d's judgment about the assassination is, but we should err on the side of caution. Even if we granted the rightness of that action, surely you realize that's a slippery slope? We'd have Jews killing Jews by the boatload over disagreements (which are plentiful), and then there's no doubt we'd be exiled again.

5. I didn't say the whole right wing is responsible for Rabin's death. I didn't say that even back in 1995, when I was still a left-winger. As for the policies of the Left, we now know of their folly in hindsight; back then, people had reasons not to think so (see my post). Now that there is no reason for any Israeli Jew to believe in the worth of any treaties with the Muslims, it's time for us to hammer home the points that Oslo is dead, that the Muslims want us dead, and that a great portion of the Gentiles don't care if we're dead. As with the Holocaust, we're far better served than preventing a future recurrence than dwelling on the past.

6. No, unless Rabin himself had conspired with Raviv to stage his own assassination. I don't give much credence to conspiracy theories. What's done is done, and, as I said in the post, the assassination of Rabin is no longer a factor in the political opinions of Israeli Jews; the actions of the Muslims are, and now that we have proof that they don't intend to give us anything in exchange for our lands, we ought to rally the people against any further concessions. Back in the 1990's we had a hard time convincing people that Tel-Aviv and Ma'aleh Adumim are the same; today, our task is much easier, the people being much more receptive, by virtue of Muslim aggression.

Thanks for the questions. I apologize if my answers are unsatisfactory. You'll understand I'm not a Kahanist. But consider that I once was a Peace Now member, so you realize I've come a long way. And it was the actions of the other side (the Muslims and Kahane's "Dear World") that forced me to that.

November 06, 2006 11:09 AM  
Blogger kahaneloyalist said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

November 07, 2006 3:24 PM  
Blogger kahaneloyalist said...

First of all thank you for answering at all and in the fashion you did.

1. The Halacha regarding Homosexuals is in fact still in force, this nonsense that Mitzvos dont apply is only true regarding Mitzvos which cant be practiced because of lost knowledge. While there are no functioning Beitai Dinim a kings court can and should be set up(Kings courts have much lower standards of evidence) to enforce all the Torah. As for giving up land to save lives, I do not accept this as it goes against my Rabbanim.

2. Fair enough though Goel HaDam is exactly such a case, I am aware that would not apply to Amir as no blood relative of his died on the Altalena.

3. The Leftists who would go to Kach Rallies to break them up would chant "kill them while theyre still young" Thats the face of the Left then and now.

4. I concede the point though if there was a functioning Sanhedrin and the sanctioned a assasiantion I would accept it as meritorious

5. It seems your head and heart are in the right place the only question is are you willing to take the steps necessary to prevent another holocaust?


November 08, 2006 6:00 AM  
Blogger Michael said...

Interesting comments. My own view is a little more simplistic:

Amir is a common murderer, who didn't even have the guts to let his victim see him; he had to shoot Rabin in the back.

Whether Rabin was right or wrong, he took a brave step to try and secure a peaceful future for Israel. He had the guts to meet his enemy and try to make a deal. And it blew up in all our faces.

Hindsight shows just how wrong Rabin was, but that just means he should've failed re-election.

Amir deserves to rot in jail forever.

November 12, 2006 2:10 PM  
Blogger ZionistYoungster said...


I fully agree. I hope the days of settling internal disputes violently, not just among Jews but also among non-Muslims in general (say between the American Right and Left), are behind us as a result of that lesson.

Rabin was wrong. But it wasn't Amir who caused the people to understand that. The murder was, therefore, a cutting of a life short with no political gain whatever to the murderer and his ideology.

November 12, 2006 6:52 PM  
Blogger kahaneloyalist said...

so Michael, according to you Chamberlain was also a heroic man for trying to have peace in our time?

November 14, 2006 8:44 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home