Yitzhak Rabin; Hero, Traitor, or Dupe
What I have to say about the late Yitzhak Rabin will be shocking to many readers, so be warned. If you are unwilling to hear any unfavorable judgment of Rabin, stop right here. The reason for shock is that Rabin has become, in the eyes and minds of Jews and non-Jews alike, the equivalent of a Christian saint. You cannot say anything negative about Yitzhak Rabin. Not a word of criticism is permissible. Actually, there's only capacity for adulation.
I believe that it was the unspeakable, evil act of his assassination that stimulated the beatification of Rabin. At his funeral, President Clinton named him a "martyr for peace", King Hussein of Jordan called him a "soldier of peace", and Madeleine Albright wrote in 2003 that "the space that Rabin filled remains empty", by which I take her to mean that one so exceptional is hard if not impossible to replace. Bob Rae apparently would agree, noting that "Yitzhak Rabin's courage will have to find its successors in our own time". Rabin's sad, untimely death and its origin has elevated him to martyrdom. Had he lived and contested his policies through the then forthcoming election, it is most likely that he and the Labour Party would have been defeated. I believe that would have been the outcome because Shimon Peres lost that election, even with the political advantage of an outpouring of public anger and sympathy following the assassination of Rabin.
Yigal Amir, the man who murdered Yitzhak Rabin, had no remorse for his terrible deed. That is because he believed that Rabin was a traitor and that therefore he, Amir, had spared Israel from catastrophe. That is utter rubbish. Anyone who knows what Rabin had done over the course of his career knows that Amir's view (and those of his ilk) is preposterous. On more than one occasion Rabin's military acumen was instrumental is staving off disaster for Israel. No, he was not a traitor, but neither was he a hero. In fact, it is my belief that he can best be described as a dupe.
What do I mean by a dupe? A dupe is defined as a victim of deception. Yes, he was to some extent a victim of deception by Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin. But he was a willing victim, a helpful dupe. This aspect of willingness can be demonstrated by his role in bringing to Israel the devastation of Oslo, by which Arafat and thousands of his thugs were brought into the heart of Israel and, amazingly, were actually armed by Israel.
It was a sign of willing deception, or self-deception, that Rabin went along with Peres and Beilin, who had begun secret talks in Oslo without his prior approval and before even informing Rabin. Peres' deputy, Yossi Beilin, and Arafat's man, Ahmad Qurei, sent a couple of Israeli academics to Oslo to secretly negotiate on behalf of the Israeli government and Arafat. Peres only told Rabin about these talks after they had taken place in Oslo. Efraim Karsh, in his book Arafat's War, reports that Rabin was shocked when Peres argued as follows; "Why should we keep [Arafat] in Tunisia, making trouble from there? Let him be on the spot in Gaza." Rabin's initial reaction to this proposition was that "it was like bringing your enemy as a guest to a party". Nevertheless, although taken aback, Rabin gave his cautious approval. The appropriate action for a prime minister whose foreign minister had taken measures behind his back should have been dismissal, or at least reprimand, not "cautious approval". A co-operative dupe? Of course.
Rabin justified his reason for going along with the Oslo plan and saving Arafat -- remember, Arafat was at his lowest ebb politically and financially after backing Saddam Hussein's attack on Kuwait -- was because he had concluded there was no other Palestinian with whom he could deal or negotiate. Even if that were true, (and there's much room for debate on this claim) the question remains; who exactly was Rabin accepting as a negotiating partner?
Arafat had a history that should have told him all he needed to know about the potential "reliability" of this negotiating partner. Mayhem and destruction was Arafat's legacy wherever he had been. He had betrayed King Hussein of Jordan, who took military means to oust him from that country. Hafez al-Assad, while touting him as the Palestinians' saviour, kicked him out of Syria. He undermined Lebanese sovereignty, and it was Israel that did the job of expulsion for them. As for Tunis, Yitzhak Rabin saved them from following this pattern of good riddance by offering Arafat the Oslo peace deal when he needed it most.
But that was not the sum total of the Arafat record. Arafat had always claimed that the Palestinians' land stretched from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea-- from the river to the sea is a Palestinian slogan -- and this was no secretly-held closet belief. Arafat held himself to be a present-day Saladin, the legendary warrior who defeated the Crusaders, and since Israel is held by many Arabs to be a neocrusader state, the intent was clear. Moreover, the Palestinian National Covenant, which was not denounced as promised at the time of the signing of the Oslo Declaration of Principles, (and is still pretty much intact to this day), includes Article 10 which insists that armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine, and for the Palestinians the meaning of "armed struggle" was always terrorism, ie., attacks directed against the most vulnerable, such as children, athletes, and airline passengers.
Faisal Husseini, one who some nominate to be considered a moderate Palestinian, characterized the program for peace that Arafat had in mind as follows, "When we ask all Palestinian forces and factions to regard the Oslo Accord and other arrangements as temporary measures, or phased goals, this means that we are baiting the Israelis or duping them"(emphasis mine). And clearly, Rabin fell for the deception. One only has to listen to the words Rabin spoke during his very last speech to see the extent of his self-delusion:
I want to say bluntly, that we have found a partner for peace among the Palestinians as well: the PLO, which was an enemy, and has ceased to engage in terrorism. Without partners for peace, there can be no peace. We will demand that they do their part for peace, just as we will do our part for peace....
It was an astonishing assertion in the light of repeated terrorist attacks post-Oslo, which Rabin brushed off as the work of the enemies of peace not that of his partners for peace. Arafat and the PLO he somehow absolved. Since he took that to be the case and since he either was convinced or tried to convince the public that the PLO "ceased to engage in terrorism", he refused to demand that they Ado their part as he had promised. Instead, he would re-iterate after each horrific homicide attack that he would not bow to the enemies of peace, that terror would not inhibit the peace process, and that "for Israel, there is no path that is without pain" (to quote his last speech once more). I must concede that Husseini was right; the Palestinians were successfully duping the Israelis, specifically its leader at the helm, the prime minister of Israel.
Once Rabin had persuaded himself of the rightness of Oslo, he was determined to push it through the Knesset at any cost, even if it meant undemocratic, dishonest practice. The Oslo deal was able to receive a bare one vote majority in the Knesset with the "purchase" of two votes from two opposition members. One received a Volvo and the other got a deputy minister's job. Bad enough! But how does a Jewish state pass a measure of such great risk to the Jewish public without a Jewish majority? Even that corrupted majority was passed only with the inclusion of 5 votes from Arab members of the Knesset, some of whom had openly spoken in favour of the destruction of Israel.
Simple majorities are often not sufficient for critical measures in democratic societies. In its earliest stage of representative government, the province of Canada required a double majority to pass laws, that is a majority of French and a majority of English. And rightly so, because the two societies had distinctly different interests! The US needs a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress for amendments to its constitution, plus 3/4 of the states endorsing the measure, not half of the states. And the US senate must count on 60 votes not 50 (or half) to get important measures through. But for Rabin neither honesty nor justice nor the Jewish components' wishes was his criterion in his overwhelming desire to prove that his alliance with the arch terrorist would stand. It stood. And the more than 1700 lives that have been lost since then by Israeli-armed Palestinian terrorists owe much to that commitment.
I believe that it was the unspeakable, evil act of his assassination that stimulated the beatification of Rabin. At his funeral, President Clinton named him a "martyr for peace", King Hussein of Jordan called him a "soldier of peace", and Madeleine Albright wrote in 2003 that "the space that Rabin filled remains empty", by which I take her to mean that one so exceptional is hard if not impossible to replace. Bob Rae apparently would agree, noting that "Yitzhak Rabin's courage will have to find its successors in our own time". Rabin's sad, untimely death and its origin has elevated him to martyrdom. Had he lived and contested his policies through the then forthcoming election, it is most likely that he and the Labour Party would have been defeated. I believe that would have been the outcome because Shimon Peres lost that election, even with the political advantage of an outpouring of public anger and sympathy following the assassination of Rabin.
Yigal Amir, the man who murdered Yitzhak Rabin, had no remorse for his terrible deed. That is because he believed that Rabin was a traitor and that therefore he, Amir, had spared Israel from catastrophe. That is utter rubbish. Anyone who knows what Rabin had done over the course of his career knows that Amir's view (and those of his ilk) is preposterous. On more than one occasion Rabin's military acumen was instrumental is staving off disaster for Israel. No, he was not a traitor, but neither was he a hero. In fact, it is my belief that he can best be described as a dupe.
What do I mean by a dupe? A dupe is defined as a victim of deception. Yes, he was to some extent a victim of deception by Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin. But he was a willing victim, a helpful dupe. This aspect of willingness can be demonstrated by his role in bringing to Israel the devastation of Oslo, by which Arafat and thousands of his thugs were brought into the heart of Israel and, amazingly, were actually armed by Israel.
It was a sign of willing deception, or self-deception, that Rabin went along with Peres and Beilin, who had begun secret talks in Oslo without his prior approval and before even informing Rabin. Peres' deputy, Yossi Beilin, and Arafat's man, Ahmad Qurei, sent a couple of Israeli academics to Oslo to secretly negotiate on behalf of the Israeli government and Arafat. Peres only told Rabin about these talks after they had taken place in Oslo. Efraim Karsh, in his book Arafat's War, reports that Rabin was shocked when Peres argued as follows; "Why should we keep [Arafat] in Tunisia, making trouble from there? Let him be on the spot in Gaza." Rabin's initial reaction to this proposition was that "it was like bringing your enemy as a guest to a party". Nevertheless, although taken aback, Rabin gave his cautious approval. The appropriate action for a prime minister whose foreign minister had taken measures behind his back should have been dismissal, or at least reprimand, not "cautious approval". A co-operative dupe? Of course.
Rabin justified his reason for going along with the Oslo plan and saving Arafat -- remember, Arafat was at his lowest ebb politically and financially after backing Saddam Hussein's attack on Kuwait -- was because he had concluded there was no other Palestinian with whom he could deal or negotiate. Even if that were true, (and there's much room for debate on this claim) the question remains; who exactly was Rabin accepting as a negotiating partner?
Arafat had a history that should have told him all he needed to know about the potential "reliability" of this negotiating partner. Mayhem and destruction was Arafat's legacy wherever he had been. He had betrayed King Hussein of Jordan, who took military means to oust him from that country. Hafez al-Assad, while touting him as the Palestinians' saviour, kicked him out of Syria. He undermined Lebanese sovereignty, and it was Israel that did the job of expulsion for them. As for Tunis, Yitzhak Rabin saved them from following this pattern of good riddance by offering Arafat the Oslo peace deal when he needed it most.
But that was not the sum total of the Arafat record. Arafat had always claimed that the Palestinians' land stretched from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea-- from the river to the sea is a Palestinian slogan -- and this was no secretly-held closet belief. Arafat held himself to be a present-day Saladin, the legendary warrior who defeated the Crusaders, and since Israel is held by many Arabs to be a neocrusader state, the intent was clear. Moreover, the Palestinian National Covenant, which was not denounced as promised at the time of the signing of the Oslo Declaration of Principles, (and is still pretty much intact to this day), includes Article 10 which insists that armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine, and for the Palestinians the meaning of "armed struggle" was always terrorism, ie., attacks directed against the most vulnerable, such as children, athletes, and airline passengers.
Faisal Husseini, one who some nominate to be considered a moderate Palestinian, characterized the program for peace that Arafat had in mind as follows, "When we ask all Palestinian forces and factions to regard the Oslo Accord and other arrangements as temporary measures, or phased goals, this means that we are baiting the Israelis or duping them"(emphasis mine). And clearly, Rabin fell for the deception. One only has to listen to the words Rabin spoke during his very last speech to see the extent of his self-delusion:
I want to say bluntly, that we have found a partner for peace among the Palestinians as well: the PLO, which was an enemy, and has ceased to engage in terrorism. Without partners for peace, there can be no peace. We will demand that they do their part for peace, just as we will do our part for peace....
It was an astonishing assertion in the light of repeated terrorist attacks post-Oslo, which Rabin brushed off as the work of the enemies of peace not that of his partners for peace. Arafat and the PLO he somehow absolved. Since he took that to be the case and since he either was convinced or tried to convince the public that the PLO "ceased to engage in terrorism", he refused to demand that they Ado their part as he had promised. Instead, he would re-iterate after each horrific homicide attack that he would not bow to the enemies of peace, that terror would not inhibit the peace process, and that "for Israel, there is no path that is without pain" (to quote his last speech once more). I must concede that Husseini was right; the Palestinians were successfully duping the Israelis, specifically its leader at the helm, the prime minister of Israel.
Once Rabin had persuaded himself of the rightness of Oslo, he was determined to push it through the Knesset at any cost, even if it meant undemocratic, dishonest practice. The Oslo deal was able to receive a bare one vote majority in the Knesset with the "purchase" of two votes from two opposition members. One received a Volvo and the other got a deputy minister's job. Bad enough! But how does a Jewish state pass a measure of such great risk to the Jewish public without a Jewish majority? Even that corrupted majority was passed only with the inclusion of 5 votes from Arab members of the Knesset, some of whom had openly spoken in favour of the destruction of Israel.
Simple majorities are often not sufficient for critical measures in democratic societies. In its earliest stage of representative government, the province of Canada required a double majority to pass laws, that is a majority of French and a majority of English. And rightly so, because the two societies had distinctly different interests! The US needs a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress for amendments to its constitution, plus 3/4 of the states endorsing the measure, not half of the states. And the US senate must count on 60 votes not 50 (or half) to get important measures through. But for Rabin neither honesty nor justice nor the Jewish components' wishes was his criterion in his overwhelming desire to prove that his alliance with the arch terrorist would stand. It stood. And the more than 1700 lives that have been lost since then by Israeli-armed Palestinian terrorists owe much to that commitment.
posted by Professor Sal at 8:09 AM
2 Comments:
I'm delighted that you read and debate with me. I didn't want to give the impression that Peres was not the real conspirator along with Beilin, and if I did that I missed the mark in my article. But my emphasis at this time with all the adulation for Rabin was on his record and the abominable failure of that record. I did say that Rabin should have fired the two deceivers, and the fact that he didn't shows his weak-kneed way of governing ( rather not governing). I'm amazed and pleased to read that in Israel there's a re-evaluation of Rabin that is more accurate than anything seen, heard, or written here. Perhaps there's some reality and awakening going on.
Having said that, Geoff, I wonder what you think about Sharon's latest upheaval. I'll wait to read your evaluation before I give you my sense of this matter.
I read you with interest, but I have a logistical problem with Sharon's plan to which most people, in Israel and abroad, haven't paid any attention. How is it physically possible to remove maybe 50,000 to 100,000 settlers. I don't know the numbers and neither does anyone else. It took 40,000 soldiers to oust 8,000 people from Aza, and their resettlement is still deplorable. How many soldiers will it take to clear out most of Judea and Samaria? And where will they be put? And what economy can afford such a move? Not Israel, that's for sure. Look at the US's difficulties in resettling the victims of Katrina, and New Orleans is unlikely to be revived in the near future. The money pledged to this disaster is still not forthcoming and that's a very very rich economy, despite the cost of the war in Iraq. In some ways we can look at that displacement of population and learn some lessons from it, and also learn lessons from the Aza withdrawal. I think it's a fantasy to think the same thing done to Aza could be repeated in the Judea and Samaria. So when is anyone going to talk about the reality of that proposed clearance of Jews from J.and S. ? I don't read anything that faces up to the impossibility of Sharon's plan for J. and S. Is anyone in Israel raising that issue? I'd be interested to read the details not the fantasy.
Post a Comment
<< Home