rabin

i've often thought about the assassination of yitzhak rabin and what kind of event it was in terms of israeli society. i remember that one of the things that struck me when i was in israel was the prevalence of bumper stickers emblazoned only with the date of rabin's assassination: 11-4-95. obviously its an indescribably significant event in israeli history, and i think mostly because it made clear that there was also a threat from within the jewish world. i think israeli identity is very much infused with the idea of an outside threat, the need for israel to exist as a sort of safe haven for jews. this idea was threatened by the assassination of rabin. but it was not shattered. in ha'aretz, yossi sarid writes an amazing piece about the possibilities of a second assassination - of ariel sharon. it is really a beautifully written piece with some of the most haunting language.

The lesson of the binding of Yitzhak has not been learned. If in the initial years following the assassination it seemed momentarily that people had repented their sins and changed their ways, it is now clear that nothing has changed in our world, and that it is an insane world. The destroyers and ravagers again are creeping forth from their dark dens to find their prey. The life of Yitzhak Rabin left us an entire heritage, but one doubts that in his death he left us anything. All told, it was a worthwhile assassination, because not only was the man assassinated, the course he had charted was entirely disrupted as well. Maybe that same night we could have seen through the faint smoke that the sacrifice was not found acceptable. Once I thought he was the most alive dead man among us. Now I think he may be the deadest dead man.

I also think that Michel Warschawski's book, Toward an Open Tomb, did an amazing job of looking at the Rabin assassination as a turning point in Israeli society. There was an opportunity, he argued, to confront the Israeli right, to expose its destructive face and to empower the left by taking a strong stand against it. Instead, Shimon Peres took all the energy that the left had been given through the tragedy of Rabin's death, and turned that energy toward "national reconciliation." The way to make sure that it never happened again, the reasoning was, is to reach over the divisions and find the common Jewishness that unites the Israeli left and right. To bring the right back into the fold. Warschawski argues that this had the opposite effect. It empowered the right and cast out the left. Instead of making sure that a tragedy of this kind would never happen again, it has brought us to this point. and as sarid writes:

A second assassination is not like a first assassination. After the second assassination, the dam of blood would burst and the thunder on a clear day would be as the thunder on a stormy day, and it would deteriorate into a routine. Then the whole world, and we, would learn that this is how Israel solves its crises - with a pistol shot. If democracy is not allowed to have its say, then the right to speak is given to the handgun.