As the nation readies to commemorate the fifth anniversary of Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination, Herb Keinon looks at whether the recent violence will force a re-evaluation of his legacy.
Had Yitzhak Rabin’s family been able to select the day on which to commemorate the fifth anniversary of his assassination, it is doubtful they would have picked this Thursday.
At a time when Palestinians have turned the guns they received under the Oslo accords on those who gave them these weapons, the connection between Rabin and Oslo is probably something that at least some of the slain prime minister’s family and devotees are not that keen on emphasizing. At least not now, not at this particular juncture.
Some would prefer to emphasize Rabin’s key role in the War of Independence, his importance during the Six Day War, his reputation as Mr. Security, his quintessential Sabra-ness.
But not the fact that it was under his watch that the Oslo accords were forged.
The calendar is a constant — and often cruel and callous. Holidays and commemorations sometimes fall at what seems like the most inappropriate of times. And so, in the midst of violence that some argue is a direct outcome of Oslo raging around us, the nation will this week mark the yahrzeit of the slain leader. But, says historian and social critic Ya’acov Hasdai, the nature of the events — of the commemoration — is likely to be different this year, due to the impact of events of the past month.
"It will be interesting to see how the day is commemorated this year,‘ Hasdai says. ’We are likely to see something different than in the past."
The tone, he says, will probably be less hammering of the Right by the Left, and more a time of collective reckoning and soul searching about the direction in which the country should go.
IF IN the past the run-up to the 12th of Heshvan was marked by bitter Right-Left radio and television debates, this year such divisive arguments have barely been heard. This is partly because the lead-up to the commemoration has been drowned out by so many other events, and partly because the way the country looks at Rabin may now be undergoing a bit of a transformation.
Yehuda Harel, the former Third Way MK and godfather of the Golan settlement movement, was also a longtime veteran Labor Party member in the same ideological camp inside the party as Rabin.
"I talked to people organizing the central memorial ceremony, and this year they want a representative from the Council of Jewish Communities in Judea, Samarai and Gaza at the ceremony,"Harel says."They want the prime minister and the president, but not other politicians. Yossi Sarid will not speak.
"Maybe,"says Harel,"this is the start of a return to balance, where Rabin becomes the property of everyone, and not manipulated by some for their own political ends. Does Leah Rabin represent Rabin? I think she is the opposite of Rabin. There is the Rabin of Leah Rabin, and the Rabin of Shimon Peres.
"And then,‘ Harel continues, ’there is my Rabin — the Rabin of the War of Independence, the Rabin who did not know how to lie, the Rabin who was not tied to any ideology — either Greater Israel or the New Middle East. Those who say the ’Rabin way?’ ’the Rabin ideology,’ or ’the Rabin legacy’ don’t know what they’re talking about. Rabin did not have an ideology, or a legacy. What he had was a sense of responsibility for the state."
Rabin’s legacy, according to Hasdai, has been turned into a "tool in the struggle over the peace process. As a result, the peace camp has woven a myth around Rabin that is not based in fact — a hero of peace, a person who fought for peace all his life."
Hasdai says that in time, when historians are more distant from the assassination and able to take a more objective, colder look at Rabin, "this myth will disappear. Then Rabin will not be seen as the hero of peace. If history singles out Rabin positively, it will point to him as the hero of the Six Day War," he maintains.
"National myths serve emotional needs,‘ Hasdai says. ’Rabin’s place will not be determined by a historical analysis. Rabin as peace hero is myth, not history. Even though he oversaw Oslo, that was only a small chapter in his life. The main chapter was the war hero chapter."
TEL Aviv University history professor Anita Shapira does not think so. "Rabin was not assassinated because he was a war hero," says Shapira, formerly director of the Rabin Center in Tel Aviv.
Shapira believes Rabin will remain on his pedestal in the nation’s collective memory not because of any policy or particular chapter of his life, but because he was a prime minister who was assassinated. "We have to distinguish between his policies and the assassination of Israel’s prime minister,‘ she says. ’He is commemorated not because of Oslo, but because he was assassinated. If he had died naturally, there would be no commemoration services."
In this sense, Shapira draws a parallel between Rabin and slain US president Abraham Lincoln. Shapira remembers a colleague saying at the first anniversary of Rabin’s assassination that his memory is now irretrievably linked to the peace process, and that what will happens with the peace process will impact on how he is remembered.
"But I want to say that Rabin’s memory is not only connected to Oslo,"Shapira says."It is connected first of all to being an assassinated prime minister, to the rifts in Israeli society, and to the significance of these rifts.
"After Lincoln was assassinated it didn’t matter that it was another century before segregation in the South was eliminated. By being shot, Lincoln became a symbol for the struggle toward a positive orientation in society."
So too, Shapira argues, just as there will be peaks and valleys in the peace process, Rabin will remain — regardless — "a symbol of a positive leader killed by the reactionary elements in the society."
THE question of how the "al-Aksa intifada" will influence how history judges Rabin and his decision to walk down the Oslo path is complex. First, one must judge whether Oslo is now in its death throes, and then one must evaluate Rabin’s role in pushing through the process.
Opinions are diverse, and fall along predictable lines regarding whether the sound of shots fired on Gilo, Psagot and the Netzarim Junction signify the peace process? death knell, with many on the Left saying that there remains no alternative, and many on the Right simply saying, "We told you so."
"I see Olso as a historic, diplomatic, psychological and social process,‘ says former Labor MK Shevah Weiss. ’Even if here and there some details can be criticized, , it doesn’t change the greatness of the decision. I am convinced that we will return to negotiations on the basis of Oslo."
Maj.-Gen. (res.) Oren Shahor, a former coordinator of government activities in Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip and a chief negotiator with the Palestinians under Rabin, Peres and, briefly, Binyamin Netanyahu, says it is shortsighted to judge the Oslo process by the current events. He does not criticize the Oslo framework that Rabin helped create, but he is critical of Barak’s decision to force all the issues now and try to arrive at a final status agreement before the time is right.
"The central idea behind Oslo was to create a corridor, not to do everything now, immediately, within a matter of days. I think that is what damaged the last summit. Barak had the opportunity to obtain a partial agreement - setting up a Palestinian state, which already exists, yet also ensuring our security. But he insisted also on dealing with Jerusalem and the refugee question. In my opinion that was a mistake, and that is what torpedoed the agreement."
But for this, Shahor intimated, Rabin cannot be blamed. Like Weiss, Shahor says there is no other alternative to the Oslo framework.
"I don’t see any other alternative,‘ he says. ’I also don’t hear any other people I talk with saying there is another alternative — only war. And therefore I say that in the end we will return to Oslo."
Perhaps, say those on the Right, the alternative was the Yitzhak Shamir way, an attempt to push off decisions to a later date, maintain the status quo in hopes that the other side will tire — or that some event will come along to somehow change everything.
"Impossible,‘ responds Moshe Shahal, who served as Internal Security Minister under Rabin. ’The explosion was just waiting to happen in that situation. And imagine if we were still in Gaza, Jenin, and Ramallah when the explosion occurred. Imagine what the situation would look like now."
But, according to Yisrael Harel, one of the founders of Gush Emunim and a resident of Ofra, this is all wishful thinking — a very human tendency in people to be unwilling to admit mistakes.
"Oslo led to a readiness to give everything up, concessions on Jerusalem, and war — that is more or less what we warned,‘ he says. ’We gave them 40,000 rifles, and those rifles have been turned on us." But will Rabin’s historical legacy change because of that?
"I don’t know,‘ he says, ’because he is not Oslo. Oslo is Beilin, Peres, [Yair] Hirschfield, [Ron] Pundak, not Rabin. Rabin was maneuvered into a position where, as prime minister he had to go for it. But he is not Oslo, and the Oslo legacy will not be associated with him."
Yehuda Harel agrees. "Oslo was not Rabin’s decision,‘ he says. ’It was Beilin’s and Peres. He could have prevented it, but felt obligated to try it. Rabin is not Oslo. He is Oslo too — along with many other things.‘ And with the Palestinian violence currently dimming Oslo’s gleam, it is likely that those ’other things" that define the memory of Yitzhak Rabin will be increasingly emphasized.
The online edition of The Jerusalem Post – JPost.com – provides first class news and analysis about Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world. Whether news about Iran, Gaza, Syria, Fatah, Hamas or Hezbollah, JPost.com covers the burning issues of the Middle East and the Israeli-Arab conflict.
