It is an unfortunate truth that the human race has covered itself in blood over religious issues over and over and over.
Always, religion has been weaponized in the fight for power.
That is why the separation between Church and State has been one of the secrets of America's success as a political project.
In all honesty, I don't see any difference in Israel. Israel has been born of a foundational sin, the sin of robbing -- by sheer force that has included terrorist acts--an entire people of the land where they had been living and working and dying for generations. Its religious right was a driving force behind it, very much in the same way as the Cruzaders during their time, and the Pilgrims in their treatment of the original owners of American lands.
However, today Israel is a vibrant, democratic, admirable country in many ways. Destroying it would be just as great a sin against humanity. History cannot be undone. However, its legacy must be faced and addressed. In all humbleness, Mr. Cohen, don't you think that the best solution would be for Israel to become a multicultural, multinational state with separation between religious and political institutions, where Muslim citizens would be respected and treated as peers, along with everybody else? Why on earth must a two-state solution be considered the only desirable solution from a non-religious perspective?
33
@Luisa Many thanks for your positive message and outlook. Although most of the Muslim world will differ with your views, I agree that a healthier and more vibrant future lies with a one-state solution, where each citizen is valued equally and has the same rights. That is the only way to ensure long term stability and peace.
2
@Luisa "Why on earth must a two-state solution be considered the only desirable solution from a non-religious perspective?"
Because the religious perspective cannot be ignored. Israel will never clear the way for Jews to become a minority there.
1
@Luisa
Because the chance of Music citizens being "respected and treated as peers" is basically nil. Currently Muslims and Christians living in Israel as "citizens" are neither respected or treated well!
One could be forgiven for reading Mr. Cohen's column and thinking that the Israeli leadership passed from Rabin to Peres to Netanyahu, where it has remained ever since. His argument breaks down, however, when considering the fact that both Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert sought peace with the Palestinians, twice offering more than 90% of the West Bank (and land swaps to compensate for most of the rest) in exchange for peace, deals that were rejected by Palestinian leadership. Before Netanyahu took power in 2009, peace was impossible not because Rabin was assassinated, but because Israeli prime ministers had no real partners in peace.
56
@Kate " His argument breaks down, however, when considering the fact that both Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert sought peace with the Palestinians, twice offering more than 90% of the West Bank (and land swaps to compensate for most of the rest) in exchange for peace, deals that were rejected by Palestinian leadership."
You raise an important point. The Palestinian leadership is not serving their people well.
29
@Somi Agreed...this point gets overlooked as Israel continues to receive the bulk of the blame for the deadlocked peace process.
8
In that land that was “twice offered” to Palestinians and rejected, who was to control forever immigration policy under the “generous proposal”? Israel. And control over the land’s water? Israel. And control treaties with other countries? Israel. And control the airwaves? Israel. And control the airspace? Israel. And control customs and duties on trade? Israel. “National” defense? Israel. And so on. “Palestine” in this “generous offer” would be left only to collect the garbage and deliver the mail. And that’s about all. Forever. Jews were offered more by the British in 1937 and rejected it. Not an accident that these key facts are nearly always omitted, even in this newspaper.
23
It was a mistake to allow a demagogue such as Netanyahu to ever become Israel's prime minister.
After he did his best in the 1990s to wreck all the peace efforts of Rabin, it was a bigger mistake a second chance to resume and intensify such mischief many years later.
And, it was a still bigger mistake to continue prolonging that short-sighted and opportunistic rule by continuing to extend his long and unwise prime-ministership.
These were all mistakes, made in Israel, that are liable to not just tarnish, but notably weaken and diminish that country's otherwise promising future.
The most absurd and least justifiable mistake of all, however, has been the long unwavering decision of the US Congress to give this foreign fanatic a free pulpit to tell it what America's Mideast policy should be, and to follow that direction unquestioningly.
51
@Sage
It’s so inconvenient that democracies can’t prevent demagogues from becoming leaders. I wish that weren’t the case. We wouldn’t have Trump. Britain wouldn’t have Johnson. Brazil wouldn’t have Bolsonaro. Israel wouldn’t have Netanyahu. And the list goes on and on and on and on...
2
@Sage "If only," as Roger Cohen stated. It was devastating for me when Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated. As Cohen stated, "Rabin knew there is 'no escaping the moral corrosion involved in subjugating another people.'" History was changed forever and it is not reversible. Netanyahu is, indeed, a demagogue, and his policies are so destructive that the peace process is forever lost. Not a peace maker like Rabin, but, instead, an unwavering menace to Israel society.
4
Poignantly well said.
I was 17 when John Kennedy was assassinated and in my early twenties when Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were assassinated. Therefore when Rabin was assassinated I understood instantly that history had taken a turn from which it would be impossible to reverse and that the negative consequences would be multi-generational, potentially near perpetual. The price to be paid would be in blood.
Political haters commit a heinous crime for which they pay no price (unless they act on it) but the larger society that condones and tolerates such hatred pays with blood for a long time to come.
The political mobilization of hate by a leader is a high crime of civilization, a call to commit the fundamental act of negation of cooperation and trust upon which civilization rests.
For a nation, it is a call to break up the nation and return to tribes. Shared blood, not standards of moral conduct, determines acceptability of conduct.
A democratic nation which allows a majority to rule from a posture of hate meets Lincoln's definition of a house divided and one that is surely to fall.
71
The euphemism "land grab" does not tell the whole story. Ilan Pappe's book, "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" draws from Israeli military archives and it is clear that the Palestinians were marked for removal long before Netanyahu.
I hate to write this but, given Roger Cohen's questions "If only ...", it may be that BDS is the only solution left.
Peace in the Middle East does not depend on political leadership, either of Israel or of any other country. All of the treaties, accords, agreements, and understandings, both written and unwritten, between the Israelis and their Arab counterparts are largely useless toward creating a lasting peace, for they can only deal with boundaries, resources, infrastructure, economics, the kinds of things that are open to negotiation and compromise and which are irrelevant to the basic source of the conflict, which from the days of Israel’s founding has always been CONTROL OF WOMEN.
Israeli girls cannot be bought or sold, stoned or beheaded. They marry whom they choose, live and travel as they wish. Their rights and privileges make them a direct threat to the underpinnings of Arab society. This is why the Israeli presence will never be tolerated by the Arab public, no matter what their political leadership may decide, and no matter how desperate Israeli intellectuals are for normalcy.
Before anyone starts pining for peace in the Middle East, let us at least wait for polygamy to be banned. Ha!
1
Why are we still sitting shiva for Yitzhak Rabin? India survived after Gandhi was murdered. America survived after 4 presidents were assassinated. Isn't it time for Israel to move on in the post-Rabin world? It's time to stop playing the "if only...." game. Sorry, a movie isn't going to bring Rabin back.
1
I am curious, as I frequently am when Mr. Cohen writes, from where his "facts" are taken. Israel politics reflected Ashkenazim, but the country was "dominated" in day-to-day life by Sephardim. Witness that the IDF utilizes Sephardim customs in prayer, observance of Passover (kinyot allowed), etc., to put Mr. Cohen's fact that this somehow caused susceptibility to "delusions of greatness under divine direction." This is so racist as to call into question rational his thinking on the issue,despite what Amir, who seeks release, said. Did another Sephardi attempt murder?
"Pale-skinned girlfriend" politically opposed to Amir that caused their breakup? Can't begin to portray how unacceptable that is here . Over the years Mr. Cohen has given us columns that present how "Jewish" he is, which is fine. What is not fine is his portraying that he understands Israel and its life and politics from afar (excluding his trips). Mr. Cohen, there was no peace partner in Yassir Arafat, and the evidence is overwhelming beginning immediately after Oslo. Arafat's pronouncement upon landing back among his people was that they could now get ready to drive the Jews into the sea due to land concessions. The lack of clarity and fairness does "your" people no favors. Israelis have opinions about US politics too, except we understand we don't live there any longer so our credibility is strained and our opinions, especially if influential, should be qualified by our residence. Et tu?
4
Cohen's recounting of the horrible facts of the assassination of Rabin are accurate enough. Nevertheless, I found myself angry and disappointed by his use of the occasion of the release of the movie to revisit that tragic event.
As can be seen in many of the comments, Cohen's opinion has the primary effect of giving aid and comfort to those who wish Israel ill. That is of a piece with Cohen's, and more especially, the New York Time's, approach to the conflict. Pretend that it is a boundary dispute. Pretend that if only certain sectors were rid of Jews, there would be peace. Gaza alone should give the lie to that untenable assumption.
There will be peace and resolution of the boundary dispute when Arabs and Muslims in general, and those of the West Bank and Gaza in particular, are ready for peace and resolution of disputes. Cohen's article, while not nominally directly addressing this issue, has the main effect of emboldening obstructionists. Cohen, and the New York Times, know or should know this, and should be ashamed.
3
Netanyahu has led Israel down a dark path leading to self-destruction. No need for external enemies.
1
1995 was a very bad year for a lot of people. A whole lot of people. Timothy McVeigh was reducing the size of the federal government in Oklahoma City, Yitzhak Rabin was getting shot in the back by a fellow Israeli, Bill Clinton was getting pizza delivered to him by a courier sent by Newt Gingrich, and I was getting the clap.
So 1995 was a very bad year for a lot of people. Except for Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich was having a pretty good year. And Benjamin Netanyahu. Newt Gingrich and Benjamin Netanyahu were both scoring a lot of hits and both having pretty good years.
Even if Rabin had survived, the peace process would have been killed by Yasir Arafat anyway, in the Fall of 2000, when Arafat instigated the Second Intifada.
7
Does anyone else see echoes of what happened prior to the assassination of Rabin in the antics of Donald Trump, his supporters, and congressional lackeys?
2
“If only” Arafat had accepted Bill Clinton’s two state plan in 2000.
“If only” Abbas had accepted Israeli Prime Minister Barak’s two state offer in 2008.
“if only” Abbas had made a counter-offer.
“If only” the Palestinians accepted the U.N. partition plan in 1947.
“If only” the British had followed through on its mandate to create a Jewish homeland as directed by the League of Nations in 1921.
If only . . .
7
Both Amir and Netanyahu wanted to go down in history as the great defenders of the State of Israel. Both will be held responsible for Israel's self-destruction.
2
Amos Oz has written extensively about the creation of religious fanaticism and how to prevent it. Read his book Judas. It is amazing.
Agreed.
If only Israel would come to its senses. In another dozen or so years the Israeli Arabs will outnumber the Jewish Population.
Then what?
They are Israeli citizens. Will they pass a law giving the Jewish population a preferred status and the Arabs a class B status?
That would be the end of Israeli democracy.
As unappetizing as it would be for the Jewish population, a two state solution is the best answer.
In this otherwise well-reasoned opinion piece, you note that "Israel deserves a fresh start." Why does it deserve it?
Roger Cohen's latest contribution to Rabin hagiography left out a few details readers might find interesting. In his last address to the Knesset, about a month before he was killed, Rabin made it clear what his "peace plan" entailed:
1. Israel would control of the Jordan Valley
2. Israel which would comprise the area of the original British mandate, i.e., Palestine from the river to the sea, with a few bits and bobs reserved for Palestinians.
3. Israel would control all of Jerusalem.
4. The regions reserved for Palestinians would be "less than a state".
5. Additional settlements would be established in "Judea and Samaria" (i.e., the West Bank).
The alert will note that these ideas are barely distinguishable from those of Netanyahu.
Liberal Zionists like Mr Cohen think that Israeli intransigence is an expression of right-wing distortions of the spirit of Zionism. It is not; expansionism, dispossession, and religious/ethnic preference are baked into Zionism itself.
Well, the murder of Rabin is a good example of how political extremism and religious fundamentalism have been exported to Israel from Brooklyn and Leningrad.
A bit more context is necessary to understand Netanyahu.
His father was a disciple of Ze'ev Jabotinsky, a very influential Odessa Zionist with a militant, messianic bent. He was a founder of the Irgun that battled the British.
Menachem Begin was Jabotinsky's protégé.
Bibi is from that branch of the Zionist family. He won't––can't––change. To do so would be to betray his father and his brother who died in Entebbe.
I'm not apologizing for Netanyahu. He's not my kind of leader. I'm just explaining.
The similarities between Trump and Netanyahu are amazing -- and scary
By Uri Dan
May 19, 1999
Yitzhak Rabin’s widow said yesterday there’s one thing the Israeli election results won’t change – her bitterness toward Benjamin Netanyahu.
“I’m not ready to forgive Netanyahu. I’ll never forgive him,” Leah Rabin told Israeli TV.
Mrs. Rabin has repeatedly blamed Netanyahu, then leader of the main opposition Likud Party, for “incitement” against her husband – which she says prompted a right-wing Jew to gun down Rabin in Tel Aviv in 1995.
1
Another one-sided diatribe against Israel. Amir killed Rabin the man. Palestinian terrorism killed the vision, which was flawed, and the peace process, which was a lie. Sadat was assassinated after Camp David, but the process continued. Cohen presents a lot of “if only Israel”, but not one “if only the Palestinians.” Cohen rants about the messianic Jews, but not about Islamic Jihad, Hamas and others chanting “Palestine, from the river to the sea”.
Cohen mentions only one of dozens of Palestinian terrorist acts after Oslo and before the assassination. To him it is “who cares, so what if Israelis are killed”. Cohen mocks Netanyahu legitimate criticism of Rabin for putting the “well-being of the people of Gaza” over Israeli security. How many civilians did the Americans and British kill in Japan and Germany putting American and British security over the lives of the enemy, including women and children?
The conflict began long before Rabin. The conflict persists not because Rabin was assassinated or the so-called occupation. The conflict continues because Palestinians want to destroy Israel and because people like Cohen never hold the Palestinians accountable and blame the Jews.
5
My parents were Holocaust survivors. Cynically, my mom once told me that Jews required a Hitler to forge some unity amongst themselves. My dad once opined that Jews 'were no nation'. I fear that my parents were right. To wit, I believe that the greatest existential danger Israelis/Jews face is their murderous internal division, brought on by those ultra orthodox nationalists who harbor some misguided notion that their god granted them - especially their menfolk - the right to all of British Palestine. In a world of growing and rampant anti-semitism, where men like Hungary's Orban and our very own DJT stir the pot of ethnic and racial hatred, Israelis better smarten up, and quickly. They need to do the right thing and negotiate a two-state solution and make Jerusalem some sort of universal city. Otherwise, they will bring destruction upon themselves. To repurpose FDR's famous words, Israelis have nothing to fear but themselves.
2
Gee Wiz, several weeks ago Prof Mordechai Kedar of Bar Ilan University revealed a classified doc that stated the initials of the Israel Security Agency's "bodyguard" that shot Rabin in his car and in the trauma room at Ichilov Hospital. The negative Feroprint doc (Amir didn't fire a bullet) and attending physician's doc stating exit wound in the back (Amir was behind Rabin) have been online since the get go. JFK Israeli style. Just as in the US, the majority don't believe the cover story.
Rabin’s wife certainly never stopped blaming Netanyahu for the murder of her husband. The climate of hate BN sowed was so thick violence was inevitable. A hater he was, a hater he is.
Perhaps Rabin’s lovely words could stand as an antidote to the hate Netanyahu spreads:
"We, the soldiers who have returned from battle stained with blood, we who have seen our relatives and friends killed before our eyes, we who have attended their funerals and cannot look into the eyes of their parents, we who have come from a land where parents bury their children, we who have fought against you, the Palestinians; We say to you today in a loud and clear voice: Enough of blood and tears. Enough.
1
If only Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran weren’t still poised and plotting to destroy Israel.
If only Palestinians would hold national elections. They haven’t had one since 2006.
If only Palestinian leaders had used the billions of dollars they have received in international aid for building viable economies in the West Bank and Gaza instead of frittering them away on
arms, graft and pensions for terrorists accompanied by the worldwide dissemination of vicious anti-Jewish propaganda.
If only Palestinian leaders were ready after more than than 70 years of refusal to commit themselves tomorrow to the vision of a permanent Jewish State of Israel bordering a Palestinian State of their own.
If only.
6
What about Rabin’s history? He was no gentle peacemaker. He led the massacre at Lyda (now Lod) and his breaking the bones of protesters policy (as detailed by Col. Yehuda Meir) was not pacifist. Israelis seem to want leaders who support the notion of a state for Jews no matter the cost for the other occupants of the land.
Netanyahu Can’t remain leader without continuous support from most of Israelis. he is giving them something they want.
In Hebron a new settlement is being built on the spot where Palestinian businesses once thrived on Shehada street. Presently all of the shops are padlocked. Settlers have made Palestinians prisoners in their own town, children forced to cross armed checkpoints to get to school with the presence of thousands of Israeli troops.
Israel is a place of democracy for some, the privileged Zionist group and displacement and injustice for Palestinians.
And to her dying day, Yitzhak Rabin’ s wife, Leah, refuse d to shake Netanyahu’s hand.
When Rabin was murdered it not only left me devastated but it was a 9-11 type moment — ending an error never to ever return.
I believe more and more than Shimon Peres hated him, I would listen, read and weigh any conspiracy theory.
Begin never wanted to settle in the West Bank but by Rabin’s murder the governing parties had already practically dismissed giving much of it back.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Rabin_assassination_conspiracy_theories
What a beautiful piece!
I wish that I could share the hope.
Unfortunately, Cohen's opinion is as irrelevant as are ordinary and moderate Jews. For those messianic and zionist fundamentalists, the biblical commands to conquer all of the Promised Land represent an unshakable, standing mandate by God. Nothing will ever change their minds. They do not need a majority to get ever closer to sacking the Temple Mount. They do not want non-Jews on their land. They do not want --- non-orthodox Jews on their land, because the collective of ALL Jews has to obey God's commands without a single exception for the Redemption to occur.
Today, they are important enough to command over half of Israel's voters, and they are growing through extraordinary birth rates.
Israel is in danger to fall into a full-fledged theocracy within our generation at the cost of millions of lives. First in the line of fire are all disobedient, ordinary Jews.
A moderate prime minister will no longer be able to change the trajectory.
A.J. Deus
Social Economics of Poverty and Religious Terrorism
1
Thank you, Roger Cohen, for a great column.
2
Of course, why would Rodger Cohen ever mention the word "Terrorism"? He writes: "With Israelis and Palestinians claiming the same land, only compromise between them could bring security in the end." Despite his loathing of Netanyahu, Cohen will never be honest enough to admit that Israel has no one to compromise with. The Palestinians, as with every Arab Nation, have never accepted Israel's right to exist and this has been the case since long before 1967 and the "Occupation". Israel's multiple offers of dividing the land were always rejected, and that includes Rabin's.
6
So seldom do we have an opportunity to read a detailed analysis of recent history that helps show how Israel got into the mess they are in now. Too often, it’s been overly generalized “on the one hand, on the other hand” reporting and opinion writing, not clarity on how Israel moved from democratic intentions to apartheid intentions. When Bibi gives lip service to the Two-State Solution, and talks openly about annexation of occupied Palestinian lands, but makes sure that everyone understands without ever giving voting rights to Palestinians, the New York Times and other US newspapers tend to gloss over the details. Instead they endlessly quote leaders still saying some form or another of “Israel is the only democracy in the area”. Clearly that train has left the station.
We need frank discussion about how Israel, once so admired by me and many others worldwide, has now become an oppressor, led for years by a leader accused by his own administration officials of criminal actions. We need to better understand why much of world opinion sees a contradiction between Israel’s hope to be a democracy with their decades of control and occupation while using illegal population transfer to encircle the Palestinians and take their land. I’m convinced that our country’s tacit approval of Israeli oppression, supported by Billions of Dollars in military and financial aid, is a factor in a decline of global confidence that the US is still a force for human rights and democracy for all.
3
If only . . .
Why “if only” Rabin had not been assassinated?
“If only” Arafat had accepted the two state deal designed by Bill Clinton, and accepted by Israeli prime minister Barak in 2000.
“If only” Abbas has accepted the very similar two state deal offered by Israeli prime minister Olmert in 2008.
“If only” Abbas had at least made a counter-offer.
“If only” the Palestinian leadership had accepted the UN partition plan in 1947 (also accepted by Israel).
Mr. Cohen, do you not think about those “if onlys?”
5
"So I can’t help wondering. If only Rabin had lived."
Yitzchak Rabin offered no more than either Ehud Barak or Ehud Olmert did. And the Palestinians turned that down.
Yitzchak Rabin did not offer a plan for Israeli suicide: the same defense and security guarantees for Israel would have been demanded. The Old City of Jerusalem and specifically the Jewish parts would not have been handed over. Even his comment on needing a visa or passport to get to Gush Etzion was misunderstood.
The Palestinians would have done what they have been doing since before 1948. They would have turned down the offer as it was not 100% of what they wanted.
The assassination of Mr. Rabin was a catastrophe for Israel far greater than what Mr. Cohen, an outsider, describes or can describe,and for many reasons far beyond what Mr. Cohen describes.
In general, a movie is a movie. History is history.
Just as an aside: "jilted by his pale-skinned girlfriend". This type of thing (even if based on a movie) is not worthy of any type of newspaper.
7
The assassination of the peace process and a true leader continues to haunt Israel. The current worldwide trend toward
authoritarian nationalism in democracies began with this assassination, the Thatcherite revolution, and the Reagan presidency. Blame for decline and insecurity in the west
began years ago with a retreat from intelligent leadership and the rise of irrational emotionalism, stoked by proto-fascist
politicians and parties. As Socrates testified, the greatest
danger to civilization and the deme is ignorance.
What's new? Religion has been used as justification to murder, rape, discriminate, and steal from people for centuries. Each religion's "God" is the justification for this. If it's done in the name of The Holy One, it's acceptable. Hindu's versus Muslims, Jews versus Palestinians, Christians versus anyone in the Crusades, even within the same religion, as in this piece. One Christian fundamentalist against other Christian in America. And on and on, the heretics must die.
Religion is a scourge on civilized society, history's greatest irony, that the claim of religious peace, love, and forgiveness is used as justification for violence in the name of "God".
1
Perhaps Yitzhak Rabin would have been the saviour of a two state solution. But remember, Ehud Barak bent over backwards to get Yasser Arafat to accept a very generous deal, including Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state. Yet Arafat, a failed statesman and a lousy politician, walked away from it. He was more afraid of losing political power as head of the Palestinian Authority than being the father of the new state of Palestine.
Would Rabin have been able to close the deal with such a scurrilous leader as Arafat, who ultimately only cared about his own skin? There is a good chance that the peace talks would have foundered the same way with Rabin as with Barak.
14
Rabin's killing was a tragedy. But there are no reasons to think if he had lived compromise and peace would have been achieved. Why? At the very least, Arafat would not have brought a united Palestinian politic through the tough process that would have ensued.
4
A friend of mine was with Rabin at the White House just before that famous hand shake with Arafat on the South Lawn. He tells me that as Rabin was summoned to go before the cameras, he snubbed out his ever present cigarette and said: "Time for show biz." The picture taken that day says it all. Rabin is leaning as far as he can away from that handshake with a man he despised. But he shook because peace required it. It's true that there were chances for peace after Rabin was killed, but only because of his courage in taking that first step.
1
Rabin's assassination was indeed a tragedy for Israel (and the world), but Arafat never would have agreed to a peace deal, as shown by his subsequent refusals.
No matter who the participants are, there cannot be a deal unless both parties want one.
And Arafat never did.
5
That the Israeli right and the Palestinian left require the existence of each other and feed off of each others negative actions is patently obvious. The two are content to war on each other to dominate the divine lands each claim. This all points out the genius of our deist founding fathers who arrived at the mostly successful compromise of a secular republic (Western Democracy in modern parlance) respecting individual religious beliefs and avoiding theocracy (can I say “mostly” again?). Snake handling is tolerated if kept quiet, one may obey the Pope and also pledge allegiance to the flag, but bigamy if maintained will deny a territory statehood. My hope is that Palestine and Israel have not fought for too long to be knit together by a First Amendment like compromise. The Israeli must realize that state religions only compromise individual spiritual rejuvenation as the American experiment demonstrated. Maybe they should wait to see if our First Amendment survives the Christian Nationalists movement afoot among us. The resolution of that coming conflict should be instructive. Myself, I pray that reason (not the publication) prevails.
"If only Shimon Peres, Rabin’s successor, had not proved so inept, squandering an enormous lead to allow Netanyahu to win the 1996 election."
Typically, Cohen omits the string of Palestinian suicide bombings that turned the 96 elections towards Likud who, correctly in my opinion, noted that Arafat and the Palestinians were ore interested in a "two stage" solution than a two-state solution. Cohen also omits the rejected peace offers, and opportunities for a Palestinian state carved out of Judea and Samaria, that were rejected by the Palestinians in 2000, 2001, 2008 and 2014. Once again, Cohen blindly believes in the existence of the Magical Mystery Palestinian Partner for Peace who, though lacking any agency to make peace on his own, will assuredly respond to just the right Israeli politician making just the right concession just any day now.
5
Thank you for the reminder of this most unfortunate bifurcation in history. Thinking about what could have been makes today even more depressing. Still, i'm afraid this narrative still leaves too much of the responsibility to Amir. It was not him who elected Netanyahu over and over again. The responsibility for the current situation---the occupation and land grab of the West Bank driven by a racial and religious supremacy agenda, and the maintenance of the Gaza open air prison---is ultimately the Israeli people's who after all elect Netanyahu & co instead of the likes of Rabin. (And don't bother telling me it's about security, because Israel can be secure without annexing the West Bank)
We have moved away from peace under Kushner's interference in the Israeli-Arab confrontation. Violence will not bring peace, only diplomacy that requires reasonable people on both sides will bring peace--people who abhor violence and have enough sense to see that war creates more problems than it solves. So far, Jews have moved away from Rabin's dream and Arabs have not embraced it yet. Perhaps in time the two sides will want to make peace and stop the incitements to destroy the other side.
I remember Mrs. Rabin glaring at Netanyahu at Rabin's memorial and refusing to shake his hand. Why do we now sanction and civilize the actions of Republican congressmen anxious to put a whistleblower's life at risk by exposing him for their political gain even as they welcome Russia's entrance into the 2020 election?
I have often thought through the years how much better the world would be had Rabin lived. My other favorite "what if" scenario is that Gore could have been declared president in 2000. Imagine not having the Iraq war and possibly foiling the 9/11 bombers. Imagine the work toward mitigating damage from climate change and the increased wealth and living standards of working Americans.
Please don't vote for the Green Party.
3
My heritage is Armenian, so the Israeli - Palestinian problem is not huge in my consciousness. But the Armenians' history makes me ask myself how I would feel if someone took my home and means of support based on their interpretation of their own religious book.
If there is such a thing as cosmic intervention into history, it would seem to follow this rule: evil is only defeated when it is rooted out. Where there is a very close call -- a tipping point that could fall either way -- evil tends to prevail.
Bobby Kennedy, who might have stopped the Vietnam War if everything broke his way, was taken out by an assassin. Al Gore, who might have acted to counter climate change had he been elected (and surely would have avoided the idiocy of the Iraq War), lost by a few disputed votes in a state where a third party candidate siphoned off his victory margin. Hillary Clinton would have beat Trump despite her many flaws but for last minute interference by the feckless Comey.
And that is what is worrisome about 2020. If the election is close, Trump will find a way to stay in power. Only a powerful act of rejection will suffice. For basic change to prevail, it must be profoundly embraced by the populace. Otherwise order breaks down, and the forces of resistance become too great for a fragile balance to survive and endure. Mad actors have an implicit license to run free in a deeply conflicted society.
3
As "counterfactual historical musings" go, this one possesses value, certainly more than Tarantino's "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood," which epitomizes Tarantino's typically vulgar pornographic imagination.
Rabin was heroic. His interpretation of Arafat was the problem. Arafat was never going to accept peace.
Counterfactual historical musings are important teaching moments. What if Lincoln and JFK had not been assassinated? What if Gore had won the election?
I am sure Hillary is still dealing with her "What ifs."
3
FYI: In Hebrew, with English subtitles.
1
The death of Rabin also marked the death of the Israeli Labor Party and affirmed the domination of Right Wing Nationalism in Israeli politics. As a result, the Settlement movement has expanded virtually unopposed for the past 25 years, and the likelihood of a two state solution is virtually non existent. Bibi has never been held accountable for inciting the hatred that lead to Rabin’s murder.....until now.
How chilling to think of all the hate Trump has been so earnestly fomenting at his rallies while reading of the artificially manufactured climate of supreme entitlement and sectarian intolerance surrounding the tragic assassination of Yitzhak Rabin.
It's interesting that Roger Cohen only brings the 1993 article written by Netanyahu to say that Netanyahu compared Rabin to Neville Chamberlain. I actually took the time to re-read that article (I remember when it came back), and it's actually an prescient analysis of what the result of Rabin's Oslo agreements would be.
Most specifically, he notes that the PLO would be responsible for "internal security" in the areas given up by Israel, and that this would result in such areas turning into "safe havens" for those who would carry out terrorist attacks on Israel. This is exactly what happened in the second intifada - and it only stopped when, in the aftermath of the Park Hotel bombing on the Seder night, Israel took the gloves off and went back into the PA-administered areas. Interestingly, President Bush then called for Israel to withdraw from the PA-administered areas as soon as possible, but Ariel Sharon, Israel's then-PM, responded with a speech saying that Israel was not Czechoslovakia, and would not roll over and do the world's bidding at the expense of its own security needs.
So no, it was not Rabin's assassination that caused Oslo to fail - it was the intransigence of the PLO, the PA, and their leaders that did Olso in. Netanyahu, in fact, was one of those who saw things for what they were even back then.
Nick
6
The messianic fundamentalists, by the gun of one of their scions, indeed murdered Rabin; but truth be told, the hope for peace was all but terminated months before with the too little, too hesitant Oslo B accords:
Three weeks before Rabin’s assassination I wrote in my then weekly column at “Yedioth Ahronoth” an article under the title “Too small for History”. It depicted the Oslo B’ agreement as no more than a pedestrian attempt to continue the diplomatic process, and thus missing on an extraordinary historical opportunity to go the Begin way with Egypt and put an end to the settlement project and achieve stability vs. a. vs. the Palestinians.
I concluded that if Rabin and Peres will manage to stay in power for at least a decade the may achieve a settlement with the Palestinians. However, I predicted that Rabin and Peres will fail to take advantage of the once-in-history geo-political and ideological conditions -- at the truly extraordinary times when nuclear weapons were dismantled by the thousands; the Soviet Union opted to exit History without bloodshed; South Africa broke free from Apartheid without civil war and much more. I predicted that because of Rabin’s (and Peres’) failure to do so, most likely within five to seven years armed clashes will erupt between Israelis and Palestinians and that Israel will crush the Palestinians’ uprising thus turning the occupation into the “permanent arrangement”.
And so it was; and so it is.
Does Roger Cohen not remember Camp David when Ehud Barak offered Arafat over 90% of the West Bank ( and later Ehud Olmert offered even more?
The Palestinians rejected both outright. Bill Clinton was a witness to this. Why does Cohen not acknowledge this?
And yet Cohen blames Netanyahu. Whatever faults Netanyahu has - and they are many and severe - the lack of peace has little to do with his positions on the dispute.
A little honesty here would help.
3
LET THE WORDS OF ROGER COHEN STAND AS A WARNING TO TRUMP And those of his supporters who ignore the prohibition in the First Amendment against speech that is incitement to violence. In fact, Judge David Hale, in his ruling in a Federal District Court, has found Trump guilty of incitement to violence. Of course, the GOPpers are playing their vicious, caustic, toxic game of rope a dope by taking the case to court, where it will go on for years. Why? Because for Trump, justice delayed is justice delivered!
The sad thing for me is that, so many divisive years later, we have forgotten how shocking it was that Prime Minister Rabin was assassinated by a fellow Israeli, a Jew. That, of course, is why his security was so permeable. Who could have imagined it? I recall watching an interview of Henry Kissinger on television after news of the assassination came out, and watching the poor man -- hardly a sentimentalist -- break down uncontrollably in tears. Much more than the two-state solution was lost on that day.
It won't- Israel has gone too far down the road of apartheid. The settlements have carved the West Bank into an ungovernable patchwork, and worse- the ultraorthodox are now the element in Israel most dedicated to achieving their aims- at any cost. Netanyahu is perhaps the most successful politician of the last century in terms of realizing his ultimate goal - denying statehood to the Palestinians and, further, ensuring they will never have full citizenship rights in Israel. I suspect that Israel will ultimately pay a high price for following Netanyahu's invidious path.
Populations get leaders they deserve and whether they admit or not reflect who they really are.
“If only it could happen“
There’s so much in this category;
Gore, Kerry, H. Clinton, and so many other coincidences and close calls, all in the wrong direction. Has the pendulum stopped swinging?
If so, why, who, or what is holding it over to the right?
1
Arafat proved that even if Rabin lived he would never accept peace. He rejected all reasonable offers. Rabin’s murder was not the nail in the coffin of peace. The death of a just peace was the absolute intransigence of the full right of return palestinians who really never accepted Israel. And that refusal is what begat the Israeli right.
2
A two-state deal didn’t happen once Arafat realized that time was on his side. The Palestinian birth rate is so much higher than the Israeli birth rate that with time, maybe another 20 or 30 years, the Israeli position will be unsustainable with a Jewish minority controlling a Palestinian majority.
A Palestinian people with nothing; no wealth, influence, military protection or even a well supplied police force, most of whom have never known anywhere else as home and are subjected to a half century of crushing curbs on all human rights (not just on criminals or terrorists but every man, women and child), are expected to ‘negotiate’ with a nuclear power with virtually every advantage (except international law) backed by billions of aid and subjective, including military support from the worlds most powerful nation, and we still can’t see a strategy to discourage, humiliate and eventually eliminate an entire people based, at least partly, on religious scripture that implies superiority, including land ownership, of one people over another.
One of the saddest and most consequential events in the past 30 years. I recall seeing Mrs. Rabin at Harvard and how distraught she looked in the wake of this tragedy. My heart ached for her and for the further suffering of the people on both sides. The powerful in America have likewise long indulged in similar magical thinking, as if the emancipated African American slave would somehow go away or stay segregated within the red-lined ghettos. Peace and engagement are hard but our common humanity and reason urge us forward, despite the giant steps backward caused by the hateful assassin's bullet. Peace on earth for all peoples!
Mr. Cohen lets his Zionist allegiances get the better of him here.
There was never going to be peace, even if Yitzchak Rabin had lived. Zionism has been predicated upon the denigration of Palestine's indigenous non-Jewish inhabitants since Day 1, and Zionism has shown no evidence to date that it will change that.
And Rabin was actually part and parcel of that as well. The fact that he arguably was slightly less oppressive than a Netanyahu is all but meaningless.
1
Rabin's death alone did not end the Oslo process. Had there not been an election soon after Rabin's death; had Shimon Peres, his successor as Prime Minister and a strong peace advocate, done less over the years to lose respect among the Israeli electorate; had Netanyahu not been such an intelligent and unethical rival; above all had Hamas not blown up two buses in downtown Tel Aviv just before the election, convincing many Israelis of the foolishness of believing in peace — maybe Netanyahu would not have been elected and proceeded, with Arafat's able assistance, to undermine Oslo. Amir's murdering Rabin created a new context, and as usual, Israelis and Palestinians cooperated beautifully to make a mess of it.
1
I have lived and voted in Israel for 30 years as an American - Israeli. All of these comments and Roger Cohen's opinions come from outside of Israel. From my viewpoint the issues are much more complicated.
Surely you can see that if making peace had been the primary objective of the Palestinian dictators (rather than acting to destroy Israel), they would have behaved much differently.
If you want to play "if only" so how about, if only Arafat and Abbas really wanted to build a democratic economically viable Arab state. The hatred promoted in Palestinian schools and controlled media outlets contrasts markedly with Israel's freedom of expression.
27
@Boomer
One can argue that the inside view of any regime, especially unjust ones, looks different from the inside than from the outside. Does not make the inside view any more true than the outside view. In fact, since the insider is subject to propaganda an inside view can be more flawed. Witness Nazi Germany.
1
If only the words 'if only' were chosen more judiciously, the world would be a better place. Hypotheticals are simply empty calories.
Nothing more, nothing less. The sooner we all get real, the better.
5
Though I was shattered by Rabin's assassination, I think it's somewhat simplistic to see that event as the death knell for the process begun in Oslo. It surely didn't help it advance, but it was Arafat's rejection of Barak's opening bid at Camp David, followed by the terrible carnage of the 2nd Intifada, that nailed shut the coffin of peace. And the composition of the electorate shifted, thanks to the relatively low birth rate and brain drain among the liberal intelligentsia, contrasted with the burgeoning population of knitted kipa Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox, who used to forge pragmatic alliances with the ruling Mapai (Labor) Party in exchange for gov't baksheesh for their yeshivas, but in this era will only bed down with Bibi.
30
After the 1967 war General Matti Peled advised peacemaking with Palestinians and withdrawal from the West Bank. He was ignored. This rejectionism remained present in the Israeli administrations that followed. Rabin, it seems, understood the value of reconciliation.
We remember this assassination with sorrow, and yet we must understand that no matter who succeeds Netanyahu there is no one like Peled, no one like Rabin to advocate for ending the occupation, ending the domination and marginalisation of Palestinians.
That is the tragedy called Israel.
29
@Karen DeVito . Talk to meet about Arafat or Abbas' understanding of the "value of reconciliation". For extra credit, please describe Hamas and Islamic Jihad's perspective on "reconciliation".
1
@Karen DeVito He was ignored because the vow to kill all the Jews continued, and continue to this day. Thank you, though, for being so fully aware of what goes on here in our country. America and its leadership has done nothing to advance peace in the world in the last 30 years as it admittedly let terrorism grow through funding channeled through US "charities" and failure to heed CIA warnings. When will Americans learn that they have no jurisdiction over Israeli facts -- everyone gets aid from the US, it doesn't give Americans rights to do this until it reacts the same way against all aid recipients. Facts would really help credibility, instead of continuing to tell the world that the Israelis, who never started a conflict and has only protected itself since the day it became a state, are ALWAYS wrong on the Palestinian issue. Come, live, learn. A large part of the Arab world has done so, and it doesn't share your opinion any longer... the Palestinians are without a home because the Jordanians refused to take them and a majority of the rest of the Arab world has seen the counter-productive political position of the Palestinians to be wrong. Unfortunately, as in America, the Palestinian people are at the mercy of a government who has TURNED DOWN THE WEST BANK FOR PEACE AT LEAST 3 TIMES. Sorry for yelling, the facts always put me on edge. Peace.
4
If only Jordan was a democratic country. Then the majority its population, which is in fact Palestinian, could elect Palestinian leaders. Jordan was created less than 100 years ago when the British installed a formerly Saudi monarchy in 75% of historic Palestine. The Hashemite monarchy has zero historic claim to Palestine. Instead of exploring this logical resolution, Roger Cohen demonizes the only democratically elected leader in the Middle East.
25
@Randy F
"The only democratically elected leader in the Middle East"...who continues to deny Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza those same democratic privileges. Some democracy. And anyway, to what "logical resolution" are you referring? Are you implying that all of the Palestinians in the disputed territories would be happy to relocate to Jordan if only they were granted permission? Dream on.
I remember this terrible event as if it were yesterday. Yigal Amir, like Gavrilo Princip before him, was guided by demons that convinced him he was doing the work of the Lord. And he helped set the region aflame.
Like Roger, I can't waste time with counterfactuals. But Rabin was a special kind of leader. More than anyone before or since, he had the strength to work out a historical compromise that might have stuck.
But we'll never know thanks to the assassin's bullets.
41
@del
The region was never not "aflame."
Maybe you've forgotten who started all four major wars?
Which countries expelled all their citizens who belonged to a certain religion? (Hint- it was the Muslim countries, guess which religion was targeted?)
Funny how selective one's memory can be, like a labyrinth of tortuous neurons.
3
This is an excellent piece. I'd be happy to criticize Israeli policy toward the Palestinians, but I keep thinking that we Americans did not become sympathetic to Indigenous Americans until after we had taken a continent from them. These two cases are by no means the same, but there is more than enough ambiguity at best in American history to keep us from making facile criticisms of Israel. As a counterfactual, what advice could we have given to American leaders in the eighteenth and nineteenth century when the issue of competing Anglo-Indigenous claims to land were still being disputed in practice?
16
@Lowell Gustafson
We can’t go back to redo US gennocide of native people but we can stop our $3billion per year support for injustice in Israel/Palestine
@Lowell Gustafson "...what advice could we have given to American leaders in the eighteenth and nineteenth century..."
None, American leaders were solidly racist. Is that what you think of Israel's current leaders?
A good opinion piece, except for one small suggestive phrasing "only compromise between them could bring security in the end."
This promotes the false notion that both sides of the conflict must equally make compromises, when this has no basis in law and morality. The Palestinians have international law on their side. The Palestinians have internationally accepted human rights conventions on their side. The Palestinians are backed by countless resolutions of the UN Security Council.
What does Israel have on its side? The writings in their religious texts? Possession of stolen goods?
No. There is no need to negotiate and have each side make "difficult" compromises. There is simply the need to enforce the law.
35
@Greg You make peace with your enemies, not your friends. So, compromise is the single most important element in the conflict. Lest I remind you of the history of the international support for the creation of the State of Israel. That too is "law." It should not be lost on anyone, except those with very short memories, how the attacks in 1967 and 1973 were initiated and by whom.
42
@Greg Dogmatically we claim that the Palestinians have the weight of international law on their side, though the author fails to give us the courtesy of citing which international laws in particular, and for what particular Palestinian grievances. But dogma being dogma, we accept hypotheses as the truth.
Regardless, it's worth rehearsing once again that the Palestinian leadership was offered peace more than twice, but twice in relatively recent times; Arafat rejected one offer, Abbas the other. Had either offer been accepted, the Palestinians would be celebrating many Independence Days and a developing position in the constellation of Middle East nations.
27
@Greg
Israel has the unconditional support of the United States government on its side. Israel is the largest recipient of American foreign aid in the form of grants issued annually worth $3 billion. From 1976 to 2004 alone, Israel received $121 billion from the U.S.
3
The "Peace Process" was killed by Yassir Arafat, not by the assassination of Rabin.
Yassir didn't want peace. Had peace been agreed to, he would no longer have been able to portray himself as a heroic warrior, or to solicit funds from across the Arab world. He would have turned into the dictatorial leader of a failed state that could not pick up the garbage (like Lebanon). Demagogues like Yassir need conflict to maintain their position.
Yassir was never going to negotiate a peace treaty. He was only going to pretend, in order to extract subsidies from the West (a chunk of which ended up in his pocket).
66
@Jonathan Katz an old saw. Was and still is an excuse
@Jonathan Katz We’ll never know, will we.
Watching the HBO miniseries Our Boys have a view into this other view of Israel. The one that doesn’t and won’t compromise, this is more of that. It makes me sad.
12
@Deirdre
Is "Out Boys" good? I did think about watching it, but I had a dark feeling that it would make me so angry, so I decided against it. It certainly sounds good.
2
@Pezley It was outstanding. Very authentic. Gets into the many nuances from all sides and in a variety of languages and accents. Both Arab and Jewish directors.
4
Thank you, Roger, for bringing to light the odious and deadly influence of the indicted criminal, Netanyahu, in this assassination. The parallels with the incitement of violence, the hatred and bigotry deliberately cultivated by the illegitimate, ersatz "POTUS" are frightening and eerie. The assassination of Rabin, as I have stated many times over the years, was catastrophic for Israel - and this American Jew, whose father's battalion liberated one of the concentration camps, simply will not support Israel unless the hard right wing demagogues and religious extremists are excised from its corrupt government. Israel has squandered any pretense to a claim of moral superiority - much as this nation has done under this abhorrent, fraudulent, Putin-installed "POTUS."
175
@Rebecca Rabinowitz I could not agree more and am gratified to read such an articulate statement about the horrors trump and netanyahu.I also cannot support Israel under its present administration and drift, if that is the correct word. As to trump, he is unspeakable
6
@Rebecca Rabinowitz
But it isn’t fair to judge a whole country if they try to be a democracy. If it was 51 to 49% that chose Netanyahu the world could rightly say “shame”. What would it be saying if IN TIME the 49% gets to 51 and the policy reverses? The same thing will occur here when Trump gets dumped. We’ll be back with honor. (Thx to your Dad for that service to our America.)
4
@Rebecca Rabinowitz,
It was the lack of a Jewish state that led to the creation of those death camps that your father and my father helped to liberate in 1944 and 1945. So, if we value the lives of our children and grandchildren, we have no choice but to support Israel even if we find the current government of Israel to be repugnant, just like we have no choice but to support our own country regardless of what we think of the Trump administration. Israel may not have a claim to "moral superiority" but I, for one, have no doubt but that, if Israel ever ceases to exist, there will be another holocaust.
5
"If only Israel had understood earlier the poison of the occupation."
They did understand and did not care. Don't blame Israeli intransigence on ignorance. It just ain't true.
It has been a land grab from at least 1967. Humane Zionism, to the extent that it ever existed as a popular sentiment, died in the Six Days War.
And the land grad continues.
44
@Pecus
I can't understand this attitude. You're living on land stolen from Indians, enjoying the benefits of an economy whose foundation was built on slavery and are the descendant of colonialists, at least culturally.
What is the statute of limitations on the Europe-wide destruction of African and Central American wealth and the enslavement of their peoples? Let he who is without sin.
2
I was just reminded of the assasination of Rabin while watching the eerily prescient forgotten 1972 film "The Jerusalem File" (available only here: https://ianhendry.com/the-jerusalem-file-1972-donald-pleasence-nicol-williamson-bruce-davison-daria-halprin-ian-hendry-full-film-download-link/). The most idealistic character in the movie is named Barack! No doubt, due to the film's ending, it was buried by MGM at the time, and with the banning of BDS boycotts these days, not much has changed in 40+ years.
15
Rabin's assassination was somewhat set in motion when Ben Gurion allowed Haredi men to avoid military service and study the sacred documents full-time. The state figured it was no sweat to provide welfare to the Haredi since they made up such a tiny percentage of the population then. With Haredi women averaging almost 7 children today - where will Israel be in several decades?
43
@Ed Smith
Great point! Never thought of that. Thanks.
1
Israel will be full of Haredim, who have absolutely no military knowledge or experience.
1
Thank you , Roger, for bringing this up. You do Israel a service.
Right wing extremism needs to be fought
35
I pray with you for that result.
12
Netanyahu and his more rabid followers in 1995, with cries of "traitor," are not unlike Trump and some of his minions today. The entire world will be a far better place if both men lose power this year.
123
I don't support assassinations. However, if that peace plan had been implemented, I suspect many NY Times readers would be very happy as there would no longer be an Israel to complain about. All would be peace and love in the Arab world.
11
This piece is like blaming all Muslims for 9/11. The movie is intended as incitement against Israelis who are not aligned with the left. Even if Rabin had continued, Arafat showed over and over again that there is no peace agreement that he would sign.
35
Unfortunately, all the trends around the world are in the direction of tribalism, religious extremism, and persecution of "out-groups" who are perceived as occupying land wanted by the more powerful. As resources diminish with climate change, one can only expect the conflicts to worsen. Genocide will again become the norm. It is such a pity.
19
I distinctly recollect through the press at the time, Mr. Netanyahu's ongoing incitement as it were. I think he has gotten away with that horrible conduct for far too long without sufficient critical analysis.
42
If only Ralph Nader hadn’t run for president in 2000. If only James Comey hadn’t announced an unnecessary re-opening of the investigation of Hillary’s emails in October 2016. Don’t think you’re the only one who looks at the disastrous outcomes of history that hinged on singular events.
46
@John Ranta
That is why they say the cruelest words of all are "what might have been." After the 60's after all 3 were killed, thinking about them is still painful.
And now look at what we loosed in the world-- a sadistic, mean man who enjoys going around and raining on everybody's
parade.
@John Ranta
Still with the Nader calumnies? There's very good evidence that many of Nader's votes came from disgruntled Republicans, independents or folks who would have voted for neither of the appointed candidates. Gore lost b/c Florida is a gangster state and Gore was an uninspiring candidate.
PS: HRC did not lose b/c of Russian pizza parlor lies; she lost b/c former Obama voters saw through the the lies that neolib Dems had been feeding them, b/c she sided with financial elites and not workers, b/c she didn't even bother with a desultory visit to the industrial upper midwest, whose residents knew firsthand how the policies of New Democrats like the Clintons eviscerated their communities.
1
Another trait shared by Trump and Netanyahu besides an appetite for corruption is that their divisive rhetoric spurs on the mentally unstable fringe elements of society to violence against the target of said rhetoric. It won't be too soon for the end of these two.
43
What makes you think Arafat and the Palestinians wanted an actual peace?
22
@Bailey T. Dog
What makes you think Israel wanted peace if it meant giving the Palestinians a fair deal?
1
It is incredible that Israelis so quickly forgot Netanyahu's deplorable behavior that led to Rabin's assassination - they elected him shortly thereafter. The parallels with Trump are remarkable - he can shoot someone on 5th Ave and get away with it.
This movie is long in coming. Hopefully Israelis will look at it long and hard and put some significant effort in self-examination. Americans (especially Republicans) could also derive some lessons.
114
I want to express my respect for Prime Minister Rabin. It appears that he acted with great courage. Few things are more difficult than to go against popular opinion when convinced that it is the best course to do so.
52
The only thing missing from Cohen's analysis is the role of the Palestinians. It wasn't only Israel's right wing which quashed the movement toward peace. It was the incessant terrorism, the bombing of busses and cafes, the missiles from Gaza which caused the Israeli public to become disillusioned that peace was possible. Rabin ultimately would have had to deal with this problem and the peace movement would have been halted by it. Cohen, of course, never manages to see that angle, nor do the Democrats on the extreme left.
47
@ms
You're assuming that these things would have happened if Rabin had lived and continued the peace process. There's a good chance all that could have been averted.
23
@ms
I'm glad you mentioned this because it is often forgotten. The wrongs that the Palestinians did made all the security measures necessary.
10
@Stevenz Rabin himself was beginning to doubt himself. Therefore, others in power created the impression of right wing incitement and asasinated him but had their fall guy, Amir, lined up perfectly to take the blame and leave the opening for 25 years more of incitement against Israel's right.
Corrupt leaders and a corrupt political system are a deadly combination in a democracy with no natural governing coalition. It invited demagogues and fragile coalitions thus providing the means to retain power. The founders had no idea of the weakness of the Parliamentary system they created, and that is a great tragedy. There's an opportunity to change things with the current impasse, as Bibi's power base is eroding as quickly as Trump's attempts to justify his own conduct. Hang on for another "what if" moment.
9
This is a powerful peace. I find myself wondering when the secular and mainstream Israelis of the coast will tire of paying the price in blood for the fringe of ultra-othodox settlers who are simultaneously undermining peace efforts while being exempt from serving in the military that protects their claims. Peace requires partners, but as long as this dynamic remains, there will be none to be found.
75
@Benjamin Hinkley
The "dynamic" may be permanent. The orthodox are having more children, many more.
1
"What ifs" abound. What if Al Gore had won? What if Hillary Clinton had won? What if Citizens United had not been accepted for Supreme Court review? What if money wasn't, in fact, speech? What if the Republican Party had an ounce of patriotism? What if...
65
@Ed Spivey Jr
As an amateur student of history I see the 'what ifs' of history as lessons to be studied and from which we can learn. Sadly, more often and to the advanced of civil society, they are simply dismissed as the nostalgia of the losers.
17
@Ed Spivey Jr
Let's take it back one more notch: What if Ralph Nader hadn't made the selfish and irresponsible decision to run in swing states to act as a spoiler to Gore?
And re "What if money wasn't, in fact, speech?," what if Sandra Day O'Connor hadn't made the decent but regrettable decision to resign from the Supreme Court to attend to her ailing husband?
What a difference one person can make.
6
@PGJ Exactly! Add to those dismissals the disingenuous arguments that egregious behavior in the past somehow makes it OK to excuse present behavior, to wit, Republicans rolling out the evils of Democrats of 1870 or 1919.
A very fine piece and alas. Mr. Cohen is correct. What this has also done, is alienate a large number - possibly a majority - of Americans who happen to be Jewish. Many of us, find ourselves unable to support Israel anymore. Sadly anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism have been conflated with a resulting rise in anti-Semitic incidents in the United States.
117
@JFF I believe your comments reflect the feelings of many American Jews. I cannot support the current Israeli government under Netanyahu, supported by right-wing American billionaires like Sheldon Adelson. But conflating anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism has produced a toxic brew that has resulted in the rise of anti-Jewish bigotry worldwide. And I don't think it's a coincidence that incidents of anti-Semitism in the United States have increased drastically during the Trump administration.
3
Mr. Cohen,
Thank you for this clear review of the tragic assassination of Prime Minister Rabin. You brought to light details of which I was unaware.
I’m grateful to learn about this important documentary.
74
@Tele Trots
Is it a documentary? To my mind, it sounds like a dramatization of the events leading up to the assassination. Not sure.
One documentary that should be seen is called The Gatekeepers, and it's about the Shin Bet organization. There is a section on the Rabin assassination but it deals with the Israeli security services as a whole. The director spoke with 5 or 6 previous directors of Shin Bet and it is excellent.
9
Pezley,
You are correct. Mr. Cohen refers to the “movie.” In any case, it’s very important to teach and remind anyone willing to listen, the hard truths of our human history. Evil does not happen in a vacuum. Thanks for the suggestion of The Gatekeepers.
5