Almost every year I go to the Yitzhak Rabin memorial, which takes place at the square that now carries his name in Tel Aviv. Almost every year I am disappointed with the speeches, and with what the entire event says about the Israeli left. Yet, almost every year, as my friends swear it to be their last time attending this “festival”, I am sure I will come again next year. And why is that?
Here’s what happens at this memorial: Shimon Peres always pays a visit and says nothing. Ehud Barak, the man who is probably more responsible than any other Israeli political leader for the slaying of “the Rabin legacy”, goes on stage and lies to the public. Some Likud party member says we all hope for peace. Some special guest is featured (a few years ago it was Bill Clinton, and last year it was someone who is both Jewish and worked on the Obama campaign that got the masses shouting “Yes We Can”). And of course, someone always talks about how Rabin valued education, and how much he cared for the future generation. Usually that someone is (again) Peres. Israeli mainstream artists come and sing songs, but no one actually listens to their words. And a lot of confused, left-of-center Israelis walk around with a “deer in headlights” gaze, looking at their once loved and hopeful country, now driven by a Netanyahu-Lieberman-Barak-Yishai all star team. So why do I still go?
Because this political murder had a single purpose: to illegally and immorally stop what could have been Israel’s last chance of survival. Yitzhak Rabin was not the ideal leftist leader. He was not a dove, and probably disliked “the peace camp” almost as much as he disliked the right. But he was onto one thing that no other Prime Minister before him understood, and no one has really understood since: if he does not adjust his opinion in a way that allows Israel to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians (and, to a lesser degree, the Syrians), Israel will not survive. Rabin did not believe in a lovey-dovey Middle East, and he hated shaking Araft’s hand. Was he my kind of a leftist? No. My left cares about human rights, workers rights, LGBT rights, minority rights, the environment, and despises war and militarism. Rabin was not that guy. But was Rabin, with what he tried to do, what I am looking for in an Israeli leader? Was he the right guy to transform Israel and Israelis to a state in which they understand the necessity of peace and compromise with the Palestinians? Yes. And for that I mourn.
The Israeli left, contrary to what many say, did not lose its way since Rabin’s assassination. The Israeli left never really found its true way, which I believe to be one of reconciliation, of knowing and understanding the others’ rights and needs, and of true compromise. Rabin did not represent all of the above, but he was the Israeli leader that forced Israel to make the biggest step towards that end. And that step – despite all of its disadvantages – was enough for an Israeli rightist to kill him. And that Israeli rightist was not alone. He had thousands of others nurturing him. Some of them are today in the Knesset, some are in the government, and most of them still hold Israel hostage within the green line. Many others do not hesitate to spread their hatred and violence over Israeli walls, newspapers and synagogues.
So I’ll be there next Saturday, with my imperfect and lame excuse for a left, to protest. I will protest against the never ending presence of the same violence and hatred that murdered Rabin, for the forgotten lesson Rabin understood – that without peace Israel has no future, and for our continuing failure to understand what we need to do in order to actually achieve that peace. Am I going to enjoy it? Will I like the speakers or their words? No. But neither do I think I have the privilege to stay at home and help them blur what actually happened: the Prime Minister was murdered for trying to make peace. If those who believe the most in peace are not there to remember that and to remind others of that, who will?
Wise words, my friend. Congrats on your first post! May many more follow.
“Yitzhak Rabin was not the ideal leftist leader. He was not a dove, and probably disliked “the peace camp” almost as much as he disliked the right. But he was onto one thing that no other Prime Minister before him understood, and no one has really understood since: if he does not adjust his opinion in a way that allows Israel to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians (and, to a lesser degree, the Syrians), Israel will not survive.”
“and no one has really understood since?” I disagree. Ehud Olmert is probably a corrupt politician – but he understood. The same words above can be said about him – he is not a lover of the left. But he also adjusted his opinions (even more so than Rabin) because he realized that without it Israel will not survive.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/06/world/an-ally-of-sharon-foresees-a-palestinian-state.html
Also in Hebrew:
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/1,7340,L-2831596,00.html
Since he made that statement this doctrine (that we should leave the territories or we won’t survive as a Jewish state) has been in power for over 5 years (until Netanyahu became PM).
The fact that other than the Gaza disengagement Israel failed to do any other move that addresses this problem, shows above all how strong (and smart) Israel’s enemies are, from inside and out.
A quote from the above link:
The comments, by Ehud Olmert, a leader of the dominant Likud Party, suggest that a view is gaining acceptance on Israel’s political right that it must concede its dream of a ”Greater Israel” incorporating all of the territory of the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.
If matters continue as they are in those territories, Mr. Olmert warned, ”It will lead to the loss of Israel as a Jewish state.”
Mr. Olmert said Israeli Jews risked becoming a minority controlling an Arab majority. ”I shudder to think that liberal Jewish organizations that shouldered the burden of the struggle against apartheid in South Africa will lead the struggle against us,” Mr. Olmert said, in an interview with Israel’s largest daily newspaper, Yediot Ahronot.
=============================================
Olmert knew what was going to happen, had 5 years in power, and yet it happened.
@Joni: But when it comes down to it, Olmert did nothing, other than talk, to promote peace. In fact, Olmert is responsible for the two most ridiculous wars in Israel’s history.
The difference between Rabin and Olmert (actually I was expecting the claim to be about Sharon, who actually did the disengagement, not Olmert) is that Rabin was going for peace, Olmert and Sharon went for a unilateral move, saying that there is no chance to make peace, and no one to talk to. Sharon, before the disengagement ignored the Palestinian leadership and refused to talk to it.
Did Sharon and Olmert understand we can’t stay in all of the territories? Yes. But did they understand that Israel also has to reconcile with its neighbors to survive? Not really, or at least their policies where not really ones that promoted such understanding.
I don’t think I have an argument with you really except for the comment I quoted.
“Did Sharon and Olmert understand we can’t stay in all of the territories? Yes. But did they understand that Israel also has to reconcile with its neighbors to survive? Not really, or at least their policies where not really ones that promoted such understanding.”
I would put it differently: Rabin, and Barak after him tried the approach of “reconcile with the neighbors”. From various reasons it failed. The torch was given to Sharon, and Olmert after him, who tried a different strategy (”unilateralism”). That approach succeeded at first (we got out of Gaza), but failed eventually (we didn’t leave the west bank), due to the counter moves of our enemies (Katyushas and rockets from territories we have already withdrawn).
Now we are back at negotiation season. Will it work? Who knows? Maybe we will go back to unilateral moves (in the spirit of the new “national left” movement).
I think both Rabin, Sharon, and Olmert realized that the Jewish state will not survive if the occupation continues. As leaders, I agree with you that Sharon was much better than Olmert. But not all the blame is in Olmert. I think most of it lies in our enemies, who so far succeeded in blocking every Israeli attempts to get rid of the territories, so that they can shout at us ‘apartheid’ in the international arena.
@Joni: Well, I am not sure I would define the unilateralism approach as a success at any point. Barak started it in south Lebanon, and over night we had, and still have, Hizballah on our border. Is it better than being is south Lebanon? Sure. Could it have been better? Definitely. The disengagement was maybe a step in the right direction when it comes to leaving the territories, but a. it was not aimed, nor did not, promote peace, and b. we’re still controlling Gaza… By the way, the fact that we still allow ourselves to fly over Lebanon is another problem with unilateral moves. How would we respond to Lebanese combat plains hovering over Haifa?
This approach failed because it was a bad one, not because of the “counter moves of our enemies”. Again, the difference between Rabin (who, again, was not perfect) and the Kadima approach (Sharon and Olmert – I’m not so sure what Livni’s plan is) is that Rabin aimed at peace, Kadima did not. Rabin met with “our enemies”, Kadima preferred talking just to George W. Bush, and comfortably ignoring the fact that there are, indeed, people on the other side of the very blurry Green Line.
All that said, yes – Sharon and Olmert did adjust their opinions, though, in my opinion, that was not that a big a step as Rabin did, nor as Israel needs.
Wait wait: I understand that peace is preferred over non-peace, but not having peace is not an existential issue. Remember that the main goal is to *leave the territories* if Israel wants to survive. Peace is not as crucial.
Barak brought Hizbullah to our doorstep – that is not great, but he eliminated one piece of that existential threat. No one argues that Israel is occupying Lebanon.
Israel still “controls” Gaza, but
(a) mainly due to Hamas hostile activity (Hamas *wants* us to control Gaza so that he can tell everybody it is still occupied). Right after the withdrawal, we didn’t “control” it.
(b) the disengagement was a signal to the world that Israel doesn’t want to control the territories and have the political power to withdraw their civilians. It was an answer to the critics that said “a partition is no longer possible”.
Unilateralism is not the best solution, but it was an approach worth taking, because it
was not clear at all (and still isn’t) that the Palestinians have the political power to enforce a peace treaty, even if Abu-Mazen really wants to. Hamas will just not let them. It is too busy trying to collapse Israel as an pariah state.
(also, what do you mean by “Rabin [unlike Kadima] talked with our enemies”. Olmert and Abu-Mazen met more times than I can count. And both Rabin and Olmert didn’t talk with Hamas.)
israel left gaza? when? yes,Israel removed the settlements in gaza and positioned its army across the borders. it still controls gaza in almost every aspect. the army also operates inside gaza every few months in varying degrees – from small operation to min wars like cast lead – since the disengagement. (two misconceptions – the occupation of gaza is over and “israel did nothing for 8 years while the palestinians fired rockets)
Or, here is what I wrote:
Israel still “controls” Gaza, but
(a) mainly due to Hamas hostile activity (Hamas *wants* us to control Gaza so that he can tell everybody it is still occupied). Right after the withdrawal, we didn’t “control” it.
I didn’t say that Israel doesn’t control Gaza *now*. I said it didn’t right after the disengagement.
שמd when was the period of time in which the residents of gaza had control over their movements, their infrastructure, their water? I don’t remember it even before hamas got to power (doesn’t matter in this context how)
the first word is: and
@Joni: You’re telling me to remember something I never said, nor agree with. Not having peace IS an existential issue.The main goal is not to leave the territories, the main goal is to achieve peace, and a fair life to all people in Israel/Palestine. Leaving the territories was never, and is not, the goal – it is a means to an end. When people say that the left’s way won, because now even Kadima and parts of the Likud understand that we can’t stay in the territories, they miss the point. If peace is not possible at the moment (which is not just Hamas’ fault!), so yes, *just* leaving the territories is a goal, but in no way the main goal.
And with all those talks between Olmert and Abu-Mazen, what agreement did they achieve? What did Olmert give the Palestinians (other than cast lead?). What did we get from meeting with Abu-Mazen and talking about nothing? Are you really comparing the steps Rabin made towards the main goal of peace to those of Olmert? As you partly said it yourself – the disengagement was aimed more at showing we’re good people to the world, than towards making peace with the Palestinians.
Or: After we left Gaza the crossings were open and operated with full capacity. Israeli organizations even invested money in transforming part of the returned territories to agricultural lands. It is true though that Israel still controlled the airspace and the sea, but I believe that the intention was to gradually make life easier.
Your view, I assume, is that Hamas started firing rockets from Gaza in order to liberate its “occupied” Gaza (well good job, Hamas!).
My view, which makes far more sense to me, is that Hamas fired those rockets to pressure Israel into reoccupying Gaza, in order to eternalize the conflict so that they can de-legitimize Israel in the UN. For Hamas, having a Palestinian state alongside a Jewish state would be a defeat.
Dotan said: “Not having peace IS an existential issue.”
I understand that maintaining the occupation is an existential threat. Can you explain to me why not having peace (but leaving the territories) is an existential threat? And I’m not talking about the long-term 100 years from now. I’m talking about the immediate future. I agree with you that one of Israel’s aspirations is to have peace with its neighbors. But we can still manage without it. We have so far.
“And with all those talks between Olmert and Abu-Mazen, what agreement did they achieve?”
I can say the same thing about Rabin… Most people would agree by now that the Oslo agreement failed.
“What did we get from meeting with Abu-Mazen and talking about nothing?”
… and what did we get from giving guns to the Palestinians?
Dotan said: “the main goal is to achieve peace”.
My main goal is to live in a state that can guarantee my personal freedom, and that nourish a society based on my Jewish identity. You can simply call it the “two states solution”.
“Are you really comparing the steps Rabin made towards the main goal of peace to those of Olmert?”
no. First because as I said above I don’t agree that the main goal (right now) is peace.
Second, I think Rabin was a great leader, because he was able to transform the view of the entire society and lead Israel on a different path than it was before. I wished it had worked. I voted for him and went to the demonstration in which he was murdered. But it didn’t. There were serious attempts to reach peace up until 2000, and they all failed. Is it all Israel’s fault? Or maybe there is a political actor out there that doesn’t really want Israel to have peace?
I think Sharon of 2003 did the same thing. He transformed the view of the entire society and lead Israel on a different path than it was before. I hated Sharon before that. But he didn’t hesitate to break his own party, to confront his main electorate (the settlers) and go completely against the policy he himself promoted in the past. That takes guts! In my opinion, Sharon had courage on the same scale as Rabin.
Olmert, while also confronting with the traditional right with Sharon, and getting the big picture right, did not make any political move that can potentially promote the two states solution. That’s why Olmert falls short of Rabin.
@Joni: Let me clarify: I am all for leaving the territories, have no doubt. But not having peace is an existential threat, both in the long run (which I know is a very not popular concept to think about in Israeli politics), and in the short run. Why? Because of the exact same explanation you gave Or: We left Gaza, did not reach a peace agreement with whoever is controlling it, and Hamas still attacks us, probably for reasons similar to those you pointed out. What does that mean? It means that unless we reach an UNDERSTANDING with the Palestinians, they will continue to have claims from Israel. At some point, those un-answered claims, may reach a point (either by terror attacks or through international actions) where they pose an actual threat on Israel (for example: How many more Goldstone reports do you think Israel can survive?).
In other words: Your claim about us managing without peace so far is counting its days till we can no longer say it. What we did so far can not continue as a policy. The world has changed. The long-term, if you will, is becoming shorter and shorter.
Maybe Oslo failed. Maybe Bibi has something to do with it. Maybe Barak does. The claim about the guns is so old that I doubt you actually believe it to make any sense.
But as you said, Olmert may got the big picture right, yet did not really do anything practical to solve the problem.
Fine, you think the main goal is to leave the territories, I believe it to be leaving in peace. That’s why you see Sharon the same way you see Rabin, and I don’t. Sharon, I believe, was trying to solve a short-term issue. Rabin, I think, was trying to solve an existential threat.
[...] Why I Go [...]