Rabin¹s Legacy that Never Was

On the 4th of November 1995, Israel¹s Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated at the end of a peace rally in Tel Aviv. Many Israelis, particularly those on the political left, believe that this horrifying event also brought about the demise of the peace process.

Israelis often ask the haunting question what would have happened if Rabin were alive? Would he have achieved the yearned-for peace?

On the 11th anniversary of Rabin¹s assassination, and in light of more recent events, most significantly the self inflicted destruction of Gush Katif and the troubling war with Hezbollah, it is our duty to examine closely Rabin¹s true agenda and stir the public debate back to the realities of his legacy.

How easily and quickly some of us forget what Rabin stood for, how far was he really prepared to concede and what was his intended peace plan. Yes, he spoke about comprehensive peace but it may surprise you that he never spoke about an independent ³Palestinian² state.

Since Rabin¹s death, Israelis have turned Rabin into an emblem of their leftist political cause. They idolize him to further their agenda of appeasement, an agenda to which he never subscribed. This on-going process of false adulation was particularly evident in the latest Tel Aviv rally in his memory, when speakers, most notably the author David Grossman, canonized Rabin as the prince of peace. Had he lived, so they claim, Eretz Yisrael would today be divided into two independent states in which two free nations would be living peacefully side by side.

Did Rabin advocate a fully independent Palestinian state? Did he plot the dismantling of Jewish settlements? Did he agree to entrust the security of Israel¹s borders to the hands of Arabs or international forces?

The answer to all these questions is a resounding no.

The real tragic consequence of his untimely death was not the lost opportunity for a non- existing peace, but the start of a process of erosion in Israel¹s positions. I am convinced that just as Rabin led Israel into the peace process, he would have had the tenacity to lead Israel out of it at the first sign of the inevitable Arab deceit.

Rabin was a strong leader who was prepared to steadfastly defend Israel¹s vital interests. Had he survived, Israel today would still be without peace, but much stronger. In fact, Rabin today would most likely be spiritual leader of the Israeli right.

Now, think for a moment: How many of you were led to believe that Rabin was prepared to grant the ³Palestinians² an independent state? That Rabin was prepared to dismantle Jewish settlements? If you are among them, you have fallen prey to leftist propaganda and the re-writing of history! The fact is obvious, Rabin was hijacked by the left!

On October 5th 1995, a mere one month before his assassination, Rabin stated his intentions in a pivotal speech to the Knesset. The speech is of course public record, yet the Israeli left persistently ignore its essentials, particularly the parts in which Rabin lists his red lines, lines he believed Israel should never agree to surrender.

The occasion was the debate to ratify the Israel-Palestinian Interim Agreement. You will find the entire speech in Israel¹s Foreign Office site, www.mfa.gov.il. In the

Two issues in Rabin¹s presentation could not be clearer: Concessions would come only through negotiations and only if the Palestinians strictly adhere to each obligation in the Agreement, including absolute end to terror. Rabin never contemplated any unilateral moves. When you read the entire speech, pay close attention to the importance Rabin attached to our Jewish holy places, not a typical leftist cause.

Here are some of Rabin¹s stated red lines:

The State of Israel will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate.

The Palestinians will have an entity which is less than a state.

Israel will not return to the 4th of June 1967 lines.

For security purpose, Israel will maintain full control of the Jordan Valley in the broadest meaning of that term.

Gush Katif will serve as model for the establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria.

Israel is committed not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder further construction for natural growth.

It is deplorable how many and how severely Rabin¹s red lines have been eroded by successive Israeli governments, particularly those of Sharon and Olmert. It is even more appalling how brutally Rabin¹s positions have been distorted by the Israeli left and the Israeli leftist media.

(c) 2006 Yuval Zaliouk > This article appeared in the Toledo Jewish News