Another Look at the Rabin Carnival (Column 423)
With God’s help
Disclaimer: This post was translated from Hebrew using AI (ChatGPT 5 Thinking), so there may be inaccuracies or nuances lost. If something seems unclear, please refer to the Hebrew original or contact us for clarification.
A few days ago I was sent (thanks to my friend Shmuel Keren) a Facebook post written by Rabbi Ilai Ofran, the rabbi of Kibbutz Yavneh and head of a pre-military academy. On the anniversary of Rabin’s assassination this year he wrote a post that managed to stir some further thoughts in me on these matters and to put some of my conclusions into question. But fear not: in the end I did not retract. The position remains in place. And here I begin, God willing.
Summary of my previous remarks
More than once I have written that the assassination of Rabin does not strike me as more severe than any other murder. On the contrary, here at least there was an idealistic motive at the base of the murder, and not an interest-driven one as is customary in other murders—based on money or power interests, or out of anger in a romantic context, or because someone took your parking spot, or any other “lofty” motive, or simply malice for its own sake. Yigal Amir, in my opinion, erred and even committed a grave deed, but at least he did something that, to the best of his judgment, was noble and for the public good, and he was of course ready to pay the full personal price (it was clear to him that he would not get out of this alive and would not himself enjoy the fruits of his act). So how is he worse than other murderers?
I have also previously addressed the trauma that we are subjected to around the assassination. It seems to me like a ridiculous and pitiful hysteria, which in many cases is driven by a political agenda (even if not always consciously), by a moral vacuum, and by sheer loss of composure. Precisely because we are dealing here with a murderer who deserves a good deal of appreciation—certainly more than any other murderer who deserves none—the hysteria testifies that there are no substantive motives here. I did not spare my rod from the crisis of the “candle youth” and other unfortunates either. I wrote that these phenomena arouse my compassion and even amuse me a bit (don’t tell them. It’s not nice to catch a person in his moment of grief). I understand that people search for a father figure, a rebbe and a guide within the secular vacuum, and sadly (for them and for me) they didn’t find anything better than that redhead. Sometimes I think Yigal Amir did him a kindness by assassinating him, thereby instantly turning him into a historic paragon admired by many and granting him eternal renown. Thus was born, ex nihilo, the “Rabin Legacy.” Truly, it’s a pity…
Rabbi Ofran’s post
As noted, Rabbi Ofran’s post stirred further thoughts in me about the whole matter. These are his words there:
| We stopped the studies this morning at 12:00, gathered all the students of the academy in the beit midrash, and I told them roughly this —
The 12th of Cheshvan is a very important day, but I fear that you, who were born long after that bitter and hasty day, don’t really understand why. We adults still remember the shock. You, who were born almost a decade later, mostly remember the politicians’ quarrels and Rachel our Matriarch. Murder is indeed a terrible act, but it happens in Israel about 300 times a year. On average, almost every day. What is it about this murder that is more terrible than any other murder? What in it justifies a national memorial day? One can speak in praise of tolerance and against violence also when it is a “romantic” murder, and the slogan “We argue but remain brothers” can be pulled out also when the background to the murder is a “dispute between criminals.” To answer this it’s important to understand what we are marking today — not Rabin Day and not the Rabin Legacy. In my eyes Yitzhak Rabin was a great leader with many merits, but had he died of a heart attack in the middle of his term (as happened, for example, to Levi Eshkol), no one would have set a national memorial day for him. The 12th of Cheshvan is “the Memorial Day for the Assassination of the Prime Minister.” The person’s image and personality, great as he may be, are not really relevant. Indeed, one must not ignore his figure especially as long as his close relatives still walk among us, but the over-preoccupation with “that man,” who, one must admit, was controversial, has caused quite a few people to feel deep alienation toward this day and what it represents. Jewish culture is a culture of disputes. And out of the habit of analyzing disputes, sharpening and amplifying them, we fail to notice that every dispute is based on very broad agreements. To argue requires shared premises upon which the discussion is built. It’s worthwhile, from time to time, even when arguing heatedly, to clarify what nonetheless we all agree on. Bennett and Netanyahu, Litzman and Michaeli, Deri and Zandberg, or Tibi and Smotrich are perceived by us as opposing extremes where it’s hard to find a common point. And yet, despite the gap, there is one important agreement among them — all of them, at least for now, agree on the system. Although on substance they clash head-on, they certainly agree on the very mechanism that requires mustering a majority in the Knesset to make decisions. What is this like? Like Beitar and Sakhnin players who, despite the searing hatred, don’t start passing by hand. Even in the heat of battle, everyone agrees on the rules of the game. And these agreements are the foundations upon which a society, a community, and a state are built. They are the anchors without which we have no kingdom. The murderer did not try to win the game; he tried to burn down the club. Yigal Amir assassinated Rabin, but the graver act he did was to raise his hand against the very system. Against the fundamental agreement upon which our society is founded, whether knowingly or not, he tried to saw off the branch we all sit on. In that sense, Yigal Amir is not a “right-wing” man just as Hamas is not a “left-wing” organization. Right and left, even “extremists,” are two sides of the agreement; their organizing axis is our common denominator. And one who undermines that anchor is not just another side in a dispute. He is a terrorist who threatens us all. Our Sages taught that “A father who waives his honor—his honor is waived; and a rabbi who waives his honor—his honor is waived,” but “A king who waives his honor—his honor is not waived.” For without awe there is no kingship, and without kingship there is no kingdom. The Shin Bet protects the prime minister not only because of the danger to his life. If danger were the criterion, the Shin Bet would protect crime bosses as well. The PM is protected because harming him is a harm to the entire public living here. They are essentially not guarding him but guarding us. We live in the age of personalization— in recent election campaigns the leaders’ personas have replaced party platforms. On Memorial Day for the IDF fallen one hears less combat legacy and more personal stories and songs of the fallen. Even on Seder night people are busy with “their private Exodus from Egypt” instead of the story of the birth of the people of Israel. And precisely in this era, the memorial day for the assassination of the prime minister must not be about the persona. Its subject must remain primarily the polity. I still bear the dread that arose in me as a teenager in those days when I heard the talk about the civil war that was about to erupt any minute. By God’s grace upon us, it did not happen. With impressive and even surprising resilience, Israeli society managed to recover from that terrible disaster. Our shared and agreed-upon mechanism somehow survived the bullets that were fired into its back. That resilience depends to a great extent on our ability to understand and remember that more than Yigal Amir is a murderer, Yigal Amir is a traitor. |
There is an important point here. His claim is that the principal and unique severity of the act is not that it was a murder. The severity is not the harm to human life, even if he was an important person (?), but the harm to the democratic rules of the game that are of great importance to our lives as a public. He concludes that this is treason more than murder. Seemingly this argument neutralizes all of my above claims, since it shifts the perspective from the question of murder to the question of the democratic rules of the game and their importance. Note that he even makes the comparison I made to other murderers and accepts my framing of it. But, as noted, upon second thought I concluded that I do not agree, as I will now try to explain.
Did Yigal Amir harm democracy?
Yigal Amir certainly did not accept the rules of democracy. There is no doubt that he tried to change the situation by a path outside the rules. But such things are done day in and day out by quite a few people and institutions. Many claim that even the courts and the law enforcement system sometimes do so. Others say there are politicians and media figures who do so (each from his own side). All these are indeed not murderers, but if the severity of Amir’s act is not the murder but the damage to the democratic fabric, I do not see why his act is graver than that of others who do this. There is no doubt that he intended to harm democracy and to act by illegitimate means, but in Column 372 I already pointed out that when we judge a person on the moral plane, we ought to judge him according to his own lights. As I already noted, Yigal Amir apparently truly and sincerely believed in the rightness of his act (in the spirit of “It is a time to act for the Lord,” as he saw it). Likewise, I assume that journalists, politicians, or jurists who act in ways that sometimes seem illegitimate to people usually believe in their own rightness.
My conclusion is that on the level of intentions it is difficult to judge Yigal Amir more harshly than other institutions or individuals. If so, we must move from the plane of intentions to the plane of results. I will already say here that judging a person should be done on the basis of his intentions, goals, and decisions. The results are a by-product, and it is not right to judge a person by them. But the results could perhaps justify the jihad being waged here against Yigal Amir (and his ideological children, according to Lapid—see below). The fear of harm to democracy justifies a memorial day every year, laments and dirges over the righteous Rabin legacy that departed, and the vilification of the “despicable” murderer (one must always add this. There are non-despicable murderers—those who do it for money, anger, honor, and the like). I do not think this is a proper justification. I am not willing to judge a person more harshly because of fears, justified as they may be. A person should be judged by his deeds and motives. But I can perhaps somewhat understand those who think otherwise.
Yet even on the results plane the situation is not simple. Did Amir’s act indeed have such grave consequences? What were they? The aforementioned actions of journalists, politicians, and members of the judicial system have a great impact on society and its conduct. They can cause serious damage to our democracy, and some would say they already do so in practice. Did Yigal Amir do more harm? (Again, in this discussion I am ignoring the fact that his act was murder.) Are the consequences of his act especially severe? Did he succeed in harming democracy as implied by what Rabbi Ofran writes? We are told that Yigal Amir murdered our democracy, murdered peace, murdered trust in state institutions, and the like. We are told that he created social and ideological polarization in the public, sharpened the conflict between right and left and between religious and secular, and more and more. They debit him for all our society’s ills. Is there justice in these claims?
Let us consider this factual question. How severe was Amir’s deed in terms of the harm to democracy? I am speaking about the actual results of the assassination.
What were the results of the assassination?
In general, I think that the impact, insofar as there was any, derived from the unjustified hysteria and not from the act itself. This act did not shake our democracy one bit. If anything shook it, it was the hysteria, the invective, and the polarization that followed. In my eyes, Bibi and Peres harmed our democracy far more than Yigal Amir did, even though most of their actions were legally legitimate (and they of course did not murder anyone). I am not speaking about the corruption for which Bibi is on trial and Peres was not, but about their public conduct. So what? Does that make Bibi or Peres traitors? Therefore is one of them illegitimate? A healthy society does not allow one person, even if he is a prime minister—or a murderer of a prime minister—to harm its rules of the game and change them. In this sense, the changes that were attempted in the rules of the game after the assassination were the assassination’s success, and they are what brought about its problematic outcomes. The hysterical responses are what changed the rules of the game and gave Yigal Amir some of the consequences attributed to him. And here is a partial list: silencing, incitement, invective and polarization, loss of trust in state institutions, in the press, in the justice system, and the absence of public discourse in general (not that before there was anything much better). All these are indeed results of the assassination, but it was not Yigal Amir who did this—it was all of us. Instead of putting him in prison and moving on as before, we turned Amir into a demon and turned the fear of murder (not the murder itself) into a political toy, as if anyone who says something I don’t like is a potential murderer (“words kill,” yeah, right), as well as a legal and media toy. None of this should have come about in the wake of the assassination, since these reactions are unjustified. The assassination should not have aroused any fear for democracy or any harm to anything. It was the act of a delusional man who thought he could change political processes that way. I do not think his act had a diplomatic impact, but it certainly did have political and social impact. Only we are to blame for that, not Yigal Amir. We pounced on him and cast all our sins upon the desert Azazel.
Yigal Amir did not murder peace, did not murder democracy, did not murder trust in institutions, nor even freedom of expression. All these indeed deteriorated further since the assassination (though they existed before too), but as noted it was not he who did this—it was we. The only thing that Yigal Amir murdered was the assumption (mine as well) that it is impossible for a Jewish citizen of Israel to murder a prime minister in a political assassination. That assumption indeed collapsed, and that was truly done by Yigal Amir himself. But even that stemmed from a palpable sense of danger that prevailed in a broad public, for which the leaders of the time—and at their head Rabin—bore significant contributory fault. Their disregard for the protests and for the justified public fears regarding their reckless actions (remember the “propellers”?)—their motives and their manner of conduct, which seemed very problematic—was part of what led to the assassination. A frustrated public whose voice is not heard even though a disaster (in its view) is about to be brought upon it cynically, reacts extremely. That is predictable, even if very undesirable and illegitimate. So the one who murdered that assumption was all of us, together with Yigal Amir.
In any case, I think the only conclusion that follows from the assassination is that we must conduct ourselves with greater consideration and caution, and that now we must be more careful about political assassination. Nothing in our democracy should have changed, including everything I listed above. Our hysterical and unjustified reactions to the assassination are what made those changes. I think all those problems were always here, and these reactions merely reflected them and brought all this to the surface. The assassination did not create those phenomena; it exposed them. But we attack the stick instead of the one holding it (=all of us).[1]
In my estimation, if anyone ever thought of carrying out a political assassination here, Yigal Amir showed him that he has no chance of achieving anything. He will only shoot himself in the foot and set back his aims (it must be admitted that the aforementioned hysteria contributed to this outcome; so even though it is unjustified, it has positive results). The conclusion is that Yigal Amir contributed (unintentionally) to preventing future political assassination. Perhaps someone who aspires to anarchy received motivation to murder a leader (if he needed any), but the encouragement for that he received from us (who created the anarchy with our own hands), not from Yigal Amir.
A qualifying note and summary
One can speak about Yigal Amir’s intention to harm the rules of the game, not about the outcome. His intention from the outset was to achieve some goal by a non-democratic means, and that is indeed problematic. This problem lies on the plane of intentions and not on the plane of results, which, as noted, were not truly due to his act (but because of us). Perhaps in this Rabbi Ofran is right, although on the results plane I do not agree that his act had a particularly severe consequence. But as I argued, this can be alleged toward anyone or any factor who acts in ways that deviate from the rules of the game in order to influence society and the state. Above I brought several examples of this.
In conclusion, I think Rabbi Ofran’s claim that the severity of Yigal Amir’s act is betrayal of society and its rules is problematic. There was indeed betrayal here, but I think his claim covers simple anger at a political assassination. Harm to the rules of democracy can be done by other means as well, less dramatic than murder, and the result will be no less severe (several examples were brought above), and I haven’t seen such things addressed in the same way. So if Yigal Amir is a traitor, we all are traitors. The difference is that he committed murder—but, as noted, I have no special grievance against him for that beyond what I have for any other murder, and even less than that.
A note about Yair Lapid, may he live long
Parenthetically, on that same yahrzeit of Rabin, may the righteous be blessed, our foreign minister and alternate prime minister posted the claim that Yigal Amir’s successors now sit in the Knesset and receive media and political legitimacy. His intention was apparently toward Smotrich and Ben Gvir. I heard on the radio Irit Linor (who years ago seemed to me like a refreshing voice in our mainstream media, but after the change of government expresses herself and relates like the most die-hard Bibist and cannot see anything not through those glasses), who explained that there are no supporters of political assassination in the Knesset, including the above-mentioned. That is of course true, and at first blush I thought she was right in her criticism. Seemingly it looks like Yair Lapid is once again trying to ride the populist wave. However, a look at his words shows that Lapid did not mean potential murderers. He spoke of those who support harming democracy and deviating from its rules (for example racists, and those in favor of discriminating against Arabs), and in that there is certainly merit. In this sense, it seems that Lapid assumes Rabbi Ofran’s premise, according to which the problem with Amir was not the murder but the attack on democracy. But as I argued above, there are many more examples of such an approach even if they are less extreme than murder. Therefore I do not agree with this claim either. My conclusion is that Lapid is not right, but neither is Irit Linor.
In short, let the Rabin carnival and the inciting left-wing catharsis conducted within it come to an end. Return to your tents.
[1] See in Column 388 and Column 258 my comments on the film Joker.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There is an argument that Rabin's assassination is the most successful political assassination, as it stopped the Oslo process.
I don't think he stopped it. The Palestinians, as expected, stopped it.
The people elected a leader democratically, and he killed him. That means he stole votes from millions of people => an attack on democracy by definition. You also ignore the fact that Rabin was a leader, so the murder did affect millions of people emotionally. It's like suggesting that the murder of Martin Luther King is not particularly significant, since it is clear that as a leader he had a broad influence on public life.
This is a tautology. The question is what the substantive result is, not the personal one. And the fact that people were hurt, I didn't ignore that at all. I was clearly mocking it.
“Means – stole votes from millions of people = harm to democracy” .
Indeed, – but Rabbi Michael Avraham referred to this in his words that many harmed democracy in this way.
Recently, allegations have been made against Prime Minister Mr. Bennett “who stole the votes of his voters” .
(The examples of Rabbinate Masfer – see Guy Zohar).
What does it matter that others have harmed democracy (even when they illegally ousted a prime minister)? The rabbi asked why Rabin's murder is worse than any other murder. It is worse than any other murder because it also harmed democracy.
As if other people harmed democracy so it is no longer a consideration?
This matters because it means that there is nothing particularly unusual here.
He did not hurt, but wanted to hurt.
Research shows that, unlike authoritarian countries, the assassination of a leader in a democratic country has no significant impact on the policy of that country.
https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/jones-ben/htm/Assassinations%20Paper.pdf
As evidence, he implemented the Hebron Agreement, gave the Bar-Ilan speech, continued to transfer money to the PA, and so on.
Two comments:
1. The murderer is more “despicable” not objectively, but because he murdered a person who was important to a larger group of people than in a “ordinary” murder;
2. How would you suggest trying to prevent such a case in the future if it were important to you, and from a pragmatic perspective, wouldn't it be more severe than a “ordinary” murder?
Just like I try to prevent any murder. I don't think the murder of a prime minister is any more serious, as long as you don't make a big deal out of it. By the way, a prime minister is guarded much more than any other citizen, so the chance of murdering him is very small. There is no reason to take steps that would specifically prevent the murder of a prime minister.
Hey Miki
I agree with much of what you wrote but I don't understand why Yigal Amir's act of betrayal (the actual murder of an elected leader) seems to you on the same level as many good ones..? We are all “traitors” you say.. But in terms of intentions, most of us do not plan to assassinate democracy in such a radical way. In this sense, the “betrayals” of all of us are really not similar to what Amir did. It's hard for me to even think of an example of an attempted betrayal (of democracy) in such a way… Maybe you can convince me if you bring such an example
Take as an example the Bibiists' view of Bennett, who took power for himself with a party of 6 seats. In doing so, he changes the government's policy and seriously harms the country (depriving us of the graces of Bibi, the ultimate ruler). Isn't that much more harmful than murdering Rabin? And what about decisions by the Attorney General and courts that go against government decisions and policies. Many see them as assassins of democracy. This too has far more fundamental and profound implications than Yigal Amir's act.
This is not the view of the Bibiists (and I am a bit of a Bibiist). Bennett himself said before the elections that the head of a party with 10 seats (and even 15) is immoral. So according to his own method, it is an attack on democracy. (Apparently, he will be prime minister this time, "time to do to the gods of democracy, the pro-democrats" )
Maybe it's better to make Bennett the pro-democrat.
He didn't say it was immoral, to be precise. He claimed that with 10 seats he wouldn't be able to be prime minister, based on a reasonable assumption, but oops... glad to be proven wrong
Sorry. He said it was undemocratic. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=310256420520435
How is it that a deontologist like you has degenerated into considerations of outcome..? Treason is first and foremost judged by intentions. The goals of Bennett and the legal junta may not be the most worthy, but at least on a declared level (and in my opinion to a certain extent also in substance) they do aim to serve Israel as a democratic state (at least in the eyes of these people). Democracy really doesn't interest Amir, neither in substance nor in declarative terms.
A deontologist like me distinguishes well between considerations of intention and considerations of result, as I did very clearly in the column. I discussed this and that separately.
Just as these people intend to serve the State of Israel, Yigal Amir also intended to serve it. With him it is much clearer than with them. They have an interest (to be elected and gain power), and he had no interest at all. A gloriously altruistic act.
Who said that Yigal Amir did not have pure intentions regarding the State of Israel or some desire to betray it?? What does this have to do with the discussion? We are talking about an intention to betray Israeli democracy, not the state as a state. This is what Ofran said and you said you agree with him, except for a few reservations. Yigal Amir detests democracy and therefore acted to harm it (according to his understanding). This is absolutely not the case with the other figures you mentioned, even if they are not as altruistic as he is.
We have moved into the realms of hallucination. Who told you that he despises democracy? He wanted to save it from Rabin. And who told you that the others don't despise it? After all, according to your own theory, if they acted against it, they probably do despise it.
First of all, I am delusional by nature and I have no need to move to such a new district. But according to your latest words, it seems that you are a member of the same house. Yigal Amir wanted to save democracy from Rabin?! Are you serious? The declared ideology (and that he really believes in it) is standard fascist nationalist (and probably also theocratic). In complete contrast to Bennett and his ilk, who, even if in practice they are far from being great democrats, their basic intellectual and moral world is a plus or minus.
Incidentally, in your penultimate response, you completely deviated from your claim in the article (betrayal of democracy) and instead wrote to me about loyalty to the state. I warned you about that earlier.
Now you are finally returning to the subject, but as stated, your words are not based on reality… in your opinion, Yigal Amir, by the very fact that he is an “idealist” (I would say fanatic), he is committed to democracy… amusing. Next, you will recommend him as a lecturer at Van Leer.
If saving the country at the cost of harming the wing of democracy is what you call disloyalty to democracy, then I can only confirm your self-diagnosis in the opening of your remarks. May my side be with those who are not loyal to democracy (traitors to the country for the sake of democracy).
I will only add that we also have many such traitors to democracy, of course. All those I listed in my previous messages. They all harm democracy for what they see (not always rightly) as the good of the country. So even if I accept your delusional definition, the matter does not change.
Do you understand what you wrote here? You wrote that Amir wanted to save democracy from Rabin... not the fascist Jewish state (in which he truly and sincerely believes) but liberal democracy... I ask you seriously: Do you believe that this is what Amir believes in and tried to do? Do you believe that the main act of murder was aimed at fulfilling a democratic agenda?
I see that we both understood the gist of what I wrote here. What you didn't understand was my last message. You should read it again.
These are empty platitudes. You explicitly wrote that Amir wanted to save democracy from Rabin's clutches (a delusional assertion) and added that what everyone has in common is the good of the state (when that's not the issue at all, even in your opinion). And this fits in perfectly with your central claim in the column, as if Amir's betrayal of democracy is more or less equivalent to other traitors to it. I've already explained the difference (on the level of intentions, but perhaps also on the level of results): the ideological background. It's really not complicated to understand.
Political murder is much more serious than ordinary murder.
Because if the political murderer does not achieve his goal, then he will also murder the leader's successor …
Indeed, there are people who admire political murderers.
Stalin, Trotsky, Che Guevara, Pol Pot – all have admirers (mainly in intellectual circles).
Although, according to Rabbi Michael Avraham, this is a group of righteous people who, from their point of view, were supremely moral.
Regarding the use of the word “despicable” and the definition of “Rabin Carnival” I can only agree with the Rabbi's words.
The results of a political assassination depend on time and circumstances. In the last two hundred years, there have been many such murders, and most of them have changed nothing. From the 1820s until 1914, an Austrian empress, a Russian tsar, the king of Italy, the king of Spain, the president of France, two American presidents, and so on, were assassinated by anarchists who wanted to overturn the entire political and social order in the world. They failed again and again because at the same time, the modern state was being built, on its arms and its officials, which turned the head of state into another cog in the sophisticated bureaucratic machine. And that was until Sarajevo in 1914. What happened in the wake of this assassination did indeed change everything. But there were special circumstances: the assassination of the Empress (the beloved “Sissi” – think of Diana, but even more so), preceded by the “Mayerling incident”, led to the decision of all Austrians: “We will not tolerate this again. Next time we will blow up the world”. And that is what they did.
But there were other murders with great impact: the assassination of the Tsar led to the great wave of pogroms, the consequences of which have influenced the continuation of Jewish history to this day (immigration to America, increasing secularization, Zionism).
The assassination of Martin Luther King completely changed the path of African-Americans in the US: from a willingness to integrate while cooperating with liberal elements in America (and especially Jews), to a different, hostile, and sometimes (recently) violent and anti-Semitic approach.
The assassination of Rabin fueled and strengthened hatred and polarization in Israel, and continues to do so, while many elements continue to pour fuel on the fire, some are stupid populists like Lapid, and some are those who want to eliminate the Zionist entity, and seize every excuse and opportunity to add hatred. Amir provided them with all of this, and the damage is terrible. And as with the assassination of the Tsar, those who really paid (except for the late Rabin, of course) were good and innocent Jews.
Maybe the combination of things is what's shocking? Murder + harm to democracy + death of a leader
And by the way, you often sin with ”whatabautism”. The fact that we are not shocked by one case does not contradict the need to be shocked by another.
And between us, there are also quite a few differences between the examples you brought. The damage to democracy that Bibi created is subject to debate and interpretation, it is certainly not a finished and clear fact. Moreover, it occurred (if it occurred) over many years and not in one ”boom”. Which reduces the option of shock.. And as mentioned, even if it is not right, perhaps the demand should be shock in both cases and not vice versa.
https://mikyab.net/posts/67864
Well.. the comparison is still not clear. It is understandable that people are not shocked by an ongoing event, which does not have a specific point in time that can be pointed to and shocked (maybe they will designate Netanyahu's Queen Day as a national shock?!) and the Rabin assassination case. According to this argument, you have eliminated any possibility of being shocked by an anti-democratic act.
PS You did not respond to my first question. You present an argument against each explanation separately (there are more terrible murders, there are more anti-democratic acts, not every death of a leader is shocking) but you did not consider that here there is a rare combination of several bad things that came together for one night, for one moment, that can be noted and remembered
I have nothing to say about the arithmetic of the shock, except that on the ground it really doesn't look like it.
Hello Rabbi,
I'm trying to offer an argument in the opposite direction, the murder is no worse than any murder of an innocent person, the pain is specific to Rabin, the additions of moaning and groaning and the annual carnival is an additional pain for the fact that a person was murdered due to an ideological argument. We accept/compensate for the murders (inferior ones – parking, drunks, etc. ’) that cannot be prevented in a human society. But murder on an ideological basis is embodied by us as much more primitive and frightening (fundamentalism).. Modern man feels that this type of murder belongs to a different period in history as opposed to murder on a romantic basis.
Just as religious fanaticism scares us more than just violence.
I didn't mean the argument on the psychological level. On this level, there are several explanations for the matter. My argument is that psychology here is misleading us from the truth, since apparently there is really no reason for this hysteria.
My argument would sound like I'm aiming for a psychological level, but my point is that it's an intuitive insight for modern man that ideological murder is more horrifying and justifies hysteria. (There is a psychological justification for this, since our entire lives are completely opposite ideological/value disputes.)
I don't think so. But even if you were right, this is a consequential and not a deontological consideration. That is, the doer is not a greater evil.
You wrote: “I think all these problems have always been here, and these reactions only reflected them and brought all this to the surface.”
I think the murder not only brought things to the surface, it also tried to fix them. It is true that there were problems before, but the murder put on the table the option of civil war and violence as an increasing and absolute solution to these problems.
It is not only about the denial of the democratic game, but also what the opposite side is that they are trying to present. In this way, it is very different from all the counterexamples that you gave.
Or as Rabbi Efran describes: “I am still burned by the anxiety that arose in me as a boy in those days, when I heard the talk about the civil war that was about to break out.” There was an alternative model here, not just a democratic disagreement. This is where the shock comes from.
beautiful
There is always an alternative model. So in all the examples I gave: that the court would replace the Knesset, that a minority faction would replace the voter, that the Attorney General would replace the government. There is nothing special here.
And as for civil war and murder, this option did not arise and could not arise. And if so, it is not because of Yigal Amir but because of the public. War does not happen from one person.
There is always an alternative model.
But none of the alternative models is as destructive as war, violence and anarchy.
Regarding war and a single person – I tend to disagree. If a civil war broke out, we would explain in retrospect how it was inevitable and would have happened anyway, like in World War I. But to claim that just because something happened, it was bound to happen that way? There have already been cases where one person prevented a nuclear war (the brother cheered for the Cold War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov ), so I suppose it is also possible that one person could cause a war to break out. He doesn't have to create everything from scratch, he has to be the spark for an explosion – which is entirely possible that it wouldn't have happened without him.
Problems can exist and be solved slowly, and can be solved with an explosion. The murder pushed in a certain direction, much more than any single action of a single person.
All of the above alternative models are what cause war and anarchy. Don't expect one side to sit on the sidelines and let them be enslaved. This will be its own just war of freedom. A civil war is not always a bad thing, if its goal is the freedom of one of the brothers, and especially if one of the brothers is evil. Yigal Amir was just the tip of the iceberg. Anyone who is afraid of a civil war will not enslave their brothers. Beyond that, there is no brotherhood on the left today. It is progressive or led by such people, and for them the Jewish nation is a racist concept. If there is a war, it will be a war of the right that represents the Jewish people with the left, which today is in fact a foreign body, a foreign invader, and a foreign occupier. And the truth is that there is no need to fight. You can simply leave the army and that's it. Be like the Haredim
Some accuse the right that Yigal Amir grew in its beds. Well, I have no problem with that. Rabin despised the right and I do not regret the death of someone who despises me. It is forbidden to murder (in the absence of direct danger to life), but there is no obligation to cooperate with him, and there is also an obligation to avoid harsh expressions (that are not direct incitement - explicitly calling for him to kill someone) towards him (such as calling him Amalek, etc.). On the contrary, this is a war of consciousness in which it is forbidden to pity the enemy. I believe even today that the left - if it continues with its autism and lack of self-awareness and its evil that stems from this lack of self-awareness - has no choice but to collapse mentally in every way. They are already half mentally ill and are on the brink of the abyss. All that is needed is a few pushes. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is only towards those who share a shared fate with the people of Israel. Not a progressive mentally ill person (I think that's also legal. They're not called a newborn baby but converts, I think).
Correction: ” And there is no obligation to avoid harsh expressions towards him, etc.’…
I may be repeating the comments that have been made, but I will try to formulate it in my own words:
The harm to democracy is measured by the strength of the act. Forming a government with 6 seats with the support of the majority of elected officials is not a change in the rules of the game, like murder, which changes the rules of the game completely.
The murder of a prime minister is an extreme and radical act that expresses more than anything else that there is no democracy, no law, and no government. Everything is permitted in order to achieve the goal that I believe in.
Isn't that right?
I wanted to offer an explanation for the phenomenon called the “Rabin legacy”:
When someone assassinates a prime minister, they are usually trying to prevent the line that that prime minister is trying to promote. In order to deter a future prime minister assassin from doing such an act, the public needs to create a deterrence equation that says that if someone assassinates a prime minister, they will achieve the opposite result, because the public will perpetuate his legacy (his values and worldview) and work to promote the line he promoted in his life even more vigorously. For example, if someone was in favor of the Iranian nuclear deal and against Bibi's policy that works against the deal, and he would have liked to assassinate Bibi in order to promote the nuclear deal with Iran, the public should have acted after the assassination in a way that would preserve Bibi's policy in this area as a penalty and a future deterrent to any other prime minister assassin.
Excellent explanation. Indeed, for these reasons the legacy of the man without a legacy was born.
“In general, I think that the impact, to the extent it was, stemmed from the unjustified hysteria and not from the act itself. This act did not undermine our democracy in the slightest. If anything undermined it, it was the hysteria, the divisiveness and polarization that followed it”
Reminds me a bit of the coronavirus. A virus that you populate didn't really do much damage. Only the artificial and authentic hysteria that was created from it did a lot of damage and caused all the restrictions that brought and will bring real economic, medical and psychological damage. Governments, the media, the public and more are partners in this.
Not related. Just reminded me a bit. It just surprises me that a super-smart person like you is convinced (I see it from your answers to the question) that these restrictions that have been in place for more than a year and a half actually have benefits for public health.
It surprises me that a person like you sees this event in such a narrow way.
My only way to explain this is your affiliation (social if not ideological) with religious Zionism and the way they have taken on this pandemic and all the trolling that comes with it. They found a new religion.
The question of this sector's attitude towards Corona raises some speculations for me but it is still a mystery to me.
Since, beyond the nonsense you wrote here, you won't find any references in my writings like you put in your mouth, you are welcome to continue creating me out of thin air and criticizing me as you wish. Good luck.
In September 21, 1982
Rabin's assassination did not stop the "Oslo" process. On the contrary, before the assassination, the left was at its lowest point in the polls and it was clear that in the elections that would be held a few months later, the right would return to power.
The assassination brought the left's horn up, and only the chain of attacks and bus bombings that occurred that winter, which led to the left's decline and its defeat in the elections,
The assassination, which almost achieved the exact opposite of its goal, so that apart from the moral seriousness of prohibiting bloodshed, the assassination was political folly.
Best regards, Yaron Fishel Ordner
There is no need to mobilise against a ‘political murder’ being an ‘harm to democracy’. Murder is the most serious of crimes, whatever its intentions and reasons.
But our obligation to protest and warn against murder committed on ‘idealistic’ grounds is greater, since murder for criminal reasons is not something that a ’man from the community’ is likely to fail at, unless he is a professional criminal or is on the verge of insanity.
But when there is an ‘idealistic justification’ the danger increases that a ‘man from the community’ And even our well-wishers will be dragged into the act of murder out of idealistic justification, and therefore our responsibility to protest and warn increases.
Best regards, Y'afar
Very reminiscent of the absurdity of what has been happening in the US in recent years.
There is ample evidence that the FBI and in collaboration with Obama did a lot of illegal things in an attempt to frame Trump and his associates with ties to Russia. In the end, they were not very successful, except for a few who were caught for minor offenses that are usually ignored.
)
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53784048
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-flynn-idUSKBN23V24A
(
But when Trump's friends went to the Capitol, made a bit of a fuss, one was killed and the rest were sent out, that's the end of democracy, as they'll endlessly pump out to you in the media (January 6th, may God have mercy on him and save him).
I asked a friend if it bothered him that the FBI and Obama did these things. He said, "Look, when you think that a very dangerous person is going to rule the country, then yes, you might as well cross such lines, and that's legitimate."
I told him no problem, but he shouldn't say that this or that side is killing democracy.
Rabbi Michael, in writing a column dedicated to the assassination of Rabin and Yigal Amir's motives, there is a major oversight regarding the investigation of the events of that night when it is not at all clear that Yigal Amir did indeed murder him.
Although legally he was convicted of murder, the evidence was never examined in court because it is possible to convict in court based on a confession without examining the evidence. This is what Yigal Amir did after his interrogation by the Shin Bet, and since his conviction he has been in solitary confinement from the other prisoners in the prison where he is being held.
Should we treat Yigal Amir as a person whose legal issue was not sufficiently clarified when the conviction was achieved through devious means? Or is it that from the moment the issue passed the court stage, then ‘the judge has only what his eyes see’ and each and every one of us, as you did in the column, should treat him as a complete murderer?
Nonsense. There is no conviction based on confession alone in Israeli law.
But beyond that, my discussion is not about Yigal Amir but about the phenomenon he represents. Even if he did not assassinate Rabin, I am discussing the question of what the punishment is for a person who assassinated a prime minister on ideological grounds. Whatever his name in Israel may be.
So, in your opinion, what is the major problem with the murder of Delilah between Ahikam and Chazal? Why did the sages feel the need to establish a fast?
Because the Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel was destroyed. All the Jews fled to Egypt and the return to Zion began from a desolate land without Jews.
In the Bible, 22nd, in the fifth chapter,
To the Lord,
The fasts were established for days when great troubles befell the people of Israel, but the purpose of fasting (as Maimonides says in the Laws of Fasting) is to turn away from the transgressions that caused those troubles, and to search our ways to see whether the same sins are not also found in us.
Therefore, although it is possible that the national damage in the murder of Gedaliah was perhaps greater, a murder that occurs in our time, and in which even our own people are involved,
requires us to conduct a rigorous self-examination: Are we doing enough to prevent us from deteriorating into an atmosphere of gratuitous hatred and bloodshed that are among the causes of destruction? Therefore, there is a point in warning about the assassination of Rabin.
Indeed, there is a point to the flaw in that the warning is usually made towards the ‘other side’ and does not focus on clarifying each side in the political debate towards its own camp, whether we are not contributing to fueling the discourse and its radicalization.
Best regards, Yaron Fish”l Ordner
“In my opinion, if anyone ever thought of committing a political murder here, Yigal Amir showed him that he had no chance of achieving anything”
I think this is subject to interpretation. Although the agreement was signed, some would say that the implementation fizzled out following the murder and the change of government in the thick of it. Although Peres continued the implementation and Bibi did too (although perhaps he also made the implementation a little more difficult), but I think that there will be people on both the right and the left who can see the murder as an event that harmed the process (peace, Aalek).
And the sages have already expressed their opinion about a scholar who lacks knowledge.