Q&A: The Assassination of Rabin
The Assassination of Rabin
Question
Hello!
I’m secular, and I was born after Rabin’s assassination. In my schools they always held a ceremony in his memory.
I understood that in religious schools that’s not the case, and I wanted to ask why.
Is there shame over the fact that Yigal Amir was religious, or on the contrary—pride?
I also wanted to ask, from your own memory, what the atmosphere was like in the period leading up to the assassination.
Was there really such severe incitement against Rabin in the religious sector, the way people describe it today?
And why didn’t his military successes earn him a certain amount of goodwill among the public?
Answer
Good morning. This really calls for a long essay, and I’ll try to be brief.
First, as far as I know they do also do this in religious education, since they’re required to. It’s an instruction from the Ministry of Education. But it’s definitely true that they do it with much less enthusiasm, and maybe some dodge it and don’t do it.
As for the question itself, the myth you grew up on doesn’t really have much to do with what actually happened. And that starts even before the assassination. Rabin conducted himself like a dictator. He was about to take—and did take—very harsh steps that harmed the worldview and even the lives of a great many people, but he was very dismissive of the protests against him (“the propellers”). The feeling was that he was the prime minister of the left. Contrary to what you constantly hear, the man really did not take responsibility for anything. Like Bibi. In the dollar-account affair (back then it was forbidden to hold foreign currency, and his wife had a dollar account), the attorney general forced him to resign, and in exchange waived filing an indictment against him. Every time he said he was responsible (they replay this over and over on memorial days), he didn’t actually do anything with it.
The man was apparently quite a heavy drinker. As chief of staff in the Six-Day War, according to Ezer Weizman’s book, he collapsed and was unable to function from hysteria and fear. If I recall correctly, Ezer claims that he himself managed the beginning of the war. And even before that, you can read Uri Milstein on his exploits in the army from the War of Independence onward. Very far from the myth you grew up on.
And above all, the incitement that took place here after the assassination (against the right, and especially the religious) dwarfed the incitement that existed here before it. Unbelievable what happened here. I just remember one anecdote from a broadcast on Reshet Bet’s daily news program by Shelly Yachimovich (later a Labor MK): they dealt there nonstop only with the religious and the right, all of whom were murderers and inciters. As part of that, every day she brought on intellectuals to discuss the murder and its meaning. One day Rabbi Druckman came on air and asked her why she was bringing up only left-wing intellectuals to condemn the assassination and express views on the situation. So she answered him quite innocently that she had tried to find intellectuals on the right, but there weren’t any. The only one she found was Naomi Shemer, who didn’t want to come on. (As is known, she took the assassination very hard. If I’m not mistaken, the song “Rav Hovel” was translated for that occasion.)
And ever since then, every rally and ceremony in Rabin’s memory turns into a political rally of the left, where they promote the left’s agenda and to one degree or another also incite against the religious and against the right—all while rolling their eyes heavenward about why the prime minister and the Knesset speaker don’t come to the rally (the other day). It’s about the same as the Kaplan protests or the rallies for the hostages, where everyone plays innocent about why the religious-right doesn’t participate (“it’s not a matter of left and right”).
And all this after, at least in the eyes of people on the right (and here I personally don’t entirely agree), the man gave in to the manipulation of Peres and Beilin and did Oslo, which in their view brought a real disaster and many people lost their lives because of it. So to celebrate and remember with trembling sanctity the man responsible for those horrors is ridiculous, even if one condemns the murder.
To conclude, I personally loathed the man, and I see no reason at all to take part in the carnival in his memory in which he is presented as a saint. Of course I’m immediately accused of supporting the assassination (that is, of course, part of the left’s terrible poison machine, which keeps talking over and over about the right’s poison machine, while giving an honorary doctorate to Einav Zangauker, the greatest inciter there has ever been here. It talks about academic freedom and openness of mind and behaves in academia as if it were the branch office of a single political party. Orwell is here). In this carnival I’m supposed to hear about “Rabin’s legacy,” which was invented out of thin air after the assassination. The feeling is that secularism and the left need martyrs and saints, hagiographies of exemplary figures, and so they invent and adopt them, much like many religious characteristics (sacred principles, self-sacrifice, religious ceremonies, etc.). People have already discussed this at length. I, and probably many others as well, have no interest in helping them do that, especially when it comes at the expense of the right and the religious.
And no, that doesn’t mean the right supports political murder. And it also doesn’t mean it has no interest in acting to prevent it. It’s a natural antagonism to this left-wing carnival, and sometimes that does indeed result in fewer democracy ceremonies and anti-incitement ceremonies and memorial ceremonies for Saint Rabin of blessed memory.
That’s it. As I said, one could go on at much greater length.
Discussion on Answer
And of course, how could I forget “break their arms and legs” during the Intifada, and then denying all responsibility afterward, while throwing to the dogs army people who carried out his order and got burned for it.
I counted at least 6 factual errors in your claims, Michi, plus a mixing of interpretation with historical documentation. Briefly:
1. The claim that Rabin behaved like a dictator is wrong. He was elected in elections, acted within the framework of the Knesset, the judicial system, and a free press. Being dismissive of protests is a matter of style, not dictatorship. True, he called some of the demonstrators “propellers,” but the protest against him took place in complete freedom and he didn’t try to have the police or army restrict them (unlike other prime ministers you may have heard of).
2. The claim that he was “the prime minister of the left” is a feeling that isn’t based on facts. In the 1992 elections he was voted for also by traditional and religious voters from the center-right stream and by the religious kibbutzim. The parties that supported him were also much more diverse than your description: Tzomet was close to joining his coalition, and the Shas party sat in his coalition.
3. In the dollar-account affair, Rabin resigned as prime minister following the attorney general’s determination that this was a criminal offense. He could have refused to admit his connection to the matter, blamed his wife, and simply not resigned (as another prime minister you may have heard of does). He did not deny the offense he had committed and did not try to evade responsibility, and because of that he paid a heavy political price.
4. The claim that in the Six-Day War Rabin “collapsed” and Weizman ran the war has been rejected by the main military historians, including scholars highly critical of the defense establishment (such as Gelber). This is a selective reading from one disputed source (to put it mildly, and that’s without going into Uri Milstein). There is a consensus among military researchers that Rabin was an exceptional officer and commander, and it is ridiculous to use the most successful war in Israel’s history, which Rabin commanded, as evidence against his abilities.
5. The claim that the incitement after the assassination dwarfed what came before it is wrong. Before the assassination there were terrible pashkevil posters, Nazi imagery, ceremonies of the law of a pursuer, a coffin in Zion Square. There is no parallel to that after the assassination.
6. As for the memorial rallies: there are political rallies and there are state ceremonies. Prime ministers from the right spoke at the state ceremony, including Sharon in 2001 and Netanyahu in 1997 and 2015. There is no basis for the claim that the right was not invited or was excluded from these rallies. The analogy to the right’s non-participation in the protest demonstrations against the judicial coup and against the management of the war in Gaza is absurd: the right is welcome to organize any demonstration it wants instead of complaining about existing ones.
You can criticize the Oslo process and Rabin’s policies, but criticism has to be based on facts, documentation, and not on selective quotations or fringe literature. If you want a serious discussion, you start from the foundations and not from the narrative.
I’m full of admiration for your counting ability. As for reading comprehension and logic, somewhat less.
1. Amazing. How did I not notice that he was elected in elections and was a member of Knesset? Good thing you drew my attention to that. It’s unnecessary to note, but I’ll explain anyway: “dictator” here means forceful conduct that doesn’t take into account a suffering public that isn’t in his base.
2. What does the distribution of voters have to do with his actual conduct? That was exactly their problem with him. They voted for him and then got smacked in the face.
3. He was forced to resign by order of the attorney general, although he opposed it. He also took no responsibility whatsoever, and they exempted him from an indictment.
4. Depends which historians you choose. But I won’t argue about it, because neither of us knows what happened there. I only called attention to the fact that the assumption that he had glorious military achievements is not so simple.
5. I didn’t see any argument in your words. There were indeed posters. The question is comparative. And in particular, the incitement against him was personal, while the incitement against the right was public and indiscriminate.
6. All the rallies, state and non-state alike, suffer from an unambiguous leftward bias. Sometimes prime ministers ignore it for the sake of peace and because it’s awkward. This year they decided to stop ignoring it.
The criticism of Oslo is not relevant to the discussion. I said I don’t fully share it. What I wrote was that, according to those who see Oslo as a disaster, it’s hard to blame them for not mourning Rabin.
1. I’m rushing to update the dictionary definition: “Dictator = forceful conduct that doesn’t take into account a suffering public that isn’t in his base.” That’s a new and interesting definition. Surprising that you didn’t use it when you talked about Netanyahu (at least according to a search of your site, which is full of references to Netanyahu).
2. You wrote, “The feeling was that he was the prime minister of the left.” I prefer facts to feelings. Rabin’s coalition included Shas. In addition, the government’s basic guidelines explicitly state that the government would advance a diplomatic negotiation with the Palestinians. In other words, whoever voted Labor knew exactly what he was voting for. There was no “surprise” and no “got smacked in the face.” There is a parliamentary system, there is a platform, there is a coalition, there are decisions.
3. Rabin was not “forced” to resign, and that won’t become true even if you repeat it again. The attorney general determined that holding the dollar account was an offense under the foreign-currency regulations, and the decision to resign was Rabin’s. He could have chosen not to resign, to place the responsibility on his wife, or to hide behind procedures, but he chose to pay a heavy personal political price. That is the meaning of “responsibility” (a value completely forgotten in Israel 2025).
4. As for the “collapse” on the eve of the Six-Day War: that term does not appear in any military document, protocol, or reliable source. It first appeared in a Likud election campaign in 1992 and was adopted for political needs. Milstein is not exactly a respected source. Anyone who wants to research checks archives and sources, and doesn’t collect every opinion someone tossed out.
5. As for “the incitement after the assassination dwarfed what came before it,” that is simply a claim opposite to the facts. Before the assassination there were images of Rabin in SS uniform, the label “traitor,” halakhic rulings about the law of a pursuer, a coffin in Zion Square. After the assassination there were no pictures of right-wing rabbis as Nazis and no mock burial ceremonies. By the way, notice how amazing it is that no right-winger was murdered by a leftist despite the c-r-a-z-y incitement against the right (which never existed). This is not “an argument about feeling,” not “a comparative question.” Facts.
6. “All the rallies are left-biased.” Again, not true. Here, for example, is a news item about the list of participants in the official rally in 2001 at Mount Herzl: “At the rally marking the sixth anniversary of Rabin’s assassination, to be held on Saturday night from 19:30, writers, poets, singers, and intellectuals will appear. Special pieces have been written for the rally by Sami Michael, Natan Yonatan, Asa Kasher, Zvia Greenfeld, Emunah Elon, Anat Gov, Bambi Sheleg, and others. It will be hosted by Yair Lapid, and the singers Aviv Geffen, Gidi Gov, Dana Berger, Sarit Hadad, Hemi Rodner, Itamar Argov, Meni Bager, graduates of the Nahal troupe, David Broza, Shlomo Gronich, Meital Trabelsi, and members of HaGashash HaHiver will perform.”
Summary:
It’s permitted not to like Rabin. It’s permitted to criticize Oslo. It’s permitted to argue sharply. But if you want a real discussion, you have to start from facts and not from a description of reality based on selective memory, feelings, and political bias.
Well, sorry, but this isn’t getting any better. That’s how it is with religious types. I’m done.
I’d suggest practicing checking the facts behind what you write. There are general impressions one can write even without deep checking, but as an exercise it would be worthwhile to take 1–2 of the sharp things you wrote and simply verify that they’re supported by the facts (in this case, unfortunately, most of them are not).
By the way, it’s worth reading Milstein on his “military successes.” You’ll get a more balanced view (even if perhaps exaggerated in the other direction).