NewsGuy
11-01-2003, 04:16 PM
An original IsraelForum.com article. Please feel free to republish with proper credit and link.
The Remaking of Yitzhak Rabin
By Michael Rand
www.IsraelForum.com
Each year, as Israelis hold vigils in memory of slain Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, history is rewritten more and more. Rabin has become, not only a sanctified symbol of the Israeli Left, but an unwitting advocate for political positions which the late Prime Minster never embraced in his lifetime. Instead, the Israeli Left has shamelessly capitalized on Rabin's memory and put words in his mouth posthumously.
By remaking Rabin into a canonized radical Leftist, his real political positions have been silenced by the Left. But what would Saint Yitzhak say about his miraculous transformation, and what would he advise Prime Minister Sharon to do about the current wave of Palestinian terrorism?
To begin, let's look at what the Left has attributed to Rabin. In a nutshell, today's Leftists claim that Rabin fought for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, and that the 1993 Clinton/Arafat/Rabin agreement was to bring about a Palestinian state. This is absolutely a false claim. In fact, Rabin never supported a Palestinian state, and his positions on this subject were actually further to the Right than Ariel Sharon's.
Contrary to Leftist lore, Yitzhak Rabin never agreed to a Palestinian state, because he understood the grave danger in creating a terrorist Palestinian state right next door to their intended victims.
No Palestinian State
Those who consult the historical facts will find that the Oslo agreement never spelled out that the end result of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be a Palestinian state. This is because Rabin only agreed to grant the Palestinians "something more than autonomy, but less than a state." Those were his words.
Specifically, Rabin stated: "Although Labor and the Likud differ in their views on the solution to the Palestinian question, we both oppose in the strongest terms the creation of a Palestinian "mini-state" in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, first and foremost because it cannot solve anything." (Yitzhak Rabin, The Rabin Memoirs p. 334). In those same memoirs, Rabin summed up his views, "Palestine will rise upon the ruins of the State of Israel." Ironically, Center-Right Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called for the establishment of a full-blown Palestinian state upon the cessation of terrorism.
Still, the Left mistakenly claims that it was Rabin who was more supportive of a Palestinian state than the Likud leadership.
No Withdrawal from all the Golan
Apart from remaking Rabin's position on a Palestinian state, the Left also claims that Rabin was committed to a full withdrawal from the Golan. In truth, this was certainly not what Rabin conveyed to the Syrians during exhaustive negotiations.
Rabin informed the Syrians that Israel must hold on to strategic locations in the Golan that would enable Israel to maintain a strategic early-warning system, in light of Syria's past history of using the Golan as a military launch point to invade Israel. He also specified that Israel would hold on to several Jewish suburbs located near the Kineret (Sea of Galilee). In fact, it was Rabin's logical refusal to hand over the entire Golan that was used by then Syrian dictator Hafez al Assad to withdraw from peace negotiations with Israel.
Unlike the Left's portrayal of Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli Prime Minister understood the realities of coexisting with the very same Arabs whose terrorism and anti-Semitism he fought throughout his military career.
Understanding the Enemy
Rabin was keenly aware that on the same day that Arafat shook hands with Clinton, Rabin, and Peres, and signed a peace agreement in the White House, the Palestinian arch-terrorist announced the following on Jordanian TV:
"Since we cannot defeat Israel in war we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel."
While the Israeli Left loves to remake Rabin as someone who wanted nothing more than to hand over critical parts of the Jewish homeland to Israel's enemies, Rabin wanted nothing of the sort.
Yitzhak Rabin was a brave soldier, a talented General and a good statesman. He knew very well of the danger involved in giving the Arabs the means to destroy Israel. Unlike today's Israeli Leftist politicians, he would have advised Sharon to avoid allowing the creation of a Palestinian State, and he would have opposed the return of the entire Golan heights to Syria.
But most of all, Rabin would have strongly condemned his political remaking at the hands of Leftists with whose positions he strongly disagreed. He never considered himself to be a saint, nor a cult of personality.
Advice for Sharon
Rabin would have supported the peace offered by Ariel Sharon, which is contingent upon Palestinian abandonment of terrorism and the setting of accountable milestones in the Palestinians' fulfillment of their obligations.
Much like Sharon, he would not have hesitated to strike back fiercely at the Palestinian terrorists, and he would have scoffed at the Leftists who have divided Israeli society using his name in the process.
Rabin was a good man of blessed memory. He should be remembered each year fondly. But his political positions should be understood clearly to be contrary to much of what is now being falsely attributed to him these days.
* * *
Comments?
The Remaking of Yitzhak Rabin
By Michael Rand
www.IsraelForum.com
Each year, as Israelis hold vigils in memory of slain Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, history is rewritten more and more. Rabin has become, not only a sanctified symbol of the Israeli Left, but an unwitting advocate for political positions which the late Prime Minster never embraced in his lifetime. Instead, the Israeli Left has shamelessly capitalized on Rabin's memory and put words in his mouth posthumously.
By remaking Rabin into a canonized radical Leftist, his real political positions have been silenced by the Left. But what would Saint Yitzhak say about his miraculous transformation, and what would he advise Prime Minister Sharon to do about the current wave of Palestinian terrorism?
To begin, let's look at what the Left has attributed to Rabin. In a nutshell, today's Leftists claim that Rabin fought for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, and that the 1993 Clinton/Arafat/Rabin agreement was to bring about a Palestinian state. This is absolutely a false claim. In fact, Rabin never supported a Palestinian state, and his positions on this subject were actually further to the Right than Ariel Sharon's.
Contrary to Leftist lore, Yitzhak Rabin never agreed to a Palestinian state, because he understood the grave danger in creating a terrorist Palestinian state right next door to their intended victims.
No Palestinian State
Those who consult the historical facts will find that the Oslo agreement never spelled out that the end result of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be a Palestinian state. This is because Rabin only agreed to grant the Palestinians "something more than autonomy, but less than a state." Those were his words.
Specifically, Rabin stated: "Although Labor and the Likud differ in their views on the solution to the Palestinian question, we both oppose in the strongest terms the creation of a Palestinian "mini-state" in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, first and foremost because it cannot solve anything." (Yitzhak Rabin, The Rabin Memoirs p. 334). In those same memoirs, Rabin summed up his views, "Palestine will rise upon the ruins of the State of Israel." Ironically, Center-Right Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called for the establishment of a full-blown Palestinian state upon the cessation of terrorism.
Still, the Left mistakenly claims that it was Rabin who was more supportive of a Palestinian state than the Likud leadership.
No Withdrawal from all the Golan
Apart from remaking Rabin's position on a Palestinian state, the Left also claims that Rabin was committed to a full withdrawal from the Golan. In truth, this was certainly not what Rabin conveyed to the Syrians during exhaustive negotiations.
Rabin informed the Syrians that Israel must hold on to strategic locations in the Golan that would enable Israel to maintain a strategic early-warning system, in light of Syria's past history of using the Golan as a military launch point to invade Israel. He also specified that Israel would hold on to several Jewish suburbs located near the Kineret (Sea of Galilee). In fact, it was Rabin's logical refusal to hand over the entire Golan that was used by then Syrian dictator Hafez al Assad to withdraw from peace negotiations with Israel.
Unlike the Left's portrayal of Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli Prime Minister understood the realities of coexisting with the very same Arabs whose terrorism and anti-Semitism he fought throughout his military career.
Understanding the Enemy
Rabin was keenly aware that on the same day that Arafat shook hands with Clinton, Rabin, and Peres, and signed a peace agreement in the White House, the Palestinian arch-terrorist announced the following on Jordanian TV:
"Since we cannot defeat Israel in war we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel."
While the Israeli Left loves to remake Rabin as someone who wanted nothing more than to hand over critical parts of the Jewish homeland to Israel's enemies, Rabin wanted nothing of the sort.
Yitzhak Rabin was a brave soldier, a talented General and a good statesman. He knew very well of the danger involved in giving the Arabs the means to destroy Israel. Unlike today's Israeli Leftist politicians, he would have advised Sharon to avoid allowing the creation of a Palestinian State, and he would have opposed the return of the entire Golan heights to Syria.
But most of all, Rabin would have strongly condemned his political remaking at the hands of Leftists with whose positions he strongly disagreed. He never considered himself to be a saint, nor a cult of personality.
Advice for Sharon
Rabin would have supported the peace offered by Ariel Sharon, which is contingent upon Palestinian abandonment of terrorism and the setting of accountable milestones in the Palestinians' fulfillment of their obligations.
Much like Sharon, he would not have hesitated to strike back fiercely at the Palestinian terrorists, and he would have scoffed at the Leftists who have divided Israeli society using his name in the process.
Rabin was a good man of blessed memory. He should be remembered each year fondly. But his political positions should be understood clearly to be contrary to much of what is now being falsely attributed to him these days.
* * *
Comments?