                      A Voice from Hebron
                     by Gary M. Cooperberg
                        August 12, 1996
                  Who murdered Yitzchak Rabin?
                Who murdered Israeli Democracy?

     The Israeli media is back to its old tricks using yellow journalism tactics to smear what it calls
the "right wing" and religious segment of Israeli society.  It seems that a TV crew discovered three
teenage girls who have taken to idolize Yigal Amir, the assassin of Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin. 
The girls, disguised under dark glasses and large hats, proudly displayed notebooks in which were
pasted newspaper photos of Amir and handwritten compositions about him.  The girls were
interviewed by a reporter and defiantly defended the actions of Amir as justifiable.
      In reaction to this revelation the haters on the left, led by the Meretz Party and Piece Now,
have brazenly accused the "right wing", the religious, and the State religious educational system, as
having fomented the atmosphere of hatred which led to the murder of the Prime Minister.  They hold
up the words of these teenagers as proof that these groups have not ceased their "activities" and
charge that, if a drastic crackdown does not take place we can expect to see more violence and
murder.
     Rather than stand up to this clear effort to simply smear a large segment of Israeli society by
pointing out the obvious fallacies in the accusations, as usual, representatives of all accused parties
have engaged in breast beating and lame apologies.  Unwittingly they have played right into the hands
of the haters.  In effect they have accepted guilt, for the words of three teenage girls, and for the
assassination of the Prime Minister.
     Even Chief Rabbi Lau blamed posters of Rabin dressed in an Arab kafia, and another depicting
the late Prime Minister in a Nazi uniform, as well as cat calls at demonstrations calling Rabin a traitor,
as contributing to the atmosphere which led to the assassination.  He declared that should it be found
that a teacher justified the assassination as acceptable, that teacher should be jailed.  He then voiced
his hope that no teacher would do such a thing.  The good Rabbi promised to visit Kiryat Gat, where
the interview took place, at the beginning of the school year to personally teach Jewish values to the
children there.
     The Chief Rabbi was interviewed on the evening news where the newscaster brazenly
suggested that Judaism sanctions violence and murder.  Rather than angrily denounce the allegations,
the Chief Rabbi denied them.  Using every low trick in the book, the television focused upon its
favorite scapegoat for all acts of violence, the late Rabbi Meir Kahane.  It showed a picture of the
Yeshiva of the Jewish Idea, along with a photo of Rabbi Kahane, followed by the reading of a song
dedicated to Dr. Baruch Goldstein which glorified his act at the Cave of Machpelah. . . people and
acts which were, in no way, related to the assassination.  Either you accept the "morality" of the
media, or you are evil.  Thus, every act which it finds hateful, is lumped together and laid on the
doorstep of Rabbi Kahane who himself was murdered long before these events took place and who
himself was victim to character assassination by the same media and the Israeli left.
     There is nothing more hateful than a Jew killing a fellow Jew.  But, if we are truly honest with
ourselves, we must examine the real causes which led up to such a violation of national, moral and
Jewish values.  It is easy to point fingers at posters and angry cat calls.  But that is not what caused
this terrible deed to take place.  The Peres- Rabin team had violated every democratic principle in the
book and broke their own laws when they secretly met with Arafat and, behind the backs of the
electorate, arranged to come to terms with the veritable symbol of Arab terror against Jews.  There
was no referendum held prior to such meetings, nor was it legal for them to have taken place.  Under
Knesset Law those who met secretly with Arafat and the PLO should have gone to jail!
     When over a quarter of a million Jews protested outside of the Prime Ministers office, Rabin
callously told them that they could all spin around like propellers and it would not move him one inch. 
Further, he ordered the Israeli Police to violently disperse the demonstrators.  We all know, too well,
how women and children were beaten with night sticks and trampled by horses by our zealous
policemen.   Water cannon were used on peaceful demonstrators as Israeli's were "taught" which
democratic principles were acceptable and which were not.
     As the world watched the PLO literally chase the IDF out as it vanquished Gaza and Jericho,
tearing down the Israeli flag and raising the flag of terror on Jewish soil, can anyone blame a Jewish
citizen for calling a government, which sanctioned such a display, a traitorous government?  This was
not an expression of causeless hatred or difference of opinion, it was a genuine reaction of pain
anguish and frustration.  When, in reaction to these natural expressions, the government randomly
arrested and imprisoned Jews without charges as well as adopted a policy of violent disruptions of
legally sanctioned peaceful demonstrations, is it any wonder that such posters appeared?
     Democracy was designed to prevent the underlying causes of revolution.  Revolutions take
place when those who are governed are severely oppressed and find no channel to express their
grievances.  It is out of desperation that they resort to violence and lawlessness.  This is why kings
were beheaded.  In a true democracy there are built-in channels to permit the expression of dissent. 
All agree, in principle, to the concept that the will of the majority must prevail.  In Rabin's case, he
openly defied the majority and declared himself the rightful authority to decide what is good for the
country.  Every avenue of dissent was quashed and dissenters beaten and imprisoned.  It was this
atmosphere of hopeless desperation which led a young idealistic Jew to commit such an extreme act
and even to consider it to have been morally acceptable.  
     Had the Prime Minister led his country by democratic principles, before taking steps which
were so sensitive and precedent-setting for the Jewish State, he would have sought approval from the
people he presumed to govern.  Before meeting with the terrorist leader, had he submitted a
referendum, and had the majority agreed to his proposal, he could have gone ahead with a clear
conscience and with far less opposition.   Had he shown deference for the democratic concept that
the Prime Minister is a public servant rather than a dictator, there is no question that such a terrible
reaction would never have taken place.
     There can be no doubt that the expressions voiced by these three girls are shared by a great
many citizens of Israel.  No revamping of the educational system can change this fact.  Instead of
instituting a new witch hunt to find fault with the victims of oppression to justify renewed tactics
employed by a police state, it would be far more sensible to acknowledge past mistakes and resolve
not to repeat them.  The answer is not to shut the mouths of those who express distasteful opinions. 
If those opinions are based upon immorality and falsehood then they will never stand up to the test
of democratic debate.  If we value democracy then we must take it all, not just that which pleases us. 
The very voices which shout out condemnation of whole segments of the Jewish State, calling for
their delegitimization, are again setting the stage for renewed frustration and violence. 

     
     