Disraeli is reputed to have said that “lies, damned lies, and statistics” belong together. Many ostensible tributes to Yitzhak Rabin, Israel’s assassinated prime minister, deserve to be relegated to the same category.
Last year, in a ceremony at Bet HaNassi in Jerusalem, Dalia Rabin told assembled dignitaries and schoolchildren that her father “understood” there was a “need” to “separate into two states.” Her assertion was solemnly reported, without comment, by Yediot Aharonot, Israel’s largest daily.
This year, The New Yorker, in a book review timed to correspond with the 20-year anniversary of the Rabin assassination, alleged that Rabin “may have favored giving the Palestinians their own state” – though acknowledging that “if so, he never said so publicly.”
Also clearly timed to coincide with the 20th Rabin assassination commemoration, the WJC’s Ronald Lauder wrote in both the Jerusalem Post and Huffington Post advocating “a two-state solution.” This, he said, was in view of the importance of “following the example of… Rabin.”
And right in time for the Rabin memorial day, former prime minister and president Shimon Peres seized the opportunity to write a tribute to Rabin, in which he claimed that “Rabin’s government … sought … two states for two peoples” since otherwise “there shall be one continuous tragedy for both peoples.”
The truth, without any shadow of doubt, is that Yitzhak Rabin opposed the notion of a Palestinian state. In 1993 Rabin gave an interview to Time magazine’s Lisa Beyer; the headline was “I Am Opposed to a Palestinian State.” A similar statement by Rabin is on record in The New York Times in 1994 (accessible via Wikipedia’s “Oslo Accords” entry).
Robert Slater wrote about Rabin’s no-Palestinian-state position in his biography of Rabin. The Labor Party platform on which Rabin was elected, which opposes a Palestinian state, can still be found online. Rabin’s Knesset speech opposing a Palestinian state is also available (in Israel’s state documents) on the web. And Neri Avneri, an irrepressible Israeli activist, has posted a videotape of Rabin voicing opposition to a Palestinian state; it’s just a Google keystroke away for anyone who knows Hebrew.
Given all this, it is amazing how many prominent figures and institutions are participating in an active quest to prop up the bankrupt (literally and figuratively) Palestinian state notion, often (ab)using Rabin’s name for this purpose.
Recent events are being falsified; the Israeli public and the Jewish people in general are being deceived. The credibility and usefulness of valuable Jewish organizations with excellent reputations are being sacrificed to promote the Palestinian state notion.
Look at the current version of the AIPAC mission statement, for example, or the recent statement released by the WJC, which, under an innocuous headline (“World Jewish Congress Slams Palestinian ‘Culture of Hate’ ”) reveals the real business of the day: that “a resolution passed during [WJC’s] Governing Board meeting…reaffirmed … a two-state solution.”
Just as amazing is the number of prominent persons, even professional journalists, who actually believe the lies being told or are genuinely unaware of the truths not being told. For example, in 2012 the Times of Israel was amazed to obtain a letter written less than a year before Rabin’s assassination, in which the ultimate Rabin loyalist, Eitan Haber, confirmed yet again (to Shmuel Fisher, a public affairs buff from Petach Tikva) that Rabin opposed a Palestinian state.
The Times of Israel article noted that the Oslo Accords “do not mention” Palestinian statehood, and that Rabin “did not publicly call” for a Palestinian state.
It is both amusing and sad to observe Haber’s responses when interviewed about the Fisher letter by the Times of Israel’s Raphael Ahren. Haber, who clearly regretted being instrumental in letting the cat out of the bag, initially claimed he “did not remember” sending the letter. Faced with the document, he had to admit “It’s really possible that we sent such a letter.”
Nonetheless, he hemmed and hawed, it is “difficult for me to believe…we wrote this.” He continued vacillating: “It’s possible. I really don’t [know]. I don’t want to tell you yes or no.” Asked point-blank whether Rabin believed in a Palestinian state, Haber claimed he “couldn’t say with certitude,” then posited that Rabin “was ready to” agree to such a state. Haber then backtracked again, saying, “It’s possible that [Rabin] would have agreed – or maybe not.”
Will Israel’s leaders have enough foresight to deliver us from the threat of a Palestinian state just a bike-ride away from Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and Ben Gurion airport? That depends on whether Rabin’s legacy will truly guide them – or not.