Column for December 1, 2005

 

Morris J. Amitay

 

Rabin Remembered

 

 

The recent commemorations both here and in Israel of the tenth anniversary of the assassination of former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin generated numerous commentaries on “what if he had lived?” Not surprisingly, many of these predictions were predicated more on wishful thinking and a dovish political orientation than on any real understanding of Rabin’s bedrock views.

 

Among the attempts to posthumously transform a firmly grounded military man into a saint-like peacenik, were the comments by such luminaries as Bill Clinton, Shimon Peres and Jacques Chirac. All three undoubtedly had their own personal agendas to promote. These ranged from Clinton’s making Rabin into his father figure, to Peres’ dissembling about a close relationship with someone who had despised him for many years, to Chirac’s pathetic words of praise in order to demonstrate that despite all the evidence to the contrary, the French leader was a good friend of Israel.

 

At the dedication of the new Rabin Center last month, Ariel Sharon had it right when he declared that Rabin’s “personal history did not start with Oslo”, and added that Rabin went into the Oslo process “carefully and skeptically”. Someone less kind might have mentioned that Rabin, reportedly had Oslo presented to him as a fait accompli by Peres and Belin. Sharon could, however, have noted that anyone who dealt with Rabin over the years knew he would never be a patsy for the Arabs, or be in any haste to “sell the store”.

 

While Rabin’s true legacy might indeed become a subject of debate for historians, it is fair to state that Rabin had no illusions about the goodwill and motives of his Arab adversaries. He was above all else a realist, and someone who stuck stubbornly to his positions. I had the privilege of getting to know Rabin when I was a Senate aide during his ambassadorship here from 1968 to 1973. I accompanied him to many of his Capitol Hill calls on Senate leadership and also spent a goodly amount of time with him at Israel’s old and cramped Embassy on 22nd Street. His major strategic goal then – and up until the day he was tragically murdered – was to secure Israel’s survival in a hostile region. During his time in Washington he was all business, rarely smiling, and prone to making his arguments in outline form with that deep, sonorous, bass voice of his. Social graces and small talk were definitely not his strong points on the Washington diplomatic scene.

 

Later on, during his first stint as Prime Minister, (when I served as AIPAC’s Executive Director) I would meet with him regularly in Israel either at his office or in his home. During his first visit here as Prime Minister, I recall trying to get a good “sound bite” into his address to the U.S. Congress. In the end, Rabin very reluctantly agreed to it. Luckily, it turned out to be the lead story in all of the media the next day. But it wasn’t an easy sell to a no nonsense general for whom substance outweighed style.

 

Over the years, as Rabin embraced political life, he mellowed, allowing himself more of his trademark half smiles – and even an occasional guffaw, usually at the expense of his political rivals. But his deep-rooted commitment to safeguard Israel’s security never did change. Rabin’s last speech to the Knesset on October 5, 1995, is the clearest indication of where he believed the “peace process” had to lead. It were these words, not his presence on the same stage with Shimon Peres (listening to the “Song of Peace”) that fateful night, that more accurately reflect where Rabin saw Israel’s future.

 

Rabin told the Knesset:

 

We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

 

We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.

 

And these are the main changes, not all of them, which we envision and want in the permanent solution:

 

A.     First and foremost, united Jerusalem, which will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev – as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty, while preserving the rights of the members of the other faiths, Christianity and Islam, to freedom of access and freedom of worship in their holy places, according to the customs of their faiths.

B.      The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.

C.     Changes which will include the addition of Gush Etzion, Efrat, Beitar and other communities, most of which are in the area east of what was the "Green Line," prior to the Six Day War.

D.     The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

 

Ten years later, this outline of what Israel’s future borders might look like seem eerily familiar to what we have been hearing of late from Rabin’s old comrade-in-arms, Ariel Sharon. Admittedly, in the course of ten years of “peace making” a “Palestinian entity” has morphed into the mantra of “two independent states living side by side, etc…” Rabin, it must be assumed, would have sought concrete benefits for agreeing to the two-state formula. But above all, how far he would have budged from his own “red lines” would have mainly depended on the actions of his adversary, Yasir Arafat.

 

I was at the White House lawn on September 13, 1993, when Clinton, literally, brought Rabin and Arafat together for that memorable handshake. If Rabin’s body language was any indication of his true feelings towards this despicable terrorist leader, you could tell that Rabin trusted Arafat just as far as he could throw him. And Rabin, certainly not a “dreamer” like Peres, with whom he shared this moment, would have quickly seen through Arafat’s lies, deceptions, and complete lack of any redeeming social value.

 

On that same occasion, I refused the well-meaning offer of the Counsel to the President (a former college and law school classmate) to shake Arafat’s hand. And, I have no doubt Rabin would have much preferred to have exercised that option.

 

If Yitzhak Rabin had lived, no one can truly know how history might have changed. But given the nature and motives of Israel’s enemies, a happy ending was then, and is still now beyond reach in my lifetime. While it is, indeed, fitting to pay tribute to one of Israel’s greatest leaders, those who portray him as a martyr for peace do little justice to Rabin and the real challenges Israel continues to face.

 

Morrie Amitay, a Washington attorney, is a former Executive Director of AIPAC and founder of the pro-Israel Washington PAC (www.washingtonpac.com).