The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 was a dastardly deed that shocked the entire Jewish state. It cannot be erased from the national conscience, and the deep feelings of shock and horror are reviewed annually at the memorial ceremonies. This year was no exception. An innovation, however, was a symposium in print on the subject: What would have occurred if Rabin had not been killed?
Of course the expectations depend on who had been chosen to express their views, and Moshe Ronen, in Yediot Achronot, sought to provide spokespersons for a cross-section of Israeli opinions.
The first was Michael Harsagur, a historian. In his opinion, Rabin would have come into the 1996 elections with a clear program leading to peace, and on that platform would have been re-elected. On the Arab demand for the right of return of the refugees, he would have offered very generous restitution payments instead, the cost to be covered with the help of the international community. As for Syria, he would have permitted Hafez Assad to wade in the waters of the Sea of Galilee by giving up the entire Golan Heights. On that basis he would again have been returned to power in the 2000 elections, and if his health had permitted, he would still be prime minister. He would have been invited as guest of honor at the proclamation of the establishment of the state of Palestine, and peace would have reigned in our area.
Eliezer Haetzni, one of the leaders of the settlements in the West Bank, had different views. If Rabin had lived, he would have had only one more year in his term as prime minister and would have sought re-election on the basis of his efforts for peace. But those would have led to a dead end, terrorism and a demand for return of all the refugees. The result — a smashing victory for the right, and the election of Benjamin Netanyahu.
Netanyahu however, would have missed opportunities, and Rabin would again have been returned to leadership. This time, faced with a stalemate, he would have followed a determined line. He was a man of principles, and with a backbone. He would never have given up Jerusalem. Faced with terror and intifada, he would have come down hard upon the Arabs. He would have reconquered the entire area and ousted the Palestinian Authority. Yasser Arafat would have been back in Tunis. In Haetzni’s opinion, the scoundrel who killed Rabin did enormous harm to the cause of the right.
Yossi Sarid, member of the Knesset and leader of the opposition to the Sharon government, maintained that with his peace program Rabin would have been re-elected in 1996, albeit against opposition. He would have withdrawn from the Golan Heights, leading to peace with Syria, and would have reached an understanding acceptable to the Palestinians. Conditions today would have been reasonable — not a Garden of Eden, but certainly not hell. We would have had peace with both Syria and the Palestinians.
Motti Lerner, a literary personality, felt that because of the confidence between Rabin and Arafat, more territory would have been handed over. It would have been clear that Israel had to yield even more. Rabin would have been ready to give up the Golan Heights, but would have faced great opposition at home. Another assassin would have appeared, and Rabin would have been killed. He was a realist, and knew that he was destined to die. His successor would not have been able to reach any peace agreement, and Arafat would have responded, as he had now, with the intifada.
Most of them are not very pleasant reading. We recall that in 1993, two years before his death, we Israelis sought to analyze the situation and imagined Rabin’s thought processes as follows:
“Israel cannot continue to live in an armed fortress, subject to constant attacks from within and from without…We must take a courageous step toward being more conciliatory, more compliant…There is obviously a great risk, which we must take. We should be prepared to go to the very brink…If I know the Arabs well, they will never be able to deliver their end of the peace which we offer. Arafat will not be able to control the dissidents within his own ranks, not to speak of the fundamentalists who will be intent on wrecking any attempt at conciliation. Terrorism will continue. The Palestinians will come up with more and more demands which the Israeli public — and the world, too –will see as unreasonable and as a genuine threat to Israel’s security. For our part, we shall be prepared to stretch the line to the very limits. And then, when it is obvious that there are no limits to the insatiable Arab appetite, we shall have every reason to call the whole thing off, and the world will know who is to blame. In short, I shall follow a policy of brinkmanship…”
There is much more along these lines, and we concluded our imaginary foray with the question: “How far to the brink is he prepared to go?”