The “I’s” Of Yitzhak Rabin
Prefatory statement, November 11, 2003: Because it is inappropriate to disparage a dead person, the article below would not be republished were it not for the Left’s shameless exploitation of Yitzhak Rabin’s tragic assassination. Exalting the name of the slain prime minister as a means of demonizing the religious and nationalist camp is not only immoral; it also harms Israel’s reputation—already sullied—among the nations. Although Mr. Rabin had serious character flaws and must be held largely responsible for Oslo and its toll in Jewish blood, the shedding of his own blood was a heinous crime, and we shudder that such a crime was committed by a Jew. But now there has been so much left-wing falsehood regarding Yitzhak Rabin and so much left-wing slander of those who opposed Oslo, that we must set the record straight about this tragic prime minister.
August 1994
In a clinical analysis of Yitzhak Rabin published in the March 1994 issue of Nativ: A Journal of Politics and the Arts, psychologist Netta Kohn Dor-Shav revealed certain pathonomic signs in Rabin’s character.
Among the signs discussed by Dr. Dor-Shav is Rabin’s “megalomanic” tendencies, especially inordinate “self-reference.” This was abundantly confirmed on July 25 when President Clinton, King Hussein, and Mr. Rabin offered toasts (of roughly equal lengths) at a White House dinner celebrating the Israel-Jordan Declaration of Principles signed that day. In Clinton’s toast, the president used the first person “I” two times. King Hussein used the “I” ten times. Mr. Rabin used the “I” no less than 33 times!
Shades of Louis XIV, famously identified with the phrase “L’etat c’est moi.” But Mr. Rabin was not speaking as the personification of the Jewish State. To the contrary, his remarks clearly indicate that Rabin was speaking solely in reference to himself.
In his toast, Rabin spoke of “two main obstacles” to peace between Arabs and Jews. “One of them,” he said, “is the psychological obstacle, the wall which is built on prejudices on both sides … But it looks that [sic] the practical issues have been magnified, have been seen by both sides as much more complicated, bigger, more difficult, because of the psychological wall.”
Notice the reduction of the ideological conflict between Arabs and Jews to psychology, to the subrational. It was as if the conflict were based on some subjective error or misconception rather than on any objective issue or empirical evidence, such as Islam’s 1,300-year history as a militant and autocratic creed.
Never mind King Hussein having once said “kill Jews wherever you find them, kill them with your hands, with your nails and teeth.” Perhaps he had overcome his blood-curdling hatred or prejudice against Jews or had undergone a religious conversion. But only earlier this year Rabin publicly denounced Hussein for permitting Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood terrorists to make their headquarters in Jordan!
Nevertheless, Rabin would have us believe that Arabs and Jews are merely and equally prejudiced about each other. Of course, Israel’s prime minister is free from such prejudice. For example, Rabin is free from the “prejudice” that Judaism embodies the highest standard of how man should live (a prejudice shared, by the way, by eminent Gentiles). Rabin is also free from the “prejudice” of most Jews in Israel—conveyed in a 1992 pre-election survey—that Arabs have no right to any part of Eretz Yisrael.
For Rabin the problems dividing Jews and Arabs are primarily “practical” ones: borders, security, water, economy, etc. These problems can only be exacerbated by “ideology,” i.e., by religion, Zionism, and moralistic jargon about democracy versus autocracy. Rabin is a “practical” man: ideologically neutral, neither religious nor Zionist nor fervently democratic. Lacking religion or any national ideology, no wonder he cannot transcend his ego, his self-reference, his insufferable “I’s.”
Focus a moment on religion. The great historical struggle of religion, more specifically of ethical monotheism, is against paganism and man’s natural tendency toward egotism, i.e., toward self-preference or self-reference. In fact, one definition of paganism is the worship of one’s desires, sometimes couched in rituals in which man seeks to appease the gods in order to fulfill his own will and wishes.
There are various sorts of gods. One is called “peace.” In the process of appeasing this god—whose temple seems to be at the White House—Mr. Rabin has exposed himself not only as a pathonomic egotist, but as one whose reduction of the Arab-Jewish conflict to prejudice makes a mockery not only of Judaism but of Islam.
Consistent with his overweening ego is Rabin’s notorious inability to tolerate criticism or opposition. To call Jewish settlers “hooligans” who peacefully demonstrate against the government’s withdrawal toward the 1949 armistice lines is symptomatic of a weak but arrogant ego. The same may be said when Rabin stalks out of the Knesset—as he often does—when sharply questioned by the (rather impotent) opposition. Such intolerant and megalomanic behavior confirms Dr. Dor-Shav’s (more extensive) diagnosis of Rabin’s flawed character.
Because he is intolerant and overbearing, Rabin has gained a reputation of being a man of “iron will.” Yet he has yielded time and again to the most atrocious demands of Yasser Arafat, the head of a mere band of terrorists.
Moreover, as a man alienated from the Jewish heritage, indeed, as a man devoid of any coherent ideology, Rabin is quite susceptible to the will of others, be it Arabs or his old rival Shimon Peres. Rabin’s very egotism compels him to try and upstage Peres by making insane concessions to the Arabs. By so doing he is applauded as a champion of peace and as the most eligible candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Knowing this, Peres can easily manipulate Rabin. The “I’s” of Rabin may well be symptomatic of Israel’s greatest danger.
