PM's Absence From Rabin Memorial Sparks National Debate

On October 22, Israel marked 31 years since the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. While the government was represented at memorial ceremonies, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself was absent, and no official government speech was delivered at the main ceremony on Mount Herzl. The article argues that this absence is significant, suggesting that while the state was present, its leader's choice not to attend and speak sent a message of silence. Such state ceremonies are described as public symbols of how the nation remembers fallen leaders and transmits societal values to future generations. The author posits that while government representatives are important, they cannot substitute for the Prime Minister's personal presence to express respect and unequivocally condemn violence, incitement, and delegitimization in political discourse.

The timing of the ceremony, five days before upcoming Knesset elections, raises questions about whether political or electoral considerations outweighed the national duty to attend. The piece draws a parallel to the events preceding Rabin's assassination in October 1995, when Benjamin Netanyahu, then opposition leader, was present at a rally where Rabin was depicted in Nazi SS uniform and faced harsh verbal attacks. Although Netanyahu and others present have stated they did not see the poster at the time, and Yigal Amir is solely responsible for the murder, the article raises a broader public question about a leader's responsibility when political discourse crosses boundaries, demonizes opponents, and fosters a climate of humiliation and division.

The author reflects on the legacies of Ze'ev Jabotinsky and Menachem Begin, emphasizing their concepts of "Betari dignity" and responsibility. Jabotinsky's ideal demanded integrity, respect for others, and self-discipline, extending to how one speaks of opponents. Begin, despite fierce political opposition, drew a line against internal Jewish violence, as articulated in his 1944 article "There Shall Be No Civil War." This is presented not as a lesson in compromise, but in responsibility, recognizing the opposing camp as part of the same nation. The article concludes that a leader's legacy is tested by their actions and the boundaries they set, particularly in managing disputes without humiliation or incitement, and by showing up when their presence signifies national values.

The piece laments the erosion of a culture of respect and responsibility, which can occur when leaders remain silent, absent themselves, or permit divisiveness to become normalized. This cultural erosion, the author warns, impacts the example set for children and the future of Israeli society. The absence from the memorial is framed as not merely a symbolic or ceremonial void, but a cultural, ethical, and social one, reflecting on the kind of society Israel is building.