Assumptions, Justifications and the Origins of Evil: The Assassination of Rabin and Goldstein's Massacre

When I first cast my cyberweb out into the blogosphere, one of the blogs I came across was "My Random Diatribes" at http://michaelmakovi.blogspot.com/.

A couple of days ago, he put up a post that caught my attention: Assassination of Rabin, Massacre by Goldstein.  I was strongly disturbed by what I read there and commented as such; the author responded, and his response was even more disturbing to me.

Normally I would have posted another comment on his blog, but I felt so strongly about what I wanted to say -- some of which is the product of my own thinking about Arab-Israeli issues over the past 20 years -- that I wanted to give it a home on my blog.  I will have a lot more to say about Israel and the Palestinians in the weeks and months to come, but this, well I couldn't not say something to this.

I recommend you read his post in its entirety before reading my interlineated response below.




Michael,

It is hard to know where to begin with your response/update. I'm tempted to let this go, because it's clear to me there are a number of underlying, unarticulated assumptions on which your arguments are based that (a) I believe are absolutely false but (b) ultimately involve value judgments that are not amenable to logic or reason. But I am going to respond not only because I can't in good Jewish conscience let your arguments stand unopposed, but because it seems to me that, while I find your position frankly odious and your reasoning deeply flawed, you seem to be trying to support your positions in good faith.

Before getting into the meat of your position, there is something I need to discuss. I'm not going to try to persuade you that you're looking at Goldstein the wrong way, though I believe you are indeed wrong and could marshal what I think is considerable evidence and reasoning to support my side. I think the task would be futile. Instead I want to do something at once more basic and more important: to highlight the effects of your assumptions on the conclusions you draw and to make the case that your assumption is not the only possible one. I apologize in advance for the length of this argument, but I feel that it is important to state it clearly; in my opinion, the role of assumptions in shaping conclusions is really what is at the root of the problem.

Obviously you believe that in a basic, overall sense, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the "fault" of the Palestinians/Arabs and that were it not for their intransigence, obstructionism, or what have you, the conflict would have been solved years ago or, perhaps, never even begun. Obviously you are aware that the other side sees things differently, perhaps the other way around. Each side views its own actions as necessary, legitimate responses to the other side's provocations, while the other side views these actions as unprovoked, illegitimate and criminal. One side says, our response X is in response to your prior criminal act Y, while the other side, unsurprisingly, says our act Y was in response to your prior criminal act Z. And so on and so on. One side says it "all started" when A happened, the other side says it "all began" when B happened. My point, mind you, is not to say which side is right or wrong in an absolute sense, only that, from each side's relative perspective, it is right and the other wrong.

But let's say for the sake of argument that we found incontrovertible facts establishing that one side's view of the conflict's historical origins was "right" and the other's "wrong." And let's say further that the facts showed the Israeli version of history to be "right" and the Palestinian version "wrong." (For many, many reasons I think this is impossible, but this debate gets complicated and in any case doesn't bear on the argument I'm trying to make here. The short version is that history is not science; historical facts don't "speak" their conclusions to us like chemistry and physics; human beings must bring their own value judgments to bear on which facts are more important. The problem is that disagreements over which values to employ in deciding which facts are important cannot themselves be adjudicated with facts.)

In any case, my simple question to you is: So what if the Israeli version of history to be "right" and the Palestinian version "wrong"? Even if history tells us who did what first, political realities tell us a very different, much messier story. Actions and reactions accrete over decades into political institutions and socioeconomic factors that have little, if any, relationship with their origins. Politics fundamentally is not about what is right and wrong, it's about the relative distribution of power and the implications of that distribution. This is not to say that ethical considerations play no role in politics, only that political problems by their nature can't be resolved decisively in academic journals or scholarly debates. If every journalist, academic, pundit and opinion-maker in the western world said Israel was right and the Palestinians wrong, would that end the conflict?

Okay, so what's the point of all this? The point is that if you start from the assumption that a particular Israeli version of history is "right," it will invariably lead you to interpret the details of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in ways very different than if you began with the assumption that, say, a particular Palestinian version of history is "right." One could also begin with the assumption that neither side has a monopoly on historical accuracy or even that historical accuracy cannot be determined, but that's a topic for another time. My point is that different assumptions shape the perception and interpretation of events differently.

Why does this matter? You wrote in your update that "it is only when you come to Israel and see things firsthand that you must take a closer look, and realize things are not so simple. My basic core beliefs have barely changed, but my greater knowledge of the facts on the ground in Israel have made all the difference." But as I think I've made clear, there is no such thing as an objective "closer look." You went to Israel with your personal set of underlying assumptions about the nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (i.e., what you describe as your "basic core beliefs"), and those assumptions shaped your "greater knowledge of the facts on the ground" in ways that lead you to the conclusions expressed in your post; someone else could go to Israel with a different set of underlying assumptions that would shape their interpretation of events in very different ways. Neither of you would be right or wrong; you would be bringing different assumptions and values to bear on the interpretation of the same facts. How do we know this is the case? If you were right, that "only when you come to Israel and see things firsthand" are you able to gain "greater knowledge of the facts on the ground" leading inexorably to certain conclusions, then all Israelis living in Israel would be unified in their political beliefs vis-à-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Obviously this is false, not because some see "the facts on the ground" while others don't, but because different Israelis have different underlying assumptions and value judgments that lead them to interpret these facts differently.

My argument in short: The facts do not speak for themselves. One's underlying assumptions and value judgments, when left unexamined and unarticulated, can play a decisive role in which facts are viewed as important and what these facts "say." Assumptions and values shape the subjective interpretation of the facts.

Now let's turn to your response.

Update: In response to "rogueregime" in the comments, let me explain myself:

When I first came to Israel, all I had was my support for the Zionist enterprise in general (which I still possess) and my belief that Judaism values all of humanity in general (which I still believe). In other words, I generally believed that G-d was returning the Jews to Israel, and that all of humanity and human knowledge were valuable and lovely. On my blog, I often write about these topics, and some readers have said that my gathering of sources on appreciation and love for gentiles in Jewish sources is some of the most comprehensive work they've seen on the subject.

Suffice it to say, then, the whole Baruch Goldstein massacre was wrenching to every fiber of my being. When on TV I'd see Baruch Marzel celebrating Goldstein, I could not understand how such horrific people could exist on earth. It absolutely disgusted me. It was a perversion of Judaism; it was a betrayal of basic humanity.

So far, so good.

But it is only when you come to Israel and see things firsthand that you must take a closer look, and realize things are not so simple. My basic core beliefs have barely changed, but my greater knowledge of the facts on the ground in Israel have made all the difference.

On the one hand, you are absolutely right: experiencing a different society firsthand can give you a very different perspective than if you never visited. But as I've argued above, you went to Israel with your own personal set of assumptions and value judgments, and it was through the lens of these preconceived ideas that you interpreted the "facts on the ground" and, really, that you decided which "facts on the ground" would be worth interpreting in the first place. Someone else, with different assumptions and value judgments, might very well come to very different conclusions than you.

One comes to Israel and realizes that the Israeli Left is taking Israel to hell in a handbasket, and doing nothing at all whatsoever to stop terrorism. The Left in fact hands land and AK-47s to terrorists, almost in reward for their acts of murder.

I will let go for the meantime the factual silliness of claiming that the Israeli left hands out AK-47s to people as rewards for their killing innocent civilians. What I will point out, though, is the rather obvious point that what you're offering here is your opinion – your interpretation of Israeli politics, which is colored in the first instance by your underlying assumptions and value judgments. Lots of people go to Israel and most certainly do not realize "that the Israeli Left is taking Israel to hell in a handbasket, and doing nothing at all whatsoever to stop terrorism." You state as self-evident fact what is most certainly neither self-evident nor a fact.

So the first thing that occurred to me was: if the Israeli army and government do nothing at all to stop terrorism, then what else are people like Goldstein supposed to do? If they legitimately and sincerely want to stop terrorism - with no racism at all in their hearts, but only hatred of terrorism - what do I expect them to do? The IDF is doing nothing at all, and Goldstein has no army of his own to calmly and properly conduct investigations and searches.

I suppose if you believe living in a barbed-wire ringed, West Bank settlement armed to the teeth with automatic weapons is living without protection or security, the Goldstein might be viewed as a vigilante. I'm curious to know, though, what you expected the British to do when they occupied Palestine. I mean, "If they legitimately and sincerely want[ed] to stop terrorism - with no racism at all in their hearts, but only hatred of terrorism - what do [you] expect them to [have done]?" If you start from the assumption that Jews have a God-given right to (a) occupy the Holy Land and (b) kill anyone who gets in the way of that goal, then of course you think the British were wrong then, and the Israelis right today. But can't you even admit the possibility that what one thinks is right or wrong in a given situation is basically a product of their beliefs and values? You think God wants Jews to live in the West Bank and that anyone who says otherwise is "wrong." But Palestinians don't view settlements in the same way and never have. They view these settlements as foreign occupation. So using your logic, slightly rephrased: "if the Palestinian leadership does nothing at all to stop Israelis from expropriating Palestinian land, then what are Palestinians supposed to do? If Palestinians legitimately and sincerely want to stop the occupation - with no racism at all in their hearts, but only hatred of foreign occupation - what do you expect them to do? The Palestinian leadership is doing nothing at all, and Palestinians have no army of their own with which to resist occupation." So of course they should indiscriminately kill civilians. Right?

My thinking on Rabin matured as well. I realized that the Oslo Accords did nothing but to endanger innocent human life, by giving land to unrepentant terrorists who openly and unabashedly admitted to intention to commit terrorism in the future. In Israel, Oslo is known as "when peace broke out". The very day of Oslo, my rabbi was driving from Jerusalem to his home in Beit El (in the West Bank). On the way, the IDF stopped him and diverted him to a side-road. My rabbi asked why he couldn't take the main road anymore to Beit El. Remember, this is the very day Oslo occurred. The IDF told my rabbi that the main road was no longer safe to drive on, because of Oslo. The very day of Oslo, the IDF already recognized that Oslo compromised the safety of innocent human life. My rabbi added that he had been a kashrut supervisor (mashgiah) in an Arab factory, but that Oslo made it too dangerous for him to travel to the factory anymore, and thus, the Arab factory's kashrut certification lapsed. Because of Oslo, this personal (and potentially peace-inspiring) interaction between Arabs and Jews ceased.

Can you, with a straight face, say that Oslo was what caused peaceful interaction between Arabs and Jews to stop? I'm sorry, but are you kidding?

So I realized that with the IDF doing nothing to ensure peace and safety, vigilantes had nothing else to do but to go solo. This still troubled me, and gave me tremendous discomfort. I had an inestimable amount of cognitive dissonance. The idea of individual vigilantes taking on the IDF's job troubled me terribly, but I had to admit that I didn't have a better idea. If only the IDF would do its job, then Goldstein wouldn't have to...

So if my local police won't do anything about the gangs in my neighborhood, it's okay to take an M-16 and kill everyone on the street corner?

So if the State of Israel won't stop settlers from coming into my village and shooting up the place, it's okay for me to blow up a school bus of their children?

So if the U.N. can't get Iran to stop its pursuit of nuclear weapons, it's okay for the U.S. to launch a first-strike and destroy the entire country, killing millions of people?

So if I think abortions are murder, but my government allows them to talk place, it's okay for me to shoot doctors who perform them, or politicians who vote to allow them, or women who have them?

So where do you draw the line?

As regards Oslo, I had to admit: given the objective and indisputable fact that Oslo led directly to the loss of innocent human life, what else was Rabin but a murderer? If I'd assassinate a common street murderer, why should a political figure be any different? If Rabin were faceless anonymous man who murdered before my eyes, I'd surely murder him in return. Why should a political figure be any different?

First of all, what you say here is profoundly sick. Let's just get that out of the way.

Second, every Israeli Prime Minister since 1948 has sent troops into battle. Some of them have been killed; they have killed others, military and civilian. Do you think they are murderers? Do you think Palestinians think they are murderers? What makes you right and they wrong?

Third, and to slightly restate the second point, heads of state – at least democratically-elected heads of state – are fundamentally different than you or me. As commanders-in-chief of their armed forces, part of their job is to send troops into battle when they think it is in the interests of national security to do so. That doesn't mean every action of every soldier sent into every battle in every circumstance is morally justifiable (see Waltzer's Just and Unjust Wars), but it certainly means that the head of state isn't a murderer every time a soldier pulls a trigger somewhere in the world. Is it news to you that the demands of state security are different than the demands of personal security? If you don't see the difference between a Hamas suicide bomber and Yitzhak Rabin, I feel deeply sorry for you.

Fourth, perhaps you would kill someone who you witnessed commit murder. If you did it to save a life, yours or someone else's, it would be self-defense. If you did it to kill him as punishment, then you're committed one of the Torah's most grievous sins and a murder who should spend the rest of his life in prison. In civilized societies, including Israel, I might add, people don't go around killing people whenever they feel doing so is "just."

Back to Goldstein: in fact, the muezzins (Muslim prayer callers) in Hebron had for days been yelling "Itbah al yahud" ("Slaughter on the Jews!"). Days before the Baruch Goldstein massacre, the IDF had told Goldstein (who was an IDF physician) to stockpile medical supplies, in expectation of an Arab massacre. Goldstein asked the IDF why they wouldn't stop the massacre in advance, and the IDF replied that Oslo tied their hands. Jewish lives were going to be sacrificed on the altar of Oslo. (Related in Moshe Feiglin, Where There are No Men.)

Do you think it's all right to kill other people who have done nothing but who you think will attack you at some point in the future? Why not drop nuclear bombs on all Arab capitals tomorrow? I mean, they might attack Israel at some point in the future, right?

If your sense of morality is based only on what personally matters to you, then it is no morality whatsoever.

So thanks to Oslo, Goldstein was faced with the very real prospect of an Arab massacre of Jews, both by report of the IDF and of the muezzins in Hebron. Goldstein perhaps overreacted. But what else should he have done? The IDF told him that they'd do nothing to stop terrorism. Goldstein had no choice but to stand by silently, or to take matters into his own hands.

Your biased, simplistic reading of the facts leads you to your conclusion.

Goldstein could have – and should have – done what pretty much everyone else knows to be both true and morally justifiable: If he honestly thought an attack was in the works, he should have (a) prepared to defend himself, his family and his community; (b) waited until the attack was immanent – not "possible" or "likely" but literally on the way; (c) employed force proportionate to the scope of provocation; and (d) directed the use of force specifically against those actually carrying arms to be used against him, his family and/or community. Just like Israel did in 1967.

As for Rabin, I might add that by his own admission, he was directly responsible for the murder of all those aboard the Altalena. As related by Moshe Feiglin, Rabin proudly admitted that he was responsible for the Haganah's murder of those aboard the Altalena, because it was carrying weapons for the rival Irgun group. So Rabin was a common petty murderer, by his own explicit and proud admission. The only argument against assassinating him, then, is that practically, it did no good. Murdering him only made him a martyr and strengthened his cause. But were it not for this pragmatic consideration...

You really have a poor, biased grasp of Israeli history if this is what you honestly think.

A discussion of the Altalena is way beyond the scope of what can be done here. I do have a question, though: If Rabin truly was a "common petty murderer, by his own explicit and proud admission" as you describe, then why wasn't he ever charged for the crime? Sharon could have charged him. Bibi could have done it. Why didn't they do it? I'm curious to know your explanation for this.

But I do want to make a comment on your position that "The only argument against assassinating [Rabin], then, is that practically, it did no good. Murdering him only made him a martyr and strengthened his cause. But were it not for this pragmatic consideration..." I'm sorry to say, but this is sick; people who believe such things have no place in civilized, democratic societies. In democracies, you vote with the ballot, not the bullet. The great evils of the past century began with your brand of thinking, of justifying murder based on so-called "pragmatic" considerations.

Rabin's Oslo was directly responsible for Goldstein's having to do what he did. In fact, we could say that Rabin is guilty of the deaths Goldstein caused. If it hadn't been for Oslo, then the IDF, not Goldstein, would have killed the terrorists. And obviously, if the IDF were to do the action instead, it'd have been able to investigate who to kill and how, how to avoid the deaths of innocent civilians, etc. Goldstein lacked an army and an investigative apparatus, so all he could do is "spray and pray" with an automatic rifle; he could not investigate individual targets or conduct searches of homes for weapons caches, etc. Had the IDF done its job, many innocent Arab lives might have been spared. So if Goldstein did anything wrong, the blame falls on Rabin who tied the IDF's hands, not Goldstein.

I would call this pure silliness except for the deep evil that lies at its heart. Baruch Goldstein, an autonomous, rational human being picked up a machine gun and killed 29 people. If you want to remove responsibility from him and place it somewhere else – on a head of state, an international agreement – then no human being is ever responsible for anything he or she ever does.  Concentration Camp guards?  They're not murderers, it was Hitler and Eichmann. Hitler and Eichmann? They're not murderers, it was the leaders of Britain, France and the U.S., who punished Germany so severely at Versailles after the end of WWI that it caused the eventual economic and social collapse that made possible and led to the rise of the Third Reich. The 9/11 terrorists? They're not murderers, it's the State of Israel, whose policies vis-à-vis the Palestinians directly led Mohammad Atta et al to take action. With your brand of sick logic, there is nowhere to draw the line.

All this still troubles me. It sickens me to have to justify assassinations and massacres. I'm naturally a peaceful person; I used to wrestle, but I had to stop because even though I was skilled enough at it, I simply didn't have the heart for it, to hit another person. So for me to support Goldstein not only goes against what I'd like to believe, but it even goes against my basic personality. I'm a born pacifist. Golda Meir said, "We can perhaps forgive you for killing our children, but we cannot forgive you for forcing us to kill your children". For myself, I'd say, "I can perhaps forgive you for killing us, but I cannot forgive you for forcing me to justify Goldstein." I shouldn't have to wonder whether Goldstein was justified. It should be the easiest thing in the world for me to decry a man walking into a place of worship and shooting unarmed men. I shouldn't have to wonder whether that is justified. But the Arabs have stolen that innocence from me. The Arabs have forced me to side with Goldstein, and for that, I cannot forgive them.

You know, I started writing all this wanting to give you the benefit of the doubt, but now, have reread and reflected on the venomous things you say about Rabin and the extent to which you believe politically-motivated murder is morally justifiable, I'm starting to wonder if really you're trying to frame a wolf's arguments in sheep's words.

You say this "sickens" you, but frankly it doesn't seem that way at all; you seem pretty okay with what Goldstein and Amir did. You effectively blame dead Palestinians for their own murders, then curse them for putting you in the position of having to support Goldstein.

You may have been born a pacifist, but you sure ain't one now.

(Do not misunderstand me. I'm not saying I would repeat any of these actions (G-d forbid), whether Amir's or Goldstein's. One can search everything I've ever written, and one could even search everything and I've ever said, and I guarantee, one will not hear a single utterance by me of advocacy to commit a second Goldstein massacre in another mosque, or advocacy to assassinate Livni or Olmert or Sharon or Netanyahu. Others - usually Israeli Leftists, in fact - have advocated the assassination of Israeli leaders (see Feiglin, Where There are No Men), but so far as I know (Feiglin, ibid.), no prominent right-wing Israelis, by contrast with the Left, have advocated violence against Israeli political figures, and neither will I. Similarly, while Baruch Marzel will celebrate Goldstein, I've never seen him advocate a repetition; I've only seen him stage protest marches through Arab villages. By contrast, Yeshayahu Leibowitz (of the Left) would refer to IDF soldiers as "Judeo-Nazis", and unless he was being hyperbolic with extremely poor taste, I can only assume that he was subtly hinting for IDF soldiers to be treated as Nazis should be. But as against this Leftist advocacy (or veiled suggestion) of violence, no one on the right, as far as I know, advocates a second Amir or Goldstein. Thank G-d.)

It is totally disingenuous for you to say that you "guarantee, one will not hear a single utterance by [you] of advocacy to commit a second Goldstein massacre in another mosque, or advocacy to assassinate Livni or Olmert or Sharon or Netanyahu." You just got done justifying the murder of Rabin and Goldstein's slaughter. If the same circumstances were repeated, do you seriously intend for me to believe that your position would be that the Israeli PM shouldn't be assassinated or that a West Bank settler shouldn't kill a group of unarmed Palestinians?!?

Your entire post absolutely justifies, advocates, explains, and excuses these murderous actions. It's not surprising that you'd try to portray yourself otherwise. Just like Kahane and the string of right-wing Israeli religious figures whose writings, teachings and speeches provided the fodder for Amir to justify killing Rabin, saying that you're not justifying murder doesn't make it so.