On October 17, 2001 Tourism Minister Rehavam Zeevi was assassinated by Arab terrorists who shot three bullets into him. While there had been many warnings concerning a possible attempt on the life of the minister and his name was even included on a terrorist hit list, he did not have any protection by the Israeli secret service (the ?Shabak?).
In the words of President Moshe Katsav he was ?one of the country?s greatest patriots.? A man who constantly wore around his neck dog-tags with the names of Israeli MIAs on them. A man who, even when vacationing, did it for the sake of the Jewish people. So he was murdered at the Hyatt Hotel, defending the right of Jews to live in east Jerusalem. Most people don?t even know that in the original version of the famous picture depicting Israeli generals coming through the Lions Gate on the day of liberation of the Old City in 1967 there were not three Israeli generals but four. Zeevi, who walked to one side of the group, was simply cut out of the frame.
He taught us that the Arabs already had 21 countries and that Jews did not need to feel ashamed to defend their right to their one and only homeland. He warned us about the dangers of Oslo, but few people were willing to listen to him. His message hurt. The policy of territorial surrender to the Arabs will not create a new Middle East, he told us, not peace, but war. Yet we did not want our illusions shattered. By the time of his death most his warnings about Oslo had come true and, even then, few came forward to apologize for ridiculing him.
Worse yet, rather then apologize they pushed on with their disastrous policies. In fact, by giving in to leftist pressure and lifting the closure of Ramallah, imposed after a rash of Arab terror, the government enabled the terrorists that killed Zeevi to get to him. However, long before Zeevi was murdered by the Arabs he was murdered by the press. ?Far-right!? screamed the headlines, ?Extremist? said another. The campaign to defame Zeevi was constant from the day he founded his Moledet party until his death 13 years later. While people like Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres were awarded noble prizes and lauded by the Israeli and world press for surrendering parts of the Land of Israel, Zeevi and those few who opposed Israeli capitulation were depicted as closet fascists, ridiculed and condemned.
While the press and politicians accused Zeevi of moving to the right it was really to cover up for their own drastic shift to the left. The Likud not only abandoned its pledge of two banks of the Jordan, but even on the one bank it said it would hold on to it agreed to surrender large portions of land. Just in the past weeks, in flagrant violation of the platform he was elected on, Likud member Ariel Sharon came out in public support for creating an additional Arab state, this one in Judea and Samaria. Of course, the Labor party long ago moved radically to the left. Who can even remember that the forerunner to Labor, Mapai, was once committed to holding onto Judea and Samaria? Today Labor has even reneged on its promise never to divide Jerusalem. Besides their withdrawals in Yesha, they even agreed to surrender parts of the Negev and promised to hand over even more.
Even when the first reports began to emerge of Zeevi?s death, they continued to hound him. ?He may have committed suicide,? they speculated on government radio. ?He may have been in the hotel with a mistress,? suggested another. When the truth could finally not be suppressed, the press was quick to blame, not the Arab terrorist who committed the murder, but the victim. There were a number of reasons they insinuated that Zeevi was responsible for his own death. He ignored warnings not to go to the Hyatt. He refused bodyguards. It was in revenge for the policy of liquidating terrorists. One can only imagine what would have happened to a journalist who would have insinuated that Yitshak Rabin was responsible for his own death because of his leftwing policies or because he wouldn?t wear a bulletproof vest.
The radio commentator on government controlled Reshet B assured us that, while Zeevi was not a man of the Israeli consensus, at least he was a gentleman. In fact, Zeevi was the epitome of the Israeli consensus. It was a well known fact that his Moledet party was the only one in the Knesset to be split evenly between secular and religious supporters and it members of parliament were also split evenly. In his own family, of his two sons, one is a haredi rabbi the other secular. A member of the leftwing Palmach he was also supporter of the right wing Etzel.
In the aftermath of his death, when the stories of his life began to emerge, a picture could be discerned of a man, who despite being portrayed as a slick politician with a dangerous agenda, was really a naive idealist with a simple faith in the human spirit. A man who, in an age of hyper individualism and egotism, dedicated his life to defending his people. A man who simply couldn?t understand how we could talk about peace and negotiate with terrorists. Yet all of this did not matter to the opinion shapers.
And so, like Uriah the Hittite, they first let him fight at the front of the army, then pulled back and left him undefended. Then, finally, he was caught by an assassin?s bullet and died as he lived his whole political life, alone, in an empty hallway.
He will be sorely missed.
In the words of President Moshe Katsav he was ?one of the country?s greatest patriots.? A man who constantly wore around his neck dog-tags with the names of Israeli MIAs on them. A man who, even when vacationing, did it for the sake of the Jewish people. So he was murdered at the Hyatt Hotel, defending the right of Jews to live in east Jerusalem. Most people don?t even know that in the original version of the famous picture depicting Israeli generals coming through the Lions Gate on the day of liberation of the Old City in 1967 there were not three Israeli generals but four. Zeevi, who walked to one side of the group, was simply cut out of the frame.
He taught us that the Arabs already had 21 countries and that Jews did not need to feel ashamed to defend their right to their one and only homeland. He warned us about the dangers of Oslo, but few people were willing to listen to him. His message hurt. The policy of territorial surrender to the Arabs will not create a new Middle East, he told us, not peace, but war. Yet we did not want our illusions shattered. By the time of his death most his warnings about Oslo had come true and, even then, few came forward to apologize for ridiculing him.
Worse yet, rather then apologize they pushed on with their disastrous policies. In fact, by giving in to leftist pressure and lifting the closure of Ramallah, imposed after a rash of Arab terror, the government enabled the terrorists that killed Zeevi to get to him. However, long before Zeevi was murdered by the Arabs he was murdered by the press. ?Far-right!? screamed the headlines, ?Extremist? said another. The campaign to defame Zeevi was constant from the day he founded his Moledet party until his death 13 years later. While people like Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres were awarded noble prizes and lauded by the Israeli and world press for surrendering parts of the Land of Israel, Zeevi and those few who opposed Israeli capitulation were depicted as closet fascists, ridiculed and condemned.
While the press and politicians accused Zeevi of moving to the right it was really to cover up for their own drastic shift to the left. The Likud not only abandoned its pledge of two banks of the Jordan, but even on the one bank it said it would hold on to it agreed to surrender large portions of land. Just in the past weeks, in flagrant violation of the platform he was elected on, Likud member Ariel Sharon came out in public support for creating an additional Arab state, this one in Judea and Samaria. Of course, the Labor party long ago moved radically to the left. Who can even remember that the forerunner to Labor, Mapai, was once committed to holding onto Judea and Samaria? Today Labor has even reneged on its promise never to divide Jerusalem. Besides their withdrawals in Yesha, they even agreed to surrender parts of the Negev and promised to hand over even more.
Even when the first reports began to emerge of Zeevi?s death, they continued to hound him. ?He may have committed suicide,? they speculated on government radio. ?He may have been in the hotel with a mistress,? suggested another. When the truth could finally not be suppressed, the press was quick to blame, not the Arab terrorist who committed the murder, but the victim. There were a number of reasons they insinuated that Zeevi was responsible for his own death. He ignored warnings not to go to the Hyatt. He refused bodyguards. It was in revenge for the policy of liquidating terrorists. One can only imagine what would have happened to a journalist who would have insinuated that Yitshak Rabin was responsible for his own death because of his leftwing policies or because he wouldn?t wear a bulletproof vest.
The radio commentator on government controlled Reshet B assured us that, while Zeevi was not a man of the Israeli consensus, at least he was a gentleman. In fact, Zeevi was the epitome of the Israeli consensus. It was a well known fact that his Moledet party was the only one in the Knesset to be split evenly between secular and religious supporters and it members of parliament were also split evenly. In his own family, of his two sons, one is a haredi rabbi the other secular. A member of the leftwing Palmach he was also supporter of the right wing Etzel.
In the aftermath of his death, when the stories of his life began to emerge, a picture could be discerned of a man, who despite being portrayed as a slick politician with a dangerous agenda, was really a naive idealist with a simple faith in the human spirit. A man who, in an age of hyper individualism and egotism, dedicated his life to defending his people. A man who simply couldn?t understand how we could talk about peace and negotiate with terrorists. Yet all of this did not matter to the opinion shapers.
And so, like Uriah the Hittite, they first let him fight at the front of the army, then pulled back and left him undefended. Then, finally, he was caught by an assassin?s bullet and died as he lived his whole political life, alone, in an empty hallway.
He will be sorely missed.