Yitzhak Rabin's Assassination and the Dilemmas of Commemoration

7 Concluding Remarks

145 Concluding Remarks 7 Concluding Remarks Commemoration, Fragmentation, Israeli Society and Beyond Introduction In this final chapter, I wish to reflect on the research presented in the book by taking three different directions. First, I will “look back” on the research, not by summarizing it, but by offering a discussion of ideas generated therein. Second, I will “look forward” by suggesting several directions for future research on collective memory and commemoration. Finally, I will “look inward” by focusing on the society in which the case study of this research took place. In so doing, I aim to place this text back into its context. Looking Back Twelve years after Rabin’s assassination, the mnemonic times, sites and practices are still an unfinished business. The intense and fascinating commemoration process has much to do with a difficult and controversial present as it does with a difficult past. Will Yitzhak Rabin ever become for Israeli society what Abraham Lincoln was (and perhaps still is) for American society?1 Will he be a unifying father of the nation? Will he be a model for society? Will he ever become an inspiring image during times of crises ? Will he become the hero of some and the villain of others? Will the memory of the assassination become something other than controversial and difficult? Will Rabin and the assassination be remembered at all? While the questions are many, at the end of the day, it is a question of memory and eternity. While it is difficult to foresee the future of any commemoration, the prognosis for the continuation of Rabin’s memory may not be that 145 146 Yitzak Rabin’s Assassination and Dilemmas of Commemoration bad. Even in an age of constructionism and postmodernism, it is difficult to ignore Rabin’s biography. Many can (and do) argue with the wisdom of his deeds or with their moral sense; but few can deny that Rabin played an integral part in what were considered milestones in the history of the State of Israel. Rabin was an iconic figure—perhaps even one of the pillars—of what for years was (and perhaps still is) the hegemonic group in Israel. He embodied an Israeli ethos and personified many of its myths. While it is difficult to hypothesize about the ways in which Israeli society would have reacted to other political assassinations, the ways in which it reacted to Rabin’s death solidified the notion that he was, in may ways, the country’s “chosen son.” His assassination was perceived as an insult to—and almost an attack on—the “Israeli Mayflower.” It signified a constitutive moment and, at the same time, a fundamental rupture in a fragile social fabric. No less important, and carrying less essentialist flavor, is the fact that, unlike the case of Lincoln, the agents of memory in Rabin’s case managed to see the materialization of their mnemonic efforts while they were still alive. When Leah Rabin passed away in November 2000 (exactly five years after the assassination), Rabin’s memory was hardly shared, but it was nonetheless already institutionalized in a way unprecedented in the history of Israeli society. While Rabin and the assassination seem to enjoy an overexposure and presence in the public sphere, one cannot but wonder about what will occur in the long-run. Collective memory depends on institutional arrangements and traditions. This may be true even for rituals that after ten years seem to be fixed and eternal—almost traditional—such as the annual memorial ceremony in Rabin Square. A few weeks before the tenth anniversary, one of the event’s organizers—a relatively young person—promised that “as long as I breath and live, I will organize the ceremony. It is an imperative. For me, it’s [still] a bleeding wound.”2 Still, it seems clear that no collective memory can rely completely on any specific mnemonic performance or on the ability and commitment of any particular volunteer. Thus, a more accurate answer to the above questions around the survival of memory is: “It depends.” The continued existence of the memory of Rabin and his assassination (let alone its content) depends on the abilities of the agents of memory to maintain lively (formal and informal) commemorations . Memory—very much like other social institutions—needs constant maintenance. The successful incorporation of a specific commemoration into the social fabric increases the likelihood of the endurance of this...