Parallels: "targets" and the political left

This headline tops a blog over at Forbes.com.

Gabrielle Giffords Shooting And Sarah Palin's Conscience

And not only there, but all over the internet and the Sunday morning news shows.

But should we pretend that the violent rhetoric of Palin and her followers is "just an overheated metaphor," asks Huffington Post writer Marty Kaplan. How many times have we heard Jon Stewart and others speak out about how the GOP-Tea Party machine, with its angry bombast, pushes people? This "lock-and-load" mentality is today's U.S. politics-reptilian, raging, uncivil, unyielding and here, possibly murderous.

Pretend?  Does Marty Kaplan or anyone else really believe that Sarah Palin or "the GOP-Tea Party machine" ever intended to encourage physical violence through campaign rhetoric?  Or that the murderous rampage of a twisted, enraged man in Tucson can be in any way, intentionally or even unintentionally, be laid at their doorstep?  And why is all of this sounding so familiar?  Where have we heard this kind of cheap, dirty, political exploitation of tragedy before?

Attorney General Menachem Mazuz sparked furious debate Wednesday by saying that there was "no indication" that the 1995 assassination of prime minister Yitzhak Rabin had been sparked by incitement.

On the other hand, Mazuz told the Knesset State Control Committee, "what is certain is that there was a failure of security at the site of the murder."

Rabin was shot dead by right-wing extremist Yigal Amir in November 1995, at a peace rally in Tel Aviv. Vehement opposition at the time to the prime minister's land for peace initiatives, in the form of the Oslo accords, was widely believed to have contributed to the assassination.

That "contribution" was heavily promoted at the time by the Israeli left.  And for so many reasons simply not borne out by the facts.  Appropriately, the same concerns about balancing free speech and incendiary speech that are flooding the airwaves and the blogosphere today were given a full airing in the aftermath of Rabin's assassination.

Mazuz warned that excessive use of laws against incitement could curb free speech. "The atmosphere within the public has an influence, but it must not be used as an excuse to shut people's mouths," he said.

According to Mazuz, prosecutors have refrained on principle from filing charges against people suspected of incitement. "We do not believe in enforcing the law [as a tool] to change the atmosphere of public life," he said.

"A skullcap does not confer immunity from observing the law," Mazuz continued, "But no one wants to link the words of one person and the acts of another."

But if you look back at the political rhetoric that followed Prime Minister Rabin's assassination, you'll find a lot of the same tricks the left is hauling out today.  It was shameful then and it's shameful now.  And when the smoke had cleared, Israel's Attorney General explained that there was no evidence Yigal Amir had been provoked by overheated metaphors.  That announcement was met with rage from the left.

The Peace Now organization reacted with anger to the attorney general's comments, stating that "The attorney general is himself paving the way for the next political assassination in Israel," Israel Radio reported.

And yet, over 15 years later, the only other political assassination to have taken place in Israel is that of Rehavam Ze'evi, a perpetual "target" of the political left.  Nobody blamed his death on their overheated rhetoric, nor should they have.  We would do well in the coming days to heed AG Mazuz's warning and refrain from linking the words of one person to the heinous acts of another.


Our prayers go out to Congresswoman Giffords and her family with best wishes for a full recovery as well as to all the victims and their loved ones.