No license to kill: Rabin's death shows religious political violence solves nothing - editorial

ByJPOST EDITORIALNOVEMBER 15, 2026 05:56

A former rabbinical court judge has invoked din rodef against Jewish politicians who help form a government backed by Arab parties - the same religious concept Yigal Amir cited to justify assassinating Yitzhak Rabin.

In a handwritten letter issued on Thursday, Rabbi Gedalia Axelrod, the former head of the Haifa Rabbinical Court, argued that Jewish party leaders who enable a government supported by Ra’am or the Joint List fall under din rodef, a concept in Jewish law concerning someone deemed to endanger others.

He subsequently told Walla that he did not regret issuing the ruling, saying he acted according to his understanding of religious duty.

Rabin’s murder in 1995 did not settle the argument over the Oslo Accords. It deprived Israelis of the right to settle that argument through their elected representatives and the ballot box.

Thirty-one years later, religious language that can be understood as permission to kill politicians demands a response informed by that experience.

Has Axelrod crossed the threshold into inciting political violence?

Police and prosecutors should examine Axelrod’s letter, its precise meaning, and whether it crosses the legal threshold for incitement. Former security chiefs have already requested an investigation.

Determining criminal liability requires evidence and due process, but neither Axelrod’s religious standing nor the contentious nature of coalition negotiations should deter the authorities from conducting that examination.

Those condemning his ruling should also resist treating every objection to cooperation with Arab parties as evidence of extremism. There are serious reasons for Jewish and Zionist parties to scrutinize the positions, conduct, and commitments of potential coalition partners, particularly when Israel’s security and national identity are at stake.

The opening of the 26th Knesset supplied a vivid example. As lawmakers gathered on Tuesday to sing “Hatikvah,” members of the Joint List left the chamber. Ra’am lawmakers, by contrast, remained.

For Israelis who regard the anthem as an expression of the state’s Jewish identity and shared civic obligations, the walkout raised questions about whether those representatives could be reliable partners in governing the country.

A party seeking to help govern Israel should expect questions about its recognition of the state’s character, its approach to terrorism, and its willingness to uphold the institutions whose authority it proposes to share.

Eisenkot-led bloc has differing approaches to coalitions with Arab factions

Those questions are especially consequential now because the votes of Arab factions could determine whether Eisenkot succeeds in forming a government.

The coalition question remains unsettled. Eisenkot’s Yashar, Naftali Bennett’s B’Yachad, and Avigdor Liberman’s Yisrael Beytenu all campaigned against governing with Arab parties.

Yair Golan’s Democrats have taken a different approach.

Eisenkot now faces a difficult choice between honoring those commitments and exploring parliamentary arrangements that could give him a majority. Even outside support from Arab lawmakers, rather than formal coalition membership, could test pledges made to voters. None of these arrangements should be treated as an accomplished fact.

Voters are entitled to ask whether parties are abandoning campaign promises, how an agreement would affect security policy, and what concessions would be required to keep a coalition together.

Those concerns can justify refusing an agreement, demanding explicit commitments, or warning about dependence on parties whose positions they oppose.

They cannot justify designating the Jewish politicians making those choices as targets for violence.

The electorate may punish a leader for a coalition bargain; no rabbi may appoint himself the authority to impose a death sentence for one.

Memory of Rabin's assassination reminds us not to take threats lightly

Chabad distanced itself from Axelrod’s comments, stressing that he does not sit on its rabbinical court nor speak for its leadership. Other religious authorities, particularly those whose communities may give weight to his interpretation, should explain why political disagreement cannot be converted into a license to attack an elected official.

Opponents of an Arab-backed coalition should challenge its policies, parliamentary arithmetic, and redlines rather than leave threats against its architects unanswered. Supporters should confront the genuine questions raised by the anthem walkout and by the election pledges, instead of dismissing concerned voters.

Israel’s next government must emerge from political negotiation, public scrutiny, and parliamentary rules. The memory of Rabin’s assassination places a particular obligation on authorities, rabbis, and elected officials to ensure that an argument over who governs Israel never becomes a pretext for killing those who disagree.

Follow us on Google

---