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

A former rabbinical court judge has invoked din rodef against Jewish politicians who aid in forming a government backed by Arab parties. Rabbi Gedalia Axelrod, the former head of the Haifa Rabbinical Court, issued a handwritten letter arguing that such leaders fall under this Jewish law concept, which concerns someone deemed to endanger others. He steadfastly maintains he did not regret his ruling, stating he acted according to his religious duty.

Rabin's death in 1995 did not resolve the debate over the Oslo Accords; instead, it deprived Israelis of the right to resolve the issue through their elected representatives. Thirty-one years later, religious language suggesting permission to kill politicians demands a response grounded in that painful experience. Rabbi Axelrod's ruling merits a legal examination by police and prosecutors to determine if it constitutes incitement to political violence.

Those criticizing his ruling should refrain from treating every objection to cooperation with Arab parties as extremist behavior. Serious reasons exist for Jewish and Zionist parties to scrutinize potential coalition partners' positions, conduct, and commitments, particularly given Israel's security and national identity stakes. The 26th Knesset's opening provided a clear example, with the Joint List members leaving the chamber while Raam lawmakers remained.

This walkout raises questions about whether those representatives can be reliable partners in governing the country. The coalition question remains unresolved, with Eisenkot's Yashar, Naftali Bennett's B Yachad, and Avigdor Liberman's Yisrael Beytenu opposing governing with Arab parties. Yair Golan's Democrats take a different approach.

Eisenkot now must decide whether to honor his initial commitments or explore parliamentary arrangements that might provide him a majority. These arrangements warrant scrutiny beyond simply being treated as completed deals. Voters are entitled to question whether parties are reneging on campaign promises, how the agreement would affect security policy, and what concessions would be required to sustain a coalition.

However, these concerns should not justify designating the Jewish politicians making these choices as targets for violence.

The memory of Rabin's assassination underscores the importance of refraining from threats against those who disagree politically. Chabad has distanced itself from Axelrod's comments, emphasizing he is not affiliated with its rabbinical court. Other religious authorities should clarify why political disagreement cannot be equated with a license for violence.

Opponents of an Arab-backed coalition should challenge its policies, parliamentary arithmetic, and redlines rather than relying on threats. Supporters should confront genuine concerns raised by the anthem walkout and election pledges, rather than dismissing them. Ultimately, Israel's next government must emerge from political negotiation, public scrutiny, and parliamentary rules.