Rabin's assassination is a national trauma, worthy of national accountability and a national day of remembrance.
At the same time, in the context of a community-political account that deserves to be edited, it is permissible and perhaps even necessary to admit two insights that have not yet been formulated.
The first: if the Israeli prime minister who signed the Oslo Accords had not been assassinated - not all his successors, from Netanyahu onwards, would have been committed to the "Rabin legacy", the "Oslo Road", on such a religious, sacred and mythical level.
Rabin was replaced at the ballot box, by a clear majority of citizens who ended up in the heart of their country, a murderer who denied them the right to security, and legitimized all his successors in Arafat and his gang as they had done in Beirut 13 years earlier: oust them from their seats The civilian population that has been groaned under their rule, and especially to restore the Israeli right to life - the basic value that the same government is obligated to provide to its citizens.
Paradoxically as it may sound - it was precisely the murderer Yigal Amir who left "Oslo" as a sacred Torah, whose removal was perceived as a traitor among the local and international community; His act is what has made "commitment to Isaac's way" a test of legitimacy, to which left-wing leaders elected one by one come to the square to swear allegiance to and receive the blessing of the camp; He is the one who marked the handshakes with Arafat as a necessary moral-strategic component, without which no other way of conducting policy can be imagined. The one who sought by assassination of the prime minister to assassinate in his political way - was the one who presented the Oslo paradigm most of all after the assassination.
Second insight: Members in the spirit of Yigal Amir may be members of fenced and closed communities that "defend" themselves against Israeliness. Those communities that do not give their girls and boys the tools and abilities, and especially the legitimacy, to talk to society, but see in its centers of power hegemonic sites that are better to stay away from due to some danger lurking for those who approach them. Denying this contact with these vital sites (scientific, cultural, media) - is exactly what could restore the disaster.
True, the era is not the same, the locksmiths are not the same locksmiths and those required for security are also different (unexpected prime minister, head of public health services).
But those who threaten them have the same characteristics - those who, along with being potential criminals, are victims of their communities: fenced communities, who raised their young people on the narrative that "there" in the "scientific" and "enlightened" worlds have those who should not read newspapers, let alone contribute to journalism. His columns (thus influencing), and should not aspire to become part of his directors and screenwriters (to produce an alternative narrative).
Thus, in the absence of language, without communication, when the reality there "opposite" is threatening and not influential - the compulsion to raise a hand against it is often perceived as a product of helplessness and weakness.
Anyone who grows up on the perception that he is not part of the game, will also not be bound by his rules.
Only sometimes, as the tragedy of Rabin's assassination illustrated, even raising one's hand leads to the opposite reality.
Only full Israeliization of those communities will prevent the next murder.