The writing was on the wall. The assassination attempt on former president Donald Trump did not happen in isolation. Just last week, reportedly during a private call with donors, President Joe Biden declared that he was “done” talking about his poor debate performance and said it was “time to put Trump in the bulls-eye.”
Biden has since said his statement was a “mistake,” but this latest incident exemplifies what has been happening in America for a while.
For years there has been an ongoing heated rhetoric by Democrat politicians, media talking-heads, and celebrities, with calls – both outright and implied – for violence against Trump. It is all there on the Internet.
This brings us to Israel, where the situation surrounding Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is arguably much more severe. Not unlike Trump, Netanyahu has always had many supporters and more than a few detractors, going back more than three decades. However, the level of vitriol directed at him in recent years has reached unprecedented heights. And while the prime minister’s security has greatly increased since the 1995 assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, no security is ever foolproof.
Silence over incitement
What’s particularly alarming is the deafening silence from much of the press and political opposition in the face of this escalating incitement. The former largely turns a blind eye and the latter exhibits cluelessness or innocence.
But worst of all, attorney-general Gali Baharav-Miara is almost unapologetically indifferent to the incitement against the prime minister.
The contrast between the current situation and the atmosphere preceding Rabin’s assassination is striking. Two key differences stand out:
1. After Rabin’s murder, Israeli society became acutely aware of how inflammatory rhetoric can lead to violence. The phrase “words can kill” entered the national consciousness. However, despite this awareness, similar language is now being used against Netanyahu with apparent disregard for potential consequences.
2. The difference between today’s incitement and that which preceded Rabin’s murder is less about what is being said about Netanyahu, but rather about who is making those statements. While the incitement against Rabin primarily came from fringe right-wing elements and was widely condemned by the media, the rhetoric against Netanyahu often originates from mainstream figures – academics, intellectuals, journalists, former military leaders, and familiar “protest activists.’’ They are frequently given prominent public platforms and their statements often go unchallenged by major media outlets in a deafening silence.
The intensity and breadth of the campaign against Netanyahu arguably surpass what Rabin faced. Despite increased security measures, the potential for violence remains a serious concern. The apparent indifference of key figures, including Baharav-Miara, to these threats, and the stark contrast to how Netanyahu’s supporters and critics are treated in public forums, only exacerbates the issue.
Consistent societal norms across the entire political spectrum
The current danger raises important questions about the consistency of societal norms regarding political discourse and the role of the media in amplifying or challenging inflammatory rhetoric.
Baharav-Miara should be the first to uphold the democratic tenet of unbiased and equal enforcement, ensuring that inciters of all political persuasions are subjected to the same standards. Her failure to do so is not only undemocratic but also increases the risk that someone may decide to act violently against Netanyahu and other public officials.
If Baharav-Miara insists on ignoring the tragic lessons of our own history, it would be wise for her to learn from Trump’s assassination attempt and realize that what happens in America doesn’t always stay in America.
The writer is a former head of the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism’s office in Washington and a senior analyst at Acumen Risk Ltd., a risk management firm.