It was June 1992, one week before the elections for the 13th Knesset. A televised debate was coming to a close when moderator Nissim Mishal let Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir ask his rival one final question. At that moment, it was made perfectly clear to the public that they were being asked to choose between two distinct paths: one advocated by the right, and another advocated by the left. Now, 23 years later, those two paths are just as relevant. Shamir, then the 77-year-old prime minister and leader of the Likud, asked Labor Party Chairman Yitzhak Rabin, “Do you really want a Palestinian state within the Land of Israel? With whom do you want to reach a territorial compromise? With whom?”

It was the final confusing days of the first intifada, and the question was meant to trip Rabin up, but the leader of the opposition remained unfazed. He actually seemed eager to answer with a clear position. He said, as succinctly as he could, “I oppose a Palestinian state between us and the Jordan River. In the same way, I don’t want 1.7 million Palestinians to become citizens of the State of Israel. That is why I support autonomy and in 1977, I voted to approve it in the Knesset. Mr. Shamir abstained. … I’m for starting with that. New opportunities will open up before us. I have three principles: No to 2 million Palestinian citizens, no to a Palestinian state and no to a withdrawal to the 1967 boundaries; Jerusalem and the conflict borderlines should stay ours.”

In questions leveled at him throughout the debate about the state of negotiations with the Palestinians and Syria, Shamir also answered clearly and unequivocally. He presented the right-wing alternative, arguing, “In this tiny land, there is no room for concessions. If we are talking about a Palestinian state, what does that mean? That there will be two states? In this tiny bit of land? That would be impossible.”

The debate remained on topic throughout. In fact, it was so free of gimmicks that in today’s world, it would hardly be considered TV worthy. Looking back at it as a historical document, 20 years after Rabin's assassination, it reminds us, first and foremost, of what leadership really means, on both sides of the political divide. Rabin reminds us that the left could once explain to the public why separating from the Palestinians was in the interests of Zionism. The fact that Rabin said this after serving as defense minister throughout the first intifada and that he was forced to deal with the repercussions of the bitter violence — on his person and in the Middle East in general — grants particular validity to what he said. His high credibility among the public and his military record contributed as well. He was never suspected of tending to make concessions or avoid conflict with the Palestinians. He simply presented a pragmatic alternative to the approach presented by Shamir and the Likud, which called for maintaining the status quo.