The assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin has raised serious questions about many aspects of Jewish life: the meaning of democracy and civility; the role of words and rhetoric; the relationship of religion and religious leaders to a civil society; the responsibilities of those in power and those in the opposition.

Clearly, there is a need for all of us -- Jews in Israel and in the Diaspora -- to go back to basics, to revisit the fundamental importance and meaning of responsible democracy. That means, among other things, that there should be an avoidance of demonization and stereotyping of groups -- it is unfair, counterproductive, and dangerous to attack all Orthodox Jews or the whole political right in Israel for the climate created that led to the assassination.

It is also vital that those in power make efforts to explain their politics and engage in dialogue with those who are disaffected, especially when critical decisions affecting people's lives are involved and when the minority view represents a substantial body of opinion in the public. On the other hand, those in opposition must work within the system to get their views across, recognizing that in the long run everyone benefits from respect for democracy, that each side has used and will use small majorities in a parliamentary system to pursue their policies until the opposition is able to turn them out of power. Likud in the 1980's used its small majority to create thousands of housing units in the territories; it was entitled to do so, even while many Israelis disagreed with its policies. And today, the Labor government, with its small majority, pursues its approach to the peace process because it holds majority power.

Responsible democracy also requires responsible use of words. This applies to every citizen, but it particularly applies to leadership, and most specifically to leaders who can most influence those susceptible to the extremism of the moment. While extremist rhetoric has a long history in Israel, since the Oslo agreements, it has been the rhetoric coming from the extreme right and the extreme Nationalist Orthodox which has been of concern and which generated an environment which made a Yigal Amir possible.

Since the assassination, there have been two kinds of responses to the extremism. There are those who have engaged in soul-searching. Rabbi Norman Lamm, President of Yeshiva University, said that religious Zionism must take a hard look at itself: "The Amirs and (Baruch) Goldsteins didn't invent their depraved justification for their murderous acts. Yes, they were weeds in our garden, but it was our garden."

Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik, a leading rabbinic figure, who himself had been very outspoken against the government, called Rabin's murder the "greatest crisis in 2,000 years of Jewish history." And, he added that when a Jew kills another Jew, "the Mishna says it is also the fault of the Jews, of the parents, of the teachers, of the rosh Yeshiva, who did not try to hammer into the minds of the students and children the terrible abomination of bloodshed." Agudath Israel published an ad in The New York Times which not only condemned the act as abhorrent to Torah-observant Jews, but reminded all Jews "that inflammatory rhetoric and hateful invective often toxify the atmosphere." And Rabbi Aaron Lichtenstein told his students at Yeshiva Har Ettion in Gush Ettion that "this shame, that our state, our people should have fallen to such a level, should be felt by everyone -- religious, secular, right and left... But naturally, this shame should be felt by our camp, the National Religious camp, more than any other. Here was a man who grew up in the vest of our institutions."

Others have spoken out as well. They represent responsible voices in Orthodox Judaism and deserve the encouragement and support of the entire Jewish people.

At the same time, there are those who have learned nothing from the tragedy, who continue to justify their extremism or see no need to look inwards or to show true moral leadership.

Rabbi Mordechai Friedman, President of the American Board of Rabbis, called the murder of Rabin an "act of G-d."

In the aftermath of the assassination, many fingers pointed to Rabbi Abraham B. Hecht, who in the summer, gave Halachic legitimacy to the notion of murdering the Prime Minister. Rabbi Hecht defended himself on the grounds that he had written to Mr. Rabin in October apologizing for his statements. Nevertheless, he has not clearly condemned the use of incediary language, particulary by community and religious leaders.

Reacting to Rabbi Soloveichik's call for atonement in the Orthodox community, Rabbi Moshe Tendler, a professor at Yeshiva University, dismissed Rabbi Soloveichik's remarks as "nonsense" and insisted there is no need for atonement: "I am not guilty." He argued that to say the murder represents a "failure of the Orthodox community, and that we should crop our heads and do mea culpas -- you will not get me to do that... How does this cast aspersion on the entire community? It's utter nonsense."

Rabbi Steven Pruzansky of Teaneck, a long-time user of extremist language in his criticism of the government, continued. He told The Jerusalem Report that "Rabin was probably well- intentioned, but so were the leaders of the Judemat." And instead of examining his own rhetoric and those of others, he put the blame elsewhere: "we are focusing on the wrong factor when we criticize the rhetoric that divides and inflames -- it's the policies that have divided and inflamed. A climate was created in which this horrific crime could take place. The climate is not one of words but of deeds."

Not surprisingly, Mike Guzofsky, leader of Kahane Chai, showed no remorse: "Rabin was bad for the Jews. He is over and he's gone... An intelligent man, one like this law student (confessed assassin Amir), had to act."

Others rationalized the act. Beth Gilinsky, President of the Jewish Action Alliance, said: "Rhetoric didn't cause this. Think about elevating Arafat to statesman. If you reward violence, people will believe it's the way to go."

Paul Eidelberg, writing in The Jewish Press, claimed that "Yitzhak Rabin and his cohorts created the emotional and political climate that led to his assassination."

Indeed, since the assassination, The Jewish Press has consistently refused to recognize that the extreme rhetoric which they featured for years promoted the demonization and deliegitimization of the democratically-elected government of the State of Israel. Even in the weeks since the murder, The Jewish Press continues to user incendiary terms such as "treason" and "appeasement" in referring to Israeli leaders and policies.

In a brilliant and courageous address to Orthodox leaders, Dr. Lamm indicated that his institution, Yeshiva University, was going to take practical steps to come to grips with the problem. He said that faculty and others would meet in the coming months to talk about Torah, extremism, and democracy. Dr. Lamm's example should be followed by others.

Still, there needs to be a strong and direct reaction to those who continue to articulate hatred. Rabbis who do so and who teach at institutions, should be told that it is unacceptable within a religious context, with sanctions threatened. Congregants should let their Rabbis know the same. And newspapers should not continue to carry columnists who engage in this kind of rhetoric.

It is good to see that more and more responsible leaders are speaking out. This is not a time for demonization. Nor is it a time to tolerate those who fan the flames of bigotry and violence.

Abraham H. Foxman is National Director of the Anti-Defamation League

The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.