Latest news with #YitzhakRabin
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
From The Hindu, June 3, 1975: Troop cut on Suez front: Israel's peace gesture to Egypt
Jerusalem, June 2: Israel announced to-day that it was reducing its tank, firepower and troop strength along the Suez Canal as a gesture of peace towards Egypt for the reopening of the waterway. Half of Israel's tanks in the front line zone would be withdrawn to at least about 29 km from the canal, and all artillery pieces would be pulled back 31 km from the shipping canal. All missiles except anti-tank missiles would be moved behind a line 39 km from the canal, and 3,500 men — half of Israel's front line troops — would withdraw from the limited arms region east of the UN buffer zone. The Israeli Premier, Mr. Yitzhak Rabin, who made this announcement at a news conference here, said that his country hoped this would 'bring home to the world, and to Egypt, the fact that Israel really wants peace.' He assured the maritime nations that the Israeli army would not obstruct their ships sailing through the canal. The armaments would be withdrawn before the date of the reopening. Egypt has announced that it will open the canal on Thursday, the eighth anniversary of the West Asia war that brought about its closure. Today's decision was an abrupt turnaround for the Israeli Government, which only a day earlier had ruled out any such gesture before the results of the talks between the Egyptian President, Mr. Anwar Sadat and the U.S. President Mr. Gerald Ford became known to Israel.
Channel 4
2 days ago
- Politics
- Channel 4
Netanyahu ‘doesn't want' ceasefire deal – former Israeli peace negotiator
We're joined by British-Israeli analyst Daniel Levy, who is President of the US Middle East Project. He served as a peace negotiator during the premierships of Yitzhak Rabin and Ehud Barak.
Ammon
7 days ago
- Politics
- Ammon
The Day After… or the Point of No Return
Ziad Al Majali - Former Jordanian Ambassador Since the beginning of last year, I've hesitated to write under this title. I believed that objective logic would ultimately prevail—that decision-makers would recognize the danger of approaching a point of no return. That such a scenario could unleash human tragedies that transcend geography and defy the boundaries of both international law and fundamental human values. Most political leaders—both in our region and globally—have been closely observing the events of October 7, 2023, and the devastation that followed in Gaza. The destruction of life and land that spilled over, albeit more discreetly, into parts of the West Bank. These leaders, along with political analysts, were all waiting for a rational formula to emerge: a concept of "the day after" the Gaza War. A formula that would end the violence and humanitarian suffering, rebuild what was lost—not just in infrastructure and development, but in the shattered trust in peace itself— and reestablish a foundation stronger than that promised by the Oslo Accords. A foundation that could lead to a true and lasting peace in the Middle East—one that fulfills the vision both Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat shared when they signed the 'Peace of the Brave' in 1993. I was one of those observers. I tried to override my memory of Israel's current prime minister, one I began forming back when he appeared on American television as Israel's permanent representative to the UN in the mid-1980s. Even then, it was clear to me that he could never be part of a peace equation based on Oslo, for he belonged to an ideological school that did not recognize any rights for Palestinians. Yet, even as I evaluated the alternative—the 'point of no return'—I saw that it was rooted in either a civilizational or religious conflict. Both run deep in human consciousness, and both can logically lead to a zero-sum equation. And when this zero-sum mentality is tied to religion or culture, it becomes enduring. In other words, the attempt to erase Palestinian presence and rights on historic Palestinian land—Netanyahu's dream, shared by Ben Gvir, Smotrich, and Katz—will always keep the door open to an Israeli-Arab conflict, and more dangerously, to a cross-border Jewish-Islamic clash. Peace-loving nations around the world—including Jordan and its Hashemite leadership—have long warned that an unrelenting war in Gaza could spark uncontrollable regional escalations. And reality has, in principle, validated those concerns: Hezbollah joined the fight, followed by the Houthis, and now we face a full-blown famine in Gaza. This alone could open further doors to regional destruction—destruction that may transcend borders. Still, when one dares to be optimistic and leans away from the 'point of no return'—from a zero- sum conflict between Israelis and Palestinians—toward imagining 'the day after,' the concept of peace begins to re-emerge. It offers not only the possibility of peace, but of prosperity and development throughout the Middle East. Yet what stands in the way is an international narrative that claims there can be no peace—no 'day after'—as long as Hamas exists on the ground and holds influence. This view, however, must be assessed objectively. Because the current extremist Israeli leadership itself cannot be a partner even for the beginnings of such a vision. The ideology of this leadership is the same that led to the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. So now, as Gaza teeters on the brink—threatening the security and stability of the Middle East and the world—we must ask: Is there still room for out-of-the-box thinking to save human life, and preserve regional peace as a gateway to broader, global peace efforts? In my estimation, if many international analysts and observers believe there can be no out-of-the- box solutions while Hamas remains, then it is equally valid to conclude—based on the current Israeli government's positions—that no such thinking is possible unless the Israeli voter quickly reevaluates their stance on the political fate of their leaders. Israel's allies—from Washington to several European capitals—have a role to play. They must send clear messages to the Israeli electorate, encouraging them to seek new leadership capable of steering the country toward a future of real peace. Trump's promise to Arab voters in Michigan during his election campaign—that he would bring peace to the Middle East—and his recent repetition of that promise ahead of his Gulf tour, give Washington a greater opportunity to shape the Israeli political landscape. Especially now, as Washington seems convinced of what many of us have long warned: that Netanyahu sees the continuation of this war—even at the cost of innocent civilian lives—as his only guarantee against being cast into the margins of Israeli history. The more pressing question, after the massacres and misery endured by the people of Gaza and parts of the West Bank, and the explosive anger brewing across the Arab and Islamic worlds, is this: Is it still possible to imagine a formula that could ease cultural tensions and halt the spiral of conflict? Here, I return to a sliver of optimism—recalling the atmosphere of the First Intifada. It's worth remembering that Yitzhak Rabin, then Minister of Defense and later Prime Minister, was once the architect of the 'broken bones' policy during the Intifada. Yet when regional and international circumstances aligned, it was Rabin himself who became the hero of the Peace of the Brave with President Arafat. But Rabin's mindset in seeking peace is nothing like Netanyahu's. The latter is searching for a place 'under the sun' while rejecting the Palestinian right to exist—and even worse, seeks geographic expansion at the expense of Arab nations that are UN member states, in accordance with a Zionist vision that his supporters openly champion. In truth, there is no ordinary Israeli who wishes to sleep under the constant threat of drone and missile attacks. No fleet of fighter jets, nor American aircraft carriers stationed in the Eastern Mediterranean, can provide lasting peace of mind. The average Israeli knows deep down that the most secure, cost-effective, and sustainable peace is one anchored in mutual recognition. A peace built with a neighbor who shares the right to live safely on their own land, in their own home, under their own roof. And so, despite the pain, bloodshed, destruction, and the blatant violations of international humanitarian law, I come to this conclusion: The international community—particularly in the capitals of global decision-making—must not lose hope for out-of-the-box solutions. We cannot allow this current moment to poison the cultural and political consciousness of new generations of Israelis—who, since 1996, have been raised in an environment increasingly divorced from the ideals of peace. Nor can we ignore the natural, reactive rise of movements like Hamas in response. Instead, we must push for a peace built on clear foundations, rooted in truth, structured on timelines, and defined by objective principles. A peace that future generations—not tanks or warplanes—will be motivated and inspired to defend.
NDTV
25-05-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
How Assassination Of This Former PM Derailed Israel-Palestine Peace Process
New Delhi: Thirty years ago, hope stood on a stage in Tel Aviv and was silenced by two gunshots. Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Prime Minister and the man who dared to dream of peace with the Palestinians, was gunned down by one of his own. To the right-wing Israeli extremist who pulled the trigger, Rabin's vision was betrayal. The bullets ended a life, and also tore through a fragile peace process. Now, three decades later, the conflict Yitzhak Rabin tried to end still burns, unresolved. The Assassination That Shattered A Dream On the evening of November 4, 1995, Yitzhak Rabin stood before a crowd of over 1 lakh Israelis at a peace rally in Tel Aviv's Kings of Israel Square (later renamed Rabin Square). Despite warnings, Rabin refused to wear a bulletproof vest, believing no fellow citizen could pose such a mortal threat. Moments after delivering a hopeful speech urging Israelis to "make peace, not just sing about it," the Prime Minister was shot at close range by Yigal Amir, a 25-year-old Israeli law student and extremist. As reported by The Guardian, Rabin was shot twice and later died in the hospital. This was the first time in Israel's history that a sitting Prime Minister was murdered. And for many, it felt like peace had died with him. Yigal Amir: The Assassin Yigal Amir was a 25-year-old law student at Bar-Ilan University with strong religious and nationalist views. A devout, hardline Zionist, Amir viewed Rabin as a traitor for his willingness to 'concede' land to the Palestinians under the Oslo accords. He believed Rabin's plans endangered the Jewish state. Amir justified his actions by citing a religious concept known as "din rodef," which permits the killing of someone who poses a threat to Jewish lives. He acted alone, without the support or approval of any religious authority. He believed Rabin was a rodef, a pursuer who endangered Jewish lives, and thus, in his own eyes, a legitimate target. Before the assassination, Amir attended multiple public events where Rabin was present, waiting for the perfect moment. On the day of the shooting, he hid his Beretta 84F semi-automatic pistol and ammunition and mingled with the crowd. Then, as the Prime Minister stepped off the stage, the young extremist stepped out from the shadows and fired two shots at point-blank range. Within an hour and a half, Rabin was pronounced dead. Yigal Amir was arrested at the scene and later convicted of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment plus an additional 14 years. His act, horrifying as it was, achieved exactly what he intended - the end of the peace process Rabin championed. Oslo Accords The Oslo peace process was a series of secret negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) that began years before the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. This process was the result of decades of conflict and cautious talks. After the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel took control of the West Bank and Gaza, which led to ongoing tensions and conflict. The First Intifada, a Palestinian uprising from 1987 to 1993, showed that military force alone could not solve the conflict. In 1993, secret talks held in Oslo, Norway, led to a historic agreement. On September 13, 1993, Yitzhak Rabin and PLO leader Yasser Arafat shook hands on the White House lawn in front of US President Bill Clinton. They declared an end to "blood and tears," signalling a new hope for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. The Oslo Accords were the first direct agreements between Israel and the PLO. They set the stage for a possible two-state solution and aimed to create a framework for peace after many years of fighting. The first agreement, known as Oslo I, included mutual recognition: the PLO recognised Israel's right to exist in peace and security, while Israel recognised the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people. Oslo I also created the Palestinian Authority, which was given limited self-rule in parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Israel agreed to withdraw its military forces from some areas, starting with Jericho and Gaza, and planned to hold democratic elections for the Palestinian Authority. Two years later, in 1995, the Oslo II Accord expanded this agreement. It divided the West Bank into three areas with different levels of Palestinian and Israeli control. Area A was under full Palestinian civil and security control; Area B had Palestinian civil control but joint Israeli-Palestinian security control; and Area C remained under full Israeli control. The Oslo II Accord also called for further Israeli withdrawal, Palestinian elections, and cooperation between Israeli and Palestinian security forces to fight terrorism and maintain order. Despite these advances, the peace process faced many challenges. Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem continued to grow, making it harder to create a united Palestinian state. Violence from extremist groups on both sides, including attacks and bombings, undermined trust. Political divisions deepened. Among the Palestinians, Hamas rejected the Oslo peace process completely, calling it surrender and saying they would never accept any deal that involved giving up land to an Israeli state they believed should not exist. The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 was a major blow to the peace process. Then Came Benjamin Netanyahu Back in 1995, Benjamin Netanyahu was the leader of the opposition in Israel. He spoke at some of the most intense anti-Rabin rallies, where the former Prime Minister was harshly criticised and portrayed negatively, even being likened to a Nazi. At many protests, Rabin was compared to Yasser Arafat, with people putting a black-and-white Palestinian scarf (keffiyeh) around his head like Arafat wore. The aftermath of Rabin's death saw Israel's political landscape shift sharply to the right. In the 1996 elections, Netanyahu won a narrow victory over Shimon Peres. This was a move away from Rabin's peace efforts. Fast forward to today, Netanyahu, now Israel's Prime Minister, leads a government waging a harsh military campaign in Gaza following a Hamas attack on October 7, 2023. Almost two years since, the war has killed over 53,000 Palestinians, with many civilians, women and children, among the casualties. The Gaza Health Ministry has also reported more than 109,000 injured. What If Yitzhak Rabin Had Lived? Reports at the time suggested that had Rabin lived, he would most likely have defeated Netanyahu in the 1996 elections, implying that the future of Israeli-Palestinian peace could have been very different. After the famous handshake with Yasser Arafat in 1993, Rabin had said Zionism was no longer about expanding territory but about building a Jewish society based on traditional values combined with Western civilization. Today's dominant settler movement has moved far from Rabin's approach, pushing to settle Gaza again and expanding settlements rapidly in the West Bank, while Palestinian communities face violence and displacement. Rabin had always opposed the settlers' ideology, calling many settlements "political" and a financial burden with no real security benefit. He cut settlement funding in his time, focusing resources on social programmes. But today, under the Benjamin Netanyahu-government, settlers are empowered, and ideas once considered extreme, like expelling Palestinians, are openly discussed. Some settlers argue Rabin betrayed Zionism by making peace with the PLO. They believe the entire land of Israel, including Gaza and the West Bank, should belong to Jews and support settlement expansion even in Gaza. Others, including Rabin's former press officer Uri Dromi, say this extreme view has hijacked Zionism, which Rabin defined as a realistic effort to maintain a Jewish state through negotiation, not exclusion. A 2015 poll showed 76 per cent of Israelis regarded Rabin as "a respectable leader" and 55 per cent said he was missed, but only a third supported the Oslo Accords.
Kiwiblog
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Kiwiblog
Jew blaming
Netanyahu govt actions have isolated Israel from global south and the west and stoked anti-semitism. Yitzhak Rabin was the last leader to effectively foster a political-diplomatic solution to the Palestine-Israel impasse. He was assassinated by a settler. You reap what you sow. — Peter Byard Davis (@PeterByardDavis) May 7, 2025 This is a very very disappointing tweet from Peter Davis, who I normally find to be much more thoughtful. He is basically saying that Jews in Wellington deserve to have grafitti scrawled against them, because of the actions of the Israeli Government. Would he excuse graffiti that says they hate Hindus because of the actions of the Indian Government? Or grafitti that says they hate Americans because of the actions of the US Government? Conflating Jews with the Israeli Government is in itself classic anti-semitism. While the vast majority of Jews support the right of Israel to exist, there is a huge variation of opinion about the current Israeli Government, the war in Gaza, settlements, boundaries etc. Jews have a religion in common, but are very politically diverse. So for Davis to justify graffiti that spreads hatred towards Jews on the basis of what the Government of Israel does is not at all good. Benjamin Netanyahu won't see graffiti in Wellington. It won't influence him. The people who will see it is Jewish kids and Jewish families who live in Wellington and have to put up with this racism.
