• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

14/4/1995 : Isaac rabin (i.s) murdered in tel aviv

M

Milano

New member
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I.R., President of Israel, was murdered in Tel Aviv after a meeting in favour of peace agreements, in front of 100.000 people. That abruptly ended all fruitfull negotiation with the arabs. In 1993 he signed an Agreement with Arafat (Oslo), and a Peace Treaty (1994) with king Hussein of Jordan. His policy was based on "peace for territory". Was there any hidden reason for the murder? An "insane" jewish young man (they are always insane) was condemned, and that was the end of the story. Most of you people are convinced that peace is impossible, but at that time they were moving forward to some kind of agreement. The policy of I.R. was slowly giving results, and the murder stopped everything. What was behind that? The OLP didn't want peace, or the Sionist on the other side? It seems to me that the part better off after the murder was Israel, who expanded his presence in palestinian land though new settlements, several times condemned by the OUN/ONU. Anybody with a different poin of view?
 
Milano said:
I.R., President of Israel, was murdered in Tel Aviv after a meeting in favour of peace agreements, in front of 100.000 people. That abruptly ended all fruitfull negotiation with the arabs. In 1993 he signed an Agreement with Arafat (Oslo), and a Peace Treaty (1994) with king Hussein of Jordan. His policy was based on "peace for territory". Was there any hidden reason for the murder? An "insane" jewish young man (they are always insane) was condemned, and that was the end of the story. Most of you people are convinced that peace is impossible, but at that time they were moving forward to some kind of agreement. The policy of I.R. was slowly giving results, and the murder stopped everything. What was behind that? The OLP didn't want peace, or the Sionist on the other side? It seems to me that the part better off after the murder was Israel, who expanded his presence in palestinian land though new settlements, several times condemned by the OUN/ONU. Anybody with a different poin of view?
Click to expand...

what is OLP? what do you mean by Sionist side? what is OUN/ONU?
Rabin was murdered at November 5th and not April 14th after a demonstration for peace, not a meeting.
 
ido_ said:
what is OLP? what do you mean by Sionist side? what is OUN/ONU?
Rabin was murdered at November 5th and not April 14th after a demonstration for peace, not a meeting.
Click to expand...

Good Afternoon!
1.OLP french. POL english. dictionary translation.
2. UNO. United Nations Organization, created in 1945 by 51 countries gathered in S. Francisco.
3.ONU. Same
4.The correct date is the one you mention. Sorry.
5. Sionisme french. Zionisme english. Sorry again.

What I wanted to point out, is the connection between the murder, the end of the policy started by Rabin, end the Zionism, sponsor of a Great Israel, territory with not yet borders.
The discussion over the various political trends among Jewish People, is something I do not question. For what I know, several Prime ministers were Zionists, as well as Nethanyahu. The expansion of Israel is part of the philosofhy of Zionism. The PLO was/is against that phylosophy, and maybe a peace agreement between Arabs and Jewsh doesn't fit neither interest. I am not interested in discussing who is right. I only wanted to point out that, years ago, a possible peace agreement was under way, and was stopped.
Regards
 
You are confusing alot of terms.

For instance, Zionism and Greater Israel are not related.
Zionism is the idea and support in a Jewish nation state in Israel. Or support in Jewish self determination in their homeland.

It doesnt mean the whole land (Greater Israel idea) which is idea supported by right groups in Israel.

From your way of defining Zionism half of the Jewish population (if not more) in Israel are not Zionists which is absurd.

Now to the point. The murder of Rabin didnt put the end to Oslo. Israel and the PA went on and signed the Hebron agreement and Wye agreemend under Netanyahu's government in 96 and negotiated permanent agreement under Barak's administration which followed.
It was the rapid incline in violance in october 2000, which came to be known as the 2nd intifada which buried the Oslo agreement

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 
ido_ said:
You are confusing alot of terms.

For instance, Zionism and Greater Israel are not related.
Zionism is the idea and support in a Jewish nation state in Israel. Or support in Jewish self determination in their homeland.

It doesnt mean the whole land (Greater Israel idea) which is idea supported by right groups in Israel.

From your way of defining Zionism half of the Jewish population (if not more) in Israel are not Zionists which is absurd.

Now to the point. The murder of Rabin didnt put the end to Oslo. Israel and the PA went on and signed the Hebron agreement and Wye agreemend under Netanyahu's government in 96 and negotiated permanent agreement under Barak's administration which followed.
It was the rapid incline in violance in october 2000, which came to be known as the 2nd intifada which buried the Oslo agreement

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Hebron Agreement : never ratified

Wye Agreement : 2 November 1988 entered into force. By the 18th of December Israel had withdrown from 2% in the Area C instead of the 13% agreed. Both parties accused each other. End of the agreement.

My advice : 1 details are better than headlines.
2 about 2000 years ago, somebody said :"de gustibus disputandum no est", that, translated into a poor englis and adapted to our case, means "it is usless to discuss over principle, believes, ideologies, etc" . That will take us nowhere. Only "facts" have meanings. Will follow.
 
I would close by mentioning that you are possibly right (I am confusing....), but nobody can deny that Israel was settled by a decision taken against arab will; that Israel faught too keep that land; that Israel won all wars; that Palestinian are squeezed in what is now their land, and that in history the winner never gave back territory, unless obliged by force. Israel is defending his conquest, and will never give it back if can avoid it. Looking for what is right or wrong, is an impossible task.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom