The radio says that the Prime Minister of Israel, Itzak Rabin, has been
assasinated.

This took place at a rally meant to show public support for the peace
process.

The gunman was an Jewish Israelli law student, connected with right-wing
anti-peace groups.  One such group has claimed credit for the shooting.

105 responses total.

Oh my god. That's terrible. Has it really been confirmed?

as of earlier this afternoon, he was in serious condition in the hostpital.
Right now on TV, former President Carter is talking about the possible outcome
of Isreal's "great loss"... And now they word "assasination" has been used.

That's CNN, so I'd say it has been confirmed.  :(

According to CNN according to the Israeli govt, the assasin is a 27 year old
law student who admitted killing Rabin, and even took credit, saying that God
had told him to kill Rabin, as a traitor to the Jewish people.

Sounds like an abortion killing in America.  There just about *has* to be some
religious leader behind this.

My prayers for Israel, and all Jewish people. You will always have my
respect and love.

  It was that peace treaty...  there are many radicals on both sides
who believe that peace is an affront to their religion.  Remember
after the last treaty, some radical egyptian muslim killed 
Anwar Sadat.

Truly sad.
\.

Well, I assume you realize I typed Israel, not that %%.? You know
how I feel. I am terribly frustrated with the hate in this world...

Its a matter of fervent, fundamentalist defense of religious principles,
and bloody politics....   again. Nothing new under the sun, yet more
powerful as we dive into the 21st century, since thru the neutering effects
of merging markets (McDonald's, for instance) we are drawing closer to a
homogenized existance which spits in the face of individualism and self-
determination. Bad. However, many recognize this and react not with 
thought and strategy, but with fanatacism. 

"Jihad" refers to a "zealous, defiant struggle on behalf of faith," in 
a mild sense. Too often this term is branded on Muslims. It becomes
ever clearer that this term can be applied liberally to many ethnicities
and militant supporters of bloody Holy slaughter, on behalf of a partisan
identity. Just look at Christanity. Thru history, look at Germans. Hindis.
Serbs. But you see, Its much easier for people to make decisions when they
have partisan politics and morals to buy into, that way they don't have to
think for themselves. If one would actually think on things, It's quite
probable that the outcome would not devitate far from another's point of
view. Kant's "categorical imperitive" is not far off the mark, I think.
(I must also add that I am NOT a Kantian. I do believe in circumstances.)

Just look at American politics. Its party coalition to the end, damn the
degree of silliness, or ridiculous stupidity. If you're conservative, you've
got your own prescribed personality, and thought process. Same for liberals.
Folks buy into something that sounds good for fear of making the wrong choice
and looking stupid, or losing friends. 

Rabin was one to damn the dumbing down process. He went against the grain, 
made his own choices. He was brave enough to view the Palestinians (and
Arafat) as human beings, and not killing machines. He was a peacemaker.
His love and dream of peace cost him his life. I saluted Rabin for his
courage, and mourn his loss. 

Arabs are not the enemy. Serbs are not the enemy. Arafat is not the devil.
Gingrich is not the antichrist. Rush is not God. CNN is not the only source
of news. Etc.etc., what is the enemy is the brainwashing effect of 
fundamentalism. The anihilation of individual thought. The encapsulation of
these evils into the vehicle of mass media, dumped down the throats of
all-too-willing viewers/listeners. 

Daniel Patrick Moynihan predicted that the next 50 countries to be formed
on this planet would come into being within the next 50 years, and will
all come into being thru the catalyst of conflicting ethnicity. Eerie, eh?
Look at Bosnia. Look at Rwanda. Look at Yugoslavia. Look at the Soviet Union.
Quite a prediction. Ethnic membership gone to the nth degree. Its getting 
worse. And we can see it much better now. Live cameras & correspondants
& everything. 

Look what almost happened with Canadians and Quebecois.

Food for thought.....chomp.

Long live the peacemakers.
Damn the market imperitive of Mass Media.

Make your own decisions. Listen a lot. Read a lot. 
Jews can kill as easily as Muslims or Christians. Good ol' American boys
can bomb buildings as easily as international terrorists. Its isn't who
you are, where you were born, or what religion you practice. 

The future just might be murder if we keep up like this. 

My thoughts are with all those who grieve for this setback...

Rabin gave his life for the peace process. I hope and pray that this
cowardly act will backfire to the ultimate benefit of Peace. If that
happens, he will not have given his life in vain.

There are fundamentalist enemies of peace on both sides, and they get all
the news. There is a vast reservoir of hope in the middle that peace
is desirable, and that it is possible to achieve in our time. On the basis
of that great middle, the Labor party took power and began the initiatives.

The suicide bombers sought to push those in the middle of Israel's
politics to the right, by killing innocent people. They have had some
small success in this, but have not been as successful as they might have
hoped. They have not forced a no confidence vote, for example.

Now someone has come from the other side to make Rabin a martyr for peace.
The Arab fundamentalists cheer this, but I think it may be their undoing.
The vast majority of Israelis will rally now to *defend* peace, because
they must to distance themselves from the assassin. With one assassination,
all of the political effects of all those bombings has been undone.

I hope I'm right, anyway.

I salute this great man, a Martyr for peace.

As if there weren't enough problems over there... it's gonna get pretty nasty
now. :(

Perhaps. But perhaps not. Even in the wake of the tragic death of Anwar
Sadat, the peace between Egypt and Israel has stayed firm. Even in the
looming shadow of the Gulf "war," the overwhelming majority of Arab
nations has honored the UN resolution against Iraq. The most honorable
Arab leader of all (I feel), King Hussein of Jordan, views Israel as a
neighbor, not an adversary. 

Hopefully, a sense of synergy will develop. That is, Middle East nations
will realize that the value of the whole area, its culture, its history,
its colorful history and impressive potential, is greater than the sum
of its parts. The Middle East could be a most powerful and influential
world leader if united. On the other hand, if fundamentalism continues
to run rampant, beeswing will be right. ....pretty nasty.

The leaders of the world now converge on Israel to pay their respects.
Let's join them in spirit.

Isn't it ironic that President Clinton is attending Rabin's funeral with past
and present rivals like Former President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bob
Dole, and House Speaker Newt Gigrich?  Why is it that these people rarely
agree on what's best for America, but in times of crisis or grieving, they
all come together?

It strikes me as perfectly natural. Because American leaders are not
so far apart from each other when measured on the scale of global politics.
It is natural for them to put aside their differences on smaller matters,
like the U.S. budget, when confronted with a larger problem that they basically
agree on in the first place, like the issue of war versus peace in the 
Middle East.

  Sad as I am to hear of Rabin's demise, I think it's a lot better for
the Middle East that a Jewish person killed him, rather than a Arab person.
I think it will direct a backlash against the right-wing conservatives,
rather than against the Palestinians.

Many in the region felt that way. At the news of Rabin's death, Palestinians
and other Arab ethnicities were in a panic. It would've been quite a blow
to mideast relations if the killing was a response to Israeli Intelligence
officers shooting down a prominent Islamic Jihad leader(which is what I feared
it was). Yes, it does put the tragedy in a different light. What should also be
noted is the fact that this kind of assassination is quite common; a reaction
within a specific group's interests and direction. Sadat was killed by an
Egyptian. Ghandi was killed by an Indian. Makes a sad sort of sense.

  Good point.  Have any American presidents been shot by non-Americans?
If Rabin's assassin had been a Palestinian, security probably wouldn't
have let him get that close...he gave them an "I'm a driver" line, which
would might have been more suspect from a person who looked Arabic.

What is also interesting to note is the radical turnaround in Israel's 
political dealings that Rabin introduced by his endeavors. Rabin was
a war hero. An Israeli army general. In fact, many victories for Israel,
including the '67 7-Days-War and the seizing of the Golan Heights from
Syria, were a direct result of Rabin's tenacity. 

What we saw during his brief role as prime minister was a far cry from the
brutal general whose motto was "I'll crush their bones." 

Rabin's genius was the tossing aside of the military solution. Israel had
become very accustomed to the military might strategy to get things done.
Partially because they were very good at it, and also because Jews
throughout history had taken punishment on the chin, and weren't successful
in retalliation. 

Quite a difference. Truth is, although Jews preach and live by codes of
honor and compassion, Israel has remained quite a militaristic state. 
Moderate military training is required of all young Israeli men. So, it
isn't surprising that many would get upset at a former war hero preaching
the benefits of diplomacy. It might appear to many as the preachings of
passivity. Through its military might and effective leadership, Israel
secured its borders (along with US $$$ and arms). Rabin realized that the
time had come to negotiate, rather than antagonize. 

Now the world has to pick up where he left off, and honor the legacy of
this great figure in History. Like King Hussein emotionally stated at Rabin's
funeral, "we must not be afraid (to talk openly about peace.), We must lift
our voices high."

Let's.

There was an article in the Ann Arbor News today (lifted from the New York
Times, I think, but I'm not sure) by somebody who had interviewed Rabin
several months ago, as well as several other times over the years.  In this
article, Rabin as described not as somebody who wanted peace for the sake of
peace, but as somebody who wanted peace because he thought that at this point
Israel was more secure with peace than with military defense.  I hadn't really
been following what's been going on over there, but if that's true it makes
the transition from war hero to archetct of peace far more understandable.

Wasn't either McKinley or Garfield shot by a non-American?  I am ashamed
that my history has left me at the moment.

RE #20 McKinley was shot by Leon Csolgosz <sp>, a self-avowed anarchist who
desired to assasinate all world leaders, not just President McKinley.

But was he a non-American?

An immigrant, I believe.  Many Israelis are immigrants, perhaps even the
assassin?  The issue in Israel seems to be Jewish on Jewish violence in
Israel.  And in that country there has never been any parallel to this.

On Monday, my dad had been dead for one year...I thought the eulogy given by
the granddaughter was the most appropriate and the most touching.  My heart
goes out to his family and personal friends.

#19: If that is so, Rabin was a very smart man. It is probably naive to
     think about peace for the sake of peace in the Middle East, especially
     if you're Israel. It's more realistic to think about peace as a 
     temporary stage.

This response has been erased.

  Rabin's granddaughter's eulogy was very moving.  I hope the
killer hears it; I can't imagine it would cause him some remorse.

In the mind of the killer, and almost all extreme right wingers in Israel,
the man (Rabin) was a traitor to the state of Israel. It is difficult
to put oneself into their frame of mind, but whatever the future brings,
these people will not go away any more than the Palestinians will. 
Tomorrow's peacemaker will have to make peace with all of them.
I don't know how it can be done.

(D'oh, #27 was s'posed to be "can't imagine it would *not* cause him remorse")

I hope people listen closely too, ajax. Maybe it will show all of those in
the thick of it that noone is immune to the concept of COPING. Yep. Its
that four-letter-word again, COPE. Both sides of the issue have been
historically victimized, as well as being instigators or accomplices to
crimes against humanity. Any remedy to the ongoing turmoil in the region
is likely to leave a bad taste in someone's mouth. The issue of paramount
importance is that of land for peace. West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights, etc.
With new powers and inluence come great changes in responsibility, and
people will just have to deal with it. Any resolution will involve a joint
effort, or joint losses and gains. People cannot have it both ways. 
It is a shame that some individuals are in a more defensible position in 
terms of morality, but will have to sacrifice to negotiate with those who
are not. The choice is hard, compelling, and very very vital for progress.
Who enjoys sacrificing? No one. It must also be said that sacrifice for the
greatest good and for the greatest number is the most righteous of activity,
deserving honor of the highest order. Why do people have a hard time figuring
this out? I dunno.

If they hated the man so much and viewed him in such a way that it would
provoke them to assassinate him, no eulogy would cause them remorse.

Let's say the Cubans in Miami assassinated Castro because they thought him
to be a traitor to and oppressor of the Cuban people. (Slightly different
scenerio because I would agree with the Cubans in Miami, but the mindset
is probably very similar.) You think the Cubans in Miami would feel any
remorse?

Among the greatest dangers in a democracy are those that do not accept
the principles of a democracy - that decisions will be made by a majority
and the minority only has recourse through argumentation and petition.
These people accept the benefits of living in a democracy, but refuse its
concurrent obligations. Its a universal tragedy: Lincoln was assassinated
by such a person, and we have our own collection of bombers and assassin
wannabees.

Absolutely. The system of checks & balances in a Democratic system is there
for a reason. And, as you noted, rcurl, the hysterical few who disagree
aren't playing by the rules when they decide to kill those they disagree with.

Here's an interesting note on Democracy in Israel: A legal motion has just
been considered for that nation - censorship. The Israeli government is
considering censoring all radical right-wing publications or announcements.
Israel does not specifically have a constitutional right to free speech,
and governmental control is sometimes exerted to certain published materials.
Although, even without a "1st Amendment," speech is protected to a high
degree in Israel. But Israel's attorney general has just requested a block
on extremist views, in a bid to prevent ill-effects of propeganda.

Wow. Is censorship the answer? Even in the wake of a hero's fall, should the
voices of dissent be muted? Is this healthy for Democracy?

  Israel's government is quite different from ours.  They lack a formal
constitution, and don't separate church from state, empowering Rabbis
to act in what the US considers judicial/legal capacities.  (There are
distinct secular and religious courts).  A criticism of the right wing
is that some Rabbis were preaching that it's morally justifiable to kill
anyone who would give away Israel's land, which is tantamount to
endorsing an assassination of Rabin.
 
  I don't think a wide ban on free speech is a good answer for Israel,
but there are limits to free speech in this country, that seem quite
unobtrusive.  Aside from easy ones like not yelling "fire" in a theater,
I think there are bans on conspiring to commit illegal acts, or inciting
others to commit illegal acts.  I'm not sure what our exact laws are, or
what's being proposed in Israel (how would they define "right-wing
propeganda?"), but I wouldn't rule out some limits on free speech
without considering what those limits are.

34:  Re:Land for Peace-- Why is it that in Eastern Europe evicting
Bosnian Muslims from their homes at gunpoint ("Ethnic Cleansing") is
bad.....But in the Middle East evicting Jews from their homes at 
gunpoint ("Land for Peace") is good?

Also, if Isreal is in fact trading land for peace, they why, after many
years, have the Palestinians failed to live up to their agreement to 
strike the clause calling for the destruction of Isreal from their
"National Charter" and, according to what I hear, their leaders still 
call the peace process the first steps in accomplishing it?

Finally,  while on the subject, don't hold the Israeli-Egyptian peacct
treaty up as a paradigm.  As I understand it, it is a very cold peace,
and the official Egyptian press routinely publishes blatent anti-
Semitic hatred.

Er...kerry - the Jews initially evicted the Palestinians. The essence
of the process that is occurring is that one calls it *quits* on
talking about who evicted whom, give up that eye-for-an-eye crap,
and cooperatively decide how everyone can live together in harmony
and cooperation. This is going to require accomodations on both sides,
but it is *essential*.

"The Jews initially evicted the Palestinians"???  You mean like in '48
when the Arabs took over the old city of Jerusalem, starved and shot
the Jewish residents, took over synagogues & holy places and made
them into barns for livestock & garbage dumps??  Or do you mean the
agricultural settlements built on land Jews paid for in cash??  Or
do you mean the houses Jews bought in Hevron??

How do Jews live together with others if no one lets them??

You illustrate my point perfectly. You appear to be of the eye-for-an-eye
conviction - but this will not work. *Everyone* must live together
with everyone else peacefully, without dredging up the past. The cycles
of animosity must be broken. Civilized people should be able to do it.

  I heard on NPR today that a US fund-raising number for the
assassin's defense is getting 60-70 calls an hour, and that
he's received considerable support from some US groups.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss