Preface:
The notion that Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination and Yasser Arafat’s death were orchestrated to undermine Arab-Israeli peace is endorsed by conspirologists from both left and right political spectrums.
Left-wing conspirologists often allege involvement of Israeli right-wing factions or security services opposed to the Oslo Accords.
Right-wing conspirologists may point to external actors or internal figures like Shimon Peres, suggesting wider plots to destabilize Israel.
These perspectives, though widely discussed, lack concrete evidence and are analyzed here through verified historical facts.
Yitzhak Rabin’s Pursuit of Peace and Assassination
Yitzhak Rabin, Israel’s prime minister from 1992 to 1995, was a pivotal figure in the Oslo Accords, signed in 1993 and 1995 between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).
These accords aimed to foster peace through mutual recognition, partial Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories, and the establishment of the
Palestinian Authority.
Rabin’s dedication to peace was articulated in his 1993 speech at the Oslo I signing, where he expressed hope for ending “bloodshed” and building coexistence.
His efforts, alongside PLO leader Yasser Arafat and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, led to their shared 1994 Nobel Peace Prize.
On November 4, 1995, at 9:30 PM, Rabin was assassinated at Kings of Israel Square (now Rabin Square) in Tel Aviv, following a rally supporting the Oslo Accords.
The perpetrator, Yigal Amir, a 25-year-old Jewish law student and religious extremist, shot Rabin twice with a Beretta pistol.
Amir’s motive, as established in his trial and the 1996 Shamgar Commission report, was to halt the Oslo process, which he viewed as a betrayal of Israel’s divine claim to the land.
Amir considered Rabin a rodef (a Jewish legal term for a pursuer endangering Jewish lives) and acted with minimal coordination, involving his brother Hagai and friend Dror Adani.
He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Rabin’s assassination significantly disrupted the Oslo process, exacerbating Israel’s political polarization.
Shimon Peres took over as interim prime minister, but Benjamin Netanyahu’s 1996 election victory shifted policy away from Oslo’s framework, slowing peace negotiations.
The process weakened further amid violence from both Palestinian and Israeli extremists.
While Rabin’s commitment to peace made him a target, no verified evidence supports a broader conspiracy to derail Arab-Israeli peace.
Yasser Arafat’s Death and Its Context
Yasser Arafat, chairman of the PLO and president of the Palestinian Authority, died on November 11, 2004, in a French military hospital after a sudden illness.
As Rabin’s counterpart in the Oslo Accords, Arafat’s role in peace negotiations was contentious, criticized by Palestinians for excessive concessions and by Israelis for insufficient action against terrorism.
Official medical reports attribute his death to natural causes, possibly a stroke or infection, though inconclusive records fueled speculation.
A 2013 Swiss forensic study detected elevated polonium-210 levels in Arafat’s remains, prompting poisoning theories, but findings were not conclusive.
No evidence definitively ties Israel or other actors to his death.
The deaths of Rabin and Arafat, both central to Oslo, had a shared effect of undermining peace efforts, but their circumstances differ.
Rabin’s assassination was a targeted act by a domestic extremist, while
Arafat’s death remains medically unresolved
Claims linking both to a coordinated effort to disrupt peace lack substantiation, given the distinct actors and timelines involved.
Current Israeli Leadership and Perceptions of Harm
The claim targets Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister as of June 14, 2025 (serving 1996–1999, 2009–2021, 2022–present), asserting he pursues policies perceived as “mindlessly killing Jewish people” yet faces no assassination attempts.
This likely refers to criticisms following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack, which killed over 1,200 Israelis and exposed security vulnerabilities.
Critics, including Israeli protest groups and commentators on platforms like X, contend that Netanyahu’s policies—such as settlement expansion, alliances with ultranationalists like Itamar Ben-Gvir, and marginalizing the Palestinian Authority—indirectly bolstered Hamas, contributing to the attack.
His subsequent military operations in Gaza, targeting Hamas, have resulted in significant Palestinian casualties, though direct Jewish casualties primarily stem from the initial attack and ongoing hostilities.
Netanyahu’s tenure includes divisive policies:
Security and Military Actions: The Gaza operations post-2023 aimed to dismantle Hamas but have been criticized for escalating conflict, potentially endangering Israeli lives through retaliatory attacks.
Political Divisions: His 2023 judicial reform push triggered widespread protests, with detractors arguing it weakened democratic institutions, risking national stability.
Coalitions: Alliances with far-right figures have been blamed for heightening tensions.
Peace Process: Unlike Rabin, Netanyahu has prioritized normalization with Arab states (e.g., 2020 Abraham Accords with UAE and Bahrain) over Palestinian talks, diverging from Oslo’s approach.
Despite these controversies, Netanyahu has faced no assassination attempts. Possible reasons include:
Strengthened Security: Following Rabin’s assassination, Israel enhanced protections for leaders. The Shin Bet, critiqued for its 1995 lapses, improved threat monitoring, targeting both Jewish and Palestinian extremists.
Political Climate: Rabin’s assassination was fueled by opposition to territorial concessions, a uniquely divisive issue in 1995. Netanyahu’s policies, while contentious, align with right-wing priorities, reducing threats from ultranationalists like Amir.
Cultural Change: Rabin’s killing shocked Israel, fostering a stigma against political violence among Jews, which may deter similar acts despite dissatisfaction with Netanyahu.
Comparison and Neutral Observations
Rabin’s commitment to the Oslo Accords positioned him as a target for extremists like Yigal Amir, who opposed peace concessions.
His assassination directly stemmed from domestic resistance to his policies.
Arafat’s 2004 death, while impactful for peace prospects, lacks evidence of assassination, and its medical ambiguity and later timing (nine years after Rabin’s) weaken claims of a shared plot.
Both events hindered the Oslo process, but their distinct causes—a confirmed extremist act versus an unresolved medical event—do not support a unified conspiracy.
Netanyahu’s survival, despite criticisms for policies seen as harmful to Israelis, reflects improved security measures, a less volatile political context than 1995, and the absence of a singularly polarizing issue like Oslo.
The perception of “mindlessly killing Jewish people” is subjective, often tied to indirect consequences such as security failures, but differs from Rabin’s direct concessions, which provoked Amir’s attack.
No documented evidence suggests a conspiracy protecting Netanyahu or connecting Rabin’s and Arafat’s deaths to a deliberate effort to derail peace.
[ + ] prototype
[ - ] prototype 1 point 7 hoursJun 15, 2025 01:28:53 ago (+1/-0)
Worse, the will to fight is a fundemental component of human nature, perhaps even a deep seated need.
Some groups destroy their opposition. Some groups reconcile only after the fighting.
And as a rule, the longer a fight is held off, the deeper, and more bitter the animosity, and the greater the destruction that follows.
It is therefore, all things under consideration, after its own manner, a great historical injustice, both on the individual level, and even the national level, to make from old animosities the perversion of artificial peace for mere peace's sake, rather than settling differences however circumstance dictates they need be settled.
And it is to the frusteration of human progress, and human nature, and more importantly, human self determination, that peace imposed either internally (and foolishly), or by external efforts, impinges so on the autonomy of individuals and nations alike.
Blood is the great arbiter, conflict the reconcilor and destroy, the judge, the jury, and both the reward and punishment of all.
To do otherwise is to deny the very historical process that makes us human, gives us an anchor in time, and that which created civilization to begin with, without which there is no future history.
And at the end of history, when the great peace is achieved, will be the graveyard of man.
Died of boredom, and lack of necessity, and all those animating contests which had shaped him and his works.
Peace is the great usurper which like a thief of dreams, builds a prison around all who seek it, and substitutes freedom for weakness and complacency.
And all greatness that could have been, all horror, all wonder, is lulled therefore at once into both crib and convalescence.
Peace is the enemy of generations, both past, and present, and future.
Peace is slavery.