Rabin’s assassination had deeper implications that went beyond the official narratives presented at the time. Instead of focusing on generalized political struggles or surface-level issues, particularly the role of government and business monopolies, and how Rabin’s political stance might have catalyzed his tragic assassination.

The assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 was not just the result of a single political act—it was a consequence of a deeper, often obscured battle within Israel between different power structures: the government, business monopolies, and external geopolitical forces. While the immediate narrative focused on the killer’s ideological motives, what’s often overlooked is how Rabin’s policies, particularly his stance on territorial concessions and the Oslo Accords, exposed Israel to internal and external pressures that many saw as detrimental to the country’s security and sovereignty.

Rabin’s decision to pursue peace with the Palestinians, epitomized by the Oslo Accords, came on the heels of Israel’s monumental victory in the Six-Day War of 1967, a war that secured not only territorial gains but also a strong strategic position in the Middle East. However, Rabin’s approach in the 1990s represented a drastic shift: his defeatism and willingness to surrender territories re-captured in 1967, including East Jerusalem, almost all of Samaria, and Gaza, in exchange for Pie in the Sky promises of peace. Arafat lost Gaza and Hamas does not recognize the Oslo Accords – this proves that the Foreign Power dictate which the Oslo Accords and UN 242 represents betrays Israeli strategic interests in favor of turning Israel into a banana republic.

For many Israelis, especially those who viewed the 1967 victory as a turning point in Israel’s survival and sovereignty, Rabin’s negotiations were seen as a perverse reversal of Israel’s triumph. To them, this was not a pursuit of peace, but a relinquishment of hard-won territorial advantages, and it signified a move towards European-dominated peace frameworks that would undermine Israel’s military and strategic autonomy.

Rabin’s assassination also underscored the tensions between the political elite and the wider Israeli public, particularly regarding the role of business monopolies and entrenched government interests. In Israel, like in many nations, government policies often work hand-in-hand with powerful business entities. These monopolies, which control large swaths of the economy, exert significant influence over government decisions, including those related to security, defense, and foreign policy.

Rabin’s pursuit of peace with the Palestinians was seen by some as Chamberlain’s imposed “Peace” upon the Czech Republic! Critics who viewed such agreements as appeasement rather than genuine peace. Rabin’s assassination in this context can be viewed as the culmination of a larger struggle: one between those who believed Israel’s future lay in economic integration with Europe and the West, and those who believed that Israel’s security and sovereignty could only be preserved by maintaining its territorial integrity and military strength. Rabin’s policies were interpreted by some as a betrayal of the national ethos that had been built on strength, independence, and the strategic use of military power.

Rabin’s willingness to cede territory in exchange for peace was not only a threat to the right-wing’s vision for Israel but also to those in power who benefited from the status quo. The deep-seated distrust of political elites in Israel, particularly from sectors who believed that peace deals undermined Israel’s defense posture, painted Rabin’s actions as a form of appeasement to foreign powers, particularly the European Union, and a surrender of Israel’s hard-earned strategic advantages.

Rabin’s political vision also reflected external pressures—primarily from Europe and the United States, which played pivotal roles in shaping Israel’s diplomatic strategy during the 1990s. These powers, particularly the European Union, sought to mold the Middle East through frameworks of peace agreements that often involved heavy concessions. Rabin’s policies, while aimed at securing peace, were seen by many critics as the Israeli leadership capitulating to foreign influence, diminishing Israel’s autonomy in favor of European dominance in the region.

n this sense, the assassination symbolized not just a political rift within Israel but a broader conflict over Israel’s future path in the Middle East—whether it would maintain its independence, military strength, and territorial integrity, or whether it would align more closely with international peace processes that could dilute its sovereignty.

Rabin’s policies—particularly the Oslo Accords—did not merely seek peace; they represented a historic reversal of Israel’s greatest geopolitical achievement: the June 1967 victory. That war secured critical territories such as East Jerusalem, Samaria, and Gaza, and reestablished Israel as a dominant force in the Middle East. Yet in the 1990s, Rabin, under the guise of diplomacy, chose to surrender those very gains. His defeatism—the readiness to hand over land in exchange for “peace”—was perceived by many Israelis not as pragmatic statesmanship, but as an act of capitulation. The result was a perverse transformation of a monumental Israeli victory into a strategic and moral defeat.

The Oslo Accords, negotiated with a weakened and delegitimized PLO, culminated in Israeli recognition of Yasser Arafat—an architect of terror. Gaza was already lost to Arafat, and later fell into the hands of Hamas, which explicitly rejects the Oslo framework. This collapse illustrates a bitter truth: foreign-imposed “peace” plans like Oslo and UN Resolution 242 were never about Israeli security. They were about reconfiguring the Middle East to fit Western and especially European neo-colonial interests. Israel, in this arrangement, was expected to behave as a compliant client state—a banana republic masquerading as a sovereign nation.

To many Israelis, especially those shaped by the ethos of self-reliance and defense that emerged post-1967, Rabin’s policies were not a road to peace but a betrayal of the Zionist mission. The peace process came to symbolize the ascendancy of foreign values and pressure over national interest and strategic necessity.

Rabin’s assassination exposed more than a political fault line—it revealed the extent to which Israeli governance had become enmeshed with business monopolies and unelected elites. A powerful network of entrenched interests—economic, bureaucratic, and judicial—operated behind the scenes, advancing a globalist agenda in lockstep with the European Union and United States. These interests pushed for a peace process not to secure Israel’s future, but to open its markets and borders, and to subsume its national policy within a broader Western framework.

To many, this echoed Neville Chamberlain’s forced “peace” upon Czechoslovakia in 1938. Rabin, like Chamberlain, was seen as capitulating to international pressure at the expense of his nation’s security and dignity. The Oslo Accords were not a bilateral agreement; they were a dictated framework designed to neutralize Israel’s strategic superiority and force it into moral and territorial retreat.

Thus, Rabin’s assassination was not merely an isolated act of extremism. It was the tragic flashpoint in a broader ideological civil war: between Israelis who trusted in the permanence of strength and sovereignty, and those who sought salvation through integration with Europe, normalization with sworn enemies, and submission to foreign demands.

In this light, the assassination cannot be understood without reckoning with the foreign pressures that guided Rabin’s hand, and the domestic oligarchs who supported it. His death did not end the struggle—it revealed it. And the questions it raised remain as urgent now as they were in 1995: Will Israel be ruled by its own citizens and protected by its own military? Or will it continue to yield to unelected elites and foreign powers that see it not as a sovereign nation, but as a geopolitical pawn?

mosckerr

Netanyahu: Countering the Attack on Israel’s Legitimacy – YouTube

Is the “Dreyfus Affair”, just a cheap publicity stunt? Why should Israel presume that a political alliance with Australia ever existed?

Australia maintained a neutral stance during the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Australia supported post wars UN Resolutions 242 and 338 written by British and French imperialism in the Middle East! Demands that Israel return to its ’48 Armistice battle lines amounts to revisionist history and supports EU imperialism in the Middle East which seeks to force Israel to return to a weak political pawn controlled by Great Power strategic interests; as if Israel exists as a UN pre-Independence War protectorate territory of the UN-nations.

UN – Nations political rhetoric propaganda that its interference in determination of Israeli strategic national interests, waving its bogus flag “promote peace”, simply conceals foreign great power efforts which reject the radical change in the balance of power in the Middle East, the result of Israeli military victories.

Calls for withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from “territories occupied during the wars” – an utter fraud great power hat trick deception! The so called UN – Nations “efforts to find a peaceful solution” amounts to excuses by thieves to rob the Jewish state of its national security having defendable international borders.

Australia has never condemned the UN – Nations. Israel accuses the UN – Nations of establishing their own policy Apartheid against Israel; which singles out Israel as the only member which the UN – Nations flatly refuses to recognize as a nation state within the region of the Middle East. This Apartheid racism has forced Israel to piggy-back as a temporary EU member in order that Israel might chair UN – Nations committees.

Israel’s unique Apartheid status within the United Nations, its ghetto treatment as a “contentious” member state, more than simply “highly problematic”. It exemplifies a racist policy of apartheid — at least in a political and diplomatic sense. This issue isn’t about the exclusive separation of Israel as the only state to face ‘contentious relationships’ in the UN, but about the specific, consistent, and highly political manner in which Israel forced to endure unjust and unequal abuse from other states, particularly in terms of its right to participate in key roles as a full member of the Middle Eastern community, and have its sovereign status respected. No other nation has the so called “International Community” challenged the validity of its National Capital.

Israel’s treatment since it joined the UN as a member nation in 1949, forced to stomach the disgrace within this biased organization; its consistent exclusion from certain roles and responsibilities. From the beginning of its existence, Israel has faced opposition from a large portion of the Arab world and Muslim-majority countries that have refused to recognize it as a legitimate state. These states, both in the UN General Assembly and in other UN bodies, have blocked Israel’s participation in various forums, committees, and initiatives. While other countries with controversial political situations still find ways to take leadership positions, Israel has had to fight for recognition and equality in the system.

In the UN system, countries – grouped by regions – when it comes to selecting committee chairs or positions of power, like seats in the Security Council or the Human Rights Council. The Middle East the only region in the World which excludes Israel as country of that region, as part of that region. Arab states reject the Zionist entity as a Crusader State. Not because of Israel’s geographic location or lack of a right to participate, but due to their political opposition, their refusal to accept a permanent Jewish dhimmi status, and refuse to surrender as absurd that Jews have equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East. Hence Arab and Muslim voting blocks in the UN refer to Israel as the Zionist entity! This kind of Apartheid exclusion doesn’t happen with any other member state. Even states with complex geopolitical situations, like North Korea or Syria, are still granted the right to participate in committees, vote, and hold leadership positions within UN frameworks.

Israel a “full member” of the UN. Regardless of this fact, Israel banned to chair any UN committees, until it became more formally associated with European Union bloc. This exclusion, not based on performance or any objective criteria of competence, but solely rooted in the persistent political and ideological Apartheid policy of opposition by Arab and Muslim voting blocks that dominate the UN. No other country in the UN endures such political Apartheid exclusion from leadership roles, so blatant and consistent. Yet no ally of the Jewish state has denounced this obvious UN, Dreyfus Affair racism.

Israel flat-out rejects post its 2 Wars of Independence, ’48 and ’67 to establish the “Green Line” as its permanent international borders. Israel simply not a UN protectorate territory. The Quartet 2-State solution stinks of Nazi ‘Final Solution’. Post Shoah Europe does not shape nor influence Israeli strategic interests; Israel condemns to this day the British cowardly 1939 White Paper betrayal which influenced FDR to close the borders of America to Jews attempting to escape from Hitler’s genocide.

Diplomacy involves finding common ground, and Israel shares no common ground not with the EU nor with Australia. Imposition of political revisionism favors returning Israel to indefensible borders and the Quartet powers dominating the Middle East. Twice Arab leaders threatened, both in ’48 and ’67, to complete the Nazi genocide and throw the Jews into the Sea. Failure by UN – Nations Resolutions to address this cold-hard fact invalidates the neutrality of the UN, just as pre-Wars British and French neutrality but post-Wars British and French overbearing attempts to dictate peace terms based upon the presumption that Arab states won both wars.

The term “apartheid” has been used by some critics of Israel to describe its treatment of Palestinians, especially in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. However, Israel vehemently rejects this characterization, arguing that it provides full civil rights to its Arab citizens (who make up about 20% of the population).

Guilty European and Arab states have forged an alliance which projects and promotes and attempts to foist their repeated attempts of Jewish genocide upon the Jews themselves. This trash propaganda directly compares to the slander “the Jews poisoned the wells”, and Church “Blood Libels” repeated prior to every Easter for a millennium or more! Jews carry the scares and trauma of European and Arab barbarism whereby dhimmi Jewish refugee populations had no political or social rights.

The propaganda of “apartheid” in the context of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is part of a broader international debate on the legitimacy of the occupation and the viability of a two-state solution. This trash-talk compares to the WWI Allies slander of Germany, calling the German People “The Huns”. These criminal lies produced the fruits of Adolf Hitler!

The British ’39 White Paper betrayed the Balfour Declaration. Just that simple. Israel’s refusal to accept the international community’s proposed solutions (such as the two-state solution or pre-1967 borders) perceived as a rejection of the same international forces that failed to protect the Jewish people throughout 2000+ years, which culminated in the Shoah and the Allies refusal to bomb the rail-lines leading to Auschwitz!

That Australia recognizes Jerusalem as the Capital of the Jewish state, only exposes the pimp/whore relationship between it and the US. President Trump exercised tremendous leadership and moral courage to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. That PM Morrison basks in the huge shadow cast by President Trump, while much appreciated, Australia has shown no national backbone in forging a political and economic alliance with Israel.

Calls for Israel to return to pre-1967 borders or to accept a two-state solution an abomination to Israelis. Given the repeated existential Arab threats/wars, such biased posturing by “friendly nations”, with friends like these, who needs enemies. Israel’s rejection of the Green Line as its permanent border expresses Israeli diplomacy which requires security, not dependent on international guarantees but on realities which its military strength achieved.

Mandate Palestine ceased to exist in 1948. The UN condemned Jordan’s annexation of Samaria as illegal in 1950. Jordan never established a Palestinian state between 1950 to 1967. The propaganda of post war ’67 of the “West Bank” as bogus as the 1964 Arafat call for the Palestinian State!