StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Not to violate the moritarium, but what if Rabin hadn't been assassinated, and the Oslo Accords allowed to develop? Would the situation in Israel be any better then today?

EDIT: Upon thinking about it, I am giving this thread 24 hours to improve. If it does not do so then, I will lock it.

It's hard to say. There were some serious issues with the Oslo Accords that most likely would have led to an ultimate rejection by Arafat (for one thing, they carved up the proposed Palestinian "state" into a series of enclaves separated by the Israeli military, and didn't deal with the "final issues"), but at the very least you wouldn't have had three years in which Netanyahu comes to power and drags his feet for most of the time until he's gone.

According to the website http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to ... ccords.php, the final issues would have been dealt with in year 3 of the interim government. That would have been 1996, after Rabin had been shot. It was also meant to be a rather slow movement, dealing with issues gradually. It would have given the palestinians more power then the 2000 camp david plan, but it would have been far from a fully functioning state. I honestly think that at worst their would have been some violence, but that on the whole things might have been smoother then they are today.

Darth Yan wrote:According to the website http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to ... ccords.php, the final issues would have been dealt with in year 3 of the interim government. That would have been 1996, after Rabin had been shot. It was also meant to be a rather slow movement, dealing with issues gradually. It would have given the palestinians more power then the 2000 camp david plan, but it would have been far from a fully functioning state. I honestly think that at worst their would have been some violence, but that on the whole things might have been smoother then they are today.

I doubt it. Frankly, the way the Oslo Accords worked out in practise, everyone was afraid to point out violations of them so as not to rock the boat, so I think their collapse was inevitable. Besides, its by no means certain that Rabin would have remained in power after the 1996 elections, for a numebr of reasons.

eyl wrote:

Darth Yan wrote:According to the website http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to ... ccords.php, the final issues would have been dealt with in year 3 of the interim government. That would have been 1996, after Rabin had been shot. It was also meant to be a rather slow movement, dealing with issues gradually. It would have given the palestinians more power then the 2000 camp david plan, but it would have been far from a fully functioning state. I honestly think that at worst their would have been some violence, but that on the whole things might have been smoother then they are today.

I doubt it. Frankly, the way the Oslo Accords worked out in practise, everyone was afraid to point out violations of them so as not to rock the boat, so I think their collapse was inevitable. Besides, its by no means certain that Rabin would have remained in power after the 1996 elections, for a numebr of reasons.

That's a good point. At least from what I read, when Rabin was killed, he was not popular - it's very likely that he wouldn't have survived the next round of elections as Prime Minister.

I'm curious as to how popular they were with the palestinians and israelis.

Darth Yan wrote:I'm curious as to how popular they were with the palestinians and israelis.

By "them", I assume you man the Oslo Accords?

I can't speak for the Palestinian view, but as far as Israelis went, it was a mixed bag. A large group saw them as the best thing since sliced bread; another group saw them as a disaster (and both groups loathed one another, needless to say) and a smaller group was ambivalent.

for the record, I'm in the last group; I thought the general idea was good but some of the details were problematical and the implementation was horrible.

Yeah. Still, probably would have been better then what's currently happening.