Latest news with #YitzhakRabin
New Straits Times
a day ago
- Politics
- New Straits Times
Asean not morally ambiguous
AS the war in Gaza grinds on, some have begun to question Asean's moral posture, suggesting it is caught between ethical clarity and geopolitical caution. A recent Nikkei Asia editorial, for instance, claimed Asean suffers from a strategic and moral dilemma in responding to the Israel-Palestine conflict. However, far from being paralysed, Asean has consistently supported a peaceful resolution based on international law. Since the 1970s, Asean has endorsed the two-state solution as the only viable path towards lasting peace. This includes support for United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the 1993 Oslo Accords, and the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative — also known as the Makkah Accord. These are firm commitments to legality, diplomacy and human rights. The claim that Asean has been muted or morally ambiguous dismisses the role played by key member states — especially Malaysia and Indonesia. Both have consistently condemned Israeli aggression and voiced support for Palestinian self-determination. Singapore, while maintaining diplomatic relations with Israel, has also supported peaceful coexistence and a two-state solution grounded in rule of law. Asean has chosen collective consensus and sustained diplomacy over reactionary statements or token gestures. If paralysis exists, it is not within Asean, but within Israel's long-standing policy of rejectionism. Since the assassination of prime minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, successive Israeli governments have walked away from every serious peace initiative. The expansion of illegal settlements, the military blockade of Gaza and discriminatory policies against Arab citizens have created a system many have likened to apartheid. The tragic events of Oct 7, 2023, have been cited by Israel to justify its indiscriminate bombardment of Gaza's hospitals, schools and refugee camps. Entire neighbourhoods have been flattened. Food, water and fuel have been denied to over two million civilians, more than half of whom are children. This is not self-defence — it is collective punishment, forbidden under international humanitarian law. Asean, by contrast, has called for an immediate ceasefire, unimpeded humanitarian access and a return to negotiations. What Asean cannot do — because of geography and geopolitical limits — is intervene in a war sustained by decades of US vetoes at the UN Security Council and continuous arms support for Israel from Washington, London and Berlin. Notably, even within Europe there is growing unease. Belgium, Spain, Norway and Ireland have moved towards recognising Palestine as a sovereign state. They have criticised Israel's starvation tactics and disproportionate use of force. This shift is not an abandonment of Western alliances — it is a recognition that peace cannot be achieved through occupation and siege. Asean's position has also found resonance across the Global South. At the Asean-GCC Summit in October 2023, both blocs jointly reaffirmed their support for the two-state solution and peaceful coexistence. Asean's alignment with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), the UN and the Arab League signals a unified call for justice — not through military intervention, but through diplomatic resolve. Asean does not practise megaphone diplomacy. Its strength lies in principled patience and coordinated regional consensus. Unlike Western powers, which condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine but defend Israeli strikes on Gaza, Asean does not apply moral standards selectively. What many forget is that this is not a war between two equal sides. It is the latest chapter in a prolonged occupation that began in 1967. To fault Asean for not taking sides in such a structurally unequal conflict is to conflate strategic restraint with moral apathy. Indeed, Asean's restraint is its greatest diplomatic asset. By refusing to inflame tensions or escalate rhetoric, Asean positions itself as a principled bloc that adheres to international norms. Malaysia and Indonesia, as prominent members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, have also spoken not just for Muslims, but for all who uphold dignity, justice and legality. The tragedy of Gaza is the failure of Israel to embrace coexistence, to respect international law and to heed decades of global appeals for peace. Asean has made its position clear: the only path forward is an end to occupation and the realisation of Palestinian statehood. Until that happens, it is not Asean's credibility that should be questioned — it is Israel's.
Al Jazeera
2 days ago
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
Netanyahu's legacy will not be security – it will be isolation
Since its founding in 1948, Israel's prime ministers have sought to leave legacies that would outlast them — some through war, others through diplomacy, and a few through historic blunders. David Ben-Gurion secured the state's independence and built its foundational institutions. Golda Meir presided over a war that cost her office. Menachem Begin signed peace with Egypt while expanding illegal settlements. Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated for trying to make peace with the Palestinians. Each leader, in some way, left their mark. But none has ruled as long – or as divisively – as Benjamin Netanyahu. And now, more than ever, the question is not just what kind of legacy he wants to leave, but what legacy he is actually creating. In 2016, I argued that the Arab world had effectively crowned Netanyahu 'King of the Middle East' — a title that reflected his success in positioning Israel as a regional power without making any concessions to the Palestinians. Today, I believe he sees an opportunity not only to consolidate that title, but to reshape Israel's regional position permanently — through force, impunity, and a strategy rooted in securitised dominance. Since his first term, Netanyahu has insisted that Israel's security must override all other considerations. In his worldview, a Palestinian state is not merely incompatible with Israel's security; it is an existential threat. Even were such a state to be created, Netanyahu has made clear that Israel must retain what he calls 'security sovereignty' over all of historic Palestine. This has never been mere rhetoric. It has shaped his every major decision, none more so than the current war on Gaza. The assault has levelled entire neighbourhoods, killed tens of thousands of Palestinians, displaced most of its two million people, and created an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe. Israel stands accused by human rights groups and United Nations agencies of committing war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. It is facing genocide charges, supported by multiple countries, at the International Court of Justice. The International Criminal Court has also issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his former defence minister, Yoav Gallant, for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the use of starvation as a weapon of war. Yet Netanyahu presses on, arguing that Gaza must never again pose a threat to Israel, and that the destruction is necessary to secure the country's future. This logic does not stop at Gaza. He has used similar arguments to justify Israel's attacks on Lebanon, including targeted strikes on Hezbollah figures and the attempted assassination of the group's leader, Hassan Nasrallah. Using the same rationale, Israel has also launched strikes in Yemen and made clear that it will act in Iraq whenever and wherever it deems necessary. The security argument has likewise been used to justify the continued occupation of Syrian territory and is currently invoked to legitimise ongoing attacks on Iran, ostensibly to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons and to degrade its missile and drone capabilities. In every case, the same narrative is repeated: Israel cannot be safe unless its enemies are broken, its deterrence unchallenged, and its dominance undisputed. All dissent, disagreement, or resistance — whether military, political, or even symbolic — is cast as a threat to be eliminated. Even Netanyahu's diplomatic efforts follow this logic. The Abraham Accords, signed with the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco during his premiership, were hailed as peace deals but functioned primarily as instruments of regional alignment that marginalised the Palestinians. For Netanyahu, normalisation is not a path to peace — it is a way to cement Israel's position while avoiding a just resolution to the occupation. What, then, is the legacy Netanyahu seeks? He wants to be remembered as the prime minister who crushed all resistance to occupation, permanently ended the idea of a Palestinian state, and enshrined Israel's dominance in the Middle East through sheer force. In his vision, Israel controls the land, dictates the rules, and answers to no one. But history may remember him differently. What Netanyahu calls security, much of the world increasingly sees as systemic violence. The global response to the war on Gaza — millions marching in protest, international legal action, growing boycotts, and diplomatic downgrades — suggests that under his leadership, Israel is not gaining legitimacy but losing it. Even among its allies, Israel faces growing isolation. While the United States continues to provide diplomatic cover, terms like 'apartheid', 'ethnic cleansing', and 'settler colonialism' are no longer confined to fringe activism. They are entering mainstream political discourse and shaping public consciousness, particularly among younger generations. Many commentators argue that Netanyahu is clinging to power merely to avoid prosecution for corruption or accountability for the failures of the October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel. But I believe this analysis misses a deeper truth: that he sees this moment — this war, this absence of accountability — as a historic window of opportunity. In his mind, this is legacy work. The tragedy is that in pursuing this legacy, he may achieve the opposite of what he intends. Not a stronger Israel, but a more isolated one. Not a secure homeland, but a state increasingly seen as a violator of international norms. Not a legacy of strength, but one of moral and political collapse. Netanyahu will be remembered. Today, as Gaza burns and Iran faces strike after strike, there is no longer any doubt about that. The only question is whether his legacy will be one of national security, or one that leaves Israel more alone, more condemned, and more precarious than ever before. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Observer
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Observer
Israel's attack on Iran poses a threat to world peace
Israel's 77-year occupation of The State of Palestine is a history of broken promises, shattered treaties, and the gradual realisation amongst most of the world that Netanyahu and the Zionist Colony of Israel cannot be trusted and why they pose a threat to world peace. On September 13, 1993, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat signed a Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government. This agreement could have led to peace. Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated not long after by Yigal Amir, a Zionist, due to Rabin's role in the Oslo Accords. Zionism is an ideology not of peace but war, not peaceful co-existence but territorial expansionism. Most of the world understands this. The breaking of the Oslo Accords and the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin should have been the definitive lesson in the futility of appeasing a Zionist regime bent on conquest and domination. Oman as always has been the peacemaker, always the principled honest broker seeking to resolve disputes through negotiation. Nonetheless, Oman has always made it clear that it will only normalise relations with Israel when Palestinians are given their own State. In peace negotiations Israel always claim they seek peace, always the victims never the aggressors. It always claims it has the right to defend itself. But what does this mean? Where are Israel's so-called frontiers in Palestine? The frontiers before the six-day war in 1967? The frontiers immediately after 1967? Because its frontiers change daily. Armed Israeli settlers continue to occupy more Palestinian homes and land with impunity. Following that meeting between Rabin and Arafat in 1993 Clinton brought back memories of the UK Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. Chamberlain returned to England from Munich in 1938 having signed the Munich Agreement with Adolf Hitler. Upon his arrival, he famously declared "Peace in our time," believing he had prevented war. Chamberlain was naive. He failed to understand the true nature of Nazism. In the same way Rabin and Arafat were naive because they failed to understand the true nature of Zionism. The world has a choice. Stop the aggressive Zionist expansionist agenda now or face the danger of World War Three. Winston Churchill made the following statement in relation to the Nazis: 'If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.' The appeasement of evil is not diplomacy but capitulation and some threats to human civilisation must be confronted. We should learn from history. Karim Easterbrook The writer is a former Cambridge School Principal and Author
Time of India
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
'Significant damage': Iran breaches Iron Dome, strikes Israel's 'Pentagon' in Tel Aviv
Iran launched a powerful retaliatory strike late Friday night, targeting one of Israel's most heavily guarded military sites, the Kirya compound in Tel Aviv, following Israel's Operation Rising Lion, which targeted Iran's nuclear facility at Natanz. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The Kirya, often referred to as Israel's version of the Pentagon, houses the Israel Defence Forces' (IDF) general staff, the ministry of defence, and critical military command and intelligence units. It also includes Camp Rabin, named after former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, and is considered vital for Israel's national security operations. According to reports, Iran fired a barrage of missiles at the Tel Aviv-based military complex, striking deep into Israel's defence infrastructure. Israel's well-known Iron Dome air defence system failed to stop the targeted attack launched by the Khamenei-led Islamic Republic. The New York Times verified alarming social media footage showing a missile slamming into the area, causing what was described as "significant damage." "This is Israel's version of the Pentagon, the Kiryat, and the building on this compound was just hit," Fox News reported. "There is significant damage." The dramatic videos showed Israel's air defence systems firing interceptors into the night sky moments before a large explosion lit up central Tel Aviv. One of the warheads appears to have penetrated Israel's defences and struck a sensitive command site. Fox News correspondent on the ground described the incoming attack as a "massive amount" of Iranian ballistic missiles, forcing them to take cover during the live report. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now "These ballistic missiles make the rockets that were being fired from Gaza look like toys," the correspondent said, adding that Iran used around 150 ballistic missiles to hit residential areas and military facilities in and around Tel Aviv. The IDF has not officially confirmed that its headquarters were struck but released footage showing Iran firing waves of ballistic missiles into Israeli territory. "The IDF cannot, and will not, allow Iran to attack our civilians," the military said in a post on X. Iran's targeting of the Kirya marks a major escalation in the ongoing conflict, as the site is one of the most sensitive and strategically important in the country, coordinating military planning, intelligence, and operational command.
Time of India
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Iran's strike on The Kirya, Israel's Pentagon, brings the Middle East to a boil; importance of IDF headquarters explained
Iran launched Operation True Promise III on June 13 against Israel, sending a barrage of missiles and drones in retaliation against the latter's airstrikes which hit key military and nuclear installations of the former. Iran specifically targeted HaKirya or The Kirya compound (The Campus in Hebrew) in central Tel Aviv, Israel's premier military headquarters. The counterstrike followed a few hours after Tehran's top military leadership was wiped out by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in precision strikes. This attack on The Kirya, in the heart of Tel Aviv and which serves as the nerve center of Israel's defense operations, is a significant escalation in the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict and carries both strategic and symbolic weight. What is The Kirya? The Kirya compound, often described as Israel's 'Pentagon,' is located in the heart of Tel Aviv and houses the IDF General Staff, the Ministry of Defense, and key military command and intelligence facilities. Serving as the headquarters of the IDF since 1948, HaKirya also houses Camp Rabin, a major IDF base named after former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. The military compound includes landmark structures such as the Marganit and Matcal Towers, which coordinate military planning, intelligence gathering, and operational command. Live Events The Kirya is one of the most sensitive and heavily guarded sites in Israel, essential for national security and military coordination. Fox News correspondent Trey Yingst described the attack on the Kirya, calling it Israel's Pentagon . While reporting during the Iranian missile attack,Yingst said, "The Iranians have responded with three waves of ballistic missiles. This is Israel's version of the Pentagon, the Kirya, and the building on this compound was just hit." An Israeli military press briefing was stopped due to the Iranian strikes. Israeli military spokesman Effie Defrin was briefing the press about the ongoing conflict when a loudspeaker blared out about the Kirya going into "defensive standby", leading to the disruption of the media interaction. Why Iran targeted the Kirya Iran's missile strike on the Kirya was a direct response to a massive Israeli air campaign earlier that day, which targeted Iranian nuclear and military sites. Top IRGC commander Hossein Salami, chief-of-staff of the Iranian armed forces Major General Mohammad Baqeri, commander-in-chief of the Iranian armed forces Major General Gholam Ali Rashid and commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Aerospace Force Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh were killed in the Israeli strikes. Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei declared that Israel's attacks 'started a war' and vowed a 'decisive' and 'crushing' retaliation. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) launched hundreds of ballistic missiles in multiple waves, some reaching deep into Israeli territory. According to Iranian state media and verified footage, at least one missile struck near the Marganit Tower inside the Kirya compound, causing damage but reportedly no casualties within the base itself. Nearby civilian areas in Tel Aviv sustained damage and injuries, with at least five people wounded by shrapnel. Targeting the Kirya was a strategic move by Iran to disrupt Israel's military command and control capabilities. Striking the heart of Israeli defense infrastructure sends a powerful message about Tehran's ability to reach critical military sites and escalate the conflict beyond border skirmishes. Israeli response and impact The Israel Defense Forces activated advanced missile defense systems, including Iron Dome and Arrow interceptors, to counter the barrage. Despite these measures, at least nine missile impact sites were reported across Israel, with significant damage in Tel Aviv's metropolitan area. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the situation as a fight for Israel's survival, emphasizing the country's determination to continue its military operations against Iranian threats. The attack on the Kirya raised concerns about vulnerabilities in Israel's air defenses and the potential for further escalation. This missile strike follows a large-scale Israeli operation dubbed 'Operation Rising Lion,' aimed at rolling back Iran's nuclear ambitions and military capabilities.
