This film is totally underrated

I appreciate the response; I am going to see this Saturday. It is a small theatre so I can probably sit close.

I have often wondered why the color of subtitles can't change depending on the background, I assume it would raise the cost of production. Even before my eye surgery I had some issues with the yellow subtitles a lot of films have started using.

I just found out Son of Saul is showing at the same theatre. I want to see that too, but I don’t think I should combine those two in the same day. Besides the subtitles there is disturbing content in both.

I will explain, but not justify.

It was dramatic acting. It was not comedic acting. This is considered a "docudrama". Mix of documentary, and dramatic scenes. I think you are taking my words to mean acting that was overly done. Too much, etc. That's not what I meant.

As for me getting a little bored, it wasn't due to my lack of "hard drive thinking". I think some of the recreations were longer than needed.

I still think the film could have been just as great, and a good deal shorter had it just been a documentary.

"God made man. Then he rested. And on the 8th day, God created George O'Brien."

What most people don't know is that Rabin's position about the peace process, etc, was more right wing shortly before he died than almost any right wing Israeli government has dared to be since he was killed.

Rabin did NOT say a Palestinian state should be formed. He knew that Israel would have to control the land in the Jordan Valley. He did NOT want to divide Jerusalem.

His last speech at the Knesset prior to his death is roughly as right wing as Israel's current government when it comes to the Palestinians.

His own daughter said that he was having second thoughts about the Oslo Accords before he died.

The actual date of Rabin's speech was Oct. 5, 1995. The prime minister was presenting the Oslo II Interim Agreement for ratification by the Knesset. The first Oslo Agreement that was signed on the White House lawn on Sept. 13, 1993. It was followed by the Gaza-Jericho Agreement in 1994. The Oslo II Interim Agreement applied to all the cities and major villages in the rest of the West Bank.

Oslo was only an interim agreement. But to get it approved, Rabin felt he had to lay out his ultimate vision of where he saw his negotiations with the Palestinians leading. Rabin firmly declared: "The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six-Day War. We will not return to the June, 4 1967 lines." He never stipulated that Israel would have to pay for territory it would ultimately retain with "land swaps."

He also spoke about Israel retaining the settlement blocs, modeling them on Gush Katif in the Gaza Strip. Of course he did not know that ten years later, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon would dismantle Gush Katif along with all the settlements in Gaza. Nevertheless the idea of settlement blocs was very much part of his thinking: "Changes which will include the addition of Gush Etzion, Efrat, Beitar and other communities, most of which are in the area east of what was the 'Green Line,' prior to the Six-Day War."

One of the striking features of Rabin's map was what he said about the Jordan Valley: "The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term." By saying the "broadest meaning of that term," he understood that Israel's defense line had to include the eastern slopes of the West Bank hill ridge, which rose from an area near the Dead Sea which was 400 meters below sea level to hill tops that in one case reached a height of over 800 meters.

This steep 1200 foot topographical barrier was Rabin's defense line. What needs to be recalled is that Rabin outlined these Israeli security needs even though his government had signed the Oslo Agreement two years earlier and even added the peace treaty with Jordan a year later. Seventeen years before the Arab Spring, what Rabin implicitly understood is that political conditions in the Arab world can change and that Israeli security cannot be based on a snapshot of the situation in 1995.

When Rabin began detailing his map he began with what meant most to him: "First and foremost a united Jerusalem ... as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty." In 1994, he concluded the "Washington Declaration" with King Hussein, which stated that Israel “respects the present role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in the Muslim Holy Shrines in Jerusalem." It added that "when negotiations on the permanent status will take place, Israel will give high priority to the Jordanian historic role in these shrines.”

There are many who debate what exactly Rabin's legacy was. There are people who can point to private conversations they had with him to back their version of what he stood for. But Rabin's last Knesset speech cannot be ignored as the most authoritative source of how he envisioned Israel's future borders. The principles outlined in his plan, moreover, have not lost their relevance for Israel 17 years later.

The film is wrong. You are wrong.

You have no idea what is happening in Israel and you are wildly ridiculous to claim that Rabin's murder caused the problems that already existed before he was murdered.

Rabin's murder is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT the reason why there is no peace.

Can you get this through your head?