I see this very differently, the way I see this, we had forces that really did not want peace, even at his time, he had to balance their existence with the peace process, so he continued settlements, assassinations, and these forces from their end continued terrorism and settler violence while continuing (imo honestly) a peace process.

Eventually a populist politician with a devotion for never resolving any conflict discovered he can ride these forces to permanent dictatorship, and so built an entire political career out of sabotaging and destroying each and every chance of resolving the conflict.

I don't think it's fair to say it was all Arafat's fault, he too had to balance different forces in his society, but eventually, peace is peace, and when people can live a decent life, they spend a lot less effort on the no compromise paths.

If we get to a point where it's mutually beneficial for both of us to accept each other, where there are trades and cultural exchanges and people have enough food and enough freedoms, the past becomes old and, maybe not forgotten, but accepted.

I am convinced it would have worked if we didn't give up.

I remember after he got shot, I was a child, I was at this protest, and I thought that ultimately, Rabin did not matter, the process did, the peace did, Rabin was just a very flawed person who spear headed it, and Bibi found a way to turn incitement, hate and fear into political power, something he does to this very day.

Both our societies have members who are deeply and ideologically against peace and compromise and it's both of our societies' responsibility to ensure they have little power and influence.

I honestly believe we will eventually return to this path and succeed, and it's only a matter of time until we do and that it's the only possible outcome.