Bugun
Rubi Rivlin.
Bu makamin gereksizligine inanmis biri olsam dahi var oldugu surece en azindan makama ve bu millete layik kisiler tarafindan doldurulmus olmasinin onemine inaniyorum.
Ilk 7 Cumhurbaskani bunu basardilar.
Umarim 10'uncusu da oyle devam eder.
Son saygiperver Cumhurbaskanimiz Shimon Peres yakinda gorevini devr edecek.
Israel'in kurucu atalarinin sonuncusu olan Peres icin yazilmis en azindan durust bir makaleye rastlamak beni sevindirdi.
Jonathan Tobin'in Commentary dergisinde yayinlanan makalesini okumanizi tavsiye ederim.
LINKI: Peres, Chamberlain and the Quest for Peace
Alinti:
Peres'e 1994'te Oslo sarhoslugu sirasinda bir cok diger basin mensubunun da sordugu Israel icin cizdigi yolun tehlikelerini ifa eden sorularimiza verdigi standart cevabi bana da vermisti.
Bu tip sorularin ucak biletlerinin arkasinda basili olan ve ucak kazalarinin olasiligina karsi uyaran yazilara benzedigini soylemisti. Kisinin pilota, ucaga guvenmesi gerektigini ve ulasacagi hedefin onemine odaklanmasinin dogru olacagini, negativ olasiliklar uzerine kafa yormamasi gerektigini soylemisti. Sonucta ortaya cikan; ucurmakta oldugu "baris ucagi"nin dusmesine neden olan hatali imal, gercekleri kavramak yerine kendisinin dilekleri ile kullanilmasi idi. Bu da bir cok Israel'linin olumu ve yaralanmasina neden oldu.
Makale ayni zamanda da Peres'in iyi niyetini islerken, sonucta Oslo surecinin aynen Chamberlain'i kandiran Hitler gibi Arafat'in da Peres'i kandirmis oldugunun altini ciziyor.
Ben bu konuda Peres'i iyi niyetli bir Devlet adamindan fazla oportunist, kendi san ve sohretini herseyden ustun tutan biri olarak gordugum icin o kadar kolay af edilemeyecegi fikrindeyim.
Makaleye ulasamayacak olanlar icin tumunu kopyalayip ilistiriyorum:
Shimon Peres’s retirement as Israel’s president will be one more opportunity for journalists to try and sum up a career that has spanned the entire history of his nation. As was true of many other moments when it seemed as if Peres had exited the spotlight for good, eulogies may also be premature today. Peres is planning on using his time in the future to promote various initiatives and may well seek to play the kingmaker of the left in future efforts to topple or replace Benjamin Netanyahu as the country’s prime minister. But since this is almost certainly the end of his time in public office, some appreciation of his impact on Israel is appropriate.
As an Agence France Presse article today noted, at 90, Peres truly can claim the title of “the last of Israel’s founding fathers. That’s more than an honorific. As that piece pointed out, as an aide to Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben Gurion, Peres played a significant role in the creation of Israel’s defense establishment and nuclear deterrent. In the 1970s, he was seen as the leader of the more hawkish wing of the Labor Party and supported the building of the first West Bank settlements. That he eventually became the leading figure in the peace movement and the architect of the failed Oslo process and then later left Labor to join Ariel Sharon’s centrist Kadima Party shows not so much his evolution as a thinker as the fact that opportunism can lead a politician, especially one who was considered an indefatigable schemer, all over the place if he hangs around long enough.
Nevertheless, despite decades of varied public service during which he held every major office his country could offer and enough achievements to fill several lifetimes, it is for Oslo and the peace process that Peres will be most remembered. That this, his most important initiative, failed cannot be denied and it is on that failure many will judge him. Those who are inclined to damn Peres for his colossal misjudgment of the Palestinians would do well to read Winston Churchill’s 1940 eulogy for Neville Chamberlain, the historical figure to which many of the outgoing Israeli president’s fiercest detractors often compared him.
Churchill despised Chamberlain’s appeasement policies as well as having no great personal affection for his former rival. But the death of the man who had come back from Munich waving a piece paper signed by “Herr Hitler” and saying that he had brought his country “peace in our time” did not cause Churchill to revisit Chamberlain’s obvious mistakes. Churchill was motivated in part by a desire to keep many of Chamberlain’s old supporters in Parliament from causing trouble. He also remembered his predecessor’s loyal service as a subordinate during the first months of his premiership and was moved by Chamberlain’s fortitude in suffering from the illness that took his life. But whatever the reasons for his decision, the great orator chose a different frame of reference for thinking about the great appeaser:
No one is obliged to alter the opinions which he has formed or expressed upon issues which have become a part of history; but at the Lychgate we may all pass our own conduct and our own judgments under a searching review. It is not given to human beings, happily for them, for otherwise life would be intolerable, to foresee or to predict to any large extent the unfolding course of events. In one phase men seem to have been right, in another they seem to have been wrong. Then again, a few years later, when the perspective of time has lengthened, all stands in a different setting. There is a new proportion. There is another scale of values. History with its flickering lamp stumbles along the trail of the past, trying to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, and kindle with pale gleams the passion of former days. …It fell to Neville Chamberlain in one of the supreme crises of the world to be contradicted by events, to be disappointed in his hopes, and to be deceived and cheated by a wicked man. But what were these hopes in which he was disappointed? What were these wishes in which he was frustrated? What was that faith that was abused? They were surely among the most noble and benevolent instincts of the human heart-the love of peace, the toil for peace, the strife for peace, the pursuit of peace, even at great peril, and certainly to the utter disdain of popularity or clamour. Whatever else history may or may not say about these terrible, tremendous years, we can be sure that Neville Chamberlain acted with perfect sincerity according to his lights and strove to the utmost of his capacity and authority, which were powerful, to save the world from the awful, devastating struggle in which we are now engaged. This alone will stand him in good stead as far as what is called the verdict of history is concerned.
Like many other journalists who asked Peres about the dangers of the path he was charting for Israel at the height of Oslo euphoria, in 1994 he gave me his standard answer at the time. He said that such questions were like reading the disclaimer on the back of an airline ticket that warned of the possibility of a crash. One had to have faith in the pilot, the plane, and the importance of the destination, he told me, rather than dwell on the negative possibilities. As it turned out, the peace plane he was flying was badly constructed and operated more on his wishes than a grasp of reality, which led to its crash, a result that led to the deaths and injuries of many Israelis.
If Peres has outlasted some of his critics and is still considered popular, he cannot outrun history. But even as we judge him for his mistakes, his detractors must never forget his lifetime of service to Israel or that the real blame for the collapse of Oslo belongs to Yasir Arafat and the culture of Palestinian rejectionism that continues to thwart efforts to end the conflict. Just as that “wicked man” Adolf Hitler cheated Chamberlain, so, too, did Yasir Arafat trick Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, and all those who cheered the signing of the Oslo Accords. While Shimon Peres, like Chamberlain, must answer for his mistakes, the true blame for the carnage that Oslo wrought belongs to the terrorist, not the would-be peacemaker.
