web analytics
April 26, 2015 / 7 Iyar, 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Neville Chamberlain’

Peres, Chamberlain, And The Quest For Peace

Wednesday, June 18th, 2014

Shimon Peres’s retirement as Israel’s president will be one more opportunity for journalists to try to 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 noted, at age 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 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. Yet 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 for our time” did not cause Churchill to revisit Chamberlain’s obvious mistakes. The great orator chose a different frame of reference for thinking about the great appeaser:

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.

When in 1994 I asked Peres about the dangers of the path he was charting for Israel at the height of Oslo euphoria, 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.

Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Statement on the Iran Agreement

Sunday, November 24th, 2013

What was achieved last night in Geneva is not an historic agreement; it is an historic mistake.

Today the world has become a much more dangerous place because the most dangerous regime in the world has taken a significant step toward attaining the most dangerous weapon in the world.

For the first time, the world’s leading powers have agreed to uranium enrichment in Iran while ignoring the UN Security Council decisions that they themselves led. Sanctions that required many years to put in place contain the best chance for a peaceful solution. These sanctions have been given up in exchange for cosmetic Iranian concessions that can be cancelled in weeks.

This agreement and what it means endanger many countries including, of course, Israel.

Israel is not bound by this agreement. The Iranian regime is committed to the destruction of Israel and Israel has the right and the obligation to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.

As Prime Minister of Israel, I would like to make it clear: Israel will not allow Iran to develop a military nuclear capability.”

Behind The Sharon Criticism

Saturday, November 10th, 2001

Although Prime Minister Sharon's “appeasement” analogy was not exactly apt ? President Bush is a proven friend of the Jewish State and is certainly no fainthearted Neville Chamberlain, nor is Israel a defenseless Czechoslovakia ? he did succeed in making an important point. There is no gainsaying that the task before us in seeking to uproot terrorism around the world does not lend itself to a quick solution. Indeed, everyone in the Administration, from Mr. Bush on down, continues to caution that we are in for a long haul.

So it could be well understood that the series of decisions by the Bush Administration to exclude Israel from the scenario ? Palestinian terrorists not targeted by the anti-terror plan; Secretary Powell declaring that Israel would not be part of any anti-terror coalition; and Secretary Rumsfeld's failure to stop in Israel on his current trip to the region to discuss the anti-terror campaign ? could have had ominous connotations for Mr. Sharon. Plainly, a sea change in U.S. policy for some time to come seemed to be in the offing and Israel was not to play a role in it. This was especially problematical in light of the fact that even after Israel agreed to meet with Arafat while the violence continued and Arafat simply reneged on what he had promised, the story of the U.S. planning to announce its acceptance of the creation of a Palestinian state was leaked and appeared as a stunning reward for Palestinian terror.

As late news reports suggest, hopefully, this issue has now been resolved ? not only for Israel's sake, but for the integrity and prospects for success of the anti-terror effort That is, there will, in fact, be no winking at terrorism and there will be no kowtowing to extortionate Arab conditions for their joining the coalition.

We would also suggest that those who would wish to create a breach between Israel and the Bush Administration should not look to the statements of the Israel Policy Forum or Americans for Peace Now. These groups were quick to applaud the prospect of U.S. recognition of a Palestinian state even in the midst of unceasing Palestinian violence. This is the same crowd that supported and provided cover for the disastrous Clinton policies. And, we might add, they and their ilk have precious little following among American Jews.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/editorial/behind-the-sharon-criticism/2001/11/10/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: