Support for the process along with aphorisms
Everyone is ready to make heavy and bitter sacrifices if it could end a longstanding problem. The parties are eager to make sacrifices if this ends violence, leads to a solution and saves lives. Moreover, they are also determined to keep the country intact and undivided.
However, the support for the process should not take us to a point where it takes mind and reason hostage. In other words, the issue should be considered a multidimensional matter. In the end, we are talking about a process based on the human factor. Besides, the issue has some part that requires close attention because of international power balances. This is not a matter that is backed and finalized by divine revelation, so it is not a crime or offense to offer alternative ideas on it. For this reason, constructive criticism will be very useful during this process.
And consider the matter from a different perspective. How could you make the necessary amendments and repairs if the issue is considered a sacred and holy process? Unfortunately, there is a lack of serious thinking in the intellectual circles. It is as if some have gone on vacation, leaving the thinking to others. On almost every issue, the people have been manipulated and forced to either be slaves who follow every command without question, or an enemy that says “no” to them and questions their commands. Is there no middle ground between these two? Actually, there is. And there should be. However, when the “plus royaliste que le roi” are involved, the value of balance and the delicate line between the two becomes more ambiguous. Supporting the İmralı process is different from agreeing to everything offered in İmralı because we all have to do our best in order to make sure that the content of the roadmap and its framework is also correct. If, when you refer to your responsibility as an individual and an intellectual and say: “Wait a second, the general course of action is proper; but I see some flaws in this point” (and what you see may not actually be a mistake), you could be attacked by aphorisms, this means that we are not on the right track. This is the general mood in the press. Being criticized as undermining the process is more fearsome than the sword of Damocles for some of our colleagues.
In reference to the power and influence of a statement, wise people in the past offered a definition of remark consistent with the requirements of the time and the place. The author of “Muhakemat” (The Reasonings) adds two elements in his review of the elements of speech: those who say the words and the person who these words are addressed to. This is the core of the matter. Who says the words and to whom they are said. Every remark made by friends and brothers whose hearts are filled with love for humanity and for the nation becomes more important and valuable. Therefore, who made the statement should be considered first and then their constructive efforts should also be taken into account.
Sadly, I have to ask this question: How do some Muslims and believers tolerate grave remarks against Islamic scholars? Why would not some of my brothers who became uncomfortable just because I called a narcissistic man a “wannabe Stalin” raise similar objections when a great scholar like Bediüzzaman or a renowned Muslim thinker like Fethullah Gülen is insulted? What is the reason for this love for Abdullah Öcalan? True, the process should be supported; and we are doing our best to do so. But this does not necessarily mean that we should deliberately choose not to hear delirious remarks by a megalomaniac.
I am saying this to make a point that should be noted in history: Those who have strongly criticized Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) up until recently now attempt to use the prime minister as a shield and applaud every initiative and attempt. I wish they would make the similar remarks backstage as well. While complaining about the AK Party government on international platforms, they vigorously advocate the AK Party in Turkey and their attitudes within the country and abroad are frighteningly different. I understand the hypocrites. They have been acting this way because this is their character. History witnesses that in these critical junctures, you should be afraid of these hypocrites. However, I really cannot understand those who hold out hopes for the former structure of Turkey and use these hopes as a triggering force to undermine the peace process.
The nature of the process makes you think that some unexpected events may take place. God forbid there could be provocations or sabotage. Some who rely on plots and treachery may take actions of animosity; some aggressive groups may adopt a treacherous approach in the process; and people and persons who have not given much thought to this matter may offend their friends by making some bold and yet unpleasant statements. This is not important. In any case, everything will be settled and it will become evident who sides with peace. However, let’s say that this does not happen. It is no big deal! The existence of the afterlife is more obvious and more certain than the existence of this world.
Minutes and the blacklisting campaigns
The debate that started after the minutes of a meeting between Kurdish lawmakers and the imprisoned leader of the terrorist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) were leaked to the press and published by the Milliyet daily continues. While some deem the disclosure of the minutes as a great journalistic achievement, others consider it a big mistake. Journalist attitudes are worth examining because each journalist tries to create a safe harbor by pointing out only one side of the truth.
The aim of those who leaked the minutes is obvious: to undermine the ongoing peace talks aimed at resolving Turkey’s long-standing terrorism problem. I do not want to think that those who published the minutes share the same concerns. This is why Milliyet’s decision to publish the minutes was an important choice. However, a statement made by Milliyet last week makes things more complicated.
First, journalists Mehmet Baransu and Emre Uslu claimed that some names mentioned in the İmralı minutes were intentionally omitted by Milliyet. Then, Fikret Bila, Milliyet's representative in Ankara, admitted that they had omitted some names mentioned in the minutes while speaking on a live television program. What a pity! While covering the İmralı minutes, Milliyet preferred to highlight some names and omit others. It was scandalous.
It can, of course, be debated whether the disclosure of the minutes is a great journalistic achievement by Milliyet because what we have before us is a journalism mentality that has already refused to publish documents that have been seized by the state's security forces and accepted as valid evidence by the prosecutor's office and the courts. Anyway. Documents submitted to the prosecutor's office and the court and the minutes of a meeting between the leader of a terrorist organization and politicians from a party that is considered to be the political extension of that organization are not the same. Moreover, the publisher has taken a great risk by featuring the headline "The İmralı Minutes." At that point, a great test waiting for the publisher was its attitude toward criticism.
However, Mr. Bila's statement changed everything. Baransu and Uslu claimed that they were blacklisted, and, of course, they expect an apology from Milliyet. In fact, it is not only Baransu and Uslu but everyone who has been insulted or attacked by Öcalan, previously regarded as a baby killer by Milliyet, in the minutes that is blacklisted and expects an apology from Milliyet.
- Created on .