Was there the Genocide?

7 Comments / 7 Comments

1. Another thing that worries me is the conscious linking of this (Armenian) issue with the Nazi holocaust of the Jews, Romany, handicapped, Serbs etc.

   I am in the middle of dealing with the work of Attila Hoare and Oliver Kamm who are using the argument that those like myself who oppose the claim of genocide by the Serbs at Srebrenica, that we are “genocide deniers”, that we are fascists etc.

   But the issue of Srebrenica is used to cover for the role of Imperialism in the breakup of Yugoslavia, the murder of its President etc.

   And that exactly these methods will be used in the Autumn against Israel. SO THAT IS RELEVANT.

   So I am very wary indeed of all claims of genocide.

   By the way I call for the disbanding of the Kangaroo Court at the Hague.

2. I am not up to speed on this issue at all. But I do know that this Armenian genocide claim is questioned.

   What worries me about Bill Levinson on Israpundit and about the positions of Bill Narvey above is that this is presented as cut and dried. Is it?

   Can anybody else comment?

   I pick this up randomly from google:

   “The Armenians who were ousted from one place to the other, pushed into wars, and treated as third rate citizens throughout the history by the Romans, Persians and Byzantines. After the advent of Turks into Anatolia, they benefited from the just, humane, tolerant and unifying traditions and beliefs of their new neighbours. The period that lasted until the end of the nineteenth century when the apogee of these developments and relations was attained, was the golden age of Armenians. In fact, the Armenians were by far the greatest beneficiaries of the opportunities offered by the Ottoman Empire to all industrious, capable, honest and straightforward citizens of the non-Moslem communities. Being exempted from the military service and to a large extent from taxation, they had the opportunity to excel themselves in trade, agriculture, craftsmanship and administration and therefore were rightly called the “loyal nation” because of their loyalty and ability to interact with the Ottomans. There were so many Armenians who spoke Turkish, who even conducted their rites in this language , who rose to topmost public service posts such as the Ministries and Under-Secretariats of State for the Public Works, Navy, Foreign Affairs, Finance, Treasury, Posts and Telegraph and Minting. There were some who even wrote books in Turkish and foreign languages on the Problems of the Ottoman Empire .

   With the start of the decline of the Ottoman Empire, the European powers began to intervene in its affairs and degeneration became evident in the peaceful Turkish-Armenian relations. Great effort was displayed by the instigators whom the Western powers planted into the Ottoman Empire under clerical guise, to create a schism between Turks and Armenians in the religious, cultural, commercial, political and social fields. Thus, bloody clashes arose, in which the blunt of pain was borne by the Turks, and thousands of Armenians and Turks lost their lives in the revolts that broke out in Eastern Anatolia and spread all the way to Istanbul.

   Though there were many Armenians fighting in the Ottoman armies against the enemy or serving in the rear ranks during the World War I, a considerable number had sided with the foes on the battlefronts and launched massacres against the population without distinction of women, children and the aged. Their toll was hundreds of thousands of Moslems and ruin in Eastern Anatolia.

   The measures adopted by the Ottoman Empire to stop this violence were presented to the rest of the world under a completely different light and the Armenians, misguided by the promises and instigation of the Western Powers started to undermine the country where they had led a privileged life more than a thousand years.

   The Hinchak, Tashnak, Toward Armenia, Young Armenians, Union and Salvation, Ramgavar, Paramilitaries, Black Cross societies and Hinchak Revolutionary Committee, which were established out of Anatolia, formed organisations urging the people for an armed revolt. These activities were the bloody uprisings that cost thousands of Turkish and Armenian lives.

   During World War I, the Ottoman Empire was fighting against Russian armies in Eastern Anatolia, where the Armenian revolt was at its peak; and also against Armenian forces which supported the Russians. On the other hand, behind the lines it had to continue to fight against Armenian guerrillas that were burning Turkish villages and towns and attacking military convoys and reinforcements. In spite of this violence, the Ottoman Empire tried to solve the Armenian problem for months by taking local measures. Meanwhile, an operation was made against the Armenian guerillas and 2345 rebels were arrested for high treason. When it became evident that the Armenian community was also in rebellion against the state, the Ottoman Empire proceeded with the last resort of replacing only those Armenians in the region who actively participated in the rebellion. With this measure, the Ottoman Empire also intended to save the lives of the Armenians who were living in a medium of civil war because Turks started to counter-attack the Armenians who had performed bloody atrocities against Turkish communities.

   Today, Armenia and some states using Armenians for their economic and political benefits have launched a massive propaganda campaign to present the replacement decision and the 24 April arrests as genocide to the world public opinion.

   At the end of the World War I, when the armies of Allied States occupied The Ottoman Empire and the British officials among them arrested 143 Ottoman political and military leaders and intellectuals for “having committed war crimes toward Armenians” and exiled them to Malta where a trial was launched. However, the massive scrutiny made on the Ottoman, British, American archives in order to find evidence to incriminate these 143 persons failed to produce even the least iota of proof against them. In the end, the detainees in Malta were released without trial and even any indictment in 1922.”

   http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/intro/index.html

3. Recall however that I believe it was the Turkish Foreign Minister who met with several Jewish organizations in the U.S. to prevail upon them to stand against the Congressional Resolution to declare the murder of 1.5 Armenians by the Turks in 1915 as a genocide or at least not take a stand. In so doing, the Foreign Minister delivered an appeal to that effect by the Turkish Jewish community.

   By Foxman having made a statement on behalf of ADL that proclaimed a no position stance on the issue, he did draw attention to this issue and by then in response to criticism for having taken a stance of no stance at all was moved to change positions to support the Resolution.

   I believe Bill that you are therefore wrong to suggest the it was ADL that has created the problem. Turkey set the wheels in motion for controversy by taking the steps it did to prevail upon both Israel and Jewish organizations in the U.S. to not take a position.

   Fault for this controversy must be laid on the shoulders of Turkey for their efforts to try to get the American Congress and indeed many other nations to not tag Turkey with the ignominious label of a nation that has committed genocide.

4. It is important to get past making grandiose statements that facts are facts in trying to understand what is going on between Israel and Turkey and why Turkey finds it so critically important that Israel pressure American Jewish organizations to take a hands off approach as it has or as Turkey would prefer, to speak against the American Congressional motion to have the murders of 1.5 Armenians in 1915 declared a genocide.

   That Turkey committed genocide of 1.5 million Armenians in 1915 seems certain enough.

   There are questions however that this article does not address and which are I think important and necessary to find answers to in order to truly understand what is going on:

   1. Why doesn’t Turkey simply accept as a fact that few dispute, that 2 generations ago Turkey committed genocide of Armenians?

   2. Just what position does Turkey have to protect by maintaining its denial that it committed genocide in 1915 or what does it fear by admitting it?

   3. Why prevail upon Israel to stand on the sidelines and to make efforts to ensure American Jewish organizations take a fence sitting approach?

   4. What Maist reports of Turkey’s anti-Israel/anti-Semitic attitudes and voting for anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N. has been reported on before. There must be more going on then meets the eye in terms of Israel’s claim that it has a strategic relationship with Turkey.

   Without Israel making known what that specific strategic relationship is and its importance to Israel, which could be considerable, it leaves moralists to deduce only from what is seen, that they are justified in condemning Israel for taking a fence sitting position.

   It could be that Israel has very good reasons to stand on the sidelines. I suspect those good reasons exist and they fall under the umbrella of security.

   Absent such reasons, Israel should be called on the carpet.

   Further questions which this article does not address:

   5. That Turkey is publicly expressing its anger with Israel because they believe Israel does have the power to get American Jewish organizations to do her bidding, speaks to an appalling lack of understanding by Turkey of just how much influence Israel really has with Jewish organizations or Jewish organizations have with Israel. Alternatively, these threatening words by Turkey may be solely calculated to strike fear and concern in the heart of the GOI that whatever strategic value Israel gains from her relationship with Turkey could be lost if Israel does not even try to prevail upon Jewish organizations in the U.S.

   6. Why is Turkey not making a big show of prevailing upon other nations to stand with it against this American Congressional resolution? Why just Israel?

   7. Other questions that flow logically from the foregoing which I trust others can flesh out for themselves.

   There is as I noted earlier herein, far more going on then meets the eye. Inquiring minds want to know, so if anyone has the answers, please contribute to this discussion.

5. Iran does not recognize the Nazi Holocaust because the victims were mostly Jews, Turkey does not recognize their own Armenian Holocaust – Islamic countries in general, who supported the Nazis, have a problem admitting to the pain that they have caused humanity over the ages and they take it one step further by pressuring others to erase history and support lies that make their own seem very righteous in the present.

   I don’t care how sensitive the fragile relationship is between Turkey and Israel; the truth must not be turned into a lie. To do otherwise will give history a meaninglessness and ever-changing nature subject to the vicissitudes of politics.

6. I agree, very well expressed.

7. Where can I read more from this Alex Maist? Books? Blog? I like the way he writes, both content and expression.