US Jewish lobby warns Turkish MFA on Armenian genocide bill

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ancyrean


In summary, I think many Jews see this essential difference, and being the victims of Holocaust with its attendant horrors, are revolted that this crucial distinction might be abused in pursuit of national self-definition.

Heres one Jew, who, while quite cognizant that what happened in Turkey during WW1 wasnt an attempt to eliminate all Armenians in the Ottoman empire, and was primarily an ethnic cleansing, and that there is no evidence of a centrally planned genocide, is also under the impression that there were massacres undertaken by govt officials and army officers, testifed to (ironically enough) by Germans who were Turkeys allies - and who is profoundly uncomfortable with Israel's position on these events, even while sympathizing with Israelis Kissingerian needs for security (AND generally, sympathizing with Turkish democracy).

[LordShiva]

Ancyrean seems too level-headed to be the sole representative of a foreign country here. Don't you have an ultra-nationalist friend who you can convince to join Poly?

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Heresson
I'd like to reiterate that Armenians were delt with not only in eastern Anatoly. If some remained in Istanbul, it's because there were foreigners there who could see what was happening to them.

Hi Heresson

You could argue that, but then it would still be second-guessing the Turks without any evidence. There were Armenians all over Turkey, and outside Eastern Anatolia they weren't subjected to relocation. Even in that region, those who could afford a train ride were allowed to take it.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Heres one Jew, who, while quite cognizant that what happened in Turkey during WW1 wasnt an attempt to eliminate all Armenians in the Ottoman empire, and was primarily an ethnic cleansing, and that there is no evidence of a centrally planned genocide, is also under the impression that there were massacres undertaken by govt officials and army officers, testifed to (ironically enough) by Germans who were Turkeys allies - and who is profoundly uncomfortable with Israel's position on these events, even while sympathizing with Israelis Kissingerian needs for security (AND generally, sympathizing with Turkish democracy).

Turkey already accepts the deaths of everal hundreds of thousands of Armenians, under circumstances that I tried to describe. It can move from there to say that some government officials committed vile acts, if the Armenians left any room for meaningful dialogue, thus feeding nationalists in Turkey intheir turn.

What is the connection between this and feeling uncomfortable for Israel for maintaining the essential difference of the Holocaust on the one hand and on the other, setting up close relations with Turkey? Does it mean that, for example, given the chance you would advise Israel to cut all cooperation with Turkey until Turkey converts to the maximum extent of the Armenian view on a highly emotionally charged issue? Where is the linkage?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ancyrean


The story of the Dönme is indeed very interesting. I totally understand if their conversion might not have been sincere, given the circumstances that forced the self-declared Jewish messiah Sabatai Sevi (Hebrew spelling?) to convert (the Sultan called him and made him choose between insisting on the Messiah stuff and lose his head, or convert to Islam and keep it).

Shabetai Tzvi (though since Hebrew is written in Hebrew, you may find different Romanizations, and Sabbatai is a common reference in English) converted on pain of death. Most of his followers gave up on him as the Messiah. The Donmeh were folks who decided that he had converted to advance spiritual progress in the world - the Lurianic mystical ideology that inspired Shabbatai emphasized the holiness inherent in apparently profane things, and the need to enter the profane world to liberate that holiness. The Donmeh decided that Shabetai had become a muslim to liberate the hidden holiness inside Islam. They embraced Islam to follow him in that, despite their being no particular coercion on them to convert to Islam by the Ottoman authorities (and indeed most Ottoman Jews did not convert to Islam, and some who did were ordinary converts, not Donmeh) Ergo they were not like Marranos. They retained their particular mystical version of Judaism even while living in public as muslims, and married only within their own group. Not surprising, perhaps, that a group that had pursued such an anti-normative Judaism would be anti-normative in other regards.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ancyrean


Turkey already accepts the deaths of everal hundreds of thousands of Armenians, under circumstances that I tried to describe. It can move from there to say that some government officials committed vile acts, if the Armenians left any room for meaningful dialogue, thus feeding nationalists in Turkey intheir turn.

What is the connection between this and feeling uncomfortable for Israel for maintaining the essential difference of the Holocaust on the one hand and on the other, setting up close relations with Turkey? Does it mean that, for example, given the chance you would advise Israel to cut all cooperation with Turkey until Turkey converts to the maximum extent of the Armenian view on a highly emotionally charged issue? Where is the linkage?

I would not advocate Israel cutting off cooperation with Turkey. I would advocate Israel commemorating the events (events which impacted some current citizens and non-citizen residents of Israel), including the events not acknowldedged by Turkey.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Ancyrean seems too level-headed to be the sole representative of a foreign country here. Don't you have an ultra-nationalist friend who you can convince to join Poly?

Yeah, it might have been fun to watch an ultranationalist guy freak himself out here on the Poly OT At least for a while...

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



I would not advocate Israel cutting off cooperation with Turkey. I would advocate Israel commemorating the events (events which impacted some current citizens and non-citizen residents of Israel), including the events not acknowldedged by Turkey.

I only know that there's an Armenian quarter in the Old City in Jerusalem...You mean Israel to have commemorations for its citizens of Armenian origin living there? If so, use "genocide" terminology even when there's a very sensitive debate going on about it? Risk blurring the meaning of the word "genocide" by generalising it so wide without due evidence, it makes the word hallow?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ancyrean


I only know that there's an Armenian quarter in the Old City in Jerusalem...You mean Israel to have commemorations for its citizens of Armenian origin living there? If so, use "genocide" terminology even when there's a very sensitive debate going on about it? Risk blurring the meaning of the word "genocide" by generalising it so wide without due evidence, it makes the word hallow?

The armenian quarter is what I was thinking of - i suppose there may be others.

I specifically avoided referencing the word "genocide" in this discussion. I simply am not well enough informed on the extent and degree of coordination of the actions of those turkish govt officials and army officers who engaged in massacres, and Im not inclined to use this forum to gather that info. BTW there have certainly been genocides that have been lesser in breadth or even coordination than the Nazi destruction of the European Jews that still merit the word genocide. (Which again, is not a statement that the events in Turkey 1915-1917 WAS a genocide) Im not sure Id quibble over the word genocide. That has important legal implications in current situations (like Darfur) where it impacts on international action. In the case of something that happened 90 years ago the terminology is less important. What is important is that Jews and Israel have an obligation to the truth. (and no, I wasnt thinking so much of a specific ceremony for the Jerusalem Armenians, just that when it comes up, the govt of Israel needs to acknowledge the truth as it knows it)

I would also note that the Germans were particularly, well, German about the keeping of records. And that even so the wahnsee conference is known largely due to an accident. In general I would NOT expect coordination in things like this to be documented. Which again, does not PROVE that what happened in 1915-1917 was coordinated.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


The armenian quarter is what I was thinking of - i suppose there may be others.

I specifically avoided referencing the word "genocide" in this discussion. I simply am not well enough informed on the extent and degree of coordination of the actions of those turkish govt officials and army officers who engaged in massacres, and Im not inclined to use this forum to gather that info. BTW there have certainly been genocides that have been lesser in breadth or even coordination than the Nazi destruction of the European Jews that still merit the word genocide. (Which again, is not a statement that the events in Turkey 1915-1917 WAS a genocide) Im not sure Id quibble over the word genocide. That has important legal implications in current situations (like Darfur) where it impacts on international action. In the case of something that happened 90 years ago the terminology is less important. What is important is that Jews and Israel have an obligation to the truth. (and no, I wasnt thinking so much of a specific ceremony for the Jerusalem Armenians, just that when it comes up, the govt of Israel needs to acknowledge the truth as it knows it)

I would also note that the Germans were particularly, well, German about the keeping of records. And that even so the wahnsee conference is known largely due to an accident. In general I would NOT expect coordination in things like this to be documented. Which again, does not PROVE that what happened in 1915-1917 was coordinated.

I only wish we could come together with Armenians with open minds, not with a view to call names on each other this or that, try to label what happened as this or that, but instead just reach out to each other, and try to share what we know as our pain..Just share it plain...

But each time a parliament takes it upon itself to act as the jury and the judge, and pass resolutions to act in line with what seems as most politically correct, it ruins the chance of it ever happening... It only encourages more labeling and name calling, when it is none of their business..What do they care? And I fear this time it'll be the US Congress, doing disproportionately larger harm...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ancyrean


I only wish we could come together with Armenians with open minds, not with a view to call names on each other this or that, try to label what happened as this or that, but instead just reach out to each other, and try to share what we know as our pain..Just share it plain...

But each time a parliament takes it upon itself to act as the jury and the judge, and pass resolutions to act in line with what seems as most politically correct, it ruins the chance of it ever happening... It only encourages more labeling and name calling, when it is none of their business..What do they care? And I fear this time it'll be the US Congress, doing disproportionately larger harm...

"It is believed that the accused succeeded in destroying the majority of the documents that could be used as evidence against them before they escaped. Admiral Calthorpe, the British High Commissioner, described the destruction of documents: "Just before the Armistice, officials had been going to the archives department at night and making a clean sweep of most of the documents." Aydemir, S.S., on the other hand, writes in his "Makedonyadan Ortaasyaya Enver Pasa.":

“ Before the flight of the top CUP leaders, Talat Pasa stopped by at the waterfront residence of one of his friends on the shore of Arnavudköy, depositing there a suitcase of documents. It is said that the documents were burned in the basement's furnace. Indeed ... the documents and other papers of the CUP's Central Committee are nowhere to be found. "


Given that things like the above occured it may be impossible to ever establish what level of planning occured in the CUP. Beyond what circumstantial evidence provides. But if the name doesnt matter, maybe Turkey need not fear the name.

AFAICT somewhere between 15% and over 50% of the prewar Armenian pop of the OE died during the events. Many were massacred. There is some evidence that high level officials were involved in the massacre. (individuals were tried, but afaict that was after the war when Enver Pasha was in exile) Those who died while being deported (as opposed to being massacred) were not victims only of the inevitable disruptions of deportation, but of deliberate attempts to worsen their conditions during deportation.

If Turkey is willing to share THAT pain, that would be another and greater mark for Turkish democracy, and would reassure the many friends of Turkey that we have been right. Im not sure what is to be gained by quibbling that its only a genocide if the CUP actually coordinated massacres and intended all the deaths, and to insist on proof beyond a reasonable doubt of such intent. (One could deny on strikingly similar grounds that Stalin commited genocide in the Ukraine)

[Geronimo]

Has the US really done much more to show offical contrition for the genocide of the native americans than Turkey has to show offical contrition for the genocide of the armenians?

So far it doesn't seem as if the behavior of the two governments toward these skeletons in their respective national closets is that dissimilar.

The US may not deny that it engaged in genocide but lacking pressure from abroad to respond to it one way or another it may not have to deny or accept any responsibility for anything relating to the genocide.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Has the US really done much more to show offical contrition for the genocide of the native americans than Turkey has to show offical contrition for the genocide of the armenians?

So far it doesn't seem as if the behavior of the two governments toward these skeletons in their respective national closets is that dissimilar.

The US may not deny that it engaged in genocide but lacking pressure from abroad to respond to it one way or another it may not have to deny or accept any responsibility for anything relating to the genocide.

The US has , IIUC, acknowledged and apologized for the trail of tears and various massacres. Official museums of the US govt, like the Smithsonian, give unbiased presentations on what happened - if there are accusation that the Smith falsifies or denies I havent heard of it.

No the US hasnt acknowledged genocide. If youve followed the discussion Ive had with Ancy, it relates to evidence for a more or less centrally planned campaign of large scale murder, including alleged large scale murders. By a single state, the Ottoman Empire, at a single period, 1915-1918.

Most allegations of genocide wrt American Indians combine events that took place from 1492 to 1900.

Please be more specific.

[Geronimo]

Specifically what difference does this really make? Would the turks escape their current diplomatic flak if a state museum gave some treatment to the plight of the armenians? IIUC more is required of the Turks by its foreign critics than that. Those critics apparently want them to officially acknowledge state complicity in a genocide something which few nations apart from Germany have ever done.

My comment was not necessarily directed at you in particular either but rather reflected my cynical observation that some genocides apparently demand more contrition than others.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Specifically what difference does this really make? Would the turks escape their current diplomatic flak if a state museum gave some treatment to the plight of the armenians? IIUC more is required of the Turks by its foreign critics than that. Those critics apparently want them to officially acknowledge state complicity in a genocide something which few nations apart from Germany have ever done.

My comment was not necessarily directed at you in particular either but rather reflected my cynical observation that some genocides apparently demand more contrition than others.

how many genocides have their been in the 20th century? Cambodia and Rwanda an apology would be silly, since the new govts were largely formed from victims of the genocides.

Really, Im not sure what the analogs are. Closest I suppose is the Ukraine, and I think the evidence for intent and coordination is somewhat stronger in the Armenian case.