US Jewish lobby warns Turkish MFA on Armenian genocide bill

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


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.

So the US situation is different in large part because it ended some 20-30 years earlier than the armenian ethnic cleasing?

My comparison was simple. Foreign treatment of the US for it's treatment of the native americans compared to foreign treatment of Turkey for it's treatment of the Armenians.

I further wondered whether having a state museum acknowledge the plight of the Armenians during the ethnic cleasing in a manner similar to how the smithsonian acknowledges the plight of the native americans would do anything to deflect the foreign criticism of Turkey.

In my cynical opinion I will say now that would do nothing to deflect the criticism and that Turkeys critics (not necessarily you, lotm but rather those passing acts such as that referenced in the OP) appear to be willing to accept nothing less than a formal public acknowledgement of a state sponsored genocide of the armenians.

The US has never had to provide as much.

I hope I'm wrong though.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Ancyrean



It is not only realism. There are profound differences between the Holocaust and the Armenian allegations of a genocide.

Yes, there's differences between the two genocides. But that's not the point. The point is if the armenian "allegations" are true, and, according to scholars on the subject, they are. You can call it what you want, ethnic cleansing, forced relocation, removal of threats to national security... It still doesn´t change the fact that it was a systematic slaughter of a group of people singled out as scapegoats.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Geronimo


So the US situation is different in large part because it ended some 20-30 years earlier than the armenian ethnic cleasing?

My comparison was simple. Foreign treatment of the US for it's treatment of the native americans compared to foreign treatment of Turkey for it's treatment of the Armenians.

Please cite for me the US campaign of massacres resulting in the deaths of 300,000 to 1.5 million native Americans in 3 years. Please compare the conditions of the trail of tears - inadequate food that spoiled, removal under tribal supervision, to Oklahoma - with conditions in the Armenian expulsion - soldiers discouraging the provision of help, Armenians forced into the desert.


Either theres something about the American Indians youre thinking of but not telling, or youre buying off on a white washed version of what happened in 1915-1918.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Geronimo

In my cynical opinion I will say now that would do nothing to deflect the criticism and that Turkeys critics (not necessarily you, lotm but rather those passing acts such as that referenced in the OP) appear to be willing to accept nothing less than a formal public acknowledgement of a state sponsored genocide of the armenians.

The US has never had to provide as much.

I hope I'm wrong though.

There is considerable, if contested, evidence, of a state sponsored genocide from 1915-18. Are you denying that that is what at issue, or are you claiming similar evidence wrt to American indians?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


There is considerable, if contested, evidence, of a state sponsored genocide from 1915-18. Are you denying that that is what at issue, or are you claiming similar evidence wrt to American indians?

I suggest that in both cases there was an official desire to see both populations disappear but that in neither case were the involved officials interested in creating an obvious paper trail doccumenting such policies.

I believe there is more evidence of the Turkish desire to see the involved population disappear simply because there were very powerful interests involved in pursuing uncovering such evidence much sooner after the actual atrocities.

The depredations against the native american peoples attracted little foreign interest and little domestic concern until the evidence trail for the worst offenses was quite cold.

Those depredations were also spread out and the offenders were more interested in using indirect methods of extermination such as wanton destruction of food sources.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Please cite for me the US campaign of massacres resulting in the deaths of 300,000 to 1.5 million native Americans in 3 years. Please compare the conditions of the trail of tears - inadequate food that spoiled, removal under tribal supervision, to Oklahoma - with conditions in the Armenian expulsion - soldiers discouraging the provision of help, Armenians forced into the desert.


Either theres something about the American Indians youre thinking of but not telling, or youre buying off on a white washed version of what happened in 1915-1918.

So you'd be ok with the extermination of the armenians if they spread it out over a few decades and used forced starvation in preference to massacres?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Geronimo


So you'd be ok with the extermination of the armenians if they spread it out over a few decades and used forced starvation in preference to massacres?

Im not "ok" with many actions of the US govt. Like you I think there needs for distinctions between different actions.

The spreading out speaks to intent. An event that happens over 3 years may well have been planned and coordinated. Im not sure if your reference to starvation is to killing of bison, or to food problems on reservations. I doubt very much that the men who were behind the expulsion of the five tribes to Oklahoma, for example, were invisioning actions in the 1880s against the Sioux. Theres a difference between sustained racism and bigotry over a long time, that results in large scale death, and a deliberate, concerted plan of extermination. My people have known BOTH, but we dont call the former genocide. I think using genocide for the former would dilute it far more than its application to what the CUP is alleged to have done.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Im not "ok" with many actions of the US govt. Like you I think there needs for distinctions between different actions.

The spreading out speaks to intent. An event that happens over 3 years may well have been planned and coordinated. Im not sure if your reference to starvation is to killing of bison, or to food problems on reservations. I doubt very much that the men who were behind the expulsion of the five tribes to Oklahoma, for example, were invisioning actions in the 1880s against the Sioux. Theres a difference between sustained racism and bigotry over a long time, that results in large scale death, and a deliberate, concerted plan of extermination. My people have known BOTH, but we dont call the former genocide. I think using genocide for the former would dilute it far more than its application to what the CUP is alleged to have done.

Certainly there are multiple differences. I just don't see any justification for the differences in the way succeeding governments are treated generations later for the two kinds of atrocities.

Does the pressure on the modern state of Turkey in any way reduce the liklihood of a repeat of such policies in the future?

Certainly not.

First of all, Turkey shows no indication whatsoever of justifying genocide. Denial is not acceptance.

Secondly those responsible are dead and have largely taken their secrets to the grave with them. Without personal responsibility punishment/pressure tends to be very ineffective at curtailing the behaviors the punishment is supposed to be directed against.

Third, those in power when decisions to engage in genocidal policies are made seldom show any concern for any future beyond that of their own administrations. So there is little reason to believe that pressuring the modern governments will give pause to a government contemplating genocide in the future.

Furthermore personal experience suggests to me that however more horrible and reprehensible acute genocide (if you'll forgive the phrase) is than chronic genocide there currently appears to exist perhaps a greater need to raise the collective conscience of the public about the "chronic" cases than the "acute" cases.

Tell me when discussing horrible acute genocides do you often or even at all recall people waving their hands and saying "you lost, we won, it's history get over it"? I daresay this is not socially acceptable just about anywhere in the developed world. On the other hand you don't have to go lifting any rocks to find arseholes who will say precisely the same thing when discussion concerning the injustices visted upon the native americans arises.

The difference in policies may be intended to reflect differences in intensity of past crimes but they are certainly not reflecting differences in present needs.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Certainly there are multiple differences. I just don't see any justification for the differences in the way succeeding governments are treated generations later for the two kinds of atrocities.

Does the pressure on the modern state of Turkey in any way reduce the liklihood of a repeat of such policies in the future?

Certainly not.

First of all, Turkey shows no indication whatsoever of justifying genocide. Denial is not acceptance.

Secondly those responsible are dead and have largely taken their secrets to the grave with them. Without personal responsibility punishment/pressure tends to be very ineffective at curtailing the behaviors the punishment is supposed to be directed against.

Third, those in power when decisions to engage in genocidal policies are made seldom show any concern for any future beyond that of their own administrations. So there is little reason to believe that pressuring the modern governments will give pause to a government contemplating genocide in the future.

Furthermore personal experience suggests to me that however more horrible and reprehensible acute genocide (if you'll forgive the phrase) is than chronic genocide there currently appears to exist perhaps a greater need to raise the collective conscience of the public about the "chronic" cases than the "acute" cases.

Tell me when discussing horrible acute genocides do you often or even at all recall people waving their hands and saying "you lost, we won, it's history get over it"? I daresay this is not socially acceptable just about anywhere in the developed world. On the other hand you don't have to go lifting any rocks to find arseholes who will say precisely the same thing when discussion concerning the injustices visted upon the native americans arises.

The difference in policies may be intended to reflect differences in intensity of past crimes but they are certainly not reflecting differences in present needs.

I do think the US should apologize for specific past actions, and SHOULD memorialize them. I also think we have an affirmative obligation to support living american indian culture. I dont much care for folks who say "you lost, we won" wrt American Indians. I just dont. I also have little patience for folks who say "well im descended from a post 1900 immigrant, so Im ok" If you assert a claim to the "assets" of the state, you acknowledge a share in its liabilities as well.

That said, I think there is confusion created when one speaks not to specific acts, like the trail of tears, but to the overall history - a history that does include more or less conventional warfare, and atrocities on both sides (as well as numerous atrocities by whites acting as individuals unconnected to the state) The Armenians seem to be careful to focus on the (allegedly) deliberately planned events of 1915-1918, not the entire turkish-armenian relationship, which while it includes other anti-Armenian actions by the Turks, also includes acts of violence by Armenians, and is fairly complex.

BTW, just curious - has the Cherokee nation apologized for holding african-american slaves?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Geronimo

"First of all, Turkey shows no indication whatsoever of justifying genocide. Denial is not acceptance."


Current holocaust deniers do not justify genocide. Thats the whole point of denial, to avoid having to explicitly justify genocide.

"Secondly those responsible are dead and have largely taken their secrets to the grave with them. Without personal responsibility punishment/pressure tends to be very ineffective at curtailing the behaviors the punishment is supposed to be directed against.

Third, those in power when decisions to engage in genocidal policies are made seldom show any concern for any future beyond that of their own administrations. So there is little reason to believe that pressuring the modern governments will give pause to a government contemplating genocide in the future."

Those who made the genocides were concerned, presumably about their countrys future reputations, and so would regret truth telling about that they did. It certainly seems, in Turkey, as well as in Germany, that those most inclined to deny the genocide are those who share certain political inclinations toward very extreme forms of nationalism.

And the obligation to the truth is not just about the perpetrators. Its about the victims. In the case of Jewish victims of Hitler, ive read many indications that they very much did not want what happened to them to remain a secret - they wanted the world to know their stories. Certainly among survivors (and children of survivors - im married to one) witnessing what happened is very important.

[Heresson]

Jews also commited crimes against Germans, vide mr Morel, who is supposed to be trialed in Poland for crimes against humanity, yet Israel denies extradition

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Heresson
Jews also commited crimes against Germans, vide mr Morel, who is supposed to be trialed in Poland for crimes against humanity, yet Israel denies extradition

"Because they were in the forest at the time, Salomon and his brother Icek escaped the fate of other members of their family – in December 1942, the navy-blue police arrested and then shot their mother, father and brother. For a while, Morel and his brother hid at the house of a neighbour - Józef Tkaczyk[4]."


Oy. Doesnt justify what he did. Still, a sad story.

Apparently Israel denied the first request on statute of limitation grounds, and then the Poles upped the accusation to crimes against humanity (to avoid the stat of limitations issue) Israel then questioned the evidence on that count. I dont think its been resolved yet. It should be resolved according to law.

Israel as a state, and most of its supporters, are certainly not fans of Stalinism or of the Polish Communist Party. However this case should be resolved according to law.

[lord of the mark]

Jewish Daily Forward

Poland Gives Up Campaign To Extradite Israeli Citizen

Shoshana Olidort | Fri. Jul 29, 2005
Polish authorities appear to have given up their efforts to extradite an Israeli citizen accused of committing crimes “against the Polish nation.”


Israel’s ambassador to Poland, David Peleg, told the Forward that the Polish Ministry of Justice has agreed to drop its efforts to extradite Solomon Morel, a Polish Jew living in Israel, who allegedly was involved in the deaths of 1,695 prisoners at the Stalinist Swietochlowice-Zgoda camp where he was stationed as a commander in the aftermath of World War II.

Poland’s most recent appeal for the extradition was denied by the Israeli Justice Ministry in a letter citing a statute of limitations that makes the extradition “neither possible under Israeli law, nor required under the Extradition Convention.” It was the second time Israel denied the request, which Poland first submitted in 1998.

Ewa Koj, prosecutor at Poland’s Institute for National Remembrance, criticized Israel’s policy standards.

“There should be one measure for judging war criminals, whether they are German, Israeli or of any other nationality,” Koj said.

But Israel and its allies in the United States argue that the evidence against Morel is weak.

“We have to look at the political agenda being advanced by political parties,” and be “very careful in establishing whether the motive for attempts at prosecution are political or judicial,” said Elan Steinberg, executive emeritus and former president of the World Jewish Congress. Steinberg said the Morel case has been “abused in order to draw equivalencies between the Holocaust and what Jews did to others after the Holocaust.” In addition, he said, the case has been used as “part of an effort of Holocaust denial.”

Efraim Zuroff, director of the Israeli branch of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, said that he is “not opposed in principle to the extradition of Jews from Israel for war crimes.” But Zuroff added that the fact that Poland changed its initial charge of torture to genocide –– in what he described as an effort to exert pressure on Israel –– creates doubts about the legitimacy of the initial charges.

Polish officials did not return calls seeking comment.

Zuroff pointed to similar extradition requests by Lithuania of two Israeli citizens accused of crimes allegedly committed while serving in the Soviet security apparatus. Israel denied the request, citing Lithuania’s apparent antisemitic motivations, after finding that none of the 25 Lithuanian officers of equivalent or higher ranks ever was investigated.

According to Zuroff, Lithuania’s request was an effort on the part of the Lithuanian government to “create a balance or symmetry with the insistence by Jewish organizations to prosecute” Nazi war criminals. A similar agenda might have been behind Poland’s request, Zuroff said, pointing out that the request came during the same week that Poland requested the extradition from Costa Rica of the Nazi war criminal Bohdan Koziy.

In its letter to the Polish government, the Israeli Justice Ministry said it has fully investigated the charges, and found there “to be no basis to charge Mr. Morel with serious crimes, let alone crimes of ‘genocide’ or ‘crimes against the Polish nation.’”

If anything, Israel sees Morel as a victim of Polish collaboration with the Nazis. Israeli officials say Morel is a survivor of Auschwitz who witnessed the murder of his parents, brother and sister-in-law by a Polish police officer during the war. His other brother later was killed by a Polish fascist. Poland denies that Morel or any member of his family ever was incarcerated in the infamous death camp.

According to the Israeli Justice Ministry, only 600 prisoners, including “Nazi collaborators,” were housed in the Zgoda camp, “and their numbers remained unchanged during the period Morel served as Commander,” from March 1945 to December 1945. As a result, the Israeli ministry argued in its letter, a death toll of 1,695 is impossible.

In light of Morel’s “personal and historical background,” the Israeli Justice Ministry argued in its letter that Poland’s extradition request was “both disturbing and saddening.” The ministry also asserted that the case “raises many questions concerning the events of the era immediately following World War II, during which approximately 1,000 Jews were murdered by Polish citizens in Poland,” with many of those responsible never having been brought to justice.

[lord of the mark]

http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw99-2000/poland.htm

"Attempts by the Polish authoritiesto extradite certain Polish Jews living abroad to stand trial for crimes dating from the Stalinist era seemed tinged with anti-Semitism. The cases of Helena Brus, a former military prosecutor now living in Oxford (wife of the celebrated economist Prof. Wlodzimierz Brus), and Solomon Morel, former commander of a Polish detention camp in Swietochlowice, who left Katowice for Tel Aviv in 1993, appeared in part to be an endeavor to draw public attention to the role of Jews in the much-hated communist security apparatus in the years immediately after the war. It should be noted that no such extradition requests have been directed at former Soviet republics where some non-Jewish retired security officials now live.

Maria Fieldorf-Czarska, the daughter of General August Fieldorf, for whom Helena Brus allegedly issued an arrest warrant and who was later executed, claimed in a January 1999 interview in the Independent on Sunday: “The sad truth is that our secret services in the 1950s were dominated by Jews. They were disposed to communism; perhaps it is genetic. All the people connected with the arrest and prosecution of my father were Jewish… Nobody says sorry to us, but nowadays we have to say sorry to Jews all the time. Our government apologized for the Jews killed by the Germans; now Israel should apologize to us.” "

[Heresson]

It's sad and pathethic that Jews tend to treat every harm of theirs, true or imaginary, in terms of antisemitism.
If a non-jewish person gets beaten up in the streets, it's one of thousands cases. If a jewish guy gets beaten up, it's without doubt outrageous antisemitic act.
If a polish, german, russian civilians die during a war or clashes, it's a sad, but usual matter. If jewish civilians get hurt, it's undoubtly a pogrom...
Of course, antisemitic acts do happen, but many Jews are either paranoic or blatantly using label of antisemitism as a political weapon - a sword or a shield, depending on circumstances.

Jews should not be treaten better or worse than any other nation.

And it is true, like it or not, that people of jewish origin played a major role in polish communist movement. Take R. Luksemburg, for example... and, after the war, Minc, Berman etc...
Of course, a demand of this woman for Jews to apologise for harm done to her father is idiotic, but not much more than polish president apologising for Jedwabne.

Polish collaboration with the Nazis