Nearly a Million Genocide Victims, Covered in a Cloak of Amnesia

The New York Times
Published: March 8, 2009

ISTANBUL ' For Turkey, the number should have been a bombshell.
Nearly a Million Genocide Victims, Covered in a Cloak of Amnesia

Ottoman Armenians are marched to a prison by armed Turkish soldiers in
April 1915. About 972,000 Armenians disappeared from population
records in 1915 and 1916.

Times Topics: Armenian GenocideAccording to a long-hidden document
that belonged to the interior minister of the Ottoman Empire, 972,000
Ottoman Armenians disappeared from official population records from
1915 through 1916.

In Turkey, any discussion of what happened to the Ottoman Armenians
can bring a storm of public outrage. But since its publication in a
book in January, the number ' and its Ottoman source ' has gone
virtually unmentioned. Newspapers hardly wrote about it. Television
shows have not discussed it.

`Nothing,' said Murat Bardakci, the Turkish author and columnist who
compiled the book.

The silence can mean only one thing, he said: `My numbers are too high
for ordinary people. Maybe people aren't ready to talk about it yet.'

For generations, most Turks knew nothing of the details of the
Armenian genocide of 1915 to 1918, when more than a million Armenians
were killed as the Ottoman Turk government purged the
population. Turkey locked the ugliest parts of its past out of sight,
Soviet-style, keeping any mention of the events out of schoolbooks and
official narratives in an aggressive campaign of forgetting.

But in the past 10 years, as civil society has flourished here, some
parts of Turkish society are now openly questioning the state's
version of events. In December, a group of intellectuals circulated a
petition that apologized for the denial of the massacres. Some 29,000
people have signed it.

With his book, `The Remaining Documents of Talat Pasha,' Mr. Bardakci
(pronounced bard-AK-chuh) has become, rather unwillingly, part of this
ferment. The book is a collection of documents and records that once
belonged to Mehmed Talat, known as Talat Pasha, the primary architect
of the Armenian deportations.

The documents, given to Mr. Bardakci by Mr. Talat's widow, Hayriye,
before she died in 1983, include lists of population figures. Before
1915, 1,256,000 Armenians lived in the Ottoman Empire, according to
the documents. The number plunged to 284,157 two years later,
Mr. Bardakci said.

To the untrained ear, it is simply a sad statistic. But anyone
familiar with the issue knows the numbers are in fierce
dispute. Turkey has never acknowledged a specific number of deportees
or deaths. On Sunday, Turkey's foreign minister warned that President
Obama might set back relations if he recognized the massacre of
Armenians as genocide before his visit to Turkey next month.

The collapse of the Ottoman Empire was bloody, the Turkish argument
goes, and those who died were victims of that chaos.

Mr. Bardakci subscribes to that view. The figures, he said, do not
indicate the number of dead, only a result of the decline in the
Armenian population after deportation. He strongly disagrees that the
massacres amounted to a genocide, and he says Turkey was obliged to
take action against Armenians because they were openly supporting
Russia in its war against the Ottoman Empire.

`It was not a Nazi policy or a Holocaust,' he said. `These were very
dark times. It was a very difficult decision. But deportation was the
outcome of some very bloody events. It was necessary for the
government to deport the Armenian population.'

This argument is rejected by most scholars, who believe that the small
number of Armenian rebels were not a serious threat to the Ottoman
Empire, and that the policy was more the product of the perception
that the Armenians, non-Muslims and therefore considered
untrustworthy, were a problem population.

Hilmar Kaiser, a historian and expert on the Armenian genocide, said
the records published in the book were conclusive proof from the
Ottoman authority itself that it had pursued a calculated policy to
eliminate the Armenians. `You have suddenly on one page confirmation
of the numbers,' he said. `It was like someone hit you over the head
with a club.'

Mr. Kaiser said the before and after figures amounted to `a death
record.'

`There is no other way of viewing this document,' he said. `You can't
just hide a million people.'

Other scholars said that the number was a useful addition to the
historical record, but that it did not introduce a new version of
events.

`This corroborates what we already knew,' said Donald Bloxham, the
author of `The Great Game of Genocide: Imperialism, Nationalism and
the Destruction of the Ottoman Armenians.'

Mr. Bardakci is a history buff who learned to read and write Ottoman
script from his grandmother, allowing him to navigate Turkey's written
past, something that most Turks are unable to do. He plays the tanbur,
a traditional string instrument. His grandfather was a member of the
same political party of Mr. Talat, and his family knew many of the
important political figures in Turkey's founding.

Though he clearly wanted the numbers to be known, he stubbornly
refuses to interpret them. He offers no analysis in the book, and
aside from an interview with Mr. Talat's widow, there is virtually no
text beside the original documents.

`I didn't want to interpret,' he said. `I want the reader to decide.'

The best way to do that, he argues, is by using cold, hard facts,
which can cut through the layers of emotional rhetoric that have
clouded the issue for years.

`I believe we need documents in Turkey,' he said. `This is the most
important.'

But some of the keenest observers of Turkish society said the silence
was a sign of just how taboo the topic still was. `The importance of
the book is obvious from the fact that no paper except Milliyet has
written a single line about it,' wrote Murat Belge, a Turkish
academic, in a January column in the liberal daily newspaper Taraf.

Still, it is a measure of Turkey's democratic maturity that the book
was published here at all. Mr. Bardakci said he had held the documents
for so long ' 27 years ' because he was waiting for Turkey to reach
the point when their publication would not cause a frenzy.

Even the state now feels the need to defend itself. Last summer, a
propaganda film about the Armenians made by Turkey's military was
distributed to primary schools. After a public outcry, it was stopped.

`I could never have published this book 10 years ago,' Mr. Bardakci
said. `I would have been called a traitor.'

He added, `The mentality has changed.'

Israel, Turkey and the politics of genocide

GERALD CAPLAN

Globe and Mail Update

January 23, 2009 at 1:34 PM EST

http://www.theglobeandmail.com

President Obama — I love saying those words — has momentarily united the world. Almost. Among the exceptions, though barely noticed by the mainstream media, is the estrangement of Turkey and Israel, previously staunch allies in the turbulent Middle East.

At first blush, this alliance may seem counterintuitive, but in fact it makes good strategic sense for both countries. Israel gets a warm working relationship with one of the largest Muslim countries in the world, while enriching Israel's all-important industrial-military complex. Less than two months ago, for instance, came the news of a deal worth $140-million to Israeli firms to upgrade Turkey's air force. In the hard-boiled, realpolitik terms that determine Israel's strategies, it's a no-brainer. Almost.

In return, Turkey gets military, economic and diplomatic benefits. But it also gets something less tangible, something that matters deeply for reasons hard for outsiders to grasp. As part of the Faustian bargain between the two countries, a succession of Israeli governments of all stripes has adamantly refused to recognize that in 1915 the Turkish government was responsible for launching a genocide against its Armenian minority. Some 1.5-million Armenian women, men and children were successfully killed.

I should make clear that this Israeli position is not held casually. On the contrary. Over the years Israelis, with a few notably courageous exceptions, have actually worked against attempts to safeguard the memory of the Armenian genocide. (The bible on this issue is the excellent book by an Israeli, Yair Auron, called The Banality of Denial: Israel and the Armenian Genocide, 2003.)

For many, this may well be a pretty esoteric sidebar to the world's many crises. But readers need to understand that every Turkish government for almost a century now has passionately denied that a genocide took place at all. Yet the vast majority of disinterested scholars of genocide have publicly affirmed that it was indeed a genocide, one of the small number in the 20th century (with the Holocaust and Rwanda) that have incontestably met the definition set down in the UN's 1948 Genocide Convention.

For Armenians in the Western world, even after 94 years, nothing is more important than persuading other governments to recognize this. For Turkish authorities, even after 94 years, nothing is more important than preventing that recognition. In that pursuit, Israel has been perhaps Turkey's most powerful ally. After all, if the keepers of the memory of the Holocaust don't acknowledge 1915, why should anyone else?

But the Israeli-Turkish bargain goes well beyond Israel. Not only is Israel, of all the unlikely states in the world, a genocide denier, but also many established Jewish organizations in other countries, especially the United States, have followed suit. In the United States, those who argue that denying the Holocaust is psychologically tantamount to a second holocaust have taken the lead in pressuring presidents and Congress against recognizing the reality of 1915. Resolutions calling for recognition are regularly pushed by American-Armenians and their many supporters. Jewish groups regularly lead the opposition. Some believe that members of these groups in fact understand perfectly well the rights and wrongs of the case. But a mindset that backs any and all Israeli government initiatives trumps all else. And successfully. Repeated attempts in Congress to pass this resolution has failed, even though the list of nations that now recognizes the Armenian genocide has grown steadily and, thanks to Stephen Harper, now includes Canada.

It is this rather unseemly, if not unholy, Israeli-Turkish deal that has been among the many victims of the latest Israeli attack on Gaza. Whether the Israelis anticipated it or not, the Turkish government turned against its erstwhile ally with a vengeance, pulling few punches. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan accused Israel of "perpetrating inhuman actions which would bring it to self-destruction. Allah will sooner or later punish those who transgress the rights of innocents." Mr. Erdogan described Israel's attack on Gaza as "savagery" and a "crime against humanity."

Israel formally described this language as "unacceptable" and certain Israeli media outlets have raised the stakes. The Jerusalem Post editorialized that given Turkey's record of killing tens of thousands of Kurds in northern Iraq, "we're not convinced that Turkey has earned the right to lecture Israelis about human rights." Israel's deputy foreign minister was even more pointed: "Erdogan says that genocide is taking place in Gaza. We [Israel] will then recognize the Armenian-related events as genocide." Suddenly, genocide turns into a geopolitical pawn.

It isn't easy to choose a winner in the cynicism stakes here. Here's what one Turkish columnist, Barcin Yinanc, shrewdly wrote: "When April comes, I can imagine the [Turkish] government instructing its Ambassador to Israel to mobilize the Israeli government to stop the Armenian initiatives in the U.S. Congress. I can hear some Israelis telling the Turkish Ambassador to go talk to Hamas to lobby the Congress."

I'm guessing some readers work on the naïve assumption that an event is deemed genocidal based on the facts of the case. Silly you. In the real world, you call it genocide if it bolsters your interests. If it doesn't, it's not. It's actually the same story as with preventing genocide.

What happens now? Candidate Obama twice pledged that he would recognize the Armenian claim of genocide. But so had candidate George W. Bush eight years earlier, until he was elected and faced the Turkish/Jewish lobby. Armenian-Americans and their backers are already pressing Mr. Obama to fulfill his pledge. With the Turkish-Israeli alliance deeply strained, the position of the leading Jewish organizations is very much in question this time. Whatever the outcome, be sure that politics, not genocide, will be the decisive factor.

Gerald Caplan, author of The Betrayal of Africa, writes frequently on issues related to genocide.

When it comes to Gaza, leave the Second World War out of it

Robert Fisk's World: When it comes to Gaza, leave the Second World War
out of it

How do Holocaust survivors in Israel feel about being called Nazis?

Saturday, 17 January 2009
Independent.co.uk  Web

Exaggeration always gets my goat. I started to hate it back in the
1970s when the Provisional IRA claimed that Long Kesh internment camp
was "worse than Belsen". It wasn't as if there was anything nice about
Long Kesh ` or the Maze prison as it was later politely dubbed ` but it
simply wasn't as bad as Belsen. And now we're off again. Passing
through Paris this week, I found pro-Palestinian demonstrators carrying
signs which read "Gaza, it's Guernica" and "Gaza-sur-Glane".


Guernica, as we all know, was the Basque city razed by the Luftwaffe in
1937 and Oradour-sur-Glane the French village whose occupants were
murdered by the SS in 1944. Israel's savagery in Gaza has also been
compared to a "genocide" and ` of course ` a "holocaust". The French
Union of Islamic Organisations called it "a genocide without precedent"
` which does take the biscuit when even the Pope's "minister for peace
and justice" has compared Gaza to "a big concentration camp".

Before I state the obvious, I only wish the French Union of Islamic
Organisations would call the Armenian genocide a genocide ` it doesn't
have the courage to do so, does it, because that would be offensive to
the Turks and, well, the million and a half Armenians massacred in 1915
happened to be, er, Christians.

Mind you, that didn't stop George Bush from dropping the word from his
vocabulary lest he, too, should offend the Turkish generals whose
airbases America needs for its continuing campaign in Iraq. And even
Israel doesn't use the word "genocide" about the Armenians lest it
loses its only Muslim ally in the Middle East. Strange, isn't it? When
there's a real genocide ` of Armenians ` we don't like to use the word.
But when there is no genocide, everyone wants to get in on the act.

Yes, I know what all these people are trying to do: make a direct
connection between Israel and Hitler's Germany. And in several radio
interviews this past week, I've heard a good deal of condemnation about
such comparisons. How do Holocaust survivors in Israel feel about being
called Nazis? How can anyone compare the Israeli army to the Wehrmacht?
Merely to make such a parallel is an act of anti-Semitism.

Having come under fire from the Israeli army on many occasions, I'm not
sure that's necessarily true. I've never understood why strafing the
roads of northern France in 1940 was a war crime while strafing the
roads of southern Lebanon is not a war crime. The massacre of up to
1,700 Palestinians in the Sabra and Chatila camps ` perpetrated by
Israel's Lebanese Phalangist allies while Israeli soldiers watched and
did nothing ` falls pretty much into the Second World War bracket.
Israel's own estimate of the dead ` a paltry 460 ` was only nine fewer
than the Nazi massacre at the Czech village of Lidice in 1942 when
almost 300 women and children were also sent to Ravensbrück (a real
concentration camp). Lidice was destroyed in revenge for the murder by
Allied agents of Reinhard Heydrich. The Palestinians were slaughtered
after Ariel Sharon told the world ` untruthfully ` that a Palestinian
had murdered the Lebanese Phalangist leader Bashir Gemayel.

Indeed, it was the courageous Professor Yeshayahu Leibovitz of the
Hebrew University (and editor of the Encyclopaedia Hebraica) who wrote
that the Sabra and Chatila massacre "was done by us. The Phalangists
are our mercenaries, exactly as the Ukrainians and the Croatians and
the Slovakians were the mercenaries of Hitler, who organised them as
soldiers to do the work for him. Even so have we organised the
assassins of Lebanon in order to murder the Palestinians". Remarks like
these were greeted by Israel's then minister of interior and religious
affairs, Yosef Burg, with the imperishable words: "Christians killed
Muslims ` how are the Jews guilty?"

I have long raged against any comparisons with the Second World War `
whether of the Arafat-is-Hitler variety once deployed by Menachem Begin
or of the anti-war-demonstrators-are-1930s-appeasers,
most recently
used by George Bush and Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara. And pro-Palestinian
marchers should think twice before they start waffling about genocide
when the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem once shook Hitler's hand and said `
in Berlin on 2 November 1943, to be precise ` "The Germans know how to
get rid of the Jews... They have definitely solved the Jewish problem."
The Grand Mufti, it need hardly be added, was a Palestinian. He lies
today in a shabby grave about two miles from my Beirut home.

No, the real reason why "Gaza-Genocide" is a dangerous parallel is
because it is not true. Gaza's one and a half million refugees are
treated outrageously enough, but they are not being herded into gas
chambers or forced on death marches. That the Israeli army is a rabble
is not in question ` though I was amused to read one of Newsweek's
regular correspondents calling it "splendid" last week ` but that does
not mean they are all war criminals. The issue, surely, is that war
crimes do appear to have been committed in Gaza. Firing at UN schools
is a criminal act. It breaks every International Red Cross protocol.
There is no excuse for the killing of so many women and children.

I should add that I had a sneaking sympathy for the Syrian foreign
minister who this week asked why a whole international tribunal has
been set up in the Hague to investigate the murder of one man `=2
0
Lebanese ex-prime minister Rafiq Hariri ` while no such tribunal is set
up to investigate the deaths of more than 1,000 Palestinians.

I should add, however, that the Hague tribunal may well be pointing the
finger at Syria and I would still like to see a tribunal set up into
the Syrian massacre at Hama in 1982 when thousands of civilians were
shot at the hands of Rifaat al-Assad's special forces. The aforesaid
Rifaat, I should add, today lives safely within the European Union. And
how about a trial for the Israeli artillerymen who massacred 106
civilians ` more than half of them children ` at the UN base at Qana in
1996?

What this is really about is international law. It's about
accountability. It's about justice ` something the Palestinians have
never received ` and it's about bringing criminals to trial. Arab war
criminals, Israeli war criminals ` the whole lot. And don't say it
cannot be done. Wasn't that the message behind the Yugoslav tribunal?
Didn't some of the murderers get their just deserts? Just leave the
Second World War out of it.

Thousands of Turks Apologize to Armenians

Blogian on 24 Dec 2008

While I have received a number of personal letters from individual Turks apologizing for the Genocide, this one is addressed to all Armenians: “My conscience does not accept the insensitivity showed to and the denial of the Great Catastrophe that the Ottoman Armenians were subjected to in 1915. I reject this injustice and for my share, I empathize with the feelings and pain of my Armenian brothers and sisters. I apologize to them.”

The thousands of Turkish signatories of the apology statement are not saying sorry for the genocide itself (which they call “the Great Catastrophe,” translating from the Armenian Metz Yeghern). The apology is for the convenient “ignorance” and “denial” about the WWI extermination of Ottoman Empire’s indigenous Armenians for about nine decades. The message, as I see it, is not recognizing a historical fact but recognizing humanity. To recognize genocide means to recognize a victim group’s humanity. The reverse can, apparently, be true as well.

What is also true is that there are thousands of Turks who are willing to risk their lives and comfort in order to break an ancient silence. As one Turkish friend told me, “[i]t’s a bit like putting your name on a ‘wanted’ list.” The “wanted list” is pretty big: over 22,000 signatures on the main website, http://www.ozurdiliyoruz.com/, by December 24, 2008, and over 3,400 on Facebook (as of Dec 20) with their real names and photographs (the Facebook event list seems to have since become a private one).

On the other hand, all that Armenians have received for losing a homeland and memory through genocide is a 90-year-late “apology” by a group of people some of whose signatories don’t hide its strategy. One initiator, for instance, has been quoted as suggesting in one Turkish-language newspaper that the apology is a service to the Republic of Turkey in the sense that it will kill genocide recognition by other countries. Furthermore, earlier this year, in my indigenous politics class, the professor and many students were not satisfied with Australia’s and Canada’s official apology to their indigenous peoples for genocidal policies. So in general, an “apology” is not well received by victim groups.

What is undeniable, nonetheless, is that this apology has full of potential. One would not even imagine such an apology five years ago. One would not imagine that Turkish parliamentarians would discuss the matter, even some of them using the Kurdish term “genocide” to refer to the Armenian extermination.

The apology has also brought out the paradoxical Turkish society. Turkey’s ceremonial president Abdullah Gul has defended the signatories (unlike the “real” Turkish leader, vice president Erdogan). At the same time, though, Gul is suing a nationalist Turkish parliamentarian for saying the president has Armenian roots and that’s why he defends the apology. This is also the same Gul who has attended a ceremonial killing of Armenian soldiers in Turkey. But this is also the same Gul who visited Armenia this year and wanted to improve relations.

Nevertheless, Turkish media are openly calling Canan Arıtman, the female member of a social-democratic party who suggested Gul is a traitor because of his alleged Armenian origin, a “fascist” and a “racist.” Suggesting that the politician be expelled from her party, one Turkish columnist writing for Sabah says, “Arıtman is racist. What place can racism and questioning ethnic origins have in social democracy, an ideology that has freedom, equality and brotherhood as its fundamental tenets?”

Writing even harsher, a liberal Turkish columnist asks what if all Turks have Armenian origin:

“Arıtman and those like her are the strongest reason we have to apologize to the Armenian community. If these people can readily put into circulation statements that are racist, low and self-aggrandizing, the entire community is responsible for that. We all have a share in this crime. I have questions to ask people who approach this issue reluctantly and who think that it is unnecessary as an agenda item. Have you ever thought about this? Maybe we are all really Armenians. We may all have people in our lineage who were forced to act like Muslim Turks.”

A Zaman columnist says Turks “should thank the racist CHP deputy” for reminding the history of her political party. Apparently that political party is the hereditary of the chauvinist “Union and Progress” that committed the Genocide in 1915.

Furthermore, some of Arıtman’s colleagues in the parliament have compared her to Hitler: “”It was a similar stance that led German dictator Adolf Hitler to burn thousands of people of Jewish origin. Arıtman sees Armenians as enemies.”

When was the last time when any media in Turkey was outraged against insulting Armenians? Indeed this is unprecedented and demonstrates the power of the apology – no matte how vague and not-enough it may be. This maybe the reason why there is so much ultranationalist outrage in Turkey against the apology (even if some self-perceived progressives silently suggest the apology serves Turkey’s national interests). The website of the apology, for instance, was “suspended” according to a message which appeared on it around 1:30 AM standard US eastern time on December 23, 2008. Days ago it was also hacked. Furthermore, a group of nationalists have opened their own website called “I don’t apologize.” Almost 50,000 nationalists have signed it as of December 24. Another counter campaign claims twice as many supporters, although neither websites have received much - if any coverage - in Turkish or other media.

Hated by Turkish ultranationalists, the apology initiative has inspired similar (though low-profile) campaigns in the region. I have received a text that is being circulated among Cypriot Turks and Greeks asking both communities to apologize to each other:

“Initiative for Apologizing for the atrocities committed by ones’ own community

1. This is an initiative to collect signatures on a document apologizing for the atrocities committed by ones’ own community against the other. Following the initiative of 200 Turkish intellectuals, who found the courage to apologize for the Armenian genocide, we believe it is time for Cypriots to assume responsibility for the crimes allegedly committed in their name and to express regret and condemnation.

2. The initiative also aims at putting an end to the decades- long practice of concealing the truth about the events, of denying that they ever took place or attempt to justify them. This amounts to a crime of massacre denial which can no longer be tolerated. At the same time each one of us must assume responsibility for the actions we can take as parents, teachers, activists, journalists, politicians to put an end to the decades-long conspiracy of silence about our regrettable past.

3. We call on all interested persons and organizations to engage in a process of consultation on how best to promote this initiative and to formulate the text to be signed.”

Full of more potential for good than for bad, the Turkish apology is one that surprises many. In fact, it might not have been possible without one person. According to the Irish Times:

“[...]

Others attribute the initiative to the shock that followed the murder of the Armenian-Turkish editor Hrant Dink. A leading advocate of a more humane debate on the Armenian issue, Dink was gunned down by a nationalist teenager in January 2007.

“When he died, it was as if a veil had been torn from the eyes of the democratic-minded citizens of this country,” says Nil Mutluer, a feminist activist who signed the letter. “People realised there was no time to be lost.”

The road ahead looks hard. The chief organisers of the 1915 massacres continue to be commemorated in street names across the country….”

The road is a hard one, but not unprecedented. Around the globe, there is a global recognition of indigenous rights which have often been repressed through genocidal policies. One such injustice was recently corrected by the country of Nicaragua when it gave title of traditional land to a native nation. A simple apology seems to please many Armenians, though, even it comes froma group of liberal Turks who are ashamed of a 90-year-old campaign to silence and rewrite history.

When I gave my father a print-out of the apology in western Armenian, his initial reaction was: “They took all of our land and memory and all they give us is an apology by a group of small people who don’t even use the word genocide?” To my surprise, he then added, “I accept their apology.”

And earlier this April, when a group of Turkish lobbyists and community organizers denied the Armenian genocide during a commemorative lecture at University of Denver, an Armenian friend of mine (who openly calls himself a nationalist), said to the audience that if a Turk told him “sorry” for the Genocide he would give that Turk a “big, Armenian hug.”

My friend owes 20,000 Turks big, Armenian hugs. Let’s hope the number grows so big that he will never be able to give so many hugs in 90 years.

Turk Gives Away Family Land as Genocide Reparation

Blogian on 09 Jan 2009

Encouraged by the recent apology to Armenians by thousands of Turkish intelectuals and disissidents, a Turkish citizen has done the unprecedented: Berzan Boti (not his real name) of Siirt is giving all the land he inherited to an Assyrian organization. Along with Armenians, indigenous Assyrians were also victims of the WWI genocide at the hands of Ottoman Empire’s government during WWI:

Boti’s letter to Sabri Atman, founder and director of the Assyrian Seyfo Center in Europe who will now be responsible for the returned land (south of the Lake Van), states:

“When I found out that the properties that I and my brothers inherited from our father wasn’t our own, but properties taken from the murdered Assyrians in 1915 I felt an indescribable feeling of guilt and shame. I’ve been thinking long and hard before I have come to this decision. I tried to put myself in their position. I have personally apologized to every Assyrian and Armenian I’ve met. But this does not get rid of the crime our ancestors committed. Even if I am personally not responsible for what happened in 1915, I felt as I had to do more than just to apologize. Finally, I came to the decision to give back all properties that I inherited from my forefathers to Seyfo Center, which works for the recognition of the Seyfo (Assyrian) genocide in 1915” (slightly edited - Blogian).

“Sorry” Seems to Be the Hardest Word: Turkish elites agonize over apology campaign

A Commentary by Jirair Haratunian
Trustee, Armenian Assembly of America
http://www.aaainc.org Published: 09 January, 2009

For the past few weeks Turkey has been agonizing over an internet petition initiated by a group of Turkish intellectuals apologizing for the 1915 “Great Catastrophe” that befell the Armenian population in Anatolia. The campaign ignited a counter movement led by former Turkish ambassadors and a sharp rebuke by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The Prime Minister said, “If there was a crime let those who committed it apologize. My nation, my country has no such issue.”

Curiously, President Abdullah Gul initially characterized the petition as evidence that Turkey is committed to the democratic principle of free expression, but on January 1, after much criticism for his passive reaction to the apology campaign, he confessed that it was not helpful in the process of negotiations with Armenia.

Remarkably, the latest reports say that 26,000 signatories have registered their personal apology to the internet petition, and the Turkish media has headlined the campaign as a major news story for weeks. They also gave wide coverage to the Armenian Assembly of America statement quoting its Executive Director, Bryan Ardouny, who said, “An irreversible trend has commenced in Turkey. This public apology is a first step in that direction and will inevitably lead Turkey in coming to grips with its genocidal past.”

The petition’s authors carefully avoided using the “Genocide” label in their apology statement. Instead they called the horrors of 1915 “The Great Catastrophe,” a term that in Armenian is called “Medz Yeghern.” This was widely used by Armenians before Raphael Lemkin coined the word genocide. The petition also avoided asking the Turkish state to recognize the Armenian Genocide in any way. The campaign, the authors asserted, is a means for Turks to personally apologize for the horrors Armenians endured at the hands of the Ottoman regime.

The opposition arguments range from denial of any crimes against Armenians to the comparison of equivalent losses suffered by Turks at the hands of Armenian insurgents. They also recalled the assassination of Turkish diplomats by Armenian terrorists in the 1970s.

A most interesting phenomenon in Turkey took place on the 32nd day of the apology petition when the Turkish State Television network broadcast a debate between three advocates and three retired ambassadors who opposed the petition.

The moderator opened the debate noting its objectives. He said, “At the root of the issue lies what happened to the Armenians in 1915: was it a catastrophe, genocide, or deportation? Should we apologize? To whom and for what should we apologize?”

One of the authors of the apology petition, Dr. Cengiz Aktar, explained, “We apologized for not being able to talk about this for many years. We also apologize for not being able to share the pain of our Armenian brothers and sisters to a sufficient extent.”

In response, former Ambassador Sukru Elekdag said, in part, “First they are referring to ‘The Great Catastrophe’ which is a synonym for genocide.” He complained that the petitioners were only telling part of the story. “There was a deportation decision of course, but this was done in legitimate self defense during conditions of war. The Russian army was advancing and Armenians took up arms and joined that army.”

The moderator asked whether the apology petition makes a positive contribution to solving the difficult issues between Turkey and Armenia. Elekdag replied, “This campaign cannot serve a useful purpose.” He noted that secret negotiations exist between Ankara and Yerevan and that the Turkish proposal for a joint historic commission to examine the history of the period was part of the negotiations.

Opponents also declared that the petition strengthens the Armenian position on the issue in international quarters where the Armenian Diaspora campaigns for international recognition of genocide.

Dr. Aktar made a passionate defense of the petition. He said that the petition involved individual and personal apologies and does not address itself to either the Armenian or Turkish governments. He said responses from Armenians were positive. “They are giving a positive response with tears in their eyes because they are finally seeing a compassionate response after 90 years.”

He also addressed the assertions that it was only deportation that was sanctioned by the Ottoman government. He said, “The truth of the matter is that the deportations were one of the biggest calamities that ever happened in Anatolia. The Anatolian economy collapsed because of this irrational decision, and from that time until today the economy has not been revived in eastern Anatolia.”

This television debate was a watershed event in Turkey. It illuminated the differing sides of the genocide issue at a time when Ankara has indicated an interest in changing its rigid policy towards Armenia. It is a step away from past positions that sought to isolate Armenia politically and economically. Instead, despite opposition from Azerbaijan, Turkey has offered a program to establish a stability and security platform in the Caucasus that includes both Armenia and Russia. This, in addition to bilateral negotiations with Armenia, are positive but fragile developments that will hopefully ease tensions and lead to a more normal and stable relationship between Armenia and Turkey who, in the final analysis, are destined to remain permanent neighbors.

Armenian genocide

I found this link http://www.washingtontimes.com where the writer is a Turk and denies Armenian genocide.I found interesting the comment that 'Manuel' posted in regards to the article.

Read it here:

"oplu. I do know the background of the writer, she has written articles on this site as well as her Turkish Digest website as well having her articles printed in blatantly nationalist websites.
I am sorry you feel that way about Armenians, in my first comment I did not make any comments about Turks as a whole but only regarding the writer and the Turkish government. I am well aware of the fact that Turks helped save thousands of Armenians during the Genocide and they are risking their lives today by daring to talk about it and raising the issue in public. Your comments regarding all Armenians are blatantly racist - please read them again yourself.
The writer tries to use a quote by Winston Churchill regarding what constitutes a fanatic. If she had researched the subject properly she would have known that Winston Churchill referred to what happened to the Armenians as 'administrative Holocaust'.
The reason why Armenians are not warm to the subject of a joint commission is that only a handful of historians and the Turkish government believe it was not Genocide, but mainly because while it has suggested the commission it has quashed any debate on the subject in Turkey - Why - let there be open, honest, full debate on the subject in Turkey first - without the hatred and death threats towards those Turks speaking their minds? After over 90 years of distortion of facts in Turkey - it is only now that the debate has begun, Turkey should find out for itself what happened in 1915 openly and honestly - before suggesting a 'joint commission' .
Every time this debate is raised the question of Nagorno Kharabagh is raised - as if somehow the present has a hand in the past. Nachichevan and areas including Kharabagh were annexed to Azerbaijan from Armenia by Russia, thats why the population of kharabagh was predominantly Armenian ( and yes there were ethnic Azeris, and yes they were forced out and they should ultimately be given the right to return).
I agree there should be understanding and peace between the two neighbours, but it can only be done with acceptance of the truth. The book for which the Turkish publisher was imprisoned was called ' The truth will set us free' - about how the writers family was saved by a Turkish family it was a book on understanding and reconciliation, but as I said 301 was used to imprison the publisher. I don't believe the Turkish population is racist, just the Nationalists as well as prominent politicians, these are the people who sadly still control Turkey, and before you get angry at this comment let me quote you the Turkish Defense ministers statement made in a speech in Brussels last month (the heart of Europe) 'Turkey would not have been the country it is had the Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians....been allowed to stay' what does that say about the willingness of a 21 century modern country leadership say about that countries present ideology and willingness to look at history objectively?

Understandably being a Turk, the writer of this article would not like to admit that what happened in 1915 was Genocide.
No other choice has been left to Armenians around the world, but to ask the governments of the countries they live to recognize the Genocide, up until now there has been no debate on the subject in Turkey, the term 'Armenian' is still an insult of the highest order even used by politicians (used recently as last week against the president of Turkey). Sadly article 301 in Turkey is still used to prosecute anyone who uses the words Armenian Genocide, one assistant publisher has just been imprisoned for having published a book by an Armenian writer.
One myth I keep hearing especially in Turkish newspapers etc. is that the Armenian lobby group is very powerful, to put matters straight - compared to the tens of millions spent on US lobby groups by Turkey and the fact that any high ranking Turkish minister can pick up the phone and call his/her counterpart in the US ( as happened with Clinton at a previous vote) the Armenian lobby groups are no match. Instead of suggesting Mr. Obama should look into what happened in 1915, the writer should be advised to go back to Turkey and find out the facts for themselves, it is only now that they can research the subject there more freely. One of the reasons why debate has sprung up is because the Armenian diaspora has pushed the issue, if not Turkey would have buried the issue long ago just as it buried the million plus Armenians in 1915."
December 24, 2008 at 11:39 a.m.

Online apology for the Armenian genocide

After more than 90 years, Turkey is about to breaking a long-held taboo. An online petition, apologizing for the killing of Armenians in 1915, has been issued by prominent Turkish academics.

Watch the video here:
http://www.france24.com/en/20081222-report-turkey-killing-armenians-text-apology-

Convince Raphael Lemkin Otherwise!

HYE-TERT
Dec 10 2008
Turkey

The Armenian Genocide has been officially recognized by Turkey,
United States, Great Britain, Israel and many more countries, but we
just couldn't see it.

By Vicken Babkenian, an independent researcher for the Australian
Institute for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Sydney, Australia,
3 December 2008

It all began when I was cutting an Orange for my niece when she asked
me why the name Orange is both a color and a fruit. After doing some
research, I discovered that the root of the word Orange in the English
language is derived from the fruit. In other words the Etymology of
the color and the fruit is interconnected. No one can argue that the
fruit Orange is not Orange.

As someone who has studied the Armenian Genocide over a number of
years, I could not help but familiarize myself with the etymology of
the word Genocide. I discovered that the word genocide is from the
roots genos (Greek for family, tribe, race, a people, a nation) and
-cide (Latin - occidere or cideo - to Massacre, Kill, exterminate). I
looked up the word in the Oxford dictionary and found the definition to
be "the extermination of a race". I then recalled that this definition
of the word 'genocide' had been used by contemporary eyewitnesses,
diplomats, historians, journalists to describe what was happening to
the Armenians during WWI. Lord James Bryce in 1915 called it "the
Extermination of a Race" in a New York Times article. If the word
'genocide' had been coined before WWI, then that one word would have
been used, instead of the five words which mean the same thing.

I then conducted some research on Raphael Lemkin, "The founder of the
genocide convention" and on the genesis of the word 'genocide' which
he coined in 1944. In his manuscript titled "Totally unofficial",
Lemkin wrote:

"In 1915 . . . I began . . . to read more history to study whether
national, religious, or racial groups as such were being destroyed. The
truth came out after the war. In Turkey, more than 1,200,000 Armenians
were put to death . . . After the end of the war, some 150 Turkish
war criminals were arrested and interned by the British Government
on the island of Malta . . . Then one day, I read in the newspapers
that all Turkish war criminals were to be released. I was shocked. A
nation that killed and the guilty persons were set free . . . I felt
that a law against this type of racial or religious murder must be
adopted by the world"

I soon reached the conclusion that the word genocide is etymologically
interconnected with the tragedy of the Armenians, just like the word
Orange is to the fruit of the same name. The man who coined the word
genocide had in large part based it on the Armenian catastrophe. He
even stated on national television "that it happened to the
Armenians." I further realized that the legal term "Crimes against
humanity" which is affirmed by the U.N general Assembly was in the
main, derived and adopted from a declaration made by the Allies on
24 May 1915 with respect to the initiation of the wartime Armenian
Genocide, which they branded as a "crime against humanity." This
fact is acknowledged by the authoritative UN War Crimes Commission,
History of the United Nations War Crimes Commission and the Development
of the Laws of War.

I searched online to learn which countries had actually signed and
ratified the Genocide Convention. I discovered that most countries
in the world had done so, including the United States, Great Britain,
Turkey, Israel and so on. I concluded that by ratifying the convention
they had in fact recognized that the Armenian holocaust was in fact
a genocide.

Yes, I use the word 'holocaust' because that word was used to
describe what was happening to the Armenians during the Abdul Hamid
Massacres, Adana Massacres and the Armenian genocide by contemporary
writers. William Walker Rockwell in an article titled "the Total
of Armenian and Syrian Dead" in the New York Times Current History
February 1916, wrote "If the ghosts of the Christian civilians who
have perished miserably in Turkey since the commencement of the great
holocaust should march down Fifth Avenue twenty abreast there might
be a million of them ... for most of them will be women and children".

The Armenian genocide has been recognized by the majority of the
nations of the world and we didn't even know it. If those countries
who have ratified the genocide convention deny that the Armenians
were victims of genocide, then they should either terminate their
participation to the convention, or have the convention change the word
'genocide' to something else which is not intrinsically connected to
the Armenian slaughter.

Denying that Armenians were victims of genocide is akin to denying
that an Orange is Orange. It is insane and illogical. For those who
believe that what happened to the Armenians should not be termed a
'genocide', should have convinced Raphael Lemkin not to base the
word on what had happened to the Armenians. Unfortunately for them,
it is too late, by signing the genocide convention; most of the world
has already recognized the Armenian genocide.

Turkish intellectuals give personal apology for 1915 events

A group of Turkish intellectuals have apologized for the “great disaster that Ottoman Armenians suffered in 1915” but have fallen short of calling on the state to do the same.

A petition initiated by a group of intellectuals, including professors Baskın Oran and Ahmet İnsel, journalists Ali Bayramoğlu and Cengiz Aktar, personally apologizes for the events.

The group is asking other people to sign the petition, which reads as follows: “I cannot conscientiously accept the indifference to the great disaster that Ottoman Armenians suffered in 1915, and its denial. I reject this injustice and acting of my own will, I share the feelings and pains of my Armenian brothers and sisters, and I apologize to them.”

The organizers of the campaign have underlined that first they will collect signatures from intellectuals and they will then open a secure Web site to collect signatures.

Oran pointed out that they had written the text for individuals since the tragedy was very human. “We are searching for human beings. We thought about urging the state to apologize but we decided to let individuals act according to their conscience. This call is for everybody,” he said.

The petition, which has already become the target of nationalists, has led to criticism from other intellectuals.

Aytekin Yıldız, the coordinator of the Confrontation Association (Yüzleşme Derneği), pointed out that the Armenian community was already aware of the fact that there are many people in Turkey of conscience, and the important thing was not to declare what is already known. “It is a good starting point, but not enough. Firstly, what do they mean by ‘great disaster’? Let’s name it, it is genocide. Secondly, the state has to apologize,” Yıldız pointed out.

Historian Ayşe Hür said apologizing is the duty of those who were responsible for the act, or for those who share their arguments. “It seems that a very elite group discussed that petition, because I learnt about this petition from the media and I was surprised,” she said, and added: “I approach these types of events as a scientist, as a historian, not as a member of the Turkish nation. For me, all these events were the fault of Turkish nationalism flourishing at that time, and personally, I don’t identify with it, so I do not feel the need to apologize personally.”

She also pointed out that the petitioners are concentrating only on 1915; however, she says there were events after and before. “There is a state tradition which legitimizes all these events and prevents any discussion about them. Firstly, the state has to ensure a suitable atmosphere to discuss all these things; then it has to apologize on behalf of the perpetrators and for itself, because it has legitimized their actions through the years.”

Another figure, a prominent intellectual who wanted to remain anonymous, said to apologize is not the responsibility of the individual but that of the state. He said Defense Minister Vecdi Gönül’s remarks at a speech he gave in November were not acceptable.

In that speech, the minister suggested that the “success” of the republic lay in the nation-building process. “If there were Greeks in the Aegean and Armenians in most places in Turkey today, would it be the same nation-state? I don’t know what words I can use to explain the importance of the population exchange, but if you look at the former state of affairs, its importance will become very clear,” Gönül said. He added that in those days, Ankara was composed of four neighborhoods -- Armenian, Jewish, Greek and Muslim -- and claimed that after the nation-building process, it became possible to establish a national bourgeoisie.

The Lausanne Treaty, signed in 1923, set in motion a population exchange between Greek Orthodox citizens of the young Turkish Republic and Muslim citizens of Greece, which resulted in the displacement of approximately 2 million people. The Armenian population that was in Turkey before the establishment of Turkish Republic was forced to emigrate in 1915, and, according to some, the conditions of this expulsion are the basis of Armenian claims of genocide.

05 December 2008, Friday
AYŞE KARABAT ANKARA
todayszaman.com