16 replies to this topic

[DominO]

I had to answer to this, from Lewy answer to Dadrian, it has been clear how distrusful and dishonnest is Lewy.

http://www.meforum.org/article/895

The first paragraph of Lewy answer exposes him wide open for everyone to witness what kind of character he is. Lewy that has written relativising and dismissing any premeditation in the destruction of the American Indians, the same Lewy that dismissed the qualification of genocide for what the Gypsies faced in World War II, from which book I have quoted here. The same Lewy with his apologistic regurgitations tried dismissing the American crimes in Vietnam. The same Lewy who is known among the few scholars that still adhere to the belief that no any event match or will ever match the Holocaust, and perhaps not even qualify as genocide(since he dismiss any other events qualification of that word). But even among those sustaining the ultimate uniquety like Yahuda Bauer has never gone as far as what Lewy has done in his quest to publish materials trying to dismiss as much war crimes to 'prove' how there was one and only one genocide in the history of humanity. This same individual in his first paragraph in his answer to Dadrian tells us how Turkish victims are ignored. But why don't he use the same standards and tell us how the millions of Germans having died in World War II are ignored, or what happened to the Germans in Soviet soil during and after that war to dimiss the Holocaust?

He quote Bernard Lewis, why does he not say anything at all regarding the fact that Bernard Lewis did call what happened to the Armenian genocide, 'Armenian Holocaust' before the Turkish foreign ministry lobbied, funded and founded institutes of so-called higher studies and this also in his own university, before he started telling us what happened does not qualify as genocide? Or why Lewis has never answered the request by a group of scholars requesting him to cite the sources that made him change his mind regarding the 'Armenian question.' Distinguished scholar Andrew Mango? Andrew Mango, born in Turkey, studied also there criticising every books he could find in any way too critical of the Ottoman Empire in anyway, the so-called ambassador of the Turkish-Greek relation, and misteriously only has praises for books which obviously takes the nationalistic positions. That Lewy select such scholars to impute some officiality to his position is indicative of the selectiveness he suffer from, the same selectivenees he try to reflect on others with who he disagrees. Languages like 'Mr.' Dadrian, or 'pro-Armenian' or 'so-called genocide scholars' so disrespectful are not that rare in the world and psychi of genocide deniers. Roderic H. Davison? Reputable, perhaps, but he was a Turkologist(if my memory doesn't fail me, I think he died), why does Lewy not use the same standards and refer to Armenologists?

The minor mistakes Dadrian provides, are not 'minor,' that he ignored that the martial court was in Istanbul is NOT a minor mistake given that he self declare himself as a specialist and treat about those martial courts(when he didn't even knew that the court was in Istanbul), that he uses translations from a language that he does not master beg to the question of who translated to him and to whom he provides the credit to, that he tries to dismiss the court martial with such cheap tricks as those that tries dismissing the Nuremberg, that he tries himself distinguishing himself from is also indicative of the dishonesty of this genocide denier, not only of the Armenian genocide but every genocides besides the Holocaust. That he was a Holocaust survivor escaping NAZI Germany is no reason for him to try dismissing every other genocides. None of the apologistic trash he provides to dismiss the martial court can not be applied to the Nuremberg. Holocaust revisionists are so quick to jump claiming how prisoners were beaten and false confessions were taken from their mouths and signed. He claims that the documents of the martial courts were destroyed. If they are forgeries, why would the Ottoman try destroying them? Besides, since Lewy is so good at taking revisionists words for granted, why would he not take those of Shaw who claimed that the Turkish state had nothing to hide and that those documents will be available, and he even said when, but not only was those documents not made available when he announced they will, but they still are missing.

One of the closest evidences of Lewy purpously trying to discredit Dadrian is his reference to Stange, by imputing to Dadrian intentions(of misleading) attaching this some suspected aim of obscuring things, playing with dates and trying to dismiss the essential(I am not reffering to the article, but his book there). By this, Lewy attempt to place a doubt on the report written by Stange, a report that could not have been written had he not been what Lewy claim he wasn't.

But still, the worst of his claims, which is the worst example of dishonnesty that I have even not witnessed from McCarthys part, is the supposed three pillars, which he center his entire thesis. Dadrian or from his words any 'pro-Armenian' scholar could be dishonnest at part sometimes, but this, even McCarthys works won't ever come near to it. If ever Lewy work was to be taken seriously one day, it would be the worst damage made to believe that there is ever such a thing as the three pillars of the genocide. The Andonians in the last decade have not been even specially covered in any academic peer reviewed work, even Yves Ternon in his works specify clearly that the Andonians should not be there as THE evidence to authentificate the thesis of genocide, in fact, it to be a pillar, it should be one of the major arguments of genocide, it just isen't the cases at all. He seem to be two decades late, as if he has waited until Dadrian 70s with a weak and a poor health condition to start up his rumors trying to assassinate his character and knowing pertinently that had he written his critics a decade ago, Dadrian would have answered him in a way that he would have been just too embarassed to even respond.

But it is quite clear why has Lewy invented his supposed three pillars, which he totally fabricated and recycle in his outdated book. First, the court martial, the Nuremberg files are one of the major evidences of the Holocaust, so for him to dismiss any similarities he should try discrediting the Turkish martial courts, the existance of the three branchs of the NAZI special organization used in the liqudation of the Jews, so there, it was quite futile for him to try even questioning the existance of the second branch of the Ottoman special organization and its aimed role after the issuing order of evacuation, in the destruction of the Armenians; in his task yet again to remove such a similarity between both genocides. And lastly the Andonians, this one was just a cheap shut, trying beating a dead horse. There are no similar record from Hitler giving ever such orders, so his raison to dismiss it is quite clear(and that he didn't even added in his article the answer to Orels research is another example of such selectivity he accuses 'pro-Armenians'). But that he uses the Andonians is again an evidences that what the Turkish press reported about Lewy might have been true, he truly maybe waited a decade before having a publisher accept to publish his work, which might explain why it is so outdated and out of track ignoring the last decade publications and research.

And here, Lewy behavior is just a consequences of killing freedom of speech, the arrogance of those that while their position can not be questioned can hit and deny any genocide they want. Lewy, who for a long time maintained the intentionalist position of the Holocaust and tried to dismiss the Gypsies genocide on the basis of its functionalistism, had carte verte, because at his time, answering him back would have been classified as Holocaust denial and the character of the one answering being assassinated. Lewy is also in the same line as those having pratically crussified Raul Hilberg.

[Z'areh]

Very good Q,

your points are quite to the point, and I think Lewy would be hard pressed in answering them correctly. But I think "correctness" is not what they are interested in. All they want is create a situation, however misleading, and let confusion take hold.

He falls in another trap when he says...." Mr.Tavitian's allegation of "a systematic and deliberate elimination of the Armenian population" is further undercut by the exemption of the large Armenian communities of Istanbul, Izmir, and Aleppo from deportation. These exemptions are analogous to Hitler exempting the Jews of Berlin, Frankfurt, and Cologne from the final solution."

This is wrong in both historic reality and in comparative analogies.

i) Dadrian clearly demonstrates that it was just a matter of time where the rest of the Armenians in big Western cities of the Empire would have been rounded up and eliminated. Dadrian with full backing of archival documentation demonstrates that it was due to the strict warnings of the German military commander in Constantinople that the Turkish attack on the city's Armenian population was halted.

ii) To say the Turks did not deport Armenians of Aleppo is hiding behind one's own shadow. Aleppo is not Anatolia, and Jemal being headquartered there certainly did not want German and foreign eyes witnessing the carnage. That is the reason why he ordered the Turkish commanders to divert the rout of the deportees to Der Zor to avoid going through Aleppo proper. German archival evidence is very clear in this respect (armenocide.com)

iii) Who says Hitler did not bargain with the lives of Jews?

This is from Eichmann's own words:

"Only Heinrich Himmler could turn off the liquidation machine. It was in 1944, the year of the assassination attempt on Hitler, when Reichsführer Himmler took over as commander of the Reserve Army, that he authorized me to propose an exchange: one million Jews for 10,000 winterized trucks with trailers. The World Jewish Organization could decide for itself what Jews it wanted to choose. We asked only that they get us 10,000 trucks. Thanks to Himmler's directive, I could assure them, on my word of honor, that these trucks would be used only on the Eastern front. As I said at the time, "When the 10,000 winterized trucks with trailers are here, then the liquidation machine in Auschwitz will be stopped.
In obedience to Himmler's directive I now concentrated on negotiations with the Jewish political officials in Budapest. One man stood out among them, Dr. Rudolf Kastner, authorized representative of the Zionist movement. This Dr. Kastner was a young man about my age, an ice-cold lawyer and a fanatical Zionist. He agreed to help keep the Jews from resisting deportation and even keep order in the collection camps if I would close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine. It was a good bargain. For keeping order in the camps, the price of 15,000 to 20,000 Jews - in the end there may have been more - was not too high for me."

url=http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:2OtD4sL3X48J:www.fantompowa.net/Flame/arendt.htm+Eichmann+10000+trains&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=5]http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:2OtD4s...ca&ct=clnk&cd=5[/url]

So if the Nazis "trade" the lives of 1,000,000 Jews for 10 000 winterized trucks, the Ottoman rulers can spare the lives of the Istanbul Armenians...until more appropriate time.


One thing you said Q that I like to bring up is the fact that Lewy, you said, waited until Dadrian was old and frail to attack him or discredit him. I think it is irrelevant whether Dadrian is ill, young and healthy or dead. It is very easy to attack and attempt to discredit. If what you say is true then Lewy could have waited until Dadrian was dead. A scholarly study survives well beyond the author's physical presence on this planet, any attempt to discredit a serious scholar with less than genuine scholarly rebuttal would backfire. Lewy I think is well on his way to be at the receiving end of scholarly stick.

And to think Gwynn Dyer regards him as his hero! Huhh!

Edited by Z'areh, 17 March 2006 - 09:40 PM.

[Takoush]

Both Q and Zareh; very good observations and thoughts. Domino good report. Too bad, I didn't know till now that Dadrian's health is frail and he's not well.

I thought I understood about Lewy's dismissing Gypsys' Genocide on the basis of functionist idealism; is he dismissing it such as Darwimism idealism; that the fittest survive? That so be it, they died because of the turning of the evolution and so the strongest must survive?

Zareh; I wonder which scholarly is going to answer Lewy on behalf of Dadrian? Baliozian perhaps or who do you think could? I wonder.

[Arpa]

Zareh; I wonder which scholarly is going to answer Lewy on behalf of Dadrian? Baliozian perhaps or who do you think could? I wonder.

Did I miss something?
Is this the Humor section?

[DominO]

Very good Q,

your points are quite to the point, and I think Lewy would be hard pressed in answering them correctly. But I think "correctness" is not what they are interested in. All they want is create a situation, however misleading, and let confusion take hold.

He falls in another trap when he says...." Mr.Tavitian's allegation of "a systematic and deliberate elimination of the Armenian population" is further undercut by the exemption of the large Armenian communities of Istanbul, Izmir, and Aleppo from deportation. These exemptions are analogous to Hitler exempting the Jews of Berlin, Frankfurt, and Cologne from the final solution."

This is wrong in both historic reality and in comparative analogies.

i) Dadrian clearly demonstrates that it was just a matter of time where the rest of the Armenians in big Western cities of the Empire would have been rounded up and eliminated. Dadrian with full backing of archival documentation demonstrates that it was due to the strict warnings of the German military commander in Constantinople that the Turkish attack on the city's Armenian population was halted.

ii) To say the Turks did not deport Armenians of Aleppo is hiding behind one's own shadow. Aleppo is not Anatolia, and Jemal being headquartered there certainly did not want German and foreign eyes witnessing the carnage. That is the reason why he ordered the Turkish commanders to divert the rout of the deportees to Der Zor to avoid going through Aleppo proper. German archival evidence is very clear in this respect (armenocide.com)

iii) Who says Hitler did not bargain with the lives of Jews?

This is from Eichmann's own words:

"Only Heinrich Himmler could turn off the liquidation machine. It was in 1944, the year of the assassination attempt on Hitler, when Reichsführer Himmler took over as commander of the Reserve Army, that he authorized me to propose an exchange: one million Jews for 10,000 winterized trucks with trailers. The World Jewish Organization could decide for itself what Jews it wanted to choose. We asked only that they get us 10,000 trucks. Thanks to Himmler's directive, I could assure them, on my word of honor, that these trucks would be used only on the Eastern front. As I said at the time, "When the 10,000 winterized trucks with trailers are here, then the liquidation machine in Auschwitz will be stopped.
In obedience to Himmler's directive I now concentrated on negotiations with the Jewish political officials in Budapest. One man stood out among them, Dr. Rudolf Kastner, authorized representative of the Zionist movement. This Dr. Kastner was a young man about my age, an ice-cold lawyer and a fanatical Zionist. He agreed to help keep the Jews from resisting deportation and even keep order in the collection camps if I would close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine. It was a good bargain. For keeping order in the camps, the price of 15,000 to 20,000 Jews - in the end there may have been more - was not too high for me."

url=http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:2OtD4sL3X48J:www.fantompowa.net/Flame/arendt.htm+Eichmann+10000+trains&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=5]http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:2OtD4s...ca&ct=clnk&cd=5[/url]

So if the Nazis "trade" the lives of 1,000,000 Jews for 10 000 winterized trucks, the Ottoman rulers can spare the lives of the Istanbul Armenians...until more appropriate time.
One thing you said Q that I like to bring up is the fact that Lewy, you said, waited until Dadrian was old and frail to attack him or discredit him. I think it is irrelevant whether Dadrian is ill, young and healthy or dead. It is very easy to attack and attempt to discredit. If what you say is true then Lewy could have waited until Dadrian was dead. A scholarly study survives well beyond the author's physical presence on this planet, any attempt to discredit a serious scholar with less than genuine scholarly rebuttal would backfire. Lewy I think is well on his way to be at the receiving end of scholarly stick.

And to think Gwynn Dyer regards him as his hero! Huhh!

Totally right, I forgot to answer to that pont Zareh.

About Dadrian health, Lewy is not that young either, and that probably it wasn't his intention, but the results were just that, Dadrian answers were not that extraordinary compared with his typical answers dating a decade ago, he should have developped more on Stander, he had all the elements needed to place Lewy claims to rest, but he didn't do it as if he hasn't taken Lewy's work that seriously.

[DominO]

Both Q and Zareh; very good observations and thoughts. Fadix good report. Too bad, I didn't know till now that Dadrian's health is frail and he's not well.

I thought I understood about Lewy's dismissing Gypsys' Genocide on the basis of functionist idealism; is he dismissing it such as Darwimism idealism; that the fittest survive? That so be it, they died because of the turning of the evolution and so the strongest must survive?

Zareh; I wonder which scholarly is going to answer Lewy on behalf of Dadrian? Baliozian perhaps or who do you think could? I wonder.

Don't take that personal, but please stop talking about things which you ignore. Functionalism is the opposing position to intentionalism, those are both poles of Holocaust studies. Raul Hilberg was a functionalist and was nearly crussified by intentionalists like Lewy for it.

Here, an introduction about both positions.
http://en.wikipedia...._intentionalism

[Yervant1]

Did I miss something?
Is this the Humor section?

Arpa yes you did, you took the bait.

[Takoush]

Don't take that personal, but please stop talking about things which you ignore.

Let me put the question to you this way. If I told you or in a mild way have ordered you the same and told you to stop talking about things which you ignore. Would you have not take it personally?

Let me remind you that this subject matter was the number one reason why I came to post on the HyeForum when I accidentally came across to HyeForum many months ago. Although I haven't posted on the Genocide section pretty much the last 1-2 months, but I have in the beginning from Aug. thru November; nevertheless I am an interested party and would like to know what's going on with the Genocidal news. I am not intensely reading about it or following it as you do; however how can you ask me not to get involved or be interested and post when I do? That is my humanly right as is yours. Now if you do not wish to answer me then I do not wish to question you from here on. That is perfectly fine with me and I absolutely have no problem with that. But I will post and I will continue to become interested in the subject matter when I want and when I can; even though I am not totally involved in it or savvy in it yet as you do. I am very busy person with my other works of school and family; and when I can I will read and get involved, and that is my proragative. It is not yours or anyone else's and I hope I made myself clear.

Functionalism is the opposing position to intentionalism, those are both poles of Holocaust studies. Raul Hilberg was a functionalist and was nearly crussified by intentionalists like Lewy for it.

I was perfectly aware of the functionalistic phenomena about the social Darwinism and the original Theorists' views of compte's, Durkheim's and Herbert Spencer's beliefs of the functionalistic views and I am aware the correlation between their thoughts and Hitler's deeds; but of that the intentionalists' views I understand is the opposite; such would be the case of the position of the Jews' stand.

Edited by Anahid Takouhi, 18 March 2006 - 02:25 PM.

[Takoush]

Did I miss something?
Is this the Humor section?

No obviously if you claim you are an Armenian person as you so claim you are; then you will not find anything humour in this section or the subject matter.

I was merely conversing and asking to Zareh in a conversational way. Not expecting any answers. I saw that the time that I put my post in he was around and I just said it without wanting an answer.

I will ask you not to be constantly sarcastic and trying to find faults in any and all of my posts. You are being appaling to me by constantly following all my posts that way. If you cannot be constructive about your inputs in regards to my posts or to me, then please refrain from being negative and nonconstructive.

Edited by Anahid Takouhi, 18 March 2006 - 02:58 PM.

[DominO]

Let me put the question to you this way. If I told you or in a mild way have ordered you the same and told you to stop talking about things which you ignore. Would you have not take it personally?

Let me remind you that this subject matter was the number one reason why I came to post on the HyeForum when I accidentally came across to HyeForum many months ago. Although I haven't posted on the Genocide section pretty much the last 1-2 months, but I have in the beginning from Aug. thru November; nevertheless I am an interested party and would like to know what's going on with the Genocidal news. I am not intensely reading about it or following it as you do; however how can you ask me not to get involved or be interested and post when I do? That is my humanly right as is yours. Now if you do not wish to answer me then I do not wish to question you from here on. That is perfectly fine with me and I absolutely have no problem with that. But I will post and I will continue to become interested in the subject matter when I want and when I can; even though I am not totally involved in it or savvy in it yet as you do. I am very busy person with my other works of school and family; and when I can I will read and get involved, and that is my proragative. It is not yours or anyone else's and I hope I made myself clear.
I was perfectly aware of the functionalistic phenomena about the social Darwinism and the original Theorists' views of compte's, Durkheim's and Herbert Spencer's beliefs of the functionalistic views and I am aware the correlation between their thoughts and Hitler's deeds; but of that the intentionalists' views I understand is the opposite; such would be the case of the position of the Jews' stand.

Fine, take it personal then. I have no problem with people wanting to learn, only with those that obscure others with wrong informations on my own answers.

Social Darwinism neither Darwinist functionalism has anything to do with the functionalist position on the destruction of the Gypsies, social Darwinism by the policies brought by German ideologists was eugenic policies. Functionalism in biology is on the same line and related to Darwins natural selection. And yes! in both account you obviously ignored what functionalism was, since you could possibly not have mixed both of them when I have clearly used the term intentionalism and opposed it to functionalism. You didn't needed to search on google what functionalism meant, you could have simply asked. You know, you are not supposed to know everything, people will excuse you for ignoring things.

I requote what I wrote: "Lewy, who for a long time maintained the intentionalist position of the Holocaust and tried to dismiss the Gypsies genocide on the basis of its functionalistism"

Functionalism in opposition to intentionalism, is the position maintained by scholars supporting the thesis that there was no plan set by Hitler to eradicate the Jews, but rather decisions by lower circle autorities taken here and there. Hilberg one of those adhering to it resume this, and here I am paraphrasing: 'Hitler hasn't given any order, everyone knew what to do.' This has nothing to do with social Darwinism or anything relation to functionalism in biology, and the similarities may only be attributed to similarities in the definition of the word functionalism.

So in short, my point was that in his book on the Gypsies Lewy separated the destruction of the Jews and the Gypsies on the bases that one destruction was a functionalist destruction while the other was an intentionalist destruction and that for that reason what the Gypsies faced was not a genocide. This was my point, and had you read the link I have provided on the differences between both position and had not insteed gone on google researching to match your previous interpretation it would have been better for you if your intention was really to learn.

[DominO]

No obviously if you claim you are an Armenian person as you so claim you are; then you will not find anything humour in this section or the subject matter.

I was merely conversing and asking to Zareh in a conversational way. Not expecting any answers. I saw that the time that I put my post in he was around and I just said it without wanting an answer.

I will ask you not to be constantly sarcastic and trying to find faults in any and all of my posts. You are being appaling to me by constantly following all my posts that way. If you cannot be constructive about your inputs in regards to my posts or to me, then please refrain from being negative and nonconstructive.

I'm speechless.

[Takoush]

No, you're wrong I didn't go to google. One of the three subjects that I am taking this semester; though I have procrastinated very very much; it is SOCIOLOGY, and I am learning about it right now. I was reading about it just within the past week. That's why I said it; but maybe I procrastinated so much and yet I have to read very quickly so many chapters now in a very short time that I may have made my mistakes. And for that I hope I am forgiven.

[Takoush]

I'm speechless.

Domino; my post here wasn't directed to you but to Arpa. You are simply answering on behalf of Arpa?

[Z'areh]

Both Q and Zareh; very good observations and thoughts. Domino good report. Too bad, I didn't know till now that Dadrian's health is frail and he's not well.

Zareh; I wonder which scholarly is going to answer Lewy on behalf of Dadrian? Baliozian perhaps or who do you think could? I wonder.

Thanks Takouhi.

We, Domino and I, might have given you the wrong impression that Dadrian is gravely ill or dying. As far as I klnow he is ok. He cancelled a conference in Montreal last year due to illness but he is getting on in his age and at one point he might retire. To my knowledge he is going at it with full force.

However in the future I believe there will (and should) be new Dadrians taking on the task of unearthing all possible documentations to destroy Turkish denialist attitudes. But we need more than that, we need a strong political "stick" to make sure that modern-day Talats understand how to interpret history. That can be done only with a strong Armenia.

[Takoush]

Zareh:

Thanks for letting me know and you are also welcomed. I saw Dadrian; say about 8 years ago when he gave a speech here in New Jersey. I obviously regard the man and like him as much as you and Quebecer do, of course. I was concerned about him and his health.

Yes of course you're right. We already have some forces in here and abroad; and undoubtedly we shall have more Dadrians in the years to come and with a stronger ARMENIA. Absolutely; especially when there are new forces like Domino!!!! and yourself too!!!!

Edited by Anahid Takouhi, 18 March 2006 - 04:36 PM.

[DominO]

`Protestcide' - The Killing of Protest of a Denial of Genocide

Armenian News Network / Groong
March 27, 2006

by Israel W. Charny


To what extent does a publication have the right to alter a Letter to
the Editor that criticizes the publication, and then to publish their
altered version of the letter without the full permission of the
letter writer, especially in light of his explicit refusal to approve
their revision?

In December 2005, Commentary published a lengthy article denying the
Armenian Genocide by one, Guenter Lewy, a retired professor who has
previously published denials of other genocides as well, including a
denial that the Gypsies were victims of genocide in WW II (Simon
Wiesenthal defended the role of the Gypsies as fellow victims of the
Holocaust, and on several occasions wrote and told passionately of
seeing the Gypsies in Auschwitz in the barracks right next to his);
and including a denial that the Native Americans (Indians) were
victims of genocide in America. It is clear that Lewy has established
himself as an arch specialist in denial who has now relegated no less
than three victim peoples to some kind of status of sufferers other
than victims of genocidal mass murder. I think that readers of this
current Commentary piece denying there was a genocide of the Armenians
had a right to know of the author's previous publications of denials
(one of which was also in Commentary), but not a word was mentioned.

Lewy's article in Commentary is entitled, `The first genocide of the
20th century?' Lewy himself mentions in his article that the
International Association of Genocide Scholars, of which I am the
current president, had passed a unanimous resolution some years ago
confirming the validity of the Armenian Genocide. When Commentary was
approached by a colleague as to whether they would publish a rejoinder
to Lewy's article by me, the editor agreed immediately to receive a
600-word statement from me. So far to their credit. But then in the
grotesque sequence of censorship and revisions of my rejoinder that
follows, Commentary at first refused to identify my connection to the
same Association that passed the resolution, and finally did in fact
identify me as somehow affiliated with the Association but eliminated
identifying my leadership role. A personal slight? Then it's
irrelevant. Or is it a diminution of the significance of my protest?
In the meantime, Commentary published a lengthy rejoinder by Lewy in
the same issue with the following statement that, by a wave of the
Lewy-Commentary wand removes any significance to our association's
informed judgment: `I am less than impressed by the unanimous vote of
the International Association of Genocide Scholars that the Armenian
case `was one of the major genocides of the modern era' writes Denier
Lewy conclusively and then presumptuously slams the members of the
association that virtually no one (but him) has done real research.

No matter. Commentary commits more serious infringements to the point
of not allowing me to voice my definite judgment about their question,
`The first genocide of the 20th century?'

In my letter I write about how the Turks also killed other Christian
(therefore non-Turkish) groups such as the Assyrians and Greeks as
well as the Armenians (the first Christian people of Europe) and that
this was `outright genocidal murder.' Commentary removed this vital
statement from my letter. Remember, the article by Lewy they have
published is asking explicitly if this was genocide, and the section
of Letters to the Editor in February is re-entitled, `Genocide?' but
my clear-cut rejoinder that it was `outright genocidal murder' was not
permitted.

Moreover, what does Lewy do? I say in my letter that I wonder if
readers of the Jewish-sponsored Commentary (this remark by me is also
censored out) know that the Turks were also responsible for two forced
expulsions of Jews from Jaffa-Tel Aviv in 1914 and 1917, both of which
resulted in losses of life of the elderly, infirm and ill. As if
referring to this information, Lewy says to me in his rejoinder,
`Mr. Charny stops short of calling these occurrences `genocide,'' but
he and the hard-working editor who we have seen manages to censor my
writing so fastidiously, thus manage to get across a message that
seems to refer to the whole bigger original issue of the Armenian
Genocide. Now, not only have I not been allowed to say what I did say
that there was clear-cut genocide, but it is as if claimed explicitly
that I too don't call the Ottoman murders genocide.

Higher-class deniers, like Lewy and Commentary, are a fascinating
study in the propagandistic logic-defying language mechanisms they
employ -- Commentary also removed from my letter a reference to an
article that Daphna Fromer and myself published in the British
journal, Patterns of Prejudice in which we analyzed the language-logic
of earlier deniers of the Armenian Genocide.

Ultimately, my most serious criticism is that Commentary is fully
responsible alongside of its author for publishing a bald exposition
of denial of an established major genocide. Thus, I conclude my
letter, `Regrettably, Mr. Lewy and Commentary too have now earned
places in the pantheon of genocide Deniers,' but -- by now you guessed
it -- you will never see that sentence, or an earlier statement
similarly critical of Commentary in the letter they published.

I ask, do responsible publications in a free world have the right to
censor and arbitrarily revise Letters to the Editor beyond
considerations of space, bad language such as epithets, and ad hominem
attacks (but not legitimate major criticisms of an author or the
publication!)? Obviously a publication holds the ultimate power and
can simply decline to publish a letter (who will ever know?). But to
cut and revise and remove and distort the thrust of the original
message, and fail to advise and fail to get approval of changes? I
don't know if there are legal controls against such tampering with the
lowly institution of a Letter to an Editor and/or op-ed writing, but I
do know such tampering violates the `natural law' of journalistic
integrity, and I think Commentary should be told so by an informed
public.



--
Prof. Israel W. Charny, Ph.D. is President of the International
Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) Editor-in-Chief, Encyclopedia
of Genocide [www.abc-clio.com/product/109124] Executive Director,
Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide, Jerusalem Prof. of Psychology
& Family Therapy, Hebrew University of Jerusalem Tel & Fax:
972-2-672-0424 e-mail: encygeno@mail.com Author of forthcoming book,
Fascism and Democracy in the Human Mind, by the University of Nebraska
Press, May 2006

An e-mail transcript of all texts and correspondence between me and
Commentary is available immediately on request to encygeno@mail.com.

[phantom22]

Someone should send this letter of Israel Charny to Harut Sassonian and to major US newspapers. I have never heard of such distortions by a so-called mainstream publication before.

`Protestcide' - The Killing of Protest of a Denial of Genocide

Armenian News Network / Groong
March 27, 2006

by Israel W. Charny
To what extent does a publication have the right to alter a Letter to
the Editor that criticizes the publication, and then to publish their
altered version of the letter without the full permission of the
letter writer, especially in light of his explicit refusal to approve
their revision?

In December 2005, Commentary published a lengthy article denying the
Armenian Genocide by one, Guenter Lewy, a retired professor who has
previously published denials of other genocides as well, including a
denial that the Gypsies were victims of genocide in WW II (Simon
Wiesenthal defended the role of the Gypsies as fellow victims of the
Holocaust, and on several occasions wrote and told passionately of
seeing the Gypsies in Auschwitz in the barracks right next to his);
and including a denial that the Native Americans (Indians) were
victims of genocide in America. It is clear that Lewy has established
himself as an arch specialist in denial who has now relegated no less
than three victim peoples to some kind of status of sufferers other
than victims of genocidal mass murder. I think that readers of this
current Commentary piece denying there was a genocide of the Armenians
had a right to know of the author's previous publications of denials
(one of which was also in Commentary), but not a word was mentioned.

Lewy's article in Commentary is entitled, `The first genocide of the
20th century?' Lewy himself mentions in his article that the
International Association of Genocide Scholars, of which I am the
current president, had passed a unanimous resolution some years ago
confirming the validity of the Armenian Genocide. When Commentary was
approached by a colleague as to whether they would publish a rejoinder
to Lewy's article by me, the editor agreed immediately to receive a
600-word statement from me. So far to their credit. But then in the
grotesque sequence of censorship and revisions of my rejoinder that
follows, Commentary at first refused to identify my connection to the
same Association that passed the resolution, and finally did in fact
identify me as somehow affiliated with the Association but eliminated
identifying my leadership role. A personal slight? Then it's
irrelevant. Or is it a diminution of the significance of my protest?
In the meantime, Commentary published a lengthy rejoinder by Lewy in
the same issue with the following statement that, by a wave of the
Lewy-Commentary wand removes any significance to our association's
informed judgment: `I am less than impressed by the unanimous vote of
the International Association of Genocide Scholars that the Armenian
case `was one of the major genocides of the modern era' writes Denier
Lewy conclusively and then presumptuously slams the members of the
association that virtually no one (but him) has done real research.

No matter. Commentary commits more serious infringements to the point
of not allowing me to voice my definite judgment about their question,
`The first genocide of the 20th century?'

In my letter I write about how the Turks also killed other Christian
(therefore non-Turkish) groups such as the Assyrians and Greeks as
well as the Armenians (the first Christian people of Europe) and that
this was `outright genocidal murder.' Commentary removed this vital
statement from my letter. Remember, the article by Lewy they have
published is asking explicitly if this was genocide, and the section
of Letters to the Editor in February is re-entitled, `Genocide?' but
my clear-cut rejoinder that it was `outright genocidal murder' was not
permitted.

Moreover, what does Lewy do? I say in my letter that I wonder if
readers of the Jewish-sponsored Commentary (this remark by me is also
censored out) know that the Turks were also responsible for two forced
expulsions of Jews from Jaffa-Tel Aviv in 1914 and 1917, both of which
resulted in losses of life of the elderly, infirm and ill. As if
referring to this information, Lewy says to me in his rejoinder,
`Mr. Charny stops short of calling these occurrences `genocide,'' but
he and the hard-working editor who we have seen manages to censor my
writing so fastidiously, thus manage to get across a message that
seems to refer to the whole bigger original issue of the Armenian
Genocide. Now, not only have I not been allowed to say what I did say
that there was clear-cut genocide, but it is as if claimed explicitly
that I too don't call the Ottoman murders genocide.

Higher-class deniers, like Lewy and Commentary, are a fascinating
study in the propagandistic logic-defying language mechanisms they
employ -- Commentary also removed from my letter a reference to an
article that Daphna Fromer and myself published in the British
journal, Patterns of Prejudice in which we analyzed the language-logic
of earlier deniers of the Armenian Genocide.

Ultimately, my most serious criticism is that Commentary is fully
responsible alongside of its author for publishing a bald exposition
of denial of an established major genocide. Thus, I conclude my
letter, `Regrettably, Mr. Lewy and Commentary too have now earned
places in the pantheon of genocide Deniers,' but -- by now you guessed
it -- you will never see that sentence, or an earlier statement
similarly critical of Commentary in the letter they published.

I ask, do responsible publications in a free world have the right to
censor and arbitrarily revise Letters to the Editor beyond
considerations of space, bad language such as epithets, and ad hominem
attacks (but not legitimate major criticisms of an author or the
publication!)? Obviously a publication holds the ultimate power and
can simply decline to publish a letter (who will ever know?). But to
cut and revise and remove and distort the thrust of the original
message, and fail to advise and fail to get approval of changes? I
don't know if there are legal controls against such tampering with the
lowly institution of a Letter to an Editor and/or op-ed writing, but I
do know such tampering violates the `natural law' of journalistic
integrity, and I think Commentary should be told so by an informed
public.
--
Prof. Israel W. Charny, Ph.D. is President of the International
Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) Editor-in-Chief, Encyclopedia
of Genocide [www.abc-clio.com/product/109124] Executive Director,
Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide, Jerusalem Prof. of Psychology
& Family Therapy, Hebrew University of Jerusalem Tel & Fax:
972-2-672-0424 e-mail: encygeno@mail.com Author of forthcoming book,
Fascism and Democracy in the Human Mind, by the University of Nebraska
Press, May 2006

An e-mail transcript of all texts and correspondence between me and
Commentary is available immediately on request to encygeno@mail.com.