Rupen

================ I am not questioning the honesty of Cengiz, Esayan, etc. What they say stands on its own merits. But I am saying that their liberal views have to be understood in terms of the scope of the actual overall national dialogue in Turkey. As such, they are like fleas on an elephant's ear. They have a greater readership among people like us than among ordinary Turks. Therefore they cannot be taken as the first "crack in the wall" of Turkish state denialism. Look at Bagis. He is the true face of Turkey's official take on the Armenian Genocide issue. And yes--I do imply that the liberal views of the gentlemen we are discusssing are being used by the state as a form of soft propaganda geared to Turkey's ongoing aspirations to join the EU.

A note of caution on taking what is said in the online version of Today's Zaman as in any way an accurate reflection of thought--or the shaping of thought--among the Turkish public as a whole. That paper is not read by the masses. It is an attractive, liberal face made up according to Western liking, a talking shop with little effect within Turkey. We need to be more realistic.

======= Yervant 1: Good points, but I don't think Turkey will ever become that useless to the West. It knows how to keep itself useful, like in Libya right now. I think the only thing that gives legs to any hope for genocide recognition by Turkey is how deep its need to get into the EU is. It's been acting like it is 'turning east' and has given up on EU accession. I think that is just an act. Also, the "Arab Spring" might not work out all that well for its "New Ottoman" policy in the long run. I also think the EU would have to stoop very low to ignore Turkey's lies about the Genocide and let them in despite them.

Yervant 1: I know what you mean about Turkey admitting its responsibility being the main thing and that it has already ignored a mountain of smoking guns to go on with the big lie. But I do think this T-report by Gomidas Institute has a special force, something that will put Turkey's denialist propaganda machine in a difficult position, and that is good. They will undoubtedly try to pick at little details to see if they can begin to unravel what the book says, but I am confident that the book is too well researched for that to really get anywhere. It is a pleasure to have a normal exchange of perspectives on this issue with you on this forum.

================================================================== ================================================================= ARPA: I read Armenian. I don't know what "further" you are talking about as providing an explanation of why the title p-a-s-h-a a is censored at HyeForum. The reference is not given. I would appreciate knowing that one fact and be spared all the senseless raving and being told how my online behavior is being secretly observed and my forum name upsets you for a bunch of cooked up reasons. My name could be XYZ, as far as you are concerned. What's the problem? Just state it. Don't speak in tongues like Obama.

Let me try this: 1. Go To http://www.gomidas.org/books/index.htm (or just type in "Gomidas Books" as search word). 2. Click At Top On "Armenian Genocide Documentation Project". 3. Click At Top On "Our books and publications". 4. Click on "Talaat *****'s Report on the Armenians Genocide, 1917". 5. Read introduction and click the 3 red links below the picture to download the entire document.

3rd Try On Smoking Gun http://www.gomidas.org/books/Talaat*****1917.htm

Let me try that link again: http://www.gomidas.org/books/Talaat*****1917.htm

BULLETIN The following are two stunning recent instances in which Turkish columnists said Armenian genocide without putting it in quotation marks or saying "so-called". This is a direct violation of article 301 at a time when Orhan Pamuk is being punished for saying less. It's possible that the government simply cannot track all the violations and that certain columnists have decided to ignore the taboo because the Armenian Genocide is simply impossible to deny any longer. But it's hard to believe the government is either too weak to strictly enforce 301 or has suddenly given it a lower priority, especially given the recent atmosphere in Turkey. I would appreciate any light anyone can shed on this and especially knowing if others find these instances as stunning as I do. In paragraphs 6 and 7 of http://www.todayszaman.com/news-241509-monstrosity-in-kars-is-striking-back-by-orhan-kemal-cengiz.html ================= In the 7th paragraph of http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=what-unites-and-divides-turkey-and-iran-8211-on-israel-2011-04-07

True. A lot depends on what happens within Armenia and whether it breaks out of its political stagnation and wakes up to its historic role.

I don't think it is possible to prearrange what obligations would follow if Turkey decided to rename "the tragic events of 1915" the "Armenian Genocide". Turkey has avoided the truth for almost a century precisely for that reason. "The tragic events of 1915" had already become a threadbare and meaningless cliché from overuse and no longer satisfied European standards of historical accountability, especially with the initiation of the EU accession phase. And then Hrant Dink was gunned down, a very dramatic event. Now a convincing substitute for "the tragic events of 1915" had to be found. The "apology campaign" sprang into existence and came up with the term "great catastrophe" to refer to "the events of 1915". This civil society renaming and all the emotion surrounding it seemed to offer the world and especially the EU a convincing step forward in Turkey's recognition of the Armenian Genocide, one that could eventually be claimed by the Turkish government as evidence that it had fully and honorably disposed of its historic obligations. That is what I predict its strategy will be in the approach to April 24th. In actuality, "the great catastrophe" doesn't go a step beyond "the tragic events of 1915", and that's why you are right in equating the terms.

We will see what emerges. It is difficult for me to see Turkey acknowledging the genocide as a genocide exactly because that word brings with it the expectation of reparations. I think what Turkey is aiming for is to rename the genocide something less precise--catastrophe, calamity, etc.--and thereby avoid any cost to itself while seeming to express regret for a certain unfortunate phase of its history.

I still don't feel I have the answer I am looking for. I understand article 301 to be a strict tabu on using the term Armenian Genocide, not a law that is occasionally or selectively applied to certain individuals depending on shifting conditions. Dozens of people have been charged with violating it and have paid or are paying the penalty. In the past, I have never known a Turkish newspaper article to refer to the Armenian genocide without calling it the so-called Armenian genocide. That was across the board. You never found it. It was an absolutely universal practice. But now we're finding it. Maybe the government just can't keep up with all the violations? Maybe that's what you are saying. That would mean the government has less control now than it did a few years ago, which is hard to believe. I don't know. My question remains. Something very interesting is going on.

Yervant, What you say makes sense, but it remains in the realm of interpretation. I am looking for something more specific. Right at this moment we have Orhan Pamuk being penalized under article 301 and required to pay big bucks to the individuals he supposedly offended. For what? For making a very subtle reference a few years ago in Switzerland to what happened to the Armenians and Kurds. He didn't even say Turkey. He didn't even say genocide. So my question is: How is it possible for two major Turkish newspapers to use the term Armenian genocide without saying "socalled" or "alleged" or putting it in quotation marks at the same time that Pamuk is being punished for less? I certainly would like to think this is one of the first signs that the government is getting ready to face up to its history. But Pamuk's case shows they are still very serious about 301. That is the paradox.