Armenian Genocide Gets Press Coverage!

[hosank]

համաձայն եմ

 

բայց ասի Յուինաստան է ոչ դէ քանատա

[hyethga]

You're missing my point...I'm not asking people to become historians but to be knowledgeable, kentronanan, about our history. It wouldn't kill any of us if we picked up a book about the genocide or read up on Armenian history. Otherwise, burning a flag doesn't make one any more of an Armenian.

[Em]

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...eoid=2024910660

[Error 404]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...omment-opinions

 

'Never again' for Armenians too

Several American Jewish groups abandon their anti-genocide zeal when it comes to Turkey's massacre of Armenians.

By Daniel Sokatch and David N. Myers, DANIEL SOKATCH is executive director of the Progressive Jewish Alliance. DAVID N. MYERS teaches Jewish history at UCLA.

May 1, 2007

 

 

THIS YEAR, Congress established April 15 as Holocaust Memorial Day, commemorating the Nazi genocide of European Jewry. Just nine days later, on April 24, Armenians throughout the world observed the commemoration of their great tragedy: the massacre of as many as 1.5 million Armenians at the hands of the Turks that began in 1915.

 

In many ways, it was the 20th century's first genocide that helped set the stage for its largest, including Rwanda and now Darfur. Adolf Hitler reportedly said, on the eve of his invasion of Poland in 1939, "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"

 

For the last 60 years, the Jewish community has labored to avoid granting Hitler, in the words of philosopher Emil Fackenheim, "a posthumous victory." Jews have taken as their motto "never again," and most tend to understand that this charge refers to all of humanity, not only to fellow Jews. One of the last surviving leaders of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, Simha "Kazik" Rotem, once said that the central lesson of the Holocaust to him was that the Jewish people should stand vigilant against genocidal acts directed at any people.

 

This is why it is troubling that some major Jewish organizations have lined up in support of Turkey's efforts to keep the U.S. Congress from recognizing the Armenian massacres as an act of genocide. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the American Jewish Committee (AJC), the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and B'nai B'rith International recently conveyed a letter from the Turkish Jewish community opposing a resolution recognizing the genocide.

 

The ADL and the JINSA also added their own statements of opposition, suggesting that the massacre of Armenians was a matter for historians, not legislators, to decide.

 

The American Jewish community has insisted, and rightly so, that the U.S. Congress, the United Nations and other governmental bodies formally commemorate the Holocaust. Why should Jews not insist on the same in this case, especially given the widespread scholarly consensus that what happened to the Armenians from 1915 to 1923 was genocide? After all, the man who coined the term "genocide" to refer to the Holocaust — the Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin — cited the Armenian massacres as a precedent.

 

The unfortunate and well-known answer to the question is that Turkey has fiercely opposed efforts to call the Armenian massacres "genocide." Moreover, it has asked its friends to help beat back the attempts at historical recognition.

 

Jewish opposition to recognizing the Armenian genocide comes mainly from a desire to safeguard the important strategic relationship between Turkey and Israel. Alone among the world's Muslim nations, Turkey has forged close military, political and economic ties with Israel. In addition, Jews remember with a deep sense of gratitude that Turkey served as an important haven for their forebears fleeing persecution, from the time of the Spanish Expulsion in 1492 to the dark days of Nazism and beyond. And it is not just that Turkey has been kind to Israel and the Jews. It is a critically important U.S. ally in a dangerous region racked by religious extremism.

 

Nobody is suggesting that Jews forget Turkey's historic friendship. But it is a mistake for Jews — or, for that matter, anyone — to surrender the moral imperative of condemning genocide in the hopes of avoiding a perceived, but by no means necessary, strategic loss. Similarly, it would be a mistake for Turkey to hinge its own strategic interests on the denial of past criminal acts. Coming to terms with the past, as democratic Germany has done in the aftermath of the Holocaust and South Africa in the wake of apartheid, is the best path to political legitimacy.

 

Turkey, a trusted ally and friend of the Jews and the United States, must come to terms with its past for its own sake. It is that battle that leading Turkish intellectuals, including Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk and martyred Armenian activist Hrant Dink, have been waging so nobly. We should do all in our power to strengthen the hands of these figures and avoid the abyss of historical revisionism.

 

Sixty years (and millions of historical documents) later, the world still has to contend with those who deny the Holocaust. We need only recall the shocking words and deeds of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on this score.

 

In response to such denials, all decent-minded people, and Jews in particular, must continue to declare loudly "never again" — not only to future genocides but also to the attempted denial of past genocides, regardless of who the perpetrators or victims are.

[ED]

www.armeniadiaspora.com

What Americans Did Is Not Only Unserious, But Also Worrisome For Armenia

By Tatul Hakobyan, "Radiolur"

 

April 28, /Azg/ At the February 19, 2005 meeting, John Evans used the word "genocide" to describe the Armenian massacres and deportations in the Ottoman Empire. "I will today call it the Armenian Genocide... I think we, the US government, owe you, our fellow citizens, a more frank and honest way of discussing this problem. Today, as someone who has studied it, there's no doubt in my mind [as to] what happened. I think it is unbecoming of us, as Americans, to play word games here. I believe in calling things by their name," he said. Ambassador Evans also disclosed that he had consulted with a legal advisor at the State Department who had confirmed that the events of 1915 were "genocide by definition". Referring to the Armenian Genocide as "the first genocide of the 20th century" he added: " We made many mistakes after WWI."

 

At the gathering, John Evans also insisted that "although the US follows a policy of territorial integrity of nations, everybody realizes that Karabakh can't be given back to Azerbaijan. That would be a disastrous step." Commenting on a statement by Ramiz Melikov, head of the Press Service at the Defense Ministry of Azerbaijan, who had said that there would be no Armenia left in 25 years, Evans said, "This was an outrageous, bellicose statement, and it brought all the bad memories of Armenians back."

 

But just a few days later, back in Yerevan, John Evans corrected himself by stating, "Although I told my audience that the United States policy on the Armenian tragedy has not changed, I used the term 'genocide' speaking in what I characterized as my personal capacity. This was inappropriate." Referring to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, Ambassador Evans noted, "The US government supports the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and holds that the future status of Nagorno Karabakh is a matter of negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan." Those who are seriously following the negotiation process understand that Evans has not made a discovery. The ex-Ambassador simply said a thing that is not permitted to say aloud.

 

Ever since 1992 the US policy on Nagorno Karabakh has been as follows: Washington recognizes the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan but does not predict the outcome of the negotiations. To put it more simply, this means that the issue of the status of Nagorno Karabakh is left for the conflicting parties to decide. However, in reality, since 1988 the US policy has undergone several abrupt changes.

 

The Human Rights Report of the US Department of State, which caused a number of comments in government circles of Armenia and Azerbaijan and mass media, not only fails to reflect the real state of affairs, but also contradicts to the spirit of the US policy.

 

The suggestions on the bargaining table, the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs presented in April 2006, is the approach of delayed referendum. Considering this document clandestine is senseless, since due to a number of interviews of the US Co-Chair of the Minsk Group Matthew Bryza it's not a secret for experts, at least. That is to say that Americans want the Armenian forces to withdraw from the five territories adjacent to Nagorno Karabakh, and maybe even Kelbajar. For its part, Azerbaijan should agree to determine the status of Nagorno Karabakh though referendum, but in 10-15 years. This is the core of the document on the bargaining table.

 

Immediately after replacing Steven Mann, Matthew Bryza declared in an interview that that the withdrawal of Armenian troops from the occupied territories is an important component of the main principles of settlement. "However, urging the Armenians to withdraw from these territories, which will reduce the tension, we shall not hit the target. If Armenians are sure they will receive something instead, they will do that. The experts are correct: if Armenians troops are withdrawn, it will reduce the tension. However, they must receive something in exchange. That is why the leaders of the countries must take a hard decision. The most difficult is to time the withdrawal with the determination of the status of Nagorno Karabakh."

 

Everyone remembers Key West, when the parties, in the words of another American Co-Chair Kerry Kavano, "were unbelievably close to settlement." The main architect of the Key West was the US. The document based on exchange of territories, envisaged annexation of Nagorno Karabakh with Lachin corridor to Armenia. Certainly, Armenia was to go to compromises. This and many other facts evidence that the content and spirit of the US State Department report contradicts the policy on the Karabakh conflict settlement the US has assumed. If Washington really changes its policy and accepts that "Armenia continues to occupy the Azerbaijani territory of Nagorno-Karabakh and seven surrounding Azerbaijani territories," then the question arises: to what extent the United States is proper to be an unbiased mediator? Let's pay attention that member of the Minsk Group Turkey, which is often blamed for its obvious pro-Azerbaijani position, seems to be more unbiased on this background.

 

If the United States really considers Nagorno Karabakh (let aside the adjacent territories) as a territory occupied by Armenia, that Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act had to be directed against Armenia. While it is known that from 1992 through 2001 the US Government was rendering no assistance to Azerbaijan, since the latter imposed and upholds the blockade of Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh. If Nagorno Karabakh is an occupied territory for the Americans, then why do they provide $35 million since 1998 in aid to Nagorno Karabakh? Moreover, a number of American officials have noted that the US is the only state besides Armenia to provide aid to Karabakh.

 

If Armenia continues the occupation of Nagorno Karabakh, then what is the logic of providing over $1.5 billion aid during the past 15 years? Or why was Armenia included in the Millennium Challenge Programme?

 

If we take the four resolutions the UN adopted in 1993, it is clearly written there that the territories adjacent to Nagorno Karabakh have been occupied by Karabakhi forces. Moreover, when in May 1992 the Karabakhi forces liberated the Lachin corridor, the UN did not adopt any resolution. It was obvious for the international community that war was logical, and while there was no direct land communication between Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh, the Armenians of Karabakh were destined to be annihilated. Only after the Karabakhi forces seized the control of Kelbajar, and five other territories, the UN started adopting resolutions one after the other. The international community started to comprehend that the Karabakh war was exceeding the frames of their imagination.

 

At last, when the Soviet Union still existed, the US Senate adopted two resolutions on Nagorno Karabakh. In the second resolution adopted November 19, 1989 it was urging the USSR leadership to find a fair solution to the conflict, which would reflect the will of the region's population. In particular, it was mentioned in the resolution that 80% of the population of the Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Region of was Armenians. The very next day the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Foreign Relations Committee of the Supreme Council condemned the resolution on Nagorno Karabakh adopted by the US Senate. According to Deputy Foreign Minister A. Bessmertnikh, "it was a crude and self-proclaimed mediation" and "such decision of the Senate panel caused the sharp resistance of Soviet citizens, and this irritation can be understood."

 

In the resolution of 19 July, 1989 the Senate called on Mikhail Gorbachev to discuss with the representatives of Nagorno Karabakh the demand of February 20, 1988 to reunite the Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Region with Armenia.

 

The Human Rights Report of the US Department of State the wording on Armenia, its change, and the restoration of the initial wording can be considered unserious. On the other hand, with such "unserious" steps the US probably sends a message to Armenia. We can only suppose why this form of expression of dissatisfaction was chosen. But one thing is obvious: with such changing statements the Americans shake the image the commons citizens have about them in Armenia.

Circle.Am

[Takoush]

www.armeniadiaspora.com

What Americans Did Is Not Only Unserious, But Also Worrisome For Armenia

By Tatul Hakobyan, "Radiolur"

 

April 28, /Azg/ At the February 19, 2005 meeting, John Evans used the word "genocide" to describe the Armenian massacres and deportations in the Ottoman Empire. "I will today call it the Armenian Genocide... I think we, the US government, owe you, our fellow citizens, a more frank and honest way of discussing this problem. Today, as someone who has studied it, there's no doubt in my mind [as to] what happened. I think it is unbecoming of us, as Americans, to play word games here. I believe in calling things by their name," he said. Ambassador Evans also disclosed that he had consulted with a legal advisor at the State Department who had confirmed that the events of 1915 were "genocide by definition". Referring to the Armenian Genocide as "the first genocide of the 20th century" he added: " We made many mistakes after WWI."

 

At the gathering, John Evans also insisted that "although the US follows a policy of territorial integrity of nations, everybody realizes that Karabakh can't be given back to Azerbaijan. That would be a disastrous step." Commenting on a statement by Ramiz Melikov, head of the Press Service at the Defense Ministry of Azerbaijan, who had said that there would be no Armenia left in 25 years, Evans said, "This was an outrageous, bellicose statement, and it brought all the bad memories of Armenians back."

 

But just a few days later, back in Yerevan, John Evans corrected himself by stating, "Although I told my audience that the United States policy on the Armenian tragedy has not changed, I used the term 'genocide' speaking in what I characterized as my personal capacity. This was inappropriate." Referring to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, Ambassador Evans noted, "The US government supports the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and holds that the future status of Nagorno Karabakh is a matter of negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan." Those who are seriously following the negotiation process understand that Evans has not made a discovery. The ex-Ambassador simply said a thing that is not permitted to say aloud.

 

Ever since 1992 the US policy on Nagorno Karabakh has been as follows: Washington recognizes the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan but does not predict the outcome of the negotiations. To put it more simply, this means that the issue of the status of Nagorno Karabakh is left for the conflicting parties to decide. However, in reality, since 1988 the US policy has undergone several abrupt changes.

 

The Human Rights Report of the US Department of State, which caused a number of comments in government circles of Armenia and Azerbaijan and mass media, not only fails to reflect the real state of affairs, but also contradicts to the spirit of the US policy.

 

The suggestions on the bargaining table, the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs presented in April 2006, is the approach of delayed referendum. Considering this document clandestine is senseless, since due to a number of interviews of the US Co-Chair of the Minsk Group Matthew Bryza it's not a secret for experts, at least. That is to say that Americans want the Armenian forces to withdraw from the five territories adjacent to Nagorno Karabakh, and maybe even Kelbajar. For its part, Azerbaijan should agree to determine the status of Nagorno Karabakh though referendum, but in 10-15 years. This is the core of the document on the bargaining table.

 

Immediately after replacing Steven Mann, Matthew Bryza declared in an interview that that the withdrawal of Armenian troops from the occupied territories is an important component of the main principles of settlement. "However, urging the Armenians to withdraw from these territories, which will reduce the tension, we shall not hit the target. If Armenians are sure they will receive something instead, they will do that. The experts are correct: if Armenians troops are withdrawn, it will reduce the tension. However, they must receive something in exchange. That is why the leaders of the countries must take a hard decision. The most difficult is to time the withdrawal with the determination of the status of Nagorno Karabakh."

 

Everyone remembers Key West, when the parties, in the words of another American Co-Chair Kerry Kavano, "were unbelievably close to settlement." The main architect of the Key West was the US. The document based on exchange of territories, envisaged annexation of Nagorno Karabakh with Lachin corridor to Armenia. Certainly, Armenia was to go to compromises. This and many other facts evidence that the content and spirit of the US State Department report contradicts the policy on the Karabakh conflict settlement the US has assumed. If Washington really changes its policy and accepts that "Armenia continues to occupy the Azerbaijani territory of Nagorno-Karabakh and seven surrounding Azerbaijani territories," then the question arises: to what extent the United States is proper to be an unbiased mediator? Let's pay attention that member of the Minsk Group Turkey, which is often blamed for its obvious pro-Azerbaijani position, seems to be more unbiased on this background.

 

If the United States really considers Nagorno Karabakh (let aside the adjacent territories) as a territory occupied by Armenia, that Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act had to be directed against Armenia. While it is known that from 1992 through 2001 the US Government was rendering no assistance to Azerbaijan, since the latter imposed and upholds the blockade of Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh. If Nagorno Karabakh is an occupied territory for the Americans, then why do they provide $35 million since 1998 in aid to Nagorno Karabakh? Moreover, a number of American officials have noted that the US is the only state besides Armenia to provide aid to Karabakh.

 

If Armenia continues the occupation of Nagorno Karabakh, then what is the logic of providing over $1.5 billion aid during the past 15 years? Or why was Armenia included in the Millennium Challenge Programme?

 

If we take the four resolutions the UN adopted in 1993, it is clearly written there that the territories adjacent to Nagorno Karabakh have been occupied by Karabakhi forces. Moreover, when in May 1992 the Karabakhi forces liberated the Lachin corridor, the UN did not adopt any resolution. It was obvious for the international community that war was logical, and while there was no direct land communication between Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh, the Armenians of Karabakh were destined to be annihilated. Only after the Karabakhi forces seized the control of Kelbajar, and five other territories, the UN started adopting resolutions one after the other. The international community started to comprehend that the Karabakh war was exceeding the frames of their imagination.

 

At last, when the Soviet Union still existed, the US Senate adopted two resolutions on Nagorno Karabakh. In the second resolution adopted November 19, 1989 it was urging the USSR leadership to find a fair solution to the conflict, which would reflect the will of the region's population. In particular, it was mentioned in the resolution that 80% of the population of the Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Region of was Armenians. The very next day the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Foreign Relations Committee of the Supreme Council condemned the resolution on Nagorno Karabakh adopted by the US Senate. According to Deputy Foreign Minister A. Bessmertnikh, "it was a crude and self-proclaimed mediation" and "such decision of the Senate panel caused the sharp resistance of Soviet citizens, and this irritation can be understood."

 

In the resolution of 19 July, 1989 the Senate called on Mikhail Gorbachev to discuss with the representatives of Nagorno Karabakh the demand of February 20, 1988 to reunite the Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Region with Armenia.

 

The Human Rights Report of the US Department of State the wording on Armenia, its change, and the restoration of the initial wording can be considered unserious. On the other hand, with such "unserious" steps the US probably sends a message to Armenia. We can only suppose why this form of expression of dissatisfaction was chosen. But one thing is obvious: with such changing statements the Americans shake the image the commons citizens have about them in Armenia.

Circle.Am

So what the US wants at the bargaining table that we withdraw our forces from five territories so that Azerbaijani government would recognize Artsax in 10-15 years? 10-15 years?? Isn't that a great deal of time to recognize us on the Azerbaijani side? I think that's ridiculuously very long while.

 

And couldn't the US and the league of nations see after the idiotic statement of Ramiz Melikov that there would be no Armenia left in 25 years???? Not only bad memories but the Azerbaijanis would annihilate all the Armenians if they could in the Artsaxian region. No doubt. The Armenian people fought there not only to win their independence back; but also because if they didn't they would be annihilated time and time again. Enough of these negotiations. The powerful countries (U.S and league of nations) should recognize Artsax and that should be final.

[Harut]

That's not the point. Starting to know what happened in Harput, what happened in the beginning in Zeytoon etc., is not being a history wizz. The survivors moorn, because they have lost their parents, their brothers, sisters, friends etc. They were direct victims. What value does a moorning has, when the subject you moorn you don't know about. If someone has the energy to take the flag and screem all over the place for hours, he should have the energy to read a little bit. It takes less than a day to read a book, it takes a day on April 24 to 'moorn', as much time to know a little about what you moorn.

 

then at what point does one have enough knowledge to legitimately mourn?

[DominO123]

 

then at what point does one have enough knowledge to legitimately mourn?

 

 

 

Harut, one can mourn on something which did not happen, take the delusion under which some Turks are when they mourn a supposed genocide perpetrated by Armenians. So no, knowledge is not important to mourn, but is important.

 

 

[Harut]

Harut, one can mourn on something which did not happen, take the delusion under which some Turks are when they mourn a supposed genocide perpetrated by Armenians. So no, knowledge is not important to mourn, but is important.

 

Domino, you said "What value does a moorning has, when the subject you moorn you don't know about."

so i repeat my question, "then at what point does one have enough knowledge to legitimately mourn?"

 

for this case specifically, how much one has to know for his/her mourning to have a value?

[DominO123]

 

Domino, you said "What value does a moorning has, when the subject you moorn you don't know about."

so i repeat my question, "then at what point does one have enough knowledge to legitimately mourn?"

 

for this case specifically, how much one has to know for his/her mourning to have a value?

 

 

 

Harut, you want quantification, and this is what you won't obtain, because I have no answer. All I was saying is for one to know what he is mourning about. How much? Not much, just sufficiantly enough. What is sufficiantly enough? Knowing the basics. What are the basics? The 6 villeyets and what happened there could be considered as "basics" How much knowing? Ask a sociologist. The point made is that the mourning should be done on thigs more precise than vague word "Armenian Genocide", "1915", "1.5 millions" etc. a direct victim for example does not vaguely mourn, he mourn directly his/her losses. I am not a socialogist so I will not answer you on the psychi of the mourner, the reconstructed memory, etc., neither I will attempt to quantify how far this knowledge has to be present in the collectivity.

 

 

[irlandahay]

every time i got to go i would say, "excuse me I have to use the turkish embassy"

 

LOL! Edward, in my family, it is tradition that when a parent gives you a job to do, you pass it on to a sibling. so for example when my father asks Hosank to take out the trash, he tells me to take out the Baku, or vice versa

 

now for the burning flag thing, I would not hesitate to burn one of those things because it represents evil. I would burn it because it is the symbol of an abomination. only thing is I wouldnt pay 10$ for a piece of crap only to burn it afterwards