The Armenian Weekly On-Line
80 Bigelow Avenue
Watertown MA 02472 USA
(617) 926-3974
armenianweekly@hairenik.com
menianweekly.com
The Armenian Weekly; Volume 73, No. 37; Sept. 15, 2007
Commentary and Analysis:
1. Armenian and World Debt to Fridtjof Nansen
By William F. Fuller
2. Latest Offensive ¦ On a Late Theme
By Tatul Sonentz-Papazian
3. Tantamount to the Holocaust?
The ADL Has Not Recognized the Armenian Genocide
By Khajag Mgrditchian
4. Pan-Armenian Games or How Sport Nationalism Goes Wrong
By Asbed Kochikian
5. Henry Theriault’s Letter to the Newton Leadership
6. Abe Foxman Defies His Own Advice
By Narini Badalian
7. Letters to the Editor
***
1. Armenian and World Debt to Fridtjof Nansen
By William F. Fuller
International attention has recently turned to the question of whether
`genocide’ is an applicable description of Turkey’s massacre of
Armenians that reached its climax during World War I. America’s Jewish
Anti-Defamation League (ADL), under pressure from the Armenian
community and the ADL’s New England branch, finally acknowledged that
genocide did occur’a reversal of its previous policy of not taking a
stand on the issue. Although the ADL still avoids supporting a stalled
resolution in Congress to label the massacre a genocide, Turkey
condemned the ADL’s change and strongly expressed its displeasure to
the Israeli government. Israel is reportedly trying behind the scenes
to put a damper on the controversy since Turkey is virtually its only
ally in the Middle East and Israelis fear a backlash against Turkey’s
Jewish population.
Given the spotlight on ethnic violence, this is an appropriate time to
remember Fridtjof Nansen. This world-famous Norwegian scientist and
explorer, who went on to head the League of Nations Commission for
Refugees in the 1920s, was probably more responsible than any other
individual for bringing the horrors of Turkish repression to the
world’s attention and making the lives of over 300,000 stateless and
starving Armenian survivors more tolerable. He overcame severe
problems and frustrations in dealing with various nations on behalf of
the Armenians. After winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 1922, he used
the award to fund a multi-nation tour in America and throughout Europe
to alert the world to the plight of the Armenians. The preface to his
1927 book Armenia and the Near East states, `I hope that the facts
themselves will speak from these pages to the conscience of Europe and
America.’ He felt that Europe’s bloodless passivity towards Armenia
and Armenians was as shameful as the bloody massacres perpetrated by
the Turks.
In 1922, when the Greco-Turkish war ended with a crushing defeat for
the Greeks, a million and a half Greeks and Armenians from Thrace and
Asia Minor fled in panic across Turkey to Greece leaving everything
behind. An impoverished Greek government telegrammed Nansen asking for
help. In a matter of days, he got financial support from the League
and the British government, brought in the Red Cross to stem epidemics
of typhus and smallpox, and arranged supplies of food and tents to
support 800,000 that first winter. He then concluded an agreement with
the Turkish ambassador for an exchange of prisoners and whole
populations: 1,200,000 were eventually resettled, mostly in Greece,
and 500,000 returned to Turkey.
It was an unbelievable achievement but not a surprise to many of
Nansen’s peers in the League and heads of State familiar with his
humanitarian work. In 1919, he personally arranged the exchange of
500,000 German prisoners in Russia for an equal number of Russian
prisoners still in Germany. Russia’s Bolshevik government had refused
to negotiate with the League of Nations or any Western powers and
would only deal with Nansen, who had earned their respect during a
joint 1913 arctic exploration to Siberia. A year after the prisoner
exchange, Nansen again came to the relief of the Russians when famine
engulfed the Volga valley and southern Ukraine, the nation’s most
productive `food baskets.’ Nansen contacted Herbert Hoover of the
U.S. and together they arranged a massive and swift delivery of grain
and ships for transport, which saved the lives of well over one
million Russians. Some estimates put the figure at three million or
more.
1922 was also the year the `Nansen Passport’ was created for refugees
who had neither passports nor papers that other nations would
recognize. Representatives of 31 nations at a conference called by
Nansen in Geneva accepted his proposal for identification certificates
that could be used like passports. They were principally for Armenian,
Chaldean, Syrian and Turkish refugees. By 1930, they were recognized
by 52 governments and several hundred thousand had been issued. These
certificates, featuring a picture of Nansen, cost five gold francs and
were renewable each year for the same amount. The money raised was
plowed back to support needy and unemployed refugees.
In Armenia and the Near East, Nansen retraces the history of that
country. Once a great empire at the crossroad of civilizations, by
1827 it was reduced in size to little more than a province when Russia
took from Persia all of Armenia north of the Arax river. The annexed
people suffered under `Russianization,’ but it was far worse in
Turkish-controlled Armenia where extortion, pillaging and brutality
were condoned government policy. By 1876, the situation had become so
notorious that Britain’s Prime Minister William Gladstone lodged an
indignant protest. This incited additional sweeping atrocities when
Abdul Hamid, the ruler, realized there was nothing but `words’ behind
the protest and issued orders to `disarm’ the Armenians. Oppression
reached a climax in 1895, when armed mobs led by the police began
massacres that only temporarily ended when 1,200 Armenians were burned
alive in the cathedral at Ufra. A year later, the Sultan had 7,000
slaughtered in Constantinople under the very eyes of foreign
diplomats. They sent a note.
In 1908, another 20,000 Armenians were slaughtered. The cruelty
continued after the Young Turks took control of the government and
initiated measures to create a pan-Turkish empire and a policy of
expelling all non-Turks, especially Armenians. In 1915, while the
`Great’ Powers were engaged in a war of mutual destruction, Turkey
began the systematic murder of roughly 1,500,000 Armenians. One
particularly horrible event was the stripping and raping of hundreds
of women and then marching them naked through the desert to their
eventual doom. Students of the Holocaust may recall a particularly
gripping photograph of nude Jewish women in a line heading for
execution, some still holding babies. Nansen demonstrated that the
Turkish extermination of its Armenian population amounted to what was
later called genocide. He showed that it was an official government
policy well before 1915, generally reported as the beginning
year. Turkey was just waiting for an appropriate time to fully execute
its horrendous plan.
In 1925, Nansen toured the Caucasus in search of vacant lands for
Armenian refugees. It took four years but he was able to sign an
agreement with the Russian government in 1929 to settle 12,000
Armenians there. This was one of his last acts on behalf of the
Armenian people. He died a year later in 1930, not quite 69. In
Armenia and the Near East, Nansen relates a touching story of stopping
his automobile besides a cotton field where some women were
weeding. Nansen wanted to see how the work was done and walked toward
them. `Then,’ he wrote, `a curious thing happened: a handsome young
woman got up, came to me, and gravely handed me a small cotton
plant. This done, without looking about her, she quietly returned to
her place, and bending down, resumed her weeding without looking up
again. It was a gesture of welcome in accordance with the custom of
the country, very touching in its artless simplicity. I kept those
modest leaves as a memento of Armenian womanhood.’ Jon Sorensen in his
wonderful book The Saga of Fridtjof Nansen writes, `And the Armenian
women no doubt kept the memory of this tall, fair Northern man who had
come to see Armenia and its betrayed people.’
Nansen gave up his career as a world-famous arctic explorer, scientist
and diplomat to spend the last decade of his life in humanitarian
work. A true Norwegian, he was self-effacing, derided self promotion,
and always gave more than deserved credit to associates. A simple
tombstone at his former home outside Oslo has only his name.
The following are a few of the accomplishments of this truly amazing
man’one of the great humanitarians of the modern era or perhaps the
ages:
Graduate student and scientist. Awarded a Doctorate in zoology,
curator of the Bergen Museum, studied at the world’s first marine
biological station in Naples, and published pioneer work on the
nervous system of invertebrates.
Led a five person team for the first ever crossing of Greenland’s ice
cap. Wintered with natives. Designed sleds and all equipment. Received
a tremendous hero’s welcome on return to Oslo.
Fram expedition and first charting of arctic currents. After two
years, Nansen and a companion left the ship and reached 86′ 14", a
farthest north record, and lived on ice flows for a year and four
months eating sea birds, seals and 19 bears. They actually gained
weight! Nansen designed the Fram to withstand crushing ice pressure as
well as all equipment. Nansen’s ship and his tutelage were key factors
in Amundsen winning the race to the South Pole.
1905 Norway achieved independence from Sweden. Nansen was the most
important individual in bringing this about. With the help of friends
in the Royal Geographical Society, he persuaded Britain to back Norway
against Sweden. This forced a plebiscite that went overwhelmingly
against the Swedes. He then traveled to Denmark and talked a somewhat
reluctant Prince Carl into coming to Norway as a constitutional
monarch. Nansen declined premiership in the new government but did
agree to be their first ambassador to Britain’s Court of St. James.
1917 Eleven months in America to get permission to allow food through
the Allied blockade for a nearly starving Norway.
1919 President of the Norwegian Union for the League of
Nations. Convinced the other Scandinavian countries to join. Without
these small neutral nations from WW I, the League of Nations may never
have been formed. Nansen chosen as chairman of the Permanent
Arbitration Commission for the British Empire and the United
States. Agreed to be Norway’s delegate to the League.
1926 Appointed Lord Rector of St. Andrews’s University in Scotland.
1938 Nobel Peace Prize to the Nansen Relief Organization that he
founded and was later headed by his architect son, Odd, who the
Germans imprisoned as a hostage in a concentration camp. It is ironic
that Nansen was instrumental in persuading the League of Nations to
allow Germany to become a member.
Nansen was Norway’s most revered citizen, not only as an explorer and
humanitarian, but also for his exemplary personal life, his love of
the outdoors and his native land’s spectacular beauty. He was Norway’s
cross country skiing champion for 12 years and as a teenager set the
world’s one mile speed skating record. He was such a talented artist
that he was urged at one time to make that his career and he drew many
of the illustrations for his books. His was one of the first Oslo
families to buy and promote art by Edvard Munch. It is no wonder that
over 100,000 mourners jammed Oslo University Square on May 17, 1930,
for his funeral service and joined a procession to his grave that
stretched as far as the eye could see.
Today, not many recognize his name except Norwegians, but millions
owed their lives to him as a result of his virtually single-handed
efforts. Very few individuals in history, if any, can make a similar
claim.
William F. Fuller is a graduate of Harvard College (1953, MBA
1958). Now 77 and retired, he spent his career in finance. In 2006, he
wrote Reckless Courage: The True Story of a Norwegian Boy Under Nazi
Rule, now in its third printing, about a Norwegian family during
German occupation. While researching the book and visting Norway, he
learned about Fridtjof Nansen through a book by his son who was
imprisoned during the war.
——————————————— ———————–
2. Latest Offensive ¦ On a Late Theme
By Tatul Sonentz-Papazian
We have on our desk an elaborate announcement, issued from the offices
of the Armenian Assembly of America (AAA) on Aug. 31, informing one
and all of the sudden recovery of the moribund planning stage of the
projected Armenian Genocide museum in Washington, D.C. It seems that
the main treatment leading to this abrupt upturn is the promise of
healthy doses of repeated financial injections by non other than noted
benefactor and founding father of AAA, Mr. Hirair Hovnanian.
After a lengthy listing and generous endorsement of prestigious design
and architectural firms hired for the task ahead’as well as the names
of present and future supporters and promoters’the announcement calls
upon the former intrepid champion of the late, unlamented TARC and
present chairman of the museum building committee (AGMM) Van
Krikorian, Esq.
Here is what the former TARCman says: `Despite reports that this
project might not get off the ground, I am delighted to inform
opponents that their expectations will not be met. The Committee,
Hirair Hovnanian, Anoush Mathevosian, the Armenian Assembly of
America, and all of our friends are resolved to build this center in
our nation’s capital. Here the Armenian Genocide and its legacy will
be properly memorialized and explained through innovative exhibits and
a state-of-the-art museum facility. The future museum will be located
at an exceptional site in the heart of Washington, steps from the
White House, and will include special emphasis on the role of the
United States in genocide prevention and punishment.’
The emphasis is ours, for it is necessary in view of the patently
immature and belligerently predisposed-to-conflict approach of the
statement, which gets particularly provocative with its last
sentence’a statement that, lantern in hand in broad daylight, seeks
opponents in a community where there is hardly any conflict or serious
difference of opinion over present nation-wide, priority-based Hai
Tahd activities. To what should we ascribe this outburst against
spiteful expectations that, thus far, remain obscure? What state of
mind has led to this confrontational stance?
Could it be possible that by some miracle, certain members of this
select, well-to-do group of supporters of this extravagant project are
having second thoughts after taking a serious look at the somber state
of affairs presently emerging both in the Homeland’Armenia, Artsakh,
Javakhk and Wilsonian Armenia, with its long neglected Armenian
populations’and the scattered communities of the Diaspora, beset by
urgent problems and neglected needs that require attention and serious
infusion of moral and material support?
Could it also be that aware of this ominously darkening panorama of
Turkic neighbors increasing their military budgets by leaps and
bounds, and the unattended, urgent needs of our people, the AAA front
man, having doubts of his present stance, is actually hoping to find
opponents in order to stem this tide of further expenditures caused by
this ill-timed project through the objections of others brought to
their senses by this provocative outburst of an
announcement’objections made to spending sorely needed funds to
convert a defunct American temple of commerce into a mausoleum for a
continuing genocide still waiting for a closure, presently opposed and
denied by the very landlords of that temple?
As a final comment to Mr. Krikorian’s concluding remarks that the
museum `¦will include special emphasis on the role of the United
States in genocide prevention and punishment,’ we can only ask in
amazement: Is this museum actually going to emphasize the shameful
role of perpetuating the genocide by persistent denial¦?
———————————— ————————————-
3. Tantamount to the Holocaust?
The ADL Has Not Recognized the Armenian Genocide
By Khajag Mgrditchian
`We have never negated but have always described the painful events of
1915-1918 perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire against Armenians as
massacres and atrocities,’ said ADL director Abraham Foxman last
month, adding that upon reflection, `the consequences of those actions
were indeed tantamount to genocide.’
Foxman’s carefully worded statement has been presented as proof by
some that the ADL has changed its stance and now recognizes the
Armenian genocide.
If this is the case, let us’following the example set by Newton mayor
David Cohen’ exchange the words `Armenian’ and `genocide’ with the
words `Jewish’ and `Holocaust,’ and speak of the Holocaust the way
Foxman speaks about the genocide:
`We have never negated and have always described the painful events
during the years of World War II perpetrated by the Nazis against the
Jews as massacres and atrocities. The consequences of those actions
were indeed tantamount to holocaust. Therefore, we suggest that Jewish
historians, as well as deniers of the Holocaust, come together and
create a committee to study the issue. We are opposed to all official
recognitions of the Holocaust by states and governments, because we
are convinced that that kind of recognition is counterproductive to
the rapprochement of those who accept the Holocaust and those who deny
it. We are also opposed to the idea of modern Germany compensating
victims for crimes committed by the Nazis. We would also like to
apologize to German Chancellor Angela Merkel and to the German people
for insulting them. We make this apology because Armenia is surrounded
by Islamic countries that threaten the existence of Armenia and deny
the Holocaust. There are strategic links binding Germany, Armenia and
the United States, and we are concerned about the safety of thousands
of Armenians living in Germany.’
Some may argue that Germany is not Turkey, that the Germans have come
to terms with a dark chapter in their history; that Germany agreed to
compensate the victims; that it does not have an Article 301; that it
protects its minorities, allowing, for example German Kurds to speak
Kurdish freely; that Germany has not invaded Cyprus; and that no
country is threatened by Germany if it attempts to recognize the
Holocaust.
Even Abraham Foxman and his colleague, AJC executive leader David
Harris, a self-described admirer of Turkish `democracy,’ can see how
this statement, which names the planned killings during WWII as
`tantamount to holocaust,’ is meaningless and far from proper
recognition.
Similarly, the statements made by Foxman and Harris are meaningless,
and fail to recognize the genocide.
Instead of relying on word games, Foxman could have simply said that
`The ADL officially recognizes the Armenian Genocide, and calls on
Turkey to end its systematic denial of history.’ But he did not.
Fortunately, that is exactly what the Jewish-American community is
saying. Perhaps it is time for their leaders to join them.
——————————————- —————————-
4. Pan-Armenian Games or How Sport Nationalism Goes Wrong
By Asbed Kochikian
The 4th Pan-Armenian Games that took place in Armenia this past August
were viewed by many officials and media outlets as a great opportunity
to link the Armenia and the diaspora into one single entity, and many
claimed that the event constituted a great opportunity for Armenians
from different parts of the world to interact with each other.
The event, which lasted for over a week and included many different
sporting activities, did not fulfill its mission of bringing together
Armenians from all over the world and creating a sense of common
belongingness. Just like any sporting event, the athletes (male or
female) tended to become very competitive and supported their home
groups; furthermore, the fact that many of the visiting teams hung out
separately was a clear sign that the Pan-Armenian Games are still far
from being a unifying event.
Perhaps the most questionable issue related to the Pan-Armenian Games
is the over-confidence of many individuals in their belief that the
games are uniting Armenians and creating a link between homeland and
diaspora. Sporting and other competitive events are methods to develop
a sense of group solidarity and even the Olympics are viewed as a
means of nationalist manifestation since the competitors are nations
and not `humankind.’
International sporting events are meant to provide opportunities for
national rivalries to be manifested in peaceful ways (though it is
highly doubtful if boxing could pass as a `peaceful sport’). In no way
do they promote unity. The solidarity of the groups is not based on
the concept of belonging to a single nation; rather, it is used to
amplify the fragmented sub-identities existing in the larger
group. Hence, for someone from LA living in Armenia who has been
integrated into the social fabric of the country, the Pan-Armenian
Games become an opportunity to prove that s/he is different from her
surrounding. Furthermore, visitors to Armenia (actually Yerevan as
most of the events were in Yerevan) did not intend to spend more than
the period necessary to attend all of the games.
An ultimate manifestation of the existing differences and the lack of
a sense of unity among the athletes was the brawling and verbal
aggressions that one could hear before, during and after some of the
games. Most of the verbal aggression had regional overtones as
Armenians from Turkey were called `Turks’ or some of the sporting
matches between various diasporan and Armenia teams ended up in
fist-fights, such as the Cairo-Yerevan basketball match.
Having said this, the problem’if there is any’is not that there were
fights and that most of the participants sensed a solidarity with
there home city rather than their `homeland,’ but that many people are
still oblivious to the fact that in order to create a sense of unity
and a common outlook, it is not necessary to have uniformity; rather,
it is to accept existing differences and build on them.
The Pan-Armenian Games or similar events with a pan-Armenian outreach
should no be regarded as ways to `celebrate’ similarities. They should
be an opportunity to first understand and then accept that Armenians
have differences amongst themselves that are not just ideological, but
cultural and sub-cultural, making each Armenian community unique’and
to be dealt with differently.
Dr. Asbed Kotchikian is an instructor of political science at Florida
State University and the assistant director of the international
affairs program. He can be reached at akotchikian@fsu.edu.
—————————– —————————————
5. Henry Theriault’s Letter to the Newton Leadership
The following letter was sent to the mayor of Newton and the members
of the Newton Human Rights Commission (HRC) on Sept. 10.
Dear Mayor Cohen and Human Rights Commission Members,
I write in regard to your upcoming discussion about Newton’s
relationship with the Anti-Defamation League through its No Place for
Hate Program. I am a resident of Brookline, not of Newton, and the
decision about Newton’s relationship to the ADL is of course entirely
that of the residents of Newton. At the same time, whether you
maintain your ties or sever them will make a significant statement and
have a genuine impact on the human rights of all Armenians and,
indeed, all victims of genocide and other systematic mass violence
around the world. Given this, I respectfully ask you to consider the
points contained in this letter.
To begin, please allow me to introduce myself. I am associate
professor of philosophy at Worcester State College, where from
September of 1999 to June of 2007 I coordinated the College’s Center
for the Study of Human Rights. I am a member of the Advisory Council
of the International Association of Genocide Scholars and a co-editor
of Genocide Studies and Prevention, one of the main peer-reviewed
academic journals on genocide. My research specialization is
comparative genocide study, with a focus on denial and post-genocide
justice, and I have published various articles and given many academic
and public papers on these issues. I have taught various relevant
courses, including ones on Genocide and Human Rights, Mass Violence
Against Women, and the Armenian Genocide. I write as a concerned
individual and scholar.
For decades, the Anti-Defamation League has been an important force in
the struggle against anti-Semitism and other forms of racial, national
and religious bigotry. Yet, despite its principled stands against such
attitudes and the violence they foster, for a number of years, the
Anti-Defamation League’s leadership has also followed an ethically
objectionable course of action, in actively denying the Armenian
Genocide.
It is important to understand why engaging in genocide denial is so
wrong. Genocide denial is not a legitimate dispute about history, but
an intentional campaign to falsify the historical record. Its goal is
not simply to exonerate the perpetrators of the crime. It is a renewed
attack on the victim group. Through it, deniers identify themselves
with the perpetrators of the violence to hound survivors and their
progeny through time, so that they can never escape the genocide that
they survived. As one of the world’s foremost scholars of genocide and
denial, Israel Charny of Hebrew University, has put it, genocide
denial is a renewed assault on the humanity of the victim group, a
celebration of the genocide that mocks the sensibilities of the
victims and reasserts the power of the perpetrators over them,
including even the history written about them. It conveys the clear
message that what happened was justified and demonstrates to victims
the impunity of the perpetrators not only to escape responsibility for
what they did but, through future agents, to commit genocide again if
they so choose. In my own work, I have argued that genocide denial is
a form of `hate speech,’ which demeans and re-traumatizes the victim
group, adding to the horrific effects of the initial genocidal
violence. What is more, denial of the Armenian Genocide has clearly
encouraged renewed violence against Armenians, as the recent
assassination of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink in Istanbul
shows. The transgression by Dink that motivated his killer’and the
many others who called for and then celebrated his death’was simply
that, in Turkey, he spoke the truth about the Armenian Genocide.
In the case of the Armenian Genocide, there have been decades of
extensive and careful scholarly research by Armenian, Turkish and
other scholars that has established beyond any reasonable doubt that
beginning in 1915 the Ottoman Turkish government intentionally
exterminated at least 1 million and as many as 1.5 million Armenian
subjects. As in other genocides, the sick forms of violence visited
upon the victims seem beyond belief. I will spare the details here. In
the face of this ample evidence, however, Turkish deniers and their
academic and political mercenaries in the United States and elsewhere
continue to try to falsify history. Again and again, their negations
of truth have been refuted decisively, leaving deniers with nothing
more to do than to restate denial arguments that have already been
exposed as falsifications in the hope that they will manipulate those
unfamiliar with the clear, objective facts.
Shockingly, the leadership of the ADL has forced the organization to
remain a committed denier of the Armenian Genocide, not merely through
public dissemination of lies, but through the pointed action of
lobbying against final official recognition of the Armenian Genocide
by the U.S. Congress. The motives of the ADL leadership are
transparent. By lobbying against recognition, they serve the perceived
interests of the Turkish government. In turn, the Turkish government
becomes more inclined to maintain good relations with the state of
Israel. It is a simple though twisted calculus: the ADL trades
Armenian denigration and suffering for a perceived geopolitical
benefit for Israel. Even this would be bad enough, but the ADL
functions as a crass lobbying machine in this way while hypocritically
promoting itself as a principled leader in the struggle for human
rights for all human beings.
The ADL leadership’s long-standing denialism has, in recent months, at
last come under public scrutiny. Under intense pressure, the ADL has
been forced into damage-control mode, in which it has offered a
statement that what happened to Armenians was `tantamount to
genocide.’ Yet, the leadership still cannot come out and unambiguously
state that Armenians suffered genocide. What is more significant, the
ADL has continued its active participation against U.S. Congressional
recognition of the Armenian Genocide, for instance through its
director Abraham Foxman’s insistence that the current
U.S. Congressional recognition resolution should not be passed. Foxman
has also engaged in the typical denial tactic of calling for more
study of the issue, as a way of obscuring the fact that decades of
study have already been completed and show that the Armenian Genocide
occurred.
Even if the ADL leadership decides to issue an unambiguous affirmation
of the truth of the Armenian Genocide, which it is unlikely to do, the
fact that it still takes public action to oppose U.S. Congressional
recognition is unacceptable. If the ADL had never made denialist
statements or intensively lobbied against recognition, that would be
one thing, but the ADL has actively harmed Armenians (as well as all
other victims of genocide) through its support of denial and role in
defeating official recognition of the Armenian Genocide in past
Congresses. Through its own actions, it has assumed responsibility for
reversing this damage and should come out now in clear support for the
Congressional recognition resolution while ceasing its lobbying
activities’including behind-the-scenes lobbying’on behalf of the
Turkish government.
There is much at stake with the resolution. Last year, U.S. Ambassador
to Armenia John Evans was actually removed from his position simply
because he used the term `Armenian Genocide’ rather than denialist
terminology. This courageous man refused to participate in the
denialism that is the de facto U.S. State Department policy. The
Congressional legislation seeks to protect the State Department’s own
personnel from such Orwellian restrictions. More than this, the
Congressional sponsors of the resolution seek to end the State
Department’s own long-term denial of the Armenian Genocide, a source
of shame for all decent United States citizens.
There are those, including ADL director Foxman, who say that
U.S. recognition of the Armenian Genocide will be `counter-productive’
for `reconciliation’ efforts. It is difficult to see how. What is
counter-productive is the Turkish government’s continued spewing of
denialist hate speech against Armenians. What is counter-productive is
the Turkish establishment’s venomous attacks on the growing number of
Turkish scholars, literary figures, journalists and regular citizens
who publicly call on their country to recognize the genocide. Any
support for the truth means support for Turks who stand for the truth,
which would seem to be a very productive means of helping Turkish
society come to grips with its past in an honest manner. What is more,
it is difficult to understand how a `reconciliation’ that is based on
sidestepping the genocide issue could be meaningful. Do Foxman and
others who hold this view believe that reconciliation requires a
victim group to acquiesce in a cover-up of what they have suffered?
Unfortunately, the ADL leadership’s refusal to do the right thing even
after public exposure and its insistence on trying to finesse the
situation through misleading rhetoric of `semi-admission’ that is
still denialism make it clear that decisive action is needed if the
ADL is going to change its position in a substantive manner. I want to
stress that in no way do I wish to see the ADL undermined or harmed
through this process. It has a crucial role to play against
anti-Semitism and other prejudice. On the contrary, I believe that it
is up to those of us concerned about these issues to support positive
change in the ADL by pushing its leadership back into accord with the
principles on which the ADL was founded. If the leadership for years
has refused to re-embrace those principles of its own accord, then the
towns and cities whose connection to the ADL are a basic foundation of
the organization must sever their ties until the ADL does honor those
principles.
There are those who would suggest that the ADL should be given more
time to engage in `self-examination.’ They hope that in November or
even later, the ADL will eventually realize that it should correct its
position. But the ADL has had years to reflect on its denial of the
Armenian Genocide, and absolutely no progress was made until
communities started suspending their connections to the No Place for
Hate Program. More time will not only add to the suffering of
Armenians, but will give the ADL leadership an increasing sense of
impunity, that it can continue in its anti-Armenian prejudice without
consequences.
There are those who point out that the ADL has done many positive
things and ties to it should not be suspended over only one issue like
this’this would undermine all the positive things it does. The ADL has
done tremendously positive things. But, does this mean that it should
get a free pass on a very negative thing it is doing? The Nation of
Islam under Farrakhan has undoubtedly had many positive effects for
African-Americans, but does that mean we should ignore the
anti-Semitism of its leadership? Does the ADL get to act with bigotry
against one group simply because it fights on behalf of other groups?
Does an organization get to pick and choose which groups should be
protected from prejudice, and which should be abandoned to it?
Of course, this assumes that the ADL can continue to be an effective
force against any bigotry, even anti-Semitism, after national exposure
of its hypocrisy. But by pursuing the corrupt path its leadership has
chosen for it, the ADL’s moral credibility is being eroded. Will true
future accusations of anti-Semitism be met with skepticism, because
the word of ADL leaders can no longer be trusted? Will Jews and other
targets of prejudice suffer because of Foxman and other ADL leaders’
short-sighted manipulations?
There are, finally, those who believe that the situation of Israel is
so desperate that its very survival depends in part on its tie to
Turkey. Setting aside the question of whether the situation is an
existential crisis and examination of the genesis of the problem that
might offer alternative solutions, one can ask quite simply if the
relationship to Turkey that the ADL is willing to trade Armenian
suffering for is worth it. What kind of relationship is this? First,
how can one trust a relationship that is founded on complicity in the
cover-up of genocide or a government that focuses tremendous resources
on that cover-up? Shared deception in the service of mass violence is
not the basis of a sound international relationship. Indeed, the
hollowness of the commitment of Turkey to Israel can be seen readily
in the fact that more than once the former has resorted to threats
against Jewish lives in Turkey should Israel recognize the Armenian
Genocide. For instance, this threat was made to try to force removal
of the few papers devoted to the Armenian Genocide in the world’s
first comparative genocide studies conference, which was held in Tel
Aviv in 1982.
With all of this in mind, I reiterate my strong recommendation that
Newton cut its ties to the ADL until the organization takes an
official position unequivocally affirming the historical reality of
the Armenian Genocide and publicly states its support for the current
U.S. Congressional resolution recognizing the Armenian Genocide.
Once more, thank you for considering my letter.
Sincerely,
Henry C. Theriault
—————————————- ——————————
6. Abe Foxman Defies His Own Advice
By Narini Badalian
NEW YORK’`Be credible, be careful, but never be intimidated’ when
struggling against anti-Semitism, urged Abraham Foxman on Sept. 6 to
the nearly 300 mostly elderly Jewish members of the audience at the
92nd Street Y in New York City during `Modern Anti-Semitism: A
Conversation with Abraham Foxman and Stuart Eizenstat.’
Moderator Thane Rosenbaum, professor of law, human rights and
literature at Fordham University, recalled the recent victimization of
Jews’from the 1994 bombing of the Israeli embassy in Argentina, to the
2002 conspiracy theory that accused Mossad of plotting the September
11 attacks, to the kidnapping and brutal murder of Ilan Halimi, a
Parisian of Jewish decent, and finally to John Mearsheimer’s and
Stephan Walt’s publication on the Israeli Lobby, which first appeared
in the London Review of Books in March 2006, concluding that there is
no moral reason for the U.S. to lobby for Israel in its foreign
policy. Rosenbaum asked whether `we [Jews] are being too touchy.’
Eizenstat, who has worked for the State Department under the Carter
and Clinton administrations, agreed with Abraham Foxman who said that
there is a new modern anti-Semitism, `a very serious situation not to
be taken lightly.’ But the Jews today are not in the same situation as
they were in the 1930’s, they are not silent against threats as they
were back then, for three main factors, according to Eizenstat. First,
Jews have organizations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and
leaders like Foxman. Secondly, world representatives are taking
anti-Semitism more seriously than ever before, especially those in
Europe’like Tony Blair, Nicolas Sarkozy and his predecessor Jacques
Chirac, who in November 2003 said that `an attack on a Jew is an
attack against France’ when arsonists attacked a Jewish school in the
middle of the night. Third, they have the state of Israel, which,
Eizenstat argues, if it had existed during WWII would have prevented
the Holocaust from happening.
Rosenbaum asked if one can still criticize Israel without being called
anti-Semitic. `Questioning Israel’s right to exist is a camouflage for
anti-Semitism,’ explained Foxman, adding that anti-Semitism is now
`parading under critisism’ of Israel. When the Jimmy Carter card was
pulled, regarding his latQest book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,
Foxman adamently said that although Carter is not an anti-Semite, his
book was anti-Semitic. `Why do only Jews see this as anti-Semitism?
Why don’t non-Jews see it?’ Foxman asked.
Eizenstat, who was Jimmy Carter’s domestic policy advisor, stunned the
audience when he said that although the book was `unfortunate,’ Foxman
should `stick to running the ADL, and don’t try to become a
psychologist, because you really are dead wrong.’
Regarding Jewish celebrities who are critical of Israel, like Tony
Judt, or who poke fun at anti-Semitism like Larry David, Sarah
Silverman and Sasha Baron Cohen, the creator of `Borat,’ Abe Foxman
said that they trivialize and minimize anti-Semitism. `it hurts
somehow’the first time is OK, freedom of speech, but it’s damaging how
the enemies of Jews and Israel use it to legitimize their position,’
Sasha made a `hero out of a bigot,’ Foxman said. `Borat makes
[anti-Semitism] laughable.’ Another not so funny issue brought up was
Iran’s cartoon drawing contest regarding the Holocaust and its
conference last year debating the facts of the Holocaust. Foxman
called for the isolation of Iran and its leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Asked if the Israeli lobby has too much power, Eizenstat pointed out
that there is a Jewish lobby `like there is a black lobby, but the
notion that there is a monolithic one is wrong.’ In the U.S., he said,
people are debating `Jewish loyalty’ and it’s a debate that `Jews are
disproportionately powerful.’ Foxman reminded the audience that
`Hitler began by saying Jews are not loyal’ to Germany, and that
Stalin reiterated such rhetoric.
Outside the 92nd Street Y, approximately 75 protesters held signs that
read, `Apologize to the Armenians, Abe,’ `Foxman, why does ADL support
Genocide Denial?’ and `Fire Foxman.’ The participants of the protest
organized by Jewcy.com (an online Jewish magazine and community) were
young, articulate and loud, and turned heads chanting, `Kars,
Auschwitz, Rwanda, Sudan! Millions murdered, when will it end?’ They
were passionate in their calls for genocide recognition, saying, the
`ADL must support Resolution 106,’ `Don’t deny Genocide’ and `Foxman
must resign.’
The protest was in response to the ADL’s ambiguous stance on the
Armenian genocide. Watertown, Mass., along with other towns in the
state recently severed ties with a local program called No Place For
Hate (NPFH) because it was sponsored by the ADL. Town Human Rights
Commissions and Councilors found they could no longer be associated
with an organization that promoted tolerance while denying
genocide. In response to Watertown severing ties with the NPFH, the
ADL came out with a press release on Aug. 21 stating that they always
acknowledged the events of WWI against the Armenians in the Ottoman
Empire as massacres and that `on reflection, we have come to share the
view of Henry Morgenthau, Sr. that the consequences of those actions
were indeed tantamount to genocide.’ The ADL, however, found any
Congressional Genocide Resolution (like H.R.106 currently in Congress,
with an overwhelming 225 supporters) to be a `counter-productive’
measure toward Armenian-Turkish
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress