DENYING THE ‘OTHER’ HOLOCAUST
By Marilyn Henry

Asbarez
enying-the-other-holocaust/
Aug 31, 2009

Ten years ago, I was in Armenia for Genocide Memorial Day. Armenians
from their "galut" around the world had come to Yerevan to participate
with local citizens in the solemn commemoration. I was with a group
that came from the US, including Henry Morgenthau III. He was there
because the government intended to honor his grandfather, the first
Henry, who as the US ambassador to Constantinople in 1915 had raised
the alarm about the Armenian genocide.

The Morgenthaus and I were Jews among the Armenians. After a week
together, however, it was hard to remember that the Armenians
weren’t Jews. We have much in common: lost families, lost homes,
lost countries, lost languages, lives as minorities, a diaspora,
fears of assimilation, factions in religious practice – and genocide,
as well as foes who would deny that the genocide ever happened.

But this also is where Jews and Armenians part. No civilized society
will tolerate Holocaust denial. Nearly a century later, however,
denial of the Armenian genocide persists, and it pops up in the most
unexpected places.

Most recently it was in the federal appeals court in California. In
a ruling on August 20, two members of a three-judge appellate panel
did not quite deny the Armenian genocide; it was more like "genocide
squelching." At issue was one of a handful of California laws that
collectively extended the statutes of limitations so that Nazi victims,
including slave laborers, as well as victims of the Armenian genocide,
would have additional time to file various claims for redress from
human rights abuses and other losses.

The Armenians were seeking insurance payments from the period in the
waning days of the Ottoman Empire during which they were deported
and massacred by the Turks. This was akin to efforts within the
Jewish community in the last decade to recover insurance payments
for policies written during the Nazi era.

Jewish insurance claims were handled by an international commission
chaired by former US secretary of state Lawrence Eagleburger. Armenians
fended for themselves. Claims from the Ottoman/World War I era were
handled by lawyers who dealt with individual insurance companies. The
American insurer New York Life and the French company AXA reached
settlements with the Armenians.

The case in federal court in California pits Armenians against German
insurance companies. (Let’s put aside for this discussion that German
enterprises should be sensitive to any claim related to genocide,
or that it was Hitler who blithely predicted that no one would
remember the fate of the Armenians.) The German insurers resisted
any discussion of claims, including the possibility of humanitarian
settlements with payments to charitable institutions, said Brian
Kabateck, the Los Angeles attorney representing the Armenians.

The German companies argued that US presidential foreign policy
prohibits legislative recognition of an "Armenian genocide." Although
more than 40 American states have policies on the Armenian genocide,
there is no federal policy recognizing it. Each time in recent years
that a congressional resolution appeared likely to affirm that the
genocide had occurred, the Bush and Clinton administrations argued
against it, saying it would hurt American foreign policy by offending
Turkey, a key ally. The Turks have never recognized the genocide;
they refer to an Armenian revolt.

In a very broad statement that went far beyond California’s laws on
claims deadlines, the federal appellate panel concluded that "there
is an express federal policy prohibiting legislative recognition of an
‘Armenian genocide.’"

"By using the phrase ‘Armenian genocide,’ California has defied the
president’s foreign policy preferences," the panel ruled.

It was not swayed by the fact that the federal government has
not expressly prohibited states from using the phrase "Armenian
genocide." And the US government did not participate in this case,
so its position on how states treat the genocide is entirely unclear.

Kabateck, the Los Angeles attorney, vowed to appeal to
the full appellate court, saying the two judges’ ruling was
"genocide-squelching." "The court says the words ‘Armenian genocide’
when said by any state or local government violates the foreign powers
of the US government and is unconstitutional," he said. "Taken to its
logical extreme, if these two judges are correct, no state or local
government in the United States may use those words in any capacity."

The Court ignored the US record, including president Ronald Reagan’s
1981 proclamation explicitly referring to "the genocide of the
Armenians," said Rouben Adalian, director of the Armenian National
Institute in Washington. "This decision has so many egregious mistakes
it makes one wonder what else was going on. It is frightening to
see how even judges could be so misled into dangerous and really
shameful territory."

There is now concern that the ruling will be used as Turkish
propaganda, and to expand the assault on teaching about the genocide
in American public schools.

In June, a federal judge in Boston rejected a lawsuit filed by several
students, teachers and the Assembly of Turkish American Associations
that challenged Massachusetts’ state curriculum. The education
guidelines characterize the World War I-era deaths of Armenians as
genocide. Mark Wolf, the chief judge of the US District Court in
Massachusetts, said the sensitive questions on the historic tragedy
should be debated in the legislature, not the courts.

American Jews don’t face these horrific fights over atrocities and
whether to teach them. New York, New Jersey, California, Florida and
Illinois have laws requiring the teaching of the Holocaust. Ten other
states have regulations recommending Holocaust education. Twelve
states also have Holocaust commissions or councils that support
Holocaust education.

But we surely remember our own battles against Holocaust denial. And
as we are aggressive in protecting our history and in protesting
contemporary atrocities such as in Darfur, so should we protest the
denial of other atrocities of the past.