THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION: THE OTHER SIDE GETS NOT SO EQUAL TIME
Blogger News Network
Oct 24 2007
After running a string of editorials against the Armenian Genocide
Resolution (fourth item) – plus an anti-Armenian diatribe written by
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan – The Wall Street Journal
belatedly lets the other side present its case when it’s too late to
resuscitate the symbolic bill. On Friday’s edition of "The Journal
Editorial Report" on FOX News, Paul Gigot, editor of The Wall Street
Journal’s editorial page, interviewed Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA)
who authored the resolution.In his introductory comments about the
segment Gigot notes that Schiff has "more than 70,000 ethnic Armenians
in his Los Angeles district." In the second of its three editorials
torpedoing the resolution, The Journal noted:
California is home to the country’s largest number of politically
active Armenians. Speaker Pelosi has many in her own district. Mr.
Lantos represents the San Francisco suburbs. The bill’s leading
sponsors include Representatives Adam Schiff, George Radanovich and
Anna Eshoo, all from California.
Since when is it somehow sinister for a congressman to represent his
constituents? Only when they’re Armenian, right Gigot?
In the beginning of the interview (video) Schiff makes the same point
about the Bush Administration’s incomprehensible foreign policy
inconsistency in appeasing the Turks but antagonizing the Chinese
that The Stiletto argued last week:
GIGOT: This atrocity occurred 90 years ago. Why bring it up now at
this delicate moment in the Middle East?
SCHIFF: We have tried to recognize the genocide really for years,
even decade. We introduced this resolution before the Iraq war and the
administration said now is not a good time. We introduce it before the
war in Afghanistan and the administration said it wasn’t a good time,
before 9/11 and said it wasn’t a good time.I … watched the president
bestow the Medal of Honor on the Dalai Lama and I was proud of him. I
was proud of him doing that notwithstanding the fact China protested
that it was deeply offensive to our strategic partner in China.
Someone asked him, Mr. President, why do you risk antagonizing China?
The president earlier said that preventing Iran from getting a nuclear
weapon could be so important it might stop World War III.
Paul, you know whose vote we need on the Security Council to
pre-investment Iran from getting the bomb? We need China’s vote. But,
you know, the president said when America stands up for human rights
and freedom, America is always serving its national interest. The
president was right then.
Schiff also tackled the issue of free speech restrictions in the
supposedly "democratic" Turkey:
GIGOT: Congressman, the current dispute in Tibet is ongoing and it
is about human rights in Tibet now. This resolution is 100 years ago.
SCHIFF: … Just last week, Turkey brought up on charges the son of
a murdered Armenian journalist in Turkey, who was killed this year,
on charges of publishing his father words about the genocide. Is that
freedom in Turkey to speak out about the genocide not important? Is the
freedom of expression the freedom to talk about some of the darkest
chapters in the history of the world not important? Why is freedom
in China important but freedom in Turkey of so little value?
…
The interview then took an ironic twist, with a Dem asking, "What
would Reagan do?":
GIGOT: Congressman, there is a long list of people on the other side
of this. General David Petraeus, head of American forces in Iraq,
eight former secretaries of state, including Madeleine Albright. When
this issue came up in 2000, President Clinton called the Republican
speaker of the House, then Denny Hastert, and asked him to pull this
so if wouldn’t compromise our situation in the Middle East. He did.
Why shouldn’t the Democrats now, at the request of an American
president, decide to pull something like this at a similar moment?
SCHIFF: Paul, these eight secretaries of state you mentioned, this
was their policy. They are defending their policy during those –
the administrations of those eight secretaries they were willing to
deny the genocide and become complicit in Turkey’s denial.
The last president, Paul, who had the courage to recognize the Armenian
genocide, was President Reagan. What would you have said to President
Reagan if you were his advisor? Mr. President, I know you talk about
the United States being a moral beacon for the word but we are in
the middle of the Cold War this was antagonize Turkey. Mr.
President, you shouldn’t do it. …
As for the canard that acknowledging this crime against humanity
will hobble our efforts in Iraq and in the larger War on Terror,
Schiff said:
I think the president needs to look to the greater war on terror
and say what about our moral standing in the world. What role does
it have when we espouse truth about history in terms of fighting this
ideological struggle in the war on terror? That’s not General Petraeus’
responsibility. It is the responsibility of the president.
I think Ronald Reagan had it right and I think this president has
it wrong.
Meanwhile, The Stiletto’s pal at The Oread Daily* reports on Armenian
citizens of Israel protesting the government’s policy of Armenian
genocide denial – as well as on Turkey’s thinly veiled threats against
its "ally":
Armenians in Israel are calling on a state that should understand
their anguish to recognize the Armenian Genocide.
Armenian-Israelis marched in Jerusalem’s Justice Square singing
and chanting Armenian songs and slogans. The protest was attended
by two parliamentary officials, Yaeer Tsaban and Khayeem Oron, who
both gave speeches castigating the denial of the genocide by the
Israeli government.
Israel has acknowledged that massacres were perpetrated against
the Armenians and expressed sympathy for their suffering. But the
government has stopped short of calling it genocide.
So how can the Israeli government join the ranks of pragmatic
deniers? Just like US leaders, they don’t want to tick off the Turks.
But the Turks don’t seem concerned with saying things that sure as
hell ought to tick of the Israelis.
Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan on visit to Israel last week,
told The Jerusalem Post,
"All of a sudden the perception in Turkey right now is that the Jewish
people – or the Jewish organizations, let’s say, and the Armenian
diaspora, the Armenian lobbies, are now hand-in-hand trying to defame
Turkey, and trying to condemn Turkey and the Turkish people. This
is the unfortunate perception right now in Turkey. So if something
goes wrong in Washington, DC, it inevitably will have some influence
on relations between Turkey and the US, plus the relations between
Turkey and Israel, as well."
The Turks have implied that this whole episode could put the Jewish
community in Turkey at risk.
In other words, the Turks are threatening to counter charges of
genocide against Armenians by committing genocide against Jews. The
OD post also quotes a recent article in Haaretz pointing out that in
characterizing the Armenian genocide as a lie, Turkish officials make
their case using anti-Semitic invective. At least the US can take
comfort in knowing that the Turks treat all their allies like turds.
*Disclosure: OD has posted items from The Stiletto Blog, and we often
exchange friendly correspondence on topics of mutual interest.