A groundbreaking article just published by The Jewish Daily Forward writes that “Despite fears of upsetting a top Israeli and American ally in the Muslim world, Jewish organizations are reluctant to respond to Turkish calls to fight a congressional resolution recognizing the Armenian genocide.”

The Forward writes Israeli Prime-Minister Olmert said in Turkey it is up to the U.S. Congress to decide whether pass a resolution on the Armenian genocide or not, thus suggesting that Israeli officials or the pro-Israeli lobby will not lobby against the resolution this time.

Why?

It seems Nancy Pelosi’s leadership has a lot to do here. If you remember, she refused a meeting with the visiting Turkish foreign minister Abdulla Gul several days ago. She seems to be adamant on the issue.

Representatives of Jewish organizations who attended the meeting were reluctant to offer their help to Gul, sources told the Forward. They told the Turkish foreign minister that the chances of blocking the House leadership on this issue were slim, and that — as one participant later said — “no one wants to take on a losing battle.”

Let’s for a minute think about the American administration and the issue of officially recognizing the Armenian Genocide. America is in a tough position. It has never denied the Armenian Genocide, and has lately insisted that Turkey should be the first to recognize the Armenian Genocide as such, not America.

This policy was first revealed in an unnamed interview to the Los Angeles Times that I reported a month ago. An official U.S. press release from February 8, 2007, now quotes Asst. Secretary of State Daniel Fried stating the same idea:

I’ve always been of the view that democratic countries need to take a hard look at the dark spots in their own history. And by the way, I start with my own country. We do have dark spots in the United States. Our past includes a past in which slavery was an institution that existed in this country for centuries. We fought a civil war to end it and still its affects linger to the present day. That is a dark spot and we had to confront it honestly.

Our treatment in the 20^th Century of Japanese-Americans in World War II; our treatment of American Indians were dark spots in our history. We had to deal with this honestly and painfully.

Our view is that Turkey is going through a process of looking at its own history with Armenians. The killings in 1915 were horrific. They need to be looked at honestly and without taboos, but not because Americans say Turkey should look at this. It should be looked at because Turks in the process of building a democracy and deepening a democracy are looking at these issues for their own reasons.

I think this process is going on in Turkey. It is painful, it is emotional. There are nationalist forces and it was an extreme nationalist, it seems, who murdered Hrant Dink and there are millions of Turks who reject this dark legacy of nationalism including the hundreds of thousands of Turks who marched in the streets of Istanbul at the Hrant Dink funeral saying things like we are all Armenians, we are all Hrant Dink, which I interpret as Turkey’s rejection of nationalism.

So my argument to the Congress will be that this natural, painful process in Turkey needs to be allowed to unfold with encouragement and support, but not pressure from the outside. That will be my argument.

Now I don’t expect that everyone will accept it, but I will make the case as best I can. And it won’t be just me. There will be more senior people than I making the case and pointing out that Turkish-U.S. relations should not be damaged for no good purpose.

But this is obviously a very emotional issue and I believe it is in Turkey’s interest for its own reasons to take steps to examine its past and to reach out to Armenians worldwide and to Armenia despite the fact that Turks don’t like all of the things that Armenian communities say.

What Fried is saying is actually rational, if you insist on the idea of “Turkey reaching out to Armenia.” The 1919 court martials in Turkey to punish the perpetrators of the Armenian massacres were pushed by Britain, which occupied what would be Istanbul at that time. When the first criminal, Kemal Bey, was hanged in the Bayazkirt square as a result of the trial, many Muslims marched in the streets calling the executed murderer a Turk victim of foreign occupation. They would not accept punishment of their compatriot criminals when the British were the ones who pushe. (this is from Taner Akcam’s A SHAMEFUL ACT book that I am almost finished reading) .

What the U.S. administration is saying is that look, if we pass a resolutin acknowledging the Armenian Genocide we will end up promoting Turkish nationalism and maybe lose the hope for Turkey ever recognizing the Genocide. The claims is basically that they want the best for Armenians (as always).

This new argumentation seems very reasonable and even compelling, although Mr. Fried would not be qualified as the most honest politician (you figure out why).

If we agree with Mr. Fried’s compelling argumentation, the theory still lacks in answering how and if ever Turkey will come to acknowledge its crime against the Armenian nation. If the American adminisration finds that Turks need to recognize the genocide before America does so, why is America ignoring the growth of denialist institutions established by the Republic of Turkey in major American universities? Freedom of Speech? Perhaps. But these are institutions established by foreign governments to spread a particular agenda and fabricate history. The same rhetoric was not used by America not to to fire its ambassador John Evans when he acknowledged the Genocide saying though his statement did not reflect the American foreign policy. On the other hand, it is also true that the Bush administration did not prevent Andew Goldberg’s “The Armenian Genocide” from airing on PBS last year.

Can’t the administration still tolerate the passage of the resolution in Congress and tell Turkey that it doesn’t reflect the administration’s position? Congress represents the people of America, and if the people want to have an official proclamation acknowledging the Armenian Genocide as such, the administration can disagree and tell Turkey they are still cool.

The other question is whether the people of Turkey will ever recognize the Genocide. There are few, if any, countries that have voluntarily addmitted of being guilty of genocide. Germany was not the organizer of the Nuremberg trials. Cambodia’s perpetrators are still unpunished and say they still “do not see a reason” why they would “have killed our own people.” Rwandan history is not told in Rwanda. The Sudanese president denies the ongoing genocide in Darfur, and even “open minded” America, in the words of Asst. Secretary State Daniel Fried himself, finds the genocide against the Native Americans a “treatment” that was a “dark spot.”

Again, I still find Mr. Fried’s arguments reasonable. But as the case of Hastert turned out to have been, there are things that we may not know at this point. After all, Fried said he would be lobbying the Congress not to pass the resolution:

Later today I am going up to meet with key figures in the Congress about this bill and I expect our efforts will continue.

It is not clear who the “key figures” are, especially when Mr. Fried said in the official interview transcript that a meeting between the Turkish foreign minister with the House Speaker Pelosi did not take place (apparently she refused to mee with Gul), because

The Speaker, let me put it this way, does not always listen to all the advice from the administration.

Being asked about the resolution again, Mr. Fried finally gets to the point as close as he can get. He says he wants more people – like the only Turk who has won the Nobel Prize and been tried for “insulting Turkishness” after referring to one-million Armenian deaths – in Turkey to approach the subject themselves and be honest about history by taking America’s example:

The debate in Turkey about its history, the position of writers such as Orhan Pamuk, the position of intellectuals, the participation of Turkish scholars in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission some six years ago is all the result not of any outside pressure. Orhan Pamuk doesn’t care at all what the Americans think. It’s the result of internal Turkish processes. I applaud these, and I hope that Turkey for its own reasons will do everything it can to reach out to Armenia and Armenians.

Great nations are not afraid to confront the dark spots of their past. The United States had to do so and we were not our best selves, we were not true to our best traditions until we had done so.

America’s so-called president George aBush has introduced his glorious budget, that like last year’s, gives reduced economic and military aid to Armenia and much more aid to Armenia’s friendly neighbor and the most tolerant country in the world – Oilzerbaijan. Moreover, the Bushdickcandy administration is apparently cutting humanitarian aid to Nagorno-Karabakh.

Here is why and how, according to Blogian (this is also what exactly happened last year).

1. Bush hates the “Armenian lobby,” which even being not so-powerful (to say the least), can have Congress to keep the aid parity for Armenia and Oilzerbaijan (because it is retarded otherwise).

2. The Turkish foreign minister is in America gulling candy to convince bush to stop the Congress from passing the Armenian genocide resolution. They need something to entertain the loshtak.
3. Bush will swap his own daughter with Borat before recognizing the Armenian genocide.

Bush wants both Armenians and Turks be happy. So he will make Armenians angry as Gull in Bulling in America, but will later let the glorious Armenian lobby convince the Congress to give more aid to Armenia and some aid to Nagorno-Karabakh (by making Turks and Azeris angry). As Armenians will celebrate their unbelievable glory of conquering the Congress (and the Turkish media will condemn The Protocols of Ararat) and convincing them that it is wrong to give more economic and military aid to the most tolerant country in the world than to democratic Armenia, they will find out that the genocide recognition resolution was killed. But hey, they still changed the budget!

In the words of George W. Bush himself, “More and more of our [oil] imports come from overseas.” He was referring to Canada and Mexico.

Time Magazine’s European edition has made a surprising move by spending its own dollars to distribute a free documentary on the Armenian Genocide. This was, perhaps, done to avoid anti-racist and genocide/holocaust denialist laws in Europe and also, as Artyom of iArarat has mentioned, to correct their mistake.

In June of 2005, the European edition of Time magazine distributed thousands of free copies of a supposed Turkish advertisement that included a documentary denying the Armenian genocide. Outrage around the world seemed to bring nothing at first.

Time simply published a response to a letter by saying, “TIME is an independent newsmagazine and does not endorse the views of any organization or government. We regret any offense caused by the advertisements.”

On August 1, 2005, California Courier published an article titled “TIME’s Chief Editor Claims Magazine Was Duped by Turks,” basing the story on a private communcation between TIME Inc.’s chief (now retired) Norman Pearlstine and myself, in which Mr. Pearlstine had answered me that TIME had apologized “for accepting a DVD whose contents were different from what we had been led to believe they would be.”

So what was the letter that had cought the attention? – According to the Courier, my reference to making Nazi flags.

Here is the full letter that I had received response to by Pearlstine:

I hope you have recieved the numerous complaints and
concerns regarding Time magazine's recent cooperation
with the Turkish deniers of the Armenian Genocide.

Are you ever going to respond to my letters?
Are you ever going to apologize for cooperating with
the Turkish deniers?
Are you ever going to publish an article that states
that Time has not intended to deny the Armenian
Genocide?
Are you ever going to admit your magazine's wrong
deed?

Oh, you are too busy to apologize, aren't you? Let me
guess! You are making Nazi flags to distribute in
Europe as a free speech, correct?

Regards, 

Simon Maghakyan

Pearlstine, with whom I later continued to keep private communication for at least another year, had answered me back saying,

Dear Sir,
	Your letters have been referred to the advertising department,
where they should have been sent in the first place. Editors are
responsible for stories and pictures. In addition, we have, of course,
apologized in the magazine for accepting a DVD whose contents were
different from what we had to been led to believe they would be.
	Norman Pearlstine

Interestingly, some Armenian pen pals, whom I had forwarded my letter, told me I was too harsh and yelling would not bring any good.I cannot find my very first letter to Mr. Pearlstine, but I remember mentioning the fact that Time had published a report back in June of 1960 calling Ottoman Turkey’s Talaat Pasha the inventor of genocide – “who introduced genocide to the 20th century by ordering the massacre of500,000 Armenians.”

Talaat introduced genocide by killing Armenians, you are introducing genocidel denial by spreading Turkish propaganda, I wrote.

Later Time (European edition) published full-page statements that condemned the sponsorship of the denialist campaign.

In April of 2006, Time named Orhan Pamuk (who later won the Nobel Prize) one of the top 100 influential in the world who had become “a global cause celebre” for having made a reference to “the genocide of Armenians in 1915 by the Turkish military.”

Orhan Pamuk was actually nominated for the top 100 for solely speaking on the Armenian genocide (and I think the same case could have been for his Nobel Prize award).  Harvard professor Samantha Power had nominated him by saying,

I nominate Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk. He has acknowledged his homeland’s genocide against the Armenians and nearly got himself arrested before the Turks decided their commitment to and pride in their greatest writer exceeded a commitment to killers who died almost a century ago. It could bring a cultural change. Also George Clooney, for the obvious reasons, and the students who led the divestment movement on campuses for Darfur.

Time did the right thing, and it is time for Google to do the same. As of February 2, 2007, Google lists www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr (a website denying the Armenian genocide) as a Google sponsor when “Armenian genocide” is Googled.

As the Armenian Genocide resolution is reintroduced to the U.S. Congress, let us see what America is talking about America.

Among the several bloggers that have posted entries about the resolution are two of the Co-Sponsors themselves.  Rep. Pallone (D-NJ), for example, had announced the conference a day before it was reported in the news.  Rep. Schiff (D-CA) posted an entry at the same blog connecting the Genocide resolution to stoping the Genocide in Darfur:

The United States has a compelling historical and moral reason to recognize the Armenian Genocide, which cost a million and a half people their lives. But we also have a powerful contemporary reason as well — how can we take effective action against the genocide in Darfur if we lack the will to condemn genocide whenever and wherever it occurs?  With the new leadership in Congress, I am hopeful we can finally get this resolution passed. 

In the meantime, according to a transcript posted at www.state.gov, a State Department spokesperson was asked by on January 31, 2007, if the Department would “block even an open debate and democratic vote on this issue?” The answer was,

Lambros, our policy is clear. We mourn the victims of the tragic events of 1950. We have — 1915. We have never denied these events. The President recognizes these atrocities annually on Armenian Remembrance Day. We oppose attempts to make political determinations on the terminology of this tragedy.

The next question was as followed:

And a follow-up on it? The State Department, Mr. McCormack, apparently not wanting to interfere in the Turkish internal affairs was largely silent on the Turkish Article 301 under which murdered journalist Hrant Dink the other day was prosecuted and sentenced last year. And interestingly the Turkish Government exercised the same restraint. Can you describe for us any Turkish Government efforts to influence your government’s, Mr. McCormack, consideration of legislation on the Armenian genocide?

And the answer was very simple, “No.”

The American Embassy in Ankara, too, said Bush will stick to his policy.  A statement released on January 31, 2007, and received via e-mail, said:

Yesterday a resolution dealing with the tragic events that took place at the end of Ottoman Empire was introduced into the US Congress. The Bush Administration’s position on this issue has not changed. As I have said before, the Administration will be actively involved with the Congress to oppose this resolution.

Today I Armenianized more non-Armenians, a.k.a, donated blood.  I think this is the best way of practicing nationalism or patriotism.  If you think your blood is better (which I don’t, especially when it is AB positive), you should donate it to make this world a better place.  This would make millions of, lets say, Turks to donate blood around the world. 

 Donating blood makes you healthy.  Until last year, I would get the cold at least 12 times a year in all of my life.  Since the first time I donated blood, I have not been sick and never will.

Donating blood is fun, in my case for the nurse or the nurses, at least.  These people had a lot of fun when I was playing Borat for them.  Wasn’t too much fun for me because they thought I was being myself.  Maybe some part of it.

 Donating fun will make you hate your computer less, at least in my case.  See, my home computer is the worst computer in the world (this is an absolute fact!!!!!!) and I couldn’t update my yesterday’s post after 10 attempts!  Now, as they have taken some blood of me, I don’t have too much energy to practice hate against my computer.  As Blogian’s readership is growing, I need to have a normal access to Internet, but this doesn’t seem the case.  So if I don’t respond to your comments, please don’t take it personal.  Usually, I approve them at work and cannot comment them from there.  If you notice, I don’t edit comments, and there is some Turkish-Azerbaijani love for Armenians in the comments.  But I do read your comments and get really excited especially when you link to Blogian!  One of my friends in Colorado, Kim Christianian, mentions my blog to everybody she sees.  I am serious.  She is the Blogian agent, and everybody is invited to be one.  🙂

Donating blood makes you feel good, despite the fact that nobody asks for an ID or whether you use/used drugs and alcohol.  What if Bin Laden wanted to donate blood?  Most likely not, and the same with the alcoholics or drug addicts, so don’t worry about getting intoxicated blood.

 So what makes you donate blood?  I don’t know the answer, but it paid well.  I was taking my independent study (on Cultural Rights and Djulfa) form for the dean to sign, and saw the blood seekers.  I told them I had to run, but ended up coming back.  I was told at the admissions office that it might take a week before the dean signed it.  I got a call, twenty minutes after I had dropped off the form, that my form was ready as I was already giving blood.  See, had I not volunteered I would have to do it on Friday!

As you noticed, my obssesion (or whatever the word is spelled.  I am not going to use spell check any more!) about Djulfa is becoming academic.  Indigenous rights scholar and very famous Native American Prof. Glenn Morris is going to supervise me on the research, and said many times he was really excited.  I will be also pursuing (and this is my own take) the state of Azerbaijani monuments in Armenia, so those of you who have some materials on the issue please let me know.  I would ask you not send me links to nationalist Azerbaijani websites that post photos of Armenian churches and say these were Azerbaijani monuments.

If Kirk Kirkorian ever ends up reading this entry, I would ask him to buy me a new computer.

The Armenian Genocide resolution was reintroduced in the U.S. House of Representatives today, January 30, 2007, reports Associated Press via Los Angeles Times.

Democratic and Republican lawmakers have introduced a resolution urging the government to recognize as genocide the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians at the end of World War I.

…

Turkey has adamantly denied claims by scholars that its predecessor state, the Ottoman government, caused the Armenian deaths in a genocide. The Turkish government has said the toll is wildly inflated, and Armenians were killed or displaced in civil unrest during the disarray surrounding the empire’s collapse.

After French lawmakers voted in October to make it a crime to deny that the killings were a genocide, Turkey said it would suspend military relations with France. Turkey provides vital support to U.S. military operations. Incirlik Air Force Base, a major base in southern Turkey, has been used by the U.S. to launch operations into Iraq and Afghanistan and was a center for U.S. fighters that enforced the “no-fly zones” that kept the Iraqi air force bottled up after the 1991 Gulf War.

The resolution (H. Res. 106) calls “upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide, and for other purposes.” The full text of the resolution is available online.

Interestingly, one of the first to respond to the reintroduction of the Genocide resolution was Armenia’s tiny Jewish community. According to Global Jewish News,

Leaders of Armenia’s small Jewish community praised the resolution and expressed solidarity with the approximately 1.5 million ethnic Armenians killed between 1915-17, “because the histories of our people are similar and we too have gone through discrimination, tragedy and a genocide.”

This is perhaps in response to some Jewish groups (especially from Turkey) that lobby against the Genocide resolution, although at least one cosponsor of the resolution is of the Jewish faith. Israeli scholar Yair Auron’s “Banality of Denial: Israel and the Armenian Genocide,” which I finished reading last week, states that the resolution was pulled out in 2000 because Shimon Perez had written a letter to Clinton saying that Jewish lives in Turkey would be under danger if it passed. But more recently, a former Turkish FBI translator has claimed that then House speaker Hastert pulled out the resolution because he was bribed by nationalist Turkish groups in America.

American Ambassador John Morgenthau Evans has written a letter to the New York Times:

Re “Editor Who Spoke for Turkey’s Ethnic Armenians Is Slain” (news article, Jan. 20):

Hrant Dink, whom I met in Yerevan, Armenia, in 2005, was a fearless fighter for truth and human dignity. His assassination strikes a heavy blow against Turks, Armenians and all who strive for proper acknowledgment of the 1915 Armenian genocide and for reconciliation between the two nations.

His death should be a wake-up call: the last stage of genocide is denial.

John M. Evans
Sag Harbor, N.Y., Jan. 20, 2007