Movement in Armenian-Jewish Relations

The fallout from the August 2007 Watertown-ADL controversy (see #1, #2) is slowly changing Armenian-Jewish relations - perhaps for the better. As a result of the uproar by Watertown's Armenian community over the Anti-Defamation League's stance on recognition,  the heads of both the ADL and the American Jewish Committee (AJC), Abe Foxman and David Harris respectively, issued statements recognizing the 1915 killings of Armenians in the Ottoman empire as genocide.

Now, the AJC reports in an October 9, 2008 press release, "The Armenian Church has presented the American Jewish Committee (AJC) with a gold Kiddish cup, a Jewish ceremonial goblet, in appreciation of the long, positive history of close ties between the Armenian and Jewish peoples."

Although the press release quotes the Archbishop of the Diocese of the Armenian Church of America (Eastern), Turkish-born Vicken Aykazian, speaking at an AJC Board of Governors Meeting in New York, the cup was actually first presented to an AJC delegation in the Republic of Armenia back in May 2008. That AJC delegation included Barry Jacobs, the organization's D.C.-based Director of Strategic Studies, and Ambassador Peter Rosenblatt, who received the cup from His Holiness Karekin II, Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians. Jacobs and Rosenblatt also met with the prime minister of Armenia, Tigran Sargsyan

The kiddush cup theatrics and the AJC press release suggest a warming of relations between American Jewish organizations and American Armenians as well as the current government of Armenia. But the visit was not without its detractors in the American Armenian community, some of whom regard the AJC and Barry Jacobs in particular as chief antagonists in the struggle for U.S. recognition of the Armenian Genocide. In a somewhat allusive and occasionally confusing article denouncing the entire visit as a "machination," Jirair Haratunian claims that

Jacobs circulates articles from various sources supporting not only Israeli positions but pro Turkish and pro Azerbaijani policies as well. Jacobs’s bias against Armenia is palpable. A New York Times photograph taken at the session of the House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs Committee showed Jacobs seated among a group of Turkish protesters wearing badges saying “NO” to the pending Genocide resolution.

Jacobs was a long-time Department of State employee before beginning work for the AJC. He is a classic realpolitiker with little patience for history when it gets in the way of the interests of the United States and the Jewish community as he (and many other foreign policy analysts) perceive them.  But two factors may be compelling him and others to sing a different tune as of late.

For one, American Jews like most other Americans, once informed of the issues, tend to support recognition of the Armenian Genocide. More importantly, however, there are real developments afoot in the South Caucasus and in Turkey that may call for a revision of entrenched positions. 

First, the current regime in Yerevan may be headed for rapprochement with Turkey. Second, the Georgian crisis along with a host of other factors that have been stewing since the American invasion of Iraq are contributing to geopolitical uncertainty in the Caucasus. 

All the players in the South Caucasus, including the Russians, are trying to balance their long-term interests with their current alliances. With Georgia and the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline facing an uncertain future, Armenia, currently Russia's most stable ally in the region, may reap benefits (though, to be sure, it will also endure significant economic costs). The U.S. may lose the most if it does not act fast. Certainly, Armenia has improved its strategic worth since the Georgian war. 

In a catastrophically-translated press release about the AJC visit, the Republic of Armenia expressed some hope that the Jewish organization may help to improve Armenian ties with the U.S. and Armenia's relations with its neighbors:

During the meeting, the Prime Minister of Armenia and the head of the Jewish Committee of America touched upon the possibilities for improvement of the Armenian-Turkish and Armenian-Azerbaijani relations, the furtherance and expansion of cooperation with the United States [...] as well as the outlook for [...] strengthening the Armenian-Israeli political ties based on the historical and many other affinities between the Armenian and Jewish peoples. The parties said to be convinced that this might be instrumental in the betterment of Armenia's relations with the countries of our region. Peter Rosenblatt emphasized the need for raising awareness about Armenia in Israel which is susceptible to be ensured through active implementation of [...] cultural, educational and other programs.

Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan reiterated our country's position with regard to the settlement of its relations with Turkey by stressing Armenia's readiness to establish relations without pre-conditions.

Israeli Parliament to Consider Recognition of Armenian Genocide

Invitation to this year's commemoration ceremony at the Hebrew University

Yesterday, the Knesset approved by a 12-point margin a proposal to have a parliamentary committee hold a hearing on recognizing the WWI killings of Armenians by the Ottoman empire as genocide (Ha'aretz). The Knesset House Committee will now decide whether recognition of the Armenian Genocide ought to be sent for review to the Knesset Education Committee or to the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. Unlike last year, the government did not oppose the proposal.

The person behind the initiative is MK Haim Oron (Meretz), mentioned previously in this blog. Oron recently won the leadership race of the small left-wing party and is the brother of Yair Auron, who has written two books, one on Israel's position on the Armenian Genocide, and other about the Genocide's reception in the pre-state Jewish community in Palestine.

Backers of recognition in Israel would prefer to have the issue debated in the open Knesset Education Committee, while its opponents, led by MK Yosef Shagal (Yisrael Beitenu), previously described here, would like to see it delegated to the closed-door Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.

Passera - passera pas?

Alors que le gouvernement américain continue à jouer au chat et à la souris avec le génocide arménien, la résolution a été adoptée à 27 voix contre 21 par le Comité des Affaires étrangères. Reste l'approbation du Congrès à obtenir. Ne nous réjouissons pas trop vite cependant, ce n'est pas la première fois qu'on arriverait près du but pour le voir se dérober sous nos pieds à la dernière minute. Et avec le Président Bush qui a exprimé deux fois dans ces derniers jours son opposition au texte, les craintes peuvent être fortes à bon droit.
A noter aussi l'écho journalistique rendu de l'événement: ce matin à 8h, France Info annonçait simplement qu' une résolution reconnaissant le génocide des Arméniens avait passé la première étape aux Etats-Unis et que les autorités turques qualifiaient le texte d'inacceptable. Une heure plus tard, l'annonce ciblait l'indignation des autorités turques face à la résolution. Et il y a une demi heure, le journaliste disait: "les relations turco-américaines mises en péril par un texte de loi". Cela en dit long sur la manière dont on veut présenter ce qui se passe. Et comme aucun courant d'opinion n'est mobilisé sur la question, il y a fort à parier que cela ne retiendra l'attention de personne.

A titre d'illustration de la conscience morale des peuples, je mets ici le lien vers le discours d'ouverture de Lantos au Comité des Affaires étrangères d'hier. http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/press_display.asp?id=430

Selon lui le dilemme moral se réduit à deux termes incompatibles: d'un côté "témoigner la solidarité envers le peuple arménien" en qualifiant de génocide ce qui s'est passé en 1915 et de l'autre mettre en péril la vie des citoyens américains qui servent aujourd'hui en Irak et qui courraient un danger bien plus important si les relations turco-américaines se dégradaient au point d'empêcher aux Américains l'usage de la base militaire turque. D'un côté un simple mot donc, et une accolade dans le dos en signe de solidarité, de l'autre des périls bien concrets, bien réels, d'ici et maintenant. C'est cela qu'il appelle "un vote de conscience".
Tout est bon pour rejeter la responsabilité que le gouvernement américain a d'avoir décidé d'envoyer et de maintenir ses soldats en Irak. Pour moi ce serait plutôt cela, le vote de conscience.

Outgoing Israeli Ambassador to Turkey Denies Genocide

Pinhas Avivi, the outgoing Israeli ambassador to Turkey, told the Turkish Daily News that while "a lot of people see what happened during the events of 1915 as a tragedy," "there is a great difference accepting it as genocide." According to Avivi, "genocide is a decision by a government to destroy a people" and “never ever has anybody proved that this was the situation in 1915.”

Given Israeli policy on the issue, there is nothing surprising about the substance of this proclamation. The frankness with which the ambassador distorts history, however, is rather embarrassing. American diplomats at least use circumlocutions (if they don't, they get fired) when they deny that "the events of 1915" constituted genocide.

It is clear that the Israelis are doing their utmost to reassure Ankara of their friendship. The Turks, on the other hand, continue to show signs of frustration and disappointment, blaming Israel for the momentous shift in policy on Armenian Genocide recognition by the ADL. At the same time, they are eager to hear some approval for their position. In the background loom the nearly $10 billion in bilateral trade and joint economic ventures between the countries, the entrenchment of the Islamist AKP in power with the recent election of Abdullah Gul to the presidency, and Israel's concerns about Turkey's Iran-policy. It is perhaps with these factors in mind, that we should read Avivi's responses to the Turkish journalist's query about the ADL controversy.

Clearly, Israeli diplomats are playing a complicated game with the Turks. While Ankara plays the rejected lover, the Israelis claim that they are being faithful. As part of this charade, Israeli officials up to President Shimon Peres are promising the Turks to "keep an eye on it" - in order to make sure that other Jewish organizations do not announce similar shifts in policy. Avivi even claims that "the impression we got from different Jewish organizations in Washington is that, the ADL's approach is not seen as the right approach." Given that the American Jewish Committee followed the ADL's shift in policy, I am not sure where this impression is coming from. Are the Turks buying the bull that Israel is feeding them?

I have to wonder, too, whether Avivi's efforts to kiss up to the Turkish public were entirely successful. Asked by Barçın YİNANÇ about antisemitism in Turkey, the ambassador says that he believes it is "weak" in Turkey:

On the governmental level, and as far as 90 percent of the newspapers are concerned, apart from the newspaper Vakit and one or two journalists, I never felt it (Turkish Daily News).

Reassured, the journalist notes that, "For some countries, it's such an issue that it requires the Israeli government to step in. Avivi tells him that “Anti-Semitism has never been an issue for us to be taken up on official level." The journalist, however, reminds Avivi of "false news report that Israel was reportedly buying land in Turkey" and "that conspiracy theories based on Zionism are quiet widespread." Aviv acknowledges that the embassy could have done more to reach out to ordinary people.

I have a hard time believing that there is less antisemitism in Turkey than in France or Germany, where Israeli government officials do not shy away from expressing fears about resurgent anti-Jewish expressions by the public.

Turkey Demands ADL Retract Position Shift

The Turkish ambassador to Israel, Namik Tan, announced last Sunday that Turkey expects Israel to compel American Jewish organizations to retract their recent public recognition of the Armenian Genocide:

Israel should not let the [US] Jewish community change its position. This is our expectation and this is highly important, highly important" (Jerusalem Post).

According to the Jerusalem Post, the ambassador refused to accept protests by Israeli government officials that they do not control the policy of American Jewish organizations.

In the meantime, the Turkish Daily News claims that Israeli President Shimon Peres has pledged to ask the ADL to reverse its position. I would not put too much stock in this. Any promises that Israeli officials make on this matter are worthless. Neither Peres nor anyone else can effect a reversal by the ADL at this point.

The question is whether the Turks know this and merely want to force Israel not to follow suit (it will not), or whether they truly believe that Israel can "deliver" American Jewish organizations. I realize that the latter is a popular belief, including among some Armenian activists who have long criticized the role of American Jewish organizations in thwarting Congressional recognition resolutions. But anyone who thinks that this is how things work has a very flawed understanding of the American political system of which Jewish organizations are an integral part.

Neither the Anti-Defamation League nor the American Jewish Committee take orders from Israel. As hard as it is to persuade otherwise those convinced that these groups are part of an international "Zionist cabal," I think that this latest episode demonstrates just how costly it can be to believe the yarns about Jewish power and conspiracies. I would maintain that diplomats would do better to understand that American Jewish organizations pursue what they perceive to be the interests of America and the Jewish community (in the U.S., Israel, and elsewhere in the world), all as part of a universalist commitment to defending human rights and combating discrimination. Inevitably, there are conflicts about the balance to be struck between these various aims.

AJC Executive Director David Harris Recognizes Armenian Genocide

After Foxman's statement, the American Jewish Committee, arguably the most prestigious organization representing U.S. Jewry on the national as well as international stage, for the first time recognized the killings of Armenians during WWI as genocide:

At the same time, I cannot escape the events of 1915 and the conclusions reached by credible voices, from Ambassador Morgenthau to Harvard professor Samantha Power, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of A Problem from Hell: American and the Age of Genocide, to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, about the nature of what took place: it was a genocide, they determined, albeit one that occurred more than thirty years before the term was coined (see full press release).

This is a huge development whose significance cannot be overstated. It marks a major policy shift for the organization. To think that all this started from the controversy in Watertown is actually deeply inspiring. Truth and justice have triumphed over realpolitik.

It remains to be seen what the fallout will be for relations between American Jewish organizations and Turkey. To be sure, Turkish diplomacy has been dealt a serious blow. With the issue having taken center stage, neither the ADL nor AJC could any longer afford to take a "neutral" or strategic position.

Thanks to R. for the link.

ADL Continues to Stumble

Throughout this week, an "Open Letter to the New England Community" will appear as a paid advertisement in various newspapers in the region. The advertisement is an attempt by the national ADL to justify its ongoing position of "neutrality" on U.S. House resolution 106. As R., who brought this to my attention, points out, the document smacks of inconsistency and poor logic. I was flabbergasted, for example, upon reading this paragraph:

We believe that legislative efforts outside of Turkey are counterproductive to the goal of having Turkey itself come to grips with its past. We take no position on what action Congress should take on House Resolution 106. The Jewish community in Turkey has clearly expressed to us and other major American Jewish organizations its concerns about the impact of Congressional action on them, and we cannot ignore those concerns. We are also keenly aware that Turkey is a key strategic ally and friend of the United States and a staunch friend of Israel, and that in the struggle between Islamic extremists and moderate Islam, Turkey is the most critical country in the world.

The first sentence is a staple of those who oppose the recognition of the Armenian Genocide as genocide by foreign governments. I'm not at all convinced by this claim.

Yes, recognition resolutions may make large sectors of the Turkish population more intransigent on this issue, but how has inaction on this front helped matters? If anything, we have ample evidence from the past 9 decades proving that neutrality by foreign powers on this question has actually increased the strength of the denialist camp. Several generations of Turks have grown up reared on textbooks and popular mythologies that deny not just the genocide but massacres of Armenians in toto.

Furthermore, it seems rather unfair to extend this kind of courtesy to Turkey, while frustrating the aims of Armenians and non-Armenians who want recognition of this genocide. Isn't the continued frustration of attempts to achieve recognition also counter-productive to these people's attempts to come to terms with their past?

The second sentence of this paragraph, which claims that the ADL "takes no position" on H.R. 106 strikes me, with all due respect, as a blatant lie. If the ADL is indeed "neutral" on this matter, why does the same paragraph invoke fears about the safety of Turkey's Jewish community, as well as Turkey's importance as a strategic ally?

I sympathize with the fears of the Turkey's Jews as much as I sympathize with the anxieties of some Armenians living in Turkey, who have also expressed opposition to genocide recognition resolutions abroad. But the kind of argument that is being made here is extortion pure and simple. It reminds me of some of the claims made by early-19th-century German legislators who refused to grant civic emancipation to Jews in their territories because they believed this would lead to attacks against Jewish people by the hostile population. Turkey is responsible for the safety of its citizens - it is a modern state with all the powers of an advanced security apparatus at its disposal.

I do agree with the ADL that it

is regrettable that such an important program as ADL’s No Place for Hate® Program, which provides a framework for fighting hatred and bigotry while increasing diversity awareness and fostering respect, has been mired in a controversy having nothing to do with the program.

But the ADL knows very well that if an educational program had been launched by a group that it perceived as hurtful, it would do everything possible to shut it down, no matter how beneficial it may have been to the community. If large segments of the population in New England find the position taken by a sponsor of a program on a certain issue to be objectionable, they have the right to oppose the program too. NGOs do not have immunity from public pressure.

I do have a question for my perpetually pessimistic friends. Is there not some grounds for optimism when one reads the following line?

We will continue to work to convince Turkey to pursue recognition and reconciliation, and we will seek ways to encourage this process [emphasis added].

Anti-Defamation League in Hot Water over Armenian Genocide

A Jewcy Banner in a petition that calls on the ADL to recognize the Armenian Genocide

The municipal council of Watertown, Massachusetts, which together with Glendale, California is one of the major Armenian centers in the U.S., last Tuesday voted unanimously to pull out of the "No Place for Hate" tolerance-education program. The reason? The program is funded by the Anti-Defamation League, whose national board, the council alleges, has not been forthright in recognizing the Armenian Genocide.

Among other developments, the controversy has led to the firing of the New England Regional Director of the ADL, Andrew Tarsy, after he defied the national leadership of the organization and called on it to refer to the killing of 1.5 million Ottoman Armenians in 1915 as genocide. Now, some people are hoping that the scandal will lead to the "implosion" of the Anti-Defamation League and the sacking of its controversial leader, Abe Foxman.

One of the people who has been leading the campaign against the ADL is Joey Kurtzman over at Jewcy, who in a July post, Fire Foxman, "broke the news" of a February 2007 meeting between Turkish foreign minister Abdullah Gul and American-Jewish organizations, at which the latter allegedly agreed to oppose a House bill that would recognize the Armenian Genocide. For some thoughts on this meeting, see my post, "Recognizing the Armenian Genocide: Another Round."

I have very little sympathy for some of Kurtzman's other aims, which apparently include "the end of the Jewish people." Unlike Kurtzman, I hardly think the ADL is redundant. And while I can imagine how gratifying it is for a spunky, young Heeb to bash someone like Abe Foxman, I wish Kurtzman could have spared us the self-righteous universalist moralizing. Furthermore, Kurtzman's polemics against the ADL's anti-Mel Gibson campaign are a scandal, as is his pooh-pooing of antisemitism.

Nevertheless, I say mabrouk to the man for his spirited coverage of the Watertown-ADL controversy. To me, the whole episode illustrates something that I have repeated like a broken record on this blog: the American Jewish grassroots overwhelmingly support U.S. recognition of the Armenian Genocide. It's too bad that an excellent program, the ADL's "No Place for Hate," ended up being cut to send a message.

It is clear that there is a split between the grassroots and local leaders on one hand and the diplomatic activity of the larger organizations on the other. The directors are thinking geopolitics. When the Turkish foreign minister invites them to make a pitch for action against an Armenian Genocide resolution by Congress, they are not going to tell him "no" to his face, especially when he joins his plea to the status of the Jewish community in Turkey and to Turkish-Israeli as well as Turkish-American relations. The foreign policy departments of the premier American Jewish diplomatic organizations, such as the American Jewish Committee, are focused on the Middle East today; they are doing everything they can to keep Turkey on America's side, and at least somewhat close to Israel. The question is whether historical truth, moral integrity, and diaspora Armenians should all suffer for the pursuit of these interests.

Coverage of Genocide Recognition Bill

The title of today's New York Times story on House resolution 106, "Planned House Vote on Armenian Massacre Angers Turks," does not sound very promising at first glance. But the article itself should inspire optimism among advocates of recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the U.S. The article frames the issue mainly as one pitting the Turks and the White House against House Democrats. From the article, the issue clearly emerges as one of strategic and commercial interests versus morality and justice. This kind of framing provides all the more reason for Nancy Pelosi to support the resolution - rightly or wrongly, most Americans believe that U.S. foreign policy ought to be and is guided by moral values. Furthermore, many Americans probably resent what they perceive as undue pressure exerted by the Turkish government, especially when expressed in a half-threatening, half-paternalistic warning by Abdullah Gul. The Turkish foreign minister told the Times that

As the elected government of democratic Turkey, we would not be able to remain indifferent. However, I am confident that common sense would prevail at the Congress.

The article does mention the restoration, by the Turkish government, of the Armenian church at Akhtamar near Lake Van (depicted in our banner). This is definitely a good public relations move, that will engender sympathy among Americans for Turkish efforts at reconciliation.

Schiff presses Rice on Genocide

Congressman Adam Schiff (Photo: Schiff's House Site)

Following is the original transcript of an exchange between Congressman Adam Schiff (D-California, 29th District) and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice regarding the recognition of the Armenian genocide by the United States, on March 21. It is somewhat long, but I thought some of Rice's answers were worth noticing, sometimes for their brutal honesty, more often for their diplomatic contortions.

The exchange took place at a House Appropriations Committee hearing before the Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, on which Schiff sits. The transcript is from a press release on Schiff's online newsroom.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Secretary, welcome.
About a week or so ago, Madam Secretary, you and Secretary Gates sent a letter to some of the chairs of committees here on the Hill opposing recognition of the Armenian genocide.
This concerned me for a number of reasons, not the least of which that I don't see how we can have the moral authority that we need to condemn the genocide going in Darfur if we're unwilling to recognize other genocides that have taken place, if we're unwilling to recognize the first genocide of the last century, where 1.5 million people lost 
their lives.
We're all well aware of how the Turkish lobby and Turkey has, either implicitly or explicitly, threatened because it doesn't want the genocide recognized and its own difficulty in coming to grips with that chapter of Ottoman history.
So I'm not going to ask you about that, but I do want to ask you, is there any -- do you have any doubt, in your mind, that the murder of 1.5 million Armenians between 1915 and 1923 constituted genocide? Is there any doubt about that, in your mind?

SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Congressman, I think that these historical circumstances require a very detailed and sober look from historians and what we've encouraged the Turks and the Armenians to do is to have joint historical commissions that can look at this, to have efforts to examine their past and, in examining their past, to get over their past.
But I will tell you, Congressman, I don't think that it helps that process of reconciliation for the United States to enter this debate at that level. I just don't think it's helpful.

SCHIFF: Madam Secretary, your comments, you think that there should be some kind of debate or discussion about the genocide suggests that you have a question about whether genocide occurred.
Is that correct?

RICE: Congressman, I believe that this is something that Turks and Armenians are best to address through their own processes of coming to terms with their history.
Lots of people have had to come to terms with their history...

SCHIFF: Yes, and, Madam Secretary, we have to come to grips with our own history.

RICE: Yes.

SCHIFF: And we did.

RICE: I personally am well aware of that.

SCHIFF: But, Madam Secretary, you come out of academia.

RICE: Yes.

SCHIFF: Is there any historic debate outside of Turkey? Is there any reputable historian you're aware of that takes issue with the fact that the murder of 1.5 million Armenians constituted genocide?

RICE: Congressman, I come out of academia, but I'm secretary of state now and I think that the best way to have this proceed is for the United States not to be in the position of making this judgment, but rather for the Turks and the Armenians to come to their own terms about this.
Lots of people are coming to terms with their history in Asia, in Europe people have had to come to terms with their own history and that's...

SCHIFF: Madam Secretary, we have no reluctance to recognize genocide in Darfur. We have no reluctance to talk about the Cambodian genocide or the Rwandan genocide or the Holocaust.
Why is it only this genocide? Is it because Turkey is a strong ally? Is that an ethical and moral reason to ignore the murder of 1.5 million people? Why is it we don't say, "Let's relegate the Holocaust to historians" or "relegate the Cambodian genocide or Rwandan genocide ?" Why is it only this genocide that we should let the Turks acknowledge or not acknowledge?
And, Madam Secretary, Hrant Dink, who was murdered outside of his office, is not a testimony to Turkish progress. The fact that Turkey brought a Nobel-winning author up on charges of insulting Turkishness because he talked about the murder of the Armenians doesn't show great efforts of reconciliation of Turkey.
Why is it only this genocide we're incapable of recognizing?

RICE: Congressman, we have recognized and the president recognizes every year in a resolution that he himself issues the historical circumstances and the tragedy that befell the Armenian people at that time.
We do recognize it. But I don't -- if you'll just allow me. I do not see that this situation is going to get better in the sense that it allows Turks and Armenians to move on to deal with their present unless we are able to let them deal with their past as to the murder that you...

SCHIFF: Madam Secretary, because I'm going to run out of time.
You recognize more than anyone, as a diplomat, the power of words.

RICE: Yes.

SCHIFF: And I'm sure you supported the recognition of genocide in Darfur, not calling it tragedy, not calling it atrocity, not calling it anything else, but the power and significance of calling it genocide .
Why is that less important in the case of the Armenian genocide?

RICE: Congressman, the power here is in helping these people to move forward. After the murder that you talked about, Turks went into the streets to embrace Armenians and to say that this is not the way that Turks behave.
The foreign minister himself has called into question the issue of arresting people for Turkishness. I do think that there is an evolution that is going on in a Turkey that is democratizing and democratizing before our very eyes and where Turks will be able to deal better with their history.
But I do believe that people are better left to try and deal with this themselves if they're going to be able to move forward.
We have to ask ourselves, "What is the purpose here," and I think the purpose is to acknowledge, of course, the historic tragedy, but the purpose is also to allow Turks and Armenians to be able to move forward.
And, yes, Turkey is a good ally and that is important. But more important is that like many historical tragedies, like many historical circumstances of this kind, people need to come to terms with it and they need to move on.
We've done that in our own country. People have done it in Europe. People have done it in Asia and I think... 
 


SCHIFF: Madam Secretary...

(CROSSTALK)

RICE: ... the best to have them move forward together.

LOWEY: Thank you, Mr. Schiff.

State Department Urging Congress to Reject Genocide Resolution

Assistant Secretary Daniel Fried
(Photo: Dept. of State)

Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried is urging Congress to reject the proposed House resolution recognizing the Armenian Genocide. According to Fried, Turkish officials have told the U.S. that Turkey would shut down the American air base at Incirlik or restrict U.S. overflights, should the resolution be approved. Fried, Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian affairs, made the remarks at a Thursday session of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Europe. The full transcript of his remarks is now up.

In bringing up these arguments, Fried is appealing frankly to American strategic interests. There is no doubt that the base has been vital to ongoing American operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. More dubious, however, is Fried's argument, which has been adopted by other anti-recognition activists, that

such a step would undercut voices in Turkey calling for a truthful exploration of these events in pursuit of Turkey's reconciliation with its own past and with Armenia.

Supposedly, there are now growing calls in Turkey for changes to the infamous Article 301. But if there is such a furor now about a House resolution, I don't see how this is strengthening the extremists. I think there is also some confusion of cause and effect. Haven't the Article 301 prosecutions actually emboldened the violent extremist groups in Turkey? Why is it that the onus of responsibility for fostering a more democratic climate in Turkey and for a real engagement with the past is placed on people in the U.S. who want recognition of the Armenian Genocide? It's pretty clear that this is a ploy, an affectation of concern for justice and reconciliation, which is being instrumentalized to prevent passage of the recognition resolution.

Fried reached another low when he claimed to speak on behalf of the "60,000-70,000 Turkish Armenians" who oppose the U.S. measure because it would "dramatically ... threaten their personal security." Sorry, but the Dink assassination demonstrated all too clearly that the Armenians in Turkey are living in a state of fear. The Turkish government bears responsibility for their security - it cannot blame America for supposedly "inciting" violence.

Thanks to Taline for bringing this report to my attention.

Israeli Parliament Narrowly Votes Against Discussion of Genocide

Meretz MK Hayim Oron (Photo: Wikipedia)

The Knesset, Israel's legislature, on Wednesday narrowly voted against an initiative by MK Haim Oron (Meretz) to convene a parliamentary discussion on the Armenian Genocide in the Culture and Education Committee. The vote against this initiative came after heavy pressure from both Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni, who expressed concern about the negative fallout the initiative would have on Turkish-Israeli relations, Ha'aretz reports.

Fifteen members of the governing coalition voted against Oron's proposal, while a group of 12 MKs, which included legislators from the opposition parties, as well as MKs Shelly Yahimovich (Labor), Nadia Hilo (Labor), and Yitzhak Aharonovitz (Yisrael Beitenu) voted for it. MK Reuven Rivlin (Likud), who has previously signed a petition calling for recognition, implored the legislators not to remove the issue from the agenda.

Meretz, the party to which Oron belongs, is a leftist, social democratic party, somewhat comparable to the European Greens. It has a faction of five seats in the current Knesset (its lowest total ever). One of the party's past leaders, Yossi Sarid, has supported official recognition of the Armenian Genocide. I could not obtain a complete list of the breakdown, but I assume that the other people who voted for the initiative included the rest of the Meretz parliamentarians, and members of parties from across the political spectrum. As Oron said, "this is not about left-wing and right-wing" - a statement confirmed by the presence of both members from the left (Meretz) and the right (Likud and Yisrael Beitenu) on the side voting for the bill.

Yahimovich, a former media personality and a rookie MK, is part of the left-wing of the Labor Party (Avodah). Hilo, a Christian Arab who hails from Yafo (Jaffa), is active on social justice causes. Aharonovitz, on the other hand, belongs to the far-right party Yisrael Beitenu associated mostly with Russian immigrants, though he himself was born in Israel. A former Lieutenant-Colonel in the Israeli Army and a past Deputy-Commissioner of the Israeli Police, he is respected for his expertise on security matters. The recently-deceased, Moscow-born MK Yuri Stern, also of Yisrael Beitenu, had previously supported recognition efforts.

Oron said that he wanted to bring the topic up for discussion now because this was the last opportunity to do so before April 24 - the day on which Armenians commemorate the Genocide. He said that

it is incumbent especially upon us, members of a people which experienced genocide [Shoah] and fights against its denial, to show sympathy for the tragedy of another people.

To me, the debate in the Knesset as well as the coverage again illustrate that there is nearly unanimous consent in Israel that what happened to the Armenians was a genocide. Ha'aretz referred matter-of-factly to "the Armenian Genocide which took place nearly 100 years ago." But of all countries, Israel can least afford to anger the Turks right now. There is no doubt that the relationship with Turkey is of paramount strategic interest to the country.

And yet, Health Minister Ya'akov Ben-Yizri, speaking on behalf of Foreign Minister Livni, must have realized just how unconvincing the official explanation, defending the government's position, sounded:

As Jews and Israelis we have special sympathy and a need to commemorate the massacres [מקרה ההרג] that were perpetrated against the Armenians in the last years of Ottoman rule. We also understand the significance of the sensitivity [sic. maybe someone can suggest a better translation] of the Armenian people, but over the years this has turned into a loaded topic between the Armenian and the Turks, and each side is attempting to persuade [others] to affirms its claims, and we hope that both sides will reach an open dialogue that will enable them to heal the wounds that have been left open.

כיהודים וכישראלים יש לנו רגישות מיוחדת וגם צורך להזכיר את מקרה ההרג שנעשה בארמנים בשנותיו האחרונות של המשטר העותומני", אמר בן יזרי. "אנו גם מבינים את חשיבות הרגישות של העם הארמני, אך במהלך השנים הוא הפך לנושא טעון בין הארמנים לטורקים וכל צד מנסה להוביל לצדקת טענותיו, ואנו מקווים ששני הצדדים יגיעו לדיאלוג פתוח שיאפשר להם להבריא פצעים שנשארו פתוחים

Oron responded that he hoped the topic would remain on the agenda, because "we owe this clarification [i.e., recognition] to the Armenian people, precisely at this time when we are struggling to preserve the memory."

Ha'aretz also noted the presence, in the public gallery, of the leaders of the Armenian community, "who did not hide their disappointment."

Oron's last name, in Hebrew, has the same spelling as that of Prof. Yair Auron (for more on him, see this partial review of one of his books, and this one on his activism). I am not sure whether they are related.

An English version of the Ha'aretz article is now up, but it is only an abridged translation. Thanks to John and Ima for their help.

From the Jewish Grassroots

A lead editorial in the Wednesday, February 28 edition of The Jewish Press condemns the efforts by the Turkish government to enlist Jewish organizations in a bid to prevent the passage of House Resolution 106, which would officially recognize the Armenian Genocide:

We are certainly not insensitive to the significance of Turkey’s support of Israel. But the Turkish government’s attempt to capitalize on that support by pressing the American Jewish community to oppose a Congressional resolution that condemns as “genocide” Turkey’s murder of a million and a half Armenians during World War I strikes us as being the height of chutzpah.

The editorial refers specifically to the February 5 meeting of Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül with several American Jewish organizations, where Gül solicited their support in blocking passage fo the resolution (see my previous post).

The Jewish Press's implicit support for House Resolution 106 is very significant. The weekly has a circulation of at least 95,000. Its orientation is generally right-wing, and most of its readers identify as "Modern Orthodox." The paper's editorial line is unequivocal about its support for the State of Israel, and many of its readers identify with religious Zionism; in the past, one could be sure that they would support the Likud or parties to the right of it. It would certainly be hard to accuse them of not having the national security and strategic interests of Israel in mind. Having said all this, the paper's editorials frequently provoke controversy in the religious Jewish community in New York and elsewhere. Its columns are often widely discussed.

While the Jewish Press editorial argues that "opposition to House Resolution 106 does not necessarily signify lack of sympathy with the victims, or, indeed, sentiment against the concept itself," the board is unequivocal about its own position on the genocide:

Anyone who seriously and objectively considers those events cannot but conclude that there was a calculated and purposeful effort to exterminate the Armenians. After all, approximately 1.5 million perished.

The Jewish Press especially condemned Foreign Minister Gül for using the argument of the Shoah's uniqueness to make the case that Jews should quash an Armenian Genocide resolution:

The Turkish official reportedly appealed to the participants by noting – outrageously, we think – the uniqueness of the German genocide against the Jews.

It concludes that

acknowledging as genocide the systematic murder of a million and a half human beings of a particular ethnic heritage in no way detracts from recognition of the Holocaust as a uniquely monumental evil in the blood-soaked annals of human history.

Recognizing the Armenian Genocide: Another Round

Much will depend on Congressman Tom Lantos,
Chair of the House Committee of Foreign Affairs

On January 30, 2007, Congressman Adam Schiff (D-California, 29th District) submitted House Resolution 106 to the 110th U.S. Congress. The bill

Call[s] 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 (...).

It was co-sponsored by Congressmen George Radanovich (R-California, 109th District), Frank Pallone (D-New Jersey, 6th District), Joe Knollenberg (R-Michigan, 9th District), Brad Sherman (D-California, 27th District; member of the Foreign Affairs Committee), and Thaddeus McCotter (R-Michigan, 11th District). The resolution was referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, which is chaired by Congressman Tom Lantos (D-California, 12th District), a veteran legislator and the only Holocaust survivor ever to serve as a House representative. The Committee will decide whether the resolution should be considered for a vote on the floor of the House. The sponsors of the bill are upbeat that the 110th Congress might finally pass this resolution, assuming that it passes the Committee. But House Resolution 106, which would call for American official recognition of the Armenian Genocide, faces formidable obstacles.

After Turkish diplomacy's recent defeat in France, where a bill outlawing denial of the Armenian Genocide was passed in in October (see my post on Kishkushim - it also includes coverage to the resolution's pre-history), and in the wake of the Hrant Dink assassination, Turkey is doing all it can to thwart the passage of the House resolution. As in previous years, it is attempting to enlist Jewish organizations in its fight. I do not have space here to get into the complex history of the relationships between Turkey, the U.S., Israel, and American Jews. I leave this for a future post. Suffice to say, that some Jewish organizations have in the past supported Turkey's efforts, with an eye to geopolitics - specifically, Turkey's relations with the U.S. and Israel. It is possible that we are witnessing the beginning of a shift in the positions of these Jewish organizations (groups concerned primarily with foreign policy), but it is still too early to tell.

On February 6, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that Turkish Foreign Minister

Abdullah Gül met for 90 minutes Monday night [February 5] with representatives of the United Jewish Communities federation umbrella group, American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, American Jewish Congress, Chabad-Lubavitch, B’nai B’rith International and the Orthodox Union. He asked for assistance in facing down legislation sponsored by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who is Jewish and who has a substantial Armenian-American constituency.

The article also mentioned that the bill had picked up 169 co-sponsors (JTA).

In fact, the meeting was held after a direct appeal by the Turkish government to the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, which explains the presence of such communal and religious groups as Chabad-Lubavitch, B'nai B'rith, and the Orthodox Union. It is probable that Gül appealed directly to the foreign policy groups to urge House representatives not to pass the bill. Significantly enough, no Jewish organization has come out with a statement on the matter yet, which suggests that most of the Jewish groups are lukewarm about engaging in this dirty work.

But Turkish diplomacy has certain carrots and sticks that it brings to the table. Disregarding the Jewish angle for a moment, Turco-American relations matter a great deal to most members of the current U.S. administration as well as to many Democrats from the Clinton years. Most of the State Department, Pentagon, and other foreign policy types are deeply invested in America's special ties to Turkey. They frequently cite the importance of Incirlik Air Force Base, and the symbolic value of having a Muslim ally such as Turkey more or less (indeed, these days it is less and less) behind America. American Jewish organizations dedicated to foreign policy are also concerned about the prospects of the U.S. losing a strategic ally such as Turkey. They carry two additional concerns - the state of Turkish-Israeli relations and the position of the Jewish community in Turkey. The Turks know this and they will most likely do what they can to use these pressure points.

As was to be expected, the Turkish moves have received a fair amount of coverage, certainly among Armenians in the diaspora and in Armenia. Collectifvan posted a French translation of the JTA article, and PanArmenian.Net cited the Armenian Assembly of America's Regional Director for Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh Arpi Vartanian, who at a Yerevan press conference remarked that

the Turkish delegation uses the large influence of Jewish Lobby, which strongly supports Turkey. “Almost there are no relations between Armenian and Jewish lobbies, they meet rarely for the sake of certain common issues. But recently here too we notice some changes. Some influential Jewish lobbyists started to speak about the Armenian Genocide, they bring as evidences the words of U.S. Ambassador to Ottoman Turkey Henry Morgenthau during World War 1, archival documents. Moreover, Turkey has already approximately calculated that the 106th resolution can be adopted and has doubled its efforts in this direction,” Vartanian stressed.

Talk about the "large influence of [the] Jewish Lobby," especially with the latter term capitalized in this manner, is unlikely to endear the AAA to ordinary American Jews. It would have been wiser to speak with more nuance. There are different Jewish organizations who lobby Congress; they have distinct interests and do not really act cohesively. How large their influence is continues to attract significant debate. Armenians probably realize better than anyone that Jews are sensitive about accusations that "the Jewish Lobby" exercises disproportionate influence on American policy. But Vartanian is right about the state of Armenian-Jewish relations (at the level of organizations) in America. I do not expect much progress on this front over the next year.

However, as I do not tire of repeating, the Jewish grassroots will support this resolution if they are engaged and mobilized. Jews at the grassroots and at the organizational levels are at the forefront of the Darfur struggle. Some Jews, as individuals, have long supported the Armenian struggle for genocide recognition. Given the compelling moral arguments in favor of recognition, there is no reason why an equally large number of Jews might not be enlisted in the recognition cause as well. All it takes is a little more effort.

The Jewish organizations dedicated to foreign policy know that their grassroots membership largely supports recognition. The geopolitical concerns, which require a great deal of explanation, are simply not that compelling when stacked up against the moral arguments. But so far the foreign policy types have counted on the relative lack of awareness among the American Jewish public (though the awareness is probably higher than among Americans as a whole). Given access to the right information, many ordinary Americans would no doubt support the efforts for official recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Among American Jews, the connection is even more intuitive. Jews cannot help but sympathize with the efforts of Armenians to achieve recognition of the tragedy that befell the Armenian people. They know how painful it is to have the historical reality of genocide denied to spite the victims and their descendants. Indeed, there is no doubt in my mind that most American Jews would agree with me that we have a moral responsibility to support the passage of House resolution 106 to achieve the long overdue official recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

I hope that we can reach out to each other and ask American Congressmen to vote for the bill - together and in one voice.

On ne plaisante pas avec les mots…

Sanction diplomatique pour abus de… vérité : c’est bien ce à quoi ressemble le rappel de l’ambassadeur des Etats-Unis en Arménie, John Evans, qui a quitté Erevan samedi dernier, un an avant la fin de sa mission. En avril dernier, peu avant la commémoration du 90ème anniversaire du génocide des Arméniens, le représentant de l’administration Bush avait dérogé à la loi de l’omission qui caractérise le discours politique américain sur cette question depuis des années.

Le funambulisme rhétorique de tous les Présidents américains au moment du 24 avril peut faire figure de certificat es acrobatie au cirque politique ; pour mémoire, rappelons simplement les contorsions du 24 avril dernier : « a terrible chapter of history" that "remains a source of pain for people in Armenia and for all those who believe in freedom, tolerance and the dignity and value of every human life." En utilisant le terme de génocide pour qualifier les massacres de 1915-1917, Evans a encouru les foudres de ses chefs, et en a payé les conséquences par l’abréviation de son mandat en Arménie. Il a eu beau, par la suite, tenter de minimiser le fait en expliquant qu’il donnait là son point de vue de particulier, forgé depuis deux ans par une connaissance plus approfondie de l’histoire du peuple arménien, rien n’y a fait. Justification maladroite peut-être, puisqu’elle mettait l’administration Bush devant une alternative soit peu flatteuse, si on choisit de lui accorder l’ignorance, soit franchement accusatrice, si on opte pour la mauvaise foi la plus totale face à des intérêts de puissance plutôt que d’humanité. Certes, dans l’un comme dans l’autre cas, l’administration Bush n’en serait pas à son coup d’essai…

Dernier rebondissement de l’affaire : la semaine dernière, le Sénat n’a pas pu faire approuver la nomination du bien-pensant Richard Hoagland en remplacement de John Evans, le sénateur Menendez ayant publiquement désavoué le refus des Etats-Unis de reconnaître le génocide arménien. Coup d’épée dans l’eau bien entendu puisque l’administration Bush a déjà tiré les conséquences de ce malheureux écart : maintenir la position américaine sur cette question gênante en prenant soin d’éliminer tout facteur de déviance dans le jugement …

Jewish Senator Backs Recognition

Addendum: On Thursday, September 7, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the nomination of Richard Hoagland as ambassador to Armenia. The vote was 13-5 with Democrats Paul Sarbanes (MD), Chris Dodd (CT), John Kerry (MA) and Barbara Boxer (CA) , and Republican Norm Coleman (MN) voting against.

The Forward reports that US senators from the Republican and Democratic Parties are threatening to block the confirmation of Richard Hoagland as ambassador to Armenia. Hoagland was designated as the successor to John Evans, fired last spring after giving a speech in which he used the term genocide to describe the mass killings of Armenians by the Ottoman Turks during WWI. Hoagland, it turns out, has avoided acknowledging the extent of the massacres. Now, the bipartisan group of senators is challenging Hoagland's appointment in an effort to reverse the American policy of non-recognition.

The article notes that a number of Jewish organizations have traditionally opposed recognition bills, because of their fear that such resolutions would damage US and Israeli relations with Turkey, an important strategic ally for both countries. There is a chilling quotation from a member of the Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs (JINSA), a Jewish-American thinktank, to the effect that

The Jewish lobby has quite actively supported Turkey in their efforts to prevent the so-called Armenian genocide resolution from passing.

Interestingly enough, that same group has recently ceased opposition recognition because of Turkey's recent criticism of Israel and lack of cooperation with the United States. This bodes well for recognition efforts.

Furthermore, Norm Coleman, a Republican Jewish senator is among those opposing to the Hoagland appointment and making recognition a key issue:

Coleman, one of the GOP’s two Jewish senators, has emerged as an outspoken advocate of changing American policy on the issue. He has said that he will continue to oppose Hoagland’s nomination in protest of the government’s unwillingness to recognize the Armenian genocide.

“I continue to be deeply troubled by the United States refusal to recognize the historically documented mass killings of Armenians in 1915 as ‘genocide,’” Coleman said in a statement released in early August. “As someone of the Jewish faith, I bring great sensitivity to the issue of recognizing the reality of genocide.”

Coleman’s view is reflective of a belief, held by many in the community, that Jews have an ethical obligation to recognize another ethnic group’s genocide. Others take a more pragmatic approach, placing Israel’s strategic interest over other moral considerations.

I am hoping that Coleman's efforts will signal a penetration of the support for recognition among most American Jews into the thinktanks and lobby groups, who have so far shown themselves to be myopically "strategic" (or immoral) in their thinking . My own experience indicates that the grassroots simply do not accept the excuses of the foreign policy experts.

The First International Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide in 1982 – From the Family "Archive"

The two Clippings from Ha'aretz, June 25.1982

Twenty-four years ago, my mother somehow found the time to clip and annotate the article and letter to the editor above from the June 25, 1982 edition of Ha’aretz, in between taking care of three very young and unruly children – my twin-brother and I had just turned two, my sister was only four months old. My parents and I discovered the clippings by chance today while looking through an old book in the house.

(For those who are interested in details – the book was Haim Rabin’s עיקרי תולדות הלשון העברית, The Fundamentals of the History of the Hebrew Language).

I’ve decided to translate the letters here, because they concern a historical event of great relevance to this blog. That event, the First International Conference on the Shoah and Genocide was supposed to have taken place at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem. Yitzhak Arad, then director of Yad Vashem, Gideon Hausner, the attorney general of Israel who prosecuted Eichmann, and Elie Wiesel, were all set to speak. Overall, 150 lectures were to be held, six of them on the Armenian Genocide. But after Turkish pressure on Israel, and, as a result, heavy pressure exerted by the Israeli Foreign Ministry on conference organizers and participants, the conference was held in Tel Aviv with only 300 out of the original 600 researchers participating. Important institutions and individuals withdrew their backing of the event, including Yad Vashem (Yair Auron, The Banality of Denial, 217-219). Paradoxically enough, however, the controversy surrounding the conference actually drew attention to the recognition cause, especially since the lectures on the Armenian Genocide were in fact delivered (Auron, Banality of Indifference, 354).

TOP DOCUMENT: “Limited Participation at the International Conference on the Shoah and Genocide” (JUNE 25, 1982)

"Following the complaint by Turkey, there are fears that Jews [in Turkey] would be harmed if the subject of the Armenian Shoah is discussed"
By Yehudit Winkler, Ha’aretz Writer

The International Conference on the Shoah and Genocide opened on Monday at the Hilton Hotel in Tel Aviv without Elie Wiesel and on a smaller scale than anticipated by its organizers after the Foreign Ministry exerted heavy pressure to cancel the conference.

The opposition by the Foreign Ministry escalated due to fears that essential national interests and perhaps also Jewish communities abroad would be harmed because one of the subjects of discussion at the conference is the Armenian shoah [sic] of 1915. The government of Turkey protested about this to the Foreign Ministry and raised the concern that Jewish communities might be hurt.

The writer Elie Wiesel, who was supposed to have been the keynote speaker at the conference, announced his resignation, at the same time as he emphasized his identification with the goals of the conference which he helped plan. He said that he could not go against any request from the state of Israel if behind it stood the possibility of any danger whatsoever to the lives of Jews. Mr. Wiesel requested that the conference be held abroad.

Conference organizers estimated that only 500 people (half of the expected number)would take part. The organizers reported that cancellations by participants were substantial among Israeli scholars as well as researchers from abroad, and that the pressure from the Israeli Foreign Ministry was leaving its mark on the scale of the conference, although the program content had not changed.

Over the four days of the conference, lectures and seminar discussions will take place on different aspects of genocide.

BOTTOM DOCUMENT: Letter to the Editor, “Conspiracy of Silence”

The Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel proclaims that the government guarantees “freedom of religion, conscience, education, and culture.” The international conference taking place now (in the Tel Aviv Hilton) on the Shoah and genocide with the aim of understanding of, intervention in, and prevention of genocide, was planned by a group of devoted people and fits the spirit of that declaration cited above perfectly.

During the planning process which began three years ago, it came to the Turkish government’s attention that the Armenian genocide would also be discussed at the conference. We are overcome with feelings of horror and incredulity that the government of Israel bowed to the

Turkish pressure not to support and not to formally recognize this conference. In addition to this, the Israeli government influenced many prominent personalities known the world over, who are connected to research on the Shoah, to prevent their participation in and support of the conference.

The undersigned express their outrage and anguish, and are very concerned by this development, which reminds us of the conspiracy of silence that begot the Shoah. This development fundamentally contradicts the essential principles on which this country was founded.

Leni Fortes and 26 signatories
Kfar Saba

Note on the Translation of Some Key Terms

The Hebrew word שואה (shoah) literally means “disaster” or “holocaust.” Like the latter English word, it has come to refer to the destruction of European Jewry by the Nazis and their allies during WWII. The English word is usually capitalized to make that meaning clear. However, the Hebrew word Shoah has also entered the English language. The reasons for this are complicated and merit a separate post.

What struck me in the 1982 article was how the writer employed the Hebrew word shoah. In English, Shoah (capitalized) usually refers exclusively to the genocide of the Jews. It has thus been criticized by a number of scholars for its exclusivity, as well as on other grounds. Interestingly enough, however, as the top article shows, Hebrew-speakers use the word to denote other genocides as well. Thus, the first article matter-of-factly refers to the “Armenian shoah,” despite the fact that a Hebrew word for genocide exists. That word, רצח עם, literally means “murder of a people” (i.e., genocide – a word which combines a Greek and a Latin derivative). Perhaps the closest parallel is the German “Völkermord.” The title of the conference in Hebrew uses both the word shoah as well as the word for genocide. In English, it has often been translated as the conference on “the Holocaust and genocide.” But the writer above interpreted the two words as synonyms. The writer of the letter uses a different Hebrew term, השמד עם, which literally translated means “extermination of a people.”

Addendum:

The government of Turkey as well as representatives of Turkish Jewry denied that there had been any threats against the country’s Jewish community. But Auron cites Monroe H. Freedman, a counselor for the US Holocaust Memorial Council, who told the NYT that a Turkish diplomat had threatened the safety of Jews in Turkey as well as the country’s withdrawal from NATO if the fate of Armenians was included in the proposed Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC (The Banality of Denial, 221).