![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldEarlier this week, there was a bit of a heated controversy surrounding the question of the hostile relationship of Israel and some Jewish organizations to the idea of recognizing the Armenian genocide. Unfortunately, it does seem to be true that the State of Israel and many Jewish organizations are opposed to recognizing what happened to the Armenians in 1915-1921 as genocide. The situation was summarized back in April of this year by Larry Derfner in the Jerusalem Post, in his article "Rattling the Cage: Playing politics with genocide".
Why? Perhaps the most important reason is the fact that Turkey is Israel's only strategic ally in the Middle East, as AIPAC notes (1, 2). As a secular state with coniderable military and economic might, a substantial amount of influence elsewhere in the world, and long-standing hostility to radical Arab nationalism, Turkey makes a natural partner for Israel. Without Israel's Turkish alliance, for instance, it's unlikely that the recent rapprochement between Israel and Pakistan would ever have happened. Given Turkey's demonstrated hypersensitivity to mention of the Armenian genocide, it's not entirely unexpected that some people and agencies concerned for the safety of Israel might prefer to make the Armenian genocide as much of a non-issue as possible. I suspect that the United States' comparable interest in Turkey as a stable and secular Middle Eastern ally might also explain official American reluctance to recognize the Armenian genocide.
It goes without saying that this non-recognition is a profound moral mistake, simply because genocide--and other sorts of mass murder--might be as close as one can come to a historically transcendent crime. Failing to recognize an instance of genocide--not noticing, for instance, that the Algerian population seems to have declined in the first half-century of French colonial rule--is a lapse. Actively denying that an instance of genocide took place is a rather different sort of activity, even if the denial is motivated for the best of reasons (maintaining a strategic balance, enhancing the security of one's country). This particular sort of denialism, as Derfner notes and even a cursory scan of the Jewish blogosphere confirms, immensely controversial among Jews of all political stripes, simply because they know that genocide denialism is never a good thing regardless of the motivations. This broad-based hostility certainly disproves bizarre anti-Semitic claims that "the jews" are opposed to the recognition of the Armenian genocide "just because."
What next? I can't make definitive conclusions, obviously. I do hope that the upcoming Orhan Pamuk trial will serve as a catharsis of sorts for official Turkey in relation to the Armenian genocide, and that the State of Israel will feel secure enough to follow the precedents set by most other democracies and recognize the Armenian genocide. We'll just have to wait and see.
What does the State of Israel and many of its American Jewish lobbyists have to say about [the Armenian genocide], about this first genocide of the 20th century? If they were merely standing silent, that would be an improvement. Instead, on the subject of the Armenian genocide, Israel and some US Jewish organizations, notably the American Jewish Committee, have for many years acted aggressively as silencers. In Israel, attempts to broadcast documentaries about the genocide on state-run television have been aborted. A program to teach the genocide in public schools was watered down to the point that history teachers refused to teach it.
In the US Congress, resolutions to recognize the genocide and the Ottoman Turks' responsibility for it have been snuffed out by Turkey and its right-hand man on this issue, the Israel lobby.
Jeshajahu Weinberg, founding director of the US Holocaust Museum, wrote that when Armenians lobbied to show the genocide in the museum, Turkey and Israel counter-lobbied to keep out any trace of it. The museum decided to make three mentions of the genocide, including Hitler's call to his troops to be merciless to their victims: "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"
Over 125 Holocaust scholars – including Elie Wiesel, Deborah Lipstadt, Daniel Goldhagen, Raul Hilberg and Yehuda Bauer – have signed ads in the New York Times demanding acknowledgement of the Armenian genocide and the Ottoman Turks' culpability for it. Wiesel testified in Congress on behalf of such a resolution. The International Association of Genocide Scholars – which, by the way, is studded with Jewish names – holds the same view as a matter of course.
In the face of all this, Israel's position, as articulated by then-foreign minister Shimon Peres before a 2001 visit to Turkey, says the Armenian genocide is "a matter for historians to decide."
Why? Perhaps the most important reason is the fact that Turkey is Israel's only strategic ally in the Middle East, as AIPAC notes (1, 2). As a secular state with coniderable military and economic might, a substantial amount of influence elsewhere in the world, and long-standing hostility to radical Arab nationalism, Turkey makes a natural partner for Israel. Without Israel's Turkish alliance, for instance, it's unlikely that the recent rapprochement between Israel and Pakistan would ever have happened. Given Turkey's demonstrated hypersensitivity to mention of the Armenian genocide, it's not entirely unexpected that some people and agencies concerned for the safety of Israel might prefer to make the Armenian genocide as much of a non-issue as possible. I suspect that the United States' comparable interest in Turkey as a stable and secular Middle Eastern ally might also explain official American reluctance to recognize the Armenian genocide.
It goes without saying that this non-recognition is a profound moral mistake, simply because genocide--and other sorts of mass murder--might be as close as one can come to a historically transcendent crime. Failing to recognize an instance of genocide--not noticing, for instance, that the Algerian population seems to have declined in the first half-century of French colonial rule--is a lapse. Actively denying that an instance of genocide took place is a rather different sort of activity, even if the denial is motivated for the best of reasons (maintaining a strategic balance, enhancing the security of one's country). This particular sort of denialism, as Derfner notes and even a cursory scan of the Jewish blogosphere confirms, immensely controversial among Jews of all political stripes, simply because they know that genocide denialism is never a good thing regardless of the motivations. This broad-based hostility certainly disproves bizarre anti-Semitic claims that "the jews" are opposed to the recognition of the Armenian genocide "just because."
What next? I can't make definitive conclusions, obviously. I do hope that the upcoming Orhan Pamuk trial will serve as a catharsis of sorts for official Turkey in relation to the Armenian genocide, and that the State of Israel will feel secure enough to follow the precedents set by most other democracies and recognize the Armenian genocide. We'll just have to wait and see.
