3290) After All, Who Remembers The Armenian Victims Of The Armenian Terrorism?

Maxime Gauin
30 June 2011

One of the most clear evidence that the Armenian nationalist parties have no right to present themselves as promoting human right is the practice of terrorism by Armenians against other Armenians. However, this is not the most studied and the best known aspect of the Armenian issue.

The inter-Armenian terror appeared in 1878, with the creation, in the city of Van (eastern Anatolia) of the Black Cross Society. The group had chosen this name because one punishment was reserved to the “traitors”: death; and in this case, the future victims had their names inscribed on a black cross. The Black Cross Society merged with other Armenian groups, from Russia and Ottoman Empire, to create the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF-Dashnak) in 1890. The main concurrent of the ARF, the Hunchak party, created in Geneva in 1887, practiced the terrorism also extensively against Armenians. . .

The design to exterminate the contradictors

In a paper presented in the Annual Middle East Studies Association Meeting, in November 1983, Gerard L. Libaridian, currently in charge of the Armenian studies in the University of Michigan, and by no means an enemy of the revolutionary parties, explained that, only in three years (1904, 1905 and 1906), the ARF and the Hunchak party assassinated 105 persons, including “56 Armenian informers”, 17 other Armenians and 32 Ottoman or Russian officials (some could be Armenians).

It means that literally hundreds of Armenians were killed by Armenian terrorists from 1878 to 1914. The two main reasons were: 1) loyalty to the Ottoman Empire, especially in case of participation within the administration; 2) the refusal to give material or moral support to a nationalist-revolutionary party. As a result, the most targeted were the civil servants, the wealthy businessmen and the churchmen. Internal disputes in the ARF or the Hunchak led sometimes also to murder.

The chief of police in Bitlis (eastern Anatolia), an Armenian, was assassinated by the ARF in 1898. This case demonstrates that Abdülhamid II did not refrain, even after the bloody interethnic clashes of 1894-1896, to chose loyal Armenians in sensitive positions; and that the interdiction to have weapons for the non-Muslims was no more strictly applied after the Tanzimat (1839-1856). The ARF and the Hunchak pursued their rich targets far beyond the limits of the Ottoman Empire. In December 1909, the Hunchakist Bedros Hampartzoumian was executed on the electric chair of the Sing Sing prison (New York) for the murder of H. Tavshanjian, a businessman. The millionaire Isahag Jamharian was assassinated in Moscow by the ARF in 1902. Arsen Vartabed, abbot of Akhtamar monastery, was butchered, together with his secretary, in 1904, by the Dashnak terrorist Ishkan and his gang, who wanted to control the income and the property of the monastery. This crimes gives a very special sense to the vitriolic ARF’s reactions in 2010, when a mass was celebrated in the renovated church of Akhtamar on an island in the Van Lake with the special organization of the Turkish authorities.

But the most important murder probably was the one of Bedros Kapamaciyan Effendi, a wealthy merchant of Van elected in 1909 as mayor of this city, thanks to the support of the Committee Union and Progress (CUP). He was killed by the ARF in December 1912. After Kapamaciyan’s assassination, virtually no Armenian dared to support the Ottoman government in Van province, both because of the cumulative effect of the numerous murders and because of the notoriety of the victim.


The continuation of the terror

The assassinations followed after WWI. The ARF continued to attack the remaining loyal Armenians. Several were killed in Ystanbul during 1920-1921 for the help given to the Ottoman authorities during WWI. For example, S. Thelirian, the assassin of Talat Pasha in March 1921, one year before this murder killed also Harootiun Mugerditchian, who had established the list of the suspects arrested on April 24, 1915. But the Ottoman Empire — and soon the modern Turkey — was no more the main field of activities for the inter-Armenian terror. In 1918, the ARF assassinated Hampartzoum Arakelian journalist of Tiflis (Tbilisi), because of his numerous articles criticizing the Dashnaks. With a typically Dashnak conception of courage, armed terrorists killed this 70-years old unarmed man in his bed, during the night. Two Hunchakist intellectuals, one Ramkavar journalist and two dissidents of the ARF were assassinated from 1926 to 1933. The culmination of this campaign was the murder of Archbishop Leon Tourian, chief of the Armenian Church for the American continent. Tourian was killed in the Armenian Holly Cross Church, on December 24, 1933, during the Christmas ceremony. The two main perpetrators were sentenced to death (commutated into life imprisonment by the governor of New York); the seven accomplices received between ten and twenty years of prison sentences. The lawyer’s costs of the defendant were assumed by the ARF, who presented the perpetrators as “victims”. The Dashnaks paid this crime by more than thirty years of solitude in the Armenian American community. Probably in reprisal, an ARF leader in USA was hit (and killed) by a car in Providence; two others General Sebouh and Reverend Martougessian, escaped only by chance to attempts of assassination.

Nevertheless, the revival of the Armenian terrorism against Turkey (1973-1991), then against Azerbaijan (1988-1994), did not fail to assault moderate Armenians. A striking example is Jan Vahe Tosunyan, born in 1907 in Ystanbul, emigrated to Paris in 1925 and became a well-known jeweler, specialized in diamond. He expressed pro-Turkish views when the allegations of “Armenian genocide” appeared, and was silenced in 1974 by death threats of fanatic Armenians. On March 26, 1982, the Armenian Secret Army for Liberation of Armenian (ASALA) bombed an Armenian movie theater of Beirut (Lebanon), because the boss refused to give money to ASALA and showed frequently Turkish films; two persons were killed, sixteen were injured —all Armenians. “Hay Baykar”, the ASALA newspaper edited in Paris, attributed shamelessly this attack to the Lebanese Phalanges (Maronites). Actually, the ASALA practiced a gangster-styled racket. Vicken Tcharkhutian was sentenced in 1987 by the Californian justice to twelve years of jail for the bombing of several Canadian and Swiss targets in California, but also for racketeering against the Armenian American owner of a Hollywood flooring store. The four ASALA terrorists sentenced in 1984 in Canada for the attempt of assassination against Kani Güngör, commercial attaché at the Turkish embassy (left paralyzed by the shooting), were initially arrested for racketeering against a rich Canadian Armenian.

More recently, in Winter 2008-2009, the association of ASALA veterans threatened to death —successfully — Armen Gakavian, an Australian Armenian scholar who wanted to launch a petition of apologies for the anti-Turkish Armenian terrorism and the war crimes of Armenian volunteers of Russian army during WWI, a reciprocal gesture for the Turkish apologies petition.


The responsibilities of the forgetting

Not surprisingly, the ARF maintains a policy of denial. The US branch of the ARF still denies any involvement in the assassination of Tourian, and maintains against all evidence that its seven activists were wrongly sentenced. The Euro-Armenian Federation for Justice and Democracy (EAFJD), the Dashnak lobby in Brussels pretended on its Web site, in 2007, that the murderers had been “expelled from the [Dashnak] party”. Needless to say, that is pure fiction. In his issue of September 16, 1933, the Dashnak daily “Hairenik” (Boston, USA) claimed with pride that the ARF used “very similar to the underground methods of modern racketeering” from 1890’s to 1914. Such a bragging has been replaced by a prudent discretion on these crimes. Only the assassination of Armenian “traitors” in 1920-1921 is still a matter of pride.

A special responsibility is the one of the Ramkavar, an Armenian party created in 1921 by merging of several other organizations. During decades, the Ramkavar activists denounced the ARF as a fascist and terrorist organization — not without reason in this case. But in 1972, the Ramkavar of USA accepted to create a common structure with the ARF, the Armenian Assembly of America (AAA). The Dashnaks left the AAA some years later to create the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), but despite some tactical divergences, AAA and ANCA act frequently in cooperation against Turkey. In addition, AAA includes the representatives of the Hunchakists, despite the direct practice of terrorism against Armenian by this party before 1914, and more recently its open support to ASALA. Speaking few after the Orly attack (1983), Larry Cretan, former director of the Ramkavar-dominated Armenian Assembly of America (AAA), said “I am disturbed by those kinds of acts because I feel they’re counterproductive,” — so not because they were criminal — and added he could “understand the motivations behind them.” (“The California Courrier”, August 4, 1983, p. 2). Mr. Cretan failed to mention even the attacks of the ASALA against some Armenians.

In France and UK, the things are more simple: almost all the Armenian associations, Dashnak and non-Dashnak are in the same umbrella. The current co-chairmen of the Coordination Council of France’s Armenian Associations are Jean-Marc “Ara” Toranian, former spokesman of ASALA, and Franck Mourad Papazian, a Dashnak, who wrote many articles in the 1980’s to support the ARF’s terrorist branch (JCAG/ARA).

But to be complete, it is necessary to question the Turkish response. Some of the first books of Turkish historiography answering to the “genocide” charge dealt with the internal Armenian violence but most were never translated into any language. It was not until 2002 that a specific study was devoted to Bedros Kapamaciyan, in English and in Turkish. According to Google maps, there is no Bedros-Kapamaciyan street, avenue or square. Since 1973 (inauguration of the memorial of Van-Zeve), monuments have been erected in eastern Anatolia for the Muslim victims who were murdered by the nationalist Armenian committees. Why not, also, a homage to a non-Muslim Ottoman patriot, assassinated because of his loyalty to his country?

Source: www.turkishweekly.net

.

3289) Non-Muslims In The Late Ottoman Empire And The Kemalist Republic: Some Remarks

Maxime Gauin
24 June 2011

The election of a Syriac deputy, Erol Dora, in the Turkish National Assembly (TBMM), attired the attention far beyond the boundaries of Turkey. Mr. Dora is the first person of this religion to become a Turkish parliamentarian, but by no means the first non-Muslim. One more time, some comments in the Western medias were, at best, approximate. A glance at the situation of non-Muslims in the three most targeted regimes of Turkish contemporary history — namely Abdülhamid II, the Young Turks and the Kemalist years — would permit to . . understand better the current situation.

The purpose of this column is neither to give a comprehensive view of such a huge subject, nor to assert that the situation of the non-Muslims was actually perfect — but to correct some widely diffused prejudices.

Abdülhamid II (1876-1908)

The reforms of the Tanzimat (1839-1856) gave the civic equality to all the subjects of the Ottoman Empire, expanding the presence of the non-Muslims in the high administration and the government. Abdulhamid II continued this movement, and with a certain justice, his reign was called by Stanford Jay Shaw and Ezel Kural Shaw the “culmination of the Tanzimat”. A democratic Constitution was promulgated in 1876, and one of his four redactors was an Armenian, Krikor Odian. Abdulhamid II suspended the Constitution of the Ottoman Empire as early as 1878, but not the Constitutions of the non-Muslim Millets, especially the very liberal Armenian Constitution of 1863.

The Sultan did not refrain to chose Christians in his government. Alexandros Karatheodori Pasha was minister of Foreign Affairs in 1879-1880; his successor was another Greek, Sava Pasha. Vahan Dadian Effendi was under-secretary in the ministry of Justice; Michael Portakalian Pasha was minister of Finances. Several Christians received high positions of diplomats, for instance Hirant Duz Bey, ambassador in Rome from 1900 to 1907; and Kostakis Musurus Pasha, ambassador in London in 1902-1907. The private physicians of Abdulhamid II were Greeks and Armenians (Michael Khorassandjian; Antranik Kritshikian; Spiridonos Mavroyenis; Tikran Pechtilmadjian). The two successive chiefs of the censorship during Abdulhamid’s reign were Armenians: the father then the son. The Sultan chosen also an Armenian, Hakob Effendi, as minister of the Civil List, i.e. the personal domains and incomes of the Sultan. The Greek Yeoryison Zarifis was the personal banker of Abdülhamid.

A typical response of the Armenian propagandists, at least for the Armenian case, is to oppose Istanbul’s bourgeoisie to the Armenians of eastern Anatolia. But the reports of the Russian General Mayewsky show that even in eastern Anatolia, the Armenian enjoyed as a whole of a better economic situation than the Muslims. The Armenians were not less represented in the local administration of eastern Anatolia and Syria than in the central administration of Istanbul (see Mesrob K. Krikorian, “Armenians the Service of Ottoman Empire. 1860-1908”, London-Boston: Routledge, 1977).

The Young Turks (1908-1918)

The improvement of the Jewish community’s situation during Abdülhamid’s years accelerated with the Young Turks, and the Jews were rather well represented in the CUP. Emmanuel Carasso (1862-1934) was among the leaders of the CUP. He crystallized the anti-Semitic attacks from various sides, including some Christian nationalists. Samuel Israel was chief of Istanbul’s police in the 1910’s.

But the Christians were even more represented. Bedros Halacyan assumed the important ministry of Commerce and Public Works in 1910-1912. Oskan Manikian was minister of Post, Telephone & Telegraph in 1913-1914 — and, as a result, indicted, together with Talat and Enver Pashas, by the unfair and unconstitutional military tribunal of 1919, during the occupation of Istanbul. Despite that he was not a member of the CUP, Gabriel Noradunkyan (1852-1936) served as Commerce minister in 1908-1909. The Christian Arab Sülayman Bustani (1856-1925) assumed the same position in 1913-1914. The resignation of Bustani and Manikian in the beginning of WWI was by no means due to any “policy of Turkification”, but to a political disagreement: they supported the neutrality of the Ottoman Empire; the majority of the CUP leaders considered that the neutrality was impossible.

Like Abülhamid II, the Young Turks favored the loyal Armenians far beyond Istanbul. A rich businessman close to the CUP, Bedros Kapamaciyan Effendi was elected, with the support of this party, mayor of Van (eastern Anatolia) in 1909. He was eventually assassinated for his loyalty to the Ottoman State by the terrorists of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) in December 1912.

The Young Turks went so far, before WWI, that the former terrorist Garegin Pasdermadjian, exiled in 1896 for his participation to the attack against the Ottoman Bank in Istanbul, was allowed to be candidate for the legislative elections of 1908. He served as deputy of Erzurum until 1912. Betraying one more time his country, Pasdermadjian came as early as 1914 to Russia to organize the recruitment of Armenian volunteers for the Russian army. He died of a serious nervous breakdowns in 1923, the year of the Lausanne treaty.

The CUP’s effort to create a Turkish bourgeoisie did not change the economic preeminence of the Christians. In 1913-1915, 50 % of the Ottoman capital was the property of Greeks, 20% of Armenians, 5 % to Jews — so 75 % to non-Muslims Ottomans —, 10 % to foreign citizens and 15 % to Turks. The allegation that the forced relocation of Armenians was motivated by a goal of spoliation and changed drastically the sharing of the capital has just no sense. The majority the wealthiest Armenians, especially in Istanbul and Izmir, were spared of displacement, like the almost all the Greek businessmen. Eastern Anatolia was a ravaged land at the end of WWI, because of the widespread destructions perpetrated by the Armenian volunteers of the Russian army. In Erzurum and Van, almost no Muslim house remained in 1918; in Bitlis, none. The seizing of Armenian properties in eastern Anatolia was more frequently a simple question of survival than an accumulation of capital. And more than one usurper were severely punished (including some death penalties) as early as 1915-1916, by order of the CUP government.

Despite the forced relocation of several hundreds of thousands of Armenians, many Armenian civil servants remained at their post. There were even Armenian soldiers and officers in fighting units, on the Arab front and also on the Caucasian front, especially in the Stange detachment — accused without evidence, by some Armenian authors, to have been a key piece in an “extermination campaign” against the Armenian people.

The war of independence and the Kemalist years (1919-1950)

Sometimes, it is recalled — rightfully — that most of the Turkish Jews, like the Muslims, participated to the Turkish national war of liberation, as soldiers in Anatolia, or by giving moral and material support in Istanbul. But it is almost completely forgotten today: there were also Armenians who participated to the Turkish war of independence. The Karabetian Society, created as early as 1919, smuggled arms, ammunitions and money to the Kemalist movement. The group changed its name into Turkish-Armenian Friendship Association in 1920, was declared by Kemal Atatürk the single representative of the Turkish Armenians at the Lausanne Conference.

A bit more known is Berç Keresteciyan, who was deputy director of the Ottoman Bank and vice-president of the Turkish Red Crescent. He saved the life of Kemal Atatürk in 1919, warning that Atatürk’s ship would be attacked. Then, he financed the Turkish war of liberation, both in opening an account for the Kemalist movement in the Ottoman Bank and in giving his proper money. “Türker” (The valorous Turk) was added to his name in 1934, when the reform of family name was carried out in Turkey — a clear demonstration that the Atatürk’s definition of the Turkish identity was not “racial” or religious but civic. Keresteciyan Türker was elected as an independent deputy in the Turkish National Assembly in 1935. He was reelected in 1939 and 1943, an retired from public life in 1947, when he was 77 years old. He deceased in Istanbul in 1949.

It is an obvious fact that the linguistic reform was one of the major step of Atatürk’s policy creating a modern country, with a strong national identity. The first president of the Turkish Language Society was an Armenian, Hagop Martayan (1895-1979), chosen for his first-class qualities of Turkologist. Martayan received the name of Dilaçar (“opener of language”) in 1934.

But the most considerable contribution of non-Muslims to the Turkish revolution is probably the one of German and Austrian refugees, mostly Jews, who fled the Nazism. Hundreds of scholars, engineers and artists gave a priceless participation to the modernization of Turkey (see Arnold Reisman, Turkey's Modernization. Refugees from Nazism and Atatürk's Vision, Washington: New Academia Publishing, 2006). Alfred Kantorowitz, who remained in Turkey from 1933 to 1948 redesigned completely the dentistry in Turkey. The first building of the Faculty of Languages, History and Geography at Ankara University was designed by Bruno Taut. Taut’s corpse was buried in the prestigious Edirnekapy Martyr’s Cemetery (Istanbul).

In addition to this welcoming of prominent Jews, thousands of Jews of Turkish origin were saved in France and Greece; several dozens of thousands, possibly 100,000, could fly to Palestine via Turkey, thanks to the cooperation of the Turkish authorities and Zionist associations (see Stanford J. Shaw, “Turkey and the Holocaust”, New York-London: New York University Press/MacMillan Press, 1993).

As explained in the introduction, this article does not pretend that the situation of the non-Muslims was perfect. The capital levy applied in 1942-1943 would deserve a specific — and dispassionate — study; here, let notice simply, with Bernard Lewis, that “in the event it proved to have done little damage to the position of the non-Muslim class capitalist class as a whole” (“The Emergence of Modern Turkey. Third Edition”, New York-Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 473).

Conclusion

For Abdülhamid II, like for the Young Turks and the Kemalist regime, the loyalty to the State was more important than the loyalty to Islam; and the competence was much more important than the ethnic origin. Three different regimes share the same pragmatic approach in this topic. The three were, and are still, equally defamed by ultra-nationalist Greeks, Armenians and their Western followers as “fanatical Muslims”, “persecutors” if not “racists”. The three have indeed an absolute shortcoming in the eyes of these propagandists: to be Turkish.

Source: www.turkishweekly.net.

3288) Turkish Armenian Relations: The Think-Tank Effect

Updated 24 June 2011

As a result of the recent developments, there is an increasing interest on the Turkish-Armenian relations. Georgian-Russian war of August 2008 brought the unresolved conflicts in the region, while neither Western countries and EU nor the international organizations such as UN could prevent the sides from engaging in a small-scale but drastic war. This passivism and inability of the international community to prevent a war raised concerns on the future of the Caucasus region, which is of critical strategic importance for the West, Russia and the neighboring countries. Turkey’s pioneering role in the post-war settlement proved effective, but since all these actors concerned with the developments in the region did not want any further escalation of conflicts, other major problems also came into the agenda of the international community. Hence, it’s observable that international community began to perceive Turkey’s role in the region and its relations with neighboring countries as bearing critical importance for the future settlement of the regional conflicts and the securitization process. President Abdullah Gül’s visit to Erivan in September 2008 signaled a critical moment for the normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia, while it also drew attention of the international community to the resolution of regional conflicts.

In this paper, we will try to examine various reports that have been written on the critical issue of the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations that were published by international organizations, Think-Tanks and research groups since 2007. This study also tries to answer one main question: how do the international policy-research agencies see the future of Turkish-Armenian relations and its impact on the regional setting? In order to answer that main question, the reports were examined in terms of 5 main subjects:

1. Genocide Claims
2. Territorial Claims and Reparations
3. The Rationale Behind the Opening of Borders
4. Normalization Process and the Preconditions
5. Turkey-Armenia Relations and the Nagorno-Karabakh Dispute . . Feb 2010 . .

Please Read The Full Report Below:







Comments by Sukru Server Aya
24 June 2011

The study merits appreciation for the neatly presentation and the “well wishing” interpretations aimed to bring a common understanding and normalization of the relations which have been strained by the “fait-accompli attacks of the young Armenian Republic” followed by a world spread anti-Turkish propaganda and claims to appear as “innocent victims” instead of the “true culprits”. I will briefly comment only on two or three pivotal aspects, due to space and time limitations:

A- Referenced sources: These are mostly biased establishments, wearing a neutrality mantle to cover the hidden purposes. In particular references to TESEV, German Stiftungs, Abbas Gorgulu etc. are not based on “factual and proven history” but are related to unilateral and usually anti-Turkey interpretations. The coverage is said to study [how do the international policy-research agencies see the future of Turkish-Armenian relations and its impact on the regional setting] and hence it adds a value to the “outside well wishing observations of such bodies which generally do not go even an inch deep in the essence and truth value of the allegations. In other words no “dependable” books or concrete documentation whatsoever has been taken into consideration by the researcher and/or the sources suggesting “magical solutions” by their instant wisdom as think-tanks.

B- Recognition of Genocide Claims: Is there any verdict by an authorized judicial court in this respect? The address of the authorized court is known. Genocide claims “made by hearsays and continuous” brainwashing is no different than interpretations of (not even) Inquisition Courts on physical facts versus interpretations even documented by thousands of biblical books, believed by billions of people. As far as I see it these claims are no different than the promises of paradises and punishments in different hells! Please to see first: Armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2008/10/2610-genocide-lies-need-no-archives.html

C- Territorial Claims and Reparations: These claims (like genocide) are fabricated “just to chisel some money”, knowing that they do not have any legal footing.

*For monetary claims refer to: Armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2008/11/2644-free-consolation-versus-frail.html

*Land Claims: With the Batum Treaty of 4.6.1918 the borders of Armenia were agreed upon and citizens were given right to return and repossess their property as “preferential state” and Armenia became an Ottoman Protectorate. (Armenian delegation had expressed their thanks to Sultan Vahdettin on Sept. 6,1918)! But on 30.11.1918 (one month after the Mudros Treaty) Armenia unilaterally abrogated this treaty and grabbed lands at Kars and Ardahan (under British patronage)! During the War of Independence of Turks against Greeks, Armenians were active butchering the rest of Caucasus, assisted by some Tsarist Russian officers (leftovers from General Wrangel and Denikin armies). Finally, Kazim Karabekir’s Nationalist Army had to strike back and since Armenia was left alone by British and France (plus Russia who turned to be communist) they had to surrender and sign the peace of Gumru/Alexandropol on Dec.2,1920 just a week after President Wilson drew a map of the defunct Sevres Treaty in late Nov.1920! But shortly after signing the Gumru treaty, the Armenian Government was “sovietized” and their foreign affairs were transferred to the new Soviet Russia, who confirmed the agreement with the later Moscow and Kars Treaties which have been the standing borders in the Caucasus. But the new (Dashnak pressured) Republic, did not only revoke these written agreements, but attacked and grabbed Nogorno Karabagh plus some 20% of Azeri territory in 1992, with a terrible massacre of Muslim at Hocali which the World forgets and digs a century old dramatic events! Hence the Armenian territorial claims are nothing but an excuse to create a “demand of money” because they too know that “no country on earth can take an inch of land by force after so many bloodbaths”.

* Following all peace Treaties (Brest Litovsk, Batum, Gumru, Kars, Lausanne) parties were given two years grace periods to return and restore their citizenships and properties. About 400 to 500.000 Armenians from East Anatolia had taken refuge in Russia when they pulled out; and another lot of about 200 to 300.000 Armenians who had returned Turkey after the Mudros Treaty, decided themselves to leave and “punish Turkey” when French Forces pulled out, as late as Jan. 1922. Under the circumstances I do not think that I should comment on points 3, 4 and 5 because the first two points do not have any foundation on TRUTH and DOCUMENTS.

It is sorrowful to see such an extensive study made on “foamy interpretations” of think-tank wizards without any evaluation of the Armenians-1915.blogspot.com/search/label/Free%20E-Books%20And%20Docs

To me this paper is like “a beautiful balcony for the second floor of a house built by imagination” and hence the project could not have been true because there was no solid building on such swamp area.

This study was also published by “Review of Armenian Studies” and I would strongly encourage the writer to start counting the hairs on various bear skins before crediting certain “super minded think tanks” for their wisdom, without any knowledge of actual history. Nice intentions of the writer based on current international opinions of those “who know everything everywhere and every time”!

CONCLUSION: The “think-tanks” do not realize that the objective of the diaspora Armenians is to keep this matter hot so that thousands of well to do Armenians continue their happy life! They have no reason to “truly contribute from their comfort and earnings, for the sake of deprived Armenians in Armenia” or in other countries where they work hard to sustain a honest living. .

3287) I Smell A Fisk!

“Beware, for some liars tell the truth”

- Ancient Arab Proverb

 

After reading a number of articles dedicated to discrediting a renowned investigative journalist and leading international corespondent otherwise known as Robert Fisk, I took it upon myself to familiarise myself with this icon of journalism and the focus of heated controversy and much debate. Mr. Fisk’s credentials are well-nigh second to none, in fact I regularly came across references to him as “probably the best International Correspondent in the world…”, attributed mainly to his colossal experience on the frontline and his satirical skill and firebrand style of writing…In fact so hard pressed was I to find even the faintest hint of criticism that I started to believe that surely Mr. Fisk was an anomaly amongst his peers, an outstanding and truly marvellous example of literary perfection and infallible integrity to be put on the highest of pedestals for the entire journalistic order to behold…

That was before, of course, I googled “Robert Fisk Liar”…

. . .

Now it is vital that I point out before continuing any further (mainly to protect my Heinie from any potential litigation), that this post is not intended to question whether or not our Bob has a tendency to exaggerate, disinform, fabricate, falsify, employ propaganda or lie in his rather sensational and over-excited feature articles. Rather, I’m simply reporting a reoccurring accusation which seems to arise time and time again from individuals and organisations representing various extremes of the political and social spectrum, a rather curios fact given that you would expect at least some people to take his word for granted given his glamourous and lengthy resume. It is also rather distressing to read a number of further accusations made by his own colleagues illustrating in detail his tendency to “jazz-up” his material to dramatic effect, one source in particular recounting an episode where he likened three neglected tanks in Iraq and a few resting soldiers to an impending military confrontation, See: Robert Frisk called a liar by peers . In fact, so consistent is Mr. Fisk in his profound use of sensationalism at the most epic proportions to fulfil his suspicious and rather inconsistent agenda that his peers coined a rather fitting phrase to describe this chronic disposition, See: Fisking.

We would have been forgiven for thinking that the eponymous Mr. Fisk, the only man to interview Osama Bin Laden three times and a resident of the Middle-East for over 30 years, was the best situated candidate to effectively cover the “Arab Spring” movement and it’s proxies given his vast experience and knowledge of the region. We would also have been forgiven for assuming that Mr. Fisk would probably be the least likely of all potential candidates to have any specific bias or mistakenly accept pro-governement or opposition propaganda as fact…sadly, our man of literary talent has proven us wrong on both counts.

Bob Fisk, during his tenor covering various regional conflicts, has managed to get it very wrong on a number of occasions, one good example being his insistence that their was never any mistrust or potential threat of violence between the Sunni and Shia community in Iraq after Saddam and that they would all get along like “friends”, See: Robert Fisk is a bloody liar!. Another favourite example would be his scathing attack on president George Bush for supposedly accepting Turkey’s denial of an Armenian genocide, when in-fact what Mr. Bush was trying to explain was given the turbulence in the Middle East it wasn’t the time to antagonize regional allies, see: Robert Fisk is a liar: President Bush denies holocaust A further instance involved an overly sympathetic article published on his 2001 experience in Afghanistan after being attacked by a mob of locals, many of whom had lost loved ones in U.S. bombing raids and drone attacks and saw Fisk, some would argue quite rightly, as scapegoat, see: UK journalist beaten by Afghan mob .

Finally the most damning and relevant example of Robert Fisk’s attempt at using self-generated propaganda to satisfy his personal agenda would have to be during his coverage of the Iraq war and the subsequent waves of Kurdish refugees escaping the Saddam regime and streaming into the border area between Iran and Turkey. With Iran unwilling to deal with the Kurds and the international community turning a blind-eye, the Turks accepted responsibility for hosting these political refugees and deployed their army to erect various refugee camps to accommodate this huge influx of people and provide security for them on the border region. With pen at the ready and for reasons unbeknownst to those involved, along come Mr. Fisk who proceeded to launch a merciless literary attack on the Turkish army and their treatment of the Kurds, in one instance accusing soldiers of “stealing blankets from the refugees which they sold for a profit”. After much public slander and growing frustration with the Western Allies who ignored the growing humanitarian crisis , Turkey apprehended Mr. Fisk as part an investigation into the validity of his accusations, which, after being proven false, resulted in him being unceremoniously asked to leave Turkey and being labeled by the Turkish Government a “liar” and a “provocateur”.

“That is how Robert Fisk’s animosity towards Turkey and Turks began, and how it finally took a hold of him. He was, of course, quickly recruited by the ASALA (Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia) represented in the U.K. by Lord Eric Reginald Avebury (Yes the same Lord Avebury who also represents the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights in London), to work for them and profit by disseminating their public message and propaganda. Ever since his expulsion from Turkey, Robert Fisk seems to subscribe to the philosophy that it is “better to lie for the Armenians, than not to tell the truth about the Turks,” See: Robert Fisk, A pathological liar?

Lord Avebury with Bahraini Human Rights Extremist Chehabi

A fitting expansion on Mr. Fisk’s philosophy illustrated in a most relevant quote:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

– Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels

In conclusion and in the spirit of truth and reconciliation, I invite Mr. Fisk to openly confess his failure to address the situation in Bahrain with an objective eye and would remind him that his actions have cost our country and the general, peace-loving public dearly in satisfying his rather devious and avaricious agenda…

I still smell a Fisk!

-ends-

 

By Ali F Alzayani

Twitter: @aalzayani

Related posts:

1. Robert Fisk on Bahrain: Integrity for Sale


2. Mr. Fisk, were we truly “invaded” as you say? Let’s see…


3. Seriously Mr. Fisk?

-----------------
Comments for “I Smell A Fisk!” At the "Bahrain Independent"

Lara Kaplan June 20, 2011
Video: Robert Fisk: COMPELLED TO LIE (for Armenians)
Checking the facts on the way British journalist Robert Fisk attempts to validate what is strangely one of his greatest passions, the Armenian genocide claim. Three Fisk videos admiringly prepared by similarly unquestioning Armenians are examined
http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2010/12/3187-robert-fisk-compelled-to-lie-for.html

Ali Alzayani June 20, 2011
Thank you for this video, very interesting and pretty damning! Further evidence that Robert Fisk is definitely not the finest example of objective journalism…

SasperEllla June 20, 2011
And I smell a wonderfully written delightful article. Thank you for the first, truly satisfying take on this disgrace of a journalist . Very well said.

Scout Finch June 20, 2011
A pleasure to read :)

Hotair Baloon June 20, 2011
Ali F Alzayani,
Congratulations, well written.
Regards
HB

TruckTurkey June 20, 2011
Dear Alzayani,
Your article is cool. If u let me ? publish !
http://angelsof1915.blogspot.com/2011/06/bahrain-independent-i-smell-fisk.html

Doug June 21, 2011
Very well written. Mr Fisk is truly ‘a gun for sale’.

Mariam Janahi June 21, 2011
Great article Ali. I too still smell a Fisk but this time through tweets by Nabeel Rajab, the second Fisk. Nabeel is still persisting on telling lies even now that some of the Shiites, I believe, have started seeing the true picture. Nabeel and his allies (Al Shehabi, Al Khawaja, Al Wefaq) are continuing on their path, even though the national dialogue is days away. I saw Nabeel Rajab walk into at Al Wefaq gathering and receiving a standing ovation from the audience. I guess its difficult to lose all of that attention!!! even at the price of tarnishing his own country.

Noora June 21, 2011
one word: wow!

Ahmed Basha June 21, 2011
Well done with this Ali.
I am totally disappointed with journalism and totally disappointed with how we digest matters. There is something definately wrong with people when someone like him is appreciated.

A. Alzayani June 21, 2011
Thank you all for your kind comments.

Sarah Bn Ashoor June 21, 2011
Well Done Ali!

Sam June 23, 2011
Whether Mr Fisk got it right all the time is not the question. The oppressive regimes in the Middle East have always been liars. People like Fisk are thus never popular there. After all, if you have it in you to kill civilians of your own people, to lie is nothing in comparison.


A. Alzayani June 24, 2011
The Middle East is about as diverse as Europe…where were you when the French were flying cargo planes full of French-Roma to Romania in a bid to ethnically cleanse France and the killings of hundreds of French youth during the riots in the suburbs…what about the concentration camps setup in the U.K., Italy and Spain to isolate immigrants who managed to get across the border and the bloody battle of Genoa where police massacred hundreds of students and tortured detainees mercilessly… See: http://loranablog.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/italian-police-license-to-torture-gently-offered-by-berlusconis-government/

We had almost exactly the same number of civilians killed in Bahrain as Greece (Bear in mind that the riotting civilians in Bahrain were much more violent than the Greeks with more policemen dying in Bahrain than riotters), but yet no international outcry.

I think the main problem in the world is that the majority of people who have never been to this region have an innate prejudice and dislike for the Arab world due to rising Islamaphobia and just assume that we are all a bunch of Quran wielding extremists being ruled by evil despots…Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU)’s 2009 Quality of Life Index ranked Dubai as the 15th best city in the world to live in…most European cities where much further down the list…they take into consideration a number of factors including political freedoms.

The law makes no excuse for ignorance so why should you…
---------------
Source: www.bahrainindependent.com/2011/06/19/i-smell-a-fisk/
-------------------
Related Posts At This Site:

1. Robert Fisk, A Pathological Liar? - Is The Incorrigible Armenian Bootlicker At It Again?
2. Video: Robert Fisk: COMPELLED TO LIE (for Armenians)
3. Armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2007/04/1593-ataturks-1926-interview-proven-as.html
4. Armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2005/07/336-andonian-documents-attributed-to.html
5. Armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2005/07/5-aram-andonian-and-talat-pasha.html
6. Armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2007/09/1950-robert-fisk-and-armenian-question.html

.

3286) The Times Newspaper Articles 1896-1897 Concerning-The-Armenian-Question

The articles concerning Armenian Question in The Times between the years 1896 and 1897 published. England had an important role in Armenian Question had been a big problem for both the Republic of Turkey and Ottoman Empire.

The articles published The Times give us important details about this subject. Because of this reason, these articles are considered well worth researching.

The subject of this research is the published news in the Times between 1896 and 1897 about Armenian Question. This news included the actions of the British Government and public.

The news included the actions of British Government and people at the beginning of this question and also their attitudes towards the intervention of the other European countries to this question. The articles mentioned in this theses show us the general view of the British Government, priests, politicians and Armenians in England.

The articles used this research were written in old English. That is they consist of long complex sentences and old fashioned lexicon. While these sentences were being translated, the long and complex ones were turned into simple and more comprehensible sentences. There was no change in the place name historical idioms.

During research, it was found that the demonstration in England and the money collected as endowment for Armenians were one of the most crucial factors in the expansion of the Armenian Question. We can understand that British Government used this question as a tool for the unity and togetherness of British people an also in the international area, she tried to indicate that Britain was the protector of Christianity and British people are acting for the benefits of humanity. It’s clear that all the articles published in the Times were in favor of Britain and without objectiveness. Britain started to use this question in order to get some area in Anatolia. She took the side of Armenians against Ottoman Empire and blamed Ottoman Government and Sultan Abdulhamid for all every time. There wasn’t any news about the mistreatment of the Muslims in the Times. England made every effort to turn Armenian Question into a general problem of Europe and actually she managed to do this.

The news published in the Times during the question, became the most important documents of England’s Armenian politics. . .

Read The Full Document Below: . . .



Click here To View The Document In A Separate Window: The Times Newspaper Articles 1896-1897 Concerning-The-Armenian-Question








.

3285) Playing Of The Religion Card By ANCA and US Politicians

WASHINGTON—A bi-partisan group of U.S. legislators are set to introduce two resolutions in support of a truthful and just resolution of the Armenian Genocide, including a new measure specifically pressing Turkey to fully respect the rights of Christians to practice their faith in freedom through the rightful return of confiscated churches to Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians, Pontians, Syriacs, and other Christians communities, reported ANCA.

. . displeased to see the Gospel Joker Card played a new by Armenian diaspora recklessly, not realizing the explosiveness and damage it had; it has and will have in the understanding of humankind . .

. . Diaspora’s lies and distortions to misguide the U.S. general public and earn applause of their own community is often so much out of realities and logic that it takes all readers for dupes or ignorant . .

See The Full Article & Counter Comments Below: . .




.

3284) (TCA) Turkish Coalition of America Calls On House To Reject H.Res.304 “Armenian Genocide Resolution.”

The Turkish Coalition of America (TCA) expresses its concern about H.Res.304, the so-called “Armenian Genocide Resolution.”

G. Lincoln McCurdy, TCA’s president, issued the following statement:

The Turkish Coalition of America and the entire Turkish American community observe with concern the introduction of yet another Armenian resolution and urge Members of Congress to distance themselves from this resolution. H.Res.304 is based on a selective, one-sided, and religiously bigoted historical narrative that utterly ignores the tragic suffering, death and exile of millions of Ottoman Muslims who are the ancestors of contemporary Turks and Turkish Americans. New scholarship emerges every year, published by leading American historians and experts, which challenges the propagandist narrative that H.Res.304 embodies, and which is being ignored by the authors of this regurgitated resolution . . .

If Members of Congress think they are voting on a non-binding resolution with no effect on U.S. relations with modern-day Turkey today, they should think again. Since 2010, the Armenian American lobby has carried this highly contested historical debate to U.S. courts in the form of class-action lawsuits against banks and insurance companies.  They are now openly seeking reparations from Turkey, including the handover of Incirlik Air Force Base, one of NATO’s primary nodes in the region.

We hope that Members of Congress realize that if they seek to legislate history by convicting a NATO ally — without trial — of the high crime of genocide, they will unleash an avalanche of unintended legal consequences that will hurt U.S. national interests.

Turkey has been a key ally to the U.S. for decades. Today, for example, Turkey is a strong supporter of global efforts to provide an intelligent, stabilizing response to the volatile transitions occurring in the aftermath of the Arab Spring. We trust that Congressional leadership and Members of Congress will reject H.Res.304 and dissuade further action from the resolution's advocates, who continually push for passage in complete denial of the resolution's many factual and moral fallacies and its extremely negative impact on our national interests.

Read here for a summary and a detailed review of gross historical misrepresentations in H.Res.304.

To read analysis and views by respected historians and experts who challenge the one-sided, anti-Turkish narrative on Ottoman-Armenian history represented in H.Res.252, please visit here. Also see the Annotated Map on Forced Migration and Mortality in the Ottoman Empire .

3283) U.S. Holocaust Museum And Politicized Ghosts

. . . The subject relates to the famous quote, said to be Hitler’s, but which definitely is not, and how this, “an unproven Armenian genocide claim” found place in a Museum intended for “legally proven Jewish Holocaust” This intruder raised so much controversies, that it definitely jeopardized the reliability of the museum . . .

Please Read The Full Article Below . .



.

3282) Scholarly Ethic vs. Politicized History

by Maxime GAUIN
13 June 2011

The future of the Turkish-Armenian relations, with its various aspects depends largely of the confrontation of ethical and scholarly approaches of the past, present and future, against the political misuse of history for political and ideological ends.

Speaking on “human rights”

One of the favorite slogans of “Armenian genocide” claimants is that the “recognition” is an issue of “human rights”. It is a mistake to separate the bloody terrorism of ASALA and JCAG/ARA to the mainstream of the “Armenian genocide” allegations. Indeed, the JCAG/ARA were nothing but the terrorist branch of Armenian Revolutionary Federation, Armenian Diaspora’s main and most effective political party. This fact is established even by the single research carried out in ARF’s archives about the 1959-1998 years, Gaïdz Minassian’s Ph.D. thesis. Vicken Hovsepian, currently member of ARF’s World Bureau and supreme representative of this party in USA, was sentenced in 1984 for an attempt of bombing which, according to FBI’s estimations, could have killed between 2,000 and 3,000 persons. Mourad Topalian, president of the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA, political branch of ARF in USA) was sentenced in 2001 to 37 months of jail for illegal storing of war weapons and explosives, linked to terrorist activities. In France, Jean-Marc Toranian, co-chairman of the Coordination Council of France’s Armenian Associations, was spokesman of ASALA from 1976 to 1983, and covered in the invectives the French criminal tribunal which sentenced, in 1985, three ASALA terrorists for the Orly bombing of July 15, 1983 . . .

Several of the most prominent supporters of “Armenian genocide” allegation were witnesses for defense of several Armenian terrorists during the trials of 1981-1984 period, including Richard G. Hovannisian and Gerard Libaridian in USA, and Jean-Marie Carzou (Zouloumian), Gérard Chaliand and Yves Ternon in France.

Many Armenian sources document the close collaboration between the ARF and Nazis; and also the similarly close cooperation of the two other diasporic Armenian parties (Hunchak and Ramkavar) with Stalin’s USSR. The newspaper of Ramkavar in France was even banned by the French government during the Cold War, because of his inflammatory support to USSR.

In addition, the hard-liners of Armenian Diaspora supported fully the invasion of Western Azerbaijan (1991-1994), and the ethnic cleansing against Turkic Azeris. The massacre of Khodjaly is just the best known and the most barbarian act of this campaign. Armenian nationalists deny crudely the war crimes of the Armenian army in 1991-1994, but call “deniers” or “denialists” those who, without questioning the sufferings of displaced Armenian Ottomans, reject the “genocide” label.

Production and use of forgeries

It is still frequent in Armenian nationalist historiography to refer to notorious forgeries, like the “Ten Commandments,” or even Andonian’s “documents” and Mevlanzade Rifat’s book.

Other falsifications are more recent and, in a sense, more dangerous, because they are less known as falsifications. For instance, Taner Akçam argues that the telegram dispatched by Talat Pasha to Ankara’s province on August 29, 1915, is a remarkable evidence that “the policies adopted against the Armenians were aiming at their annihilation”. Mr. Akçam quotes only the two first sentences of this text: “The Armenian issue pertaining to the Eastern Provinces has been resolved. Therefore, there is no need to harm the reputation of our nation and government by conducting unnecessary cruelties.” (Ermeni Meselesi Hallolunmuştur: Osmanlı Belgelerine Göre Savaş Yıllarında Ermenilere Yönelik Politikalar, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2008, p. 182.) The beginning is extracted from the context and it distorts the meanings of the full text. Reading the rest of the document is enlightening:

“Particularly the recent attack conducted on the Armenians at a place close to Ankara has caused great regret of the Ministry, considering its way of occurring, the obvious incompetence of the officials charged with supervising the transfer of Armenians, and audacity on part of the gendarmes and the local people who acted on their bestial instincts to rape and rob the Armenians. The transfer of Armenians, which is desired to be carried out in an orderly and prudent manner, should henceforth never be left to the individuals having fanatical feelings of enmity, and that the Armenians, whether or not they are subject to relocation, will be definitely protected against any assault and attack. At the places where such a protection could not be provided, the transfer of Armenians should be postponed. From now on, all of the officials in charge shall be held responsible with respect to their ranks for any attack, which may occur and shall be brought before the military courts. It is necessary to give very strict orders to the relevant personnel in this regard.” (Hikmet Özdemir and Yusuf Sarınay, “Turkish-Armenian Conflict Documents”, Ankara: TBMM, 2007, p. 235.)

No one supporter of “Armenian genocide” charges attempted to explain why the CUP government, and more especially Talat Pasha, punished severely many perpetrators of atrocities against Armenian deportees in 1915-1916, both among Ottoman bureaucracy and civilians. In Spring of 1916 only, 1673 persons were judged; and 67 of them were sentenced to death and hanged.

A difficult and needed separation

There are Armenian and pro-Armenian scholars, like Hilmar Kaiser and Garabet Moumjian, who support the “genocide” charge without supporting terrorism and using forgeries; and they accept debate; however unfortunately, few other scholars are like them.

Donald Bloxham presented a narrative of “genocide” allegation less strident and more interesting than the mainstream, but did not notice that he used a crude forgery in publishing in his book: a fake photograph — maybe inadvertently — supposed to represent an Ottoman civil servant. Mr. Bloxham made deserved and rational critics against some Vahakn Dadrian’s false allegations, but when he comes to the central point of his topic (genocide or not), Mr. Bloxham does not refrain to refer to the less than convincing arguments of Mr. Dadrian (for instance: “The Great Game of Genocide”, Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 253, n. 74, and p. 255, n. 207, 209, 210).

It is hoped that the accumulation of revelations about forgeries used to support “Armenian genocide” allegations will incite some to be more prudent and more cautious, and to control their questionable presuppositions.

Anyway, the needed reconciliation between Turks and Armenians makes it necessary the isolation of fanatics pursuing a political, anti-Turkish agenda. Such organizations and individuals are actual enemies of both Turkish and Armenian Republics, as well as enemies of free and objective scholar research and of free speech. They opposed violently the Turkish-Armenian Vienna’s platform as well as the Turkish-Armenian Protocols signed in 2009, because they fear historical truth and enduring peace. As propaganda which is disguised in historical studies jeopardizes the knowledge of the past, the strident political activism jeopardizes the positive actions which Armenian and Turkish people could may carry out together in the following years.

Emotional and distorted interpretations of the past are the worst enemies of the peace for future.


------------------------
www.turkishweekly.net/columnist/3465/scholarly-ethic-vs-politicized-history.html
------------------------

.

3281) Coverage Of Armenian-Turkish Relations & Turkey In Armenian Media In 2006-09

PREFACE

The research project “Coverage of Armenian-Turkish Relations and Turkey in Armenian Media in 2006-2009” has been realized by Journalists' Team for Sustainable Future NGO with the support of Eurasia Partnership Foundation.

It has been realized in July-October of 2009 with application of two research methods – Content Analysis and Opinion Research –represented in separate parts of this report.

Each part enables to more detailed manner learn about the objectives and tasks of the used methods and the preface reflects a brief information on the process of the realized . . research.

Worth mentioning, within the scope of Content Analysis overall 1,570 articles from three print and two internet medium directly or indirectly related to the Armenian-Turkish relations or Turkey have been studied and assessed within seven-month period of 2006-2009.

The Content Analysis aimed at revealing the coverage specificity on Armenian-Turkish relations in the Armenian Media during the mentioned four years.

Only articles published in April and September of 2006-2008 and April 2009 have been coded. The choice of the months was conditioned by the activation in the overall reference to Armenian-Turkish relations in April, and the general passivity in September, with an exception of September 2008, connected with Turkish president’s visit to Yerevan by the invitation of Armenian president Serzh Sargsyan.

As far as the monitoring was conducted in July-September of 2009, thus it was impossible to study also articles of September 2009 within the frameworks of this project. Though following Media publications it could be certified that this month was more than active as compared with any of the April months.

Such kind of media activity was conditioned by hot public reaction over the press release issued by the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland, the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of Armenia and Turkey on August 31, 2009, saying that Armenia and Turkey have agreed to start internal political consultations over the two well-known protocols pre-signed during the negotiations mediated by Switzerland.

The Opinion Research has been conducted by means of three focus group discussions. The focus group participants were specialists from Yerevan and Gyumri who have an interest in the issue and have their role in formation of public opinion. The participants were mainly Media sector representatives, political figures, parliamentarians, state officials, as well as historians.

July as an intermediate and a comparatively passive month regarding the discussions on Armenian-Turkish relations was selected for organization of focus group discussions.

The Opinion Research aimed to reveal the participants' opinion on the quality and bias of the coverage on Armenian-Turkish relations in Armenian Media; to define the preposition; possible tendencies in the case of improvement of bilateral relations; necessary steps to improve coverage of bilateral relations.

The research results could be useful for all the stakeholders who are interested in making their investment in the process of improvement of Armenian-Turkish bilateral relations.

Suren Deheryan President of Journalists' Team for Sustainable Future NGO



.

3280) Spillovers From Arab Revolts Is Armenia Next In Line Hrant Kostanyan 2011

The recent cycle of revolutions in Arab countries has caught policy-makers and experts off guard. The decades-long kleptocracy, systemic corruption, economic stagnation and censorship are merely some of named causes accounting for the shake-up of the old order in Europe’s Southern Neighbourhood. The choices that citizens were deprived of making through the ballot box have been accomplished by taking to the streets. Policy-makers and analysts are contemplating the possible scenarios for the countries that have finally brought down their dictators. EU leaders are debating support they can provide to help in the establishment of ‘good governance.’ Meanwhile questions are being asked about the possible implications of the successful revolutions beyond the Arab world and especially for the EU’s Eastern neighbours. In his recent speech, the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, stated: “Although recent developments concentrated our political attention to the South, we certainly cannot afford to forget about the Union’s Eastern neighbourhood.” ..



.

3279) Turkey–Armenia Manual Information & Contacts To Persons & Institutions Working On Turkey-Armenia Relations 2010

About this Manual

Even if there are no diplomatic relations and the land border remains closed, there are numerous persons and institutions in Armenia and in Turkey working on bilateral relations and related issues. Who are these persons and institutions, what are their projects and publications and in what areas are they actively working?

This manual is meant to provide answers to these questions through a user-friendly overview introducing key people and key institutions. The manual starts with a short outline of the recent events in Turkey-Armenia relations from 2008 until summer 2010. It is then divided into . . . two parts, one on Armenia and one on Turkey. These two parts are not completely symmetrical, but in both country sections you will find information on persons and institutions regularly dealing with Turkey –Armenia relations and joint initiatives. These include:


media, press and TV with the presentation of important journalists
politicians
diplomats
NGOs and foundations
think tanks and key actors
universities and leading academics
business people and associations

We hope that with this manual all interested in Turkey-Armenia relations will be able to follow joint projects, inform themselves about what is going on and get the contacts to the key players involved in these initiatives. That is why there are a lot of links where you can study in more detail ongoing and completed projects or read articles on Turkey-Armenia relations.

This manual is the joint work of ESI analsysts in Turkey and Armenia with the support of Eurasia Partnership Foundation

Istanbul – Yerevan, August 2010




.

3278) Armenian-Turkish Citizens’ Mutual Perceptions & Dialogue Project, Yerevan-Istanbul, 2004

The debates surrounding historical relations between Armenians and Turks or the “Armenian question,” have become an important issue in various European countries and the USA in recent years. This increasing international attention to the question of Armenian-Turkish relations has made it clear that the sound discussion of this issue in Turkey and Armenia is both necessary and obligatory.



In Turkey, the “Armenian question” has generated two interrelated sets of issues. The first aspect is the demand for greater transparency by some segments of Turkish society. Among intellectuals, this demand has spurred initiatives for a re-evaluation of Turkey’s accepted history, as well as a drive to foster dialogue between Turkish and Armenian communities. The second issue, seen in both countries, is that the increasing prominence of the Armenian question has also triggered reactionary tendencies feeding into the reaffirmation of national identity and the formation of an inward-looking national polity.

---

Source: Armenian Genocide Ballyhoo

---

The “Armenian question” in Turkey and in Armenia is of course rooted in the particular historical and social dynamics of each country. However this issue has not developed over the last many decades completely independent of relationship between Turkey and Armenia and the phases of national identity formation that Armenia and Turkey have undergone throughout their history. In other words, the “Turkish” and “Armenian” questions that exist in both countries are mutually constituted and fed from each side. Due to the lack of dialogue and resulting prejudices, the two countries have failed to develop a mutually beneficial relationship of cooperation, including normal travel and trade relations.

The end if the bi-polar world order, symbolized by the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, led to massive restructuring in Eastern Europe and the republics of the former Soviet Union. The ensuing period of reconstruction and reformation had created effects that reverberated well beyond the former communist countries. Placing the Turkish-Armenian question within the larger context of geopolitical and economic transition reveals the complexity and multi-dimensionality of the issues at stake.

Armenia’s economic transition and the Karabagh conflict between Armenians and neighboring Azeris intersect with Turkey’s domestic and international problems and policies. As Turkish society continues to struggle with issues of national identity and social memory, the question of geo-strategic balance in the region contributes to the myriad obstacles to the development of friendship, trust and trade between Turkey and Armenia.

Despite the numerous interests and conflicts that divide these two countries, dialogue remains the most important first step towards a solution to these problems. Although each country is very much concerned with the other, the level of knowledge and information that passes between Turkey and Armenia is minimal. And the information that does cross the physical and political borders is often distorted by mutual prejudices. Such prejudices are further reproduced and exacerbated through indirect channels outside the societies of the two countries; that is to say, third party groups that are outside of the local realities effectively perpetuate the misunderstandings between these societies.

If a comfortable relationship between these two countries is to be established, the first step will be to combat the perpetuation of prejudices through promotion of greater transparency. To achieve these aims, both parties must work to better understand the other. It is important that both sides communicate with each other directly, without the intervention of outside groups/

As these international ties become established, the phases of “acceptance” and “recognition” will become more possible at the societal level. Dialogue between Turkish and Armenian communities within Turkey has the potential to reverberate in positive ways at the international level. The establishment of dialogue at multiple levels is an important step in combating the mushrooming of mutual prejudices.

In line with the goal of increased understanding explained above, and as an initiative coming from Turkish and Armenian researchers, we carried out this exploratory project focusing specifically on mutual perceptions in Turkey and Armenia.

We know that the findings of our research are far from giving a complete image of these perceptions. We know also that, in order to understand deeply the historical reasons of the conflict and move toward reconciliation we must take first steps together towards our goal. The results of this study do not point to any answers; the information we gathered may not be pleasing to all readers or easy to incorporate into political discussions of the issue. But in doing this research we have remained true to the principles of science and trust that the results will more fully inform the ongoing dialogue between the people of Turkey and Armenia. Despite the challenges of this project, the joint effort made by the Turkish and Armenian teams testifies to the fact that cooperation between the nations is possible...




.

3277) ‘Hai Tahd’: New Priorities for A New Agenda By Michael Mensoian And Counter Comments by Sukru Aya

Genocide Recognition: Continuing a Flawed Political Strategy
By Michael Mensoian

Michael Mensoian, J.D./Ph.D, is professor emeritus in Middle East and political geography at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and a retired major in the U.S. army. He writes regularly for the Armenian Weekly.

Part I
I want to believe that every Armenian hopes for the day when the Turkish leadership acknowledges that the uprooting and murder of some 1.5 million Armenians was a genocide. (1)

Good men and women, highly motivated and dedicated to Hai Tahd (Armenian Cause) and the best interests of the Armenian nation are working to achieve this objective. However, on Dec. 22 the latest fiasco in this annual drama occurred when the House democrat leadership in which our good men and women had placed their trust decided to fool the Armenian American community once again. (2) Specifically, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrat Leadership simply decided, without warning, to pull the rug out from under the feet of the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) ostensibly because a favorable vote for passage of H.Res.252 (Armenian Genocide Resolution) was not likely. Behind the door machinations by the Turkish lobby aided by President Obama’s refusal to act on his stated beliefs on the genocide are the usual suspects. Maybe this is the moment when the ARF/ANCA finally realizes that while this annual pilgrimage to Capitol Hill may capture the emotional support of the Armenian community, it represents an inefficient and ineffective use of resources. . .

It was interesting to compare the response by the ANCA with the obsequiousness of the Armenian Assembly. Rightfully so, the ANCA conveyed the anger and disappointment of the Armenian American community, whereas the Armenian Assembly issued an immediate press release praising Pelosi and her leadership team for providing invaluable assistance and guidance during the process. The ANCA had every reason to believe that the vote would have been taken under the most favorable circumstances possible. An unconfirmed report attributed to the Assembly accepted Pelosi’s judgment that the vote would not favor passage. (3)

If genocide recognition encompassed all that was represented by Hai Tahd, there would be no cause for concern. Or if genocide recognition could solve the problems facing the Armenian nation, there still would be no cause for concern. Unfortunately neither is so. The Turkish leaders in Ankara once again must be savoring their victory and it must cause thinking Armenians in the homeland (Armenia, Artsakh, and Javakhk) and the diaspora to question how priorities are being established and resources are being allocated. (4) Difficult as it may be to accept, while passage of a genocide recognition resolution is important, it is not so important as to neglect other issues that have immediacy and are of greater importance to the future viability of the Armenian nation (see “Genocide Recognition: A Misguided Political Strategy,” the Armenian Weekly, Oct. 17, 2009).

For a moment consider what effect passage of the non-binding H.Res.252 could possibly have. Would it cause the Turkish leadership to recant and finally confess to the world and its own citizens, after a 90-year policy of denial, that a genocide did occur? (5) Would the average Turkish citizen willingly accept the moral, economic, and political burden for the crimes some ancestors several generations removed may have committed? Would Turkey relent and open its border with Armenia? Would it result in Artsakh being recognized as an independent political entity? Would Georgia cease its discriminatory policies against the Armenians of Javakhk? Other questions could be asked, but the answers would all be a resounding no. (6)

Furthermore, passage of a resolution would not cause Turkey to implode for the benefit of Armenians and Hai Tahd. Genocide recognition by some two dozen foreign governments has not lessened Turkey’s stature in the world. Presently it holds one of the rotating seats on the UN Security Council. Having said that, should a resolution recognizing the Armenian Genocide pass, it would only serve to harden the resistance of the Turkish leadership and the average Turkish citizen. (7) And why not, when President Obama fails to honor his campaign rhetoric recognizing the Armenian Genocide? The president’s need to cajole Ankara by equating its interests and values with those of the United States or elevating Turkey’s contribution as more important than ever should be more than sufficient reason for the ARF/ANCA to reassess its strategy. In addition, many Armenians delude themselves by misreading what Turkish academics and others mean when they say that the Turkish people must face their past. Facing their past is a purely psycho-moral exercise that is unrelated to the political and economic ramifications that genocide recognition has for the Armenian people. (8)

Granted, a resolution recognizing the genocide would be an appropriate and significant moral and psychological victory for Armenians. It would go a long way in assuaging the emotional scars that Armenians have borne these many years, not only for the loss of ancestors they never had the opportunity to know, but for the generations forever lost to the Armenian nation. (9) However, now is the time to realize that following the same flawed strategy year after year will invariably yield the same result.

Valuable resources in political capital, money, individual commitment, and moral support from the Armenian community are being diverted from significantly more important objectives facing the Armenian nation. We need to look no further than Artsakh where some 7,000 of our people sacrificed their lives to liberate these historic Armenian lands. (10) They are no less our martyrs than those whose lives were taken during the genocide.

Myopia is a dangerous political affliction. It has allowed genocide recognition to be raised to the level of a cause celebre, an apparent moral obligation that is given precedence over every other issue. While genocide recognition may meet the legitimate expectations of the diasporan Armenians, the need to respond to issues whose solution will contribute to the viability and security interests of the Armenian nation are wanting. There is a failure to see the forest because of the trees. Theoretically, a genocide recognition strategy might be effective if a critical mass of countries (somewhere in the vicinity of 90 or 100 countries) not only supported the Armenian position, but also agreed to apply economic sanctions to pressure the Turkish leadership to finally accept responsibility. In the world of realpolitik this is an unrealistic expectation. (11)

http://www.armenianweekly.com June 2,2011
-------------------------------

Counter notes – Comments by Sukru Server Aya :

1- I will believe the fantasies of the writer when he or some one can explain to me after reading: Armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2008/10/2610-genocide-lies-need-no-archives.html - how is it possible to murder 1.5 millions out of 1.3 millions and still have a balance of 1.414.000 living Armenians on 31.12.1921. If you can answer this question, you must also convince that Turks killed 10.000 Armenians per day for 150 days to total to 1.5 millions, and that those bodies were buried in 150 stadium size graveyards dug by hand, but not even one mass grave has been ever found!

2- Who is fooling whom? Cannot be that the diaspora pipe blowers are fooling the US Congress who are not even aware of their past resolutions in 1919, 1920 and 1922?

3- The writer as an advocate of ANCA is carried away beyond logic, with his propagandist fantasies!

4- I do not think that the Turkish leaders in Ankara, ever understood “what is going on and what is the gain of this game”, nor the reasons, such as why, when, how, what the truth and practical solutions are!

5- “Genocide” is an unproven serious crime, but has no legal or logical dependency by any measures (other than slanders and propaganda) and hence it cannot be used as a “verdict or conviction” unless it is produced by authorized legal court.

6- Does Armenia respect the borders drawn by four treaties or think to revoke the excessive claims in her constitution? How can you come with so many endless claims against your neighbors and expose your continuous hostilities at the same time expecting your neighbors to give in to all these claims, just because you “use the leverage of super powers”?

7- Yes!

8- As a honest man with many friends of Armenians ethnicity in the past and present I am facing my past with three books and over 300 articles all posted in this blog site. I am still waiting for some one who can “show that my verbatim excerpts are untrue” and that my evidences are untrue, but his words or palavers are true!

9- Victimization scenes by ballast literature!

10- Sure, when “you grab lands, massacre thousands and exile nearly one million Azeries from their homes with the support of Russians, your murders are “heroes and martyrs” and the innocent victims are presented by you as “criminals” who have stolen your “biblical rights”!

11- Oh My GOD, finally ONE WORD of LOGIC amidst so much trash thinking that readers are retarded ignorants!


----------------------------------

Hai Tahd’: New Priorities for a New Agenda By: Michael Mensoian

Part II
Part I discussed the seven injustices that are represented by Hai Tahd. Part II will suggest new priorities for a new agenda for the ARF and the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) in the United States. The bedrock of Hai Tahd is the genocide. No one can dispute that statement.(1) However, the level of priority and resources that are dedicated to it can and should be disputed. The latest disappointment in failing to obtain Congressional approval of a genocide recognition resolution, as well as President Obama’s obstinate refusal to use the word genocide in his April 24th message, would suggest that something is amiss. (2)

The something amiss is having elevated genocide recognition as the sine qua non of Hai Tahd. No one questions that passage of a favorable resolution by the United States Congress or any national legislature is an important moral victory. However, there is a significant distinction between legislatures simply recognizing the Ottoman-Turkish government’s systematic murder of the Armenian people as genocide (3), and recognizing the Ottoman-Turkish government’s systematic murder of the Armenian people as genocide and Turkey’s legal and moral obligation for reparation and restitution. (4).

More immediate and pressing issues exist that must be confronted. This does not refer to increasing economic, military, or humanitarian aid to Armenia or to Karabagh by a few million dollars annually.(5) This amount, given the billions of dollars in foreign aid routinely budgeted by Congress, is the result of intense lobbying by the ANCA supported by the Congressional Armenian Caucus duly reported in press releases each year. Are we being overly critical if we question our effectiveness? (6)

Mission one of a new agenda
The ARF in the United States and the ANCA occupy a unique position within the organizational and geographic framework of Armenians worldwide. The one million-plus Armenians in the United States represent the second largest concentration of Armenians in the diaspora after Russia.(7) In terms of per capita income, education, and professional achievement, they represent an important segment of the Armenian demographic universe. Unfortunately a high percentage of these Armenians are either ambivalent with respect to Armenian issues or completely detached from the Armenian community. (8)

An important mission that the ARF and the ANCA can undertake is to develop programs that seek to energize targeted segments of this population. This requires something more than press releases, emails, mailings, and events that appeal primarily to the very small percentage of the population continually relied upon for support. That there is a need for intensive outreach programs is obvious. (9)

Observation one: Our fund raising results are less than stellar. Is it beyond belief that we should be able to raise at least $5 million annually? People give when they accept the urgency of the cause. They give when they can accept how the solicited funds will be used. And they give based on the results achieved or effectiveness. (10)

Observation two: We attract very few “new” Armenians from this one million-plus universe to our various events whether at the local, regional, or national levels. More telling has been our limited success in connecting with that segment of the population from their late 20's to mid-40's who identify themselves as “young professionals!” A recent panel discussion co-sponsored by the AGBU Young Professionals and the ARF “Sardarabad” Gomideh in Watertown, Mass., was an excellent beginning bringing these two groups together for the first time. Few of these young adults knew what the ARF was about. (11). Do we consider it important to inform and educate our people as to our philosophy, our purpose, and our methods in confronting the issues facing the Armenian nation both internationally and domestically? Is it remotely possible that most Armenian Americans are not cognizant of these problems? (12))

Observation three: Have we noted the lack of interest by our youth in becoming involved? Or the number of AYF Juniors, AYF Seniors, and Homenetmen members who opt at some later time in life to join the ARF Gomidehs or the Armenian Relief Society (ARS) chapters? Is it possible that we lack a compelling message? Or that we do not have a relevant one? Today is a far different world for our young people than, say, 20 years ago. Have we as an organization accommodated these changes? The strength of the ARF comes from the support derived from our people, and that support is directly related to their understanding and acceptance of the ARF. (13)

A question of revolutionary fervor
Could it be that we have lost the revolutionary fervor that was the hallmark of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation? (14) Historically we were a party of action and a party of ideas and ideals. It was never a question of whether we could or could not. We believed that we could right the wrongs that the nation had suffered. We believed that we could protect the interests of the nation. We believed that we could create a system of justice and equality for the Armenian worker and his family. It was the faith we had in ourselves individually and collectively that fueled the passion to serve and to protect the interests of our people. The ARF had a vision to fulfill, a vision that literally saved the survivors of the genocide from oblivion in the diaspora. I do not believe that same vision or passion currently exists. (15)

Mission two of a new agenda Our people must understand exactly what Hai Tahd represents and the role the ARF has in protecting those interests. The ARF in the United States has an opportunity to influence the policies and objectives ultimately adopted at the highest level of leadership. We must strive to transform the ARF in the United States into a dynamic, cohesive political organization capable of influencing the leadership because of our successes in outreach programs, fundraising, and in expanding our base of support. Continually having our admirable efforts at genocide recognition rejected does not inspire confidence in our operation. Not only are Artsakh and Javakhk of greater concern, but their favorable resolution will have an immediate and positive impact on the Armenian nation, Hai Tahd, and the ARF. (16)

Mission three of a new agenda

To define the Karabagh issue. What is the geographic relationship of Karabagh to Artsakh, or why are the Madrid Principles that are proposed as the basis for a negotiated settlement biased against Karabagh’s interests? Have we done all we can to acquaint our population in the United States with the history of this region and the inequities our people suffered during the 70 years under the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan? (17)

We have allowed Turkey and Azerbaijan to frame the issue as Armenian irredentism. Artsakh gainingde jure independence (at the very least, not losing its present de facto independent status) is one of several immediate issues facing the Armenian nation and the ARF. Dashnaks were members of the Karabagh government that declared independence and the ARF was an active participant in Karabagh’s war for independence. The reversion of Artsakh to Azeri control would be a serious defeat for Armenia and the ARF. If Artsakh is beyond saving, what of the remaining injustices represented byHai Tahd? The various interests that represent American society—business leaders, educators, journalists, advocacy groups, and the Congressional Armenian Caucus, to name but a few—must be made aware of all aspects of the Karabagh issue if success is to be ours. (18)

Mission four of a new agenda
To monitor and publicize the deplorable situation of the Javakhk Armenians and to seek assistance not only to alleviate their condition, but to support their legitimate demands as citizens of Georgia. Again, the plight of the Javakhkahayer (Javakhk Armenians) is not well known within the Armenian community. Conflicting reports define the situation in terms that benefit Georgia. An International Crisis Group briefing dated May 23, 2011 states: “Although Tbilisi has significantly invested in infrastructure and acquiesced to the use of the Armenian language in schools and public administration Javakheti still faces serious problems.”

A Yerkir Union of NGO’s for Repatriation and Settlement press release dated April 18, 2011 challenges the U.S. State Department’s 2010 Human Rights Report on Georgia, claiming that “…the facts of violation of the rights of the Armenians of Javakheti have been presented in an incomplete and distorted manner.” The areas that the Yerkir Union press release noted cover a range of economic, political, and cultural violations that are more serious than those mentioned in the 2010 report on Georgia or in the International Crisis Group Briefing. If this policy of forced acculturation, population resettlement, and economic and political marginalization continues, historic Armenian Javakhk will be irretrievably lost within several generations. (19)

Genocide recognition within context of ‘Hai Tahd’
The demand that Turkey should, as the successor state to the Ottoman-Turkish Empire, recognize its responsibility for the Armenian Genocide must continue. (20) However this demand may be articulated in the future, it should be presented within the framework of Hai Tahd, not as an isolated injustice that can be resolved by passage of a Congressional resolution recognizing the murder of 1.5 million Armenian men, women, and children as genocide. (21) The ARF and the ANCA should set their agendas to undertake those missions that have greatest urgency and significance to Hai Tahd and the nation.

The historic role of the ARF
The ARF is the principal counterweight to the government of the Republic of Armenia. Whether in Armenia or in the diaspora, it fulfills the role of the loyal opposition. During the century from its inception in 1890 to the founding of the second independent Republic of Armenia in 1991, the ARF ably and singularly represented the interests of the Armenian people. (22) Whatever shortcomings or failures it may have experienced, the dedication, vision, and accomplishments of the ARF during this period cannot be legitimately challenged. (23)The ARF and the ANCA has served its people with distinction, but both entities should take the opportunity to set agendas that not only address the immediate issues confronting our nation, but seek to expand its influence well beyond its traditional base of support. (24)

http://www.armenianweekly.com June 8,2011
-------------------------------------

Notes and counter comments by Sukru Server Aya:

1- If there were “no dispute on the genocide statement”, why would you need to reaffirm “yourself”! Why are you afraid of questioning? Billions of people believe in hell and paradise, but is this enough for this being the “intelligent truth”?

2- Wouldn’t you like to remind President Obama and House speakers to first have a look into the following documents?

Armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2010/08/3135-congress-report-266-american.html
Armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2010/08/3131-near-east-relief-31-dec-1921.html

3- Systematic murders? By whom? : Armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2010/07/3116-niles-and-sutherland-report.html

4- Crime and punishment is not hereditary. Apparently the writer is not aware even of the settlement between USA and Turkey! See: Armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2010/08/3132-free-consolation-versus-frail.html

5- Economic and military aid to Armenia? See above two reports under note (2). Huge RELIEF AIDS to Armenia included even three airplanes! Were they used for “ambulance purposes”? Grabbing Karabagh and 20% of Azerbaijan territory apparently was not sufficient! You need more to grab from Georgia, Azerbaijan and Turkey in case Russia does not help!

6- From Leslie A. Davis’ book “The slaughterhouse Province”, p.183: “…lying and trickery and inordinate love of money…Every trick and devices are resorted by those who are not in need as well as by those in need”!

7- Concentration of Armenians is less than one million and only about one third of them accepted to be called “Armenian”.

8- Attachment to community costs money and escalating obligations or liabilities to ARF solidaritarian measures.

9- It is still a mystery from day one, if ARF (ANCA) needed funds to reach certain targets, or targets had to be fabricated to justify collection of “un-audited funds”. Watch: Armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2007/08/1859-video-nbc-special-armenian.html and hear Mourat Topalian speaking of “receipt copies” for money collected to send terrorists to Lebanon for training as ASALA or Justice Commandos!

10- How come? ANCA asks for on-line donation practically with every letter they send out!

11- So, you still market ARF principles which brought nothing but calamities to the “well to do Armenians, who were the cream of the Ottoman society” by dragging them into revolutionary dreams by taking their money!

12- Good! So they start to realize that U.S. citizenship counts first in relation to ethnicity!

13- Is that warming state policies or putting a stick in the bee hornet to drag the community into new adventures?

14- “Revolutionary Fervor”? In this era of globalization? Revolt against whom, why? What a mental sickness!

15- ARF saved no survivors except they arranged immigration of some 22.000 Armenians in the Nazi Army to be accepted in USA as “displaced persons” of course if they paid the fee! See “Armenian Affairs”, 1949, 50.Vol.1, No.1, Roy Carson!

16- Empty ballast words to boost morale and inject new adventures by brainwashing youn generation!

17- Why do you advocate against the UN Resolutions? You have grabbed (by bribing Russia with military bases) Karabagh and also some 20% of the Azeri land. Thousands were murdered by ARF leaders some now heading the Armenian Republic and about a million have been thrown out of their houses still living in provisional camps!

18- Wow! Still grabbing land by force for more and praising ARF banditry which brought nothing but disasters!

19- Human Rights, for Armenians only? How many Jews are left (a few hundreds) in Armenia? How many Moslems are left in Armenia (NONE) nowadays? In 1850s, 70% of the population of present Armenia was Muslims!

20- Above referred documents prove the opposite.

21- Wow! I invite the writer and readers to refer to my essay: Armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2008/10/2610-genocide-lies-need-no-archives.html and give a logical explanation as regards “how is it possible to kill 1.5 millions out of a total of 1.3 millions and have a balance of 1.414.000? Who is lying? Which document of mine is untrue?

22- Whose interests? Armenian people or the ARF leaders’?

23- Why it cannot be challenged? May be too much trash hidden piled under the carpet? Even Medicare fraud must be investigated!

24- ARF and ANCA have always cared for their own income and interests and not the community’s!

Note: My book : Armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2008/04/2429-new-e-book-genocide-of-truth-based.html has been on the internet since 2008 free for loading or reprints! I am still waiting for any comment to refute any of my sources!

Sukru S. Aya, Istanbul, June 10, 2011
-------------------

Further Comments By (78.187.137.120) Ankara, Turkey

The modern (!) world’s predominant philosophy depends on this understanding: ‘I have the right of writing the history of the nations as they want, or as they do not want or as I myself like’ This philosophy is an insult to the historians and the nations themselves.

If Turks committed a genocide which is the greatest crime of humanity, and if Turkey really avoids of facing its history, and if the Armenians and their supporters sincerely want Turkey to do it, then why do the Armenians persistently refuse Turkey’s suggestions to discuss these events together with historians from both sides and other countries?

For example:

“Our objective is to have the matter investigated by historians and experts. We are ready to accept the decision of the joint historical commission. We agree for different professionals from various countries to be involved” Abdullah Gul recently said. If historians committee project could be realized, issue of so called Armenian genocide will not be discussed by politicians but by historians. Furthermore, other than Turkish and Armenian historians, historians from third countries will also be included.

The Turks who were eager for establishment of such an historical commission, were supported by the United Nations, European Parliament and Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). http://www.tegenwicht.org/weblog_2006/67_armeens.... http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/bericht/77330, http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/domestic/93374... and was very happy.

While Turkey was eager and very happy, the Armenians were exceedingly unwilling and very angry.

http://www.keghart.com/content/dans-la-rue#english; http://www.hairenik.com/armenianweekly/august_2004/history001.html


In an interview with Armenian Reporter, Prof Richard Hovannisian from California University and the father of Raffi Hovannisian, the first Foreign Minister of Armenia, said: ‘It is very dangerous to establish such an historical commission…because according to 1948 United Nations’s Genocide Convention, a deliberate and planned massacre is mandatory. The Turks will accept that nearly 200-300 thousand Armenian died; but nobody can call them deliberate acts. In Turkish Archives the Turks have the telegrams sent from vilayets about the then Armenian upraisals and documents about the Armenians who fled from the Ottoman Army. So, the Turkish historians will accuse the Armenians and say that all these events were a reaction to what the Armenians did and were not deliberate’ http://www.kophaber.com/news_detail.php?id=4726

One of the supporters of so called Armenian genocide resolutions in U.S. Congress, Adam Schiff said “A committee about history is a struggle for distracting the truth. Turkey cannot rewrite history in exchange for good relations with Armenia.”

ANCA and other Armenian lobbying organizations stated that Armenia is forced to make dangerous concessions by Turkey and that Turkey’s moves towards establishing joint historians commission aims to call so called Armenian genocide into question and suspend its international recognition. ANCA’s aim is to provide recognition of so called Armenian genocide by U.S. Congress before establishment of a historians committee to discuss the events by keeping pressure on the Congress.

Let us go to a few years ago:

*In 2004, the Viennese Armenian-Turkish Platform (VAT) was founded to exchange documents about the 1915 events by Austrian, Turkish and Armenian historians. After receiving 100 Turkish documents, the Armenians abandoned the project refusing to continue to fulfill their commitments and afterwards the Armenian foreign minister announced that they did not want to discuss the 1915 events with historians.

(I. Press Release 11.1.2005 Viennese Armenian-Turkish Platform – VAT
The Viennese Armenian-Turkish Platform deeply regrets to announce that she will not carry through her starting initiative „The First Viennese Armenian-Turkish Round Table” (FVATR Vienna 2005) originally planned for spring 2005. The reason is that the Armenian partner has not provided us with the necessary confirmation as agreed in August 2004…….On the other hand, the Turkish partner accepted already to participate in the dialogue, in which each part was supposed to present 180 documents on the year 1915 showing their understanding of this delicate matter. http://www.turkishdigest.com/documents/VATpressrelase.pdf

*Armenia refused the Turkish prime minister's and the Turkish Assembly's invitation announced on April 13, 2005 which suggested to establish a Joint Commission composed of historians from both sides and discuss the events which took place during the 1st World War.

*And the Turkish prime minister repeated the same invitation on February 2008 , in Munich at the 44th Security Conference where the Armenian Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr. Oskanian also attended?


In neither of these invitations was there any precondition, unlike it is claimed by the Armenians.

***Why did the Armenian historian Sarafyan, who accepted the invitation of the then chief of Turkish History Foundation, Halacoglu, for cooperation to investigate Harput events, abandon the project, after talking the Armenian diaspora?

*The Ottoman and Turkish archives are open, unlike it is claimed by the diaspora. http://www.ankara.edu.tr/english/yazi.php?yad=36. http://www.tsk.mil.tr/ENGLISH/8_FRAGMENTS_FORM_HI...
http://louisville.edu/a-s/history/turks/Documents... http://louisville.edu/a-s/history/turks/Documents... http://www.devletarsivleri.gov.tr/kitap/kitap.asp...

Even, Armenian historian Ara Sarafian from Gomitas Institute and Hilmar Kaiser searched the Ottoman archives (www.sarigelinbelgeseli.com


*In spite of this, why are the Armenian archives including the one in Zoryan Armenian Institute in Boston closed? Both Turkish government and Turkish History Foundation offered the Armenians to open these archives; but the directors of the Zoryan Institute replied that they did not have enough money to open the archives. Turkish government and Turkish History Foundation promised financial support.Why did the Armenians refuse this suggestion too? (Nüzhet Kandemir, http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/news/418517.asp).

Note that Zoryan Institute has quite enough money to provide financial support for Taner Akçam who advocated the Armenian claims while working in Minnesota University until recently.

Why have the Armenians always been terribly afraid of establishment of historical joint commissions?

Is it not striking that Armenian historian Sarafian, the head of the London-based Gomidas Institute, said Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s offer to Armenia to establish a commission of historians to resolve the Armenian issue was positive, but Armenia was the wrong address. He also said that freedom of expression for historians in Armenia is limited and the genocide issue has become a political tool. http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/domestic/10426

If a genocide had really occurred, why did Brian Ardouny of the Armenian Assembly of America announce ‘We don’t need to prove the genocide historically, because it has already been accepted politically’?

Why did the chief of the Armenian Archives in Armenia tell that they were not interested in the archives, but all they are interested is the world’s public opinion?

Or why have the Armenians not admitted to an international court yet?

In your life, have you ever seen a criminal who persistently calls the victim to bring his evidences?

And, have you ever seen a victim who passionately accuses somebody of committing crime and giving him great harm but strictly avoids of bringing his proofs before the referees or going to court, and tells that he need not prove that person’s guilt, because the community has already accepted him as guilty?

In this situation would you not question the era you are living in? 5000 BC or 2000BC?

What else should the Turks do to face their history?

Is it Turkey/Turks or Armenia and those who support them who are terribly afraid of facing their history?

---------------------

.