Activist Hilda Silverman has a wonderful letter in the Boston Globe, attacking the Anti-Defamation League for refusing to acknowledge the Armenian genocide by the Turks in the First World War. Silverman points out that the ADL position springs from support for Israel and fear of alienating Turkey, an Israeli ally:
In addition to what amounts to genocide denial, [the ADL] has, under the rubric
of fighting anti-Semitism, long fomented fear, anger, and, yes, hatred
mainly against Arabs (especially Palestinians), Muslims, and anyone who
would seriously criticize the policies of the state of Israel.
In its editorial on the issue, the Globe acknowledges the Turkey/Israel problem, but sermonizes: "[T]he ADL is not an arm of Israel, and whatever it does will not affect Turkish foreign policy."
This seems to me a naive statement. The ADL is clearly worried that it could hurt Israel in Turkish eyes. ADL recognition of the Armenian genocide would allow the Turks to say, "Jewry is on the side of the Armenians. Those bastards! We will take this anti-Turkey position into account in our dealings with Israel."
This is a realistic stance by the ADL, which if it isn’t "an arm" of Israel is its ceaseless apologist. And this is why so many Jewish anti-Zionists, including cultural Zionists, opposed the foundation of a Jewish state: They anticipated that it would call on the loyalty of Jews in other nations–as it has–and anticipated that the business of supporting a state created in defiance of the wishes of the Arabs on the same land would transform Jewish identity, turning the people of the book into advocates for power and regime and realpolitik–needing to defend all the nasty stuff that such a state has to do, like turn a blind eye to its allies’ atrocities. Which is why the ADL is today selling out its own program, "No Place for Hate": because when it comes to a state, there is a place for hate.
Hilda Silverman is upholding a great old definition of Jewishness: We stand against human rights abuses, wherever they occur, at whoever’s hands…
The ADL, founded in 1913, pre-dates both the state of Israel and the Armenian genocide. The local chapters around the country have been founded at various times since. Has anybody researched the history of how the issue of Armenian and other genocides has been handled by national and local level issues committees of the ADL over the years? This issue may be Foxman's last song at the ADL.
Phil wrote: "Turning the people of the book into advocates for power and regime and realpolitik …"
Just by coincidence, this appears to be exactly the subject of a new book due out from Ruth Wisse, the Marty Peretz Professor of Yiddishisms–
"Jews and Power"
In Deborah Lipstadt's "Denying The Holocaust: The Growing Assault On Truth and Memory," she pooh-poohs the Armenian Genocide:
"The historians' attempt to create such immoral equivalencies ignored the dramatic differences between these events and the Holocaust. The brutal Armenian tragedy, which the perpetrators still refuse to acknowledge adequately, was conducted within the context of a ruthless Turkish policy of EXPULSION AND RESETTLEMENT. It was terrible and caused horrendous suffering but it was not part of a process of total annihilation of an entire people."
How do you "resettle" people in a desert? Lipstadt is utilizing the very tactics she exposed in her book, the taking of euphemisms at face value.
By the way, Henry Morgenthau was the U.S. Ambassador to Turkey during the Genocide and he did an amazing job. At the time what a country did to its own citizens was considered to be its own business, but Morgenthau insisted that Human Rights were everyone's business–breaking new ground. He was also a Jew. His son, Henry Jr., faced the same issues during the Holocaust, trying to prod the U.S. government into doing more.
Bernard Lewis has obstructed research into the Armenian genocide.
Aside from the geopolitical fear of offending Turkey, it is also a proprietary issue that threatens the lucrative status of the "jewish people" as supreme victims. Holocaust museums minimize Hitler's genocidal policies towards gypsies and Slavs and virtually write others of his victims (e.g. Catholic clergy) out of existence, though there is no direct geostrategic reason for doing so.
Regarding the "amazing job" Morgenthau did, see the following and the linked article in full:
Mr. Morgenthau Doesn’t Go to Istanbul
A little known historical incident took place in the spring of 1917, shortly after the U.S. entered World War I on the side of the Allies. President Woodrow Wilson devised a plan for bringing about an early end to the war by detaching Turkey from the Central Powers. To this end, he sent a mission to Europe, where it was to meet with representatives of Britain and France in Switzerland and then make its way to Turkey. The mission was headed by Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who had been American ambassador to Turkey from 1912 to 1915 and had many contacts there. This story is related in Chapter 17 of Chaim Weizmann’s 1949 autobiography, Trial and Error.
The American mission never arrived in Switzerland, let alone Turkey. In early June of 1917, Weizmann, who was then in London, received a cable from Louis Brandeis in the U.S., informing him of the mission and suggesting that he contact it. Weizmann immediately contacted members of the British government and learned the nature of the mission. Weizmann was concerned that the Morgenthau mission might result in the war ending with the Ottoman Empire still intact, eliminating the possibility of a Jewish state in Palestine.
A subsequent conference with Lord Balfour lead to Weizmann’s being sent as the official British representative to meet with the American mission and a French representative. This meeting took place at Gibraltar after the American mission disembarked at Cadiz on July 4, 1917.
Weizmann reports that he had no difficulty persuading Morgenthau to drop the whole matter, so instead of proceeding to Switzerland and Istanbul, Morgenthau went to Biarritz, in the South of France, where, he said, he would communicate with General Pershing and await further instructions from President Wilson.
The Morgenthau mission was apparently secret, for Weizmann says he does not know how the story got out. He also says that in 1922, when Congress was looking into the merits of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, a senator stated that the leaders of the Zionist movement were unworthy men and that Weizmann, in particular, had prolonged the war for two years by scuttling the Morgenthau mission.
Morgenthau seems to have shown more loyalty to Zionism than to his president or his country.
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/November_2005/0511044.html
The above link's main subject is the history of the Balfour Declaration. Recommended reading for anyone who wishes to get a better understanding of actual history – as opposed to sanitized versions where presidents like Woodrow Wilson are glorified as "idealists" while the true forces of history are hidden behind unexplainable paradoxes, like madmen leading advanced nations to ruin through "collective paranoia" and such pseudo-scientific, psychopathological bullshit. History doesn't work that way.
The Balfour Declaration explains the outcome of WWI, the German depression that followed (see Versailles Treaty), the rise of Hitler, WWII and a great part of the situation in the Middle East today. Want to understand how Hitler could possibly become Chancellor of Germany democratically? Study WWI, the Balfour Declaration and the Versailles Treaty. Unless of course one wants to believe in the "collective paranoia" or the inherent evil of a whole nation, the Germans.
Notice also that when discussing the Middle East and Arab radicalism today, the same psychopathological bs explanations ("they hate our freedoms"; "they are madmen", etc) are given reflexively by the "scholars" of "Think Tanks" or the Beltway pundits, explaining nothing. Why? Because it is always easier to give ridiculous but easy to digest soundbites than it is to acknowledge historical grievances, the political (and legitimate) aspirations of the weak, and the simple fact that people historically tend to dislike being used and abused by big world powers pursuing their "national interests" at their expense.
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/November_2005/0511044.html
Btw, speaking about Morgenthau Sr., here is a quick one from Wikipedia:
"… On the other hand, from the Princeton University, Department of Near Eastern Studies, historian Heath W. Lowry in his The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story, (ISIS Press, Istanbul,1990) describes the ambassador's attitude as follows:
The answer is simple and relates to the fact that Morgenthau was writing a piece of wartime propaganda with the expressly stated purpose of mobilising support for President Wilson's war effort. He consciously down played the close relationships he enjoyed with the Young Turk leadership throughout his sojourn in Constantinople and sacrificed truth for the greater good of helping to generate anti-Turkish sentiment which would transform itself into pro-war sentiment."
Sounds familiar?
P.S. His son, Henry Morgentahu Jr. was the genius behind the "Morgenthau Plan". He was also a leading participant in the Bretton Woods Conference. According to Wikipedia, "Morgenthau devoted the remainder of his life to philanthropy, and also became a financial advisor to Israel."
Ah, philanthropy, yes. Like Saban I guess.
I remember being surprised that as recently as 5-6 years ago you could still go to a garden-variety student encyclopedia like MS Encarta and read that the Balfour Declaration was signed in return for the Jewish community's aid in getting the U.S. into WWW I. I'll have to check whether that factoid has gone down the memory hole. I imagine it has.
Ok, guys, got it, we started WW1 and were responsible for its length, German inflation, Hitler, WW 2. Oh, and Communism also. And did I forget, homicidal Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. It's all our fault, everything. Got it.
Don't forget to include yourself in the list of horrors. Small, but horrible none the less.
Not feeling the love Anon. But let me tell you this. I'm happy being what I am. Are you happy being an asshole.
I understand that Morgenthau's book contributed to to the Turkophobia which, like anti-Semitism, has a long history in the West. More recently Oliver Stone's film Midnight Express defamed the Turks to such an extent that even the author of the book on which the movie was based, Hayes, protested.
Jews have, pace Morgenthau, no particular reason to be anti-Turkish. When they were driven out of Portugal and Spain the Ottoman Empire was one of the few places where they could find a relatively safe abode (another place was Holland, a fact to which Holland owes its greatest philosopher: Spinoza).
I read a few extracts from Morgenthau's book that are online. He puts particular emphasis on the alleged cowardice of the Turks.
Australians know better. In 1915 they fought, together with the British, the Turks for months in vain to get a foothold on the peninsula of Gallipoli. This campaign was Winston Churchill's brainchild but failed,, according to William Manchester because of dilatoriness by the British navy and less than ready cooperation by Kitchener (who had ever since the Sudan campaign a grudge against Churchill who, as a young subaltern, had published a 'disrespectful' account of it).
In the course of this campaign the Australians gained a healthy respect for the tenacious bravery of 'Johnny Turk'.
Every year those desperate months in 1915 are commemorated in Australia on ANZAC-day, a public holiday when the surviving veterans (or sometimes their descendants) of all the military campaigns Australia has been engaged in, are marching in most Australian cities to great popular acclaim. The Turks are regarded as honorable enemies to such an extent that descendants of their veterans are now also allowed to participate in these marches, an honour that is not bestowed on the Germans and Japanese (even though the latter were allies in World War I).
Also, every year an Australian delegation commemorates the campaign on Turkish soil, in Gallipoli, where they have always been made most welcome by the Turkish authorities.
The commander on the Turkish side was Mustafa Kemal, who later became named Ataturk, the father of the Young Turks and of modern secular Turkey.
Australians were touched by his magnanimous declaration that the mother of the allied soldiers should wipe away their tears. "Your sons" he said "are now lying in our bosom and are in peace … they have become our sons as well."
The Australian General who gave a meticulous account of the campaign was Sir John Monash (as he later became)who had participated in it as a then still lower ranking officer. Monash is regarded as the greatest Australian general and Australians like to insist that he was the best general on the Allied side in World War I, a judgment that was shared by Montgomery. Monash planned the attack on the German defences for the troops that in 1918 finally broke through the Hindenburg Line.
Monash had various things against him in his career. He was not a professional officer but a civil engineer and reserve officer. He was also of German-Jewish origin which led some plotters, including Keith Murdoch (yes, the father of Rupert) to try and discredit him in the eyes of the then Australian Prime Ministe, Billy Hughes, who was however wise enough to go and look at the war stiuation, and Monash's role in it, for himself.
The reverence for Monash (after whom Monash University has been named) and the respect for the Turks have, as some have argued, provided less scope in Australia for respectively Judophobia and Turkophobia.
When I said that Monash participated in the Gallipoli-campaign as a 'then still lower ranking officer' I meant that he was subordinate there to the overall (British) commander in that field. Monash was however already a brigadier then.
Arie:
You forgot to mention that General Monash was a proud Jew, and in fact became the President of the Australian Zionist Federation in 1927. So, I gues for a guy like you that makes him a defacto representative of the devil. But, the Moslems in Austrailia, they're just a bunch of fun guys.
"johnny turk he was ready
he something himself well
she showered us with bullets and
he rained us with shells
and in 5 minutes flat he blew us all to hell
narly blew us right back to australia
-irish folk song "waltzing matilda"
their fortitude has no bearing on whether they in fact commited genocide against the armenians. that they weren't genociding jews but another group is also meaningless.
Bill:
Of the three most prominent Australian Jews, Sir Isaac Isaacs (the first Australian born Governor General), Sir John Monash and Sir Zelman Cowen (19th Governor General), the first one was an ardent anti-Zionist, the last one an equally ardent Zionist and Sir John was somewhere in between.
He seems at one point to have signed a petition against the Balfour Declaration but was increasingly won for Zionism by his mistress, Lizette Bentwich, who came from a family of ardent British Zionists.
Monash was, however, not the executive president of the Zionist Federation of Australia but its nominal head. His presidency was one of the many honorary functions he was presented with.
More importantly, being a Zionist in those days did not make you an accomplice in the crimes committed against the Palestinians after Israel became a state. So I guess present day Zionists are a different kettle of fish.
There is no particular trouble with Moslems in Australia or any ardent anti-Moslem feeling. Australians appreciate the Lebanese and Turkish restaurants their presence has given them. It's that simple.
Got it Arie:
Those riots that occured a few months ago because Moslem youth were harassing Austrailian girls were totally made up. And Monash was really an anti-zionist which made him I guess ok, A good "yid" who was bamboozled by his wily mistress one of the evil Zionist Jews who of course took her marching orders from the elders. But in any case that has nothing to do with the present day because the Zionists of 1927 were presumably diferent than the "zio-nazis" of today. A moniker that I always enjoyed because in the Arab world the holocaust is either a myth, and the "Germans were misunderstood, or the Israeli's are the new Nazi's, and the nakba is the new standard, the worst thing that has ever happened to anybody anywhere, I understand it now.
I think Billy is just a masochist – every time his ignorant ass is whooped he brings something completely unrelated and starts to breath out flames with vigor and energy that looks.. you guess it – orgasmic!
Bill, your style of arguing is comical and most unconvincing. There is very little resemblance between what I was saying and what you made of it so there is no point in arguing against it.
Only this: to blow up the turf war between two groups of youths in Sydney regarding a particular stretch of beach, or the habit of one particular Moslem spokesman to put his foot into an organ where it doesn't belong, to blow these up into 'trouble with the Moslems' is just rabble-rousing propaganda. An ignorant Australian ex-politica such as Pauline Hanson (a former fisch and chips seller), who is trying to get back into the Senate on an anti Moslem platform, sees bread in such things.
Moslem youths have indeed been guilty of rapes but the most horrible rapes, accompanied by torture and murder, have been committed by non-Moslems.
Lester, I agree with you that the question whether the Turks were cowards or not has no bearing on that other question: to what extent they were guilty of genocide. However, at that point the discussion had moved on to Morgenthau Sr. and the reliability, or otherwise, of his account of the massacre. I merely wanted to point out that on one point at least he was slandering the Turks.
But for the rest: I fully agree that to deny attention to other horrors in world history beside the holocaust because of a certain political agenda is not only offensive but ultimately self defeating.
alex, do you spend a lot of your day thinking of me having an orgasm. Please enlighten me.
Billy, we know that you have no idea how to express your thoughts in a civilized way or how to argue a point, but why can't you at least learn how to be funny? Even when you are trying to make a joke in your own mother tongue, it still comes out like a rude fart. Why is that? Please, enlighten us all!
One interesting aspect of the Armenian Genocide is that many of the farmers in northeastern Anatolia were Armenians. So when they massacred or deported them there was no one to grow food for the Turkish army on the Russian Front, which starved.
And Armenians were the commercial sector in Turkey, so when they were made to disappear there was little commerce, weakening the country.
The U.S. never declared war on Turkey, but instead only severed diplomatic relations. They did this in order to be able to continue sending aid to the Armenians. When the British tried to get them to stop they refused.
The Unrepentant Genocidaires ( link to eaazi.blogspot.com
)
Jews, the Armenian Genocide and the Nakba (Holoexaleipsis)
by Joachim Martillo (ThorsProvoni@aol.com)
Arie,
You mention the Ottoman's taking in the Spanish Jews. Do some reading on the original conquest. Way more Jews in the Ottoman lands were killed during the conquest.
Bostom and others are beginning to look at the period shortly before the "benign" acceptance of the Jews to find a horrific persecution and cleansing by the Turks of the original Jewish and Christian minorites. That is why they had to replenish their cities and commercial sector. .
Here is my reply, Itzaak, whoever you are. Your statements are preceded by your (pen)name:
Itzaak:
:
“You mention the Ottoman's taking in the Spanish Jews. Do some reading on the original conquest. Way more Jews in the Ottoman lands were killed during the conquest.
Bostom and others are beginning to look at the period shortly before the "benign" acceptance of the Jews to find a horrific persecution and cleansing by the Turks of the original Jewish and Christian minorites. That is why they had to replenish their cities and commercial sector. .