The true fascination of the ADL’s shifting line on the Armenian genocide of 90 years ago has little to do with Turkey or Armenians. It is about the Nakba, Israel’s expulsion of Palestinians in 1948.
The issues surrounding Armenian genocide absolutely echo the issues surrounding the Nakba. What do historians say? And when must we in public life acknowledge the message of the historians?
The ADL fears recognizing the Armenian genocide not just because it could alienate Turkey, but because it could open the floodgates on a popular understanding in the U.S. of the suffering of the Palestinians. The Nakba has been a matter of historical record for many years now. But when will it enter public consciousness?
This is the great threat posed by Walt and Mearsheimer’s book. Their paper stated that the "moral" reasons for the U.S. supporting Israel were undermined somewhat by its treatment of the Palestinians, and cited the ’48 ethnic cleansing. Their book is only likely to expand upon this chapter…
P.S. Commenters nailed me for mischaracterizing the ADL’s positions. I think they are right re the nuance; that the ADL should be congratulated for using the word "genocide" at last rather than its earlier language, "massacres and atrocities." Apologies to all, including Abe Foxman.
