Turkish Forum

Author: fdemirmen

  • Shopping mall squabble in California draws venomous Armenian comments and prompts media censure

    Shopping mall squabble in California draws venomous Armenian comments and prompts media censure

    By Ferruh Demirmen, Ph.D.
    September 9, 2017

    The dispute between the Armenian lobby and the Americana-at-Brand shopping mall in Glendale, California last month on whether to display an advertisement on a billboard precipitated a series of events, shedding a disturbing light on the activities of the lobby and two pro-Armenian news outlets. The billboard was intended to advertise The Architects of Denial, a documentary purportedly giving an account of what the lobby calls “Armenian genocide” through interviews with survivors.

    The documentary was funded to the tune of 50,000 dollars by the well-funded Armenian lobby.

    Both the initial squabble and its aftermath were reported in the Armenian media as well as in the LA Times and its affiliate Glendale News-Press – outlets well known for their sympathies towards Armenian causes. The town of Glendale, just outside Los Angeles, is home to more than 65,000 Armenian Diaspora residents.

        Principled stand and surrender

        The Carusso-owned Americana initially refused to accept the billboard, arguing – correctly – that the advertisement was politically charged and would violate the city’s zoning rules. The owners had received advice from the Turkish consulate in Los Angeles in addition to the Armenian community about the advertisement, and was trying to keep its properties “neutral and impartial.”

        The notion of neutrality and impartiality embraced by Americana was not acceptable for the Armenian Diaspora. Upon Americana’s refusal, the Armenian lobbying apparatus quickly sprang into action. With intense pressure from the lobby, including threat of boycott of all Carusso-owned properties, Americana quickly relented and agreed to display the advertisement.

        It also said it would allow the screening of the documentary in the mall free of charge.

        Jackie Levy, executive vice president of operations for Carusso, even apologized for the initial rejection of the ad.

        The bullying tactics of the Armenian lobby and Americana’s cowardly reversal of its earlier decision were a shame. Here was a case of political extortion exerted on a private company by an ethnic minority that wanted to propagandize a century-old grievance – of all places, in a shopping mall, where people come to relax and do shopping. And the company pitifully caving in.

        For the Armenian lobby, apparently no place in America is off-limits in pursuit of its “genocide” propaganda.

        The sparring exchange

        The event spurred an exchange of opinions between the Turkish and Armenian sides in the comments section of the LA Times. Denouncing the Armenian lobby’s strong-arm tactics and Americana’s total capitulation to its demands, the Turkish commentators argued that the supposed documentary would narrate an old, unproven “genocide,” and that Americana had abandoned all pretences of objectivity.

        In response, the Armenian commentators countered that the “genocide” was real and well-documented, labeling the opposition as “genocide deniers.”

        Although most of the exchanges between the two sides were civil, some of the comments from the Armenian side had a venomous tone. The animosity from the Armenian side was directed not only at Turks, but also at Islam in general.

        One of the Diaspora Armenians referred to Turks as “Turkish Mongol Mutts from Central/East Asia,” adding that “Islam is based on three principles: stealing, killing, and lying.”

        Another one accused the “Islamic Government of Turkey” for “spreading lies and bribing scholars and historians.”

        Dark undertones

        More disturbing was implicit or veiled threats of violence from the Armenian side. A Diaspora Armenian fakely named “S.Schmidt” became ominously too personal with Mr. Ergun Kirlikovali, one of the Turkish commentators. He identified Kirlikovali as a Muslim Turk born in Turkey and now living “comfortably in California,” revealing Kirlikovali’s age, the county he lives in, and even the full name of his wife. The one important information he left out was Kirlikovali’s street address.

        The question arose: What was the purpose of revealing such personal information?

        “S.Schmidt” said Mr. Kirlikovali is “the president of the Assembly of Turkish American Associations (ATAA), a corrupt racist organization whose ONLY purpose is to discredit the Holocost” [sic]. He counseled Kirlikovali to “take your fundamentalist Turkish point of views back to your ancestral lands of Mongolia along with your family.”

        He also wanted to banish another Turkish commentator as an “agent of the government of Turkey.”

        Alarmed that he was being personally targeted, and fearing violence against him or his family, Kirlikovali responded back: “This is a public alert to FBI. I am getting a lot of hate mail from Armenians. I am listed as number one in at least two Armenian hate sites. If something happens to me or my family members, FBI people, please go after this fellow who hides behind the fake name S.Schmidt. He is a notorious Armenian cyber-terrorist who demonizes any one, group, company, religion, or nation that disagrees with Armenians.”

        Media censure

        The disturbing turn of events led the LA Times to quickly remove the incendiary comments from its website. The editors were evidently spooked by Kirlikovali’s call for a FBI alert, and the fact that some of the comments from the Armenian side, with a dark underbelly, were not reflecting favorably on the Diaspora.

        Also expunged from the comments section were two commentaries entered under an alias by this author, decrying the poisonous invective emanated from the Armenian side, likening such diatribe to the mentality of the Ku Klux Klan – the difference being that the targeted group is not black Americans but Moslems and Turks – castigating the LA Times for allowing such racism on its website, and suggesting that Kirlikovali’s FBI alert should be taken seriously. The readers were reminded of the terrorist activities directed against Turkish diplomats in the 1970s and 1980s by fanatics such as Gourgen Yanikian and Hampig Sassounian.

        After “sanitizing” the comments section, of the 55 comments originally posted, at the writing of this article there are now only 41 comments that can be seen on the LA Times website. The 14 comments that were deemed to be incendiary or harshly provocative have been censured out and no longer accessible.

        The bottom line

        The whole episode was a reminder of the hatred or animosity ingrained in the minds of some Diaspora Armenians. Anti-Turkism, Islamophobia, and ethno-religious bias and bigotry seem to be alive and well in some quarters of Armenian Diaspora, and perhaps even more disturbingly, the columns of LA Times.

        Further, language, indirect that it might be, from the Armenian Diaspora that could potentially agitate Armenian youths to take up violence to advance Armenian causes is not new. An example came to light in the wake of the European Court of Human Right’s 2015 Grand Chamber decision on the Switzerland-Perinçek case when Harut Sassounian, a leading Diaspora lobbyist, commented on the defeat of Armenians and criticized the court with an insinuation that was troubling.

          Turks and Turkish Diaspora should wake up to the kind of adversary they are facing.

        • ARMENIAN LOBBYIST SELECTIVELY USES “GENOCIDE” RECOGNITION ARTICLE TO SUIT OWN AGENDA

          ARMENIAN LOBBYIST SELECTIVELY USES “GENOCIDE” RECOGNITION ARTICLE TO SUIT OWN AGENDA

          In an opinion piece dated August 15, 2017, a leading Armenian Diaspora lobbyist Harut Sassounian, also the publisher of The California Courier, used selective parts of an article I had written on Armenian lobby’s successful efforts to have the US State Texas recognize Armenian “genocide.” Sassounian did so to suit his agenda, while disregarding some important points.[1]

          Sassounian’s op-ed was widely distributed in the Armenian news outlets and was translated into French and both Eastern and Western Armenian.

          In analyzing the recognition of Armenian “genocide” by the Texas of House of Representatives on May 19, 2017 (bill HR-191), the points I had made were:

          1. The recognition was a major victory for the Armenian lobby.

          2. The Armenian lobby had tirelessly campaigned for the passage of the resolution, in contrast to the Turkish efforts which, in comparison, were feeble.

          3. For introducing HR-191 to the Texas House, at a 2016 gala, Armenian activists had solicited and received the endorsement of a Texas State representative, Scott Sanford, who was the Executive Pastor of a Baptist church in Texas, thereby introducing the religion factor into consideration.

          4. It was a grotesque irony that at that gala, a number of Texas politicians heard the human rights pitch of Armenian National Committee of Armenia (ANCA) Executive Director Aram Hamparian, clearly unaware that Hamparian’s predecessor was an ex-convict who had served almost 3 years in federal prison for illegally storing explosives and owning machine guns – some of which may have been used in terror attacks on Turkish diplomatic missions.

          5. The Trade & Intergovernmental Affairs Committee (TIAC) that processed HR-191 was disgracefully partisan, in that:

          (a) Of all the dates available, it held a public hearing on April 24 in an effort to please the Armenian lobby.

          (b) It announced the public hearing with one week’s notice, giving the Turkish side only a few days to be prepared, while the Armenian side had been informed and had prepared well in advance.

          (c) It invited Rep. Sanford as an “observer” at the hearing, even though he was not a member of the Committee.

          (d) It allowed equal time for all the testimonials, which, considering that there were 21 testimonials from the Armenian side as opposed to only 4 from the Turkish side, gave the Armenian lobby a major advantage.

          (e) It cut short this author’s attempt during his testimony to display a panel of Turkish diplomats assassinated by Armenian terrorists.

          6. The vast majority (137) of the politicians that voted yes on HR-191 had inexcusably ignored not only the Turkish oral testimony given during the hearing, but also detailed written documentation submitted earlier by the Turkish side.

          Sassounian largely ignored the prejudicial stance of TIAC as outlined in item 5 above and dwelled on my observation that the passage of HR-191 was a major victory for the Armenian lobby. He seems comfortable with the fact that TIAC was in cohorts with the Armenian lobby in moving forward with HR-191.

          Sassounian further claimed the passage had a “devastating impact” on the Turkish community’s efforts in Texas – a conclusion that was patently unwarranted. Even though HR-191 was a disappointment for the Turkish community, it was in no way a sign of despair.

          On the contrary, HR-191 was a wake-up call for the Turkish community to shake off its apathy and passivity to combat the deep-pocketed Armenian lobby’s efforts to mislead the American public.

          Sassounian had nothing to stay on the injection of religion to induce the politicians to support HR-191, and the shameless disregard by 137 Texas politicians of the evidence introduced by the Turkish side. All indications were that the politicians had already made up their minds with or without taking into consideration the evidence presented by the Turkish side.

          Nor did Sassounian seek to opine how the Texas politicians present at the 2016 gala would have reacted had they known that the predecessor of the speaker at that gala, ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian, was a federal ex-convict.

          However, Sassounian should be given credit for correctly reporting the fact that the passage of HR-191 was a feat masterminded by ANCA, and that the Turkish response to the proposed resolution was weak, with the “happy-hour-conscious” Houston-ATA organization being a cogent example.

          Sassounian’s selective use of parts of my article while ignoring important points is not surprising. The Armenian Diaspora has a habit of “massaging” news and distorting facts to suit its agenda. A primary example came to light in the wake of European Court of Human Right’s (ECHR’s) October 15, 2015 decision on the Switzerland-Perinçek case. The legal disappointment for the Armenian side was peddled by the Diaspora as a “victory.”[2]

          A similar disinformation attempt became unfolded when the Danish Parliament adopted a resolution relating to the 1915 relocation in Ottoman Empire on January 26, 2017. Even though the resolution did not recognize the events as genocide, it was reported otherwise by the vast majority of Armenian media.[3]

          Sassounian concludes his op-ed by stating that HR-191 was adopted “because it tells the truth.” If it were so, Mr. Sassounian should explain why the ECHR and the French Constitutional Council say otherwise. If he chooses to delve into history, at the minimum he should read about the 1920-21 Malta Tribunal and the 1923 Bucharest Manifesto of his fellow party member Hovhannes Kachaznuni, a leading Dashnak who categorized the relocation of Armenians as a necessity for the Ottoman government.

          Or at the least, Sassounian should explain why the Armenian side keeps its archives closed and refuses to participate in a committee of historians and experts to debate its genocide allegations. Deriding your opponents as “denialists” while running away from such a debate is inexcusable.

          *Photo: Ferruh Demirmen (left), Harut Sassounian (right)

          [1] Harut Sassounian, “Turkish Activist Admits Major Blow When Texas Recognized Armenian Genocide,” The California Courier, August 15, 2017, accessed August 26, 2017,

          [2] Ferruh Demirmen, “Armenian Spin Machine: Peddling a Humiliating Defeat as Victory,” Turkish NY, November 21, 2015, accessed August 26, 2017,

          [3] Ferruh Demirmen, “’Genocide’ Recognition: Once Again, Armenian Spin Machine At Work,” Center for Eurasian Studies (AVİM), March 7, 2017, accessed August 26, 2017,

        • Combating Armenian “genocide” falsehoods: Education and pro-activity are key for Turkish side

          Combating Armenian “genocide” falsehoods: Education and pro-activity are key for Turkish side

          Combating Armenian “genocide” falsehoods: Education and pro-activity are key for Turkish side

          ferruh demirmen

          Passivity and lethargy are the major reasons for the Turkish side’s failure to effectively convey its message. Success is only possible through a pro-active stance, which requires education.

          By Ferruh Demirmen, Ph.D.

          August 11, 2017

          It is well established that Turkish efforts to combat Armenian “genocide” falsehoods have been very ineffective. This is borne out by the fact that, according to Wikipedia, as of 2017 governments and parliaments of 29 countries as well as 46 states of the United States have recognized Armenian “genocide.” The latest recognition was in the U.S. State of Texas:  http://www.turkishny.com/english-news/5-english-news/247851-texas-house-resolution-hr-191-anatomy-of-a-shameful-armenian-genocide-resolution

          The bitter irony in this dismal record is that historical facts, as well as judicial rulings and the underlying 1948 UN Convention, clearly favor the Turkish position and negate the genocide characterization. The recent rulings from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and France’s Constitutional Court, for example, consider the 1915 events in Ottoman Anatolia controversial, calling attention to the requirement of a court determination for genocide recognition. Yet, there exists no such determination. Hence “genocide” is far from proven.

          The failure of the Turkish side to convey its message effectively is in part related to the Western bias rooted in ethnicity and religion. Almost all countries that one way or another have so far recognized Armenian “genocide” are not only Western, or of Western heritage; they are Christian. In these countries false historical assertions from the Armenian side are automatically accepted as the truth. The phenomenon is a reflection of the “Armenian Settled History Syndrome,” whereby the Armenian allegations are accepted uncritically as facts.

          https://www.turkishnews.com/en/content/2015/02/10/armenian-settled-history-syndrome-an-affliction-that-runs-deep-in-the-media/

          A prime example is Wikipedia, which is blatantly pro-Armenian, to the point of obvious misinformation, e.g., “UN recognition of Armenian genocide” (Whitaker Report).

          While bias is a social malady that is difficult to overcome, there are steps that the Turkish side can take to alleviate the situation. Passivity and lethargy are the major reasons for the Turkish side’s failure to effectively convey its message. For success, Turks should shove off lethargy or passivity and be pro-active.

          With a pro-active stance, the Turkish side should be able to: (a) Effectively disseminate its own narrative (and the truth) in the media (including the social media) and conferences, (b) seek accountability in a court of law, (c) lobby and educate politicians to oppose one-sided resolutions. Lobbying includes political campaign contributions as may be appropriate.

          Education is the key

          But this begs the question: What is needed for pro-activity for the Turkish side? It is argued here that the road to pro-activity is motivation, which itself requires information. Information, or knowledge, is the driving force for action and pro-activity.

          Information does not happen in a vacuum. It is acquired through education – self-induced education, or education obtained externally, e.g., through exposure to media.

          A major setback for the Turkish side on the Armenian issue is that Turks are generally ignorant or very poorly educated on the 1915 events in Ottoman Anatolia. When abroad, they are constantly subjected to high-decibel negative propaganda from the Armenian side. The Armenian propaganda naturally deceives the unsuspecting public as well, politicians included.

          To educate Turkish people, including those living abroad, properly on the 1915 events, avenues that readily come to mind are:

          • Promote dissemination of Turkish view through printed and digital media, including TV programs, at home and abroad. A new TV forum series “Daylight on History” initiated by TADA (Turkish Anti-Defamation Alliance) is designed to reach viewers in America.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZCWKOoldQE

          • Promote academic studies and independent research at home and abroad, e.g. think tanks and doctoral studies at the University of Louisville and Utah University.
          • Promote conferences with a balanced agenda and balanced contributors.
          • Promote and finance Hollywood-type productions reflecting the Turkish narrative.

          In disseminating information, eyewitness data from the survivors and their descendents should be given due consideration.

          Start with school curriculum at home

          This subheading could as well be named “Acknowledge your adversary.” A major shortcoming in the education of Turks on the Armenian issue is the virtual exclusion of the 1915 events in school curriculum. Under the “Peace at home, peace abroad” dictum that has been in effect since the founding of the Republic, Turkish children at school are not taught about the 1915 events.

          The war and the 1915 events were over, and the Turkish governments did not want to create animosity and ethnic tension against the neighboring Armenia, and Armenians in general.

          As a result, Turkish children grow hopelessly ignorant on the Armenian issue. What is more, Turks who visit or live abroad (generally Europe and North America) get almost a shock effect when they witness unending “genocide” diatribe from the Armenian lobby in ordinary life, from the media to parliaments to Hollywood productions. They may also encounter biased school curricula that tell the Armenian version of the Turco-Armenian conflict, which impacts their children.

          Unprepared, Turks typically become apprehensive, and even intimidated. Apathy, indifference and passivity become modus operandi.

          A good example is the feeble Turkish response to the HR-191 Armenian “genocide” resolution referenced above, that was introduced at the Texas House of Representative early this year.

          Given the animus of the Armenian side, in particular the Diaspora, however, the well-intentioned “Love Thy Neighbor” message embedded in the Turkish educational system is outdated. It has outlived its usefulness. Since the 1960s, the Armenian Diaspora, in footstep with Armenia, has aggressively pursued anti-Turkish agenda, even to the point of inciting anti-Turkish hatred in young minds of ethnic Armenians.

          If not for such venomous spirit, how to explain the ASALA/JCAG terror of the 1970s through 1990s that took the lives of 58 civilians, 27 of them Turkish diplomats, and 7 diplomats relatives and staff?

          More than a century has passed since the 1915 events; but the drums of anti-Turkish invective from the Armenian quarters are loud and clear. Thanks to a lobbying blitz from the Armenian Diaspora, in the last two years Armenian “genocide” has been recognized in Germany (the Bundestag), Austria, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Paraguay, Brazil, Chile, Syria (!), the Holy See, the Czech Republic, and the U.S. states of Missouri, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wyoming and Texas.

          The Jewish Council for Public Affairs and the Holocaust Museum in the U.S. have joined the “genocide” chorus, and a new Diaspora-funded Hollywood production, The Promise, has hit the movie theaters in America to deceive the public.

          Surely, no sign of slowing down by the Diaspora! A vengeance-driven propaganda campaign to denigrate Turks is in place.

          One effective response to such anti-Turkish offensive is to change the school curricula in Turkey and include the 1915 and preceding events in history teaching. The betrayal of the Armenian minority, the lack of ill-intent on the part of Ottoman authorities in the Relocation decision, the reality of casualties on both sides, and the atrocities perpetrated by Armenian militant bands against Moslem (and Jewish) civilians, should be included in teaching.

          Turkey does not have an issue with its citizens of Armenian origin, and the intent is not to alienate the Armenian community. Roughly 100,000 illegal Armenian workers from Armenia make a living in Turkey without interference from the government, and there is regular air traffic as well as indirect trade between the two countries.

          Instead, the intent is to make Turks aware of their history. Put more bluntly, Turks should know and acknowledge that the Armenian Diaspora, and its consort Armenia, are adversaries to be reckoned with.

          Knowledge is power. And power is needed to fend off an adversary.

          What further reason?

          It is worth noting in this context that Armenia’s 1990 Declaration of Independence calls eastern Turkey (mainly the 6 provinces) “Western Armenia,” with haunts of the “Wilsonian Armenia” of the Sèvres Treaty, while its 1995 Constitution, in describing the national coat of arms, makes reference to Mount Ararat – located in Turkey.

          Yes, nearly a century after the signing of the Sèvres Treaty, Armenia still has aspirations (delusions) about the “Wilsonian Armenia,” with implicit support, one must add, from the West.

          These are not signs of a friendly neighbor.

          Neither are the demands from the Armenian side for apology, compensation and territory – demands that are commonly attached to the allegations of Armenian “genocide.”

          It is not surprising that the 2009 Zurich Protocols between Turkey and Armenia broke down in a few years without any progress. Normalization of relations requires goodwill on both sides. A recent attempt toward normalization by the Armenian side and championed by the Sabancı University (Istanbul Policy Center) assumes unrealistic premises and does not hold much promise.

          It should also be added that:

          • The call made by the Prime Minister of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in 2005 to establish a joint historical commission with Armenia to debate the 1915 events has fallen on deaf ears on the Armenian side. Erdoğan said Turkey would abide by the conclusion reached. In the meantime Armenian archives held in Yerevan, Boston, Istanbul and Jerusalem (Armenian patriarchates) are closed except to a selected few.
          • The conciliatory gestures made in recent years by top Turkish officials toward the Armenian side, such as the call in 2014 for rapprochement between Turks and Armenians, and effectively one-sided (!) condolences extended in 2014 and 2015 to Armenians on their losses in 1915, have elicited no reciprocity. Turk-vilification goes on unabated. Tellingly, an “apology” campaign launched in 2008 by some over-zealous Turkish liberals – without mentioning the word “genocide” – has not satisfied the Diaspora.
          • Just as Armenia had welcomed as a hero the ASALA terrorist Varoujan Garabedian when he was released from French prison in 2011 after the 1983 deadly Orly airport attack in Paris, the Diaspora in America has provided legal defense fund and lobbied for the release from prison of Armenian terrorists like Gourgen Yanikian and Hampig Sassounian that assassinated Turkish diplomats. There is even a memorial honoring the ASALA terrorists in the military cemetery in Yerevan
          • Armenia has been providing logistical and training help to the PKK terrorists in Turkey -a relationship that goes back to 1984 when ASALA ceased to operate. The PKK/PYD/YPG terrorists appear to have been helping Armenians in skirmishes in Nagorno-Karabakh.

          Conclusion

          The somber reality for the Turkish side is that it is facing a formidable adversary determined to malign Turks with unfounded “genocide” accusations on events that go back more than a century. It is the well-heeled, well-organized Diaspora working in consort with Armenia.

          Turks should wake up, acknowledge their adversary, and respond accordingly.

          A wise old Turkish man once observed cynically: “Offer one arm as a sacrificial limb to Armenia or the Diaspora; it will take it and will ask for the other arm.”

          A new roadmap or paradigm to combat Armenian accusations is needed. The first step in this paradigm is overhaul of the Turkish education system to include Turco-Armenian conflict in school curricula. Education should lead to motivation, hence pro-activity. Lethargy should be no more.

          For those Turks who are willing to delve into the Armenian issue, a newly released book, The Big Lie,” (Ka Kitap, 2017) by researcher Şükrü Server Aya is highly recommended. Aya debunks the “genocide” myth based on multiple sources. The book is available in English, Turkish and German.

          It goes without saying that the commitment of the Turkish government in the implementation of the new roadmap is essential. If there is a motto in this new roadmap, it is “Education, education, education.”

          And education starts at home.

        • Pope Francis should be declared persona non grata in Turkey

          Pope Francis should be declared persona non grata in Turkey

          By Ferruh Demirmen, Ph.D.
          June 30, 2016

          Pope Francis, visiting Armenia during June 24-26 (2016), once again succumbed to his anti-Turkish, anti-Muslim prejudice and called the 1915 events in Ottoman Anatolia “genocide.” To the delight of his hosts, hours after landing in Yerevan he departed from a prepared speech and used the damnable term despite previous reassurances by the Vatican that he would not do so.

          The Pontiff’s Christian emotions had taken over his common sense and decency.

          The Pontiff repeated his anti-Turkish invective before leaving Armenia by commemorating, jointly with Kerekin II of the Armenian Apostolic Church, “The extermination of a million and a half Armenian Christians … as the first genocide of the twentieth century.”

          Not surprisingly, the Pope’s language drew an angry rebuke from Ankara.

          To placate Turkey, the Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi absurdly said: “The pope has not used any words against the Turkish people.” How thoughtful!

          The allegation by the Pope is baseless and has the hallmarks of solidarity with Christian Armenia. After all, Armenians keep reminding the world that they are the “First Christian Nation.” As the spiritual leader of the Christian world, the Pope surely cannot remain indifferent to that banner!

          This is no place to delve into history to explain why the term ‘genocide” for the 1915 events is inappropriate. Suffice it to say that, the diplomatic jibe at Turkey aside, the Pope committed several wrongful acts, all serious, and all breaches of trust.

          Violating international norms

          First, the Pope summarily violated international covenants and judicial rulings bearing on the crime of genocide. That includes the 1948 UN Convention on genocide, which states that the crime of genocide can only be established by a tribunal of law, and France’s Constitutional Council’s ruling on January 8, 2016, which underlined this fact. Hence no entity other than a court of law can pass judgment on genocide.

          The European Court on Human Rights (ECtHR), in its 2013 and 2015 rulings on the Switzerland-Perinçek case, noted that Armenian genocide is disputed among the scholars, and hence not an established fact. To date, there has been no court verdict on Armenian “genocide.”

          Further, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) bars retroactive application of a law to an event that preceded it. The 1948 UN Convention went into force in 1953. The UN has also refused to call the 1915 events genocide.

          So, one must ask: Given these international covenants and precedents, what gave the Pope the right or authority to call the 1915 events genocide? Just because some biased scholars or politically motivated parliaments have done it, the Pope cannot justify his use of the term “genocide.”

          The Pope’s “Holy status” and his “Godly mission” do not exempt him from observing the rule of law. The Pope, just like the “earthly beings,” must respect the law.

          Further, the Pope cannot claim that he was simply expressing an “opinion.” Opinions cannot be used to attach a heinous crime to a person or group with impunity. The 1948 UN Convention does not recognize “genocide” based on opinion.

          The Pope’s recognition of Armenian “genocide” was not his “first.” He did the same thing on St. Peter’s Basilica in April 2015, lumping other Anatolian Christian minorities such as the Assyrians in the “mass killings.” This set the stage for the German parliament Bundestag to likewise include in its June 2, 2016 resolution other Christians under the “genocide” label.

          A sure sign of Christian solidarity or Islamophobia.

          Hypocrisy and double standard

          The Pope’s commemoration of Armenian “genocide,” intended supposedly as a reminder to prevent such crimes in the future, becomes all the more hypocritical considering that, while recognizing Armenian “genocide,” he chose not to acknowledge the massacre of more than a half million Muslim civilians at the hands of renegade Armenian gangs during the World War I Armenian revolt.

          Surely a sign of selective morality.

          But there is more. The pontiff, on his visit to Bosnia in June 2015, refused to use the term “genocide” when he denounced the Srebrenica killings. This is despite the fact that two UN courts, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), have established that the Srebrenica killings were genocide.

          Before the visit, the Bosnian academics had pleaded with the Pope to recognize the Srebrenica killings as genocide. The Pontiff ignored these pleadings. His Holiness could not bring himself to calling an event genocide if the perpetrators are Christian and the victims Muslim.

          Surely a case of double standard.

          The Srebrenica genocide is a recent (1995) history, and the location is a stone’s throw from the Holy See.

          Concluding remarks

          The Pope’s recognition of Armenian “genocide,” plus his hypocrisy and double standard toward Muslim killings, are a reflection of a deep-seated prejudice against Islam. Such prejudice hopefully does not presage the dawn of a new, post-modern crusade against the Muslim world.

          No doubt the Pope was also influenced by years of genocide propaganda run and funded by the Armenian diaspora. This has led to a well-entrenched Western proclivity to accept Armenian claims as truth without forethought and scrutiny. The ad nauseam, prejudice, half-truths, deception, cherry-picking, exaggeration, intimidation, Reductio ad Hitlerum, and labelling (“denialist”) have been the techniques successfully employed in Armenian propaganda.

          Whatever the underlying cause, if his Holiness is serious about humanity and inter-faith dialog, as he claims he is, he should demonstrate that his concerns and compassion transcend racial, religious and ethnic boundaries.

          Surely, the Pope’s call a year ago for the religious establishments in Europe to accept some of the Muslim refugees fleeing the fighting in Syria and Iraq is commendable. But it is also true that, when it comes to Armenian “genocide,” his Holiness’ prejudice clouds his judgment.

          For opinion on the Armenian question, the Pope should defer to historians, not just on the Armenian side, but also on the Turkish side.

          If the Pope continues with his baseless accusations on Armenian “genocide,” he should be declared persona non grata in Turkey. His acting as the spokesman for the Armenian causes does not help Turkish-Armenian relations. It is more like a poison.

        • Armenian Spin Machine: Peddling a Humiliating Defeat as Victory

          Armenian Spin Machine: Peddling a Humiliating Defeat as Victory

          By Ferruh Demirmen, Ph.D.

          Turks are by now accustomed to deliberate twists and deceptions from the Armenian side on the allegations of “Armenian genocide.” The “Andonian telegrams,” the “Hitler quote,” the Holocaust analogy, the “pyramids of human skulls,” and of course, the 1.5 million Armenian deaths, are some of the examples that come to mind.  But we now have, in the wake of the ECHR decision on the Switzerland-Perinçek case, a new twist: peddling a humiliating legal defeat as a victory.

          It is not a trivial matter. The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), in its October 15, 2015 judgment, ratified, by a majority vote, the Second Chamber’s decision that Switzerland had violated Turkish politician Doğu Perinçek’s freedom of expression when it penalized him for calling “Armenian genocide” an international lie. The ratification alone was a big blow to the Armenian side, who had lobbied for criminalization of “genocide denial.”

          But the Grand Chamber went further and let stand the lower chamber’s ruling that (a) Armenian “genocide” is controversial, hence unproven; (b) there can be no comparison between the Jewish Holocaust and the 1915 events in Ottoman Anatolia. These two findings further undercut the Armenian narrative.

          Upset by the lower chamber’s December 17, 2013 decision, the Armenian side had lobbied Switzerland to appeal the lower chamber’s findings to the Grand Chamber. Third-party comments were received from Armenian, French and Turkish governments, and several NGOs and individuals. In addition, Armenia was allowed to participate as a third party in the hearing.

          Upon the announcement of the Grand Chamber’s decision, the well-tuned Armenian spin machine immediately went into action. It was a concerted effort to downplay a humiliating defeat through a series of twists and pretenses.

          Armenian Government

          The Armenian Government issued a press release, noting that the Armenians’ right to have their dignity recognized under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (related to freedom of expression) was held by the Court, but that the Swiss law had been applied “inadequately” in the Perinçek case. It concluded, inexplicably, that criminalization of the Armenian Genocide denial are “generally considered legitimate,” and that “all the claims submitted with the Court by the Armenian Government were satisfied.”

          An amazing statement altogether! No one, and certainly not Dr. Perinçek, had questioned the dignity of Armenians, and that Article 10 applied to Armenians as well. But arguing that “all the claims” of the Armenian Government had been “satisfied,” was a real stretch!

          And if the “Swiss law” had been applied “inadequately” (contravened Article 10), why blame the ECHR for that?

          Armenian Advocacy Organizations

          The European Armenian Federation issued a statement “welcoming” the Grand Chamber’s decision, focusing on the “right to dignity” protection, while the Turkey-based Human Rights Association (HRA) and the Truth Justice and Memory Center criticized the ECHR for failing to take into account that its decision would “threaten the livelihood and safety of the Armenian community” in Turkey.

          The safety claim is no more than a hype, as no proof or explanation was provided – and could have been provided – how the ECHR decision could threaten the Armenian community in Turkey.

          The Turkey-based organizations also argued that the ECHR judgment was based on a “geographical” consideration, meaning that Dr. Perinçek’s “denial of Armenian genocide” had not instigated hatred or violence against the Armenian community in Switzerland, but that the decision could have been different in a different “geography.”

          Again, this is a specious argument aimed at camouflaging the thrust of the ECHR decision. There is no substance to the claim that repudiation of Armenian allegations – whatever the geography – incites violence against Armenians. On the contrary, experience has shown – re: ASALA/JCAG Armenian terror targeting Turkish diplomats – that, it is the unsubstantiated Armenian genocide claims and distortions that generate anti-Turkish hatred in the minds of Armenians, leading to violence.

          The Switzerland-Armenia Association (SAA) was more realistic in its reaction, characterizing the ECHR verdict “appalling” and “deeply shocking.” But it retorted that the freedom of expression, which Dr. Perinçek admittedly enjoyed, “cannot be misused for rewriting history.”

          “Rewriting history”? Turn that statement around and ask: How do the “genocide” pundits, while cleverly avoiding scholarly discussion with their counterparts, respect and remain truthful to history when they peddle the genocide narrative day after day, loudly and vehemently, based largely on distorted evidence and fabrications? Further, they do not have a single court verdict to prop up their allegations.

          The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), the premier Armenian lobbying group, took refuge in the “right to dignity” and “geography” arguments, and criticized the Grand Chamber for offering protection for “hate speech.” The ANCA statement then conveniently focused on the views of dissenting judges, completely ignoring the majority decision.

          The “hate speech” attribution was particularly galling, considering how the ANCA-inspired anti-Turkish rhetoric over the years helped create a generation of Armenians espousing animosity, even hatred, against Turks.


          Harut Sassounian

          Not to be outdone, Harut Sassounian, the consummate Armenian lobbyist, in an article published in The California Courier on October 20, 2015, stretched the Armenian argument to the extreme by making incredible statements. Mr. Sassounian not only tried to take comfort in the minority opinion, he claimed that the Grand Chamber had contradicted the lower chamber’s “unwarranted opinion” regarding the “Armenian genocide” being questionable.

          This assertion was nonsense, as the Grand Chamber let the lower chamber’s decision on the validity of Armenian claims stand. By doing so, The Grand Chamber implicitly accepted the lower chamber’s position.

          The lobbyist also asserted that the Switzerland-Perinçek case was not about the “legal characterization” of the 1915 events, totally ignoring the overriding importance of the 1948 UN Convention.

          Mr. Sassounian went further and accused the Grand Chamber of “inciting Armenians to resort to violence to satisfy the Court’s requirement that genocide denial” is justified if it provokes violence. This was not only a reprehensible assault on the motives of the Grand Chamber, it was alarming. Such language could encourage excitable Armenian youths to resort to violence against Turks so as to “satisfy the Court’s requirement.” Public prosecutors could take a dim view of such language.

          The Famed Lawyers

          But from the publicity point of view, at least, the Grand Prize for Armenian sophistry on the Grand Chamber judgment goes to Geoffrey Robertson QC and Amal Clooney, who, as lead counsels, had represented Armenia in the Court proceedings. The reputation or name recognition of the lawyers made the Armenian defeat all the more ironic, glaring and humiliating.

          On the day the Grand Chamber issued its judgment, Mr. Robertson and Mrs. Clooney issued a joint statement. While making reference to the minority opinion of the Court and the “right to dignity” proposition, the lawyers declared they were “pleased” with the ECHR judgment, that the Court had “endorsed” their argument, and that the decision was a “victory” for Armenia.

          The lawyers continued to assert that the Grand Chamber had “corrected” the lower chamber’s decision (a “grave error”) regarding the “Armenian genocide” being doubtful, intimating that “genocide” remained a proven fact.

          The lawyers took a swipe at Turkey’s record on freedom of expression, while they ignored, blissfully, Dr. Perinçek’s right to freedom of expression when he denied “Armenian genocide.”

          There was more to their claims. In their pronouncement the lawyers used the word “rant” to refer to Dr. Perinçek’s legal defense, and they called him a “provocateur.” Such disparaging language brought to mind Mr. Robertson’s diatribe at Dr. Perinçek during the Grand Chamber hearing when he, in a theatrical demeanor, referred to Dr. Perinçek with such characterizations as “ideologically vapid,” “this man,” “a vexatious litigant, a pest.”

          Such language was not only disrespectful of a high court such as the ECHR, it was unfitting, even shameful, for a jurist carrying the title “QC.”

          All in all, the grotesque mischaracterization in Mr. Robertson and Mrs. Clooney’s statement was a publicity stunt aimed at downplaying the crushing defeat they suffered at the Grand Chamber. From an attorney-client point of view, their pronouncement can also be seen in the context of justifying the generous compensation they must have received for their “services.” Armenia and the Diaspora should honestly ask themselves whether they got their money’s worth.

          The Sequel

          All that said, there was further irony to Mr. Robertson’s and Mrs. Clooney’s involvement with the Armenian cause. During a Gala held on October 25, 2015 by the ANCA Western Region at Century City, California, the two lawyers were presented “2015 Advocates for Justice Award” in honor of their “tireless commitment and exceptional contributions toward protecting, promoting, and advancing the Armenian Cause.”

          The lawyers were introduced in glowing terms by none other than Mr. Sassounian.

          Upon receiving his award and accepting another on behalf of Mrs. Clooney, Mr. Robertson recited the “legal accomplishment” the Armenian side had achieved at ECHR, to be followed, he added, by “reparations” to be paid by Turkey. He lamented that Armenia’s legitimate rights in Nagorno-Karabakh (“Land of ancient Artsakh”) had not yet been met, and relayed the message from Mrs. Clooney that she and husband George Clooney would be traveling to Armenia next April 24th.

          A guest of honor at the Gala was Mourad Topalian, a former ANCA chairman who, in 2001, was convicted and sentenced to 37 months of jail service in federal prison for storage of stolen explosives and owning machine guns. That was reminiscent of Armenian terrorist Varoujan Garabedian being given a warm welcome in Armenia after he was released from French prison in 2001, having served 17 years of his life sentence.

          A video highlighting Pope Francis’ speech recognizing “Armenian genocide” at the Vatican mass on April 12, 2015 was shown, and, not surprisingly, a donation of $50,000 was pledged to ANCA Western Region.

          Conclusion

          Reading the responses of different Armenian sources to the Grand Chamber judgment, one would think that the Armenian side came out triumphant. However, the reality is just the opposite. Notwithstanding their boastful language, the Armenian camp in fact suffered a humiliating defeat. The Grand Chamber’s ruling on Dr. Perinçek’s freedom of expression, and its decision to let stand two basic findings of the lower chamber, speak clearly and loudly in favor of the Turkish side. No amount of spinning and hyperbole can alter that fact.

          The “right to dignity” recognition granted by the Court to the Armenian side is a universally applicable privilege, and does not in any way signal a particular achievement for the litigant. Likewise, the “geography” caveat is a natural and necessary component of the freedom of expression embodied in Article 10 of the Convention, and signifies no particular feat for the Armenian side.

          The near-congruence of arguments emanating from different Armenian sources to the ECHR decision suggests a pre-planned, coordinated response to what was expected be an unfavorable judgment from the Grand Chamber. The law was clearly on Dr. Perinçek’s side, and the Armenian side knew it. But the Diaspora, in particular, felt that it had to project a semblance of victory – no matter what the outcome. The thought of failure was unbearable. Hence the embellishments in argumentation and the well-coordinated spin machine to deflect from truth.

          A further conclusion from the ECHR litigation is that the Armenian side will henceforth avoid legal recourse to press its genocide allegations. Not only the historical evidence, but also the absence of a court verdict, as well the non-retroactivity of the 1948 UN Convention, make a legal recourse for the Armenian side rather unpalatable. That means more propaganda, more political pandering, and more media blitz.
        • Top European court’s decision should make Pope Francis blush

          Top European court’s decision should make Pope Francis blush

          By Ferruh Demirmen, Ph.D.

          AVİM, Center for Eurasian Studies

          October 26, 2015

          When Pope Francis, during a Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica on April 12, 2015, pronounced the word “genocide” in reference to the 1915 events in Ottoman Anatolia a century ago, it was patently clear that he was delving into territory he should not have. It was a meeting where the pontiff and top Armenian clerics and Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan had gathered in what was apparently a show of Christian solidarity.

          By recognizing “Armenian genocide,” and calling the Armenian victims “confessors and martyrs for the name of Christ,” the Pope was asserting an unproven event, revealing his prejudice, or at the vey best, his misjudgment. The recent decision from the Grand Chamber of the prestigious European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is a testimony to the Pope’s wrongful and deplorable stance on Armenian allegations.

          In its milestone decision announced on October 15, 2015, the Grand Chamber, by a majority vote, agreed with the Second (lower) Chamber’s 17 December 2013 decision that Switzerland had violated Turkish politician Doğu Perinçek’s right to freedom of expression when it imposed penalty on Perinçek in connection with his “denial of Armenian genocide.” Hoping to have the lower chamber’s decision reversed, Switzerland, under intense Armenian lobbying, had appealed that decision to Grand Chamber – obviously to no avail.

          The Grand Chamber’s decision had two equally important ramifications. By letting stand the lower chamber’s decision, the Grand Chamber in effect affirmed that: (a) “Armenian genocide” is controversial and unproven, (b) there can be no comparison between the 1915 events and Holocaust.

          The court’s position is consistent with the provisions of the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide (ratified in 1951), which first codified this term. According to this Convention, genocide is a legally construed special crime, and it can only be established through a judicial process in a duly authorized court – an international court or a court where the alleged crime was committed. Without a verdict from such a court, labeling an event as genocide lacks legal validity. In other words, it is merely an opinion.

          To date there exists not a single court verdict characterizing the 1915 events as genocide. The UN has also refused to call the 1915 events genocide. When he decided to recognize “Armenian genocide,” the Pope should have been aware of these legal boundaries. ECHR is an organ of the 47-member Council of Europe.

          So, one must ask, absent a judicial verdict, what gave the Pope the authority to call the 1915 events “genocide”?

          In its February 3, 2015 ruling (Croatia v. Serbia), the International Court of Justice in The Hague also concluded that forced relocation, which is what happened in Anatolia in 1915, even if it results in killings, cannot be called genocide unless specific intent (dolus specialis) to harm or kill is proven. The court also held that the provisions of the 1948 Convention cannot be applied retroactively, i.e., judgments as to past events not permissible.

          In the U.S. the Bill of Rights protects a party from being labeled guilty of a crime without due process; i.e., the alleged crime must be adjudicated in a court of law. The old, venerable adage, “Innocent until proven guilty,” must be respected.

          It is obvious that by labelling the 1915 events as genocide the Pope exceeded his authority and violated both the European and American due-process standards. The same standards, in fact, also bind parliaments that have so far recognized “Armenian genocide.”

          To date, the Armenian side, out of fear it would lose, has refrained from litigating its case in a court of law, preferring to influence the public opinion through propaganda instead.

          A case in point is the 17 December 2003 order of the European Court of First Instance on a lawsuit lodged by a group of Armenian-French citizens against three European institutions including the Council of the European Union. The applicants had sought compensation for non-material damage suffered on account of, inter alia, recognition of Turkey’s status as a candidate for accession to the EU without Turkey’s prior acknowledgment of Armenian genocide. The court found that the applicants’ action was without legal merit and dismissed the claim, adding that the European Parliament’s 1987 resolution calling on Turkey to recognize “Armenian genocide” was purely political, without any binding consequences. Appeal of the ruling to the higher court was dismissed.

          The case was a legal defeat for the Armenian side, also reaffirming the fact that Armenian “g” resolutions passed by parliaments are no more than political opinions.

          Such realization should prompt parliaments that have recognized Armenian “g” to date to re-think their stance and rescind their decisions. The 1948 Convention does not make a distinction between “political” and “legal” recognition of genocide.

          The Pope, of course, has the right to express his opinion on the 1915 events; but this is not the same thing as denouncing these events as proven genocide.

          Speaking of opinion, in 1985 69 U.S. historians and researches signed a declaration, published in New York Times and Washington Post, stating that in their opinion the 1915 events do not constitute genocide. Among the signatories were eminent scholars such as Bernard Lewis. Surely, the Pope should have been aware of this declaration. Hence, even as regards opinion, there is no consensus among the scholars on “Armenian genocide.”

          The Pope apparently is also not aware that in 1920 his predecessor Pope Benedict XV had pleaded with the British to release some of the high-ranking Ottoman officials who were being held on the Island of Malta on suspicion of complicity in massacring Armenians. Benedict XV, who had direct contact with the Ottoman authorities, obviously did not think the Ottoman government had murderous or genocidal intentions toward the Armenians. All 244 Malta detainees, in fact, were released by the British for lack of evidence and returned to Turkish soil.

          So, one must ask the Pope: What did he know about the 1915 events in 2015 that his predecessor Benedict XV did not know almost a century earlier?

          Human rights issue

          The Pope, while recognizing “Armenian genocide,” astonishingly did not express any compassion for more than half a million civilian Muslims that lost their lives at the hands of renegade Armenian bands during the 1915 Armenian revolt.

          In a gesture of humanity, the Pope could have also offered condolences to the relatives of 42 Turkish diplomats and 4 foreign diplomats that were assassinated by Armenian terrorists in the 1970s through 1990s – including Turkish ambassador to Vatican Taha Carım in 1977. Three years later, in 1980, Carım’s successor Vecdi Türel and his driver were wounded by the terrorists.

          Likewise, the Pope could have expressed his compassion for the memory of the more than 600 Azeri civilians massacred by Armenian forces in the town of Khojaly in 1992.

          The Pope’s “humanity” should not be limited by race, religion or ethnicity.

          The 1.5 million Armenian victims alluded to by the Pope is also a grotesque exaggeration. The Armenian losses in Anatolia during World War I from all causes including fighting on the sides of the Allies were roughly 300,000, some 57,000 of which were during the relocation itself, most of them due to disease, famine and chaos.

          Double standard

          When he visited Sarajevo in June 2015, His Holiness, while denouncing the massacres inflicted upon the Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica, refused to use the term “genocide.” This, despite the fact that two UN courts have unequivocally called the Srebrenica massacres genocide. The Pope ignored the appeals of Bosnian academics and representatives of war victims to recognize the massacres as genocide. Srebrenica in a sense is a stone-throwing distance from the Holy See.

          Reflecting a shameful double standard, the Pope could not bring himself to use the word “genocide” when the perpetrators are Christian and the victims Muslim.

          In conclusion, His Holiness should deal with matters of faith and stay away from highly-charged historical issues that sow discord and hatred in society. He should not readily accept Armenian “g” allegations presented to him on a gold platter by the Armenian side. Otherwise, his call for inter-faith and inter-communal dialog becomes shamefully hollow.