Category: Harut Sassounian

The JNS.org website (Jewish and Israel news) posted a venomous, anti-Armenian article by Arye Gut with a bombastic headline: “Anti-Semitism in Armenia: A Clear and Present Danger.”

JNS.org identifies the author as “an Azerbaijani Israeli” who is “a board member of the Israeli-Azerbaijani International Organization, official coordinator of the ‘Justice for Khojaly!’ international campaign in Israel, and an expert in international relations.”

Dozens of Azeri and Turkic media outlets rushed to reprint this Armenophobic propaganda, stressing that it originated from a ‘popular’ Jewish news source. The article may have been written in Baku, planted in Israeli and Jewish publications, and then reprinted in Azerbaijan to lead readers into thinking that it comes from an objective third party source.

Gut claims that Armenia’s Jewish minority “shrunk dramatically” after the end of “a more tolerant” Soviet rule! He admits, as an afterthought, that “Armenia’s ongoing economic collapse” is equally responsible for the dwindling number of Jews “from more than 5,000 to just a few hundred.” Gut fails to mention, however, that during the same period over one million Armenians also left their homeland due to abysmal economic conditions.

The Azeri-Israeli author further accuses Armenians of “cultural violence,” referring to the existence of anti-Semitic books and TV programs. Yet he grudgingly acknowledges that “such unfortunate incidents” occur “in many countries.” If that is the case, why is he singling out Armenia? Could it be that he has ulterior motives? As “official coordinator of the ‘Justice for Khojaly!’ international campaign in Israel,” is Gut a paid agent or doing all this hard work — writing pro-Azerbaijan/anti-Armenia articles — out of the goodness of his heart?

Gut goes on to defame Armenians, claiming that “around 1.3 million out of 2.2 million adults in Armenia expressed anti-Semitic attitudes.” He misleads readers into thinking that he has personally interviewed 1.3 million Armenians all of whom supposedly made anti-Jewish statements! What Gut is referring to is Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) flawed global survey which reported that 58% of a random sample of 500 Armenians, interviewed mostly by telephone, expressed anti-Semitic views. As Gut’s figure of 1.3 million Armenians comes from ADL’s survey, he should have also mentioned the results of the same survey for his beloved Azerbaijan — one of the worst violators of human rights in the world — which shows that 2.4 million Azeris harbored anti-Semitic sentiments, almost double the number of Armenians!

Since Gut is concealing Azerbaijan’s figures, let’s expose them to see how they compare with those of Armenia, based on the results of ADL’s 11-question survey:

1) 3.2 million Azeris and 1.5 million Armenians replied “probably true”: “Jews are more loyal to Israel than to the country they live in.”
2) 3.4 million Azeris and 1.6 million Armenians replied “probably true”: “Jews have too much power in the business world.”
3) 3.2 million Azeris and 1.5 million Armenians replied “probably true”: “Jews have too much power in international financial markets.”
4) 2 million Azeris and 1 million Armenians replied “probably true”: “Jews still talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust.”
5) 3.4 million Azeris and 1.3 million Armenians replied “probably true”: “Jews don’t care what happens to anyone but their own kind.”
6) 2.5 million Azeris and 1.1 million Armenians replied “probably true”: “Jews have too much control over global affairs.”
7) 2.5 million Azeris and 1.1 million Armenians replied “probably true”: “Jews have too much control over the United States government.”
8) 2.4 million Azeris and 1.2 million Armenians replied “probably true”: “Jews think they are better than other people.”
9) 2.3 million Azeris and 0.9 million Armenians replied “probably true”: “Jews have too much control over the global media.”
10) 2 million Azeris and 0.8 million Armenians replied “probably true”: “Jews are responsible for most of the world’s wars.”
11) 2.4 million Azeris and 1.4 million Armenians replied “probably true”: “People hate Jews because of the way Jews behave.”

ADL’s Global Survey results are even more devastating for Turkey — 34 million Turks out of an adult population of 49 million are found to be anti-Semitic.

Gut concludes his anti-Armenian diatribe by depicting the so-called “Khojaly massacre” as “one of the worst tragedies of the 20th century,” thereby raising the alleged killing of “613 people” in Khojaly during the Karabagh war to the level of 6 million victims of the Jewish Holocaust and 1.5 million victims of the Armenian Genocide!

Gut must be unaware of Benjamin Franklin’s famous words: “Don’t throw stones at your neighbors, if your own windows are glass!”

I delve this week into a thorny subject that has distressed much of the Armenian world: The uproar generated by the highly critical and harshly-worded letter posted on the internet by the Armenian Patriarch of Jerusalem Nourhan Manougian addressed to His Holiness Karekin II, Catholicos of All Armenians.

I was asked by several reputable individuals in leadership positions in Armenia and Diaspora to comment on this controversy hoping to calm down the tense atmosphere. I consented, not because I believe that my column would resolve the immediate problem, but to address the larger issues facing the Armenian nation at this critical juncture in our history.

The Jerusalem Patriarch’s lengthy letter contained two specific complaints: His understanding that at a meeting last September in Etchmiadzin, there was a discussion about converting the historic and autonomous Patriarchate of Jerusalem into one of the Dioceses of the Mother Church. The Jerusalem Patriarchate is one of the four Hierarchical Sees of the Armenian Apostolic Church, along with the Catholicosate of All Armenians, Catholicosate of the Great of Cilicia, and the Patriarchate of Istanbul. Patriarch Manougian’s letter also complained about Karekin II’s refusal to ordain Father Baret Yeretzian as Bishop, at the request of the Synod of the St. James Brotherhood of Jerusalem.

While Catholicos Karekin II and several of his Primates adamantly deny that there ever was discussion on converting the Jerusalem Patriarchate into a Diocese, some attendees of the September meeting have reported otherwise. There was a similar controversy involving the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul over a decade ago. Back then, Patriarch Mesrob Mutafian had also written an angry letter to Karekin Vehapar denouncing any attempt to lower the status of the Istanbul Patriarchate to a Diocese of Holy Etchmiadzin.

In response to the Jerusalem Patriarch’s Nov. 24 letter, the Supreme Spiritual Council issued a statement on Dec. 1, followed by individually-written letters by a few Primates affiliated with the Catholicosate of All Armenians, denouncing the ‘unacceptable’ tone and ‘false’ content of the Patriarch’s letter. They also expressed indignation that Patriarch Manougian had posted his letter on the internet rather than sending it privately to His Holiness Karekin II. The Patriarch had justified his decision by explaining that Karekin II had not responded to his previous letter. Ironically, the Primates castigating the Jerusalem Patriarch for posting his letter on the internet were doing the same thing themselves, further publicizing the Patriarch’s letter and fanning the flames of controversy.

The dispute over the Jerusalem Patriarch’s letter should not be viewed as an isolated incident. It is merely one manifestation of many serious, but neglected, tribulations inflicting the Armenian nation. Such high-level public controversies only aggravate our existing problems, including public distrust of leaders in Armenia and Diaspora, dwindling church attendance, declining membership in community organizations, economic crisis causing emigration from Armenia, Armenia-Diaspora disagreements, and weakening cultural identity in the Diaspora. These internal failings diminish the ability of the nation to confront existential issues, such as the security of the Armenian Republic, the Artsakh (Karabagh) conflict, Armenian demands from Turkey, survival of the Armenian community in Syria, and the preservation of the Armenian Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Istanbul.

These grave challenges, which could have catastrophic consequences for the survival of Armenia and the Armenian people, cannot be resolved by letter-writing campaigns. What is needed is a globally coordinated effort to find pan-Armenian solutions.

One possible solution is creating a democratically elected Diaspora-wide body that can truly represent the seven million Armenians throughout the world, outside Armenia and Artsakh. These Diaspora representatives, in conjunction with the leadership of Armenia and Artsakh, can claim to speak in the name of all Armenians worldwide. Whenever a crisis arises, this trio would have the authority and standing to settle all political, ecclesiastical and socio-economic discords among Armenians as well as defend the nation from external threats.

In the absence of such a worldwide elected entity, the existing Armenian Genocide Centennial Committee should be restructured so that after next April it can coordinate all significant issues with leaders of Armenia, Artsakh, and major Armenians organizations, along with some notable personalities.

It is incumbent on all Armenians to come together and resolve their critical issues before internal feuds and external perils threaten the survival of this ancient nation!

Last week, a Turkish Parliamentarian submitted a proposal to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, seeking condemnation of the Armenian Genocide, a series of atrocities, and other acts of state terrorism.

In this document, Sebahat Tuncel, member of pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), requests that Pres. Erdogan acknowledge and apologize in Parliament for the Armenian Genocide, massacres of Dersim, Marash, Sivas, and Chorum, mass hangings after the Sept. 12, 1980 military coup, and other Crimes Against Humanity resulting from state terror.

The proposed resolution also demands that the Turkish President visit one of the sites of the mass killings, repeat his apology in public, and declare April 24 to be an official Day of Mourning. Within a year, the Parliament is to form a Truth Commission and make public all documents in state archives regarding these crimes. Moreover, moral and material restitution should be provided to descendants of the victims.

It is expected that the Turkish Parliament would reject consideration of this proposal. Most probably, Tuncel’s real intent is to raise the issue of the Armenian Genocide and other mass killings in Parliament, regardless of the outcome. The mere submission of such a resolution would create a national uproar inside the Parliament, the media, and Turkish denialist circles. Tuncel must be aware that she is running the risk of having her parliamentary immunity lifted and being prosecuted for bringing up banned subjects under Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code.

While welcoming Tuncel’s daring and bold proposal, Armenians, Turks, Kurds, and others should not forget that this would not be the first time the Turkish government has taken up the deportation and massacre of Armenians. On November 4, 1918, immediately after the collapse of the Young Turk regime and before the founding of the Republic of Turkey by Kemal Ataturk in 1923, the Ottoman Parliament considered a motion on the crimes committed by the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP): “A population of one million people guilty of nothing except belonging to the Armenian nation were massacred and exterminated, including even women and children.” The then Minister of Interior Fethi Bey responded by telling the Parliament: “It is the intention of the government to cure every single injustice done up until now, as far as the means allow, to make possible the return to their homes of those sent into exile, and to compensate for their material loss as far as possible.”

A Parliamentary Investigative Committee proceeded to collect relevant documents describing actions of those responsible for the Armenian mass killings and turned them over to the Turkish Military Tribunal. CUP’s leading figures were found guilty of massacring Armenians and hanged or given lengthy prison sentences. The Military Tribunal requested that Germany extradite to Turkey the masterminds of the massacres who had fled the country. After German refusal, they were tried in absentia and sentenced to death.

To reinforce her proposal with historical and legal precedents, Tuncel may want to submit to the Turkish Parliament a copy of the 1918 parliamentary motion and discussion on the Armenian Genocide, which was referred to at the time as “Armenian deportations and massacres.” She should also submit a copy of the guilty verdicts issued by Turkish Military Tribunals. Finally, Tuncel should remind the Parliament of the historic admission Kemal Ataturk made in an interview published in the Los Angeles Examiner on August 1, 1926: “These leftovers from the former Young Turk Party who should have been made to account for the lives of millions of our Christian subjects who were ruthlessly driven en masse from their homes and massacred.” Would any Turkish Parliamentarian dare to call the Father of Modern Turkey a liar?

Should the Turkish Parliament block Tuncel’s resolution and prevent its consideration, it would expose the Erdogan government’s fear of facing the truth and concealing the guilt of its predecessors! Regardless of the end result, this proposal is an unexpected positive development on the eve of the Armenian Genocide Centennial and provides some consolation to descendants of the victims of more recent Turkish atrocities.

The introduction of Tuncel’s proposal to the Turkish Parliament coincided with the unanimous recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Bolivia’s Senate and Parliament. Significantly, this acknowledgment was achieved on its own merits, without any Armenian lobbying efforts, which negates the standard Turkish claim that countries recognizing the Armenian Genocide do so under pressure from local Armenian communities. Hardly any Armenians live in Bolivia!

Azerbaijan’s armed forces committed a criminal act on November 12, shooting down an unarmed Armenian helicopter inside Artsakh’s borders and killing three military officers. This is the first time since the 1994 ceasefire that Azerbaijan has attacked an Armenian aircraft.

Armenia should not only retaliate against Azerbaijan, but also take all appropriate diplomatic measures to identify and condemn the country that sold Baku the missiles used to down the helicopter. It should be noted that in recent years Israel and Russia have sold billions of dollars of sophisticated military hardware to Azerbaijan.

This unwarranted attack is partly due to 20 years of tit-for-tat border skirmishes during which Azeri sharpshooters kill Armenians and Armenian soldiers return fire killing Azeris. Sitting in his Palace in Baku, Pres. Aliyev does not seem to be bothered by the loss of young Azeris, so long as an equal number of Armenians are killed, since there are several times more Azerbaijanis (close to 10 million) than Armenians (less than three million) in their respective countries. For Aliyev, sacrificing Azeri soldiers is a worthwhile investment for the sake of keeping the focus of the international community on the unresolved Karabagh conflict.

Armenians worldwide are relieved that leaders of Armenia and Artsakh have announced their serious intent to respond to the latest Azeri aggression with a massive and disproportionate attack. One would hope that after a major Armenian counteroffensive, Aliyev might realize that Azerbaijan is paying a heavy price for his self-defeating military adventures.

Sadly, the Armenian unwillingness to launch a large-scale retaliation over the years emboldened Azerbaijan’s despot to resort to more brazen attacks, culminating in last week’s downing of an unarmed helicopter. What’s next? Blowing up a civilian plane with a large number of Armenian passengers, as he has repeatedly threatened to do?

Another puzzling situation is the continued high-level peace talks between the two countries, while one of the sides — Azerbaijan — keeps on shooting! How is it possible to talk peace and fire at the same time? At the end of every summit meeting, Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders, along with Minsk Group mediators representing the United States, France and Russia, routinely declare that the Karabagh conflict should be resolved through peaceful means, while Azerbaijan continues its aggressive behavior before, during, and after the peace talks!

To make matters worse, after each Azeri attack, the Minsk Group urges both Armenia and Azerbaijan to exercise restraint and places the blame equally on both sides. Such unfair and false parity only emboldens Azerbaijan to intensify its aggression. If the international community truly seeks a peaceful resolution and wants to prevent unnecessary bloodshed around Artsakh, it should ban the sale of weapons to Azerbaijan and issue a strong condemnation each time it violates the ceasefire.

Meanwhile, the Armenian government needs to take all necessary defensive measures to protect the people of Armenia and Artsakh from wanton Azeri attacks, even if it has to launch pre-emptive strikes deep inside Azerbaijan. Aliyev should not forget that his country’s oil and gas pipelines, oil fields and refineries are highly vulnerable to such attacks which could cause billions of dollars of damage to the economy.

To discourage Azerbaijan’s aggressive behavior, Armenia must declare that it would not only retaliate, but also freeze the peace talks by six months after each Azeri attack. Because Aliyev hopes to get back through negotiations some of the territories on the periphery of Artsakh, the suspension of peace talks would delay and eventually block the return of any territory. Thus, after a lengthy suspension of the talks, Aliyev would learn a valuable lesson: You can’t talk peace and make war at the same time!

Should Azerbaijan persist in its hostile behavior, Armenia could terminate all negotiations and decide either to recognize the Republic of Artsakh, or officially declare that Artsakh is an inseparable part of Armenia.

If Aliyev is foolish enough to make war, he may end up losing more territory and leave his country’s considerable energy infrastructure in total shambles. No one should take seriously Aliyev’s repeated threats to invade Armenia and Artsakh. Most military experts acknowledge that Azerbaijan’s military is inferior to Armenia’s, despite the lavish expenditure of billions of petrodollars to acquire the latest weaponry.

Harut Sassounian

I just learned that the Turkish government has quietly corrected the signpost near the historic Holy Cross Church (Sourp Khach) on Akhtamar Island in Lake Van, by indicating its “Armenian” origin.

For decades, Turkish authorities systematically concealed the true identity of thousands of Armenian churches and monuments so no one would remember that Armenians lived for thousands of years in lands presently occupied by the Republic of Turkey. By not disclosing the traces of Armenian civilization, Turkish officials calculated that there would be no need to explain the disappearance of Armenians — another manifestation of Turkish denialism.

Back in 2007, the Turkish government held an elaborate opening ceremony after renovating the 10th Century Holy Cross Church. While some Armenians naively participated in this Turkish propaganda exercise, I wrote several critical editorials pointing out that Turkish officials did not permit Armenian church services (except once a year), and refused to allow a cross displayed on its dome. Instead, the Sourp Khach Church was officially designated as a museum and placed under the administration of the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism, and not under the jurisdiction of the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul. Since then, a cross has been placed on the Church dome.

One issue that I failed to mention back in 2007 was the inscription on
the signpost leading to the Church. The original signpost made no
reference to Armenians either in English or in Turkish. Below is the
heading and first words of the previous inscription, written in English:
“Akdamar Island & Monumental Museum. Fee 5 TL [Turkish Liras]. Akdamar
Island and Church. Akdamar Church was built by the monks of architects
Manuel between 915-921 by the order of Vaspurakan King Gagik I….”

Last week, during a chance encounter in a Glendale Armenian bookstore, Senem Cevik, Assistant Professor at Ankara University, showed me two different photos of the Holy Cross Church signpost. The first, taken by her a year ago, showed the foregoing inscription. The second, taken by one of her colleagues last month, displayed the new inscription that refers to the building as an Armenian Church:

“Akhdamar Armenian Church of the Holy Cross. The Church was built by monk/architect Manuel between 915 and 921, by the order of Gagik I, King of Vaspurakan. Built at the form of a four-leaf clover and under the plan of a cruciform, the church was covered by a dome from inside and by a pyramidal cone from outside. The church has two gates, one at the southern and another at the western side. During subsequent periods, the Chapel of Zacharias I, a jamatun and a bell tower were added to the church and the Chapel of Saint Stephanos was built separately. Built in the name of the Holy Cross, the church has been transformed into a monastery in 1131. On the stone reliefs of the façade of the church, religious scenes taken from the Old and New Testament, palace life, hunting scenes as well as human and animal figures are depicted. These depictions are important as they distinguish the church from similar ones. There are various wall paintings representing descriptions taken from the Bible on the inner side of the church’s walls.”

This new inscription clearly designates Holy Cross, both in English and Turkish, as an Armenian Church. However, there is still a problem. While the church’s name is correctly written in English as Akhtamar, in the Turkish language inscription it is referred to by its Turkified name, Akdamar.

I can only speculate as to why the Turkish government did not make a public announcement regarding the revised inscription of the Sourp Khach Church signpost. Here are some possible reasons:

— Oversight by low-level Turkish officials who did not realize the P.R. value of publicizing the change.
— Reluctance of high-ranking officials to draw attention to the change, fearing that they would appear ridiculous taking credit for something so obvious that should have been done long time ago.
— Concerns by Turkish officials that making public the revised text would impress the outside world, while triggering criticism at home for catering to Armenians.
— Preoccupation of newly-elected Turkish leaders with other urgent matters. They may yet make an announcement at a later date.

It is equally puzzling that no one on the Armenian side, including the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul, has made any mention of the revised inscription reflecting the Armenian origin of Holy Cross Church.

One hopes that this single rectification of the Akhtamar Church signpost would be a prelude to similar recognition of Armenian cultural heritage in museums, churches, and monuments all across Turkey, including the City of Ani.