Category: Authors

Israel’s Parliament — the Knesset — held “an historic session” on June 12, during which “seven different political parties overwhelmingly endorsed recognition of the Armenian Genocide,” according to Dr. Israel Charny, Executive Director of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem. He cautiously predicted that the Knesset would complete its legislative procedures leading to recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

While acknowledging the Armenian Genocide would be salutary, Israel should have done so long ago. In fact, the Jewish State should have been the first country to recognize the genocide, in view of the awesome legacy of the Holocaust — Shoah. Who should empathize more with the victims of genocide than those who have suffered a similar fate themselves? As Knesset member Nino Abesadze pointed out during the hearing: “It is precisely because we have been a victim people that we do not dare fail to identify with another victim people.” Another influential Knesset member, Zeev Elkin, Chair of the Likud Caucus stated: “We are one of the last nations in the world that has still not recognized the Armenian Genocide. It is our moral responsibility that we have still not met.”

During the June 12 hearing, Knesset Chairman Reuven Rivlin spoke “firmly and inspiringly” with “profound feeling of both a Jewish and an Israeli imperative to extend a long overdue recognition,” Dr. Charny reported. Chairman Rivlin announced that there was no need for a new vote to recognize the Armenian Genocide since the Knesset had already voted unanimously for its recognition last year. Dr. Charny explained that unlike the US Congress, Knesset resolutions first go to the plenary session before being considered by one of its committees. The next step for the Armenian Genocide resolution is the Education Committee, after which it would be sent back to the Knesset for a final vote. Only then it could be said that the Knesset has officially recognized the Armenian Genocide.

One of the unexpected developments at the June 12 hearing was a statement by Minister of Environmental Affairs Gilad Erdan who announced that he was speaking officially on behalf of the government. He stated unambiguously that Israel had decided to recognize the Armenian Genocide. Furthermore, Minister Erdan claimed that “the State of Israel has never denied it, on the contrary, we deplore the [Armenian] genocide.” This was a surprising statement, since it is well known that, under Turkish pressure, Israel has persistently opposed recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Nevertheless, in defiance of Israeli state denialism, on April 24, 2000, Minister of Justice Yossi Beilin and Minister of Education Yossi Sarid acknowledged the Armenian Genocide, prompting the government to repudiate their statements. Beilin had also recognized the genocide in 1994, while serving as Deputy Foreign Minister.

The fact that serious discussions on the Armenian Genocide are now taking place at a time of deteriorating relations between Turkey and Israel raises troubling questions about the motives of the Israeli government. It would be morally repugnant to see the mass murder of a nation being exploited for crass political calculations. Yet, one has to realize that international relations are rarely based on moral principles. Were it not for economic and political considerations, the whole world would have long ago recognized the Armenian Genocide.

While critics may be displeased that Israel is considering recognition of the Armenian Genocide at a time of discord with Turkey, the greater wrong, in my view, was not doing the right thing for all these years. Even now, despite efforts to rectify the past and uphold the truth, some Israeli officials are concerned that raising the Armenian Genocide issue would further exacerbate relations with Turkey. Knesset member Arieh Eldad dismissed such objections by pointing out the illogical stance of the naysayers: “A few years ago, people said we couldn’t talk about it because of our good relations with Turkey. Now people say we can’t talk about it because of our bad relations with Turkey.” Eldad added that when people are reluctant to address moral and ethical issues there is always a claim that the timing of such a discussion is wrong.

There is, however, one red line that no Armenian should cross. Israeli officials have sought to obtain political concessions from Armenia and Armenians in return for genocide recognition. Such demands should be rejected outright since Armenians do not owe anything to Israel for recognizing the genocide — a universally acknowledged historical fact. Israel should recognize the Armenian Genocide simply because it is the right thing to do, reflecting the sentiments of all righteous Jews worldwide.

 

 

Clinton Should Share the Blame

For Killings of Armenian Soldiers

 

A tragic pattern of bloody engagements continues to recur along the Armenia-Azerbaijan border at great human cost. Whenever high level visits or international meetings are scheduled on the Artsakh (Karabagh) conflict, Azerbaijan unfailingly initiates attacks on Armenian border guards causing many casualties.

 

Azerbaijan’s leaders hope that such hostile action would impress upon the mediating countries the urgency of resolving the conflict by pressuring Armenia’s leadership to make territorial concessions on Artsakh.

 

Last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited the Caucasus republics. On the day of her arrival in Yerevan, Azeri forces attacked two Armenian border posts, killing three soldiers and wounding many others. In the ensuing days, more Azeri attacks took place, drawing Armenian return fire, resulting in scores of casualties, mostly on the Azeri side.

 

Armenians expected Secretary Clinton to strongly condemn Azerbaijan after its initial attack. Clearly, the Azeri military action was timed to coincide with her visit to Armenia. Yet, regrettably, the Secretary merely urged both countries to refrain from “the use of force,” stressing that the Artsakh conflict “can be resolved exclusively by peaceful means.” Clinton’s totally unacceptable statement equated the aggressors with the victims. Moreover, by not condemning the Azeri attacks, she actually emboldened Azerbaijan to commit further acts of aggression against Armenia.

 

Since it is common knowledge that Azerbaijan orchestrates such attacks to coincide with visits of high-ranking officials to the region, Secretary Clinton should have warned Azerbaijan, before embarking on her trip, not to initiate any hostile action while she was in the area. The State Department should have advised the Azeri government that any breach of the ceasefire during the Clinton visit would be personally embarrassing for the Secretary of State, leaving her no choice but to cancel her trip to Baku. Even if such a warning was not issued in advance, Clinton should have refused to go to Baku after the Azeri attacks. Unfortunately, the Secretary placed a higher value on Azeri oil than on Armenian blood. By her actions, she also undermined the international prestige and moral standing of the United States!

 

As this could be Clinton’s farewell visit to the region — she is retiring from public service later this year — it is regrettable that she will leave behind a legacy of violence and conflict rather than peace and reconciliation. The US Secretary may have come to Yerevan and Baku to encourage a negotiated settlement to the Artsakh conflict, yet she left the region more destabilized than before.

 

Another factor that has encouraged Azerbaijan to continue its attacks is the inadequate Armenian response to the countless ceasefire violations since 1994. Armenians will be unable to stop Azeri aggression simply by firing back. The Aliyev regime should be made to understand that it would pay a heavy price for breaching the ceasefire. Rather than simply returning fire, the Armenian response should be to neutralize the Azeri military positions responsible for initiating the attacks.

 

Although some may fear that a more robust Armenian response would lead to all-out conflict, such concerns are misplaced because Azerbaijan is not ready to wage war, according to most military experts. By starting a premature war, the Azeris risk losing even more territories, not to mention the enormous economic losses!

 

To deter further Azeri aggression and reduce Armenian casualties, here are seven actions that Armenia may consider taking should Azerbaijan continue to violate the ceasefire:

 

— Respond by targeting Azerbaijan’s petroleum industry, disrupting its oil and gas pipelines. The best defense is a good offense.

 

— Take preemptive action to neutralize Azeri snipers who regularly target Armenian border guards and civilians in nearby villages.

 

— After each attack suspend peace talks with Azerbaijan for an indefinite period. One cannot talk peace and fight at the same.

 

— Demand that all countries refrain from the sale of weapons to Azerbaijan.

 

— Urge CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization), a defense-alliance that includes Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, to warn Azerbaijan that any further attacks on Armenia would trigger a collective military response from all CSTO members.

 

— Declare that Turkey’s support for Azerbaijan in the Artsakh conflict constitutes a hostile act, and hence withdraw Armenia’s signature from the Armenia-Turkey Protocols.

 

— Recognize the Republic of Artsakh as an independent state and invite other countries to do likewise.

 

 

 

While readers are generally aware that the Executive and Legislative branches of the US government have recognized the Armenian Genocide, it is not as widely known that the US Judiciary has also reaffirmed the facts of the Armenian Genocide on several occasions. Indeed, all three branches of the US government have gone on record confirming that the Armenian Genocide was indeed a genocide.

 

The first time that the Executive branch made reference to the Armenian Genocide was back in 1951 in a key document filed by the US government with the International Court of Justice (World Court). It stated: “The Genocide Convention resulted from the inhuman and barbarous practices which prevailed in certain countries prior to and during World War II, when entire religious, racial and national minority groups were threatened with and subjected to deliberate extermination. The practice of genocide has occurred throughout human history. The Roman persecution of the Christians, the Turkish massacres of Armenians, the extermination of millions of Jews and Poles by the Nazis are outstanding examples of the crime of genocide.”

 

The second reference by the Executive branch to the Armenian Genocide was made by Pres. Ronald Reagan when he issued Presidential Proclamation 4838 on April 22, 1981, in which he stated: “Like the genocide of the Armenians before it, and the genocide of the Cambodians which followed it — and like too many other such persecutions of too many other peoples — the lessons of the Holocaust must never be forgotten.”

 

The Legislative branch of the US government adopted two resolutions confirming the historical facts of the Armenian Genocide. The first resolution, approved by the US House of Representatives on April 8, 1975, designated April 24, 1975 “as a day of remembrance for all the victims of genocide, especially those of Armenian ancestry who succumbed to the genocide perpetrated in 1915.” A second resolution was adopted by the House of Representatives on September 10, 1984, designating April 24, 1985 “as a day of remembrance for all the victims of genocide, especially the one and one-half million people of Armenian ancestry who were the victims of the genocide perpetrated in Turkey between 1915 and 1923.” In addition, the House adopted two amendments on the Armenian Genocide in the 1996 and 2004 Foreign Operations Appropriation Act.

 

However, most people are unaware that the Judiciary, the third branch of the US government, has issued at least three federal court rulings concerning the Armenian Genocide:

 

The first judicial reference to the Armenian Genocide was the unanimous ruling of a three-judge panel of the First Circuit Court of Appeals on August 11, 2010. In a decision written by former US Supreme Court Justice David Souter, the court rejected a claim by an American-Turkish group that a curricular guide issued by the Massachusetts Education Commissioner explicitly referring to the Armenian Genocide should have included “contra-genocide” references.

 

The second court case involving the Armenian Genocide was the ruling of federal Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on January 26, 2011, in the lawsuits regarding the Armenian Genocide Museum & Memorial in Washington, D.C. In the opening paragraph of her decision, Judge Kollar-Kotelly quoted the chilling words of Adolf Hitler: “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” She explained that Hitler was referring to “the largely successful efforts by the Ottoman-Turkish government to eliminate the Armenian population living on its historical homeland during the World War I era, known today as the Armenian Genocide.” The Judge stated in a footnote that “the Court’s use of the term ‘genocide’ is not intended to express any opinion on the propriety of that label.”

 

The third judicial reference to the Armenian Genocide was made on May 3, 2012, by a three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, denying the claim of the Turkish Coalition of America against the University of Minnesota. In a unanimous opinion, the judges referred unambiguously and without qualification to the Armenian Genocide, describing it as “the Turkish genocide of Armenians during World War I.”

 

With all three independent branches of the US government going on record reaffirming the Armenian Genocide, the United States has gained its rightful place in the list of righteous nations that have recognized the Armenian Genocide. In fact, in many respects, the United States has compiled a more extensive record of acknowledging the Armenian Genocide than most other countries that have merely adopted a legislative resolution on this issue.