Category: Main Issues

  • Turkish Scholar Taner Akcam Advocates  Change in Policy of Genocide Denial

    Turkish Scholar Taner Akcam Advocates Change in Policy of Genocide Denial

    sassounian31

    By Harut Sassounian

    Publisher, The California Courier

    Dr. Taner Akcam, one of the first Turkish scholars to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, delivered two important lectures in Southern California last week. Based on historical research, he analyzed the underpinnings of Turkey’s denial of the Armenian Genocide and proposed solutions for its official acknowledgment.

    Prof. Akcam made his first presentation at Valley Beth Shalom in Encino on May 6, before the screening of Dr. J. Michael Hagopian’s Genocide documentary “The River Ran Red.” Rabbis Harold Schulweis and Edward Feinstein, Jewish World Watch President Janice Kamenir-Reznik, Dr. Hagopian, 96, a genocide survivor, and Archbishop Hovnan Derderian made brief remarks.

    Dr. Akcam, Associate Professor of History and Chair of Armenian Genocide Studies at Clark University, explained that the “continuity” of the “military and civilian bureaucracy,” which has been ruling Turkey ever since the inception of the Republic in 1923, is a key reason for denial of the Armenian Genocide. “The founders perceived the ethnic-cultural plurality of society at that time to constitute a problem for the continuity and security of the state.”

    Specifically, the Professor identified Hasan Fehmi Bey, a leader of the Union and Progress party that implemented the Armenian Genocide, who had confessed in a speech to Parliament in 1920 that his group knew the international community would call them “murderers” for eliminating the Armenians. However, he indicated that his party’s leaders were prepared to accept being called “murderers,” as their aim was securing “the future of the fatherland.”

    In his second presentation on May 7, organized by the Armenian Rights Council of America in Altadena, Dr. Akcam disclosed that “Ergenekon,” the recently exposed criminal group that enjoyed support of the Turkish military, had prepared a hit list of five individuals, including journalist Hrant Dink, Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk, and Akcam himself, all targeted for assassination because they spoke out on the Armenian Genocide. They were condemned to death as “Traitors to National Security.”

    In Akcam’s view, this mindset was not simply the perverted view of an isolated terror group, but that of Turkey’s legal establishment. During the sentencing of two Turkish-Armenian journalists in 2007 for using the term genocide, a Judge ruled that: “Talk about genocide, both in Turkey and in other countries, unfavorably affects national security and the national interest. The claim of genocide… has become part of and the means of special plans aiming to change the geographic, political boundaries of Turkey… and a campaign to demolish its physical and legal structure.” The ruling further stated that the Republic of Turkey is under “a hostile diplomatic siege consisting of genocide resolutions.… The acceptance of this claim may lead in future centuries to a questioning of the sovereignty rights of the Republic of Turkey over the lands on which it is claimed these events occurred.”

    According to Akcam, the United States is avoiding the official recognition of the Armenian Genocide out of a similar misguided concern for national security in the Middle East. He stated that “Morality is a very real issue, and for realpolitik to be successful in the region; moral values, in this instance, the specific one of acknowledging historic wrongdoings, must be integrated into a policy of national security…. Failure to confront history honestly is one of the major reasons for insecurity and instability in the region.”

    Akcam revealed that after World War I, Turkey’s leaders, including Mustafa Kemal, acknowledged the Armenian massacres and favored the prosecution of their perpetrators in order to gain support of the Allies for the preservation of the territorial integrity of Ottoman Turkey.

    However, the hopes of Turkey’s leaders were dashed on both counts. The Treaty of Sèvres in 1920 called for dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire, while the Istanbul Court Martial sentenced to death in absentia the Turkish national leadership, including Mustafa Kemal.

    Akcam indicated that the Turkish mindset to this day views “democratization, freedom of thought and speech, open and frank debate about history, [and] acknowledgment of one’s past historical misdeeds, as a threat to national security. Those who invite society to engage in an open examination of the past are therefore labeled ‘traitors’ and made targets of smear campaigns — dragged into courts and prosecuted under Turkish Criminal Code Article 301 for ‘insulting Turkishness.’”

    Akcam warned the United States that any policy “that ignores morality and forgets the addressing of historic wrongdoings is doomed to fail in the end.” He suggested that Turkey should be made to understand that “bullying and threatening others is not the behavior of an international actor. Turkey cannot continue with the same repressive domestic policies towards its own history and minorities under the guise of national security and cannot threaten other countries in expressing their thoughts on 1915, and at the same time pretend to be a member of democratic countries in the world. An open, official acknowledgment by the US government might force Turkey to understand that blackmailing and threatening other states and suppressing and persecuting its own intellectuals do not offer solutions for historical problems and for security.”

    At a small gathering, after the May 7 lecture, Akcam disclosed for the first time an alarming incident that had taken place in 1995, following a talk he had delivered on the Armenian Genocide in Yerevan. At the last minute, he had cautiously decided to give a milder version of his prepared remarks. Upon his return to Istanbul, he was shocked when confronted at the airport by Turkish police who had in their possession the harsher version of his talk. He had handed that original version to Armenian officials — the organizers of the Genocide conference. Someone in Armenia must have leaked his text to the Turkish authorities. Dr. Akcam was able to save his neck from Turkish intelligence agents by showing them the copy of the milder speech that he had actually delivered!

  • ARMENIAN  ATTROCITIES  UPON  OTTOMAN  MOSLEMS

    ARMENIAN ATTROCITIES UPON OTTOMAN MOSLEMS

    SHT 9

    By Erkan Esmer, Ph.D., Prof. Engineer

    Armenians prospered greatly under the protection of Ottoman Turks. They were dubbed as the “Loyal Tribe” by the Ottoman Sultans. The Ottomans were late in accepting the Industrial Revolution. They preferred to stay as soldiers, farmers, and bureaucrats as was fashionable at the feudal era. They left the services, trade, banking, and industrial production to their Christian subjects (Greeks and armenians) who were a small segment of the population in Anatolia (Asia Minor). This made them very wealthy and powerful. Russian General Maievski’s 1890 map is presented in Figure 1 in the ensuing page, clearly shows that they were a small minority. Of course, the Russians naturally would inflate the Greek and armenian populations within the empire, because they had  invented the so called “Eastern Problem”. They under the pretext of protection of Christian Ottoman citizens, vied for conquest of Ottoman lands.

    When Russians attacked the Ottomans in 1877, they along with concurrence of European powers established Principality of Bulgaria. They advised the armenians that they could establish their own country in Eastern Anatolia. I doubt that they would ever allow them to have their own country. They had no intensions to do so, but wanted to use the armenians. Czarist Russia along with the help of American missionaries armed the armenians all over Anatolia. These terrorist forces were stationed  all over the Turkish mainland. {Fig. 2-15} These above mentioned facts are confirmed by August 23, 1895 New York Times article. They were united under the command of armenian terrorist groups Dashnaks and Hunchaks. The armenians’ barbaric atrocities and heinous crimes upon the Moslems were unspeakable. {Fig. 16-29} These massacres naturally angered the authorities and Moslem population who defended themselves. They knew that this would bring the wrath of European powers (super powers of the era), because Europeans wanted to dismember the Ottoman Empire for its fertile land, valuable mineral and oil resources (Iraq, Saudi Oil Fields). They finally achieved this goal at the end of World War I.

    During World War I, all of Turkish and Moslem young men were not home, but were fighting for their homeland in many different fronts. Only Women, children, and old Men lived in Ottoman Anatolian provinces, then. All of them were unarmed!!! Many of the armenians who were inducted into Ottoman forces, ran away with their weapons. The armenian cowards butchered these unarmed civilians. They acted as scouts/vanguards for the Russian forces. They ambushed Ottoman forces, cut down the telegraph lines, which caused a lot of havoc at the time. The Ottoman government had to relocate them from the war zone to provinces where there were no fighting with the means available to them at the time. {Fig. 30-33}. Many armenians migrated to other countries such as USA, France, and England, enhancing their lives tremendously. Since this barbaric tribe of armenians left the corpses of Moslems rot in open air, since they drowned them in wells, or threw the corpses in creeks or rivers, this caused a severe cholera epidemic which took many lives, including their own. Even though armenians and Russians massacred about 2,500,000 Moslems, where as, armenian losses were between 36,000 and 125,000,  this is the so-called “ARMENIAN GENOCIDE”.

    “Photographs are from Turkish Armed Forces archives or my own post card collection”

    SHT 2

    SHT 3

    SHT 6

    SHT 10

    SHT 11

    SHT 12

    SHT 15

    SHT 21

    SHT 23

  • UTAH CLOSES FETULLAH’S SCHOOL

    UTAH CLOSES FETULLAH’S SCHOOL

    feto gulen made in usaUtah daki Charter okul incelemeye alinmis acik cikan (KAYIP) para yuzunden, FETULLAHIN BIR DENIZ FENERI DAHA.

    State charter board votes to close Beehive academy

    Money matters» State governing body concludes that the school is financially unstable.

    By Rosemary Winters

    The Salt Lake Tribune

    Updated: 04/30/2010 10:10:16 AM MDT

    For the first time in its six-year history, the Utah Charter School Board has voted to revoke an operational school’s charter.

    Beehive Science & Technology Academy in Holladay will close after this school year unless it files and wins an appeal. Any appeal would be heard by the Utah Board of Education.

    The charter board, which voted 6-0 on Thursday to close the school, said Beehive doesn’t have enough students to be financially viable and is burdened by debt. The enrollment currently is 199, but the school could accommodate 250 students.

    In an e-mail, Principal Murat Biyik said the board relied on outdated financial statements to make its decision and that the school plans to appeal.

    “All of us were totally shocked” by the board’s decision, Biyik wrote, noting he was denied permission to speak at the meeting. “We are very optimistic that we will save the school during [the] appeal process.”

    Beehive was placed on a one-year probation in February, and Biyik said the school has complied with or made “substantial improvements” on all the issues the board identified. For example, the school has addressed concerns with its special-education program.

    Charter board chairman Brian Allen said the decision made him “heart sick” because he knows Beehive’s students like their school, which has a good academic record.

    “At the end of the day, we had to weigh the impact to the students who go to the school against our responsibility that taxpayers are getting the best deal for their money,” Allen said. “The scale tipped toward taxpayers.”

    Beehive, which serves grades 7 through 12, was founded by a group of Turkish-American scholars. It opened in August 2005.

    Last fall, the charter board, after a months-long investigation, cleared Beehive of allegations the school existed to advance and promote Islamic beliefs but flagged it for poor financial management. Charter schools are tuition-free, tax-funded public schools so they must be nonsectarian.

    In November, records obtained by The Salt Lake Tribune showed that the school, operating on a $2 million annual budget, had a $337,000 deficit. The school renegotiated its building lease and laid off several staffers.

    On Thursday, Biyik said the deficit has shrunk substantially. Currently, the school has an income balance of $259,000 with $38,000 in the bank, he said. The difference has been used to pay off credit lines, a state revolving loan amount and other debts, Biyik said. The academy still owes money on the revolving loan, which originally was $184,000.

    But if the board’s decision sticks, Beehive students will have to find a new school for the 2010-11 school year.

    “It’s the most frustrating thing. I don’t know where to send my son,” said Marie Jess, whose son Jordan started at Beehive as a seventh-grader and now is finishing 11th grade. “I’ve never found a [public or charter] school that I felt compared to Beehive.”

    Jess called the board’s decision “unfair.” She hopes the school, which has achieved high scores on state academic tests, stays open.

    She likes the support she receives from Beehive’s faculty, who frequently send her e-mails to update her on how her son is doing.

    “I felt like they personally wanted my son to succeed,” she said, “and that’s a good feeling.”

    =========================

    From: FLTURK@yahoogroups. com  On Behalf Of Cuneyt Oskal

    Sorun Gulen hocada degil zaten.

    Sorun, “Parayi gordum” filminin senaristleri Fethullahci bazi abilerde.

    Topladiklari parayi istedikleri yere harcayabilmeyi zannetmelerinde.

    Utah daki Charter okul incelemeye alinmis acik cikan para yuzunden

    bakalim o sorusturmanin sonucu nasil olacak?

    insallah Fethullahci abiler yuzlerinin aki ile cikarlar isin icinden

    yoksa…….

    “Parayi gordum” filmini cekerler Fethullahci abilerinde

    (Mahsun in trilogy si olabilir belki, “gunesi gordum” den sonra:)

    Deniz Feneri olayina donerse is cok uzulurum.

  • Andrew Dismore ousted!

    Andrew Dismore ousted!

    Andrew Dismore was a big burden on the British-Turkish relations.

    Türk düşmanı Andrew Dismore’u İngiliz halkı defetti…

    Andrew Dismore ousted by 106 votes

    andrew dismore mp

    Labour’s Andrew Dismore has lost his Hendon seat to the Conservative Party candidate, Matthew Offord, by 106 votes following a recount.

    Mr Dismore pulled in 19 529 or 42.1% of the overall vote, compared to Mr Offord’s 19 635 votes – 42.3% of the votes.

    Mr Dismore had been caught up in the expenses scandal, and was accused of “flipping” his second home designation.

    , 07 May 2010

    Election result: Hendon

    By Marcus Dysch

    MatthewOfford
    New Face

    Conservative candidate Matthew Offord has ousted Labour’s Andrew Dismore to win the Hendon constituency in one of the country’s closest election battles.

    Mr Offord, a former deputy leader of Barnet Council, won by just 106 votes following a recount.

    He received 19,635 votes to Mr Dismore’s 19,529.

    The result represented a swing of 5.2 per cent to the Tories from Labour.

    […]

    Mr Dismore, who had held the seat since 1997, was understandably disappointed by the result. In his farewell speech he accused Mr Offord of a “dirty” campaign.

    He had worked tirelessly for Jewish and Israeli causes but was mired by expenses allegations in the past 12 months.

    […]

    , May 7, 2010

    Ousted Labour MP Andrew Dismore makes vitriolic speech

    Alex Hayes

    DEFEATED Labour candidate Andrew Dismore accused his Conservative opponent of “mud-slinging” during a vitriolic speech after results were announced.

    Mr Dismore lost the key marginal seat by just 106 votes following a recount, with the result announced just after 9am after a mammoth count.

    In the address he accused newly elected Matthew Offord of “name calling” and accused him of being disrespectful towards his long-term partner.

    He said: “This has not been a clean fight, in my view it’s been a pretty dirty campaign. It’s my eighth public election and I have never seen such a barrage of personal slurs and lies in this campaign.

    “I’m humbled by the fact so many of my fellow residents voted for me. The election result was a close one, only by a whisker in a seat the Conservatives thought they would take by a huge margin.

    “People voted for me because they appreciated the work I’ve done for them and their communities.”

    He warned the other candidates the precarious hung Parliament could see another election called in the next few months.

    , May 7, 2010

    Andrew Dismore may make legal challenge to Hendon result

    Alex Hayes

    ANDREW Dismore, who lost his Hendon seat by just 106 votes this morning, has not ruled out the possibility of a legal challenge over the staging of the vote.

    The Labour candidate lost after a recount of votes to Conservative Matthew Offord, but accused the Tory man of dirty tricks during the election campaign in his losers speech.

    Mr Offord said he was not ruling out legal action over problems with postal votes not arriving, queues at polling stations making people turn away and voters being given wrong information on which station to use.

    He said: “I have to speak to lawyers before I make any decisions on this. Yesterday there were problems of lots of people not having their postal votes.

    “I also saw a lot of people leaving big queues at polling stations because there were not enough staff on to cope with it, so in these areas those votes could have made all the difference.

    “There are also some things he (Mr Offord) was writing on his leaflets I will refer to lawyers as well.”

    The former barrister, who took control of the seat in 1997 added: “I don’t think there was anything me or my team could have done. If we had had more support in door knocking I think we could have won.

    “The Conservatives had the Ashcroft funded billboards all over the borough and we just couldn’t compete with that sort of money.”

    , May 7 2010

  • Why Turkey is right in demanding the end to occupation in Karabakh

    Why Turkey is right in demanding the end to occupation in Karabakh

    VUSALA MAHİRGİZİ

    In order to continue the “normalization” of Turkey-Armenia relations, it has become the major stipulation to bring the protocols signed in Zurich, Oct. 10, onto the agenda of the two parliaments.

    There are reports that in the meetings held in Washington on April 12-13, Prime Minister Recep Erdoğan faced pressures to immediately bring the Zurich protocols onto the agenda of the Turkish Parliament. Some media outlets in the West and Turkey have strongly criticized Erdoğan for linking the “normalization” of Turkey-Armenia relations to the stipulation “to release Karabakh from occupation” and thus, “blocking up” the way of the process. While assessing from several aspects the stipulation “to release Karabakh from occupation” in the process of the “normalization” of Turkey-Armenia relations, we see that Prime Minister Erdoğan’s statement in the Azerbaijani parliament on May 13, 2009, is in line with the principles of the international law and human rights.

    Armenia does not want the factor of “releasing Karabakh from occupation” to be put into circulation; because if this factor is put into circulation, Armenia will be constantly viewed as an “aggressor state” in the international arena. On the other hand, former president of Armenia Robert Kocharian and incumbent president Serge Sarkisian came to power in Yerevan with the dynamism caused by the wave of Karabakh’s occupation – having the stipulation “to release Karabakh from occupation” on the table in the discussions with Turkey means their admitting the stain of being an aggressor. Therefore, the present authorities of Armenia will not want to hold discussions by admitting the stipulation “to release Karabakh from occupation” – i.e. start the game with a score of 1-0.

    In this respect, we should underscore that Prime Minister Erdoğan has taken the rather right step by including the stipulation “to release Karabakh from occupation” into the process of “normalization.” This “stipulation” has been put into the agenda because of the protest against the violation of international law and human rights in the region, not because of the loyalty to the principle “one nation, two states” between Turkey and Azerbaijan as stated by Armenia and the West. What could Erdoğan cite to while putting forward the stipulation “to release Karabakh from occupation” in Turkey-Armenia discussions, if not to the fact of the occupation of 20 percent of Azerbaijan’s territories and displacement of one million Karabakh residents of Azerbaijani origin? The solution to the regional conflicts requires divine justice: conscience and justice require it before the friendship and brotherhood between the countries.

    Therefore, it is impossible to understand why some in the West, Armenia and Turkey have criticized Erdoğan for this “stipulation.” Which position seems more just: to release the occupied territories and send one million refugees to their native lands, or to ignore the displacement of one million people from their native lands and switch on the green lights for 146,000 Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh to establish a monoethnic structure?

    As soon as the issue on releasing the occupied Azerbaijani territories was brought into the agenda in Turkey-Armenia discussions, Armenian authorities led by Sarkisian tried to put into circulation “the right of Karabakh Armenians to self-determination.” If so, who will ensure the self-determination of one million Azerbaijanis that lost everything as a result of the occupation?

    By putting into circulation “the right of Karabakh Armenians to self-determination” soon after the issue of “releasing of Karabakh” was included into the agenda in the process of “normalization,” Armenia is acting unfairly toward Azerbaijan, Turkey and the historical truths of the region.

    The occupation of Azerbaijani regions adjacent to Nagorno-Karabakh by Armenia with the support of outside forces, posed threat to the peace processes in the region. Just after this occupation, Armenian and Azerbaijani intellectuals, who gathered to speak about peace late in the 80s and early in the 90s, were deprived of this opportunity. If we make an excursion into history we can see Azerbaijani poet Sabir, who realized that outside forces backed the misunderstanding between Armenians and Turks in 1905 in Karabakh, wrote a poem “Beynelmilel” (International).

    Hovhannes Tumanyan, who did not want a contradiction between the two nations in Karabakh, visited the Armenian villages holding a white flag, explained the situation to the people and succeeded in calming down the situation. Outstanding Azerbaijani playwright Jafar Jabbarli depicted the background of those happenings in his play “1905-ci ilde” (In 1905).

    Viewing the happenings from the historical perspective we see that the separatism in Nagorno Karabakh and occupation of 20 percent of Azerbaijani territories left no place for the intellectuals and politicians of the two countries to maneuver. Therefore, the Turkish prime minister’s inclusion of the stipulation “to release Karabakh from occupation” into the process of “normalization” of Turkish-Armenian relations becomes more important.

    Actually, the foundation of the future national conflict was laid when a referendum was held by Stalin on July 7, 1923, for Armenian autonomy in Karabakh. The plebiscite was scheduled the same day for the Turks in Armenia’s Zengezur region to “realize their self-determination,” but the plebiscite was not held, and in 1948-1952 approximately 500,000 Azerbaijani Turks were deported from Armenia.

    The process of Azerbaijanis’ deportation from Armenia took place in the Soviet Union, the “example of peoples’ friendship and brotherhood.” The last of the Azerbaijani Turks in Armenia was deported in March-June, 1988 – again during Soviet times. It was the last ring in Armenia’s turning into a monoethnic country.

    The autonomy given to Nagorno-Karabakh in 1923 contained the maximal rights that the present autonomous regimes in the world may envy. They managed themselves; headed their parliament, the great majority of the state agencies were led by Armenians; they had representatives in Azerbaijani government; the persons, who represented them in the Soviet parliament, were Armenian; they had school, university, radio, TV channels, newspapers and magazines in their language; even the labels of the products made there were in Armenian.

    With the rights of which autonomy can you compare the large rights of the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh that was 120,000 approximately 25 years ago? We can see that “the right of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians to self-determination” was the biggest injustice against Azerbaijan.

    A question arises: if as claimed by Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians, they were indeed oppressed by Azerbaijan’s pressure in the autonomous province and passed a decision to unite with Armenia, can they show an example that during the 65-year autonomy an Armenian was injured on an ethnic basis?

    It is inadmissible that in the international discussions Armenia showing “Nagorno-Karabakh’s right to self-determination” tries to force Azerbaijan to the referendum in the monoethnic Nagorno Karabakh region with a population of 146,000.

    The question is not the “right of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians to self-determination,” but the unification of a part of Azerbaijan to Armenia by occupation. Therefore, Prime Minister Erdogan’s inclusion of the stipulation “to release Karabakh from occupation” into the process of “normalization” of Turkey-Armenia relations is an initiative serving to establish fair peace in the region, and should be necessarily supported in terms of international law and human rights.

    Armenian leaders, who are carrying on propaganda among the world community for opening the border with Turkey, constantly reiterate the following:

    “It is not normal that in the 21st century the border with the neighbor is closed.”

    If this remark is admitted, then how would the world community answer Azerbaijan’s right question: “Is it normal in the 21st century to occupy the territories of the neighbor, displace 1 million people, unite a part of the neighbor’s territories to its lands?”

    Assessing the matter in terms of the inactivity of the UN Security Council and Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, or OSCE, it becomes more important that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan included the factor of “releasing Karabakh from occupation” into the “normalization” of the relations between Turkey and Armenia, while the international organizations are paralyzed concerning the occupation of Azerbaijani territories.

    * Vusala Mahirgizi is the director general of Azeri-Press Agency, or APA.

    Hurriyet Daily news

  • Azerbaijan, Turkey round off gas talks

    Azerbaijan, Turkey round off gas talks

    Azerbaijan and Turkey rounded off gas talks, Azerbaijani Industry and Energy Minister Natik Aliyev said at the 13th Eurasian Economic Summit in Istanbul.

    The Minister stated that both countries will sign a relevant agreement in the near future, Azertag news agency reports.

    Aliyev noted that Azerbaijani companies have increased investments in Turkey’s economy, adding that over 500 Azeri companies invested in various sectors.

    He also stressed that after SOCAR purchased a 51% share of Turkish petrochemical giant Petkim, it plans to invest additional $3-5 bn in the company.

    A.G.

    News