ANKARA, Turkey (A.W.)—Earlier this week, Turkey’s National Security Council (MGK) approved changes in its National Security document, removing Armenia from, and adding Israel to the list of countries that pose a “major threat” to Turkey.
Iran, Syria, Georgia, and Bulgaria were also removed from the “major threat” list.
In addition to referring to it as a threat, the document accuses Israel of driving the entire region into an arms race.
Other threats that were added to the list are global warming and online terror.
The document, also referred to as “The Red Book,” informs the country’s policy towards its neighbors, and is generally revised every five years.
The relations between Turkey and Israel have deteriorated in recent months. Most recently, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan said he would boycott a climate conference in Athens if Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Shimon Peres, and the Armenian Genocide. Collage: Tablet Magazine; Erdogan photo: Aamir Qureshi/AFP/Getty Images; Peres photo: Amos BenGershom/GPO via Getty Images; background photo: Wikimedia Commons
It’s time for Israel to rethink its rejection of the Armenian Genocide
BY PETER BALAKIAN
There has been speculation about Turkey’s shifting international ties ever since the election of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, of the Islamist AKP party, in 2003, and the Gaza flotilla incident of May created a new breach in the long-standing alliance between Turkey and Israel. Among the many issues that have emerged in post-flotilla relations between the two countries is the Armenian Genocide of 1915.
The flotilla episode is fraught with complexities and ironies on both sides. While the Turkish-led mission focused on a grave human rights crisis—Israel’s oppressive treatment of Gaza’s Palestinians—Turkey’s righteous indignation toward Israel both oversimplifies Israel’s distress about Hamas and seems glaringly hypocritical in view of its own human-rights problems. Those problems, which include Turkey’s repressive and violent treatment of its large Kurdish population, some 15 million or more, and its record of legal detention, imprisonment, and torture of Turkish intellectuals, journalists, and political activists, constitutes one of the world’s worst human rights records, as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch reports repeatedly show, over the past 20 years. Add to that Turkey’s occupation of Northern Cyprus in violation of international law and its international campaign to falsify the history of its genocide of the Armenians in 1915, and the ironies multiply.
While there remains a narrative among opinion-makers like New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman that frames Turkey as an exemplary friend and a real democracy, Jews should wrestle with some truths about past and present realities. Jews, like Christians, lived as designated infidels under the Ottomans, often under harsh and repressive laws; Zionists were jailed and killed outright by the Turkish government through the end of World War I (Palestine was under Ottoman rule then). The U.S. ambassador to Turkey from 1913 to 1916, an American Jew, Henry Morgenthau, said more than once that he feared that the fate of the Armenians at the hands of the Turks awaited the Jews next. It remains uncomfortable for Jews to recall that Turkey supplied the Nazis with large amounts of chromium during World War II, a mineral that was used, among other things, for killing in concentration camps. And today a virulent anti-Semitism has spread throughout Turkey so that recently a banner of the Islamic Saadet Party read: “Legendary leader Hitler, our patience is running out, we need your spirit.”
It’s a strange irony that in recent decades Israeli and Jewish diasporan groups have colluded with Turkey’s aggressive policy of denying and rewriting the history of the Armenian Genocide. In this equation the Armenian past has become a bargaining chip between Turkey and Israel, which have a regional partnership based on reciprocal needs. Turkey is an important source of Israel’s water supply and at least until recently, had been a friendly Muslim ally in a hostile region. Israel supplies Turkey with high-powered weapons, and the lucrative military manufacturing deals are important to Israel’s economy.
In 1982—by threatening the lives and livelihoods of Jews in Turkey—Turkey pressured the Israeli government to stop a genocide studies conference in Tel Aviv, at which a group of scholars were giving papers on the Armenian Genocide. As a result the Israeli government pulled out its support, Elie Wiesel decided he could not participate, and the conference was moved to an out-of-the-way location and was greatly diminished. In the 1990s, two Armenian documentaries that were to be aired on Israeli TV—one of them about the Armenian community of Jerusalem—were canceled at the last minute because of Turkish pressure. From 1989 on, Jewish-American organizations have worked at Ankara’s request to help stop a simple, non-binding Armenian Genocide resolution from passing in the U.S. Congress. When former Israeli Education Minister Yossi Sarid declared 10 years ago that he wanted to institute a new history curriculum with a chapter on genocide that would have “a broad reference to the Armenian genocide,” he was rebuked by his government and shortly thereafter left office.
In recent years, the Israeli government has mimicked at times the Turkish government’s propaganda about 1915. Shimon Peres, then Israel’s foreign minister, went as far as to say: “We reject attempts to create a similarity between the Holocaust and the Armenian allegations. Nothing similar to the Holocaust occurred. What the Armenians went through is a tragedy, but not genocide.” Peres’ crude denial elicited angry responses from Israeli scholars, and Israel Charny, the director of the Institute on Genocide in Jerusalem, crystallized the anger of many when he replied: “As a Jew and an Israeli I am ashamed of the extent to which you have now entered into the range of actual denial of the Armenian Genocide, comparable to denials of the Holocaust.”
The question remains: Is aiding Turkey’s denial of a genocidal past something Israel can continue to do? And at what cost? Amos Elon, writing in Haaretz about the “hypocrisy, opportunism, and moral trepidation” of Israeli collusion with Turkey, put it well when he asked: “But where is the boundary between the natural chauvinism of exploitation and the cheap opportunism of hypocrisy? What happens when the survivors of one Holocaust make political deals over the bitter memory of the survivors of another Holocaust?”
***
While political events provide opportunities for moments of reform, change, or introspection, it is not crass opportunism, I believe, that should dictate a change in Israeli policy on the Armenian Genocide. Rather, might this be a time—when the ironies of history have surfaced in the wake of the flotilla episode—for Israel and some Jewish diasporan organizations to rethink the moral concession Israel has made in this ethical arena—not as revenge against Turkey, but as thoughtful reflection on painful truths?
Given Turkey’s relentless campaign to deny the Armenian Genocide and insinuate its own extreme national narrative into democratic societies around the world, Israel’s call for the genocide’s proper and long overdue recognition would have important ethical meaning. It would, among other things, be a redress to genocide denial in general. As scholars have noted, denial is the final stage of genocide. The distinguished Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt has written that “denial of genocide, whether that of the Turks against the Armenians or the Nazis against the Jews … strives to reshape history in order to demonize the victims and rehabilitate the perpetrators.”
Recognizing the Armenian Genocide would allow Israel to embrace the deeply rooted relationship between Jews and Armenians in the modern age. When Hitler exhorted his military advisers eight days before invading Poland in 1939, “Who today, after all, speaks of the annihilation of the Armenians?” he made it clear that he was both inspired by what the Young Turk government had done to the Armenians in 1915 and also noted that because the memory of what had been the most well-reported human rights catastrophe of the first quarter of the 20th century had been washed away, it was easier to commit genocide again.
Hitler learned a good deal from the genocide of the Armenians because Germany was Turkey’s wartime ally, and there was a great deal of documentation from German foreign officers and other German personnel in Turkey at the time. There are, of course, parallels—in bureaucratic organization, killing squad implementation, race ideology, and more—between the two events. Yet what ties Jews to Armenians even more deeply is the powerful role Jews have played in bearing witness to and later defining Turkey’s genocide.
Ambassador Henry Morgenthau’s life remains a crucial part of the history of rescue and resistance during the Armenian Genocide. As U.S. ambassador to Turkey, he had the courage to step outside his prescribed role as ambassador and confront Pashas Talaat and Enver—the two major architects of the plan; he implored both the U.S. and German governments to intercede and stop the mass killing of the Armenian population; and he was a primary force in helping to organize the first major relief campaign for the Armenians in the United States.
In the end Morgenthau would lose his job because of his stance on the Armenians. After leaving Turkey in 1916 and noting that it would remain “a place of unutterable horror” for him, he included in his acclaimed World War I memoir of 1918, Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story, the first full narrative about the Armenian Genocide in English.
Franz Werfel, the Austrian Jewish novelist who escaped Hitler’s death list by a hair in 1934, wrote the first majornovel about the Armenian Genocide, The Forty Days of Musa Dagh, which depicted Armenian resistance to massacre in a small mountain village; it was also a novel that was a specific warning to the Jews of Europe about what might happen to them. The Nazis banned and burned the book in 1934, but the novel would inspire Jewish resistance during the Holocaust and became an important text in the educational curriculum for Jews in Palestine and then Israel.
Raphael Lemkin, the Polish Jewish legal scholar who coined the word genocide, was the first to use the term Armenian Genocide in the early 1940s—noting that it was the precise term for intended group destruction of the Armenians in 1915. He underscored that the concept “genocide” derived from his understanding of the acts committed against the Armenians in 1915 and against the Jews in the 1940s: “Examples of genocide,” he wrote in 1949, “are the destruction of the Armenians in the first World War, the destruction of the Jews in the second World War.” He also noted in his autobiography that his study of the Armenian massacres was a turning point in his life’s work.
In the modern era, the contributions to the Armenian Genocide discourse made by Jewish scholars both in Israel and worldwide has been extraordinary, and a list would be long and include Elie Wiesel, Robert Jay Lifton, Deborah Lipstadt, Robert Melson, Jay Winter, the documentary filmmaker Andrew Goldberg, Israeli scholars Yehuda Bauer, Israel Charny, and Yair Auron, who wrote The Banality of Denial: Israel and the Armenian Genocide. Recently, the Center For Jewish History and the Museum of Jewish Heritage in New York put on brilliant exhibitions on the lives of both Raphael Lemkin and Henry Morgenthau—in which the Armenian genocide figured significantly.
Given this long-standing record of Jewish engagement and intellectual achievement concerning the Armenian Genocide, and the deep ties between the two cultures—it would seem an organic thing for Israel to finally say: The game is over. The truth of history, the meaning of genocide, the importance of ethical memory is a defining part of Jewish intellectual tradition and identity. And, in the Armenian case, the two genocidal histories commingle in deep and historical ways. As for fear of Turkey? The other 20 countries (including France, Italy, Sweden, Poland, Greece, and Canada) that have passed Armenian Genocide resolutions have witnessed Turkey’s initial diplomatic anger, an ambassador recalled for a short time, and then it’s been back to business as usual—proving that the hysteria passes and life goes on.
The Israeli government could recognize the Armenian Genocide by honoring the words of the great founding genocide scholar Lemkin—a Holocaust survivor who lost 49 members of his own family to the Nazis. In August 1950, Lemkin wrote to a colleague: “Let us not forget that the heat of this month is less unbearable to us than the heat of the ovens of Auschwitz and Dachau and more lenient than the murderous heat in the desert of Aleppo which burned to death the bodies of hundreds of thousands of Christian Armenian victims of genocide in 1915.”
As for Armenians, in the midst of this, they look on with bewilderment, anger, bitterness. For the sizable meaning and historical significance of the genocide committed against them, they feel endlessly embattled in the effort to preserve the truthful memory of what happened to them. It seems to most Armenians that the accurate memory of their history is an ethical necessity, a minimal thing to ask others to affirm in the face of the continued assault on historical truth by Turkey. Israel’s affirmation would be of distinct ethical importance given the common experience the two peoples have shared. For Israel, colluding with a denialism is too painfully ironic.
Peter Balakian, the Donald M. and Constance H. Rebar Professor of the Humanities at Colgate University, is the author of the New York Times bestseller The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America’s Response, among other books.
, Oct 19, 2010
TurkishBoy says:
Oct 24, 2010 at 8:32 PM
I just noticed that this article was written by Peter Balakian – a virulent Armenian nationalist with ingrained hatred of anything Turkish. Balakian is an English professor, not a historian mind you, and he is known to travel around the country telling people how horrible the Turks are. His English degree does not give him any credibility as an expert in history. Even more, his book on the armenian genocide reads more like a work of fiction rather than an actual recount of historical events. For Mr Balakian to be taken seriously, he really needs to tone down the anti-turkish hatred in his speeches and lectures, one of which I had the misfortune to attend couple of years ago. I am sure he would be delighted to see Israel and Turkey go further apart, but I don’t think this would be in the best interest of the people of Israel and the people of Turkey.
A minor political party that is not represented in Parliament said on Friday that its leader has been detained in Armenia.
Tuna Bekleviç was detained by Armenian intelligence following a press conference he held in Yerevan, according to the Strong Turkey Party (GTP). Bekleviç recently entered Armenia from Turkey by crossing the Arpaçay River in protest of the two countries failing to take further action for a year after signing protocols in Zurich to normalize relations.
The GTP leader had headed to Armenia to hold a press conference about his party’s protest of the status quo in relations between the two countries. Turkey closed its border with its eastern neighbor in the early ‘90s in solidarity with Azerbaijan in its war with landlocked Armenia. An attempt at rapprochement was initiated last year, but very little progress has been made since then.
ISTANBUL (Hurriyet)–Delegates from Turkic countries gathered Thursday in Istanbul at the World Turkic Forum to highlight the common ties among their countries while promoting steps toward the creation of a more overarching Turkic identity.
“In a globalized world, we want to spread our message to the world as Turkic citizens,” said Nazim Ibrahimov, Azerbaijan’s Diaspora minister.
Participants made many references to the Silk Road and military conquests in the same breath as goals for the countries to unite under a common set of values.
“The main target of the forum is to improve our values, expand our national values and make them international,” said Mahir Yagcilar, the minister of environment for Kosovo, which has a sizeable Turkish population. “The Turkish Republic is the mainland.”
Ahat Andıcan, a former state minister and professor at Istanbul University, echoed Ibrahimov’s call, saying: “In the 21st century, we will be the part [of the world] that is shaping the world. We should. We must.”
Many proposed that Turkey adopt the role of steward and leader for the Turkic world. But the idea didn’t receive unanimous support, with some delegates raising issues with the notion.
“Our main problem is that we can’t put forward a country as the regional leader. We lack a regional state that will pile up the other countries under its roof,” said Fazil Mustafa, a member of the Azerbaijan National assembly.
Turkey, in the past, had been unable to fulfill this role, Mustafa said, citing as evidence the country’s inability to prevent the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh from breaking free from Azeri rule.
Meanwhile, Hakan Kirimli of Bilkent University said Turkey’s most important task was to first protect the Turkic diaspora within its own borders, including Tatars, Kazakhs, Turkmens, and people from the Caucasus, Crimea, and the Balkan area.
He said many of these diaspora groups in Turkey actually outnumber the population of their groups in their own homelands. “Protecting those societies means protecting a whole culture.”
Pinar Akcali from Middle East Technical University said Turkey’s improving relationship with Turkic countries was partly the result of its deteriorating relationship with the West and added that such a trend would give Turkey a chance to develop its relations with other parts of the world, including the Turkic one.
Although some Turkic countries are performing well economically and others have the benefit of natural resources, many Turkic countries are not particularly rich economically, according to Mustafa. “The 21st century, in terms of the economy, will not be a Turkic century,” he said.
There are also many political problems between Turkic countries, with Hasan Ali Karasar calling attention to the brutal violence that has sporadically occurred between the local Uzbek community and ethnic Kyrgyz in Kyrgyzstan.
“For four years we have been discussing how to improve inter-Turkic relations,” said Karasar. “Still the government [of Kyrgyzstan] has not been effective. The Kyrgyz president made some important steps. Luckily we have stopped the violence – for now.”
BAKU (APA)–Nakhichevan has a ‘special place’ in Turkey’s foreign policy as a territory that isolates Armenia from the rest of the region, Turkey’s State Minister for Foreign Trade Zafer Caglavan said Wednesday speaking at a Turkish-Azeri business forum hosted in Kahkichevan , the Azeri Press Agency reported.
“Armenia has been stuck between Nakhchivan and the rest of Azerbaijan with access only to Iran and Turkey,” Caglavan said. “Nakhchivan has a special place in the foreign policy of our government. That’s why we are here today.”
The forum attracted influential businessmen from Turkey and Azerbaijan and presented them with information about Nakhichevan’s history, its course of economic development, and various business and investment opportunities in the area.
According to APA, the meeting will end with the signing of a series of cooperation documents.
Speaking to reporters during the event, Caglayan said Turkish businessmen have a “serious” interest in making investments into the Azeri controlled territory. He added that discussions were ongoing to establish the Nakhchivan-Turkey Business Council.
“We want to establish a council that will help the businessmen. One should take advantage of bordering Nakhchivan. It would be better to create free trade zone on the border. It would increase mutual trade,” said Caglayan. “We can create a region without customs and trade with every part of the world. I gave necessary instructions. Turkey’s General Directorate of Free Trade Zones will study the issue. It will be possible to set up this system without losing time.”
Caglayan said he had already appealed to Nakhichevan’s authorities to support the endeavor.
October 26, 2010 05:58 PM Eurasia Daily Monitor, By: Vladimir Socor Center for American Progress President John Podesta in Turkey. (Daily News)
A new study from the Center for American Progress, the think-tank closely linked with the Obama White House, urges the US government to adopt a new, “comprehensive policy” toward Georgia and the Russia-Georgia conflict (“A New Approach to the Russia-Georgia Conflict,” October 2010, www.americanprogress.org.) The new approach implicitly removes Georgia from the framework of a US strategy in the South Caucasus-Caspian region. Instead, it treats Georgia in isolation from that region; and, in practice, subordinates US policy toward Georgia to the goal of protecting the administration’s own relationship with Russia.
The abandonment of a regional strategy is also apparent in the administration’s policy toward Azerbaijan. That strategy, while it existed, had treated Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey as parts of a whole: linchpins in the East-West energy corridor to Europe, a bridge from Central Asia to the European Union, and a foundation for regional security arrangements under Western aegis. Successfully initiated during the Clinton administration, and continued less successfully under the Bush presidency, this strategy seems consigned to oblivion by the current White House.
In a recent speech to the Turkish business association TUSKON in Ankara, Center for American Progress President and CEO, John Podesta, described former President Bill Clinton’s 1999 visit to Turkey as a tour of mosques, ancient monuments, and dispensing earthquake relief. The speech, however, omitted the oil and gas pipeline projects and the conventional arms control agreements, which were signed during that same Clinton visit as parts of a coherent US strategy in the South Caucasus. Although delivered to a business audience, the lengthy speech made no reference to Turkey’s present and prospective role in Caspian energy transit to Europe; and never mentioned Turkey’s regional partners Georgia and Azerbaijan. Instead, Podesta urged Turkey again on the administration’s behalf to open unconditionally the border with Armenia: “This is a major priority for the Obama administration, and senior US officials have spent considerable time in support of this initiative … It is my hope that we will see a revival of these initiatives soon” (www.americanprogress.org, October 19).
This border-opening proposal stems mainly from US electoral politics. During the 2008 campaign, candidate Barack Obama had pledged to support US recognition of an Armenian genocide in Ottoman Turkey, but could not deliver it as president without destroying US-Turkey relations. In lieu of genocide recognition, and to defuse US Armenian pressure toward that goal in Congress, the administration initiated a rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia, centered on reopening the border unconditionally, in Armenia’s economic interest.
Under this proposal, Azerbaijan and Turkey would in effect bear the costs of the administration’s electoral calculus. The trade-off involves Turkey breaking ranks with Azerbaijan, while Armenia would desist from seeking genocide recognition in the US, thus easing pressure on the administration from its US-Armenian voters. Codified in the October 2009 Zurich protocols, the US initiative has stalled since December 2009-January 2010 as Turkey would not lightly abandon Azerbaijan, while Armenia would not give up its trump card of the genocide recognition campaign. Nevertheless, some US officials such as Assistant Secretary of State, Philip Gordon, now suggest (as has Podesta in Ankara) that the administration awaits a more favorable context for re-launching that proposal, calling again for ratification of the Zurich protocols (Armenian Reporter, October 18; News.az, October 20).
Opening the border unconditionally would remove the only major positive incentive by which Azerbaijan and Turkey can persuade Armenia to withdraw its troops from Azerbaijani districts around the Armenian-inhabited Karabakh. Opening of borders in return for withdrawal of Armenian troops from those districts is the trade-off that has all along underpinned the Azerbaijani-Turkish common position on the Karabakh conflict. This joint position does not oppose the opening of borders as such; on the contrary, it proposes to open the Azerbaijan-Armenia border as well as the Turkey-Armenia border, as part of the first stage of resolving the Karabakh conflict. This conditional linkage is also basic to the ongoing process of negotiations under the “Minsk Group” co-chairs’ mediation.
Breaking this linkage could derail that negotiating process. It would also further undermine Azerbaijan’s heavily-tested confidence in a resolution through peaceful means. Asking Turkey to turn away from Azerbaijan could fracture the mutually indispensable partnership between these two countries, which the US had encouraged when a US strategy for this region existed.
Unilateral, unconditional opening of the Turkish-Armenian border may cause Turkey to lose Azerbaijan, while pushing Baku into seeking Russia’s support for regaining those Armenian-occupied districts. Russia would undoubtedly exploit the situation in trying to change Azerbaijan’s Western orientation and its role in energy projects of Western interest. The Obama administration in any case is taking a back seat to Russia in the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict-resolution negotiations. In August, Yerevan prolonged the basing of Russian forces in Armenia for almost half-a-century, and authorized possible increases in Russian forces based in that country. This development with region-wide implications does not seem to have occasioned a reassessment of US policy.
The proposal for unilateral border-opening alienated Azerbaijan, a US strategic partner, without inducing Armenia to distance itself from genocide-recognition efforts in the US, as the administration had hoped. The administration seemed willing to trade off a strategic position in Baku for domestic political points courtesy of Yerevan. However, Baku reached out to Turkey at the governmental, parliamentary, and public opinion levels, helping to forestall Turkish ratification of the Zurich protocols. US officials responded in frustration by declining to invite Azerbaijan’s president to the nuclear-safety summit in Washington. Domestic politics and short-term diplomatic improvisation seemed to trump regional strategy –an impression strengthened when the administration briefly used the Armenian genocide-recognition debate in the US House of Representatives to influence Turkish policies on current issues. Some Turkish officials and analysts are concerned by a possible repeat of this tactic, in connection with Turkish policy decisions (on Israel, Iran, anti-missile defense) during the coming weeks and months (Hurriyet Daily News & Economic Review, October 21).
President Obama’s meeting with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in September was a symbolic step toward reestablishing top-level communication. However, the normal institutional channel cannot operate without a US ambassador in Baku –a post vacant since July 2009. The administration waited for more than one year before nominating a successor. However, the nomination is blocked by two Democratic senators, one of them (Barbara Boxer of California) relying on the militant Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) to mobilize its followers for Boxer’s re-election in the ongoing mid-term campaign. President Obama has weighed in, personally for Boxer in California (www.news.am, October 23). Preoccupied at this stage to retain that Senate seat for its party, the administration has again postponed moving on the ambassadorial nomination.
De-linking the re-opening of borders from the first stage of Karabakh conflict-resolution (Armenian troop withdrawal from inner-Azerbaijani districts) is a policy that failed. Ankara has re-instated that linkage and seems highly unlikely to de-link the two issues at US behest, at least until after the 2011 elections in Turkey. The US needs Turkey’s cooperation more than the other way around, on issues that Washington defines as top priorities. Thus, Washington has limited political capital to spend in Ankara. Rather than persisting with the Zurich protocols, Washington needs a graceful exit from this poorly conceived policy.
