Tweet
PRESS RELEASE
Armenian Research Center
The University of Michigan-Dearborn
Contact: Ara Sanjian and/or Gerald E. Ottenbreit, Jr.
Tel: 313-593-5181
Email: <[email protected]> and/or <[email protected]>
Web: http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armenian
ARMENIAN RESEARCH CENTER CO-SPONSORS THE ANNUAL ARMENIAN GENOCIDE AND
HOLOCAUST COMMEMORATION AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN-DEARBORN
On April 20, 2007, the sixth annual Holocaust and Armenian Genocide
Commemoration was held at the Fairlane South Building on the campus of
the University of Michigan-Dearborn. The commemoration was co-sponsored
by the Armenian Research Center, the Voice/Vision Holocaust Survivor
Oral History Archive, and the Mardigian Library of the University of
Michigan-Dearborn, as well as the Armenian Studies Program of the
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor and the Cohn-Haddow Center for Judaic
Studies at Wayne State University.
The two primary speakers for the event were Tamir Sorek, Assistant
Professor at the Center for Jewish Studies and the Department of
Sociology at the University of Florida, and Prof. Gerard J. Libaridian,
holder of the Alex Manoogian Chair in Modern Armenian History at the
University of Michigan. Both speakers did not shy away from expressing
their own strong personal convictions as regards the respective topics
that they covered.
Sorek spoke on "The Holocaust and Public Culture in Israel." He first
noted that the lessons of the Holocaust come in three types: (1) Jewish
lessons, (2) Zionist lessons, and (3) universal lessons. Jewish lessons
concern two points: (a) Jewish solidarity, and reliance on Jews alone,
is essential; and (b) anti-semitism must be detected and combated.
Zionist lessons, on the other hand, can be summarized in four points:
(a) there is no security for Jews in the Diaspora, (b) there is a need
for a sovereign state of Israel, (c) Israel is the safest place for
Jews, and (d) all Jews should immigrate to Israel. Finally, the
universal lessons of the Holocaust relate to two points: (a)
anti-democratic phenomena and racism must be fought, and (b) minority
rights must be protected throughout the world.
Sorek argued that in times of insecurity, Israelis and the Israeli
government were less likely to assimilate the universal lessons of the
Holocaust and thus recognize the Armenian Genocide. Reversely, the
likelihood of Israel's acceptance of the universal lessons and
recognition of the Armenian Genocide would grow in times of relative
security. To prove this point, Sorek referred to the very recent history
of Israel, which he divided into three periods: the first Palestinian
uprising (1987-1993), the Oslo peace process (1993-2000), and the second
Palestinian uprising (2000-2004). Only during the years of the peace
process did Israeli government officials attend April 24 commemorations
organized by the local Armenian community. It was also in 1994 that, on
the Knesset floor, the then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Yossi Beilin
unambiguously described the killings of Armenians as "certainly massacre
and genocide, something the world must remember." Sorek explained the
wavering official Israeli attitude by the fact that, during periods of
insecurity, the friendship of Turkey as a Muslim and Middle Eastern
power friendly to Israel is more valued. Turkish pressure on Israel not
to recognize the Armenian Genocide has largely been successful in the
years of peril, but less so in the years of relative security.
An even more important reason for the non-recognition of the Armenian
Genocide by Israel has, according to Sorek, to do with the "victim
status" that Jews have because of the Holocaust. He pointed out that
such a status offers Jews a certain type of political capital which can
be used. To recognize the "victim status" of other groups would dilute
Jews' own status, while the overuse of "victim status" would eventually
debase it. Sorek ended his presentation by expressing hope that Jewish
Israelis would feel secure in the future so as to say once more "Never
again!" rather than "Never again to us!"
Libaridian's talk was entitled "A Challenge for the Present: How to
Think of the Past When Planning the Future." He analyzed how remembrance
of the Armenian Genocide does (and should) influence Armenia's official
policy, both domestic and foreign.
Libaridian first noted that non-recognition of the Armenian Genocide by
Turkey compels Armenians to try to prove it, and they hence usually
neglect the necessity to analyze the genocide. He also cautioned that
Armenians often confuse the process of explaining (analyzing) the causes
of the genocide with justification of mass murder.
After underlining these caveats, Libaridian noted that until the
mid-1960s, the main division in the Diaspora Armenian communities was
over the legitimacy of Soviet Armenia. In the 1970s, however, the issue
of recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey and the rest of the
world replaced the Soviet Armenian dilemma as the major issue and united
the Armenian Diaspora. The newer generations of Armenians, both in
Armenia and the Diaspora, have almost no direct contact with Turks. For
most of them, the Turk has become just an abstraction that is easy to hate.
Libaridian, who was a high-ranking member in the administration of
Armenia's first post-Soviet president, asserted that the issue of the
Armenian Genocide recognition was not a major objective of the Karabakh
movement, which emerged in Armenia in 1988. This movement first demanded
the annexation of Mountainous Karabakh to Armenia, but then achieved
independence from the USSR. According to Libaridian, this de-emphasis as
regards genocide recognition was certainly not about denial; the leaders
of the Karabakh movement simply did not want to use the Armenian
Genocide issue to devalue the idea of independence.
Libaridian said that, during Armenia's transition to independence, two
contrasting visions of the country's future were extensively discussed.
The first vision depicted Armenia as a small, perpetually victimized
country, reliant on the USSR/Russia. It argued that a Turkey that does
not recognize the Armenian Genocide is a Turkey more likely to invade
Armenia. According to the second vision, however, Armenia should become
a normal country, with normal relations with its neighbors. The
followers of this line of thought believed that, through establishing
normal relations with Turkey, they can later resolve other issues as
well, including that of genocide recognition. Because of the dominance
of this second vision in the early 1990s, Armenia's first post-Soviet
constitution did not make the issue of Armenian Genocide recognition a
basis of its foreign policy. On the other hand, when Armenia entered
into negotiations with Turkey over normalization of relations in 1991,
the Turkish government, as a precondition to the talks, originally
wanted Armenia to drop the genocide recognition issue. Libaridian
recounted that the Turks later dropped this precondition after they
realized that Armenia did not link it to normalization of relations. It
was only Armenia's support for the secessionists in Karabakh and the
latter's territorial gains against Azerbaijan which ended the
negotiations between Armenia and Turkey.
Libaridian stated that, at that time, Armenia's current president,
Robert Kocharyan, who was still in a position of authority in Karabakh,
wanted to link Armenia's dropping the genocide precondition to Turkey's
dropping the Karabakh precondition. According to Libaridian, Kocharyan's
position emanated from his belief that Karabakh would be in a stronger
diplomatic position if Turkey and Armenia had normal diplomatic
relations. Libaridian then contrasted this past attitude by Kocharyan to
his current position as president of Armenia. Libaridian argued that
Kocharyan now sees genocide recognition as a matter of Armenia's
national security. This new attitude, according to Libaridian, is closer
to the view of Armenia as a perpetually victimized nation. Libaridian
also reminded the audience that Vazgen Sargsyan, the founder of
Armenia's army, did not like Armenians talking about themselves as
victims. Especially after the successes against the Azerbaijanis on the
battlefield, Sargsyan used to ask rhetorically: "why should genocide
define our character and nation, since we are the victors now?"
Libaridian himself believes that victimization can be embedded into the
Armenian character when the genocide is taught to students at a very
young age. By focusing solely on the tragic aspects of the Armenian
Genocide, options for Armenia are being closed.
A short question-and-answer period followed, during which Libaridian
expressed pessimism that the US House of Representatives would approve
the draft resolution that has recently been tabled regarding Armenian
Genocide recognition.
Thereafter, the audience, including students from the AGBU Alex and
Marie Manoogian High School in Southfield, MI, enjoyed a catered lunch
and had the opportunity for additional discourse with the speakers.
Armenian Research Center
The University of Michigan-Dearborn
Contact: Ara Sanjian and/or Gerald E. Ottenbreit, Jr.
Tel: 313-593-5181
Email: <[email protected]> and/or <[email protected]>
Web: http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armenian
ARMENIAN RESEARCH CENTER CO-SPONSORS THE ANNUAL ARMENIAN GENOCIDE AND
HOLOCAUST COMMEMORATION AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN-DEARBORN
On April 20, 2007, the sixth annual Holocaust and Armenian Genocide
Commemoration was held at the Fairlane South Building on the campus of
the University of Michigan-Dearborn. The commemoration was co-sponsored
by the Armenian Research Center, the Voice/Vision Holocaust Survivor
Oral History Archive, and the Mardigian Library of the University of
Michigan-Dearborn, as well as the Armenian Studies Program of the
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor and the Cohn-Haddow Center for Judaic
Studies at Wayne State University.
The two primary speakers for the event were Tamir Sorek, Assistant
Professor at the Center for Jewish Studies and the Department of
Sociology at the University of Florida, and Prof. Gerard J. Libaridian,
holder of the Alex Manoogian Chair in Modern Armenian History at the
University of Michigan. Both speakers did not shy away from expressing
their own strong personal convictions as regards the respective topics
that they covered.
Sorek spoke on "The Holocaust and Public Culture in Israel." He first
noted that the lessons of the Holocaust come in three types: (1) Jewish
lessons, (2) Zionist lessons, and (3) universal lessons. Jewish lessons
concern two points: (a) Jewish solidarity, and reliance on Jews alone,
is essential; and (b) anti-semitism must be detected and combated.
Zionist lessons, on the other hand, can be summarized in four points:
(a) there is no security for Jews in the Diaspora, (b) there is a need
for a sovereign state of Israel, (c) Israel is the safest place for
Jews, and (d) all Jews should immigrate to Israel. Finally, the
universal lessons of the Holocaust relate to two points: (a)
anti-democratic phenomena and racism must be fought, and (b) minority
rights must be protected throughout the world.
Sorek argued that in times of insecurity, Israelis and the Israeli
government were less likely to assimilate the universal lessons of the
Holocaust and thus recognize the Armenian Genocide. Reversely, the
likelihood of Israel's acceptance of the universal lessons and
recognition of the Armenian Genocide would grow in times of relative
security. To prove this point, Sorek referred to the very recent history
of Israel, which he divided into three periods: the first Palestinian
uprising (1987-1993), the Oslo peace process (1993-2000), and the second
Palestinian uprising (2000-2004). Only during the years of the peace
process did Israeli government officials attend April 24 commemorations
organized by the local Armenian community. It was also in 1994 that, on
the Knesset floor, the then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Yossi Beilin
unambiguously described the killings of Armenians as "certainly massacre
and genocide, something the world must remember." Sorek explained the
wavering official Israeli attitude by the fact that, during periods of
insecurity, the friendship of Turkey as a Muslim and Middle Eastern
power friendly to Israel is more valued. Turkish pressure on Israel not
to recognize the Armenian Genocide has largely been successful in the
years of peril, but less so in the years of relative security.
An even more important reason for the non-recognition of the Armenian
Genocide by Israel has, according to Sorek, to do with the "victim
status" that Jews have because of the Holocaust. He pointed out that
such a status offers Jews a certain type of political capital which can
be used. To recognize the "victim status" of other groups would dilute
Jews' own status, while the overuse of "victim status" would eventually
debase it. Sorek ended his presentation by expressing hope that Jewish
Israelis would feel secure in the future so as to say once more "Never
again!" rather than "Never again to us!"
Libaridian's talk was entitled "A Challenge for the Present: How to
Think of the Past When Planning the Future." He analyzed how remembrance
of the Armenian Genocide does (and should) influence Armenia's official
policy, both domestic and foreign.
Libaridian first noted that non-recognition of the Armenian Genocide by
Turkey compels Armenians to try to prove it, and they hence usually
neglect the necessity to analyze the genocide. He also cautioned that
Armenians often confuse the process of explaining (analyzing) the causes
of the genocide with justification of mass murder.
After underlining these caveats, Libaridian noted that until the
mid-1960s, the main division in the Diaspora Armenian communities was
over the legitimacy of Soviet Armenia. In the 1970s, however, the issue
of recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey and the rest of the
world replaced the Soviet Armenian dilemma as the major issue and united
the Armenian Diaspora. The newer generations of Armenians, both in
Armenia and the Diaspora, have almost no direct contact with Turks. For
most of them, the Turk has become just an abstraction that is easy to hate.
Libaridian, who was a high-ranking member in the administration of
Armenia's first post-Soviet president, asserted that the issue of the
Armenian Genocide recognition was not a major objective of the Karabakh
movement, which emerged in Armenia in 1988. This movement first demanded
the annexation of Mountainous Karabakh to Armenia, but then achieved
independence from the USSR. According to Libaridian, this de-emphasis as
regards genocide recognition was certainly not about denial; the leaders
of the Karabakh movement simply did not want to use the Armenian
Genocide issue to devalue the idea of independence.
Libaridian said that, during Armenia's transition to independence, two
contrasting visions of the country's future were extensively discussed.
The first vision depicted Armenia as a small, perpetually victimized
country, reliant on the USSR/Russia. It argued that a Turkey that does
not recognize the Armenian Genocide is a Turkey more likely to invade
Armenia. According to the second vision, however, Armenia should become
a normal country, with normal relations with its neighbors. The
followers of this line of thought believed that, through establishing
normal relations with Turkey, they can later resolve other issues as
well, including that of genocide recognition. Because of the dominance
of this second vision in the early 1990s, Armenia's first post-Soviet
constitution did not make the issue of Armenian Genocide recognition a
basis of its foreign policy. On the other hand, when Armenia entered
into negotiations with Turkey over normalization of relations in 1991,
the Turkish government, as a precondition to the talks, originally
wanted Armenia to drop the genocide recognition issue. Libaridian
recounted that the Turks later dropped this precondition after they
realized that Armenia did not link it to normalization of relations. It
was only Armenia's support for the secessionists in Karabakh and the
latter's territorial gains against Azerbaijan which ended the
negotiations between Armenia and Turkey.
Libaridian stated that, at that time, Armenia's current president,
Robert Kocharyan, who was still in a position of authority in Karabakh,
wanted to link Armenia's dropping the genocide precondition to Turkey's
dropping the Karabakh precondition. According to Libaridian, Kocharyan's
position emanated from his belief that Karabakh would be in a stronger
diplomatic position if Turkey and Armenia had normal diplomatic
relations. Libaridian then contrasted this past attitude by Kocharyan to
his current position as president of Armenia. Libaridian argued that
Kocharyan now sees genocide recognition as a matter of Armenia's
national security. This new attitude, according to Libaridian, is closer
to the view of Armenia as a perpetually victimized nation. Libaridian
also reminded the audience that Vazgen Sargsyan, the founder of
Armenia's army, did not like Armenians talking about themselves as
victims. Especially after the successes against the Azerbaijanis on the
battlefield, Sargsyan used to ask rhetorically: "why should genocide
define our character and nation, since we are the victors now?"
Libaridian himself believes that victimization can be embedded into the
Armenian character when the genocide is taught to students at a very
young age. By focusing solely on the tragic aspects of the Armenian
Genocide, options for Armenia are being closed.
A short question-and-answer period followed, during which Libaridian
expressed pessimism that the US House of Representatives would approve
the draft resolution that has recently been tabled regarding Armenian
Genocide recognition.
Thereafter, the audience, including students from the AGBU Alex and
Marie Manoogian High School in Southfield, MI, enjoyed a catered lunch
and had the opportunity for additional discourse with the speakers.