Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Denying The 'Other' Holocaust

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Denying The 'Other' Holocaust

    DENYING THE 'OTHER' HOLOCAUST
    By Marilyn Henry

    Asbarez
    http://www.asbarez.com/2009/08/31/d enying-the-other-holocaust/
    Aug 31, 2009

    Ten years ago, I was in Armenia for Genocide Memorial Day. Armenians
    from their "galut" around the world had come to Yerevan to participate
    with local citizens in the solemn commemoration. I was with a group
    that came from the US, including Henry Morgenthau III. He was there
    because the government intended to honor his grandfather, the first
    Henry, who as the US ambassador to Constantinople in 1915 had raised
    the alarm about the Armenian genocide.

    The Morgenthaus and I were Jews among the Armenians. After a week
    together, however, it was hard to remember that the Armenians
    weren't Jews. We have much in common: lost families, lost homes,
    lost countries, lost languages, lives as minorities, a diaspora,
    fears of assimilation, factions in religious practice - and genocide,
    as well as foes who would deny that the genocide ever happened.

    But this also is where Jews and Armenians part. No civilized society
    will tolerate Holocaust denial. Nearly a century later, however,
    denial of the Armenian genocide persists, and it pops up in the most
    unexpected places.

    Most recently it was in the federal appeals court in California. In
    a ruling on August 20, two members of a three-judge appellate panel
    did not quite deny the Armenian genocide; it was more like "genocide
    squelching." At issue was one of a handful of California laws that
    collectively extended the statutes of limitations so that Nazi victims,
    including slave laborers, as well as victims of the Armenian genocide,
    would have additional time to file various claims for redress from
    human rights abuses and other losses.

    The Armenians were seeking insurance payments from the period in the
    waning days of the Ottoman Empire during which they were deported
    and massacred by the Turks. This was akin to efforts within the
    Jewish community in the last decade to recover insurance payments
    for policies written during the Nazi era.

    Jewish insurance claims were handled by an international commission
    chaired by former US secretary of state Lawrence Eagleburger. Armenians
    fended for themselves. Claims from the Ottoman/World War I era were
    handled by lawyers who dealt with individual insurance companies. The
    American insurer New York Life and the French company AXA reached
    settlements with the Armenians.

    The case in federal court in California pits Armenians against German
    insurance companies. (Let's put aside for this discussion that German
    enterprises should be sensitive to any claim related to genocide,
    or that it was Hitler who blithely predicted that no one would
    remember the fate of the Armenians.) The German insurers resisted
    any discussion of claims, including the possibility of humanitarian
    settlements with payments to charitable institutions, said Brian
    Kabateck, the Los Angeles attorney representing the Armenians.

    The German companies argued that US presidential foreign policy
    prohibits legislative recognition of an "Armenian genocide." Although
    more than 40 American states have policies on the Armenian genocide,
    there is no federal policy recognizing it. Each time in recent years
    that a congressional resolution appeared likely to affirm that the
    genocide had occurred, the Bush and Clinton administrations argued
    against it, saying it would hurt American foreign policy by offending
    Turkey, a key ally. The Turks have never recognized the genocide;
    they refer to an Armenian revolt.

    In a very broad statement that went far beyond California's laws on
    claims deadlines, the federal appellate panel concluded that "there
    is an express federal policy prohibiting legislative recognition of an
    'Armenian genocide.'"

    "By using the phrase 'Armenian genocide,' California has defied the
    president's foreign policy preferences," the panel ruled.

    It was not swayed by the fact that the federal government has
    not expressly prohibited states from using the phrase "Armenian
    genocide." And the US government did not participate in this case,
    so its position on how states treat the genocide is entirely unclear.

    Kabateck, the Los Angeles attorney, vowed to appeal to
    the full appellate court, saying the two judges' ruling was
    "genocide-squelching." "The court says the words 'Armenian genocide'
    when said by any state or local government violates the foreign powers
    of the US government and is unconstitutional," he said. "Taken to its
    logical extreme, if these two judges are correct, no state or local
    government in the United States may use those words in any capacity."

    The Court ignored the US record, including president Ronald Reagan's
    1981 proclamation explicitly referring to "the genocide of the
    Armenians," said Rouben Adalian, director of the Armenian National
    Institute in Washington. "This decision has so many egregious mistakes
    it makes one wonder what else was going on. It is frightening to
    see how even judges could be so misled into dangerous and really
    shameful territory."

    There is now concern that the ruling will be used as Turkish
    propaganda, and to expand the assault on teaching about the genocide
    in American public schools.

    In June, a federal judge in Boston rejected a lawsuit filed by several
    students, teachers and the Assembly of Turkish American Associations
    that challenged Massachusetts' state curriculum. The education
    guidelines characterize the World War I-era deaths of Armenians as
    genocide. Mark Wolf, the chief judge of the US District Court in
    Massachusetts, said the sensitive questions on the historic tragedy
    should be debated in the legislature, not the courts.

    American Jews don't face these horrific fights over atrocities and
    whether to teach them. New York, New Jersey, California, Florida and
    Illinois have laws requiring the teaching of the Holocaust. Ten other
    states have regulations recommending Holocaust education. Twelve
    states also have Holocaust commissions or councils that support
    Holocaust education.

    But we surely remember our own battles against Holocaust denial. And
    as we are aggressive in protecting our history and in protesting
    contemporary atrocities such as in Darfur, so should we protest the
    denial of other atrocities of the past.
Working...
X