Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ISTANBUL: False use of `genocide' may haunt Israel in future

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

  • ISTANBUL: False use of `genocide' may haunt Israel in future

    Today's Zaman, Turkey
    Jan 4 2012

    False use of `genocide' may haunt Israel in future


    4 January 2012 / CELÄ°L SAÄ?IR , Ä°STANBUL


    A recent Israeli parliamentary committee debate on Armenian claims of
    genocide at the hands of the late Ottoman Empire, which came days
    after the passage of a bill by the French parliament that criminalizes
    denial of these genocide claims, has led to a discussion of the
    motives of Israel, whose relations with Turkey are in a deep crisis,
    and whether such a move could in fact prove to be detrimental to the
    Jewish state.
    Describing the timing of the debate, at a meeting of the Education,
    Culture and Sports Committee of the Israeli Knesset (legislature), on
    Dec. 26 as `clearly political,' Tal Buenos, an Israeli PhD candidate
    studying genocide issues at Utah University, warns Israel about the
    boomerang effect of this move in the future. `Both morally and
    politically it would benefit Israel if it were to carefully examine
    the origin and development of the term `genocide' before opening
    discussion on any particular case. The false use of this political
    term may haunt Israel itself in the future as much as it troubles
    Turkey today,' Buenos told Today's Zaman in an interview. `There are
    already some who claim that Israel is committing genocide against the
    Palestinians. ¦ Such accusations have hurt Israel's international
    relations already, and could prove a lot more costly in the future in
    case Israel no longer enjoys the same level of American support in the
    international system.'

    Buenos also criticized the French National Assembly's decision to pass
    the controversial legislation, saying `it is detrimental to allow
    parliaments to `legislate' their own version of historical events in a
    manner that inhibits academic inquiry.'

    According to him, `the recent steps taken in France add to the
    unfortunate confusion between the Holocaust and the Armenian tragedy.'

    `It is simply historically inaccurate, and morally misguided, to
    compare Adolf Hitler with Talat PaÅ?a -- or TeÅ?kilat-ı Mahsusa with the
    Nazi SS -- because the former acted out of irrational hatred while the
    latter acted out of the natural need to survive. The Turks and the
    Armenians were in conflict over land, and posed a threat to the
    other's national life.' Buenos said.

    Lending support to a Turkish proposal to Armenia to establish a joint
    committee of historians on the 1915 events, Buenos also underlined the
    lack of academic contributions to the issue from the Turkish side.
    `Despite the growth of interest in genocide studies worldwide, there
    is not a single center for these studies in Turkey,' he said. `Turkey
    may provide space for the study of what had happened to Muslims in the
    Caucasus, and also in the Balkans, who suffered through regular ethnic
    cleansing and massacres. Some of these massacres were genocidal in
    scope and intent,' Buenos declared.

    We discussed the matter further with Buenos.

    How do you evaluate the recent decision by the French parliament to
    penalize denial of Armenian `genocide'?

    The debate over the events of 1915 could be given an emphasis that is
    historical, legal or moral, but in France right now it is largely
    political. There are clear signs of narrow political considerations at
    play now that the French elections are near. Sadly, such a stance
    taken by the French government only adds to its perception as
    anti-Islamic and Orientalist and will likely affect the integrity of
    French scholarly activity on the issue of genocide. It is detrimental
    to allow parliaments to legislate their own version of historical
    events in a manner that inhibits academic inquiry.

    Turkey, for its part, may negate these trends by facilitating
    scholarly debate that is free of political strains. It may do so by
    refraining from publishing propaganda pamphlets and opening its
    military archives for the free use of scholars. Just recently I had an
    article published in a special edition released by Middle East
    Critique, edited by M. Hakan Yavuz, which dedicated its academic space
    to promote an open discussion on the topic. Such endeavors here in
    Turkey will enhance the quality of conversation on what happened in
    1915 and what the term `genocide' means. Replacing its current
    reactionary position with a facilitating role would provide an optimal
    reflection of Turkey's good intentions.

    Also, the recent steps taken in France add to the unfortunate
    confusion between the Holocaust and the Armenian tragedy. The very
    reference to `denial' is borrowed from the context of the Holocaust
    discourse and looks to make political gain by blurring the clear lines
    between scholars who debate the application of the loosely defined
    term `genocide' to the events of 1915 and pseudo-historians who deny
    that the Holocaust ever existed.

    After France endorsed the bill, an attempt at an Armenian genocide
    bill took place in Israel. What were the Israeli parliament's
    motivations?

    The Israeli parliament's education committee met on Monday morning to
    discuss the introduction of the Armenian tragedy into Israeli
    textbooks. The timing for this is clearly political, but it would be
    surprising if the Armenian diaspora had much to do with this
    development. The Israeli politicians who initiated this public debate
    say that Israel's view on this issue has been pro-Turkish until now
    because of political reasons that no longer hold, and now that their
    view is free of politics, they can make the moral choice. In my view,
    this misguided position in Israel is regrettable because it
    universalizes the singularity of the Holocaust and it serves as
    another example of how the use of the term `genocide' in connection
    with the Armenian tragedy is politics disguised as morality.

    If in fact, as Israeli politicians say today, they were ignoring the
    moral choice for decades because of their ties with Turkey, then that
    is tantamount to Israel declaring utter moral bankruptcy. Both morally
    and politically, it would benefit Israel if it were to carefully
    examine the origin and development of the term `genocide' before
    opening discussion on any particular case. The false use of this
    political term may haunt Israel itself in the future as much as it
    troubles Turkey today. There are already some who claim that Israel is
    committing genocide against the Palestinians. One example is the book
    `The Plight of the Palestinians: A Long History of Destruction,' which
    was edited by William A. Cook in 2010 and presents a collection of
    contributions by active personas in the humanitarian field who accuse
    Israel of genocide. Such accusations have hurt Israel's international
    relations already, and could prove a lot more costly in the future in
    case Israel no longer enjoys the same level of American support in the
    international system.

    Hopefully, Israel will come to reject such misuse of the Holocaust and
    look to improve the definition of the term [`genocide']. There must be
    a concerted effort to solidify the definition of the term by rescuing
    it from the grasp of politicians and leaving less room for misuse.

    Although there have been some steps taken in recent years among
    American Jews, there is a general perception that Jews don't want to
    see the 1915 events accepted as genocide. There are claims that Jews
    don't want the 1915 events to overshadow the Holocaust. Why do you
    think this is the case?

    It could be that there are American Jews who are familiar with the
    details of both events to an extent where they would feel that it is
    unacceptable to compare them, while there could be others who are less
    informed about the details of the events and would want to appear as
    moral and compassionate by siding with the victim. It is very tempting
    for Jews to side with those who are perceived as weak because of
    Jewish history. In this regard, it is important to add that the Jews
    do not think or act as if they have a copyright on the concept of the
    Holocaust.

    Can you compare the 1915 events with the Holocaust?

    The Holocaust was a result of irrational hatred, whereas studies show
    that the events of 1915 were the result of conflict and a rational
    fear by the Young Turks that their nation's survival was at risk.
    While the Turks fought for their survival, the Nazis went as far as
    interfering with their own survival as a state, compromising their
    capacity to win the war by occupying much-needed railroads with trains
    carrying Jews to death camps instead of soldiers and military supplies
    and by losing almost a third of their military production by killing
    Jews who provided [a] much-needed labor force. Such contextualization
    of the events shows undeniable differences that should play a
    significant role in how genocide is defined, especially in terms of
    intentions and modes of execution.

    In my article for Middle East Critique, I distinguish between a
    nation's intent to destroy, genocide, and a nation's intent to
    survive, genovive, and offer a method, based on Thomas Hobbes'
    political philosophy, through which one may analyze intent by asking
    two questions: Did the victim pose a reasonable threat to the
    assailant's survival? Did the actions taken by the assailant against
    the victim give the assailant a better chance to survive? If the
    answer to both questions is `yes,' then the case is not genocide in
    its solid definition but rather genovive, a nation's legitimate effort
    to survive by exercising its most natural right to remove anything
    that poses an immediate threat to its existence.

    It is simply historically inaccurate, and morally misguided, to
    compare Adolf Hitler with Talat PaÅ?a -- or TeÅ?kilat-ı Mahsusa with the
    Nazi SS -- because the former acted out of irrational hatred while the
    latter acted out of the natural need to survive. The Turks and the
    Armenians were in conflict over land and posed a threat to the other's
    national life. Whatever social contract exited between the two peoples
    was nullified. Therefore, they sought to secure the land and,
    moreover, eliminate chances of continued threat. Justin McCarthy's
    `The Armenian Rebellion at Van' sheds much light on the uprising in
    Van: the anticipated revolt, the clearly stated Armenian national
    aspirations, the Armenian cooperation with the Russians, the
    collection of arms to be used against Turks and the quest for
    recapturing what the Armenians held to be their fatherland.

    In sharp contrast, in the years preceding World War II, the Jews in
    Germany joined the German national identity by showing their love and
    admiration for their shared German fatherland. Moreover, the Jews were
    positively involved in Germany's politics, culture, economy and
    military. It is a disgrace to the memory of such honorable citizens,
    who were absolute victims, to equate them with victims who are
    associated with rebellious intentions and actions.

    The Turkish proposal and the Armenian reaction
    How do you evaluate the Turkish proposal of leaving the issue to
    historians and accepting the result of their studies? What do you
    think about the Armenian reaction?

    This proposal is very important and must be seen through. There are
    previous examples of successful joint committees of historians that
    were put together for the study of controversial events, and they did
    help create a shared narrative of the events. However, at this point,
    it appears that Armenian nationalist groups are opposed to the idea of
    establishing such a joint committee. The people of Turkey should
    understand that for the Armenians this is a delicate situation because
    over the years, genocide has become the new glue that holds Armenian
    identity together. Thus, opening a debate over genocide would also
    mean exposing the myths of modern Armenian diaspora identity and
    raising questions that would put their identity at risk. One of the
    more urgent aspects that are part and parcel with years of claims of
    having suffered genocide is that the group's identity becomes
    inseparable from the group's victimization. Unfortunately, this
    Armenian dependency on the genocide narrative comes at Turkey's direct
    expense, and increasingly so.

    Looking at today's hot debates on 1915 in Turkey, how do you assess
    the evolution of the Turkish position, if there has been any?

    The Turkish position has certainly evolved. It was a big mistake to
    constrain the debate in Turkey for decades and the state was
    heavy-handed. The debate is much richer and more sophisticated on the
    Turkish side. However, there are fewer studies in Turkey than outside
    it. The works of Edward Erickson, Guenter Lewy, Michael Gunter, Brad
    Dennis, Michael Reynolds, Benjamin Fortna and Justin McCarthy are
    taking place mainly in the United States. The number of Turkish
    universities has increased from 53 to 170, but their contribution to
    the debate is very limited and almost inconsequential. Many historians
    of Turkish origins in the US hesitate to step into the debate because
    they fear the possible Armenian reaction.

    As of today, almost 21 countries have recognized 1915 as genocide. As
    an expert working on this issue, what does this mean in terms of what
    really happened?

    Even if there are hundreds of countries' parliaments that recognize
    the events of 1915 as genocide, it should not discourage Turkey from
    seeking to free this issue from its political shackles and engage in
    scholarly debate. The focus for Turkey should be on scholarship and
    encouraging a fact-based scholarly inquiry.

    However, Turkey should be mindful of how it is perceived, and should
    not fail to recognize that thus far the Armenians have been rather
    successful in presenting themselves as the victim and the Turks as the
    villain. Turkey would be wise to engage the international community in
    conversation about concerns that the negative images of Turks in this
    regard reflect the existence of deeply embedded anti-Islamism in
    Euro-Christian circles. The ease with which some European states
    accept the Armenian claims with no serious investigation does indicate
    roots of hostility as well as fears of Turkey's expanding role in the
    international system.

    Turkey's legal obligations and risks
    What kind of legal obligations and risks do you think Turkey could
    face if 1915 is accepted as genocide?

    The difficulties in answering your question are mainly due to the
    fluid definition of `genocide' and its dependency on the agendas of
    superpowers. The term `genocide' came to be in the context of
    post-World War II, when the Allied Powers, headed by the United
    States, wanted to justify their actions in the war and protect their
    political interests in Germany. The advent of `genocide' at that time
    was designed to influence the fragile minds of the Germans and
    convince them of the moral superiority of the victors so as to ensure
    that they would follow the path laid for them. Since the superficial
    resolution of the United Nations, and until the ratification of
    genocide by the US in President Ronald Reagan's final months in office
    in the late 1980s, there were decades of international inactivity in
    genocide-related prosecution.

    However, it is important to note that your question might mislead your
    readers into thinking that the legal consequences are the gravity of
    the matter when, in truth, it is more significant to the moral
    well-being of the Turkish nation to reject accusations against the
    Ottoman state if they are false, regardless of the penalty. In other
    words, even if the legal consequences were a fine of one Turkish lira,
    false accusations should not be accepted.

    What other positive steps should be taken in Turkey regarding genocide studies?

    Turkey should develop a more rational strategy. The government in
    Ankara has shown signs of becoming increasingly emotional whenever
    there is a debate that defines the events of 1915 as genocide.

    First, there should be a concerted effort to improve the current
    quality of discussion at Turkish universities. Turkish universities
    need to invest and establish centers for genocide studies, to
    cultivate this new discipline. Despite the growth of interest in
    genocide studies worldwide, there is not a single center for these
    studies in Turkey.

    The Turks need to confront their history in the Balkans and Caucasus.
    Turkey could provide the opportunities for the study of what had
    happened to Muslims in the Caucasus, and also in the Balkans, who
    suffered through regular ethnic cleansing and massacres. Some of these
    massacres were genocidal in scope and intent. It could be that in an
    odd twist of fate, the Armenian debate might lead many Turks to
    remember the events in the Balkans.

Working...
X