Armenian Genocide Resolution Passes Committee; Turkey Recalls Ambassador

-

capitol.hill.jpg
(Photo Credit: Ucumari’s Photostream)
Turkey – a country that President Obama visited on his first overseas tour and referred to as a nation with which the United States enjoys a “model partnership” has recalled its Ambassador to Washington Namik Tan after the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed House Resolution 252 labeling Turkey’s massacre of Armenian civilians during World War I a “genocide.”
This is a significant development in bilateral relations between the United States and one of its most important allies.
Even before the resolution, the United States’ popularity in Turkey was dismal. According to the 2009 Pew Global Attitudes Survey, only 14% of Turks view the United States favorably – a remarkable figure for a country that has been a major U.S. ally since the end of the Second World War. That number is sure to go down after today’s vote.
Sorting out the historical grievances between Turkey and Armenia is an immensely complicated task – and it is certainly understandable that many Armenians feel that Turkey should do more to atone for what was undoubtedly a major tragedy.
However, it is difficult to fathom how today’s developments will help Turkey and Armenia move forward. Rather, today’s vote is the triumph of diaspora politics over serious foreign policy.
More soon.
Update: I have pasted the official Turkish Government Statement on H.R. 252 below the fold. I have asked for a statement from the Armenian Embassy and will post if it becomes available.


Here is the Turkish Government Statement on the vote on H. Res. 252 in the House Foreign Affairs Committee today:
Turkey regrets the adoption today of the draft resolution by the United States House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs.
“We condemn this draft resolution, accusing the Turkish nation with a crime that it has not committed.
Those who support this draft resolution have adopted a wrong and unfair attitude with political motives, while ignoring the historical truths and differences of opinion among the expert historians on the subject.
In addition to the factual historical mistakes regarding the events of 1915 contained in the resolution, it has been drafted with a totally one-sided approach. Turkey believes that the painful events experienced by all people of Anatolia during the First World War have to be scientifically examined by historians using historical records and archives in an unbiased manner.
Intervention by politicians in the domain of historians has always led to negative consequences.
In fact, during all our contacts concerning the draft resolution it was clearly pointed out that its adoption will lead to undesired results.
We are seriously concerned that the adoption of this draft resolution in the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs despite all our warnings will harm Turkey-US relations and impede the efforts for the normalization of Turkey-Armenia relations.
This decision, which could adversely affect our cooperation on a wide common agenda with the United States, also regrettably attests to a lack of strategic vision.
As a result of this development we recalled this evening our Ambassador Namik Tan to Ankara for consultations.
— Ben Katcher

Comments

86 comments on “Armenian Genocide Resolution Passes Committee; Turkey Recalls Ambassador

  1. Suzy says:

    It just doesn’t make sense. Obama doesn’t call the deaths of 1.5 MILLION Armenians a “genocide,” but he chooses to call it “one of the worst atrocities” of the 20th century and “a devastating chapter” in history??? He won’t recognize the massacre as genocide even after he said he would. He is intentionally avoiding calling it a genocide, and the only reason for his actions is the following: if he refers to the killings as genocide, that will upset Turkey, which is obviously a crucial ally. America needs and wants a close partnership with Turkey, and unfortunately, because of this, Obama has failed to meet his own pledge to recognize this horrific annihilation as a genocide.
    Hitler said, “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”…Well, we do. And we will continue to do so.

    Reply

  2. ... says:

    last time i looked genocide was defined as the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political or cultural group… i think it’s an accurate description of what israel is doing to the palestinian people…

    Reply

  3. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “The Palestinian population, as anyone with an ounce of brains knows, is growing by leaps and bounds”
    Which is exactly why you racist monsters are dreaming up ways to limit Palestinian births.

    Reply

  4. WigWag says:

    Do you even know what genocide is, …?
    The Israelis treat the Palestinians terribly; the Palestinians and other Arabs treat the Israelis terribly. None of this is genocide. Are you so ignorant that you don’t understand this?
    The Palestinian population, as anyone with an ounce of brains knows, is growing by leaps and bounds.
    Genocide is the attempt to utterly destroy an ethnic, religious, linguistic or national group. Groups experiencing genocide watch their populations murdered by the hundreds of thousands or millions; the size of their population plummets it doesn’t grow.
    Whatever the merit or lack of merit of the Goldstone Report, the simple violence that goes along with all war and ethnic conflict has nothing to do with genocide.
    But hey, it’s not your fault, …, it’s mine. I should know better than to interact with an imbecile.
    Don’t worry; it won’t happen again.

    Reply

  5. ... says:

    i am sure we will wait a long time for the usa to acknowledge israels genocide on palestine as well… the us is unable to acknowledge the goldstone commission, but then this is how things work in the halls of power which are reflected politically… what gets done, or not politically often has little reflection on the reality on the ground….instead of politicians showing leadership, they show their instinct for re-election… everything needs to be understood in this light unfortunately…

    Reply

  6. ... says:

    don’t worry about giving me an “A” for effort wigwag… i am going to give you and nadine an “A” for trying hard to paint the turkish in general out badly… since erdogan hasn’t taken kindly to israels bullshit i have noted the more concerted efforts of the part of israeli firsters to paint them out as the next saddam… i guess it is a break from painting irans leader out as such too, but come on… when do you folks acknowledge the slow genocide israel is inflicting on palestinian people, or is that something you two are okay with?

    Reply

  7. WigWag says:


    In light of the reality of the Armenian Genocide, those words are extraordinarily weak.
    And lets not forget that both the civilian government in Turkey and before that, various military governments have prosecuted Turks who acknowledge that genocide took place.
    I will give you an “A” for effort though.

    Reply

  8. ... says:

    okay wigwag and nadine… how do those words stack up with these?
    “For many years,” Erdogan continued, “various facts took place in this country to the detriment of ethnic minorities who lived here. They were ethnically cleansed because they had a different ethnic cultural identity. The time has arrived for us to question ourselves about why this happened and what we have learned from all of this. There has been no analysis of this right up until now. In reality, this behavior is the result of a fascist conception. We have also fallen into this grave error.”
    The Turkish Prime Minister’s candid remarks were harshly criticized by opposition parties. Onur Oymen, vice president of the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) said that associating Turkey’s history with terms like fascism based on hearsay was not right. He also said that no Turkish citizen had ever been expelled because of his or her ethnic background. Oktay Vural of the opposition MHP party added: “Erdogan’s words are an insult to the Turkish nation.”
    http://www.asbarez.com/63214/prime-minister-erdogan-finally-admits-turkey-practiced-ethnic-cleansing/

    Reply

  9. WigWag says:

    Erdogan has indeed denied the Armenian Genocide on multiple occasions.
    Not only do we have his famous statement that “It is not possible for a Muslim to commit genocide” we also have specific denials of the mass murder of Armenians by the Turks.
    Here is an article that appeared in the British newspaper, “The Guardian” in 2008.
    Turkish PM dismisses apology for alleged Armenian genocide
    Robert Tait in Istanbul The Guardian, Thursday 18 December 2008
    Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, yesterday fiercely attacked an online apology for the alleged genocide of Armenians by Ottoman forces in the first world war, warning that it could derail efforts to restore long-severed ties with Armenia.
    The apology – organised by Turkish intellectuals in the form of a petition – provoked an outcry from right-wing nationalists, and Erdogan added his voice by making clear he felt Turkey had nothing to apologise for. “I neither accept nor support this campaign. We did not commit a crime, therefore we do not need to apologise,” he said.
    It proves the point that the Prime Minister of Turkey is little better than David Irving the British Holocaust denier.
    The problem of course, is that whatever differences Turks have amongst themselves, Erdogan speaks for a significant percentage of the country on this issue. Secularists agree with him as do Islamists. The civilian government agrees with him as does the military.
    Not only is Turkey an impoverished nation that discriminates against many of its minority groups it is a nation that is unable to confront the fact that it committed one of the most heinous acts of the 20th century.

    Reply

  10. nadine says:

    Erdogan routinely denies the Turkish genocide. He went on Charlie Rose last December and denied it. For that matter, he denies the Darfur genocide as well.
    Erdogan Denies Genocide, Links Karabakh to Armenia Ties On Prime Time TV
    By Allen Yekikan on Dec 9th, 2009 and filed under Azerbaijan, International, Karabakh, National, News, Top Stories, Turkey, Turkey-Armenia Relations, United States.
    HOLLYWOOD–Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan appeared on the Charlie Rose show in New York on Tuesday evening to discuss his meeting with President Obama in Washington DC earlier this week. Speaking on Prime-Time television, he directly linked the normalization of his country’s relations with Armenia to a pro-Azerbaijani settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and called the Armenian Genocide a complete lie.
    During the course of the televised interview, Erdogan was asked by Rose “what more evidence does history need” for Turkey to accept the Genocide.
    The Turkish Premier, whose comments were broadcast on prime-time television, responded by denying the Armenian Genocide, saying the annihilation of 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman Turkish government in the early 20th century was “completely a lie.”
    “I can say very clearly that we do not accept genocide,” he said.
    “I invite people to prove it. I wrote a letter in 2005, and I said that this is not up to politicians. It is up to historians to look into this,” Erdogan said about the crime against humanity that has been acknowledged and condemned by the International Association of Genocide Scholars.
    Erdogan sought to marginalize efforts to condemn genocide in the United States Congress, describing the humanitarian cause as “lobbying and going to politicians and asking them to take certain decisions.”
    http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:OJpc7kAu1XoJ:www.asbarez.com/74564/erdogan-denies-genocide-links-karabakh-to-armenia-ties-on-prime-time-tv/+erdogan+genocide&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
    ANKARA (Combined Sources)–Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan continued his government’s denial of the ongoing genocide in Darfur on Sunday, questioning International Criminal Court (ICC) charges against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir on grounds that “no Muslim could perpetrate a genocide,” the Turkish Today’s Zaman newspaper reported Monday.
    Nearly half a million people have been slaughtered and nearly 3 million more forced from their homes since the government in Khartoum launched its genocide in February 2003. The Sudanese government denies it is committing genocide.
    The ICC indicted al-Bashir in March on seven counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, but stopped short of including a charge of genocide. Turkey is among the few countries to have not yet ratified the Rome Statute, which requires compliance with ICC rulings.
    According to the Turkish Prime Minister, Bashir may have mismanaged the situation, but the international warrant for his arrest is a mistake.
    Turkey has been facing heavy criticism for agreeing to host al-Bashir at a summit of the Organization for Islamic Conference (OIC) scheduled to take place in Istanbul on Monday.
    “It’s not possible for a Muslim to commit genocide,” he said. “That’s why we are comfortable [with the visit of al-Bashir].”
    http://www.asbarez.com/73093/erdogan-defends-al-bashir-says-muslims-incapable-of-genocide/

    Reply

  11. ... says:

    wigwag, do you have a quote showing erdogan thinks the armenian genocide never happened, or are you going to just soil the atmosphere as best you can towards erdogan and turkey more generally?

    Reply

  12. WigWag says:

    For a particularly revealing look at the efforts Turkey makes to advance its genocide denial one need look no further than the 2006 case against Orhan Pamuk.
    Pamuk is a Turkish patriot who has written lovingly of his home city of Istanbul and lives and writes not far from the banks of the Bosphorus. He is also Turkey’s only living Nobel Prize winner who won his prize for stunningly magnificent works like “Snow” and “My Name is Red.” There is general agreement that Pamuk along with a small number of other authors (e.g. Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Mario Vargas Llosa, Philip Roth, Jose Saramago, and V.S. Naipaul) is one of the ten best novelists alive on the planet today.
    But Pamuk made the mistake of giving an interview to a Swiss newspaper in which he said,
    “30,000 people have died in Turkey’s Kurdish conflict and a million Armenians were killed by Turkey during the First World War.”
    What was the result? Pamuk was physically attacked by a mob of incensed Turks and the government put him on trial for “denigrating Turkishness” in violation of the infamous section 301 of Turkey’s penal code.
    Shortly after his trial commenced it was adjourned and the charges were later dropped by the government which was afraid that proceeding would have killed Turkey’s chances for admission to the EU.
    Now that Turkey’s interest in EU admission may be waning, it is entirely possible that Section 301 will be enforced with greater vigor because, after all, Turkey’s new allies like Syria, Iran and China tend to be considerably less squeamish about arresting and beating people for what they say or write than the Europeans are. If Pamuk made the mistake of repeating his remark today, it is entirely possible that the government would be far less apt to sweep the whole thing under the rug.
    The last Islamic author to speak his mind so freely was the Egyptian Nobel Prize winner, Nagib Mahfouz who wrote 50 novels including the three magnificent parts of the Cairo Trilogy. Ironically, Mahfouz died the same year that Pamuk was arrested and placed on trial.
    In his native Egypt, Mahfouz made the mistake of praising Sadat’s rapprochement with Israel and criticizing Islamic extremism. Various fatwas calling for his death were issued and assassination threats poured in from several parties including factions of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and Omar Abdul-Rahman. In 1994 the then 82 year old Mahfouz was stabbed in the neck while entering his Cairo home. He survived but suffered permanent damage to nerves in his right hand. After the incident Mahfouz was unable to write for more than a few minutes a day and consequently produced fewer and fewer works. Subsequently, he lived under constant bodyguard protection until his death.
    The experiences of both Mahfouz and Pamuk are perfectly emblematic of the state of the Islamic world.
    Is it any wonder that Erdogan thinks that the Armenian Genocide never happened and the tragedy in Darfur is a myth?

    Reply

  13. questions says:

    Absolutely!
    And I’m willing to be she won’t use too many words or find any complexity either. (In your absence I’ve been accused routinely of both!)
    There are major structural problems in IR in general that show up — if you use history to predict the future you run smack into the problem of induction, or the applying of one historical moment to another that merely seems similar but isn’t really. If you think there’s a better way to do things, you don’t really have any way to test — there aren’t parallel universes in test tubes to try carrots in one and sticks in the other. Determining what SHOULD be done according to national interests is always a political decision, not at all a truth-oriented one. What’s an IR theorist supposed to do?
    But Carroll indeed has solved all of these problems — I expect to see her nth book put out by Oxford any day now….
    And the next Nobel Peace Prize as well — if she’s even willing to accept an award that Obama also has gotten!

    Reply

  14. Sweetness says:

    Questions, here’s the other thing about the correct foreign
    policy being “obvious” to “real Americans.”
    I’ve been meaning suggest to Carroll that she run for the House
    or Senate. Since she has a firm grasp on what the American
    people think–and an even firmer grasp on what the people of
    North Carolina think–making her case and winning should be
    no problem. She seems to have enough free time on her hands,
    and that probably means she’s doing okay financially.
    Then, when she gets to Washington, all those controversial,
    tough votes won’t be hard for her. She’ll know the right way to
    go, especially in foreign policy, and she’ll know what the
    American people, and the people of NC especially, believe and
    want. Those two things will almost automatically be the same,
    so she should have no problem voting the right way.
    As the people see that Carroll is the one politician who truly
    represents what they really think, want, and need, she will start
    winning re-election with increasing margins. This will enable
    her to spend more time on legislating and less time on
    fundraising. Her opponents will (naturally) be spreading lies, if
    not Zionist lies, but, thanks to Carroll, the people will see them
    for what they are. So opponents will have to spend more and
    even more money on their campaigns to push their debunked
    lies, while Carroll spends less and less and flips the bird to all
    those pesky lobbyists trying to waste her time.
    Once she tires of the Senate, she can move on to a
    governorship, or the presidency as she sees fit. But I see no
    reason why she shouldn’t expect the same results. Once the
    American see the light, there’s no stopping them.

    Reply

  15. Diran says:

    Paul, if we are agreed on the relevance WigWag’s question, then
    that’s a lot. Thanks for your encouragement, but I’m inclined to
    leave it there. Best. . . .

    Reply

  16. ... says:

    paul 310pm post answer – wigwag asked the question
    “Why are the people who deny the Armenian Genocide on this post or in Turkey itself any better than David Irving?” if wigwag had someone in mind they negated to be specific and as such it was just a passing smear as i see it to anyone who doesn’t agree with their position….
    as for me doing the same, it is tat for tit in this department as i see it… if someone is going to indirectly imply something, they deserve the same treatment back….
    as for why i don’t write long posts, i hope you don’t want us all to be like questions around here? i for one find i have only so much time i feel like putting out on this site and as a consequence part of my involvement includes supporting those who share a similar view, while showing displeasure with those who hold to the opposite…. then their are those somewhere in the middle which i also tend to give the benefit of the doubt to…perhaps this makes my approach more clear…
    to diran, i thought your post was as such… if you’re going to support wigwag in his passing and ambiguous shots into thin air around here, continue to expect the same in response.. and further to this, pauls 344pm essentially captures my thinking as well, the only distinction is to me wigwags motives were underhanded for the same reason.. wigwag is unwilling to name names, but content to slur anyone who doesn’t agree with the same position they hold… i find it reflects poor character, but then that is how i see wigwag..

    Reply

  17. Paul Norheim says:

    “To Paul Norheim:
    This is a misunderstanding.”
    Diran, if someone misunderstood you, it was not me, because I
    didn’t even address your comment – only …’s comment. I do
    however agree with WigWag that those who deny the genocide
    against the Armenians may be comparable to Irving – regardless
    of WigWag’s possible motives for saying so. Statements are
    unfortunately a bit underrated on this blog, compared to
    speculating on possible motives.
    best,
    Paul

    Reply

  18. Diran says:

    To Paul Norheim:
    This is a misunderstanding. I was supporting WigWag’s question
    ” Why are the people who deny the Armenian Genocide on this
    post or in Turkey itself any better than David Irving?” as against the
    comment immediately following which said, “setting up straw men
    to knock down is a favourite past time of some…”
    which I took as a criticism of WigWag’s concluding question
    To the author of that comment who tells me “if you are talking
    about yourself or wigwag, i have to agree.. if you are talking about
    someone else- show some character by saying so by being less
    evasive then the content of your post…” my reply is:
    No, I’m not talking about anyone else. I hope at least that much is
    clear.

    Reply

  19. Paul Norheim says:

    To be frank, …,
    why don’t you write more on topic comments using
    independently crafted arguments, instead of these one-
    sentence remarks, cheering those you agree with and smearing
    those you disagree with?
    It’s always appreciated when someone gives you kudos for what
    you write (and a thousand thanks for your kudos’es in my
    direction at this blog), but I imagine that this must be annoying
    for those who are badmouthed by your short, anonymous
    remarks, where you risk nothing on your part.
    Nothing bad with being anonymous – most of us are, for several
    reasons. But the easier to really make efforts to write longer
    posts containing your personal judgements of things going on. I
    hope you regard this more as a challenge than as criticism
    (although it of course contains a bit of both…)
    Write a long post, please – with your own arguments and
    perspectives, before calling fellow commenters cowards!

    Reply

  20. Diran says:

    To Paul Norheim:
    This is a misunderstanding. I was supporting WigWag’s question
    ” Why are the people who deny the Armenian Genocide on this
    post or in Turkey itself any better than David Irving?” as against
    the comment immediately following which said, “setting up
    straw men to knock down is a favourite past time of some…”
    which I took as a criticism of WigWag’s concluding question
    To the author of that comment who tells me “if you are talking
    about yourself or wigwag, i have to agree.. if you are talking
    about someone else- show some character by saying so by
    being less evasive then the content of your post…” my reply is:
    No, I’m not talking about anyone else. I hope at least that much
    is clear.

    Reply

  21. Paul Norheim says:

    Hi …,
    you may accuse WigWag of a lot of things (and I often do), but
    how can you claim that she’s a coward? In my view, she’s showing
    her cards for all to see.

    Reply

  22. ... says:

    diran quote “”evasive insinuations in
    the passive voice. Intellectual cowardice. “” if you are talking about yourself or wigwag, i have to agree.. if you are talking about someone else- show some character by saying so by being less evasive then the content of your post…

    Reply

  23. Paul Norheim says:

    Re Turkey and the Armenian Genocide resolution:
    Frankly, I don’t care whether the motives behind this resolution
    were political or not. The essential fact is that the genocide is a
    historical fact, and Turkey has to deal with this facts, unpleasant
    as it is.
    If Israel’s supporters influenced the outcome, this development is
    even better: Turkey spoke truth to Israel after the bombardment
    of Gaza; and now America speaks truth to Turkey regarding it’s
    past. Brilliant. The only thing I regret is that America buried the
    Goldstone report, and that Turkey denied the genocide in Darfur.
    But a 50 % victory for truth is much better than a mere
    continuation of denial and lies due to political considerations.

    Reply

  24. Paul Norheim says:

    Wow, Questions, that’s impressive. Interesting comments. I may
    comment on details later… I think I said recently to you that in
    my experience the original is often much more complex and
    interesting than those who promote and spread the tabloid
    version of the original. This seems to be the fate of important
    books. If I remember correctly, I mentioned my experience
    reading Said, Huntington, and Fukuyama as examples. One may
    also add Marx and Nietzsche to the list. The opposite is true
    regarding Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”. I once read a couple of
    chapters in a Norwegian translation published around 1942,
    and it was even worse than it’s reputation – both in content and
    style. I think it’s the worst book I’ve ever – uh, read parts of.
    In any case, it’s great to see that you take the time to deal with
    what Walt and Mearsheimer actually said, and not only the
    rumors from fans and critics.
    OT: At the moment, I’m (re-)reading Lev Chestov. Heard of him?
    A Russian Jew born in Kiev – a former Marxist banned by the
    tzar’s sensors, then a Christian a la Pascal and Kierkegaard.
    Camus was highly influenced by him (he is mentioned in
    “Sisyfos”), and also the novelist/poet D.H. Lawrence. I’m reading
    him in English translations. His prose somehow reminds me of
    Schopenhauer – passionate content in a balanced, “classical”,
    and very clear language, all the time dealing with Plato, Kant,
    Spinoza, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Luther – always the original…
    I don’t think you’ll agree with his positions (neither do I much of
    the time), but he is interesting and highly underrated, almost
    forgotten. BTW: he never created a “school”, but got one
    “follower” in America: the excellent translator. Happily, we’ll
    never see a tabloid version of his thoughts.

    Reply

  25. WigWag says:

    “WigWag concludes with an excellent question: Why are the people who deny the Armenian Genocide on this post or in Turkey itself any better than David Irving?” (Diran)
    Another interesting question, Diran, is how anyone could fail to notice that Turkey is a serial genocide denier. Not only has Turkey refused to admit its complicity in the murder of 1.5 million Armenians in 1915 (before that, the Ottomans murdered 200 thousand Armenians in 1895) Turkey has averted its eyes from the genocide in Darfur.
    Remember that Prime Minister Erdogan explained that “a Muslim cannot commit genocide,” (which reminds me of nothing so much as President Ahmadinejad’s famous statement at Columbia University that there are no gay people in Iran).
    According to most authorities, these are the genocides of the 20th and early 21st centuries:
    1) Armenians murdered by Turks, 1,500,000 in 1915.
    2) Stalin’s forced famine, 7,000,000 dead 1932-33.
    3) Rape of Nanking, 300,000 dead 1937-38.
    4) Shoah, 6,000,000 dead 1938-45
    5) Pol Pot in Cambodia, 2,000,000 dead 1975-79
    6) Rwanda, 800,000 dead 1994
    7) Darfur, 300,000 dead 2003-present.
    I’m afraid the reality is incontrovertible; Prime Minister Erdogan is little better than David Irving.

    Reply

  26. Sweetness says:

    Donovan…yes.

    Reply

  27. questions says:

    “SN: First there is a lobby then there is no lobby then there is”
    You’re echoing a song that is in the back of my brain and I can’t pull it out. Please supply the reference before smoke starts pouring out of my ears! Thanks in advance! Donovan??
    As for name change, can’t do it! I don’t feel definitive enough about many issues so much as I am uncertain about many positions I come across.
    As for the Palestinians, absolutely we need greater concern. The things in the way really do seem to include a fair amount of corruption that directs aid in places that don’t really help (this is actually a major issue in foreign aid in general — the local inability to use aid, local corruption, and US misunderstanding of local cultures such that we do dumb things like provide meat to vegetarians (I made this one up, but analogous misdirections do happen)). And there is plenty of deeply unfortunate racism. And as Nir Rosen notes, the conflation of radical Islam with all of Islam is a problem as well.
    So even if I could agree with W and M that we need shifts (and I do agree at some level), I don’t think they have the whole situation quite right, and I don’t think they get the causation entirely straight, and I do think they leave too much room for the Carroll’s of the universe.
    But at any rate, thanks for taking the time to read and comment.

    Reply

  28. Sweetness says:

    Q: Sweetness, I’ve been challenged by Paul Norheim to read the
    book-length version of the W and M show. So I am. Chapter 2 at
    this point.
    SN: Great.
    Q: I was thinking of posting at the end of every chapter, but I’m
    not sure I have the energy.
    SN: I know, but what you’ve done here is good.
    Q: Thus far I have learned that they do not want to suggest any
    kind of “cabal” thinking. They really like Israel and think its
    continued existence is worthwhile. They are sort of pushing the
    citizen-lobbying thing is ok. The intro really backs off some of
    the stronger claims that one sees made in their names.
    SN: The “counter argument” is that WM pulled their punches even
    in the book for fear of you know who. I think Carroll has private
    emails from them where they go much further.
    Q: They bring up the Carter “apartheid” thing and use it to show
    the m.o. of THELOBBY. They sadly fail to note that Carter knew
    what he was doing when he chose the title! Carter isn’t an idiot.
    He knew it would be inflammatory, as of course it would be for
    anyone to be accused of apartheid. He chose it anyway. And his
    provocation, well, provoked. I don’t know how much evidence
    this is of anything, but W and M see it as very very telling.
    SN: Good point. But…the question is…is apartheid an accurate
    term whether it’s inflammatory or not. Carroll posts anti-
    Semitic material and appears (strongly) to agree with it.
    Inflammatory? Yes. True. Yes.
    Q: Ch. 1 provides an account of money issues. How much we
    send to Israel directly and indirectly. The variety of sweetheart-
    style deals (they get their money at the start of the year instead
    of quarterly, so they can earn interest on the unused portion by
    buying US Treas. bonds and then we pay them extra via interest),
    they don’t have to spend 100% of the money in the US, only 75%
    near as I can tell (that is, if we give them a hundred dollars, they
    spend ONLY 75 in the US and the rest is theirs…)
    SN: No question they get sweetheart deals.
    Q: There’s no context for the dollar amounts they give, they note
    that Turkey and Egypt get or got some sweetheart deals after a
    fashion. They think they are being shocking somehow, but with
    no real context for the size of the US budget, for what the
    budget is all about, for the extent to which any and all policy in
    a participatory political system is more about domestic issues
    than not… it gets hard to evaluate.
    SN: Yes. Very hard.
    Q: Their point seems to be that if Israel is treated any differently
    from any other country that definitionally means something very
    significant about how Israel is treated.
    SN: Yes, but as you’ve pointed out, a lot of parties get treated
    “differently”–on an individual basis, not according to some
    standard.
    Q: Now, there’s a NYT headline today that notes that companies
    that have violated US law have gotten 100 BILLION in US
    contracts. Without context for what happens regarding Israel,
    it’s just hard to read the numbers. If Israel is getting even 6 or 7
    billion a year, and these US companies have sucked down 100
    billion in recent years… clearly we have no relationship between
    money given and work done. And that would seem to be US
    policy all around. Israel, then, is not exceptional, it’s the rule.
    SN: Yes, but you see, those companies are OUR crooks. And
    good American citizens are benefiting from this crookedness.
    Mind you, we don’t like them any better–and WE SAY SO LOUD
    AND CLEAR–but still they’re OUR crooks. And that’s different.
    When Jews do it, it’s sort of hard to put affix that possessive
    pronoun to it, if you see what I mean. Drill down and these are
    the emotions being triggered.
    Q: They seem to make a number of assumptions that I
    screamingly disagree with. First is that there’s a correct foreign
    policy we’ve distorted through THELOBBY which is:
    SN: Oh yes, Carroll is a BIG proponent of this idea. THE correct
    foreign policy is as obvious as the nose on a Jew’s face, pardon
    my Yiddish. It’s ridiculous. I’d be more sympathetic if they’d at
    least say that THE correct foreign policy changes over time.
    Q: “a loose coalition of individuals and organizations that
    actively works to move U.S. foreign policy in a pro-israel
    direction. As we will describe in detail, it is not a single, unified
    movement with a central leadership, and it is certainly not a
    cabal or conspiracy that ‘controls’ U.S. foreign policy. It is simply
    a powerful interest group, made up of both Jews and gentiles….”
    So this loose coalition that is most certainly not a cabal or
    single-minded still manages to distort what would be a more
    natural foreign policy. With no THELOBBY, clearly no other group
    also not single-minded, also just a loose coalition would clearly
    not step in and push for some other policy positions? Of course
    not.
    SN: First there is a lobby then there is no lobby then there is. I
    DO think, however, that US foreign policy doesn’t take the
    validity of Palestinian claims and their plight seriously enough.
    However, it gets to this position, it is biased against Palestinians,
    as far as I can see. So more balance is needed.
    Q: This one fundamental assumption, that there is a correct
    foreign policy rather than a muddles mess of pressures in one or
    another direction is, well, not really a properly descriptive view.
    As I noted in a comment under Walt’s post a while ago, they
    would seem to be Platonists in an Aristotelian world.
    SN: I’m in your “amen corner.” However, as I say, this muddled
    mess has resulted in insufficient attention to the Palestinian
    cause, IMO.
    Q: Another fundamental error is the idea that somehow foreign
    policy is not supposed to be citizen-led. This error is related to
    the first, but differs in emphasis. Within a participatory system,
    presumably the main pressure is from citizens and is felt most
    deeply at the polling booth and in anticipation of polling results.
    It is entirely proper for citizen groups to pressure our
    representatives to do stuff we want and to vote the bums out
    when they don’t serve our purposes. Foreign policy is one of our
    purposes. So lobbying based on foreign policy issues is entirely
    acceptable and is really the proper source of foreign policy
    input. Whose interests are being served? And even more, how
    are those interests determined? Are W and M claiming to be
    Platonic philosophers who have discerned the Form of foreign
    policy?
    SN: I think the prescriptive non-relationship between domestic
    politics and foreign policy is one of the cornerstones of the
    “realist” school of foreign policy. But it is ironic in the context of
    these garrulous comments, because it would it seem that
    realists would favor foreign policy being run by an elite corp of
    professionals without regard to what “the people” think.
    Q: A final fundamental assumption for the day is that there is
    something “US interests” that can be defined, supported through
    policy, and served by one and all. I have posted about this one
    before. “US interests” is an ill-defined phrase that can be
    attached to just about anything. And near as I can tell, they don’t
    really define the phrase except to say that Israel ain’t really it.
    But since I’ve been over this many times, I won’t bother again.
    SN: No, the best they can say is, “And Israel doesn’t even have
    any oil to give us!” And by default, they end up singing the
    praises of all those retrograde Arab or Islamic regimes who,
    because of size or resources or their role in spawning people
    who attack America with airplanes, are supposedly more natural
    US allies and who would be our allies if it weren’t for an Israel-
    controlled US that manages to KEEP them retrograde. Ah, to be
    a Jew with SO much power in my little pinky. Delusional.
    Q: They engage in a certain amount of “concern trolling” as in
    Oh, we really think this is bad for Israel too. An interesting
    strategy. I will grant them sincerity on this point, but I will note
    that it does seem to be more on the troll side of things.
    SN: Okay. I don’t know. I do think that sometimes American
    Jews, the establishment, is more hawkish than many Israelis and
    influences them in an unproductive direction. They might be
    better off if Americans backed off. As Max said to Leo: “Stop
    helping!”
    Q: Ch. 2 focuses on the strategic liability that Israel has become.
    During the Cold War, maybe it was ok, and by the way when
    Israel was founded we had limited support for them. But it grew
    over time.
    SN: Yes, but it doesn’t have to be. And no mention of Ike’s and
    Allen’s assassination of Mossadeq? They kind of messed things
    up with Iran for a long time. Maybe still!
    Q: I’m not done with this chapter yet, so I’ll wait to say more, if I
    get around to it.
    SN: You’ve done yeoman’s work.
    Q: Thus far, my reading hasn’t made me love the book suddenly,
    but it has made me see that the champions of the book around
    here might be drawing a little too much from a mythical text
    and not from the real one.
    SN: Yes, basically my point. They’re not very good readers.
    Probably didn’t take Mr. Stino’s class. Carroll’s education was
    separate, but definitely not equal.
    Q: On the other hand, they note that the US has occasionally
    threatened to pull back support and has gotten what it wanted
    out of Israel — symbolic pull backs more than real ones, so of
    limited impact all in all.
    SN: You need to have a friendly and close relationship to have
    an impact. I call this The Sweetness Doctrine. This is the idea
    behind my support for engagement with Iran. Carroll TALKS this
    game, but really she’s all about spanking. Comes from her
    Scots-Irish approach to politics as she noted in a very insightful
    piece a while back.
    ****
    Q: In running through the footnotes and chapter titles very
    quickly, I do not see any engagement with the vote tally quant
    readers of Congress and this flaw is a huge one. They push a
    little of the interest group lit, but they don’t really tackle the
    numbers issue regarding lobbying and causation and
    correlation. They put in a few of those idiotic juicy “OOOOHHHH,
    what a strong lobby” quotations that drive me utterly crazy.
    Quotations like that are no evidence at all and should not ever
    be cited unless one is doing a study of things MCs say. Maybe
    they will one day partner with Nate Silver, a few congressional
    scholars whose work focuses on vote tallies and dollars and
    phone calls and districts and the like and they’ll produce a
    similar book, but one that is faithful to how Congress is more
    properly studied.
    SN: It would be an excellent corrective. So far, their ability to
    sink the careers of Congresspeople is pretty limited, overall.
    Q: For now, they are IR guys stepping out of their field and in
    my view at any rate, it shows. They also don’t seem to grapple
    with their own underlying conceptual framework, and this point,
    too, weakens the text.
    So that’s the intro, ch. 1 and a few pages of ch. 2!
    SN: Wow! Great work. I know you’ll never do this, but I think
    you should change your name to Answers. Failing that, how
    about Hypotheses? Or Theories? Or Strong Hypotheses?

    Reply

  29. Diran says:

    WigWag concludes with an excellent question:
    “Why are the people who deny the Armenian Genocide on this post
    or in Turkey itself any better than David Irving?”
    Too bad “some” people don’t have the guts to come out and say
    what’s really on their mind but throw out evasive insinuations in
    the passive voice. Intellectual cowardice.

    Reply

  30. ... says:

    setting up straw men to knock down is a favourite past time of some…
    why is it that some people are unwilling to acknowledge the hypocrisy of their own words or actions?

    Reply

  31. WigWag says:

    “The Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence.” Barack Obama, 2006
    Since World War II there has been a cottage industry of Holocaust denial led by a variety of so called journalists and revisionist historians from David Hoggan to Arthur Butz to Robert Faurisson to the current leader of the movement David Irving.
    Virtually all intelligent and decent people view these deniars of German genocide against the Jews to be despicable and so outside of the mainstream that they are not welcome in polite company.
    David Irving was discredited after his libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt was dismissed. The Court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier, antisemite and racist, who “associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism,” and that he had “for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence.”
    In 2005 Irving was arrested in Austria and in 2006 he was convicted of “glorifying and identifying with the German Nazi Party.” Irving went to jail for several months.
    My question is this,
    Why are the people who deny the Armenian Genocide on this post or in Turkey itself any better than David Irving?

    Reply

  32. samuelburke says:

    Glenn Greenwald speaketh
    “The right kind of bigotry
    BY GLENN GREENWALD
    From the long-time Editor-in-Chief and owner of The New
    Republic, this morning:
    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/0
    3/06/peretz/index.html
    There were moments–long moments–during the Iraq war
    when I had my doubts. Even deep doubts. Frankly, I couldn’t
    quite imagine any venture requiring trust with Arabs turning out
    especially well. This is, you will say, my prejudice. But some
    prejudices are built on real facts, and history generally proves
    me right. Go ahead, prove me wrong.
    The point here is so obvious that it makes itself. In the bolded
    sentence, replace the word “Arabs” with “Jews” and ask yourself:
    how much time would elapse before the author of such a
    sentence would be vehemently scorned and shunned by all
    decent people, formally condemned by a litany of organizations,
    and have his livelihood placed in jeopardy? Or replace the word
    “Arabs” in that sentence with “Jews” or “blacks” or “Latinos” or
    even “whites” or virtually any other identifiable demographic
    group and ask yourself this: how many people would treat a
    magazine edited and owned by such a person as a remotely
    respectable or mainstream publication (notwithstanding the
    several decent journalists employed there)? Yet Marty Peretz
    spits out the most bigoted sentiments of this type — and he’s
    been doing this for years, as is well known — and very little
    happens, because, for multiple reasons, this specific type of
    hate-mongering remains basically permitted in American
    political discourse. ”

    Reply

  33. questions says:

    Sweetness,
    I’ve been challenged by Paul Norheim to read the book-length version of the W and M show. So I am. Chapter 2 at this point.
    I was thinking of posting at the end of every chapter, but I’m not sure I have the energy.
    Thus far I have learned that they do not want to suggest any kind of “cabal” thinking. They really like Israel and think its continued existence is worthwhile. They are sort of pushing the citizen-lobbying thing is ok. The intro really backs off some of the stronger claims that one sees made in their names.
    They bring up the Carter “apartheid” thing and use it to show the m.o. of THELOBBY. They sadly fail to note that Carter knew what he was doing when he chose the title! Carter isn’t an idiot. He knew it would be inflammatory, as of course it would be for anyone to be accused of apartheid. He chose it anyway. And his provocation, well, provoked. I don’t know how much evidence this is of anything, but W and M see it as very very telling.
    Ch. 1 provides an account of money issues. How much we send to Israel directly and indirectly. The variety of sweetheart-style deals (they get their money at the start of the year instead of quarterly, so they can earn interest on the unused portion by buying US Treas. bonds and then we pay them extra via interest), they don’t have to spend 100% of the money in the US, only 75% near as I can tell (that is, if we give them a hundred dollars, they spend ONLY 75 in the US and the rest is theirs…)
    There’s no context for the dollar amounts they give, they note that Turkey and Egypt get or got some sweetheart deals after a fashion. They think they are being shocking somehow, but with no real context for the size of the US budget, for what the budget is all about, for the extent to which any and all policy in a participatory political system is more about domestic issues than not… it gets hard to evaluate.
    Their point seems to be that if Israel is treated any differently from any other country that definitionally means something very significant about how Israel is treated.
    Now, there’s a NYT headline today that notes that companies that have violated US law have gotten 100 BILLION in US contracts. Without context for what happens regarding Israel, it’s just hard to read the numbers. If Israel is getting even 6 or 7 billion a year, and these US companies have sucked down 100 billion in recent years… clearly we have no relationship between money given and work done. And that would seem to be US policy all around. Israel, then, is not exceptional, it’s the rule.
    They seem to make a number of assumptions that I screamingly disagree with. First is that there’s a correct foreign policy we’ve distorted through THELOBBY which is:
    “a loose coalition of individuals and organizations that actively works to move U.S. foreign policy in a pro-israel direction. As we will describe in detail, it is not a single, unified movement with a central leadership, and it is certainly not a cabal or conspiracy that ‘controls’ U.S. foreign policy. It is simply a powerful interest group, made up of both Jews and gentiles….”
    So this loose coalition that is most certainly not a cabal or single-minded still manages to distort what would be a more natural foreign policy. With no THELOBBY, clearly no other group also not single-minded, also just a loose coalition would clearly not step in and push for some other policy positions? Of course not.
    This one fundamental assumption, that there is a correct foreign policy rather than a muddles mess of pressures in one or another direction is, well, not really a properly descriptive view. As I noted in a comment under Walt’s post a while ago, they would seem to be Platonists in an Aristotelian world.
    Another fundamental error is the idea that somehow foreign policy is not supposed to be citizen-led. This error is related to the first, but differs in emphasis. Within a participatory system, presumably the main pressure is from citizens and is felt most deeply at the polling booth and in anticipation of polling results. It is entirely proper for citizen groups to pressure our representatives to do stuff we want and to vote the bums out when they don’t serve our purposes. Foreign policy is one of our purposes. So lobbying based on foreign policy issues is entirely acceptable and is really the proper source of foreign policy input. Whose interests are being served? And even more, how are those interests determined? Are W and M claiming to be Platonic philosophers who have discerned the Form of foreign policy?
    A final fundamental assumption for the day is that there is something “US interests” that can be defined, supported through policy, and served by one and all. I have posted about this one before. “US interests” is an ill-defined phrase that can be attached to just about anything. And near as I can tell, they don’t really define the phrase except to say that Israel ain’t really it. But since I’ve been over this many times, I won’t bother again.
    They engage in a certain amount of “concern trolling” as in Oh, we really think this is bad for Israel too. An interesting strategy. I will grant them sincerity on this point, but I will note that it does seem to be more on the troll side of things.
    Ch. 2 focuses on the strategic liability that Israel has become. During the Cold War, maybe it was ok, and by the way when Israel was founded we had limited support for them. But it grew over time.
    I’m not done with this chapter yet, so I’ll wait to say more, if I get around to it.
    Thus far, my reading hasn’t made me love the book suddenly, but it has made me see that the champions of the book around here might be drawing a little too much from a mythical text and not from the real one. On the other hand, they note that the US has occasionally threatened to pull back support and has gotten what it wanted out of Israel — symbolic pull backs more than real ones, so of limited impact all in all.
    ****
    In running through the footnotes and chapter titles very quickly, I do not see any engagement with the vote tally quant readers of Congress and this flaw is a huge one. They push a little of the interest group lit, but they don’t really tackle the numbers issue regarding lobbying and causation and correlation. They put in a few of those idiotic juicy “OOOOHHHH, what a strong lobby” quotations that drive me utterly crazy. Quotations like that are no evidence at all and should not ever be cited unless one is doing a study of things MCs say. Maybe they will one day partner with Nate Silver, a few congressional scholars whose work focuses on vote tallies and dollars and phone calls and districts and the like and they’ll produce a similar book, but one that is faithful to how Congress is more properly studied.
    For now, they are IR guys stepping out of their field and in my view at any rate, it shows. They also don’t seem to grapple with their own underlying conceptual framework, and this point, too, weakens the text.
    So that’s the intro, ch. 1 and a few pages of ch. 2!

    Reply

  34. Sweetness says:

    Wig, thanks for the link and heads up.

    Reply

  35. Sweetness says:

    Questions: “So, like, if THELOBBY decides it wants to stop something, the thing is stopped. And if THELOBBY does not any longer care that the thing be stopped, and the thing happens, THELOBBY has caused it.
    Can this non-positioning causation be generalized? Whatever THELOBBY doesn’t care about, THELOBBY causes, and whatever THELOBBY does care about, it also causes? How deitific! I guess THELOBBY really does run Congress!!!!!!!”
    Yeah, that’s pretty much the position. At least it was; Carroll now seems to be backtracking. Used to be all kinds of talk about “traitors” and “foreign agents” and how the lobby is subverting America’s “true interests” and needs to be “banned.”
    What’s interesting is that their patron saint, Stephen Walt, in his recent post here, reaffirms that “the Lobby” is made up of Americans expressing their views and desires, just like all the other lobbies out there, if more successful.
    How many alerts do EYE get asking me to call my Congressman on issues XYZ–I’ve lost count.

    Reply

  36. WigWag says:

    For Ben Katcher and others who might be interested, there is an interesting new book out by Christopher de Bellaique called “Rebel Land: Unraveling the Riddle of History in a Turkish Town.”
    The author, a British journalist who speaks fluent Turkish lived in Turkey for several years before moving to Iran to cover events there. To write this book he returned to a small town in Turkey called “Varto” which is situated in Turkey’s beautiful, mountainous far east. Nowadays the town and surrounding district are populated by Kurds, a very few vestigial Armenians and a small minority of Turks.
    The book which I have downloaded on my kindle for $14.27 deals with the Armenian Genocide, the relationship between Turks and Kurds and most interestingly the relationship between Sunni Turks and the Alevi.
    The New York Times Book Review has a review this week that is very informative.
    Here’s the link,
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/books/review/ONeill-t.html?ref=books
    I’ve just read about 25 percent of the book so far, but for anyone interested in Turkey it is well worth buying. The best way I can describe it is as a mixture of journalism and anthropology somewhat reminiscent of some of the early books of Robert Kaplan and most of the travel writing of Colin Thubron.

    Reply

  37. Diana Allen says:

    The Armenian people have a very personal history with Genocide. Not only in 1915 but the Hammidian massacres before it (where hundreds of thousands of Armenians were slaughtered while Great Britain justified the acts) . . . it wasn’t the right time to acknowledge them then . . . so they grew into the terrible days of 1915-1917 . . . and Germany sat back and watched . . . and it wasn’t a good time to acknowledge these terrible acts. Then in 1918-21 when France was wrangling for depossed Ottoman Lands it wasn’t a good time . . . so the world sat back and watched as Smyrna Burn and Greek, Armenian and Syrian Christians died by the thousands. Armenians have been asking for some thimbles worth of acknowledgement and justice . . . but alas . . . NATO says it isn’t a good time . . . when IS IT a good time for a criminal to admit his crimes? In his eyes, never.
    Today, most of those who saw with their eyes are now gone . . . and soon, those of us who heard their stories in our ears, will be gone too. THIS is the day those who profit from Genocide are waiting for . . . to ask a people group to live with slander, lies and denial for generations is to perpetuate Genocide from one generation to another. It never ends.

    Reply

  38. DonS says:

    Good summary by Helena Cobban:
    http://justworldnews.org/archives/003906.html
    ***************
    “So now one day I think no, congress couldn’t be so dumb a second time as to bomb Iran and it’s just saber rattling.
    Then the next day I think yes they could be that irresponsible and craven a second time.” (Carroll)
    Another real problem is whether this flip flop, playing catch up Obama administration could suddenly wake up one morning and decide, yeah, bombing Iran, that’s just the ticket after all. The pressure for more pressure on Iran is nominally there already with the Congress, egging on the prez. But if Obama did decide that escalating the military option was a ‘go’, what would that debate in Congress look like? Used to be you could count on some dems, even a lot, to oppose such stupid adventures. But these days you never know. Surely there is some Fox poll showing that the majority of Americans think military action against Iran is needed. Of course the sheeple learned to hate the Iraq war; elected Obama, and got what? More war. So, I share your deja vu.

    Reply

  39. Carroll says:

    Posted by …, Mar 05 2010, 8:22PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Yep. ..that’s what has me commenting so much these days.
    Frustration.
    I am in some kind of deja vu nightmare over Iran
    like I was over Iraq.
    When I thought DC couldn’t possibily embroil the US in the ME by attacking Iraq over unproven wmd’s.
    But they did.
    So now one day I think no, congress couldn’t be so dumb a second time as to bomb Iran and it’s just saber rattling.
    Then the next day I think yes they could be that irresponsible and craven a second time.

    Reply

  40. Carroll says:

    Posted by questions, Mar 06 2010, 7:57AM – Link

    ” I was being sarcastic. I do not actually think AIPAC controls everything that happens in Congress.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Your problem questions is exaggeration..
    No one has said they think AIPAC controls “everything’ in congress.
    What we have said is the lobby controls and tries to control America’s ME and I/P policy and anything that concerns Israel.
    This is so evident that it isn’t even disputed by most people. I signed up for AIPAC alerts just to see what I would get.
    And every week I get some Action Alert asking me to call congress and ask for more aid for Israel or demand sanctions on Iran or protest aid to Palestine or condemn the UN or Egypt for anti semitism or call Peliso and protest former President Carter using the word apartheid and on and on.
    Evidently a lot of AIPAC people respond to these calls and it’s successful because we see the results in legislation in congress as I illustrated in another post.
    And a lot of people think most if not all of this legislation to benefit Israel is actually detrimental to America’s own interest.
    Therefore we protest this lobby and attack it and the people who aid their efforts.
    That’s all there is to it.
    Think of us as the anti-lobby lobby.
    Then you can describe us as just another lobby also, instead of conspiracy promoters.

    Reply

  41. questions says:

    …,
    You have to SEE the commercial — find a link on YouTube or through Crooks and Liars or Daily Kos or Wonkette…. It’s hilarious and it shows what’s wrong with Fiorina. What a mess of an ad!
    She’ll do anything coherent or not to get support. She’s really out in lala land.

    Reply

  42. ... says:

    questions, here is the first link on demon sheep i read..
    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/02/05/campaign-2010-make-way-for-demon-sheep/tab/article/
    of course it is an offshoot of the wall street journal and it comes off sounding quite favourable towards fiorina with no mention of anything else, so perhaps that is enough to know right there..

    Reply

  43. chumanist says:

    is not this resolution a reflection on US-political autism in terms of US_Turkey relations?

    Reply

  44. questions says:


    Google up “demon sheep” and you’ll understand what’s up with Carly Fiorina. The woman doesn’t have a prayer. She’s grabbing at anything that she thinks could sway half a voter. She ran HP into the ground. Ain’t no there there.
    samuelburke, I was being sarcastic. I do not actually think AIPAC controls everything that happens in Congress. But I’ve been over this stuff before. Not interested in revisiting….

    Reply

  45. Neo Controll says:

    “Presidential candidate Barack Obama shared with the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) a strongly worded statement . . . and pledging that, as president, he will recognize the Armenian Genocide.” (Nadine)
    LBJ as candidate – “I will not send American boys to fight an Asian war”
    GW Bush as candidate – “we will have a humbler foreign policy, and will not engage in nation building”

    Reply

  46. pissed off native american says:

    One would think the US would be a bit more circumspect about discussing historical genocide, given that fact that it was itself built on the annihilation of the indigenous population.

    Reply

  47. ... says:

    hey questions….
    opps…
    California’s sinking, but GOP Senate race is about Israel
    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/04/89851/california-gop-us-senate-race.html

    Reply

  48. Neo Controll says:

    “This is really pathetic. Turkey throws a hissy fit and our great leaders put their tails between their legs and run for the high grass. Is this the land of the free and the home of the brave, or WHAT?!” (Diran)
    Spoken like a true chickenhawk.

    Reply

  49. Diran says:

    This is really pathetic. Turkey throws a hissy fit and our great
    leaders put their tails between their legs and run for the high grass.
    Is this the land of the free and the home of the brave, or WHAT?!

    Reply

  50. samuelburke says:

    hey questions, you do a hell of a job trying to explain something
    that you claim doesn’t exist.
    you guys seem intent on building a monument to all the evil things
    you want to worship.

    Reply

  51. nadine says:

    January 20, 2008
    BARACK OBAMA CALLS FOR PASSAGE OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION
    “America deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian Genocide and responds forcefully to all genocides. I intend to be that President.”
    WASHINGTON, DC – Presidential candidate Barack Obama shared with the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) a strongly worded statement today calling for Congressional passage of the Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.Res.106 & S.Res.106), and pledging that, as president, he will recognize the Armenian Genocide.
    http://www.anca.org/press_releases/press_releases.php?prid=1365

    Reply

  52. ... says:

    carroll – better that the war being brought to american shores is only being fought politically in congress… when the same villains are responsible for it being fought on the ground, that will be the real wake up call for ordinary americans… until then, they can continue to be lulled to sleep by the ‘questions’ of their fellow american, dual citizen or not….

    Reply

  53. DonS says:

    Questions, you caps lock seems to have an intermittent error.
    In any case, if it walks like a duck . . .

    Reply

  54. Carroll says:

    Posted by JohnH, Mar 05 2010, 7:12PM – Link
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I think you’re right.
    Got to have that grand ‘Realignment’ war in the ME so that Israel would be left as the unchallenged regional power.

    Reply

  55. JohnH says:

    IMHO, this resolution is designed by AIPAC and neocons. It virtually guarantees there will be no consensus for sanctions against Iran at the UNSC.
    Instead, a trap has been set for Obama–a binary choice between waging war against Iran and being a wimpy Neville Chamberlain. All other options have been eliminated.
    Once again Obama has demonstrated a failure of leadership. He could have negotiated a reasonable deal regarding the enriched uranium swap but decided to be far too clever by half. Now it comes back to bite him–and America.

    Reply

  56. questions says:

    So, like, if THELOBBY decides it wants to stop something, the thing is stopped. And if THELOBBY does not any longer care that the thing be stopped, and the thing happens, THELOBBY has caused it.
    Can this non-positioning causation be generalized? Whatever THELOBBY doesn’t care about, THELOBBY causes, and whatever THELOBBY does care about, it also causes? How deitific! I guess THELOBBY really does run Congress!!!!!!!

    Reply

  57. Charlemagne says:

    The Resolution lost its meaning for Turks.Psychological treshold has been passed now. It was all about Committe polling.
    But from now on, Democrats’ pathetic attempt to blocking down the resolutions is the most ridicilious part.
    Perception management failed. And now no one cares about it .

    Reply

  58. samuelburke says:

    Tail wags the Turkey
    by Philip Weiss on March 5, 2010 · 2 comments
    MJ Rosenberg on the Armenian genocide-Turkey flap in House Foreign Affairs:
    http://mondoweiss.net/
    “That battle is now being carried to Washington. The Israelis are trying to teach the Turks a lesson. If the Armenian resolution passes both houses and goes into effect, it will not be out of some newfound compassion for the victims of the Armenian genocide and their descendants, but to send a message to Turkey: if you mess with Israel, its lobby will make Turkey pay a price in Washington.
    And, just maybe, the United States will pay it too.”

    Reply

  59. Carroll says:

    Frankly I would vote to give back or put the native Americans Indians in charge of this country.
    They could probably save us from ourselves enviromentaly and other wise.

    Reply

  60. DakotabornKansan says:

    “When we talk about lying, and especially about lying among acting men, let us remember that the lie did not creep into politics by some accident of human sinfulness. Moral outrage, for this reason alone, is not likely to make it disappear. The deliberate falsehood deals with contingent facts; that is, with matters that carry no inherent truth within themselves, no necessity to be as they are. Factual truths are never compellingly true. The historian knows how vulnerable is the whole texture of facts in which we spend our daily life; it is always in danger of being perforated by single lies or torn to shreds by the organized lying of groups, nations, or classes, or denied and distorted, often carefully covered up by reams of falsehoods or simply allowed to fall into oblivion. Facts need testimony to be remembered and trustworthy witnesses to be established in order to find a secure dwelling place in the domain of human affairs. From this, it follows that no factual statement can ever be beyond doubt—as secure and shielded against attack as, for instance, the statement that two and two make four.
    It is this fragility that makes deception so very easy up to a point, and so tempting. It never comes into a conflict with reason, because things could indeed have been as the liar maintains they were. Lies are often much more plausible, more appealing to reason, than reality, since the liar has the great advantage of knowing beforehand what the audience wishes or expects to hear. He has prepared his story for public consumption with a careful eye to making it credible, whereas reality has the disconcerting habit of confronting us with the unexpected, for which we were not prepared.” –Hannah Arendt, “Lying in Politics” in Crises of the Republic (1972)
    “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.” – remarks widely credited to Karl Rove. What does it mean for a democratic society when a government seeks to “create its own reality?” What does it mean to say a powerful government can “create its own reality?”
    “Political lies, [Arendt] reminds us, have been around as long as there have been politicians. Indeed, the art of lying is an accepted part of politics–it’s viewed as matter of tradecraft. So what is so menacing about political lying in the world that emerged from World War II? Arendt makes a number of observations that seem very well suited to the world we find ourselves in now–the world of Rupert Murdoch and cable news. The modern political liar will start with a claim that there is no objective truth, but only subjective truth–liberal truth or conservative truth, red truth or blue truth, Democratic truth or Republican truth. This is the first step that leads to the destruction of historical objectivity. The second is that there is a somewhat paradox relationship to history–in fact the modern political liar is history-obsessed. He needs to remake it to vindicate himself and to move things in the direction he seeks; he recognizes the power of historical memory… facts are inconsistent with the state’s official historical narrative. Hence they cannot be. A third is that the modern political liar will inevitably use his power to try to realize his lies. Arendt considers this potentially the most horrifying of her theses about political lying. She asks us to consider whether this may not literally fuel murders. These are all aspects of modern political lies–the new, far more virulent form of political lying that challenges our world…For Arendt, this sort of lie is nothing less than a challenge to the promise of democratic government.” – Scott Horton/“The Dark Truth Behind Gitmo”/Blaine Sloan Lecture on International Law/ November 13, 2009
    “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future.” – George Orwell

    Reply

  61. Carroll says:

    To add to …’s Mar05 2010,12:06PM post.
    I remember that the US Israeli’s lobby worked against the Turkey genocide resolution a year or so ago. However now is seems that since Israel and Turkey have had a falling out the lobby pushed for the resolution this time around.
    they are after Turkey’s becuase of their criticism of Israel in Gaza and their refusal to join the bandwagon for an attack on Iran has a lot to do with their changing their stance.
    Here’s MJ on it:
    ‘The Lobby sticks it to Turkey’
    The House Foreign Affairs Committee passed the Armenian genocide resolution. That is the bill, kicking around for years, that recognizes the Armenian genocide as precisely that – genocide. The Turkish government has always strongly opposed the resolution, arguing – unconvincingly, in my opinion – that the slaughter of the Armenians occurred in the context of war and was not an attempt at their intentional eradication.
    I never understood why the Turks care so much. The current democratic Turkish Republic was not even in existence during the Armenian slaughter. It is the successor state to the Ottoman Empire under which the killing took place. The current Turkish government is no more responsible for the Armenian genocide than the current German government is responsible for the Holocaust.
    Nonetheless, the Turks vehemently oppose using the term “genocide” to describe the events of 1915.
    And successive American administrations have deferred to the Turks by opposing Congressional bills “commemorating” the “Armenian genocide.”
    It is no different this year. The Obama administration lobbied against the resolution because it believed that enacting it would disrupt our relations with Turkey, a fellow NATO member and our largest ally in the Middle East. It also argued that passing the bill now would disrupt negotiations now underway between Turkey and Armenia.
    It passed anyway and the Turks immediately called its ambassador home.
    But here is where it gets really interesting. The following comes from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the Associated Press of the Jewish world. JTA writes:
    “In the past, the pro-Israel community [i.e. the Israel lobby] , has lobbied hard against previous attempts to pass similar resolutions, citing warnings from Turkish officials that it could harm the alliance not only with the United States but with Israel — although Israel has always tried to avoid mentioning the World War I-era genocide.
    “In the last year or so, however, officials of American pro-Israel groups have said that while they will not support new resolutions, they will no longer oppose them, citing Turkey’s heightened rhetorical attacks on Israel and a flourishing of outright anti-Semitism the government has done little to stem.
    “That has lifted the fetters for lawmakers like Berman (Chairman Howard Berman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee) , who had been loath to abet in the denial of a genocide; Berman and a host of other members of the House’s unofficial Jewish caucus have signed on as co-sponsors.”
    Get that. The lobby has always opposed deeming the Armenian slaughter a genocide largely because Turkey has (or had) good relations with Israel. And the lobby, and its Congressional acolytes, did not want to harm those relations.
    But, since the Gaza war, Turkish-Israeli relations have deteriorated. The Turks, like pretty much every other nation on the planet, were appalled by the Israeli onslaught against the Gazans. And said so.
    Ever since, the Netanyahu government has made a point to stick it to the Turks. Most famously, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon seated the Turkish ambassador in a kindergarten chair during a meeting, and “forgot” to put a Turkish flag on the table alongside the Israeli flag. He then called the Israeli photographers in and said to them in Hebrew – so the Turkish ambassador wouldn’t understand, “”The important thing is that they see he’s sitting lower and we’re up high and that there’s only one flag, and you see we’re not smiling.”
    News of that episode so enraged the Turks and humiliated the Israelis that Ayalon had to apologize three times, in progressively more abject terms, or face a rupture in Israeli-Turkish relations.
    That battle is now being carried to Washington. The Israelis are trying to teach the Turks a lesson. If the Armenian resolution passes both houses and goes into effect, it will not be out of some newfound compassion for the victims of the Armenian genocide and their descendants, but to send a message to Turkey: if you mess with Israel, its lobby will make Turkey pay a price in Washington.
    And, just maybe, the United States will pay it too.
    Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter

    Reply

  62. Gisele says:

    Pot , kettle ?? the Genocide of the native red Indians was the worst of all genocides (aborigines in New zealand and Australia had a sad history to tell too ).

    Reply

  63. Bart says:

    Ben’s headline might have been: “Pot Calls Kettle Black”

    Reply

  64. ... says:

    http://mondoweiss.net/2010/03/jpost-suggests-the-lobby-banjaxed-the-armenian-genocide-resolution-last-time.html
    ‘JPost’ and ‘BBC’ say the lobby worked against Armenian genocide resolution before
    uh huh…

    Reply

  65. ... says:

    the genocide at fallujah has yet to be addressed in a similar manner by the us congress…
    hypocrite is the word to describe american politicians..

    Reply

  66. DakotabornKansan says:

    “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” – Daniel Patrick Moynihan
    The abundant and overwhelming evidence on the subject makes the truth hard to dispute. The International Association of Genocide Scholars calls the Armenian genocide “the most well-known human rights issue of its time… reported regularly in newspapers across the United States and Europe. The Armenian genocide is abundantly documented by thousands of official records of the United States and nations around the world, including Turkey’s wartime allies Germany, Austria and Hungary, by Ottoman court-martial records, by eyewitness accounts of missionaries and diplomats, by the testimony of survivors, and by decades of historical scholarship.” They go on to note, “There are over four thousand U. S. State Department reports in the National Archives, written by neutral American diplomats, confirming what U.S. Ambassador Henry Morgenthau called `a campaign of race extermination.'”
    “Where scholars deny genocide in the face of decisive evidence … they contribute to false consciousness that can have the most dire reverberations. Their message, in effect, is … mass murder requires no confrontation, but should be ignored, glossed over. In this way scholars lend their considerable authority to the acceptance of this ultimate crime.” – Robert Smith, Eric Markusen, Robert Jay Lifton, “Professional Ethics and the Denial of the Armenian Genocide”:

    Reply

  67. Orrin Ford says:

    I came to oppose the “Armenian Genocide Resolution” several years ago solely because of my understanding of the long standing relationship between the U.S. and Turkey, understanding gained as a USAF Officer in Turkey during the Cold War. My knowledge of, and respect for, the People of Turkey and its culture buttressed my opposition.
    But I was compelled to confront the facts. The propaganda on both sides of the issue was disturbing. After hundreds of hours of reviewing and analyzing competing claims, including source documents for the claims, it became clear that the claims of genocide being made by the Armenian diaspora were at best misrepresentations and at worst a fabrication.
    It is truly sad that the Committee yesterday approved a falsehood as official U.S. foreign policy. I sincerely hope the ramifications of that action are not as serious as have been reported.

    Reply

  68. DakotabornKansan says:

    “I am tired of fighting. Our chiefs are killed. Looking Glass is dead. Toohoolhoolzote is dead. The old men are all dead. It is the young men who say, “Yes” or “No.” He who led the young men [Olikut] is dead. It is cold, and we have no blankets. The little children are freezing to death. My people, some of them, have run away to the hills, and have no blankets, no food. No one knows where they are — perhaps freezing to death. I want to have time to look for my children, and see how many of them I can find. Maybe I shall find them among the dead. Hear me, my chiefs! I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands I will fight no more forever.” – Chief Joseph, Nez Perce, surrender speech, 1877,
    “At last I was granted permission to come to Washington and bring my friend Yellow Bull and our interpreter with me. I am glad I came. I have shaken hands with a good many friends, but there are some things I want to know which no one seems able to explain. I cannot understand how the Government sends a man out to fight us, as it did General Miles, and then breaks his word. Such a government has something wrong about it. I cannot understand why so many chiefs are allowed to talk so many different ways, and promise so many different things. I have seen the Great Father Chief [President Hayes]; the Next Great Chief [Secretary of the Interior]; the Commissioner Chief; the Law Chief; and many other law chiefs [Congressmen] and they all say they are my friends, and that I shall have justice, but while all their mouths talk right I do not understand why nothing is done for my people. I have heard talk and talk but nothing is done. Good words do not last long unless they amount to something. Words do not pay for my dead people. They do not pay for my country now overrun by white men. They do not protect my father’s grave. They do not pay for my horses and cattle. Good words do not give me back my children. Good words will not make good the promise of your war chief, General Miles. Good words will not give my people a home where they can live in peace and take care of themselves. I am tired of talk that comes to nothing. It makes my heart sick when I remember all the good words and all the broken promises. There has been too much talking by men who had no right to talk. Too many misinterpretations have been made; too many misunderstandings have come up between the white men and the Indians. If the white man wants to live in peace with the Indian he can live in peace. There need be no trouble. Treat all men alike. Give them the same laws. Give them all an even chance to live and grow. All men were made by the same Great Spirit Chief. They are all brothers. The earth is the mother of all people, and all people should have equal rights upon it. You might as well expect all rivers to run backward as that any man who was born a free man should be contented penned up and denied liberty to go where he pleases. If you tie a horse to a stake, do you expect he will grow fat? If you pen an Indian up on a small spot of earth and compel him to stay there, he will not be contented nor will he grow and prosper. I have asked some of the Great White Chiefs where they get their authority to say to the Indian that he shall stay in one place, while he sees white men going where they please. They cannot tell me.” – Chief Joseph, Nez Perce, visit to Washington, D.C., 1879

    Reply

  69. Charlemagne says:

    Once again….
    Resolution says:
    “The chief organizers of the Armenian Genocide, Minister of War Enver, Minister of the Interior Talaat, and Minister of the Navy Jemal were all condemned to death for their crimes, however, the verdicts of the courts were not enforced.”
    Ironically three of them were assasinated and shot to death by armenians and locar armies in Berlin, Georgia and Tajikista. I dont know who was sponsoring these armenians and providing information.
    IF you google these three people, Enver, Talat, Djemal (cemal) it says they were a secret society member. namely “Committee of Union and Progress”
    and wikipedia reads: “The Committee of Union and Progress was an umbrella name for different underground factions, some of which were generally known as the “Young Turks”. The name was officially sanctioned to a specific group in 1906 by Bahaeddin Sakir. ”
    “The organisation was based upon the revolutionary Italian Carbonari.”

    Reply

  70. Jackie says:

    Congress is such a bunch of hypocrits! Native Americans, anyone? We’ve killed how many Afghanis and Iraqis, but we must pass a resolution about the Armenian “genocide”?

    Reply

  71. ozlem altuner says:

    It is very practical to go after a genocide claim that happened 100 years ago, instead of having a say in what is happening right now. Armenia has occupied the 20% of Azerbaijan territory, 1 million Azeris were forced run away for their lives and 30-40 thousand were killed. If American politicians have the power to do something for the humanity then they are looking from a distorted perspective. They should really do something instead of just voting for the past events. But what do I know, I’m just a sensible citizen whereas they are politicians.

    Reply

  72. Mr.Murder says:

    OT: Bad timing…
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100305/ap_on_hi_te/us_toyota_black_boxes
    “SOUTHLAKE, Texas – Toyota has for years blocked access to data stored in devices similar to airline “black boxes” that could explain crashes blamed on sudden unintended acceleration, according to an Associated Press review of lawsuits nationwide and interviews with auto crash experts.
    The AP investigation found that Toyota has been inconsistent — and sometimes even contradictory — in revealing exactly what the devices record and don’t record, including critical data about whether the brake or accelerator pedals were depressed at the time of a crash.
    By contrast, most other automakers routinely allow much more open access to information from their event data recorders, commonly known as EDRs.
    AP also found that Toyota:
    • Has frequently refused to provide key information sought by crash victims and survivors.
    • Uses proprietary software in its EDRs. Until this week, there was only a single laptop in the U.S. containing the software needed to read the data following a crash.
    • In some lawsuits, when pressed to provide recorder information Toyota either settled or provided printouts with the key columns blank.
    Toyota’s “black box” information is emerging as a critical legal issue amid the recall of 8 million vehicles by the world’s largest automaker. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said this week that 52 people have died in crashes linked to accelerator problems, triggering an avalanche of lawsuits.”
    Richard Bruce Cheney’s former Majority Leader Chief of Staff, from those days in the House, was Toyata’s director of North American Marketing in the GWB years. Nepotism’s results are often ugly….

    Reply

  73. larry birnbaum says:

    On this topic, a so-called “realist” perspective at The Washington Note. A striking contrast with the Rosen piece below, concerned as it is primarily with “moral” or “idealist” positions (or at least with moral indignation) and with what the proper conceptual framework is for the situation at hand.

    Reply

  74. ... says:

    from DakotabornKansan’s post above….
    “Denial is the final stage of genocide. It is a continuing attempt to destroy the victim group psychologically and culturally, to deny its members even the memory of the murders of their relatives.”
    i wonder where that is taking place today?? i don’t know if the usa gives a rats ass about this kind of thing… this is all political posturing, something the american model excels at, along with their war making….

    Reply

  75. Carroll says:

    Posted by Politics???, Mar 04 2010, 9:02PM – Link
    Did somebody say “a morally right decision”?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Yea I did, but probably shouldn’t have since I don’t really know a thing about the facts of the genocide or non genoicde event.
    I worded it poorly, giving the few in cogress who aren’t totally corrupt the benefit of doubt in voting for it because they ‘might’ have thought it was true or accurate.
    We need a rule that says Shit Happens.. or one that says we have to go after e.v.e.r.y.o.n.e. Picking and choosing genocides according to US politican’s contributions is ridiculous.

    Reply

  76. JohnH says:

    Given Turkey’s status as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, this vote will almost certainly doom US attempts to get a consensus for sanctions against Iran.
    Several countries–like Turkey, Russia, and China– may yet abstain from a vote and then ignore the resolution, much like the West has blatantly flaunted the many Security Council resolutions against Israel.
    As a result, the US is on the verge of facing an all or nothing decision point on Iran–war or irrelevancy. My guess is that the current policy will prevail–lots of ineffective and counterproductive huffing and puffing and no coherent strategy.

    Reply

  77. JohnH says:

    Turkey’s response? A resolution against European-American genocide of native Americans? Or perhaps a resolution against the million plus deaths the US presided over in Iraq?
    As politics??? says, “Just picking one event like this is not more than a double standard and does not help anyone other than a handful of representatives get elected again.” Hypocrisy contributes nothing the America’s standing in the world.

    Reply

  78. Politics??? says:

    A non-binding resolution about some tragic events that took place 100 years ago, voted by some representatives who hardly know where Armenia and Turkey are, to please their Armenian-American voters at the cost of losing a crucial ally and making more enemies in that part of the world sounds like a great idea!!
    Did somebody say “a morally right decision”? Who really knows what happened 100 years ago? If we are going to condemn genocides, let’s condemn all wars and tragedies. Just picking one event like this is not more than a double standard and does not help anyone other than a handful of representatives get elected again.
    Please watch this video. Obviously, there are different views on this issue:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG70UWESfu4
    Let’s face the truth. This was a political decision!

    Reply

  79. Mr.Murder says:

    As the world Burns….
    Anyone remember a lobby trip to Europe involving Champagne soaked daughters in flying hot tubs?
    What venture capitalist and energy sector interests stand to profit from a stymie of Turkish autonomy as a member of the EU?
    Has anyone included a resolution of I/P alongside this to parallel removing people from their land and killing them?
    How about a statement of Native American genocide and forms of assymetrical warfare against an ethnos?
    Downstairs I asked for someone to attach a statement to this comparing China’s presence in Tibet as a way of taking this entire resolution off the shelf. Heaven forbid the underwriting of billionaire tax cuts get called out for similar action….

    Reply

  80. samuelburke says:

    the great game writ in lower case by men with great minds writ
    in lower case.
    http://antiwar.com/radio/2010/03/03/gareth-porter-and-
    eric-margolis/
    “Gareth Porter and Eric Margolis discuss Gen. McChrystal’s
    “government in a box” plan for Afghanistan, military actions
    that are motivated more by a desire to influence US public
    opinion than to achieve strategic gains, Obama’s secondary role
    in formulating foreign policy, the Pentagon’s exaggeration of
    “rogue state” threats in order to justify an enormous “defense”
    budget, the influence of oil pipeline politics on US policy in
    Central Asia and how the Pakistani government’s partial
    acquiescence to US pressure may inspire a military coup.”

    Reply

  81. DakotabornKansan says:

    To say that the Armenian genocide is highly politicized is an understatement. Why Turkey denies its historical wrongdoing is one part of the story. The other part is why the U.S. has let itself be pressured by Turkey from joining other nations in officially recognizing the Armenian genocide as a historical fact.
    At the time of the Armenian genocide, American diplomats in the region sent dispatches to Washington detailing what they had seen and heard. U.S. ambassador Henry Morgenthau sent: “Deportation of and excesses against peaceful Armenians is increasing and from harrowing reports of eyewitnesses it appears that a campaign of race extermination is in progress…” In 1989 the U.S. State Department released archived eyewitness accounts that showed that “thousands and thousands of Armenians, mostly innocent and helpless women and children, were butchered.”
    In 1943, Raphael Lemkin, who would later serve as an advisor to Nuremburg chief counsel Robert Jackson, coined the term “genocide” with the Armenians in mind. His idea of genocide as an offense against international law was widely accepted by the international community and was one of the legal bases of the Nuremberg Trials.
    As Torben Jorgensen of the Danish Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies wrote, “When it comes to the historical reality of the Armenian genocide, there is no ‘Armenian’ or ‘Turkish’ side of the question, any more than there is a ‘Jewish’ or ‘German’ side of the historical reality of the Holocaust. There is a scientific side and an unscientific side — acknowledgement or denial.”
    “Denial is the final stage of genocide. It is a continuing attempt to destroy the victim group psychologically and culturally, to deny its members even the memory of the murders of their relatives. That is what the Turkish government today is doing to Armenians around the world.” – Gregory Stanton, International Association of Genocide Scholars.
    Elie Wiesel has called Turkey’s century old campaign to cover up the Armenian genocide a “double killing,” since it strives to kill the memory of the original atrocities.
    “Today’s vote is the triumph of diaspora politics over serious foreign policy.” Can a strategic partnership that isn’t based on truth stay healthy in the long term? Is not knowledge about the past critical to any progress in the future?
    “The U.S. government should not be party to efforts to kill the memory of a historical fact as profound and important as the genocide of the Armenians, which Hitler used as an example in his plan for the Holocaust.” – Gregory Stanton, former U.S. State Department official who drafted the United Nations Security Council resolutions that created the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

    Reply

  82. Charlemagne says:

    111th CONGRESS
    1st Session
    H. RES. 252
    reads that:
    “In a series of courts-martial, officials of the Young Turk Regime were tried and convicted, as charged, for organizing and executing massacres against the Armenian people”
    “The chief organizers of the Armenian Genocide, Minister of War Enver, Minister of the Interior Talaat, and Minister of the Navy Jemal were all condemned to death for their crimes, however, the verdicts of the courts were not enforced.”
    it hits hard. Why the HR 252 doesnt give detailed information about these three people?
    Minister of War Enver?
    Minister of Navy Jemal (Cemal)?
    Min. Int. Talat ?
    any backround? No. there is no backround ifnormation on these people in the resolution.
    And why questions also missing.
    So it is one sided

    Reply

  83. Turkish says:

    “This is bad. And bad timing. Perhaps it is the morally right decision but it could have waited. I see no urgency to declaring it now except political pressure from that diaspora group.”
    It could have waited ?
    So this means that you were holding this decision not to make bad relations.
    Well, I am happier with the result.
    It is good for us to see who is ally or not.
    Thanks US to declaring this so-called genocide as truth.
    I hope that Turkish Goverment will close Incirlik Base and stop being a gate to Asia for western countries.
    By the way, my people doesnt seems that they are concerned about this decision.
    I am pretty sure that more than 90 percent of them havent already know.
    This will not bring Armenia any good. I dont mean that this will bring harm to Armenia.
    Because we dont care about Armenia or armenian people. I don’t care if they live or not.
    It is not my business.
    If 99 percent of countries in the world accept this so-called genocide, it will not change anything.

    Reply

  84. Don Bacon says:

    It’s okay, Ben, you can say it. It wasn’t a “historical grievance” or “a major tragedy”, it was genocide.

    Reply

  85. Carroll says:

    This is bad. And bad timing. Perhaps it is the morally right decision but it could have waited. I see no urgency to declaring it now except political pressure from that diaspora group.
    And this….”Rather, today’s vote is the triumph of diaspora politics over serious foreign policy.”
    Is what I have been screaming about for years…less diplomatically than Steve of course.
    Basing the Nation’s foreign policy on the wishes and agendas of any narrow segments or particular group of people within the melting pot is pure insanity.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *