August 26, 2007
Congress Must Recognize the Armenian GenocideBy Andrew G. Bostom
A combination of official diplomatic correspondence, and private memoirs -- most notably the diaries of Henry Morgenthau, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey from 1913 to 1916, an extended report by American consul Leslie Davis in Harput, Turkey, from 1915 to 1917, and the recently published United States Official Records on the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1917 -- provides lucid, often repellently detailed historical accounting of what the U.S. government knew regarding the Ottoman Empire and the Armenian genocide. These materials are perhaps the most salient examples of the evidence, as per the language of HR:/ SR:106, "documented in the United States record," which support the formal U.S. recognition of the Armenian genocide as proposed in the Congressional resolutions.
The wartime reports from German and Austro-Hungarian officials, Turkey's World War I allies, as well as earlier British diplomatic reports dating back to 1890, confirm the independent U.S. evidence that the origins and evolution of the genocide had little to do with World War I "Armenian provocations." Contemporary accounts by European diplomats written from 1890 through the of World War I era, also demonstrate that these genocidal massacres were perpetrated in the context of a formal jihad waged against the Armenians because they sought the equal rights promised to them, but never granted, under various failed schemes to reform the discriminatory system of Ottoman Islamic Law ("Shari'a"). A widely disseminated 1915 Ottoman Fatwa entitled "Aljihad"(brought to the U.S. Consuls attention in Cairo), for example, clearly sanctioned religiously motivated jihad violence. Historian Johannes Lepsius' eyewitness accounts from Turkey documented the results of such invocations of jihad:
And in his eloquent Wednesday 8/22/07 column "No Room to Deny Genocide" the Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby emphasized the nexus between the jihad genocide of the Armenians, the contemporary depredations of jihad, and the dangers of denial:
Moreover the various "strategic rationales" and arguments put forth to oppose formal U.S. recognition (as in HR:/SR:106) of the Armenian genocide -- the U.S.-Turkish alliance, the Turkish-Israeli alliance, the vulnerability of Turkey's vestigial Jewish minority -- appear wanting and hackneyed in light of burgeoning evidence which undermines their basic credibility.
But most importantly, there is a compelling moral imperative to pass these resolutions which transcends the dubious geopolitical considerations used to rationalize and sustain Turkey's ongoing campaign of genocide denial. Professor Deborah Lipstadt, the renowned Holocaust scholar, and author of Denying the Holocaust, and History on Trial (which recounts her crushing defeat of Nazi-sympathizer David Irving's "libel' suit"), in conjunction with twelve other leading genocide scholars, elucidated the corrosive immorality of genocide denial in this 1996 statement:
The diaries of Henry Morgenthau, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey from 1913 to 1916, in conjunction with the extended report by American consul Leslie Davis in Harput (remote eastern), Turkey, from 1915 to 1917, and the recently published United States Official Records on the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1917 -- the latter consisting of memos filed on a daily basis, informing the U.S. Secretary of State and President
Woodrow Wilson of the efforts to rescue as many Armenians as possible (and including the obstacles confronting the rescuers' efforts) -- are perhaps the most salient examples of the evidence, as per the language of HR/SR 106, "documented in the United States record." This combination of official diplomatic correspondence, and private memoirs, provides a lucid, often repellently detailed historical accounting of what the U.S. government knew regarding the Ottoman Empire and the Armenian genocide.
American Witnesses to the Armenian Genocide: Observations from U.S. Diplomats, 1915-1917
Ambassador Morgenthau, wrote a letter to his son on June 19, 1915, as the massacres of the Armenians reached a murderous crescendo,
His despair was intensified by feelings of impotence as a diplomat for a neutral nation, made all the more distressing by his sympathetic understanding of such mass persecution as a Jew:
Morgenthau reiterated his overall assessment that a frank genocide, in modern parlance, was taking place, both in his diary, and a plethora of memos submitted to the U.S. Secretary of State, Robert Lansing. He stated, for example, that the
Aleppo (Syria) Consul, J.B. Jackson wrote to Ambassador Morgenthau on September 29, 1915 confirming the genocidal organization and scale of the unfolding tragedy:
And Harput Consul Davis contrasted the idyllic beauty of the Lake Goeljuk region, with the gruesome atrocities committed against the Armenians there, under the aegis of the Turks:
Was the horrific fate of the Ottoman Empire's Armenian minority, at the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries, in particular, during World War I, due to "civil war", or genocide ? A seminal analysis by Professor Vahakn Dadrian, the most accomplished historian of this tragedy, published in 2002, validates the conclusion that the Ottoman Turks committed a centrally organized mass murder, i.e., a genocide, against their Armenian population. Relying upon a vast array of quintessential, primary source documents from the World War I allies of the Ottoman Empire, Germany and Austria-Hungary, Dadrian obviated the intractable disputes surrounding the reliability and authenticity of both Ottoman Turkish, and Armenian documents. He elucidated the truly unique nature of this documentary German and Austro-Hungarian evidence:
Moreover, the documents analyzed possessed another critical attribute: they included confidential correspondence prepared and sent to Berlin and Vienna, which were meant for wartime use only. This confidentiality, Dadrian notes, enabled German or Austro-Hungarian officials to openly question the contentions of their wartime Ottoman allies, when ascertaining and conveying facts truthfully to their superiors in Europe. Dadrian cites the compelling example of the November 16, 1915 report to the German chancellor, by Aleppo Consul Rossler. Rossler states,
Rossler was reacting specifically to the official Ottoman allegation that the Armenians had begun to massacre the Turkish population in the Turkish sections of Urfa, a city within his district, after reportedly capturing them. He dismissed the charge, unequivocally, with a single word: "invented'".
Amassed painstakingly by Dadrian, the primary source evidence from these German and Austro-Hungarian officials -- reluctant witnesses -- leads to this inescapable conclusion: the anti-Armenian measures, despite a multitude of attempts at cover-up and outright denial, were meticulously planned by the Ottoman authorities, and were designed to destroy wholesale, the victim population. Dadrian further validates this assessment with remarkable testimony before the Mazhar Inquiry Commission, a Nuremberg-like tribunal, which conducted a preliminary investigation in the post-war period to determine the criminal liability of the wartime Ottoman authorities regarding the Armenian deportations and massacres. The December 15, 1918 deposition by General Mehmed Vehip, commander-in-chief of the Ottoman Third Army, and ardent CUP (Committee of Union and Progress, i.e., the "Ittihadists", or "Young Turks") member, included this summary statement:
Dadrian's own compelling assessment of this primary source evidence is summarized as follows:
The wartime reports from German and Austro-Hungarian officials, Turkey's World War I allies, as well as earlier British diplomatic reports dating back to 1890, confirm the independent U.S. evidence that the origins and evolution of the genocide had little to do with World War I "Armenian provocations." Emphasis is placed, instead, on the larger pre-war context dating from the failure of the mid-19th century Ottoman Tanzimat reform efforts. These reforms, initiated by the declining Ottoman Empire (i.e., in 1839 and 1856) under intense pressure from the European powers, were designed to abrogate the repressive laws of dhimmitude, to which non-Muslim (primarily Christian) minorities, including the Armenians, had been subjected for centuries, following the Turkish jihad conquests of their indigenous homelands.
Led by their patriarch, the Armenians felt encouraged by the Tanzimat reform scheme, and began to deluge the Porte (Ottoman seat of government) with pleas and requests, primarily seeking governmental protection against a host of mistreatments, particularly in the remote provinces. Between 1850 and 1870, alone, 537 notes were sent to the Porte by the Armenian patriarch characterizing numerous occurrences of theft, abduction, murder, confiscatory taxes, and fraud by government officials. These entreaties were largely ignored, and ominously, were even considered as signs of rebelliousness. For example, British Consul (to Erzurum) Clifford Lloyd reported in 1890, "Discontent, or any description of protest is regarded by the local Turkish Local Government as seditious."He went on to note that this Turkish reaction occurred irrespective of the fact that "..the idea of revolution.," was not being entertained by the Armenian peasants involved in these protests.
The renowned Ottomanist, Roderick Davison, has observed that under the Shari'a (Islamic Holy Law) the "..infidel gavours [dhimmis, rayas]" were permanently relegated to a status of "inferiority" and subjected to a "contemptuous half-toleration." Davison further maintained that this contempt emanated from "an innate attitude of superiority", and was driven by an "innate Muslim feeling", prone to paroxysms of "open fanaticism". Sustained, vehement reactions to the 1839 and 1856 Tanzimat reform acts by large segments of the Muslim population, led by Muslim spiritual leaders and the military, illustrate Davison's point. Perhaps the most candid and telling assessment of the doomed Tanzimat reforms, in particular the 1856 Act, was provided by Mustafa Resid, Ottoman Grand Vizier at six different times between 1846-58. In his denunciation of the reforms, Resid argued the proposed "complete emancipation" of the non-Muslim subjects, appropriately destined to be subjugated and ruled, was "entirely contradictory" to "the 600 year traditions of the Ottoman Empire." He openly proclaimed the "complete emancipation" segment of the initiative as disingenuous, enacted deliberately to mislead the Europeans, who had insisted upon this provision. Sadly prescient, Resid then made the ominous prediction of a "great massacre" if equality was in fact granted to non-Muslims.
Despite their "revolutionary" advent, and accompanying comparisons to the ideals of the French Revolution, the "Young Turk" regime eventually adopted a discriminatory, anti-reform attitude toward non-Muslims within the Ottoman Empire. During an August 6, 1910 speech in Saloniki, Mehmed Talat, pre-eminent leader of the Young Turks disdainfully rejected the notion of equality with "gavours'", arguing that it "...is an unrecognizable ideal since it is inimical with Sheriat [Shari'a] and the sentiments of hundreds of thousands of Muslims..." Roderick Davison notes that in fact "..no genuine equality was ever attained...", re-enacting the failure of the prior Tanzimat reform period. As a consequence, he observes, the Young Turk leadership "...soon turned from equality...to Turkification..."
During the reign of Sultan Abdul Hamid, the Ottoman Turks massacred over 200,000 Armenians between 1894-96. This was followed, under the Young Turk regime, by the Adana massacres of 25,000 Armenians in 1909, and the first formal genocide of the 20th century, when in 1915 alone, an additional 600,000 to 800,000, or even 1 million Armenians were slaughtered. The massacres of the 1890s had an "organic" connection to the Adana massacres of 1909, and more importantly, the events of 1915. As Vahakn Dadrian, the leading scholar of the Armenian genocide, argues, these earlier massacres facilitated the genocidal acts of 1915 by providing the Young Turks with "a predictable impunity." The absence of adverse consequences for the Abdul Hamid massacres in the 1890s allowed the Young Turks to move forward without constraint.
Contemporary accounts from European diplomats make clear that these brutal massacres were perpetrated in the context of a formal jihad against the Armenians who had attempted to throw off the yoke of dhimmitude by seeking equal rights and autonomy. For example, the Chief Dragoman (Turkish-speaking interpreter) of the British embassy reported regarding the 1894-96 massacres:
Bat Ye'or confirms this reasoning, noting that the Armenian quest for reforms invalidated their "legal status," which involved a "contract" (i.e., with their Muslim Turkish rulers). This
Lord Kinross has described the tactics of Abdul Hamid's agents, who deliberately fomented religious fanaticism among the local Muslim populations in Turkish Armenia, and the devastating results of this incitement:
A 1915 Ottoman Fatwa believed to have been written by Sheikh Shawish (entitled, Aljihad, and translated into English, March 10, 1915) included a statement attached to its official United States consulate translation indicating, "It was undoubtedly this and similar pamphlets which inspired the Jewish community of Alexandria" to contact the United States Consul General's office in Cairo. The calls to religiously motivated violence against non-Muslims, as sanctioned by Islam-jihad war-are unmistakably clear.
An intrepid Protestant historian and missionary Johannes Lepsius, who earlier had undertaken a two-month trip to examine the sites of the Abul Hamid era massacres, returned to Turkey during World War I. He again documented the results of such invocations of jihad against non-Muslims, as espoused by Sheikh Shawish, during the period between 1914-1918. Lepsius wrote:
Finally, Bat Ye'or places the continuum of massacres from the 1890s through the end of World War I, in the overall theological and juridical context of jihad, as follows:
Elie Wiesel has noted, appositely, that the final stage of genocide, its denial, is "double killing". Ignoring absurd and scurrilous allegations contained in Turkish propaganda documents (for example, the May 27, 1999 eleven page document entitled, "An Objective Look at House Resolution [HR] 155", submitted by the Turkish ambassador in Washington, D.C., to all United States Congressmen, which contained the mendacious claims that Armenians had murdered 100,000 Ottoman Jews, and 1.1 million Ottoman Muslims), several persistent denialist rationales at least merit exploration and sound rebuttal, before being dismissed.
Dadrian has reduced these particular attempts to characterize the Armenian genocide as 'debatable' into the following three lines of argument (which he aptly terms "disjointed"):
(i) the Ottoman governments intent was merely to relocate, not destroy, the deportee population;
(ii) in the context of the larger global conflagration, i.e., World War I, the Armenians and Turks were engaged in a civil war, which was itself directly responsible for heavy Turkish losses;
(iii) Turkish losses during the overall conflict far exceeded Armenian losses.
Dadrian poses the following logical question as a preface to his analysis of the spurious claim that the Turks engaged in a 'benevolent relocation' of Armenian deportees:
The sham of 'relocation' was made plain by the Chief of Staff of the Ottoman Fourth Army who oversaw the areas designated to receive these forcibly transferred Armenian populations. He rejected the relocation pretense categorically in his memoirs stating "...there was neither preparation, nor organization to shelter the hundreds of thousands of deportees." This critical assessment from a key Ottoman official confirms the observations of multiple consuls representing Turkeys allies Austria and Germany (in addition to the US Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Morgenthau). These diplomats maintained repeatedly that dispatching the victimized Armenian populations to such desert hinterlands sealed their fate -- death and ruination.. Moreover, the hundreds of thousands of deportees were not merely transferred from war zones, as claimed, but from all parts of the Ottoman Empire. Dadrian further observes,
Were the mass killings of the Armenians merely an unintended epiphenomenon of a "civil war", characterized by one apologist as "...a struggle between two nations for a single homeland"? Dadrian ridicules this argument by first highlighting the essential attributes of a bona fide civil war: the collapse of central government authority, creating a power vacuum filled by armed, antagonistic factions engaged in violent and sustained clashes.This basic paradigm simply did not apply to wartime Turkey, whose Ottoman state organization,
The 'civil war argument' also hinges on the assertion that four specific Armenian uprisings-Shabin Karahisar (June 6-July 4, 1915), Musa Dagh (July 30-September 1915), Urfa (September 29-October 23, 1915) and in particular Van (April 20-May 17, 1915)-comprise a major, organized "Armenian rebellion." Reports by consuls of Turkey's wartime allies Austria and Germany, debunk this argument. The Austrian Military Plenipotentiary to Turkey during World War I, in his memoirs, characterized the Van uprising as "...an act of desperation" by Armenians who "...recognized that [a] general butchery had begun in the environs of Van and that they would be the next [victims]."
Germany's consul in Aleppo, Walter Rossler, described the Urfa uprising in similar terms. Imbued with the recent memory of the brutal 1895 massacre, and the unfolding spectacle of mas murder in their vicinity during the summer of 1915, the Urfa Armenians made a hasty, last ditch effort to defend themselves. German Ambassador Paul Count von Wolff-Metternich filed a 72-page report to his government in Berlin addressing all four of these uprisings. Metternich maintained that each of these uprisings was a defensive act attempting merely to ward off imminent deportation, and he stated bluntly "...there was neither a concerted general uprising, nor was there a fully valid proof that such a synchronized uprising was organized or planned." As Dadrian observes,
Dadrian concedes that regardless of their justification -- underscored in wartime German, Austrian, and US consular reports of the sustained historical record of Armenian oppression and episodic massacre by the Turks,
In his concluding remarks on the civil war apologetic, Dadrian poses, and then addresses this "ultimate question":
Dadrian dismisses as "blatant sophistry" the non-sequitur Turkish claim of 2.5 million victims in the 1914-1922 period because it includes (and conflates),
Within 24-hours of agreeing to a secret military and political pact with Imperial Germany on August 2, 1914, the Ittihadist ('Young Turk') government ordered a general mobilization, which resulted in the military conscription of nearly all able-bodied Armenian males aged 20-45. Additional calls were soon extended to the 18-20, and 45-60 year old age groups. The preponderance of these Armenian recruits were executed by Turkish officers and fellow soldiers after having been employed as labor battalion soldiers. German and Austrian military and political officials, as well as the American Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Henry Morgenthau, all rejected the subsequent Turkish arguments during the commission of the genocide that massive deportations of the Armenians were justified due to concerns for military security.
Aleppo's veteran German Consul, Walter Rossler, in a report of 27 July 1915 to Berlin declared, "In the absence of menfolk, nearly all of whom have been conscripted, how can women and children pose a threat?"...German Colonel Stange, in charge of a detachment of Special Organization Forces in eastern Turkey, questioned the veracity of the argument of Ottoman military authorities. These authorities were maintaining that the deportations were a military necessity because they feared an uprising. In his report to his German military superiors, Stange retorted, "Save for a small fraction of them, all able-bodied Armenian men were recruited. There could, therefore, be no particular reason to fear a real uprising (emphasis in the original)"...Austrian Vice Marshall Pomiankowski, Military Plenipotentiary at Ottoman General Headquarters, provided his answer to these questions. The Turks, "began to massacre the able-bodied Armenian men...in order to render the rest of the population defenseless." After graphically describing the scenes of these serial massacres of conscripted Armenian men which were "in summary fashion," and "in almost all cases the procedure was the same,",...Morgenthau noted with emphasis the same rationale: "Before Armenians could be slaughtered, Armenia must be made defenseless." In this connection, the Ambassador notified Washington on 10 July 1915 that "All the men from 20 to 45 are in the Turkish army."
Dadrian has argued that perhaps this initial isolation of the 18-60 year old Armenian male population in the first week of August 1914 heralds the onset of the subsequent genocide. However, the Armenian genocide is formally commemorated on April 24, this year marking the 92nd year since the events of April 24, 1915. On that date, the Turkish Interior Ministry issued an order authorizing the arrest of all Armenian political and community leaders suspected of anti-Ittihadist or Armenian nationalist sentiments. In Istanbul alone, 2345 such leaders were seized and incarcerated, and most of them were subsequently executed. The majority were neither nationalists, nor were they involved in politics. None were charged with sabotage, espionage, or any other crime, and appropriately tried. As the intrepid Turkish scholar Taner Akcam recently acknowledged,
Within a month, the final, definitive stage of the process which reduced the Armenian population to utter helplessness, i.e., mass deportation, would begin.
Today's Status Quo of Immoral Denial and Diplomatic Confusion
But ninety-two years after the events of April 24, 1915, the Turkish government persists in its denials of the Armenian genocide, abetted by a well-endowed network of unsavory political and pseudo-academic lobbyists operating with the imprimatur of morphing geo-strategic rationales. Until the Soviet Union imploded, "Turkey as a bulwark against Communism," was the justifying mantra; now, "Turkey as a bulwark against radical Islam," is constantly invoked
This leeway afforded Turkey is both morally indefensible, and increasingly, devoid of any geo-strategic value. West Germany was arguably a much more direct and important ally against the Soviet Communist bloc, while each successive post-World War II West German administration, from Konrad Adenauer through Helmut Kohl, made Holocaust denial a punishable crime. Moreover, there is burgeoning evidence, available almost daily, that Turkey's government under the Muslim ideologue Erdogan, and large swaths of the Turkish media, intelligentsia, and general public, are stridently anti-American, and hardly qualify as "bulwarks against radical Islam." Indeed, Turkey's contemporary Islamic "revival" is of particular relevance to the tragic events that transpired between 1894 and the end of World War I, precisely because the Armenian genocide was in large measure a jihad genocide.
Another source of lobbying pressure in opposition to the Congressional resolutions formally recognizing the Armenian genocide are major Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), B'nai B'rith, and the American Jewish Committee (AJC). All have opposed the Armenian genocide recognition legislation in the Congress, including the presentation of letters from the Jewish community of Turkey, complemented, in the cases of ADL and JINSA, by their own statements opposing these Congressional resolutions. Even the most recent statements by ADL and AJC -- which recognized the Armenian Genocide under duress -- actively oppose (ADL), or fail to support (AJC), the resolutions. These groups maintain that passage of HR/SR 106 jeopardizes both the safety on Turkey's small Jewish minority (which is glaringly inconsistent with their simultaneous hagiography of Turkey's treatment of Jews, past and present), and what they profess to be the ongoing congenial and strategic relationship between Turkey and Israel.
While Germany openly recognizes the Holocaust, and prosecutes Holocaust deniers, Turkey refuses to recognize the Armenian genocide and in fact has prosecuted its own citizens if they dare to affirm this established genocide. Nobel Prize winning Turkish author Orhan Pamuk, for example, was prosecuted under penal code Article 301, which states: "A person who, being a Turk, explicitly insults the Republic or Turkish Grand National Assembly, shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months to three years." A complaint was also filed against the Turkish scholar Taner Akcam who forthrightly acknowledges the Armenian genocide, and the late Armenian editor Hrant Dink -- ultimately assassinated by a Turkish nationalist -- was earlier prosecuted and punished, under this same statute.
After a three weeks delay which kept important U.S. military troops at sea, on March 1, 2003, the Turkish parliament rejected a resolution that would have allowed these forces to open a northern front against Iraq from Turkish soil. This serious rupture, and other evidence adduced by the founder and chairman of a leading Turkish think tank prompted his candid observation in May, 2005 that, "Turkish-American relations have been in a process of erosion for a long time. The strategic partnership is long over. [emphasis added] And after it ended, unfortunately no effort was made to redefine our relations."
Public attitudes in Turkey towards the U.S. are overtly negative. During early March 2005, an announcement poster inviting the public to attend a large scale anti-US demonstration, on March 19, 2005 was displayed extensively throughout the streets of Istanbul, and in the lobbies and hallways of public buildings as well. The poster depicted the US as a giant octopus with long tentacles strangling the globe, and proclaimed, "America Get Your Hands Off the Middle East." Signatories of the poster represented millions of members from the most prominent national organizations, trade and labor unions, and professional associations of Turkey. Valley of the Wolves (released February, 2006), the wildly popular, most expensive film ever made in Turkey, is a stridently anti-American propaganda piece, which appears to mirror the widespread hateful Turkish attitudes towards the U.S. expressed in polling data from the spring of 2006.
There is also no evidence that the diaspora dhimmitude of ADL and like-minded U.S. Jewish community advocacy groups has done anything to ameliorate the chronic plight of Turkish Jews (whose numbers have steadily declined from a post World War II census of 77,000 to less than 17,000 at present), or bolstered the so-called "alliance" between Turkey and Israel. Such servile efforts have failed to alter a virulently Antisemitic Turkish religious (i.e., Islamic), and secular culture which continues to target Turkey's vestigial Jewish population -- only 16% of Turks view Jews favorably according to a Spring 2006 Pew Global Attitudes survey -- and the Turkish populace is virulently anti-Zionist, and anti-Israeli.
Interviewed for a November 19, 2003 story in The Christian Science Monitor, following the bombing of Istanbul's two main synagogues by indigenous Turkish jihadist groups, Rifat Bali, a scholar, and Turkish Jew, acknowledged the chronic plight of Turkey's small, dwindling Jewish community, whose social condition remains little removed from the formal "dhimmi" status of their ancestors. "The Turkish Jews have not been fully integrated or Turkified, and they have had to limit their expectations. A kid grows up knowing he is never going to become a government minister, so no one tries, and the same goes for positions in the military."
These acts of jihad terrorism targeting Jews occurred against a backdrop of relentless Antisemitic propaganda conflating Jews, Zionism, and Israel -- spearheaded by groups emphasizing traditional Islamic motifs of Jew hatred -- a campaign that continues unabated. For example, Milli Gazete, the daily produced by former Prime Minister Erbakan's National Salvation Party since January, 1973, and a major organ of fundamentalist Islam in Turkey, published articles in February and April of 2005 which were toxic amalgams of ahistorical drivel, and rabidly Antisemitic and anti-dhimmi Koranic motifs.
"Secular" Turkish antisemitism was perhaps best exemplified by a "cinematic motif" in Valley of the Wolves (mentioned earlier for its anti-Americanism) which featured an American Jewish doctor dismembering Iraqis supposedly murdered by American soldiers in order to harvest their organs for Jewish markets. Prime Minister Erdogan not only failed to condemn the film, he justified its production and popularity. This is the same Mr. Erdogan who in 1974, then serving as president of the Istanbul Youth Group of the Islamic fundamentalist National Salvation Party wrote, directed, and played the leading role in a theatrical play entitled Maskomya, staged throughout Turkey during the 1970s. Mas-Kom-Ya was a compound acronym for "Masons-Communists-Yahudi [Jews]", and the play focused on the evil, conspiratorial nature of these three entities whose common denominator was Judaism.
During the Hizbollah-initiated war of July-August 2006, Prime Minister Erdogan also repeatedly blamed Israel for the conflict, emphasizing that "nobody should expect us [Turkey] to be neutral and impartial." Concurrently, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Turkish secretary-general of the 57-Muslim nation Organization of the Islamic Conference denounced Israel's self-defensive actions as "state terror."
The Ottoman Turkish destruction of the Armenian people, beginning in the late 19th and intensifying in the early 20th century, was a genocide, and jihad ideology contributed significantly to this decades long human liquidation process. These facts are now beyond dispute. Milan Kundera, the Czech author, has written that man's struggle against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting. In The Banality of Indifference, Yair Auron reminds us of the importance of this struggle:
And in his eloquent Wednesday 8/22/07 column "No Room to Deny Genocide" the Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby emphasized the nexus between the jihad genocide of the Armenians, the contemporary depredations of jihad, and the dangers of denial: "And at a time when jihadist violence from Darfur to Ground Zero has spilled so much innocent blood, dissimulation about the jihad of 1915 can only aid our enemies." Moreover the various "strategic rationales" and arguments put forth to oppose formal U.S. recognition of the Armenian genocide-the U.S.-Turkish alliance, the Turkish-Israeli alliance, the vulnerability of Turkey's vestigial Jewish minority-appear wanting and hackneyed in light of burgeoning evidence which undermines their basic credibility.
But most importantly, there is a compelling moral imperative to pass these resolutions which transcends the dubious geopolitical considerations used to rationalize and sustain Turkey's ongoing campaign of genocide denial. Professor Deborah Lipstadt , the renowned Holocaust scholar, and author of Denying the Holocaust, and History on Trial (which recounts her crushing defeat of Nazi-sympathizer David Irving's "libel' suit"), in conjunction with twelve other leading genocide scholars, elucidated the corrosive immorality of genocide denial in this 1996 statement:
Andrew G. Bostom is the author of The Legacy of Jihad (Prometheus, 2005) and the forthcoming The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism " (Prometheus, November, 2007)