I continue to be amazed and dismayed by the short-sightedness of the Turkish political class when it comes to dealing with the Armenian genocide. Case in point is Ankara’s outraged reaction to the French National Assembly passing a bill to make it “a crime to deny the deliberate and systematic destruction of the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire during World War I.”
Why does Turkey insist on poisoning its relations with important countries over this historical issue concerning something that happened nearly 100 years ago?
As it happens, the Turks probably have a decent case to make that the slaughter of Armenians was not intended, as was the Nazi Holocaust, to wipe out an entire race, so perhaps it doesn’t meet the technical definition of “genocide.” But it was still a terrible war crime, so why argue about technicalities?
The current government in Ankara could simply say that it was not responsible for these acts committed by the Young Turks in the waning days of the Ottoman Empire–another state altogether, albeit one sharing some territory with the modern Turkish state. Prime Minister Erdogan could then express sorrow for what happened, in spite of having no responsibility for it, and, as a humanitarian gesture, even offer to pay some restitution to victims’ families–something modern Turkey is certainly wealthy enough to afford. In a stroke, Turkey would win a PR victory instead of having to fight a losing battle over a side issue that detracts from modern Turkey’s central concerns.
What does Turkey gain from its obdurate attitude? Nothing that I can tell. It appears to be simply the triumph of emotions over reason, something that is not exactly unheard of in international relations but which usually exacts a steep price. Surely Turkish leaders should be smart enough to see that by now.
I think Max is unaware of the type of deep chauvanism persistent is regional culture, a chauvanism that is enhanced by being an erstwhile world power. Additionally, the Turks are trying to set themselves up as the moral arbiters in the conflict with Israel so anything that would sully their pretense to a moral highground is unacceptable regardless of its veractiy. n nYou find similar processes among Leftists whose lofty idealism both excuses any 'trivial' error or hypocrisy while equally demonizing any opposition that might hinder the approach to Imaginary Leftist Fantasy Land.
He gains this: Muslims can never admit Islam's moral failings. To do so would send the entire house of cards tumbling to the ground. If Erdogan intends on leading his increasingly fundamentalist 99% Muslim nation, and indeed, on being a leading light of the Muslim world – and he does – he cannot admit to any failings with the House of Islam. n nThere is one exception to this rule. If he could feign a controllable degree of Western moral reasonableness in order to dupe us into trusting him further, the Muslim world would recognize his use of koranic taqiyya to lull us into further letting down our defenses.
Neither Islam nor PM Erdogan's piety has anything to do with Turkey's rejection of the odious allegations of the pushy and arrogant Armenian lobby. Erdogan did not put in place a new policy. The obscene canard of an Armenian "genocide" has been rejected by all previous Turkish governments, be they secularist, shamanist or atheist. n nIf you think that the vote-hungry and height-conscious, Napoleon-complexed little Sarkozy is doing this because his heart bleeds for those professional "eternal victims," namely, the Armenians, then you don't know the monsieur. n nThe slick Armenian lobby can fool some of the people some of the time. And they can fool most of the people most of the time. But they cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
A name more appropriate than its user knows — Yellowfeathers hiding behind a pseudonym.
"Why does Turkey insist on poisoning its relations with important countries over this historical issue concerning something that happened nearly 100 years ago?" n nMax, Turkey for nearly a century has been a deeply conservative, traditional Muslim nation overlain with modernist political structures. This means Turks, as all Muslims, value honor in ways alien to Western thought. As you know, the truth doesn't matter; what matters is the charge. In this sense Muslims are very like modern liberals.
Mr Boot, unless you've already done it, a brief vacation in Turkey might be an eye-opener. For those who haven't had the dubious pleasure, it suffices to know that under the micron-thin veneer of bourgeoise semi-civility lurks a brooding mass of Muslim peasantry and former peasantry, for whom Ataturk is still a shock they haven't recovered from. The popular machismo, finely illustrated by Turkey's blustering government, does not permit a smidgeon of self-reflection and no, the government will never be "smart enough" when in the clutches of raging fury and injured pride, somethink I note the other chaps here pointed out as well. It's a sad reality that universal suffrage and democracy need an educated, socially liberal and industrious middle class majority if they are not to cancel themselves out. As for Turkey, sadly, another hope bites the dust.
But isn't an even bigger shame that European nations have laws that outlaw speech in this manner. God Bless the First Amendment.
For many years, your magazine was a leading enabler of Turkey in terms of pursuing denial, negation and self-deception. You published articles by Gunter Lewy and others downplaying our pain and our suffering, you stood against congressional recognition of our Genocide, and you provided political support for Richard Perele and others bent on arming Turkey to the hilt in support of their narrow-minded Russophobic agenda. Why is Turkey this way? In part, it is this way because movements such as those represented by your magazine gave it a blank check for decades. Commentary has no moral right to ask this question.
The modern state of Turkey was built on the murder, rape, thievery and genocide of its ancient Armenian, Greek and Assyrian populations. It continued to persecute its existing Christian minorities through the 20th century, as highlighted by the varlik vergisi and the Istanbul pogrom of 1955, which reduced the vibrant Greek population of the city from 250,000 in 1923 to an ethnic boutique of 2,500 souls today. As recently as 1974, Turkey–an EU aspirant–invaded the Republic of Cyprus, raping, pillaging and murdering Greek Cypriots and creating 200,000 refugees; 40k of their troops still occupy 1/3 of this EU member, where they have carved out an illegal state and pumped in tens of thousands of mainland Turks to change the demography of the island. Meanwhile Turkey continues to repress its sizeable Kurdish minority, which it has been trying to "Turkify" unsuccessfully since its founding. In light of all this, how can anyone expect Turkey to face its very dark past when it continues perpetrating the same kinds of policies to this very day?
Mr. Boot has it upside down. It is the rabid Armenian ultra-zealots who are afflicted with this obsession that borders borders on mental disease. Just look at Armenian websites. Their raison d'etre is to hate-monger and spew venom against Turkish people. n nWhy does it not occur to Mr. Boot that the Turkish nation may be rejecting the allegations of the slick Armenian lobby, because those allegations are deemed to be flat-out lies at worst and outlandish and wholly incredible exaggerations at best? Bogus Hitler quotes, faked Ottoman telegrams and doctored photos presented by this deceitful lobby do not a genocide case make. n nAnd why does it surprise Mr. Boot that the Turkish people do not possess the thick rhinoceros hide with which the Napoleon-complexed Nicolas Sarkozy and the Armenian merchants of hate are blessed? n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
Turkey does not have a case at all that the Genocide was anything other than a Genocide. In Fact, the person who coined the phrase Genocide began his quest to make Genocide an international crime because of the Armenian Genocide. "In 1933 Lemkin wrote a proposal on the "crime of barbarity" to be presented to the Legal Council of the League of Nations in Madrid. This was his first formal attempt at creating a law against what he would later call genocide.The concept originated in his youth when he first heard of the Ottoman government's mass killings (Armenian Genocide) of its Christian population during the First World War" __Also, the Kemalist government that formed after the Young Turk regime fell was made up of many of the same people that were personally responsible for the genocide. The goverment of Turkey today is responsible for the genocide and is actively taking part in this genocide by completing the final stage of a genocide, denying it ever happened. _