I am now certain that I was right in my skepticism about Slate. The publication chooses Armenian websites to back up a one-sided claim about the genocide vote taking place in the US. First of all, everyone has gotten on a bandwagon that has been constructed by only Armenian people. The case has never seen the light of an international court hearing and the decision on the part of the senators who passed it so far is a complete disgrace.

What do US citizens (including Slate's editorial team apparently) know about geography let alone history in the last 100 years? Don't they know that:

a) there weren't even 1.5 million Armenians settled in Eastern Anatolia at the time Armenians claimed they were all 'slaughtered'

b) there was a world war going on and Ottomans were on the defense

c) Armenians teamed up with, and were supplied by, Russians to get territory in what is now Eastern Turkey. They slaughtered Turks in dispicable ways and were forgiven by Turks until after over a decade Turks couldn't justify it anymore and ordered their removal.

d) At least as many Turks died at the time

e) a genocide is defined in legal terms, not in political terms ... if it were defined by political terms, the US would be guilty ten times over for action in Vietnam and Iraq

f) people are being lulled to sleep by the violins of Armenian lobby groups while some Armenians themselves deny that it was a genocide

Slate: Shape up and open your eyes, you are supposed to be an edgy publication not a tool for people who are a bit to caught up in being 'a progressive liberal' to think about what they are actually saying!!

What a fantastic parade of lies you tell. I notice they are all unsourced, so we have to take all this nonsense at face value. At those rates it's worth less than nothing.

The Armenians have heavily documented what the Turks did ot them. Denying it now is on a par with denying the Jewish holocaust, which doesn't mean that nobody will DO it, it just means no sane and thoughtful person will do it: it's not "open to discussion" that it happened, no matter what Ahmadinejad thinks or doesn't think.

Why does the Turkish government insist on spreading lies about the victims of the Armenian genocide? For two reasons, principally:

One: The army that carried out the slaughter of the Armenians was the same army that founded modern Turkey. Attaturk's senior officers were heavily implicated, though he personally was not.

Two: If we're going to agree that the Armenians were "ethnically cleansed" out of eastern Anatolia for whatever reason (nascent Turkish fascism, principally; the "Young Turk" movement) then what about the Greeks who lived in coastal Anatolia and were driven out when Attaturk was consolidating his Nation State? The Armenians are by no means the only victims of Turkish brutality, which brings us, of course, to THE KURDS, which is what this is all about currently. The position of all Turkish politicians is that the PKK is simply a TERRORIST organization and Kurdish claims of national identity and autonomy don't have to be taken seriously.

Everything that Saddam did to Kurds, the Turks have also done, and more of it, with the possible exception of the use of biological weapons. The last thing the Turks want is a Kurdish nation on their border, with its own oil revenue and its own army. Basically, the Turks only know how to deal with their neighbors by either beating them up or using us to scare them off. That was fine during the Cold War but doesn't work out so great when the War is a vaguely conceived war between the USA and radical Islam. What side is Turkey on in that kind of war? Who knows?

There is a reason number three that has to do with the inflated and ridiculous Turkish sensitivity about its history. It's a crime to deny the holocaust in Germany and a crime to mention it in Turkey. Yet somehow they get along. It's a crime to say in public that Attaturk and Inonou both died of tertiary Syphilis, as that's an insult to the Turkish state. What it all comes down to is that the State and its Army are the two institutions standing in the way of a takeover by Islamic radicals. That's what has people here anxious, and the ability the Turks have to limit our aggression in Iraq is just a fortunate throw-in.

Melvyl, Elli,

I disagree with Elli's claim that the Armenian genocide is just an Armenian fabrication. There is a real, tragic historic event. A combination of Ottoman military and Kurdish bandits (acc. to most sources I have read, happy to share) brutally killed many Armnenians.

Though I do agree that Armenians also killed Turks in millita warfare, supported and armed by Russians.

I agree with Melvyl that there are irrational sensitivties in Turkey which make it impossible in Turkey to ask the simple question of "What happened?", however please Melvyl retract your comments re: Ataturk and Inonu, they are not factual and are defamatory.

A better example is the murder of Hrant Dink, an Armenian citizen of Turkey who had the courage to invite people to discuss the issue openly and peacefully, with a mind to reconciliation and understanding.

He was murdered for his views on the 19th of Januray, and the killing was widely condemned.

Also regarding the Greeks of Turkey, both states (Greece and the Republic of Turkey) committed a historical crime by forcibly evacuating populations. I am Turkish and my great grandmother was kicked out of Crete, where her family had lived peacefully for several 100 years. Cretan Turks still miss Crete and some still speak Greek, as the Greeks of Turkey still speak Turkish in Athens and Thesaloniki.

kind regards

Kurdish bandits? And for the rest, a small admissison that mistakes were made? That's better than nothing, I guess. In a part of the world where Armenians had been for over two thousand years, they were wiped off the map. It doesn't matter why. And as to whether it was Genocide, you have no better authority than Adolph Hitler, who claimed the Turkish massacres of Armenians as his model for the Shoah.

I can't help you regarding Attaturk's medical history, or that of inonou. My grandfather was one of Attaturk's doctors. The Founder also had degenerative colitis and stomach ulcers. He and Inonou both picked up syphilis when they were junior garrison officers in Alexandria.

Many other great leaders of the world's nations probably had syphilis-- Lenin undoubtedly did, though it's a nonfact in Russia, still. I fail tounderstand why it is supposed to be defammatory that Attaturk had a disease that was rampant in the occupying armies of the Ottoman Empire, and that was for the most part incurable.

My point was not that Attaturk was a bad man, but rather that Turkey is in a hysterical state of national denial, which includes such ridiculous extremes as rewriting the medical history of The Founder.

Also, it's fine to say the Greeks did it too. They did; only not any where near so much of it. Ethnic cleansing was all the rage in those days, as the empires died and fascism replaced them.

Melvyl:

Kurdish bandits? And for the rest, a small admissison that mistakes were made? That's better than nothing, I guess. In a part of the world where Armenians had been for over two thousand years, they were wiped off the map. It doesn't matter why. And as to whether it was Genocide, you have no better authority than Adolph Hitler, who claimed the Turkish massacres of Armenians as his model for the Shoah.

Compare this to the section you were commenting on:

Broker:

I disagree with Elli's claim that the Armenian genocide is just an Armenian fabrication. There is a real, tragic historic event. A combination of Ottoman military and Kurdish bandits (acc. to most sources I have read, happy to share) brutally killed many Armnenians.

Is there a disconnect here? Broker clearly didn't say that there was no genocide; it seems to me to be quite the opposite. The same with your "mistakes were made" comment. Have I walked into a more-indignant-than-thou contest? If so, then you win.

Yay!

Haulinsacs, Melvyl,

I am guessing that Melvyl is accustomed to the call-respopnse pattern of the Armenian genocide dance (hard to call it a debate) that goes on between Turks and diaspora Armenians on many internet forums in many languages.

The point I would like to make is that for there to be reconciliation in my opinion Turkey should at least be able to ask itself, "what really happened". There should be historical debates and discussions. Not everyone feels that this is unpatriotic...

When Hrant was killed tens of thousands demonstrated peacfully in the streets of Istanbul and Ankara with the slogan "We are all Hrant Dink, We are all Armenians"

<link>

However, this bill in the US does not help this cause. Anti american sentiment is widespread in Turkey because of ongoing terrorist attacks, perpetrated by the PKK, and partly blamed on the US. Wether true or false, there is popular agreement in turkey that the U.S. has dragged its feet with regards to its promises to deal with the PKK, and not only that, that Blackwater has supplied PKK guerilas with weapons (as they have been captured with US issue weaponry and ammo).

So this bill is basically just an imperialist dicta from a hypocritical unjust state in peoples eyes. While the US continues to kill unaccounted thousands of men, women and children in Iraq, how dare they wag their fingers at us! Hardly the best time to speak of "historical evaluation" and "coming to terms with the past"...

So ultimately I think the bill will only achieve only what those who drafted it intended, to embarrass Bush and to put a rift in US-turkish relations. The Turkish sense of being persecuted will continue, the more hateful members of the diaspora will rejoice as their cousins in Turkey cower in fear and find their culture even more alianated from its homeland.

another tragedy...

kind regards

Well, and a fine thing it would be for Turkey to ask itself "what happened?"

The revoluthionary identity of the Turkish Republic has a lot to do with fighting off foreigners, starting with the opportunistic Greeks who invaded when the Empire collapsed, the Russians, Armenians, Kurds and Arabs, and of course the Brits, the french and us.

You can say the Kurds have never adapted to the New Turkey, in which they were in effect a domestic colony, and treated like one. How happily did the irish adapt to their British landlords? Without getting into comprative arguments about which nation has been worse in its treatment of ethnic minorities, let's just say that Turkey has not been exemplary. There has been a flood of American weapons into Iraq. it does not surprise me that the PKK has acquired some.

I have never understood why some more livable arrangement could not be arrived at between Turks and Kurds. When Attaqturk was inventing the Republic he insisted on an end to ethnic nationalism, but Turkish nationalism never went away. Since the religious parties want to restore the Caliphate in effect, couldn't youconsider restoring the relative tolerance for ethnic difference that existed in the old empire? Either that or negotiate borders with a new Kurdistan tht will more accurately describe the part of the world where Kurds live?

And how to discuss all this IN TURKEY as all such discussion has been quite specifically illegal since 1981?

I'm sorry Melvyl, but I think you are not aware of all of the facts. The PKK is essentially a marxist-Leninist organisation, and the acronym stands for the Kurdistan workers party. It has been documented that their activities are financed by heroin and cocaine traficing through Turkey into Europe (http://www.fas.org/irp/world/­para/docs/studies5.htm)

Since 1999 when the leader of the organisation was captured, many of the cultural rights thats Kurds demanded were granted by the state. The EU recognized the progress made with regards to reforms in 2004 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wo­rld/europe/3634024.stm).

Though the PKK has announced unilateral ceasefires, they have refused to lay down arms and surrender, instead demanding a pardon and to be allowed to negotiate directly with the government. The government, whether you agree or not, refuses to negotiate with terrorists.

Kurds live and work all across Turkey. They own property and businesses, record albums and produce TV shows, sometimes in Kurdish, but mostly not. Their have been Kurdish prime-ministers and parliamentarians. Many of the 26 independents in the 550 member Turkish parliament are pro-Kurdish, unfortunately they refuse to call the PKK what it is, a terrorist organization...

thats the lay of the land, please reconsider your views accordingly

kind regards

It seems like wild right turn by the very reckless Democratically controlled house and our lovely speaker of the house. Can't get the war ended? Start wreaking political havoc with our allies. Might as well just put a gun to their worthless heads and pull the trigger. About the same result.

I'm not going to argue or don't care if I missed a fact or not. The point is the point.

In this case, Sir, I am in total agreement! many thanks and kind regards

I'm afraid you won't achieve much traction with me by red-baiting the PKK. The racist regime of the old Republic of South Africa tried that with Manela and the ANC, and it convinced some people in the Reagan regime, but not the American people, or the people of South Africa. Similarly, it may seem persuasive to Turks to label an essentially insurrectionist movement "Terrorist," but that doesn't cut much ice with people elsewhere. I am sure, in fact, that there ARE some criminals and terrorists within the PKK, as there are also war criminals going unpunished within the Turkish defense establishment.

What is called for, if possible, is the kind of peace and reconciliation commission that works in South Africa. That doesn't fix things overnight, but it begins a healing process rather than this cycle of hatred and blame. What I fear we'll see instead is a Turkish invasion of Iraq, followed by mass arrests, internment camps and an oppressive occupation that will faiil and will result in a sharp uptick in Kurdish terrorism and also in an end to any talk about Turkey participating in the European Community. That's what I'm expecting to see. How about you?

Finally, on the Armenian Genocide issue -- other countries have come to grips with their histories of genocide and ethnic cleansing, and so can you. It's part of growing up. And your total agreement with the cretin who thinks the genocide issue is nothing but a ploy to wreck an American occupation that is already a shambles only proves to me that for all your nice, patronizing prose, you have yet to grow up, yourself.

Melvyl,

I do have nice prose don't I? :)

I'm not sure the comparison of Apartheid South Africa and Turkey is appropriate. I can happily talk about this further but dont want to bore or patronise you any further.

Also its not me who says the PKK is communist. You could, for instance, take the word of the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism:

<link>

This profile will confirm my arguments that a) drug traficking is a major source of income for the PKK ( rather than the "hobby" that you suggest it is) and b) they are a maoist terrorist organization.

I think we both can agree that the process of reconciliation between Turks and Armenians requires Turks to come to terms with history.

Those Turks who quiblle about numbers of deaths and dispute the slaughter of innocents claiming that the Armenian's were "asking for it " are rabid nationalists with inferiority/superiority AND persecution complexes.

Those of the Armenian Diaspora who feel vindicated by such a statement from the US government are merely seeking validation of their victimhood, which while understandable is equally counterproductive.

Ultimately our goal should be to make it possible for Armenians to once again live in "Armenia" in peace, for Gregorian churches to flourish and for the language and culture of Armenians to flourish.

On a final note, surely you must agree that this bill embarresses Bush greatly and that it serves a political purpose for the Democrats that are sponsoring it?

kind regards

Yes, your prose is cute as the dickens, but your reading leaves something to be desired. I did not say that the PKK was not a communist orgainization, though ideological fervor has waxed and waned over the years, hasn't it? It always does.

No, what I SAID is that i don't CARE if they happen to be communists; big deal. Turklisn fascism concerns me a lot more than the communism of a splinter group. After all the whining about"islamofascism" recently we find ourselves confronting the very real possibility that Turkey might produce some very real islamofascism.

Nor do I care what embarrasses George Bush, who is beyond shame.
He cares about his"legacy" while his psycho vice president is plotting to get us into a war with Iran.

Meanwhile what I see happening in Turkey reminds me of the runup to Purtin's second Chechen war. First, remind everyone that Chechens are all criminals and gangsters. Of course! We know that! Then just change the reference from gangster to terrorist; then bomb Grozny into rubble and bomb it again, just to be sure. Then send OMON thugs in to rape and rob the survivers. That's the formula. Kurdistan is the "problem" state now, and We all Know the Kurds are Bandits, terrorists and whatnot. The only thing standing between Turkey and the Final Solution of the Kurdish Problem is us. And THAT is what the crowds of Turkish Patriots are so mad about. This isn't about a genocide that happened ninety years ago -- it's about the one that's about to happen.

Melvyl,

My insistance on the PKKs criminaltiy and communism is because I believe these are the main motivators for them rather than ultimately the plight of the Kurdish peoples.

May I kindly ask you to clarify your position? Are you suggesting that recent attacks in Turkey by the PKK against civilian and miltary targets are fabricated? Are you aware of a widely published denial by the PKK?

I will first adress your claim that "islamofascism" is on the ascendancy in Turkey. The "islamists" in Turkey are actually the liberals. For instance Erdogan, the current PM and leader of the AKP, recieved public censure from nationalists and national security hawks for saying that we should give up on the idea of "Turkishness" in favour of a regional/ geographic identity.

The "fascists" are actually the secular elites, i.e. the Kemalists. This faction is isolationist, anti-imperialist, anti-american and staunchly nationalist. They are represented by the Military and the main opposition party, the CHP...

Regarding the possibility of a genocidal campaign against the Kurds, this is proposterous for several reasons.

1) Kurdish vs Turkish identity is not clear cut, except in cases where Kurds openly deny any Turkish identity, otherwise a good deal of Turkish people have some Kurdish ancestry. There are 15mn Kurdhish people living all across a nation of 80mn.

2) There is no desire for this sort of violence, nor is there the capability, as both society's and the Government's main desire is normalisation, both economic and political. I have no proof for this but I think its clear from how people voted in the June 22 general election. Can go into this further if you wish.

So yeah I am worried about increased violence, but I dont think the Armenian Bill actually helps as it only weakens the hand of the liberal islamist ruling Party and strengthens the hand of the anti-american, anti-imperialist, nationalist CHP and MHP (the other nationalist party).

Thats why the drafters of this bill are ignorant and misguided. They are engaging in a foolhardy activity which if not dangerous, is definately counter-productive.

kind regards

Last things first: the drafters of the bill were not intent on stirring things up in Turkey. They were addressing an old matter that still matters to a lot of Americans of Armenian descent. It's part of Turkey's heritage, and the Turkish response to the bill is at best ignorant and misguided. Oh, and it's counterproductive, too, if normalization of relations with western europe is still a national objective.

Erdogan is the nice public face of Islamist politics in Turkey. I don't believe that he's representative of the movement that raised him to power. He's the compromise they had to make. And yes, I readiy concede that Turkish politics are a lot more complicated than I'd made them out to be. So is the situation in the southeast, and over the border in the de facto nation of Kurdistan. I don't know for a fact WHO the insurgents in the southeast are, or whether they are PKK or some other entity, or just youth gangs with better weapons than the usual. As in Northern Ireland, when nobody deals in good faith, after a while you can't say who's doing the shooting, or why.

I also have no doubt at all that the vast majority of Turkish voters would not support an invasion of Kurdistan. To be clear, what I fear is a coalition of the army and the nationalist right, whether or not that coalition has an expicitly Islamic character. This is the same fear we had regarding Russia when the debate was on about whether to intercede in Bosnia. We (and NATO) were slow to do so, and the preventable genocide the Serbs committed was, thus, partly our responsibility. We feared that the insult of our invading a Slavic nation would inflame Russian nationalism, leading to a coaltition between the army, Zhirinovsky, and the even-more-fascistic members of the Russian right wing. Whatever the formula, nationalism and war fever change alliances and the effect is the same.

I don't regard the possibility of a Turkish invasion of Kurdistan as "preposterous," though I do believe it would end badly for all parties. That's a large part of the implicit threat that motivated Bush to drop support of the Armenian genocide bill.

Finally, my position: I don't know whether the attacks in the southeast are fabricated or exaggerated, or whether, if genuine, they are or are all the work of the PKK. I do not consider the Turkish military a credible reporter. My position is, i want us to be able to get out of iraq and we can't unless the external borders of Iraq are to be respected by its neighbors. This government or the next one, whoever negotiates our withdrawal, will have to be able to get credible assurances from the neighbors that they will respect the integrity of whatever present-day iraq becomes in order to be governable. Political and economic influence are fine, and I expect Iran to win at that as they have largely won in the "war" phase of this contest. But none of this can work if Turkey invades. For all your assurances I regard that prospect as possible, even likely.

Israeli friends reassured me a couple of years ago that Israel would never invade Lenabon again, and would certainly never bomb Beirut again. There was too much at stake. What they said made sense. They were wrong.