Turkey Genocide Resolution: Huh?

Remove all ads!

The Turks have covered up and denied the masskillings and deportations of millions of Armenian under the *Ottoman* empire, it isnt even the the Turkey that exists today by a long shot. The fact that they refuse to own up to their history is reason enough to try to force them to. Countries have committed atrocities, pretty much all of them who have had power one time or another. Shoving it under the carpet is an affront the victims and what Turkey is doing is no more troubling than if Germany had refused to acknowledge the holocaust.

 

There are some who believe that undermining GWB IS in the best interest of the country. Just as some Republicans did it to Bill Clinton during the attacks in Kosovo. And there were some conservatives who also attempted to undermine Bill when he went after Bin Laden. "Patriotism" is a varied and subtle term.

 

Realpolitik am fun, it am.

Having decided that it'd be a real bad idea to, um, not fund the troops, evidently the Dems in Congress are seeking other means to force an end to the war.

Bad idea, really. Though as Chandos points out, it's hardly limited to one party.

 

I agree with Joacqin, here. A lot of people are pointing out things like America's trail of tears or our history of slavery, but it should be noted that we, at least, admit these things happened. We still have a way to go, I think, in making some of these events more "right" (taking Andrew Jackson off the 20 dollar bill would be a good start), but the fact remains that we acknowledge them. Turkey has not.

 

This is what irritates me, too. Mustafa Kemal deliberatly wanted to stand Turkey apart from the Empire. IIRC, he even said that he regrets what happend during WW I in that country.

Why it is that turkish nationalists take the mention of the genocide as an affront? It has nothing to do with Turkey.

 

@Old One : When I said "nobody cares for Armenians or Turks" I meant "nobody in Congress cares for Armenians or Turks". Of course I didn't mean posters here.

I really don't understand this too. I think nationalism causes stupidness. It will be better if we acknowledge it (and apologize) ASAP. In the end we will be forced to acknowledge it anyway. Lots of countries have officially recognized it as genocide. Denying it now may have some bad consequences for us in the future.

 

Actually, it has to do with Turkey. By saying this, I don't mean that modern Turks are responsible or that they have to feel guilty about it but that the history of a nation is not defined by the changes in the name and in the structure of its state.The Republic of Turkey is the successor of the Ottoman empire, as BRD is the successor of the third reich and HRE, as modern Greece is the successor of the ancient city-states and kingdoms and of the byzantine empire and so on. When you have or you are claiming that you have a historical and cultural heritage, you can't take only the positive ones and hide the negative ones under the carpet saying that they've never happened, you have to accept them all. This is the reason why the Turkish nationalists deny the armenian genocide or that the greek nationalists don't accept that homosexuality was something common in ancient Greece. In a nationalist's mind his nation must be crystal clear, "we have always been always the good guys, the others are the bad ones". By accepting the black spots of the history this idolized image of the nation would be destroyed and no moral superiority could be claimed.

 

As for the genocide: The genocide was conducted under the rule of the Ottoman "Young Turk" government nearly a hundred years ago. For Turks today this crime was committed by a government that no longer exists, a government that their present republic itself specifically rejected in its foundation documents.

The Turks not for a second think about accepting the responsibility for this crime. They believe, and are probably correct in this, that if they do so, then the Republic of Turkey will become a target of claims in US courts, which will basically amount to blackmail, mirroring comparable legal campaigns against Germany.

The indifference by US policy makers toward Turkish interests gives testimony to their imperial arrogance. Eric Edelman can boast to be the US ambassador under whose savvy hand the US-Turkish relations deteriorated to lows unknown in history, well, perhaps till now. It got so bad that had to be gently asked to resign after only two years. Turkish comment on Edelmann if anyone is interested. The US risk killing their alliance with Turkey, nothing less. Utter idiocy from an strategic interest point of view.

[ October 15, 2007, 23:06: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

What goes around, comes around: Turkey has just signed a MoU with Syria on oil, water and a free trade agreement.

Remarkable in itself that a US ally allies itself with a nation that US policy wants to regime-change - to counter the adverse effects of US policies for both of them. The idea of regime change in Syria is yet another issue Turkey and US policy do not agree on? In any case would an alliance with Syria allow Turkey to attack the Kurds from two sides, and Syria has an interest to collaborate with Turkey as Kurdish nationalist claims extend in to Syria as well as into Turkey. It is a pragmatic move for both sides. Remarkable. Even more interesting is that in this alliance of utility Turkey is the stronger partner, with Syria again accepting Turkish leadership, for the first time since the end of the Ottoman empire. The US have managed to reverse a 90 year trend in Middle East history. Very remarkable.

Israel is getting nervous. Earlier this month it was AIPAC that struggled to stop the “Armenian genocide” law in the US as it will impact Turkey-Israel/US relations. The neo-cons have tried hard to forge an Israeli-Turkish alliance. Despite that, a month ago, Israel violated Turkey’s air space to hit that mysterious site in Syria, much to the displeasure of Ankara. A couple of weeks ago, the US did not allow Turkey to attack the PKK in Iraq.

It appears that the neo-con dream of secular Turkey allied with the Middle East's only Democracy, Israel, is unraveling. Also, Turkey has decided that Europe, Israel and the US are playing it around. Full alliance with Syria appears to be its answer to them.

This could have an impact on NATO, and is so very inconvenient that the US will have to address Turkey's concerns, or else. In that case Turkey will do it on their own, Israeli style. Things are getting interesting.

[ October 19, 2007, 19:00: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Yeah, if Bush isn't remembered as the president who pissed away American hegemony, I'll be surprised.

 

American hegemony, perhaps. Rest of the world? Heck yeah.

 

thats funny. all turkey & most of the arab states in the area can talk about are us(the west & israel) forcing them to live up to there actions and refusing to establish a palestinian homeland. however, just mention a kurdish homeland & they get all quiet & defensive, even though a kurdish homeland has so much more legitimacy.

i just think it's funny, the hypocrisy of it all.

 

No more hypocritical than us (the west & Israel) preventing other countries from obtaining nuclear weapons while insisting on maintaining a massive nuclear stockpile of our own. Hypocrisy is a language every country is fluent in. We happen to have a PhD in it.

By the way - we, the west, have been leading the charge in support of establishing a palestinian state for some time.

 

Not to mention being the only country that was actually crazy enough to use them in battle.... and with full knowledge of just how destructive those weapons were, no less*.

* To those who still think we didn't know exactly how destructive these weapons were, there's a glass desert in New Mexico I'd like to show you that says otherwise. We knew what we were doing.

 

of course we did, & there are many reasons we used it. some good , some bad.

@ deathrabbit, some in the us support a palestinian homeland but by no means a majority. please do some research, before the '40s anything palestinian meant jewish not arabic. this is just another case of liberal spin nothing else.

 

Would you care to cite your sources?

 

I think I might have to ask the same, Martaug. Especially considering the proportion of Arabs to Jews in the region, I find your claim highly doubtful.

 

I am sure it feels right.

 

totally off topic but relevant to the last couple of posts
ok , lets start with 1)the Palestinian Brigade of Jewish volunteers in the British World War II Army, 2) Palestinian Symphony Orchestra (all Jews), 3)The Palestine Post, heck why should i do all the work. look at the history books, dont just take the crap they spew out on the airwaves as gospel.
i have been having some PM talks with rawgrim who is under the impression we(the us) have used nuclear weapons in afghanistan! didn't happen!!

do a little research guys(& gals) quit letting them lead you by the nose.

HISTORICAL FACT:
In 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted to set up both a Jewish and an Arab state within the borders of the territories. The Arabs were allotted three contiguous(sp?) areas and the enclave of the city of Jaffa. The Jews were allotted three discontiguous(sp?) areas. Jerusalem was to be an international city. In order to get their homeland, the Jews reluctantly accepted the unfavorable deal. The Arabs rejected it out of hand and instead invaded the nascent Jewish state with the armies of five(some say six) nations. The ragtag Jewish forces defeated the aggressors and stayed in control of most of the area. Egypt retained control of the Gaza Strip, and Jordan occupied Judea/Samaria (the “West Bank”). Had the Arabs accepted the United Nations partition plan, they would have had their “Palestinian homeland” for almost 60 years.

For nineteen years, until the Six-Day War, the territories involved were under the control of Jordan and Egypt. Never during those years was there ever a demand for a “Palestinian homeland.” Only after the Six-Day War in 1967, when the territories reverted to Israeli control, did the insistent clamor for a “Palestinian homeland” arise.
so as long as the territories were in arab hands its ok NOT to have a "palestinian state" but the instant israel has control over the land oh lets start wailing!!
get real.

 

So I take it this would be an example of liberal spin, then?

Not that I think wiki's a great source, but...