Tweet
SARKOZY'S "GENOCIDE", THE TURKS' "DENIAL"
news.az, Azerbaijan
Oct 11 2011
by Cem Oguz, head of the Turkish Center for Strategic and International
Studies.
Just before his trip to the Caucasus, French President Nicholas Sarkozy
was reported to have said to the Armenian media that "everybody must
have courage to call 1915 events as genocide." Then in Armenia, he
assertively added that "collective denial is worse than individual
denial."
Subsequent to the heavy moral and spiritual toll wrought by the Jewish
Holocaust, three basic concepts were gradually put forward in Western
intelligentsia's genocide literature: a revisionist understanding of
history which opposes sedentary history, denial and reconciliation
with the past.
In particular, the notion of denial implies great importance, because
it is believed that repudiation propels a society that doesn't confront
its past into committing fresh genocides.
Fine, but what renders repudiation justifiable? Actually, the answer
is quite straightforward: Contrary to the evidence and overall valid
disposition of the concept of sedentary history, it is accepted
that proclaiming the Jewish genocide didn't occur as per se is an
indication of repudiation. It is suggested that repudiators are
distorting historical facts and they are trying to either legitimize
or else prove their innocence through a new outlook upon history.
In this context, researchers or historians such as David Irving
or Ernst Zundel, who back the viewpoint that the Jewish genocide
did not take place as has been claimed, are automatically accused
of repudiation in the West and are faced with the risk of legal
sanctions. Statements by the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
directed at Israel, the Jews and the Jewish genocide are viewed as
political projections of this mental aptitude.
The strategy the Armenians have lobbied against Turkey is founded
upon these concepts. Armenians suggest that their sedentary historical
studies declared the Armenian genocide to be a clear-cut fact and slam
all scientific studies carried out and works published by Turkish
historians and researchers as nothing more than attempts to settle
into the concept of revisionist history. They frequently accuse the
Turks of being in denial.
It's right at this point that two crucial problems appear: First of
all, does sedentary history really point to only Armenian thesis? More
importantly, have the Armenians been able to confront their history in
an environment in which the Turks are expected to confront history? If
the answer is 'No', is one side going to be sufficient to eradicate
the problems that exist between the two?
Today, historical studies have left no doubt in regards to the Jewish
genocide. On the contrary, the sources claiming that the Armenian
tragedy was a genocide are extremely controversial. There are two basic
sticking points seen here: The first, almost none of the sources were
written by Ottoman historical experts. In fact, there are very few
actual historians amongst those researchers who claim that genocide
occurred. Secondly, the exit point of Armenian sources are full of
either fraudulent or distorted documents; in other words, serious
methodological handicaps are clearly evident.
It is precisely for these reasons that Turkey is keen on a proper
analysis of history. Unlike the claim by the Armenians, Ankara does
not suggest a pre-condition that Armenia or the diaspora back down on
their genocide claim. Right from the beginning, it has only demanded
that it should be taken up by historians first and that this debate
should be carried out on the basis of archival documents.
In fact, the letter Prime Minister Erdogan sent to the President
of Armenia, Robert Kocharian in April, 2005 was the most important
evidence of this claim. Kocharian's reply dated April 25th overtly
brushed aside the proposal by giving priority to setting up diplomatic
relations with the opening of the Turkish-Armenia border.
It is in such a milieu that Mr. Sarkozy enters the game and suggests
that the French parliament might consider a law making denial of
the deaths of Armenians as genocide a crime, similar to the French
law against Holocaust denial. Do you, however, think that Western
politicians like Mr. Sarkozy who support Armenian genocide bills
are even aware of realities such as these? If you ask me, I doubt
that they have even the slightest crumb of information as to what
really happened.
It's only politics. Dirty politics...
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
news.az, Azerbaijan
Oct 11 2011
by Cem Oguz, head of the Turkish Center for Strategic and International
Studies.
Just before his trip to the Caucasus, French President Nicholas Sarkozy
was reported to have said to the Armenian media that "everybody must
have courage to call 1915 events as genocide." Then in Armenia, he
assertively added that "collective denial is worse than individual
denial."
Subsequent to the heavy moral and spiritual toll wrought by the Jewish
Holocaust, three basic concepts were gradually put forward in Western
intelligentsia's genocide literature: a revisionist understanding of
history which opposes sedentary history, denial and reconciliation
with the past.
In particular, the notion of denial implies great importance, because
it is believed that repudiation propels a society that doesn't confront
its past into committing fresh genocides.
Fine, but what renders repudiation justifiable? Actually, the answer
is quite straightforward: Contrary to the evidence and overall valid
disposition of the concept of sedentary history, it is accepted
that proclaiming the Jewish genocide didn't occur as per se is an
indication of repudiation. It is suggested that repudiators are
distorting historical facts and they are trying to either legitimize
or else prove their innocence through a new outlook upon history.
In this context, researchers or historians such as David Irving
or Ernst Zundel, who back the viewpoint that the Jewish genocide
did not take place as has been claimed, are automatically accused
of repudiation in the West and are faced with the risk of legal
sanctions. Statements by the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
directed at Israel, the Jews and the Jewish genocide are viewed as
political projections of this mental aptitude.
The strategy the Armenians have lobbied against Turkey is founded
upon these concepts. Armenians suggest that their sedentary historical
studies declared the Armenian genocide to be a clear-cut fact and slam
all scientific studies carried out and works published by Turkish
historians and researchers as nothing more than attempts to settle
into the concept of revisionist history. They frequently accuse the
Turks of being in denial.
It's right at this point that two crucial problems appear: First of
all, does sedentary history really point to only Armenian thesis? More
importantly, have the Armenians been able to confront their history in
an environment in which the Turks are expected to confront history? If
the answer is 'No', is one side going to be sufficient to eradicate
the problems that exist between the two?
Today, historical studies have left no doubt in regards to the Jewish
genocide. On the contrary, the sources claiming that the Armenian
tragedy was a genocide are extremely controversial. There are two basic
sticking points seen here: The first, almost none of the sources were
written by Ottoman historical experts. In fact, there are very few
actual historians amongst those researchers who claim that genocide
occurred. Secondly, the exit point of Armenian sources are full of
either fraudulent or distorted documents; in other words, serious
methodological handicaps are clearly evident.
It is precisely for these reasons that Turkey is keen on a proper
analysis of history. Unlike the claim by the Armenians, Ankara does
not suggest a pre-condition that Armenia or the diaspora back down on
their genocide claim. Right from the beginning, it has only demanded
that it should be taken up by historians first and that this debate
should be carried out on the basis of archival documents.
In fact, the letter Prime Minister Erdogan sent to the President
of Armenia, Robert Kocharian in April, 2005 was the most important
evidence of this claim. Kocharian's reply dated April 25th overtly
brushed aside the proposal by giving priority to setting up diplomatic
relations with the opening of the Turkish-Armenia border.
It is in such a milieu that Mr. Sarkozy enters the game and suggests
that the French parliament might consider a law making denial of
the deaths of Armenians as genocide a crime, similar to the French
law against Holocaust denial. Do you, however, think that Western
politicians like Mr. Sarkozy who support Armenian genocide bills
are even aware of realities such as these? If you ask me, I doubt
that they have even the slightest crumb of information as to what
really happened.
It's only politics. Dirty politics...
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress