Tweet
THE POLITICS OF GENOCIDE
Cleveland Jewish News
http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/opinion/op-eds/article_864aaf50-4de5-11e1-a807-0019bb2963f4.html
Feb 2 2012
ALAN S. ROSENBAUM
Larry Derfner argues in an article in the Forward last month, with
some logical force, that for the Israeli Knesset at this time to
suddenly recognize the 1915-16 Armenian genocide at the hands of the
Ottoman Turks is inconsistent with Israel's past silence and smacks
of political expediency.
He suggests the government of Israel should continue its silence on
the death of over 1 million Armenians to avoid further antagonizing
Turkey's Islamist government.
The problem: If a calamitous truth like genocide is the truth, it
should always be officially acknowledged, especially by the Jewish
state of Israel, given the latter's intimate link to the genocide of
the Holocaust.
Many Israelis and other Jews would be incensed if a government
or people were to be denied public validation of the historical
atrocities committed against them. They would likely insist on its
official recognition and mount a challenge to those who would deny
such clear, basic and important historical truths.
Even the U.S. government has not been immune to political
considerations often trumping momentous historical truths. For
example, 126 Holocaust scholars, including this writer, placed a
full-page ad in The New York Times (June 9, 2000) calling on Congress
and Western democracies to officially resolve that the Armenian
genocide is incontestably true and that, as a successor government,
the present government of Turkey ought to take moral responsibility
for the genocide.
To this appeal the Turks gave a decisive counterargument: that to
do so would compel, among other things, Turkey's reconsideration of
America's use of the Incirlik Air Base close to its border with Iraq.
Congress and other countries caved to political or pragmatic pressure.
Despite the then-candidate for president Obama's campaign pledge to
the contrary, the president continues the practice of non-recognition
in order not to disturb America's political relations with Turkey.
To bolster Turkey's position, its penal code stipulates that
"insults to Turkishness" will not be tolerated. This obviously
elastic provision allows for the prosecution of individuals who
"insult Turkishness" by publicly affirming that Turkey was to blame
for the Armenian genocide. Turkey's position is that what happened to
the Armenians was nothing more than a tragic massacre in the context
of the collapsing Ottoman Empire.
Although many countries like Canada, Germany and Belgium have laws
against Holocaust denial, these laws are designed to prevent public
expressions of anti-Semitism and divisive threats to Jews and to
societal stability. Such laws tend to further affirm historical truth
and universal respect for persons and are not used to deny historical
truth, as is the case with Turkey.
However, some argue that criminalizing "genocide denial," a move that
France may also soon take, is a step in the wrong direction. They
claim that it tends to short-circuit discussion and debate.
Indeed, judicial findings may sometimes be used to advance certain
historical truths and to apportion individual culpability. But the
difficulty with this argument is that some "issues" are, on principle,
never open to debate. Namely, the victims of racism or anti-Semitism
should never be expected to defend their own moral equality as
persons. The persistent derogatory references to Jews in European
countries was a major contributing factor to the Holocaust. It is
simply morally offensive to allow legitimacy of such talk.
On the other hand, to place a mass atrocity's reality beyond legitimate
debate, it needs only good, sufficient evidence by authoritative
sources, including trustworthy legal ones, like the findings of
the Nuremberg Trials after World War II. Whether mass killings
amount to genocide is open for legitimate discussion. The identity
of the perpetrators, the means used, body counts, where ultimate
responsibility lies, and context are all variables that should always
be in play as freedom of expression should permit. That particular
mass killings or genocidal events once established have occurred,
as in the instance of the Armenians or the Jews, is not subject to
legitimate debate.
Important historical realities like genocide should always be
officially respected so that moral and financial accountability and
the process of restorative justice are possible. To deny such history
only invites repetition. It also serves to encourage the subversion
of the truth in the name of pragmatic or political expediency.
Alan S. Rosenbaum is a professor of philosophy at Cleveland State
University and editor of the Third Edition of Is the Holocaust Unique?
Cleveland Jewish News
http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/opinion/op-eds/article_864aaf50-4de5-11e1-a807-0019bb2963f4.html
Feb 2 2012
ALAN S. ROSENBAUM
Larry Derfner argues in an article in the Forward last month, with
some logical force, that for the Israeli Knesset at this time to
suddenly recognize the 1915-16 Armenian genocide at the hands of the
Ottoman Turks is inconsistent with Israel's past silence and smacks
of political expediency.
He suggests the government of Israel should continue its silence on
the death of over 1 million Armenians to avoid further antagonizing
Turkey's Islamist government.
The problem: If a calamitous truth like genocide is the truth, it
should always be officially acknowledged, especially by the Jewish
state of Israel, given the latter's intimate link to the genocide of
the Holocaust.
Many Israelis and other Jews would be incensed if a government
or people were to be denied public validation of the historical
atrocities committed against them. They would likely insist on its
official recognition and mount a challenge to those who would deny
such clear, basic and important historical truths.
Even the U.S. government has not been immune to political
considerations often trumping momentous historical truths. For
example, 126 Holocaust scholars, including this writer, placed a
full-page ad in The New York Times (June 9, 2000) calling on Congress
and Western democracies to officially resolve that the Armenian
genocide is incontestably true and that, as a successor government,
the present government of Turkey ought to take moral responsibility
for the genocide.
To this appeal the Turks gave a decisive counterargument: that to
do so would compel, among other things, Turkey's reconsideration of
America's use of the Incirlik Air Base close to its border with Iraq.
Congress and other countries caved to political or pragmatic pressure.
Despite the then-candidate for president Obama's campaign pledge to
the contrary, the president continues the practice of non-recognition
in order not to disturb America's political relations with Turkey.
To bolster Turkey's position, its penal code stipulates that
"insults to Turkishness" will not be tolerated. This obviously
elastic provision allows for the prosecution of individuals who
"insult Turkishness" by publicly affirming that Turkey was to blame
for the Armenian genocide. Turkey's position is that what happened to
the Armenians was nothing more than a tragic massacre in the context
of the collapsing Ottoman Empire.
Although many countries like Canada, Germany and Belgium have laws
against Holocaust denial, these laws are designed to prevent public
expressions of anti-Semitism and divisive threats to Jews and to
societal stability. Such laws tend to further affirm historical truth
and universal respect for persons and are not used to deny historical
truth, as is the case with Turkey.
However, some argue that criminalizing "genocide denial," a move that
France may also soon take, is a step in the wrong direction. They
claim that it tends to short-circuit discussion and debate.
Indeed, judicial findings may sometimes be used to advance certain
historical truths and to apportion individual culpability. But the
difficulty with this argument is that some "issues" are, on principle,
never open to debate. Namely, the victims of racism or anti-Semitism
should never be expected to defend their own moral equality as
persons. The persistent derogatory references to Jews in European
countries was a major contributing factor to the Holocaust. It is
simply morally offensive to allow legitimacy of such talk.
On the other hand, to place a mass atrocity's reality beyond legitimate
debate, it needs only good, sufficient evidence by authoritative
sources, including trustworthy legal ones, like the findings of
the Nuremberg Trials after World War II. Whether mass killings
amount to genocide is open for legitimate discussion. The identity
of the perpetrators, the means used, body counts, where ultimate
responsibility lies, and context are all variables that should always
be in play as freedom of expression should permit. That particular
mass killings or genocidal events once established have occurred,
as in the instance of the Armenians or the Jews, is not subject to
legitimate debate.
Important historical realities like genocide should always be
officially respected so that moral and financial accountability and
the process of restorative justice are possible. To deny such history
only invites repetition. It also serves to encourage the subversion
of the truth in the name of pragmatic or political expediency.
Alan S. Rosenbaum is a professor of philosophy at Cleveland State
University and editor of the Third Edition of Is the Holocaust Unique?