Tweet
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Jan 4 2012
False use of `genocide' may haunt Israel in future
4 January 2012 / CELÄ°L SAÄ?IR , Ä°STANBUL
A recent Israeli parliamentary committee debate on Armenian claims of
genocide at the hands of the late Ottoman Empire, which came days
after the passage of a bill by the French parliament that criminalizes
denial of these genocide claims, has led to a discussion of the
motives of Israel, whose relations with Turkey are in a deep crisis,
and whether such a move could in fact prove to be detrimental to the
Jewish state.
Describing the timing of the debate, at a meeting of the Education,
Culture and Sports Committee of the Israeli Knesset (legislature), on
Dec. 26 as `clearly political,' Tal Buenos, an Israeli PhD candidate
studying genocide issues at Utah University, warns Israel about the
boomerang effect of this move in the future. `Both morally and
politically it would benefit Israel if it were to carefully examine
the origin and development of the term `genocide' before opening
discussion on any particular case. The false use of this political
term may haunt Israel itself in the future as much as it troubles
Turkey today,' Buenos told Today's Zaman in an interview. `There are
already some who claim that Israel is committing genocide against the
Palestinians. ¦ Such accusations have hurt Israel's international
relations already, and could prove a lot more costly in the future in
case Israel no longer enjoys the same level of American support in the
international system.'
Buenos also criticized the French National Assembly's decision to pass
the controversial legislation, saying `it is detrimental to allow
parliaments to `legislate' their own version of historical events in a
manner that inhibits academic inquiry.'
According to him, `the recent steps taken in France add to the
unfortunate confusion between the Holocaust and the Armenian tragedy.'
`It is simply historically inaccurate, and morally misguided, to
compare Adolf Hitler with Talat PaÅ?a -- or TeÅ?kilat-ı Mahsusa with the
Nazi SS -- because the former acted out of irrational hatred while the
latter acted out of the natural need to survive. The Turks and the
Armenians were in conflict over land, and posed a threat to the
other's national life.' Buenos said.
Lending support to a Turkish proposal to Armenia to establish a joint
committee of historians on the 1915 events, Buenos also underlined the
lack of academic contributions to the issue from the Turkish side.
`Despite the growth of interest in genocide studies worldwide, there
is not a single center for these studies in Turkey,' he said. `Turkey
may provide space for the study of what had happened to Muslims in the
Caucasus, and also in the Balkans, who suffered through regular ethnic
cleansing and massacres. Some of these massacres were genocidal in
scope and intent,' Buenos declared.
We discussed the matter further with Buenos.
How do you evaluate the recent decision by the French parliament to
penalize denial of Armenian `genocide'?
The debate over the events of 1915 could be given an emphasis that is
historical, legal or moral, but in France right now it is largely
political. There are clear signs of narrow political considerations at
play now that the French elections are near. Sadly, such a stance
taken by the French government only adds to its perception as
anti-Islamic and Orientalist and will likely affect the integrity of
French scholarly activity on the issue of genocide. It is detrimental
to allow parliaments to legislate their own version of historical
events in a manner that inhibits academic inquiry.
Turkey, for its part, may negate these trends by facilitating
scholarly debate that is free of political strains. It may do so by
refraining from publishing propaganda pamphlets and opening its
military archives for the free use of scholars. Just recently I had an
article published in a special edition released by Middle East
Critique, edited by M. Hakan Yavuz, which dedicated its academic space
to promote an open discussion on the topic. Such endeavors here in
Turkey will enhance the quality of conversation on what happened in
1915 and what the term `genocide' means. Replacing its current
reactionary position with a facilitating role would provide an optimal
reflection of Turkey's good intentions.
Also, the recent steps taken in France add to the unfortunate
confusion between the Holocaust and the Armenian tragedy. The very
reference to `denial' is borrowed from the context of the Holocaust
discourse and looks to make political gain by blurring the clear lines
between scholars who debate the application of the loosely defined
term `genocide' to the events of 1915 and pseudo-historians who deny
that the Holocaust ever existed.
After France endorsed the bill, an attempt at an Armenian genocide
bill took place in Israel. What were the Israeli parliament's
motivations?
The Israeli parliament's education committee met on Monday morning to
discuss the introduction of the Armenian tragedy into Israeli
textbooks. The timing for this is clearly political, but it would be
surprising if the Armenian diaspora had much to do with this
development. The Israeli politicians who initiated this public debate
say that Israel's view on this issue has been pro-Turkish until now
because of political reasons that no longer hold, and now that their
view is free of politics, they can make the moral choice. In my view,
this misguided position in Israel is regrettable because it
universalizes the singularity of the Holocaust and it serves as
another example of how the use of the term `genocide' in connection
with the Armenian tragedy is politics disguised as morality.
If in fact, as Israeli politicians say today, they were ignoring the
moral choice for decades because of their ties with Turkey, then that
is tantamount to Israel declaring utter moral bankruptcy. Both morally
and politically, it would benefit Israel if it were to carefully
examine the origin and development of the term `genocide' before
opening discussion on any particular case. The false use of this
political term may haunt Israel itself in the future as much as it
troubles Turkey today. There are already some who claim that Israel is
committing genocide against the Palestinians. One example is the book
`The Plight of the Palestinians: A Long History of Destruction,' which
was edited by William A. Cook in 2010 and presents a collection of
contributions by active personas in the humanitarian field who accuse
Israel of genocide. Such accusations have hurt Israel's international
relations already, and could prove a lot more costly in the future in
case Israel no longer enjoys the same level of American support in the
international system.
Hopefully, Israel will come to reject such misuse of the Holocaust and
look to improve the definition of the term [`genocide']. There must be
a concerted effort to solidify the definition of the term by rescuing
it from the grasp of politicians and leaving less room for misuse.
Although there have been some steps taken in recent years among
American Jews, there is a general perception that Jews don't want to
see the 1915 events accepted as genocide. There are claims that Jews
don't want the 1915 events to overshadow the Holocaust. Why do you
think this is the case?
It could be that there are American Jews who are familiar with the
details of both events to an extent where they would feel that it is
unacceptable to compare them, while there could be others who are less
informed about the details of the events and would want to appear as
moral and compassionate by siding with the victim. It is very tempting
for Jews to side with those who are perceived as weak because of
Jewish history. In this regard, it is important to add that the Jews
do not think or act as if they have a copyright on the concept of the
Holocaust.
Can you compare the 1915 events with the Holocaust?
The Holocaust was a result of irrational hatred, whereas studies show
that the events of 1915 were the result of conflict and a rational
fear by the Young Turks that their nation's survival was at risk.
While the Turks fought for their survival, the Nazis went as far as
interfering with their own survival as a state, compromising their
capacity to win the war by occupying much-needed railroads with trains
carrying Jews to death camps instead of soldiers and military supplies
and by losing almost a third of their military production by killing
Jews who provided [a] much-needed labor force. Such contextualization
of the events shows undeniable differences that should play a
significant role in how genocide is defined, especially in terms of
intentions and modes of execution.
In my article for Middle East Critique, I distinguish between a
nation's intent to destroy, genocide, and a nation's intent to
survive, genovive, and offer a method, based on Thomas Hobbes'
political philosophy, through which one may analyze intent by asking
two questions: Did the victim pose a reasonable threat to the
assailant's survival? Did the actions taken by the assailant against
the victim give the assailant a better chance to survive? If the
answer to both questions is `yes,' then the case is not genocide in
its solid definition but rather genovive, a nation's legitimate effort
to survive by exercising its most natural right to remove anything
that poses an immediate threat to its existence.
It is simply historically inaccurate, and morally misguided, to
compare Adolf Hitler with Talat PaÅ?a -- or TeÅ?kilat-ı Mahsusa with the
Nazi SS -- because the former acted out of irrational hatred while the
latter acted out of the natural need to survive. The Turks and the
Armenians were in conflict over land and posed a threat to the other's
national life. Whatever social contract exited between the two peoples
was nullified. Therefore, they sought to secure the land and,
moreover, eliminate chances of continued threat. Justin McCarthy's
`The Armenian Rebellion at Van' sheds much light on the uprising in
Van: the anticipated revolt, the clearly stated Armenian national
aspirations, the Armenian cooperation with the Russians, the
collection of arms to be used against Turks and the quest for
recapturing what the Armenians held to be their fatherland.
In sharp contrast, in the years preceding World War II, the Jews in
Germany joined the German national identity by showing their love and
admiration for their shared German fatherland. Moreover, the Jews were
positively involved in Germany's politics, culture, economy and
military. It is a disgrace to the memory of such honorable citizens,
who were absolute victims, to equate them with victims who are
associated with rebellious intentions and actions.
The Turkish proposal and the Armenian reaction
How do you evaluate the Turkish proposal of leaving the issue to
historians and accepting the result of their studies? What do you
think about the Armenian reaction?
This proposal is very important and must be seen through. There are
previous examples of successful joint committees of historians that
were put together for the study of controversial events, and they did
help create a shared narrative of the events. However, at this point,
it appears that Armenian nationalist groups are opposed to the idea of
establishing such a joint committee. The people of Turkey should
understand that for the Armenians this is a delicate situation because
over the years, genocide has become the new glue that holds Armenian
identity together. Thus, opening a debate over genocide would also
mean exposing the myths of modern Armenian diaspora identity and
raising questions that would put their identity at risk. One of the
more urgent aspects that are part and parcel with years of claims of
having suffered genocide is that the group's identity becomes
inseparable from the group's victimization. Unfortunately, this
Armenian dependency on the genocide narrative comes at Turkey's direct
expense, and increasingly so.
Looking at today's hot debates on 1915 in Turkey, how do you assess
the evolution of the Turkish position, if there has been any?
The Turkish position has certainly evolved. It was a big mistake to
constrain the debate in Turkey for decades and the state was
heavy-handed. The debate is much richer and more sophisticated on the
Turkish side. However, there are fewer studies in Turkey than outside
it. The works of Edward Erickson, Guenter Lewy, Michael Gunter, Brad
Dennis, Michael Reynolds, Benjamin Fortna and Justin McCarthy are
taking place mainly in the United States. The number of Turkish
universities has increased from 53 to 170, but their contribution to
the debate is very limited and almost inconsequential. Many historians
of Turkish origins in the US hesitate to step into the debate because
they fear the possible Armenian reaction.
As of today, almost 21 countries have recognized 1915 as genocide. As
an expert working on this issue, what does this mean in terms of what
really happened?
Even if there are hundreds of countries' parliaments that recognize
the events of 1915 as genocide, it should not discourage Turkey from
seeking to free this issue from its political shackles and engage in
scholarly debate. The focus for Turkey should be on scholarship and
encouraging a fact-based scholarly inquiry.
However, Turkey should be mindful of how it is perceived, and should
not fail to recognize that thus far the Armenians have been rather
successful in presenting themselves as the victim and the Turks as the
villain. Turkey would be wise to engage the international community in
conversation about concerns that the negative images of Turks in this
regard reflect the existence of deeply embedded anti-Islamism in
Euro-Christian circles. The ease with which some European states
accept the Armenian claims with no serious investigation does indicate
roots of hostility as well as fears of Turkey's expanding role in the
international system.
Turkey's legal obligations and risks
What kind of legal obligations and risks do you think Turkey could
face if 1915 is accepted as genocide?
The difficulties in answering your question are mainly due to the
fluid definition of `genocide' and its dependency on the agendas of
superpowers. The term `genocide' came to be in the context of
post-World War II, when the Allied Powers, headed by the United
States, wanted to justify their actions in the war and protect their
political interests in Germany. The advent of `genocide' at that time
was designed to influence the fragile minds of the Germans and
convince them of the moral superiority of the victors so as to ensure
that they would follow the path laid for them. Since the superficial
resolution of the United Nations, and until the ratification of
genocide by the US in President Ronald Reagan's final months in office
in the late 1980s, there were decades of international inactivity in
genocide-related prosecution.
However, it is important to note that your question might mislead your
readers into thinking that the legal consequences are the gravity of
the matter when, in truth, it is more significant to the moral
well-being of the Turkish nation to reject accusations against the
Ottoman state if they are false, regardless of the penalty. In other
words, even if the legal consequences were a fine of one Turkish lira,
false accusations should not be accepted.
What other positive steps should be taken in Turkey regarding genocide studies?
Turkey should develop a more rational strategy. The government in
Ankara has shown signs of becoming increasingly emotional whenever
there is a debate that defines the events of 1915 as genocide.
First, there should be a concerted effort to improve the current
quality of discussion at Turkish universities. Turkish universities
need to invest and establish centers for genocide studies, to
cultivate this new discipline. Despite the growth of interest in
genocide studies worldwide, there is not a single center for these
studies in Turkey.
The Turks need to confront their history in the Balkans and Caucasus.
Turkey could provide the opportunities for the study of what had
happened to Muslims in the Caucasus, and also in the Balkans, who
suffered through regular ethnic cleansing and massacres. Some of these
massacres were genocidal in scope and intent. It could be that in an
odd twist of fate, the Armenian debate might lead many Turks to
remember the events in the Balkans.
Jan 4 2012
False use of `genocide' may haunt Israel in future
4 January 2012 / CELÄ°L SAÄ?IR , Ä°STANBUL
A recent Israeli parliamentary committee debate on Armenian claims of
genocide at the hands of the late Ottoman Empire, which came days
after the passage of a bill by the French parliament that criminalizes
denial of these genocide claims, has led to a discussion of the
motives of Israel, whose relations with Turkey are in a deep crisis,
and whether such a move could in fact prove to be detrimental to the
Jewish state.
Describing the timing of the debate, at a meeting of the Education,
Culture and Sports Committee of the Israeli Knesset (legislature), on
Dec. 26 as `clearly political,' Tal Buenos, an Israeli PhD candidate
studying genocide issues at Utah University, warns Israel about the
boomerang effect of this move in the future. `Both morally and
politically it would benefit Israel if it were to carefully examine
the origin and development of the term `genocide' before opening
discussion on any particular case. The false use of this political
term may haunt Israel itself in the future as much as it troubles
Turkey today,' Buenos told Today's Zaman in an interview. `There are
already some who claim that Israel is committing genocide against the
Palestinians. ¦ Such accusations have hurt Israel's international
relations already, and could prove a lot more costly in the future in
case Israel no longer enjoys the same level of American support in the
international system.'
Buenos also criticized the French National Assembly's decision to pass
the controversial legislation, saying `it is detrimental to allow
parliaments to `legislate' their own version of historical events in a
manner that inhibits academic inquiry.'
According to him, `the recent steps taken in France add to the
unfortunate confusion between the Holocaust and the Armenian tragedy.'
`It is simply historically inaccurate, and morally misguided, to
compare Adolf Hitler with Talat PaÅ?a -- or TeÅ?kilat-ı Mahsusa with the
Nazi SS -- because the former acted out of irrational hatred while the
latter acted out of the natural need to survive. The Turks and the
Armenians were in conflict over land, and posed a threat to the
other's national life.' Buenos said.
Lending support to a Turkish proposal to Armenia to establish a joint
committee of historians on the 1915 events, Buenos also underlined the
lack of academic contributions to the issue from the Turkish side.
`Despite the growth of interest in genocide studies worldwide, there
is not a single center for these studies in Turkey,' he said. `Turkey
may provide space for the study of what had happened to Muslims in the
Caucasus, and also in the Balkans, who suffered through regular ethnic
cleansing and massacres. Some of these massacres were genocidal in
scope and intent,' Buenos declared.
We discussed the matter further with Buenos.
How do you evaluate the recent decision by the French parliament to
penalize denial of Armenian `genocide'?
The debate over the events of 1915 could be given an emphasis that is
historical, legal or moral, but in France right now it is largely
political. There are clear signs of narrow political considerations at
play now that the French elections are near. Sadly, such a stance
taken by the French government only adds to its perception as
anti-Islamic and Orientalist and will likely affect the integrity of
French scholarly activity on the issue of genocide. It is detrimental
to allow parliaments to legislate their own version of historical
events in a manner that inhibits academic inquiry.
Turkey, for its part, may negate these trends by facilitating
scholarly debate that is free of political strains. It may do so by
refraining from publishing propaganda pamphlets and opening its
military archives for the free use of scholars. Just recently I had an
article published in a special edition released by Middle East
Critique, edited by M. Hakan Yavuz, which dedicated its academic space
to promote an open discussion on the topic. Such endeavors here in
Turkey will enhance the quality of conversation on what happened in
1915 and what the term `genocide' means. Replacing its current
reactionary position with a facilitating role would provide an optimal
reflection of Turkey's good intentions.
Also, the recent steps taken in France add to the unfortunate
confusion between the Holocaust and the Armenian tragedy. The very
reference to `denial' is borrowed from the context of the Holocaust
discourse and looks to make political gain by blurring the clear lines
between scholars who debate the application of the loosely defined
term `genocide' to the events of 1915 and pseudo-historians who deny
that the Holocaust ever existed.
After France endorsed the bill, an attempt at an Armenian genocide
bill took place in Israel. What were the Israeli parliament's
motivations?
The Israeli parliament's education committee met on Monday morning to
discuss the introduction of the Armenian tragedy into Israeli
textbooks. The timing for this is clearly political, but it would be
surprising if the Armenian diaspora had much to do with this
development. The Israeli politicians who initiated this public debate
say that Israel's view on this issue has been pro-Turkish until now
because of political reasons that no longer hold, and now that their
view is free of politics, they can make the moral choice. In my view,
this misguided position in Israel is regrettable because it
universalizes the singularity of the Holocaust and it serves as
another example of how the use of the term `genocide' in connection
with the Armenian tragedy is politics disguised as morality.
If in fact, as Israeli politicians say today, they were ignoring the
moral choice for decades because of their ties with Turkey, then that
is tantamount to Israel declaring utter moral bankruptcy. Both morally
and politically, it would benefit Israel if it were to carefully
examine the origin and development of the term `genocide' before
opening discussion on any particular case. The false use of this
political term may haunt Israel itself in the future as much as it
troubles Turkey today. There are already some who claim that Israel is
committing genocide against the Palestinians. One example is the book
`The Plight of the Palestinians: A Long History of Destruction,' which
was edited by William A. Cook in 2010 and presents a collection of
contributions by active personas in the humanitarian field who accuse
Israel of genocide. Such accusations have hurt Israel's international
relations already, and could prove a lot more costly in the future in
case Israel no longer enjoys the same level of American support in the
international system.
Hopefully, Israel will come to reject such misuse of the Holocaust and
look to improve the definition of the term [`genocide']. There must be
a concerted effort to solidify the definition of the term by rescuing
it from the grasp of politicians and leaving less room for misuse.
Although there have been some steps taken in recent years among
American Jews, there is a general perception that Jews don't want to
see the 1915 events accepted as genocide. There are claims that Jews
don't want the 1915 events to overshadow the Holocaust. Why do you
think this is the case?
It could be that there are American Jews who are familiar with the
details of both events to an extent where they would feel that it is
unacceptable to compare them, while there could be others who are less
informed about the details of the events and would want to appear as
moral and compassionate by siding with the victim. It is very tempting
for Jews to side with those who are perceived as weak because of
Jewish history. In this regard, it is important to add that the Jews
do not think or act as if they have a copyright on the concept of the
Holocaust.
Can you compare the 1915 events with the Holocaust?
The Holocaust was a result of irrational hatred, whereas studies show
that the events of 1915 were the result of conflict and a rational
fear by the Young Turks that their nation's survival was at risk.
While the Turks fought for their survival, the Nazis went as far as
interfering with their own survival as a state, compromising their
capacity to win the war by occupying much-needed railroads with trains
carrying Jews to death camps instead of soldiers and military supplies
and by losing almost a third of their military production by killing
Jews who provided [a] much-needed labor force. Such contextualization
of the events shows undeniable differences that should play a
significant role in how genocide is defined, especially in terms of
intentions and modes of execution.
In my article for Middle East Critique, I distinguish between a
nation's intent to destroy, genocide, and a nation's intent to
survive, genovive, and offer a method, based on Thomas Hobbes'
political philosophy, through which one may analyze intent by asking
two questions: Did the victim pose a reasonable threat to the
assailant's survival? Did the actions taken by the assailant against
the victim give the assailant a better chance to survive? If the
answer to both questions is `yes,' then the case is not genocide in
its solid definition but rather genovive, a nation's legitimate effort
to survive by exercising its most natural right to remove anything
that poses an immediate threat to its existence.
It is simply historically inaccurate, and morally misguided, to
compare Adolf Hitler with Talat PaÅ?a -- or TeÅ?kilat-ı Mahsusa with the
Nazi SS -- because the former acted out of irrational hatred while the
latter acted out of the natural need to survive. The Turks and the
Armenians were in conflict over land and posed a threat to the other's
national life. Whatever social contract exited between the two peoples
was nullified. Therefore, they sought to secure the land and,
moreover, eliminate chances of continued threat. Justin McCarthy's
`The Armenian Rebellion at Van' sheds much light on the uprising in
Van: the anticipated revolt, the clearly stated Armenian national
aspirations, the Armenian cooperation with the Russians, the
collection of arms to be used against Turks and the quest for
recapturing what the Armenians held to be their fatherland.
In sharp contrast, in the years preceding World War II, the Jews in
Germany joined the German national identity by showing their love and
admiration for their shared German fatherland. Moreover, the Jews were
positively involved in Germany's politics, culture, economy and
military. It is a disgrace to the memory of such honorable citizens,
who were absolute victims, to equate them with victims who are
associated with rebellious intentions and actions.
The Turkish proposal and the Armenian reaction
How do you evaluate the Turkish proposal of leaving the issue to
historians and accepting the result of their studies? What do you
think about the Armenian reaction?
This proposal is very important and must be seen through. There are
previous examples of successful joint committees of historians that
were put together for the study of controversial events, and they did
help create a shared narrative of the events. However, at this point,
it appears that Armenian nationalist groups are opposed to the idea of
establishing such a joint committee. The people of Turkey should
understand that for the Armenians this is a delicate situation because
over the years, genocide has become the new glue that holds Armenian
identity together. Thus, opening a debate over genocide would also
mean exposing the myths of modern Armenian diaspora identity and
raising questions that would put their identity at risk. One of the
more urgent aspects that are part and parcel with years of claims of
having suffered genocide is that the group's identity becomes
inseparable from the group's victimization. Unfortunately, this
Armenian dependency on the genocide narrative comes at Turkey's direct
expense, and increasingly so.
Looking at today's hot debates on 1915 in Turkey, how do you assess
the evolution of the Turkish position, if there has been any?
The Turkish position has certainly evolved. It was a big mistake to
constrain the debate in Turkey for decades and the state was
heavy-handed. The debate is much richer and more sophisticated on the
Turkish side. However, there are fewer studies in Turkey than outside
it. The works of Edward Erickson, Guenter Lewy, Michael Gunter, Brad
Dennis, Michael Reynolds, Benjamin Fortna and Justin McCarthy are
taking place mainly in the United States. The number of Turkish
universities has increased from 53 to 170, but their contribution to
the debate is very limited and almost inconsequential. Many historians
of Turkish origins in the US hesitate to step into the debate because
they fear the possible Armenian reaction.
As of today, almost 21 countries have recognized 1915 as genocide. As
an expert working on this issue, what does this mean in terms of what
really happened?
Even if there are hundreds of countries' parliaments that recognize
the events of 1915 as genocide, it should not discourage Turkey from
seeking to free this issue from its political shackles and engage in
scholarly debate. The focus for Turkey should be on scholarship and
encouraging a fact-based scholarly inquiry.
However, Turkey should be mindful of how it is perceived, and should
not fail to recognize that thus far the Armenians have been rather
successful in presenting themselves as the victim and the Turks as the
villain. Turkey would be wise to engage the international community in
conversation about concerns that the negative images of Turks in this
regard reflect the existence of deeply embedded anti-Islamism in
Euro-Christian circles. The ease with which some European states
accept the Armenian claims with no serious investigation does indicate
roots of hostility as well as fears of Turkey's expanding role in the
international system.
Turkey's legal obligations and risks
What kind of legal obligations and risks do you think Turkey could
face if 1915 is accepted as genocide?
The difficulties in answering your question are mainly due to the
fluid definition of `genocide' and its dependency on the agendas of
superpowers. The term `genocide' came to be in the context of
post-World War II, when the Allied Powers, headed by the United
States, wanted to justify their actions in the war and protect their
political interests in Germany. The advent of `genocide' at that time
was designed to influence the fragile minds of the Germans and
convince them of the moral superiority of the victors so as to ensure
that they would follow the path laid for them. Since the superficial
resolution of the United Nations, and until the ratification of
genocide by the US in President Ronald Reagan's final months in office
in the late 1980s, there were decades of international inactivity in
genocide-related prosecution.
However, it is important to note that your question might mislead your
readers into thinking that the legal consequences are the gravity of
the matter when, in truth, it is more significant to the moral
well-being of the Turkish nation to reject accusations against the
Ottoman state if they are false, regardless of the penalty. In other
words, even if the legal consequences were a fine of one Turkish lira,
false accusations should not be accepted.
What other positive steps should be taken in Turkey regarding genocide studies?
Turkey should develop a more rational strategy. The government in
Ankara has shown signs of becoming increasingly emotional whenever
there is a debate that defines the events of 1915 as genocide.
First, there should be a concerted effort to improve the current
quality of discussion at Turkish universities. Turkish universities
need to invest and establish centers for genocide studies, to
cultivate this new discipline. Despite the growth of interest in
genocide studies worldwide, there is not a single center for these
studies in Turkey.
The Turks need to confront their history in the Balkans and Caucasus.
Turkey could provide the opportunities for the study of what had
happened to Muslims in the Caucasus, and also in the Balkans, who
suffered through regular ethnic cleansing and massacres. Some of these
massacres were genocidal in scope and intent. It could be that in an
odd twist of fate, the Armenian debate might lead many Turks to
remember the events in the Balkans.