Tweet
Armenian genocide: Israel must maintain its moral compass
By M. HAKAN YAVUZ AND TAL BUENOS
01/14/2012 21:49
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=253615
Keeping silent on a moral issue for the sake of maintaining political ties
with Turkey would be a declaration of moral bankruptcy.
Was the recent surfacing of the Armenian tragedy in the Israeli Knesset
rooted in political or moral ground? Fully aware that the timing of the
public debate on the Armenian tragedy recently held by the Knesset's *
Education* Committee is political to an embarrassing degree, Knesset
Speaker Reuven Rivlin set out to negate this immediate perception by
stating, more than once, that the reopening of the debate on the issue was
not a matter of political or diplomatic considerations, but a moral duty.
Such rhetoric aims to establish a narrative according to which the
Israel-Turkey political relationship held Israel's moral position hostage.
Now that Israel is free from its political commitments to Turkey, the
argument goes, Israel may officially declare that what happened to the
Armenians during WWI was genocide.
However, to argue that Israel did in fact keep silent on this issue for the
sake of maintaining political ties with Turkey is tantamount to declaring
Israel's moral *bankruptcy*.
A state that prides itself on earnestly trying to do the right thing
despite endless and tremendous challenges and unprecedented moral trials
cannot afford to abandon its moral compass in this manner.
Is Israel prepared to sacrifice the integrity of its current president,
whose position symbolizes Israeli consensus, and say that when Shimon Peres
announced unequivocally in April 2001 that what happened to the Armenians
was tragic but not genocide, he sold morality for political gain?
Tragically, by blurring the *differences* between the Holocaust and the
massacre of Armenians, Israel is harming itself by lending a hand to the
continued practice of irresponsible use of the term genocide in other
arenas of conflict, such as the conflict Israel itself has with the
Palestinians. In a growing number of forums, campaigns against Israel's
position in its conflict with the Palestinians are armed with the term
genocide as a weapon of mass political pressure.
This has already had a detrimental effect on Israel's international
relations, but will surely haunt it to a greater extent in days to come,
especially should the United States reduce the level of its commitment to
warding off accusations against Israel in the international system. Such a
scenario may eventually lead to united international opposition against
Israel, and perhaps even to outside interference with Israeli actions
through international courts of law. Is it hard to imagine a possible law
somewhere in Europe that would make it illegal to deny the `genocide' of
the Palestinians? Instead of letting politicians add more fuel to the fire
of misuse of the term genocide, careful scholarly work must be done to
investigate the transition from Holocaust to the modern-day use of the term
genocide and put its politicization in proper academic perspective.
Scholars are invited to examine the historical context of post-World War II
interests in Germany, and see how the American-led efforts to `de-Nazify'
and reeducate Germany introduced the term genocide via Raphael Lemkin, an
employee of the US government, to cement the moral advantage they had over
the Germans through international law, out of political interest, and not
simply out of the goodness of their hearts.
Accordingly, the universal condemnation of the Nazi crimes in the Holocaust
provided the necessary impact for the introduction of the Genocide
Convention in the United Nations. Then, once the term was taking on a life
of its own, its promoters sought to convince states to ratify genocide, the
practice of universalizing the singularity of the Holocaust had begun, and
the systematic extermination of Jews was now to be equated with many
dissimilar events.
For instance, it is reported that while looking to persuade the Irish to
ratify genocide and bring the term closer to their hearts, Raphael Lemkin
told John Costello, the Prime Minister of Ireland, that the potato famine
from which they suffered was a type of genocide.
In a world where a potato famine resulting from a careless shipping
management is described by the same word as the deliberate attempt to
exterminate all of Europe's Jews, the Holocaust will surely be
*confused*with cases of civil war. The Deutchtum (German character) of
German Jews
will be mixed up with acts of rebellion, and Nazi Germany's irrational
hatred and greed will be indistinguishable from a nation's reasonable
desire to survive a conflict.
The loose and superficial definition of genocide proved to be sufficient
for promoting US interests in Germany post WWII, but not tight enough to
save the term from becoming rich ground for interest groups that are
seeking political momentum. While the well-being of the weak must be
advocated, it cannot be done at the expense of a nation's natural right to
defend itself when threatened by other groups, be they strong or weak.
Every nation has the right to employ whatever means it has to fight for its
survival, and should not have to do so at the expense of its moral standing
in the eyes of other nations. This is a belief both Israel and Turkey share.
Turkey is uniquely positioned at the gateway between East and West, and as
such, it holds the key for the long-awaited *accommodation* of the State of
Israel in the region.
A common denominator for both might be found in the attempt to rescue the
term genocide from further politicization. With this short essay, we intend
to encourage increased scholarly dialogue on the concept of genocide:
morally, philosophically, historically and legally. It is our hope that
such activity would advance the field of genocide studies in both
countries, and weather the storm between the two governments until the
relations between the two nations know better days.
Professor M. Hakan Yavuz is originally from Turkey and teaches political
science at the Middle East Center at the University of Utah. Tal Buenos is
originally from Israel and is a doctoral student political science at the
University of Utah, focusing on genocide studies.
From: A. Papazian
By M. HAKAN YAVUZ AND TAL BUENOS
01/14/2012 21:49
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=253615
Keeping silent on a moral issue for the sake of maintaining political ties
with Turkey would be a declaration of moral bankruptcy.
Was the recent surfacing of the Armenian tragedy in the Israeli Knesset
rooted in political or moral ground? Fully aware that the timing of the
public debate on the Armenian tragedy recently held by the Knesset's *
Education* Committee is political to an embarrassing degree, Knesset
Speaker Reuven Rivlin set out to negate this immediate perception by
stating, more than once, that the reopening of the debate on the issue was
not a matter of political or diplomatic considerations, but a moral duty.
Such rhetoric aims to establish a narrative according to which the
Israel-Turkey political relationship held Israel's moral position hostage.
Now that Israel is free from its political commitments to Turkey, the
argument goes, Israel may officially declare that what happened to the
Armenians during WWI was genocide.
However, to argue that Israel did in fact keep silent on this issue for the
sake of maintaining political ties with Turkey is tantamount to declaring
Israel's moral *bankruptcy*.
A state that prides itself on earnestly trying to do the right thing
despite endless and tremendous challenges and unprecedented moral trials
cannot afford to abandon its moral compass in this manner.
Is Israel prepared to sacrifice the integrity of its current president,
whose position symbolizes Israeli consensus, and say that when Shimon Peres
announced unequivocally in April 2001 that what happened to the Armenians
was tragic but not genocide, he sold morality for political gain?
Tragically, by blurring the *differences* between the Holocaust and the
massacre of Armenians, Israel is harming itself by lending a hand to the
continued practice of irresponsible use of the term genocide in other
arenas of conflict, such as the conflict Israel itself has with the
Palestinians. In a growing number of forums, campaigns against Israel's
position in its conflict with the Palestinians are armed with the term
genocide as a weapon of mass political pressure.
This has already had a detrimental effect on Israel's international
relations, but will surely haunt it to a greater extent in days to come,
especially should the United States reduce the level of its commitment to
warding off accusations against Israel in the international system. Such a
scenario may eventually lead to united international opposition against
Israel, and perhaps even to outside interference with Israeli actions
through international courts of law. Is it hard to imagine a possible law
somewhere in Europe that would make it illegal to deny the `genocide' of
the Palestinians? Instead of letting politicians add more fuel to the fire
of misuse of the term genocide, careful scholarly work must be done to
investigate the transition from Holocaust to the modern-day use of the term
genocide and put its politicization in proper academic perspective.
Scholars are invited to examine the historical context of post-World War II
interests in Germany, and see how the American-led efforts to `de-Nazify'
and reeducate Germany introduced the term genocide via Raphael Lemkin, an
employee of the US government, to cement the moral advantage they had over
the Germans through international law, out of political interest, and not
simply out of the goodness of their hearts.
Accordingly, the universal condemnation of the Nazi crimes in the Holocaust
provided the necessary impact for the introduction of the Genocide
Convention in the United Nations. Then, once the term was taking on a life
of its own, its promoters sought to convince states to ratify genocide, the
practice of universalizing the singularity of the Holocaust had begun, and
the systematic extermination of Jews was now to be equated with many
dissimilar events.
For instance, it is reported that while looking to persuade the Irish to
ratify genocide and bring the term closer to their hearts, Raphael Lemkin
told John Costello, the Prime Minister of Ireland, that the potato famine
from which they suffered was a type of genocide.
In a world where a potato famine resulting from a careless shipping
management is described by the same word as the deliberate attempt to
exterminate all of Europe's Jews, the Holocaust will surely be
*confused*with cases of civil war. The Deutchtum (German character) of
German Jews
will be mixed up with acts of rebellion, and Nazi Germany's irrational
hatred and greed will be indistinguishable from a nation's reasonable
desire to survive a conflict.
The loose and superficial definition of genocide proved to be sufficient
for promoting US interests in Germany post WWII, but not tight enough to
save the term from becoming rich ground for interest groups that are
seeking political momentum. While the well-being of the weak must be
advocated, it cannot be done at the expense of a nation's natural right to
defend itself when threatened by other groups, be they strong or weak.
Every nation has the right to employ whatever means it has to fight for its
survival, and should not have to do so at the expense of its moral standing
in the eyes of other nations. This is a belief both Israel and Turkey share.
Turkey is uniquely positioned at the gateway between East and West, and as
such, it holds the key for the long-awaited *accommodation* of the State of
Israel in the region.
A common denominator for both might be found in the attempt to rescue the
term genocide from further politicization. With this short essay, we intend
to encourage increased scholarly dialogue on the concept of genocide:
morally, philosophically, historically and legally. It is our hope that
such activity would advance the field of genocide studies in both
countries, and weather the storm between the two governments until the
relations between the two nations know better days.
Professor M. Hakan Yavuz is originally from Turkey and teaches political
science at the Middle East Center at the University of Utah. Tal Buenos is
originally from Israel and is a doctoral student political science at the
University of Utah, focusing on genocide studies.
From: A. Papazian