Jews Face the Armenian Genocide * By Dr. Stephen Scheinberg .Dr. Scheinberg is emeritus professor of history,Concordia University, and co-chair of Canadian Friendsof Peace Now. His editorials can be heard on Montreal'sRadio Shalom 1650AM on Monday at 7:15A.M. and Wednesday at 6:14P.M..There is a controversy raging among American Jews which may get even hotter in the coming days. The issue arises because the U.S. Congress will once again beasked to vote for a bill recognizing the Armenian genocide of 1915. One might think that this would notbe a difficult issue for the Jewish community butunfortunately several of the major Jewish organizationsin the United States have seen fit to intervene against the bill.First, let me explain to those of you who are not well acquainted with the events of 1915 that an overwhelming number of historians recognize that the Turkishgovernment of the day engaged in the pre-meditated murder of between 1 and 1.5 million Armenians. Jewish holocaust scholars including Raul Hilberg, Elie Wiesel, Yehuda Bauer, Daniel Goldhagen and Deborah Lipstadt have all signed ads urging the Congress to pass there solution. The scholarship is overwhelming; including even some Turkish writers, but the Turkish government persists in its refusal to acknowledge responsibility.Armenian genocide denial is close kin to holocaust denial and as morally reprehensible.The current bill in the Congress was introduced inJanuary 2007 by Representative Adam Schiff ofCalifornia and has wide Jewish support in both theHouse and Senate, from Democrats and Republicans.However, it is not clear if or when the bill will cometo a vote. The Turkish government has been active in supporting opposition to the bill, hiring prominent lobbyists and meeting with Jewish leaders. This leadership was obviously reminded, at a meeting with the Turkish Foreign Minister Abdula Gul, of Turkey's good relations with Israel as well as with the UnitedStates, her support for her own Jewish community numbering approximately 40,000, and her record as asanctuary for Jewish refugees over the centuries. It is difficult to say whether it was Turkish lobbying, theirown sentiments, or possibly direct intervention fromIsrael which led the Anti-Defamation League, B'naiBrith International, the American Jewish Committee andthe Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs topass along to members of Congress a letter from TurkishJews opposing the resolution, thus implicitly takingthe side of Turkey.It was the ADL's Abraham Foxman who was the mostoutspoken of the Jewish leaders, declaring that "this is an issue that needs to be resolved by the parties,not by us. We are neither historians nor arbiters." One has never heard Foxman, a child survivor of the holocaust, make such a cavalier reference to the deathof six million Jews. He has given further fuel to his critics by firing the ADL's New England regional director who had urged that the organization recognize the genocide. A former ADL regional board member condemned the firing as "a vindictive, intolerant, and destructive act" by an organization and leader whose"fundamental mission - is to promote tolerance." Foxman has subsequently, following much criticism and a conversation with Elie Wiesel, recognized that the events of 1915 constituted genocide but continues to oppose the bill as counterproductive.For her part, Israel has not made any public reference to the Armenian genocide and has carefully deleted such references from text books and even withdrawn support from international conferences at which the genocide would have been a subject for discussion. Before a trip to Turkey then-foreign minister Shimon Peres said of the genocide, that it was "a matter for historians todecide." There are many prominent Israelis who deploret heir government's failure to act on a significant moral issue. However, in the case of a nation state,realpolitik often triumphs over morality. Israel obviously considers that her relations with Turkey are too important to be possibly undermined by taking the moral road, though Israelis from across the political spectrum have disagreed on the consequences of such actions.Nevertheless, the American Jewish leadership is not and should not be tied to Israeli realpolitik. Individual morality cannot be waived in the interest of Israel,the United States or Canada. Perhaps if the Armenian genocide resolution is again defeated these same community leaders will be at pains to deny the influence of the Jewish lobby. Neither Israel nor theAmerican Jewish community will be well served by a community leadership that abandons elementary standards of behavior for a misguided assessment of the needs of Israel or Turkish Jewry. Perhaps they should recall the infamous words attributed to Adolph Hitler, calling on his troops to pursue their destructive work, he stated:"Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?" As Jews, we are obliged to speak, and our voices must be heard on the side of justice and morality.* Credit : Wikipedia - The Armenian Genocide Memorialin the Marcelin-Wilson Park in Montreal.(c) 2007 Tolerance.ca(R) Inc. Tous droits de reproductionreserves.Toutes les informations reproduites sur le site dewww.tolerance.ca (articles, images, photos, logos) sontprotegees par des droits de propriete intellectuelledetenus par Tolerance.ca(R) Inc. ou, dans certains cas,par leurs auteurs. Aucune de ces informations ne peutetre reproduite pour un usage autre que personnel.Toute modification, reproduction a large diffusion,traduction, vente, exploitation commerciale oureutilisation du
2. Turkey and the Armenians / Today's Denial Is Tomorrow's Holocaust By Yossi Sarid http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/912094.html Congressman Adam Schiff, who proposed the resolution to name the Armenian massacre a genocide, is Jewish.The Jewish nation should be grateful for Schiff'sinitiative, for he has saved Jewish honor in America,Israel and everywhere. He restored our humane image,in contrast to the cynics and genocide deniers who are forever demanding payment for being perpetual victims.Congressman Schiff is following in the footsteps ofanother Jew, Henry Morgenthau, who served as U.S.ambassador in Turkey in those days. He called the massacre "the greatest crime in modern history."AdvertisementSchiff is also the student of another Jew, FranzWerfel, who on his way to the Land of Israel stopped in Damascus and was appalled to see "the starving,mutilated and sick Armenian refugee children." Hepublished the novel "The Forty Days of Musa Dagh"(1933), which shocked the world.In 1918 Shmuel Talkovsky, then secretary of HaimWeizmann, wrote with Weizmann's approval: "Is there any nation whose fate is more similar to ours than the Armenians?"But in Israel today there are Jews who are less than Jewish and Zionists who are less than Zionist -including heads of state and heads of government.Denying another nation's Holocaust is no less uglythan denying ours. It is also dangerous. Today'sdenial is tomorrow's Holocaust. The Armenian genocidewasn't the first in this era. The German imperial armyslaughtered 100,000 Namibians in 1904. In 1915, theArmenian genocide began; the Ottomans killed 1.5million of them in various ways. If the world hadrisen up in protest against the genocide of theNamibians and Armenians, the Holocaust of the Jewsmight also have been averted. This is not a mereassumption; it's probably a fact. A week before invading Poland, Hitler addressed his officers (August24, 1939): "It's a matter of indifference to me what aweak western European civilization will say about me... I have ordered my Death-Head Formation to killmercilessly and without compassion men, women andchildren of Polish derivation and language. Who, afterall, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"Such was Hitler's calming message to his troops.The next time some Israel hater - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,for example - denies the Jewish Holocaust, and we raise a hue and cry about it, there will be someself-righteous Gentiles ready to say, "You're right,but we have our own Turkeys."As natural and historic victims, we should be the ones to spread the message from one end of the world to another: what happened to us can happen again, to us and to the people of Rwanda, Bosnia, Cambodia, Sudan, Burma.There is no need to compare between holocausts to recognize other nations' suffering.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Hillary Clinton And The Democratic Party
A pessimistic view from the Progressive Review follows, which I mostly share.
Sam Smith: If the latest Washington Post poll proves accurate, the Democratic Party as a serious alternative to the GOP is finished. It is not just that a perennially dissembling and once almost prosecuted candidate came in miles ahead of Barrack Obama and John Edwards. The real tragedy is to be found in the reasons respondents gave for their support.For example, Democrats favored Hillary Clinton to deal with health care by a two to one margin over Obama and Edwards combined - an absurd judgment given her previous health care legislation that was laughably incompetent and confusing as she attempted to conceal its gifts to the insurance industry. There are only two possible explanations for such a masochistic choice: deep denial or deep ignorance and they probably both play a role.57% of Democrats said HR Clinton has the best chance of being elected even though current polling has all three front runners coming out about the same. For example, the heavily pro-Clinton Washington Post headlined her 8 point lead over Giuliani without mentioning that Edwards had scored a 9 point lead in another recent poll.Further, Clinton's supposed electability is based on the assumption that the GOP will not mention all the dirty laundry in HRC's past - including matters now hidden in Justice Department files. The Republican strategy - which the media has given great aid and comfort - is to keep quiet until the Democrats are irretrievably in the Clinton trap. In fact, some on the right are already having a hard time hiding their enthusiasm: Matt Drudge featured Clinton's wipe out lead in the Post poll with big type and red ink and George Bush is even sending her advice on how to handle Iraq.By 52% to 39% Clinton beats both Obama and Edwards as the one best able to deal with Iraq, even though she is clearly the one with the worst record of doing so this far.By the same margin, she is the one who Democrats think best represent the core values of the party. This may be tragically true in contemporary terms, but before her husband took office the party had dramatically different - and better - values.The only First Lady ever to face possible criminal indictment even farcically leads the others as the one best able to deal with corruption in Washington.And worst of all, not only is she considered more inspiring than Obama and Edwards but she is considered more trustworthy.This is a party that doesn't need a candidate; it desperately needs a therapist.If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination it will be the end of the modern Democratic Party - the period of both its greatness and its popularity. Her husband began the serious dismantling of the party - particularly its commitment to social democracy - and produced for it the greatest loss of elected offices under an incumbent president since Grover Cleveland.Hilary Clinton will complete the job. If she wins the nomination there will no longer be a real Democratic Party; it will be reduced a subculture of de facto Republicans who support abortion and affirmative action.Just look at those round her: there isn't one major figure directly involved in her campaign who represents the spirit or the substance of a decent and progressive Democratic Party. It is a cadre of cynical manipulators and fund raisers with dubious pals.This incredible destruction of the party took place in less than two decades, in part thanks to a number of factors beyond the Clintons:- The rise of the delusional myths of neo-robber baron capitalism that, among other things, taught voters to choose between competing political CEOs rather than among real issues.- The trivialization of politics by television and other media in which the future of our nation and our planet was reduced to just another game show or daytime serial.- A sycophantic Washington press corps that brazenly boosted those politicians with whom it felt socially and culturally most compatible. The media has repeatedly covered up for the Clinton, most recently by failing to inform its audience of HRC's sordid past.- The stunningly incompetent handling of Congress by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.- The underlying force driving many Democrats in office: fear. Fear of the Christian right, fear of seeming weak, fear of Karl Rove and so forth. By their words they try desperately to seem not afraid, but by these same actions they confirm the critics' view that they are cowards.But the Clintons played a major part as well, primarily because they have been the preeminent political con artists of modern times.The Clintons belong to a long American tradition of snake oil salesmen, road gamblers and fake evangelical prophets. The thing these all had in common: those they purported to help or deal fairly with invariably came out the short end. With card sharks or door to door hustlers, the culture suffered but did not shake. But the Clinton as the first of the disreputable breed to actually run the country.Bill Clinton at least came by his skill naturally. When Bill Clinton is 7, his family moved from Hope, Arkansas, to the long-time mob resort of Hot Springs, AR. Here Al Capone was said to have had permanent rights to suite 443 of the Arlington Hotel. Clinton's stepfather was a gun-brandishing alcoholic who lost his Buick franchise through mismanagement and his own pilfering. His mother was a heavy gambler with mob ties. According to FBI and local police officials, his Uncle Raymond -- to whom young Bill turned for wisdom and support -- was a colorful car dealer, slot machine owner and gambling operator, who thrived (except when his house was firebombed) on the fault line of criminality.The media forgot to tell you this, but knowing it helps one understand why Bill Clinton is such a better con artist than his wife and why Hillary Clinton constantly gets caught in petty dishonesties, cheap machinations and artificial cackles. It wasn't natural; she had to learn the trade from Bill.Now, one could go on for 500 more pages on this topic but here's the problem: hardly any of those Democrats who think HR Clinton is the most honest of the major candidates would absorb the information and alter their opinion because the Democratic Party has transformed itself from a political organization into a sort of EST for political junkies.So it looks like it may be over. Yes, an unanticipated scandal could still emerge. The good people of Iowa and New Hampshire could take the Democratic Party back. HR Clinton might move from embarrassing cackles to indefensible contortions.But if nothing major happens, you can say good bye to the modern Democratic Party the day that HR Clinton is nominated. You will then be faced not with a choice, but a threat - not unlike one from the capo who tells you: stick with us and your friends and family will be safer and we won't take as much from you as the other mob. This isn't politics; it's thuggery. And that's what our politics have become.
Sam Smith: If the latest Washington Post poll proves accurate, the Democratic Party as a serious alternative to the GOP is finished. It is not just that a perennially dissembling and once almost prosecuted candidate came in miles ahead of Barrack Obama and John Edwards. The real tragedy is to be found in the reasons respondents gave for their support.For example, Democrats favored Hillary Clinton to deal with health care by a two to one margin over Obama and Edwards combined - an absurd judgment given her previous health care legislation that was laughably incompetent and confusing as she attempted to conceal its gifts to the insurance industry. There are only two possible explanations for such a masochistic choice: deep denial or deep ignorance and they probably both play a role.57% of Democrats said HR Clinton has the best chance of being elected even though current polling has all three front runners coming out about the same. For example, the heavily pro-Clinton Washington Post headlined her 8 point lead over Giuliani without mentioning that Edwards had scored a 9 point lead in another recent poll.Further, Clinton's supposed electability is based on the assumption that the GOP will not mention all the dirty laundry in HRC's past - including matters now hidden in Justice Department files. The Republican strategy - which the media has given great aid and comfort - is to keep quiet until the Democrats are irretrievably in the Clinton trap. In fact, some on the right are already having a hard time hiding their enthusiasm: Matt Drudge featured Clinton's wipe out lead in the Post poll with big type and red ink and George Bush is even sending her advice on how to handle Iraq.By 52% to 39% Clinton beats both Obama and Edwards as the one best able to deal with Iraq, even though she is clearly the one with the worst record of doing so this far.By the same margin, she is the one who Democrats think best represent the core values of the party. This may be tragically true in contemporary terms, but before her husband took office the party had dramatically different - and better - values.The only First Lady ever to face possible criminal indictment even farcically leads the others as the one best able to deal with corruption in Washington.And worst of all, not only is she considered more inspiring than Obama and Edwards but she is considered more trustworthy.This is a party that doesn't need a candidate; it desperately needs a therapist.If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination it will be the end of the modern Democratic Party - the period of both its greatness and its popularity. Her husband began the serious dismantling of the party - particularly its commitment to social democracy - and produced for it the greatest loss of elected offices under an incumbent president since Grover Cleveland.Hilary Clinton will complete the job. If she wins the nomination there will no longer be a real Democratic Party; it will be reduced a subculture of de facto Republicans who support abortion and affirmative action.Just look at those round her: there isn't one major figure directly involved in her campaign who represents the spirit or the substance of a decent and progressive Democratic Party. It is a cadre of cynical manipulators and fund raisers with dubious pals.This incredible destruction of the party took place in less than two decades, in part thanks to a number of factors beyond the Clintons:- The rise of the delusional myths of neo-robber baron capitalism that, among other things, taught voters to choose between competing political CEOs rather than among real issues.- The trivialization of politics by television and other media in which the future of our nation and our planet was reduced to just another game show or daytime serial.- A sycophantic Washington press corps that brazenly boosted those politicians with whom it felt socially and culturally most compatible. The media has repeatedly covered up for the Clinton, most recently by failing to inform its audience of HRC's sordid past.- The stunningly incompetent handling of Congress by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.- The underlying force driving many Democrats in office: fear. Fear of the Christian right, fear of seeming weak, fear of Karl Rove and so forth. By their words they try desperately to seem not afraid, but by these same actions they confirm the critics' view that they are cowards.But the Clintons played a major part as well, primarily because they have been the preeminent political con artists of modern times.The Clintons belong to a long American tradition of snake oil salesmen, road gamblers and fake evangelical prophets. The thing these all had in common: those they purported to help or deal fairly with invariably came out the short end. With card sharks or door to door hustlers, the culture suffered but did not shake. But the Clinton as the first of the disreputable breed to actually run the country.Bill Clinton at least came by his skill naturally. When Bill Clinton is 7, his family moved from Hope, Arkansas, to the long-time mob resort of Hot Springs, AR. Here Al Capone was said to have had permanent rights to suite 443 of the Arlington Hotel. Clinton's stepfather was a gun-brandishing alcoholic who lost his Buick franchise through mismanagement and his own pilfering. His mother was a heavy gambler with mob ties. According to FBI and local police officials, his Uncle Raymond -- to whom young Bill turned for wisdom and support -- was a colorful car dealer, slot machine owner and gambling operator, who thrived (except when his house was firebombed) on the fault line of criminality.The media forgot to tell you this, but knowing it helps one understand why Bill Clinton is such a better con artist than his wife and why Hillary Clinton constantly gets caught in petty dishonesties, cheap machinations and artificial cackles. It wasn't natural; she had to learn the trade from Bill.Now, one could go on for 500 more pages on this topic but here's the problem: hardly any of those Democrats who think HR Clinton is the most honest of the major candidates would absorb the information and alter their opinion because the Democratic Party has transformed itself from a political organization into a sort of EST for political junkies.So it looks like it may be over. Yes, an unanticipated scandal could still emerge. The good people of Iowa and New Hampshire could take the Democratic Party back. HR Clinton might move from embarrassing cackles to indefensible contortions.But if nothing major happens, you can say good bye to the modern Democratic Party the day that HR Clinton is nominated. You will then be faced not with a choice, but a threat - not unlike one from the capo who tells you: stick with us and your friends and family will be safer and we won't take as much from you as the other mob. This isn't politics; it's thuggery. And that's what our politics have become.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
