What a heavy morning. I was up most of the night with the baby, and by 4:30 a.m. I figured I wasn’t going to get much sleep before I had to leave for the hospital. So I did some browsing online, and found a very interesting historical document. Haitham Sabbah has posted a speech that Jordan’s King Abdullah gave in the United States in 1947, about the Arab perspective on Jewish immigration to Palestine. Abdullah’s main point was that the U.S. should not expect Arab Palestine to absorb all the Jewish refugees from Germany, especially when they were being denied entry to the U.S. I’ll excerpt a few paragraphs…
almost 100 per cent Arab. It is still preponderantly Arab today, in
spite of enormous Jewish immigration. But if this immigration continues
we shall soon be outnumbered - a minority in our home.
King Abdullah counterargued the Jewish historical claim to Palestine, thus:
This was 1,815 years ago, and yet the Jews solemnly pretend they still own Palestine! If such fantasy were allowed, how the map of the world would dance about!
Italians might claim England, which the Romans held so long. England might claim France, "homeland" of the conquering Normans. And the French Normans might claim Norway, where their ancestors originated. And incidentally, we Arabs might claim Spain, which we held for 700 years…
In any event, the great Moslem expansion about 650 AD finally settled things. It dominated Palestine completely. From that day on, Palestine was solidly Arabic in population, language, and religion. When British armies entered the country during the last war, they found 500,000 Arabs and only 65,000 Jews.
As far as the post-World War II migration, Abdullah contended that the German Jews were not asked where they wanted to settle, but simply shunted off to Palestine - a claim which is fairly well supported by current historical research. This policy served the interests of Western nations that did not want to increase their own Jewish population.
He referred to well-publicized terrorist acts committed by radical Jewish groups such as the Stern Gang against the British:
We in the Arab world were stunned to hear that you permit open advertisements in newspapers asking for money to finance these terrorists, to arm them openly and deliberately for murder.
The whole speech, linked above, is well worth reading. It offers plenty of ammunition to both pro-Zionists and anti-Zionists. As much as anything, it underlines how the balance of power has shifted. At one time it was the Jews whose fate was debated and decided by other nations. We ourselves, lacking a state, used militant tactics to advance our national interest.
My ambivalence deepened when I read more of Sabbah’s blog. It’s very smart, and makes the Palestinian case very effectively. I agree with a lot of what he writes. But then I come to a critique of Jews in the entertainment industry:
Further, it is no accident that Israeli "security" is now the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy.
Unfortunately, the post plows forward in the general direction of Holocaust-denial - or, at least, the argument that the memory of the Holocaust is perpetuated in order to advance Jewish political and economic interests.
Indeed, the Holocaust is sometimes used this way. But to deny that it happened - that it was every bit as unthinkable as the books and documents tell - that six milliion Jews really could be exterminated - is to deny the tremendous power of the modern state, and the crucial importance of individual moral judgement and resistance.
The Jews have not been the only victims of attempted genocide. Think of the Armenians, the Bosnian Muslims, the Rwandan Tutsi. In all cases, the basis for these collective crimes was an ideology of ethnic purity, with resultant demonization and destruction of the designated "other." This, in fact, is why the notion of ethnic separatism inherent in Zionism is so disturbing.
Racism is a pernicious, dangerous practice, whether it is taken up by Europeans, Israelis, Arabs or anyone else. I hate to see it in someone like Sabbah, who seems so clear-minded in every other way.
With regard to the Palestinian take on the Holocaust, I think Joseph Massad explained it well in an article he published last year called Semites and anti-Semites, that is the Question:
While holocaust denial in the West is indeed one of the strongest manifestations of anti-Semitism, most Arabs who deny the holocaust deny it for political not racist reasons. This point is even conceded by the anti-Arab and anti-Muslim Orientalist Bernard Lewis. Their denial is based on the false Zionist claim that the holocaust justifies Zionist colonialism. The Zionist claim is as follows: Since Jews were the victims of the holocaust, then they have the right to colonise Palestine and establish a Jewish colonial-settler state there. Those Arabs who deny the holocaust accept the Zionist logic as correct. Since these deniers reject the right of Zionists to colonise Palestine, the only argument left to them is to deny that the holocaust ever took place, which, to their thinking, robs Zionism of its allegedly "moral" argument. But the fact that Jews were massacred does not give Zionists the right to steal someone else’s homeland and to massacre the Palestinian people. The oppression of a people does not endow it with rights to oppress others. If those Arab deniers refuse to accept the criminal Zionist logic that justifies the murder and oppression of the Palestinians by appealing to the holocaust, then these deniers would no longer need to make such spurious arguments. All those in the Arab world who deny the Jewish holocaust are in my opinion Zionists.
Oi. I can’t wait to get back to bed.
Interesting
Interesting post, though devoid of historical and geo-political context.
That there have been shifts in empires and conquest, there is a certain reality: Virtually all countries are the result of violent conflict. Notwithstanding self rightous foot stomping, that is reality. What an Arab historian or political figure has to say has no more merit than the words of anyone else.
Further, as a non practising, non religious person (Anglican background), I find your remarks on Zionism interesting. Jewish liturgy has made reference to a return to Zion for millenia. It is hardly a new or political phenomena.
Your remarks on Sabbah are spot on- he has in more than one instance highlighted deep rooted anti semitism as a rationale to excoriate Israel.
SC&A
sigcarlfred.blogspot.com
Interesting
Thanks for commenting! Yes, there have always been wars, as there have always been those who protest them. But genocide is largely a modern phenomenon for two reasons. First, race and ethnicity - and their interpretation as a basis for political and geographic hegemony - are modern constructions. Second, the state has tremendously greater power to control individual behavior and to carry out programs of mass depopulation than at any previous time in history.
Judaism was, in some sense, born in this crucible. Its defining historical moment, to me, is the Roman destruction of the Second Temple, to which King Abdullah refers. That was the moment at which Judaism did NOT disappear. Rather, it made the leap from an ethnic/geographic entity (conceptualized then in terms of a covenant between a deity and a bloodline) to a set of ideas and practices that could be learned and conveyed from generation to generation - i.e. an abstract theology.
Although longing for Zion remained a sort of distant dream woven into the fabric of Jewish life, the religion had actually transcended the need to define itself in terms of places and objects. Abraham Heschel makes this point quite well in his essay The Sabbath.
Political Zionism is definitely a modern phenomenon, articulated by Theodore Herzl in the nineteenth century, and closely mirroring other ethnic/national and anti-colonial movements of the time. Its descendent - the neo-Zionism embraced now by the settlers - also has little to do with traditional religious Zionism. Neo-Zionism is - in my view anyhow - a pseudo-religious philosophy that supports purely material, territorial interests. It is a huge step backward for Judaism.
Regards,
Andrew Schamess
Deleted conspiracy theory was here
I had what I thought was a really clever faux conspiracy theory here to stimulate the imagination away from Side 1 vs Side 2, but it’s been bugging me–there’s something that I feel is not quite right about it, even with tongue in cheek (perhaps especially with tongue in cheek). I can’t put my finger on what’s bugging me about what I wrote, but anyway I have much to do this week and can’t deal with the paranoia. Sorry for wasting space. I’d just delete my post outright, but I’m not sure how to do that, so this mysterious apology is all there is. Have a great week and I still love this blog.
re: accusation of anti-Semitism
Hello,
I am in no way associated with Haitham (although I do read his blog and comment on it), but allow me to say a few things. I have a few issues with your accusation of anti-Semitism. First of all, as you might know, "Israel" considers itself a state for all Jews, and most Jews consider "Israel" "their country". There is a difference between saying that "Israel" is a Jewish state, and saying that "Israel" is the state of all Jews. While "Israel" is often described as "the Jewish state", its policies ("law of return") clearly point to the fact that "Israel" considers itself the state of all Jews rather than simply a (or THE) Jewish state. What follows from this is that a criticism of Jews supporting "Israel" and its so-called "right to exist" is not necessarily anti-Semitic. Here your argument (or dare I say, smear campaign) collapses.
I think you should re-read that statement (re: victim identity), and do it without having in mind the need to smear someone with the label of "anti-Semite", and you will realise that it is very much open to interpretation and as such cannot be used to field such accusations. In other words, the statement on victim identity could be traced back to what Norman Finkelstein labels "The Holocaust Industry". I am sure you will not be accusing Mr. Finkelstein of anti-Semitism.
Perhaps you might want to blog on the blatant racism of the majority of Jews, who support the denial of the Armenian Holocaust via organisations such as the American Jewish Committee, AIPAC, and senators of Jewish background. Not only is there widespread support of denial among Jews worldwide (and in particular in the States and "Israel"), there is also widespread individual denialism of the Armenian Holocaust. Think about what you would say if and when I deny the Jewish Holocaust. Would I even be worthy of being given a response to, in your eyes? Would anyone get away with denial of the Jewish Holocaust? What would Jews’ response be to such acts? Scorn? Anger? Censorship? Boycotts? What do you think Jews would do if the government of Armenia denied the Jewish Holocaust had ever taken place? Surely they would boycott the state as well as Armenian-owned businesses? Yet how can you accuse anyone of anti-Semitism who argues that the Jewish Holocaust is being used for advancing whatever agendas that are in store? Does it make a difference who says it? Dissenting Jews have said it too. Finkelstein has said it. Does it mean that he is a self-hating Jew? Surely there are many anti-Semites who deny the Jewish Holocaust and make similar arguments, but does it mean that all those who argue that the Jewish Holocaust is being industrialised are anti-Semites? Your argument is fallacious.
Cheers,
Daniel Marsden
Reply to Daniel Marsden
Thanks for commenting. I agree that there is nothing anti-Semitic about criticising Israel. I’ve made the same point many times on this blog. I have also been quite forceful here in condemning anti-Arab racism when it appears in Jewish publications and on "pro-Israel" web sites. There is stuff on those sites that is far worse than anything Haitham says.
Nonetheless I stand by my contention that the notion of a Jewish cabal that controls the media and manipulates public opinion for its own ends, is old-fashioned anti-Semitism. Haithan kind of skirts this, it seems to me. But the attitude to which I’m referring is quite evident in the comment from Robert Lindsay, to whom Haithan links favorably. Lindsay says:
interests of the Jews and to attack the enemies and rivals of the Jews.
Also to accumulate a lot of money and power for the Jews.
I like a lot of what Haithan writes on his blog. And I’m certainly not trying to mount a "smear campaign". But I will call people on embracing, or even flirting with, racist ideas, regardless of whether they are anti-Arab, anti-Jewish, or anti-anything else.
Andrew Schamess
Reply
Hello again, and thanks for the reply.
My point was not about criticism of "Israel". Every state and its supporters are legitimate targets of criticism. But that is not my point. My point is, when a certain ethnicity/race acts as a more-or-less united political force (and most Jews do support the existence of "Israel" - that they disagree on the particulars is not of importance in this case), they naturally become legitimate targets of criticism. I am not saying that none of the arguments can be anti-Semitic, but rather that they are not all anti-Semitic by default. In other words, I don’t think that saying that Arabs control Hollywood is anti-Arab per se. But saying that all Jews or Arabs, or insert other race/ethnicity here are filthy is racist. The phrase "Jews control Hollywood" has become very much a classical statement these days, one that is, undeniably, used by many anti-Semites and neo-Nazis. However, that it is used for racist propaganda does not mean there is no truth to it, or that it is by default anti-Semitic.In fact, look at the implications of such a statement. It implies that Jews use Hollywood to advance their political agendas. How exactly is that anti-Semitic, unless you are saying that controlling something to advance one’s goals is universally wrong? It is a political statement. Again, it depends on the context too. And within the "Israeli" context, it is not by any means anti-Semitic. I know what is anti-Semitic and what is not. And this is not anti-Semitic. Now you can choose to be offended by it, but it does not mean that you know people’s motives for saying something.Thus, accusing someone the way you did it is nothing short of a smear campaign.
It’s time that we start addressing the real issues and not hiding behind a screen of changing words ("Israeli" and "zionist" for "Jew") "because it might offend victims of a holocaust". I understand your sensitivities, but I don’t think this is the way to go in a political discussion of this sort. If anything, it alienates a lot of people. In fact, I know that it has done so on many occasions. And that article is proof of it. Let’s stop the witch-hunt now because it victimises the non/anti-racists along with the real racists, to the extent that the two can no longer be distinguished.
Daniel Marsden
There’s no such thing as legitimate racial criticism.
Thanks for engaging the discussion. It’s an interesting one.
I’m afraid I can’t agree with your premise that "when a certain ethnicity/race acts as a more-or-less united political force… they naturally become legitimate targets of criticism." It’s legitimate to criticize a state, an organization, a political position - but I can’t think of any circumstance where blanket criticism of an entire race or ethnicity is justified.
The premise, once accepted, provides an easy justification for ethnic violence. If an entire race exhibits a trait or behavior that threatens the common interest, then isn’t it necessary, for the sake of the public good, to take action against that race?
Consider the pernicious argument advanced by neoconservatives like Daniel Pipes and Martin Kramer. They point to surveys showing that a large majority of Arabs, or Palestinians, or whomever they happen to be targeting, support suicide bombings. They cite "ethnographic" research that supposedly documents an Arab "culture of violence." They lead their auditors to the conclusion that militant attacks on Israeli and American targets are not carried out by defined individuals or groups for political reasons, but rather are expressions of an inherent cultural trait.
This reasoning has been used to justify a whole slew of blatantly racist, anti-Arab measures by the U.S. and Israel: the collective punishment of the Palestinian people in retaliation for the acts of militant groups, the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, and the detention without trial of Muslims in the U.S., to name a few.
The fallacies are that the individual’s behavior is dictated by his ethnicity; and that the ethnic group can be held responsible for the behavior of individuals. Most of the genocidal violence of the last century was rooted in the allure of this sort of reasoning.
I did not, and would not, accuse you (or Haitham) of personal racism. I’m sure the opposite is true. But I will take issue with blanket accusations of Jews, Arabs, or any other ethnic group - such as conflating "Arab" and "terrorist" or "Jew" and "Zionist". I don’t think that a humane, progressive political philosophy can be built on such generalizations.
Andrew Schamess
Holocaust denial
I am surprised to hear that the majority of Jews support the denial of the Armenian holocaust. I don’t know what the policies and/or public statements from AIPAC, the AJC, and the "senators of Jewish background" are; if these representatives of institutional Judaism are indeed denying the Armenian holocaust, I’d like to see some proof. If you are going to make these accusations, you should document your assertions. It is precisely these kinds of sweeping, undocumented assertions that promote and foster racist attitudes. And even if your statements about these organizations and people are true, they hardly represent the views of "all Jews." In regard to holocausts and/or genocide in general, I will mention that while most activist non-Jewish groups in my town have held various public anti-Occupation events, they have been completely silent on the genocide in the Sudan. I am not accusing them of anti-Semitism, but it has not escaped my notice that people do seem to pick and choose which holocausts to ignore, and which human rights issues to promulgate.
And while the Jewish holocaust provides some people with an agenda to justify an aggressive and racist form of Zionism, there are many other Jews who have learned a very different lesson from the holocaust: they have learned that "never again" means that the Jews, of all people, must fight against any racism, ethnic cleansing, and domination of one people over another. In short, you would do well to temper your language, think about what you are saying, and do some serious reflection on your own ethnic generalizations before you talk about the "blatant racism" of the "majority of Jews."
Response
The premise I am presenting is very legitimate. In the case of political discussion, ethnic groups that act as a united bloc are no longer an ethnic group per se, but also a political force. The criticism is not necessarily of the character or heritage of that particular ethnicity, but of their political aspirations. I am suggesting that naming an ethnic group is not racism per se. Going further and making false accusations of maliscious character of an ethnic group, however, is. Moreover, the premise in no way provides any justification for ethnic violence. In fact, that is a slippery slope fallacy, one that has, sadly, been used and abused to justify censorship and limiting freedoms. Your argument of "public good" is not necessarily adopted by everyone. You are assuming that everyone follows your concept of utilitarianism, and many, including myself, have not adopted such a concept.
I have no problem with Mr. Pipe’s arguments. So far, it has not led me to attack any Arabs or have any bad feelings against all Arabs by virtue (or vice, according to Mr. Pipes) of their ethnicity. In fact, I look forward to challenging Mr. Pipes rather than simply labeling him a racist. You will argue that the discussion will necessarily give legitimacy to Mr. Pipe’s views, but I would beg to differ. The only way Mr. Pipes will enjoy any sort of legitimacy during or after the discussion is if and when he provides a coherent, logical argument that would pass every test and inspection. If Mr. Pipes has any such arguments, he is certainly free to voice them. With regards to Mr. Pipe’s argument on suicide bombing, he would’ve had a case if he could prove that moral/spiritual support for suicide bombing justifies physical harm to such supporters. So far, however, Mr. Pipes has been unable to prove this, and I doubt that he (or any of his minions) ever will.
As I said before, I am not talking about ALL Jews, and that article by no means said "all Jews control Hollywood". An individual’s behaviour might not be dictated by his ethnicity, but in most cases (and I advocate a case-by-case basis study), the majority takes on a position of support for the nation that represents their ethnicity. In the case of Jews, it is their support for the existence of "Israel", and doing whatever it takes to ensure its survival. Your argument that justification for genocides were based on such ‘logic’ is fallacious, in that there is absolutely no proof that genocide is the whole rather than the part / sub-set. As I said before, such statements can (although they would be fallacious) be used to justify racist actions, but that in no way means that they are racist by default. In fact, a classical example of this would be the issue of guns.
There was no generalisation. This was not a case of "all Jews are filthy" or "all Arabs are terrorists" (both of which are used quited a lot). I am not battling semantics here (although there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing that, since the very term "anti-Semite" could be dissected and argued about), but clearly the implication of the statement that offended you and sounded the alarm of "anti-Semitism" was not racist. In fact, the article makes it clear that the conclusions are political rather than ethnic in nature.
Daniel Marsden
Response
Steffi,
I highly recommend that you read Yair Auron’s book "The Banality of Denial: Israel and the Armenian Genocide".
I have documented my assertions on my blog, which you are free to check out. But I will mention a few things:
On April 10, 2001, Shimon Peres said: "If we have to determine a position, it should be done with great care so as not to distort the historical realities. We reject attempts to create a similarity between the Holocaust and the Armenian allegations. Nothing similar to the Holocaust occurred. It is a tragedy what the Armenians went through, but not a genocide."
The Jerusalem Report reports on Turkish and Jewish denial of the Armenian Genocide, and interviews a Turkish Jew by the name of Jak Kamhi who says, "Countering the so-called genocide is more important for the Jews in the Diaspora and Israel than the Turks … It is not something you can compare to the Holocaust and the genocide that happened in Europe. You can speak about a drama, about many other things, but not about a genocide. That happened in Europe."
The Israeli government to this day continues its denial of the Armenian Genocide. When Yossi Sarid gave a speech and described the 1915 events as genocide, the government was quick to state that it was Mr. Sarid’s personal opinion, not the official opinion/position of the State of Israel.
Prof. Yahuda Bauer recently said, "I have no doubt that most of the Israelites will immediately recognise the Genocide if asked".
Ricahard Perle, a Jew, worked on defeating a resolution for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide in 1989.
The director of the American Jewish Committee, Barry Jacobs said, "We will champion to the best of our ability Turkish interests in the US Congress".
Joseph Leitmann has repeatedly talked about helping Ankara "improve its image, diminish the accusations of Armenian and Greek lobbying groups".
Cheryl Kagan, of Maryland, and also on the board of the American Jewish Committee, called the Armenian Genocide "an alleged massacre".
The "Museum of Tolerance" bowed to Turkish demands and refused to include an exhibit on the Armenian Genocide.
The USHMM (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum) makes no mention of the Armenian Genocide on its website, but it does have information on Rwanda and Darfur.
Bernard Lewis, a denier of the Armenian Genocide, is Jewish.
Meanwhile in Israel, as The Daily Star reports,
"With a hint of bitterness, he shows the remains of posters detailing the Armenian Genocide glued to walls among the street and torn down, he says, by passing Jews.
""Sometimes they write ‘big lie’ over them", he says."
AIPAC, AJC(ommittee), AJC(ongress), ADL have all lobbied in support of Turkey on numerous occasions, and have come under fire from the ANC (Armenian National Committee) for that.
The Jews who do acknowledge that it was indeed a genocide hastily add that "it was an inspiration/encouragement for Hitler" ("Who after all remembers the Armenians?"). As if to say that had that statement not existed, they would not have acknowledged that what happened to the Armenians was indeed a genocide. In other words, they talk about the Armenian Genocide in terms of the Jewish Holocaust, rather than from a humanitarian, human rights perspective, as descendents of victims of a genocide.
Well I hope the above documentation is enough for your tastes? Because I can provide more if you want. And I must add, I never said "all Jews", I said the majority of Jews. May I ask you not to put words into my mouth?
As for the "never again" and the vow never to let it happen to others too, what about the majority of Jews supporting the existence of Israel, which resulted in the dispossession, expulsion, and massacres of of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians? Or are you saying that the majority of Jews advocate the return of Palestinians to Israel-proper? If so, then I am impressed. If not, then what do you have to say about that? Or is the existence of Israel "not open to discussion/debate"?
I await your response.
Daniel Marsden
reply to Daniel Marsden
Thank you for your documentation and clarification. It is quite true that Israel (and the US) refuse to use the term "genocide" to describe what happened to the Armenians, something which I deplore. However, although there are a few among those you quote who appear to deny that anything happened at all, most of them acknowledge that a "tragedy" or a "drama" did occur. I don’t mean to minimize the power of words — it really does matter whether one calls it a drama or a genocide — but there is, nonetheless, a difference between trying to minimize the magnitude of an event and denying that it occured at all. Most holocaust deniers that I know of are at the "denying that anything happened at all" end of the spectrum. However, more to the point, I suggest that you read Tuesday’s and Wednesday’s (Apr. 26 and 27) issues of Haaretz. On Tuesday, an article featuring an interview with a 100-yr. old survivor of the Armenian genocide (who lives in Israel) quoted Armenian historian George Hintilian as saying that the Armenian genocide survivors who were taken in by the small Armenian community in Israel had no special standing in Armenian society."The general feeling was that everyone had gone through this calamity and nobody’s special. I remember being surprised when I saw Israelis treat Holocaust survivors reverently." In the same article, Professor Yair Oron, (the author of the book you mention? – his name is spelled differently in Haaretz) - an Israeli historian who researches the Armenian genocide, comments on "the valuable time lost" as the first generation of survivors, "preoccupied with existential struggle," failed to recount their experiences to the second generation.The article notes that academic research on the genocide began only in the 1960’s. And in Wednesday’s paper, an op-ed piece by Yossi Sarid on genocide begins by describing his participation as an invited guest to the international conference marking the 90th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. He attended with three Israeli academics. He says, "The Israeli-Jewish position on their genocide is a matter of great worry for the Armenians, and also a source of hope. Worry, over the ongoing alienation by official Israel toward this terrible disaster, from which they have yet to recover, and hope, because of the signs being shown by the international Jewish community — and even among us — indicating strong reservations with the infamous statement made by Shimon Peres, in effect denying" the Armenian genocide. (emphasis mine) I quote these articles partly as examples of how complex issues of genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc., are even for those who are the victims, but more importantly to point out that two articles appeared sequentially on the topic, that the journalists writing the articles used the term "genocide" as well as quoting people who are concerned with the need to research, document and acknowledge this event as a genocide. The Israeli government may insist that Sarid’s views are his own and not those of the government, but Haaretz is a widely read, slightly left wing but hardly radical paper, which both reflects and influences the views of many Israeli citizens as well as some American Jews. And if Sarid is correct in his assessment, the stance of the Israeli government does not reflect the views of all, or even a majority of, its citizens.
I won’t even attempt to address your last paragraph. I simply don’t have time. I suggest that for a somewhat different perspective on that topic, you read Amos Oz’s memoir, "A Tale of Love and Darkness. What we’re talking about here are the narratives that people formulate to explain and understand their history, and (unfortunately in some cases) justify their actions. I believe that part of fighting against racism, etc., is to try to listen to and understand the narrative of each side and recognize how complex the issues are.
Steffi
My problem is not with whet
My problem is not with whether or not they acknowledge that something (sic) happened, but with the fact that they do not recognise that it was a GENOCIDE/HOLOCAUST. Would I get away if I say that it was a tragedy what the Jews went through but not a genocide/holocaust? I doubt it. But the majority of Jews do not realise that they will receive the same treatment that they dish out. Even then, though, there are not more than a few Armenians who deny the Jewish Holocaust. I for one have not heard of any.
There is no difference, in my books, between "revisionism" and "denialism" of a genocide. "Revisionism" aims at challenging the historical fact that there was a Jewish Holocaust. They do admit that Jews did suffer under Nazi rule. What they argue against, however, is the "claim" that it was a genocide/holocaust. Sound familiar?
As for what Mr. Hintilian is saying, that is not true of all Armenian communities. In New York, for example, survivors of the genocide are treated differently. Moreover, the fact that Armenian survivors never got the chance to be treated differently can be due to many factors, including economic depression (Armenians never received compensation) both in the diaspora and the war-torn and formerly-Soviet Armenia. Most survivors (and there are very few who are still alive), including my great-grandparents, had to work day and night to survive, after making it to Syria, Lebanon, and other areas. The Armenian diaspora back then was comparatively small, and while it did the best it could, it was not enough, and many Armenians had to struggle on their own. My family being one of them. To say that we do not respect our survivors is highly offensive. I am highly offended with that statement and your implication. Mr. Hintilian might want to take off his goggles and see the diasporan Armenian world outside of Jerusalem.
"Strong reservations" on the part of Jewish communities? Reservations? How is that enough? Would the Jewish communities simply say they have "reservations" about these statements had it been about the Jewish Holocaust? I do not for one second believe that. I would’ve expected that Jews would come out and protest alongside the Armenians. But no such thing has happened. I see more Chinese taking part in Armenian Genocide recognition protests and efforts than Jews.
Neither the so-called "left leaning" Ha’aretz nor Jerusalem Post had any long-standing article on the main page of their website. I would’ve expected that at least Ha’aretz would keep the article on the main page for a week, or at least keep a link to it in the appropriate section, but all links were removed an hour after the first article (not the one you mentioned) appeared. In fact, I e-mailed the editors of Ha’aretz about it, but received no reply. The article also did not appear in the search results on the website.
If it is true that the widely-read Ha’aretz expresses the views of many Israelis, why are those Israelis not on the streets protesting, joining their hands with Armenians in Jerusalem, and demanding that Israel take the moral rather than the political/immoral stand on this issue? Would those same Israelis have been silent if the Armenian Ambassador to Israel said something to the effect of "it was a tragedy what the Jews went through but not a genocide"? The moral ignorance of most Israelis and Jews when it comes to the suffering of non-Jews is undeniable. Even Auron mentions it in his book.
Daniel Marsden
my final words on this
Daniel:
1. I said nothing about Armenians not respecting their survivors. I quoted Mr. Hintilian, who in fact also did not say that Armenians did not respect their survivors. What he did say is that the genocide survivors had no special standing in the Armenian community, since almost everyone in the community had gone through that calamity. ("Calamity" was his word, by the way.) I am very sorry if I offended you with my "implications." In fact, I was trying to express my understanding of how difficult it is even for victims to come to grips with an event of this magnitude, a point which I believe Mr. Hintilian was also making.
2. The article from Tuesday’s Haaretz was on the front page as I received it (as an op-ed piece) and I had no trouble finding the other one.
3. You ask why Israelis are not taking to the streets to protest with the Armenians. Are you kidding? Any Israeli (or American Jew) with half a conscience who is going to take to the streets at this moment in time has other priorities for political activism and protests/demonstrations: e.g., the Occupation, the Israeli government’s immoral treatment of the Palestinians, the need for the government to negotiate with Abbas, the need to dismantle, not just Gaza but all, or at least most, of the settlements, the need to arrive at a fair and just solution for a Palestinian state…etc. etc. But of course, this only reflects how ethnocentric we Jews are – we only think of our own issues and hardly ever give a thought to other groups or to the claims of other ethnic minorities for justice. I’m sure you’ve heard the joke about the elephant and the Jewish problem. That’s us, all right!
4. I’m leaving the country in a few days for a lengthy trip and have no more time for what is becoming a rather fruitless exchange. Feel free to have the last word.
Steffi
Marsden’s flawed argument
I find several aspects of Marsden’s argument to be interesting & flawed. First, I completely embrace his feelings about the Armenian genocide and his interest in seeing more Jews (especially Israelis) embrace it as well. It is shameful that a people should feel that their own suffering might be diminished by fully recognizing the suffering of another people.
But for someone whose vision attains such clarity in discussing one aspect of racism to be so completely myopic when it comes to discussions of Jews & Hollywood is little short of astonishing. The statement "Jews control Hollywood" or "Jews use Hollywood to advance their political agenda" is ridiculous and not worthy of being in Marsden’s mouth or on his computer screen. We can argue about this till the cows come home & I know no one can persuade Marsden of the perniciousness of his views on this subject. That’s too bad.
Finally, Marsden does what some progressives unfortunately do. Andrew Schamess should be his ally (and actually is if he would stop to think about it) in this quest for Armenian justice. Instead, Marsden unloads all of his misplaced frustration on Schamess for the inadequacies of various Jewish responses to the Armenian genocide. It’s really unfortunate because Schamess agrees with his perspective far more than he disagrees.