Politics vs. Morality

[Nick_A]

I began a thread on another site but would like to include it on this site since it is an argument that will be coming up more and more as we push towards recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

Vern is on the road until Sept 8 and uses library computers. After that he said he would be willing to discuss this issue here as well. Since this is an essential argument hopefully we can find the best way to make our side the most understandable, Anyhow here is the discussion. If you want to jump in on the other discussion, PM me and I'll give you the addy.

Politics vs. Morality: The Armenian Genocide

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Dear Reader

Being part Armenian and having lost family to the Armenian Genocide, I've found myself in a very odd position. Legislation is currently being proposed to have the United States recognize the Armenian Genocide.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/...a_Genocide.php

Naturally I am in favor of such legislation, As of now neither the United States, Israel, or Turkey recognize the Armenian Genocide. Since Turkey was the cause of the Armenian Genocide, their denial is obvious. However with the United States, Israel, and certain Jewish groups in the United States, the resistance seems largely political with a little bit of "exclusivity" involved from the Israeli perspective described well in Yair Auron's book: "The Banality of Denial."

http://www.amazon.com/Banality-Denia.../dp/076580834X

From my perspective or from the perspective of any Armenian that has lost family to the Genocide, it is disappointing how Jewish groups that understand the holocaust so well, seem to turn on the Armenians for political reasons. I know how important it is psychologically for recognition for many Armenians just as it is important for recognition of the Jewish Holocaust to the Jewish community.

This has caused a division within the Jewish community over politics vs. morality. Two well respected Jewish men wrote an editorial for the LaTimes expresing disappointment with several Jewish groups.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...mment-opinions

Quote:
This is why it is troubling that some major Jewish organizations have lined up in support of Turkey's efforts to keep the U.S. Congress from recognizing the Armenian massacres as an act of genocide. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the American Jewish Committee (AJC), the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and B'nai B'rith International recently conveyed a letter from the Turkish Jewish community opposing a resolution recognizing the genocide.

The ADL and the JINSA also added their own statements of opposition, suggesting that the massacre of Armenians was a matter for historians, not legislators, to decide.


It has become personal between Jewish politicians:

http://www.graberforcongress.com/article.php?id=5

The ADL has become controversial in Watertown mass. and is now being condemned not only by Armenians but moral Jewish people as well. Consider this letter by a highly qualified Jewish doctor:

http://blogs.townonline.com/watertown/?p=4152

It does appear that a sharp divide is being drawn between the moral and political people of the Jewish community. This means of course that there are also many Jewish people in the middle. Their support for recognition of the Armenian Genocide will be meaningful. Their letters to their congressman would help for example. My question to you is how best to get their support? How do I and others convince them that morality must take precedence over politics? People of morality must stand up to these organizations. I haven't had much luck with my efforts. Yet I know that to make efforts is important. consider this last of the eight stages of genocide:

http://www.chomedeynews.ca/articles/...TCN150808.html

Quote:
Denial is the eighth stage that always follows a genocide. It is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres. The perpetrators of genocide dig up the mass graves, burn the bodies, try to cover up the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. They deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the victims. They block investigations of the crimes, and continue to govern until driven from power by force, when they flee into exile.


If people seriously want to stop genocide we must stand together against all genocides. But many still think that selective morality as with non-recognition of the Armenian genocide will not lead to future genocides. IMO this is both immoral and politically unwise.

I'd like your opinions on this as to how to vifify the moral necessity at the core of this controversy. It is a religious issue but my exxperiences have proven to me that most religious leaders do not want to touch it for fear of making waves. This is a very unpleasant topic but I believe a necessary one.
__________________

Simone Weil's fellow student, the feminist writer Simone de Beauvoir, wrote of Weil in her book Memoirs of a Dutiful Daughter:


Quote:
She intrigued me because of her great reputation for intelligence and her bizarre get-up; "A great famine had broken out in China, and I was told that when she heard the news she had wept: these tears compelled my respect much more than her gifts as a philosopher. I envied her having a heart that could beat right across the world. I managed to get near her one day. I don't know how the conversation got started; she declared in no uncertain tones that only one thing mattered in the world: the revolution which would feed all the starving people of the earth. I retorted, no less peremptorily, that the problem was not to make men happy, but to find the reason for their existence. She looked me up and down: 'It's easy to see you've never been hungry,' she snapped.


Unfortunately dear lady, you've been compelled by the absence of inner balls in men to try and compensate for this lack through your own efforts.

We find it so easy to talk about humanism, love, mutual respect etc., while feeling free to avoid facing the human condition. It does make Barry bonds more noteworthy than slaughtered Armenians

The Armenian genocide is a politically incorrect genocide which is why it is treated largely with either benign indifference or vile character assassination as seen recently in Barnes and Noble:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/03/news/armen.php

Of course there are the exceptions like those mentioned above including those of Yair Auron

http://armenianstudies.csufresno.edu...ber72/jews.htm

I guess I should be grateful that in comparison to the nasty ways I've been attacked in forums for bringing up this politically incorrect issue, benign neglect is preferable.

The one thing I've learned is the utter meaninglessness of the usual sugary talks of humanism and the like. When the chips are down and some balls are called for, unless it is a fashionable cause, there is nothing. This is not new. Calls for help from women being raped often go unanswered since people do not want to be involved. It is hard for me to understand how a woman after being raped would in the future pass by another being raped and walk by claiming it is between two people and none of her business. Yet this happens.

How people can know of these things like the Armenian Genocide and ignore its recognition is beyond me. Simone didn't need pictures to morally feel the obvious. Maybe we do.

http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.ph...enocide_Photos

But people get upset when exposed to politically incorrect facts. With the Holocaust or Darfur, it is easy to take a stand. It is politically correct to do so. People applaud each other's sensitiivity. With the Armenian Genocide it is not politically correct to do so and only the morally correct thing to do which makes it easier just to ignore it. This human attribute assures genocides will occur again regardless of all the politically correct platitudes. We lack the inner balls and inner morality to stand up to politics to deserve anything else.

Quote:
"Equality is the public recognition, effectively expressed in institutions and manners, of the principle that an equal degree of attention is due to the needs of all human beings." Simone Weil

Right again dear lady but since we lack your inner balls, equality will always only remain an ideal.

_________________

The unfortunate reality is that it's politics that's the tail wagging the dog. Israel, and Jews in general, well recognize the Armenian holocaust, but the difficulty is Turkey's and Israel's close ties to one another that go all the way back to WWII and Turkey's allowance of Jews fleeing the NAZI's to find refuge there. And those ties are still very strong. Israel well knows that if it calls what happened "genocide", that this will very much end any close relationship with Turkey, which refers to what happened as just another conflict (war) over territory.

Shalom,
Vern

____________

Yes Metis, that is the unfortunate reality. Politics is the dominant element at this point. Knowing the human condition of the "wretched man" as I do, hypocrisy and contradiction can only be considered normal. Still it is disappointing.

I've asked to speak to Rabbis in my area and have not found one yet willing to discuss it.

I can see politicians acting in this way but where are the Rabbis, the moral leaders? Where is the moral influence of the Torah. I'm no Jewish scholar but it is obvious that this non-recognition of the Armenian Genocide opposes the teaching of the Torah. Non-recognition simply means that the Armenian people are not human enough to have their Genocide recognized when opposed by political influences of the more important.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_....28gentiles.29

Quote:
Jews are strongly influenced by the exhortation, 'Remember the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt' (Deuteronomy 10:9), especially as this refers to the Exodus celebrated at Passover. Jews are expected to show hospitality to all, and to consider the needs and feelings of anyone who may be marginalized, for whatever reason. In biblical times, the slaves of Jewish people had special rights that preserved their dignity as equal human beings, allowed them freedoms, and forbade mistreatment.


So much for standing with the marginalized and concern for their needs and feelings.

Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University linked to above seems to be in the minority as a man of character. He is not afraid to reflect the Torah. He writes in part to Mr. Tarsey of the ADL:

http://blogs.townonline.com/watertown/?p=4152

Quote:
As a long-time ADL supporter, it is with great disappointment that I write you today to express my disgust with your organization’s refusal to publicly acknowledge the Armenian genocide, and in particular, your July 26 response to the recent controversy in Watertown, in which you refused to acknowledge the genocide, and instead, stated that the question of whether a genocide occurred: ” was one to be resolved between the two countries — Armenia and Turkey.”


Can you imagine if an organization gave a similar response to a question about whether a Holocaust occurred, killing 6 million Jews? Can you imagine what we would say if an organization refused to acknowledge that the Holocaust occurred, instead stating that this is an issue that needs to be resolved between Israel and Germany?


He is obviously a man of courage and moral character.

But where are all the other Jewish people that constantly show concern for the Holocaust and man's inhumanity to man? Do men like Dr. Siegel have to be in the minority?

If a man has a friend who has a daughter who is raped by another man who he is friendly with and they have some mutual business interests, does he look away or does he ask for the girl's sake to get the truth out?

For the sake of business one turns away. For the sake of the girl we stand with the girl and her need to feel worth and whole again. We ask our friend to admit what he did. Politics vs. morality; the ancient struggle. The moral leaders in this case apparently hide under the bed.

From what I've seen so far it seems there are far more political people than moral people which just means all this talk of mutual respect and world peace is a crock and primarily for the sake of appearance. Our collective hypocrisy would never allow it.

Just think how it would have been if Schindler were a man dominated by politics rather than capable of inner morality?
______________________

[Nick_A]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick_A
I can see politicians acting in this way but where are the Rabbis, the moral leaders? Where is the moral influence of the Torah. I'm no Jewish scholar but it is obvious that this non-recognition of the Armenian Genocide opposes the teaching of the Torah. Non-recognition simply means that the Armenian people are not human enough to have their Genocide recognized when opposed by political influences of the more important... But where are all the other Jewish people that constantly show concern for the Holocaust and man's inhumanity to man? Do men like Dr. Siegel have to be in the minority?


First of all, remember that Israel is a country that is mostly secular in regards to its leadership. The Armenian holocaust happened and we'd be hard put to find any educated Jew that would deny that, so the issue is not one of denial. Israel has only one friendly government in the entire Middle East and that is Turkey. If Israel would declare Turkey guilty of genocide that friendly relationship would end in a second, demonstrations and possibly riots in Turkey probably would occur, and Israel could become threated. Please realize that I am not exaggerating the situation.

So what's to be gained by stating the obvious? Each country has a responsibility to protect its citizens, and for Israel to publicly humiliate Turkey over an event that took place almost a century ago would only create conflict and problems. In other words, Israel is caught in a Catch 22.

But Israel is not the only country caught as such. If the U.S. were to denounce Turkey and its invovlement in the Armenian genocide, Turkey's relationship with the U.S. would become so cold that some believe that Turkey may opt to withdraw from NATO. On top of this, Islamic militants would be use this as another excuse to show how the west (and Israel) are anti-Muslem, and that message would resonate with even many moderates as we've seen in the past.

So I very much agree with your concern, but please also realize that each country, including Armenia, generally does what's best for its own people. For Israel and the States to put their own populations at risk is probably asking too much, at least at this time.

From a religious perspective, what Israel and the States have not done is to violate halacha or Christian teachings. It's not lying, but instead is an ignoring of the truth, which is not the same. How would you feel if by acknowledging the well-known truth that this lead to the death of possibly hundreds or even thousands of innocent people? It seems to me that this would then be the greater sin.

As one who's been married for over 40 years, I can tell you from first-hand experience that being honestly blunt may at times backfire.

Shalom,
Vern

________________

Vern

I question the value of friendships maintained in part on acceptance of genocide or the intended destruction of a race of people. Your argument is the classic argument for appeasement defined as "the policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles."

In this case of course it is not armed resistance but moral resistance and an increased sacrifice of principles. Do we stand up to the bully or roll over for him?


Quote:
From a religious perspective, what Israel and the States have not done is to violate halacha or Christian teachings. It's not lying, but instead is an ignoring of the truth, which is not the same. How would you feel if by acknowledging the well-known truth that this lead to the death of possibly hundreds or even thousands of innocent people? It seems to me that this would then be the greater sin.


Yes, this is the great fallacy of all this modern secular talk of ethics and mutual respect acquired through the intellect. It is not lying but just not recognizing the human condition and "ignoring the truth." We accept ignoring genocide as a matter of convenience.

You say that standing up to a bully means the death of possibly thousands. I assert that by not standing up to the bullies and acknowledging all genocides for what they are will lead to the deaths of many more thousands.

There is a Christian teaching to love thy neighbor as well as the message of the good Samaritan. They are truths that are ignored except when being expressed in empty platitudes.. Politics will walk on by and ignore the situation. It is only the inspsiration of men of courage and moral character like Dr. Siegel that appreciate the value of these religious teachings that morality can dominate politics.. It is just a shame that there are apparently so few of them.
____________________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick_A
Your argument is the classic argument for appeasement defined as "the policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles.".


We're dealing with history and not with current armed aggression, so there's definitely a difference, and I certainly would not advocate that any group play dead when attacked. The main purpose of history is to learn from it, but we cannot undo that which was done. The vast majority of countries, whereas many of their own people contributed to the Jewish Holocaust, have never apologized, with Germany being more the exception than the rule.



Quote:
In this case of course it is not armed resistance but moral resistance and an increased sacrifice of principles. Do we stand up to the bully or roll over for him?


History is history, and one has to look at the consequences of any actions or statements today. The vast majority of educated people today are well aware of the Armenian holocaust, which I also covered in my classes btw.



Quote:
Yes, this is the great fallacy of all this modern secular talk of ethics and mutual respect acquired through the intellect. It is not lying but just not recognizing the human condition and "ignoring the truth." We accept ignoring genocide as a matter of convenience.


Is not an "ignoring" the truth as I stated above, nor is it a matter of "ignoring" genocide even today. The Jewish community in general has been very upset over contemporary genocides. My synagog supported 6 families from Kosovo, all Muslems, fleeing genocide there. Jewish Federation flew a great many families from Kosovo, mostly Muslem, to the States, Israel, and other locations. The genocide in Darfur has been a great concern to us and we have been doing something about it.



Quote:
You say that standing up to a bully means the death of possibly thousands. I assert that by not standing up to the bullies and acknowledging all genocides for what they are will lead to the deaths of many more thousands.


Again, history is history. A legal recognition of the Armenian holocaust does not relate to dealing with genocide today. We cannot put up the perpetrators of the Armenian holocaust on trial today. Demanding a legal recognition would only create more problems for the U.S. and Israel and lead to more hatred and deaths, and most would probably be innocent men, women, and children.



Quote:
There is a Christian teaching to love thy neighbor as well as the message of the good Samaritan. They are truths that are ignored except when being expressed in empty platitudes.


I taught Christian theology for 14 years, so I know well what the story of the Good Samaritan implies. But a Good Samaritan needs to put people ahead of words. If I run across someone whom I think is ugly, do I need to say to him publicly "You're ugly!"? It might be honesty, but look at the problems this honesty might create.

Governments have a responsibility to their own people, and this is as true with Armenia as it is with Israel and the U.S. What we say has its consequences, and sometimes we learn in life that what we may want to say, even though it may be the truth, is better off not being said. You've done as such I'm sure, as I have as well. Sometimes we just have to hold back our opinions, even though it's truly unfortunate that it is this way.

Let me give you one quick example. Let's say that you were living in NAZI Germany and were hiding a Gypsy family from certain incarceration and probable death. There's a knock on the door, and you are eyeball to eyeball with the Gestapo, and they ask you if you're hiding someone as has been rumored. What are you going to say? Going to tell them the truth and have them come a take these victims even though you feel that the Gestapo probably would not find them otherwise? Do you elevate your telling the truth over their lives?

Shalom,
Vern
______________________

Metis


Quote:
We're dealing with history and not with current armed aggression, so there's definitely a difference, and I certainly would not advocate that any group play dead when attacked. The main purpose of history is to learn from it, but we cannot undo that which was done. The vast majority of countries, whereas many of their own people contributed to the Jewish Holocaust, have never apologized, with Germany being more the exception than the rule.


We've learned from history that selective morality is the way of the world. Any government desiring to commit genocide knows it has the possibility of success by making it politically correct through selective morality. The Armenian Genocide has become a politically incorrect genocide because of political and egotistical considerations so it is not recognized as genocide.

Germany instigated the Jewish Holocaust and apologized for it. While it is true that others got their licks in, it wasn't the govt aim to destroy a race. The aim of Turkey was the destruction of a race. You don't believe it is worth some risk to have it recognized for the sake of future history? We disagree since I believe genocide is a crime against humanity that must be recognized or its time to throw in the towel.


Quote:
noIs not an "ignoring" the truth as I stated above, nor is it a matter of "ignoring" gcide even today. The Jewish community in general has been very upset over contemporary genocides. My synagog supported 6 families from Kosovo, all Muslems, fleeing genocide there. Jewish Federation flew a great many families from Kosovo, mostly Muslem, to the States, Israel, and other locations. The genocide in Darfur has been a great concern to us and we have been doing something about it.


All this really means is that the Jewish community adheres to a policy of selective morality and defends against politically correct genocides. The Armenian Genocide has become as politically incorrect genocide and worthy to be ignored for both political and egotistical considerations.


Quote:
Again, history is history. A legal recognition of the Armenian holocaust does not relate to dealing with genocide today. We cannot put up the perpetrators of the Armenian holocaust on trial today. Demanding a legal recognition would only create more problems for the U.S. and Israel and lead to more hatred and deaths, and most would probably be innocent men, women, and children.


I disagree. Though not dealing with today, this policy of selective morality insures genocides will repeat.


Quote:
Governments have a responsibility to their own people, and this is as true with Armenia as it is with Israel and the U.S. What we say has its consequences, and sometimes we learn in life that what we may want to say, even though it may be the truth, is better off not being said. You've done as such I'm sure, as I have as well. Sometimes we just have to hold back our opinions, even though it's truly unfortunate that it is this way


This is why I am now going to the people directly and ask for their support. I cannot expect any ethics from Rabbis or business people including organizations previously mentioned. All this talk of racial unification is a crock. As soon as the chips are down, we are only concerned with out own. But there are the individuals. I wish people would finally admit it and stop these naive platitudes. There are the Dr. Siegels and Yair Aurons of the world and many decent Jewish people that find this acceptance of selective morality as it pertains to genocides regardless of politics as repugnant a I do.

I have not found one Rabbi that will talk to me as to the Jewish policy of non-recognition. What does that say?
____________________________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick_A
Germany instigated the Jewish Holocaust and apologized for it. While it is true that others got their licks in, it wasn't the govt aim to destroy a race.?


I will deal with this issue one final time because you are not addressing the main questions that I asked you. I will close again with one main question.

As to the above, there were some leaders who agree with the extermination of Jews, such as what was found in Austria, Vichy France, Estonia, and with the puppet regime in Hungary. Hitler, in his final public speach, stated that his main legacy was to eliminate the Jews completely world-wide and that he hoped other world leaders would recognize that he was right all along.



Quote:
The aim of Turkey was the destruction of a race. You don't believe it is worth some risk to have it recognized for the sake of future history? We disagree since I believe genocide is a crime against humanity that must be recognized or its time to throw in the towel.?


It is recognized but, as I stated previously, a legal recognition by the Israeli and American governments would create tremendous problems, and this is not an exaggeration.



Quote:
All this really means is that the Jewish community adheres to a policy of selective morality and defends against politically correct genocides. The Armenian Genocide has become as politically incorrect genocide and worthy to be ignored for both political and egotistical considerations.?


The "Jewish community" is hardly monolithic on any issue. Can you quote any Jewish leader who has categorically stated that the Armenian genocide never occurred? And as far as being "politically correct", that is actually more of a problem with your position as I'll focus on later in this post.



Quote:
This is why I am now going to the people directly and ask for their support. I cannot expect any ethics from Rabbis or business people including organizations previously mentioned.?


I find your statement that you "cannot expect any ethics from rabbis..." to be rather telling, but I tend to think that it may be more telling about you than about them.



Quote:
I wish people would finally admit it and stop these naive platitudes. There are the Dr. Siegels and Yair Aurons of the world and many decent Jewish people that find this acceptance of selective morality as it pertains to genocides regardless of politics as repugnant a I do.?


So I'm suppose that I'm indecent since I don't want to see innocent people killed and an increase in more instability in that area of the world?



Quote:
I have not found one Rabbi that will talk to me as to the Jewish policy of non-recognition. What does that say?


I've never known any rabbi who has been reluctant to speak out on moral issues even when it was not "politically correct". It's quite possible that their silence is their answer.

But let me finish this post with my reoccurring question: which is more important to you: politically correct words or the lives of innocent people? If you answer that the former is, then you and I will never agree. If you agree that the latter is, then you and I may eventually agree. So which will it be? And maybe you can answer the last question in my last post instead of avoiding it?

Shalom,
Vern
_________________________

[Nick_A]

Because of a time problem, I'll have to be brief.

A legal statement from both Israel and the U.S. that would essentially denounce Turkish (Ottoman) involvement in the Armenian genocide and would create major problems.

First of all, one has to remember that Turkey is both an ally of the U.S. and a friend, of sorts, to Israel. One also should be aware of the fact that the Turkish government is secular and pro-western, but also that the government has been under seige by both Islamists, who want sharia, and by Kurds, some of whom have used terrorist tactics against the Turks. The Turks are not Arabs and there's quite a bit of anymosity against them for this and some other reasons.

For Israel and the U.S. to formally denounce Turkey, which is the way it would be interpreted there, would most likely cause mass demonstrations and probably rioting. The government would then find themselves in a bind. They would either have to denounce both Israel and the U.S. or they would have to stand the chance of being kicked out of power, probably being replaced by more militant anti-western Islamists such as what we saw in Algeria, the Gaza Strip, and almost in the last election in Turkey itself.

If the Turkish government did the former, Turkey probably would withdraw from NATO and begin to ally itself with most of the Arab states that are more anti-western. The U.S. would loose a strategic ally and gain another foe in an area where we certainly don't need any more of. On top of that, Turkey's wealth, both in terms of money and resources, could then be used against us. Israel also would gain another enemy that probably would be bent on Israel's destruction.

If the government took the approach of not breaking with the U.S. and NATO, this would certainly energize not only the more militant factions there, but also many moderates who would be insulted by this American and Israeli slap in the face. It literally could stand the chance of throwing Turkey into a civil war or leading to a democratical election that would probably move to cut relations with NATO (probably the latter would occur imo).

Either way, the loss would be tremendous, and we're talking about people's lives here, and not just a few. Just consider what happened when a Danish newspaper published a satirical picture of Mohammed in a cartoon. Not only would a U.S. and Israeli public recognition of the obvious genocide result in a slap in the face against Turkey, it also would be probably considered a slap in the face against Islam in general.

These are just a couple of the possible scenarios that could occur. Is it really worth going in the direction of being bluntly honest even though it may mean the killing and murder of possibly a great many innocents? Is it worth creating another firestorm in that area of the world?

I certainly sympathize with the Armenians as I believe most Jews do, but there has to be an awareness of the conseuences of our actions. For the U.S. and Israel to make a politically correct point could lead to problems that neither of us may be able to even imagine. The loss of Turkey as an ally would be catastrophic.

Shalom,
Vern
___________________________

Vern


Quote:
The "Jewish community" is hardly monolithic on any issue. Can you quote any Jewish leader who has categorically stated that the Armenian genocide never occurred? And as far as being "politically correct", that is actually more of a problem with your position as I'll focus on later in this post.


These leaders claim the debate to be a personal; matter between Turkey and Armenia. so don't take a stand. Yair Auron calls this "banal indifference" and is disappointed with it. So am I.


Quote:
I find your statement that you "cannot expect any ethics from rabbis..." to be rather telling, but I tend to think that it may be more telling about you than about them.



But that means it is also about the authors of the following:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...mment-opinions

These authors are: Daniel Sokatch and David N. Myers. DANIEL SOKATCH is executive director of the Progressive Jewish Alliance. DAVID N. MYERS teaches Jewish history at UCLA.

Will you say that they are anti Jewish because they side with the Armenians. They conclude with:


Quote:
Nobody is suggesting that Jews forget Turkey's historic friendship. But it is a mistake for Jews — or, for that matter, anyone — to surrender the moral imperative of condemning genocide in the hopes of avoiding a perceived, but by no means necessary, strategic loss. Similarly, it would be a mistake for Turkey to hinge its own strategic interests on the denial of past criminal acts. Coming to terms with the past, as democratic Germany has done in the aftermath of the Holocaust and South Africa in the wake of apartheid, is the best path to political legitimacy.

Turkey, a trusted ally and friend of the Jews and the United States, must come to terms with its past for its own sake. It is that battle that leading Turkish intellectuals, including Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk and martyred Armenian activist Hrant Dink, have been waging so nobly. We should do all in our power to strengthen the hands of these figures and avoid the abyss of historical revisionism.

Sixty years (and millions of historical documents) later, the world still has to contend with those who deny the Holocaust. We need only recall the shocking words and deeds of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on this score.

In response to such denials, all decent-minded people, and Jews in particular, must continue to declare loudly "never again" — not only to future genocides but also to the attempted denial of past genocides, regardless of who the perpetrators or victims are.


They refer to the decent minded as well. You may think me biased but how do you answer them? They are as Jewish as you are. Perhaps they are aware of something you may be missing.


Quote:
So I'm suppose that I'm indecent since I don't want to see innocent people killed and an increase in more instability in that area of the world?



You took this wrong. By decent people I mean those with the courage to stand up to the previously mentioned Jewish organizations and express moral courage the rabbis do not seem to have. This is not to say that a regular person like you with an intellectual position or one who blindly follows the rabbis and Jewish organizations is indecent. I am suggesting that it is true decent moral character that gives the person the courage to do what is necessary in defiance of those around him.

Say you and I arranged an outing with a barbeque and games including 20 Jewish kids and 20 Armenian kids known to have suffered losses to their respective genocides.. At the conclusion a film were shown including slides of the attrocities during the jewish Holocaust and the Armenian genocide. Then we ask the kids if we should stand up to genocides or only the politically correct ones decided through selective morality. Would they side with their new friends or be like the current moral leaders and hide under the table?


Quote:
But let me finish this post with my reoccurring question: which is more important to you: politically correct words or the lives of innocent people? If you answer that the former is, then you and I will never agree. If you agree that the latter is, then you and I may eventually agree. So which will it be? And maybe you can answer the last question in my last post instead of avoiding it?


I don't know how else to answer. I firmly believe that unless we stand together in defiance of all genocides regardless of political and personal considerations, they will repeat. This idea of selective morality assures they will repeat

In addition This policy of non recognition causes the same pain to the Armenian people as it would to the Jewish people if all of a sudden we announce that we've made peace with Iran leading to saving many lives by not recognizing the Jewish Holocaust but now rather attribute the deaths to the normal results of war.

Taken together it seems ludicrous to me to assume that lives will be saved in the long run by minimizing one race of people while appeasing another. Such a combination of callous attitudes only assures the next genocide.