Announcement

**Joseph** · 04-26-2007, 05:06 AM

OP-ED: GW'S SHAMEFUL AFFILIATIONS
By Alison Tahmizian Meuse

Daily Colonial, DC
George Washington University
April 25 2007

Have you ever wondered what goes on behind the scenes at GW? Have
you ever taken the time to look into our university's political and
financial commitments? Well I have, and I am distressed to report
that the hands of our administration are filthy.

My individual awareness to such matters began when it came to the
attention of the Armenian Students Network that GW holds a membership
in the American Turkish Council (ATC). While the ATC has many positive
goals in regards to promoting Turkish interests in the US, one of its
more touchy objectives is to block the Armenian Genocide resolution
in the United States Congress. As an Armenian whose grandparents
were forced to flee Turkey in the face of systematic massacres
and deportations, it was rather revolting to discover that my own
university is a party to such an objective. President Trachtenberg is
to be commended for his straightforward affirmation of the genocide;
nevertheless, the university's affiliation with the ATC derogates his
individual candor. By attaching the university's name to such a lobby,
the GW administration is implicitly agreeing with all of the policies
and viewpoints adopted by that council. I encourage all students,
campus organizations, and faculty members to further investigate the
broader issue at hand. There is no doubt that the ATC is simply one
lobby group among many supported by our university.

Living in our nation's capital has shown me the sway that Turkish
lobby groups exert in America. Indeed, it is groups like the ATC that
keep the Armenian Genocide out of our textbooks, despite the fact
that it was not the current Turkish government which perpetrated the
massacres. Even on April 24, when Armenians from around the world
gather to remember the deaths of loved ones, the Turks mobilize to
protest our commemoration observances. And they have that right. We
are all blessed to live in a country that permits free speech; a free
land where journalists do not fear for their lives and intellectuals
are not jailed for insulting the state. We do not have a penal code
whereby individuals are imprisoned for insulting "Americanness,"
as is the case in Turkey.

I was not compelled to write this article because I am against
Turkey. I have a dear friend who is Turkish, and I am in favor of
Turkey's ascension to the European Union - an ongoing process that
is reforming both the government and society as a whole. Perhaps the
Turkish government will never accept the term "genocide" to describe
the events of the early twentieth century, but that seems unlikely
given that both the European Parliament and the Council of Europe
recognized the Armenian genocide years ago. The obstruction of genocide
recognition in the United States cannot be attributed to a historical
quandary on the veracity of the event; rather, it is a political
dilemma. Turkey is a crucial ally in the region; the combination of
its NATO membership, useful military bases, and positive relationship
with Israel has long forced our government to skirt the issue.

The author, a sophomore in the Elliott School, is an intern at the
Embassy of Jordan and Social Coordinator of the International Affairs
Society.

Editor's Note: The article this story references can be found here.

Object not found!

http://www.dailycolonial.com/go.dc?p=3&s=4231

Object not found!

http://www.dailycolonial.com/go.dc?p=3&s=4276

**bell-the-cat** · 04-26-2007, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Joseph View Post

TURKEY IS WASHINGTON'S PUREST TEST OF REALISM V. IDEALISM.
by Christopher Beam

When has Washington ever acted out of either "realism" or "idealism"?

It acts out of self-interest! And in the case of the Bush regime, that self-interest has invariably just been the self-interest of the select few.

**Joseph** · 04-27-2007, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by bell-the-cat View Post

When has Washington ever acted out of either "realism" or "idealism"?

It acts out of self-interest! And in the case of the Bush regime, that self-interest has invariably just been the self-interest of the select few.

Absolutely. I believe the first article was calling out the government's odious habit of favoring realism/self-interest yet again.

**Joseph** · 04-27-2007, 06:20 AM

Page not found - Jewish Exponent

http://www.jewishexponent.com/article/12814/

Choosing Allies Over Principles

Congressional fight over Turkish genocide of Armenians puts Jews in a difficult spot
April 26, 2007

If you had the choice between telling the truth about 20th-century genocide -- and thereby alienating a contemporary strategic ally of the United States and Israel -- or ignoring or downplaying the genocide and keeping the ally happy, which would you do?
Is this just an interesting hypothetical for grad students in ethics or philosophy to chew on?

No. It is a real-life question that must be answered not only by American lawmakers, but by Jewish organizations that are simultaneously pledged to promote both the strategic interests of both the the U.S.-Israel alliance, as well as speak out on issues of human rights.

A Faithful Ally
The dilemma concerns the history of Turkey, a nation that has in recent decades assumed tremendous importance in the Middle East.

Turkey is a NATO ally that faithfully stood by the United States during the Cold War, even sending troops to fight alongside ours in Korea. It was also the first Islamic country in the region to recognize the State of Israel.

More than that, its defense establishment has ties with the Israel Defense Force, and the two nations form an informal, loose-alliance of non-Arab states with a mutual interest in resisting the rise not only of Islamist terror, but the malevolent influence of rogue states like Syria and Iran.

That's due primarily to the influence of Kemal Attaturk, who led the Turkish state that emerged from the ruin of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. Attaturk created a modern Turkish nationalism based on strict secularism.

Relations between Israel and Turkey have cooled a bit in recent years due to the election triumphs of Turkish Islamists who sought to distance Ankara from Jerusalem. And in the aftermath of the country's refusal to participate in the 2003 invasion of Iraq and their embrace last year of a Palestinian Hamas terrorists, they can no longer be termed reliable.

But even pessimists about the future of Turkey understand its crucial role as a firewall against jihadists. Turkey's military -- the most powerful force in its society -- is still an effective check on the Islamists, and has participated in joint military exercises with the Israelis.

But it does have one sensitive point that poses a problem. It refuses to own up to the crimes committed by Ottoman forces against ethnic Armenians during World War I.

Though the Turks like to act as if this episode is a great historical mystery that defies explanation, the truth is relatively simple. During the First World War, the Ottoman Turks fought the Russians. Caught in the middle were Christian Armenians, who were despised as dhimmi sympathizers with the foreign enemy. After a series of military reverses, the so-called "Young Turk" government in Istanbul ordered mass deportations of Armenians from parts of Anatolia. From 1915-17, as many as 1 million Armenians died as result of the attending hardships, as well as atrocities on the part of Turkish troops.

It was the first modern genocide, and the fact that the perpetrators were never held accountable is often cited as a reason why the Nazis thought they could get away with trying to exterminate the Jews.

But since their modern state came into being fighting for the hegemony of Turkish ethnicity over the large non-Turkish enclaves inside their country, the notion of owning up to the truth about that era has always been anathema to the Turks. To this day, their government denies that the deaths of Armenians were the result of a concerted plan, and claim that it should only be understood in the context of a war in which casualties were experienced by both sides.

The Turks would do better to acknowledge what happened and move on. But living as they do with ongoing conflicts over land and identity with Cypriot Greeks and Kurds, they cling to their policy of stonewalling the Armenians and demand that their allies back them up.

For almost a century, Armenians have sought to keep the memory of their suffering alive. That's the point of a congressional resolution on the question set to be passed by the House of Representatives that will recognize the atrocities against the Armenians as "genocide."

You would think that a Jewish community that has expended so much effort not only to enshrine the memory of the Holocaust but to ensure that it serve as an example to warn against crimes against others would be aligned with the Armenians, but that's not entirely correct.

Truth or Survival?
Though many Jews support the genocide resolution, some of the biggest Jewish communal players, such as the Anti-Defamation League and the Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs (which has worked for years to build support for the Israel-Turkey alliance), are not. ADL head Abe Foxman told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that "the Jewish community shouldn't be the arbiter of that history, nor should the U.S. Congress."

How do we balance the need to support historical truth against the strategic imperative of the present?

The answer is that we can't.

No one should expect Jews, of all people, to lie about mass murder. The Turkish policy of official historical revisionism is as absurd as it is counterproductive. The Turks' stand on the Armenians only harms their international standing and efforts to integrate with the West. But their realpolitik apologists have one point worth considering.

Given the current state of the Middle East and the West's ongoing battle against the jihadists, is this really the best moment for us to be pressing the Turks about their past?

In theory, a victory for historic truth ought to serve as insurance for Jews and any other people who have faced annihilation and may yet again. Moralists may be right to pose this question as one of absolutes, but in wartime, you can't always pick and choose your allies. Would it be worth it to damage an alliance with Turkey just to make a point about the truth of Armenian suffering? That might makes us feel righteous, but if it leads to more deaths in the future, would it be right?

Will an Armenian genocide resolution help us defend Israel against the threat of, say, an Iranian attempt at nuclear genocide better than a friendly Turkey? Some might believe that to be true. But can anyone who cares about the possibility of another mass murder of a non-Muslim population in the Middle East be indifferent to the possibility that it won't?

Contact Jonathan S. Tobin via e-mail at: jtobin@jewishexponent. com.

See more articles in: A Matter of Opinion

**Joseph** · 04-27-2007, 06:25 AM

America's apathy over the Armenian genocide stems from a desire to appease it's ally, Turkey.

By Robert Deranian, Ph.D.
Genocide Commemoration Committee of San Diego Member

April 26, 2007 � Most would agree that America's role in the world is, of late, a bit in doubt. Our young men and women are sacrificing their lives, and we believe, or at least hope, for good reasons.

Is it just about oil prices or even to protect America from terrorism?

Not quite.

There is something more, having to do with moral standing, that is vitally important to America. Those of contrary opinion say that such thinking is of little practical value and could even be detrimental to America's foreign interests. This is in fact just the point of contention.

What is best for America's interests is not always the immediate indulgence of self-interest but rather the implications of moral standard, what some call the high moral ground. Why is this important? America today faces threats from those who choose terror. They believe they are right, and by implication, America is wrong. Their frequent argument is that America makes the wrong moral choices, that we do not stand for what is right.

Do we have examples that prove the contrary?

One clear example of such a choice involves an issue that many have tried to keep under the radar for 92 years, the Armenian genocide. At first glance, the Armenian genocide seems to be just such an issue that is not important to America's self-interest and should therefore be dismissed without further notice. However, much to the dismay of those trying to keep the issue hidden, the Armenian genocide will just not go away.

Why?

To answer this question, go back to the time of World War I. The year is 1915, and the Ottoman Turkish Empire is fighting alongside Germany and Austria-Hungary and against Britain and its allies, including the United States in the later years of the war. Taking advantage of the chaos and confusion of the war, the Ottoman government decided to settle a long-standing problem occurring within its borders known in those days throughout the world as the "Armenian Question."

It included human rights violations against the Armenians, a Christian minority within the Islamic majority of the Ottoman Turkish Empire. The method employed to settle the problem was a mass extermination of Armenian people - an Armenian genocide. Initiated on April 24, 1915, the Armenian genocide was implemented through forced march, burning of towns, starvation, rape and outright massacre.

So brutal were the events, with estimates of 1.5 million Armenians killed, that despite the ongoing war, the world at large was horrified and demanded the perpetrators be brought to justice. At the forefront of this demand for justice was America, as personified by then-former President Theodore Roosevelt, calling what happened to the Armenians the worst crime of the war.

With such a clear acknowledgment of what happened to the Armenian people, official recognition of the Armenian genocide seems to be the right choice. However, Turkey categorically denies that a genocide ever took place, even paying high-priced U.S. lobbyists to work fervently at denying the Armenian genocide. That Turkey receives significant foreign aid from the United States and so essentially pays for such lobbying through U.S. taxpayer money is sadly ironic and perhaps not so surprising.

What is, however, surprising is the debate about recognition of the Armenian genocide that rages every year in the U.S. government. For those who oppose recognition, it's about not offending Turkey, a country of geopolitical significance.

The logic goes that the United States cannot risk offending Turkey by recognizing the Armenian genocide. Those favoring recognition counter this argument by saying that the Cold War is over, and that Turkey performed poorly as a U.S. ally during the initial stages of the current Iraq war.

While Turkey's geopolitical significance is debatable, what should not be debatable is America's position on issues of moral justice. From its beginnings, America has strived for the ideal that there is something more than just self-interest, something that makes the world a better place - the existence of a high moral ground.

Are we now to dismiss this high moral ground for reasons of short-term self-interest? This is the central question of debate within the U.S. government when it comes to recognizing the Armenian genocide. Case in point: Currently, there are resolutions making their way through both houses of Congress that would recognize the Armenian genocide.

In response, Turkey has sent some of its top government and military leaders to persuade the U.S. Congress otherwise. Their efforts seem not to be wasted as was well demonstrated by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent congressional testimony. The following is an exchange of that testimony between Congressman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Rice.

SCHIFF: Is there any historic debate outside of Turkey? Is there any reputable historian you're aware of that takes issue with the fact that the murder of 1.5 million Armenians constituted genocide?

RICE: Congressman, I come out of academia, but I'm secretary of state now and I think that the best way to have this proceed is for the United States not to be in the position of making this judgment, but rather for the Turks and the Armenians to come to their own terms about this.

Rice completely dodges the very straightforward question concerning the historic reality of the Armenian genocide by asserting that the United States is not in the position to pass judgment. Put another way, the United States should not make judgments about issues of moral justice.

What are the consequences of the United States not making these kinds of judgments? In Turkey at least, the lack of a strong message from America about the Armenian genocide emboldens those who would deny its existence, to the point of passing laws that make it illegal to say there was an Armenian genocide. This has resulted in trials and, in some cases, imprisonment of leading Turkish intellectuals, including Nobel laureate writer Orhan Pamuk. Sadly this law also resulted in the rousing of a 17-year-old Turkish boy to murder Hrant Dink, a Turkish Armenian journalist dedicated to reconciliation between Turks and Armenians.

Making a judgment about moral issues like this one is rarely without cost. Throughout its history, America has had to make such choices.

These choices are not without consequence, as exemplified by the firing of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia John Evans for just using the word "genocide" to describe what happened to the Armenians. This man's career was essentially ended because he made a stand to say what was right, to take the high moral ground. Without this high moral ground, can we as Americans claim that we are any different than our enemies, except that we have bigger guns?

America's very credibility is on the line. It's our choice.

**Gavur** · 05-16-2007, 01:09 PM

�Never Again� Means For Everyone

By Mitchell Plitnick
Cross-posted at The Third Way, JVP�s policy analysis blog.

MuzzleWatch | Tracking efforts to stifle open debate about US-Israeli foreign policy.

http://www.muzzlewatch.com/?p=184

In one of the most bizarre and appalling developments here in the US, a number of Jewish groups are pressing Congress not to recognize the Armenian genocide of the early 20th century. They are opposing bills in both the House and Senate that would formally recognize it.

It�s hard to imagine the cynicism and hypocrisy that this act embodies. Of all people, we Jews have, rightly, pushed the world to acknowledge horrific acts of genocide, to mark them, try to prevent them and to raise our voices loudly in the cry of �Never Again.�

The four Jewish groups that presented the case to Congress, on behalf of the Turkish Jewish community, were the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), B�Nai Brith, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the American Jewish Committee (AJC).

That JINSA would engage in this is not surprising. A Jewish group in name only, JINSA is a right-wing propaganda machine that has pushed the worst excesses of both the Bush Administration and the Israeli right for years, with no regard for human rights or the welfare of innocents, in Israel or elsewhere. Of the other three groups, it is fair to expect much better than this.

The groups are concerned about Turkey�s standing in world opinion, but frankly the concern is overblown. Outside of Turkey, few believe that the massacre of Armenians during the reign of the Young Turks as the Ottoman Empire was crumbling under the weight of World War I was not a genocide. Official declarations of genocide have been made by most European countries, 40 out of the 50 United States of America, Russia and many other countries. Those that have not made formal recognition have often made it clear that politics, rather than a true disagreement with the characterization, has been the reason. Germany, for instance, passed a resolution that �honors and commemorates the victims of violence, murder and expulsion among the Armenian people before and during the First World War�. The German resolution mentions that �many independent historians, parliaments and international organizations describe the expulsion and annihilation of the Armenians as genocide.�

Iran does not formally recognize the Armenian genocide, but in 2004, their president, Mohammed Khatami, visited a memorial to the genocide. And so on.

Israel does not recognize the Armenian genocide and this has occasionally caused controversy in Israeli society. Again, few Israelis would deny the genocide, but Turkey is one of Israel�s few allies, and a Muslim country at that, so they are not willing to rock the boat.

These are the considerations, of course, that motivate American Jewish groups to oppose Congressional recognition of the Armenian genocide. And they are, plain and simple, the wrong considerations.

It�s objectionable enough that Israel, the Jewish State, downplays and withholds recognition of the Armenian genocide. But in Israel�s case, they are an embattled country with few true allies, and Turkey is not only one of them, it is the only full ally of Israel in the region and in the Muslim world. That doesn�t excuse Israel�s stance, but the circumstances at least provide a rationale, and one that is understandable if not acceptable.

But the US has no such concern. It�s not like Turkey can afford to rend its relationship with the United States over a Congressional declaration that would change little, as most of the US already recognizes the genocide. And it is even less a concern for American Jews, who should be the first to hold this principle above all others.

The hypocrisy becomes even clearer when we examine a separate statement by the ADL and JINSA where they state that legislators should not take a position on such matters.

One has to ask, would the ADL stake out the same position on the Shoah? Does it matter to them that they just provided an argument to Holocaust-deniers? Or did they not even bother to think it through that far?

In any case, it is worth noting that many Jewish groups do not share this stance and that many of the proposed bill to recognize the Armenian genocide are Jewish. The Progressive Jewish Alliance, in fact, published an op-ed in the LA Times decrying the actions of these four groups.

As Jews, we rightly say �Never Again.� But what does the phrase mean if it doesn�t apply to everyone?

**Gavur** · 05-16-2007, 01:09 PM

�Never Again� Means For Everyone

By Mitchell Plitnick
Cross-posted at The Third Way, JVP�s policy analysis blog.

MuzzleWatch | Tracking efforts to stifle open debate about US-Israeli foreign policy.

http://www.muzzlewatch.com/?p=184

In one of the most bizarre and appalling developments here in the US, a number of Jewish groups are pressing Congress not to recognize the Armenian genocide of the early 20th century. They are opposing bills in both the House and Senate that would formally recognize it.

It�s hard to imagine the cynicism and hypocrisy that this act embodies. Of all people, we Jews have, rightly, pushed the world to acknowledge horrific acts of genocide, to mark them, try to prevent them and to raise our voices loudly in the cry of �Never Again.�

The four Jewish groups that presented the case to Congress, on behalf of the Turkish Jewish community, were the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), B�Nai Brith, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the American Jewish Committee (AJC).

That JINSA would engage in this is not surprising. A Jewish group in name only, JINSA is a right-wing propaganda machine that has pushed the worst excesses of both the Bush Administration and the Israeli right for years, with no regard for human rights or the welfare of innocents, in Israel or elsewhere. Of the other three groups, it is fair to expect much better than this.

The groups are concerned about Turkey�s standing in world opinion, but frankly the concern is overblown. Outside of Turkey, few believe that the massacre of Armenians during the reign of the Young Turks as the Ottoman Empire was crumbling under the weight of World War I was not a genocide. Official declarations of genocide have been made by most European countries, 40 out of the 50 United States of America, Russia and many other countries. Those that have not made formal recognition have often made it clear that politics, rather than a true disagreement with the characterization, has been the reason. Germany, for instance, passed a resolution that �honors and commemorates the victims of violence, murder and expulsion among the Armenian people before and during the First World War�. The German resolution mentions that �many independent historians, parliaments and international organizations describe the expulsion and annihilation of the Armenians as genocide.�

Iran does not formally recognize the Armenian genocide, but in 2004, their president, Mohammed Khatami, visited a memorial to the genocide. And so on.

Israel does not recognize the Armenian genocide and this has occasionally caused controversy in Israeli society. Again, few Israelis would deny the genocide, but Turkey is one of Israel�s few allies, and a Muslim country at that, so they are not willing to rock the boat.

These are the considerations, of course, that motivate American Jewish groups to oppose Congressional recognition of the Armenian genocide. And they are, plain and simple, the wrong considerations.

It�s objectionable enough that Israel, the Jewish State, downplays and withholds recognition of the Armenian genocide. But in Israel�s case, they are an embattled country with few true allies, and Turkey is not only one of them, it is the only full ally of Israel in the region and in the Muslim world. That doesn�t excuse Israel�s stance, but the circumstances at least provide a rationale, and one that is understandable if not acceptable.

But the US has no such concern. It�s not like Turkey can afford to rend its relationship with the United States over a Congressional declaration that would change little, as most of the US already recognizes the genocide. And it is even less a concern for American Jews, who should be the first to hold this principle above all others.

The hypocrisy becomes even clearer when we examine a separate statement by the ADL and JINSA where they state that legislators should not take a position on such matters.

One has to ask, would the ADL stake out the same position on the Shoah? Does it matter to them that they just provided an argument to Holocaust-deniers? Or did they not even bother to think it through that far?

In any case, it is worth noting that many Jewish groups do not share this stance and that many of the proposed bill to recognize the Armenian genocide are Jewish. The Progressive Jewish Alliance, in fact, published an op-ed in the LA Times decrying the actions of these four groups.

As Jews, we rightly say �Never Again.� But what does the phrase mean if it doesn�t apply to everyone?

**Joseph** · 05-17-2007, 04:49 AM

Originally posted by Gavur View Post

By Mitchell Plitnick
Cross-posted at The Third Way, JVP�s policy analysis blog.

MuzzleWatch | Tracking efforts to stifle open debate about US-Israeli foreign policy.

http://www.muzzlewatch.com/?p=184

In one of the most bizarre and appalling developments here in the US, a number of Jewish groups are pressing Congress not to recognize the Armenian genocide of the early 20th century. They are opposing bills in both the House and Senate that would formally recognize it.

It�s hard to imagine the cynicism and hypocrisy that this act embodies. Of all people, we Jews have, rightly, pushed the world to acknowledge horrific acts of genocide, to mark them, try to prevent them and to raise our voices loudly in the cry of �Never Again.�

The four Jewish groups that presented the case to Congress, on behalf of the Turkish Jewish community, were the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), B�Nai Brith, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the American Jewish Committee (AJC).

That JINSA would engage in this is not surprising. A Jewish group in name only, JINSA is a right-wing propaganda machine that has pushed the worst excesses of both the Bush Administration and the Israeli right for years, with no regard for human rights or the welfare of innocents, in Israel or elsewhere. Of the other three groups, it is fair to expect much better than this.

The groups are concerned about Turkey�s standing in world opinion, but frankly the concern is overblown. Outside of Turkey, few believe that the massacre of Armenians during the reign of the Young Turks as the Ottoman Empire was crumbling under the weight of World War I was not a genocide. Official declarations of genocide have been made by most European countries, 40 out of the 50 United States of America, Russia and many other countries. Those that have not made formal recognition have often made it clear that politics, rather than a true disagreement with the characterization, has been the reason. Germany, for instance, passed a resolution that �honors and commemorates the victims of violence, murder and expulsion among the Armenian people before and during the First World War�. The German resolution mentions that �many independent historians, parliaments and international organizations describe the expulsion and annihilation of the Armenians as genocide.�

Iran does not formally recognize the Armenian genocide, but in 2004, their president, Mohammed Khatami, visited a memorial to the genocide. And so on.

Israel does not recognize the Armenian genocide and this has occasionally caused controversy in Israeli society. Again, few Israelis would deny the genocide, but Turkey is one of Israel�s few allies, and a Muslim country at that, so they are not willing to rock the boat.

These are the considerations, of course, that motivate American Jewish groups to oppose Congressional recognition of the Armenian genocide. And they are, plain and simple, the wrong considerations.

It�s objectionable enough that Israel, the Jewish State, downplays and withholds recognition of the Armenian genocide. But in Israel�s case, they are an embattled country with few true allies, and Turkey is not only one of them, it is the only full ally of Israel in the region and in the Muslim world. That doesn�t excuse Israel�s stance, but the circumstances at least provide a rationale, and one that is understandable if not acceptable.

But the US has no such concern. It�s not like Turkey can afford to rend its relationship with the United States over a Congressional declaration that would change little, as most of the US already recognizes the genocide. And it is even less a concern for American Jews, who should be the first to hold this principle above all others.

The hypocrisy becomes even clearer when we examine a separate statement by the ADL and JINSA where they state that legislators should not take a position on such matters.

One has to ask, would the ADL stake out the same position on the Shoah? Does it matter to them that they just provided an argument to Holocaust-deniers? Or did they not even bother to think it through that far?

In any case, it is worth noting that many Jewish groups do not share this stance and that many of the proposed bill to recognize the Armenian genocide are Jewish. The Progressive Jewish Alliance, in fact, published an op-ed in the LA Times decrying the actions of these four groups.

As Jews, we rightly say �Never Again.� But what does the phrase mean if it doesn�t apply to everyone?

Excellent article.

Announcement

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

Realism Vs. Idealism

Realism Vs. Idealism

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment