notes and comments

[ArmSurvival]

Re: elegy

The "Zionist writer I quoted" is simply stating the obvious. You have the monopoly on hot air. Your mind is made up and you try to fit everything into your model, with very poor results.

You can’t discount contemporary sources like Wickham-Steed while presenting Levy’s opinion as some kind of conventional wisdom or barometer. If Levy’s opinion is so obvious, why are none of the contemporary sources compatible with it? Why aren’t even Zionist sources compatible with it? And if there are contemporary sources that would reflect Levy’s conclusion, then where are these sources? I’d like to see them.


And look, like I mentioned before, I’m exaggerating certain things but in the process of doing so I’m posing some serious questions to you. You’ll notice I’m echoing what the majority of sources are saying about this whole mess. What’s significant is we have an abundance of J ewish sources alongside all the non-J ewish sources and they all paint the same type of picture.

As for Zionism, we as Armenians cannot possibly begin to understand their role in the genocide without first being familiar with the nature of the movement itself. I urge you to research the Zionist movement on your own and to read what the Zionist leaders throughout the decades have written about various topics related to their movement. This is essential to understanding the movement, its motives, its actions, its rhetoric, but most of all its deceptive and contradictory facades.

You refer to my 'agreeing with you'. Where I 'agree' with you is in regard to Dönme/J ewish complicity in the genocidal plans of the CUP, which as you know came as a big shock to me. This is something I owe to your steadfast defense of your theories, which made me look deeper and deeper into the literature on the subject, a process that I'm still in the middle of.

You’ll quickly find out it’s a process with no end in sight…

But I don't agree with your assertion that the Armenian Genocide was a Zionist plot and that the goal was to destroy Turkey along with the Armenians for the greater good of Zionism.

Well we know for sure the destruction of the Armenians was a premeditated plan. We also know this plan was exclusively crafted by the upper leadership of the CUP. We have seen in this thread that the highest leadership of the CUP were J ews, most likely of the Zionist variety. We also know that Armenians were one of the pillars propping up the “Sick Man of Europe”, and became even more important once most of the Greeks and Balkan Christians became independent, and this must have been known by the CUP leaders who wiped the Armenians out. We also know that the interests of J ews were opposed to those of the Armenians. We have many sources testifying that Zionists had been trying to buy Palestine off the Ottomans for years, with no success. We also know that the CUP’s new policy of Turkification is what fragmented the Empire very quickly, starting with the Balkan wars and ending with WWI and the Arab revolt. We also know that the CUP’s war effort was suicidal and many of its commanders jumped ship from Anatolia once the Allies seemed to be getting the upper hand. We also know that as soon as the Ottomans were driven out of Palestine by the British in 1917, before any post-war settlement, Zionists received a mandate over Palestine.

In short, we shouldn’t assume that such an organized sequence of facts and events did not have any organization behind it. This is especially true when there is no lack of sources on the subject.

[arabaliozian]

Re: elegy

January 16, 2010
*************************
OBSERVATIONS
************************************************** *
If our bosses, bishops, and benefactors are humorless, it may be because to be a pompous ass and to have a sense of humor are mutually exclusive concepts.
*
For the oppressed, freedom means the freedom to oppress. Which may explain why there is a great deal of Ottomanism in Armenianism.
*
Even when we are subservient to no one, we may continue to be subservient to a false image of ourselves imposed on us by others.
*
Is success conceivable in our environment?
Charents's final message of solidarity is quoted and ignored.
In a recent encounter with one of our bosses, he said something to the effect that the nation would have been better off without Naregatsi.
And whenever I paraphrase Raffi, I am accused of anti-Armenianism.
*
On the day I come to terms with our reality, I will probably say, “To each his own,” and fall silent.
#

[Diranakir]

Re: elegy

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmSurvival
You can’t discount contemporary sources like Wickham-Steed while presenting Levy’s opinion as some kind of conventional wisdom or barometer. If Levy’s opinion is so obvious, why are none of the contemporary sources compatible with it? Why aren’t even Zionist sources compatible with it? And if there are contemporary sources that would reflect Levy’s conclusion, then where are these sources? I’d like to see them.

To ArmSurv: It's obvious to me and I think it would be obvious to anybody who spent a couple of days researching the topic that hebraic society from Europe to Turkey were firmly on the side of the German Empire and Turkey in WWI. It's a no-brainer, to use your excellent term. So I don't understand your beef with Levy's statement. I'm sure there are more contemporary sources verifying his simple statement than you could shake a stick at. But who can spend all his time in a library or in front of a computer? If I come across some, I will post them. There's no question about it, in my mind. Can you cite a contemporary source that indicates that the overwhelming majority of israelites did NOT support Turkey's role in the War? Anyway, perhaps more on this later. . . . .

From ArmSurv:
And look, like I mentioned before, I’m exaggerating certain things but in the process of doing so I’m posing some serious questions to you. You’ll notice I’m echoing what the majority of sources are saying about this whole mess. What’s significant is we have an abundance of J ewish sources alongside all the non-J ewish sources and they all paint the same type of picture.

As for Zionism, we as Armenians cannot possibly begin to understand their role in the genocide without first being familiar with the nature of the movement itself. I urge you to research the Zionist movement on your own and to read what the Zionist leaders throughout the decades have written about various topics related to their movement. This is essential to understanding the movement, its motives, its actions, its rhetoric, but most of all its deceptive and contradictory facades.

To ArmSurv: I can only say that no one could ever read enough to know everything there is to know about a movement like Zionism? But the same can be said of almost any other major movement in history. You certainly have not waited to finish your admittedly endless reading before rendering some very sweeping and dramatic interpretations on the basis of what you've read so far. So I agree entirely when you say: "You’ll quickly find out it’s a process with no end in sight…" I found that out quite a while ago! But I still don't accept your model. To me what is most important is that I have conceded the most sensitive and disturbing fact in this discussion, namely that men of hebraic origin were involved up to their chins and beyond in the Armenian Genocide, completely in violation of the hebraic concept of 'tikkun', redemption. They were obviously two-faced, ruthless, and totally cold-hearted monsters. I owe this revelation to you and Anoush because you spurred me to look at the history. I can't make it clearer than that.

If it weren't for you, pardon the expression, "sticking to your guns" I would still be in the dark about all this. From where I sit it's pretty hard for me to know how many Armenians are conscious of this reality, but I have the impression that it has been a repressed, taboo subject most of my life. I think I remember flashes of it in certain
coded ways. But now, probably because of the internet and forums like this, it's bubbling up, almost volcanically. This is something that needs to be confronted.
But, because we are fated to hold this discussion on the thread of the resident Khoja, in his front yard, beneath his veranda, so to speak, I want to make it clear that what I am most concerned about is the reality of what happened and its implications for future dialogue with the hebraic world and not to drive the dialogue into the foul clutches of bigotry which would be a loss for everyone concerned.


Now, on a couple of other points: Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me your 'destruction of Turkey for the good of the israelites' model presents an important problem. You said earlier you agreed with me that the Armenian Genocide was conceived and carried out by the Turkish state and that the present republic of Turkey bears responsibility for it. The problem with your model is that it depicts a situation in which an alien group is victimizing Turkey AND the Armenians. How then does this preserve the idea that present-day Turkey is responsible for the Armenian Genocide? I don't think you can have it both ways. It's either Turkey or Zionism.

[Haykakan]

Re: elegy

" How then does this preserve the idea that present-day Turkey is responsible for the Armenian Genocide? I don't think you can have it both ways. It's either Turkey or Zionism. "

Why does it have to be one or the other? There are two criminals here and they are both doing it to further their own cause. You make it sound like turckey is a victim somehow. he can and should have it both ways.

[ArmSurvival]

Re: elegy

It's obvious to me and I think it would be obvious to anybody who spent a couple of days researching the topic that hebraic society from Europe to Turkey were firmly on the side of the German Empire and Turkey in WWI. It's a no-brainer, to use your excellent term. So I don't understand your beef with Levy's statement. I'm sure there are more contemporary sources verifying his simple statement than you could shake a stick at. But who can spend all his time in a library or in front of a computer? If I come across some, I will post them. There's no question about it, in my mind.

I mentioned at one point in this discussion that at the outbreak of WWI, Zionists were courting both sides of the war: They were friends of the Germans AND the British. This is one of the tactics of Zionists that I mentioned, which they use frequently even today: They will position themselves on both sides of a conflict (for example, pro-Palestinian rights and anti-Palestinian rights) in order to have better leverage over all parties, and to reap the fruits of allying themselves with the eventual victor. If you researched the topic like you claim, you should have noticed the overwhelming dialogue and cooperation among Zionists and the British prior to WWI. Think about it, if Zionists were exclusively allied to the Germans and Ottomans, then how on earth did they gain a mandate over Palestine from the British before WWI ended? Your theory lacks a foundation and does not fit at all with the sequence of events.

Let me give you another example to further illustrate my point. I mentioned earlier how the prominent Zionist Vladimir Jabotinsky was the chief editor of the newspaper Jeunes Turc (Young Turk) in Constantinople, which was one of the propaganda organs of the CUP. He seemed to be a friend of the Ottomans in every sense of the word. But, do you happen to know what Jabotinsky was doing for most of WWI? He was collecting and organizing J ewish volunteers to fight within the British army AGAINST the Ottomans in Palestine, and he himself was one of the commanders of these volunteer battalions. This is a prime example of what I’m talking about when I say that Zionists were friendly with both sides of the conflict prior to the war, and conveniently shifted their support when one side had a clear advantage over the other. Jabotinsky is the perfect example, the epitome, of what Zionists as a whole were doing during WWI. Its no coincidence that Jabotinsky is one of the most prominent Zionists in the history of the movement.

I can only say that no one could ever read enough to know everything there is to know about a movement like Zionism?

Not everything, but the fundamentals which are present in most facets of their activities.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me your 'destruction of Turkey for the good of the israelites' model presents an important problem. You said earlier you agreed with me that the Armenian Genocide was conceived and carried out by the Turkish state and that the present republic of Turkey bears responsibility for it. The problem with your model is that it depicts a situation in which an alien group is victimizing Turkey AND the Armenians. How then does this preserve the idea that present-day Turkey is responsible for the Armenian Genocide? I don't think you can have it both ways. It's either Turkey or Zionism.

I agree with Haykakan because crimes are not limited to one party, and multiple parties can be guilty of the same crime. There can be many people convicted of murder even though just one person pulled the trigger.

The answer to your concern is very simple: Turkey refuses to give us our property and wealth that was stolen by Zionists and transferred to Turkey. Also, Ataturk (who was a Donmeh btw) not only pardoned the CUP criminals, but gave many of them positions in his cabinet and his government. This is why Turkey is essentially a continuation of the Ottoman Empire and bears the responsibility of their actions. Turkey could have separated themselves from the Zionist criminals, but they chose to shelter and protect those criminals and are aggressively continuing their anti-Armenian policies to the present day.

[Diranakir]

Re: elegy

I mentioned at one point in this discussion that at the outbreak of WWI, Zionists were courting both sides of the war: They were friends of the Germans AND the British. This is one of the tactics of Zionists that I mentioned, which they use frequently even today: They will position themselves on both sides of a conflict (for example, pro-Palestinian rights and anti-Palestinian rights) in order to have better leverage over all parties, and to reap the fruits of allying themselves with the eventual victor. If you researched the topic like you claim, you should have noticed the overwhelming dialogue and cooperation among Zionists and the British prior to WWI. Think about it, if Zionists were exclusively allied to the Germans and Ottomans, then how on earth did they gain a mandate over Palestine from the British before WWI ended? Your theory lacks a foundation and does not fit at all with the sequence of events.

Let me give you another example to further illustrate my point. I mentioned earlier how the prominent Zionist Vladimir Jabotinsky was the chief editor of the newspaper Jeunes Turc (Young Turk) in Constantinople, which was one of the propaganda organs of the CUP. He seemed to be a friend of the Ottomans in every sense of the word. But, do you happen to know what Jabotinsky was doing for most of WWI? He was collecting and organizing J ewish volunteers to fight within the British army AGAINST the Ottomans in Palestine, and he himself was one of the commanders of these volunteer battalions. This is a prime example of what I’m talking about when I say that Zionists were friendly with both sides of the conflict prior to the war, and conveniently shifted their support when one side had a clear advantage over the other. Jabotinsky is the perfect example, the epitome, of what Zionists as a whole were doing during WWI. Its no coincidence that Jabotinsky is one of the most prominent Zionists in the history of the movement.





Not everything, but the fundamentals which are present in most facets of their activities.





I agree with Haykakan because crimes are not limited to one party, and multiple parties can be guilty of the same crime. There can be many people convicted of murder even though just one person pulled the trigger.

The answer to your concern is very simple: Turkey refuses to give us our property and wealth that was stolen by Zionists and transferred to Turkey. Also, Ataturk (who was a Donmeh btw) not only pardoned the CUP criminals, but gave many of them positions in his cabinet and his government. This is why Turkey is essentially a continuation of the Ottoman Empire and bears the responsibility of their actions. Turkey could have separated themselves from the Zionist criminals, but they chose to shelter and protect those criminals and are aggressively continuing their anti-Armenian policies to the present day.

from Diranakir to ArmSurv:

I think this discussion has pretty well run its course and we're just spinning our wheels at this point. But just a couple more comments.

For one thing, almost every political grouping in history places its eggs, or finds its eggs placed, in two baskets. That's not a monopoly of "Zionists".
The examples are infinite.

Another thing: A fine idea to fix the blame on TWO parties, Zionism AND Turkey! A nebulous and nefarious movement, on the one hand, and a nation on the other! Brilliant! So what court are we going to drag them to. Do you really think that is bringing recognition of the Genocide closer, or isn't it making it infinitely more difficult. While you're at it why don't you pull in Britain too because they scuttled the protections the Treaty of San Stefano stipulated for Armenia which in turn led to the Hamidian massacres and the Genocide of 1915. You could of course also finger Germany. And probably several others? Is this really your idea of the path to genocide recognition?

Another point related to the above: You say, "There can be many people convicted of murder even though just one person pulled the trigger."
What you're missing is that genocide is not a felony but a crime against humanity that can only be committed by a government, ONE government.
What you are advancing may be various explanations of the background of the Genocide, but they are in no way capable of fixing responsibility for it
on a party that could remotely be held legally responsible for it. It's a dangerous distraction. And I'm beginning to wonder if that isn't just the point . .

[Eddo211]

Re: elegy

Another point related to the above: You say, "There can be many people convicted of murder even though just one person pulled the trigger."
What you're missing is that genocide is not a felony but a crime against humanity that can only be committed by a government, ONE government.
What you are advancing may be various explanations of the background of the Genocide, but they are in no way capable of fixing responsibility for it
on a party that could remotely be held legally responsible for it. It's a dangerous distraction. And I'm beginning to wonder if that isn't just the point . .

That is what I say as well.

If I were to believe in this very pro-Turkish theory of Zionism guilty AG then Turkey would not only be innocent of AG but also a victim. Some posters here may not think so but that is exactly how it comes across.

[ArmSurvival]

Re: elegy

I think this discussion has pretty well run its course and we're just spinning our wheels at this point. But just a couple more comments.

For one thing, almost every political grouping in history places its eggs, or finds its eggs placed, in two baskets. That's not a monopoly of "Zionists".
The examples are infinite.

Another thing: A fine idea to fix the blame on TWO parties, Zionism AND Turkey! A nebulous and nefarious movement, on the one hand, and a nation on the other! Brilliant! So what court are we going to drag them to. Do you really think that is bringing recognition of the Genocide closer, or isn't it making it infinitely more difficult. While you're at it why don't you pull in Britain too because they scuttled the protections the Treaty of San Stefano stipulated for Armenia which in turn led to the Hamidian massacres and the Genocide of 1915. You could of course also finger Germany. And probably several others? Is this really your idea of the path to genocide recognition?

Another point related to the above: You say, "There can be many people convicted of murder even though just one person pulled the trigger."
What you're missing is that genocide is not a felony but a crime against humanity that can only be committed by a government, ONE government.
What you are advancing may be various explanations of the background of the Genocide, but they are in no way capable of fixing responsibility for it
on a party that could remotely be held legally responsible for it. It's a dangerous distraction. And I'm beginning to wonder if that isn't just the point . .

I agree there is nothing more to say, I think people get the picture.

And I can tell you’re still missing my point. I said from the beginning of the discussion that Armenians shouldn’t raise this issue publicly, politically, or legally because like you I believe it will complicate things greatly for us. However, there is nothing wrong with knowing the truth, and Armenians need to know who murdered their families as a matter of honor. I also want to make the point that as a nation we need to realize that Zionists have committed serious crimes against us and have traditionally treated us as enemies and continue to act against our interests even today.

[Diranakir]

Re: elegy

ArmSurvival:

I think we understand each other even if we have significant differences. I've learned a lot through you. But don't underestimate the visibility of this forum: I just found a very interesting footnote in Rifat Bali's 2008 book "A Scapegoat For All Seasons: The Dönmes or Crypto-xxxs of Turkey" which referred to a posting on this forum a few years ago! Nevertheless all of this will soon be hidden, if not totally buried, beneath the great heaps of wisdom flowing from the mouth of the resident Khoja of this thread. Best wishes to you. . . . .

[ArmSurvival]

Re: elegy

I just found a very interesting footnote in Rifat Bali's 2008 book "A Scapegoat For All Seasons: The Dönmes or Crypto-xxxs of Turkey" which referred to a posting on this forum a few years ago!

Thats interesting.... could you share it? I wonder what the context was.