notes and comments

[arabaliozian]

Re: elegy

01/02/10
**********************************
COMMENTS & OBSERVATIONS
************************************************** *
All aBush (brainless) leaders share two things in common: (one) they overestimate their powers to the same degree that they underestimate the enemy's; and (two) they refuse to learn from history -- in Bush's cases, the war in Vietnam; in our case, the turn-of-the-century series of massacres that preceded the Genocide.
Even after their blunders are exposed, such leaders continue to have their followers and admirers. There are fascists in Italy today, Nazis in Germany, Stalinist in Russia, and skinheads all over the world.
*
If you prove to an anti-Semite that the man he hates is not a xxx, he will say, but his teacher was. Which makes all Christians vulnerable targets of hatred.
*
Loyalty becomes subservience when it says, “Yes, sir!” to idiots.
*
They tell me I am anti-Armenian because I oppose idiots who pretend to be smart.
*
Intolerance of dissent is a sure symptom of the fact that the foundations of the power structure are so flimsy that a single wrong word may precipitate its collapse.
#

[arabaliozian]

Re: elegy

01/03/10
**********************************
FRAGMENTS
************************************************** *
Non-believers who build churches,
pirates who collect art,
fornicators who preach chastity --
what I find even more offensive about our men at the top is their conviction that they are indispensable to the nation and not even remotely responsible for our misfortunes.
*
In a country of the homeless, they build cathedrals which they call Houses of God – as if God needed their housing.
*
Never trust a man who lives on excellent terms with himself.
*
It's amazing how much an Armenian can accomplish when he works for alien interests.
*
There is a xxxish saying: “Some people are such nonentities that when they go out of a room, it feels like someone came in.” We call such people “unshook” -- literally shadowless, or men whose insignificance is such that they don't even cast a shadow.
*
On the day an Armenian enters politics,
politics gains nothing,
but Oriental carpet dealership loses something.
*
When law and order legitimize oppression, exploitation, or subservience in the name of the state, what they really legitimize is lawlessness and disorder.
*
A dupe is an idiot who trusts other idiots. Consider the history of fascism communism, and nationalism.
*
My definition of an idiot: anyone whose actions do more harm than good, or someone who bites more than he can chew and chokes on it.
*
I don't mention names because I don't want to immortalize nonentities who make headlines today and are forgotten tomorrow.
#

[ArmSurvival]

Re: elegy

You are sliding away from the issue once more. This is called "begging the question", and you are doing it big-time. "Begging the question" means giving an answer which simply restates the question, but in a slightly different form. First let's be reminded that we were discussing how Turkey got into the FIRST WORLD WAR, not the Balkan wars. (If you want to conflate them, that shows a real problem in your method.)

When I mentioned the “next” Balkan war, I was referring to WWI, which started out as a war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia. It was a Balkan war that quickly escalated into a world war, but not the original Balkan war, hence my reference to the "next" Balkan war.

I asked you to show evidence for your direct statement that the Hebraic members of the CUP railroaded Turkey into the First World War. You have not given it, despite all the familiar talk about Carasso, with Jabotinsky thrown in. That is my main point.

The source I used was one in which Carasso is quoted as gleefully awaiting the next major war for Turkey to join (and he was specifically talking about a Balkan war, which alludes to WWI). I referred to this source as the basis for my comment which you questioned, but you either ignored the source or maybe you’re waiting for me to provide signed documents by Carasso, Salem, and the rest of the gang in which they admit their guilt. In that case I’m sorry, I don’t have the evidence you’re looking for. If this is anywhere near your criteria for judging what really happened in history, then you can throw most of world history out the window.

But just one secondary observation:Your first sentence above is a non-sequitur: "If virtually all sources that had any personal contact with the Young Turks are telling us that they were mainly financed and controlled by J ews and Donmehs, then its safe to say that the Young Turks were war-like by design, not by accident." The second clause, after 'then', simply does not flow from the first one

Yes this is the problem with rushed posts. I forgot to refer to the actions of the Young Turks (their bloody coups, assassinations, Pan-Turkist agenda and eagerness to join WWI). If the party was funded by J ews and Donmehs, then its safe to say these actions were sponsored and encouraged by them, and thus they were war-like by design, not by the coincidence of circumstance.

But it is important to bear in mind, if you can
set Zionism aside for a couple of moments, that they were revolting because the Sultan and the existing form of government were sending Turkey down the tubes, not because they were duped into revolting, against their better judgment, by "a bunch of J ews", to use your terminology.

The act of revolting against the Sultan by itself was not something people got duped into. The Sultan was an unstable man and there were plenty of people across the empire who supported his removal. What people DID get duped into however, were the actions of the Young Turks AFTER the Sultan was overthrown (Pan-Turkic fanatics acting like a progressive movement in a multicultural empire, organizing total war against Russia and the Allies without even having proper supplies for their soldiers, etc). In fact the Sultan looks sane compared to the Young Turks, because the Sultan was not only aware that European powers including Russia could shatter his empire, but tried to avoid conflict with them at all costs because of that fact. The Young Turks must have been aware of this fact as well, unless they were incredibly stupid, which I highly doubt. Yet the Young Turks did nothing but provoke European powers by massacring Christians at a much larger scale than the Sultan ever did, and by declaring total war on most of the European powers. They gave any and every excuse for stronger European powers to invade the Ottoman Empire and balkanize the near east.

One more thing before you repeat the whole enchilada about how the doenme wanted to bring about Turkey's downfall for the sake of establishing a Zionist state (with Talat thrown into the mix as an ethnic hebraic), take the following into account:

from "The J ews of the Ottoman Empire", pp. 527-536, Avigdor Levy (ed).

"....it became clear that on the eve of the World War and during its initial stages, Zionist groups viewed the continued existence of the Ottoman state as most desirable for their future plans in Palestine."

I’m not sure I believe that statement. You COULD make the argument that maybe the J ewish and Donmeh financiers of the CUP had hopes of winning on the Russian front and possibly creating favorable terms for J ewish settlement in Palestine during the post-war settlement. However, most Zionists had thrown in their lot with the European powers (both Germany and Britain, later exclusively Britain) once they realized that the Ottoman Empire must be broken into smaller pieces in order to guarantee the security of the future Zionist settlements and to make it favorable for European powers to stick around in the near east after the war was over. After all, if you read Zionist literature you will quickly realize that Zionists don't consider themselves Semitic or Asian: They consider themselves Europeans who will “bring civilization to the periphery of Asia”. It was ingrained within Zionism’s political psyche that their future state would only be created and tolerated by fraternal European powers and that no Asian power would allow a Zionist state to exist anywhere in Asia, simply because the Zionists were a foreign element and they even viewed themselves that way. Thus, by saying that Zionists wanted to preserve the Ottoman Empire in 1914-1915, Levy completely ignores the bulk of Zionist literature in regards to the European vs. Asian dichotomy within Zionism as well as Zionism’s espoused place within this dichotomy. The author is either completely unaware of Zionist literature, or he is perfectly aware but is creating deliberate misinformation with his statement that you quoted.


Well, my hunch was right. The author you quoted is the worst type of propagandist. If you look at his website you will see that Levy has received grants from the Turkish state and most of his accolades are from Turkish institutions, much like Bernard Lewis, who is widely known as a propagandist because of his historical revisionism of Near Eastern and Turkish history (as well as Armenian history). There is no way this Avigdor Levy character is objective given the modern political implications of his studies along with his connections to Harvard and the Turkish state. If he was objective he would have referred to the vast sphere of Zionist literature in his study of Zionism and the Ottoman Empire. Not only does he ignore what Zionist literature says, he completely contradicts it.


Wait, theres more... Avigdor Levy is also an Armenian Genocide denier! Check this out:

Moving forward, however, requires recognition of facts, not fiction: that the Armenian “genocide” is disputed by reputable scholars and historians; that politicians are ill-equipped to deliver “genocide” verdicts on matters light years beyond their ken; that Ottoman Muslims also suffered horribly during WWI at the hands of Armenians fighting as armed belligerents; and, that voicing sympathy for Armenian suffering while ignoring the suffering of those whom Armenians slaughtered and terrorized would reflect the Christian bigotry of yesteryear.
The Armenian “genocide” is hotly disputed within the universe of genuine Middle East scholars versed in the Ottoman Empire, the circumstances of World War I, and otherwise. An inexhaustive list of doubters would include: famed Middle East expert Bernard Lewis of Princeton University, the late Stanford Shaw of U.C.L.A., Guenter Lewy of the University of Massachusetts, Justin McCarthy of the University of Louisville, Norman Itzkowitz of Princeton University, Brian G. Williams of the University of Massachusetts, David Fromkin of Boston University, Avigdor Levy of Brandeis University, Michael M. Gunter of Tennessee Tech, Pierre Oberling of Hunter College, the late Roderic Davison of George Washington University, Michael Radu of Foreign Policy Research Institute, and military historian Edward J. Erickson. Outside of the United States even more scholars have endorsed a contra-genocide analysis of the history of the Ottoman Armenians, among them Gilles Veinstein of the College de France, Stefano Trinchese of the University of Chieti, Augusto Sinagra of the University of Romae-Sapienza, Norman Stone of Bilkent University, and the historian Andrew Mango of the University of London. In addition to these and other scholars, the United Nations, Great Britain, and Sweden have refused to endorse the “genocide” label.

Look at Levy’s name on this list of genocide deniers. Also notice the high proportion of J ewish professors on this list. You would do well to be critical of J ewish “professors”, “historians”, and “intellectuals” the same way you have been critical of British historians and The London Times. You will often find that these so-called professors are Zionist lapdogs, due to the modern political implications of their studies. Sadly, modern Politics is guiding the study of history, not vice-versa. Zionism is an extremely powerful modern political movement, and historical revisionism is one of their spheres of activity, especially in the United States.

[ArmSurvival]

Re: elegy

Through you I have learned that there were far more Hebraics with a hand in the Armenian Genocide than I ever would have believed or wished.

This was originally why I entered the discussion: I could tell from your tone that you didn’t “wish” there to be a J ewish or Zionist hand in the genocide because of some personal feelings you might have (which you provided a glimpse of in the form of praise for J ewish figures in history which had nothing to do with my statements). I’m glad my hunch was confirmed and even gladder that you realize the scope of their involvement in the genocide. However, you are still falling prey (as many of us do at times) to believing J ewish professors outright, while at the same time being extremely critical of anyone else. Being critical is good, but not when you let certain groups (in your case, J ews) off the hook. This is not just something I noticed in you, but something I’ve noticed with a great deal of Armenians, and it frustrates me because it is a very dangerous habit, mainly because Zionists are still actively pursuing Armenians and dealing with us like enemies. It is not enough that their state denies the genocide and gives Turkey aid, its not enough that Armenians are treated like sh*t in Israel, but Zionist “professors” and “historians” are going out of their way to falsify Armenian history at a grassroots level and at a worldwide scale. This is in the form of Zionists (like Levy, Lewis, Cowie, Russell, etc.) who either deny the genocide outright, or who accept the genocide in order to gain some validity in order to lie about other facets of our history (like questioning our nativity to the Armenian Highlands as well as dismissing Armenian historical sources).

For ArmSurviva, a few more thoughts:

The term 'eye=witness account" means someone personally observing an event and describing it, not someone meeting someone and hearing something. Meeting someone does not make you an "eye-witness" of the policies or goals of that person. That's like McCain taking a trip to Baghdad and coming back to tell us, 'he's been there so he knows what's going on.' No, he didn't know before he went and he didn't know when he came back.

We are simply discussing the J ewish role in the genocide, which is something you denied at first, so that is the context of the discussion. If those accounts I posted are even half true, then they are eye-witness accounts of a situation which you challenged the veracity of. So my use of the term “eye-witness account” is valid in this context.

Did you ever stop to ask yourself how Carasso, the wily old dönme, would allow himself to blabber about his intentions in the presence of, in effect, a British agent? And if he did do so, what language did he speak that would be so easily understood by Mr. Henry Wickham Steed? Turkish? I doubt Steed's Turkish was that good. French? Maybe. But would he be speaking that openly with a relative in front of a stranger? I have a lot of doubts about the authenticity of that quote, as you can see.

Mr. Steed is not the only person who claimed that the Young Turks were mostly J ews. I provided excerpts from prominent Zionists, and even they agree there was heavy J ewish involvement in the CUP. Also, all the reports from London Times correspondents are parallel to the accounts of people who spent personal time with the CUP, including Mr. Steed and Mr. Watson. If you’re going to disregard news reports from embedded correspondents, then you can even argue that The New York Times articles about the genocide are bogus (obviously not the case). Therefore you have to give The Times reports some importance (I have not even posted the majority of them).

But since you prefer sources from genocide-denying Zionists like Avigdor Levy, and you seemingly believe what they write without challenging their statements or checking their backgrounds (like you did with Steed and Watson), let me give you yet another excerpt from a Zionist historian who attests to the J ewish makeup of the Young Turks. Professor Avrum Ehrlich wrote in his article “Sabbatean Messianism as Proto-Secularism: Examples in Modern Turkey and Zionism”:


[The extent to which J ews were involved in the Young Turk revolution is debated, some arguing that J ews and Donme dominated the Committee of the Union and Progress Party (C.U.P.) which gained control of the State. Others argue that this was anti-Semitic rhetoric and exaggerated and that while the J ews supported the revolution on a grass roots level, they were not highly represented in the upper echelons of the party. Indeed British diplomats did report to the home office that a J ewish-Masonic conspiracy was at work favouring the revolution. The Donme are believed to have been equally involved in the revolution but exact details are less known due to a number of reasons. Many Donme were cursorily described as J ews by observers lacking an appreciation for the subtleties of the two communities. The general secrecy of the community and its increased secrecy after WWII and the threats of Islamic fundamentalism, peppered with assimilation trends and extreme secularism, makes documentation difficult. The fear of reprisal by fundamentalist groups in Modern Turkey has left the remnants of Donme communities less willing to testify their role in the revolution. Rumours were always extant that key activists in the revolution were of Donme stock; even Ataturk was alleged by some to have Donme ancestry. It was via the Masonic lodges that the Donme, the J ews, Bektashi and secularists who were less accepted in the mainstream society were able to meet on an equal footing, many of them becoming major instruments of the revolution.
Salonica was a nest of revolutionary sentiments and home to its major figures. It is no coincidence that it was also home to the strongest Donme and most vibrant J ewish community of the Empire. Cooperman’s description is apt: ‘Salonica afforded an eclectic and often, but not exclusively, cosmopolitan environment where Dervis sects crossed paths with the Donme, where J ewish and Turkish businesses were interspersed on the same streets, and where commercial and municipal courts were mixed. Here, where the J ewish Masonic organizations supported the creation of Muslim-Turkish lodges, and where Muslim-Turkish newspapers supported the election of J ewish municipal assembly candidates, was the source the combination of inter-communal energies which gave the revolution of 1908 its impetus’. The Donme served as a bridge between the J ewish community and the Turks which made winners all-round, improving the J ewish position, helping the revolution and bringing the Donme back to a degree of acceptance amongst J ews. Their assimilationist attitude had won them equal footing with Muslims as well as opportunities to make inroads into public life without being marked or discriminated as a J ew. Their educational doctrine was conducive to public works and revolutionary activity. They must have seen this period as a window of opportunity, their accounts of them becoming less secretive and more publicly minded. The Great Mosque (Yeni Camii) built by the Donme in Salonica in 1903 was a public face of loyalty to Islam. Whether indicating that they no longer needed to worship in secret because their J ewish rites were less important than in the past is a subject of discussion, but secrecy was becoming less characteristic. The Donme have been described as ‘full of ardour for action... at the avant-garde of civilization… ideas of justice and progress’. Mehmet Cavit Bey (1875-1926) was one of the most significant Donme political figures. He was active in the revolution as a highly articulate editor of a tabloid and professor of finance and was three time Finance Minister of Modern Turkey until his execution for his alleged role in the assassination attempt of Ataturk. It is believed that Cavit Bey was an ardent Zionist and saw the advantages for Turkey in the J ewish settlement of Palestine. Articles appeared that showed ardent support both for the Turc revolution and Zionism, as if part of the same process. Revolutionary activists Leon Gattegno and a Donme friend Mazlum Hakki, published a journal in Paris entitles ‘Resad’ under the pseudonym of ‘sucro’ and sent it to the great powers, condemning the Sultan’s government. In an article in the C.U.P. journal ‘Mechveret Suppliment Francais’ the Donme were mentioned to be the only group in Salonica active on behalf of the C.U.P. and the revolution. Another article describes the Donme as one of the most modernized groups in the empire. According to Pukru Haniolu, about five people appear active in the Salonican branch of the C.U.P. Two were J ewish and two of possible Donme descent. Emmanuel Karasu was Grand Master of the Macedonian Risorta Masonic Lodge and invited Muslims and Donme to join the lodges of the Empire sheltering them and providing them with a framework to disseminate their ideas. Avram Galante was a writer and participated in the Second Turk Congress in Paris in 1907. Ferdinand Efendi, an Ottoman of Greek descent and possibly Donme. A man called Archbolo whose ethnic descent is unknown, and another who had a Muslim name but might also have been Donme. Dr. Nazim, Nuzhet Faik, Mustafa Arif, Muslihiddin Adil, Sukru Bleda, Halide Edip Adivar and Ahmet Emin Yalman were all active in the Young Turks and of Donme families. Mehmet Kapanci (1839-1924) who was a mayor of Salonica and a well-known banker funded the C.U.P. and was a Donme. Other J ews active in the Young Turks were Nissim Mazliah from Izmir and Vitali Faradji, Moise Cohen (later called Munis Tekinalp) who was an active J ew and once rabbinical student who turned to business and actively asserted a proud Turkish identity along with Zionist sentiments. Other J ews and Donme served as ranking officers in the Turkish army. J ews had always been represented in Ottoman parliaments but there had been a significant rise after the revolution reflecting their degree of participation.]


What does this excerpt show? Modern Zionist recognition of the heavy J ewish/Donmeh/Zionist involvement in the Young Turk Party from the planning stages, financing activities, important offices held, etc. Ehrlich just scratches the surface of the issue, yet his article is enough acknowledgment of what I've been telling you.

[Diranakir]

Re: elegy

Reply 1 to ArmSurvival's post #753, p. 51 of Thread:

You say "What does this excerpt show? Modern Zionist recognition of the heavy J ewish/Donmeh/Zionist involvement in the Young Turk Party from the planning stages, financing activities, important offices held, etc. Ehrlich just scratches the surface of the issue, yet his article is enough acknowledgment of what I've been telling you."

The short answer to your final question and comment is as you yourself said: it shows heavy Donmeh INVOLVEMENT in the CUP. Are you willing to leave their role at that?
If so, we are in agreement.
__________

[Diranakir]

Re: elegy

Reply 2 to post 753 by ArmSurvival


Look at Levy’s name on this list of genocide deniers. Also notice the high proportion of J ewish professors on this list. You would do well to be critical of J ewish “professors”, “historians”, and “intellectuals” the same way you have been critical of British historians and The London Times. You will often find that these so-called professors are Zionist lapdogs, due to the modern political implications of their studies. Sadly, modern Politics is guiding the study of history, not vice-versa. Zionism is an extremely powerful modern political movement, and historical revisionism is one of their spheres of activity, especially in the United States.[/QUOTE]




Then can I express the same doubts about the following passage that you quote (on p. 46, post 679 of Thread) from Joachim Prinz's "The Secret xxxs" ?


Originally Posted by ArmSurvival from Joachim Prinz "The Secret xxxs":

The revolt of the Young Turks in 1908 against the authoritarian regime of Sultan Abdul Hamid began among the intellectuals of Salonika. It was from there that that the demand for a constitutional regime originated. Among the leaders of the revolution which resulted in a more modern government in Turkey wereDjavid Bey and Mustafa Kemal. Both were ardent doenmehs. Djavid Bey became minister of finance; Mustafa Kemal became the leader of the new regime and he adopted the name of Ataturk. His opponents tried to use his doenmeh background to unseat him, but without success. Too many of the Turks in the newly formed revolutionary cabinet prayed to Allah, but had as their real prophet Shabtai Zevi, the Messiah of Smyrna.
__

[Diranakir]

Re: elegy

[QUOTE=ArmSurvival;288238]When I mentioned the “next” Balkan war, I was referring to WWI, which started out as a war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia. It was a Balkan war that quickly escalated into a world war, but not the original Balkan war, hence my reference to the "next" Balkan war.

The source I used was one in which Carasso is quoted as gleefully awaiting the next major war for Turkey to join (and he was specifically talking about a Balkan war, which alludes to WWI). I referred to this source as the basis for my comment which you questioned, but you either ignored the source or maybe you’re waiting for me to provide signed documents by Carasso, Salem, and the rest of the gang in which they admit their guilt. In that case I’m sorry, I don’t have the evidence you’re looking for. If this is anywhere near your criteria for judging what really happened in history, then you can throw most of world history out the window.


Another Quote from ArmSurvival Post # 718, p. 48 of Thread:

We also know the three reasons for the Ottoman downfall were Pan-Turkism which was created by the J ew Vambery, and its implementation throughout the empire courtesy of Carasso and his J ewish buddies, and the entrance by the Ottoman Empire into WWI, which was encouraged and advocated by these same J ewish figures within the Young Turk party.

===============================================
Diranakir's comment:

If in the Wickham-Steed 'quote' you meant Carasso was looking forward to WWI, you should have said WWI. That 'quote' is the only foundation for your saying that the hebraic members (PLURAL) of the CUP railroaded Turkey into entering the war, whereas it only 'reports' what one man, Carasso, supposedly said. That is not nearly proof of your assertion about how the decision was made for Turkey to enter the war. You simply don't know, and you don't seem to know or care what the other members of the CUP thought about entering the war.

Following the lead set by Wickham-Steed, world J ewry can be depended upon, with a potent mixture of half-baked theories mixed with lurid gossip,
to conveniently fill in the blanks in one's understanding of events. Without question, that type of thinking bore its bitter fruit in the Holocaust.

I just want to be precise. The Armenian Genocide was conceived and carried out by the Ottoman State and the present government of Turkey bears responsibility for it.

[arabaliozian]

Re: elegy

01/04/10
**********************************
FRAGMENTS / II
************************************************** *
There is a margin of error in all our judgments. That's one way to explain the blunders of popes, imams, and self-righteous fanatics who think of themselves as infallible.
But I could be wrong.
If only we, all of us, were capable of ending all our assertions with that qualifier – I could be wrong.
*
The flunky of a national benefactor once gave me to understand that “they” were willing to “help” me, provided I followed instructions.
Because they have the cash and I have only ideas, they speak of “helping” me. Which means, they value cash more than ideas.
Which may also explain why everything they touch turns into ashes.
*
I speak as I do probably because I suffer from a rare condition known as allergy to money.
*
On more than one occasion I have been informed that those I call “flunkies” or “the scum of the earth,” are in fact honorable men.
They may be right.
I think as I do probably because I refuse to rely on the brainless for political guidance and on pimps for moral values.
*
Because he felt neglected and ignored by his audience, one of our authors once wrote a story in which a priest is caught masturbating in a public lavatory. Whereupon he was verbally assaulted and severely chastised by a wide number of outraged defenders of the faith. At one point even one of our national benefactors joined the the lynch mob. It was not so much a tempest in a teacup as a tsunami in a thimble. “I am ashed to be identified as an Armenian,” said the author, assuming the role of innocent victim. The whole situation reminded me of Oscar Wilde's dictum on fox-hunters: “The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable.”
*
MEMO TO OUIR ACADEMICS
*********************************************
No literature, please! Just tell us what's on your mind.
#

[Diranakir]

Re: elegy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diranakir
For ArmSurviva, a few more thoughts:

The term 'eye=witness account" means someone personally observing an event and describing it, not someone meeting someone and hearing something. Meeting someone does not make you an "eye-witness" of the policies or goals of that person. That's like McCain taking a trip to Baghdad and coming back to tell us, 'he's been there so he knows what's going on.' No, he didn't know before he went and he didn't know when he came back.
===============================================
ArmSurvival's response:
We are simply discussing the J ewish role in the genocide, which is something you denied at first, so that is the context of the discussion. If those accounts I posted are even half true, then they are eye-witness accounts of a situation which you challenged the veracity of. So my use of the term “eye-witness account” is valid in this context.
===============================================
Diranakirs comment:

Yes, I have learned a lot from this debate. I have learned that what I started out thinking was a preposterous fiction,i. e., the complicity of certain individuals of J ewish origin in the Armenian Genocide, was true. Much of that learning started with the sources that you laid out but I was not confined to your sources. Your quote about Carasso in no way constitutes
an eye-witness account of anything, but you still insist on misusing the term
to try elevating Wickham-Steed's dubious gossip into a semblance of fact.

[axel]

Re: elegy

The short answer to your final question and comment is as you yourself said: it shows heavy Donmeh INVOLVEMENT in the CUP. Are you willing to leave their role at that?

Without even mentioning Talaat Pasha, Dr Nazim is considered as one of the principal architects of the genocide. So it is more than "heavy involvement in the CUP".

Getting back to the involvement part, Arthur Beylerian mentions this article by Elie Kedourie (of Iraqi jewish background) to support his claim. I'm not sure it has been mentioned in this thread so I'm giving the link to the reference (if you are interested). The content does not appear to be available online.

Googling from there you can find other resources. For instance, In the Anglo-Arab Labyrinth: The McMahon-Husayn Correspondence and Its Interpretations from the same author. There, is a quote from Ronald Storrs' correspondence with a British Colonel (O A W Fitzgerald). With his letter, Ronald Storrs encloses a report "submitted by an unnamed Syrian to the British military authorities in Egypt" declaring that: "the only thing that filled the inhabitants with hatred against the (Ottoman) Government is the fact that the Zionists are supported by the Government and the Union and Progress party, and the lands of the natives are taken away by force to be sold to the Zionists. These Zionists are closely connected with Berlin and Constantinople and are the most important factor in the policy of Palestine" (this dates back to 28 Dec, 1914)