By any other name

April 24th is the day of commemoration for the Armenian genocide.  As Jonathan Schwarz points out, though, you won't find the U.S. government using the g-word for that particular historical atrocity.  But as I responded in comments, they're not the only ones who want to practice this particular form of Holocaust denial:

In its public relations battle vs. Armenians, Turkey has had no greater ally than Israeli governments and elements of the U.S. Jewish establishment, notably the American Jewish Committee.

The official Israeli line, stated most authoritatively in 2001 by then-Foreign Minister Shimon Peres on the eve of a state visit to Turkey, is that what happened to the Armenians “is a matter for historians to decide.”

Peres didn’t stop there. Speaking to a Turkish newspaper, Peres said, “We reject attempts to create a similarity between the Holocaust and the Armenian allegations. [Nothing similar to the Holocaust occurred. It is a tragedy what the Armenians went through but not a genocide.]"

(The bracketed continuation of the quote is from this article by Robert Fisk.)

Norman Finkelstein describes more of this type of reaction in his book The Holocaust Industry:

Elie Wiesel and Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg as well as the AJC and Yad Vashem withdrew from an international conference on genocide in Tel Aviv because the academic sponsors, against Israeli government urging, included sessions on the Armenian case.  Wiesel also sought, unilaterally, to abort the conference and, according to Yehuda Bauer, personally lobbied others not to attend.  Acting at Israel's behest, the US Holocaust Council practically eliminated mention of the Armenians in the Washington Holocaust Memorial Museum, and Jewish lobbyists in Congress blocked a day of remembrance for the Armenian genocide.

To be clear about the company they're keeping, Adolph Hitler used the following words in predicting that history would overlook his plan of wiping out the Poles: "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"  If you feel yourself going into irony overload, trust me, you're not alone.

Why are the Israeli government and prominent Jewish groups and individuals so fanatical about minimizing the Armenian genocide?  There are a number of reasons, but foremost among them is the conviction that if the Holocaust is not seen as being a unique and singular event it will lose its effectiveness as a tool of ideological discipline in furthering Israel's interests.  It's difficult to imagine a more rank example of hypocrisy.

Unless perhaps one considers the Clinton administration, which knew within days that the Hutus were executing a "final solution to eliminate all Tutsis" in Rwanda in 1994 and referred internally to the situation as "genocide," but refused to use that clear and simple characterization publicly, with State Department underlings only going so far as to say that "acts of genocide may have been committed."  Clinton had the unparalleled audacity to travel to Rwanda after the killing--never leaving the airport--and brazenly lie that he "did not fully appreciate the depth and the speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror."

Words like "we will not be silent" and "never again" are rendered meaningless by these kinds of cynical manipulations.  Genocide--whether perpetrated against Armenians, Jews, Tutsis, Native Americans, Poles, Gypsies, or any other group--is a horrific crime that should be condemned without reference to a political agenda.  There's a resolution in Congress now to officially recognize the Armenian genocide (similar to a bill that was pulled in the year 2000 at the request of the Clinton administration only minutes before a scheduled vote).  Here's hoping that they'll finally do the right thing by passing it.

Comments

[Frieda]

well at least Adam Schiff had this to say about the Armenian Genocide resolution:

"I don't see how we can speak with moral authority on the genocide in Darfur if we're unwilling to speak with clarity about the genocide against the Armenians,"

"It cannot be our policy that we'll recognize genocide when it's committed by the politically weak, as in Sudan, but not the politically strong, as in Turkey."

How can you disagree with what he said? how can conservative such as you be so intellectually dishonest when it comes to this resolution?

[John Caruso]

Frieda: I agree completely with what Schiff said, and in fact I'm glad to see that he and many other Democrats are supporting the Armenian genocide resolution. Whether or not Nancy Pelosi will bring it to the House floor for a vote remains to be seen, though, as well as whether or not it will actually be passed if it's brought to a vote.

I'm completely baffled by your last two sentences, however; I thought it would have been crystal clear from my posting that I'd agree wholeheartedly with what Schiff said. As far as me being a conservative (and an intellectually dishonest one to boot), I don't know how you could have come to that conclusion based on what I wrote here, unless perhaps it's just because I criticized Bill Clinton's utter moral bankruptcy on the issue of genocide--which I think is indisputable. Feel free to enlighten me.

[RD]

Perhaps Frieda would enjoy reading more postings on this site to better understand the political position of the author. Conservative? Hardly!