Many Jews support Armenian Genocide resolution

May 3rd, 2007

An op-ed in today’s Fresno Bee gives the impression that the Jewish community as a whole is opposed to a Congressional resolution that recognizes the Armenian Genocide. Daniel Sokatch and David N. Myers write:

One of the last surviving leaders of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, Simha “Kazik” Rotem, once said that the central lesson of the Holocaust to him was that the Jewish people should stand vigilant against genocidal acts directed at any people.

This is why it is troubling that some major Jewish organizations have lined up in support of Turkey’s efforts to keep the U.S. Congress from recognizing the Armenian massacres as an act of genocide.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the American Jewish Committee (AJC), the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and B’nai B’rith International recently conveyed a letter from the Turkish Jewish community opposing a resolution recognizing the genocide.

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

However, many Jews have an entirely different opinion. The resolution was introduced by Rep. Adam Schiff, a Jewish Democratic congressman from California.

Schiff says the resolution reflects the historical reality. He notes that Raphael Lemkin, a Jew who coined the term “genocide” in 1943 to describe Nazi actions against Jews, cited the Armenian massacres as a precedent.

The historical parallels between the two events help explain the Jewish community’s reluctance to back the Turkish effort to stop Schiff’s resolution.

Off the record, Jewish officials say a community struggling to stem the tide of Holocaust revisionism is hardly in a position to endorse efforts to deny what Lemkin and other Holocaust chroniclers have described as the Holocaust’s antecedent. — JTA

Sokatch and Myers give several reasons that Jews might be sympathetic to Turkey:

Jewish opposition to recognizing the Armenian genocide comes mainly from a desire to safeguard the strategic relationship between Turkey and Israel. Alone among the world’s Muslim nations, Turkey has forged close military, political and economic ties with Israel.

In addition, Jews remember with a deep sense of gratitude that Turkey served as an important haven for their forebears fleeing persecution, from the time of the Spanish Expulsion in 1492 to the dark days of Nazism and beyond.

I strongly doubt that many Jews remember 1492. More likely they remember the difficulties the Ottoman Empire placed in the way of Jewish immigration to Palestine in the early years of the 20th Century.

In the Nazi era, the Turkish consul-general in Rhodes, Selahattin Ulkumen, saved a number of Jews by his personal intervention, at some risk. However Turkey itself stayed neutral during the war, so Jews in Turkey were not at risk for deportation by the Nazis.

Last year, Turkey severely strained relations with Israel by becoming the second non-Arab country to invite Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal for a visit. Prior to this, the Turkish PM had accused Israel of “sponsoring state terrorism against the Palestinians”.

A more likely reason that the various Jewish organizations transmitted the letter from Turkish Jews was that the Turkish Jews were under pressure from the Turkish government:

Significantly, a Jewish community delegation led by community president Silvyo Ovadya was one of five delegations arriving in Washington this year. The Turkish Jews came on their own initiative; other delegations included three separate groups of parliamentarians and an entourage led by Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul.

The Jewish delegation, whose visit coincided with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s annual policy forum in March, warned U.S. Jewish leaders that passage of the resolution would harm Turkey’s Western tilt and could make things uncomfortable for the country’s Jews.JTA (my emphasis)

I therefore think that it’s a little disingenuous to write that the Jewish organizations were “lining up in support of Turkey’s efforts” to keep the Congress from recognizing the Armenian Genocide.

Rather, they were acting to protect the Turkish Jews from reprisals by acceding to their request to pass the letter on. They were not speaking — and can not speak — as representatives of American Jews.

Legitimate historians are in agreement about the truth of the Armenian Genocide. I’m confident that the great majority of American Jews would agree with Rep. Schiff and with me and urge the US Congress to pass the measure recognizing the Armenian Genocide.

Technorati Tags: , ,

The Lebanon war’s greatest failure

May 3rd, 2007

By Vic Rosenthal 

Israel is not the US. Everything in Israel happens faster, time is compressed, everything is more intense. In the early 1980’s when the VCR came to Israel, everybody bought one in the first two weeks. There’s a story (possibly apocryphal) that somebody inspecting a ship bound for Israel could not believe its manifest, which stated that the cargo was made up entirely of VCR’s. How could such a small nation need that many VCR’s?

An Israeli acquaintance emailed on Tuesday that everyone in the country was consumed by the Winograd ‘earthquake’. Politics, like everything else in the country is speeded up and amplified, so this isn’t surprising, despite the fact that the contents of the report weren’t unexpected. But I’m not sure that the objective failures described in the report were the most serious problems that the war uncovered.

Read the rest of this entry »

This is what ‘engagement’ looks like

May 2nd, 2007

I guess this is what they mean when they say “the US should ‘engage’ in the Israeli-Arab conflict”:

JERUSALEM (Reuters) – The Bush administration has drawn up an eight-month timetable setting dates for when Israeli and Palestinian leaders would complete steps meant to bolster prospects for peace talks, U.S., Israeli and Palestinian officials said.

The U.S. timeline, the first of its kind presented to both sides, includes specific dates for when Washington envisages Israel letting Palestinian bus and truck convoys travel between the Gaza Strip and the occupied West Bank, a demand that has raised some Israeli objections.

Washington, at the same time, has set dates for when Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah would step up deployment of his forces and take specific measures to begin curbing rocket fire by militants.

What’s wrong with this plan:

  • Israel is required to take concrete steps which compromise security, while the Palestinians are required to deploy their “security forces”, many of whom are terrorists, and “take measures to begin” stopping terrorism.
  • The Bush administration has two very unequal partners. One is the Israeli government, which can control the actions of its army and permit or not permit Palestinian convoys to pass. The other is Mahmoud Abbas, who has little or no control over the actions of the Palestinians except for the members of his US-financed personal militia. The Palestinian ‘government’, such as it is, is in the hands of Hamas.

As with countless similar arrangements, here is what will happen: Unless Israel can wriggle out of it, she will be forced to allow the Palestinian convoys through — which might contain, for example, anti-aircraft weapons to be fired at Ben-Gurion Airport from the West Bank.

Abbas, on the other hand, try as he might, will not be able to control the ‘militants’, who — despite the arming and deployment of his militia — will somehow manage to perpetrate murderous acts against Israelis. But it won’t be his fault.

How is it legitimate for the Palestinians to demand something in return for…stopping terrorism?

Suppose I commit a series of bank robberies and am arrested by the police. Can I say “OK, I’ll agree to stop robbing banks, but only on these conditions…”? Of course not, bank robbery isn’t allowed in a civilized world.

The terrorism has to stop first. Period. Then we’ll talk.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Our friends, the BBC

May 2nd, 2007

The BBC has 26,000 employees, a budget of $7.9 billion (slightly less than half from British TV license fees), and broadcasts by domestic radio and television, shortwave, satellite and Internet. It has a huge audience, in the hundreds of millions of listeners, viewer, and readers (the World Service alone had 150 million listeners in 2001). It’s probably safe to say that the BBC is the world’s most influential news medium.

It has been consistently anti-Israel, in some cases subtly and in some cases not so subtly. A search of the HonestReporting site (a pro-Israel media watchdog) turns up no less than 85 entries for the BBC, including several annual “dishonest reporting” awards.

The “Beeb” has just won a lawsuit to keep secret an internal report which examined its Middle East reporting for bias. One assumes that they wouldn’t have spent a huge amount in legal fees to hide it if it made them look good!

Now Robin Aitken, a well-known journalist who worked for the organization for more than 25 years has written a book called “Can we trust the BBC?” What he wrote about the BBC and the Palestinians seemed particularly apt:

My view is that the Palestinians and the Palestinian leadership is the architect of its own misfortune in many ways. Whereas, what comes across from the BBC’s presentation of events in Palestine and the Middle East generally, is that in some ways, the Palestinians are a put-upon victim minority, and it’s the beastly Israelis who are doing the dirty to them.

And you know, that is not a fair presentation of the position. Because the Israelis are militarily strong and successful, and the Palestinians aren’t, I think the BBC allows that too much to play at its judgment, so that what comes across is too much sympathy, if you will, for the Palestinians, too little appreciation of the rights of Israel, and also too little recognition of the fact that Israel is a functioning democracy in a way that Palestine isn’t, and nor is any Arab-dominated Middle Eastern state, and not enough credit is given for that in my view.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Bishara brings the Israeli Arabs’ worst nightmare closer

May 2nd, 2007

Arab Knesset member Azmi Bishara, about whom I’ve written before (also here) has been accused of spying for Hezbollah during the war:

In one of the most grievous cases of espionage in Israeli history, the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) revealed Wednesday that former Balad chairman Azmi Bishara was under investigation for allegedly spying on behalf of Hizbullah during the Second Lebanon War by providing the guerrilla group with targets for their rockets as well as classified military information.

According to the allegations against Bishara, the former MK transferred to Hizbullah information, predictions, assessments and recommendations about the political echelon, the IDF and the Israeli public during the Second Lebanon War. — Jerusalem Post

In addition, Bishara is accused of “being in contact with intelligence operatives of other countries”, and of having “received detailed missions from Hizbullah which he carried out”. He is alleged to have received hundreds of thousands of dollars for his activities; security sources decline to release the name of the country in which the money originated.

Read the rest of this entry »