Jews of Turkish Origin Gather to Lobby for Turkey

And, by heavens, I am glad they did.

TQ: "There is nothing new in these arguments. Their form is the same: they all something seemingly true (the Jews indeed embraced communism en masse), but make a wrong attribution or distort the facts. "

M: How is it "distorting" the facts? I don't see how it is distorting the facts to say the truth, that the Jews supported Communism more than anybody else.

I explicitly stated that I accept this as a fact --- twice if not more. Also, in the preceding sentence, there are two patterns suggested. Yet, you argue against what we both agree on.

The above-given is a case of wrong attribution, not distortion.

TQ: "The Jews have embraces socialist and communism precisely because for the first time in European history someone promised them equality and the ability to get outside the Pal of Settlement in the Russian Empire."

M: If this is so then why did the Western Jews in the USA, France, Britain (who even had a Jewish Prime Minister) To the best of my knowledge, U.K. has never had a Jewish Prime Minister).

and Germany, which had relative equality, also support Communism and Socialism in such great disproportion to their numbers?

This is a legitimate, valid question, to which you actually already gave a partial answer. The Jews indeed had relative equality, they were emancipated but not accepted.

As for France, it is the Dreyfus affair that occurred right at the time under discussion.

As for the U.S., most of the Jews who came here came not even from Germany (that was in early and mid-1880s) but from Poland and Ukraine, at that very time. They were no different in this regard from those who stayed behind.

There were also other oppressed minorities in the Russian Empire, including the Poles, and they did not support Communism as disproportionately as the Jews did. Correct. This is because these minorities: (i) remained on their own land, (ii) could rightly attribute their inequality to the lack of national independence, (iii) could hope that, once they regain independence, their inequality would go away. None of that applied to the Jews. They had no land of their own; the acceptance by Gentiles was the only thing they could hope for.

TQ: "Which explains to my original remark: in all times, then-current problems in Europe were blamed on the Jews. "

M: The problem goes much father back but again it is not as one-sided as you make it sound. The Jews engaged in certain practices that were objectionable to the Christians. They often allied themselves with cruel monarchs and served them as tax collectors, for instance.

That is an example of incorrect attribution of a fact. It is true that many Jews served as tax collectors and in other capacities in finance. It is absolutely wrong to say that they aligned themselves with cruel monarchs. I do not even know where to begin.

Well, to begin, this was not a very active choice on their part: in most of Europe, Jews were prohibited from owning the land, in addition to engaging in specified trades. There was not much else the Jews could do for most of European history. The enlightenment --- which did come to the West, gradually allowed them to enter professions, but this occurred very recently, in 1880s.

Another related charge advanced against the Jews is that some of them were engaged in lending, charging interest. The Christians are taught that interest is immoral and the lending practice is sinful. Economy is economy, it requires lending. This function was essentially left to the Jews and, where applicable, Arabs. Now they are blamed for it.

Next, why is it that the Jews allegedly aligned themselves with cruel monarchs? What happened when a benevolent monarch was in power? Did the Jewish tax collectors quit the profession then? Clearly not. SO why are they not given credit for "aligning themselves" with kind monarchs, why does credit go only one way?

Further, if they alighted themselves with monarchs --- and you think that the populous did not like it -- why is it that the monarchs themselves remained anti-Semitic. It is well known, for instance that Kishinev (sp?) pogroms in the beginning of XX century were initiated at the top echelons of the government. In the very least, why did the monarchs not protect their Jewish population, which you allege to have "aligned" with them? The answer is that the reason was elsewhere.

Furthermore, the idea of anyone "aligning" himself with cruel monarchs against the people is a Marxist one. Also, even if true, the more powerful people --- the generals of the army, the nobility --- that aligned themselves with cruel monarchs --- why are they and their offspring not hated for centuries?

Finally, even the "fact" is distorted: there were not that many tax collectors among the Jews. Those few that actually did have that occupation were simply more noticed because they were... well, the Jews, not one of "us."

You have adopted an economic justification of anti-Semitism, Marduk. This version is well-known: when the communists finnally turned anti-Semitic, they have tried to "explain" the "justifiable rage" of the masses by these economics-based allegations: in their system, everything is economics and the strugge of economic classes, remember?

This "economics" is a misattribution of selectively collected fact. But, even more importantly, economics has alsmost nothing to do with anti-Semitism in Europe. Here is just one of myriad examples, well documents, which yu can find with great ease, This is a part of the Law of Theodosius, passed on January 31, 439 (("Novella III: Concerning Jews, Samaritans, Heretics, And Pagans)") --- shortly after the conversion of the Roman rulers.

Wherefore, although according to an old saying [of the Greek Hippocrates, the "father" of medicine] "no cure is to be applied in desperate sicknesses," nevertheless, in order that these dangerous sects which are unmindful of our times may not spread into life the more freely, in indiscriminate disorder as it were, we ordain by this law to be valid for all time:
No Jew - or no Samaritan who subscribes to neither [the Jewish nor the Christian] religion - shall obtain offices and dignities; to none shall the administration of city service be permitted; nor shall any one exercise the office of a defender [that is, overseer] of the city. Indeed, we believe it sinful that the enemies of the heavenly majesty and of the Roman laws should become the executors of our laws…
Moreover, for the same reason, we forbid that any synagogue shall rise as a new building. [Fewer synagogues meant less chance of Christians becoming Jews.]…
On the one hand, whoever has built a synagogue must realize that he has worked to the advantage of the Catholic church [which will confiscate the building]; on the other hand, whoever has already secured the badge of office shall not hold the dignities he has acquired…

Most Jews, for most part of the European history were rather poor. The recorded history, which until the advent of Marxism concentrated on the deeds of the monarchs and generals rather than general populous, recorded an occasional Jewish doctor and an occasional Jewish bookkeeper on the service of the rulers. For each such doctor, there were literally hundreds and thousands of simple workers who weaved buckets, milked cows, minor merchants that would buy produce and deliver it to the market, repaired watches, artisans, etc. It is only in about XIX century that they started to enter profession is noticeable quantities, and only in Western Europe. Russia, for instance, had an infamous quota system, allowing only a miniscule proportion of Jews to enter the universities as students.

Of course the common people then hated the Jews for being the ones that taxed them to death.

Another misattribution: there has never been a monarch or duke that would allow his subordinate to set the tax rates. Whether the tax collector was Jewish or not, he merely executed his employer's will. Why do we not hear about the estates of Christian tax collectors being constantly burned by the angry crowd? Why are the stories of these people not past from generation to generation? Instead, we hear only about the "Jewish tax collectors." We hear this so often that you even write about this with the clause "of course." There is nothing natural about this, Marduk.

This often resulted in pogroms. When the Jew-hatred got out of hand the monarchs who had allied themselves with the Jews then kicked out the Jews and misrepresented themselves to the people as the ones who saved them from the Jewish tax-collectors. Perhaps, in some instances that was the case. But most certainly, this does not even describe, let alone explain, the millennia of persecution. This is because there were only few of such instances --- with very lasting consequences . -- but very few nonetheless. The Jews were expelled from England, after a serious of riots, in 1290. They have not been seen there for about 400 years after that.

Incidentally, the riots had nothing to do with tax collection. The first recorded blood libel --- alleging that Jews kill Christian children to make Matzo for Passover --- is that of Norwich, in 1144. Here is an image from 1462, portrays the martyrdom of a three year-old boy Andrew: he is held down while his throat is slit; the perpetrators are clearly marked as Jews by their clothes and turbans (the distinguishing mark that, by a Church decree, the Jews had to wear)
There is even a whole Austrian Blood Libel cult --- of Anderl (Andrew) von Rinn, which originated in XV and became particularly popular in XVII. To shed some light on the "Enlightened" Europe and "economic" origins of anti-Semitism, here is an update by Veronika Schoennegger of the University of Innsbruck, Austria] (emphasis mine - TQ)

Some years ago, the bishop of Innsbruck [Bishop Stecher] tried to forbid the anti-Semitic cult and the body of Anderl was transferred from the church to the churchyard of Judenstein in 1985. And in 1994 the cult was officially forbidden and Anderl was supposed to become a symbol of antisemitism and of crimes against little children. Nevertheless, some very conservative people make a procession to his grave every year.

This is presently, in the third millennium. This is in the enlightened Western Europe. And this has nothing to do with tax collection and economics.

It appears to me, Marduk, that you are an honest person, trying to arrive at a conclusion of "an issue," which is often brought up. It appears to me --- and I may be wrong, of course --- that the version and explanation of history you have been presented, together with the standards that somehow the Jews (and they only) must satisfy, leads you to the conclusions you have made.

I have made this and preceding post so extensive to show you that "not all is well" with the knowledge base that had been presented to you. I am not a historian to give exhaustive accounts, nor does my occupation permit me go into such details regularly. I just hope that I gave you enough to question your conclusions, to seek alternative and/or additional sources. You may find the short book by Sartre (which I posted here) to be of interest as well.

Regards, TQ.

I am aware of this. The point is they converted to Christianity and they were the native people, the people who lived there. The Muslims were foreign invaders.

THis is a blatant double standard: the invaders who converted to Christianity are "native" people, but the Muslim invaders are not.

The Goths, whose name has become a symbol of barbarism, who pillages, destroyed, raped, and murdered as they invaded the truly native Iberians --- these have become in just a couple of centuries "native" to you.

Yet, the Muslims (whose conquest of Iberia was surely also violent), who very peacefully ruled there for 700-800 years, remained invaders.

Marduk, this is precisely the problem we have with Arabs today: when they choose their stand, they side with the Arab against a non-Arab at all times, no matter what that Arab has done.

In contrast, neither Judaism nor Christianity never taught such a thing: one is supposed to side with what is right, regardless of the religion of the actors. True, the Church has not always upheld that in the distant past, but this is precisely the main achievment of Christian Europe: to go beyod religious affuiliation and stand with what is right against what is wrong. That is why there were not fratricidal wars among Christians for several centuries (all serious atrocities were the deeds of godless socialists).

I am of the opinion that this is promoted by liberal historians who want to promote multiculturalism and mass immigration by Muslims into Europe and hate the idea that the Spanish kings kicked out Jews and Muslims. I don't trust official mainstream historians.

I am with you 100%. Which is why I mostly read historians from before the WWII.

I do know enough about it to know that the Jews helped the Muslim invaders in 711 and thereafter collaborated with the occupation. I already addressed that: there were also Christian "collaborators," collaborators always exist (just witness what heppened in WWII, about which we know more because it is recent). Why is it that nobody talks about those?

Since you do seem to be knowledgeable in Spanish history, perhaps you will recall also that the (Chrisitan) king (sorry, I do not recall the name) issued a verdict about enslavement and forced conversion of all Jews in the realm, killing those who refuse. It was the invasion by the Moores that interupted this first in history, Hitler-like "final solution." It well may be that, given that turn of events, many Jews viewed the Moores as saviors. As I reiterated earleir: the Moores immediately granted freedom of worship to all living under their rule, including the Jews.

The same thing happened in Ukraine, as you probably know, when the Nazis invaded: especially in Western Ukraine, the Russians have always been viewed as occupiers and hated so much that another invader --- the Nazis --- were actually welcomed as liberators. That's human nature --- to think that a change from a bad situation is alsways to teh batter ("thinhs cannnot be any worse," they say, only to discover later that things may have changes from bad to worse). Note that, in contrast to the situation of Jews in pre-Moorish Spain, the lives of Ukrainians was never, absolutely never, in danger. Not even their religion (of course, the Russian Orthodox would have loved to convert the Catholic Ukrainians, but the was never a real danger of prohibition). And yet, they welcomed the Nazis as liberators.

Why is it hard to understand that when A threatens you with extinction and B comes along, you are likely to embrace B --- as a last resort. Well you are party C, who happens to have suffered from B, so you blame A by association. (A=Jewish Spaniards, B=Moores, C=Christian Spaniards). The modern Western civilization does not consider guilt be association to be valid.

In no way can I side with Muslim invaders of Europe, particularly since I myself am of Spanish ancestry. You do not have to side with them, and I never urged you to do so. As I said, your Spanish ancestry may include Moorish blood in your veins --- of the many Moorish conversos who accepted Christianity in XV century as the condition of staying in in the country. It may also include Jewish blood of the many moranos --- the Jews who converted under the threat of Isabella the Catholic. You may also be partly Slavic.

Catholiscism does not make you a Spaniard.

I know that things are often taught otherwise. Just go to Granada, to see Alhambra. Listen to the guide --- and there the guides are official representatives of the Ministry (of culture, I think) --- as he belittles everything Moorish ----- in the Moorish castte. The first thing he pointed to was... the Church, and he proceeded to lament about how many years poor Christians had to wait to demolish the mosque. For an American, it was pretty shocking to hear this: the official guide giving an approved speach did not even care that there might be non-Catholics among those to whom he spoke.

In Seville, there is an area called Juderia, a large Jewish quater (I think at least 10% of the population was Jewish before Isabella "took care" of that). There is only one part of one building that servived to this day untouched. (That has been done not by the Moores). Guess what: even that place is not marked as such. The religious atmoshere in Spain is steril. Have you ever asked youself, why is it that there are 7,000 Jews in Munich only 50 years after the most terrible attrocity, the Holocaust, has been perpetrated on Jewish people, and there are none in Spain, 500 years after Isabella?

But never mind the Jews. You should not give to the distortion of history that may have been advaced before you. Double standards applied to groups of people are a form of bigotry, which I am sure you would want to avoid.

If you judge Goths by the same standards as Moores, either both of them or none of them are invaders.

There is nothing shameful about it for you today: that is history, this how it evolved. We just have to be honest with ourselves: otherwise, we develop false patriotism.

On a lighter note, have a glass of Jeres for me, and listen to some cante jondo, would you?

There is a difference as I understand it, and I could be wrong, as I am not an expert on Spanish history. My understanding is the conquering Visigoths largely inter-married with the people who were already there. There were assimiliating rapidly with the conquered peoples, and thus, were forming a nation. The Muslims obviously did not to the same extent; had that happened there would not have been the desire for a reconquest in the first place.

Your point is valid and well-taken. The Muslims indeed have remained a separate entity --- benevolent, but separaet nonetheless.

I beg to disagree with the conclusion, however:
had that happened there would not have been the desire for a reconquest in the first place.

The Goths have converted to Christianity and, through both force and not just inter-marriage, took averyone else with them, thereby forming a Christian nation, as you pointed out. A parallel would be complete if Muhammedan Moores inter-maried with the rest of the population they concurred and formed a relatively homogenous Muslim nation.

Now, do you think that, had that happened, Ferdinand and Isabella would not fight agains them? I do not think so. Recall also that this is the era of Crusades, of fighting for the "true religion" and recapturing the lands from the infidel --- from Iberia to Jerusalem.

Another aspect is purely human: neirther of these monarch felt personal attachment: it had almost 800 years from the Moorish consquest when they faught for Granada. After this many generations, there were not many people who felt personal attachment of retaking "their" land. Now, when you suggest to fight an infidel --- that is a different storry...

Isabella has explicitly said that all these conquests were made in the name of Christ. I think the religious differences were the largest component of the reconquista.

I think your analogy is inaccurate for several reasons but I would want to briefly research a couple of factual issues before I respond in further detail, so as not to incorrectly shoot from the hip.

Maybe its because they sold us out.

Commander Arthur Tremaine Chester, the Representative of the U.S. Shipping Board in Istanbul, wrote in the New York Times History Journal in February 1923 a powerful refutation of the Armenian genocide claim that should shake the confidence of even its strongest proponents: "We hear a great deal about the deportation of Armenians from the Northeast of Turkey during the World War. The facts are that the Turks sent an army to the Russian border to defend their country against the threatened Russian invasion. The army consisted of Turkish subjects of all nationalities, being drafted just as ours are drafted. At the front the Armenians used blank cartridges and deserted in droves. This was bad enough, but the Armenians were not satisfied with this form of treachery. The provinces in the rear of the army had a large Armenian population, and these people, feeling that there was an excellent chance of the Russians defeating the Turks, decided to make it a certainty by rising up in the rear of the army and cutting it off from its base of supplies. Let me draw a parallel imaginary case. Suppose that Mexico was a powerful and rival country with which we were at war, and suppose we sent an army to the Mexican border to hold back the invading enemy; suppose further that not only the negroes in our army deserted...but those left at home organized and cut off our line of communication. What do you think we as a people, especially the Southerners, would do to the negroes? Our negroes have ten times the excuse for hating whites than the Armenians have for their attitude toward the Turks. They have no representation, although they have an overwhelming majority in large sections of the South, and have nothing to say in the making or administration of the laws under which they are governed. South of the Mason and Dixon line they are practically a subject race, while the Armenians in Turkey have not only full representation but special privileges not accorded by any other country."

The examples you use are one of the root causes of European anti Semitism. In many ways for the jews, they were in a position where it became: da&&ed if you do and da**ed if you don't. Poland was a perfect example of using the Jews first for the Lords to ammass wealth then as a scapegoat to divert the peasants from noticing the amount of $$ the aristocracy actually had (not to mention the disparity in quality of life).

ADL CALLS ON TURKEY TO PROTECT JEWISH COMMUNITY AFTER TERRORIST SLAYING OF TURKISH JEW

New York, NY, November 28, 1995...The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today expressed outrage at the terrorist attack which killed a Jew in Bursa, Turkey and called on the Turkish government to publicly condemn the attack and immediately begin an intensive investigation to bring the assailants to justice.

Turkish security forces reportedly received an anonymous claim that the killing of Nesim Malki was in retaliation for the slaying last month in Malta of Fathi Shakaki, the head of the terrorist group Islamic Jihad.

"The Anti-Defamation League has grown increasingly concerned by anti-Jewish violent attacks within Turkey," Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, wrote to Ambassador Nuzhet Kandemir, Turkey's representative to the United States. "The Government of Turkey must step-up its efforts to protect the Jewish community of Turkey and do all it can to prevent future terrorist attacks," Mr. Foxman added.

ADL sent condolences to the Malki family and pledged to the Jewish community that it would "do all we can to urge the Government of Turkey to investigate today's terrorist attack and apprehend those responsible."

Turkish Jews have been a target of terrorists in several tragic incidents: in June, a radical Islamic group claimed responsibility for a car bomb attack which injured the leader of the Jewish community in Ankara; in September, 1986, 22 Jews were killed when the Neve Shalom synagogue in Istanbul was attacked by the Abu Nidal terrorist group.

The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.

Islamic Jihad.

This is a well-known, mostly foreign terrorist group.

They have also machine-gunned a sinagogue in Istanbul.

So, what's the point? This is not exactly yesterday news.

People see things differently, depending on the side they happen to be at.

The Americans fighting against the British in 1776, were terrorists to the Brits and patriots to the Americans.

The American Indians defending their lands and way of life were savages to the settlers, systematic genocide to others.

The Jews fighting the British in Palestine were terrorists to the Brits. Freedom fighters to the Jews.

The Armenians the Greeks etc, in Asia Minor (it be became Turkey in the 20th century) did not come from afar lands and conquered, and tried to change the religion of the natives there. They were the natives, and the Turks from Turkestan, who joined the Arabs in conquering and expanding the Ottoman Empire, were always seen as the conquerors and the oppressors. The fact that they were forced to fight with the Ottoman armies, does not mean they submitted to their conquerors. They were freedom seekers in the eyes of their own people, and traitors to the Turks’ eyes.

Because some soldier wrote something in the NY Times in 1923, it does not mean what he wrote is history. It is just another opinion.

Now the Jews in the Ottoman Empire did not have any land to claim as their own, except Palestine, and they were as strangers to these lands as the conquerors. Therefore siding with the strong party was to their advantage at the time. As their friends the Ottomans begun to be kicked out of the conquered lands, their friends the Jews, guilty by association, were not welcomed with open arms either.

And history repeats itself!

I don’t claim to be a historian, this is just my naïve and simple explanation, so feel free to correct me and educate me. I have a lot to learn before I die.

Please don't get too passionate about the whole thing; lets have civilized discussion, for what is worth.

The Muslims (Classical Arab to Ottoman times) ruled both Jews and Christians under the Islamic Dhimmi system. The Jews were treated better than Christians in the case of the Turks because the Jews, unlike the native Christians of Africa the Middle East and the Balkans presented no threat of revolt to the Islmic rulers (the rulers being the Turks from the 1500s on).

The Sultan was no fool when he invited the Jews of Spain and beyond to come and live in his domains. As Dhimmis, these Jews represented a rewarding opportunity for the Sultan to tax these productive Jews under the dhimmi system.

Since the Ladino Jews were not native to the lands they were asked to settle in there was no threat to the Sultan that they would revolt, beyond the example of the Shabbetai Zvi (1626-1676) incident.

Look, Spar it is customary to comment on what you quote.

You seem to be fond of posting without comment. You may think that these quotes are self-explanatory, but given that they are either obvious and nothing to the discussion or unrelated altogether, they make one suspecious that you just want to disparage the Turks. If so, you are shooting yourself in the foot.

If you want to be taken seriously, please include a comment next time. We do need lectures here, nor a librarian.

their friends the Jews, guilty by association, were not welcomed with open arms either. Interesting. That is what all of them say: the Poles, the Russians.... Just today someone was explaining the expulsion of Jews from Spain by thier "association" with the Moores...

This seems to be appealing to the contemporary mind: I am not an anti-Semite, I just do not like what they did to my country. What a nice way for a bad conscience to go to sleep.

Except the Jews were also blamed for the lack of water in the rivers, for the Plague --- and, of course, for killing the son of G-d.

One has to remember, however, the weords of Nietzsche: "The stings of bad conscience teach on to sting."

Could you please post the whole article --- if you don't mind and have it?

As I said earlier. every person sees the facts from his own angle of view. Can you please comment on the facts, without taking sides. We are trying to understand history, so that we may learn something today, and avoid repeating mistakes of the past. Do you have anything to offer in this respect?

And what are we supposed to get from this article?

Sure, no problem:

Differences Are Overwhelming

By Bruce Fein* - The differences between the alleged Armenian genocide of the World War I era and the Holocaust are overwhelming, something akin to the legal chasm between first degree murder and negligent homicide. To equate the two would be to vitiate the moral stigma that should attach to the crime of crimes, and to violate the rule of law itself.

Under international law, genocide is carefully defined as the specifically intended extermination, in whole or in part, of a racial, ethnic, or religious group because of their identity as such.

Under the Ottoman Empire, Armenians were a favored, not disfavored, religious minority.

The millet system granted them unprecedented local autonomy. Further, many Armenians rose to the commanding heights of the Ottoman civil service and economy, with an Armenian serving as the Sultan’s Foreign Minister in the late 19th century. In the decades before World War I, when nationalistic impulses were surging, Armenian extremists sought to provoke the Ottomans into retaliatory action by chronic acts of terrorism, a model that worked well against the Ottomans in Bulgaria. Armenians themselves openly acknowledged this malevolent plotting.

When World War I arrived, Ottoman Armenians defected en masse to fight for the Empire's enemies, especially Russia. Others remained behind to serve as Fifth Columnists or saboteurs.

The Armenians boasted of their perfidy at the post-World War I Paris Peace Conference to justify their demand for a separate nation. The Armenian treason is well documented by Armenian sources, especially in the memoirs of Boghos Nubarian.

The massive Armenian alliance with the Empire's enemies ignited a cycle of massacre and counter-massacre. As self-preservation is the first law of nations, in 1915 Ottoman officials ordered the relocation of its politically suspect Armenian population then living in militarily sensitive zones to its territory now known as Syria. Armenians in Istanbul and elsewhere outside these national security areas were left generally undisturbed. The relocation enterprise proved grim. The Empire's food and medical resources were thin for all the population. Armenian casualties from starvation, disease, and Ottoman Muslim killings were painfully high, perhaps 300,000-600,000. Similarly, at the end of the War and its aftermath, Muslim casualties at the hands of Armenians and their allies approximated 2.5 million. The Armenian figure though lower in absolute numbers, constitutes a substantially greater portion of the original Armenian population. The tragic Armenian losses and suffering deserve sympathy and commemoration, but no more so than their Ottoman Muslim counterparts. One innocent life is not worth more than another's in the eyes of God.

After the Ottoman defeat, the British occupied Istanbul and commanded full access to Ottoman Archives. Under the 1920 Treaty of Sevres, they were tasked to prosecute Ottoman officials guilty of Armenian massacres. More than 100 suspects were detained on Malta as a meticulous investigation ensued. After more than two years of exhaustive inquiry, Britain's highest legal experts advised against any prosecutions because want of reliable evidence. The detainees were thus released. No Ottoman official was either prosecuted or convicted of complicity in Armenian massacres in a court with the trappings of due process.

The post-World War I Ottoman Government was completely dependent upon the victorious Allied Powers who then occupied the remnants of the Ottoman Empire. This government established ersatz courts to try its political enemies. Included were trials on charges such as "outrages to Armenians." With almost no presentation of evidence, the courts found nearly every defendant guilty as charged. 1,376 individuals were sentenced to varying degrees of punishment for offenses ranging from violations of military order such as leaving a post without permission to failing to properly carry out the order under which the Ottoman Armenians of eastern Anatolia were relocated. No charges of crimes against humanity were raised or sustained. According to trial transcripts, the convictions were mainly political retribution, aimed at those who brought the Ottoman Empire into such a disastrous war. Sixty-two officials were sentenced to death and executed. Six officials, members of the Union and Progress Party, were tried in absentia and four were sentenced to death. Armenians eventually assassinated some of those tried in absentia.

Though these courts provided little due process, this does not mean that no Ottoman Muslims committed crimes against Ottoman Armenians or that no Ottoman Armenians committed crimes against Ottoman Muslims. But one must acknowledge that the Ottoman government brought to trial over 1,400 individuals for crimes against Armenians and executed some that were guilty of high crimes, while on the other hand, neither the Armenian nation nor Armenian guerrilla groups ever charged, disciplined, or prosecuted their own for equally gruesome and notorious crimes against Ottoman Muslims. Indeed, the perpetrators were characteristically treated as heroes!

They still are.

The differences between the Holocaust and the alleged Armenian genocide are cosmic. The Ottomans relocated Armenians because of suspect political loyalties, not because of race or religion. They were thus left undisturbed outside militarily sensitive areas. Hitler exterminated Jews precisely because of their race, not because of suspect political allegiance. Indeed, many had been highly decorated German soldiers in World War I. None were treasonous as World War II unfolded. But all were selected for the gas chambers or worse.

Killings during wartime for political reasons are not genocide; otherwise, war itself would be defined as genocide and the American fire and atomic bombings of Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki would have exposed United States President Harry Truman to a genocide prosecution.

In sum, the Armenian tragedy of World War I falls miles short of genocide because it pivoted on Ottoman political-national security calculations, not on racial or religious hatred. Further, Armenian deaths were not specifically intended, but were the unfortunate fall-out of malnutrition, pestilence, and community retaliatory vendettas. Indeed, the Ottoman government prosecuted more than 1,400 for maltreatment of Armenians. Hitler, in contrast, prosecuted Germans for refusing to kill, maim, or maltreat Jews.

Evidence proffered to support the Armenian genocide claim is unpersuasive. Ambassador Morgenthau's Story is routinely adduced as the smoking gun. But his narrative is almost entirely hearsay and his veracity highly suspect. His chief translator and secretary were both Armenian, Arshag Schmavonian and Hagop Andonian, respectively. Further, Morgenthau's correspondence with President Woodrow Wilson betrays an intent to contrive news, such as asserted Ottoman villainies, that would prod the United States into war. Moreover, Morgenthau unapologetically preached the racial inferiority of the Turks cursed with "inferior blood." Would you trust the Ku Klux Klan to provide reliable accounts of black behavior in the United States?

Morgenthau's storyline also fails to substantiate a racial, ethnic, or religious as opposed to a political motivation for the actions of Ottoman officials. He writes, for example: "That the Armenians all over Turkey sympathized with the Entente was no secret. 'If you want to know how the war is going,' wrote a humorous Turkish newspaper, 'all you need to do is look in the face of an Armenian. If he is smiling, then the Allies are winning; if he is downcast, then the Germans are successful.'"

If Ambassador Morgenthau's evidence were convincing, the twin decisions of the United States not to declare war on the Ottoman Empire and not to assume a League of Nations protectorate over a post-World War I Armenian state seem inexplicable. Morgenthau's story is also undercut by United States Secretary of State Robert Lansing's observation in November 1916: "I could see that [the Armenians'] well-known disloyalty to the Ottoman Government and the fact that the territory which they inhabited was within the zone of military operations constituted grounds more or less justifiable for compelling them to depart their homes. "United States Ambassador to Turkey, Rear Admiral Mark L. Bristol, wrote on March 28, 1921: "I see that reports are being freely circulated in the United States that the Turks massacred thousands of Armenians in the Caucuses. Such reports are repeated so many times it makes my blood boil. The Near East Relief have the reports from Yarrow and our own American people which show absolutely that such Armenian reports are absolutely false."

The United Nations Economic and Social Council Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities refused to endorse an Armenian genocide assertion leveled by Special Rapporteur Benjamin Whitaker for want of proof. That non-endorsement was reaffirmed by the United Nations on October 5, 2000.

The post-World War II Nuremberg Tribunal refused to entertain as evidence a quote attributed to Adolph Hitler on the eve of his Polish invasion asking who remembers the extermination of the Armenians. The attribution is no more reliable than the fraudulent Protocols of the Elders of Zion, as Princeton Professor Heath W. Lowry concludes in his authoritative booklet, "The U.S. Congress and Adolph Hitler on the Armenians."

Morgenthau's story is further dubious because, as United States Senator Hiram Johnson fretted, truth is the first casualty of war. Thus, the British-created Bryce Commission after World War I concluded that reports of countless rapes of Belgian women and gruesome killings of children by German soldiers were apocryphal wartime propaganda calculated to stir public wrath against the enemy. Isn't at least substantially likely that Ambassador Morgenthau succumbed to a corresponding reporting disease regarding the Ottoman's?

Morgenthau's story is also disputed by esteemed historians with no Ottoman or Turkish axe to grind, such as William Langer, Stanford Shaw, Bernard Lewis, and Justin McCarthy.

Commander Arthur Tremaine Chester, the Representative of the U.S. Shipping Board in Istanbul, wrote in the New York Times History Journal in February 1923 a powerful refutation of the Armenian genocide claim that should shake the confidence of even its strongest proponents: "We hear a great deal about the deportation of Armenians from the Northeast of Turkey during the World War. The facts are that the Turks sent an army to the Russian border to defend their country against the threatened Russian invasion. The army consisted of Turkish subjects of all nationalities, being drafted just as ours are drafted. At the front the Armenians used blank cartridges and deserted in droves. This was bad enough, but the Armenians were not satisfied with this form of treachery. The provinces in the rear of the army had a large Armenian population, and these people, feeling that there was an excellent chance of the Russians defeating the Turks, decided to make it a certainty by rising up in the rear of the army and cutting it off from its base of supplies. Let me draw a parallel imaginary case. Suppose that Mexico was a powerful and rival country with which we were at war, and suppose we sent an army to the Mexican border to hold back the invading enemy; suppose further that not only the negroes in our army deserted...but those left at home organized and cut off our line of communication. What do you think we as a people, especially the Southerners, would do to the negroes? Our negroes have ten times the excuse for hating whites than the Armenians have for their attitude toward the Turks. They have no representation, although they have an overwhelming majority in large sections of the South, and have nothing to say in the making or administration of the laws under which they are governed. South of the Mason and Dixon line they are practically a subject race, while the Armenians in Turkey have not only full representation but special privileges not accorded by any other country."

Genocide charges are too important to be addressed by sloppy or careless history or political manipulations.

*Bruce Fein is an adjunct scholar and general counsel of the Assembly of Turkish American Associations

People see things differently, depending on the side they happen to be at.

Good point. I agree.

The Americans fighting against the British in 1776, were terrorists to the Brits and patriots to the Americans.

The American Indians defending their lands and way of life were savages to the settlers, systematic genocide to others.

The Jews fighting the British in Palestine were terrorists to the Brits. Freedom fighters to the Jews.

Its Oha Kala (OK) to fight against the Brits.

The Armenians the Greeks etc, in Asia Minor (it be became Turkey in the 20th century) did not come from afar lands and conquered, and tried to change the religion of the natives there. They were the natives, and the Turks from Turkestan, who joined the Arabs in conquering and expanding the Ottoman Empire, were always seen as the conquerors and the oppressors. The fact that they were forced to fight with the Ottoman armies, does not mean they submitted to their conquerors. They were freedom seekers in the eyes of their own people, and traitors to the Turks’ eyes.

Yes but isn't 1000 years long enough to be accepted as a local in Asia Minor? The Turks may be seen as settlers/foreigners/occupiers to some but they did grant the minorities under their rule the highest levels of religous and cultural freedoms found anywhere at their time. The Armenian Patriarchiate in Istanbul was formed by Mehmet the Conquerer who granted them autonomy. The Greek Patriarchiate in Istanbul was also given similar autonomy and both churches have still survived to this day. If the Turks had been so keen on changing the religions of their subjects, do you think that you yourself would have been a Christian. It is a well known fact that the Orthodox Greeks preferred to remain under Ottoman rule even during a brief period of Catholic Venetian rule in Morea. They actually pledged to the Sultan to return and liberate them from Catholic oppression. Treachery and freedom fighting are two different things. In WWI at the same time that Ottoman soldiers of all races were giving 250,000 lives to protect the Empire at Gallipoli, the Armenians, fooled by their Church and Russian promises for independence, were siding with Russian invading Armies in the East. When the country was invaded by Greek/British/Italian/French/Russian/Armenian Armies after the war, the Greek and Armenians (not all of them ofcourse) were the first to greet them. It should, however, be noted that the 'Empire' had effectively gone bankrupt several decades before that time and life as an Ottoman citizen must have been bery harsh as the State had very little control over its territories and the people were left at mercy of local officials. However, I believe that after hundreds of years of coexistence, we deserved much better than a stab in the back from the Greeks and Armenians.

Because some soldier wrote something in the NY Times in 1923, it does not mean what he wrote is history. It is just another opinion.

Its an account by a reputable neutral source.

Now the Jews in the Ottoman Empire did not have any land to claim as their own, except Palestine, and they were as strangers to these lands as the conquerors. Therefore siding with the strong party was to their advantage at the time. As their friends the Ottomans begun to be kicked out of the conquered lands, their friends the Jews, guilty by association, were not welcomed with open arms either.

Its not as simple as that. Some nations still possessed the notions of gratitude and loyalty at that time.

Here's an interesting read from: The Sephardi Jewish Community in Pre-World War I Jerusalem [http://www.jqf-jerusalem.org/journal/2001/jqf 14/sephardi.html]

Debates in the Hebrew Press

Loyalty to the Ottoman Empire

The two main themes on which ha-Herut writers wanted to focus in the Arabic newspapers were: Jewish loyalty to the Ottoman Empire and possible Jewish contribution to the advancement of Palestine, for the benefit of all inhabitants, Arab or Jew.

The first issue is exemplified in various ways: during the Balkan wars, for example, the newspaper expressed its concern over the weakening of the Empire and the future of the reforms promised by the CUP. In an article dated 9 September 1912, a ha-Herut writer objected to the internal divisions and rivalries within the Empire caused by the rivalry between the CUP and the decentralist forces, claiming that they were weakening the Empire while its external enemies - the Christians, who were also perceived as the enemies of the Jews and Muslims in the Empire. The writer then declared that the Jews were loyal Ottoman citizens, who were willing to sacrifice everything to ensure the Empire's continued success and health.28 This same spirit of loyalty is reflected in another article, which describes the attitude towards Jews of the Christian-owned newspapers in Palestine:

We hate the homeland? Is there any other people who were more loyal, caring and devoted to the Empire than the Jewish people [A'm Israel, in Hebrew]? Do we, who have sacrificed so much for the country, hate the homeland?29

These efforts to prove Jewish loyalty to the Ottoman homeland appeared again a few years later in response to the CUP's loosening of regulations on Jewish immigration to Palestine. In an article dated April 1914, the newspaper enthusiastically encouraged Jews in Palestine to adopt Ottoman citizenship:

It is not enough that the majority of the inhabitants in Palestine is Jewish. The important factor is that the number of Jews who live in Palestine would be Ottoman. This is the main basis for our settlement in the country, and the essence of our success....30

Ottomanization was also perceived as another means of convincing the Arab population to drop their objection to Jewish immigration to Palestine.31 In the same 1914 article, the newspaper argued:

...we came here to live and revive the land as Ottoman citizens, to fill the duties that this citizenship requires us, and to enjoy the rights that this citizenship provides us... We would like to work side by side with our neighbors for the promotion of our country...32

Ottoman citizenship was perceived as the most important component of the Jewish identity, which should define the future of the Jewish Yishuv, as well as the future relations with Arabs living in Palestine - a view that seems unique to the Sephardi community.33

The other topic that ha-Herut sought to express in the Arab press was the argument that the Jewish community in Palestine could develop the country both culturally and economically. It was a somewhat paternalistic approach, presenting the Jewish population as more advanced and sophisticated than the Arab population.

In a series of articles (17, 18, and 19 September 1913), ha-Herut claimed, since the start of Jewish immigration to Palestine in the late nineteenth century, the cultural and economic levels of Palestine had changed vastly, with benefits to the Arab population. Jewish farmers had developed new agricultural and mechanical techniques, species of plants and irrigation methods, and remedies for pests and diseases. Following the immigration of prominent Jewish physicians from Europe, the level of medicine improved. Jewish residents of Palestine, most of them Ottoman citizens, represented the country in academic conferences around the world. The education system grew, with the addition of the first technological university in the Empire (the Technikum), as well as a teacher's seminar, art institutions, and music schools.34

The article series argued that these developments benefited not only the inhabitants of Palestine, Jews as well as Arabs, but also the Ottoman government, who profited from taxes and gained in loyal and skilled bureaucrats, as Jews joined the Ottoman administration.35 For all these reasons, ha-Herut believed that the advancement of the Jewish community in Palestine would lead to the advancement of the Arab community of the country, as well as the Ottoman Empire.

The distinction between Christians and Muslims in ha-Herut

As mentioned above, the Sephardi writers made a clear distinction between Muslim and Christian Arabs; the latter were perceived as "the worst enemies" who incited the Muslims against the Zionist movement. These accusations were based on articles that appeared in various Arabic newspapers, mainly the Christian-owned al-Karmil and Filastin in Palestine and Muslim-owned al-Muqtabas in Syria.36

The Sephardi Jews were not the only ones to label Christians as enemies: Arthur Ruppin also held the Christians responsible for the hatred of Jews and the ongoing opposition to Jewish immigration. Ruppin blamed it on the religious education that the Christian population got in Jesuit schools, which encouraged hatred of Jews.37 But was this distinction between Muslims and Christians justified? Were the Christian-owned newspapers really more aggressive towards the Jews than the Muslim-owned ones? Why did the Sephardi Jews in particular make this point?

This distinction was a common theme with several writers.38 In his book The Arabs and Zionism before World War I, Neville Mandel claims that a newspaper's attitude towards Zionism was related to the religion of its editor. Basing his conclusions on reports about the Arab press issued by the Palestinian Office in Jaffa, and written mainly by Nissim Malul, Manel argues that there was an additional correlation between the attitude towards Zionism and the CUP. Referring mainly to newspapers published in Damascus and Beirut, Mandel says that anti-CUP newspapers were edited by Muslims and expressed anti-Zionist views, whereas pro-CUP newspapers were edited by Christians and were either friendly or neutral towards Zionism.39

In Palestinian Identity - The Construction of Modern National Consciousness, Rashid Khalidi discusses this argument at length and, following a careful survey of ten newspapers from Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine and Syria, he opposes Mandel's view. Khalidi claims that, apart from one exception (the Egyptian al-Muqattam), all newspapers surveyed expressed anti-Zionists attitudes.40

Khalidi also objects to Mandel's linkage of attitudes towards the CUP and attitudes towards the Zionist movement. In the case of the Palestinian Christian newspaper al-Karmil, Khalidi tracks the change in the editor's position on the CUP from a positive position between 1908-1909 to an opposing view by 1911; he proves, however, that there was no change in the newspaper's position on the Jews and the Zionist movement. Both al-Karmil and Filastin were edited by Christians and were strong opponents of Zionism.41

In a 1914 review of the Arab press published in the Jewish ha-Schiloah newspaper, Malul argued a similar view.42 He divided the Arab newspapers in Egypt, Palestine, and Syria into four groups, according to their attitudes towards the Jews and the Zionist movement: the "free papers," which disregard the issue; the "medium papers," which do not express their own views but print various articles that oppose or support the question; "extremist papers," which strongly oppose the Zionist movement and the Jews; and "protector papers," which support the Jews. After checking the religious affiliation of the editor or owner of the newspapers, Malul concluded that there was no clear-cut correlation between the religious affiliation and the attitude of the newspaper towards the Jews: among the 15 "extremists papers," 11 were Muslims and only four Christians. Among the seven Palestinian newspapers, Christian newspapers were both "free" (like al-Quds and al-Akhbar) and "extremist" Christian papers (al-Karmil and Filastin). The only Muslim-owned newspaper checked in Palestine, al-I'tidal, was considered a "free newspaper."

Malul concluded that not all the Christian newspapers were against the Jewish Yishuv, whereas not all the Muslim papers supported it. Nonetheless, he still claimed that the Christians were indeed the main opponents of the Zionist movement.43

Based on the newspapers, then, it seems that there was no real justification for the distinction between the Christians and Muslims. However, it existed in the eyes of the Sephardim. How can this be explained?

One explanation has to do with the life experience of the Sephardi Jews, for while Jews and Muslims were closely linked to each other in the daily life, the Christians were always more remote - as is evident from Jacob Yehoshua's various descriptions of the life in Jerusalem.44 However, another explanation could also be related to the Ottoman identity held by the Sephardi Jews, as well to the external condition of the Ottoman Empire in the period under discussion.

As described above, the Sephardi community placed great importance on its Ottoman identity and its loyalty to the Empire, and writers in ha-Herut tried to encourage the Ashkenazi immigrants to adopt Ottoman citizenship and abandon their foreign ones. During the period discussed in this article, mainly between 1912-1914, the Ottoman Empire faced many challenges, external as well as internal. The two Balkan wars, and the loss of most of its Christian territories, shook the Empire's stability. The conflict was also extremely harsh for the Empire's Muslim inhabitants, most of whom lost their homes and became refugees. The wars also signaled a growing tension between Muslims and Christians within the Empire, with Christians perceived as sympathizers of Europe, and sometimes collaborators.

In his book, Mandel claims that, despite the religious tensions in the larger Empire, Muslims and Christians in Palestine became closer through their common objection to the Jewish immigration.45 However, based the data collected, it seems that this was not the view held by the Sephardi community. It is thus suggested that growing anti-Christian sentiment throughout the Empire influenced the Sephardi population in Palestine, who also developed hostile feelings towards Christians. As loyal Ottoman citizens, the Sephardim viewed the Christians as part of the general betrayal process in the Empire that took place during the Balkan Wars.

Moreover, the Sephardi resentment towards the Christian Arabs can also be explained by the collective experience of Ottoman Jews in the Empire. Throughout the years, the Christian communities in the Empire had persecuted and competed with the Jews for economic, religious and ethnic reasons. The Jews perceived Ottoman rule as the best protector against Christian anti-Semitism and sought its protection when the Empire lost its European territories.46 The Christians also enjoyed the protection and assistance of the western powers, which the Ottoman Empire perceived as imperialists. Thus, the Sephardim's reaction towards the Christians was influenced by this larger historical context.