Le romancier acclamé par la critique parle de sa vie et de son œuvre
Par Khatchig Mouradian
Traduction Louise Kiffer
Chris Bohjalian, acclamé par la critique, est l'auteur de 11 romans, dont plusieurs sont devenus des bestsellers du New York Times. Ses romans s'intitulent "Midwives" (Sage-femmes) - une sélection de Publishers Weekly Best Book, et une sélection de Oprah Book Club: "Before you know Kindness"Et "The Double Bind". Ses ouvrages ont été traduits en 20 langues. Bohjalian est diplômé du Armherst College, et habite à Vermont, avec son épouse et sa fille.Les articles de Bohjalian sont parus dans Cosmopolitan, Reader's Digest et "The Boston Globe Sunday Magazine"Il est journaliste pour Gannett's Burlington Free Press depuis 1992.
Dans cette interview, menée au début du mois, Bohjalian parle de ses romans et de ses articles, ainsi que de ses passions et de ses souvenirs.
* * *
Khatchig Mouradian – Vous avez déménagé au Vermont, de New York après une épreuve désagréable avec un taxi. En quoi Chris Bohjalian, romancier de New York serait-il différent du romancier de Vermont en termes d'inspiration et de problèmes que vous soulevez dans vos romans ?
Chris Bohjalian – Les romanciers parlent d'un certain nombre de sujets angoissants sur la façon dont ils ont trouvé leur voix. La réalité, cependant, est que j'ai trouvé la mienne dans le Vermont. Le Vermont est un microcosme fascinant pour des questions qui relèvent de partout – l'environnement contre le développement, la médecine alternative et la traditionnelle, tout le bagage que nous amenons sur l'orientation sexuelle, et c'est si petit qu'il est possible d'animer ces problèmes à une échelle humaine, reconnaissable et profondément accessible. Par exemple, je n'aurais jamais écrit un livre sur le lieu de naissance littéral et métaphorique dans notre culture (Midwives), si j'étais resté à Manhattan. Après tout, la maison natale ne fait pas partie du dialogue. Je n'aurais pas non plus écrit un roman vaguement écologique comme Water Witches – et il est intéressant de remarquer que j'ai écrit ce roman en 1993 (il a été publié en 1995) des années avant que nous soyons préoccupés par le changement du climat mondial tel que nous le sommes maintenant. Ce n'est pas que je sois particulièrement prescient, mais en quelque sorte le Vermont l'est.
Même un roman tel que "The Double Bind" qui explore des thèmes que je n'aurais probablement pas abordés à New York – y compris naturellement la maladie mentale, et les sans abris – a trouvé son information dans le Vermont. Il était facile de faire des recherches sur le sujet à l'hôpital psychiatrique d'Etat, et dans l'un des établissements correctionnels, de même que pour trouver des thérapeutes et des assistants sociaux capables de m'aider, puisque nous sommes si peu nombreux. Un appel téléphonique ça et là, et je pouvais obtenir les interviews nécessaires.
Pourtant, j'aime New York. J'y retourne souvent, et la moitié de "Before you Know Kindness" s'est fait là-bas. Mais je pense que j'ai trouvé au Vermont des sujets plus aptes à renforcer mon style.
K.M. – Comment avez-vous décidé des sujets à traiter dans vos romans ? Dites voir comment vous procédez quand vous écrivez un roman.
C.B. L'inspiration provient invariablement de ma vie personnelle. Quelqu'un que j'ai rencontré, ou quelque chose dont j'ai entendu parler, ou que j'ai vu.
"The Double Bind" peut en être un bon exemple. Le roman a pris naissance en décembre 2003, quand Rita Markley, la directrice administrative du logement des sans abris, a partagé avec moi un box de vieilles photos. Les images en noir et blanc avaient été prises par un photographe qui avait été sans abri et qui était mort dans l'appartement de l'immeuble que son organisation avait trouvé pour lui. Il s'appelait Bob "Soupy" Campbell.
Les photos étaient remarquables, à la fois grâce au talent manifeste de Campbell, et à cause du sujet. J'ai reconnu les artistes – musiciens, comédiens, acteurs – et les rédacteurs sur la plupart d'entre elles.
J'écris un article hebdomadaire pour le "Burlington free Press" qui explique pourquoi Rita voulait que je voie les photos. Elle pensait que cela pourrait faire une histoire intéressante et elle avait tout à fait raison. J'ai écrit à propos de Campbell en décembre 2003, faisant des recherches sur sa vie et ses réalisations, et les raisons pour lesquelles il s'était retrouvé sans abri, et à ce jour, c'est resté les textes favoris que j'ai écrits pour ce journal. J'avais rendu célèbres les talents de Campbell (qui étaient nombreux) et j'avais rappelé aux lecteurs la ligne très fine qui sépare tant de nous de ceux qui deviennent sans abris. Mais ensuite, j'ai jugé que j'avais épuisé le sujet.
Six mois plus tard, en juin 2004, j'ai relu "The Great Gatsby" (Gatsby le Magnifique). J'adore ce roman. Peu d'écrivains ont ciselé des phrases si constamment lumineuses que Fitzerald ou compris la classe et la culture, et le profond désir également.
Ensuite, j'ai été faire une promenade en vélo sur une vilaine route profonde sous une canopée dans les bois. Ma femme avait entendu une histoire à la radio ce jour-là, que des parents avaient dit ceci à leurs enfants: si quelqu'un essayait de les enlever alors qu'ils étaient en train de rouler sur leur vélo, ils devraient se cramponner à leur guidon de toutes leurs forces. Il est plus difficile d'enlever quelqu'un et de le jeter à l'arrière d'une voiture ou d'une camionnette, s'il est fermement attaché à son vélo. La géométrie ne fonctionne pas.
Comme je roulais, je me suis mis à penser à Bob Campbell pour la première fois depuis des mois, et je pensais à lui relativement à Gatsby le magnifique. Pourquoi ? Peut-être parce que nous voyons toujours Gatsby le magnifique à travers la brume des photos en noir et blanc – le medium de Campbell. Et, naturellement, Gatsby le Magnifique est un roman de l'époque du jazz – or Campbell avait photographié de nombreux musiciens de jazz.
Et ainsi l'idée du "Double Bind" (double lien) s'est formée dans mon esprit, sur cette vilaine route. Je savais précisément comment un livre allait commencer, et pour la première fois de ma vie - je savais précisément comment il allait finir.
Bien sûr, cela voulait dire que je connaissais le A et le Z, mais pas les 24 lettres entre les deux. Cela voulait dire que j'avais une série de problèmes différents à résoudre. J'écrivis quatre brouillons avant même de pouvoir commencer à en publier un sérieusement. Un projet Henry-James-ian à la troisième personne; puis un projet à la première personne raconté par Laurel Estabrook (le personnage principal); ensuite un projet avec plusieurs narrateurs à la première personne; et finalement un projet subjectif à la troisième personne – moins froid et omniscient que la version initiale. Le brouillon a marché dans des chemins que le premier n'avait pas pris. C'est seulement là que j'ai commencé à perfectionner et à resserrer le roman.
K.M. – Les femmes figurent éminemment dans plusieurs de vos romans. Parlez-nous du défi d'écrire un roman comme "Sage-Femme" ou "The Double Bind " où fouiller dans le psychisme des comportements est la clé.
C.B. –J'aurais souhaité avoir eu un procédé spécifique mais je ne trouve pas qu'écrire sur les femmes soit si différent qu'écrire sur les hommes. Dans chacun des cas, c'est un acte d'imagination. Comment une personne va-t-elle réagir à un événement ou à un moment spécifique ? Qu'est-ce qu'un individu va éprouver ou penser ? Qu'est-ce que les gens voient ou entendent ?
Au cours des dix dernières années, j'ai écrit des romans ou décrit des scènes dans des romans en partant du point de vue (entre autres) d'une sage-femme, d'une lesbienne transsexuelle, d'une vigoureuse citoyenne âgée, d'un enfant américano-africain placé dans une famille d'accueil, une fillette de dix ans, une aristocrate prussienne de 18 ans en 1945, un jeune homme juif d'Allemagne qui avait sauté d'un train à destination d'un camp de la mort en 1943, et une variété d'hommes d'âge moyen à demi chauves. J'ai vraiment trouvé cette dernière catégorie – les hommes d'âge moyen à demi chauves comme moi, la moins intéressante.
K.M. – Parlez-nous de votre prochain roman Skeletons at the Feast (Squelettes à la fête)
C.B.- Ce roman est un départ – et c'est, au point de vue création – la chose la plus satisfaisante que j'ai faite dans ma vie (cela ne veut pas dire que c'est plutôt bien, ou que j'ai fait quelque chose de juste – c'est seulement que cela a été un combat et que c'était réconfortant).
En 1999, le père d'une petite fille de la classe du jardin d'enfant de ma fille m'a demandé si je voulais lire le journal inédit que sa grand'mère lui avait laissé. Sa mère venait de le traduire de l'allemand en anglais, et l'avait tapé à la machine. Nous étions de bons amis, je fus donc heureux d'y jeter un coup d'œil.
Le journal racontait en détails la vie de cette femme dans une propriété massive et une ferme dans la Prusse orientale, et il y avait un tas de choses qui me fascinaient – principalement les déplacements désespérés des femmes au cours des derniers mois de la seconde guerre mondiale pour atteindre les lignes britanniques et américaines avant l'arrivée de l'armée soviétique. Je l'ai proposé à plusieurs éditeurs, mais aucun n'était preneur.
Des années plus tard, en 2005, j'ai lu "Armageddon" de Max Hastings son compte-rendu non romanesque de la dernière année de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale en Allemagne, et je suis tombé sur des références à des scènes qui m'étaient familières. Puis je me suis rendu compte que j'avais lu ces mêmes faits dans ce journal six ans auparavant. J'ai demandé à mon ami si je pouvais le relire. Quand je l'ai revu, j'ai décidé que je voulais écrire un roman situé dans cette période, et c'est ainsi que j'ai commencé une partie de la recherche la plus intense (et l'écriture) de ma carrière professionnelle.
Skeletons at the Feast est un roman d'amour, un triangle d'amour, en fait qui se passe en Pologne et en Allemagne dans les six derniers mois de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale.
Les personnages ? Il y a Anna Emmerich, 18 ans, une fille d'aristocrates prussiens qui étaient à l'origine satisfaits quand leur propriété massive redevint allemande en 1939, mais qui découvrirent au cours des cinq années suivantes ce que signifiait réellement pour la gestion nazie leur district rural.
Il y a son amoureux, Callum Finella, un prisonnier de guerre de 20 ans, qui a été détaché du stalag dans sa ferme familiale comme travailleur forcé. Et il y a un caporal de la Wehrmacht de 26 ans, que les deux autres connaissent sous le nom de Manfred – mais qui est en réalité un chanteur, un Juif allemand qui s'est débrouillé pour oser s'échapper d'un train à destination d'Auschwitz, et qui a depuis lors saboté l'effort de guerre nazi.
Le roman raconte la plus longue journée de leur vie. Leur essai de croiser les rescapés du troisième Reich, de Varsovie au Rhin s'il le faut, pour atteindre les lignes britanniques et américaines.
K.M.- Nous avons discuté du rôle que le Vermont a joué dans votre œuvre. Qu'en est-il du rôle que vos parents et votre famille élargie ont joué, et de celui que votre épouse et votre fille jouent maintenant ? Comment diffusent-elles votre œuvre ?
C.B.- Ma mère s'est éteinte en 1995. Et mes parents – mon père naturellement depuis 1995 – vivent à des milliers de kilomètres depuis 1988. Il est certain que mon père est fier de moi. Ma mère l'était jusqu'à sa mort. Mais je ne dirais pas qu'ils ont influencé ma décision de devenir écrivain. Ils aimaient et soutenaient, et lisaient tout ce qu'un enfant pouvait désirer de ses parents. Mais ils ne furent pas un facteur conscient de ce que je faisais ou des sujets que je choisissais pour mes romans.
Ma femme et ma fille, en revanche, on joué un rôle critique dans mon travail. Ma femme est une éditrice merveilleuse et patiente. Elle, et Shaye Areheart (mon éditeur à Random House) sont les deux premiers lecteurs de tout ce que j'écris. J'apprécie énormément le jugement de ma femme.
Et le fait d'être parent a considérablement changé ce que j'écris. Voyez les romans tels que "les Sages-Femmes" et "Before you know Kindness", et le "Buffalo Soldier". Etre parent a été très important pour eux. Ils n'existeraient pas si ne n'avais pas eu la chance d'avoir ma fille. Et la petite fille dans "The Law of Similars" ? Mais, c'est ma petite fille quand elle avait trois ou quatre ans.
K.M.- Parlez-nous de vos souvenirs de jeunesse qui vous plaisent le plus..
C.B. J'ai eu une enfance classique de banlieue des années 60-70. J'ai grandi dans différentes banlieues à problèmes juste à l'extérieur de New York City (avec un détour de trois ans à Miami, Fla). Quand j'ai lu "Le Chien noir du Destin" de Peter Balakian, j'ai perçu les échos de ma propre enfance.
Nous avons aussi beaucoup déménagé, cependant, et à une certaine période, j'ai été dans quatre écoles différentes en quatre ans. Et ainsi, bien que mon enfance ne fût pas mauvaise, elle ne rassembla pas autour de moi beaucoup d'amis une fois que j'eus terminé ma 6ème année. Le fait est que mes amis ont changé par nécessité presque chaque année, depuis la 7ème année.
Mes souvenirs favoris, dans le désordre, sont:
Jouer au baseball dans la Little League de Stamford, Conn.;
Lire pour la première fois Johnny Tremain et " To Kill a Mocking Bird" et "April Morning".
Rendre visite à mes grands-parents à Tuckhahoe, N.Y. et écouter Léo Bohjalian – mon grand-père jouer du oud, après avoir perdu sa femme dans une piscine. Je peux encore sentir les beureks de ma grand'mère.
Organiser des cartes de baseball dans mon salon avant les orages;
Voler partout dans des aéroplanes
Etre follement effrayé par les films suivants: "The Birds (Les oiseaux) "The Haunting" et "Psycho".
K.M. – Vous avez écrit des articles pour Burlington Free Press depuis environ 17 ans maintenant. Parlez-nous de cette expérience.
C.B. J'aime bien écrire des articles, sinon je ne le ferais pas. J'écris habituellement à la fin de la semaine, et c'est un charmant répit de mon roman, qui peut être parfois sombre. Cela ne veut pas dire que je n'aborde pas des sujets graves dans mes colonnes à l'occasion. Je le fais. J'ai écrit par exemple, sur la mort de ma mère, sur le changement du climat dans le monde, et sur la guerre en Irak. Mais généralement, c'est une occasion d'explorer quelque chose de personnel, ou quelque chose qui me fait sourire.
Et alors que les gens me disent que ça doit être stressant de rédiger un article chaque semaine, ça ne l'est pas vraiment. C'est beaucoup moins stressant qu'un roman. Le secret ? J'essaie de ne jamais perdre de vue le fait que quelques heures après la parution de l'article le dimanche matin, il aide soit à allumer le feu dans le poêle à bois soit à être étalé sous la litière du chat.
http://www.armenweb.org/espaces/louise/reportages/chris-bohjalian.html
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Saturday, December 22, 2007
An Interview with Chris Bohjalian
Critically Acclaimed Novelist Talks about His Life and Work
By Khatchig Mouradian
The Armeian Weekly
December 22-29, 2007
Chris Bohjalian is the critically acclaimed author of 11 novels, several of which have become New York Times bestsellers. His novels include Midwives (a Publishers Weekly Best Book and an Oprah’s Book Club selection), Before You Know Kindness and The Double Bind. His work has been translated to 20 languages. Bohjalian graduated from Amherst College, and lives in Vermont with his wife and daughter.
Bohjalian’s articles have appeared in Cosmopolitan, Reader’s Digest and the Boston Globe Sunday Magazine. He has been a columnist for Gannett’s Burlington Free Press since 1992.
In this interview, conducted earlier this month, Bohjalian talks about his novels and columns, as well as passions and memories.
* * *
Khatchig Mouradian—You moved to Vermont from New York after an unpleasant experience involving a taxi. How would Chris Bohjalian the novelist in New York have been different from Chris Bohjalian the novelist in Vermont in terms of inspiration and issues you raise in your novels?
Chris Bohjalian—Novelists talk with an agonizing amount of hubris about how they found their voice. The reality, however, is that I did indeed find mine in Vermont. Vermont is a fascinating microcosm for issues that have relevance everywhere—the environment vs. development, alternative vs. traditional medicine, all the baggage that we bring to gender and sexual orientation—and it is so small that it is possible to bring these issues to life on a scale that is human, recognizable and profoundly accessible. For instance, I would never have written a book about the literal and metaphoric place of birth in our culture (Midwives), if I had remained in Manhattan. After all, home birth isn’t a part of the dialogue. Nor would have I written a vaguely eco-novel such as Water Witches—and it’s interesting to note that I wrote that novel in 1993 (it was published in 1995), years before we were focused on global climate change the way we are now. It’s not that I am especially prescient —but in some ways Vermont is.
Even a novel such as The Double Bind, which explores themes that I would have been likely to come across in New York—including, of course, mental illness and homelessness—was informed by Vermont. It was easy to research the subject at the state psychiatric hospital and one of the correctional facilities, as well find therapists and social workers who were available to help me, because we are just so small. A phone call here and a phone call there, and I was able to line up the necessary interviews.
Now, I love New York. I get back there often, and half of Before You Know Kindness is set there. But I believe I have found subjects in Vermont that are more in keeping with my strengths as a stylist.
K.M.—How do you decide what issues to tackle in your novels? Talk about the process of writing a novel.
C.B.—Invariably the inspiration is something in my personal life: Someone I have met or something I have heard or something I have seen.
The Double Bind may be as good an example as any. The novel had its origins in December 2003, when Rita Markley, the executive director of Burlington’s homeless shelter, shared with me a box of old photographs. The black-and-white images had been taken by a once-homeless photographer who had died in the apartment building her organization had found for him. His name was Bob “Soupy” Campbell.
The photos were remarkable, both because of Campbell’s evident talent and because of the subject matter. I recognized the performers—musicians, comedians, actors—and newsmakers in many of them.
I write a weekly column for the “Burlington Free Press,” which was why Rita wanted me to see the photos. She thought they might make for an interesting story, and she was absolutely right: I wrote about Campbell in December 2003, researching his life and accomplishments and why he might have wound up homeless, and to this day it remains one of my favorite essays I’ve written for the paper. I had celebrated Campbell’s talents (which were extensive) and I had reminded people of the very fine line that separates so many of us from being homeless. But then I thought I was done with the subject.
Six months later, in June 2004, I reread The Great Gatsby. I love that novel. Few writers crafted sentences as consistently luminescent as Fitzgerald or understood class and culture and longing as well.
Then I went for a bike ride on a dirt road deep in a canopy of woods. My wife had heard a story on the radio that day that advised parents to tell their children the following: If someone ever tried to abduct them while they were riding their bikes, they should hold onto the handlebars for dear life. It’s more difficult to abduct someone and throw them into the back of a car or a van if they are firmly attached to their bike. The geometry just doesn’t work.
As I rode, I started thinking about Bob Campbell for the first time in months, and I was thinking about him in regard to The Great Gatsby. Why? Perhaps it’s because we always see The Great Gatsby through a haze of black and white photographs—Campbell’s medium. And, of course, The Great Gatsby is a jazz age novel—and Campbell photographed a lot of jazz musicians.
And so the idea for The Double Bind formed in my head on that dirt road. I knew precisely how a book would begin and—for the only time in my life—I knew precisely how it would end.
Of course, this also meant I know A and Z, but not the 24 letters in between. That meant I had a different set of problems to solve. I wrote four drafts before I could even begin to seriously edit it: A Henry James-ian third person draft; then a first person draft narrated by Laurel Estabrook (the main character); then a draft with multiple first person narrators; and, finally, a draft that was third person subjective—less cold and omniscient than that initial version. This draft worked in ways the earlier ones hadn’t. Only then was I able to start refining and tightening the novel.
K.M.—Women figure prominently in many of your novels. Talk about the challenge of writing a novel like Midwives or The Double Bind, where delving into the psyche of the characters is key.
C.B.—I wish I could say there was a specific process, but I don’t find writing about women that different from writing about men. In each case, it’s an act of imagination. How would a person respond to a specific event or moment? What is an individual experiencing or thinking? What are people seeing or hearing?
In the last decade, I have written novels or scenes within novels from the perspectives of (among others) a midwife, a transsexual lesbian, a vigorous female senior citizen, an African-American foster child, a 10-year-old girl, an 18-year-old female Prussian aristocrat in 1945, a young Jewish man from Germany who has jumped off a train on the way to a death camp in 1943, and a variety of balding middle-aged men. I actually found this last category—the balding middle-aged men who are like me—the least interesting.
K.M.—Talk about your upcoming novel, Skeletons at the Feast.
C.B.—This novel is a departure—and it was creatively the most satisfying thing I have done in my life. (That doesn’t mean it’s any good or I got anything right—just that it was a struggle and it was rewarding.)
Back in 1999, the father of a girl in my daughter’s kindergarten class asked me if I would read an unpublished diary his grandmother had left behind. His mother had just translated it from German into English and typed it up. We’re good friends, and so I was happy to take a look at it.
The diary chronicled this woman’s life on a massive estate and farm in East Prussia, and there was a lot in it that fascinated me—especially the desperate journey the women made in the last months of the Second World War to reach the British and American liners ahead of the Soviet army. I shared it with some editors, but there weren’t any takers.
Years later, in 2005, I read Max Hastings’ Armageddon, his non-fiction account of the last year of the Second World War in Germany, and I kept coming across references to scenes that were familiar. And then I realized why: I had read of similar occurrences in that diary six years earlier. I asked my friend if I could see it again. When I reread it, I decided I wanted to write a novel set in the period, and thus began some of the most intense research (and writing) of my professional career.
Skeletons at the Feast is a love story—a love triangle, really, set in Poland and Germany in the last six months of World War Two.
The characters? There is 18-year-old Anna Emmerich, the daughter of Prussian aristocrats who were originally pleased when their massive estate once more became a part of Germany in 1939, but who discovered over the next five years what Nazi management really meant for their rural district.
There is her lover, Callum Finella, a 20-year-old prisoner-of-war who was brought from the stalag to her family’s farm as forced labor. And there is a 26-year-old Wehrmacht corporal who the pair know as Manfred—but who is, in reality, Uri Singer, a German Jew who managed a daring escape from a train bound for Auschwitz, and who has been sabotaging the Nazi war effort ever since.
The novel chronicles the longest journey of their lives: Their attempt to cross the remnants of the Third Reich, from Warsaw to the Rhine if necessary, to reach the British and American lines.
K.M.—We discussed the role Vermont played in your work. What about the role your parents and extended family played, and the role your wife and daughter play now? How do they inform your work?
C.B.—My mother passed away in 1995. And my parents—my father, of course, since 1995— have lived thousands of miles away since 1988. Certainly my father is proud of me. My mother was until she died. But I wouldn’t say they were instrumental in my decision to become a writer. They were loving and supportive and literate —everything a child could want from parents. But they were not a conscious factor in what I do or the subjects I choose for my fiction.
My wife and my daughter, however, play critical roles in my work. My wife is a wondrous and patient editor: She, along with Shaye Areheart (my editor at Random House), are the first two readers of all that I pen. I value my wife’s judgment enormously.
And being a parent has monumentally changed what I write. Look at novels such as Midwives and Before You Know Kindness and The Buffalo Soldier. Being a parent was pivotal to them.
C.B.—I had a classically 1960s/1970s suburban childhood. I grew up in a variety of Cheever-esque dysfunctional suburbs just outside of New York City, (with a three-year detour to Miami, Fla.). When I read Peter Balakian’s Black Dog of Fate, I saw echoes of my own childhood.
We also moved a lot, however, and in one period I went to four different schools in four years. And so while my childhood wasn’t bad, it didn’t revolve around great friends once I finished 6th grade. The fact is, my friends changed by necessity almost every year from 7th grade on.
My favorite memories, in no apparent order, are:
Playing Little League baseball in Stamford, Conn.;
Reading Johnny Tremain and To Kill a Mockingbird and April Morning for the first time;
Visiting my grandparents in Tuckahoe, N.Y., and listening to Leo Bohjalian—my grandfather—play the oud, after losing to his wife in pool. I can still smell my grandmother’s beregs;
Organizing baseball cards in my living room before thunderstorms;
Flying anywhere on airplanes;
Being scared silly by the following movies: “The Birds,” “The Haunting” and “Psycho.”
K.M.—You have been writing a column for Burlington Free Press for almost 17 years now. Talk about that experience.
C.B.—I enjoy writing the column. Otherwise, I wouldn’t do it. I usually write it at the end of the week, and it’s a nice respite from my fiction, which can be rather dark. That doesn’t mean that I don’t address serious issues in my column on occasion: I do. I have, for instance, written about the death of my mother, global climate change and the war in Iraq. But usually it’s an opportunity either to explore something personal or something that makes me smile.
And while people tell me that it must be a lot of pressure to turn out a column every single week, it really isn’t. It’s a lot less pressure than a novel. The secret? I try never to lose sight of the fact that a few hours after the column runs in the newspaper on Sunday morning, it is either helping to light a fire in a wood stove or lining the bottom of a cat’s litter box.
By Khatchig Mouradian
The Armeian Weekly
December 22-29, 2007
Chris Bohjalian is the critically acclaimed author of 11 novels, several of which have become New York Times bestsellers. His novels include Midwives (a Publishers Weekly Best Book and an Oprah’s Book Club selection), Before You Know Kindness and The Double Bind. His work has been translated to 20 languages. Bohjalian graduated from Amherst College, and lives in Vermont with his wife and daughter.
Bohjalian’s articles have appeared in Cosmopolitan, Reader’s Digest and the Boston Globe Sunday Magazine. He has been a columnist for Gannett’s Burlington Free Press since 1992.
In this interview, conducted earlier this month, Bohjalian talks about his novels and columns, as well as passions and memories.
* * *
Khatchig Mouradian—You moved to Vermont from New York after an unpleasant experience involving a taxi. How would Chris Bohjalian the novelist in New York have been different from Chris Bohjalian the novelist in Vermont in terms of inspiration and issues you raise in your novels?
Chris Bohjalian—Novelists talk with an agonizing amount of hubris about how they found their voice. The reality, however, is that I did indeed find mine in Vermont. Vermont is a fascinating microcosm for issues that have relevance everywhere—the environment vs. development, alternative vs. traditional medicine, all the baggage that we bring to gender and sexual orientation—and it is so small that it is possible to bring these issues to life on a scale that is human, recognizable and profoundly accessible. For instance, I would never have written a book about the literal and metaphoric place of birth in our culture (Midwives), if I had remained in Manhattan. After all, home birth isn’t a part of the dialogue. Nor would have I written a vaguely eco-novel such as Water Witches—and it’s interesting to note that I wrote that novel in 1993 (it was published in 1995), years before we were focused on global climate change the way we are now. It’s not that I am especially prescient —but in some ways Vermont is.
Even a novel such as The Double Bind, which explores themes that I would have been likely to come across in New York—including, of course, mental illness and homelessness—was informed by Vermont. It was easy to research the subject at the state psychiatric hospital and one of the correctional facilities, as well find therapists and social workers who were available to help me, because we are just so small. A phone call here and a phone call there, and I was able to line up the necessary interviews.
Now, I love New York. I get back there often, and half of Before You Know Kindness is set there. But I believe I have found subjects in Vermont that are more in keeping with my strengths as a stylist.
K.M.—How do you decide what issues to tackle in your novels? Talk about the process of writing a novel.
C.B.—Invariably the inspiration is something in my personal life: Someone I have met or something I have heard or something I have seen.
The Double Bind may be as good an example as any. The novel had its origins in December 2003, when Rita Markley, the executive director of Burlington’s homeless shelter, shared with me a box of old photographs. The black-and-white images had been taken by a once-homeless photographer who had died in the apartment building her organization had found for him. His name was Bob “Soupy” Campbell.
The photos were remarkable, both because of Campbell’s evident talent and because of the subject matter. I recognized the performers—musicians, comedians, actors—and newsmakers in many of them.
I write a weekly column for the “Burlington Free Press,” which was why Rita wanted me to see the photos. She thought they might make for an interesting story, and she was absolutely right: I wrote about Campbell in December 2003, researching his life and accomplishments and why he might have wound up homeless, and to this day it remains one of my favorite essays I’ve written for the paper. I had celebrated Campbell’s talents (which were extensive) and I had reminded people of the very fine line that separates so many of us from being homeless. But then I thought I was done with the subject.
Six months later, in June 2004, I reread The Great Gatsby. I love that novel. Few writers crafted sentences as consistently luminescent as Fitzgerald or understood class and culture and longing as well.
Then I went for a bike ride on a dirt road deep in a canopy of woods. My wife had heard a story on the radio that day that advised parents to tell their children the following: If someone ever tried to abduct them while they were riding their bikes, they should hold onto the handlebars for dear life. It’s more difficult to abduct someone and throw them into the back of a car or a van if they are firmly attached to their bike. The geometry just doesn’t work.
As I rode, I started thinking about Bob Campbell for the first time in months, and I was thinking about him in regard to The Great Gatsby. Why? Perhaps it’s because we always see The Great Gatsby through a haze of black and white photographs—Campbell’s medium. And, of course, The Great Gatsby is a jazz age novel—and Campbell photographed a lot of jazz musicians.
And so the idea for The Double Bind formed in my head on that dirt road. I knew precisely how a book would begin and—for the only time in my life—I knew precisely how it would end.
Of course, this also meant I know A and Z, but not the 24 letters in between. That meant I had a different set of problems to solve. I wrote four drafts before I could even begin to seriously edit it: A Henry James-ian third person draft; then a first person draft narrated by Laurel Estabrook (the main character); then a draft with multiple first person narrators; and, finally, a draft that was third person subjective—less cold and omniscient than that initial version. This draft worked in ways the earlier ones hadn’t. Only then was I able to start refining and tightening the novel.
K.M.—Women figure prominently in many of your novels. Talk about the challenge of writing a novel like Midwives or The Double Bind, where delving into the psyche of the characters is key.
C.B.—I wish I could say there was a specific process, but I don’t find writing about women that different from writing about men. In each case, it’s an act of imagination. How would a person respond to a specific event or moment? What is an individual experiencing or thinking? What are people seeing or hearing?
In the last decade, I have written novels or scenes within novels from the perspectives of (among others) a midwife, a transsexual lesbian, a vigorous female senior citizen, an African-American foster child, a 10-year-old girl, an 18-year-old female Prussian aristocrat in 1945, a young Jewish man from Germany who has jumped off a train on the way to a death camp in 1943, and a variety of balding middle-aged men. I actually found this last category—the balding middle-aged men who are like me—the least interesting.
K.M.—Talk about your upcoming novel, Skeletons at the Feast.
C.B.—This novel is a departure—and it was creatively the most satisfying thing I have done in my life. (That doesn’t mean it’s any good or I got anything right—just that it was a struggle and it was rewarding.)
Back in 1999, the father of a girl in my daughter’s kindergarten class asked me if I would read an unpublished diary his grandmother had left behind. His mother had just translated it from German into English and typed it up. We’re good friends, and so I was happy to take a look at it.
The diary chronicled this woman’s life on a massive estate and farm in East Prussia, and there was a lot in it that fascinated me—especially the desperate journey the women made in the last months of the Second World War to reach the British and American liners ahead of the Soviet army. I shared it with some editors, but there weren’t any takers.
Years later, in 2005, I read Max Hastings’ Armageddon, his non-fiction account of the last year of the Second World War in Germany, and I kept coming across references to scenes that were familiar. And then I realized why: I had read of similar occurrences in that diary six years earlier. I asked my friend if I could see it again. When I reread it, I decided I wanted to write a novel set in the period, and thus began some of the most intense research (and writing) of my professional career.
Skeletons at the Feast is a love story—a love triangle, really, set in Poland and Germany in the last six months of World War Two.
The characters? There is 18-year-old Anna Emmerich, the daughter of Prussian aristocrats who were originally pleased when their massive estate once more became a part of Germany in 1939, but who discovered over the next five years what Nazi management really meant for their rural district.
There is her lover, Callum Finella, a 20-year-old prisoner-of-war who was brought from the stalag to her family’s farm as forced labor. And there is a 26-year-old Wehrmacht corporal who the pair know as Manfred—but who is, in reality, Uri Singer, a German Jew who managed a daring escape from a train bound for Auschwitz, and who has been sabotaging the Nazi war effort ever since.
The novel chronicles the longest journey of their lives: Their attempt to cross the remnants of the Third Reich, from Warsaw to the Rhine if necessary, to reach the British and American lines.
K.M.—We discussed the role Vermont played in your work. What about the role your parents and extended family played, and the role your wife and daughter play now? How do they inform your work?
C.B.—My mother passed away in 1995. And my parents—my father, of course, since 1995— have lived thousands of miles away since 1988. Certainly my father is proud of me. My mother was until she died. But I wouldn’t say they were instrumental in my decision to become a writer. They were loving and supportive and literate —everything a child could want from parents. But they were not a conscious factor in what I do or the subjects I choose for my fiction.
My wife and my daughter, however, play critical roles in my work. My wife is a wondrous and patient editor: She, along with Shaye Areheart (my editor at Random House), are the first two readers of all that I pen. I value my wife’s judgment enormously.
And being a parent has monumentally changed what I write. Look at novels such as Midwives and Before You Know Kindness and The Buffalo Soldier. Being a parent was pivotal to them.
They wouldn’t exist if I hadn’t been blessed with my daughter. And the little girl in The Law of Similars? Well, that is my little girl at three and four.
K.M.—Talk about memories from your youth that you cherish most.
K.M.—Talk about memories from your youth that you cherish most.
C.B.—I had a classically 1960s/1970s suburban childhood. I grew up in a variety of Cheever-esque dysfunctional suburbs just outside of New York City, (with a three-year detour to Miami, Fla.). When I read Peter Balakian’s Black Dog of Fate, I saw echoes of my own childhood.
We also moved a lot, however, and in one period I went to four different schools in four years. And so while my childhood wasn’t bad, it didn’t revolve around great friends once I finished 6th grade. The fact is, my friends changed by necessity almost every year from 7th grade on.
My favorite memories, in no apparent order, are:
Playing Little League baseball in Stamford, Conn.;
Reading Johnny Tremain and To Kill a Mockingbird and April Morning for the first time;
Visiting my grandparents in Tuckahoe, N.Y., and listening to Leo Bohjalian—my grandfather—play the oud, after losing to his wife in pool. I can still smell my grandmother’s beregs;
Organizing baseball cards in my living room before thunderstorms;
Flying anywhere on airplanes;
Being scared silly by the following movies: “The Birds,” “The Haunting” and “Psycho.”
K.M.—You have been writing a column for Burlington Free Press for almost 17 years now. Talk about that experience.
C.B.—I enjoy writing the column. Otherwise, I wouldn’t do it. I usually write it at the end of the week, and it’s a nice respite from my fiction, which can be rather dark. That doesn’t mean that I don’t address serious issues in my column on occasion: I do. I have, for instance, written about the death of my mother, global climate change and the war in Iraq. But usually it’s an opportunity either to explore something personal or something that makes me smile.
And while people tell me that it must be a lot of pressure to turn out a column every single week, it really isn’t. It’s a lot less pressure than a novel. The secret? I try never to lose sight of the fact that a few hours after the column runs in the newspaper on Sunday morning, it is either helping to light a fire in a wood stove or lining the bottom of a cat’s litter box.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
The Betrayal of Turkish Jews
Khatchig Mouradian
November 15, 2007
For the past several months, the Jews of Turkey have been in the international spotlight. As Congress has debated the Armenian Genocide resolution, high-ranking Turkish officials have warned that Turkish Jews will be endangered if the resolution passes. And Jewish-American organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League have repeatedly cited the predicament of Turkish Jews as reason to support Turkey's campaign of genocide denial.
In an effort to better understand the plight of Turkish Jewry, I interviewed several prominent scholars who have studied the community.
To read the entire article, go to:
http://www.jewcy.com/cabal/turkish_jews
November 15, 2007
For the past several months, the Jews of Turkey have been in the international spotlight. As Congress has debated the Armenian Genocide resolution, high-ranking Turkish officials have warned that Turkish Jews will be endangered if the resolution passes. And Jewish-American organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League have repeatedly cited the predicament of Turkish Jews as reason to support Turkey's campaign of genocide denial.
In an effort to better understand the plight of Turkish Jewry, I interviewed several prominent scholars who have studied the community.
To read the entire article, go to:
http://www.jewcy.com/cabal/turkish_jews
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Une Interview avec Serj Tankian
par Khatchig Mouradian
Traduction Valère
http://www.yevrobatsi.org/st/item.php?r=2&id=3799
Cet interview de Serj Tankian, leader de System of a down, a été réalisé le 16 octobre 2007 au Paradise Club à Boston, dans le Massassuchet. Serj est actuellement en tournée pour la promotion de son nouvel album, sorti le 23 octobre, intitulé “Elect the Dead”.
Khatchig Mouradian : Parle-moi de ton expérience sur le nouvel opus.
Serj Tankian : Faire ce disque a été une expérience très enrichissante, une expérience vraiment positive pour moi, et très organique. J’ai mon propre studio d’enregistrement, j’y vais et j’y enregistre comme cela me plaît. Parmi la centaine de chansons que j’ai écrites, j’ai pris celles qui se prêtaient bien à ma voix pour ce projet particulier. J’ai enregistré tous les pianos et la plupart des cordes ( j’ai intégré deux guitaristes mais j’ai écrit toutes les pièces à cordes), j’ai programmé tous les jeux de batterie que j’ai réintroduis plus tard pour les jouer en live, arrangé la plupart des guitares, la plupart des basses et des voix. L’essentiel est produit et enregistré par moi sur mon propre label, et distribué par Warner.
K.M. : Tu as déclaré : « Avec ce disque, j’assume le succès ou l’échec. Ca m’a fait comprendre que j’ai une vie étonnante et je fais tout pour que mes rêves deviennent réalité”. Parle-moi de ces rêves.
S.T. : En fait, je rêve chaque nuit. [rire]. J’adore faire de la musique et c’est devenu mon travail. C’était ma passion et maintenant c’est aussi mon travail. J’ai aussi consacré une partie de ma vie à apprendre d’autres choses autour de moi. Que ce soit spirituel, politique ou écologique. Et, tu vois, il y a beaucoup de choses que je veux accomplir.
Mais, pour moi, l’accomplissement n’est pas vraiment important. Ce n’est pas seulement le fait de sortir un album qui m’intéresse, mais le processus qui te fait rencontrer des gens différents, différents vidéastes, différents artistes, webdesigners et journalistes, de profiter et d’apprendre ce que ce processus génère.
K.M. . : Concernant ta chanson “The Unthinking Majority” (La majorité silencieuse), tu déclares “ Cette chanson ne ressemble à aucune autre de mon disque solo et est censée inspirer une action collective”. Quelle action collective voudrais-tu voir ?
S.T.: Dernièrement, j’ai voulu comprendre en profondeur ce que la civilisation signifie. Je pense qu’on est tous accros à cette chose qu’on appelle ‘civilisation” qui a commencé il y a 10.000 ans (ndlr ‘Before Present’ pour préciser). Nous les Arméniens avons été au commencement de la civilisation (ndlr il délire, pardonnez-le, mais on l’aime quand même – note du correcteur : je confirme, d’ailleurs on est pareils). Cela dit, nous ignorons qui nous étions avant la civilisation, avant même celle des Arméniens. Nous savons que nous avons eu de multiples dieux comme les Grecs et beaucoup d’autres cultures, mais nous n’en savons guère plus sur cette époque, ni d’où vient son véritable caractère spirituel. Donc, c’est très important pour moi d’explorer notre part indigène, pas seulement en tant qu’Arménien, mais en tant qu’être humain. Nous faisons partie d’une progression des choses sur cette planète. Beaucoup de changements radicaux se produisent et continuent de se produire, et c’est très important pour nous de savoir où nous nous situons.
K.M. : Tu as dit “La civilisation en elle-même n’est pas durable. La civilisation est terminée”. Tu peux expliquer ?
S.T.: Au rythme actuel de progression, basé sur une surpopulation et un taux accéléré de destruction des ressources naturelles mondiales, la civilisation n’ est scientifiquement pas tenable.
K.M. : Parle-nous du rôle de System of a Down joué dans...
S.T.: La fin de la civilisation? [Hahaha]. Ce serait une super question ! Excuse-moi, quelle était ta question ?
K.M. : Le rôle qu’a joué System of a Down dans ta carrière et dans ta vie.
S.T.: Ca été mon groupe pendant 11 ans. Ca a lancé ma carrière musicale. Y compris mes amis avec qui j’ai joué et auprès de qui j’ai appris, que j’ai aimés et aidés. Et cela m’a conduit à être ce que je suis aujourd’hui pour explorer le genre de styles artistiques que j’ai explorés et être capable d’avoir une plate-forme d’expression. Mais System of a down n’est pas une marque, c’est un collectif de 4 amis qui sont artistes et qui jouent ensemble quand ils le désirent. Et je fais partie de ce collectif, et ma voix fait toujours partie de ce collectif.
K.M. : Entre la musique, la poésie et l’activisme populaire, où est-ce que tu te situes et comment te sens-tu dans ces genres différents ?
S.T.: J’essaie tout, je suis mes envies, tu comprends ? Si je sens comme un appel et que je dois m’engager quelque part, partir et mettre en place quelque chose, ou si je sens que je dois écrire une chanson, tout cela fait partie de la progression naturelle de ma vie.
K.M. . : Qu’as-tu à déclarer au sujet du débat actuel concernant la résolution du génocide arménien ?
S.T.: Je viens juste d’en parler sur une radio de Boston. On ne peut nier un génocide ou la Shoah en se basant sur une opportunité politique. Ca n’a absolument aucun sens. Si nous affirmons, comme les Etats-Unis, que nous sommes une démocratie, alors nous devons nous regarder en face et nous demander : Pouvons-nous mentir sur un génocide, ou en différer la reconnaissance au nom d’intérêts géopolitiques ou stratégiques ou dans l’intérêt d’une occupation militaire injuste en soi? C’est tenter de défaire une erreur par une autre erreur et cela n’a aucun sens. Voilà pourquoi beaucoup de parlementaires souiennent cette résolution, qui a été votée au Comité des Affaires étrangères. Et je suis sûr qu’elle sera votée par la Chambre des Représentants. D’ailleurs elle a le soutien de sa présidente, Nancy Pelosi.
Je sens qu’il y aura toujours un prétexte. Vous savez, nous avons attendu 92 ans, mais là je veux aller plus loin et dire que la résolution n’est pas l’essentiel. La reconnaissance n’est qu’une part de la juste solution. Si des gens viennent chez moi, tuent ma famille et pillent ma maison, je ne vais pas leur courir après pendant cent ans en les suppliant de reconnaître ce crime. Ce serait absurde. Je les conduirais plutôt au tribunal et j’exigerais la justice. Et c’est ce dont nous devons faire en fin de compte. Mais bien sûr, nous savons que ceci est le premier pas, donc nous devons garder cela à l’esprit.
K.M. . : Toujours sur cette question, la Secrétaire d’Etat C. Rice a déclaré que le “Le vote de cette résolution sera en fait très problématique pour tout ce que nous essayons de faire au Moyen-Orient”.
S.T.: J’ai peur de tout ce qu’ils essaient de faire au Moyen Orient. J’espère que cette résolution leur remettra le cul en place. [ndlr rires]
--------
note :
Nancy Pelosi (née Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro le 26 mars 1940 à Baltimore), est une femme politique américaine, membre du parti démocrate et représentante du 8e district de Californie au Congrès des États-Unis depuis 1987. Elle est la chef de file du parti démocrate à la Chambre des représentants depuis 2002. Présidente de la Chambre des représentants depuis le 4 janvier 2007, elle est la première femme à accéder à un poste aussi élevé.
Traduction Valère
http://www.yevrobatsi.org/st/item.php?r=2&id=3799
Cet interview de Serj Tankian, leader de System of a down, a été réalisé le 16 octobre 2007 au Paradise Club à Boston, dans le Massassuchet. Serj est actuellement en tournée pour la promotion de son nouvel album, sorti le 23 octobre, intitulé “Elect the Dead”.
Khatchig Mouradian : Parle-moi de ton expérience sur le nouvel opus.
Serj Tankian : Faire ce disque a été une expérience très enrichissante, une expérience vraiment positive pour moi, et très organique. J’ai mon propre studio d’enregistrement, j’y vais et j’y enregistre comme cela me plaît. Parmi la centaine de chansons que j’ai écrites, j’ai pris celles qui se prêtaient bien à ma voix pour ce projet particulier. J’ai enregistré tous les pianos et la plupart des cordes ( j’ai intégré deux guitaristes mais j’ai écrit toutes les pièces à cordes), j’ai programmé tous les jeux de batterie que j’ai réintroduis plus tard pour les jouer en live, arrangé la plupart des guitares, la plupart des basses et des voix. L’essentiel est produit et enregistré par moi sur mon propre label, et distribué par Warner.
K.M. : Tu as déclaré : « Avec ce disque, j’assume le succès ou l’échec. Ca m’a fait comprendre que j’ai une vie étonnante et je fais tout pour que mes rêves deviennent réalité”. Parle-moi de ces rêves.
S.T. : En fait, je rêve chaque nuit. [rire]. J’adore faire de la musique et c’est devenu mon travail. C’était ma passion et maintenant c’est aussi mon travail. J’ai aussi consacré une partie de ma vie à apprendre d’autres choses autour de moi. Que ce soit spirituel, politique ou écologique. Et, tu vois, il y a beaucoup de choses que je veux accomplir.
Mais, pour moi, l’accomplissement n’est pas vraiment important. Ce n’est pas seulement le fait de sortir un album qui m’intéresse, mais le processus qui te fait rencontrer des gens différents, différents vidéastes, différents artistes, webdesigners et journalistes, de profiter et d’apprendre ce que ce processus génère.
K.M. . : Concernant ta chanson “The Unthinking Majority” (La majorité silencieuse), tu déclares “ Cette chanson ne ressemble à aucune autre de mon disque solo et est censée inspirer une action collective”. Quelle action collective voudrais-tu voir ?
S.T.: Dernièrement, j’ai voulu comprendre en profondeur ce que la civilisation signifie. Je pense qu’on est tous accros à cette chose qu’on appelle ‘civilisation” qui a commencé il y a 10.000 ans (ndlr ‘Before Present’ pour préciser). Nous les Arméniens avons été au commencement de la civilisation (ndlr il délire, pardonnez-le, mais on l’aime quand même – note du correcteur : je confirme, d’ailleurs on est pareils). Cela dit, nous ignorons qui nous étions avant la civilisation, avant même celle des Arméniens. Nous savons que nous avons eu de multiples dieux comme les Grecs et beaucoup d’autres cultures, mais nous n’en savons guère plus sur cette époque, ni d’où vient son véritable caractère spirituel. Donc, c’est très important pour moi d’explorer notre part indigène, pas seulement en tant qu’Arménien, mais en tant qu’être humain. Nous faisons partie d’une progression des choses sur cette planète. Beaucoup de changements radicaux se produisent et continuent de se produire, et c’est très important pour nous de savoir où nous nous situons.
K.M. : Tu as dit “La civilisation en elle-même n’est pas durable. La civilisation est terminée”. Tu peux expliquer ?
S.T.: Au rythme actuel de progression, basé sur une surpopulation et un taux accéléré de destruction des ressources naturelles mondiales, la civilisation n’ est scientifiquement pas tenable.
K.M. : Parle-nous du rôle de System of a Down joué dans...
S.T.: La fin de la civilisation? [Hahaha]. Ce serait une super question ! Excuse-moi, quelle était ta question ?
K.M. : Le rôle qu’a joué System of a Down dans ta carrière et dans ta vie.
S.T.: Ca été mon groupe pendant 11 ans. Ca a lancé ma carrière musicale. Y compris mes amis avec qui j’ai joué et auprès de qui j’ai appris, que j’ai aimés et aidés. Et cela m’a conduit à être ce que je suis aujourd’hui pour explorer le genre de styles artistiques que j’ai explorés et être capable d’avoir une plate-forme d’expression. Mais System of a down n’est pas une marque, c’est un collectif de 4 amis qui sont artistes et qui jouent ensemble quand ils le désirent. Et je fais partie de ce collectif, et ma voix fait toujours partie de ce collectif.
K.M. : Entre la musique, la poésie et l’activisme populaire, où est-ce que tu te situes et comment te sens-tu dans ces genres différents ?
S.T.: J’essaie tout, je suis mes envies, tu comprends ? Si je sens comme un appel et que je dois m’engager quelque part, partir et mettre en place quelque chose, ou si je sens que je dois écrire une chanson, tout cela fait partie de la progression naturelle de ma vie.
K.M. . : Qu’as-tu à déclarer au sujet du débat actuel concernant la résolution du génocide arménien ?
S.T.: Je viens juste d’en parler sur une radio de Boston. On ne peut nier un génocide ou la Shoah en se basant sur une opportunité politique. Ca n’a absolument aucun sens. Si nous affirmons, comme les Etats-Unis, que nous sommes une démocratie, alors nous devons nous regarder en face et nous demander : Pouvons-nous mentir sur un génocide, ou en différer la reconnaissance au nom d’intérêts géopolitiques ou stratégiques ou dans l’intérêt d’une occupation militaire injuste en soi? C’est tenter de défaire une erreur par une autre erreur et cela n’a aucun sens. Voilà pourquoi beaucoup de parlementaires souiennent cette résolution, qui a été votée au Comité des Affaires étrangères. Et je suis sûr qu’elle sera votée par la Chambre des Représentants. D’ailleurs elle a le soutien de sa présidente, Nancy Pelosi.
Je sens qu’il y aura toujours un prétexte. Vous savez, nous avons attendu 92 ans, mais là je veux aller plus loin et dire que la résolution n’est pas l’essentiel. La reconnaissance n’est qu’une part de la juste solution. Si des gens viennent chez moi, tuent ma famille et pillent ma maison, je ne vais pas leur courir après pendant cent ans en les suppliant de reconnaître ce crime. Ce serait absurde. Je les conduirais plutôt au tribunal et j’exigerais la justice. Et c’est ce dont nous devons faire en fin de compte. Mais bien sûr, nous savons que ceci est le premier pas, donc nous devons garder cela à l’esprit.
K.M. . : Toujours sur cette question, la Secrétaire d’Etat C. Rice a déclaré que le “Le vote de cette résolution sera en fait très problématique pour tout ce que nous essayons de faire au Moyen-Orient”.
S.T.: J’ai peur de tout ce qu’ils essaient de faire au Moyen Orient. J’espère que cette résolution leur remettra le cul en place. [ndlr rires]
--------
note :
Nancy Pelosi (née Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro le 26 mars 1940 à Baltimore), est une femme politique américaine, membre du parti démocrate et représentante du 8e district de Californie au Congrès des États-Unis depuis 1987. Elle est la chef de file du parti démocrate à la Chambre des représentants depuis 2002. Présidente de la Chambre des représentants depuis le 4 janvier 2007, elle est la première femme à accéder à un poste aussi élevé.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Turkish PM: No Genocide, ‘We Even Gave the Armenian Deportees Pocket Money’
By Khatchig Mouradian
The Armenian Weekly
Nov. 10, 2007
WASHINGTON—On Nov. 5, after meeting with President Bush, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan gave a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, speaking mainly of U.S.-Turkish relations, the Kurdish issue and the Armenian Genocide Resolution, H.Res.106.
In his speech, Erdogan said that “it is sad for us to see” the introduction of a resolution that “renders legitimacy to the so-called Armenian genocide.” He stressed that the resolution “has the potential to deeply damage our strategic relations and it is important to ensure that is not discussed on the floor of Congress.”
“In fact, these Armenian allegations which are being kept constantly on the agenda in various countries have not been proven historically or legally,” Erdogan continued, repeating his call for a joint historical commission to examine what happened to the Armenians in 1915. When Erdogan suggested the idea of a “joint commission” in 2005, the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) sent him an open letter which read: “We are concerned that in calling for an impartial study of the Armenian Genocide you may not be fully aware of the extent of the scholarly and intellectual record on the Armenian Genocide. … We want to underscore that it is not just Armenians who are affirming the Armenian Genocide but it is the overwhelming opinion of scholars who study genocide: hundreds of independent scholars.”
Yet, at the National Press Club this week, Erdogan said he was sure there was never a genocide of the Armenians. “What took place was called deportation,” he said. “That was a very difficult time. It was a time of war.”
The Armenians, he argued, were provoked by other countries to rebel, leading to Ottoman Turkish government’s decision “to start deporting the Armenian citizens to other parts of the Empire.”
To show how well the Armenian deportees were treated, Erdogan—who made no reference to the killing of any Armenian—went so far as to say that the Ottoman government even provided the Armenians with pocket money. “…And we have documents in our archives which attest to this fact,” he said.
“There are all sorts of instructions about how people should be sent from one area to another, how much money is to be paid to them as pocket money as they travel. Those who counter [our thesis] must come up with their own documents, but there are no documents that they can show,” he charged.
A Leading Turkish Historian Responds
The Armenian Weekly contacted Turkish-born historian and sociologist Taner Akcam, professor of history at the University of Minnesota and author of A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility, to comment on Erdogan’s allegation.
“I haven’t seen any single Ottoman document that shows that money was given to Armenians,” Akcam said. “It is, indeed, true that the central government sent money to the regional authorities to cover the expenses of the deportations. Part of the revenues from plundering the possessions of the Armenians and auctioning them was used by the government to finance the deportations.”
Furthermore, Akcam said, “There is ample evidence that in the Eastern Anatolian regions like Eskishehir, Afyon and Konya, Armenians were partially ‘transported’ by train and were made to pay for their own tickets.
The Armenian Weekly
Nov. 10, 2007
WASHINGTON—On Nov. 5, after meeting with President Bush, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan gave a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, speaking mainly of U.S.-Turkish relations, the Kurdish issue and the Armenian Genocide Resolution, H.Res.106.
In his speech, Erdogan said that “it is sad for us to see” the introduction of a resolution that “renders legitimacy to the so-called Armenian genocide.” He stressed that the resolution “has the potential to deeply damage our strategic relations and it is important to ensure that is not discussed on the floor of Congress.”
“In fact, these Armenian allegations which are being kept constantly on the agenda in various countries have not been proven historically or legally,” Erdogan continued, repeating his call for a joint historical commission to examine what happened to the Armenians in 1915. When Erdogan suggested the idea of a “joint commission” in 2005, the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) sent him an open letter which read: “We are concerned that in calling for an impartial study of the Armenian Genocide you may not be fully aware of the extent of the scholarly and intellectual record on the Armenian Genocide. … We want to underscore that it is not just Armenians who are affirming the Armenian Genocide but it is the overwhelming opinion of scholars who study genocide: hundreds of independent scholars.”
Yet, at the National Press Club this week, Erdogan said he was sure there was never a genocide of the Armenians. “What took place was called deportation,” he said. “That was a very difficult time. It was a time of war.”
The Armenians, he argued, were provoked by other countries to rebel, leading to Ottoman Turkish government’s decision “to start deporting the Armenian citizens to other parts of the Empire.”
To show how well the Armenian deportees were treated, Erdogan—who made no reference to the killing of any Armenian—went so far as to say that the Ottoman government even provided the Armenians with pocket money. “…And we have documents in our archives which attest to this fact,” he said.
“There are all sorts of instructions about how people should be sent from one area to another, how much money is to be paid to them as pocket money as they travel. Those who counter [our thesis] must come up with their own documents, but there are no documents that they can show,” he charged.
A Leading Turkish Historian Responds
The Armenian Weekly contacted Turkish-born historian and sociologist Taner Akcam, professor of history at the University of Minnesota and author of A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility, to comment on Erdogan’s allegation.
“I haven’t seen any single Ottoman document that shows that money was given to Armenians,” Akcam said. “It is, indeed, true that the central government sent money to the regional authorities to cover the expenses of the deportations. Part of the revenues from plundering the possessions of the Armenians and auctioning them was used by the government to finance the deportations.”
Furthermore, Akcam said, “There is ample evidence that in the Eastern Anatolian regions like Eskishehir, Afyon and Konya, Armenians were partially ‘transported’ by train and were made to pay for their own tickets.
Turkish PM: No Genocide, We Even Gave the Armenian Deportees Pocket Money
By Khatchig Mouradian
The Armenian Weekly
Nov. 10, 2007
WASHINGTON—On Nov. 5, after meeting with President Bush, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan gave a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, speaking mainly of U.S.-Turkish relations, the Kurdish issue and the Armenian Genocide Resolution, H.Res.106.
In his speech, Erdogan said that “it is sad for us to see” the introduction of a resolution that “renders legitimacy to the so-called Armenian genocide.” He stressed that the resolution “has the potential to deeply damage our strategic relations and it is important to ensure that is not discussed on the floor of Congress.”
“In fact, these Armenian allegations which are being kept constantly on the agenda in various countries have not been proven historically or legally,” Erdogan continued, repeating his call for a joint historical commission to examine what happened to the Armenians in 1915. When Erdogan suggested the idea of a “joint commission” in 2005, the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) sent him an open letter which read: “We are concerned that in calling for an impartial study of the Armenian Genocide you may not be fully aware of the extent of the scholarly and intellectual record on the Armenian Genocide. … We want to underscore that it is not just Armenians who are affirming the Armenian Genocide but it is the overwhelming opinion of scholars who study genocide: hundreds of independent scholars.”
Yet, at the National Press Club this week, Erdogan said he was sure there was never a genocide of the Armenians. “What took place was called deportation,” he said. “That was a very difficult time. It was a time of war.”The Armenians, he argued, were provoked by other countries to rebel, leading to Ottoman Turkish government’s decision “to start deporting the Armenian citizens to other parts of the Empire.”
To show how well the Armenian deportees were treated, Erdogan—who made no reference to the killing of any Armenian—went so far as to say that the Ottoman government even provided the Armenians with pocket money. “…And we have documents in our archives which attest to this fact,” he said.
“There are all sorts of instructions about how people should be sent from one area to another, how much money is to be paid to them as pocket money as they travel. Those who counter [our thesis] must come up with their own documents, but there are no documents that they can show,” he charged.
A Leading Turkish Historian Responds
The Armenian Weekly contacted Turkish-born historian and sociologist Taner Akcam, professor of history at the University of Minnesota and author of A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility, to comment on Erdogan’s allegation.
“I haven’t seen any single Ottoman document that shows that money was given to Armenians,” Akcam said. “It is, indeed, true that the central government sent money to the regional authorities to cover the expenses of the deportations. Part of the revenues from plundering the possessions of the Armenians and auctioning them was used by the government to finance the deportations.”
Furthermore, Akcam said, “There is ample evidence that in the Eastern Anatolian regions like Eskishehir, Afyon and Konya, Armenians were partially ‘transported’ by train and were made to pay for their own tickets.
The Armenian Weekly
Nov. 10, 2007
WASHINGTON—On Nov. 5, after meeting with President Bush, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan gave a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, speaking mainly of U.S.-Turkish relations, the Kurdish issue and the Armenian Genocide Resolution, H.Res.106.
In his speech, Erdogan said that “it is sad for us to see” the introduction of a resolution that “renders legitimacy to the so-called Armenian genocide.” He stressed that the resolution “has the potential to deeply damage our strategic relations and it is important to ensure that is not discussed on the floor of Congress.”
“In fact, these Armenian allegations which are being kept constantly on the agenda in various countries have not been proven historically or legally,” Erdogan continued, repeating his call for a joint historical commission to examine what happened to the Armenians in 1915. When Erdogan suggested the idea of a “joint commission” in 2005, the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) sent him an open letter which read: “We are concerned that in calling for an impartial study of the Armenian Genocide you may not be fully aware of the extent of the scholarly and intellectual record on the Armenian Genocide. … We want to underscore that it is not just Armenians who are affirming the Armenian Genocide but it is the overwhelming opinion of scholars who study genocide: hundreds of independent scholars.”
Yet, at the National Press Club this week, Erdogan said he was sure there was never a genocide of the Armenians. “What took place was called deportation,” he said. “That was a very difficult time. It was a time of war.”The Armenians, he argued, were provoked by other countries to rebel, leading to Ottoman Turkish government’s decision “to start deporting the Armenian citizens to other parts of the Empire.”
To show how well the Armenian deportees were treated, Erdogan—who made no reference to the killing of any Armenian—went so far as to say that the Ottoman government even provided the Armenians with pocket money. “…And we have documents in our archives which attest to this fact,” he said.
“There are all sorts of instructions about how people should be sent from one area to another, how much money is to be paid to them as pocket money as they travel. Those who counter [our thesis] must come up with their own documents, but there are no documents that they can show,” he charged.
A Leading Turkish Historian Responds
The Armenian Weekly contacted Turkish-born historian and sociologist Taner Akcam, professor of history at the University of Minnesota and author of A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility, to comment on Erdogan’s allegation.
“I haven’t seen any single Ottoman document that shows that money was given to Armenians,” Akcam said. “It is, indeed, true that the central government sent money to the regional authorities to cover the expenses of the deportations. Part of the revenues from plundering the possessions of the Armenians and auctioning them was used by the government to finance the deportations.”
Furthermore, Akcam said, “There is ample evidence that in the Eastern Anatolian regions like Eskishehir, Afyon and Konya, Armenians were partially ‘transported’ by train and were made to pay for their own tickets.
Friday, November 2, 2007
The Washington Post Perpetuates a Destructive Myth
By Khatchig Mouradian
The Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.Res.106) has attracted enormous media attention since it was passed by the House International Affairs Committee on October 10. However, the content of many of the articles, columns and stories written make one thing clear: Writers across the United States were ill-prepared to tackle the issue of the Armenian genocide, simply because they knew very little about it.
One case in point is Richard Cohen's article in the Washington Post, titled "Turkey's War on the Truth" (Oct. 16, 2007). Cohen makes arguments based on false premises. After conceding--with condescension--that what happened to the Armenians in 1915 was "plenty bad," he concludes that it falls short of genocide "because not all Armenians...were...affected." Clearly, if we follow his train of thought, Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur and several other cases should not be labeled as "genocide."
Read the entire article here:
http://www.jewcy.com/daily_shvitz/washington_post_lemkin_and_armenian_genocide
The Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.Res.106) has attracted enormous media attention since it was passed by the House International Affairs Committee on October 10. However, the content of many of the articles, columns and stories written make one thing clear: Writers across the United States were ill-prepared to tackle the issue of the Armenian genocide, simply because they knew very little about it.
One case in point is Richard Cohen's article in the Washington Post, titled "Turkey's War on the Truth" (Oct. 16, 2007). Cohen makes arguments based on false premises. After conceding--with condescension--that what happened to the Armenians in 1915 was "plenty bad," he concludes that it falls short of genocide "because not all Armenians...were...affected." Clearly, if we follow his train of thought, Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur and several other cases should not be labeled as "genocide."
Read the entire article here:
http://www.jewcy.com/daily_shvitz/washington_post_lemkin_and_armenian_genocide
Sunday, October 21, 2007
An Interview with Serj Tankian
By Khatchig Mouradian
The following interview with System of a Down’s frontman Serj Tankian was conducted on Oct. 16 at the Paradise Club in Boston, Mass. Tankian is on tour promoting his new album—set to be released on Oct. 23—“Elect the Dead.”
Khatchig Mouradian—Talk about your experience putting this album together.
Serj Tankian—Making this record has been a real learning experience, a strong positive experience for me, and very organic. I have my own studio, I go in and record as I please. I have hundreds of songs and I picked out songs that would lend themselves to my voice for this particular project. I recorded all the pianos and most of the strings (I brought in a couple of string players but I wrote all the string parts), programmed all the drums, then brought in drummers later to play them live, performed most of the guitars, most of the bass and vocals, pretty much produced it myself and recorded it myself and put it out on my own label through Warner, the distributor.
K.M.—You say, “With this record all success or failure rests with me. It made me realize that I have an amazing life and I’m getting to make a lot of my dreams come true.” Talk about those dreams.
S.T.—Well I have dreams every night. [Laughs.] I love doing music and it’s become my work. It was my passion and now it’s also my work. I’ve also devoted part of my life to learning other things around me, whether it’s spiritual, political or ecological. And, you know, I have a lot of things I want to accomplish. But accomplishments aren’t really important personally. I enjoy this process of not just putting a record out but involving different people, different video directors, different artists, website designers and journalists, and enjoying the process and learning from the process.
K.M.—Referring to the song “The Unthinking Majority,” you say “it is unlike any song on my solo record and meant to inspire collective action.” What collective action would you like to see?
S.T.—Ultimately I’d like to see some type of deep perspective and understanding of what civilization means. I think we’re all addicted to this thing called civilization that started 10,000 ago. We as Armenians have been at the beginning of that civilization, yet we don’t know what we were before civilization even as Armenians. We just know that we had multiple gods like the Greeks and many other cultures, but we don’t know much about those times and where the true character of spirituality comes from. So it’s very important for me to explore our indigenous past, not just as Armenians but as humans. We’re a part of the progression of things on this planet. A lot of radical changes are occurring and will continue to occur, and it’s important for us to know where we stand.
K.M.—You mentioned civilization. You’ve said, “Civilization itself is not sustainable. Civilization is over.” Can you explain that?
S.T.—At the current rate of progression, based on overpopulation coupled with the accelerated rate of destruction of the world’s natural resources, civilization is scientifically unsustainable.
K.M.—Talk about the role System of a Down played in…
S.T.—Ending civilization? [Laughs.] That would be a great question! Sorry, what was your question?
K.M.—The role System of a Down plated in your career and your life.
S.T.—It’s been my band for 11 years. It launched my musical career. It included my friends that I’ve played with and learned from and love and care for. And it’s brought me to where I am today to explore the type of artistic avenues that I have been exploring and to be able to have a platform of speech. But System of a Down is not a brand, it’s a collective of four friends that are artists that play together when they so desire, and I am a part of that collective, and my voice has always been a part of that collective.
K.M.—From music to poetry to grassroots activism, where do you find yourself and how do you feel in these different avenues?
S.T.—I do whatever, I follow my heart, you know? If I feel like making a call and doing something in terms of activism or going out there and planting something or if I feel like writing a song, it’s just all a part of the natural progression of my life.
K.M.—What do you have to say about the current discussion regarding the Armenian Genocide Resolution?
S.T.—I just said it on a radio station in Boston. You can’t deny a genocide or holocaust based on political expediency. It makes absolutely no sense. If we claim as America that we’re a democracy then we have to look in the mirror and ask: Can we lie about a genocide or hold off its recognition for the sake of geopolitical or strategic gains or a military occupation that is unfair in itself? It’s trying to undo one mistake with another mistake and it doesn’t make sense. That’s why a lot of Congressmen are behind the resolution, and it passed [the House Foreign Relations] Committee and I’m confident that it will pass the House. And it’s got Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi’s support.
I feel like there’s always going to be an excuse. You know, we’ve waited 92 years, but ultimately I want to go further and say, recognition is not that important. Recognition is one part of the just solution. If someone came to my house, killed my family and robbed my house, I’m not going to run after them for a hundred years and beg them to recognize that crime. That makes no sense, I’m going to take them to court and I’m going to loudly request justice, and that’s what needs to be done ultimately. But obviously, we all know that this is the first step, so we got to keep the goal in mind.
K.M.—On the same issue, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that “The passage of this resolution indeed will be very problematic for everything we are trying to do in the Middle East.”
S.T.—I’m scared of everything they’re trying to do in the Middle East. Maybe the resolution will help them put their asses in place.
The following interview with System of a Down’s frontman Serj Tankian was conducted on Oct. 16 at the Paradise Club in Boston, Mass. Tankian is on tour promoting his new album—set to be released on Oct. 23—“Elect the Dead.”
Khatchig Mouradian—Talk about your experience putting this album together.
Serj Tankian—Making this record has been a real learning experience, a strong positive experience for me, and very organic. I have my own studio, I go in and record as I please. I have hundreds of songs and I picked out songs that would lend themselves to my voice for this particular project. I recorded all the pianos and most of the strings (I brought in a couple of string players but I wrote all the string parts), programmed all the drums, then brought in drummers later to play them live, performed most of the guitars, most of the bass and vocals, pretty much produced it myself and recorded it myself and put it out on my own label through Warner, the distributor.
K.M.—You say, “With this record all success or failure rests with me. It made me realize that I have an amazing life and I’m getting to make a lot of my dreams come true.” Talk about those dreams.
S.T.—Well I have dreams every night. [Laughs.] I love doing music and it’s become my work. It was my passion and now it’s also my work. I’ve also devoted part of my life to learning other things around me, whether it’s spiritual, political or ecological. And, you know, I have a lot of things I want to accomplish. But accomplishments aren’t really important personally. I enjoy this process of not just putting a record out but involving different people, different video directors, different artists, website designers and journalists, and enjoying the process and learning from the process.
K.M.—Referring to the song “The Unthinking Majority,” you say “it is unlike any song on my solo record and meant to inspire collective action.” What collective action would you like to see?
S.T.—Ultimately I’d like to see some type of deep perspective and understanding of what civilization means. I think we’re all addicted to this thing called civilization that started 10,000 ago. We as Armenians have been at the beginning of that civilization, yet we don’t know what we were before civilization even as Armenians. We just know that we had multiple gods like the Greeks and many other cultures, but we don’t know much about those times and where the true character of spirituality comes from. So it’s very important for me to explore our indigenous past, not just as Armenians but as humans. We’re a part of the progression of things on this planet. A lot of radical changes are occurring and will continue to occur, and it’s important for us to know where we stand.
K.M.—You mentioned civilization. You’ve said, “Civilization itself is not sustainable. Civilization is over.” Can you explain that?
S.T.—At the current rate of progression, based on overpopulation coupled with the accelerated rate of destruction of the world’s natural resources, civilization is scientifically unsustainable.
K.M.—Talk about the role System of a Down played in…
S.T.—Ending civilization? [Laughs.] That would be a great question! Sorry, what was your question?
K.M.—The role System of a Down plated in your career and your life.
S.T.—It’s been my band for 11 years. It launched my musical career. It included my friends that I’ve played with and learned from and love and care for. And it’s brought me to where I am today to explore the type of artistic avenues that I have been exploring and to be able to have a platform of speech. But System of a Down is not a brand, it’s a collective of four friends that are artists that play together when they so desire, and I am a part of that collective, and my voice has always been a part of that collective.
K.M.—From music to poetry to grassroots activism, where do you find yourself and how do you feel in these different avenues?
S.T.—I do whatever, I follow my heart, you know? If I feel like making a call and doing something in terms of activism or going out there and planting something or if I feel like writing a song, it’s just all a part of the natural progression of my life.
K.M.—What do you have to say about the current discussion regarding the Armenian Genocide Resolution?
S.T.—I just said it on a radio station in Boston. You can’t deny a genocide or holocaust based on political expediency. It makes absolutely no sense. If we claim as America that we’re a democracy then we have to look in the mirror and ask: Can we lie about a genocide or hold off its recognition for the sake of geopolitical or strategic gains or a military occupation that is unfair in itself? It’s trying to undo one mistake with another mistake and it doesn’t make sense. That’s why a lot of Congressmen are behind the resolution, and it passed [the House Foreign Relations] Committee and I’m confident that it will pass the House. And it’s got Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi’s support.
I feel like there’s always going to be an excuse. You know, we’ve waited 92 years, but ultimately I want to go further and say, recognition is not that important. Recognition is one part of the just solution. If someone came to my house, killed my family and robbed my house, I’m not going to run after them for a hundred years and beg them to recognize that crime. That makes no sense, I’m going to take them to court and I’m going to loudly request justice, and that’s what needs to be done ultimately. But obviously, we all know that this is the first step, so we got to keep the goal in mind.
K.M.—On the same issue, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that “The passage of this resolution indeed will be very problematic for everything we are trying to do in the Middle East.”
S.T.—I’m scared of everything they’re trying to do in the Middle East. Maybe the resolution will help them put their asses in place.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Fallout looms as genocide resolution moves to House
Many in local community stand behind support for recognition
By Lorne Bell
The Jewish Advocate
Thursday October 18 2007
http://www.thejewishadvocate.com/this_weeks_issue/news/?content_id=3848
Amid frenzied debate at the local, national and international levels, the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee voted on Oct. 10 to officially recognize the Ottoman Empire’s World War I massacre of Armenians as genocide. The non-binding House Resolution 106, which will now move to the full House for vote, prompted Turkey to immediately recall its ambassador to the U.S., and has elicited concerns from Israeli and American officials about the impact on relations with the Turkish government.
“[Relations with Turkey] are very important for Israel,” said Nadav Tamir, consul general of Israel to New England. “Israel was out of the debate.”
Officials in the Bush administration and eight former secretaries of state signaled their opposition to the resolution in advance of last week’s vote. In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the former secretaries wrote that the passage of HR-106 “would endanger our national security interests.”
While the measure appeared as if it would quickly pass through the House, nearly a dozen House members – from both parties – have withdrawn their support for the resolution as of Wednesday, according to the New York Times.
But while government officials are worried about the consequences of offending Turkey, a key ally in the Middle East, local Armenians have praised the resolution, saying any fallout between Turkey and the U.S. will be short-lived.
“These are knee-jerk, hysterical reactions,” said Khatchig Mouradian, editor of The Armenian Weekly, which is based in Watertown. “Turkey is not a superpower and realizes full-well it needs the U.S.”
Mouradian said this summer’s controversy between Boston area Armenian and Jewish communities and the Anti-Defamation League helped to foster awareness of the issue. That controversy, which eventually led the national ADL to recognize the Armenian genocide, saw several Massachusetts towns cut ties with the ADL’s No Place for Hate program and the temporary firing of the organization’s regional director, Andrew Tarsy, who publicly dissented from the national position.
“The local controversy did not directly affect the resolution, but on an educational level, it was immensely important,” said Mouradian.
But political relations with Turkey were not the only concerns voiced by opponents of the resolution. Concerns about the safety of Jews worldwide also played a role in the ADL’s initial reluctance to recognize the massacre as genocide.
In a full-page advertisement in the Washington Post last week, the Jewish community of Turkey asked Congress to defeat the House resolution. The Turkish Foreign Ministry praised the nation’s Jews for opposing what it called an “unjust and erroneous” resolution.
Any reprisal by Turkey against Jewish interests should serve as a wake up call to American and Jewish alliances with the republic, according to James Russell, professor of Armenian Studies at Harvard University.
“If Turkey responds by blaming the Jews for this when it’s fairly obvious that the Jewish community was cautious – if not overly cautious – then all it proves is how shaky that friendship with Turkey is,” said Russell.
Still, the ADL has continued to oppose a congressional resolution, calling such measures “counterproductive.” And others have questioned the wisdom of the local community’s support for the resolution since Armenia is aligned with countries that are antagonistic to Israel, like Iran and Syria, while Turkey is a strategic ally.
Grand Rabbi Y. A. Korff cautioned this summer that the local community may be weighing in on a situation in which it cannot make the most informed decision. In a statement to the Advocate, the Rebbe said that diplomatic fallout with Turkey was inevitable.
“By taking the high moral ground, doing what is ‘right’ for others, and sacrificing pragmatic support for ourselves, we have once again shot ourselves in the foot for something which, after all, doesn’t really have much, if any, practical consequence anyway,” said the Rebbe.
But the resolution’s affect on international relations should not trump moral obligation, according to Nancy K. Kaufman, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston, who has been a staunch supporter of the resolution.
“We are always concerned for the safety of Jews and we are also vigilant about the [importance of] Turkish-Israeli and Turkish-U.S. relations,” said Kaufman. “These concerns must be taken seriously, but they cannot be an excuse for genocide denial.”
With Turkey recalling its ambassadors to the U.S., the fate of American military bases in Turkey is a pressing concern for U.S. officials. Meanwhile, Turkish Foreign Affairs Minister Ali Babacan told the Jerusalem Post last week that Turkish ties with Israel as well as the U.S. would suffer if the resolution passed.
But despite looming political fallout for the U.S. and the Jewish state, Tarsy, ADL regional director, defended the organization’s decision to recognize the genocide.
“There obviously continue to be complicated political issues on the table,” said Tarsy. “The hope in all of this is for recognition of the very difficult history [in Turkey] and for reconciliation. I think that’s everyone’s hope.”
By Lorne Bell
The Jewish Advocate
Thursday October 18 2007
http://www.thejewishadvocate.com/this_weeks_issue/news/?content_id=3848
Amid frenzied debate at the local, national and international levels, the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee voted on Oct. 10 to officially recognize the Ottoman Empire’s World War I massacre of Armenians as genocide. The non-binding House Resolution 106, which will now move to the full House for vote, prompted Turkey to immediately recall its ambassador to the U.S., and has elicited concerns from Israeli and American officials about the impact on relations with the Turkish government.
“[Relations with Turkey] are very important for Israel,” said Nadav Tamir, consul general of Israel to New England. “Israel was out of the debate.”
Officials in the Bush administration and eight former secretaries of state signaled their opposition to the resolution in advance of last week’s vote. In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the former secretaries wrote that the passage of HR-106 “would endanger our national security interests.”
While the measure appeared as if it would quickly pass through the House, nearly a dozen House members – from both parties – have withdrawn their support for the resolution as of Wednesday, according to the New York Times.
But while government officials are worried about the consequences of offending Turkey, a key ally in the Middle East, local Armenians have praised the resolution, saying any fallout between Turkey and the U.S. will be short-lived.
“These are knee-jerk, hysterical reactions,” said Khatchig Mouradian, editor of The Armenian Weekly, which is based in Watertown. “Turkey is not a superpower and realizes full-well it needs the U.S.”
Mouradian said this summer’s controversy between Boston area Armenian and Jewish communities and the Anti-Defamation League helped to foster awareness of the issue. That controversy, which eventually led the national ADL to recognize the Armenian genocide, saw several Massachusetts towns cut ties with the ADL’s No Place for Hate program and the temporary firing of the organization’s regional director, Andrew Tarsy, who publicly dissented from the national position.
“The local controversy did not directly affect the resolution, but on an educational level, it was immensely important,” said Mouradian.
But political relations with Turkey were not the only concerns voiced by opponents of the resolution. Concerns about the safety of Jews worldwide also played a role in the ADL’s initial reluctance to recognize the massacre as genocide.
In a full-page advertisement in the Washington Post last week, the Jewish community of Turkey asked Congress to defeat the House resolution. The Turkish Foreign Ministry praised the nation’s Jews for opposing what it called an “unjust and erroneous” resolution.
Any reprisal by Turkey against Jewish interests should serve as a wake up call to American and Jewish alliances with the republic, according to James Russell, professor of Armenian Studies at Harvard University.
“If Turkey responds by blaming the Jews for this when it’s fairly obvious that the Jewish community was cautious – if not overly cautious – then all it proves is how shaky that friendship with Turkey is,” said Russell.
Still, the ADL has continued to oppose a congressional resolution, calling such measures “counterproductive.” And others have questioned the wisdom of the local community’s support for the resolution since Armenia is aligned with countries that are antagonistic to Israel, like Iran and Syria, while Turkey is a strategic ally.
Grand Rabbi Y. A. Korff cautioned this summer that the local community may be weighing in on a situation in which it cannot make the most informed decision. In a statement to the Advocate, the Rebbe said that diplomatic fallout with Turkey was inevitable.
“By taking the high moral ground, doing what is ‘right’ for others, and sacrificing pragmatic support for ourselves, we have once again shot ourselves in the foot for something which, after all, doesn’t really have much, if any, practical consequence anyway,” said the Rebbe.
But the resolution’s affect on international relations should not trump moral obligation, according to Nancy K. Kaufman, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston, who has been a staunch supporter of the resolution.
“We are always concerned for the safety of Jews and we are also vigilant about the [importance of] Turkish-Israeli and Turkish-U.S. relations,” said Kaufman. “These concerns must be taken seriously, but they cannot be an excuse for genocide denial.”
With Turkey recalling its ambassadors to the U.S., the fate of American military bases in Turkey is a pressing concern for U.S. officials. Meanwhile, Turkish Foreign Affairs Minister Ali Babacan told the Jerusalem Post last week that Turkish ties with Israel as well as the U.S. would suffer if the resolution passed.
But despite looming political fallout for the U.S. and the Jewish state, Tarsy, ADL regional director, defended the organization’s decision to recognize the genocide.
“There obviously continue to be complicated political issues on the table,” said Tarsy. “The hope in all of this is for recognition of the very difficult history [in Turkey] and for reconciliation. I think that’s everyone’s hope.”
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Serj Tankian: Genocide Resolution Is the First Step
The Armenian Weekly
Oct. 16, 2007
BOSTON, Mass. (A.W.)-In an interview with Armenian Weekly editor Khatchig Mouradian at the Paradise Rock Club in Boston today, System of a Down’s frontman Serj Tankian spoke about the current the Armenian Genocide Resolution and the discussion it has generated.
Oct. 16, 2007
BOSTON, Mass. (A.W.)-In an interview with Armenian Weekly editor Khatchig Mouradian at the Paradise Rock Club in Boston today, System of a Down’s frontman Serj Tankian spoke about the current the Armenian Genocide Resolution and the discussion it has generated.
“You can’t deny a genocide or holocaust based on political expediency. It makes absolutely no sense. If we claim as America that we’re a democracy then we have to look in the mirror and ask: Can we lie about a genocide or hold off its recognition for the sake of geopolitical or strategic gains or a military occupation that is unfair in itself? It’s trying to undo one mistake with another mistake and it doesn’t make sense,” Tankian said. “That’s why a lot of Congressmen are behind the resolution, and it passed [the House Foreign Relations] Committee and I’m confident that it will pass the House. And it’s got Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi’s support,” he added.
Tankian continued, “I feel like there’s always going to be an excuse. You know, we’ve waited 92 years, but ultimately I want to go further and say that recognition is not that important.
Recognition is one part of the just solution. If someone came to my house, killed my family and robbed my house, I’m not going to run after them for a hundred years and beg them to recognize that crime. That makes no sense. I’m going to take them to court and I’m going to loudly request justice, and that’s what needs to be done ultimately. But obviously, we all know that this is the first step, so we got to keep the goal in mind.”
Asked about Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s statement that “The passage of this resolution indeed will be very problematic for everything we are trying to do in the Middle East,” Tankian responded, “I’m scared of everything they’re trying to do in the Middle East. Maybe the resolution will help them put their asses in place.”
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Orhan Pamuk: Armenian Genocide is a Moral Issue
By Khatchig Mouradian
The Armenian Weekly
Oct. 12, 2007
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (A.W.)—Answering a question from the audience during his book reading organized by the Harvard Bookstore on Oct. 12, Turkish novelist and Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk said that the Armenian genocide is a moral issue that needs to be discussed freely in Turkey.
The Armenian Weekly
Oct. 12, 2007
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (A.W.)—Answering a question from the audience during his book reading organized by the Harvard Bookstore on Oct. 12, Turkish novelist and Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk said that the Armenian genocide is a moral issue that needs to be discussed freely in Turkey.
The question read, “What do you think about the Armenian Genocide Resolution in the U.S. Congress?” Pamuk said, “I was expecting this question.” Interrupted by laughter from the audience, Pamuk continued, “Don’t worry, I’ll get out of it.”
“For me, it’s a moral issue, it’s a personal issue,” he went on to say. “For me it’s an issue of free speech, which we don’t totally have in Turkey. … The Turkish people should be able to freely discuss [this issue].”
Pamuk added, “I basically think it is upsetting that this issue is getting to be an arm-twisting issue [between states] rather than a moral or free speech issue in Turkey.
Pamuk was in Cambridge to read from his newly published book Other Colors: Essays and a Story (Alfred A. Knopf, 2007). He is the winner of the 2006 Nobel Prize in Literature. In 2005, he was charged with “insulting Turkishness” under Turkey’s notorious Article 301 for saying in an interview with a Swiss magazine that “Thirty thousand Kurds and a million Armenians were killed in these lands and nobody dares to talk about it.” The charges were later dropped.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
‘The Resolution Speaks to the Survival of the Armenian People Today’
Says Congressman Edward Royce
By Khatchig Mouradian
The Armenian Weekly
October 6, 2007
WASHINGTON (A.W.)—The following interview with Congressman Edward R. Royce (R-Calif.) was conducted on Sept. 28 in his office in Washington. The video of the interview can be viewed on www.haireniktv.com.
Khatchig Mouradian—Congressman, where does the Genocide Resolution stand at this point and where do we go from here?
Edward Royce—Well, what we do now is what we did a few years ago when we got the bill out of committee. I’ve served on the Foreign Affairs Committee for a number of years, and I carried in the State Senate of California the first genocide resolution recognizing the Armenian genocide. We got that out of the California State Senate with a little help from our friend George Deukmejian, who was governor at the time.
Also, a few years ago we were able to actually get this very resolution on to the House floor. Now, at that point in time, President [Bill] Clinton contacted Speaker [Dennis] Hastert and they convinced the leadership not to bring it up on the House floor. But where we’re focused right now is explaining to the Members that the French have recognized the genocide, the Germans have recognized it, and for those of us who are Republicans, that Ronald Reagan, as president, recognized the genocide. It is time that we officially, as the Congress of the United States, do this. We’re in the process right now of talking to the members—and I’m working on the Republican side—in order to have the votes there if we can schedule this before committee.
K.M.—And why is it important for the U.S. Congress to recognize the Armenian genocide, an event that took place in a different part of the world 92 years ago?
E.R.—My father was involved during the Second World War with U.S. forces when they went into Dachau, the concentration camp. He actually took photographs, he was an amateur photographer. And ever since, he has been quite outspoken on the way in which the international community can be silent at times about genocide. One of the things he reminds people of is Hitler’s comment back to the chairman of the joint chief of staff in the Reich. And Hitler said, “Who speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”
The reality is that history can repeat itself and will do so especially if we don’t get history right, and if we don’t have it acknowledged. And when you have something as horrific as the genocide in which over one and a half million Armenians perished in Western Anatolia and Turkey, when you have something on that scale and it is not acknowledged, there is the danger that it could be repeated.
This is also important to us because Armenia is struggling today, and here it is in the grips of an embargo imposed by Turkey and by Azerbaijan. They’re in a tough neighborhood and in the last three years we’ve seen Azerbaijan increase its defense budget 638 percent. If we wonder about how Armenia struggles in this environment, I’ll just share with you the index of economic freedom, which measures how much progress different countries make. It lists Turkey at 83rd in the world, while young Armenia is ranked 32nd. So you can see the amount of reform going on in that country, but at the same time you can see the discrimination, and you can see the high tariffs imposed by its neighbors in terms of goods and services getting in and out of the country. So this not only speaks to the past, it speaks to the survival of Armenia and the Armenian people today.
This is one of the reasons that we’ve been involved in efforts to try to champion the Millennium Challenge account, and as you know Armenia will receive over $235 million for its rural areas, for its agriculture, to help rebuild its roads. But at the same time, what we’re also trying to do is knock down that embargo.
And as you know, my friend, Congressman Crowley from New York and myself championed the legislation to explicitly prevent any funding for any rail line that goes through that region and bypasses Armenia. We’re going to continue to speak out for the truth and point out the obvious and use U.S. power and prestige and the fact that this country is based on an ideal—that ideal is freedom—in order not only to try to help Armenia today but to have the record books, the history books, properly record all over the world what happened. And frankly, when Congress speaks, it helps focus people’s attention on what is actually happening in the world.
K.M.—You’ve also been very active in speaking out against the genocide in Darfur. So what parallels do you see there?
E.R.—I took the actor Don Cheadle along with Paul Rusesabagina (who he portrays in the movie “Hotel Rwanda”) and a nightline television camera crew into Darfur, Sudan, and recorded the aftermath of an attack there. We went into the village of Tinei, which was once a vibrant community but now has a population of a handful of people. We talked to survivors of different attacks while we were there, and two documentaries were produced out of it on that genocide. Subsequently we were able to get a genocide resolution through the United Nations and passed it here through Congress. In so doing, we’ve now put enormous pressure on China to quit providing the arms. (Just as China provided the arms used by Rwanda in the genocide in Rwanda, they’re now providing the arms here.) And this kind of pressure, I think, can help mobilize the international community.
And let’s think again about the point President Reagan made when he recognized the Armenian genocide. He spoke of the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, and then the genocide in Cambodia that took two million lives. And he was making the point that if we don’t speak out, history can repeat itself. Here it is today, repeating itself, with a radical fundamentalism that is driving the Janjaweed, and the Khartoum government is right behind it. The Khartoum government is actually involved in helping fund this. So again, to me, pointing these things out, and trying to educate people around the world and trying to get an admission as to what is happening is very, very important in terms of human rights. If you don’t get the past right, there’s a danger you’re not going to get the future right. And we should call the Armenian genocide for what it is: genocide.
K.M.—Congressman, what is your take on the recent letter signed by eight former Secretaries of State?
E.R.—If President Reagan could speak out, if the French National Assembly could speak out, if historians all around the world can speak out, it’s time for the U.S. Congress to speak out, regardless of what kind of angst that might cause to some in foreign affairs. I just think you try to do the right thing, and that’s what we need to do.
K.M.—Congressman, one of the issues being raised, especially in the Turkish media, is how the Genocide Resolution is being pushed forward by the Democrats. They often ignore the fact that the resolution enjoys bipartisan support. How can we make the case for that?
E.R.—I think people forget that it was under Republican majority that we actually got the resolution out of committee in the past. And it was under a Republican president, President Reagan, that the Armenian genocide was addressed. And so, as one who has labored long and hard on this, I’m well aware of the fact that this is a bipartisan effort. I would think anyone who is trying to claim otherwise is being a little political. And frankly, with these kinds of issues we should keep the partisan politics out of it. We’re talking about human rights, we’re talking about history here, and so I appreciate you asking that question because it’s good to get that history right, too. We passed that resolution out of the committee successfully with the help of Republicans and Democrats, when the Republicans were the majority.
By Khatchig Mouradian
The Armenian Weekly
October 6, 2007
WASHINGTON (A.W.)—The following interview with Congressman Edward R. Royce (R-Calif.) was conducted on Sept. 28 in his office in Washington. The video of the interview can be viewed on www.haireniktv.com.
Khatchig Mouradian—Congressman, where does the Genocide Resolution stand at this point and where do we go from here?
Edward Royce—Well, what we do now is what we did a few years ago when we got the bill out of committee. I’ve served on the Foreign Affairs Committee for a number of years, and I carried in the State Senate of California the first genocide resolution recognizing the Armenian genocide. We got that out of the California State Senate with a little help from our friend George Deukmejian, who was governor at the time.
Also, a few years ago we were able to actually get this very resolution on to the House floor. Now, at that point in time, President [Bill] Clinton contacted Speaker [Dennis] Hastert and they convinced the leadership not to bring it up on the House floor. But where we’re focused right now is explaining to the Members that the French have recognized the genocide, the Germans have recognized it, and for those of us who are Republicans, that Ronald Reagan, as president, recognized the genocide. It is time that we officially, as the Congress of the United States, do this. We’re in the process right now of talking to the members—and I’m working on the Republican side—in order to have the votes there if we can schedule this before committee.
K.M.—And why is it important for the U.S. Congress to recognize the Armenian genocide, an event that took place in a different part of the world 92 years ago?
E.R.—My father was involved during the Second World War with U.S. forces when they went into Dachau, the concentration camp. He actually took photographs, he was an amateur photographer. And ever since, he has been quite outspoken on the way in which the international community can be silent at times about genocide. One of the things he reminds people of is Hitler’s comment back to the chairman of the joint chief of staff in the Reich. And Hitler said, “Who speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”
The reality is that history can repeat itself and will do so especially if we don’t get history right, and if we don’t have it acknowledged. And when you have something as horrific as the genocide in which over one and a half million Armenians perished in Western Anatolia and Turkey, when you have something on that scale and it is not acknowledged, there is the danger that it could be repeated.
This is also important to us because Armenia is struggling today, and here it is in the grips of an embargo imposed by Turkey and by Azerbaijan. They’re in a tough neighborhood and in the last three years we’ve seen Azerbaijan increase its defense budget 638 percent. If we wonder about how Armenia struggles in this environment, I’ll just share with you the index of economic freedom, which measures how much progress different countries make. It lists Turkey at 83rd in the world, while young Armenia is ranked 32nd. So you can see the amount of reform going on in that country, but at the same time you can see the discrimination, and you can see the high tariffs imposed by its neighbors in terms of goods and services getting in and out of the country. So this not only speaks to the past, it speaks to the survival of Armenia and the Armenian people today.
This is one of the reasons that we’ve been involved in efforts to try to champion the Millennium Challenge account, and as you know Armenia will receive over $235 million for its rural areas, for its agriculture, to help rebuild its roads. But at the same time, what we’re also trying to do is knock down that embargo.
And as you know, my friend, Congressman Crowley from New York and myself championed the legislation to explicitly prevent any funding for any rail line that goes through that region and bypasses Armenia. We’re going to continue to speak out for the truth and point out the obvious and use U.S. power and prestige and the fact that this country is based on an ideal—that ideal is freedom—in order not only to try to help Armenia today but to have the record books, the history books, properly record all over the world what happened. And frankly, when Congress speaks, it helps focus people’s attention on what is actually happening in the world.
K.M.—You’ve also been very active in speaking out against the genocide in Darfur. So what parallels do you see there?
E.R.—I took the actor Don Cheadle along with Paul Rusesabagina (who he portrays in the movie “Hotel Rwanda”) and a nightline television camera crew into Darfur, Sudan, and recorded the aftermath of an attack there. We went into the village of Tinei, which was once a vibrant community but now has a population of a handful of people. We talked to survivors of different attacks while we were there, and two documentaries were produced out of it on that genocide. Subsequently we were able to get a genocide resolution through the United Nations and passed it here through Congress. In so doing, we’ve now put enormous pressure on China to quit providing the arms. (Just as China provided the arms used by Rwanda in the genocide in Rwanda, they’re now providing the arms here.) And this kind of pressure, I think, can help mobilize the international community.
And let’s think again about the point President Reagan made when he recognized the Armenian genocide. He spoke of the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, and then the genocide in Cambodia that took two million lives. And he was making the point that if we don’t speak out, history can repeat itself. Here it is today, repeating itself, with a radical fundamentalism that is driving the Janjaweed, and the Khartoum government is right behind it. The Khartoum government is actually involved in helping fund this. So again, to me, pointing these things out, and trying to educate people around the world and trying to get an admission as to what is happening is very, very important in terms of human rights. If you don’t get the past right, there’s a danger you’re not going to get the future right. And we should call the Armenian genocide for what it is: genocide.
K.M.—Congressman, what is your take on the recent letter signed by eight former Secretaries of State?
E.R.—If President Reagan could speak out, if the French National Assembly could speak out, if historians all around the world can speak out, it’s time for the U.S. Congress to speak out, regardless of what kind of angst that might cause to some in foreign affairs. I just think you try to do the right thing, and that’s what we need to do.
K.M.—Congressman, one of the issues being raised, especially in the Turkish media, is how the Genocide Resolution is being pushed forward by the Democrats. They often ignore the fact that the resolution enjoys bipartisan support. How can we make the case for that?
E.R.—I think people forget that it was under Republican majority that we actually got the resolution out of committee in the past. And it was under a Republican president, President Reagan, that the Armenian genocide was addressed. And so, as one who has labored long and hard on this, I’m well aware of the fact that this is a bipartisan effort. I would think anyone who is trying to claim otherwise is being a little political. And frankly, with these kinds of issues we should keep the partisan politics out of it. We’re talking about human rights, we’re talking about history here, and so I appreciate you asking that question because it’s good to get that history right, too. We passed that resolution out of the committee successfully with the help of Republicans and Democrats, when the Republicans were the majority.
‘Retain Confidence in Speaker Pelosi’
Says Congresswoman Anna Eshoo
By Khatchig Mouradian
The Armenian Weekly
October 6, 2007
WASHINGTON (A.W.)—The following interview with Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) was conducted on Sept. 28 in her office in Washington.
The video of the interview can be viewed on www.haireniktv.com.
Khatchig Mouradian—Congresswoman, now that we have 226 co-sponsors of the Armenian Genocide Resolution, what’s next?
Anna Eshoo—A few very important things need to be done. First, we want to keep getting co-sponsors, so this is not something that has ended. Every week I talk to members on the floor of the House to invite them to come on to the resolution, answer questions, etc. Very importantly, Congressman Tom Lantos from Northern California, who is the chairman of the House International Relations Committee, needs to schedule the bill for mark-up—that means that you write up the bill, it’s accepted by the committee, there’s a vote in the committee, and then it qualifies to come to the floor of the house for action. Now why is 226—and counting—important? Because the majority of the House is 218. We have to keep members on the legislation, not allow people to stray, not allow the Turkish lobby to affect members and peel them off of the legislation.
K.M.—The expectations are high, and it’s up to Speaker Nancy Pelosi to put the resolution to vote. Yet, she’s under a lot of pressure from lobby groups, the Tukish government and the State Department. How do you see this issue developing in the next few weeks?
A.E.—Well, the Armenian-American community should retain their confidence in Speaker Pelosi. She has always been on the resolution since she came to Congress, she’s been committed to the community and what needs to be done. She has spoken every year on it on the floor of the House, and now we are so proud that she is our Speaker. So she hasn’t changed her mind about the issue. It’s up to us to be able to pass it. The Speaker doesn’t tell people how to vote. … And then she likes to win. So we’re going to have to demonstrate that we have the votes on the floor in order to win. And we have all known from the very beginning—no one knows it better than the Armenian-American community—that this has always been tough. The opposition understands our position of strength now and they keep ratcheting up every day.
K.M.—Do you see any difference between the way the opposition operated previously and the way it’s operating now?
A.E.—There’s more money, and there’s more pressure.
K.M.—And what are your thoughts on the letter, signed by eight former Secretaries of State, which urges Speaker Pelosi to keep the resolution off the House floor?
A.E.—I have to tell you I’m not surprised. And the reason I’m not surprised is that each of those Secretaries of State are defending the policy that they implemented. We haven’t had one administration that was with us. This is how high the climb is. So while I would like to have had it be different, it’s not a surprise to me because every single administration has sided the other way. They have not been with us. That’s why we know that it’s up to us to launch this and to move it, and I think their sending this letter shows the power of the [Turkish] lobby. I mean there’s a lot of money in this. There’s a ton of money in this in plain English. So, yes, we’ve always known we have a tough fight. They’ve been successful for 25 years in the Congress, but I believe that we can change it and I believe that we will change it, and the reason for that is because it’s the right thing to do.
K.M.—Why is it important for the United States Congress to recognize a crime against humanity that took place 92 years ago in a different part of the world?
A.E.—The greatest strength that America has is her moral standing in the world. That has been and continues to be the most eloquent statement about who and what we are as a nation. And we have moved away from some of those values—very sadly, I must say—and that has chipped away at the credibility of the United States of America. Make no mistake about it, we are the mightiest in terms of military, we certainly are the most powerful economic force in the world, but without moral standing, you have a house that is essentially built on sand. So this is about who we are and what we stand for. And our human rights record and our recognition to correct not only history around the world, but our very own history. We had to fight to acknowledge that slavery was wrong in our country. So we have a very, very long record on this. And that’s why it is important. What did Hitler say? “Who will remember the Armenians?” We will!
K.M.—Congresswoman, this is a very important human rights issue, but it’s also a very personal issue for you. Can you talk about that?
A.E.—Well, as you know, I’m half Hye (Armenian) and half Assori (Assyrian). That’s a very powerful mixture for me because both sides of my family were persecuted and fled the region. When I saw that full-page ad in the New York Times taken out by the Turkish lobby saying, “Let’s settle this once and for all as to whether there was or was not a genocide, and have a commission...” Excuse me? Did my grandmother lie? I mean, I sat at her knee and she described the slaughter of her own family.
We’re not asking anyone for money. We’re simply stating that this be a fact that is set down and recognized by the American people. And I think the American people are way ahead of us. There isn’t any argument in my Congressional district or across the country as to whether this is something that took place. In fact, constituents are stunned that this is even a battle. And the battle is being waged against denial. I think that it would be a gift for the Turkish people and the Turkish government to get this behind them. This isn’t the present-day Turkey that did it, this was the Ottoman Empire, so yes, this is very, very close to me. It’s my family, it’s who I am, and it’s where I come from.
But this is also very important for our nation to recognize. And when you move from denial to truth, you’re free.
By Khatchig Mouradian
The Armenian Weekly
October 6, 2007
WASHINGTON (A.W.)—The following interview with Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) was conducted on Sept. 28 in her office in Washington.
The video of the interview can be viewed on www.haireniktv.com.
Khatchig Mouradian—Congresswoman, now that we have 226 co-sponsors of the Armenian Genocide Resolution, what’s next?
Anna Eshoo—A few very important things need to be done. First, we want to keep getting co-sponsors, so this is not something that has ended. Every week I talk to members on the floor of the House to invite them to come on to the resolution, answer questions, etc. Very importantly, Congressman Tom Lantos from Northern California, who is the chairman of the House International Relations Committee, needs to schedule the bill for mark-up—that means that you write up the bill, it’s accepted by the committee, there’s a vote in the committee, and then it qualifies to come to the floor of the house for action. Now why is 226—and counting—important? Because the majority of the House is 218. We have to keep members on the legislation, not allow people to stray, not allow the Turkish lobby to affect members and peel them off of the legislation.
K.M.—The expectations are high, and it’s up to Speaker Nancy Pelosi to put the resolution to vote. Yet, she’s under a lot of pressure from lobby groups, the Tukish government and the State Department. How do you see this issue developing in the next few weeks?
A.E.—Well, the Armenian-American community should retain their confidence in Speaker Pelosi. She has always been on the resolution since she came to Congress, she’s been committed to the community and what needs to be done. She has spoken every year on it on the floor of the House, and now we are so proud that she is our Speaker. So she hasn’t changed her mind about the issue. It’s up to us to be able to pass it. The Speaker doesn’t tell people how to vote. … And then she likes to win. So we’re going to have to demonstrate that we have the votes on the floor in order to win. And we have all known from the very beginning—no one knows it better than the Armenian-American community—that this has always been tough. The opposition understands our position of strength now and they keep ratcheting up every day.
K.M.—Do you see any difference between the way the opposition operated previously and the way it’s operating now?
A.E.—There’s more money, and there’s more pressure.
K.M.—And what are your thoughts on the letter, signed by eight former Secretaries of State, which urges Speaker Pelosi to keep the resolution off the House floor?
A.E.—I have to tell you I’m not surprised. And the reason I’m not surprised is that each of those Secretaries of State are defending the policy that they implemented. We haven’t had one administration that was with us. This is how high the climb is. So while I would like to have had it be different, it’s not a surprise to me because every single administration has sided the other way. They have not been with us. That’s why we know that it’s up to us to launch this and to move it, and I think their sending this letter shows the power of the [Turkish] lobby. I mean there’s a lot of money in this. There’s a ton of money in this in plain English. So, yes, we’ve always known we have a tough fight. They’ve been successful for 25 years in the Congress, but I believe that we can change it and I believe that we will change it, and the reason for that is because it’s the right thing to do.
K.M.—Why is it important for the United States Congress to recognize a crime against humanity that took place 92 years ago in a different part of the world?
A.E.—The greatest strength that America has is her moral standing in the world. That has been and continues to be the most eloquent statement about who and what we are as a nation. And we have moved away from some of those values—very sadly, I must say—and that has chipped away at the credibility of the United States of America. Make no mistake about it, we are the mightiest in terms of military, we certainly are the most powerful economic force in the world, but without moral standing, you have a house that is essentially built on sand. So this is about who we are and what we stand for. And our human rights record and our recognition to correct not only history around the world, but our very own history. We had to fight to acknowledge that slavery was wrong in our country. So we have a very, very long record on this. And that’s why it is important. What did Hitler say? “Who will remember the Armenians?” We will!
K.M.—Congresswoman, this is a very important human rights issue, but it’s also a very personal issue for you. Can you talk about that?
A.E.—Well, as you know, I’m half Hye (Armenian) and half Assori (Assyrian). That’s a very powerful mixture for me because both sides of my family were persecuted and fled the region. When I saw that full-page ad in the New York Times taken out by the Turkish lobby saying, “Let’s settle this once and for all as to whether there was or was not a genocide, and have a commission...” Excuse me? Did my grandmother lie? I mean, I sat at her knee and she described the slaughter of her own family.
We’re not asking anyone for money. We’re simply stating that this be a fact that is set down and recognized by the American people. And I think the American people are way ahead of us. There isn’t any argument in my Congressional district or across the country as to whether this is something that took place. In fact, constituents are stunned that this is even a battle. And the battle is being waged against denial. I think that it would be a gift for the Turkish people and the Turkish government to get this behind them. This isn’t the present-day Turkey that did it, this was the Ottoman Empire, so yes, this is very, very close to me. It’s my family, it’s who I am, and it’s where I come from.
But this is also very important for our nation to recognize. And when you move from denial to truth, you’re free.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
My Latest Interviews with Congressmen
Watch interviews I conducted with five members of the US House of Representatives on September 28-29, 2007. the interviews are about the Armenian genocide resolution and related issues:
Congressman Joe Knollenberg:
http://www.hairenik.com/HairenikTV/HA_TV_Clip113.htm
Congresswoman Anna Eshoo:
http://www.hairenik.com/HairenikTV/HA_TV_Clip109.htm
Congressman George Rodanovich:
http://www.hairenik.com/HairenikTV/HA_TV_Clip110.htm
Congresswoman Edward Royce:
http://www.hairenik.com/HairenikTV/HA_TV_Clip111.htm
Congressman Garret Scott:
http://www.hairenik.com/HairenikTV/HA_TV_Clip112.htm
Congressman Joe Knollenberg:
http://www.hairenik.com/HairenikTV/HA_TV_Clip113.htm
Congresswoman Anna Eshoo:
http://www.hairenik.com/HairenikTV/HA_TV_Clip109.htm
Congressman George Rodanovich:
http://www.hairenik.com/HairenikTV/HA_TV_Clip110.htm
Congresswoman Edward Royce:
http://www.hairenik.com/HairenikTV/HA_TV_Clip111.htm
Congressman Garret Scott:
http://www.hairenik.com/HairenikTV/HA_TV_Clip112.htm
Thursday, September 27, 2007
What would Lemkin do?
By Khatchig Mouradian
The Jewish Advocate
Thursday September 27 2007
http://www.thejewishadvocate.com/this_weeks_issue/opinions/?content_id=3731
When dealing with ethnic cleansing and genocide, it would be useful to ask: What would Lemkin do? Had world leaders and human rights organizations asked that question and acted based on the answer over the past 50 years, several mass murders and genocides could have been prevented or stopped in Europe, Africa and Asia.
Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-Jew, coined the term “genocide” in 1944 based on the planned extermination of the Armenians by the Ottoman Turks in 1915 and the Jews during World War II. He worked tirelessly to have the United Nations pass a law on the prevention and punishment of that crime. Finally, on Dec. 9, 1948, the UN General Assembly ratified the Genocide Convention. Remembering that moment, Lemkin, who lost 49 relatives during the Holocaust, wrote: “Somebody requested a roll call. The first to vote was India. After her ‘yes’ there was an endless number of ‘yeses.’ A storm of applause followed. I felt on my face the flashlight of cameras. … The world was smiling and approving and I had only one word in answer to all that, ‘thanks.’”
Lemkin referred to the Armenian genocide on numerous occasions. In an article in the Hairenik Weekly (later the Armenian Weekly) on Jan. 1, 1959, he wrote that the suffering of the Armenians had paved the way to the ratification of the Genocide Convention: “The sufferings of the Armenian men, women, and children thrown into the Euphrates River or massacred on the way to [the Syrian desert of] Der-el-Zor have prepared the way for the adoption for the Genocide Convention by the United Nations. … This is the reason why the Armenians of the entire world were specifically interested in the Genocide Convention. They filled the galleries of the drafting committee at the third General Assembly of the United Nations in Paris when the Genocide Convention was discussed.”
At the end of the article, Lemkin asserted, “One million Armenians died, but a law against the murder of peoples was written with the ink of their blood and the spirit of their sufferings.”
Fast forward to 2007. The Anti-Defamation league, an organization that has tirelessly spoken out and acted against Holocaust denial, as well as more recent acts of genocide from Eastern Europe to Darfur, continues to speak with ambiguities about the Armenian genocide and oppose Congressional legislation affirming the historical record, considering it “counterproductive.”
Days after the ADL’s national director, Abraham Foxman, was confronted on the issue, he wrote a letter to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan “to express our sorrow over what we have caused for the leadership and people of Turkey in the past few days.”
Countless Jewish organizations, scholars, journalists, bloggers and activists have come out fiercely to criticize the ADL’s hypocrisy. They have all asked the right question – What would Lemkin do? – and have come up with the right answer, thus honoring Lemkin’s legacy.
Perhaps rather than rushing to appease the Turkish government, the ADL would do well to ask the right question, too.
Khatchig Mouradian is an Armenian journalist, poet and translator based in Boston. He is the editor of the Armenian Weekly.
The Jewish Advocate
Thursday September 27 2007
http://www.thejewishadvocate.com/this_weeks_issue/opinions/?content_id=3731
When dealing with ethnic cleansing and genocide, it would be useful to ask: What would Lemkin do? Had world leaders and human rights organizations asked that question and acted based on the answer over the past 50 years, several mass murders and genocides could have been prevented or stopped in Europe, Africa and Asia.
Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-Jew, coined the term “genocide” in 1944 based on the planned extermination of the Armenians by the Ottoman Turks in 1915 and the Jews during World War II. He worked tirelessly to have the United Nations pass a law on the prevention and punishment of that crime. Finally, on Dec. 9, 1948, the UN General Assembly ratified the Genocide Convention. Remembering that moment, Lemkin, who lost 49 relatives during the Holocaust, wrote: “Somebody requested a roll call. The first to vote was India. After her ‘yes’ there was an endless number of ‘yeses.’ A storm of applause followed. I felt on my face the flashlight of cameras. … The world was smiling and approving and I had only one word in answer to all that, ‘thanks.’”
Lemkin referred to the Armenian genocide on numerous occasions. In an article in the Hairenik Weekly (later the Armenian Weekly) on Jan. 1, 1959, he wrote that the suffering of the Armenians had paved the way to the ratification of the Genocide Convention: “The sufferings of the Armenian men, women, and children thrown into the Euphrates River or massacred on the way to [the Syrian desert of] Der-el-Zor have prepared the way for the adoption for the Genocide Convention by the United Nations. … This is the reason why the Armenians of the entire world were specifically interested in the Genocide Convention. They filled the galleries of the drafting committee at the third General Assembly of the United Nations in Paris when the Genocide Convention was discussed.”
At the end of the article, Lemkin asserted, “One million Armenians died, but a law against the murder of peoples was written with the ink of their blood and the spirit of their sufferings.”
Fast forward to 2007. The Anti-Defamation league, an organization that has tirelessly spoken out and acted against Holocaust denial, as well as more recent acts of genocide from Eastern Europe to Darfur, continues to speak with ambiguities about the Armenian genocide and oppose Congressional legislation affirming the historical record, considering it “counterproductive.”
Days after the ADL’s national director, Abraham Foxman, was confronted on the issue, he wrote a letter to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan “to express our sorrow over what we have caused for the leadership and people of Turkey in the past few days.”
Countless Jewish organizations, scholars, journalists, bloggers and activists have come out fiercely to criticize the ADL’s hypocrisy. They have all asked the right question – What would Lemkin do? – and have come up with the right answer, thus honoring Lemkin’s legacy.
Perhaps rather than rushing to appease the Turkish government, the ADL would do well to ask the right question, too.
Khatchig Mouradian is an Armenian journalist, poet and translator based in Boston. He is the editor of the Armenian Weekly.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Newton Human Rights Commission Ceases Participation in NPFH
Town Refuses to be ‘In the Same Boat’ with ADL
By Khatchig Mouradian
NEWTON, Mass. (A.W.)—Generations of Americans converged at Newton City Hall on Sept. 11 to make their voices heard to the local Human Rights Commission (NHRC) meeting, which, after deliberations, unanimously voted to cut their ties with the ADL’s No Place for Hate (NPFH) program until the former unequivocally recognizes the Armenian genocide and supports H.R.106 in Congress, thereby affirming the historical record.
Commissioners and Advisory Council Members
In a letter dated Aug. 24, the NHRC had asked the ADL to recognize the Armenian genocide, actively support H.R.106 and rehire the ADL’s New England regional director Andrew Tarsy.
During the Sept. 11 meeting, commissioner Marianne Ferguson noted that although Tarsy has since been rehired, unequivocal recognition and support for the Genocide Resolution had not been achieved.
Advisory Council member Dianne Chilingerian expressed concern about the ADL’s position on the Genocide Resolution, which she considered inconsistent with its mission. She said that she is bothered by the ADL’s position as a human rights activist, and that this is not just an Armenian issue. Student Advisory council member David Fisher asked how we expect to end genocide campaigns today “when we still can’t recognize what happened 92 years ago.”
ADL Regional Board Members
Emphasizing that he was not speaking on behalf of the ADL, the organization’s NE Regional Board member Gerry Tishler said, “I have studied, thought and written about the Armenian genocide and it wasn’t ‘tantamount to genocide’ it was genocide. … I am also in favor of the U.S. government acknowledging and commemorating the Armenian genocide.” He noted that the meeting of the ADL’s national commissioners will discuss the issue in November, though said that continuing with the NPFH should not be based on that outcome. “If you make it conditional, you are making a bad mistake,” he said, noting how much the ADL has added to the town’s programs.
NE Regional Board member Beth Tishler also argued the importance of not dissociating from the NPFH, adding, “We have stood up and gone against our national leadership. We have heard you. The National ADL has heard you.”
ADL National commissioner David Apel said that ADL national director Abe Foxman “is not empowered” to support the Genocide Resolution, and that “your message will be brought forth to the national commissioners in November.” In response, members of the audience pointed out that while Foxman seems to be able to change his position daily on the Armenian issue, he needs the green light from the commissioners to properly acknowledge the truth about 1915.
“I reject the notion that we are misguided citizens,” continued Apel. He said the last few months had been a learning experience for him and many others, and that everyone in the room was in the same boat. “Give us time till November,” he added.
Members of the Audience
Newton residents, university professors, human rights activists, students, descendents of Armenian genocide and Holocaust survivors, spoke about the need to send the right message by severing ties with the ADL.
Newton resident David Boyajian, whose letter to the Watertown Tab sparked the ADL controversy, said that the “ADL’s [genocide] acknowledgement was thinly disguised denial,” and that its “verbal gymnastics show bad faith.” He stressed that the ADL will not change its position without pressure from the towns, and asked that Newton sever its ties immediately.
Newton resident Sonya Merian, whose mother was on one of the earliest Newton Human Rights commissions, read a letter by the ANC of Eastern Massachusetts addressed to the NHRC members and Newton mayor David Cohen. “Foxman apologized to the Prime Minister of Turkey for having put his government ‘in a difficult position,’ expressing his ‘sorrow over what we have caused for the leadership and people of Turkey.’ No apology to the heirs of Armenian Genocide survivors has been issued to date,” she said.
Prof. Jack Nusan Porter, treasurer of the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS), stressed the importance of severing ties with the ADL until Foxman resigns or changes course. “Turkey cannot harm a single hair of a single Jew,” he said, referring to Foxman’s stated concern that supporting the Genocide Resolution would harm the Turkish-Jewish community. “Is Israel, with its army, afraid of Turkey?” he asked.
Newton resident Nancy Akanian said she was startled that the NPFH has an annual re-certification process for all participating towns, and said the ADL was hardly in a position to grade anyone on their human rights performance.
“The ADL lacks the moral leadership and courage and any program sponsored by the ADL cannot be accepted,” said Newton resident Michael Mensoyan.
Newton resident and Armenian Youth federation (AYF) member Nora Kaleshian said, “My family and I are deeply hurt [by ADL’s practices],” expressing hope that it promotes the Human Rights of all people.
Prominent human rights activist and author of Our Bodies, Ourselves, Judy Norsigian, also from Newton, noted that “the time is ripe to make this a national issue.” She underlined the position and authority of Newton to send a strong message to the ADL by severing ties.
Newton resident Bethel Charkoudian introduced her father, a genocide survivor and thanked the NHRC for their stance. “My father survived the genocide and came here because he knew people understood his suffering,” she said.
Associate professor of philosophy at Worcester State College Henry Theriault said that while people were used to the denial of the Armenian genocide by Turkey, it was shocking to see a human rights organization engaging in the denial, adopting similar hate speech and lobbying against genocide recognition.
“There is no such thing as ‘degree of genocide,’” said Newton resident Salpi Sarafian. “The ADL has spoken in absolute clarity against Sudan, Bosnia and Afghanistan. They need to do the same regarding the Armenian genocide.”
In a poignant speech, activist Berge Jololian underscored the importance of realizing that recognizing the Armenian genocide is a moral issue and not a political one. “ADL was established in 1913, the Armenian genocide occured in 1915. ADL had 92 years to acknowledge this crime,” he said.
Activist Narini Badalian recounted her experience at a recent lecture by Foxman in New York. Badalian had confronted Foxman to say whether ADL’s position is consistent with that of a Human Rights organization. Foxman had responded, “It is up to you to decide.” Badalian urged, “It is time for us to decide.”
Activist Luder Sahagian made strong points about the failure of the ADL to “rigorously uphold settled history.” He said, “The ADL has yet to subscribe to the wisdom of the esteemed Rabbi Hillel, who many, many years ago advised, ‘What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor…That is the entire law. All the rest is commentary.’”
Visiting professor of Armenian Genocide Studies at Clark University Dikran Kaligian said, “The ADL has made itself complicit in [Turkey’s] multi-million dollar denial campaign.” When the ADL controversy first broke, he explained, the ADL’s first reaction was not to approach the Armenian community but to hire a leading PR company. “Foxman does not see this as a moral issue, but a PR problem,” Kaligian said, adding, “We need to take the necessary steps for them to get the message.”
In an emotional speech, activist Alik Arzoumanian responded to the numerous calls on the NHRC and on Armenians to wait until the November meeting before deciding to sever ties. “We have been waiting all our lives,” she said, and explained how offended she was by Foxman’s claim that a Genocide Resolution was “counter-productive.” Foxman considers “our struggle to recover our dignity” to be counterproductive, she added. “I don’t want to give National ADL one more day.”
Mayor Cohen
Newton mayor David Cohen spoke next, and said that “there is a tremendous amount of common ground here.” He called the ADL National’s failure to “make a forthright statement” recognizing the genocide and supporting the resolution as “an ongoing injustice.”
“The resolution that we have in the U.S. Congress is one of the best pieces of legislation that deserves passage,” he said, referring to H.R.106. “It is incumbent on the ADL” to support it, he added.
In the same boat?
ADL Regional Board members emphasized several times during the meeting that everyone in the room was “on the same boat,” though they went on to say that suspending ties with the NPFH and ADL was not the answer. Asked to comment near the end of the meeting, however, Student Advisory Council member Fisher said, “Hearing the voices of the Armenian community and my own Jewish conscience, I cannot be in the same boat with you.”
The NHRC voted unanimously to cease participation in the NPFH, pending the ADL’s unambiguous recognition of the Armenian genocide and support of HR106.
By Khatchig Mouradian
NEWTON, Mass. (A.W.)—Generations of Americans converged at Newton City Hall on Sept. 11 to make their voices heard to the local Human Rights Commission (NHRC) meeting, which, after deliberations, unanimously voted to cut their ties with the ADL’s No Place for Hate (NPFH) program until the former unequivocally recognizes the Armenian genocide and supports H.R.106 in Congress, thereby affirming the historical record.
Commissioners and Advisory Council Members
In a letter dated Aug. 24, the NHRC had asked the ADL to recognize the Armenian genocide, actively support H.R.106 and rehire the ADL’s New England regional director Andrew Tarsy.
During the Sept. 11 meeting, commissioner Marianne Ferguson noted that although Tarsy has since been rehired, unequivocal recognition and support for the Genocide Resolution had not been achieved.
Advisory Council member Dianne Chilingerian expressed concern about the ADL’s position on the Genocide Resolution, which she considered inconsistent with its mission. She said that she is bothered by the ADL’s position as a human rights activist, and that this is not just an Armenian issue. Student Advisory council member David Fisher asked how we expect to end genocide campaigns today “when we still can’t recognize what happened 92 years ago.”
ADL Regional Board Members
Emphasizing that he was not speaking on behalf of the ADL, the organization’s NE Regional Board member Gerry Tishler said, “I have studied, thought and written about the Armenian genocide and it wasn’t ‘tantamount to genocide’ it was genocide. … I am also in favor of the U.S. government acknowledging and commemorating the Armenian genocide.” He noted that the meeting of the ADL’s national commissioners will discuss the issue in November, though said that continuing with the NPFH should not be based on that outcome. “If you make it conditional, you are making a bad mistake,” he said, noting how much the ADL has added to the town’s programs.
NE Regional Board member Beth Tishler also argued the importance of not dissociating from the NPFH, adding, “We have stood up and gone against our national leadership. We have heard you. The National ADL has heard you.”
ADL National commissioner David Apel said that ADL national director Abe Foxman “is not empowered” to support the Genocide Resolution, and that “your message will be brought forth to the national commissioners in November.” In response, members of the audience pointed out that while Foxman seems to be able to change his position daily on the Armenian issue, he needs the green light from the commissioners to properly acknowledge the truth about 1915.
“I reject the notion that we are misguided citizens,” continued Apel. He said the last few months had been a learning experience for him and many others, and that everyone in the room was in the same boat. “Give us time till November,” he added.
Members of the Audience
Newton residents, university professors, human rights activists, students, descendents of Armenian genocide and Holocaust survivors, spoke about the need to send the right message by severing ties with the ADL.
Newton resident David Boyajian, whose letter to the Watertown Tab sparked the ADL controversy, said that the “ADL’s [genocide] acknowledgement was thinly disguised denial,” and that its “verbal gymnastics show bad faith.” He stressed that the ADL will not change its position without pressure from the towns, and asked that Newton sever its ties immediately.
Newton resident Sonya Merian, whose mother was on one of the earliest Newton Human Rights commissions, read a letter by the ANC of Eastern Massachusetts addressed to the NHRC members and Newton mayor David Cohen. “Foxman apologized to the Prime Minister of Turkey for having put his government ‘in a difficult position,’ expressing his ‘sorrow over what we have caused for the leadership and people of Turkey.’ No apology to the heirs of Armenian Genocide survivors has been issued to date,” she said.
Prof. Jack Nusan Porter, treasurer of the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS), stressed the importance of severing ties with the ADL until Foxman resigns or changes course. “Turkey cannot harm a single hair of a single Jew,” he said, referring to Foxman’s stated concern that supporting the Genocide Resolution would harm the Turkish-Jewish community. “Is Israel, with its army, afraid of Turkey?” he asked.
Newton resident Nancy Akanian said she was startled that the NPFH has an annual re-certification process for all participating towns, and said the ADL was hardly in a position to grade anyone on their human rights performance.
“The ADL lacks the moral leadership and courage and any program sponsored by the ADL cannot be accepted,” said Newton resident Michael Mensoyan.
Newton resident and Armenian Youth federation (AYF) member Nora Kaleshian said, “My family and I are deeply hurt [by ADL’s practices],” expressing hope that it promotes the Human Rights of all people.
Prominent human rights activist and author of Our Bodies, Ourselves, Judy Norsigian, also from Newton, noted that “the time is ripe to make this a national issue.” She underlined the position and authority of Newton to send a strong message to the ADL by severing ties.
Newton resident Bethel Charkoudian introduced her father, a genocide survivor and thanked the NHRC for their stance. “My father survived the genocide and came here because he knew people understood his suffering,” she said.
Associate professor of philosophy at Worcester State College Henry Theriault said that while people were used to the denial of the Armenian genocide by Turkey, it was shocking to see a human rights organization engaging in the denial, adopting similar hate speech and lobbying against genocide recognition.
“There is no such thing as ‘degree of genocide,’” said Newton resident Salpi Sarafian. “The ADL has spoken in absolute clarity against Sudan, Bosnia and Afghanistan. They need to do the same regarding the Armenian genocide.”
In a poignant speech, activist Berge Jololian underscored the importance of realizing that recognizing the Armenian genocide is a moral issue and not a political one. “ADL was established in 1913, the Armenian genocide occured in 1915. ADL had 92 years to acknowledge this crime,” he said.
Activist Narini Badalian recounted her experience at a recent lecture by Foxman in New York. Badalian had confronted Foxman to say whether ADL’s position is consistent with that of a Human Rights organization. Foxman had responded, “It is up to you to decide.” Badalian urged, “It is time for us to decide.”
Activist Luder Sahagian made strong points about the failure of the ADL to “rigorously uphold settled history.” He said, “The ADL has yet to subscribe to the wisdom of the esteemed Rabbi Hillel, who many, many years ago advised, ‘What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor…That is the entire law. All the rest is commentary.’”
Visiting professor of Armenian Genocide Studies at Clark University Dikran Kaligian said, “The ADL has made itself complicit in [Turkey’s] multi-million dollar denial campaign.” When the ADL controversy first broke, he explained, the ADL’s first reaction was not to approach the Armenian community but to hire a leading PR company. “Foxman does not see this as a moral issue, but a PR problem,” Kaligian said, adding, “We need to take the necessary steps for them to get the message.”
In an emotional speech, activist Alik Arzoumanian responded to the numerous calls on the NHRC and on Armenians to wait until the November meeting before deciding to sever ties. “We have been waiting all our lives,” she said, and explained how offended she was by Foxman’s claim that a Genocide Resolution was “counter-productive.” Foxman considers “our struggle to recover our dignity” to be counterproductive, she added. “I don’t want to give National ADL one more day.”
Mayor Cohen
Newton mayor David Cohen spoke next, and said that “there is a tremendous amount of common ground here.” He called the ADL National’s failure to “make a forthright statement” recognizing the genocide and supporting the resolution as “an ongoing injustice.”
“The resolution that we have in the U.S. Congress is one of the best pieces of legislation that deserves passage,” he said, referring to H.R.106. “It is incumbent on the ADL” to support it, he added.
In the same boat?
ADL Regional Board members emphasized several times during the meeting that everyone in the room was “on the same boat,” though they went on to say that suspending ties with the NPFH and ADL was not the answer. Asked to comment near the end of the meeting, however, Student Advisory Council member Fisher said, “Hearing the voices of the Armenian community and my own Jewish conscience, I cannot be in the same boat with you.”
The NHRC voted unanimously to cease participation in the NPFH, pending the ADL’s unambiguous recognition of the Armenian genocide and support of HR106.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Bedford Violence Prevention Coalition Demands Explanation from ADL
By Khatchig Mouradian
The Armenian Weekly
September 4, 2007
BEDFORD, Mass. (A.W.)—On Sept. 4 at 7:30 a.m., the Bedford Violence Prevention Coalition (VPC) held its monthly meeting at the First Church of Christ Congregational with members of the Bedford Armenian community and activists from neighboring towns. The committee discussed the ADL’s ambiguous position on the Armenian genocide and decided to officially demand an explanation from the ADL. The committee agreed that it would then proceed accordingly, yet maintained that severing its ties with the ADL was still very much on the table.
During the meeting, members of the committee were briefed on the recent developments in the controversy surrounding the ADL. Armenian activists were then given the floor to speak.
Armenian Activists
Bedford resident Stephen Dulgarian spoke about the ADL’s opposition to the Armenian Genocide Resolution in the U.S. Congress and expressed his hope that Bedford would follow in the footsteps of Watertown, Newton and Newburyport by sending a strong message to the ADL. “We ask this committee to send a letter to the ADL demanding the unambiguous recognition for the Armenian genocide and support for the Genocide Resolution,” he said.
“I just lost a great uncle who was a survivor of the Armenian genocide,” said Bedford resident Mike Bahtiarian. He went on to criticize the ADL’s position on the genocide, underlining how its use of expressions like “tantamount to genocide” were deliberately unclear. Not supporting genocide recognition, he said, is “like not recognizing [the Holocaust during] World War II.”
“We would like to see this No Place for Hate committee continue its work independently of the ADL,” said activist Berge Jololian. “The ADL has lost its moral authority to lecture us on human rights. Denying any genocide is an act of hate and this community should have zero tolerance to it.” He noted that statement after statement, the ADL’s “hypocrisy is multiplying.” He rejected the ADL’s talk of a joint Turkish-Armenian commission to look into the history of 1915. “It is like saying that Elie Wiesel and David Irving should sit and discuss the history of the Holocaust. It’s outrageous!” he exclaimed.
Talking about ADL national director Abraham Foxman, Jololian said, “ADL has not apologized to the Armenian community or addressed any Armenian, however, Foxman offered an apology to the Turkish government for ADL’s statement recognizing the Armenian genocide.” Jololian was referring to a letter Foxman sent to Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan in which he said, “I feel deeply sorry over discussions that erupted after the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) changed its stance on the incidents of 1915.”
Petitto Devaney
Watertown councilor-at-large Marilyn Petitto Devaney spoke about the proclamation she introduced at the Watertown Town Council meeting. “I look at the proclamation as an act of lighting a candle instead of cursing the darkness,” she said. Pettito Devaney recounted how the ADL had asked the Watertown Town Council for 90 days before making a decision about severing ties with the No Place for Hate program. “I wouldn’t even give them 90 seconds,” she said. Underlining that the Armenian genocide is not merely an Armenian issue, Petitto Devaney called on Bedford to sever its ties with the NPFH.
Police Chief
Police chief James Hicks said that long before coming to Bedford, he had worked with the ADL on several programs. “This summer has been quite eye-opening,” he said. “I feel embarrassed.”
“If the facts are facts, the ADL should state the facts clearly and back its statement with words and actions,” Hicks noted. “I have some serious reservations with the ADL. They need to explain their position,” he added.
Hicks and other members of the VPC noted that their committee was functioning years before its association with the NPFH and that good work can be done with—and if need be without—that association.
“We have some serious concerns and I would like to have the ADL here before taking action,” Hicks said. “But I have to say,” he added, “the present state of affairs jeopardizes NPFH’s position.”
The Armenian Weekly
September 4, 2007
BEDFORD, Mass. (A.W.)—On Sept. 4 at 7:30 a.m., the Bedford Violence Prevention Coalition (VPC) held its monthly meeting at the First Church of Christ Congregational with members of the Bedford Armenian community and activists from neighboring towns. The committee discussed the ADL’s ambiguous position on the Armenian genocide and decided to officially demand an explanation from the ADL. The committee agreed that it would then proceed accordingly, yet maintained that severing its ties with the ADL was still very much on the table.
During the meeting, members of the committee were briefed on the recent developments in the controversy surrounding the ADL. Armenian activists were then given the floor to speak.
Armenian Activists
Bedford resident Stephen Dulgarian spoke about the ADL’s opposition to the Armenian Genocide Resolution in the U.S. Congress and expressed his hope that Bedford would follow in the footsteps of Watertown, Newton and Newburyport by sending a strong message to the ADL. “We ask this committee to send a letter to the ADL demanding the unambiguous recognition for the Armenian genocide and support for the Genocide Resolution,” he said.
“I just lost a great uncle who was a survivor of the Armenian genocide,” said Bedford resident Mike Bahtiarian. He went on to criticize the ADL’s position on the genocide, underlining how its use of expressions like “tantamount to genocide” were deliberately unclear. Not supporting genocide recognition, he said, is “like not recognizing [the Holocaust during] World War II.”
“We would like to see this No Place for Hate committee continue its work independently of the ADL,” said activist Berge Jololian. “The ADL has lost its moral authority to lecture us on human rights. Denying any genocide is an act of hate and this community should have zero tolerance to it.” He noted that statement after statement, the ADL’s “hypocrisy is multiplying.” He rejected the ADL’s talk of a joint Turkish-Armenian commission to look into the history of 1915. “It is like saying that Elie Wiesel and David Irving should sit and discuss the history of the Holocaust. It’s outrageous!” he exclaimed.
Talking about ADL national director Abraham Foxman, Jololian said, “ADL has not apologized to the Armenian community or addressed any Armenian, however, Foxman offered an apology to the Turkish government for ADL’s statement recognizing the Armenian genocide.” Jololian was referring to a letter Foxman sent to Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan in which he said, “I feel deeply sorry over discussions that erupted after the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) changed its stance on the incidents of 1915.”
Petitto Devaney
Watertown councilor-at-large Marilyn Petitto Devaney spoke about the proclamation she introduced at the Watertown Town Council meeting. “I look at the proclamation as an act of lighting a candle instead of cursing the darkness,” she said. Pettito Devaney recounted how the ADL had asked the Watertown Town Council for 90 days before making a decision about severing ties with the No Place for Hate program. “I wouldn’t even give them 90 seconds,” she said. Underlining that the Armenian genocide is not merely an Armenian issue, Petitto Devaney called on Bedford to sever its ties with the NPFH.
Police Chief
Police chief James Hicks said that long before coming to Bedford, he had worked with the ADL on several programs. “This summer has been quite eye-opening,” he said. “I feel embarrassed.”
“If the facts are facts, the ADL should state the facts clearly and back its statement with words and actions,” Hicks noted. “I have some serious reservations with the ADL. They need to explain their position,” he added.
Hicks and other members of the VPC noted that their committee was functioning years before its association with the NPFH and that good work can be done with—and if need be without—that association.
“We have some serious concerns and I would like to have the ADL here before taking action,” Hicks said. “But I have to say,” he added, “the present state of affairs jeopardizes NPFH’s position.”
Monday, August 27, 2007
‘Turkey Would Not Be Accepted in the EU if It Touches Even One Jew’
By Khatchig Mouradian
The Armenian Weekly
August 27, 2007
WATERTOWN, Mass. (A.W.)—The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) cites the security of the Jewish community in Turkey and Israel’s alliance with Turkey for why it has failed to unambiguously recognize the Armenian genocide and support its recognition by the U.S. Congress. Treasurer of the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) Prof. Jack Nusan Porter believes the well being of the Jews in Turkey is not at stake.
“This is really just blackmail,” said Porter, author of “The Genocidal Mind” and “Facing History and Holocaust” in an interview with the Armenian Weekly. “Turkey would never touch the Jewish community. It would never be accepted in the European Union if it touched any Jew in Turkey. The real question is: Why does this blackmail work? Why do people believe it? In February of this year, Turkish officials met with Jewish groups here in America and put out the word. Most of the Jewish leaders disagreed, but some of them—like the ADL leader [Abraham Foxman]—didn’t,” he added.
Porter underscored the importance of “educating” Israel in these issues. “We, American Jews, have to educate Israel. It’s just the opposite of what it was historically. The Israelis had to teach us how to be Jewish. Now, we are going to have to teach them how to be a good Jew: Take care of all people, not only yourself.”
Turkey’s pressure on Israel regarding the Armenian genocide issue is not new, he explained. “In 1979, Israel Charny [former IAGS president and editor of “The Encyclopedia of Genocide”] organized a conference in Tel Aviv. The Turkish government put pressure on the Israeli government not to send anybody to that conference. They’ve been pressuring Israel for all these years,” said Porter.
Talking about how the Jewish community supports the recognition of the Armenian genocide, Porter said, “The right wing, ultra-nationalistic, conservative forces support what’s good for Israel and do not interfere—even oppose—everything else. But most of the Jews in this country are universalistic and recognize the genocide.” He added, “There was a good coordination of Jewish and Armenian pressure. I hope it brings the two communities even closer together.”
The Armenian Weekly
August 27, 2007
WATERTOWN, Mass. (A.W.)—The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) cites the security of the Jewish community in Turkey and Israel’s alliance with Turkey for why it has failed to unambiguously recognize the Armenian genocide and support its recognition by the U.S. Congress. Treasurer of the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) Prof. Jack Nusan Porter believes the well being of the Jews in Turkey is not at stake.
“This is really just blackmail,” said Porter, author of “The Genocidal Mind” and “Facing History and Holocaust” in an interview with the Armenian Weekly. “Turkey would never touch the Jewish community. It would never be accepted in the European Union if it touched any Jew in Turkey. The real question is: Why does this blackmail work? Why do people believe it? In February of this year, Turkish officials met with Jewish groups here in America and put out the word. Most of the Jewish leaders disagreed, but some of them—like the ADL leader [Abraham Foxman]—didn’t,” he added.
Porter underscored the importance of “educating” Israel in these issues. “We, American Jews, have to educate Israel. It’s just the opposite of what it was historically. The Israelis had to teach us how to be Jewish. Now, we are going to have to teach them how to be a good Jew: Take care of all people, not only yourself.”
Turkey’s pressure on Israel regarding the Armenian genocide issue is not new, he explained. “In 1979, Israel Charny [former IAGS president and editor of “The Encyclopedia of Genocide”] organized a conference in Tel Aviv. The Turkish government put pressure on the Israeli government not to send anybody to that conference. They’ve been pressuring Israel for all these years,” said Porter.
Talking about how the Jewish community supports the recognition of the Armenian genocide, Porter said, “The right wing, ultra-nationalistic, conservative forces support what’s good for Israel and do not interfere—even oppose—everything else. But most of the Jews in this country are universalistic and recognize the genocide.” He added, “There was a good coordination of Jewish and Armenian pressure. I hope it brings the two communities even closer together.”
On Genocide and the ADL, With Four Members of Local Armenian and Jewish Media
08/26/2007
Source: go-NEWz.com
Reporter: M. Thang
The Anti-Defamation League’s previous stance of not acknowledging the the Armenian genocide — in addition to its current opposition of a pending resolution in the U.S. Congress to recognize the tragedy — has unleashed a torrent of controversy over the past several days in the Boston area.
Learn what four people — from the Armenian Weekly; the Jewish Advocate; the Jewish Journal; and Web-based Armenian-language TV and radio, at hairenik.com, have to say.
On Genocide and the ADL, With Four Members of Local Armenian and Jewish Media
by M. Thang
Over one million Armenians were murdered at the hands of the Turkish Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923. The Anti-Defamation League, an organization that fights anti-Semitism and bigotry, has upheld its longtime policy of not recognizing the mass killings as genocide.
In addition, the ADL does not support a resolution of the U.S. Congress that acknowledges the murders as genocide.
The ADL policy has unleashed a torrent of controversy in the Boston area over the past two weeks.
The town council of Watertown, Mass., home to over 8,000 Armenians, voted to pull out of the ADL’s anti-bigotry “No Place for Hate Program,” in protest against the ADL’s stance on the Armenian genocide. The pullout has prompted other Boston-area towns and cities to consider severing their ties, too, with the ADL program.
In the face of growing outrage of local Armenian and Jewish communities, the national ADL partially reversed its policy last week — officially declaring that the mass murders are “indeed tantamount to genocide.”
The ADL has not reversed its policy regarding the congressional resolution to acknowledge the genocide. To do so would be “counterproductive,” it says, adding that such a policy reversal could jeopardize the safety of Jews in Turkey, an important and rare Muslim ally to Israel.
However, the ADL’s New England regional office moved last week to support the resolution, putting it — as well as other Jewish organizations — sharply at odds with the ADL leadership under national director Abraham Foxman.
The Boston Globe has been reporting on the controversy almost every day, sometimes as page-one news, over the past several days.
On August 23, the ADL told New England Ethnic News that the matter of supporting the resolution will be on the agenda of the ADL’s policy-making panel when it convenes in November.
New England Ethnic News spoke to four people from Armenian and Jewish media in the Boston area about the ongoing ADL controversy:
· Khatchig Mouradian, editor of the Armenian Weekly
· Raphael Kohan, staff writer at the Jewish Advocate
· Jirayr Beugekian, manager of online radio and Web TV at Armenian-language Web site hairenik.com.
· Bette Keva, editor of the Jewish Journal.
The national ADL has decided now to use the word “genocide.” In addition, it will consider supporting Congress’ resolution that recognizes the Armenian genocide. Is that good enough?
KM: The wording of the ADL’s statement [that officially recognizes the Armenian genocide] may not be perfect, but it still constitutes recognition. However...it states that ADL does not support the Armenian genocide resolution in Congress, saying that that would be counterproductive. That is the main problem being underlined by the Armenian community, individuals interested in human rights in general, and the Jewish community....It is quite disturbing. It’s very upsetting for ADL to recognize the genocide but, at the same time, lobby against the genocide resolution in Congress.
RK: I think some of the Jewish organizations who had been pressing [the ADL] were very happy to hear that Abe Foxman shifted his stance on the term “genocide,” and they saw that as a big step. However, I think some of the members of the Armenian community see this merely as a ploy for Foxman to get everybody who has been hammering him on this issue to shut up about it, to sort of placate [them].
So I think the Armenian community really wants to hear him vocally support the resolution — or at least those who see him as opposing it..., to stop doing what they see him doing in opposition.
JB: Using the word “genocide” just to describe the genocide as “genocide” is not enough. Any genocide, any crime needs to have consequences. One of the consequences of the genocide is supporting the genocide resolution in Congress. That’s why just using the word “genocide” is not enough for us.
BK: The ADL is going to consider the resolution pending in Congress. [The ADL] was forced to do this, and [the ADL] is finally coming in line with the thinking of many, many people. This past week was an extraordinary week of Armenians, Jews, and the general public putting a great deal of pressure on the ADL....We [Jews and Armenians] would lose confidence in [the ADL] if [the ADL] were not to do this. Jews and Armenians would find their stance against bigotry rather hypocritical.
Should Jews in Turkey feel abandoned as a result of the push for the Congress’ resolution?
KM: Turkish officials have made several statements in the past saying that they have been insulted by statements that talk about the dangers against the Jewish community in Turkey. I believe ADL is actually using this [argument] as a scapegoat...just to distance itself from recognizing the Armenian genocide properly and supporting it in Congress.
If [the Jews in Turkey] are [threatened], the ADL should have campaigned against Turkey and should have a campaign of tolerance in Turkey — instead of actually denying the Armenian genocide and perpetuating this problem by not supporting the [resolution].
RK: I don’t really know that much about Jews in Turkey. The only thing that I’ve heard coming from them during this whole [controversy] is a letter that was drafted by the Jewish community in Turkey, that was then presented via the American Jewish Committee and Turkish Foreign Minister in Washington, D.C., earlier this year, to heads of national Jewish organizations. The letter asked those heads to please consider their well-being for this resolution, which was implying that they felt it was a bad move for their own safety.
I don’t know whether that letter was, in fact, drawn up of their own volition or if it was coerced out of them. I’ve had people suggest to me both. [The suggestion was that they were being coerced] by the Turkish government. That’s not anyone saying that for certain, just [that] the suggestion was that Turkey wanted to give the impression that this was another factor.
JB: No, they shouldn’t feel let down or anything like that because nobody is asking for that. Did the Germans feel let down or anything else when the Holocaust [was] recognized or when people remember the Holocaust? A crime was committed more than 90 years ago. What we’re asking for is the recognition of that crime and the appropriate compensation for that crime — [recognition] by the entire world, including and most basically by Turkey.
The compensation we expect is not from the world. The compensation we expect and demand is from Turkey, nobody else. The compensations we have in mind are financial compensation; moral compensations, which is the recognition; and territorial compensation.
BK: No, because I don’t think it is the ADL’s stance on this issue that is going to mean security or insecurity for the Jewish people in Turkey.
According to the Boston Globe, Abraham Foxman didn’t want to alienate Turkey, a rare Muslim ally, from its neighbor, Israel. What’s wrong with that?
KM: We have to acknowledge that Israel and Turkey are very good and strong allies. And it’s important for Israel to maintain this strategically-important alliance with Turkey. It is up to Israel to decide on the nature of its relationship with its neighbors, including Turkey. However, a human rights organization...functioning in the United States — which states as its principles fighting against bigotry, fighting for tolerance, and which carries the legacy of the victims of the Holocaust — is not allowed to deny the Armenian genocide, to belittle or trivialize the Armenian genocide or even say that it should not be recognized by this Congress...or this [or that] world body.
ADL should not act as a state thinking about its own interests. This is such a huge human rights issue when you argue...against the recognition of another people’s genocide. I cannot see anything worse than this, not recognizing the genocide....The ADL is still trying to balance between pleasing the Turkish government and actually doing the right thing.
RK: I think some people don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. Most people understand — who are thinking about this from both the Jewish community and the Israeli perspective, they understand that it has to be taken under consideration. I think locally it’s such a huge issue because there is such a large Armenian American community whom the Jewish community in Boston has very close ties to. In addition to that, there is also the moral imperative, it seems, of calling a genocide, a genocide.
But at the same time, I think taking that into consideration is something that most Jewish organizations realize that they have to do. They have to consider the implications concerning Turkey. It seems that most of them realize that that is a reality of the Middle East. It is a consideration. At the same time, they may feel a moral imperative to recognize the genocide.
JB: We believe that is a really childish way of putting things. We have Armenian communities living in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, all these countries. Does that mean that as Armenians we have to decry the Holocaust or say the Holocaust did not happen? Or we do not support any kind of recognition or compensation of the Holocaust? That is really childish.
BK: (pauses) It’s really not his place [to be getting involved in this kind of foreign relations]. He is not a politician. He’s not making policy. It is sort of a non sequitur that he would be alienating Turkey, and there’s no reason why that should be an element in ADL’s decision on labeling these [Armenian] atrocities what they are.
Should towns and cities that are part of the ADL’s “No Place For Hate” Program continue to be a part of it?
KM: As long as the ADL has not come out to clearly recognize the genocide and support the congressional resolution — I’m not even talking about lobbying against it...I believe the “No Place for Hate” program...is inherently and illogically going against the “No Place for Hate” program. It is promoting hatred by not recognizing the genocide and by not recognizing the suffering of the victims and the [congressional] resolution [that]...recognizes the genocide.
RK: I think that’s up to them. It seems that a lot of what I’ve read, that a lot of towns that have been involved with “No Place for Hate” have really been inactive for many years. It’s sort of been a symbol on a street sign outside of the city hall somewhere. But if towns feel it’s hypocritical for them to have this program in their town, then that’s something that they have to reckon with.
But what it seems is that all the towns are happy to have a program like the ADL’s “No Place for Hate” in their community and feel it’s important to have it. Whether it is actually “No Place for Hate” or a program of their own construction, is something now being discussed.
JB: Being part of “No Place for Hate,” in terms of [its] connection with the ADL, if local towns and cities feel that they need to sever their ties with the ADL, but continue the program in another way, we fully support [those towns and cities]....We believe the cities are doing the correct thing by severing their ties with the ADL. The program, “No Place for Hate,” can be copied or repeated in all the cities in a myriad of manners without it being tied to the ADL specifically.
BK: I think they should definitely continue to be a part of the ADL’s “No Place for Hate,” especially now that the ADL and Foxman have relented [and because of] our showing a willingness to listen to the criticism and to act on it. Watertown got out [of the “No Place for Hate” program]. It was very painful for Watertown to do what they did. And they did so only after it was clear that Foxman was not [changing his] position. But now that Foxman has changed his position, I’m not sure what Watertown’s position at this point is. But I don’t think other towns should do the same thing, especially at this point.
The Armenian genocide happened over 85 years ago. Granted, the Boston area — Watertown in particular — has one of the largest Armenian populations in the country — but why now has this controversy had such a great impact?
KM: The people who are actually outraged, when they expressed their outrage, they did not imagine that this issue was going to be such a huge issue. It is the ADL that made it bigger and bigger. What happened first was that there was an Armenian writer, David Boyajian, who wrote a letter to the Watertown Tab, quoting a statement from Abraham Foxman denying the Armenian genocide. That’s how this controversy erupted. Armenians started writing other letters to the Watertown Tab. Before you know it, there was this outrage in the Armenian community in Watertown and beyond.
After that, statement after statement [from the ADL was issued]...denying the genocide and speaking against the congressional resolution, which made the issue even bigger....The entire issue [began with] outrage by Armenians because of a quote by Foxman. However, the ADL perpetuated this by their own statement.
BK: Because Israel is in a very vulnerable position. The MIddle East is more a powder keg than it usually is, and Foxman and the ADL are very sensitive to the safety of Jews there. But I think this is a case [in which] they need to relent and let the politicians work on this.
Why it’s become a problem now? It’s coming to the fore. There’s the [pending] legislation in Congress, and people want answers [about whether or not the Congress will pass the resolution]. It’s been an issue for a long, long time but possibly now because it is in Congress, and people have to go on record one way or the other. It’s become an issue.
JB: Because it’s very clear now what the ADL did and what Foxman did...[to the] community. It’s really weird when, [regarding] the Watertown Town Council..., we [Armenians] suddenly found ourselves in the middle of world politics. As Armenians, we’re unhappy that Watertown is in that situation. But we have been pushing for the recognition...for over 90 years now. What Foxman did, and the way that it was pursued, it blew over, and it is continuing to blow over....It’s not a matter of why now. This matter [has been] growing year after year after year.
The [Armenian genocide] survivors who came to the U.S. and...other countries in the world — they were dispersed — the survivors did not know the languages of the local countries, were not accustomed to the way local politics works....After all those years, the new generations [have grown] up and [are] taking over [through] activism, community organization....They are now American Armenians, or French Armenians, or Greek Armenians. They know the [local country’s] language, they are well versed in the local politics, they know how to play within the local political arena.
RK: From what I understand, it’s bubbling to the surface now because there seems to be a real shot for the congressional resolution to be heard and voted on in Congress, which has been sort of shuttled back and forth behind the scenes for many years now without getting much play.
There’s also, it seems, concern within the Armenian American community, that it is important for those few remaining survivors of the Armenian genocide to have this recognition while they’re still alive.
Briefly, is there anything else you’d like to say?
KM: Tens of thousands of Armenians, after the genocide, fled to the United States....We have few [survivors of the genocide] left. It is only right for the U.S. Congress to honor those survivors by recognizing the Armenian genocide....This issue has become such a huge and important issue nationwide. The ADL should reconsider its position and align itself with its own stated principles and recognize the Armenian genocide unambiguously and support the genocide resolution in the Congress.
RK: It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. I’m still learning as this goes along.
JB: The pursuit of the recognition of the genocide [within the Armenian community] is much better organized now than it was 40 or 45 years ago, or even 30 years ago when [Armenian] people used to get together and just remember the [genocide] victims....[through] commemorations at church. Now it’s not commemoration in the church anymore; it’s commemoration with political goals, with political activism. This is why the pursuit is gaining more and more momentum, especially now that we also have a free and independent republic of Armenia whose government also has the genocide as part of its foreign policy.
BK: I don’t think so.
Source: go-NEWz.com
Copyright 2007 NEWz. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the expressed permission by the news source. Contact us for more information.
Source: go-NEWz.com
Reporter: M. Thang
The Anti-Defamation League’s previous stance of not acknowledging the the Armenian genocide — in addition to its current opposition of a pending resolution in the U.S. Congress to recognize the tragedy — has unleashed a torrent of controversy over the past several days in the Boston area.
Learn what four people — from the Armenian Weekly; the Jewish Advocate; the Jewish Journal; and Web-based Armenian-language TV and radio, at hairenik.com, have to say.
On Genocide and the ADL, With Four Members of Local Armenian and Jewish Media
by M. Thang
Over one million Armenians were murdered at the hands of the Turkish Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923. The Anti-Defamation League, an organization that fights anti-Semitism and bigotry, has upheld its longtime policy of not recognizing the mass killings as genocide.
In addition, the ADL does not support a resolution of the U.S. Congress that acknowledges the murders as genocide.
The ADL policy has unleashed a torrent of controversy in the Boston area over the past two weeks.
The town council of Watertown, Mass., home to over 8,000 Armenians, voted to pull out of the ADL’s anti-bigotry “No Place for Hate Program,” in protest against the ADL’s stance on the Armenian genocide. The pullout has prompted other Boston-area towns and cities to consider severing their ties, too, with the ADL program.
In the face of growing outrage of local Armenian and Jewish communities, the national ADL partially reversed its policy last week — officially declaring that the mass murders are “indeed tantamount to genocide.”
The ADL has not reversed its policy regarding the congressional resolution to acknowledge the genocide. To do so would be “counterproductive,” it says, adding that such a policy reversal could jeopardize the safety of Jews in Turkey, an important and rare Muslim ally to Israel.
However, the ADL’s New England regional office moved last week to support the resolution, putting it — as well as other Jewish organizations — sharply at odds with the ADL leadership under national director Abraham Foxman.
The Boston Globe has been reporting on the controversy almost every day, sometimes as page-one news, over the past several days.
On August 23, the ADL told New England Ethnic News that the matter of supporting the resolution will be on the agenda of the ADL’s policy-making panel when it convenes in November.
New England Ethnic News spoke to four people from Armenian and Jewish media in the Boston area about the ongoing ADL controversy:
· Khatchig Mouradian, editor of the Armenian Weekly
· Raphael Kohan, staff writer at the Jewish Advocate
· Jirayr Beugekian, manager of online radio and Web TV at Armenian-language Web site hairenik.com.
· Bette Keva, editor of the Jewish Journal.
The national ADL has decided now to use the word “genocide.” In addition, it will consider supporting Congress’ resolution that recognizes the Armenian genocide. Is that good enough?
KM: The wording of the ADL’s statement [that officially recognizes the Armenian genocide] may not be perfect, but it still constitutes recognition. However...it states that ADL does not support the Armenian genocide resolution in Congress, saying that that would be counterproductive. That is the main problem being underlined by the Armenian community, individuals interested in human rights in general, and the Jewish community....It is quite disturbing. It’s very upsetting for ADL to recognize the genocide but, at the same time, lobby against the genocide resolution in Congress.
RK: I think some of the Jewish organizations who had been pressing [the ADL] were very happy to hear that Abe Foxman shifted his stance on the term “genocide,” and they saw that as a big step. However, I think some of the members of the Armenian community see this merely as a ploy for Foxman to get everybody who has been hammering him on this issue to shut up about it, to sort of placate [them].
So I think the Armenian community really wants to hear him vocally support the resolution — or at least those who see him as opposing it..., to stop doing what they see him doing in opposition.
JB: Using the word “genocide” just to describe the genocide as “genocide” is not enough. Any genocide, any crime needs to have consequences. One of the consequences of the genocide is supporting the genocide resolution in Congress. That’s why just using the word “genocide” is not enough for us.
BK: The ADL is going to consider the resolution pending in Congress. [The ADL] was forced to do this, and [the ADL] is finally coming in line with the thinking of many, many people. This past week was an extraordinary week of Armenians, Jews, and the general public putting a great deal of pressure on the ADL....We [Jews and Armenians] would lose confidence in [the ADL] if [the ADL] were not to do this. Jews and Armenians would find their stance against bigotry rather hypocritical.
Should Jews in Turkey feel abandoned as a result of the push for the Congress’ resolution?
KM: Turkish officials have made several statements in the past saying that they have been insulted by statements that talk about the dangers against the Jewish community in Turkey. I believe ADL is actually using this [argument] as a scapegoat...just to distance itself from recognizing the Armenian genocide properly and supporting it in Congress.
If [the Jews in Turkey] are [threatened], the ADL should have campaigned against Turkey and should have a campaign of tolerance in Turkey — instead of actually denying the Armenian genocide and perpetuating this problem by not supporting the [resolution].
RK: I don’t really know that much about Jews in Turkey. The only thing that I’ve heard coming from them during this whole [controversy] is a letter that was drafted by the Jewish community in Turkey, that was then presented via the American Jewish Committee and Turkish Foreign Minister in Washington, D.C., earlier this year, to heads of national Jewish organizations. The letter asked those heads to please consider their well-being for this resolution, which was implying that they felt it was a bad move for their own safety.
I don’t know whether that letter was, in fact, drawn up of their own volition or if it was coerced out of them. I’ve had people suggest to me both. [The suggestion was that they were being coerced] by the Turkish government. That’s not anyone saying that for certain, just [that] the suggestion was that Turkey wanted to give the impression that this was another factor.
JB: No, they shouldn’t feel let down or anything like that because nobody is asking for that. Did the Germans feel let down or anything else when the Holocaust [was] recognized or when people remember the Holocaust? A crime was committed more than 90 years ago. What we’re asking for is the recognition of that crime and the appropriate compensation for that crime — [recognition] by the entire world, including and most basically by Turkey.
The compensation we expect is not from the world. The compensation we expect and demand is from Turkey, nobody else. The compensations we have in mind are financial compensation; moral compensations, which is the recognition; and territorial compensation.
BK: No, because I don’t think it is the ADL’s stance on this issue that is going to mean security or insecurity for the Jewish people in Turkey.
According to the Boston Globe, Abraham Foxman didn’t want to alienate Turkey, a rare Muslim ally, from its neighbor, Israel. What’s wrong with that?
KM: We have to acknowledge that Israel and Turkey are very good and strong allies. And it’s important for Israel to maintain this strategically-important alliance with Turkey. It is up to Israel to decide on the nature of its relationship with its neighbors, including Turkey. However, a human rights organization...functioning in the United States — which states as its principles fighting against bigotry, fighting for tolerance, and which carries the legacy of the victims of the Holocaust — is not allowed to deny the Armenian genocide, to belittle or trivialize the Armenian genocide or even say that it should not be recognized by this Congress...or this [or that] world body.
ADL should not act as a state thinking about its own interests. This is such a huge human rights issue when you argue...against the recognition of another people’s genocide. I cannot see anything worse than this, not recognizing the genocide....The ADL is still trying to balance between pleasing the Turkish government and actually doing the right thing.
RK: I think some people don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. Most people understand — who are thinking about this from both the Jewish community and the Israeli perspective, they understand that it has to be taken under consideration. I think locally it’s such a huge issue because there is such a large Armenian American community whom the Jewish community in Boston has very close ties to. In addition to that, there is also the moral imperative, it seems, of calling a genocide, a genocide.
But at the same time, I think taking that into consideration is something that most Jewish organizations realize that they have to do. They have to consider the implications concerning Turkey. It seems that most of them realize that that is a reality of the Middle East. It is a consideration. At the same time, they may feel a moral imperative to recognize the genocide.
JB: We believe that is a really childish way of putting things. We have Armenian communities living in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, all these countries. Does that mean that as Armenians we have to decry the Holocaust or say the Holocaust did not happen? Or we do not support any kind of recognition or compensation of the Holocaust? That is really childish.
BK: (pauses) It’s really not his place [to be getting involved in this kind of foreign relations]. He is not a politician. He’s not making policy. It is sort of a non sequitur that he would be alienating Turkey, and there’s no reason why that should be an element in ADL’s decision on labeling these [Armenian] atrocities what they are.
Should towns and cities that are part of the ADL’s “No Place For Hate” Program continue to be a part of it?
KM: As long as the ADL has not come out to clearly recognize the genocide and support the congressional resolution — I’m not even talking about lobbying against it...I believe the “No Place for Hate” program...is inherently and illogically going against the “No Place for Hate” program. It is promoting hatred by not recognizing the genocide and by not recognizing the suffering of the victims and the [congressional] resolution [that]...recognizes the genocide.
RK: I think that’s up to them. It seems that a lot of what I’ve read, that a lot of towns that have been involved with “No Place for Hate” have really been inactive for many years. It’s sort of been a symbol on a street sign outside of the city hall somewhere. But if towns feel it’s hypocritical for them to have this program in their town, then that’s something that they have to reckon with.
But what it seems is that all the towns are happy to have a program like the ADL’s “No Place for Hate” in their community and feel it’s important to have it. Whether it is actually “No Place for Hate” or a program of their own construction, is something now being discussed.
JB: Being part of “No Place for Hate,” in terms of [its] connection with the ADL, if local towns and cities feel that they need to sever their ties with the ADL, but continue the program in another way, we fully support [those towns and cities]....We believe the cities are doing the correct thing by severing their ties with the ADL. The program, “No Place for Hate,” can be copied or repeated in all the cities in a myriad of manners without it being tied to the ADL specifically.
BK: I think they should definitely continue to be a part of the ADL’s “No Place for Hate,” especially now that the ADL and Foxman have relented [and because of] our showing a willingness to listen to the criticism and to act on it. Watertown got out [of the “No Place for Hate” program]. It was very painful for Watertown to do what they did. And they did so only after it was clear that Foxman was not [changing his] position. But now that Foxman has changed his position, I’m not sure what Watertown’s position at this point is. But I don’t think other towns should do the same thing, especially at this point.
The Armenian genocide happened over 85 years ago. Granted, the Boston area — Watertown in particular — has one of the largest Armenian populations in the country — but why now has this controversy had such a great impact?
KM: The people who are actually outraged, when they expressed their outrage, they did not imagine that this issue was going to be such a huge issue. It is the ADL that made it bigger and bigger. What happened first was that there was an Armenian writer, David Boyajian, who wrote a letter to the Watertown Tab, quoting a statement from Abraham Foxman denying the Armenian genocide. That’s how this controversy erupted. Armenians started writing other letters to the Watertown Tab. Before you know it, there was this outrage in the Armenian community in Watertown and beyond.
After that, statement after statement [from the ADL was issued]...denying the genocide and speaking against the congressional resolution, which made the issue even bigger....The entire issue [began with] outrage by Armenians because of a quote by Foxman. However, the ADL perpetuated this by their own statement.
BK: Because Israel is in a very vulnerable position. The MIddle East is more a powder keg than it usually is, and Foxman and the ADL are very sensitive to the safety of Jews there. But I think this is a case [in which] they need to relent and let the politicians work on this.
Why it’s become a problem now? It’s coming to the fore. There’s the [pending] legislation in Congress, and people want answers [about whether or not the Congress will pass the resolution]. It’s been an issue for a long, long time but possibly now because it is in Congress, and people have to go on record one way or the other. It’s become an issue.
JB: Because it’s very clear now what the ADL did and what Foxman did...[to the] community. It’s really weird when, [regarding] the Watertown Town Council..., we [Armenians] suddenly found ourselves in the middle of world politics. As Armenians, we’re unhappy that Watertown is in that situation. But we have been pushing for the recognition...for over 90 years now. What Foxman did, and the way that it was pursued, it blew over, and it is continuing to blow over....It’s not a matter of why now. This matter [has been] growing year after year after year.
The [Armenian genocide] survivors who came to the U.S. and...other countries in the world — they were dispersed — the survivors did not know the languages of the local countries, were not accustomed to the way local politics works....After all those years, the new generations [have grown] up and [are] taking over [through] activism, community organization....They are now American Armenians, or French Armenians, or Greek Armenians. They know the [local country’s] language, they are well versed in the local politics, they know how to play within the local political arena.
RK: From what I understand, it’s bubbling to the surface now because there seems to be a real shot for the congressional resolution to be heard and voted on in Congress, which has been sort of shuttled back and forth behind the scenes for many years now without getting much play.
There’s also, it seems, concern within the Armenian American community, that it is important for those few remaining survivors of the Armenian genocide to have this recognition while they’re still alive.
Briefly, is there anything else you’d like to say?
KM: Tens of thousands of Armenians, after the genocide, fled to the United States....We have few [survivors of the genocide] left. It is only right for the U.S. Congress to honor those survivors by recognizing the Armenian genocide....This issue has become such a huge and important issue nationwide. The ADL should reconsider its position and align itself with its own stated principles and recognize the Armenian genocide unambiguously and support the genocide resolution in the Congress.
RK: It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. I’m still learning as this goes along.
JB: The pursuit of the recognition of the genocide [within the Armenian community] is much better organized now than it was 40 or 45 years ago, or even 30 years ago when [Armenian] people used to get together and just remember the [genocide] victims....[through] commemorations at church. Now it’s not commemoration in the church anymore; it’s commemoration with political goals, with political activism. This is why the pursuit is gaining more and more momentum, especially now that we also have a free and independent republic of Armenia whose government also has the genocide as part of its foreign policy.
BK: I don’t think so.
Source: go-NEWz.com
Copyright 2007 NEWz. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the expressed permission by the news source. Contact us for more information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
