Holocaust Denial is a Crime, Genocide Denial is Kosher

Alex Papadapulos
Contributing columnist

Every year the Armenians scattered across the earth commemorate the event that lead to their being scattered across the earth, the Armenian Genocide. What resistance this term still provokes comes from two sources, logically from two sources that will be damaged directly by its recognition. The apparent source is the present Turkish Republic, which does not want to be known as a state built on genocide, and therefore avoids the odium of being known as a genocidal state. The other, and the more troubling, is the zealous opposition of Israel and Jewish organizations.

For years all the top Jewish organizations, the Anti-Defamation League, (which in ’07 under Abe Foxman fired the head of its New England chapter, Andrew Tarsy, for accepting the Armenian Genocide) AIPAC, (which trains Turkish diplomats in ways to obfuscate the issue of the Genocide) the B’nai Brith, and the mother of all Jewish organizations, the ‘Jewish state’, Israel, have not merely refused to recognize the Armenian Genocide, which would be understandable and well within their rights as an uninvolved party,–no honest man demands tears of sorrow from strangers for his own loss, he is too begrieved to look for an audience– but is actively at the forefront of suppressing the first genocide of the 20th century.

They have created lovely euphemisms for their dishonesty, calling Jewish genocide deniers, like Bernard Lewis, Richard Pearle, and others, ‘The Jewish Exclusivist School’; that is, Jews who want to keep the Holocaust ‘unique’ event. They certainly are unique, we’ll give ’em that, if their leaders cast themselves as the defenders of the memory of genocide and the sufferers of ‘the most unspeakable crime in history’  while at the same time working hard to make people forget, denying the genocide that preceded and influenced their own. Their most often stated excuse, these Jewish leaders, is that the passage of an official statement either in the U.N. or especially in the legislature of the U.S., will adversely effect the relationship between Israel and Turkey, Israel’s only Muslim ally. “Oh,” we are to say, “they are not evil, merely political opportunists.”

There are men in prison today, like David Irving in Britain, for doubting the Holocaust; yet for the conscious act of suppressing the recognition of the Genocide,  Jewish groups and Israel are kosher because in so doing they’re pursuing selfish political interests. (To be sure, there’s a good bit of denial too: a Jewish attorney named Bruce Fein working for the Turkish Coalition of America can safely write an article titled “Lies, Damn Lies and Armenian Deaths” (Hufington Post, June 4, 2009) Which, I ask, is worse: To doubt sincerely, or to cynically suppress and to say “We believe it” and to suppress it nonetheless? The former is merely foolhardy, the latter is evil.

Even if a bill recognizing the Genocide passes this or in the coming years, it will be because of Jewish groups withdrawing their hand and allowing it to pass to hurt a Turkey that no longer cooperates with Israel, as recently Turkey refused to admit Israel into a joint NATO military excercise; or when the President of Turkey scolded Shimon Peres on Palestinian deaths, the next day in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz a columnist mused: “Perhaps the next time the Armenian genocide bill comes up in the U.S. congress, the Palestinians will help them block it.”

You know what? Maybe it will pass sometime soon, but for all the wrong reasons.

  • PeterK

    So Dike…you got a page number for me?

  • There is no justification for the murder of an entire group of people. Even if a small minority group (Dashnak Nationalists) of agitators were the scapegoat. You seek to justify the extermination of an entire culture because of some “bad apples.” This ludicrous logic would equate to the extermination of the whole of Saudi Arabia because of the acts committed on 9/11. It is simply intolerant and inhumane.

  • Ergun Kirlikovali


    1) TUMULT (as in numerous Armenian armed uprisings between 1882 and 1920)

    2) TERRORISM (by well-armed Armenian nationalists and militias victimizing Ottoman-Muslims between 1882-1920)

    3) TREASON (Armenians joining the invading enemy armies as early as 1914 and lasting until 1921)

    4) TERRITORIAL DEMANDS (where Armenians were a minority, not a majority, attempting to establish Greater Armenia, the would-be first apartheid of the 20th Century with a Christian minority ruling over a Muslim majority )

    5) TURKISH SUFFERING AND LOSSES (i.e. those caused by the Armenian nationalists: 524,000 Muslims, mostly Turks, met their tragic end at the hands of Armenian revolutionaries during WWI, per Turkish Historical Society. This figure is not to be confused with about 2.5 million Muslim dead who lost their lives due to non-Armenian causes during WWI. Grand total: more than 3 million, according to Prof. Justin McCarthy.)

    6) TERESET (temporary resettlement) triggered by the first five T’s above and amply documented as such; not to be equated to the Armenian misrepresentations as genocide.)


    Those who take the Armenian “allegations” of genocide at face value seem to also ignore the following:

    1- Genocide is a legal, technical term precisely defined by the U.N. 1948 convention (Like all proper laws, it is not retroactive to 1915.)

    2- Genocide verdict can only be given by a “competent court” after “due process” where both sides are properly represented and evidence mutually cross examined.

    3- For a genocide verdict, the accusers must prove “intent” at a competent court and after due process. This could never be done by the Armenians whose evidence mostly fall into five major categories: hearsay, mis-representations, exaggerations, forgeries, and “other”.

    4- Such a “competent court” was never convened in the case of Turkish-Armenian conflict and a genocide verdict does not exist (save a Kangaroo court in occupied Istanbul in 1920 where partisanship, vendettas, and revenge motives left no room for due process.)

    5- Genocide claim is political, not historical or factual. It reflects bias against Turks. Therefore, the term genocide must be used with the qualifier “alleged”, for scholarly objectivity and truth.


    History is not a matter of “conviction, consensus, political resolutions, political correctness, or propaganda.” History is a matter of research, peer review, thoughtful debate, and honest scholarship. Even historians, by definition, cannot decide on a genocide verdict, which is reserved for a “competent court” with its legal expertise and due process.


    What we witness today amounts to lynching of the Turks by Armenians to satisfy the age old Armenian hate, bias, and bigotry. Values like fairness, presumption of innocence until proven guilty, objectivity, balance, honesty, and freedom of speech are stumped under the fanatic Armenian feet. Unprovoked , unjustified, and unfair defamation of Turkey, one of America’s closest allies in the troubled Middle East, in order to appease some nagging Armenian activists runs counter to American interests.

    Those who claim genocide verdict today, based on the much discredited Armenian evidence, are actually engaging in “conviction and execution without due process”. Last time I looked in the dictionary, that was the definition of “lynching”.

    Isn’t it time to stop fighting the First World War and give peace a chance?


    Son of Turkish Survivors from Both Maternal & Paternal Sides



  • Ergun Kirlikovali


    Armenians seem so wrapped up and obsessed with their version of history that they cannot even see why we, the Turkish-Americans, would like to respond the Armenian interviewee(s). The Armenians routinely misrepresent to unsuspecting public the Turkish-Armenian conflict as settled history of genocide, whereas the truth is far from being settled, let alone called genocide. When we ask for equal time, Armenians come back with “What is there to respond? There is nothing to debate.”


    Only those who are not confident about their facts and figures are terrified by open debate, as they know their lies, distortions, fabrications, hearsay, and tall tales will be exposed. Only those fanatics will argue that their case has only one side, their side, and only their stories are the truth, the whole truth. We heard it all too many times in other controversies, too: abortion, gun control, immigration, gay rights, Iraq War, Guantanamo, taxes, stimulus package, and many others. It is up to decent people to stand up to the “opinion thugs” and demand the opening of the field to responsible opposing views so that both, in fact all, sides of any controversy shall be heard. After that, let the public come to its own decision. Propaganda and political pressure are not meant to replace scholarship, as Armenian falsifiers and their fellow Turk haters attempt to do so frequently.


    If one cherishes values like fairness, objectivity, truth, and honesty, then one should really use the term “Turkish-Armenian conflict”. Asking one “Do you accept or deny Armenian Genocide” shows anti-Turkish bias. The question should be re-phrased “What is your stand on the Turkish-Armenian conflict?”

    Turks believe it was an inter communal warfare mostly fought by Turkish and Armenian irregulars, a civil war which is engineered, provoked, and waged by the Armenian revolutionaries, with active support from Russia, England, France, and others, all eyeing the vast territories of the collapsing Ottoman Empire, against a backdrop of a raging world war.

    Armenians, on the other hand, totally ignoring Armenian agitation, raids, rebellions, treason, territorial demands, and Turkish victims killed by Armenians, unfairly claim that it was a one way genocide.


    While some in unsuspecting public may be forgiven for taking the blatant and ceaseless Armenian propaganda at face value and believing Armenian falsifications merely because they are repeated so often, it is difficult and painful for someone like me, the son of Turkish survivors on both maternal and paternal sides.

    Those seemingly endless “War years” of 1912-1922 brought wide-spread death and destruction on to all Ottoman citizens. No Turkish family was left touched, mine included. Those nameless, faceless Turkish victims are killed for a second time today with politically motivated and baseless charges of Armenian genocide.


    They are racist because they ignore the Turkish dead: about 3 million during WWI; more than half a million of them at the hands of Armenian nationalists.

    And the allegations of Armenian genocide are dishonest because they simply dismiss



  • Tsait

    Idiotic verbal masturbation is what we get from Turkish spammers as a response to iany article published on the internet. Armenian-hater K’vali and his many other selves spam the websites with lies and half-truth, basically copy and paste so-called proofs to “make” a point. All they do is make fool out of themselves. These grey-wolves racists envoys to humanity at large simply bark their “views” and prove their cowardice by not being man enough to face the truth and admit the murderous killing spree their own immediate ancestors committed upon peaceful Armenians. All they have left is cowardly denial.

  • alex papadapulos

    From the author of the article:

    Everyone here is waisting their breath. Both Armenians and Turks. Let me make what was my implication clear: the Turks did not commit genocide against the Armenians. Should I say it again? THE TURKS DID NOT COMMIT GENOCIDE AGAINST THE ARMENIANS. Armenian rebels were being financed, armed, and agaitated principally by the British, or, elements within Britain for reasons that later became clear (Balfour). At the same time a revolution had taken place in Turkey deposing the rightful ruler, the Sultan, who was replaced by the Doenmeh crypto-Jews known as the “Young Turks”. The “Young Turks” were supported ideologically and materially in their illegal coup by fellow Jews in Europe. Their purpose was to sick Armenian on Turk, and Turk on Armenian, who had lived side by side together for a thousand years, simply in order to destroy the Ottoman empire, which at the time included PALESTINE, leaving it open for colonization: Zionism was long in full swing. The Turks lost an empire and the Armenians lost nearly everything and are in exile. Stop this stupid bickering: point the finger where the blame really lies. The YOUNG Turks committed genocide, not the Turks. The Young Turks were not Turks.

    –Seemingly bizarre high-level Jewish opposition to the Armenians on this issue should be seen through this light. And their cynical blackmail of the Turks likewise.

  • akasya

    Here is the Press Release of Viennese Armenian-Turkish Platform (VAT). I leave the decision to the readers:

    Viennese Armenian-Turkish Platform (VAT)
    Wendstattgasse 9/95, 1100 Vienna, Austria, Tel.: +43 676 612 86 76
    e-mail: vat_platform@yahoo.deotw@otw.co.at

    I. Press Release 11.1.2005
    Viennese Armenian-Turkish Platform – VAT

    The Viennese Armenian-Turkish Platform (VAT; see more detailed information on the Platform below) deeply regrets to announce that she will not carry through her starting initiative „The First Viennese Armenian-Turkish Round Table” (FVATR Vienna 2005) originally planned for spring 2005. The reason is that the Armenian partner has not provided us with the necessary confirmation as agreed in August 2004.

    In case of any response from the Armenian side in the near future, VAT hopes to realise the Round Table at a later time. On the other hand, the Turkish partner accepted already to participate in the dialogue, in which each part was supposed to present 180 documents on the year 1915 showing their understanding of this delicate matter.

    In July 2004, the first 100 documents each from the Armenian and Turkish side were exchanged to get the dialogue started. This exchange on neutral ground was the closest contact of Turkish and Armenian scientists in the past 90 years. Although VAT deeply regrets the dialogue not taking place as planned, VAT will continue to serve as a platform for researchers from all involved parties, in order to face mutual and common history.

    As VAT we expect from the international community – especially from Armenia and Turkey– to seriously and systematically get involved with the Armenian Question concerning all of us.

    Primarily the researchers should get involved with the Armenian Question and both sides should enjoy the same rights in the dialogue. The concept of VAT can be taken as an example for the mutual dialogue in that sense.

    Viennese Armenian-Turkish Platform – VAT
    VAT was founded by four Austrian historians as a neutral platform serving as an intermediary as well as a platform for Turkish and Armenian researchers scientifically investigating the Armenian-Turkish Question. One of the founders is of Turkish origin, another of Armenian origin.

    Founding members: Univ. Prof. Dr. Wolfditer BIHL
    Kerstin TOMENENDAL, M.A.
    Dr. ?nanç ATILGAN

    VAT is a private scientific initiative. Its distinctiveness lies in its difference from the dialogue processes which have tried to “solve” the Question within the past 90 years. Thus, VAT offers both sides a platform on neutral ground on equal terms. Also, both sides have the right to discuss whether the incidents of the year 1915 may be called a genocide or not.

    VAT has no political agenda. Its sole purpose is to offer a strictly scientifical platform aiming at publishing the scientific results of the dialogue process.

    The first Dialogue Iniative of VAT (2004-2005)
    Following the above mentioned principles, “The First Viennese Armenian Turkish Round Table” would have layed the corner stone for the envisaged dialogue process dealing with the incidents of 1915.

    History of the first initiative of VAT:
    ??The basis for entering the dialogue process was that each party would accept the rules of VAT and nominate two academicians from renowned scientific. Thus, VAT contacted the Turkish Historical Society (TTK) and the Armenian Academy of Sciences (AAS). These two institutions nominated as their representatives:

    o Prof. Dr. Yusuf Halaço?lu (President of the Turkish Historical Society)
    o Prof. Dr. Hikmet Özdemir (President of the Department of Armenian Studies)
    o Prof. Dr. Lavrenti Barseghian (Director of the Museum of Genocide in Erivan)
    o Prof. Dr. Ashot Melkonian (Director of the Department of History in the
    Armenian Academy of Sciences).

    ??Both sides officially informed VAT of their participation. The first official exchange of 100 historical documents from each side in various languages and from various archives took place in July 2004, the VAT acting as intermediary sending the Armenian documents to the Turkish partner and vice versa. VAT asked for additional 80 documents from both sides. These 360 documents all together should have been the basis for the dialogue process.
    ??Due to untimely reports in Turkish, Armenian and international media without consent of the VAT, Dr. Ohandjanian, one of the founders of VAT, withdrew from his position in August 2004. Referring to this new situation, VAT informed both sides and asked them to confirm their participation within the VAT. Thus, the Turkish partner officially confirmed his participation whilst the Armenians have not responded yet.

    ??Through Dr. Ohandjanian VAT came to know that the Armenian part had had problems with reading the unpublished Ottoman documents which were presented from the Turkish side. VAT informed TTK about this problem. TTK offered a transcript of the Ottoman source in Latin letters so that the dialogue could be realized within the scheduled timetable. VAT informed AAS about this offer. An answer from AAS is still pending.
    ??Due to the fact that the Armenian partner has not officially confirmed his participation although having been asked to respond by September 30 2004, and thus the second exchange of documents has not taken place yet, VAT considers itself not able to organize the “FVATR Vienna 2005” as planned.

    What was planned for the “FVATR”:
    ??VAT would have organized the meeting without public audience only discussing the exchanged documents. The chairperson of the meeting would have been Prof. Bihl. Dr. ?nanç At?lgan who is of Turkish origin, would not have taken part in the discussion in order to not throw any doubt on the objectiveness of VAT. This precautionary measure had become necessary because of the withdrawal of Dr. Artem Ohandjanian who is of Armenian descent.

    ??The meeting would have been taped, all results would have been published.
    ??As a result of the meeting a “common handbook” would have been published giving both sides the opportunity of equally presenting their views on a very sensitive episode of history.

    Prof. Dr. Wolfdieter Bihl Kerstin Tomenendal, M.A. Dr. ?nanç At?lgan,
    Vienna 11.1.2005