The Turkish-Armenian Debate (part 5)

A couple of days ago on Tuesday, I missed a chance to go to a demonstration staged by the Armenian diaspora in front of the Turkish Consulate in NYC. Unfortunately, thinking that it was on Wednesday I went there and, of course, saw no one. But on my way back, I came across a small cardboard banner that read "Hrank Dink: 1,500,001st victim of the Armenian Genocide" and that's when I decided to write this post. The cardboard box was actually quoting Robert Fisk's article in which Fisk states that very line in his first sentence.

Besides the obvious, there is a distasteful stench of capitalizing on Hrant's murder for the "genocide" cause, which I really think needs to be criticized. This demonstration was clearly not designed to be a vigil for Hrant because if it was then why didn't anyone invite any Turkish groups to this event? Would it not have been a better idea to stand in unison and condemn the murder, express sorrow, and show solidarity at a neutral place (like across the street at the UN)? Instead the diaspora chose to direct the approximately 600 demonstrators towards the Turkish Center and the Consulate. I was talking with a police officer who was also there that day and he affirmed that it seemed like most were against the Turks with visible hatred (and no, he was not a Turk himself) as if to blame the very Consulate.... That's an American viewpoint for you which clearly shows the nature of the ignorance all of us are engulfed in.

I find this move very low, but at the same time it doesn't surprise me at all. There seems to be a clear divide between the approach of the Armenian diaspora in the US and the Armenians living in Armenia or Turkey. The latter ones are more open to discussion it appears. Either way, in all of this I cannot allow the diaspora to take advantage of Hrant's murder at the expense of the Turks (including the bloggers) that did express condolences (NY Times) and showed a great deal of heart to stand up (BBC 1 and BBC 2).

Furthermore, it's very easy for anyone standing outside of our conflict to just believe any statement made, and like the police officer, not question anything. So, I decided to post the following series of videos that show the flip side of the coin to the argument. The whole series are part of a documentary you can find on YouTube.com under "Armenian Revolt". Everyone, please take the time to watch it all (about an hour in length in total) to get a good idea of the historical circumstances of the debate. Interestingly enough, it is rather rare to find someone from the Armenian side to talk about everything else that led to their forefathers getting killed or kicked out of the area. If you wonder why, watch the clips and you’ll understand. The sources are listed after the clips.

"Armenian Revolt -- Tragedy in the Middle East" produced and directed by Marty Callaghan.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:

Part 6:

What are the sources of this documentary you ask? They are:

-- Turkish National Archives

-- U.S. National Archives

-- Kaleidoscope Archives

-- Russian Federation Archives

-- Ullstein Bild, Berlin

-- Bildarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz (BPK), Berlin

-- Bulgarian National Archives

-- Romanian National Archives

Here is a nice source and director info from the business wire:

The documentary is based on two years of research with experts in the United States, Russia, Germany, Romania, England and Bulgaria. Interviews were filmed in the United States and Turkey. Stunning, historical footage from 1913 to 1919 has been found in the national archives of the United States, Romania and Bulgaria as well as in a private archive in Moscow, Russia. Still photographs were sourced in the United States and from a private collection in Berlin, Germany.

Callaghan is a veteran documentary filmmaker, focusing on military history, World War I and the Middle East for much of his career. He earned a B.A. degree in History (Valparaiso University), a M.A. degree in English (New Mexico State University) and a M.A. degree in History (Virginia Polytechnic Institute).

Thank you for watching the documentary.

Comments

[Sean]

I ran into this letter today and had to post it. The people who wrote this letter are as impartial as impartial can get.

I got it from:
http://www.genocidewatch.org/TurkishPMIAGSOpenLetterreArmenia6-13-05.htm

==========================

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GENOCIDE SCHOLARS

President
Israel Charny (Israel)

First Vice-President Gregory H. Stanton (USA)

Second Vice-President
Linda Melvern (UK)

Secretary-Treasurer
Steven Jacobs (USA)

June 13, 2005

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
TC Easbakanlik
Bakanlikir
Ankara, Turkey
FAX: 90 312 417 0476

Dear Prime Minister Erdogan:

We are writing you this open letter in response to your call for an “impartial study by historians” concerning the fate of the Armenian people in the Ottoman Empire during World War I.

We represent the major body of scholars who study genocide in North America and Europe. 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 and how this event conforms to the definition of the United Nations Genocide Convention. 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, who have no affiliations with governments, and whose work spans many countries and nationalities and the course of decades. The scholarly evidence reveals the following:

On April 24, 1915, under cover of World War I, the Young Turk government of the Ottoman Empire began a systematic genocide of its Armenian citizens – an unarmed Christian minority population. More than a million Armenians were exterminated through direct killing, starvation, torture, and forced death marches. The rest of the Armenian population fled into permanent exile. Thus an ancient civilization was expunged from its homeland of 2,500 years.

The Armenian Genocide was the most well-known human rights issue of its time and was reported regularly in newspapers across the United States and Europe. The Armenian Genocide is abundantly documented by thousands of official records of the United States and nations around the world including Turkey’s wartime allies Germany, Austria and Hungary, by Ottoman court-martial records, by eyewitness accounts of missionaries and diplomats, by the testimony of survivors, and by decades of historical scholarship.

The Armenian Genocide is corroborated by the international scholarly, legal, and human rights community:

1) Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin, when he coined the term genocide in 1944, cited the Turkish extermination of the Armenians and the Nazi extermination of the Jews as defining examples of what he meant by genocide.

2) The killings of the Armenians is genocide as defined by the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

3) In 1997 the International Association of Genocide Scholars, an organization of the world’s foremost experts on genocide, unanimously passed a formal resolution affirming the Armenian Genocide.

4) 126 leading scholars of the Holocaust including Elie Wiesel and Yehuda Bauer placed a statement in the New York Times in June 2000 declaring the “incontestable fact of the Armenian Genocide” and urging western democracies to acknowledge it.

5) The Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide (Jerusalem), and the Institute for the Study of Genocide (NYC) have affirmed the historical fact of the Armenian Genocide.

6) Leading texts in the international law of genocide such as William A. Schabas’s Genocide in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2000) cite the Armenian Genocide as a precursor to the Holocaust and as a precedent for the law on crimes against humanity.

We note that there may be differing interpretations of genocide—how and why the Armenian Genocide happened, but to deny its factual and moral reality as genocide is not to engage in scholarship but in propaganda and efforts to absolve the perpetrator, blame the victims, and erase the ethical meaning of this history.

We would also note that scholars who advise your government and who are affiliated in other ways with your state-controlled institutions are not impartial. Such so-called “scholars” work to serve the agenda of historical and moral obfuscation when they advise you and the Turkish Parliament on how to deny the Armenian Genocide. In preventing a conference on the Armenian Genocide from taking place at Bogacizi University in Istanbul on May 25, your government revealed its aversion to academic and intellectual freedom—a fundamental condition of democratic society.

We believe that it is clearly in the interest of the Turkish people and their future as a proud and equal participants in international, democratic discourse to acknowledge the responsibility of a previous government for the genocide of the Armenian people, just as the German government and people have done in the case of the Holocaust.

Approved Unanimously at the Sixth biennial meeting of

THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GENOCIDE SCHOLARS (IAGS)

June 7, 2005, Boca Raton, Florida

Contacts: Israel Charny, IAGS President; Executive Director, Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide, Jerusalem, Editor-in-Chief, Encyclopedia of Genocide, 972-2-672-0424; encygeno@mail.com

Gregory H. Stanton, IAGS Vice President; President, Genocide Watch, James Farmer Visiting Professor of Human Rights, University of Mary Washington; 703-448-0222; genocidewatch@aol.com

[Anonymous Greek]

The Hrant Dink killing only further proves how much hatred there is in your barbaric culture. You couldn't get enough killing done in 1915-1924 nor in 1955 nor 1964 until this day..the only thing you can boast of is theft and Genocide. All that land you barbarians sit on was stolen after all, and you can't stop killing the natives until they are all gone.

Dialogue with barbarians like Turks is futile, all you do is deny and kill and deny and kill.

Hrant Dink learned an age old lesson, he died for his liberal ideals, the ideal that Turks could be treated as equals to Armenians or Greeks.Wrong! Turks are murderous Genocidal barbarians.

[Lawyerman]

Sean,

Thanks for posting the IAGS letter which I should have posted earlier when dealing with the legalities.

Anonymous Greek,

The tone of your comment and your email address suggest that you are not the same Anonymous Greek as has been posting up to now. You have stolen the identity of Anonymous Greek as it were.

This is no big deal except that you have made racist comments against Turks.

If the last few days have shown anything it is that Turkish society is not monolithic and there exist many Turks who have empathy for others and are willing to question the official version of events. Let us not sully Hrant Dink's memory with this kind of commentary. He certainly wouldnt have accepted it.

[Aya]

AG, it is obvious from your comments that you are the one who is full of disgusting hate. Anyhow, next time before attempting to write anything stupid, remember that Hrant Dink was a Turkish citizen of Armenian descent.

[Bolsa Hye]

. . . who was assasinated because of his Armenian ethnic identity. Let's not forget that part either Aya.

[Aya]

Bolsa, I don't think he was assassinated just because he was of Armenian decent. In Turkey, ethnic Armenians are not shot in the streets just because they are so. You should know this, don't you live in Istanbul? Dink was assassinated for expressing his views about the genocide issue which are deemed anti-Turkish by some nationalists. My point is that comments such as those by AG assume that he was an Armenian citizen, which is simply not true.

[Infidel]

Sean,

"The people who wrote this letter are as impartial as impartial can get." ---- Of course, they are..... except that one of the links they list is to the Armenian National Institute in DC. Do you see any site listed here (http://www.isg-iags.org/othersites.html) that tells the Turkish side of the story? In fact, do you see any site that also deemed the killings of over half a million Turks by the Dashnaks, Hunchaks, and other Armenian rebels as genocide?..... Doesn't seem "as impartial as impartial can get" to me. Quite the opposite, if you are looking for impartiality someone needs to mention the Turkish deaths, and no one can get around this.

If you had watched the videos you would have had something to say about these killings. Anyone care to tell us what you think of the flip side of our coin?

[Infidel]

Anonymous Greek,

I can confirm that you are not the same AG as the one in my previous posts. The policy in this debate is that you do not resort to name-calling or profanities. If you feel the need to insult then it better be subtle, ingenious, original, and witty (here is an example of such an insult I had posted for other Greeks like yourself; http://theinfidel.typepad.com/weblog/2006/12/how_the_greek_a.html ) . Otherwise, I will block you from further commenting on this site. Please adhere to this, we're trying to have a discussion, not another crap flinging competition.

[Bolsa Hye]

Aya, many people in Turkey have been expressing their views on the Genocide for the past 5 years in Turkey. Interesting though that the only one murdered so far was of Armenian descent.

[Infidel]

Lawyerman, thanks for the support. Much appreciated.

Bolsa, Aya, always a pleasure...

[Aya]

Yes very interesting. But Pamuk is on the same death list and it could've been him.

[Bolsa Hye]

Infidel,

There is no flip side of the coin. On the one hand there was a Genocide. On the other hand, there was none.

As for the Turkish fantasy figure of 500,000, which a new fabrication only recently conjured up by the Turkish spindoctors, I'd say do the math yourself. If there were 2 million Armenians throughout the entire Ottoman Empire (which, by the way is the Armenian figure, Turks say there were no more than 1.2 million), that means about 1 million males, and perhaps 500,000 able-bodied fighting aged men. How many of them were Hnchaks or Tashnags? How many of them even knew what a Hnchak or Tashnag was. Let's live in Turkish fantasy world and say that a massive 20% of Armenians were "rebels". That leaves 100,000 Armenian fighting aged men throughout the vast Ottoman Empire with no organized armies or government or modern communication methods, and they supposedly somehow managed to kill 500,000 Turks against the presence of one of the strongest militaries in the world! This is what you want people to believe? You think believing this load of crap, when there's no evidence to prove it, would make those historians "neutral".

[Infidel]

Bolsa, make no mistake please, every coin has a flip side and so does this one.

But what if there is evidence of this? Would you want to consider calling the Turkish killings a genocide if the government could show without a reasonable doubt that over 500,000 were killed at the hands of the Armenians (sponsored by Russia)? It should be quite clear that you don't need an organized army, governments, or modern communication methods to hold a weapon. The Russians did the logistics of the matter and gave you guys the illusion that you could have your own country on Ottoman Turkish soil. And "the presence of one of the strongest militaries in the world" had diminished to a great big fat zero having lost many battles on all fronts. This was the time to hit and the Armenians knew it, and in fact, I don't blame them. This was the one chance and moment in time when you could have managed to rip apart a chunk of land from the Ottomans like everyone else did and get away with a brand spanking new nation to call your own.

But you couldn't and despite the fact that you did get some land to call your own, the Russians had another plan and double crossed you guys completely.

Did you watch the clips?

The neutrality of historians is not proven by believing my side over yours, it's by considering all sides and then believing whatever the hell it is they conclude. That's what I'm after, but you already know this........

I'll be back. Gotto go...

[Sean]

Infidel said "if you are looking for impartiality someone needs to mention the Turkish deaths, and no one can get around this."

Many Germans died during WWII, and some where killed by Jews. Do we talk about them whenever we bring up the Holocausts? I have no doubt that many Turks died during WWI, and some of them (not half million) were killed by Armenians. No question about it.

But that doesn't have anything to do with the Genocide. If I remember correctly, during one of your posts you talked about the "INTENT" to commit genocide. You said that proving intent was the key. Well, what does Turks dying have to do with INTENT?
Today, I am sure some Sudanese die while they are committing a Genocide. That doesn't mean anything!

If people (Historians in this case) from Israel, USA, and UK are not impartial, then who is? Would you prefer to see that they are from Istanbul and Baku? Pamuk is from Istanbul. Do you consider him impartial? so is Taner Akcam.

I bet you think that neither Pamuk nor Akcam is impartial. If that's the case, then your definition of "Impartial" is "One who denies that the Genocide happened".

By the way, you didn't say anything about this guy. IS HE IMPARTIAL?

http://www.gazetem.net/ahmetaltan.asp

[Anonymous Greek]

Infidel,

Yes, the previous post by "AG" was not me. I'm glad others, such as lawyerman, could see that.

Aya,

Please read the tone of my earlier posts.

To my imposter,

I'm not flatterred.

And on to my post.

Interesting videos. I've watched the first two. The tone though is quite skewed towards the Turkish side, you must admit. I like to use Guenter Lewy's tone, as in his book that we've previously discussed, he cuts through the rhetoric on both sides, but from what I've read, he opts out of the genocide debate.

When I have time, I'll try to address the points made by the film which contradict Bernard Lewis's book on modern Turkey.

One of the fallacies that has been brought forth as a result of Mr. Dink's unfortunate assassination (was this proscription?) was the claim that Armenians lived peacefully with the Turks. On the surface this was true, but underneath, they were oppressed. Citing the fact that Christian minorities served in various posts in the Ottoman bureaucracy is a bit of a distortion. Due to the Ottoman's disdain for the west, Greeks, Armenians, etc. were used as dragomans and intermediaries to the west.

It wasn't greed that caused the Armenians to revolt. It was centuries of oppression and the crumbling of the Ottoman empire simply provided an opportunity. The Greeks took it. As did the Serbs. As did the Bulgarians. As did the Romanians. The Ottoman Empire was crumbling. The Young Turks had to eliminate the Armenian population in order to prevent further territory to be lost to the native people. The genocide of Christian minorities continued under Kemal in order to secure the borders of modern Turkey. As was stated "Turkey for the Turks".

The real AG

PS. If I keep getting impersonated, I may have to go by the Poster Formerly Known As Anonymous Greek.

What sort of symbol should I use? Greek key?

[Oguz]

Excellent post once again.. my second favorite after PART TWO of the debate. I need to get this on DVD somehow. The only thing I didn't care for were the comments that followed. It's obvious that nobody actually watched the videos and instead continue to abuse this poor little comment box to repeat themselves..over...and over again. Quite frankly, it's getting to be a little rude; you spent a good deal of time writing this up. I think you're beginning to realize that with all these characters out there, there's actually no point in you spending any more effort on this. You've definitely done your part in educating the more open-minded of your readers (and quite well at that) but at the end of the day, your well-crafted reports are simply falling on dumb eyes. Whatever. I just love the fact that facts can be stubborn little things, and you've already done a good job stating the irrefutable facts.

[Infidel]

Sean,

you're making it sound like the Turkish deaths happened at the same time as the Armenian ones while they were getting kicked out, as if the Hnchaks or Tashnags (I presume Bolsa's spelling of these words is more correct than mine) were merely fighting back against the advancing Ottoman armies. That's complete BS, Sean, and you know it. There is a clear timeline here and you can't deny that the Hnchaks/Tashnags came first way before 1915. Here is a nice late-night bedtime read. Don't ignore it please, it actually shows the original archival document in Ottoman Turkish.
http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/army-report-on-revolt.htm

"Many Germans died during WWII, and some where killed by Jews. Do we talk about them whenever we bring up the Holocausts?" ---- What kind of an analogy is that, Sean? The Jews did not attack the Germans before WWII. They weren't sponsored and outfitted by another government to rise up against the Germans either. And the same counts for your Sudan comment. Completely out of place.

"I have no doubt that many Turks died during WWI, and some of them (not half million) were killed by Armenians. No question about it." ---- Oh, so now it's called WWI. That's funny. Are the Turkish deaths now the casualties of WWI but the Armenian ones are not? And what is "some of them"? How many Turks do you think died in Armenian rebel attacks? Thanks for acknowledging "some" deaths though.

Yes, proving intent is still the key. Even on the Turkish side of things. That's why I asked the question as to whether anyone here would consider the Turkish deaths also a genocide given that this intent to annihilate the Turks because of their ethnicity could be proven. So? Would you, Sean? I said that I would after our records have been scrutinized. Can you or any other Armenian (sympathizer) offer the same?....

Like I said before, the impartiality of the matter should be shown by considering ALL relevant evidence available. So, it's important that not only the evidence from one side is looked at. If the source is listed as the Armenian National Institute, a monkey could tell you the same conclusion as every other historian out there regardless of where they're from; the US, Britain, or Equatorial Guinea, it doesn't matter. Notice here I'm not saying that the opposing evidence should not be considered, I'm just saying that if historians would like to draw a conclusion about the matter they shouldn't be ignoring our evidence.

I actually make a distinction between Pamuk and Akcam. I've read (and still in the process) three of Pamuk's pieces (Snow, My name is Red, Istanbul) and Pamuk truly has somewhat of a unique talent in the art of writing. His prose and style are quite enjoyable throughout all. But, I can assure you that he also did not analyze the historical records to write any of his fiction. He simply incorporated a pro-genocide story line, added some juice to the whole thing, and sold it to the world successfully. This is, of course, not to say that he did not deserve the Nobel Prize, because I can't distinguish how much of his fame or his words were judged. Either way, his writing is very good, but he is definitely not a researcher of archival material, that's for sure.

Now Akcam is, I think, a much slimier individual like a car salesman. He actually did go into some of the archives, except that he chose to write about a selected few. His whole section about the Malta detentions is re-chewed bubble gum, nothing else. But of course, selectivity gets overlooked when you are persecuted by Turkish government and can make a good buck by writing a book.

Lastly Altan is trying to be the shadow of the shadow of Hrant Dink, simply put. He is merely acknowledging that hundreds of thousands (in Turkish "yuz binlerce") Armenians got killed back then. This is no news, Sean, any Turk will tell you this and acknowledge it. Through the parallels he is drawing between 1915 and 2007, he is clearly taking a jab at the ultra-nationalists while feeding the momentum between the two sides. It's actually a brilliantly written piece but I'm afraid his genocidal claims are now merely a copy. To pick a clear side without urging anyone to fully lay out all records and look at them is just following in the same steps of everyone else who fell into the ditch. And that's just not good enough for me.

The fact is that these days anyone who says anything for the 'genocide' cause gets applauded and rises to great fame. It's literally the best way to advertise a book or article into the top 10 within weeks. So how do you distinguish between the ones who do it for the money and the ones who actually believe you? And is there anyone out there who can settle this with ALL the evidence for once?

Sean, I hope you understand that my definition of impartial is not anything or anyone against the genocide claim, but it is rather purely evidence based. That's it. Do you think I'm asking for too much?...

[Infidel]

AG,

welcome back. I am glad that you said something about the fake AG. I knew immediately after I read it that this could not have been you. You can use whatever name or symbol you want, just make sure it's kosher... Man, you can't wait until we talk about the Turkish-Greek issue, can ya?....

[Infidel]

Oguz,

the distribution rights for the DVD are owned by Inecom Entertainment Company (http://www.inecom.com) but it seems their website is still not listing this documentary. I think I'm going to call those guys up and see what the hell is going on, because I would like to get a copy myself but no one is selling it. The DVD was expected to be released in July 2006, yet, it's nowhere to be found. If you find it please let me know.

As draining as this subject is, it has to be tackled from all angles and I just wanted to leave some documentation of the more dense details which are only too often drowned out.

Soon though I will get back to writing about my real passions like women, futbol and religion. The only question is, how soon?

Thanks for the uplifting and kind words.

[Gamze]

Not nearly soon enough! And your real psssions are a hell of a lot more interesting.

[Gamze]

Turkey goes on diplomatic offensive against genocide allegations

With some believing that the assassination of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink has given the Armenian diaspora an important trump card for recognition of an Armenian genocide around the world, Turkey has unleashed an ambitious diplomatic plan.

In the first step of the plan, supported by Turkish Parliament Speaker Bülent Arınç, a delegation of 10 deputies will pay a visit to the United States Feb. 9-16 to lobby the US Congress. The delegation will be headed by Turkey-US Interparliamentary Friendship Group Chairman Egemen Bağış.

The 10-person delegation is composed of Justice and Development Party (AK Party) Sakarya deputy Süleyman Gündüz, Aksaray Deputies Ali Rıza Alaboyun and Ramazan Toprak, Kırıkkale Deputy Vahit Erdem, İzmir Deputy Zekeriya Akçam, Antalya Deputy Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu and Republican People's Party (CHP) İstanbul deputy Onur Öymen. They will meet with US congressmen and NGO representatives. Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül will have meetings in European countries, and Turkish representatives will meet with leading figures of the Armenian diaspora for the first time as part of its initiative.

Diaspora invited to Akhtamar

One of the most important steps in Turkey's new anti-genocide strategy is opening dialogue with representatives of the Armenian diaspora. During Dink's funeral, the change in attitude of the diaspora representatives invited to ceremony also resulted in a change in Turkey's attitude: It now prefers to explain itself rather than adopting a defensive posture. Meetings have been held not only with the Armenian diaspora but also with the Armenian administration.

Following the invitation of the Armenian diaspora to Dink's funeral, the Turkish government took its second step and invited diaspora representatives to the inauguration of a recently restored Armenian church on Akhtamar Island in eastern Turkey on April 15. Minister of Culture and Tourism Atilla Koç said the opening of the church was previously scheduled for April 24 but has been moved back to April 15 since April 24 is the day Armenians remember the so-called genocide.

Koç hoped Dink's funeral would serve as a starting point for Turkish-Armenian and Turkish-diaspora relationships. "If we accuse somebody of something, then we must prove it. If we cannot, this is an offense. Every country must face its own history; those who tell us to face our history must also face their own history."

A number of parliaments have recognized an Armenian genocide as a result of the lobbying efforts of the Armenian diaspora. Turkey's attempts to have Argentina, Uruguay, Switzerland, Canada, Slovakia, Poland, the Netherlands, Germany, Russia and Lithuania change their decision to recognize it have so far proven fruitless. However, bills in the Spanish, Bulgarian, Austrian, Estonian, Romanian, Hungarian, Ukrainian and Latvian parliaments failed to become law.
26.01.2007
ERCAN YAVUZ ANKARA

[Lawyerman]

Meanwhile it looks like the biggest single thing Turkey can do to improve ties - that is to re-establish diplomatic relations with Armenia, is not on the table. This despite Armenia's offer to do so without any preconditions.

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=64833

[Infidel]

Lawyerman,

would you care to mention why diplomatic relations were stopped in the first place? Anyone else?

[Gamze]

lAWYERMAN, YOU WRITE "Meanwhile it looks like the biggest single thing Turkey can do to improve ties - that is to re-establish diplomatic relations with Armenia, is not on the table. This despite Armenia's offer to do so WITHOUT ANY PRECONDITIONS"

The Armenian Diaspora has REPEATEDLY said that they would join in on a joint commission ONLY if Turkey acknowledges that a "genocide" has indedd taken place. This leaves NO room for discussion or historical debate. Wouldn't you agree?

Translated, it means "agree with us first, then we'll talk. That's not a PRECONDITION??

[Gamze]

And Infidel'cim, you are not likely to get an honest response to your excellent question because we ALL know why diplomatic relation had come to a screeching halt. But will the Armenians dare to admit this?