My intended* Lecture at "Pro Armenia" Conference
Prof. YAIR AURON
Senior lecturer
The Open University of Israel
Kibbutzim College of Education
I do not know what are the origins for the title "Pro Armenia", of this
Conference. I do know that there are at least two documents written by
Jews from Palestine in 1915-1916 entitled "Pro Armenia". The authors
were members of Nili - a Jewish pro-British spy group, and they
expressed an empathic identification with the Armenian tragedy and
solidarity with it. One was written by Avshalom Feinberg in November
1915. In his intelligence report intended for a British intelligence
officer in Cairo, there appears a "Pro-Armenian" section voicing a
bitter cry that the British and the Christian world were not helping
the Armenians, and a feeling of impotence over his own ability to
help them.
The second document was written by the leader of the Nili Group,
Aaron Aaronson. He tried to help the Armenians until his mysterious
death in May 1919. The most important documentation among all the
reports and documents and the diary he left - in my opinion - was
his intelligence report "Pro Armenia." He submitted that report
to the British War Office in November 1916. The British related to
the document with high regard and it was sent to the highest levels
after being edited and summarized and having its title changed to
"The Turkish Treatment of Armenians." Aaronson's report dealt with
the key questions relating to the imminent emergence of genocide
(even though that precise term was not yet in use) such as: who knew
about it, which part of the Turkish population had participated in
the destruction, the role of the Germans in the genocide, a critical
reading of the Lepsius account, how the Powers reacted, etc. In this
report, Aaronson also expressed his personal, human and moral reaction
to the murders, and looked at it from a Jewish point of view as well.
It is difficult to overestimate how important the position of the
Jews, and especially the attitude of the State of Israel to the
Armenian Genocide, are for the Armenians. Yet the State of Israel has
consistently refrained from acknowledging the genocide of the Armenian
people. How is it possible that the Israeli state, established by
a nation victimized by genocide, partakes in the denial of another
people's genocide, namely the Armenian? Two main reasons are generally
given: (a) constant pressure by the different Turkish governments,
(b) strong pressure from groups within Israeli society, who are afraid
that the recognition of the Armenian Genocide would damage the concept
of the uniqueness of the Shoah. The policy of denial is expressed
formally by the fact that, except for two specific cases, government
representatives do not participate in the memorial assemblies held
every year on April 24 by the Armenians to commemorate the Armenian
Genocide. Political leaders and government representatives in many
other countries, even those which do not officially recognize the
Armenian Genocide, do send messages of acknowledgement and sympathy
and even participate in the ceremonies. This Israeli policy of
avoiding participation in memorials or consciously refraining from
acknowledging the Genocide is not "innocent denial", yet it also might
not be defined, at least not at the beginning, as "active denial"
or "direct denial". Nonetheless, the behavior of the State of Israel
since the end of the 1970s and the early 1980s did become an active
denial in one way on another, and in 2001-2002 even a direct denial.
In this context I would like to mention two statements:
The headlines of the Turkish Daily News, the influential English
daily, on April 10, 2001, were clear: "Peres: Armenian Allegations
are Meaningless."
The interview with Peres was conducted on the eve of his official
visit to Turkey. Peres claimed in it that it is for historians to
deal with such historical issues. The claim may seem feasible, and
is sometimes used by governments - including the American and the
Israeli - who wish to avoid the dilemma. Nevertheless, it is very
well known that this denial tactic is practiced manipulatively by
the Turks and their supporters.
According to the Turkish newspaper, Peres said that Israel should not
take an historical or philosophical position on the Armenian issue,
but added: "If we have to determine a position, it should be done
with great care so as not to distort the historical realities."
Furthermore, Peres was quoted as saying:
We reject attempts to create a similarity between the Holocaust
and the Armenian allegations. Nothing similar to the Holocaust
occurred. It is a tragedy what the Armenians went through,
but not a genocide.
Israel, as we have shown, had been systematically avoiding the Armenian
issue. Now the Foreign Minister joined the deniers on behalf of the
Israeli government. This was not The Holocaust (with capital H), this
was not a holocaust or even a genocide, claimed the minister. What
is it but an Israeli escalation from passive to active denial from
moderate denial to hard-line denial? Imagine the Israeli and Jewish
reaction to a similar claim by another country's Foreign Minister,
regarding the Holocaust. What would be their reaction if the Holocaust
had been called a "tragedy"?
Peres' views were repeated, unfortunately, by the Israeli Ambassador
to Turkey in Georgia and Armenia, Rivaka Cohen, in February 2002 in
Yerevan, and then by the Israeli Foreign Ministry. The second statement
was made by the Minister of Education, Yossi Sarid, on April 24, 2000
at the memorial gathering of the Armenian community in Jerusalem. The
Minister of Education concluded his statement with a commitment to
ensure that the Armenian Genocide be included in the Israeli secondary
school history curriculum. He stated: "I would like to see a central
chapter on genocide, on this huge and inhuman atrocity. The Armenian
Genocide should occupy a prominent place in this program, which does
justice to the national and personal memory of every one of you, to
the memory of all the members of your nation. This is our obligation
to you. This is our obligation to ourselves."
Unfortunately, nothing has been done since then, and quite surely
nothing will be done in the near future.
These are the two sides, the two facets, of Israeli politics. It seems
that the chances that Israel will, in the near future, recognize the
Armenian Genocide are more remote than ever. But the recognition of
the Armenian Genocide by Israel is crucial in this regard, since the
denial of the Armenian Genocide is very similar to the denial of the
Holocaust of the Jews. Understanding and remembering the tragic past
is an essential condition, even if not sufficient in and of itself,
for preventing the repetition of such acts in the future.
I believe that an Israel that will recognize the Armenian Genocide will
be a better state. We need to return to the moral values articulated
so poignantly by Feinberg and Aaronson eighty-eight years ago. The
Holocaust is firmly recognized by the world, and the State of Israel
is sufficiently strong and self-assured to recognize the Armenian
Genocide. We can do it now and we need to do it now. We need to do
it as human beings, as Jews and as Israelis.
(*) The Importance of Consistency
PRO ARMENIA
17, rue Bleue, 75009 PARIS - FRANCE
Tel : + 33 (0)1 47 70 20 75 Fax : + 33 (0)1 42 46 81 59
E-mail : contact@proarmenia.am
www.proarmenia.am
[ links / fonts ]
|