Author: Kalantarian Kevo

THE LIE OF A LAND WITHOUT A PEOPLE
Jihad el-Khazen

Dar Al-Hayat
D/10-2007/Article-20071022-c7e712b2-c0a8-10ed-0179 -461d1e890b2d/story.html
Oct 22 2007
Lebanon

This week I have examined two books written by my colleagues Zaki
Shihab and Camille Tawil entitled Inside Hamas and Al-Qaeda wa
Akhawatuha, and today I go on with the discussion of other books
deserving attention.

In front of me there is a book or atlas entitled The Return Journey:
A guide to the Depopulated and Present Palestinian Towns and Villages
and Holy Sites, published by Palestine Land Society and written by
Salman Abu Sittah, a reliable authority in his field.

The guidebook is published in Arabic, English, and Hebrew and it is
made up of 250 color papers including the maps of 1500 cities and
villages, 5,000 holy places, and 4,700 sites. I also found with the
book a large beautiful map of Palestine that explains the partition
plans under the title ‘Palestine between the Mandate and Looting’.

I immediately remembered a book entitled So as not to Forget: the
Villages of Palestine that Israel Destroyed before 1948 and their
Martyrs’ Names/ All That Remains The Palestinian Villages Occupied
and Depopulated by Israel in 1948 by Dr Walid Khalidi who needs
no introduction. I have an Arabic copy and an English copy of the
book which is published by the Institute for Palestine Studies. Such
books constitute an argument against Israel, against the lie of a land
without a people, and against the lie of linking the Jews of the world
with the land of Palestine where they hardly have any presence, except
for the Jewish minority that lived in Palestine throughout history
and that underwent increase and decrease in number at various stages.

The readers who are interested in true history and testimony may have
to look for another book by Dr Khalidi entitled Before their Diaspora:
a Photographic History of the Palestinians 1876-1948.

This historical documentation with maps, pictures, and names shows
that there were no other people in Palestine than the Palestinians
and small minorities including the Jews.

I move on to another book that I can only describe as amazing. Its
topic is new to me or much greater than I had estimated.

The book is entitled Palestine in Modern Spanish Poetry by Dr Mahmoud
J’aidy and it is translated and reviewed by Dr Hussam Al-Khatib.

We all know that there is great sympathy with the Palestinians and
with Arab and Islamic causes in general in Spain and Latin America.

However, the efforts made by Dr J’aidy, who is of Palestinian origin
and a professor of Arabic Studies at the University of Madrid, go
beyond my information about him. Some poems are written by poets with
whom we have no ethnic link, but they seem to be written by Mahmoud
Darwish or Samih Al-Kassim.

The book includes poems by poets whose names indicate they are of Arab
origin, such as Theodor Al-Sakka and Edwardo Matta, but the majority
of them are only linked to us by humane feelings. The Argentinean
artist Alberto Cortes looks for the sun in Sabra and Shatila with
the word, the melody and the voice. Cuban poet Pedro Oscar Gwyneth
travels to the land of Palestine and demonstrates his love in the
Kanaan Mountain. Spanish poet Miguel Anchel Tshulia looks for a spark
of hope and writes poems entitled ‘Dear Mohammad’, ‘My New Night in
Palestine’, and ‘The Guitar of Palestine’.

I do not want to be unfair to other poets due to my time and space
limit. But I need to stop at the Argentinean poet named Pedro
Tshakmakian. The name is Armenian and the poet was born in Buenos
Aires, but the author confers on him the title The Intifada Poet. In
his poem entitled ‘Only One Martyr’ he says:

‘When your eyes overflow with tears While they are looking down They
are decorated with your sadness and you cover your head with the veil
When I see you My heart breaks and produces floods of words I feel
the same way you do, Mother, You are my mother too …’

I know that poetry can not be translated, but humane feelings find
their expression in one language. This Armenian Argentinean poet, who
is getting out of his people’s Holocaust, reminds me of many Armenian
Palestinians who did not stand the creation of Israel and emigrated
to Lebanon and other countries as a result. My high school geography
instructor Mr Kotojian was one of them, and so was my Armenian friend
Mike Kharabian.

>From the world of poetry back to reality, I conclude today with a book
entitled Where Now for Palestine, the Demise of the Two State Solution,
edited by Jamil Hilal, a sociologist at the Bir Zait Univesity.

The book comprises eleven articles written by prominent experts like
Ilan Pappe, a professor at the University of Haifa who earned the
title of ‘The most hated person in Israel’ after he expressed his
support of the Palestinians and identified the falsity of Zionist
claims in their land.

Dr Hilal could be expressing the collective thoughts of other
writers. He says that for political Zionism, the first priority is
to occupy the land, keep the smallest number of Palestinians in it,
or evict them from it. The views of all the authors have consolidated
since before the creation of Israel, David Ben-Gurion’s time, and
until now.

The discussion is to be continued with other books.

Interpress Service
October 17, 2007

TURKEY: POLITICIANS SEEK TO EXPEL ARMENIAN WORKERS.

Analysis by Jacques N. Couvas

ANKARA, Turkey, Oct. 16, 2007 (IPS/GIN) — The relationship between
the Turkish government and the legislature of the United States
hasmade a decisive turn since last week, when the U.S. House
Committee on Foreign Relations adopted a resolution about Armenian
history.

The resolution recognized as genocide the massive killings of
Armenians in 1915 and 1916 by Ottoman military forces in eastern
Anatolia.

Making reference to the Armenian genocide in Turkey is taboo and can
lead to legal prosecution. Nobel Prize novelist Orhan Pamuk and
editor-in-chief Hrank Dink were brought to trial and faced jail
sentences for doing so, and the latter was shot dead last year by a
Turkish nationalist.

After the U.S. House Committee passed its resolution, Turkish
politicians proposed expelling those Armenians who are employed as
clandestine workers in Turkey. It is estimated that 40,000 to 70,000
Armenians live in Turkey today.

U.S. Armenians have been trying for the last two decades to get
anofficial condemnation of Ottoman Turks for the atrocities
perpetrated nine decades ago.

Armenians, a Christian minority community which together with the
Greeks and Jews formed the economic backbone of the Ottoman Empire
for many centuries, were from time to time subject to pogroms, which
were often encouraged by the state. Persecution became systematic
toward the end of the 19th century, and large-scale massacres took
place from 1894-1896 and in 1909.

Following his defeat on January 1915 by the Russians in a World War I
battle at Sarikemish, Ottoman minister of war Enver Pasha blamed the
Armenians for "fifth column" activities that had advantaged the
enemy. In that battle in the Caucasian plateau, 85 percent of the
Ottoman force of 100,000 perished, chiefly because of Pasha’s
inexperience as military commander.

But it is also true that, as Russian forces were advancing into
Turkey from the East, Armenian factions had supported them, hoping to
gain independence for their ethnic group after the war.

In spring 1915, Enver and minister of interior Talaat Pasha rolledout
a program to deter Armenian villages from collaborating with
theAllies. The Ottoman Empire fought World War I on the side of the
Germans and Austro-Hungarians.

On April 24 of that year, 250 Armenian intellectuals and
communityleaders were rounded up, jailed and executed. In May, a
deportation law was passed, authorizing massive displacements of
Armenian populations and confiscation of their property. Conscripts,
serving in the Ottoman army, were summarily dismissed and used as
hamals, low-rankingmanual laborers in worker battalions. Most of
those who survived mistreatment and famine were executed or
disappeared.

Atrocities against Armenians in the countryside, particularly the
east, continued through the following year. Reports from the dozens
of British, German and U.S. consulates and missions spread throughout
Turkey at that time alerted the West about the violence taking place.

Henry Morgenthau Sr., the U.S. ambassador to Constantinople (the
capital of the Ottoman Empire) reported extensively to Washington on
the situation and pleaded to Enver and Talaat to use restraint but to
no avail. The United States remained neutral in the war until 1917.

Meanwhile, adventurer and author Gertrude Bell, on a mission in the
region for the British intelligence services, persuaded the
Britishand their allies to protest to the Turkish government.

Morgenthau’s and Bell’s claims have been used by Western historians
to assess the extent of the massacre, and it seems they have been
corroborated by records of German diplomats and senior military staff
posted in the Middle East during the Great War.

According to Western historians, up to 1.5 million Armenians,
representing the majority of the ethnic group’s population at the
time, were driven to a long march through Mesopotamia in extremely
harsh conditions.

A large number, the exact magnitude of which has never been
established, died. Survivors escaped to neighboring countries and to
the West. Kurdish tribes, enrolled as special gendarmes by the
Ottomans, raped, tortured and slaughtered the deportees.

The Turkish version of the events differs widely from that of the
foreign historians and the descendants of the Armenian diaspora.

Ankara has consistently minimized the gravity and size of the events,
describing them as an "Armenian incident." The number of victims has
periodically been revised downwards now to around 300,000.
Turkeyconsiders that this number is practically equal to that of
Muslims who died during the same period as a result of intercultural
clashes in that part of the country.

It is a fact that Armenians also stained their hands with enemy blood
during the 1918 riots at Baku in Azerbaijan, following earlier
massacres of Armenians by the Azeri population, which was allied to
theTurkish cause in World War I. Scholars of the Great War period in
the east tend to agree that the conflict brought out the worst of
humanbehavior in all factions.

To minimize the damage done to the image formed by international
public opinion, Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government has in recent years
played a realpolitik card, admitting that atrocities, even
massacres,were perpetrated under Ottoman rule but arguing that they
are no longer relevant.

In a pre-emptive move, following repeated attempts in 2000 and 2005
by the U.S. Congress to pass a resolution using the term genocide,
the Turkish government has proposed that a mixed panel of Turkish
andinternational academics search official records and jointly
present their findings. "It is a matter for historians, not
politicians," is the official view.

Foreign historians have not been forthcoming, as it is known that the
Ottoman administration was frugal in keeping meaningful records of
population displacements or measures affecting religious minorities.
The U.S. has been hesitant over the past 90 years to take a firm
position on the issue. Forty of the states in the U.S. have already
passed legislation or proclamations qualifying the events as
genocide, but only two presidents, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan,
have used thisterm in public. All U.S. presidents, including George
W. Bush, have,however, used the Armenian-proposed figure of 1.5
million as the toll in victims.

Twenty countries and transnational organizations, including the
European Parliament and the European Council, have acknowledged the
genocide. The term was coined in 1943 by professor Raphael Lemkin,
who used the word to describe the slaughters of Assyrians by Iraqis
in 1933, the Armenian massacres of World War I and the Nazi
extermination of European Jews during World War II.

Retaliation by the Turkish government has been selective. Canadianand
Italian companies enjoy good business from the public sector,
although their respective countries have recognized the genocide.
France and Switzerland, on the other hand, have frequently been
excluded from such dealings because of their parliaments’ decisions
on the subject.

In 2006, protesters boycotted French products after legislators
passed a law forbidding denial of the Armenian genocide. France hosts
the second largest Armenian community after the U.S. It is estimated
that there are eight to 10 million Armenians living outside of their
country.

The World War I killings encouraged the Allies to grant Armenians
their own land in 1918. The young Democratic Republic of Armenia had
a short existence. Turkish troops invaded a large part of the
countryin 1920, but a swift attack by the Bolsheviks from Russia
threw themback. In 1922 the Democratic Republic of Armenia joined the
Soviet Union until 1991, when it recovered its independence from
Moscow.

Armenia staged a protracted war against the Azeris in the 1990s and
occupied the Nagorno Karabakh province, which was home to 150,000
Armenians. In retaliation Turkey closed its border with Armenia, and
the border remains closed to this day. Isolation from its western
flank, however, has not affected Armenian trade. The country’s gross
domestic product per capita is $4,250; though Armenia’s gross
domestic product lags behind Turkey’s, which is $5,400 per capita, it
is not badby regional standards.

Los Angeles Times, CA
Oct 19 2007

Our fraying alliance with Turkey

Ankara’s animosity toward the U.S. has its roots in much more than a
genocide bill.

By Graham E. Fuller
October 19, 2007

Turkish-American relations are in crisis. But the House resolution
declaring the World War I-era killings of Armenians a genocide is
only one cause — and that’s just a sideshow. Turkish-American
relations have been deteriorating for years, and the root explanation
is simple and harsh: Washington’s policies are broadly and
fundamentally incompatible with Turkish foreign policy interests in
multiple arenas. No amount of diplomat-speak can conceal or change
that reality. Count the ways:

* Kurds. U.S. policies toward Iraq over the last 16 years have been a
disaster for Turkey. Since the 1991 Gulf War, the Iraqi Kurds have
gained ever-greater autonomy and are now on the brink of de facto
independence. Such a Kurdish entity in Iraq stimulates Kurdish
separatism inside Turkey. Furthermore, Washington supports Kurdish
terrorists against Iran.

* Terrorism: Turkey has fought domestic political violence and
terrorism for more than 30 years — Marxist, socialist, right-wing
nationalist, Kurdish, Islamist. U.S. policies in the Middle East have
greatly stimulated violence and radicalism across the region and
brought Al Qaeda to Turkey’s doorstep.

* Iran: Iran is Turkey’s most powerful neighbor and a vital source of
oil and gas — second only to Russia — in meeting Turkey’s energy
needs. Washington heavy-handedly pressures Turkey to end its
extensive and deepening relations with Iran in order to press a U.S.
sanctions regime there. Though there is little affection between
Turkey and Iran, there has been virtually no serious armed conflict
between the two nations for centuries. Ankara sees U.S. policies as
radicalizing and isolating Tehran further, which is undesirable for
Turkey.

* Syria: Ankara’s relations with Syria have done a 180-degree turn in
the last decade, and relations are flourishing. Syrians — as well as
many other Arabs — are impressed with Turkey’s ability to
simultaneously be a member of NATO, seek entry into the European
Union, say no to Washington on using Turkish soil to invade Iraq,
restore respect for its own Islamic heritage, develop new relations
with the Arab world and adopt a genuinely balanced position on the
Palestinian conflict. Ankara resists Washington’s pressures to
marginalize and stifle Damascus.

* Armenia: Ankara and Yerevan, Armenia’s capital, are actually in
productive unofficial contact with one another, such as via "gray"
trade and air links, and both would like to effect a reconciliation.
It is the Armenian diaspora, with its intense nationalist rhetoric,
that is one of the key factors in inflaming the atmosphere against
potential rapprochement.

* Russia: There has been a revolution in Ankara’s relations with
Moscow after 500 years of hostility. Moscow is today the
second-largest importer of Turkish goods after Germany, and Turkey
has invested up to $12 billion in Russia in the construction field.
Russia is Turkey’s primary source of energy, and Ankara increasingly
looks to Eurasia as a key part of its economic future.

Turkish generals, angry with Washington, even mutter about a Russian
strategic "alternative" if it is stiff-armed by the West. Although
there is some rivalry over the routing of Central Asian energy
pipelines to the West — whether via Russia or Iran and Turkey —
Ankara values its ties with Moscow and opposes U.S. efforts to bait
the Russian bear in the Caucasus and Eastern Europe on NATO expansion
and missile issues.

* Palestine: Turks care a lot about Palestine — which they had
jurisdiction over in Ottoman times. They sympathize with Palestinian
suffering under 40 years of Israeli occupation. Ankara views Hamas as
a legitimate and important element on the Palestinian political
spectrum and seeks to mediate with it. Washington says no. Ankara has
good working ties with Israel but does not shrink from sharp public
criticism of what it perceives as Israeli excesses.

Overall, a "new Turkey" actively seeks good-neighbor relations with
all regional states and players. It seeks to be a major player and
mediator in the Middle East — to bring radicals into the mainstream
via patient diplomacy against what it perceives as Washington’s
complicating belligerence.

Turkey has deep interests in Central Asia. If the
Chinese-Russian-sponsored Shanghai Cooperation Organization bids to
be the dominant geopolitical grouping in Eurasia, then Turkey, like
Afghanistan, Iran and India, would like an association with it.
Washington opposes that.

One may quarrel with the specifics of Turkish policies, but there is
broad belief across the Turkish political spectrum that these
policies serve the country’s core needs. While the State Department
may soothingly speak of "vital shared interests" in democracy,
stability and counter-terrorism, all of that is mere motherhood and
apple pie — empty phrases — when compared with conflicting concrete
policies in so many key spheres. We had better get used to the fact
that Turkey, strengthened by its popular democracy, is going to
pursue its own national interests, regardless of Washington’s
pressure. Few Turks want it any other way.

Graham E. Fuller is a former vice chairman of the National
Intelligence Council at the CIA. His latest book, "The New Turkish
Republic," is forthcoming in December.

n/opinion/la-oe-fuller19oct19,1,7212763.story?coll =la-news-comment

Roll Call
October 18, 2007 Thursday

Armenia Vote a Test for Pelosi

by Jennifer Yachnin, ROLL CALL STAFF

Dimming prospects that the House will take up a resolution to
redefine a 1915 massacre of Armenians as genocide have threatened to
cast a shadow over Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) first foray into
foreign policy not directly tied to the Iraq War.

Facing opposition from within her own party, including one of her
closest advisers, Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense Chairman
John Murtha (D-Pa.), Pelosi remained vague Wednesday on when or
whether the measure would be scheduled on the House floor.

"Whether it will come up or not … remains to be seen," Pelosi said,
stating that she is working with the measure’s sponsors to determine
how to proceed.

Although the Californian told a Sunday news program that the House
would vote on the measure, which she has backed, support for the
resolution among both Democrats and Republicans has ebbed in the days
since the Foreign Affairs Committee voted on the bill last week.

In addition, both President Bush and House Republicans have
denigrated the proposal, questioning its timing and accusing
Democrats of attempting to alienate an ally in the Iraq War.

"With all these pressing responsibilities, one thing Congress should
not be doing is sorting out the historical record of the Ottoman
Empire," Bush said on Wednesday. "Congress has more important work to
do than antagonizing a democratic ally in the Muslim world,
especially one that is providing vital support for our military every
day."

Democratic leaders have denied those allegations – noting the
resolution does not target the current Turkish government – but even
so, rank-and-file Members in the majority echoed those concerns this
week.

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), chairman of the Helsinki Commission,
and Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.), chairman of the House delegation to
the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, issued a letter to Pelosi and
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) Tuesday to assert that the
measure would damage diplomatic relations with Turkey and potentially
further destabilize Iraq.

"Diplomatic relations between our two nations are clearly strained,"
Hastings said at a press conference Wednesday, along with Tanner,
Murtha and Reps. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) and Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.).

Nonetheless, even as those Democratic opponents lobbied against
moving the bill to the House floor Wednesday, several said the
measure should be viewed as a success for Pelosi.

"It’s two very different issues," said Wexler, who chairs the Foreign
Affairs Subcommittee on Europe. "I do believe the Speaker has
accomplished a very significant accomplishment in raising the
consciousness of the issue."

Murtha, a longtime opponent of the measure, similarly defended
Pelosi, stating: "She feels morally committed to this issue. It’s
just, is it practical at this point to go forward with it?"

According to online legislative records maintained by the Library of
Congress, the Armenian resolution currently has 214 co-sponsors but
has lost the endorsement of 21 lawmakers, including 14 who formally
abandoned the bill in October.

One Democratic lawmaker, who spoke on the condition of anonymity,
remains listed as a co-sponsor of the measure, but said he remains
uncertain whether he will vote for its passage.

"I don’t think this issue is meant to be a foreign policy thrust on
the part of the Democrats," the lawmaker said, and added: "I don’t
view this as a setback for the Speaker."

Murtha said Wednesday, however, that he estimates between 55 and 60
Democrats likely would oppose the bill if a vote were taken
immediately.

"If it were to run today, it would not pass," he added. After leaving
the press conference, Murtha said of Democratic leaders: "I think
they did miscalculate" support for the measure.

Republican Rep. Ray LaHood (Ill.), who also is listed as co-sponsor
of the measure, echoed Murtha’s sentiment and suggested that
Democrats may have not given the issue enough attention.

Pelosi "got ahead of her troops. This is the first time it’s
happened. She and her staff have learned a very hard lesson," he
said. "These leadership jobs are not easy, particularly when they
have a fractured Caucus like they do."

Should Democrats shelve the measure, it would mirror a decision made
in 2000 by then-Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), who canceled a vote
on the same resolution at the request of then-President Clinton.

Earlier this year, Republicans targeted Pelosi after she met with
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad during a Middle East trip to Israel,
the Palestinian territories, Syria and Saudi Arabia with a contingent
of Democratic House Members and one Republican lawmaker.

The trip was criticized by the White House and drew the ire of most
Republican Members back home, particularly after the Israeli
government refuted remarks Pelosi made in Syria that Israel was ready
to engage in peace negotiations with the al-Assad regime.

In the meantime, Democrats faced other headaches Wednesday in the
House, prompting leadership to scrub an expected vote on revised
rules targeting the government’s wiretapping and surveillance
programs.

Republicans claimed credit for the delay on reauthorizing the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was prompted by a GOP-authored
amendment that was to be offered under a parliamentary procedure
known as a motion to recommit.

"Our proposal gives Democrats a very simple choice: They can allow
our intelligence officials to conduct surveillance on likes of Osama
bin Laden and al-Qaida or prohibit them from doing so and jeopardize
our national security," House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio)
said in a statement. "Every member of the Majority will now have the
opportunity to go on record and take a firm position for or against
giving our intelligence community all the tools they need to keep
America safe."

But Democrats criticized the expected amendment.

"Their motion to recommit is an attempt to take a political shot on a
critical national security bill, and we’re not going to let them play
politics with our nation’s security," said Kristie Greco, spokeswoman
for House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.).

PETER SEMNEBY: UNKNOWN WHETHER I WILL VISIT NAGORNO KARABAKH THROUGH AZERBAIJAN OR ARMENIA

Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
Oct 18 2007

EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus Peter Semneby visiting
Baku will participate in OSCE regional conference to be held in Baku
tomorrow, Mr. Semneby said, APA reports.

Mr. Semneby stated that he will also meet with OSCE Secretary General
Marc Perrin de Brichambaut.

EU Special Representative said that he will meet with Azerbaijani
President and Foreign Minister and discuss deepening cooperation
between Azerbaijan and European Union.

"Report will be prepared on the measures taken due to Actions Plan
signed between Azerbaijan and European Union in the framework of
European Neighborhood Policy in the first half of 2008. That report
is being worked on at present," he said.

Mr. Semneby said that the date of his visit to Nagorno Karabakh has
not yet been specified. And he does not know whether he will visit
Nagorno Karabakh through Azerbaijan or Armenia.

"The main thing is to fix the date. This issue will also be discussed
in the meetings I hold in Baku," he said.

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE BILL FALTERS IN HOUSE
Larry Lipman, Cox News Service

News & Observer, NC
Oct 18 2007

WASHINGTON – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday that a vote on
a resolution labeling the World War I-era deaths of about 1.5 million
Armenians as genocide was in doubt after key Democrats said it would
harm U.S. relations with Turkey.

"Whether it will come up or not, or what the action will be, remains
to be seen," Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters.

The speaker made her comments after a news conference organized
by Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida, who serves as chairman of the
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe.

"If this resolution is enacted, our relationship with Turkey, a key
NATO ally, will be severely jeopardized," Hastings said.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee voted 27-21 this month for the
resolution. It has been offered repeatedly over the past two decades
but this year has the strong support of Pelosi.

Since the committee’s vote, Turkey has recalled its ambassador to
the United States and warned that passage of the resolution by the
full House would damage relations at a time when the United States
is highly dependent on Turkey’s cooperation in fighting the Iraq war.

President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, eight of her
predecessors and three former secretaries of defense have also urged
Pelosi not to move forward with the resolution.

Turkey’s geopolitical value

At the news conference, Hastings noted that more than half of the
supplies for U.S. troops in Iran and Afghanistan move through air
bases in Turkey and could be jeopardized by the resolution.

"Turkey is a moderate, Muslim nation with a secular democracy, and it
is geographically straddling the bridge between East and West at a time
of great turmoil and uncertainty for countries in the region," he said.

Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla., the co-chairman of the Congressional
Turkey Caucus, said, "What we are asking is our own leadership to do
what is right for the American national and strategic interest."

"This is an extremely difficult issue," Wexler said. "All of us feel
extraordinary sympathy with the plight and the catastrophic death
that the Armenian community suffered in the World War I period, but
our responsibility — the bottom line — is to do what is right for
our national security and to take care of the security and well-being
of our troops."

It is widely accepted that as many as 1.5 million Armenians were
killed over several years beginning in 1915.

But Turkey argues that the number was closer to 600,000 and blames
turmoil and civil war as its predecessor, the Ottoman Empire,
collapsed.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a close Pelosi ally in the House, said he
has been fighting similar resolutions regarding the Armenian massacres
since 1987.

"This happened 100 years ago," Murtha said. "We have to deal with
today’s world. We need allies if we are going to win this [Iraq]
war, and this is not a way to help us in an area where we have very
few allies."

s/story/740736.html

TURKEY LAUNCHED FULL-SCALE OPERATION AT IRAQI BORDER

PanARMENIAN.Net
18.10.2007 16:19 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Some 40,000 strong Turkish troops comprising
helicopter, artillery and special forces units are ready to launch a
full-scale operation against Kurdish militants on the Iraqi border,
Turkish media reported.

Turkey’s parliament sanctioned military cross-border operations against
around 3,500 Kurdish separatists in northern Iraq Wednesday following
a government request earlier this week.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Tuesday parliamentary approval
did not mean that the operation would begin immediately.

"It will be conducted when the time is right, when necessary," he said.

According to the Sabah newspaper, troops have been involved in
operations against Kurdish militants in the Kato mountains in Turkey’s
southwest province of Sirnak.

The U.S. urged Turkey not to launch a cross-border offensive against
Kurdish rebels.

"We are making it very clear to Turkey that we don’t think it is in
their interest to send troops into Iraq," President George Bush said.

Iraq has protested against Turkish military actions on its
territory, calling them "aggression against Iraq and its territorial
integrity." Erdogan responded that Ankara was not after Iraq’s
territory or sovereignty, but sought to counter the mounting terrorism
threat emanating from the country.

Local media said the Turkish leadership was considering imposing
sanctions against Massoud Barzani, president of the Autonomous Kurdish
Government in Iraq and leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party,
accusing him of supporting the PKK.

The party has been fighting for autonomy status in southeast Turkey
for nearly 25 years. The conflict has claimed about 40,000 lives,
RIA Novosti reports.

ALL COUNTRIES HAVE "DARK PAGES", BUT NONE DENIES THEM, EXCEPT TURKEY

PanARMENIAN.Net
18.10.2007 18:15 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ "I wonder, whose version of history is President
Bush referring to when saying that Congress should not sort out the
historical record of the Ottoman Empire?" AAA Country Director for
Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh, Arpi Vartanian said in an interview
with PanARMENIAN. Net.

"The Armenian Genocide resolution is affirming, reiterating the
U.S. historical record, as documented by thousands of items in the
U.S. national archives, including the testimony of U.S. Ambassador to
Turkey, Henry Morgenthau, who witnessed the terrifying massacre. To
forget it means to call in question U.S. history. Moreover, the
United States recognized the mass killings of Armenians in 1915 and
formed Near East Foundation NGO for assistance to Armenian orphans. 123
thousand children were sent to asylums and were rescued from starvation
and diseases. To deny with fact is to deny own history. I wonder why
the President of the United States yields to Turkish pressure and
fears to confirm the history of his country? Each state has "dark
pages". U.S. has massacre of Indians, France has Algeria, Germany has
Holocaust. None of these states denies that it had happened. None,
except for Turkey," she said.

"Why can the Dalai Lama be awarded the congressional medal of honor,
despite China’s protests, threats, yet Armenian Genocide recognition
is being frustrated by Turkey’s threats. What’s the difference between
China and Turkey? China is a more important ally for the U.S. than
Turkey. One thing should not be forgotten: present-day Turkey and its
predecessor, the Ottoman Empire, always did what it wanted. If Turkey
wants to open archives, it opens. If it wants to close the Incirlik
base for the U.S., it closes. Neither the U.S. nor other states can
prohibit this country from doing what it wants," she said.

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED AT LEAST BECAUSE TURKEY DENIES IT

PanARMENIAN.Net
18.10.2007 18:38 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ "Genocide should be recognized at least
because Turkey denies it. No one will ever think of denying the
Holocaust. Imagine, if one day the whole world agrees with Iran,
which claims there was no Holocaust," AAA Country Director for
Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh, Arpi Vartanian said in an interview
with PanARMENIAN. Net.

"Discussion of H.Res.106 caused a stir. People, who did not know
where Turkey is situated, learned about what happened over 90 years
ago. But this is not what we expect from the Resolution. I am confident
that the Congressmen will make the right decision since the U.S. is
considered a leader in the free world, upholding justice, democracy,
truth, freedom. If that is the role the U.S. wants to continue in,
it cannot pick and choose which issues to uphold," she said.

LOSERS IN THE CONGRESSIONAL SAGA
Ali Aslan

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Oct 19 2007

This is what happens when you try to poke your finger in the eyes of
an ally in the middle of a war — or, more precisely, wars.

I’m talking about the dramatic twist brought about the position
taken by the Democratic leadership of the US House on the infamous
"Armenian genocide" resolution last week. Madam Pelosi, who seemed
jubilant after last week’s Committee on Foreign Affairs vote, shifted
gears on Wednesday. Although as late as Sunday on ABC’s "This Week"
she expressed a strong desire to bring the controversial resolution
to the floor in November, she now offers a more ambiguous approach.

Does she have any choice other than canceling or postponing the move?

Given the public pressure, no. Can she be completely trusted? No.

Turkey’s and Bush administration’s trouble with Madam Pelosi will
most likely continue. However, it was interesting to watch how recent
developments took the initiative from her hands.

Supporters of the Armenian resolution were confident they would
get away with it this time. They were ready to confront the Bush
administration’s objections and the pro-Turkish lobby’s efforts. But
their calculations failed when Ankara seemed determined to take
extraordinary actions, the prospect of which alarmed US media. It’s
not often that Turkey climbs into the headlines of American television
and newspapers. Ankara’s ability to make life difficult for US troops,
especially in Iraq, by an incursion into northern Iraq in pursuit
of the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK) or by obstructing crucial
deployments of US provisions from Ýncirlik air base has been brought to
the surface. Thanks to the shortsightedness of Madam Pelosi and some
of her friends, the US Congress, which is not necessarily a popular
institution with the American media, put itself in the position of
risking American interests for a non-priority issue. The basic line
by prominent commentators was, "Why in the hell are we putting our
troops in danger for the sake of a genocide which took place 90 years
ago? See, not only in US Congress but also in the US media there is
almost a consensus that the events of 1915 amounted to genocide. But
many people find it nonsense to alienate a unique ally to declare
that at any official level.

The Republican Bush administration blew it by losing or at least
disenchanting many allies with the decision to go to war with Iraq.

Now, when many Americans were expecting the Democrats to change
the course of America’s standing in the world, some of their top
congressional leaders, including Steny Hoyer and Tom Lantos, have
seen fit to step over an indispensable ally, Turkey. What poor logic!

Aren’t there Democratic leaders who have better reasoning than this?

I’m sure there are. First and foremost is the leading presidential
candidate Senator Hillary Clinton. Although as a populist politician
she also co-signed a similar resolution in the Senate, Clinton should
be among the last people who would like such a resolution to pass. I
assume she is smart enough to see that, if and when she becomes
president, she must secure Turkey’s support to enable withdrawal of US
troops from Iraq, a Democratic priority. Given US and Turkish public
and official reaction to the provocative move by Congress, she would
put her political weight — most likely privately so as not to alienate
potential Armenian voters and sponsors — against the measure. Once the
resolution is put on the backburner it will be increasingly difficult
to bring it up again in 2008, simply because of presidential politics.

I have always seen genocide declarations in the US Congress as an
issue of image with little to no legal implications for Turkey.

Powerful Armenian groups at this time might once again fall short of
fulfilling their ultimate dream. But they succeeded in hurting Turkey’s
image because the issue of the genocide allegations was elevated to
such a high profile before the American public. On the other hand,
Armenian-Americans also struck a blow to their own image.

They are now seen as less loyal Americans because they put Armenian
ethnic interests before the US. Above all, the image of Congress
has suffered the most. Poor-reasoning, flip-flopping and hypocrisy
are evident.

Should Turkey be happy with where we are now? Well, the battle might
have been won but the outcome of the larger war is still uncertain.

Sooner or later a similar resolution will pass, because the prevailing
American position is as follows: It’s not the right time to insult
Turkey, let’s do it when we make sure vital US national security
interests would not be harmed. People usually highlight the bad image
of the US in Turkey. But Turkey’s image in the US, although still in
a comparatively better shape, is not pleasant either.

Therefore it will be increasingly difficult to build on strategic
partnerships given these negative public perceptions.

–Boundary_(ID_NSROYZFfiYyHu5hPQSwAF Q)–