On January 11, 2024, the New York Times published an article by Isabel Kershner and John Eligon titled “At World Court, Israel to Confront Accusations of Genocide.” From the standpoint of critical media literacy and ethical journalistic practices, the article exhibits framing biases, historical and contextual omissions, and overly simplistic reasoning that attempts to explain why “Israel has categorically rejected the allegations being brought this week in the International Court of Justice by South Africa.” We assert that this editorial spin does a disservice to journalism and adds to a faulty record that enables human rights violators.

The overall tone is in lockstep with corporate media’s bias toward Israel—a bias credibly substantiated by the likes of the Lemkin Institute for the Prevention of Genocide, The Intercept, The Guardian, Mint Press News, and Common Dreams. While multiple aspects of the article are troublesome, the third sentence provoked our immediate response letter to the Editor of the New York Times. That sentence is as follows.

Oversimplifying Lemkin’s endeavors does a shameful disservice to his legacy. Such a decontextualized presentation edits out the foundation of his body of work and contracts the character of his mission.

“Genocide, the term first employed by a Polish lawyer of Jewish descent in 1944 to describe the Nazis’ systematic murder of about six million Jews and others based on their ethnicity, is among the most serious crimes of which a country can be accused.”

Days later, echoing a similar mischaracterization of Raphael Lemkin’s work, USA Todaypublished a piece by Noa Tisby titled, “Is Israel guilty of genocide in Gaza? Why the accusation at the UN is unfounded” (January 16). Tisby’s article, like that of Kershner and Eligon, amended the breadth and depth of Lemkin’s work to accommodate a particular narrative.

Considering the New York Times’ reputation as a leading U.S. paper of record, the need for public correction therein took precedence over the op-ed in USA Today. Hence, our letter:

As two Armenian Americans who grew up in the shadow of the 20th century’s first genocide, an attorney and a media expert respectively, we found critical context lacking in “At World Court, Israel to Confront Accusations of Genocide,” by Isabel Kershner and John Eligon (January 11). Any discussion of genocide and Raphael Lemkin is grossly incomplete without citing how the Armenian genocide informed the Polish-Jewish lawyer’s noble work.

Lemkin (b.1900), while a university student in the 1920s, learned of the Ottoman Turk's coordinated mass slaughter of Armenians that culminated in 1915. The extermination of Armenians informed Lemkin's life mission to establish international laws and treaties making genocide a punishable offense. In 1944, Lemkin finally named that crime genocide.

This article implies that Lemkin advocated solely for the Jewish cause. A humanitarian first, Lemkin sought to establish protections for all people. For example, he worked with Algerians who sought to hold accountable their colonizers for crimes against humanity.

The Armenian Genocide impelled Lemkin to action. Absent this historical context, the article reinforces the Israeli government's illogical claim that Jewish people are the sole victims of genocide. South Africa’s charge that the Israeli government is engaging in genocide reflects Lemkin’s commitment to the denunciation of the crime irrespective of ethnicity.

The New York Times ignored our letter.

Oversimplifying Lemkin’s endeavors does a shameful disservice to his legacy. Such a decontextualized presentation edits out the foundation of his body of work and contracts the character of his mission. It ignores the events that prompted and preoccupied his thinking on international discourse toward establishing laws against the crime that he came to term “genocide.” Lemkin was horrified that the Ottoman Turkish government could kill its own citizens—albeit “dhimmi,” or second-class citizens—with impunity. His application of the term genocide to the Ottoman Turk’s systematic mass slaughter of the Armenians predated the Holocaust. Years later, as a formidable advisor to prosecutors at the Nuremberg Trials, Lemkin drew conclusive parallels to the Nazis’ genocidal massacre of Europe’s Jewish citizens.

To selectively invoke Lemkin’s work on genocide as a defense against the charges brought against Israel banks on the idea that public memory is short.

Editing the Armenian Genocide from Lemkin’s life work has contemporary and historical implications. In light of increasing attacks by a radicalized right-wing contingency in Israel on Jerusalem’s Armenians, deleting the Armenians from current reporting sets a dangerous tone for Armenians living under current threat. The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention has featured articles on Armenphobia and on the Armenians’ right to exist, and has issued statements of concern over recent attacks on the Armenian Quarter of Jerusalem.

Jerusalem’s Armenians, or “East Jerusalemites” as they are designated by the Israeli government, like other Palestinians, live in a system that privileges Israel’s Jewish population. Hostilities from Jewish fundamentalists toward Armenians in Jerusalem are nothing new. However, the level and frequency of aggressions have intensified thanks to Netanyahu’s far-right government which has energized and normalized them. With attention concentrated on Gaza, Israeli extremists are free to act without fear of consequences. The Lemkin Institute explained that this can be “viewed as another attempt by Israeli extremists to create a homogenized Jewish ethnostate in the Palestinian territories.”

The New York Times article’s abridged version of Lemkin’s work emboldens those who continue to deny that the 1915 Armenian Genocide occurred. To selectively invoke Lemkin’s work on genocide as a defense against the charges brought against Israel banks on the idea that public memory is short. A well-worn quote reported by A.P. Berlin bureau chief, Louis Lochner, from a speech given by Hitler to his military generals before the 1939 Nazi invasion of Poland rhetorically asked, “Who today, after all, remembers the annihilation of the Armenians?” With hot wars blazing and existential alarms blasting, we not only remember the Armenians but uphold this New York Times article as a cautionary tale that words matter.

MISCHA GERACOULIS

The Armenian military has somehow managed to lose 17,000 assault rifles. It is not a joke, according to the Armenian Minister of Internal Affairs of Armenia Vahe Ghazaryan this amount of assault weapons is missing from the armouries. The main assault weapon of the Armenian military are Russian-produced Kalashnikov rifles – writes Sarah Miller.

It is difficult to comprehend this number – 17000. Just imagine – this is enough weapons to arm three and a half infantry brigades! The whole Armenian military is 65 thousand strong – so the missing weapons would be enough for a quarter of its personnel. If they are properly packed, it will be over 1400 pretty large and heavy boxes (of 12 rifles each), which would take more than 10 military trucks to move.

According to Ghazaryan, the weapons went missing after the so-called 44-days war at the end of 2020 – when Azerbaijan liberated most of the Armenia occupied Karabakh region. They were not lost during the war, or captured by enemy troops – the assault rifles went missing after the conflict.

Ghazaryan also noted that he is “concerned about the issue related to weapons and ammunition”, as it might have “potential consequences for regional security and stability”.  So, there is also ammunition missing, and nobody knows how much.

If the weapons were stolen by the local population, any citizens’ revolt is likely to turn into a bloody mess and collapse the state. But considering the political situation in Armenia, and recurrent mass protests that have not turned into armed insurrection, the guns are probably not in the country anymore. Hiding 17 thousand assault rifles would be difficult in a country the size of Armenia.

Where are these weapons now? They definitely did not leave Armenia through Turkish, Georgian or Azerbaijani borders. There is only one neighbouring country, which is very interested in purchasing weaponry anywhere on the planet – Iran. As the backbone supporter of various terrorist organisations, Tehran regularly supplies them with light and heavy armament.

The Russian-produced assault rifles have an added value. They are actually untraceable. Iran produces its own analogues of Kalashnikov – the KLF or KLS rifles. But they are easily identifiable by slight design differences, overall low quality, manufacture markings and the fire selector markings on the weapons. Supplying Russian manufactured weapons to Houthis, Hezbollah or HAMAS is preferable – nobody knows where they came from exactly, as the Russian markings may be found in many places.

Armenia, being today an important part of an Iranian – Russian axis, due to Yerevan's eager  assistance in circumventing sanctions, is a likely place to get such weapons.

Just imagine that “missing” from the Armenian military stockpiles since 2020 Kalashnikovs’ might have reached HAMAS, and may have been used in the October 7^th massacre in Israel.

A year ago, Russian propaganda was actively pushing the narrative that arms sent to Ukraine will end up in criminal hands. The claims were that hundreds of units of firearms were sold to the different gangs in Eastern Europe. There was a big fuss in the media about that, though the evidence was pretty vague. Of course, it is totally plausible that criminals could get weapons from a war zone.

But surprisingly we are not talking about 17 thousand assault rifles, which disappeared in a country bordering Iran – the biggest known supplier of weapons to terrorists around the globe.

https://www.eureporter.co/world/armenia/2024/01/22/regional-destabilizer-who-are-the-victims-of-the-lost-armenian-assault-rifles/

The Armenian NGO Peace Dialogue has just published a study entitled "The Voice of the People: Addressing the Needs of Conflict-Affected Societies in Armenia-Azerbaijan Peace Efforts" which argues that peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan needs to be more than the signing of a peace treaty and needs to factor in a holistic approach that engages all level of society.

The report is based mainly on study amongst the population of Armenia. Peace Dialogue says that a similar study separate report detailing findings from the study conducted in Azerbaijan is expected to be published in the near future.

"This research highlights the necessity of moving beyond the mere act of treaty signing.  The core aim of this study is to give prominence to the voices of individuals from both border and non-border communities, enabling them to voice their specific needs and concerns, since we believe that for a peace agreement to be effective, it must integrate a detailed understanding of the socio-economic, security, and cultural environments in which it will be implemented", said Edgar Khachatryan, Director of Peace Dialogue whilst introducing the new report.

In the introduction to the report Peace Dialogue says

In the complex geopolitical landscape of the South Caucasus, the prolonged conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the Nagorno-Karabakh region has been marked by significant turmoil and human cost. This study, spearheaded by Peace Dialogue NGO through the support of the European Union, represents a pivotal step towards understanding the multifaceted impact of this conflict on the Armenian society, excluding those displaced from Nagorno-Karabakh.

The methodological approach of this study is based on Johan Galtung's Typology of Basic Human Needs and the “Position/Interests/Needs” (PIN) theoretical framework. It included 330 structured interviews conducted throughout Armenia. This methodology allowed for a thorough examination of societal needs and concerns in four key areas: Security, Welfare, Freedom, and Identity. The data and insights collected were then meticulously analyzed using the 'Inclus' digital tool, an innovative platform created by previous associates of the Crisis Management Initiative (CMI). This tool was instrumental in providing a nuanced understanding of the complex dynamics at play.

Key findings from the study revealed a predominant concern for security threats, especially physical safety and economic stability. Welfare issues, including education and financial well-being, were also prominent. Additionally, the study underscored significant concerns related to freedom and identity, with a particular emphasis on democratic values and cultural preservation. The implications of these findings for drafting an Armenian-Azerbaijani peace treaty are substantial.

The study advocates for a comprehensive treaty that addresses these four core areas. It suggests practical measures such as establishing a permanent ceasefire, creating demilitarized zones, fostering cross-border economic initiatives, and ensuring access to essential services. Furthermore, the study recommends pragmatic steps designed to preserve freedom of _expression_, maintain civil liberties, and protect cultural diversity and heritage. In its conclusion, the study outlines recommendations that emphasize the need for a treaty that is not only politically sound but also resonates with the people's needs. These include establishing a joint peacekeeping commission, investing in border security, implementing conflict-sensitive economic programs, and fostering cultural exchange and preservation. The study underscores the importance of integrating local voices into the peace process and highlights the need for flexible diplomacy, international mediation, and domestic initiatives focused on education and infrastructure development.

Overall, this study represents a modest contribution to the peacebuilding efforts in the region, offering a nuanced understanding of the societal impact of the conflict. The research illustrates the risks of an overly narrow and top-down ‘normalization’ process that fails to address the popular concerns identified here and points to problems with the sustainability of a ‘thin’ peace treaty and process that neglects these issues. It underscores the danger of reverting to violence due to a flawed, overly simplistic peace agreement. This concern is particularly relevant given the current trajectory of the Armenia-Azerbaijan negotiations and is exemplified by the shortcomings of the November 10, 2020, Ceasefire Statement.

The study advocates for a comprehensive peace strategy that goes beyond merely obtaining signatures on a treaty. It emphasizes the need for a well-thought-out socio-political framework that not only sustains an agreement but also fosters its growth, ensuring its effectiveness and durability in the long term.

You can read and download the report in full here.