This point, especially, raises a lot of question marks:

“We cannot compare the Armenian genocide with the Holocaust. Those who were banished from their land suffered a lot but survived,” he said.

In our research, we surveyed nearly 4,000 Palestinians and Israelis from 2004 to 2008, questioning citizens across the political spectrum including refugees, supporters of Hamas and Israeli settlers in the West Bank. We asked them to react to hypothetical but realistic compromises in which their side would be required to give away something it valued in return for a lasting peace.

All those surveyed responded to the same set of deals. First they would be given a straight-up offer in which each side would make difficult concessions in exchange for peace; next they were given a scenario in which their side was granted an additional material incentive; and last came a proposal in which the other side agreed to a symbolic sacrifice of one of its sacred values.
[…]
Absolutists who violently rejected offers of money or peace for sacred land were considerably more inclined to accept deals that involved their enemies making symbolic but difficult gestures. For example, Palestinian hard-liners were more willing to consider recognizing the right of Israel to exist if the Israelis simply offered an official apology for Palestinian suffering in the 1948 war. Similarly, Israeli respondents said they could live with a partition of Jerusalem and borders very close to those that existed before the 1967 war if Hamas and the other major Palestinian groups explicitly recognized Israel’s right to exist.
[…]
———————–
The co-author of this article, Scott Atran, has a book forthcoming entitled “Talking to The Enemy.” Looks like it should be required reading for many.

Ultimately, those same Armenians in the Diaspora who are now seeking to exploit Hrant Dink’s death for their own political purposes are the same people who attacked or ignored him when he was alive, and the very same people who are doing the same with Ara Sarafian now. Unlike them, Hrant Dink and Ara have done more than such people ever will.

Their problem, perhaps, is that they both believe in the importance of reconciliation between Armenian and Turk, and that’s what concerns the nationalists the most.

As a historian I have to look at what deniers say and sometimes I have to address what they say as part of my work. Denialist historiography has currency in Turkey and it has some impact in the English speaking world. So I do not ignore it as a matter of course. For example, I worked on Ottoman archives regarding the Armenian issue in the 1990s. I found that these archives did not support the Turkish thesis on the Genocide, but supported the consensus that the events of 1915 constituted genocide.

I published my findings in Armenian Forum, and my findings have been used by others. Now Taner Akçam has even produced a book on the same materials. Last year I challenged Turkish historians (deniers) to undertake a case study on the Harput plain, where they would produce details of deportations from the Harput plain and state where the deportees were resettled according to the Ottoman deportation decrees and regulations (cited by Turkish historians at face value). Yusuf Halacoglu, having accepted to undertake the case study, stated that the records in question did not exist. Dr. Halacoglu never explained why the records did not exist, though people can draw their own conclusions : his disclosure had an immediate impact in Turkey as people asked why such Ottoman records did not exist (or remain inaccessible) if the deportations were supposed to be an orderly event.

Similarly, when Turkish historians and parliamentarians denied the integrity of the 1916 British parliamentary blue book, I decided to respond to their position with a critical edition of the blue book, where the denial of the Armenian Genocide was the main focus. I decided to engage them on this occasion because of the prominence of the deniers (practically the whole Turkish political establishment) and because all of the relevant materials on the blue book were in western archives and could not be manipulated.

[…]

Turkey today is a more open society and there is a lot more critical interest in the events if 1915. Some historians there are also doing worthwhile, even groundbreaking, work related to the Genocide. At the same time, there is more pressure on professional deniers to make a better case for the Turkish nationalist position. While the starting point of professional deniers is the same, some argue the same nationalist themes in a more slick manner, while others try to make the Turkish position stronger by making some concessions (eg. `During the deportations of 1915 there were some massacres but it was not genocide.’) Such concessions are forced, but they are significant.

[…]

[…] it is possible to talk about the Armenian issue in Turkey today, and there is a lot more sympathy for Armenians. Even if the word “genocide” is not used, there is a recognition that Armenians were cleansed from their ancestral homelands in Turkey today. I would even say that deniers, that is those people who only castigate Armenians, are a minority in Turkey. That is why much of the denialist efforts today are geared towards Turkish audiences, and that is why Armenians would do well in addressing Turkish audiences in a more sympathetic manner - unless their only objective is to hurt Turks, which I find is the case in some quarters.

[…]

The fact of the Armenian Genocide is a given. There are no more Armenians left to speak of in modern Turkey, where most Armenians lived before WWI. They were forced out with much bloodletting and never allowed to return. Their properties were confiscated by the Ottoman state in 1915, and the record of Armenians in Turkey was erased over the past 90 years.

However, historically there is still a lot we can learn about the events of 1915, and there is a lot more that can be said about the Armenian Genocide conceptually, in terms of the contemporary context of the diaspora, Armenia, Turkey and even further afield.

http://www.armenews.com/article.php3?id_article=47470

“Cutting to the Bone”: Armenian Genocide scholar makes a splash in West London

by Anoush Melkonian

[…]

“Cutting to the Bone” is an interview with Ara following the release of a new film documentary, The Blue Book (Ani Sounds, 2007), at Riverside Studios, Hammersmith, London. The film received a glowing endorsement in the mass circulation weekly, Time Out London (November 01, 2007).

The Blue Book follows Ara’s work opposing the efforts of the Turkish parliament to deny the Armenian genocide in London in 2006. Starting in London where Ara and a group of British parliamentarians stop the Turkish effort, the film follows Ara to a special conference at Istanbul University, where he delivers a paper on the denial of the Armenian genocide. The conference is attended by arch deniers of the genocide, most notably, Sukru Elekdag (the former Turkish ambassador to the United States and currently a member of the Turkish Parliament), Yusuf Halacoglu (the head of the Turkish Historical Society) and Justin McCarthy, (the longstanding denier of the 1915 genocide in the United States today).

Ara is the only diaspora-born Armenian who attends the three day conference. Other than presenting a paper on the Armenian genocide, he also mounts an exhibition of books on the Armenian genocide published by his Gomidas Institute. This is the first exhibition of such books in Turkey, he comments.

[…]

The Blue Book also includes a third element, as Ara moves and locates some of the places mentioned in the Blue Book, where Armenians were murdered in 1915. Driving backwards and forwards, he finds some of the valleys where, according to Leslie Davis, the US Consul in Harput, tens of thousands of Armenians were slaughtered. He also identifies the remains of Armenian churches in ruins. However, throughout this observational documentary, Ara is not bitter. He comes across calm and peaceful. His aim is to engage the Armenian genocide in Turkey in a meaningful way. He believes in the essential good nature of Turks and Armenians. He believes that the genocide issue can be resolved by scholarship and dialogue, not posturing and power play, and The Blue Book goes a long way to prove this point.

Nevertheless, though Ara’s work shows how much an individual can do, The Blue Book also shows the limitations to such work. The fact remains that Ara is on his own. While his grit and knowledge as a historian may be truly amazing, he has to make his own tracks and carry his own bags. Watching this documentary, one is daunted by the opposition he faces. For all of Ara’s success and promise, The Blue Book is also a sad reflection on the lack of real support Armenian intellectuals like Ara Sarafian receive when engaging the genocide issue in such a meaningful way.

http://www.azad-hye.net/news/viewnews.asp?newsId=521jsl42

I think you’re missing the point. It’s not that Ara was so bothered. It is elements in the Diaspora who sent an open letter to force him to not speak openly despite being one of the most hard-working historians on the ground (rather than with his head stuck in a book as most Armenians are — and usually only the books that they know will meet their expectations). Ara merely responded and raised some points which have at least prompted you to reply as well.

Anyway, I do agree with Ara that most active Armenians seek to demonize ALL Turks. It’s also worth noting that you miss another point. In order to discredit Ara you try to make out that he’s denying that it was Genocide. However, he’s not. Instead, he’s saying that it’s not as black and white as most Armenians have been led by politically partisan groups to believe. He’s also doing exactly what Hrant Dink was.

That is, saying that there is the possibility for good relations and reconciliation with Turks. And this, of course, is what some Armenians want to prevent, and regardless of whether the Genocide is recognized or not.

For example, Ara says that Armenians claim that the Armenian genocide was as “thorough” as the Holocaust. Armenians have never said that per se. Armenians have simply compared the two in various ways, as did the man who coined the word “genocide,” Raphael Lemkin. Does the Armenian genocide have to be as “thorough” as another one to be considered genocide? Does Ara think that Armenian blood is less red than Jewish blood?

But to answer Ara, the Armenian genocide was almost certainly much more thorough than the Holocaust. From what I understand, a higher % of Armenians were murdered than were Jews in the Holocaust, although I don’t see the relevance in the comparison. One could even argue that the murders were crueler and that, unlike the Jewish case, Armenians lost their ancestral homeland.

Ara also says most Armenians from Adana were not killed. Even if true, so what? Hitler didn’t kill ALL Jews either. Many German Jews were allowed to immigrate in the 1930’s (or even later, if I am not mistaken) to foreign countries or to work in factories (as slave labor). Does the fact that some Jews in concentration camps were sitting around in striped pajamas mean that Hitler never intended to have Jews killed? Hitler’s mother’s doctor was personally spared by Hitler. Some part-Jews even served in the Wermacht. So does Ara claim that there was no Jewish genocide?

The goal of the Turks was to wipe out the Armenian presence from the Armenian homeland sufficiently so that it could not be reconstituted. Whether that was done through murder or deportation is hardly the point. In what ways it compares to the Holocaust is interesting, but the Armenian genocide stands on its own as genocide.

Ara continues on and on in this way looking for ways to snipe at Armenians. I wonder if Ara knows that the Armenian cause goes beyond mere recognition by Turkey of the genocide. Is this what is bothering him - that parts of the Armenian cause do not consist of having one’s head stuck in a book and studying the facts of the genocide until the cows come home.

http://oneworld.am/book/

BTW: It’s also available in electronic format.

http://www.oneworld.am/armenia_book.pdf

Thanks Ara, and I’m glad you still believe in tackling sensitive and important issues head on.

Sarafian: Focus on the diaspora

By Vercihan Ziflioğlu

ISTANBUL - Multilateral efforts to improve relations between Armenia and Turkey is the wrong way to resolve the Armenian issue, says respected historian Ara Sarafian, arguing that the solution lies in the huge and influential diaspora.

Sarafian, the head of the London-based Gomidas Institute, said Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s offer to Armenia to establish a commission of historians to resolve the Armenian issue was positive, but Armenia was the wrong address.

[…]

Sarafian said there were two problems that would arise out of any effort to improve relations with Armenians through closer ties with Armenia. “Freedom of expression for historians in Armenia is limited and the genocide issue has become a political tool,” he said.

He said Turkey should continue with its plan to form a commission of historians who would discuss the matter, but suggested Turkish historians to meet with moderate Armenian historians in the diaspora rather than Armenia. “The solution should start from the diaspora,” he said.

[…]

Prime Minister Erdoğan’s suggestion to form a commission also involves the opening of the state archives of both Armenia and Turkey. Sarafian said the archives in Armenia were inadequate. “The real documents on the genocide are in the Zoryan archives in Boston and the Armenian Patriarchy archives in Jerusalem,” he said.

He said the most important question was whether Armenians wanted to overcome this chronic problem. He asked, “Will we be able to free ourselves from this instinct of revenge and share our grief?” Armenians should stop seeing themselves as the victims, said the historian.

[…]

He also said Turkish society could not be blamed for what happened in the past. “No one can deny the genocide but the entire Turkish nation cannot be held responsible. Moreover, many Turks rescued Armenians from death,” he said.

The lobbies had turned the issue into a political tool, said Sarafian. “They want to control everything and fear historians opening a brand new page,” he said. He said a language of peace should be created between Turks and Armenians.

He still had to be careful when he undertook research in Turkey and added, “I, as a historian, try not to display a wrong stance and create tension. I know I need to be objective. Additionally, Turkey is being constructive and it would be wrong to miss this chance.”

[…]

The Armenian response, both from the diaspora and Armenia, to Turkish calls to work together was complete silence, he said. “The diaspora boycotted any cooperation with Turkey because it only wants to blame and lay accusations against Turkey. Unfortunately, radical groups within the diaspora have turned a sensitive issue, like genocide, into a political tool.

He said it was important for future generations to free themselves from the victim psychology, concluding his remarks by saying, “We need to ensure our children live in peace. The revenge instinct will do no one any good.”

http://arama.hurriyet.com.tr/arsivnews.aspx?id=10426989