A must-see debate on www.keghart.com‏

Gibrahayer e-magazine www.gibrahayer.com The largest circulation Armenian e-magazine on the Internet Circulates every Wednesday - Established in 1999

A MUST-SEE TV DEBATE ON www.KEGHART.com

Live TV Debate on the Apology Statement in Kanal D, (In Turkish), 18 December 2008

Moderator: Mehmet Ali Birand, Producer: Ridvan Akar For: Dr. Cengiz Aktar, Ret. Ambassador Temel İskit, and Journalist Oral Çalışlar Against: Ret. Ambassador Şükrü Elekdağ MP CHP, Ret. Ambassador Deniz Bölükbaşı MP MHP, and Ret. Ambassador Azer Candan

The Transcript of the TV Debate is now available in English www.keghart.com/op175.htm

Translation and transcript by Mete Pamir MA, Ottawa. His work is posted in Keghart.com with feelings of gratitude. Dr. Dikran Abrahamian. "While every effort is made to accurately reproduce the statements of participants and give the exact back and forth exchange during the debate, some omissions are made and the statements that the same person uttered at slightly different points of the conversation are occasionally combined for brevity. Any comments and corrections regarding the translation and/or the transcript are welcome." Mete Pamir.

Saturday 27 December, 2008 Dear subscribers, We urge our readers to either listen to the debate, read the English transcript or do both at the same time. Either way, the debate provides ample information on the conflicting schools of thought that exist in Turkish society and government regarding not only the Armenian Genocide but much more. More at www.keghart.com and www.keghart.com/op175.htm . Simon Aynedjian - Chief Editor - Gibrahayer E-Magazine

The debate begins as follows:

Birand: Welcome. Tonight, we’re going to discuss a very important issue that is older than the Republic, a discussion that is condemned to irresolution for 93 years. A group of our intellectuals have started a campaign regarding what Ottoman Armenians went through in 1915. We are going to talk about their apology statement in which they apologise to our Armenian brothers and sisters. At the root of the issue lies what happened to the Armenians in 1915: is this a catastrophe, genocide or deportation? Should we apologise? To whom and for what should one apologise? We have representatives in our studio who defend two opposing viewpoints: those who say yes, one should apologise and those who say no, there is no need for it. I want to begin by asking Cengiz Aktar first: why are we supposed to apologise, to whom and for what? Aktar: The apology is already made. 230 intellectuals and opinion-makers started this campaign and 13.500 citizens of Turkey have already apologised in two-three days. We apologised for not being able to talk about this for many years, because it was a monologue for so long, because we looked at this matter from only one perspective. We are also apologising for not being able to share the pain of our Armenian brothers and sisters to a sufficient extent. This is a very gentle, altruistic and compassionate message (müşfik, diğerkâm, and duygudaş). We don’t address ourselves to anyone [to any official instance], we are addressing the apology to ourselves. Birand: Yes, a lot of people are asking: are they saying that we have committed genocide and apologising for it? Oral Çalışlar you are one of those who signed. Çalışlar: Genocide term is not used in the statement. Among the signatories there are also persons who don’t think this was genocide. The apology is about a great catastrophe and pain; it is directed to those who are not with us any more, to those who cannot live in Turkey. We apologise for the pain caused to hundreds of thousands of Armenians, to their children and grandchildren. We are not saying everyone should share the pain, it is not obligatory: those who want to share do apologise, those who don’t want to don’t. The apology is because this issue could not be discussed for so long. We lost Hrant Dink for this reason. He was condemned because he said in the end that there was genocide. He was declared an enemy by certain quarters in front of the public opinion. And we lost him. It is not unproblematic in Turkey to say that this was genocide. There are people who cannot express their opinions and those who, like Dink, expressed themselves recently and those who expressed themselves also in 1915. Birand: Let me read the statement for our viewers: “My conscience does not accept the insensitivity showed to and the denial of the Great Catastrophe that the Ottoman Armenians were subjected to in 1915. I reject this injustice and for my share, I empathise with the feelings and pain of my Armenian brothers and sisters. I apologise to them.” The important term here is Great Catastrophe. Armenians say that Great Catastrophe is genocide. İskit: I signed the statement hoping that it was a non-political statement. I signed this as a matter of personal conscience, a matter of freedom of expression and a debt that I felt I owed. I particularly wanted to show my reaction to the denial. This is a civil society movement; it is different than the political sphere. This is not an issue about whether this was a genocide or not… This statement does not represent a compromise. In that case it would have been political. Elekdağ: Firstly, they are referring to Great Catastrophe; this is Metz Yeghern in Armenian. This word is a synonym for genocide. The difference between the two words is as little as the difference between mass slaughter and mass killing (kitle katliamı” and kitlesel öldürme). There is no difference between them. When Metz Yeghern is used, Armenians understand genocide. When some official person goes to Armenia, visits the Monument and wishes to condemn genocide as well as not to offend the Turkish Republic they use Metz Yeghern; and Armenians accept this. This statement is tantamount to supporting the genocide campaign of the Armenian Diaspora. It would have been alright to use terms like great tragedy or pain. The concept of Great Catastrophe is an established term; it has a loaded meaning which is very difficult to change. Therefore, it naturally causes reactions. Secondly, it is important that the statement uses the word “denial.” The word “denial” is commonly used by the Armenian Diaspora and in Armenia against those who say that there was no genocide. “Denying” is not a normal word; when “denialist” is used, those with opposing viewpoints are meant. This is not an innocent word either. It is part of the jargon used by Armenians… Aktar: Metz Yeghern is a word from the time of 1915. The term genocide and its basis in international law is from 1948. From 1915 until 1948, the Armenian people who were subjected to this [calamity] were of course going to give a name to it. We used the name that they themselves used [for a long time]. This is not a discussion about genocide [terminology]. Temel İskit is spot on about this. We are not going to discuss genocide here, are we? If you are going to boil down our discussion tonight to whether there was genocide or not, let’s not talk further; let’s just end the discussion right here and go home. more on www.keghart.com/op175.htm

EDITORIAL - "The Apology" - Jean Ipdjian from London

Recently, a group of 200 academicians issued a statement on the Internet expressing their personal apologies for ‘the denial of the great catastrophe that the Ottoman Armenians were subjected to in 1915’. We are further informed that, on December 15, they set up an Internet site titled "We Apologise" (www.ozurdiliyoruz.com) which quickly attracted the signatures of more than 23,000 Turks. As the Greek saying goes: ‘ayia kai kala’ (loosely translated – good for them). One of the first things that strikes one are the words ‘great catastrophe’. A ‘great catastrophe’ could be the explosion of a chemical factory from a gas leek. A ‘great catastrophe’ could be the explosion of a dormant volcano as was the case of Mount Elena in the United States a few years ago. A ‘great catastrophe’ could be the tsunami which hit south east Asia a few years ago. All those things can be called or described as catastrophes because they are the result of natural causes, they are the result of accidents, they are the result of inadvertent human error, or even they can be the result of cost cutting measures and a host of other insignificant or major mishaps. So, how can what happened to the Ottoman Armenians as Modern Turks call the Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire in the beginning of the twentieth century and who,- just for keeping within the boundaries of historical factuality-, had populated, existed, prospered and built kingdoms in modern-day Turkey’s eastern half even before the first Turkic maraudic tribesman had arrived in Asia Minor, be considered a catastrophe as if it was a fluke of nature? How hollow this apology sounds when these academicians who admittedly have dared to express even this inaccurate and diluted description of the systematic, government controlled and planed extermination of the Armenian indigenous population of eastern Turkey – historical Armenia, cannot bring themselves in their enlightenment to use the words GENOCIDE. They claim they cannot continue looking at themselves in the mirror every morning from their shame. How noble! How noble when the word ‘genocide’ still has the same effect on the as Holy Water has on the Devil or on those possessed by him. However, we have to admit and accept that this small, insignificant and belated jest by the aforementioned academics is a bold action, and more importantly, it is in the right direction. It would have been so much more accurate and acceptable if they could bring themselves to use the taboo word and call the events which unfolded a century ago by the accurate and proper term of genocide. Admittedly, recent events such as the assassination of the Armenian journalist Hrant Dink and the surprising reaction of the population in the major cities to it do show that the seeds of reason are sprouting hesitantly in that country and are slowly gnawing at the roots of the fundamentalist Turkic nationalism. But, and its such a massive but, we should know and keep in mind that the admission and recognition by the Turkish Government of the genocide is a long way off. And this is so because such an act would surely result in the immediate collapse of any government that happens to be in power, since the seeds of denial are so rooted in the psych of the hoards of semi-literate and illiterate millions of the Anadolu. And this is because such an act would put enormous question marks on the legality of the Turkishness of the Eastern provinces. And this is because it will result in retributions which Turkey will have to pay. I, for one, cannot allow myself to start hoping that soon Turkey will show that it can act as a European country despite the horrors of its recent history as Germany showed to the world to be after the second world war by pleading guilty to the charge of genocide and thus clearing the shame and the guilt from its forehead. I, for one, cannot allow myself to hope to see more in this jest than the somewhat naive and simplistic effort by some circles to round-off some of the blunt edges of Turkey’s image vis a vis Europe. Remember the infamous Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation group a few years back? Apology! What a misstatement. Jean Ipdjian - London, December 2008