When they came to forcibly deport Armenian residents of this mixed Muslim-Christian village, she hid a small child. Unfortunately that child's parents never came back. He was raised by Alo Gari along with her beloved grandson, Ali, who lost his father when he was very young. How do I know this? Because Ali was my grandfather.Amid all the tragedies, there are many humane stories to tell from one of the darkest chapters of in the history of Anatolia. I'm sure there were Armenians who made similar gestures for their Muslim Turkish and Kurdish neighbors terrorized by Christian rebellions. Is it possible to understand those times from only one angle? Of course not. But that's exactly what the US Congress is trying to do today.
Look at the infamous "Armenian genocide" resolution (H. Res. 106), for which there will be a markup at the House Foreign Affairs Committee next Wednesday. Does it reveal anything about the sufferings of Muslims? Does it tell of Turks and Kurds helping Christian Armenians? Does it talk about the extraordinary war conditions that lead to the deportation and eventual crimes against humanity? No. It only offers a one-sided, emotional and unscientific description of the events of 1915. It's not only a nonsense attempt at writing history by politicians, but also a distorted production of the story.
I understand the grievances of Armenian Americans. I know how they feel about losing some of their ancestors and having to leave their homeland. I can see the deep feeling of injustice. However, does one injustice justify another? Is it fair to conceal a long history of peaceful, harmonious coexistence and reduce all Turkish-Armenian history to just 1915? And is it fair for the US Congress to pick sides in a civil war that took place almost a century ago?
At least 226 members in the house think so, and I'm sure even more will join them if and when this resolution comes to the floor for a vote. Why is that? A considerable part of the reason is the Armenian ability to influence and convince their fellow Christians. The United States is a Christian-dominant nation and Americans have always been interested in the plight of fellow Christian men and women all over the world. This resolution will reflect the sense of Congress, that is, the sense of the American people.
American rulers always say they are not at war with Muslims or Islam. But actions on the ground often prove the opposite. It was a small radical group of Muslims who attacked the US on Sept. 11, 2001, but a worldwide and widespread revenge mechanism was put into effect. Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq are the most obvious end results. The post-Sept. 11 mood makes it politically correct to portray Muslims as monsters. Therefore there couldn't be a better time for a congressional resolution which does just that for Turkish Muslims. Why am I not surprised? Most US rulers do not give a damn what 1.5 billion Muslims might feel about their policies, so why should Congress care about 70 million Turks?
It's important for Republican leaders to show muscle against Muslims so that they can garner "patriotic" votes and funds. Likewise, it's useful for Democrats to secure Armenian American support for their political campaigns. Don't tell me this is only an innocent acknowledgement for a "forgotten genocide" and a tribute to its victims. Don't tell me this is a matter of principle. Had the US Congress acted with principle, they would have pursued a more balanced path, or at least shown a little interest or sympathy for hundreds and thousands of innocent Muslim losses as well. In fact most other Western parliaments have chosen the same path. Perhaps it is too much to expect fairness from the offspring of colonialists who provoked fine Armenian citizens against the Ottoman Empire. Perhaps one should talk more about American, British, French and Russian interests before and during World War I in trying to divide and rule Turkish lands.
In Turkey and many other parts of the Muslim world, this one-sided US Congress resolution on the events of 1915 will only be seen as a continuation of the colonialist mantra. It will be viewed as a sign of the never-ending vengeful attitude against Muslim inhabitants of formerly Christian lands. It will be seen as one other Crusade-like solidarity action. Does that make any sense when US is trying to give just the opposite image? No. This cannot be about the "sense of Congress" then; rather, it is the "senselessness of Congress."
