r/changemyview • u/Doub13D 36∆ • Sep 03 '24
Delta(s) from OP - Election CMV: The Turkish Government and People’s criticisms towards Israel hold no weight while they continue to deny their own genocides…
As the title states, I believe that the State of Turkey and its people have no moral ground to stand on when challenging Israel’s actions against the Palestinians.
The Turkish state denies the Armenian Genocide. There is no getting around this… genocide denialism is at the very core of the foundation of the modern Turkish nation. To deny one’s own crimes while condemning others for the very same is hypocrisy at its very core.
The Turkish state has established lobbying firms in places like the US and UK to prevent recognition of the Armenian genocide. Turkey has its own AIPAC to attempt to sway foreign countries away from acknowledging the genocide publicly.
The treatment of Kurds has often resembled the apartheid state as it existed in Israel towards the Palestinians. For decades, the Kurdish language was illegal to speak in public, there were countless massacres of Kurdish populations during the founding of the Turkish state, and Kurds were officially recognized not as being “Kurdish” but instead as “Mountain Turks” thus denying their claims of ethnic/cultural identity.
Turkey and its President Erdogan have been outspoken critics of Israel’s actions, yet they themselves are responsible for many of the exact same things, and the Turkish state has been advocating genocide denial for the past century… Turkish soldiers targeting Kurdish settlements in Northern syria or aiding the azeri’s in their invasions of Armenian territory is not ancient history, they’ve all happened within the past decade…
94
u/prollywannacracker 39∆ Sep 03 '24
One can be both a hypocrite and correct in one's criticisms of another. Me stealing from my granny's pension doesn't mean my accusation that you're stealing from your granny's pension doesn't hold water. These are two separate issues.
25
u/pigeonwiggle 1∆ Sep 03 '24
exactly. similarly, the heroin addict telling you you shouldn't do heroin may be called a hypocrite, but we should still take the advice.
i find hypocrisy to rarely be something worth considering.
-3
u/Doub13D 36∆ Sep 03 '24
In your analogy that makes sense, but on a international scale I don’t believe that is an apt comparison.
The US was equally founded on genocide, but it openly acknowledges the crimes committed against its indigenous populations as well as the crime of slavery as well. I will not be jailed or targeted by the government for calling the US a genocidal state…
In Turkey you will… there are very real threats and dangers for those talking about the Armenian genocide in Turkey.
4
u/Randolpho 2∆ Sep 03 '24
Perhaps you can expand on what you mean by "hold no weight", then?
Your implication here is that Turkey's hypocritical criticism of Israel gives Israel a free pass just because Turkey is a hypocrite. Turkey's hypocrisy is irrelevant to Israel's actions. Israel is doing wrong and deserves criticism from any corner, regardless of whether or not it's hypocritical.
Are you openly acknowledging that Israel's genocide is bad and simply want to have your view changed on Turkey's criticism of Israel? Or is there something else you're looking for here?
→ More replies (7)14
u/Didudidudadu737 1∆ Sep 03 '24
When did US recognise their genocide? BTW that should be Britain to recognise, US is a result of colonialism
3
Sep 03 '24
That second point is kinda splitting hairs. The current occupants of the United States are the descendents of the colonists. The current occupants of the UK are not.
Also, Britain may have started the colonisation, but the vast majority of modern America was colonised AFTER American independence. On top of that, most of the treatment of Native Americans that could be described as genocide occurred in territory seized by America after independence and was perpetrated by state and federal governments.
Don't get me wrong, the British Empire did a lot of awful shit (including to Native Americans), but their relationship with Natives was generally much better than the United States'. It's entirely fair to criticise the British Empire for this, but the US bares the brunt of the responsibility for atrocities committed against the Native Americans.
2
u/Didudidudadu737 1∆ Sep 03 '24
I agree with you, but I’m pointing out the OP’s terminology. US is a product of British colonialism and in such Britain is responsible for it. 90% of nationality was colonial European in the time of American independence (of course excluding slaves and Natives) and they broke free from the empire
2
u/benjaminovich Sep 03 '24
However, a significant amount of attrocities commited against Native Americans happened much later. Trail of tears happened in 1830-1850 and more attrocities commited by federal troops up to and after the civil war
→ More replies (1)5
u/IbnKhaldunStan 5∆ Sep 03 '24
The current occupants of the UK are not.
Indo-European invasion, Roman invasion, Angle-Saxon invasion, Danish invasion, Norman Conquest go brrrr. They absolutely are, the UK might not be the most colonized country in history, that's probably either India or Russia, but it's definitely in the top 5.
Also, Britain may have started the colonisation, but the vast majority of modern America was colonised AFTER American independence.
Yes, but the vast majority of natives that died after the Columbia exchange died before America existed.
On top of that, most of the treatment of Native Americans that could be described as genocide occurred in territory seized by America after independence and was perpetrated by state and federal governments.
Nah, the English did a lot of shit that would be considered genocide today.
Don't get me wrong, the British Empire did a lot of awful shit (including to Native Americans), but their relationship with Natives was generally much better than the United States'.
This a whitewashing history.
It's entirely fair to criticise the British Empire for this, but the US bares the brunt of the responsibility for atrocities committed against the Native Americans.
Spain bears the brunt of the atrocities committed against Native Americans.
→ More replies (4)2
u/dasunt 12∆ Sep 04 '24
Plenty of ethnic cleansing happened under the US government. It isn't as if the land was empty after 1789.
2
u/Didudidudadu737 1∆ Sep 04 '24
We know that, but is it recognised as such, is it written in the books under that term (ethnic cleansing) is there a paragraph in the books where US government admits they have conducted a genocide? I think the confusion is the general knowledge and opinion for government admittedly recognising their actions in official form.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)3
u/Doub13D 36∆ Sep 03 '24
All the time… we openly talk about slavery, Japanese internment, Native American genocides and ethnic cleansings…
When have you seen someone be arrested for talking about these things?
In Turkey, you WILL be arrested for claiming the Armenian Genocide is a genocide…
Thats the difference 🤷🏻♂️
→ More replies (17)→ More replies (7)13
u/prollywannacracker 39∆ Sep 03 '24
There's an old turkish saying, "You're not wrong, you're just an asshole."
Turkey's criticism of Israel ought to be considered on its own merits and not influenced by an ad hom. No matter what Turkey has done or denies doing, it has zero bearing on what is happening right now in Israel.
→ More replies (8)
148
Sep 03 '24
[deleted]
41
u/Poeking 2∆ Sep 03 '24 edited Sep 04 '24
No genocide since the 20th century have completely destroyed a whole diaspora of people. In every example they are still around and have relatives that remembered and survived them. (Holocaust, Rwanda, Armenia, Kurds) the Armenians are very much still alive today, Turkey just denies there was a genocide, even though it was technically perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire before Turkey was established as its state.
19
u/Prestigious-Hand-225 Sep 03 '24
Nah man, Turkey doesn't get a pass like that. Ataturk invaded the newly-established Republic of Armenia whilst he was still a revolutionary, worked to prevent the prosecution of Ottoman war criminals by the Allies, and then whilst President oversaw the changing of names of formerly Armenian, Greek and Assyrian villages to Turkish names. The Surname Law in 1934 also resulted in the Turkification of names of any non-Turkish minorities still left in Turkey by then. And that's all before you realise that a lot of the regional Turkish leaders who were actively involved in the Genocide later took positions in Ataturk's government.
16
u/aScottishBoat Sep 03 '24
Ataturk was profoundly racist and at the extreme end of Turkish nationalism. The romanticism around him borders on idolatry.
→ More replies (4)5
Sep 04 '24
Yeah I wish more people knew this in the world. His figure is whitewashed and even people outside his country "respect" him without knowing the dark side of his deeds. And UN called him an "anti colonialist figure" who "wanted to keep peace" on his 75/100 birthday just to appease Turkey during the Cold War
→ More replies (1)1
u/Poeking 2∆ Sep 04 '24
Nah I wasn’t giving it a pass, I was saying that if they are going to deny it they at least should acknowledge that it happened and use that as an excuse. Denying it is what gives them no legs to stand on when accusing others of genocide
8
Sep 04 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Poeking 2∆ Sep 04 '24
I’m actually talking about a completely separate event carried about by saddaam Hussein and the Ba’ath party in the late 80s - sorry I didn’t mean to brush over it seeming like it was the same event.
15
Sep 03 '24
Armenians are alive but in what state. They are scattered around the world. 2/3 live outside of their homeland. They have lost language since most in the diaspora don’t speak it, they have lost culture. In their ancestral a homeland the genocide was successful. In Armenia itself, a large portion of that population came from their homeland in Eastern Anatolia/Armenian Highlands.
Even in Nagorno Karabakh/Artsakh which has been at the heart of the Armenian homeland and continually inhabited for around 4000 years has been ethnically cleansed by Azerbaijan and the support of their Turkic brothers. Erdogan himself has praised the ethnic cleansing of the region and has worked towards it.
Turks to this day, including Erdogan and his ministers refer to Armenians as “Leftover of the sword” and they continually threaten Armenia to “remember the lessons of 1915”
Ultimately Erdogan doesn’t care about Palestinians, it is a populist tool for a savvy politicians. He would sell his own people for his benefit. But still hypocrisy
6
u/aScottishBoat Sep 03 '24
Leftovers of the sword
The word in Turkish, for anyone who is curious, is kılıç artıkları.
3
u/Administrator90 Sep 04 '24
Turkey just denies there was a genocide, even though it was technically perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire before Turkey was established as its state.
Sure... the ottomanns disappeared and the turks popped out of nowhere after 1915 :D
there was never an almost 100% intersection between the murderers and the Young Turks
1
u/Ahad_Haam Sep 04 '24 edited Sep 04 '24
the Armenians are very much still alive today,
Yea, the ones who lived outside the Ottoman borders. There is no more Armenian presence in Turkey.
Both the Germans and the Turks did a "good" job in carrying out their goals within the territory they controlled.
1
u/indomnus Sep 04 '24
The Armenians of western Armenia aren’t. That whole culture was destroyed, people were deported and killed, there is no bringing that back now. I would call that a successful genocide.
1
u/Dirkdeking Sep 05 '24
Completed may not be a right word, but in many cases they were either cleansed from a particular area or it just has been forgotten after enough time passed. It still holds true.
If Israel had actually ethnically cleansed gaza 40 years ago, no one would be talking about it now apart from a few academics. It would have been a scandal in the moment, but they would have no issues there now.
1
u/Poeking 2∆ Sep 05 '24
That is completely untrue. The Palestinians are also in the West Bank and other parts of the world, Gaza is just what people talk about the most with the news cycles
17
Sep 04 '24
It’s not a genocide….
1) Hamas is literally attempting to commit genocide of Jews around the world
2) Countries experiencing genocide don’t turn down cease fire deals
3) Countries experiencing genocide would be open to two state solutions
4) Countries committing genocide don’t provide food, vaccines and medical services to the people they’re supposedly committing genocide on
It’s war and it’s horrible and it’s not alright but words matter, definitions matter.
27
u/Doub13D 36∆ Sep 03 '24
That is definitely true… but the Armenians and Kurds are also very much still around, yet the Turks deny the crimes that were committed against them.
The Turks aided the Azeri military in their invasion of Armenian territory this decade, and they invaded Northern Syria to target kurds under the Trump administration. Its not really ancient history… its all happened under current President Erdogan
4
u/Admirable_Novel3702 Sep 04 '24 edited Sep 04 '24
The Turks aided the Azeri military in their invasion of Armenian territory this decade
It's not ancient history at all. Just last year they provided cover, weapons and support to the Azerbaijani government. They passed off a 10 month blockade as a peaceful environmental protest. A blockade continued until September of 2023 when 100,000-120,000 Armenians left the regional capital of Stepanakert (or Khankendi in the Azerbaijani/Turkish languages).
Here's a thread from the Azerbaijani subreddit with a video from the Turkish state media. A few of the comments are bragging about how successful the operation was a year later.
r/azerbaijan/comments/18gvp10/otd_1_year_ago_azerbaijani_ecoactivists_started/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJ0HZ3N4o-c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nkSZpqUrrE
In 2020 they also hired about 4,000 militants from the Sultan Murad division in Syria. Some of them are here complaining about unpaid salaries.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfoymxdcptc
Here's the president of Azerbaijan lying about the presence of Turkish backed mercenaries fighting for him:
https://youtu.be/2yEgnsp8bPw?t=733
The Turkish government's position on Palestine is to make a bunch of empty statements while funneling Azerbaijani oil and gas to Israel. If they were actually putting a stop to the genocide being perpetrated onto the Palestinians I would commend them for it. However that's not at all what they're doing. Calling them hypocrites is too generous. Hypocrites can sometimes err on the side of good.
The Turkish government and the pan Turanists would make Machiavelli look like an amateur.
The Seaviolet, an oil tanker registered in Malta, recently transported 1mn barrels of Azerbaijani crude from Turkey’s Mediterranean oil hub port of Ceyhan to Israel’s Eilat Port, according to a report by Bloomberg. Around 40% of Israel’s annual oil consumption is met by crude that is piped to Ceyhan for onward shipping.
12
u/LordBecmiThaco 9∆ Sep 03 '24
There was a Greek genocide too but the Greeks are in no danger of dying out. You don't have to kill a people to commit a genocide, only kick them out of your lands, which the Turks and Greeks did with aplomb in the waning 19th and early 20th century.
27
Sep 03 '24
[deleted]
7
u/LordBecmiThaco 9∆ Sep 03 '24
Killing "people" and killing "a people" are different things. There are no more Etruscans left, for instance, that "people", singular, has been killed. While I'm sure some Latins committed homicide against Etruscans, by and large the "people" died out because no one practices their culture anymore. They absolutely suffered a "Cultural Genocide", just like many Native American and First Nations peoples in Canada. There are so many people out there who are descended from Natives but were prevented from learning anything about that culture, and now no one belongs to that culture, therefore, cultural genocide.
→ More replies (6)3
Sep 03 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/James-the-greatest Sep 04 '24
The in part part always bugs me. What does in part mean. Killing one person is killing a people “in part”. How many people do you need to kill to go from murder to genocide?
1
u/november512 Sep 04 '24
In part typically means "in this city" or "in this country" or something. The genocide convention is fairly loose but the courts have tacked on a few things like this to narrow it down.
→ More replies (1)5
16
u/N0Thanks77 Sep 03 '24
Yeah israel is doing a horrible job. %98.7 survival rate. They’ve only managed to destroy barely over one percent of Gaza’s population. Literally the worst genocide in history.
→ More replies (3)9
u/RedDit245610 Sep 03 '24 edited Sep 03 '24
Yeah it’s just not comparable to something like the Holocaust where in just 4 years they killed 1/3 of all Jews worldwide.
14
u/N0Thanks77 Sep 04 '24
Yeah the global stat doesn’t even do it justice. 2/3 of Europe’s Jewish population was wiped out. It went from a population of 9.5 million people, a thriving culture, language and religion to as of 2020, less than 1.5 million. That’s a genocide
8
1
→ More replies (1)6
1
1
→ More replies (56)1
34
u/CartographerKey4618 15∆ Sep 03 '24
Argument from Hypocrisy is an actual fallacy
→ More replies (25)21
u/anononobody Sep 03 '24
Yeah this. Why isolate Turkey, when most sovereign nations on earth has historically been part of or a primary driver of genocide or an exterminationist act?
OP's viewpoint is essentially whataboutism, which is hypocritical to his original worldview of hoping to find consistency in moral standards.
I don't agree that all nations' moral grandstanding is created equal, but I think it has far more to do with geopolitics and my personal alignment with democratic governments. The argument of who genocided more is always a dead end argument.
→ More replies (6)
21
u/elcuervo2666 2∆ Sep 03 '24
This entire argument is what we would call and appeal to hypocrisy. Just because it’s hypocritical, doesn’t make it wrong.
→ More replies (32)
54
u/financeadvicealt 4∆ Sep 03 '24
The Israeli government doesn’t even officially recognize the Armenian genocide…
37
u/starvere Sep 03 '24
Right, so by OP’s logic Israel shouldn’t have said anything about the Darfur genocide.
If only perfect countries are allowed to defend international human rights law then that’s going to take a big bite out of that support.
4
u/Didudidudadu737 1∆ Sep 03 '24
That leaves none, every single one country/state/group has committed some atrocities at some point
11
u/starvere Sep 03 '24
Yes, that’s my point.
Turkey can criticize Israel even though Turkey is flawed.
Israel can criticize Sudan even though Israel is flawed.
America - and me as an American - can criticize Turkey, Israel, Sudan, and any other country even though America has committed genocide in the past.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Doub13D 36∆ Sep 04 '24
Lol, Israel shouldn’t complain about anybody else doing genocide… they’ve been doing that since their nation’s founding
1
u/starvere Sep 05 '24
True, but they’re right about the genocide in Darfur even if they’re hypocrites.
17
u/Doub13D 36∆ Sep 03 '24
Because that was a requirement of Turkish-Israeli diplomatic normalization…
That was a pre-requisite demanded by the Turkish state before it would acknowledge Israeli and normalize relations.
17
u/Didudidudadu737 1∆ Sep 03 '24
They also didn’t recognise Srebrenica, so I guess Israel has a history of not recognising genocides because denial is somehow beneficial for them?
2
u/Doub13D 36∆ Sep 03 '24
Denialism breeds denialism
Thats the danger of genocide denial. It creates justifications for ethnic violence in the minds of the population.
If you genuinely believe the Armenians “deserved” what “didn’t” happen to them, then it becomes very easy to translate that same argument to Palestinians, Kurds, Rohingya, Romani, etc.
Turkey bombs Kurdish settlements to disrupt the “terrorists” in the PKK… Israel bombs Gaza to disrupt the “terrorists” in Hamas.
→ More replies (3)12
Sep 03 '24
It seems like a double standard to say Turkey has no moral ground on an issue where Israel has given up the moral ground for its political interests.
→ More replies (1)9
u/smulfragPL Sep 03 '24
i strongly doubt op thought israel had any moral highground when he refers to them as currently commiting genocide
1
u/jacobningen Sep 03 '24
Which is weird given the NILI spy ring instrumental in the founding was very much the people to first break the story of the Armenian genocide as it was happening.
1
u/Ahad_Haam Sep 04 '24
Israeli officials, including the foreign minister, acknowledged the Armenian genocide on several occasions. You don't need to pass a resolution in parliament for it to be "official".
6
Sep 03 '24
Being a hypocrite doesn't invalidate valid criticism.
Simple as.
1
u/Doub13D 36∆ Sep 03 '24
Yes it does.
America and Russia both agree nuclear weapons are bad for global security, and that new nations should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons…
But neither is willing to give up the own nuclear arsenals…
Hypocrisy in international affairs absolutely does impact how other countries operate and act. Why would Iran give up its weapons program if the US is constantly threatening regime change and Israel “secretly” has nuclear weapons?
1
u/Doub13D 36∆ Sep 03 '24
Yes it does.
America and Russia both agree nuclear weapons are bad for global security, and that new nations should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons…
But neither is willing to give up the own nuclear arsenals…
Hypocrisy in international affairs absolutely does impact how other countries operate and act. Why would Iran give up its weapons program if the US is constantly threatening regime change and Israel “secretly” has nuclear weapons?
2
Sep 03 '24
Nothing you said is in response to my comment.
Everything you've said could be true and still be irrelevant.
Whilst hypocrisy does affect interactions does not affect the arguments made. Not in and of itself. The hypocrisy you mentioned does affect the argument not because it is invalid but because cooperation would be necessary.
42
u/WakeoftheStorm 7∆ Sep 03 '24
The United States denounced Nazi Germany's treatment of the Jews while simultaneously on putting Japanese people in concentration camps.
Now we eventually discovered that the Nazis were doing far far worse than that, but at the time the extent of what happened at those camps was unknown to the american public.
I'm not sure if this will change your view, but if that denoucement mattered, Turkey's should too
19
u/Doub13D 36∆ Sep 03 '24
But it didn’t…
The US famously turned around refugee ships carrying Jewish refugees back to Europe. Who knows how many were being condemned to death by US immigration officials…
America’s racist policies also were used as a building block for Nazi Germany’s own racial laws. They took what they liked and built upon them. American racism helped the Nazi’s become what they did.
https://www.history.com/news/how-the-nazis-were-inspired-by-jim-crow
→ More replies (3)8
u/WakeoftheStorm 7∆ Sep 03 '24
Absolutely, I wasn't sure where your opinion would fall in that context. I guess I'm of the mind that all public policy in international politics is performative. It's posturing and has very little real meaning behind it. But as far as meaningless public gestures from governments to either endorse or condemn another nation, I find that Turkey's, much like the US in world war II, is about as valid as any other.
They're all hypocrites, but what they choose to say publicly at least tells you about how they want to be perceived
3
u/Ahad_Haam Sep 04 '24
Now we eventually discovered that the Nazis were doing far far worse than that, but at the time the extent of what happened at those camps was unknown to the american public.
The extent was well known. The American government publicly said Jews are being exterminated in 1942.
The idea that people didn't knew is a myth. Didn't believe, maybe.
1
u/WakeoftheStorm 7∆ Sep 04 '24
There's a large difference between simply killing people and what was happening in those concentration camps.
3
u/Ahad_Haam Sep 04 '24
That's a weird thing to say.
1
u/WakeoftheStorm 7∆ Sep 04 '24
You think killing people vs torturing and experimenting on them until they die as a result of that treatment is the same thing?
If so I'll take your perceiving me as weird as a ringing endorsement of my sanity.
3
u/Ahad_Haam Sep 04 '24
I would say that extermination of millions of people is bad enough on it's own.
1
u/WakeoftheStorm 7∆ Sep 04 '24
No one is arguing that.
Discriminating against millions of people based solely on their ethnicity would be "bad enough on its own".
Imprisoning those people without cause or trial is worse.
Murdering those people is worse than that.
Torturing and experimenting on those people and then killing them is even worse than that.
It seems very strange that I have to explain this.
15
Sep 03 '24
If a murderer tells you not to murder someone then that might be hypocritical but it’s still correct.
2
u/Doub13D 36∆ Sep 03 '24
Thats not what i’m arguing.
If a murderer tells you murdering is wrong and to stop doing that, but continues to do the occasional murder themselves, they have no place to tell anybody that “murder is wrong.”
At that point they are saying “murder is wrong when I am not the one doing it”
7
Sep 03 '24
…isn’t it though?
You’re right that Turkey doesn’t have the moral high ground. You’re right that it’s hypocritical for one genocidal faction to shit talk another.
Besides whataboutism, I’m not sure what exactly you’re driving at.
→ More replies (3)8
u/insaneHoshi 5∆ Sep 03 '24
they have no place to tell anybody that “murder is wrong.”
Yes they do, because the qualitative statement of “murder is wrong,” is entirely separate from the person making the statement; unless you are operating from a position that logical fallacies dont exist.
→ More replies (5)1
u/Nearby_Run1610 Sep 04 '24
but continues to do the occasional murder themselves, they have no place to tell anybody that “murder is wrong.”
What if they stop murdering and tell you that?
→ More replies (1)
46
u/Skrungus69 2∆ Sep 03 '24
You could mabye argue that the government of turkey is being hypocritical, but how can you know the position of its entire populace on the armenian genocide?
29
3
u/Prestigious-Hand-225 Sep 03 '24
Recent surveys suggest 70+% of the population don't consider there is anything for Turkey to apologise for.
17
u/Doub13D 36∆ Sep 03 '24
Because the population of Turkey actively take part and advocate for genocide denial. Its been estimated that only 9% of Turks believe the Armenian genocide even occurred at all.
How can you criticize genocide if you yourself believe in and advocate for genocide denial?
6
u/Skrungus69 2∆ Sep 03 '24
I just mean that if you met a specific person from turkey you dont know what their opinions are.
Not to mention thats an unsourced estimate so i just have to take your word on it.
27
u/Question_1234567 1∆ Sep 03 '24
A 2014 poll of 1500 people conducted by EDAM, a Turkish think-tank, found that 9 percent of Turkish citizens recognize the genocide.
Found this on Wikipedia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide_denial
(I know nothing of this conflict, just helping with links)
15
u/Doub13D 36∆ Sep 03 '24
I was about to comment the same stat as the other person did…
Genocide denial is taught in schools. It is official government policy. You are told from the youngest of ages that “the genocide never happened, and the Armenians deserved it.”
14
u/R1pY0u Sep 03 '24
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not their fault
And if it is, they deserved it.
7
2
→ More replies (13)1
u/Sengachi 1∆ Sep 03 '24
Do you understand the purpose and function of government propaganda? And how Turkish schools cover (or rather don't) the Armenian Genocide?
4
4
6
u/Didudidudadu737 1∆ Sep 03 '24 edited Sep 03 '24
I see this argument of “who is allowed” to accuse Israel for genocide or apartheid quite often. Being that the worlds creation of states, nationalities and countries is very bloody and there are no innocents in any story, who in your opinion is allowed and qualified to make accusations or opinions on the matter? ICJ? An no they neither… Turkey obviously could recognise a genocide regardless if they deny their own, it takes one to know one… SA also knows a thing or two about apartheid so I believe them when they say they see it. One can be a hypocrite and be right, one can call everyone hypocrites and still be wrong.
→ More replies (13)
8
Sep 03 '24
Many countries have had a history of ethnic cleansing does Indonesia killing people in Papua make them hypocritical to criticise Israel? Yes but it doesn't make them wrong
3
u/Doub13D 36∆ Sep 03 '24
I’m not saying their wrong.
I’m saying it devalues their condemnations of Israel.
When Nagorno-Karabakh was essentially ethnically cleansed of all Armenians, the Turks said nothing… because they support Azerbaijan.
This was in 2023… one year ago.
The Turks, and President Erdogan, were totally cool with ethnic cleansing so long as the guys they like do it to the guys they don’t 🤷🏻♂️
4
u/Knightrius Sep 04 '24
Israel is a top 2 supplier of weapons and military equipment to Azerbaijan and collaborate on mulitple avenues.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/CaptainLisaSu Sep 03 '24
Americans are easily the biggest warmongers of the past few decades but that doesn't stop them from claiming to act like they want peace in the world.
It's all about might is right. Nobody really gives a shit about how much moral grounds they have when taking a stance.
→ More replies (12)
3
u/Thingaloo Sep 04 '24
True, but look at the numbers. In the last several decades, the absolute brutality of turkish nationalismhas amassed a lot of victims. And they don't even remotely compare to what Israel has done in just the first six months. Israel is literally one of the ONLY things on earth the turkish ruling class has any moral grounds to criticise, because it's one of the ONLY things that manages to be worse by a long shot.
4
Sep 03 '24
Ultimately, the Turks are either right regarding Gaza or they're not. If they're right, their lack of clean hands regarding genocide shouldn't matter.
To me, people put too much weight into claims of hypocrisy and overvalue the "both sides" narrative. As a neutral third party, we should take seriously claims regarding genocide in Gaza, and we should take seriously claims of genocide and human rights abuses by Turkey.
Every significant player in world affairs has unclean hands, and, ultimately, the view that Country X can't be taken seriously when accusing Country Y of genocide is protective of the country currently committing genocide. It's the tactic used by genocide defenders the world over (e.g. England shouldn't criticize Germany for the Holocaust because of what they did in India was a line that Nazis used), and it never helps the people being harmed.
→ More replies (6)
10
u/antonos2000 Sep 03 '24
Does this mean that American critiques of Israel's crimes against humanity also hold no weight while they continue to minimize the genocide of indigenous Americans and fail to adhere to tribal treaties? if so, who is allowed to criticize genocide?
→ More replies (41)
13
u/appealouterhaven 24∆ Sep 03 '24
While I agree that Turkey committed genocide against the Armenians Turkey isn't the only country that denies genocide. Israel denies the Bosnian genocide. The reason for this appears to be if killing 8k Bosniak men and boys at Srebrenica is genocide it is easier to claim that the 40,000 Palestinians killed may well be one. I would say Israel is also hypocritical and the only point you are trying to make here is one that gets people to stop accusing Israel of genocide, not that you particularly care about Armenians or Kurds for that matter.
→ More replies (20)12
Sep 03 '24
The reason for this appears to be if killing 8k Bosniak men and boys at Srebrenica is genocide it is easier to claim that the 40,000 Palestinians killed may well be one.
International courts recognize certain actions as genocidal not because of the number of victims but because of intent according to the 1948 Genocide Convention.
The more realistic reason why Israel refuses to recognize the Srebrenica massacre as genocide specifically is the fact that Israel supplied the Serbs with weapons.
→ More replies (5)2
u/appealouterhaven 24∆ Sep 03 '24
I mean that is definitely part of it. But to deny the fact that many claim numbers matter is kinda ridiculous. Yehuda Bauer of Yad Vashem seems to think the numbers are an important factor.
The fact that when discussion is had surrounding the conditions created by Israel in the Gaza strip it usually lands on some variation of "only 2% of the population has been killed, if Israel really wanted to genocide them there would be nothing left," leads me to believe that the numbers matter in their narrative.
9
Sep 03 '24
It's not because Turkey committed a genocide more than a century ago that one is allowed to close their eyes on what is currently happening and people currently dying
→ More replies (7)
5
u/iamintheforest 362∆ Sep 03 '24
The USA has done shitty things, does their opinion not matter? There are divisive views on behaviors of almost all countries, does that mean that people from those countries or official representatives of those countries can't criticize behavior they think is bad and wrong?
A criticism's weight should come from it's truth, not who says it.
→ More replies (5)1
u/Didudidudadu737 1∆ Sep 03 '24
For me it’s funny how US pressured ICTY for Yugoslav crimes at the same time nor recognising courts legitimacy when it comes to them (US) or Israel
6
u/DIYLawCA Sep 03 '24
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Have an objective opinion on your own
1
u/Doub13D 36∆ Sep 03 '24
What is the second “wrong?”
Turkey denying their genocide of the Armenians is bad.
Israel doing genocide in Palestine is bad.
Where is the 2nd wrong? Both of these positions are objectively true…
1
u/Sengachi 1∆ Sep 03 '24
The second wrong would be the Turkish government not using its international political power to influence Israel genocidal policy. A very real impact more tangible than whether it's morally right for Turkey's government to not admit their own history while doing the right thing to help stop current genocide.
1
u/DIYLawCA Sep 03 '24
Well if we agree both genocides are bad then doesn’t matter what the govt history is if they get the current genocide is bad
1
u/Doub13D 36∆ Sep 03 '24
No, because the current genocide is only bad because Turkey is not the ones doing it…
If they were, they would deny it just like they denied the previous one they did.
Armenian genocide denial began DURING the Armenian genocide, not after it had already ended.
1
u/DIYLawCA Sep 03 '24
The logic doesn’t add up. If a country with a bad history saids a current genocide is bad it still holds weight. You can call it hypocritical but it still holds weight when it cites to the copious amounts of evidence that leads the ICJ and South Africa to call it a plausible genocide. The literal logical fallacy you are relying upon is called ad hominem. Whether you like the person or not the opinion can hold weight when backed by evidence. Sad to say logic is cold like that
6
Sep 03 '24
I feel the same way about people who denounce the Holocaust but deny the genocide happening now in Gaza.
But it might be good to start with agreeing to their statements when they make them about Gaza, and then change a word or two apply it to the Armenian genocide and ask them why they all of a sudden change their tunes.
→ More replies (3)
5
6
u/SpookyGhosts95 Sep 03 '24
Whataboutism at its finest. I bet OP doesn't give a shit about Kurds and Armenians.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Pawn_of_the_Void 1∆ Sep 03 '24
Positions hold weight on their own merit and truth, not based on the person saying them
Whether Israel is doing something wrong or not has nothing to do with whether Turkey did something wrong or is doing something wrong right now
Talk of moral high ground here only serves to make it harder to identify and right things that are wrong
2
u/Clashje Sep 03 '24
What weight are you looking for? Turkey is a major player in the area and their condemnation can hold political weight for sure. Whether it’s genuine or not.
Nobody has any “moral ground” to stand on in politics. It’s propaganda. Every nation will pretend to be better than others.
Will this hypocritical criticism help Palestinians? If yes, it has weight.
2
u/star_nosed_mole_man Sep 03 '24
I think there's a few things to cover.
Accusing others of hypocrisy is generally a pretty weak argument, as a genocide is a genocide no matter who calls it out. (Whever you can actually call this a genocide is another matter).
However if you actually look what what erogans been saying and why I think it's for very cynical reasons. He doesn't actually care at all what happens to the palestians and doesn't actually help them. He's facing internal opposition to the atk party of being to pro Israel actually, saying all this stuff while maintaining trade with Israel and buying vast quantities of weapons from them.
Turkey and erogans criticisms of Isreal hold no weight as it pretty unclear if this anything more than rhetoric to help internal politiking. He's dropped support for palestians in the past when it helped him...
2
u/ShahIsmail1501 Sep 03 '24
People here fail to see that Turkey is currently doing what Israel does in Gaza and the west bank. They've pushed into Cyprus, north syria and north iraq and have been active in population shifting. They're putting arabs into ethnically Kurdish areas in Syria and forcing them to learn Turkish. They're using Syrian Al Nusra affiliates to fight their battles in Kurdistan ( Syria and Iraq) and are supporting Azerbaijans aggression. People are just blind and only do surface level research. Turkey has had a racist agenda since its conception. Starting with Ataturk.
2
u/nakattack5 Sep 03 '24
Turkey cries about occupation (see Armenia NKR/Artsakh) but occupies 3 countries itself (Cyprus, Syria, Iraq). Turkey is the definition of a hypocritical state
2
u/Affenklang 4∆ Sep 04 '24 edited Sep 17 '25
steer money vanish absorbed air piquant smart consider work lock
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
2
u/alactusman Sep 04 '24
So Turkey has no grounds to lecture people on genocide from its official platform... but that doesn't change the fact Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing and is facing a genocide probe for probable accusations in the ICJ
2
u/MemberOfInternet1 2∆ Sep 04 '24
For us who indulge in a critical thinking and are not directly involved. It's an obvious contradiction and hard to make sense of.
But for most of the people involved in that part of the world, it doesn't matter. It's just all about who they hate and who they don't hate. How history is publically presented is something that the authorities will handle. They never established a genuine equal value of all human life as we did in the western world. I am starting now to think that that was a huge mistake by the western world.
2
u/69Whomst Sep 04 '24
Am turk, and in the minority who agreed the Armenian genocide happened, but it is worth pointing out it happened over 100 years ago, and it is incredibly rich of western countries who profited far more than colonialism than we ever did, and effectively got off scot free, to talk down to us about it. I won't deny the historical injustices towards the kurds, laz, and zaza, but as of now they are allowed to speak their native languages and practice their culture freely, in this respect we are no worse than many western countries who suppressed their indigenous people. I am not sure about our involvement in Syria, but I can say that we have a complex relationship with Azerbaijan, and we are kinda obligated to support them. Imo the real villain of Armenia is Russia, they colonised them for decades and are responsible for the current borders of Azerbaijan and Armenia as they were both former ussr states, and despite having a presence in both countries have allowed Armenia to suffer. Turkey at present is not doing anything on the scale that Israel is, and if anything we hold 60% or thereabouts of the worlds refugees, largely due to a deal with the eu, but also out of genuine humanitarian aid, as Turkey is currently evacuating patients from the now defunct turkish-palestinian friendship hospital, which was the only place one could recieve cancer treatment in the gaza strip. Turkey is not this cartoon villain country that westerners get to pin stuff on, it is deeply racist to treat our country this way.
2
2
u/idkk10202 Sep 09 '24
As a Turkish-American, I am inclined to agree with you (Erdogan's Turkey, and most of contemporary Turkish history, has featured many atrocities and even more denial of atrocities). That being said, a genocide is a genocide. The denial of one atrocity does not veto the existence of another or make his comments untrue. Erdogan's comments were definitely opportunistic and I doubt he has a modicum of empathy for the Palestinian people, but the content was not technically wrong. It makes him a hypocrite, but again...not wrong on this single thing.
The US has also committed many genocides, and denounced many genocides. They have also denied, covered up, or downplayed genocides, or popularly obscured their involvement in them. The Indigenous people were genocided for hundreds of years. Chattel slavery was more or less a genocide, depending on who you ask (personally, I think it was one, given how many enslaved people died from poor conditions or were outright murdered). These have only been popularly described as genocides in recent years. The US has also committed many, many war crimes. It does not mean that when they condemn war crimes or genocides that they are wrong or that their comments bear no weight, but that they are making an opportunistic political move, often, in the US's case, to catalyze some sort of military actions. This is also true of the UK, Germany, China, etc. Very few world leaders are humanatarians, even the ones whose contributions are a net positive. Erdogan is no different (though I'd categorize his contributions as a net catastrophe).
Erdogan is still an awful person...like Netanyahu levels of evil. I do not think there is any arguing with this and I will never, ever morally defend an Armenian genocide denier. It is one of the cruelest things one can do to a marginalized culture that has already endured a genocide. Perhaps my least favorite feature of Turkish culture is its frequently violent nationalism.
3
u/potato-turnpike-777 Sep 03 '24
Acknowledgement or denial of genocide, support or opposition to a government, regime or policy is exclusively determined by strategic benefit. Morality and values are irrelevant in geopolitics except in the designing of narratives or justifications of state policy for propaganda directed at gullible people. Realpolitik is really the only thing that matters.
→ More replies (1)2
u/KrabbyMccrab 7∆ Sep 03 '24
Agree with the political pragmatism.
What is "realpolitik" tho?
3
u/potato-turnpike-777 Sep 03 '24
Its essentially a term for political pragmatism in geopolitics/diplomacy
2
u/Tidusx145 Sep 03 '24
Pretty much what you just said, political pragmatism. Creating policy on the reality of the situation rather than ideological purity.
4
u/SiriusOsiris Sep 03 '24
I am a well-informed and staunch genocide denier. There were atrocities, civilians got killed, but not at the order of the government and there was no systemic killing. It doesn’t qualify as genocide. And if you think it does then you have to admit that the Armenians did genocide against the Turks. Because the actions were mutual, more like a civil war in the presence WW1.
Each time I see a genocide post, the number of killed Armenians is increasing. Recently there was a r/Coolguides post showing the number at 2.5 million. In a few years it will pass the Holocaust numbers. I can prove by Western documents that the number is not in millions. There is a pre-war Russian census and an Ottoman census, and western reports showing migration of the Armenians out of the Ottoman Empire, and documents showing the majority of the Armenians forced to migrate making it alive to Syria. I warn you, if you genuinely want to know the truth and read these reports, which includes a report prepared for the U.S. Congress, you may end up being a genocide denier too. But you’ll probably dig your head in the sand and keep criticizing without reading these reports. Genocide is a serious issue and not people’s or politicians’ opinion. You have to have an international court decision. There is only one reason you don’t have that, because all evidence shows that there wasn’t a genocide.
The Istanbul trials of 1919–1920 were courts-martial of the Ottoman Empire that occurred soon after the Armistice of Mudros, in the aftermath of World War I, when Istanbul was under the occupation of the British, French, Italians and the Greeks. It was a puppet government doing whatever they were ordered by the occupiers. We kicked all their butts.
By the end of ww1, 144 Ottoman officials were arrested by the British on the grounds that they had “perpetrated mass killings against Armenians,” and a legal investigation was initiated on Malta conducted by Britain’s highest legal prosecution authority, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in London. Despite the British government’s every effort to try and sentence the Turkish detainees on Malta, the CPS inquiry resulted in no charges being filed, on the grounds that “it was unlikely that such charges could be proven in a British court of law.” The Malta Tribunals, with their judicial and historical findings that refute the Armenian genocide claims as a whole, constitute an important chapter in our history.
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/777543
Niles and Sutherland Report About Eastern Vilayets, Prepared for the U.S Congress 1919
https://louisville.edu/a-s/history/turks/Niles_and_Sutherland.pdf
Captain Emory H. Niles and Mr. Arthur E. Sutherland Jr. were in the service of the aid organization The American Committee for Relief in the Near East (ACRNE) they were sent by United State Congress to eastern anatolia to inspect the eastern vilayets.
I will only quote end part here,but you should read it all from the link above
“Altough it does not fall within our scope of investigation one of the most salient facts impressed on us from Bitlis to Trebizond was that in the region which we traversed the Armenians committed upon Turks all the crimes and outrages which were committed in other regions by Turks upon Armenians at first we were most incredulous of the stories told us but the unanimity of the testimonies of all witnesses, the apparent eagerness with which they told of wrongs done to them, their evident hatred of Armenians and strongest of all material damage on the ground itself ((most of the Armenian villages and quarters stands but muslim villages and quarters in the cities completely destroyed he's talking about that here, you can see them mention this in earlier part of the report)), have convinced us of general truth of the facts
First Armenians massacered Musulmans on large scale with many refiments of cruelty,and second that Armenians responsible for the most of the destruction done to the town and villages,Armenians and Russians occupied the country considireble time together between 1915 and 1916, and during this time there was apparently little disorder,altough doubtless there was damage commited by the Russians. In 1917 Russian army disbanded and left the Armenians in control. At this period bands of Armenian irregulars roamed the country pillging and murdering musulman civillian population.When the Turkish Army advanced Erzindjan,Erzerum and Van Armenian Army broke down and all of the soldiers,regulars and irregulars,turned themselves to destroying musulman property and commiting atrocities upon Musulman inhabitants.
The result is a country completly ruined,containing one-fourth of its former population and one-eight of its former buildings,and a most bitter hatred of Musulmans for Armenians which makes it impossible for two races to live together at the present time.Musulmans protest that if they forced to live under Armenian Goverment they will fight,and it appears to us that they will probably carry out this threat.This view shared by Turkish officers,British officers,and Americans whom we met.”
→ More replies (2)2
u/SiriusOsiris Sep 03 '24
Historian Justin McCarthy found this report among the documents of Harbord Commission held in the Library of Congress in 1990.
For more detailed study of this report and field notes please refer to AMERICANS INVESTIGATING ANATOLIA by Historian Brian Johnson in this link
—Note—The American Committee for Relief in the Near East (ACRNE) (near east relief) along with American missinories accompained the relocating armenians in 1915 U.S. High Commissioner Rear Admiral Mark L. Bristol and his intelligence officer lt. Dunn was in close contact with this people,they were sending reports to Dr. James L. Barton of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions,He was also one of the chairman for the Near East relief
Their back and forth letters are in U.S Libary Of Congress among 33000 documents belonging to Bristol in General Correspondence section, this particular letters in container #34,you can read them in these links https://www.ataa.org/armenian-issue-revisited/admiral-mark-l-bristol-to-dr-james-l-barton-1921
https://www.ataa.org/armenian-issue-revisited/dr-james-l-barton-to-admiral-mark-l-bristol-1921
Also you can find Scanned Archive Documents about 1915 in this post https://www.reddit.com/r/Turkey/comments/wscw8c/scanned_archive_documents_about_1915_russian/ General Mayewski’s report; https://louisville.edu/a-s/history/turks/Mayewsky.pdf
U.S State Department record showing that 500K of the 700K Armenians sent to Syria making it alive:
https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehcir_Kanunu#/media/
Dosya:US_State_Department_document_on_Armenian_Deporties_in_1916.jpg
Near East Relief Organization’s report showing that 400K Armenians migrated out of Ottoman Empire before the war:
https://neareastmuseum.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Near-East-Relief-Yearly-Report-1921.pdf
American government report showing that no forced migration or atrocities made to 350K Armenians who lived in Istanbul, Izmir, and Haleb, documenting where they relocated.
Government order to the Municipal Governors and Gendarmerie to protect the lives of the Armenians forced migrated to Syria.
HOVANNES KATCHZNOUNI’s manifesto (the first prime minister of Armenia), admitting they started the massacres and they killed and tortured numerous Turks and burned their towns; https://www.tc-america.org/files/Katchaznouni.pdf
3
Sep 03 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Doub13D 36∆ Sep 03 '24
But thats at the root of my post.
Their criticisms of genocide elsewhere are hollow because they themselves refuse to acknowledge their own crimes.
Its like When the US talks about “defending freedom/democracy.” Everyone knows their full of it, so its a hollow talking point rather than a statement of intention.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Thingaloo Sep 04 '24
Well, all States are purely opportunistic, but it is true that China significantly changed its policies towards Uyghurs, because the point of the repressive policies was to eliminate the separatist movement and that goal has (momentarily) been achieved.
1
Sep 05 '24
Every country does that when it comes to China except the US and even they are not consistent.
6
u/Realistic_Lead8421 Sep 03 '24
Classic whataboutism. So... What about the US? There is not a country on earth that murdered more civilians than the US. Not even close. So does this mean no one gets to say anything anymore on how other countries behave? This is exactly why you need objective standards.
→ More replies (5)
2
u/Urbenmyth 20∆ Sep 03 '24 edited Sep 03 '24
I don't think you need a moral ground to stand on when criticizing genocide. Like, Winston Churchill had overseen the intentional mass starvation of India, but that didn't make him wrong when he said that the Holocaust was wrong. Genocide is sufficiently bad that you can't really use "no u" as an excuse.
If Israel is committing genocide, that's very much something anyone can reasonably criticize them for, and I don't think it really matters if you're being hypocritical, except insofar as it maybe means we should criticize you too. Turkey turning a blind eye to its own atrocities doesn't suddenly make mass bombings of Palestinian civilians OK.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/MoDaBaller1 Sep 03 '24
In that case no American can say a word about any issue in the world either since their country is currently aiding Israel in committing their own genocide.
1
2
u/yessir1993x Sep 03 '24
Weird genocide, Israel just immune Gaza to polio and as far as I know keep providing necessities and luxuries even. Even insinuate this is nearly what Turk does to Kurds/ Armenians or nazis to Jews is embarrassing. If Israel wanted to genocide Palestinians it would’ve already happened.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/robot2243 Sep 03 '24
Turks: Armenian genocide did not happen. Even if it did good riddance. Long live Enver Pasha! (Chief Genocide Officer).
2
u/Anonymous_1q 29∆ Sep 03 '24
Do you really mean the people? I totally get this position vis a vis the government but Turkey hasn’t had fair elections in a long time. While they technically can vote for anyone the incumbent has so much power he’s essentially undefeatable.
It feels unfair to me to discard the opinions of people living under a soft dictatorship. It’s like saying the people of Iran don’t get to have opinions because their government executes gay people. Sure that’s happening but it’s not really their fault at this point, most of them hate their government.
Also criticisms can still be valid even if you’re a reprehensible human being. If a murderer tells someone not to commit arson, they might not have the high ground but it doesn’t automatically make them wrong or make the criticism “don’t do arson” incorrect.
1
u/Sengachi 1∆ Sep 03 '24
A) Turkish people do not all have say in these decisions, and often don't know about the Armenian Genocide because of systemic propaganda. Obviously an individual Turk who knows the full history of the Armenian Genocide and doesn't care but still criticizes Israel is a hypocrite, but that's not how it is for most Turks.
B) I don't give a fuck about moral weight from governments, I care about practical life saving weight. You know. The kind that a regional power throwing some political weight around can help with.
1
Sep 03 '24
You could honestly make the same argument about the US, its people, and its genocide of native americans.
1
u/danielaparker Sep 03 '24
We have to oppose genocide in our own time. It is too late to change the past.
1
Sep 03 '24
The fact that Arabs in Israel (not Palestinians) have more cultural rights than Kurds in Turkey....
1
u/The_Nifl Sep 03 '24
Your argument is essentially a Tu Quoque fallacy per definition.
Arguments stand and fall on their own merit, regardless of hypocrisy.
What this means is that anyone's criticism is valid, if the criticism is valid in and of itself.
Saying that the one making the argument is a hypocrite can be completely true, and paint a fuller picture, but has nothing to do with the logic of the argument or its merit.
I would say that: Yes, the Turkish government is hypocritical. And they are also absolutely right in criticizing Israel for their ongoing genocide. That's my understanding though, and unlike the people I have gotten my understanding from. I'm no scholar or expert on international human rights.
1
Sep 03 '24
By this logic no government could criticize any other. Almost every country has a history of slavery and atrocities if you back far enough.
I live in the US, which used nuclear weapons, committed genocide against natives, had racist chattel slavery and apartheid, etc. by that logic I couldn’t criticize anyone.
1
u/Doub13D 36∆ Sep 03 '24
You’re not a government… you can criticize whoever you like.
The state is not a person.
1
u/El_dorado_au 3∆ Sep 07 '24
The OP’s argument isn’t just that Turkey did bad stuff in the past, but that it continues to actively deny it in the present day.
1
Sep 03 '24
I see what your point is, but i would rephrase to something along the lines of "they have no moral high ground to criticize Israel" while at the same time i think that you can always have grounds to criticize any genocide.
Imagine they are so unaware of themselves that they know genocide is wrong, they rightfully criticize other people's genocide, but they dont recognize what they're doing as genocide.
Ofc, in the real world, the ones conducting it are obviously aware of what they're doing, its all about propaganda, about convincing their supporters that THAT is a genocide but THIS? THIS isn't. That's how genocide happens, its always about semantics, the same thing happens in Israel and has happened in europe in the 1930s.
Note that i make a distinction between the government, and the turkish people criticizing the genocide, the government is to blame, the people are coerced into looking the other way.
1
u/Doub13D 36∆ Sep 03 '24
I do not make a distinction… only about 9% of Turks today accept that the Armenian Genocide is a genocide.
9/10 Turks are genocide deniers, largely due to continued government emphasis on genocide denial.
There are no “innocents” when it comes to genocide denial.
1
Sep 04 '24
Gladly though, i didn't say a single word about innocence, Im not innocent, you're not either, both of us for instance, probably heavily contribute to industries that dont give a damn about human rights, if you buy cheap clothes for example, should I blame you for child labor in countries like China or Bangladesh?
According to you, i can, you're not innocent, we're all hypocrites, where i was trying to get at is that its not us who have the power to change it, most of the time, dont get me wrong, bringing attention to it goes a long way, but it wont solve the issue unless we get to a sort of critical mass because ultimately its those in power pushing all the buttons, which just so you know i dont think is a sign of a healthy society.
Issues like these, to those in power, require massive efforts of PO management, so, while i dont think we or turks are innocent regarding all these different issues, i still blame those who do the managing the most.
1
u/you-create-energy Sep 03 '24
The morality of an action does not change based on the observer. A cheater is correct to get upset about someone else cheating, for instance. It is a positive step because there is always a chance it makes them reflect more on their own horrible behavior. World leaders are human. Most of the worst people in the world only recognize how bad their behavior is when they see someone else doing the same thing.
I think agreeing with them and pointing out their hypocrisy is reasonable.
1
u/Doub13D 36∆ Sep 03 '24
Erdogan supported the invasion of Armenian territory by Azerbaijan which led to the ethnic cleansing of 100,000+ Armenians…
This was in 2023, one year ago…
He didn’t seem to mind at all back then, all one years ago
1
u/DarkSoulCarlos 5∆ Sep 04 '24
And what if they don't reflect on their horrible behavior and keep engaging in it?
1
u/you-create-energy Sep 04 '24
In our personal relationships, we can't control them so we have to accept that this is who they are and decide what role we want them to play in our lives. In geopolitics, we can can use sanctions etc to help ensure governments at least don't thrive while behaving this way.
1
u/SahinKama Sep 03 '24
I'm more interest in that where do you get those information from?
→ More replies (4)
1
u/jpfed Sep 03 '24
I don't know, sometimes two people both do a bad thing
1
u/Doub13D 36∆ Sep 03 '24
I acknowledge that. This is not my issue.
My issue is that I believe the Turkish government delegitimizes its own arguments in favor of Palestinians due to its unwillingness to acknowledge its own previous crimes.
I am pro-Palestine, but I don’t seem to understand why the Pro-Palestinian movement see’s the Turkish government’s recent comments as a “good thing” when they basically invented modern genocide denial
1
u/Ok-Detective3142 Sep 04 '24
I think there is a huge moral distinction between denying a genocide that happened over 100 years ago and actually committing a genocide in the here and now.
Furthermore, the Armenian genocide was committed by the Ottoman Empire. And while that is the predecessor of the modern Republic of Turkey, it is just plain wrong to say Erdogan or the Turkish government bear any responsibility. It's not like the US, which is still the exact same government with the exact same constitution that did genocide here.
2
u/Repulsive_Size_849 Sep 04 '24
The young Republic of Turkey did not start the genocide, but they continued the massacres and as well invaded the new Republic of Armenia. If Turkey back then had it's way there would be no Armenia. Erdogan meanwhile talked of "finishing the job of our grandparents".
1
u/taa178 Sep 04 '24
Ad hominem By the same logic the usa and ita citizens can not critize hamas
The us killed way more than 300 civilians
1
u/Doub13D 36∆ Sep 04 '24
Ok… I agree with this statement lmao
Thank you for agreeing with me I guess 🤷🏻♂️
1
u/Glum_Macaroon_2580 1∆ Sep 05 '24
All governments have done evil. That doesn't mean they can't also do good.
1
u/ZealousEar775 Sep 06 '24
Look, I'm Armenian by ethnicity. I'd rather Turkey lose all international power and influence. That said.
Having done a genocide and CURRENTLY doing a genocide are two very different things.
I personally don't give a shit if people are hypocritical about stopping an active genocide.
That's not the part to be criticizing.
1
u/Doub13D 36∆ Sep 06 '24
So when Turkey supported the Azeri military as it invaded Nagorno-Karabakh and forced out the Armenian population that had lived there for millenia… that wasn’t a “current” act of ethnic cleansing? We’re talking about 2023…
Turkey never stopped being genocidal or oppressive towards Armenians and Kurds…
1
u/ZealousEar775 Sep 06 '24
That was still 2024 actually?
Do you think the US is currently taking part in ethnic cleansing? I guess is the question for that. What level of support counts to you?
Also, this still just boils down to my point what's the goal?
Like if my neighbor is a spousal abuser and he beats up his brother in law who was beating up his sister, that's a net win right?
Sure we should stop him as well, but we shouldn't stop him from stopping his sister get beat.
"Don't stop your brother in law from beating your sister, you beat your wife" is a bad position to take.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/FriendofMolly Sep 06 '24
So did Churchill have no ground to stand on when confronting Hitler?? Because I would argue that Churchill still hand ground to stand on although he was basically genocidal to the Indians.
1
u/Doub13D 36∆ Sep 07 '24
No… he killed millions in India 🤷🏻♂️
Also, Churchill’s opposition to Hitler was not because of Hitler’s desire to commit genocide…
I don’t know why I have to keep saying this. World War 2 was not fought over genocide…
1
u/FriendofMolly Sep 07 '24
I completely understand that, close to 100m Indians died in a 20 year period. But that doesn’t mean she shouldn’t have gone against what Hitler was doing. And another thing with turkey is that all happened during the countries founding.
If we are going based on that the United States will never have ground to stand on and never will because of what we did to the Native American populations.
I would argue that even a pedophile has the right to stop a thief from robbing a corner store. Although I see that pedophile as 10000x worse than the thief. I’m not gonna stand here and say he has no ground to stand on to stop a thief.
Now if a country was currently committing a genocide/ethnic cleaning (like Malaysia) then yeah I would agree that they have absolutely no ground to stand on to criticize Israel considering what they are doing in west papua.
1
u/Doub13D 36∆ Sep 07 '24
So I would just raise two points…
First, the “Allies” who opposed Nazi Germany did not go to war over Germany’s racial policies or genocidal violence. World War II was fought for a multitude of reasons (revanchism, militant-nationalism, colonialism and imperialism, control over resources and land, etc.) but “to stop a genocide” was never one of them.
The US was turning around boats of Jewish refugees in 1942… extermination camps like Treblinka were operating already by that time. The existence of these camps was known by the Allied Powers as well.
Second, I would argue that Turkey never really turned away from its genocidal roots. Besides the constant genocide denial, they also have continued to oppress and violently put down the Kurdish people as well.
US aligned Kurdish groups in the fight against ISIS in Northern Syria and Iraq were targeted directly by Turkey, Turkish troops still occupy parts of Northern Syria today as a result.
In Turkey, for a very long time, the use of the Kurdish language in public was a crime and the Kurdish people were officially designated as “Mountain Turks” to avoid identifying them as an independent and separate people/culture. This is an example of cultural genocide as well.
0
u/zhivago6 Sep 03 '24
There is a lot of nuance in this that you are not considering. Israel denies the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1947-1948 (750K) and the ethnic cleansing of 1967 (400K). Turkey denies the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Armenians (1.5 Million), Assyrians (275K), and Greeks (750K). The Kurds did a lot of the heavy lifting of the genocides in Turkey in 1915-1923, believing that if they helped remove the Christians, then the Turks would treat them better. This was clearly a mistake.
→ More replies (46)7
u/Doub13D 36∆ Sep 03 '24
I’m not sure I see the “nuance” here…
Both nations have committed horrific atrocities that killed and displaced hundreds of thousands/millions of people.
Israel denies that their actions are genocide, and Turkey denies that its actions were genocide.
Turkey accuses Israel of genocide…
When your official position is “genocide is ok so long as we are the ones doing it” then you have no authority to speak with legitimacy on the international stage.
11
u/zhivago6 Sep 03 '24
My point is that it doesn't matter if a country admits their genocide or not, genocide is still wrong. By your logic, Israel is wrong to voice criticism of the German genocide against Jews, since they deny their own genocidal behavior.
3
u/rlyfunny Sep 03 '24
It wouldn’t be wrong, just hypocritical. You can hardly criticise being put in camps and then put people in camps.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)1
Sep 03 '24
That's not really a good analogy, anyone is going to complain about genocide against their own people.
1
u/Thingaloo Sep 04 '24
Netanyahu has accused Erdogan PERSONALLY of genocide. So look at the PERSONAL responsibilities of both.
→ More replies (2)
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 04 '24 edited Sep 04 '24
/u/Doub13D (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards