• The Banality of Indifference: Zionism and the Armenian Genocide by Yair Auron, Maggie Bar-Tura (Translator)  –  Published December 31st 2001 by Routledge (first published 1999). Edition Language – English

Holocaust Supremacism in Action: This Time Marginalizing the Armenian Genocide

This book has items of deeper significance than just the question of how Jews reacted to the Armenian Genocide.

MONOPOLIZING THE TERM HOLOCAUST—THIS TIME AT THE EXPENSE OF THE ARMENIANS

The informed reader may remember the controversy at the time the USHMM (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum). The term Holocaust came to refer exclusively to the Jews. The non-Jewish victims of the Nazis (Poles, Gypsies, etc.) were excluded from the term Holocaust. Their genocides became second-class genocides.

The victimhood competition continues. Now it is the Armenians’ turn to be slighted by the monopolized-term Holocaust. This is implicitly clear from the following quoted statements by author Yair Auron:

“Armenian historians and Armenians, in general, tend to emphasize the similarities between the two events, sometimes adopting the term ‘Holocaust’ in describing the disaster that befell them. Israeli historians, on the other hand, seek to emphasize the singularity of the Holocaust.” (p. 14).

“It is worth noting that Armenian historiography tends to distinguish both the Armenian experience and the Holocaust from all other instances of genocide, casting doubt on the validity of the Jewish approach to the Holocaust as ‘unique’. Armenian researchers frequently use the term ‘the Armenian Holocaust’ to define the tragedy that befell their people.” (p. 21).

[Because Jews have monopolized the term Holocaust, the Armenians sometimes refer to their genocide as the Aghet, and the Poles refer to their genocide as the Polokaust.]

AN ARBITRARY MERITOCRACY OF GENOCIDES—ON WHAT GROUNDS?

As always, the inferred total planned extermination of the Jews is cited, as by Yehuda Bauer and Israel Gutman (pp. 14-15), and the author himself (p. 22), as a self-evident indicator of the unique and peerless nature of the Jews’ Holocaust. Really?

Why is an inferred-total genocide supposed to be one iota more significant than “only” a partial genocide? And why not just as easily use some other criterion of genocide exceptionality—for example, the length of suffering before death? Thus, whereas most Jews had the “privilege” of dying quickly from gas or bullets (in the Holocaust), most Ukrainians were forced to die slow, lingering, agonizing deaths from starvation (in the HOLODOMOR). Therefore, the HOLODOMOR, and not the Holocaust, is unique and peerless, and is entitled to special recognition.

The question is even more basic. Who decides that there should be ANY meritocracy of genocides in the first place?

Finally, it is not even true that the Nazis planned to kill all Jews. For example, quite a few Jews were freed from Nazi-ruled Europe, and not a few leading German Jews were relabeled “Honorary Aryans”.

The facts are clear. It is high time that we start living in a world of Genocide Recognition Equality.

DELIGIMITIZING THE GENOCIDE OF THE ARMENIANS, AND PARTLY BLAMING THE VICTIM

We often hear complaints about Jews being made into scapegoats. Ironic to this, author Yair Auron engages in a bit of scapegoating himself regarding the Armenian genocide, as he writes, “While there is no justification for the Turkish deeds, we must also remember that a small revolutionary segment of the Armenian people were a rebellious, agitating, unsubmissive element in the crumbling Ottoman Empire. Furthermore, the Armenians themselves acted violently upon certain targeted oppressors in several locations.” (p. 14).

As a further irony, much the same could be said about some Jews!

Jan Peczkis