Eric Bogosian’s Operation Obfuscation (C)

Book review by Lucine Kasbarian
New Jersey, 1 June 2015

Seven years after starting his research about one of the most dramatic episodes of 20th century Armenian history, actor, playwright, and novelist Eric Bogosian has written Operation Nemesis: The Assassination Plot that Avenged the Armenian Genocide (Little, Brown & Co.; April 21, 2015).

Much was expected of this widely publicized book whose author is fairly well-known to the American public.  Many Armenians hoped that the work would bring into focus the fact that a group of Armenian patriots executed Turkish leaders who had escaped court-ordered death sentences for planning and carrying out the Armenian Genocide.

However, while serious students of the Armenian Genocide may be merely disappointed in this book, others could be misled.

Bogosian’s account of Operation Nemesis—the post-WWI Armenian execution of Talaat and other Turkish genocidists—does not start until one-third of the way into this 300-page book. Readers first learn about the events that led up to the Genocide. Much later in the book, the author provides information irrelevant to Nemesis.  Even if this was ostensibly done to provide context, the title Operation Nemesis: The Assassination Plot that Avenged the Armenian Genocide is misleading because it gives the impression that the book is solely about Operation Nemesis

Book review by Lucine Kasbarian
New Jersey, 1 June 2015

Seven years after starting his research about one of the most dramatic episodes of 20th century Armenian history, actor, playwright, and novelist Eric Bogosian has written Operation Nemesis: The Assassination Plot that Avenged the Armenian Genocide (Little, Brown & Co.; April 21, 2015).

Much was expected of this widely publicized book whose author is fairly well-known to the American public.  Many Armenians hoped that the work would bring into focus the fact that a group of Armenian patriots executed Turkish leaders who had escaped court-ordered death sentences for planning and carrying out the Armenian Genocide.

However, while serious students of the Armenian Genocide may be merely disappointed in this book, others could be misled.

Bogosian’s account of Operation Nemesis—the post-WWI Armenian execution of Talaat and other Turkish genocidists—does not start until one-third of the way into this 300-page book. Readers first learn about the events that led up to the Genocide. Much later in the book, the author provides information irrelevant to Nemesis.  Even if this was ostensibly done to provide context, the title Operation Nemesis: The Assassination Plot that Avenged the Armenian Genocide is misleading because it gives the impression that the book is solely about Operation Nemesis

Moreover, “Assassination Plot” implies a sinister or unjust political motive, which is definitely not the case for the Armenians of Nemesis. Call me fastidious, but a more appropriate title for these events would be Operation Nemesis: The Secret Plan to Execute the Guilty Perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide.

His bibliography indicates that an incredible amount of research material was at Bogosian’s disposal to produce this book. But the selectivity he exercised in the use of that material is apparent. Bogosian’s choice of words, phrasing, style, tone, and reasoning—as well as certain insertions and omissions of information—will often bewilder and disorient knowledgeable readers as well as those new to this history. 

In the opinion of this reviewer, the result obfuscates the significance of the Nemesis operation and the gravity and persistent dangers of Turkish ultra-nationalism.  One winces reading many of the author’s passages. In our opinion, this book disingenuously brings the Turkish reputation up a few notches while subtly bringing that of Armenians down at least that many. Having read both the pre-publication and published editions, we have noticed that a few of the more egregious passages have been modified or removed in the published edition.

Perhaps Bogosian is following today's so-called 'conflict resolution' paradigm.  That is, in exchange for Turkish acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide, the victim group must sacrifice truthful aspects surrounding this crime against humanity and concede that the Ottoman Turkish Empire simply found itself under siege in WWI, had an anxiety attack, and, unfortunately, struck out against ‘rebellious’ Armenians.  

Following are some passages from the book and our comments.

• P. 17: “At their peak, the Ottomans displayed a culture and scientific sophistication equal to the greatest pre-modern civilizations.”

To the extent that this may, in part, be true, can Bogosian prove that this was the doing of the Ottoman Turks themselves rather than that of the empire’s subject peoples?

• P. 18: “Aside from their respective religious faiths, the two peoples [Turks and Armenians] are in many ways congruent in their culture and style.”

Most Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks, as well as visitors to the Ottoman Empire during the periods Bogosian writes about, would disagree.

• P. 30: “A slave girl from the most remote corner of the empire could become mother to a sultan.”

True, but the phrasing implies that a girl’s captivity in the imperial harem was somehow an honor. Turks abducted or captured thousands of non-Muslim women to live as the sultans’ harem sex slaves and servants. Only five pages later does the author say that harem women were sometimes executed or drowned when no longer deemed useful.

• P. 31: Bogosian takes a page to describe Europeans’ allegedly erroneous view of Ottoman Turkey (“an impressive civilization”) as being composed of “outlaws who abducted women into their harems, castrated young boys, or enslaved the crews of captured ships.”  Europeans, writes Bogosian, also had “lush fantasies” about harems “filled with naked slave girls and fierce eunuchs.”

Could it be that Europeans had a more accurate view of the Ottoman Turks than does Bogosian?

• P. 33: “Religious minorities were tolerated under what was called the millet [community] system, in contrast to the violent suppression of ‘heretics’ common in Europe.”

This is very much a generalization. Was the Ottomans’ forced Islamization of many Christians “tolerant”?

• P. 34: Turks seized Christian boys to become Ottoman soldiers—Janissaries (literally ‘new troops’): “The most attractive teenagers were collected under the process of devshirme [systematic collection], often with the consent of their families, because to be invited into the sultanic milieu was a great honor and opportunity.”

However, in those many cases where families did not consent, did these boys and their families really consider it a “great honor and opportunity” to be forcibly converted to Islam and never see their families again?

• P. 54: Bogosian has apparently bought into some pro-Turkish historians’ contempt for ‘nationalism’: “The Serbs, the Greeks, the Arabs, and the Armenians also began to think of themselves as ‘nations’” and some successfully broke away from the Ottoman Empire. But for Armenians “nationalism would have tragic consequences.”  

It was Turkish ultra-nationalism, however, rather than Armenian nationalism that brought about the Armenian Genocide. Armenians mainly desired to not be oppressed and massacred. Moreover, are people forever condemned to live in multi-national empires ruled by Turks and others? For example, should the various peoples of North America, South America, and Africa still be ruled by European empires? 

• P. 59: “With the assault on the Bank Ottoman [1896] and now the attempts on [Sultan] Abdul Hamid’s life [1905], the Tashnags [Armenian Revolutionary Federation, or ARF] were establishing themselves as a truly dangerous terrorist organization.”

While the use of the word “terrorist” (also see p. 50) may be appropriate in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and while the ARF at the time used it, in 21st century America it implies something deliberately sinister and inhumane and misleads readers early on. Only in a footnote (#6) buried on p. 318 does Bogosian concede that the ARF did not generally target “innocent civilians.”

• P. 62: “A series of attacks against Armenians erupted in the vilayet of Adana in 1909, leaving some twenty to thirty thousand dead.” 

True. But these significant massacres are mentioned in only four or so other sentences in the entire book. Had Turkish massacres of subject nationalities become so commonplace that they came to appear normal to Bogosian? Would the author have devoted more pages to these massacres had Armenians been the perpetrators and Turks the victims?

• P. 68: “And it was under the cloak of this war between the Ottoman Empire and the Allies that the Armenian Genocide proceeded with little detection.”

This is a strange assertion that an editor should have caught.  In May 1915, as Bogosian knows (he mentions it in footnote #34, chapter 3), Allied governments warned Turkey that they will “hold personally responsible for these crimes all members of the Ottoman government, as well as their agents who are implicated in such massacres.” There were also hundreds of contemporary worldwide newspaper reports of the Genocide in 1915 and later.

• P. 71: “The Central Committee of the CUP [Committee of Union and Progress, also known as the “Young Turk” party] quickly came to believe that the Armenian population represented a mortal threat to the dying Ottoman Empire.”

If the empire was “dying” anyway, how could Armenians—particularly women and children—represent a “mortal threat”? And why omit that scholars have found considerable evidence that the Genocide was pre-meditated, not something decided, as Bogosian puts it, “quickly”?

• P. 97: Before the Genocide, Armenian “revolutionaries, hard to distinguish from the bandits who roamed the countryside [of eastern Ottoman Turkey] with impunity, made it their life’s work to pester the local authorities.”

Bogosian’s wording is confounding. Since when is fighting back against a government that was massacring Armenians “pestering”? 

• P. 107: During the Genocide, “Muslim fighters were well aware of acts of atrocity that the Russian army had committed against their [Muslim] Bulgarian brethren during the Balkan wars only a few years before.”

Even if true, this could not justify killing Armenians. The average reader might also conclude that were it not for the Balkan wars Turks would not have massacred Armenians. Yet Turkey had massacred Armenians in the 1890s and 1909, years before the Balkan wars of 1912-13.

• P.108: In May 1915, the Armenians of Van, “certain they were about to be attacked by the Ottoman army … fortified their city and prepared for battle. These preparations incited the [Turkish] military to attack.”

Armenians “incited” Turks? It was the other way around: the Turkish massacres incited the Armenians of Van to defend themselves.

• P. 110:  “In the early days” of the Genocide, forced Armenian conversion to Islam “meant real salvation—literally, a means of saving one’s neck.”

We doubt it was that simple. Did Bogosian mean to editorialize that it was preferable to convert than to die for remaining loyal to one’s chosen beliefs?  Moreover, Bogosian does not immediately make it clear that for females ‘conversion’ was often just another word for abduction and rape. Armenian women—some already widowed from the massacres—and girls were subsequently forced to bear the children of their Turkish captors.

• P. 126: After the Allies won WWI, they “memorialized their thousands of fallen brethren by stomping on Turkish pride.” What is Bogosian’s evidence for the alleged “stomping”? French Marshal Louis Franchet d’Espèrey entered Constantinople “riding a white horse, a symbolic gesture of victory harking back to the Crusades … greeted by cheering crowds of Armenians and Greeks” and occupied the palace of genocidist Enver Pasha; Allied ships anchored in the harbor; and the city was “crowded with thousands of foreign troops.”

Should the Allies, instead, have handed out pakhlava to the “proud” Turks, provided them grief counseling, and told them that they really didn’t lose WWI?

• P. 128: Apparently referring to the pre-WWI period, Bogosian writes, “The Armenians themselves did not constitute a majority in most of the territory considered a potential territory for them.”

Of course, it really depends on the particular regions being considered and is, therefore, a somewhat misleading demographic generalization. Bogosian also fails to note the massive toll that many pre-Genocide massacres, forced Islamizations, abductions, deportations, and the deliberate Turkish importation of non-native peoples had taken on the Armenian population. Moreover, in some locations Turks were in the minority while Armenians combined with non-Turks constituted the majority.  And what about the Greeks and Assyrians in those regions?

• P. 131: “As the war was winding down, [British] Prime Minister Lloyd George, a great champion of the Greek nation, encouraged the former Ottoman possession, which had been independent from Turkey since the early nineteenth century, to invade the Turkish lands along the coast in an attempt to ‘reclaim’ its ancient littoral. To the Greeks, this made sense, because there still existed large Greek populations in the city of Smyrna, in villages along the coast, and in the Aegean islands. This ill-considered move would result in the tragic destruction of the city of Smyrna in a devastating fire.”

Occupied and dispossessed peoples such as Greeks are called invaders, victims are to blame, and the Turkish destruction of Smyrna is excused.  Bogosian does not mention the expulsion of Greeks—natives for 3,000 years in the Pontus region—along the Black Sea and the fact that Turkey persecuted, deported, and murdered its Greek citizens during WWI.  Did not Greece have any right to protect the remaining Greeks in Turkey, or were they all to be left to the bloody whims of Kemal Ataturk? Bogosian (p. 250) accuses the Greeks, after Greece’s army landed in Turkey in 1919, of “atrocities against Turkish citizens.” “The Greek invasion was a crime against their [Turkish] humanity.” Again, Bogosian fails to mention that this “invasion” came only after an earlier, years-long genocidal campaign by the Young Turks against Greeks during WWI.  Do only the Turks have the right to, as Bogosian calls it, “invade”? 

 • P. 131: In Constantinople in 1919, says Bogosian, “the war crimes trials” of Turks accused of the destruction of Armenians “added insult to the injury of defeat.”

We are sorry that Turks considered it an “insult” that their esteemed leaders were being tried and found guilty for war crimes against Armenians.  As for “injuries,” Armenians had been injured far more than Turks. Is the world expected to reward the bad behavior of mass-murderers?

• P. 139: Regarding the post-war Treaty of Sèvres (1920) signed by the Allies and Armenia: “Had such a plan gone into effect, there would have been little left of the Ottoman Empire but a fraction of its former self.”

True. Aggressive empires that lose a major war inevitably forfeit territory. Should it be otherwise? Let’s recall that Turkey tried to destroy the Republic of Armenia during and after WWI. Kemal Ataturk ordered his generals to “destroy Armenia politically and physically.” Bogosian (p. 262) says that Sevres “conceded territory to the Armenians and distributed the rest of Anatolia to Greeks and Kurds.” Not quite true. The treaty actually left Turks considerable territory in central Asia Minor.  Had the Turks won the war, they would not have been so generous to their enemies. When all was said and done, Turkey got 100% of Asia Minor, including the Armenian Plateau, while Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, and Kurds got nothing whatsoever. 

• P. 150: Bogosian says that Soghomon Tehlirian, Talaat Pasha’s assassin and Nemesis member, followed “in the footsteps of the first assassins” when he killed Talaat in Berlin in 1921.  The word assassin, explains Bogosian, refers to the followers of Hassan-i Sabbah, an 11th century Muslim “extortionist” who “vengefully sent out followers to murder his enemies.” Bogosian also harkens back to the Turkish sultans who assassinated their brothers to gain the Ottoman throne.

This may be interesting history, but Tehlirian followed in no such historical “footsteps,” was not an extortionist, and aspired to no throne. He and other members of Nemesis carried out entirely justified executions. Talaat and others had already been sentenced to death in absentia by post-war Turkish tribunals. After his acquittal by a German jury, Tehlirian married and lived a modest, unassuming life in San Francisco.

• P. 155: Bogosian compares the ARF to the CUP. Each had “no compunctions about deploying violence” and “a shared code of violence.”

Whatever one thinks of the ARF, it is clearly inaccurate to compare a political party whose goal was to defend Armenians against oppression and massacre to one that tried to expand an oppressive empire via genocides.

• P. 281: Bogosian lauds mass-murderer Kemal Ataturk. The latter was “ruggedly handsome,” “one of the most quoted men in history,” (p. 277) “a born leader of rare genius,” (p. 134), and “a resilient and an able foe” (p. 178) who had “tremendous vitality and charisma” (p. 283).  

It is unusual for a truly informed writer to praise Ataturk, though Bogosian sometimes (p. 282-283) describes him in less flattering terms. That Ataturk annihilated Armenians who had survived the Genocide is largely passed over. That he inducted many Young Turk genocidists into his new government is given one sentence (p. 301).

• P. 290: “Within each community [of the Armenian diaspora] were thousands of survivors who had mixed feelings about Tashnags [ARF]. Some sided with the ARF, believing that in the years leading up to and including World War I, the only appropriate Armenian response to Turkish violence was strong revolutionary, often violent action. Others (and among these I would include my own grandparents) felt that the politically activist Armenians were troublemakers who willingly courted violence.” Note: The book’s pre-publication version had ended that sentence with “and had possibly triggered the Armenian Genocide.”

The oppression and massacre of Armenians by Turks spawned Armenian revolutionaries rather than the other way around. Moreover, in hopes that Turkey would reform, the ARF largely cooperated with the CUP/Young Turks before and after the 1908 Young Turk revolution. Those who blame Armenian revolutionaries must ask themselves why Turks also committed genocide against Christian Assyrians and Greeks, who had not formed such revolutionary groups. Continuing in this vein (p. 305), Bogosian writes: “The Armenian Genocide is part of that [the Ottoman Empire’s] history, but so is the story of Armenian revolutionary groups and their actions.” Is Bogosian following in his grandparents’ footsteps by giving credence to the false idea that the ARF brought the Genocide upon the Armenian people?

• P. 301: Bogosian questions the legality of the executions committed by the Armenians of Operation Nemesis: "Though the perpetrators [of the Armenian Genocide] were convicted by a court of law in Constantinople, those convictions were later thrown out by the new Ankara government." 

To which we must ask, since Bogosian does not: Did the new "Ankara government" of Kemal Ataturk have the legal right to do so? Bogosian (p. 302) concedes that the "men and women of Operation Nemesis did what governments could not. They were appealing to a higher, final justice."  Fine, but Bogosian’s questioning the legality of the Nemesis executions is rather breathtaking considering the millions of crimes committed by thousands of individual Turks against Armenians that went, and have gone, completely unpunished to this day, and for which Bogosian seems to want, at best, a mere acknowledgment. 

• P. 302-303: Bogosian spends two pages meandering, equivocating, and asking himself if and why the Genocide may be important today. “Memory lies at the center of the Nemesis story. It is the engine of an intense bloodlust. We remember, but we remember differently. Our respective narratives lead to different actions. Thus the conundrum of history” and so on.  

Does Nemesis really inspire “bloodlust” in Armenians?  Or do Armenians simply seek justice for the Genocide and its concomitant dispossession of culture and homeland?  Bogosian fails to mention a major reason why the Genocide is important today: Turkey’s pan-Turkic ambitions in Azerbaijan and Central Asia—now supported by the power of the US, Europe, and NATO—remain a threat to Armenia.  An unrepentant, snarling, and self-admitted neo-Ottomanist Turkey is an obvious danger, but there is no indication that Bogosian understands this or wishes to let readers know this.

P. 305: Bogosian rarely gives much credit to the Nemesis group or to Armenians.

Only in the Postscript’s final sentence does Bogosian bother to describe the Nemesis participants as “this brave group of men possessed of remarkable will and courage.” This is too little, too late

P. 339: The large bibliography, some 450 references, includes many excellent books on the Genocide but also many Genocide denial books by authors such as Kamuran Gurun, Bernard Lewis, Guenter Lewy, Justin McCarthy, Hugh Pope, and Stanford Shaw.  

We hope that they have not filled Bogosian’s head with falsehoods. Is he trying to hit a “happy medium” between the facts of the Genocide and its denial?  

After reading Bogosian’s book, one comes away thinking that the literary, educational, and political establishments of the West would be very pleased if young people, including Armenians, who read Operation Nemesis, conclude that Armenians are partly responsible for the Genocide, and decide that it is best to leave the past alone.

In publishing this book, an opportunity was squandered to let the world know that the Armenians got a raw deal after their attempted annihilation; that valiant Armenians stepped in only after the 1919 Turkish Military Tribunals did not follow through on their verdicts; and that a century later the legacy of a great unpunished crime against humanity begs to be resolved.

Perhaps Bogosian will consider the above issues if he publishes a second edition of this book.

Three other books about Operation Nemesis have recently been released:

Special Mission Nemesis by J.B. Djian and Jan Varoujan; illustrations by Paolo Cossi; translated into English by Lou Ann Matossian (Editions Sigest; Sept. 2014). Covers the events before, during and after the execution of Talaat. A good primer for all ages, produced in graphic novel format.

Sacred Justice: The Voices and Legacy of the Armenian Operation Nemesis by Marian Mesrobian MacCurdy; Edited by Gerard Libaridian (Transaction Publishers; March 2015).  A combination of Armenian, community, and family history as it relates to MacCurdy’s grandfather, Aharon Sachaklian, a member of the Nemesis group. Not reviewed at press time.

Operation Nemesis by Josh Blaylock; illustrations by Hoyt Silva (Devil’s Due Publishing; May 2015). An interpretation of Tehlirian’s life, the Talaat execution, and the subsequent trials in Berlin. The attire and use of language featured are not entirely authentic to the times nor of the peoples they depict. Presented in graphic novel format. 

For those interested in other accounts of Operation Nemesis, visit: Operation Nemesis

Back to top

 

8 comments
  1. Eric Bogosian’s Book

    Kudos to Lucine for pointing out many of the shortcomings of Eric Bogosian's Operation Nemesis. Although Bogosian's aim to inform the public about the Armenian Genocide and the assassination plot may have been noteworthy, his final product was not quite on target. As Lucine points out in this review, many parts of this book had phrasing that was weak and included information that was misleading. It seemed as if Bogosian was trying a bit too hard to be tactful and non-confrontational, and that made his book not quite as powerful or as accurate as it could have been. Bogosian tried, but didn't quite succeed. He has the skills, though, and perhaps his next project or next edition of his book will pay closer attention to the many details that are noted so well in Lucine's review.

  2. Eric Bogosian Book Review

    While I haven't even gotten to the chapters dealing with the title of the book, I must admit that Mr. Bogosian has managed to alter my lifetime opinion that the Dashnaks of that period were honorable idealists with integrity and courage. I don't think that was his intention, but spending so much time trying to be a dispassionate historian has perhaps derailed whatever his original thesis was.

    I was looking forward to being inspired by this story of  "Operation Nemesis" whose members I believe had every right to exact justice and be willing to pay the price for it. I have to reserve judgment as I haven't finished the book, but I really don't think that this book is going to be worthy of becoming a mainstream thriller on film that it could have been, including your good guys and bad guys. Splitting hairs as to the redeeming qualities of the Turks is irrelevant in the face of their gross inhumanity, so why bother explaining things from their warped perspective?  

    Mr. Bogosian has perhaps bitten off more than he could chew on the subject. He should have stuck to the subject of the title and taken a clear stand. He was a wishy-washy Armenian before the book and while writing the book. Maybe he was the wrong person for us to hang our hats on. Just because he is a celebrity doesn't mean he is the right person to represent us as a people. Lesson learned. 

  3. I Understand Her Well

    It is becoming a norm to have publishing houses publish books pertaining to Armenian history and experiences. The tentacles of publishers reach the far reaches of the media heralding a book even before the books appear on shelves. The authors subsequently embark on their expected book tours and signing spree. All of these are legitimate means of marketing: books are no less than commodities for the book publishers. Broad markets assure better sales.

    The case was different at one time with the Armenian authors. They would solicit sponsors – "megenas" – who would undertake the expenses for the publication mostly in memory of loved ones. This arrangement freed the Armenian author and made him a true master of his pen.

    Kasbarian presents powerful arguments. It would not surprise me that the editors of Little Brown and Company had a say to have the book cater to as much a wide audience as possible but yet attain to uphold historical objectivity, an impossible task. However, since history portrays itself as a scientific study, it cannot dispel the notion that there will be universal agreement as to why the apple fell on Newton’s head but not on what befell on the Armenians in 1915. A historian is not expected to be ‘objective” for he cannot possibly be. A historian is expected to present his understanding and appreciation of an event. It is up to the reader to make the final judgment. For Lucine Kasbarian, Eric Bogosian has failed to live up to his expected full ownership of that important piece of Armenian history. I understand her well.

  4. Lucine Kasbarian’s Review of “Nemesis”

    The Byzantine empire ended on May 29, 1453. The fall of Constantinople on that day completed the process of transition from a Christian Roman Empire to a Muslim Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire was the last and the longest lasting Empire in world history. And its culture and sophistication did surpass the other civilizations that had preceded it. And Armenians played a dominant role in the creation of that civilization, just like they had done in the Christian Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, Safavid Iran, the British Empire, etc. None of the many empires' achievements can be credited to a single ethnic group. A civilization is the sum of human achievements. I have not read the book in question but I am not at all surprised on the  'parish' mentality of the reviewer.  

    1. Ottoman Empire

      It's inaccurate to say the Ottoman Empire was the longest-lasting empire.
      The Ottoman Empire was established in the 14th century. It expired at the beginning of the 20th century.
      The Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) lasted more than one-thousand years.

  5. Lucine Kasbarian’s Review

    There's an old and cherished expression of joy and praise in the Armenian folklore that goes: TOGH VOR JAGADT HAMPUREM, LUCINE JAN!!! (Oh, let me place a kiss of gratitude upon your forehead, my precious Lucine.). KUDOS, KUDOS.

  6. Provide factual response

    Those who disagree with Ms. Kasbarian or make blanket statements against the review should focus on her corrections of the factual errors in the Bogosian book. She has reproduced Bogosian's words verbatim and then provided a chapter and verse rebuttal to those words. Readers should follow her example and provide similar factual response.
  7. When “Positive” Engagement Becomes Detrimental

    Something positive is often said about an individual of part or full Armenian ethnicity who chooses in the course of his or her career to publish a book or two on a central Armenian theme, such as the Armenian Genocide.

    What we are increasingly witnessing, however, is a steady rise in writers, journalists, and academicians whose publications on Armenian subjects parrot the pro-Turkic positions of their host Western governments, stress the “good” sides of Turkey and Turks, condemn the politically active segments of the Armenian community, and do more harm than good in general to the twin Armenia republics, the Armenian people, and the securing of justice-related Armenian rights.

    Eric Bogosian is one such writer.

    In the concluding pages of his 2015 book on Operation Nemesis, the most courageous and respectful acts taken to avenge the Armenian Genocide to date, Bogosian shamelessly lauds the genocidal republic and its predecessor state, stresses its geopolitical “strengths” to the international community, negatively colors the self-defense actions of Armenian groups witnessing the complete annihilation of their people, and presents foreign policy as one unchanging, Western-centric phenomenon:

    “Year by year, Turkey plays a greater role as a majority representative of the United States in the Middle East. Turkey is now considered to be an irreplaceable component of the American foreign policy. The Turkish government has more than enough incentive to remain silent about the genocide of one hundred years ago…A rising tide floats all boats. And that includes the full history of the Armenians who lived within and outside the Ottoman Empire. The Armenian Genocide is a part of that history, but so is the story of the Armenian revolutionary groups and their actions. And so are the contributions Armenians made for centuries to Ottoman civilization…”

    Bogosian's unprecedented lobbying of Turkey and Turks and use of primitive anti-Armenian terminologies continued unabashedly during most of his public speaking engagements in 2015:

    In Los Angeles on April 29, 2015:

    "Also, I think, and again this may a bit controversial for Armenians to embrace their role in the greatness of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire was one of the greatest empires on earth, and it existed for 600 years and it ended in WW1. And for centuries the Armenians were an essential part of the Ottoman Empire…We should be proud of what we did…"

    At the City University of New York on May 19, 2015:

    "Turkey is constantly being painted into a corner further and further all the time. As I say in the end of my book, Turkey is the 11th largest economy in the world today. It is a modern society. It is a society with huge universities, court systems. Rule of law does exist in Turkey today. And many people there are very, very sophisticated. Sophisticated as anybody in New York and know these stories. The problem is when you have a civil society like this that wishes to integrate with the rest of the world, it comes becomes problematic if you learn a different history than the history that is taught…What's happening is people are now sort of embracing more and more. Discussions are being held in Turkey today about the Genocide. I have been to a conference in Istanbul where they were talking about it. People can say the word 'genocide.' They are not being arrested for saying 'genocide' in Turkey today. So what is happening is that all that is left is this government position. And they basically have to decide that somewhere along the line something is going to break. I don't think it's going to happen now. I think it will happen in the next 10-15 years. And, of course, the further out it gets, the less chances there are of reparations because then you can say that the time has passed and you can't get those properties back or whatever…"

    "Nemesis was an operation that was under the umbrella of the ARF or the Dashnagtsoutioun. And they would continue to have violent episodes over every decade. There is something, particularly in 1933 here in New York, there was a major killing. And then later and again now we are just learning the truth about these stories. I do my best in this book. The stories of the Justice Commandos and ASALA which follow the Yenikians' assassinations of two Turkish diplomats in the mid-1970s. There were ongoing assassinations and bombings. A great number. I mean the Justice Commandos and ASALA if you just talk about who was killed, we are talking about over three dozen people, but there were hundreds of bombings all around the world. And the FBI and the CIA were tracking these guys. There is a story behind the story and we don't know these stories. Until someday we get the full story what the CIA and the Soviets were doing behind the scenes with any of these actors…We don't know those stories. We may know them someday…"

    At Hunter College in New York City in late May 2015:

    "Turkey is the 11th largest economy in the world. It wants to part of the family of nations. It has a very sophisticated civil society. A huge university system that is pretty dense and large. And, not to mention, their legal system and so forth. None of these things can really work if they are going to persist with synthetic history…"

    "The new Turkey arises. And really, I mean, you have got to give it to Kemal Ataturk. He holds the Brits' feet to the fire after Smyrna, right around that period. And, says, 'You want more of this? We can keep going. We can keep doing this forever.' And, they had lost their will. As that shifts and as Britain and the U.S. understands that really all they're really interested in is the oil. You see really massive shifts…"

    In Lexington, Massachusetts on May 27, 2015:

    "I had to say when Aram [Arkun] and I first started working on this, and he can attest to this, I said to him, 'I don't know if I am going to use the word 'genocide', because I don't know, I haven't seen that, where people are just killing each other. That happens all the time.' And, well, after a year or so of research, there was no question in my mind. And, we have to understand that denial is part of the Genocide. It is the last chapter of the Genocide…"

    We cannot allow the likes of Eric Bogosian to continue insulting the memory of our esteemed justice-seekers who had no option but to do what they did. He and others have no right to speak against our legitimate political and justice-related rights and further divide our still-being-genocided people before our eyes.

    Every opportunity must be sought to further isolate "famed" Eric Bogosian for his unscholarly and detrimental writing and speech. His book, rife with biased, nonfactual, and hateful passages, is nothing but immaterial and a propaganda piece bound by glue and string.

Comments are closed.

You May Also Like
Read More

«Հայկական Փողոց»

Դոկտ. Հրայր Ճէպէճեան, Նիկոսիա, 23 Յունիս 2016  «Ուրբաթ Օրերը Աշխատանքը Կը Դանդաղի» Պուէնոս Այրես, Արժանթին: Մայիս 2016: Իջեւանած…
Read More