The history of one whose god is Nemesis is written with grudge and hatred

As April 24, 2015 approaches, we will evidently have to get used to hearing this kind of thing. The Armenians' blood feud with the Turks has little difficulty gathering supporters in the Christian world. True, there is not as much support as would satisfy it and fill its eye, but through extraordinary efforts it had managed to obtain resolutions from the parliaments of many countries stating that what happened in 1915 was a genocide.

Many countries, knowing Turkey's sensitivity on this matter and not wishing to spoil their relations with Turkey, refrain from giving this support, and even that is enough to plunge the Armenian avengers into a great feeling of dissatisfaction. The support that certain countries or actors will or will not give becomes quite a source of distress at this point, for example.

Whether Obama will use the word "genocide" in a commemorative speech on the date in question is of course followed with great interest both by the Armenian diaspora and by Turkey. Obama and the US leaders before him have each time been caught between two fires, trying to find an original expression that would meet the expectations of both sides. Let us see what Obama will say in the 100th year, looking at this two-sided pressure.

Whatever he says, it is quite clear that it cannot change the nature of what happened in 1915. After all, this will not have been stated by bringing to light some new fact about the events of 100 years ago. On the contrary, as we have said many times before, the event is taking place not 100 years ago but today.

Like Obama, Pope Francis, the spiritual leader of the Catholics, whose words this year too are awaited with curiosity, acted early. At the mass he held in the Vatican on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the events of 1915, he has already said that "the first genocide of the 20th century was committed against the Armenians."

He said it, and so what? Have we come a bit closer to the reality of 1915? Have we reached some new piece of information that enlightens us about the events of that day? Or has he instead given a premium to the primitive blood feud pursued by the Armenian side, which acts out of the most archaic feelings and out of feelings of hatred for the Muslim Turk?

Moreover, what is the meaning of saying "the first genocide of the 20th century was committed against the Armenians" without remembering at all the nearly 3 million Muslim Turks destroyed and expelled through mass massacres from the Balkans only a few years before 1915? If the Pope truly acts out of a sensitivity toward crimes against humanity or historical sufferings, could he please have remembered first the Balkans, and then the hundreds of thousands of Muslim Turks who died on all fronts and in society at the same time as the Armenian deportation?

He does not remember, he cannot remember, because the Pope's memory is a racist and crusader memory. He does not remember the deeds of that crusader mentality, but he does remember as a tragedy the deportation, carried out as an extremely reasonable measure while the Armenians, who had been made to rise up through the very provocations of the Crusaders, were in the middle of a full massacre against the Ottoman people. There is no side of this memory that can be taken seriously. It is a sick memory nourished by hatred, resentment and a feeling of revenge against the Muslim Turk.

We have said it before. Even if we go back to 1915, that is, to history, Turkey is in a position to be the prosecuting party, not the defending one. While the Ottoman soldier was fighting on I don't know how many fronts against the seven great powers, among the circles that incited the Armenian gangs and made them rebel against the state, and that probably prepared them to repeat in Anatolia the genocide they had committed in the Balkans, there was the Vatican, and there were also many of the countries that today champion the Armenian genocide claims.

In fact, behind the Armenian genocide claims lies a "genocide of the Anatolian Muslims" that stuck in their craw and was never achieved. This possibility is not at all one conjured up hypothetically from today. It may perhaps be more than enough for us to recall that all the Ottoman statesmen who put the deportation plan into effect in 1915 or who bore state responsibility in those days (Talat Pasha, Enver Pasha, Said Halim Pasha, the Governor of Trabzon Cemal Azim, Bahattin Şakir, the director of the "Teşkilât-ı Mahsusa," as well as the former Prime Minister of Azerbaijan Fatali Khan Khoyski, the former Minister of Justice Khalil Bey Khasmammadov and many others) were tracked down in a stunning manhunt by the Armenian Dashnak organization and shot dead in assassinations. These assassinations were decided at the 9th Congress of the Dashnak organization in Yerevan, and were put into systematic practice with a significant budget allocation and a large organization, under the name "Operation Nemesis," after the Greek goddess of vengeance. The operation's targets were hundreds of people who had contributed to the deportation, and many of those decided upon were killed.

This is a sufficiently striking example showing that the deportation measure taken by the Ottomans was not at all unjust. An example confirming that the actively working, blood-blinded gangs were attempting a much larger massacre of Muslims.

In fact, if what is at stake is revenge, this revenge has been taken many times over by the Armenian organizations: there are the massacres undertaken within the framework of propaganda from the 1870s onward. There is open collaboration against the Turks in the ranks of the occupying forces. There are those who were sentenced to death in courts established under the supervision of the British occupation administration. There are diplomats killed by ASALA's assassinations.

When one takes the goddess of vengeance as a guide, it becomes inevitable to make vengeance a way of life. A structure that conceives vengeance as a god, and is thus blinded by the fire of vengeance, can never be satisfied. The Armenian cause is a sick blood feud that is never sated with vengeance and is fed by the feeling of vengeance.

We hope that those who follow the call of this sickness, which invites us back a hundred years and which, even there, cares only about its own sufferings, will come to see what state they have fallen into.

Even though we know that, if we assume their wisest is the Pope, this hope of ours is an empty hope...