They have used the genocide card too; is there anything beyond it? The idols they invented cannot strike Turkey

The bringing to the agenda and deciding upon the Armenian Genocide claims in the US at this time and in this manner—claims that come onto the US agenda every year around April 24 through the lobbying activities and pressures of the Armenian diaspora—should actually have an enlightening effect on those sincerely seeking the truth of the matter. This is because politicians attempting to reach a decision about a historical event, an event over which a long time has passed, has provided a very clear example of how and to what extent their decision may be related to the truth of the event.

By proceeding through this event, we can reflect on the extent to which the truth of a historical event that has become the subject of political debate can be known, and we can advance and deepen our thoughts on the essence and nature of historical knowledge.

As is well known, the issue of the Armenian Genocide is a matter that previously came onto the agenda of the US House of Representatives every year. The subject came onto the agendas not only of the US, but also of the parliaments of many European countries, and depending on the course of relations with these countries, it would either be rejected by a margin of one vote or accepted by a margin of one or two votes. Although US presidents generally had different views, and even though their speeches were closely watched every year regarding whether they would use the word genocide, so far they have not gone beyond the designation of "calamity" due to relations with Turkey.

The most tragicomic aspect of the matter is that all those who see themselves in the position to decide whether the incident that took place in Turkey 104 years ago should be considered a "genocide" continue to be responsible for a multitude of massacres and genocides today, let alone 104 years ago.

The Netherlands, for instance, succumbs to a genocide sensitivity against Turkey regarding an event that took place 104 years ago, without even looking at its own fresh record of genocide in Srebrenica as recently as 1995.

Likewise, France tries to use the Armenian genocide stick against Turkey while its crimes against humanity, openly committed in Algeria, Rwanda, and even now in Syria and Libya, are in plain sight. Hrant Dink himself had recounted the fact that this very France slaughtered the children and youth of tens of thousands of Armenians who had taken refuge there due to the events in Turkey, by pushing them to the frontlines during World War II and sacrificing them for the French.

It is not France's love for Armenians that is at issue, but its hatred for Turkey, and for the sake of this hatred, it does not refrain from using Armenians every single time.

Does all these parliaments passing genocide resolutions show that there was a genocide there, or does it show how useful Armenians continue to be seen as war material?

If the issue is a historical event, it is clear that no decision taken on this matter by parliaments lacking historical knowledge and acting solely out of political motives can clarify any situation regarding the nature of the event. On the contrary, such decisions can still be quite instructive in terms of demonstrating how much those involved in this matter can corrupt historical knowledge.

We can even say that it has been quite fortunate in this respect that the US, despite having always rejected the Armenian genocide issue until now, brought it onto the agenda today precisely as a form of punishment against Turkey's Operation Peace Spring. Thus, it has been seen even more clearly that until now the issue had no meaning other than being used as a political bargaining chip against Turkey.

In truth, in the early 19th century, tragic events occurred among populations provoked and incited against the Ottoman Empire by Western countries, particularly within the Ottoman geography. As a result of these provocations, the blood of millions of Muslims was spilled, and millions more were deported, especially in the Balkans. Under the conditions of World War I, Armenian gangs, incited in a similar manner, spilled the blood of many Muslims in the East. Within the framework of the measures taken, it was deemed appropriate to separate Armenians and Muslims, whose living together had become risky under wartime conditions, and the policy of relocating the Armenian population to other locations within Ottoman territory was implemented. This was the most reasonable measure that could be taken against the risks the country was exposed to under the circumstances of that day. It was an implementation carried out with a level of care that cannot be compared to what the Muslim population was subjected to in the Balkans.

If one pays attention, we too get carried away and feel obliged to delve into details. However, the reality of the matter is that the issue belongs to history, and there is no possibility of knowing the ultimate truth regarding the event with complete clarity after all this time. From this point on, whoever wishes to bring up the issue has no chance beyond being like a bankrupt merchant rummaging through old ledgers.

So, was this all they could do against Turkey whenever they were cornered, or when Turkey tried to break free from their yoke?

Let them do it. Is there anything beyond this?

The idol of false history they have manufactured cannot strike Turkey.