Bat Ye’or’s “Eurabia” clearly transcends attempts to analyze the same contemporary phenomena by pundits such as Robert Kagan and Bernard Lewis. This remarkable book is the product of her serendipitously apposite prior expertise, painstaking new research, brilliant insight, and intellectual courage. Bat Ye’or’s analyses have profound implications for Western Europe which may be incapable of altering its Eurabian trajectory; her research may be even more important for the United States if it wishes to avoid Europe’s fate:
Th[e] Eurabian ethos operates at all levels of European society. Its countless functionaries, like the Christian [devshirme]-janissary slave soldiers of past Islamic regimes, advance a jihadist world strategy. Eurabia cannot change direction; it can only use deception to mask its emergence, its bias and its inevitable trajectory. Eurabia’s destiny was sealed when it decided, willingly, to become a covert partner with the Arab global jihad against America and Israel. Americans must discuss the tragic development of Eurabia, and its profound implications for the United States, particularly in terms of its resultant foreign policy realities. Americans should consider the despair and confusion of many Europeans, prisoners of a Eurabian totalitarianism that foments a culture of deadly lies about Western civilization. Americans should know that this self-destructive calamity did not just happen, rather it was the result of deliberate policies, executed and monitored by ostensibly responsible people. Finally, Americans should understand that Eurabia’s contemporary anti-Zionism and anti-Americanism are the spiritual heirs of 1930s Nazism and anti-Semitism, triumphally resurgent.
1. Charles Emmanuel Dufourcq, La Vie Quotidienne dans l’Europe Medievale sous Domination Arabe, Paris, 1978; pp. 9-10.
2. Ibn Hudayl (French translation by Louis Mercier), L’Ornement des Ames, Paris, 1939, p. 195.
3. Dufourcq, Europe Medievale sous Domination Arabe, p. 20
4. Washington Irving, The Alhambra: A Series of Tales and Sketches of the Moors and Spaniards, Philadelphia, 1832.
5. Gloria Rosa Menocal, The Ornament of the World, Boston, Little Brown and Company, 2002.
6. Evariste Levi-Provencal, Histoire de l’Espagne Musulmane, Paris, 1950, Vol. 1.
7. Dufourcq, Europe Medievale sous Domination Arabe, see especially chapter 1, “Les Jours de Razzia et d’Invasion.”
8. Levi-Provencal, Histoire de l’Espagne Musulmane, p. 150.
9. Dufourcq, Europe Medievale sous Domination Arabe, pp. 194,196
10. Georges Vajda, “À propos de la situation des Juifs et des Chrétiens à Séville au début du XIIe siècle”, Revue des Études Juives, 99 (1935), pp. 127-129.
11. Roger Arnaldez, “La guerre sainte selon Ibn Hazm de Courdoue,” in. Etudes d’Orientalism Dediees a la Memoire de Levi-Provencal. Paris, Vol. 2, 1962, pp. 445-59.
12. Moshe Perlmann, “Eleventh Century Andalusian Authors on the Jews of Granada,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, Vol. 18, 1948-49, Pp. 286-87.
13. H.Z. Hirschberg, A History of the Jews of North Africa, Vol. 1, Ledien, 1974, pp. 123-129.
14. Bat Ye’or, The Dhimmi- Jews and Christians Under Islam, Cranbury, New Jersey, 1985, Documents III- Aspects of the dhimmis existence as experienced, #94, Forced conversions and degradation (12th century), p. 351.
15. Richard Fletcher. Moorish Spain Berkeley, CA, 1992, pp. 171-73.
16. See Bat Ye’or’s major works (in English), beginning with The Dhimmi, 1985, The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam, 1996, and Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide, 2001, all published by Associated University Presses/Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, Cranbury, New Jersey.
17. Jadunath Sarkar, History of Aurangzib, Vol. III- Northern India, 1658-1681, Chapter XXXIV, “The Islamic State Church in India”, excerpts from pp. 283-297.
18. The scholar K.S. Lal, records this translation, ‘…and should the collector choose to spit into his mouth, opens the same without hesitation, so that the official may spit into it..’ and observes that , ‘Actual spitting in the mouth of the non-Muslims was not uncommon’. Lal cites a poem by Vijaya Gupta (1493-1519 C.E.), which includes the line, ‘The peons employed by the qazis tore away the sacred threads of the Brahmans and spat saliva in their mouths’. From, Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India , 1999, Aditya Prakashan, Delhi, pp. 238-39, note 124.
19. Antoine Fattal, Let Statut Legal de Musulmans en Pays' d'Islam, Beirut, 1958; pp. 369, 372.
20. Mary Boyce, Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, London, 1979, 2001, and .A Persian Stronghold of Zoroastrianism (based on the Ratanbai Katrak lectures, 1975), Lanham, Maryland, 1989; During the initial jihad conquest of Persia, for example, 40,000 Zoroastrians were killed defending the royal city of Istakhr, where the religious library was housed.
21. Boyce, A Persian Stronghold of Zoroastrianism, pp. 7-8; Napier Malcolm lived among the Zoroastrians in the central Iranian town of Yezd at the end of the 19th century. He documented the following in his narrative, Five Years in a Persian Town, New York, 1905, pp. 45-50:
Up to 1895 no Parsi (Zoroastrian) was allowed to carry an umbrella. Even during the time that I was in Yezd they could not carry one in town. Up to 1895 there was a strong prohibition upon eye-glasses and spectacles; up to 1885 they were prevented from wearing rings; their girdles had to be made of rough canvas, but after 1885 any white material was permitted. Up to 1896 the Parsis were obliged to twist their turbans instead of folding them. Up to 1898 only brown, grey, and yellow were allowed for the qaba [outer coat] or arkhaluq [under coat] (body garments), but after that all colors were permitted except blue, black, bright red, or green. There was also a prohibition against white stockings, and up to about 1880 the Parsis had to wear a special kind of peculiarly hideous shoe with a broad, turned-up toe. Up to 1885 they had to wear a torn cap. Up to 1880 they had to wear tight knickers, self-colored, instead of trousers. Up to 1891 all Zoroastrians had to walk in town, and even in the desert they had to dismount if they met a Mussulman of any rank whatsoever. During the time that I was in Yezd they were allowed to ride in the desert, and only had to dismount if they met a big Mussulman. There were other similar dress restrictions too numerous and trifling to mention.
Then the houses of both the Parsis and the Jews, with the surrounding walls, had to be built so low that the top could be reached by a Mussulman with his hand extended; they might, however, dig down below the level of the road. The walls had to be splashed with white around the door. Double doors, the common form of Persian door, were forbidden, also rooms containing three or more windows. Bad-girs [Air-shafts] were still forbidden to Parsis while we were in Yezd, but in 1900 one of the bigger Parsi merchants gave a large present to the Governor and to the chief mujtahid (Mohammedan priest) to be allowed to build one. Upper rooms were also forbidden.
Up to about 1860 Parsis could not engage in trade. They used to hide things in their cellar rooms, and sell them secretly. They can now trade in the caravanserais or hostelries, but not in the bazaars, nor may they trade in linen drapery. Up to 1870 they were not permitted to have a school for their children.
The amount of the jaziya, or tax upon infidels, differed according to the wealth of the individual Parsi, but it was never less than two tomans [a sum of money, 10,000 dinars]. A toman is now worth about three shillings and eight pence, but it used to be worth much more. Even now, when money has much depreciated, it represents a laborer’s wage for ten days. The money must be paid on the spot, when the farrash [literally, a carpet sweeper. Really a servant, chiefly, outdoor], who was acting as collector, met the man. The farrash was at liberty to do what he liked when collecting the jaziya. The man was not even allowed to go home and fetch the money, but was beaten at once until it was given. About 1865 a farrash collecting this tax tied a man to a dog, and gave a blow to each in turn.
About 1891 a mujtahid caught a Zoroastrian merchant wearing white stockings in one of the public squares of the town. He ordered the man to be beaten and the stockings taken off. About 1860 a man of seventy went to the bazaars in white trousers of rough canvas. They hit him about a good deal, took off his trousers, and sent him home with them under his arm. Sometimes Parsis would be made to stand on one leg in a mujtahid’s house until they consented to pay a considerable sum of money.
In the reign of the late Shah Nasiru’d Din, Manukji Limji, a British Parsi from India, was for a long while in Tehran as Parsi representative. Almost all the Parsi disabilities were withdrawn, the jaziya, the clothes restrictions, and those with regard to houses, but the law of inheritance was not altered, according to which a Parsi who becomes a Mussulman takes precedence of his Zoroastrian brothers and sisters. The jaziya was actually remitted, and also some of the restrictions as to houses, but the rest of the firman was a dead letter.
In 1898 the present Shah, Muzaffaru’d Din, gave a firman to Dinyar, the present Qalantar [Head Man] of the Parsi Anjuman, or Committee, revoking all the remaining Parsi disabilities, and also declaring it unlawful to use fraud or deception in making conversions of Parsis to Islam. This firman does not appear to have had any effect at all.
About 1883, after the firman of Nasiru’d Din Shah had been promulgated, one of the Parsis, Rustami Ardishiri Dinyar, built in Kucha Biyuk, one of the villages near Yezd, a house with an upper room, slightly above the height to which the Parsis used to be limited. He heard that the Mussulmans were going to kill him, so he fled by night to Tehran. They killed another Parsi, Tirandaz, in mistake for him, but did not destroy the house.
So the great difficulty was not to get the law improved, but rather to get it enforced. When Manukji [British Parsi and ‘consul’ in Tehran] was at Yezd, about 1870, two Parsis were attacked by two Mussulmans outside the town, and one was killed, the other terribly wounded as they had tried to cut off his head. The Governor brought the criminals to Yezd, but did nothing to them. Manukji got leave to take them to Tehran. The Prime Minister, however, told him that no Mussulman would be killed for a Zardushti, or Zoroastrian, and that they would only be bastinadoed. About this time Manukji enquired whether it was true that the blood-price of a Zardushti was to be seven tomans. He got back the reply that it was to be a little over.
The Yezd Parsis have been helped considerably by agents from Bombay, who are British subjects, and of late years things have improved slightly.
22. Bernard Lewis, The Muslim Discovery of Europe, New York, 1982, 2001.
23. Bernard Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, London, 1968, 2002.
24. Edward Grant, The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional, and Intellectual Contexts, Cambridge, 1996, p. 168; cited in Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God, Princeton, New Jersey, 2003, pp. 146-147.
25. Edouard Engelhardt, La Turquie et La Tanzimat , 2 Vols., 1882, Paris; Engelhardt made these observations from his detailed analysis of the Tanzimat period, noting that a quarter century after the Crimean War (1853-56), and the second iteration of Tanzimat reforms, the same problems persisted:
Muslim society has not yet broken with the prejudices which make the conquered peoples subordinate…the raya [dhimmis] remain inferior to the Osmanlis; in fact he is not rehabilitated; the fanaticism of the early days has not relented…[even liberal Muslims rejected]…civil and political equality, that is to say, the assimilation of the conquered with the conquerors.
As Bat Ye’or has established, with primary source documentary evidence, [reproduced at length in The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam, pp. 409-433] that a systematic examination of the condition of the Christian rayas was conducted in the 1860s by British consuls throughout the Ottoman Empire. Britain was then Turkey's most powerful ally, and it was in her strategic interest to see that oppression of the Christians was eliminated, to prevent direct, aggressive Russian or Austrian intervention. On July 22, 1860, Consul James Zohrab sent a lengthy report from Sarajevo to his ambassador in Constantinople, Sir Henry Bulwer, analyzing the administration of the provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina, again, following the 1856 Tanzimat reforms. Referring to the reform efforts, Zohrab states:
I can safely say, [they] practically remain a dead letter…while [this] does not extend to permitting the Christians to be treated as they formerly were treated, is so far unbearable and unjust in that it permits the Mussulmans to despoil them with heavy exactions. False imprisonments (imprisonment under false accusation) are of daily occurence. A Christian has but a small chance of exculpating himself when his opponent is a Mussulman (...) Christian evidence, as a rule, is still refused (...) Christians are now permitted to possess real property, but the obstacles which they meet with when they attempt to acquire it are so many and vexatious that very few have as yet dared to brave them…Such being, generally speaking, the course pursued by the Government towards the Christians in the capital (Sarajevo) of the province where the Consular Agents of the different Powers reside and can exercise some degree of control, it may easily be guessed to what extend the Christians, in the remoter districts, suffer who are governed by Mudirs (governors) generally fanatical and unacquainted with the (new reforms of the) law..
Even the modern Ottomanist Roderick Davison (in “Turkish Attitudes Concerning Christian-Muslim Equality in the Nineteenth Century” American Historical Review, Vol. 59, pp. 848, 855, 859, 864) concedes, that the reforms failed, and offers an explanation based on Islamic beliefs intrinsic to the system of dhimmitude:
No genuine equality was ever attained…there remained among the Turks an intense Muslim feeling which could sometimes burst into an open fanaticism…More important than the possibility of fanatic outbursts, however, was the innate attitude of superiority which the Muslim Turk possessed. Islam was for him the true religion. Christianity was only a partial revelation of the truth, which Muhammad finally revealed in full; therefore Christians were not equal to Muslims in possession of truth. Islam was not only a way of worship, it was a way of life as well. It prescribed man’s relations to man, as well as to God, and was the basis for society, for law, and for government. Christians were therefore inevitably considered second-class citizens in the light of religious revelation—as well as by reason of the plain fact that they had been conquered by the Ottomans. This whole Muslim outlook was often summed up in the common term gavur (or kafir), which means ‘unbeliever’ or ‘infidel’, with emotional and quite uncomplimentary overtones. To associate closely or on terms of equality with the gavur was dubious at best . ‘Familiar association with heathens and infidels is forbidden to the people of Islam,’ said Asim, an early nineteenth-century historian, ‘and friendly and intimate intercourse between two parties that are one to another as darkness and light is far from desirable’…The mere idea of equality, especially the antidefamation clause of 1856, offended the Turks’ inherent sense of the rightness of things. ‘Now we can’t call a gavur a gavur’, it was said, sometimes bitterly, sometimes in matter-of-fact explanation that under the new dispensation the plain truth could no longer be spoken openly. Could reforms be acceptable which forbade calling a spade a spade?...The Turkish mind, conditioned by centuries of Muslim and Ottoman dominance, was not yet ready to accept any absolute equality…Ottoman equality was not attained in the Tanzimat period [i.e., mid to late 19th century, 1839-1876], nor yet after the Young Turk revolution of 1908…
26. Oliver Warner, William Wilberforce and His Times, London, 1962.
27. J.B. Kelly, Britain and the Persian Gulf, Oxford, 1968, pp. 588-589.
28. Christopher Lloyd, The Navy and The Slave Trade, London, 1949.
29. Ehud Toledano, The Ottoman Slave Trade and Its Suppression, Princeton, New Jersey, 1982, p. 260.
30. Reuben Levy, The Social Structure of Islam, Cambridge, 1957, p. 88.
31. Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam, Princeton, New Jersey, 1984.
32. These are but a sampling of some important writings on dhimmitude under Ottoman rule:
- Jovan Cvijic, La Peninsule Balkanique, Paris, 1918, pp. 263-265, 344-355, 386-389, 464-466.
- Ivo Andric, The Development of Spiritual Life in Bosnia Under the Influence of Turkish Rule, (1924 doctoral dissertation), English translation, Durham, North Carolina, 1990, Chaps. 2 and 3.
- Dimitar Angelov, “Certains Aspects de la Conquete Des Peuples Balkaniques par les Turcs” Byzantinoslavica, 1956, Vol. 17, pp. 220-275.
- Bistra Cvetkova, “Contribution a l’Etudes Des Impots Extarordinaire en Bulgarie Sous la Domination Turque” Rocznik Orientalistyczny, Vol. 33, 1959, pp. 57-65; “The Bulgarian Haiduk Movement in the 15th-18th Centuries”, pp. 301-338, in Bela Kiraly, editor, War and Society in East Central Europe, Vol.II, New York, 1982.
- A.E. Vacalopoulos, History of Macedonia, 1354-1833, Thessaloniki, 1973, pp. 67-74, 353-358, 636-652; “Background and Causes of the Greek Revolution”, Neo-Hellenika, Vol. 2, 1975, pp.53-68; The Greek Nation, 1453-1669, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1976, Chaps. 1-4.
- Jono Mitev, “La Situation du Peuple Bulgare Sous le Joug Turc (XVe-XVIIIe s.)”, in Ivan Dujcev, Velizar Velkov, Iono Mitev, Lubomir Panoyotov. Histoire De La Bulgarie, des origins a nos jours, Roanne, 1977.
- M-M Alexandrescu-Dersca Bulgaru, “Le Role Des Esclaves en Romanie Turque au XVe Siecle”, Byzantinische Forschungen, Vol. 11, 1987, pp. 15-28; “Sur La Domination Ottomane dans les Principautes Roumaines au XVII Siecle: Le Probleme de l’Autonomie” CIEPO, 1994, pp. 1-11; “Sur La Domination Ottomane dans les Principautes Roumaines au XVIII Siecle: Le Probleme de l’Autonomie”, Turk Tarih Kongresi (11th), 1994, pp. 1171-1183.
- Tudor Parfitt, The Jews in Palestine, 1800-1882, Woodbridge, UK, 1987.
- Speros Vryonis, Jr. “The Experience of Christians Under Seljuk and Ottoman Domination, Eleventh to Sixteenth Century”, pp. 185-216, in Conversion and Continuity: Indigenous Christian Communities in Islamic Lands, Eighth to Eighteenth Centuries, editors M. Gervers and R.J. Bikhazi, Toronto, 1990.
- Vahakn Dadrian, Warrant for Genocide, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1999, Chaps. 1,2,4.
Vacalopoulos describes how jihad imposed dhimmitude under Ottoman rule provided critical motivation for the Greek Revolution (Background and Causes of the Greek Revolution, Neo-Hellenika, pp.54-55):
The Revolution of 1821 is no more than the last great phase of the resistance of the Greeks to Ottoman domination; it was a relentless, undeclared war, which had begun already in the first years of servitude. The brutality of an autocratic regime, which was characterized by economic spoliation, intellectual decay and cultural retrogression, was sure to provoke opposition. Restrictions of all kinds, unlawful taxation, forced labor, persecutions, violence, imprisonment, death, abductions of girls and boys and their confinement to Turkish harems, and various deeds of wantonness and lust, along with numerous less offensive excesses – all these were a constant challenge to the instinct of survival and they defied every sense of human decency. The Greeks bitterly resented all insults and humiliations, and their anguish and frustration pushed them into the arms of rebellion. There was no exaggeration in the statement made by one of the beys if Arta, when he sought to explain the ferocity of the struggle. He said: ‘We have wronged the rayas [dhimmis] (i.e. our Christian subjects) and destroyed both their wealth and honor; they became desperate and took up arms. This is just the beginning and will finally lead to the destruction of our empire.’ The sufferings of the Greeks under Ottoman rule were therefore the basic cause of the insurrection; a psychological incentive was provided by the very nature of the circumstances.
In his comprehensive study of 19th century Palestinian Jewry under Ottoman rule (The Jews of Palestine, pp. 168, 172-73), Professor Tudor Parfitt made these summary observations:
Inside the towns, Jews and other dhimmis were frequently attacked, wounded, and even killed by local Muslims and Turkish soldiers. Such attacks were frequently for trivial reasons: Wilson [in British Foreign Office correspondence] recalled having met a Jew who had been badly wounded by a Turkish soldier for not having instantly dismounted when ordered to give up his donkey to a soldier of the Sultan. Many Jews were killed for less. On occasion the authorities attempted to get some form of redress but this was by no means always the case: the Turkish authorities themselves were sometimes responsible for beating Jews to death for some unproven charge. After one such occasion [British Consul] Young remarked: ‘I must say I am sorry and surprised that the Governor could have acted so savage a part- for certainly what I have seen of him I should have thought him superior to such wanton inhumanity- but it was a Jew- without friends or protection- it serves to show well that it is not without reason that the poor Jew, even in the nineteenth century, lives from day to day in terror of his life’.
…In fact, it took some time [i.e., at least a decade after the 1839 reforms] before these courts did accept dhimmi testimony in Palestine. The fact that Jews were represented on the meclis [provincial legal council] did not contribute a great deal to the amelioration of the legal position of the Jews: the Jewish representatives were tolerated grudgingly and were humiliated and intimidated to the point that they were afraid to offer any opposition to the Muslim representatives. In addition the constitution of the meclis was in no sense fairly representative of the population. In Jerusalem in the 1870s the meclis consisted of four Muslims, three Christians and only one Jew- at a time when Jews constituted over half the population of the city…Some years after the promulgation of the hatt-i-serif [Tanzimat reform edicts] Binyamin [note: from “Eight Years in Asia and Africa from 1846 to 1855”, p.44] was still able to write of the Jews- ‘they are entirely destitute of every legal protection’…Perhaps even more to the point, the courts were biased against the Jews and even when a case was heard in a properly assembled court where dhimmi testimony was admissible the court would still almost invariably rule against the Jews. It should be noted that a non-dhimmi [eg., foreign] Jew was still not permitted to appear and witness in either the mahkama [specific Muslim council] or the meclis.
33. Abdolonyme Ubicini, Lettres Sur La Turque, Vol. 2, Paris, 1854, p. 32.
34. Vasiliki Papoulia, “The Impact of Devshirme on Greek Society”, in War and Society in East Central Europe, Editor-in-Chief, Bela K. Kiraly, 1982, Vol. II, pp. 561-562.
35. Bernard Lewis, The Muslim Discovery of Europe, pp.190-191. Lewis also describes the devshirme solely as a form of social advancement for Balkan Christians in both the 1968 (p.5) and 2002 (also p. 5) editions of The Emergence of Modern Turkey (Oxford):
…the Balkan peoples had an enormous influence on the Ottoman ruling class. One of the most important channels was the devshirme, the levy of boys, by means of which countless Balkan Christians entered the military and political elites of the Empire.
36. Speros Vryonis, Jr. “Seljuk Gulams and Ottoman Devshirmes”, Der Islam Volume 41, 1965, pp. 245-247.
37. Vasiliki Papoulia, “The Impact of Devshirme on Greek Society”, pp. 554-555.
38. Vasiliki Papoulia, “The Impact of Devshirme on Greek Society”, p. 557.
39. The 2002 edition of The Emergence of Modern Turkey, p. 356, reads:
Now a desperate struggle between them [i.e., the Turks and Armenians] began, a struggle between two nations for the possession of a single homeland, that ended with the terrible slaughter of 1915, when, according to estimates, more than a million Armenians perished, as well as an unknown number of Turks.
In this revised text, “slaughter” replaces “holocaust”, the estimate of the Armenians who “perished” is changed from 1.5 million to “according to estimates, more than a million”, and a concluding remark is added referring to the “unknown number of Turks” who also perished in the putative struggle for possession of a single homeland. Peter Balakian makes these germane observations (from, The Burning Tigris, New York, 2003, p. 432, note 25):
…without any substantiation, Lewis dispense of the Armenian Genocide in a couple of sentences, calling it a ‘a struggle between two nations for the possession of a single homeland’. Lewis never explains how an unarmed, Christian ethnic minority in the Ottoman Empire could be fairly called a ‘nation’, that could engage in a ‘struggle’ with a world power (the Ottoman Empire) for a single homeland. In a recent interview, There Was No Genocide: Interview with Prof. Bernard Lewis, by Dalia Karpel, Ha’aretz (Jerusalem, January 23, 1998), Lewis asserts that the massacres of the Armenians were not the result ‘of a deliberate preconceived decision of the Turkish government’. These evasions are aimed at trivializing the Armenian Genocide.
40. On April 24, 1915, the Turkish Interior Ministry issued an order authorizing the arrest of all Armenian political and community leaders suspected of anti-Ittihad (“Young Turk” government), or Armenian nationalist sentiments. In Istanbul alone, 2345 such leaders were seized and incarcerated, and most of them were subsequently executed. The majority were neither nationalists, nor were they involved in politics. None were charged with sabotage, espionage, or any other crime, and appropriately tried (see E. Uras, The Armenians and the Armenian Question in History, Istanbul, 1976, p.612.) As the Turkish author Taner Akcam recently acknowledged (in, Turkish National Identity and the Armenian Question, Istanbul, 1992, p. 109):
…Under the pretext of searching for arms, of collecting war levies, or tracking down deserters, there had already been established a practice of systematically carried-out plunders, raids, and murders [against the Armenians] which had become daily occurrences.
41. Yair Auron, The Banality of Denial, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 2003, p. 227.
42. Auron, The Banality of Denial, p. 227.
43. Speros Vryonis, Jr., The Turkish State and History, New Rochelle, New York, 1991, p. 118.
44. Auron, The Banality of Denial, p. 247.
45. Auron, The Banality of Denial, p. 227.
46. The June 9, 2000 New York Times included a full page advertisement entitled, “126 Holocaust Scholars Affirm The Fact Of The Armenian Genocide And Urge Western Democracies to Officially Recognize It”. The advertisement included this additional statement, signed by some of the major luminaries in Holocaust scholarship:
At the 13th anniversary of the Scholar’s Conference on the Holocaust and the Churches convening at St. Joseph University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, March 3-7, 2000, 126 Holocaust Scholars, holders of Academic Chairs and Directors of Holocaust Research and Studies Centers, participants of the Conference, signed a statement affirming that the World War I Armenian Genocide is an incontestable historical fact and accordingly urge the governments of Western democracies to likewise recognize it as such. The petitioners, among whom is Nobel Laureate for Peace Elie Wiesel, who was a keynote speaker at the conference, also asked the Western Democracies to urge the Government and Parliament of Turkey to finally come to terms with a dark chapter of Ottoman-Turkish history and to recognize the Armenian Genocide. This would provide an invaluable impetus to the process of the democratization of Turkey.
47. Richard Rubenstein, The Cunning of History, New York, 1975, pp. 11-12.
48. Vahakn Dadrian, “The Armenian Question and the Wartime Fate of the Armenians as Documented by the Officials of the Ottoman Empire’s World War I Allies: Germany and Austria-Hungary”, International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 2002, Vol. 32, pp. 59-85.
49. Dadrian, “The Armenian Question and the Wartime Fate of the Armenians”, p.77, with specific primary source documentation, Pp.84-85 n.111.
50. Dadrian, “The Armenian Question and the Wartime Fate of the Armenians”, p.77.
51. Dadrian, “The Armenian Question and the Wartime Fate of the Armenians”, Pp.61-62, with specific primary source documentation, p.79 n.15.
52. Roderick Davison, "The Armenian Crisis, 1912-1914", The American Historical Review, 1948, Vol. 53, Pp. 482-483.
53. Vahakn Dadrian, The History of the Armenian Genocide, Providence, RI, 1997, Pp. 155, 182, 225, 233 n.44; Yair Auron, The Banality of Indifference, New Brunswick, NJ, 2000, p. 44.
54. Dadrian , The History of the Armenian Genocide, Pp. 113-184.
55. Dadrian, The History of the Armenian Genocide, p. 147, with primary source documentation p. 168 n.199.
56. Bat Ye'or, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam, Cranbury, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985) Pp. 48, 67, 101.
57. Gabrielan M.C., Armenia: A Martyr Nation, (New York, Chicago: Fleming H. Revell, Co., 1918), p. 269.
58. Bat Ye'or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam, p. 197.