!âmà ="justify">On the Armenian issue, I am in favor of freedom of thought and expression, and I have never accused anybody of high treason because of their ideas. I know that treason is a crime that has to be legally proven.   On the Armenian issue, I am in favor of freedom of thought and expression, and I have never accused anybody of high treason because of their ideas. I know that treason is a crime that has to be legally proven.

  However, the subject at hand is not so simple that it could be hidden behind the freedom of expression. As Goldhagen stressed in his renowned book, “Hitler's Voluntary Executioners,” genocide cannot take place without voluntary participation of large segments of society. With the exception of a few “good” men, the entire Turkish nation is now being accused of having committed genocide against the Armenians.

  Legally speaking, genocide is the worst crime in human history. If some members of a given society manage to direct an accusation of such gravity at their own society -- in the absence of a court decision to this effect -- what prevents others from also stepping outside the realm of law just as they do, from calling them “traitors”? One cannot label anyone a “thief” or a “murderer” even when there is a court decision attesting to that. However, they can accuse an entire nation of “genocide” with incredible ease and then take refuge behind freedom of thought and expression. When they were called traitors, however, they immediately started talking about going to court to file a complaint. Yet they fail to see the contradiction in their attitude.

  Those who hold the opposite view were not invited to a meeting planned to be held on the Armenian issue at Bo?azici University. There is no need to criticize it. We have become accustomed to that kind of treatment. We have not been invited to similar meetings abroad for a long time, anyway. Moreover, sometimes, when we did receive an invitation, we had to remain silent in the audience at many a meeting. At best, we were allowed to pose a brief question from the floor. In some cases, Armenian or pro-Armenian “scholars” talked for hours, and we were given five minutes to reply. In addition, we were grateful even for that. In one case (at a think tank affiliated with the Dutch Parliament), we enjoyed the same amount of time as the Armenians to air our views, but once they saw the results they never gave us another such chance.

  Many of those who were to organize or take part in the Bo?azici University meeting had in the past been invited to similar meetings in America, Austria, Germany and Armenia. Naturally, we had not been invited. The only difference is that things have reached the stage where a meeting of this kind is being organized in Turkey as well.

  The West or, to put it differently, Europe, is reportedly very angry because of the latest developments concerning the Bo?azici meeting. They are said to be expecting us to be more broad-minded and tolerant. It's as if they themselves have not been the ones who have restricted freedom of thought and expression on this issue. Can France stage a meeting where we also could be present? Was it not the European Parliament that had made the Armenian genocide decision in 1987 in reaction to Turkey's application for full membership, followed by many EU members' parliaments? Has not the EU that ostensibly believes in the rule of law thus violated Article 6 of the Genocide Convention? When Bernard Lewis said the Armenian genocide did not happen, he was ordered to pay a fine in France. When Yusuf Hacalo?lu did the same, an arrest warrant was issued in Switzerland. Under the circumstances, Europe is in no position to hypocritically preach freedom of expression to us. Those in Turkey who try to intimidate us by referring to Europe's critical attitude must have lost all sense of shame.

  Some organizers say those who were not invited to the Bo?azici meeting are people who embrace the official line. Who exactly are these “supporters of the official line”? Esat Uras? Salahi Sonyel? Turkkaya Ataov? Halil Inalcik? Ilber Ortayli? Kemal Karpat? These are all mainstream historians. Those who oppose their views are “revisionists.” Moreover, these revisionists claim to be “scholars.” If so, where are their academic research papers?

  Well, what is the “official line” they are talking about? Is it, as they claim, denying the Armenian incidents? No, because it was the late Kamuran Gurun himself who said that some 300,000 Armenians had died in the incidents. No, we have never denied the tragic incidents of that time. However, we have said that these incidents were not genocide. We have also said that the things done to the Turks should not be ignored, either.

  Meanwhile, the organizers of the Bo?azici meeting say that no one could possibly have known what they were going to say at the meeting before they actually spoke. Nevertheless, they have been insisting -- though mincing words -- that it was a case of genocide.

  According to the miserable legal analysis made by Murat Belge in Radikal, though the Armenian incidents were not similar to the Holocaust, unfortunately they fit the genocide description given in Article 2 of the Genocide Convention. This is what a person would write if he attempted to comment on an issue he hardly knows.

  Obviously, with the courage he gained from the fact that the meeting at Michigan University had taken place behind closed doors, Halil Berktay described the Armenian incidents as “proto genocide.” Is that any different from real genocide? Furthermore, he bitterly criticized a number of people who were not able to defend themselves because they were not there. This is the kind of professional ethic he possesses. Well, you could ask the following question: Is that to be considered a problem when there are, in that group, “researchers” who have been receiving financial contributions from foreign intelligence services all these years?