face="Verdana" s�ÿÓETHICS, CONSCIENCE AND GENOCIDEêA new kind of rhetoric has surfaced on the so-called Armenian genocide issue. Those who subscribe to this rhetoric may argue: “How do you say the 1915-16 incidents weren't so important. óheir homes, so many families were split and so many died or were killed during forced relocation. That was a disaster. A person with a conscience can't leave aside the human aspect and merely describe it in legal terms by debating the definition of genocide and whether it applies here.”

  Some go further by accusing those who say the incidents don't classify as genocide of taking an “immoral” stance. It's as if rejecting the genocide allegation means downplaying the significance of the unfortunate events.

  The proponents of this new rhetoric overlook population records from that time and place. Curiously, they only refer to Armenian deaths. They don't want to discuss total casualties by figuring in Turkish deaths. They say that isn't right because it amounts to taking Armenian deaths lightly.

  Of course, they can't deny the Turkish losses but audaciously claim it was comparatively low, even negligible. They shockingly suggest the Ottomans (at the time the ruling Union and Progress Party) were responsible for the Turkish victims, effectively blaming it on Turkish nationalism.

  If tunnel-visioned Armenians can overcome their fixation on forcing Turkey to “admit to the genocide,” we can objectively study who had been killed where and how. But they're afraid that recognizing Turkish casualties will expose Armenian culpability. The tactic is to cry genocide and shift entire responsibility onto the Turks.

  How can Armenian-apologist Turks talk about conscience and morality without mentioning Turkish victims? They consider the Armenian suffering above the misfortune of the Turks. How can they defend this from an intellectual standpoint?

  Some Turks fail to feel in their hearts the pain of their ancestors. Yet they are full of “sensitivity” towards Armenian suffering. How is this explained? Are they trying to prove how humanitarian they are? What kind of mindset would have a person give priority to the past sufferings of another society while failing to feel the pain of his own people?

  Levinas' understanding of ethics is based on empathy. However, he tells us that we can empathize only with those that are close to us, that is, those that are “one of us.” He knows it is actually not possible to empathize with those that are outside our immediate circle. To make it seem that you empathize in the real sense of the word (though, in reality, you do not) cannot be ethical. It can only be a sign of hypocrisy. Those who have a special need to look “good” would obviously adopt that kind of attitude.

  Levinas gives priority to law when it comes to the resolution of conflicts we may have with people that are outside our immediate circle. The law does not conflict with morals or conscience. The institutional nature of the judicial process may be give it a certain coldness, but the objectivity of these cold rules of law facilitates the resolution of the conflicts because it makes it possible to overcome the subjective approaches resulting from the heat of incidents.

  Of course, it is possible for Turks to empathize with Armenians. But first they have to remember their own tragedies, own losses, and mourn accordingly. This is what psychology tells us. Otherwise, a barrier created by repression of unexpressed sufferings would prevent them from feeling the pain of others. Then there are those who ostensibly share the suffering of others in an effort to show they are overcoming their own “apathy” or “insensitivity.” For this reason, agreeing with the Armenian claim of genocide would amount to self-deception rather than being a sign of conscientious or moral behavior.