Peace and Conflict Studies - Spring 2014

Peace and Conflict Studies Volume 21, Number 1 74 prior to the Nazi invasion of Poland: “Who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians?” (Balakian, 2003, pp. 164-165). One might imagine that this would have drawn Armenian and Jewish survivors together in mutual support, recognition and solidarity, but this has unfortunately not been the case. Writing in the 1970s, Armenian American Michael Arlen witnessed both defensive Armenian and Jewish reactions to the mention of the “other” genocide (Arlen, 1976), and in the course of my own research 35 years later, I have encountered the same. In a detailed comparison of genocide denial strategies, eminent Armenian historian Richard Hovannisian (1997) describes efforts to create animosity between Armenians and Jews: Deniers of the Armenian Genocide uphold the truth and criminality of the Holocaust and make an appeal to keep it uncontaminated by confusing it in any way with the hoax of a so-called Armenian genocide; deniers direct representations of their version of the Armenian genocide to Jewish groups as well as the Israeli government. (p. 43) It is disappointing but not surprising that, in response, many Armenians feel historically overshadowed by the widely recognized Holocaust despite the two events’ closely connected narratives and their joint basis for the formation of Lemkin’s genocide convention. The successful Turkish effort to frame the Armenian genocide as “illegitimate” to Jewish groups is an example of Patricia Williams’ “representational force” (1998). This refers to the ways groups are represented to each other (and the wider community) and consequently by each other. This process results in the continual (re)creation and (re)enforcement of borders. The Armenian genocide is represented as illegitimate, and this illegitimacy is represented as a threat to the legitimacy of the Holocaust. As members of Jewish groups absorb this representation, they draw distinctions between Jewish and Armenian histories, and consequently, between people. These distinctions are recreated and passed on, strengthening the borders. Armenian perceptions of Jewish attitudes (regardless of the reality of these attitudes) result in mutual border building and further group differentiation. Instead of finding common ground, differences are continually highlighted. Representational force is powerful, dangerous and unfortunate – these negative experiences of border creation and enforcement may discourage Armenian collaborative efforts with non-Armenian groups, even if doing so may be the best way to achieve their goals, as I will return to later. The Turkish government denial remains the one major distinction between the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust (Hovannisian, 1997). The denial has become