The Armenian Genocide in the extant Arabic language literary sources part two

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Aug 1, 2012 at 18:23

Hi Ianus

While researching the question of the Armenian genocide in the arabic language literary sources I came across this editorial which is also quoted by the Egyptian historian and here is the link and you will find in in al-Ahram aechives of March 13 1919 and in the review by the Egyptian historian he provides us with the wrong date and the correct date of the commantrary is really March 13/1919 and here is the link and it is on page one http://digital.ahram.org.eg/youmy/EventBrowes2.aspx?addd=15561 andf the title of the article is al-Arman bimu'tamar al-suluh or the Armenians in the conference of peace and here is the heart of the matter فى عدد الخميس12مارس1919 ، أثارت " الأهرام" قضية الإبادة الأرمنية عام1915 على هامش مطالبة الأرمن بإنشاء مملكة خاصة بهم. وقد علقت على هذا قائلة:" إن الألمان وتلاميذهم الاتحاديون لم ينظروا إلى حل مسألة الأرمن على هذا الوجه ، بل كانت خطتهم محو العنصر الأرمنى. وقد اتضح ذلك من عملهم وأقوال الشهود العدول."

Which I would read as: in the Thursday (sic) March 12/1919 al-Ahram raised the (legal) claim of the genocide of the Armenians in the year 1915 on the margin of demanding that the Armenians create their own kingdom (read this as nation) for them and (al-Ahram) says in the commentary:

Those Germans and their students al-itihadiyuun they did not look for a solution to the Armenian question in this regard (read this as creation of an Armenian state) but thier plan was to mahwu (read this as get rid of) the Armenians as per the neutral witnesses (that can attest to such crime)

I suppose how could anyone not react with horror to such crime unless one happens to be a brain-washed psycopath which the Turks that deny such crime happen to be

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".