‘Not an inch of land’: Vanetsyan’s statement a welcome sign for Artsakh

For those who missed it, Friday brought some remarkable news. In Artsakh, President Bako Sahakyan and Armenia’s National Security Director Artur Vanetsyan held a joint press conference, following a visit to the southern border where they inspected military personnel and the current situation in the area. Vanetsyan explained that during the trip, he learned about resettlement efforts underway in southern Hadrut near the Arax River. He gave special mention to Araxavan, a new village currently in the planning stages. Designed for up to 150 homes with adjacent land and working conditions, the village would help bolster Artsakh’s civilian presence in a strategic area adjoining both Azerbaijan and Iran.

Vanetsyan assessed this program as an important guarantee of national security, concluding as follows: “The program that we call a resettlement program, in my and everyone’s assessment, will be the main guarantee of our country’s security. Because there are those speeches, those expressions, and those people who always manipulate this subject as if lands will be returned, will be negotiated, conceded, etc. As a result of that program, we will send a clear message to all our people and the world that we have no intention to give an inch of land; on the contrary, our compatriots must settle on those lands and build our country.”

Such a pronouncement—its context, its setting, and above all, its content—is frankly unprecedented. Indeed, it is the first such statement—by far, the most serious—made by a high-ranking Yerevan official, about not yielding the liberated lands. In 25 years since the Artsakh War, no one from official Armenia—not Levon Ter-Petrosyan, not Robert Kocharyan, not Serzh Sargsyan, nor any of their aides—has commented so openly, so directly, so unequivocally on this matter.

The timing of the announcement is also worth examining. Here is a new regime, its leader, Nikol Pashinyan, widely popular but still untested as a statesman. To boot, Pashinyan has a background of past collaboration with Ter-Petrosyan, well-known for his conciliatory posture regarding Artsakh. Given all of this, some critics have been closely watching his every move, especially as Yerevan and Baku prepare for a new round of talks billed as “preparing for peace.” For such critics, who sometimes hint at a possible Pashinyan ‘sell-out,’ Vanetsyan’s statement likely brings a welcome sigh of relief (or bitter disappointment, depending on how cynical the critic is).

Until now, such phrases have been used mostly as slogans or rallying cries among the populace, but never in official discourse.

‘Not an inch of land,’ to paraphrase Vanetsyan. Until now, such phrases have been used mostly as slogans or rallying cries among the populace, but never in official discourse.

Except in Artsakh. There, from top to bottom, the stance has been the same for years – certainly since 2007, when Sahakyan assumed the reins of power. Since that time, Artsakh’s authorities have made explicit reference to territorial matters, shunning the term “occupied territories” for those borderlands lying outside the old Soviet-imposed borders. Instead these territories have been incorporated into Artsakh’s constitution, which deems them an inalienable part of the Republic. Meanwhile, words are increasingly matched with deeds, as the Republic, officially and unabashedly, promotes an active borderland resettlement program, in conjunction with a few non-governmental actors.

During these years, Armenia has stood by quietly. True, it has amply assisted Karabakh in maintaining the facts on the ground, but in the diplomatic arena, Yerevan has often been reticent, even timid. And when faced with Western-led formulas, like the OSCE “Madrid Principles,” calling for return of territories as a precondition for peace, Yerevan has behaved reactively, often signaling tacit consent to such concessions.

Now, apparently, things are changing. Upon assuming power last May, Pashinyan publicly called for Artsakh’s return to the negotiating table (its seat having been taken by Kocharyan, who claimed the right to speak for both Yerevan and Stepanakert). More recently, Pashinyan told OSCE mediators that before asking Yerevan if it’s ready for concessions, they should first address their inquiry to Baku. And now, we have Vanetsyan’s pronouncement against land concessions. While nothing is certain, it would seem that Armenia’s diplomacy has already become sharper, more agile and proactive, as it seeks to navigate this difficult terrain.

And what of the media reaction? In Azerbaijan, they are already in a rage. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Leyla Abdullayeva promptly demanded condemnation by the OSCE co-chairs, claiming that Baku will raise the issue of “illegal settlements” in international forums. Leading commentators there have followed suit. Meanwhile in Armenia, the coverage – while considerable – has been rather tame. It seems, then, that Yerevan’s recent approach has succeeded in pushing some buttons among adversaries abroad. Whether it will succeed in quelling hawkish critics at home remains to be seen.

avatar

Antranig Kasbarian

Antranig Kasbarian is a member of the ARF Central Committee, Eastern United States. Over the past 20 years, he has been a lecturer, activist, and community leader; he has also worked regularly as a journalist, activist, and researcher in Nagorno-Karabagh. He is a former editor of the Armenian Weekly, and holds a Ph.D. in geography from Rutgers University. He joined the Tufenkian Foundation in 2003, launching its program in Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabagh), and served as its executive director until 2015. He is currently the Director of Development of the Tufenkian Foundation, pursuing a range of charitable/strategic projects in Armenia and Artsakh.

28 Comments

  1. Unger A. Kasbarian,
    Thank you for highlighting this critically important development for Artsakh.
    Hopefully this will assuage some of the concerns expressed in some circles.
    I would add that Pashinian has been consistent in his demand that Artsakh’s representatives should participate in the OSCE-Minsk group discussions/negotiations.
    He also recently stated that that ” we can’t even discuss land for peace formula”.
    Indeed this is a difficult terrain in view of the different players involved.
    We need total unity.
    Vart Adjemian
    Vart Adjemian

  2. There should be nothing to discuss Azerbaijan through the first stone they lost to the victor goes the spoils if you want it back come and get it that should be the position nonnegotiable. Your crimes against the Armenian people in that area boardered on genocide. And now you want these people to come to the bargaining table and give you back what you stole from them what was given to you by Stalin.You have a better chance of finding a snowball in hell they getting back that property

  3. This is a very important shift and a very pro-active approach by the Pashinian government. Much better than the dormant years of foreign minister Nalbandian.

  4. Most of this land is not fit for habitation so will become no-mans land ultimately.Taking a hard line is a good opening position for a negotiated peace settlement but some flexibility must be shown. PM N Pashinyan’s comment about the Karabagh peoples role in determining their own future is very important and must not be sidelined by Yerevan or others. The goal of Peace must be obtained for the sake of our future generations who need a strong economy and work opportunities.The diaspora can help more by establishing businesses and investing in Hyastan.

    • Dear Professor,
      One wonder if you give one inch of your land to Turkic herds, then what will happen next?? Armenia is not in the heart of civilized European nations, like Switzerland! Remember we have lost Armenian Highlands to Christian enemies, due to our own Christian believes with “love your neighbor” syndrome!

    • Good point. But since these lands are not fit for habitation, than why should we give them up when we have so little, and have lost so much? Let the Azeris and the Turks give up some of their useless lands. Pull back about 20 miles, to start with.
      Look, the die has been cast. Too many souls have been sacrificed. Innocent boys, straight out of high school into a uniform and a coffin. The Azeris need to rid themselves of the dictator. No democracy will willingly submit to a despotic rule. If the Azeris were to have a revolution, velvet or red, become a functioning Democracy, than we will be able to negociate as equals. Until then, we can hope for peace or victory.

    • Bad point! Again, the lands of Artsakh are very fit for habitation; if they were not fit for habitation, then the Artsakh authorities would obviously not be building settlements on these lands.

      In terms of “negotiations,” there’s nothing to negotiate. The Artsakh authorities, have made it perfectly clear that “not an inch of land” will be delivered to the Azerbaijanis. In addition, the Armenians still have additional Armenian lands to liberate from the Azerbaijani illegal occupiers.

  5. GB,

    Exactly what sort of Christian “love your neighbor” policy are you talking about? Just take a look back in history at all those barbaric wars that the Christian “civilized European nations” waged against one another (such as World War 1 and 2). They certainly weren’t showing love towards one another, nor were they being civilized.

    What about the United States of America, which actually used to be a Christian country many years ago. America, certainly did not show love towards its neighbor, Mexico, by stealing away so much of its land. The present-day states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and Nevada, are all Mexican lands that were stolen by the United States.

    And exactly what does your firm attachment to the “love your neighbor” policy have to do with the Ottoman Turkish Empire’s genocide against its Armenian population, in which all six Western Armenian provinces were completely emptied of its entire Armenian population?

    As for the “professor,” he certainly does not know anything in regard to the Artsakh Republic by foolishly saying that “Most of this land is not fit for habitation.” On the contrary, most of this land is very fit for habitation; this explains the reason why many of our Armenian brothers and sisters from Syria have chosen to come and live in Artsakh.

  6. PM Pashinian is in Artsakh where he is to chair a meeting of Armenia’s Security Council planned for tomorrow.
    This is the first time the Council’s meeting is being held in Artsakh.
    This is a highly critical and important meeting which should give clarity on Armenia’s position on the upcoming discussions to be held with the OSCE-Minsk co-chairs.
    Hopefully Armenia’s position will be unwavering and we’ll have a “United” front.

    Vart Adjemian

  7. As a supporter of the Armenian cause I have to say this is a troubling development. The Artsakh authorities should not be doing this, because they have no historical high-ground.
    According to the 1823 Russian survey of the Karabakh Khanate, the lands of the five Meliks (the mountainous Karabakh) was about 93 percent Armenian. However, the Karabakh Khanate as a whole was 75 percent Muslim (all kinds combined).
    This survey was recently translated into English by the Armenian historian George Bournoutian.
    Armenians absolutely have a right to inhabit the territory of the former NK Republic because historically it has been theirs. They even have a moral right to occupy the surrounding heights so that Azeris cannot shell them.
    But they do NOT have a right to start building settlements on those surrounding areas. Not only will this seriously anger the Azerbaijanis, but it will also make the Artsakhis lose all of the real moral high-ground they once had. This will give the Azeris a genuine excuse to simply label you all as illegal occupiers, rather than the legitimate defenders of your homeland.
    Armenians, I implore you. Don’t debase yourself like this!

    • Did you try this argument with the Israelis? The Artsakhins need to populate all its territories, and acquire land up to the Khura river. That is Artsakhs boundary, not a gerrymandered Azeri version. I could care less about western morality. Western morality showed its face when it abandoned our Cilician boys to the Turkish bayonets. Or its abandonment of Armenia, its most injured ally in WW1 to Turkish promises of BAKSHISH.

    • One cannot possibly compare Israel with Artsakh. There’s absolutely no similarity between the two. The Jews had never been the original inhabitants of Palestine (present-day Israel). The original inhabitants of that land were the Canaanites. Furthermore, before the illegal creation of Israel in 1948, that particular land was called Palestine; and it had always been a predominantly Arab country from the seventh century all the way until 1948, when 750 thousand Palestinian Arabs were brutally forced out of their lands.

    • @Edward Demiraiakian
      I absolutely would make this argument against Israelis. The whole world condemns them for building illegal settlements in “greater Israel”, but the Israelis just don’t care. And they can afford to not care because they have the entirety of the American evangelical right on their side.
      I hope you’re not basing your geopolitical actions on their morality.

  8. In 1823, the “Karabakh Khanate” was completely dissolved. By 1880, Artsakh’s population was 53 percent Armenian. And by the time that Soviet Russia illegally gave away Artsakh to the Azerbaijanis (back in 1921), the population of that province was over 90 percent Armenian.

    You are really debasing yourself by criticizing the high morals of the Artsakh authorities. Instead, you should be criticizing the horrible morals of the Azerbaijani authorities, who wish to commit an all-out genocide against the Artsakh Armenians.

    The Artsakh authorities, have every right to build settlements on those “surrounding areas” (which are a part of the historic province of Artsakh), which they are currently doing. And, if all of this seriously angers your Azerbaijani friends, then that’s even better! Furthermore, the Armenians still have additional Armenian lands to liberate from the Azerbaijani illegal occupiers.

    • “In 1823, the “Karabakh Khanate” was completely dissolved.”
      I fail to see the relevance. The Khanate was an administration, but the people living there didn’t suddenly disappear too. If they did, can you give me a source?
      “By 1880, Artsakh’s population was 53 percent Armenian.”
      I’d like a source for this too, but before you give me one, I also want a definition of Artsakh. The 5 Melikdoms? (which roughly corresponds to the old NKR) Or more than that? Is your definition of Artsakh the same as your source’s definition?

    • When did I ever say that the people living in the “Karabakh Khanate” suddenly disappeared? As I had correctly stated, “In 1823, the Karabakh Khanate was completely dissolved.” After that, the dissolved “Karabakh Khanate” became part of the former Russian Empire’s Elizavetpol gubernia (governorate).

      In terms of the meaning of the word, “Artsakh”, the “tsakh” means “woods” in old Armenian (grabar); as for the “Ar”, it obviously refers to the Armenian people. The historical name of this particular province is “Artsakh” (and that’s the name used by the natives of this particular land), which corresponds to the whole entire territory of today’s Artsakh Republic; in addition to that, there are also two more territories of Artsakh which are currently occupied by the Azerbaijani illegal occupiers.

      In terms of sources, all of these facts about Artsakh I’ve gathered from Armenian history books as well as from the natives of Artsakh. And if you don’t want to accept these facts, then that’s your problem.

    • Yerevanian, what is the basis for this position?
      The entire region from Lake Sevan all the way to the confluence of the Rivers Arax and Kurr belong to Armenia because…?

      I have already told you that Armenians were not the majority of the population there in 1823. You told me that the Armenians became the majority by 1880, but the majority of what? What is your source and what does your source refer to when it says “Artsakh?”
      1880 is a very specific date which means it sounds like you have a very specific source. I named mine. I even named the Armenian historian who translated it.

      Furthermore, please be more specific about your terminology. When the Soviets illegally (I agree) gave Artsakh to the Tatars that was only the Mountainous zone that was formerly comprised of the 5 Meliks and which later became the NKR.
      I’m being very specific with my language. I won’t use the word Karabakh or Artsakh now.
      What evidence do you have that Armenians formed the majority of the population of the triangle zone extending from:
      1. Zangezeur to the West, 2. the Kura to the North. 3. The Arax to the South, 4. The Confluence of the Arax and Kura to the far East?
      If you don’t have any evidence for that, then what is the bases for your claim that literally all of that is Armenian?

      Some 1200 year old map perhaps?

    • @Yerevanian again.
      I also notice that you said Arabs were the majority of the population of Palestine from the 7th century onwards.
      That same historical explosion of the Islamic Caliphate also extended to Artsakh. Artsakh had been given to the Caucasian Albanians by the Sassanids and then it was taken by the Arab Muslims. With continuous flow of Muslims into the area over several centuries Armenians became a minority.
      My question then is this, since Arabs were the majority of Palestine by the 7th century, why do Turks not have the moral highground in south east Transcaucasia?
      What is your cut off point in your mind until someone no longer becomes the true heirs? When they are no longer the majority after X number of years?
      So what is that magic number that applies to 7th century Palestinians but not to 10th century Oghuz Turks?

  9. Yerevanian,
    Read the Bible you will get the message! I don’t care about fake “Europeans Christian believes” This is what our naive Western Armenians natives let Turkic herds settled in our holy Christian lands, where Muslims Turks outnumbered Armenians. And I am sure you know what happened next! I admire Artsakh Armenians!

  10. It is encouraging to see Armenia and Artsakh beginning to behave diplomatically as a confident liberator. It is clear that the OSCE with cling to neutrality…thus allowing Azerbaijan to gain an advantage as the “victim” of “Armenian “aggression”. The best way to counter that is to take clear positions in line with the aspirations of the people of Artsakh. The “occupied territories” are an Azeri mirage based on artificial and imposed borders…. as Antranig pointed. Good to see Armenians act as the victors over Azeri aggression.

  11. Owen Foster,

    As I have already told you, all of the facts that I’ve presented on Artsakh, I’ve gathered from Armenian history books as well as from the noble natives of Artsakh. And again, if you don’t want to accept these facts, then that’s your problem.

    In your immoral attempt to establish the historic Armenian province of Artsakh as being much less Armenian than what it truly is, your “source” represents absolutely nothing. Even if, in 1823, the Armenians were not the majority of the population, so what? Before that time, the Armenians had been the majority of the population; as a matter of fact, before it became part of the former Persian Empire, the vast majority of Artsakh’s population had always consisted of Armenians. Furthermore, from at least 1880 and onward, the majority of Artsakh’s population has always been Armenian.

    In terms of what was illegally given away to the Azerbaijanis (in terms of Artsakh) back in 1921, it corresponds to the territories of today’s Artsakh Republic, along with three more territories (I had previously stated that it was two territories, but it’s actually three) which are still occupied by the Azerbaijani illegal occupiers.

    Your level of morals must indeed be very low to ask, “Why do Turks not have the moral high ground in southeast Transcaucasia?” That’s exactly the equivalent of asking why do the Zionists not have the moral high ground in Palestine?

    And, here’s some education for you on the subject of Palestine:
    http://www.ifamericaknew.org/history/

    “For centuries, there was no such conflict. In the 19th century, the land of Palestine was inhabited by a multicultural population-approximately 86 percent Muslim, 10 percent Christian, and 4 percent Jewish-living in peace.”

    “In the late 1800s, a group in Europe decided to colonize this land. Known as Zionists, they represented an extremist minority of the Jewish population. Their goal was to create a Jewish homeland, and they considered locations in Africa and the Americas, before settling on Palestine.”

    “At first, this immigration created no problems. However, as more and more Zionists immigrated to Palestine-many with the express wish of taking over the land for a Jewish state-the indigenous population became increasingly alarmed. Eventually, fighting broke out, with escalating waves of violence. Hitler’s rise to power, combined with Zionist activities to sabotage efforts to place Jewish refugees in western countries, led to increased Jewish immigration to Palestine, and conflict grew.”

    “Finally, in 1947, the United Nations decided to intervene. However, rather than adhering to the principle of ‘self-determination of peoples,’ in which the people themselves create their own state and system of government, the UN chose to revert to the medieval strategy whereby an outside power divides up people’s land.”

    “Under considerable Zionist pressure, the UN recommended giving away 55% of Palestine to a Jewish state-despite the fact that this group represented only about 30% of the total population, and owned under 7% of the land.”

    “While it is widely reported that the resulting war eventually included five Arab armies, less well known is the fact that throughout this war, Zionist forces outnumbered all Arab and Palestinian combatants combined-often by a factor of two to three. Moreover, Arab armies did not invade Israel-virtually all battles were fought on land that was to have been the Palestinian state.”

    “It is significant to note that Arab armies entered the conflict only after Zionist forces had committed 16 massacres, including the grisly massacre of over 100 men, women, and children at Deir Yassin. Future Israeli Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, head of one of the Jewish terrorist groups, described this as ‘splendid,'”… “Zionist forces committed 33 massacres altogether.”

    “By the end of the war, Israel had conquered 78 percent of Palestine; three-quarters of a million Palestinians had been made refugees; over 500 towns and villages had been obliterated; and a new map was drawn up, in which every city, river and hillock received a new Hebrew name, as all vestiges of the Palestinian culture were to be erased. For decades, Israel denied the existence of this population, former Israeli Prime Minister, Golda Meir, once saying: ‘There were no such thing as Palestinians.'”

    Yeah, this is exactly what the Turks/Turkbaijanis have done on all of the historic Armenian lands that they stole away from the Armenians, in their desperate efforts to erase all traces of Armenian culture from those lands.

    • You seem to have missed my point about the Turks and the Palestinian Arabs.
      Let me try again.
      The Arabs only entered Palestine by the 7th century, but you accept that the Palestinians are the rightful claimants because it has been 1300 years. Jews had been there much longer, but after 1300 years their claim is now invalid because they hadn’t been a majority for a long time.
      The Turks only entered Transcaucasia by the 10th Century. The Armenians were there first, but they hadn’t formed a majority for a similar amount of time.
      But you don’t accept the Turkic claim yet? In 300 years will they by the rightful claimants?

      You don’t need to lecture me on Israeli history. My point was precisely in favor of Palestinians but juxtaposed with the Transcaucasian Tatars.

      And you have also failed to specify a source. “I’ve talked to people.” Isn’t a source. It isn’t facts I’m accepting, it’s sources.
      I’ve talked to people too, as well. One Lebanese Armenian I talked to told me when we were at Gandzasar that Garegin Nzhdeh ethnically cleansed Zangezeur because by 1918 Armenians were no longer the majority there. “And thank god he did that!” he added.

      “Before that time, the Armenians had been the majority of the population; as a matter of fact, before it became part of the former Persian Empire, the vast majority of Artsakh’s population had always consisted of Armenians.”
      Yes, I know that. I’m not ignorant of Armenia’s history. My point is that Artsakh was taken by the Persians and given to the Albanians over 1000 years ago! Do you really think Armenians remained the majority of the population of Artsakh all this time after it was given to the Albanians, taken over by the Arabs, the Turks, the Mongols, the Timurids, the Safavids, the Turks again… etc etc.
      Over 1000 years is a long time, and if you think the Armenians remained the majority of the population all that time then I’m sorry but that requires a source. A real source, mind you. Not just “I talked to people”.
      I know you were there first, but you weren’t there the most, or the longest.

  12. “Furthermore, from at least 1880 and onward, the majority of Artsakh’s population has always been Armenian.”
    And you still haven’t given me a source for this claim which is an important one.
    I want to know where you got that figure from. Is it a survey similar to mine? And in your source what is the definition of Artsakh? The mountainous western part only? Or does it stretch all the way to the Kura-Aras confluence? Because if it is the latter, then it would justify your irredentist claims over that area.
    I hope you’re right. I’m excited to hear your source. I hope to be proven wrong. I hope you can change my mind and give me a better justification for building settlements outside of the former NKR other than “We were the majority 1500 years ago!”

  13. The Palestinians are indeed the rightful claimants of Palestine (the land which constitutes present-day Israel), because they have always been the indigenous people of that land. They didn’t migrate to Palestine from some other region of the world; the Canaanites also happen to be their ancestors. On the other hand, the Jews were never the indigenous people of Palestine (just like the Turks were never the indigenous people of Western Armenia nor Asia Minor, and just like the Turkbaijanis were never the indigenous people of Artsakh). The Jews migrated to Canaan around 1800 BC; and then they departed from it, in the 2nd century AD. In other words, they abandoned the “homeland” which the Zionists claim as being theirs. And, it wasn’t until 1882, that Jewish colonists began to migrate back to Palestine. Therefore, after abandoning their “homeland” for over 1700 years, the Zionists certainly have no right to claim that land as being theirs (furthermore, Palestine wasn’t the only place that they considered in creating a “Jewish homeland”; the Zionists also considered places like Uganda, Argentina, and even the state of Texas). As for the Palestinians, they never once abandoned their homeland; they’re still there. As a matter of fact, if you add up the population of Palestine (present-day Israel, along with the occupied territories), it’s actually the Palestinians who outnumber the Jews (despite all those Palestinians who are being killed every week by Israeli soldiers and police).

    “You don’t accept the Turkic claim yet? In 300 years, will they be the rightful claimants?”

    Well, now, you are indeed sounding like a typical, ignorant, immoral Turk who’s attempting to deny how his/her forefathers completely wiped out the indigenous peoples (Armenians, Greeks, and Assyrians) of Asia Minor, in order to create a “country” devoted to the Turkish culture.

    On the subject of Artsakh, I did not state that the Armenians constituted the majority of Artsakh’s population throughout the whole entire period of time when it was a part of the former Persian Empire. It was the majority for part of that time, and not the majority for the other part of the time.

    In terms of 1880, since Artsakh’s population was 53 percent Armenian, this therefore means that Armenians made up the majority. And by 1921, the population of that province had climbed up to 94 percent Armenian.

    In terms of the definition of Artsakh, and what Artsakh consists of, I’ve already lectured to you on all of that. And, you must be very silly to continuously ask me the same question over and over again, in regard to my sources. So again, my sources consist of a combination of Armenian history books as well as lectures that were given to me by native Artsakhtsis (who happened to be historians).

    “I hope you can change my mind and give me a better justification for building settlements outside of the former NKR.”

    Are you serious? You really think you’re so important? You represent nothing on here! Anyway, as much as you and your fellow Turkbaijanis hate to hear this, there are numerous settlements being built in the Artsakh Republic. And when those three remaining territories of Artsakh are finally liberated from the Azerbaijani illegal occupiers, numerous Armenian settlements will be built on those lands as well.

  14. First of all, does the name “Owen Foster” sound Turkbaijani to you? I’m an Englishman and even said “I’m a supporter of the Armenian cause” in this comment section. Please pay attention. Nuynpes, yes sovoretsnel em dzer lezun yerku tariner kani vor yes tsankanoum em Hayastani patmaban darrnal. Ayt pacharrov huys unem du karogh es tal indz aveli lav aghbyur 1880i masin. Voch miayn «Yes khosetsi mardkants het».

    “And when those three remaining territories of Artsakh are finally liberated from the Azerbaijani illegal occupiers, numerous Armenian settlements will be built on those lands as well.” – Slobodan Milosovich would be proud.

    Silliness aside, let’s get to the real stuff.

    What you said about the Israelis and Jewish history was a pretty decent argument. Well done. However, is there any proof that the Palestinians really are the descendants of the Canaanites? Or are they really just descendants of 7th century Arabs? Similar to how Turkbaijani “historians” pretend that they are descended from the Aghvaunk people.

    The reason I keep asking for the definition of Artsakh is because your definition might not be the same as your sources definition. And you still haven’t given me your source.
    “In terms of 1880, since Artsakh’s population was 53 percent Armenian, this therefore means that Armenians made up the majority. ” – This! 1880 and 53 are very specific numbers, so please tell me your specific source. And then tell me your sources definition of Artsakh. Because just like “Armenia” those boundaries change from cartographer to cartographer.

    You’ve already hinted quite gleefully that you are a supporter of retaliatory ethnic cleansing, so we don’t need to discuss that any more. I have discovered your principle. I won’t press it further, I will just highlight it for others to see.
    So for now please just give me a specific source and we can both get on with our lives.

  15. No, the name, “Owen Foster”, certainly does not sound Turkbaijani. However, from your previous comments, you have indeed given the impression of being one of them; but then again, the British happen to be big supporters of Turkbaijan.

    “Slobodan Milosovich”? Now that’s really silly! Why would he be proud, or even care about the Armenians liberating the three remaining territories of Artsakh?

    In terms of the Palestinians, yes, they are the descendants of the Arabs who migrated to Palestine (originally Canaan) in the seventh century AD; and then upon mixing with the Canaanites, the Palestinians came into existence. In other words, Palestinians are the offspring of the Arabs and Canaanites.

    What you wrote in Armenian was nice. In the first sentence, it’s supposed to be, “yes sovorel em dzer lezun yerku tari”. But again, you’re still continuing to nag me about giving you a better source for 1880. Hey, my Armenian history books are the best sources.

    By the way, a little while earlier, I found out some more information about Artsakh from one of my Armenian history books. To begin with, the area of ancient Artsakh consisted of 15,000 square kilometers, which was 3,500 square kilometers more than the area of today’s Artsakh Republic. Those remaining 3,500 square kilometers are therefore represented by the three remaining territories of Artsakh, which are currently occupied by Azerbaijan. Furthermore, besides Artsakh, there are also two other historic Armenian provinces (Utik and Paytarakan) located at the very eastern end of the Armenian Plateau, which are also under the occupation of Azerbaijan. Returning back to the subject of Artsakh, I also found out that up to the second half of the 18th century, the population of Artsakh’s highlands and lowlands was entirely Armenian.

    In terms of “retaliatory ethnic cleansing”, you’re obviously referring to what I had previously stated about the former Azerbaijani residents of Artsakh. Yeah, it’s unfair for them that they were forced to leave their homes; on the other hand, what about my Armenian brothers and sisters from Azerbaijan (who numbered four times more than the former Azerbaijani residents of Artsakh) who were savagely forced out of Azerbaijan by those Turkbaijani terrorists, who were attempting to commit a genocide upon them. Therefore, if the former Armenian population of Azerbaijan will never be allowed to peacefully return back to their homes in Azerbaijan, then the former Azerbaijani population of Artsakh should also never be allowed to return back to their homes in Artsakh.

  16. Yes I noticed my plural mistake the moment I published it! It is true that the British governments have had cynical relationships with all kinds of people, Erdogan is far from the worst of our partners. But I hope you are familiar with Baroness Caroline Cox, a British politician who has been a longtime supporter of Artsakh’s independence.

    1. The Slobodan Milosovich remark was in precise reference to your justification for retaliatory ethnic cleansing. “The Serbs were here first for centuries! We must restore Greater Serbia”! Sound familiar?
    “Therefore, if the former Armenian population of Azerbaijan will never be allowed to peacefully return back to their homes in Azerbaijan, then the former Azerbaijani population of Artsakh should also never be allowed to return back to their homes in Artsakh.” – I completely agree with you. You are right. But you aren’t just talking about returning home, are you? You are talking about conquering the old Artsakh province all the way to the Arax-Kura confluence. You’re not just talking about cancelling out an old ethnic cleansing, what you are saying would create a whole new one.

    2. You say that the modern day Palestinians are a mixture of the old Canaanites and the 7th century Arabs. That makes perfect sense.
    But have you considered the following? The residents of The Republic of Azerbaijan aren’t really 100 percent Turks. They are partly Turkic, but they’re also largely culturally Turkified natives. We both know that the “Azerbaijani” identity north of the Arax is a false one that was concocted in the 20th century, an identity that was forced at the expense of Talysh, Lezgi, Uti, etc. According to Strabo the Caucasian Albanians consisted of 26 tribes who spoke different languages. (I think it is 26, I don’t have the book on me) This is similar to how the English are probably about 60 percent Celtic despite being culturally and linguistically Germanic.
    With that in mind, does that not give the Azerbaijanis (even though they falsely call themselves Turks) at least some claim over the area between the Kura and Arax?

    3. Again, you keep talking about your Armenian history books. Why is it so hard to just post the name of your books here? Even if it’s an Armenian source. That’s fine. I’ll talk to one of my Armenian friends and see if they can find it for me.

  17. “Baroness Caroline Cox”? So what? That’s just one person. The truth of the matter is that your British government is, and has always been a longtime supporter of Turkbaijan, and therefore firmly against everything related to Artsakh.

    No, I do not justify “retaliatory ethnic cleansing.” As a matter of fact, in regard to my statement on the former Azerbaijani residents of Artsakh, you even stated, “I completely agree with you. You are right.” Furthermore, in terms of rightfully liberating the three remaining territories of Artsakh, I’m certainly not advocating for the present inhabitants of those lands (who are obviously Azerbaijanis) to be removed from those lands. They have the right to continue living on those lands.

    As for the Azerbaijanis, I completely agree with them that they are Turks. After all, their culture is completely Turkified. Therefore, they are one hundred percent Turks. As Erdogan and Aliyev always say, “We are two states, but one nation.”

    As for the Palestinians, even though they are also descended from the Canaanites, they have nevertheless been completely Arabized. Their entire culture and lifestyle is based upon Arabic culture. Therefore, they are one hundred percent Arabs.

    As for my Armenian history books, these are homemade books that I prepared myself, in which all of the information was taken from history books about historic Armenia. Therefore, if you’re interested in all of this, you’ll need to have somebody in Armenia buy you books about historic Armenia, and then send them over to you in your country. But then again, you’ll also need to find somebody who’s a master of the Armenian language, who can translate all of that information to you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*