By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Israeli government has formally recognized the Armenian Genocide, a resolution championed by Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar. Sa’ar emphasized the moral obligation of the Jewish people and the state to acknowledge this historical atrocity, which resulted in the murder of 1.5 million Armenians and the destruction of their heritage. This recognition, following extensive historical documentation, confronts an ongoing campaign of denial, primarily by Turkey, and adds Israel to a growing list of over 30 UN member states that have formally acknowledged the genocide.
Read the original article here
The recent vote by the Israeli government to recognize the Armenian Genocide marks a significant moment, shifting a long-standing policy and potentially altering regional dynamics. This decision, while ostensibly a moral stance, inevitably brings to the forefront the complex relationship between Israel and Turkey, a relationship that has seen its share of turbulence. It’s clear that for years, the Israeli public held a sympathetic view towards recognizing this historical atrocity, but governmental action was largely stalled, seemingly due to the previous cordial relations between Israel and Turkey, especially before the Marmara incident. The actions of Turkish President Erdoğan, who has been accused of using Israel as a political deflection for domestic criticism and his own problematic policies, have undoubtedly played a role in the changing calculus. His rhetoric and approach have clearly not helped foster a climate conducive to improved bilateral ties.
The sensitivity surrounding the Armenian Genocide within Turkey has always been a point of contention, with many questioning why such a significant historical event continues to be a source of such strong nationalistic denial. The argument often made is that most nations grapple with difficult periods in their past, find ways to acknowledge them, and move forward, without necessarily facing demands for extensive reparations or territorial concessions. This perspective suggests that Turkey’s persistent resistance to acknowledging the Armenian Genocide is an outlier, particularly when compared to the historical experiences of other countries. It begs the question: what is it about this specific event that elicits such a strong defensive reaction from Ankara?
Furthermore, the timing of Israel’s recognition raises questions about its broader strategic implications. There is speculation as to whether this move signals a broader shift in Israel’s foreign policy, perhaps as a means to exert pressure on Turkey or to align with other nations that have recognized the genocide. The narrative is further complicated by the ongoing conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, with Israel’s significant arms sales to Azerbaijan being a point of contention. The question lingers: will this recognition be accompanied by a re-evaluation of these arms sales, or is it a purely symbolic gesture? The historical context of Erdoğan’s own electoral practices, often alleged to be less than democratic, adds another layer of irony to the situation, suggesting a certain “game recognize game” dynamic in international relations.
The recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Israel, though long overdue in the eyes of many, is perceived by some as a calculated jab at Turkey, particularly given the current strained relations. However, there’s a counter-argument that this might not be the most strategically astute move, potentially provoking further escalation rather than de-escalation. Some observers suggest that Israel might be leveraging this issue to disrupt Turkey’s regional influence, especially in light of a perceived weakening of Iran. This perspective posits that with Iran’s diminished standing, Israel might be emboldened to engage in more assertive actions against Turkey, a nation whose animosity towards Israel is often described as deeply ingrained. The intensity of this animosity is illustrated by past incidents, where Iranian representatives at the UN have made outlandish accusations against Israel.
The debate also touches upon the core principles of human rights and the selective application of international norms. The assertion that “Armenian (Christian) lives matter as much as Palestinian (Muslim) lives” highlights a critique of what is perceived as a double standard in international affairs. The idea that nations engage in tit-for-tat accusations and defenses, often framed as “it’s the other guy” or “whataboutism,” is a recurring theme in discussions about international relations. The notion that this recognition is a step towards acknowledging historical injustices, and that Turkey has an opportunity for symbolic gestures like restoring Armenian heritage sites to improve its international image, is also put forth.
However, the deeply entrenched nationalism within Turkey presents a significant obstacle to any form of historical reckoning. Politicians who even hint at acknowledging the genocide face the prospect of political suicide, creating a self-perpetuating cycle of denial. This suggests that the problem lies not just with the government, but with a broader societal reluctance to confront the past. The question of whether an offender must first accept its accusation before any reconciliation can occur is central to this impasse. Some also cynically suggest that recognition might only occur if Armenia were to cease its trade relations with Iran, highlighting the transactional nature of some foreign policy decisions.
The broader context of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict also complicates the narrative. With Azerbaijan having regained its territories and with ethnic Armenians having been displaced, some argue that the conflict’s core issues have been resolved, potentially leading to a paradoxical improvement in relations between Armenia and Turkey, as there is ostensibly “nothing left to fight for.” This perspective is further nuanced by the political positions of leaders like Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan, who has campaigned on a less hawkish platform. The idea of a regional power struggle, with Israel and Turkey as key players, vying for influence, is a recurring motif.
The prospect of direct conflict between Israel and Turkey is generally viewed as unlikely, given the geopolitical realities and the potential consequences. Neither nation is likely to initiate a direct confrontation, though proxy conflicts or border incidents, particularly in Syria, remain possibilities. The involvement of NATO, a defensive alliance to which Turkey belongs, adds another layer of complexity to any potential escalation. Turkey’s military capabilities are substantial, despite its exclusion from the F-35 program due to its dealings with Russia, further underscoring the potential risks of direct confrontation.
There’s a strong sentiment that this move by Israel is intended to provoke a reaction from Turkey, especially considering the ongoing geopolitical maneuvering around Azerbaijan. The desire to challenge Erdoğan’s regional ambitions is seen as a driving force behind such decisions. However, the argument that those in power often prioritize strategic interests over humanitarian concerns is a sobering reminder of the complexities involved. The comparison of death tolls in historical events, such as the Armenian Genocide versus the Palestinian situation, is also raised in an attempt to contextualize the moral weight of these issues, though such comparisons are often fraught with difficulty and can be highly contentious.
The acknowledgment that “Christian Palestinians” exist, and the admonishment to “don’t be a dick,” point to the sensitivities surrounding discussions of religious and ethnic identity in the region. The notion that Israel would be unlikely to provoke a NATO member unprovoked, given the potential for widespread opposition within the European Union, is a pragmatic assessment of the situation. Turkey, despite its strategic disadvantages, remains a formidable regional power. The accusation that Israel is at fault, rather than Erdoğan, is countered by the reality of Erdoğan’s own aggressive rhetoric and actions towards Israel, which often include threats of invasion.
Ultimately, the Israeli government’s vote to recognize the Armenian Genocide is a multi-faceted event, driven by a confluence of moral considerations, historical awareness, and complex geopolitical calculations. It signifies a potential recalibration of relations with Turkey, a nation with which Israel has had a historically contentious but also strategically important relationship. The long-term ramifications of this decision will undoubtedly unfold in the coming months and years, impacting not only bilateral ties but also the broader landscape of regional politics and historical memory. The international community will be watching closely to see how Ankara responds and whether this recognition serves as a catalyst for genuine reconciliation or further exacerbates existing tensions.