By John Q. Hosedrinker 
As Washington considers a potential sale of F-35 fighter jets to Turkey, Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar announced a forthcoming government resolution to officially recognize the Armenian genocide. This proposed resolution, based on moral and historical duty, would condemn the denial and distortion of these events. The draft details the systematic destruction of the Armenian population by the Ottoman government, leading to the deaths of approximately 1.5 million people, a historical truth largely denied by Turkey. Israel’s move comes despite recent praise from U.S. President Donald Trump for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s actions regarding Iran, with whom Erdogan is reportedly not allied.
Read the original article here
Israel is reportedly considering officially recognizing the Armenian Genocide for the first time, a move that surfaces amid escalating tensions with Turkey. This potential recognition, long overdue according to many, is seen by some as a politically expedient decision rather than a straightforward acknowledgment of historical fact. It’s interesting how the dynamics of international relations can lead to such pronouncements, sometimes feeling more like strategic maneuvers than acts of pure principle. The sentiment is that if the intention is right, the timing, even if politically driven, might still be considered progress, a case of “better late than never.”
There’s a palpable sense of irony in this development, particularly from the perspective of some Israelis. The acknowledgment of historical atrocities is something many feel should have been a given, a moral imperative. However, the timing, coinciding with strained relations between Israel and Turkey, suggests a geopolitical undercurrent. It’s observed that this could be a way for Israel to exert diplomatic pressure on Turkey, a nation with whom it has significant disagreements. This isn’t entirely unprecedented; historical parallels are drawn to other instances where nations have made symbolic gestures to annoy adversaries.
A key point of discussion is whether this recognition will actually benefit the Armenian cause or Israel’s standing. Some argue that it won’t genuinely hurt Turkey, which is already viewed as a hostile entity by many. Furthermore, given the complex history between Armenia and Israel, particularly concerning Israel’s partnership with Azerbaijan, it’s questioned whether this move will win Israel any favor with the Armenian diaspora. In fact, some feel it might even weaken Armenian claims by making the recognition appear transactional.
The involvement of Azerbaijan and the supply of weapons by Israel to its conflict with Armenia is a recurring theme, adding another layer of complexity. The observation that Israel might be using the acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide as a bargaining chip or a symbolic weapon against Turkey, rather than out of genuine remorse or a desire for historical justice, is a critical one. This perspective suggests that Israel’s primary motivation might be to contain Iran, and its actions towards Armenia or its historical narrative are secondary to its broader strategic interests.
The notion of “game recognizes game” is frequently invoked, highlighting a cynical view of international politics where nations engage in calculated moves. While the recognition itself is considered a fact and long overdue, the context surrounding it is what raises eyebrows. The possibility that Israel might retract its recognition if relations with Turkey were to normalize is a concern, drawing parallels to instances where countries have reversed their stances on historical events for political expediency. This raises questions about the sincerity and longevity of such a declaration.
Some express a desire to see a broader recognition, suggesting that if Israel is to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, it should also recognize the genocides of the Greek and Assyrian populations, also perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire, as a more pointed gesture towards Turkey. This sentiment stems from the belief that these historical injustices are intertwined and should be acknowledged collectively. The idea that Israel, having experienced its own historical trauma, should be a leading voice in recognizing genocides is also prevalent.
There’s also a pragmatic view that while the reasons might be complex or even flawed, the act of recognition itself is still a positive step. The argument is made that sometimes, actions are put off to maintain peace, and when that peace is no longer tenable, those actions can finally be taken. This suggests that the breakdown in relations between Israel and Turkey has created the space for this overdue acknowledgment. The current geopolitical climate, with shifting alliances and regional realignments, is seen as a catalyst for reevaluating past stances.
However, not everyone sees the situation as purely geopolitical. There are strong opinions that Israel should recognize the Armenian Genocide unequivocally, without any conditions, given the historical suffering of Jewish people. The critique of leadership on both sides, from Benjamin Netanyahu to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, suggests a low opinion of their moral compass, implying that any positive action is merely a minor correction to an otherwise negative humanistic record.
The current geopolitical landscape is described as a “mess,” with Russia’s shifting role and Azerbaijan’s close ties to Turkey influencing the decisions of other nations. This complex web of alliances and rivalries means that any move by Israel is likely to be scrutinized for its strategic implications. The question of whether Israel truly cares about Armenia or is merely using the genocide recognition as a tool against Turkey is a central point of contention.
Finally, there’s a broader reflection on the nature of conflict and suffering. Some comments touch upon the ongoing Palestinian situation, raising a form of “whataboutism” by questioning why that isn’t the focus. Yet, others counter that acknowledging one atrocity doesn’t negate the importance of addressing another, and that “boring times” can still mask significant injustices. The overarching sentiment is that while the recognition might be politically motivated, it still represents a step towards acknowledging a historical truth, however complicated the path may be.