By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a move likely to strain relations with Turkey, Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar announced a resolution to officially recognize the Armenian genocide. This proposed resolution, to be brought before the next government meeting, cites moral and historical duty as its basis. It also calls for condemnation of any denial or minimization of the atrocities committed against the Armenian people during the late Ottoman Empire, which led to an estimated 1.5 million deaths. This development comes as the U.S. weighs a significant arms sale to Turkey and following President Trump’s recent praise of Turkish President Erdogan.
Read the original article here
Israel’s contemplation of officially recognizing the Armenian genocide marks a significant shift, and it’s happening within a complex web of geopolitical tensions, particularly with Turkey. It feels like a move born less out of pure historical conviction and more out of calculated political expediency, which, honestly, is a bit absurd. While the historical reality of the genocide itself shouldn’t be up for debate, the timing and motivation behind such a decision certainly invite scrutiny.
There’s a prevailing sentiment that this recognition, if it happens, is a strategic play rather than an unconditional acknowledgment of historical fact. Some find it perplexing, especially given the historical perception of strained relations between Armenians and Israel, partly due to Israel’s partnerships with Azerbaijan. It brings to mind instances where nations have made symbolic gestures for political gain, like that peculiar situation with London and the Falklands.
This perceived “diplomatic pettiness” is a recurring theme. Many believe this recognition is long overdue, and if it’s finally happening, it should be done thoroughly, perhaps even encompassing the recognition of the Greek and Assyrian genocides alongside the Armenian one, purely to maximize the diplomatic impact on Turkey. However, even proponents admit that from a purely geopolitical standpoint, it could be a misstep, potentially weakening Armenian claims while simultaneously damaging Israel’s relationship with Azerbaijan.
From an Israeli perspective, there’s a strong feeling that this acknowledgment should have occurred years ago, irrespective of current political climates. Yet, the argument persists that this move offers no real geopolitical benefit. Instead, it risks alienating Azerbaijan and doesn’t necessarily endear Israel to Armenians, who many believe already hold negative views. It’s a scenario where the right action is taken for potentially the wrong reasons.
The irony isn’t lost on observers that Israel, which has supplied weapons to Azerbaijan, might now be weighing the recognition of the Armenian genocide. This creates a rather complex and somewhat hypocritical dynamic. Questions arise about the longevity of such a recognition: if relations with Turkey or Azerbaijan were to normalize, would Israel backtrack, rendering the entire gesture hollow? It’s a valid concern, given historical precedents where nations have revised their stances on sensitive historical events.
Indeed, the fact of the Armenian genocide is undeniable, though it’s expected that Turkey will continue its historical denial. The primary outcome of Israel’s recognition, it seems, would be to further antagonize Turkey, a nation that has, in many ways, become a de facto adversary through its actions and rhetoric towards Israel. Some feel this antagonism is already a given, with Turkey having engaged in numerous hostile acts short of direct military confrontation.
It’s noteworthy that other nations, like India, haven’t recognized the genocide yet, despite their growing ties with countries like Greece and Armenia. This contrast highlights the unique pressures and considerations at play for Israel. The narrative that Turkey is inherently hostile towards Israel, however, is also challenged, with some suggesting it’s Israel that has positioned Turkey as a target, particularly after Iran.
The notion of using the admission of historical truth as a bargaining chip is deeply unsettling for many. There’s a feeling that acknowledging atrocities should be an unconditional act of justice. It’s also pointed out that the US, under President Biden, has already officially recognized the Armenian genocide, suggesting that Israel might be playing catch-up, or perhaps waiting for the opportune moment.
The strategic decision-making process here seems to hinge on the idea that when the impetus for maintaining peace or a certain relationship disappears, historical truths can then be brought to the forefront. This era is certainly characterized by constant flux and significant global events, making “boring times” seem like a distant luxury.
For some, the conflict with Turkey has overshadowed other considerations, including the complex arms sales to Azerbaijan, which were ostensibly aimed at containing Iran. The recognition of the Armenian genocide, in this light, becomes a symbolic weapon in a broader geopolitical struggle.
The inclusion of Assyrian and Greek genocides in the discussion is also significant, highlighting the intertwined historical traumas of the region. The debate around this also touches upon the broader context of ethnic cleansing and human rights abuses, with some drawing parallels to the ongoing Palestinian situation, underscoring a sense of “whataboutism” in the discourse.
Ultimately, the decision for Israel to weigh the recognition of the Armenian genocide is a multifaceted one, driven by a confluence of historical injustices, present-day geopolitical realities, and the ever-shifting dynamics of international relations. Whether it’s a genuine step towards historical reckoning or a purely strategic maneuver, its implications are far-reaching and underscore the complex interplay between truth, politics, and international diplomacy. The hope, of course, is that the truth prevails, regardless of the political expediency that might bring it to light.