Israel's Recognition of Armenian Genocide Raises Questions on Moral vs. Political Motives

The Israeli government recently unanimously approved Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar's proposal to officially recognize the Armenian genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The official announcement emphasized Israel's moral obligation to acknowledge this historical atrocity. However, this decision has sparked debate about whether the recognition is truly driven by moral duty or by shifting geopolitical interests.

For decades, Israeli governments avoided recognizing the Armenian genocide despite repeated proposals from politicians across the spectrum. The reluctance was largely due to strategic and diplomatic considerations, particularly the desire to maintain close ties with Turkey, a key regional partner. For example, in the 1980s, a documentary about the Armenian massacres was reportedly suppressed due to Turkish warnings that airing it could jeopardize sensitive security operations.

Dr. Alina Berdicev-Yilov, a former Knesset member and advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, argues that the timing of Israel's recognition reflects changing political realities rather than a newfound moral awakening. She questions whether future Israeli governments might reverse the recognition if relations with Turkey improve, suggesting that political expediency continues to shape Israel's stance more than consistent ethical principles.

Berdicev-Yilov stresses that historical events like those of 1915 should primarily be examined by historians through archival research and evidence, rather than by politicians influenced by current diplomatic priorities. She also distinguishes Israel's recognition of the Armenian genocide from European countries' acknowledgment of the Holocaust, noting that Israel has no direct historical responsibility for the Armenian events, unlike Europe's accountability for the Holocaust.

The article concludes that while honoring Armenian victims and supporting historical research are important, turning the century-old tragedy into a political tool risks undermining both historical scholarship and diplomatic clarity. Berdicev-Yilov warns that governments recognizing such events only when geopolitically convenient are celebrating political convenience rather than genuine morality.