The Israeli government has officially recognised the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire.

For decades, Israel kept the Armenian tragedy in the category of a diplomatic taboo in order to avoid damaging relations with Ankara. It has now decided to take a different course.

Read more about how historical memory has become a geopolitical instrument in the column by Ihor Semivolos of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies: The Armenian genocide, but not the Ukrainian one: How the Israeli government uses history as a political tool.

According to the author, the principal beneficiary, and driving force, behind the decision is Israel itself, which seeks to deliver an asymmetric political blow to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

“After Hamas’s attack on Israel on 7 October 2023, the Turkish leader, in Tel Aviv’s view, crossed every red line with his anti-Israeli rhetoric. Since the bridges with Türkiye had already been burned, Benjamin Netanyahu’s government decided to raise the stakes to the highest level, demonstrating domestic unity while punishing Ankara for its regional position,” Semivolos writes.

In his view, Türkiye may respond by completely severing diplomatic relations with Israel, but it will certainly appeal to Washington for support.

Baku, while issuing a formal diplomatic protest in solidarity with Türkiye, is operating within a new regional reality.

“With greater room for maneuver, Azerbaijan will not overreact. Instead, it will use its oil leverage and the new geopolitical balance, together with Turkish lobbyists, to dilute and delay the final passage of the bill in the Knesset as much as possible,” the Executive Director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies argues.

Armenia, meanwhile, finds itself in a difficult position. Its prime minister is dismantling long-standing historical narratives at home in pursuit of a painful reconciliation with Türkiye, making it impossible for Yerevan to express enthusiastic gratitude to Israel.

“Doing so would risk damaging relations with Iran, which remains Armenia’s critical logistical gateway to the outside world,” the expert explains.

According to Semivolos, another major dimension of this debate concerns the recognition of the Holodomor of 1932-1933 as genocide – a step that the Knesset has consistently refused to take.

He argues that Israel’s position rests on two pillars: the determined defense of the concept of the absolute uniqueness of the Shoah (the Holocaust) and pragmatic relations with the Kremlin.

“As long as Israel approaches international affairs primarily through the prism of immediate tactical threats, the historical tragedies of other nations, whether Armenian or Ukrainian will continue to be viewed in Tel Aviv not through the lens of universal morality, but as either assets or liabilities on the current geopolitical chessboard,” the author concludes.