The Politics of the Armenian Genocide

Successive Israeli governments did so for reasons of national security, not historical disagreement. Turkey was Israel’s closest Muslim ally, while Azerbaijan became an increasingly indispensable strategic partner, supplying energy, purchasing Israeli weapons and providing Israel with an intelligence foothold on Iran’s border. Recognizing the Armenian genocide threatened those relationships, so diplomacy consistently prevailed over history.

Since Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack, however, relations between Israel and Turkey have collapsed. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has embraced Hamas, accused Israel of genocide, severed economic ties and repeatedly compared Israeli leaders to Nazis. With little left to lose, Israel’s cabinet unanimously approved recognition of the Armenian genocide, subject to final approval by the Knesset.

The obvious conclusion is that Israel is using history in its confrontation with Turkey. That may make political sense, but it raises an important moral question. If recognizing a genocide is the right thing to do, should governments wait until doing so becomes politically convenient?

Israel is hardly alone. The United States delayed official recognition of the Armenian genocide for decades before finally acting in 2021, after relations with Turkey had sharply deteriorated. Other governments have followed similar paths. Historical truth has too often been acknowledged only after the diplomatic costs became acceptable.

That should trouble us.

A genocide either occurred or it did not. Recognition should depend upon historical evidence, not the current state of international alliances. When governments acknowledge crimes against humanity only after strategic circumstances change, they invite skepticism about whether they are honoring history or exploiting it.

Yet imperfect motives do not necessarily produce an imperfect result. Israel should have recognized the Armenian genocide years ago, when doing so required genuine political courage. That it waited until recognition no longer carried significant diplomatic cost diminishes the courage the decision reflects. It does not diminish the historical truth the decision finally acknowledges.

Nor does recognition alter the legal standard by which future allegations of genocide — including those directed at Israel — must be judged. Every such accusation must stand or fall on its own evidence under international law. Recognizing one genocide neither proves nor disproves another.

The practical consequences of Israel’s decision will likely be modest. Turkey and Azerbaijan are unlikely to alter their policies, and nothing can change what happened more than a century ago. But recognition has never been about rewriting history. It is about preventing its erasure. Nations that refuse to acknowledge crimes against humanity lend comfort to denial and diminish their own moral authority.

That is why timing matters. Israel has finally reached the right destination. One can only wish it — and many other nations — had arrived there when doing so demanded conviction rather than convenience.

—