July 6, 20269:17 AM EDT
—
July 6, 20269:17 AM EDT
—
On 2 July, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen visited Yerevan.
This was already her second visit to the Armenian capital within a month.
Read more about the signal she brought to Yerevan and whether Armenia is truly moving closer to the EU in the article by Yurii Panchenko, European Pravda’s co-founder: A cautious Pashinyan: What the restrained reaction of Yerevan to unprecedented EU support means.
The President of the European Commission announced in Yerevan an unprecedented liberalisation of access for Armenian goods to EU markets.
“With this, we can re-route products that currently still rely heavily on the Russian market and send them to the European Union single market of 450 million consumers. The measures would cover almost all Armenian fresh fruits, vegetables and plants previously exported to Russia, and more than 90 percent of its beverages and spirits exports. This is only the beginning,” she said.
Armenian producers are expected to receive soon significantly easier access to European markets.
However, this is a unilateral opening of the EU market, not mutual liberalisation. Armenia remains a member of the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union, which means it cannot unilaterally change the terms of access for European goods to its own market.
EU assistance does not stop there. According to Ursula von der Leyen, the EU also plans to help protect Armenia from Russian energy threats.
In particular, European experts are expected to arrive in Armenia in the coming days to explore ways to diversify energy supplies.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan emphasised that “we have never set, do not set, and will not set the goal of creating a crisis in relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Russian Federation.”
According to Tigran Khzmalyan, head of the European Party of Armenia, this is not just tactlessness, but a sign that the Armenian leadership is not ready for real rapprochement with the EU.
However, government officials respond differently to such criticism.
As Armenian ruling-party politicians have repeatedly stated, Yerevan will openly speak about EU membership only after a peace agreement with Azerbaijan is signed and relations with Türkiye are unblocked.
Notably, in assessing the results of Armenia’s elections, many Russian political analysts pointed out that Pashinyan failed to secure a full victory. His party did not gain a constitutional majority and therefore cannot unilaterally amend the constitution in the way Baku demands, namely to remove all references to Nagorno-Karabakh. Relying on openly pro-Russian opposition votes is not realistic.
Without constitutional amendments, Armenia will not be able to sign a peace agreement with Azerbaijan, which in turn remains a major obstacle to European integration.
However, this is not entirely accurate. Nikol Pashinyan does have a way to amend the constitution without a parliamentary supermajority.
This would be done through a nationwide referendum.
To initiate it, 300,000 signatures must be collected.
It is possible that preparations for such a scenario are already underway. For example, last week parliament voted to ban voting rights for citizens who do not permanently reside in Armenia.
The failure of pro-Russian parties in the recent elections, combined with the EU’s willingness to engage in the region, creates a real “window of opportunity” for Armenia.
The only question is whether Nikol Pashinyan actually wants to seize it.
His first foreign visit after being re-elected prime minister was to Yekaterinburg, Russia. This further deepens uncertainty about whether Armenia’s leadership is truly ready to take advantage of the opportunity currently offered by the EU.
—
The border between Turkey and Armenia has been closed for over 30 years, but it may be opened in the coming months. On the Armenian side, people are in two minds: hopes for peace and economic development on the one hand, and fear of the historic enemy on the other.
Conflicts > Hugo Laulan > Valentin Chesneau-Daumas > 6 July 2026
The two countries face off along the Aras River to the south and the Akhuryan river to the west. Between them, kilometres of barbed wire, a buffer zone and watchtowers. The Christian monasteries of Armenia peer at the distant minarets of the Turkish mosques, in Khor Virap, Ani or Akhurik. On the Armenian side, it seems the muezzin’s call to prayer can sometimes be heard.
The land border between Turkey and Armenia has been sealed for decades, a legacy of past relations between the two peoples, marked by the Ottoman Empire’s genocide of the Armenian people in 1915. In 1993, Turkey imposed a blockade on its neighbour in support of its Azerbaijani ally, in the context of the war in Nagorno-Karabakh (which the Armenians call Artsakh). Since then, the border has remained totally closed. But today there is renewed hope.
“I would describe the present situation between the two countries as a positive development, even though the progress is very modest and symbolic. We observe advances, but they are small and easily reversible”, says Benyamin Poghosyan, research fellow with the Applied Political Research Institute of Armenia (Apri). “At any moment, Turkey can go back on everything it has done over the last two years.
Since the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh and the flight of over 100,000 Armenians towards Yerevan, Nikol Pachinian’s government intends to normalise its relations with its Azerbaijani and Turkish neighbours. A peace agreement was signed with Baku in August 2025 under US auspices in Washington. At the beginning of May, Ankara and Yerevan signed another symbolic agreement for the joint reconstruction of the medieval Ani bridge, connecting the two countries across the Akhuryan river. That same month, they also resumed bilateral trade relations via a third country.
The victory of the Civil Contract party in the legislative elections of 7 June and the re-election of Nikol Pashinyan as Prime Minister should allow for the continuation of this normalisation process, even if his lack of a constitutional majority1 might limit any rapid changes.
On the Armenian side of the border, opinion is somewhat divided over the question of a possible reopening of the border crossings. In the village of Akhurik, located a few kilometres from Gyumri, the second largest Armenian city, the Russians still guard the border, in a military base overlooking the town.
Despite several media articles announcing their departure in March 2026, the Russian army is still there2. Within 20 minutes of arriving there, we were having our ID checked by a patrol. This doesn’t go down well with the locals: “The Russians did everything wrong; it was Lenin who sold our land to Turkey, and it was they who gave Artsakh to Azerbaijan,” rails Seyran Hrghatyan, an inhabitant of Akhurik, surrounded by his cows. He can’t wait for the border to reopen : “There are good people on both sides. There was a time when we did business with Turks, there was a tourist trade. I hope it will come back.”
Karen Hovhannisyan, 16, agrees. He has never known an open border. “It’s a good thing, trade will develop,” he says, although, like some others, he admits he doesn’t feel very concerned by the issue.
The opening “will be a good thing for the local people, those who live around Gyumri in Armenia, and around Kars and Erzurum on the Turkish side; they’ll be able to do business and engage in trade,“says Bayram Balci, a research fellow with CERI Sciences Po and a Turkey specialist.”But more than that, the interest for Turkey is that this normalisation should go hand in hand with the opening of the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP), since then there will be a trade link between Turkey, Azerbaijan, Central Asia and China,” he stresses.
“I think Ankara wants to have as many links as possible with Azerbaijan and Central Asia”, adds Benyamin Poghosyan of Apri. It’s an economic development which will also serve the interests of Armenia, providing it with a direct channel to the markets of Europe, Asia and the Midde East.
But not everybody here buys the economic argument. These new horizons also raise fears of a massive influx of cheap Turkish goods, undercutting local production. At the same time, historical and geopolitical tensions between the two countries also limit progress.
A bit further south along the border, the village of Anipemza also faces Turkey. At the entrance to the township, a huge Armenian flag in front of the Ererouk basilica seems to glower at the border fence. The historic city of Ani, capital of Armenia under the Bagratid dynasty in the 10th century, located today in Turkey, is only a few kilometres away.
In the empty village a mural depicts the flags of Russia and Armenia side by side as a reminder of the friendship between the two countries. Inside a dilapidated building, another image shows the flag of Soviet Armenia beside a portrait of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870-1924).
Henrikh and Gevorg are talking politics as they sit smoking on a bench. Henrikh, 27, works in a quarry. Gevorg, 62, has lost a leg and can no longer work. The two men agree on one thing: they don’t want to see the border with Turkey opened again. “It’s not that we’re afraid, but we’ve learned the lessons of the past. There is no way we can live with those people,” Gevorg explains, leaning on his crutches.
His friend adds: “If a direct connection between the two countries is re-established, we’ll become Turkish. Of course we want peace, but a dignified peace, a good peace. We just don’t trust the Turks”. The wounds of the conflict with Azerbaijan are still raw for Henrikh. He spent several weeks in Nagorno-Karabakh, where his brother was seriously wounded. A tattoo on his neck represents the silhouette of an Armenia with Artsakh still attached to it.
Whereas some people resent the Russians for abandoning Armenia in that war, Henrikh still trusts Moscow : “We’ve been allies for many years, Russia protects us and preserves peace.”
Such anti-Turkish sentiment is still common in Armenian society, but the tendency is gradually turning around. In January 2022, the question “Which of these countries constitutes the biggest political threat to Armenia ?” was put to the population, and 90 % answered “Turkey”. In May 2026, only 58 % gave the same answer, according to the International Republican Institute (IRI). At the same time, the figures for Azerbaijan remained fairly stable at 77 % in 2022 and 73 % in 2026, while those rating the Russian threat greatest increased from 15 in 2022 to 32 % in 2026.
“The normalisation of relations between Turkey and Azerbaijan has made it possible to reduce considerably the danger of a new escalation in the region. Armenia is the weakest player in this threesome”, says analyst Benyamin Poghosyan. Because, over and above economic issues, this normalisation carries with it a plethora of geopolitical factors. And it’s Turkey that is likely to benefit from them.
Ankara might increase its influence in the southern Caucasus, in competition with Russia, whose regional influence is gradually waning, but also with the US which, pushed by President Donald Trump, is increasingly present. However, while opening this border is in the interest of all parties, it is hard to know for sure when the issue will be resolved. “The Turkish diplomatic agenda is very crowded what with Iran, Ukraine and Syria. At the same time, the main difficulty is with Azerbaijan”, says researcher Bayram Balci.
Turkey is dependent for energy resources on Azerbaijan, which invests tens of billions of dollars in its Turkish big brother. Behind the scenes, President Ilhan Aliyev’s regime sets the tone for the discussions and at each session raises new conditions in order to slow the process down. “Turkey will do nothing to move the talks with Armenia forward without the approval of Azerbaijan, even if President Recip Tayyip Erdoğan is deeply appalled by Aliyev’s behaviour,” Balci adds.
That situation was reaffirmed at the Antalya Diplomatic Forum in April, where Erdoğan promised that Ankara would pursue the process of normalisation with Armenia “step by step, in coordination with Azerbaijan.” In May, the Azerbaijani ambassador in Turkey, Rashad Mammadov, declared that the border between the two neighbours would be reopened “after the legislative elections and a referendum” in Yerevan, giving the impression that it was Azerbaijan itself that was dictating the calendar and setting the conditions.
—
ISLAMABAD: Armenia has appointed Karen Grigoryan as its first-ever ambassador to Pakistan.
According to a presidential decree, Grigoryan, who serves as Armenia’s Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the United Arab Emirates, will also serve as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Pakistan, with residence in Abu Dhabi.
Pakistan and Armenia officially established diplomatic relations in August last year. Earlier, Pakistan was the only UN member state that did not recognise Armenia’s independence due to the former’s strong support to Azerbaijan against Armenia in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. However, following Azerbaijan’s full restoration of control in Nagorno-Karabakh and a peace agreement between the two nations, Pakistan and Armenia established diplomatic ties.
—
Speaking during a meeting with Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin on the sidelines of the INNOPROM-2026 International Industrial Exhibition in Yekaterinburg, Pashinyan said Yerevan remains committed to deepening cooperation with Moscow despite recent tensions.
“Both before and after the parliamentary elections, we remain committed to further developing our relations with Russia,” Pashinyan said, referring to Armenia’s June 7 parliamentary vote.
The Armenian leader acknowledged that a number of issues have recently complicated relations between the two countries but expressed confidence that they could be addressed through constructive discussions.
“This meeting provides a very good opportunity to discuss the full range of our bilateral relations,” he said. “Recently, a number of problematic issues have arisen, and I hope we will discuss and resolve them.”
Pashinyan reiterated Armenia’s interest in remaining an active member of the Eurasian Economic Union, stressing that Yerevan wants the bloc’s treaty mechanisms to function effectively and in accordance with their intended purpose.
“We are interested in our participation in the Eurasian Economic Union, and we are interested in ensuring that the mechanisms envisaged by the EAEU Treaty function as intended,” he said, adding that strengthening the organization’s institutional framework would benefit all member states.
The prime minister emphasized that Armenia would continue to pursue a constructive approach in discussions with Russia and other EAEU partners.
“As I have said, we are committed to a constructive approach to discussing and clarifying all issues and nuances. I hope that following today’s talks we will be able to resolve specific issues,” Pashinyan said.
Pashinyan traveled to Yekaterinburg to participate in the plenary session titled “Industry 360: Production Without Borders,” held as part of the INNOPROM-2026 International Industrial Exhibition.
Relations between Armenia and Russia have faced renewed strain in recent months. Ahead of Armenia’s June parliamentary elections, Russia imposed restrictions on imports of several Armenian products, measures that remain in force and have become a key point of contention in bilateral economic ties. (ILKHA)
—
—
As the Trump administration’s Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity initiative reshapes United States engagement in the South Caucasus, Armenia stands at the center of a pivotal diplomatic moment. Ongoing Armenia-Azerbaijan peace negotiations are creating new opportunities for regional stability, with Washington playing an increasingly active role in supporting the process. Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s recent electoral victory opens new avenues for cooperation and strengthens the prospects for sustained diplomatic engagement amid these developments. The Caucasus as a whole is emerging as a critical theater for US foreign policy, with Armenia’s strategic positioning making it a key partner in the region.
Join Senior Fellow Michael Doran for a candid conversation with H.E. Narek Mkrtchyan, ambassador of the Republic of Armenia to the United States of America as they discuss the developments, challenges, and opportunities defining the US-Armenia relationship.
To request an RSVP, please reach out to Natalie Arbatman at [email protected].
—
For decades, successive Israeli governments declined to recognize the Armenian Genocide. Politicians from across the political spectrum proposed doing so, yet every government ultimately chose not to, citing strategic and diplomatic considerations.
The moral question, however, never changed. If recognizing the Armenian tragedy is a moral imperative today, why was it not one in 2006, or in 1996?
The answer has never been about morality.
According to longstanding reports, Israel’s public broadcaster prepared a documentary in the 1980s about the mass killings of Armenians in 1915. The film was never aired. The reported reason was pressure from the government and the security establishment after Turkey, then one of Israel’s closest regional partners, allegedly warned that broadcasting it could jeopardize a sensitive security operation. Whether every detail of that account is accurate is almost beside the point. What matters is that, for decades, Israeli governments openly treated this issue as one of national interest rather than moral principle.
Today, that strategic reality has changed.
MKS ATTEND a House committee meeting at the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament in Jerusalem, on June 16, 2026. (credit: YONATAN SINDEL/FLASH90)
There is nothing unusual about that. States shape foreign policy according to national interests every day. But if that is what happened here, it would be more honest to describe this decision as a diplomatic gesture dressed in moral language rather than as the fulfillment of a moral obligation.
Supporters of the government’s decision may argue that timing is irrelevant. Doing the right thing late, they might say, is still better than never doing it at all.
That argument raises another difficult question. If recognition is truly based on an unchanging moral principle, would a future Israeli government ever be justified in reversing it if relations with Turkey were one day fully restored? Imagine a future Turkish leader committed to fully restoring the strategic partnership with Israel who asks Jerusalem to revoke its recognition as part of a broader reconciliation. Would Israel refuse because moral principles cannot be negotiated? Or would the political calculus change once again?
If the answer depends on the geopolitical circumstances of the day, then morality is no longer guiding policy. Policy is guiding morality.
This is precisely why questions surrounding the events of 1915 should remain primarily in the hands of historians rather than politicians. Historians work with archival documents, eyewitness testimony, military records, and competing interpretations. Their responsibility is to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Governments, by contrast, inevitably make decisions through the lens of present-day diplomatic interests.
Important aspects of the events of 1915 remain the subject of historical debate, including the wartime context, the role of Armenian paramilitary forces, Russian financial and military involvement, the Russian Empire’s displacement and ethnic cleansing of Muslim populations in the Caucasus, and the decisions taken by the Ottoman authorities. These questions belong in archives, universities, and scholarly journals, not in cabinet resolutions shaped by the diplomatic priorities of the moment.
Once governments begin issuing official judgments on historical controversies more than a century after the fact, where does the process end? Should elected officials determine the accepted interpretation of every disputed historical tragedy? Or should they leave those questions to historians whose profession is to study the past?
Supporters of the government’s decision often point to Holocaust recognition as a precedent. At first glance, the comparison appears persuasive. Yet the two cases are fundamentally different.
When European states recognize the Holocaust and criminalize its denial, they are not simply expressing an opinion about history. In many cases, they are confronting their own historical responsibility. Nazi Germany planned and carried out the systematic extermination of the Jewish people, while numerous European governments, institutions, and collaborators participated directly or indirectly in that crime. In such cases, recognition is inseparable from accepting responsibility.
Israel’s recognition of events that took place in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 is fundamentally different. Israel bears no historical responsibility for those events. The same is true for many other countries whose parliaments periodically vote on the issue. Honoring the memory of Armenian victims, supporting historical research, preserving memorials, and encouraging open academic discussion do not require transforming a century-old historical tragedy into an instrument of contemporary political messaging. This is especially true at a time when Armenia itself is moving closer to normalization with Turkey, and when its leadership has made clear that it does not want the events of 1915 to be weaponized by other countries for their own political purposes.
History deserves careful scholarship. Diplomacy requires difficult choices.
Confusing one with the other ultimately weakens both.
When governments discover their conscience only after the geopolitical risks have disappeared, what they are celebrating is not morality.
It is convenience.
Dr. Elina Bardach-Yalov is a former member of Knesset, a former advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a research associate at Jerusalem Multidisciplinary College, and head of the Antisemitism Watch NGO.
The Israeli government’s recent decision to officially recognize the Armenian Genocide sparked predictably angry reactions from Turkey and Azerbaijan; however, the reaction from Armenia has largely been muted.
Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan downplayed the significance of the Israeli government’s move while speaking to reporters in Yerevan.
“We see no need to respond because we believe that refraining from entering into the issue of the weaponization of the Armenian Genocide is in the interests of the Republic of Armenia,” Pashinyan said.
The Armenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which has previously noted major genocide announcements or memorials around the world, did not issue any statement regarding the Israeli government’s acknowledgment.
The Armenian National Committee also released a tepid statement welcoming the move, while also accusing Israel of playing a role in the deaths of Armenians during the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict.
A harsher reaction to the cabinet’s decision was offered by the former Armenian parliament member Mihran Hakobyan, who wrote, “It is the pinnacle of immoral cynicism that the 1915 Armenian Genocide is being ‘recognized’ by a fascist state which, from the moment of its founding, has been — after Turkey — the most active in fighting against the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide, has directly participated in the patricide of Armenians in Artsakh, and is carrying out an obvious genocide in Gaza.”
A similar position was expressed by Serj Tankian, an Armenian-American and the lead singer of the heavy metal band System Of A Down, which is composed entirely of Armenian descendants. In an expletive-laced reaction video posted to Instagram, he accused the Israeli government of using Armenian history and pain for “political advantage.”
“For many years, Israel’s government used AIPAC to lobby the U.S. Congress to not recognize the Armenian Genocide, to prevent Congress from recognizing the Armenian Genocide due to their relationship with Turkey, their intelligence sharing with Turkey, etc.,” Tankian said.
“Today, the Netanyahu cabinet decided to recognize the Armenian Genocide of 1915, a genocide that led to Hitler thinking that he could do what he could do to the Jews in the 1930s and 40s,” he continued.
“The fact that this government is already committing genocide in Gaza and Lebanon, decided to recognize the genocide of my grandparents, is the worst f—ing thing that they could have done to Armenians by using our history, our genocide, our pain to their political advantage,” Tankian said.
The harsh words by Hakobyan and Tankian illustrate the pain many Armenians feel over the failure of the Israeli government to officially recognize the genocide, which many historians believe led directly to the Holocaust.
However, not all Armenian leaders reacted as cynically to the Israeli cabinet’s move. Bishop Koryun Baghdasaryan, a senior leader and dean of the manor of Jerusalem’s Armenian Patriarchate, said that in making this move the government “fulfilled its moral duty.”
“It means a lot for the State of Israel, for the Jewish people,” Bishop Baghdasaryan told The Jerusalem Post, “because as a nation that went through the Holocaust, and right after the Holocaust established the State of Israel, it was really the moral duty for the State of Israel to recognize the Armenian Genocide.”
Predictably, the reaction by Turkey was sharp, with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan accusing Israel of “slander.”
“There are many slander campaigns going on by this network of murderers who had the blood of 73,000 innocent Gazans on their hands,” Erdoğan said.
“In our history, there have been no genocides, no massacres, oppression, and no colonialism. Throughout our thousands of years of glorious history, there has only been justice and compassion,” he claimed.
Erdoğan’s press secretary Burhanettin Duran accused Israel of using the announcement to “cover up” its killings of Palestinians.
“Israel’s recognition of the events of 1915 as a so-called ‘genocide’ is nothing more than a futile attempt to cover up the blood of innocent Palestinians shed by its own hands, its own state terrorism in the Middle East, and its crimes against humanity committed with impunity,” Duran wrote in a post to social media.
Israel’s regional partner, Azerbaijan, which has a majority Turkic population and speaks a Turkish dialect, called the announcement “a matter of serious concern.”
“The decision by the Israeli government concerning the so-called ‘Armenian genocide’ is a matter of serious concern,” the Azerbaijan Foreign Ministry said.
“The distortion of the historical facts surrounding the events of 1915, and the reduction of a complex historical issue to a political decision without a sound legal or scholarly basis, are unacceptable,” the statement continued, while calling on the Israeli government to “reconsider this decision.”
So why has Israel’s long-sought recognition provoked such a tepid reaction among many Armenians? The answer lies in changing political realities of the major parties involved.
The Turkish government has long denied any systematic Ottoman government program targeting Armenians. While acknowledging that many Armenians were killed, the government has long blamed the deaths on “civil war” and tension related to World War I.
The genocide has its roots in the broader Islamic-Christian regional conflict stretching back over a millennium.
Most of the Anatolian Peninsula, modern-day Turkey, was captured from the Christian Byzantine Empire by the Seljuk Turks in the 11th century, which involved the massacre of many Christians. Under later dynasties, including the Ottomans, Armenian Christians refused to convert to Islam.
During World War I, many Armenians joined Russia, itself a Christian nation, in attacking the Ottomans. In retaliation, the Ottoman Empire began forcibly conscripting adult males, while forcing women, children, and the elderly out of historic Armenian territory. According to many historians, somewhere between 600,000 and 1.5 million Armenians were killed during this time.
For many years, the Israeli government supported the Turkish stance due to the political cost of angering the Turkish government. Historically, Turkey was one of Israel’s strongest regional partners in the decades before Erdoğan’s Justice and Development (AKP) party came to power.
Similarly, Israel has not wanted to offend Azerbaijan, which provides roughly 40% of Israel’s oil imports along with a strategic border with one of Israel’s primary enemies, the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Turkey had deep economic and military ties with Israel during the 1970s-1990s. With the rise of Erdoğan’s Islamist party to power, that relationship began to deteriorate rapidly, especially following the Mavi Marmara incident in 2010, when Israeli military forces intercepted several vessels from Turkey that were attempting to break the blockade on Gaza imposed after Hamas took over the Gaza Strip.
Activists in the flotilla attacked Israeli soldiers as they were boarding one of the vessels, which led to the death of several people. That incident provided Erdoğan with the political cover to disrupt relations with Israel, which had become increasingly unpopular in the religious sector of Turkey.
While the two nations attempted to restore ties, the start of the October 2023 Gaza War brought a further worsening of relations, after Erdoğan’s government refused to condemn the Hamas attacks and began accusing Israel of “genocide” at the start of the ground campaign.
With the worsening relations and increasing threats by members of the Erdoğan government being directed against Israel, the former political calculus against angering Turkey no longer holds.
Many Armenian leaders see the current recognition of the genocide in light of that Israel-Turkey conflict, not as a benevolent gesture by the Israeli government.
Similarly, the timing of the Israeli announcement appears to be aimed at causing Turkey to lose face just before it hosts the NATO Leaders’ Summit in Ankara next week, as it attempts to re-enter the F-35 program.
Additionally, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who was only recently re-elected, has been leading a movement away from demanding recognition of the 1915 genocide, and towards peace and integration with both Turkey and Azerbaijan, as part of a push to deepen ties with Europe.
As election results came in on June 8, Pashinyan said, “The people of Armenia voted for peace, regional prosperity and regional cooperation, and I hope this will be met with a positive response from Turkey and Azerbaijan.”
From Pashinyan’s perspective, the growing antagonism between Israel and Turkey, already threatening to escalate into a major regional conflict, could not come at a worse time.
Just as he attempts to move on from the defeat in and loss of Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023, in which Israel played a part by supplying weapons to Azerbaijan, the Israeli government, for reasons of its own, has chosen to acknowledge the one issue which could drive a wedge between Armenia and its neighbors.
If Israel is to convince Armenia that the recognition is not just political theater, it will have to treat the issue with the same respect that it demands for Holocaust remembrance.
J. Micah Hancock is a current Master’s student at the Hebrew University, pursuing a degree in Jewish History. Previously, he studied Biblical studies and journalism in his B.A. in the United States. He joined All Israel News as a reporter in 2022, and currently lives near Jerusalem with his wife and children.
Panorama
Outgoing Armenian National Assembly Speaker Alen Simonyan paid a farewell visit to President Vahagn Khachaturyan on Thursday.
Social media users noticed that the photographs accompanying the official statement about the meeting no longer showed the painting of Mount Ararat that had previously hung on the wall of the president’s office.
A review of official reports and photographs from meetings held at the presidential residence indicates that the painting has, in fact, been absent for quite some time.
The last publicly available image showing the painting of the twin peaks of Sis and Masis (Mount Ararat) at the president’s office dates back to October 14, 2025, when Khachaturyan met with Her Majesty Queen Mathilde of Belgium.
A large photograph of Mount Ararat had also been displayed in another reception room, where Khachaturyan typically meets with foreign ambassadors accredited to Armenia, Armenian diplomats and other officials. It was in this room that Alen Simonyan met with the president. The photograph is no longer displayed there either.
When was the painting removed? Who authorized its removal? Are there currently any rooms within the presidential residence where an image of the biblical mountain is displayed?
Panorama.am attempted to reach out to the president’s office for comment. However, repeated phone calls to its Public Relations Department went unanswered.