On April 24, 1915, the Ottoman Empire enacted a mass campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Armenian population whose land was under Ottoman occupation. Their crusade began with the incarceration of Armenian intellectuals, and by the conclusion of World War 1, 1.5 million Armenians had been slaughtered. The Ottomans marched them through the Syrian desert until they met God beneath the barbarous sun or between the barrel of a gun and one’s head. The Euphrates River turned red with Armenian blood. The bones of my ancestors lie beneath that river, preferring to meet their demise by their own tenacity. Eventually, the Syrian desert became known as simply ‘The Cemetery’, the world transmogrified to something putrescent, consisting of mass graves, rituals of rape, and immolation. 

As one of the 10 million descendants of survivors of this genocide, I am known as one of the leftovers of the sword. Belonging to the Western Armenian tradition, our homeland no longer exists. It is barricaded by Turkish troops and movements of censorship, our ancient churches and temples demolished and replaced with mosques. Sometimes there appears to be a great helplessness in this, something akin to an acceptance of our state of perpetual displacement. However, through my family’s voyage through Western Armenia, to Syria, to Lebanon, and eventually Australia, there is the very simple knowledge that the homeland cannot be found in a suitcase. This leads the diaspora to a sense of restlessness, an innate need for activism to have recognition, and thus reparations.

The term ‘genocide’ here is quite significant; the world denies this term, persistently swerving around it. Turkey diminishes the deaths as a response to war action. Almost every global power, including Australia, refers to the genocide as an ‘atrocity’, a ‘tragedy’, a ‘dark chapter’. Throughout this process, the most destructive element of conflict is evoked: the act of forgetting. The descendant never forgets. These experiences are passed through veins and arteries, facial features that repeat itself throughout generations. The survivor never forgets, nor does their child, or their grandchild. 

What we can observe throughout this continuous campaign of denialism is the perpetuation of mass actions of violence. In 2023, Azerbaijan enacted a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the indigenous Armenian population of Artsakh, closing borders and restricting humanitarian aid to force 100,000 Armenians out of their homeland. Today, Artsakh political leaders are held hostage by the Azerbaijani government, and the displaced Armenians have been denied a right of return. 

One cannot sit in silence, absorbing the cultivation of decades of directed hostility towards their people. Nor can they observe it cultivating across other minorities. Our struggles are united. History rhymes with itself constantly, and we are witnessing the reverberation of similar verses. 

The ongoing genocide in Palestine encapsulates how detrimental silence can be. Since 1948, the ancestral land of Palestinians has been restricted, partitioned by border patrol. Ancient olive trees have been ripped from the earth, creating open wounds that span generations. During the Nakba, up to 1 million Palestinians were expelled from their land, and during the current genocide, 2.1 million Gazans have died or been displaced.

In the West, genocide is condoned through  nullifying and denying the experiences of violence and displacement in West Asia and the Global South. These mass atrocities are silenced, diminished in their full intensity, and minimised through deceitful language and omission of fact. For the individual, this means a lack of reparations. Restitution cases for descendants of Armenian Genocide victims have been historically scarce. Our culture has been colonised, as well as our land, and we are offered only glimpses of our motherland through the distant peaks of Mount Ararat. For Palestinians, the pattern repeats. Reparations have not been provided, and their homeland is being gradually encroached on, their countrymen routinely murdered, throughout the continuation of Israel’s 77-year-long campaign. 

What is significant about living in the West is that we have the ability to break our silence. Decades of the Armenian diaspora forming political organisations, consisting of tireless activism, have developed milestones of achievement. Significant bodies such as the International Association of Genocide Scholars have formally recognised the Armenian Genocide for what it is, no longer diminishing its truth through veiled descriptions. With the assistance of Armenian activists, parliamentarians have demanded that the Australian government recognise the genocide and intervene in the perpetuated Turkish atrocities in modern Armenia. Activists have fought for the Armenian Genocide to be commemorated within the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Most notably, these grassroots campaigns have forced the subject of the Armenian Genocides into international discourse. The prospect of the world forgetting and thoughtlessly repeating lies is averted by the continual activism of those who refuse to be silent about the truth. 

Pro-Palestine activism has allowed awareness of Palestinian oppression to reach the epicentre of political thought and discussion, colossally altering public opinion and constructing mass movements of global solidarity that act to combat decades of silence and neglect. Nations across the world have stood before the colonial empire and recognised Palestine as a state, allowing for Israel to be pursued for legal accountability for war crimes. Other countries have gone further, cutting ties with Israel, taking Israel and its war criminals to the International Court of Justice. Most optimistically for me as an Armenian, pro-Palestine activism has led to the mass acceptance of Israel’s atrocities as a genocide.

This is not to convey that the struggle for liberation is complete, not for Armenians, nor for Palestinians. A genocide unpunished is a genocide encouraged, and until reparations and formal recognition of the truth is achieved, with the perpetrators held accountable, our struggle will not be complete. 

As I observe the atrocities unfolding by Israel, I look to my history as a glance at the future of Palestine. But there is a difference, and it leads me to believe there is hope. Palestinians will not be known solely as leftovers of the sword. Nor will the world continue unaware of their existence, their plight. The global chain is shifting, and as long as we, as students and those with free voices, continue to speak out, march, and take action, recognition can be achieved. The truth will prevail, and the global cycle of injustice and silence will be broken.

By PanARMENIAN

New Delhi, May 1 (IANS) Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Upendra Dwivedi held a meeting with Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Armenia, Lieutenant General Edvard Asryan in New Delhi on Friday, with talks focused on the current geostrategic situation, strengthening defence cooperation, expanding military engagement and advancing collaboration between two nations in areas of mutual interest.

“Lieutenant General Edvard Asryan, Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Armenia, called on General Upendra Dwivedi, COAS. The interaction focused on the current geostrategic situation, strengthening India-Armenia Defence Cooperation, expanding military engagement and advancing collaboration in areas of mutual interest,” Indian Army’s Additional Directorate General of Public Information (ADGPI) stated on X.

Currently on an official visit to India, Lieutenant General Asryan had called on Defence Secretary Rajesh Kumar Singh in the capital earlier, discussing issues related to defence cooperation.

“During his official visit to India, First Deputy Minister of Defence of the Republic of Armenia, Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces, Lieutenant General Edvard Asryan met with the Defence Secretary of India Rajesh Kumar Singh,” Armenia’s Ministry of Defence posted on X.

“Issues related to Armenia-India cooperation in the defence sector were discussed,” it added.

On Tuesday, Lieutenant General Asryan held a meeting with Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal, A P Singh, with discussions focused on enhancing operational cooperation, interoperability and strengthening bilateral air power ties.

“Lt Gen Edvard Asryan, Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Armenia on an official visit to India, called on Air Chief Marshal AP Singh, Chief of the Air Staff, Indian Air Force. Discussions focused on enhancing operational cooperation, interoperability and strengthening bilateral air power ties,” Indian Air Force – Media Co-ordination Centre posted on X.

According to the statement released by Armenia’s Ministry of Defence, the two officials discussed issues related to bilateral cooperation in the defence sector.

Lieutenant General Edvard Asryan also met Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) General Anil Chauhan and discussed ways to have joint ventures in the development of military hardware.

“General Anil Chauhan CDS held discussions with Lt General Edvard Asryan, Chief of the General Staff of Armenia, during his official visit to India. The General officer was received by the CDS and was accorded a Guard of Honour,” Headquarters of Integrated Defence Staff posted on X.

“The engagement reflected the steady advancement of India-Armenia Defence Relations. Both sides also explored avenues for joint ventures in the development of military hardware, reaffirming their shared commitment to a robust, future-oriented and mutually beneficial strategic partnership,” it added.

–IANS

Mike Pogos, the owner of Art Master Shoe Services in Mission Hills, is a cobbler who immigrated with his family from Armenia when he was 11.

“My father bought the business when we moved here,” Pogos said. “This became our American Dream.” Pogos says work like his is a dying art, and many people will just buy new shoes rather than fixing what they have.

The number of cobblers shops has dropped from over 100,000 in the 1930s to roughly 3,500–5,000 in U.S. today due to fast fashion, but the remaining cobblers like Pogos are in demand.

Before his family moved from Armenia to Los Angeles, Pogos’s family didn’t have the opportunity to own a business. “This business has been here since 1988,” Pogos said. “My father owned it before me.”

Pogos grew up working at Art Master Shoe Services before he took over. “We work on shoe repairs, keys, watch repairs, batteries,” Pogos said. “Anything the customer needs we can do.” With 30 years of leadership, he’s been able to become a familiar face for regulars.

As a small business, Pogos prioritizes customer satisfaction above all else. “If someone brings in something that doesn’t need repairs I let them know,” Pogos said. “I am after honesty not just money.”

As reported by the “Caucasian Knot,” Azerbaijanis from Karabakh settlements were forced to flee their homes after the start of the First Karabakh War. The return of Azerbaijani displaced persons began after Azerbaijan took control of these territories. By March 11, 2026, 7,541 families (30,261 people) had returned to 41 settlements in the former Karabakh conflict zone.

The Khojavend region (the Armenian name for Khojavend is Martuni) has been controlled by the authorities of the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic since 1993. On February 20, 2026, the first groups of former internally displaced persons (IDPs) returned to the town of Khojavend and the village of the same name.

Another group of former IDPs arrived in the village of Khojavend in the Khojavend region. At this stage, the return of 32 families (135 people) to the village has been ensured. Thus, the number of families resettled in the village of Khojavend has reached 66 (277 people), according to the publication Report.

These families were previously temporarily resettled in various parts of the country, primarily in dormitories, sanatoriums, and administrative buildings. The families who arrived in the village were housed in houses that meet modern standards, according to AzerTaj.

The internally displaced persons (IDPs) living in the Baku lyceum dormitory complained about living conditions. More than 30 families from the Zangelan and Jabrayil districts were resettled in the building. The “Caucasian Knot” published a photo report by Aziz Karimov, “A Dormitory for Internally Displaced Persons from the Karabakh Conflict Zone in Baku.”

Following a meeting with the displaced families, employees of the Azerbaijan Mine Action Agency (ANAMA) briefed them in detail on the dangers posed by mines and unexploded ordnance. Families were advised to stay away from unknown objects and, if any were discovered, to report them to the appropriate authorities.

Earlier, Azerbaijani displaced persons complained about the difficulties of returning to Karabakh. In particular, they noted a shortage of jobs in Fuzuli. People are seeking opportunities to return to their homelands, but in the territories under Azerbaijani control, property issues have not yet been resolved, IDPs noted.

Azerbaijani analysts interviewed by the “Caucasian Knot” pointed out that simply providing housing for IDPs returning to their cities is not enough. The authorities must create jobs and build infrastructure, they emphasized.

Translated automatically via Google translate from class=”gmail_default” st1yle=”font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small”>
Источник: class=”gmail_default” st1yle=”font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small”>

A diplomatic storm has erupted after the EU Parliament adopted a multi-part resolution on Armenia that contained clauses about Nagorno-Karabakh on Thursday, resulting a Friday vote by the Azerbaijani Parliament to cut ties with the body, as well as the summoning of the EU’s Ambassador to Azerbaijan Marijana Kujundžić.

While the majority of the resolution pertained to ‘supporting democratic resilience in Armenia’, Azerbaijan took issue with the sections that called for the right of return for Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians who fled en masse in 2023 and the release of Armenian prisoners held by Azerbaijan.

The relevant text of the resolution read as follows:

‘[The European Parliament] Reiterates its support for the rights of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians, including the protection of their identity, property and cultural heritage, and their right to a safe, unimpeded and dignified return under appropriate international guarantees; calls for those responsible for the destruction of Armenian cultural and religious heritage to be held accountable, and for an international assessment mission’.

The clause was referring to the entire Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh, some 100,000 people, who fled after Azerbaijan’s final offensive into the region in 2023.

‘[The European Parliament] Condemns Azerbaijan’s unjust detention of Armenian prisoners of war, detainees and hostages; demands their immediate and unconditional release; notes the steps taken so far and calls for further confidence-building measures; calls for full respect for international humanitarian and human rights law’.

A total of 19 Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians are being held in Azerbaijan, some of whom are still on trial, and others have recently received lengthy prison sentences after being accused of committing war crimes and other associated charges.

Other sections of the resolution applauded the ongoing peace process between Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as the efforts to normalise Armenia’s relations with Turkey, and also expressed support for growing Armenia–EU ties.

Drawing particular concern over the two sections above, the Azerbaijani Parliament said on Friday that ‘at the core of the European Parliament’s activities lies a decisive rejection of the norms and principles of international law and the concept of justice’.

‘This body has consistently shown disregard for the 30-year occupation of our lands by Armenia, the destruction of hundreds of our cities and villages, our historical, religious, and cultural monuments, ethnic cleansing, and the human rights of more than 1 million refugees and internally displaced persons’, the parliament added.

Later in the statement, the parliament claimed that ‘the European Parliament, where democratic values have collapsed, corruption and bribery have taken deep root, and which serves lobbying groups and various circles of interest, has turned into a structure where Azerbaijanophobic and Islamophobic thinking is consistently expressed’.

As a result, the Azerbaijani Parliament decided to suspend cooperation with the European Parliament ‘in all directions’ and began the process of ‘terminating the membership’ of the Azerbaijani Parliament in the ‘Euronest Parliamentary Assembly’.

Separately, EU Ambassador Kujundžić was summoned by the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry, where she was told that ‘the unfounded and biased provisions against’ Azerbaijan were ‘condemned’, as well as being handed a ‘note of protest’.

The Foreign Ministry’s statement further claimed that ‘Armenian residents left the region voluntarily’.

Karabakh’s Heritage Controversy is an op-ed prepared for commonspace.eu by Vasif Huseynov

Since the early days of Azerbaijan’s restoration of sovereignty over the formerly occupied Karabagh region in 2020/2023, some Armenian political circles and diaspora networks have accused Baku of destroying Armenian cultural and religious heritage in the liberated territories. The recent claims about the demolition of some structures in Khankandi, Karabakh, have brought this issue back to the agenda, accompanied by assertions that Azerbaijan is attempting to erase an Armenian historical presence. These claims rest on a selective presentation of facts that omits the legal and historical context essential for understanding what is actually taking place.

At the center of the latest controversy are a number of buildings that are portrayed as part of an ancient and continuous cultural legacy. Yet the record shows that these structures are relatively recent and built during the period the region was under illegal occupation of Armenia’s Armed Forces. For instance, the Surb Hakob Church was constructed in 2007, less than 20 years ago and erected during the occupation period. The other churches that are mentioned in the latest claims are not any older. These churches are not medieval monasteries or long-standing heritage sites. They are modern constructions, built without the consent of the internationally recognized state authority.

This distinction is not a minor detail; it is the starting point for any meaningful legal analysis. The question is not whether religious structures deserve protection in general – they do – but whether structures built in violation of international law can subsequently claim the same legal protections as lawfully established cultural heritage. International law provides a clear answer.

Any honest legal assessment of these structures must begin with one of the foundational maxims of international law: ex injuria jus non oritur — “law does not arise from injustice.” This principle is not a technicality. It is a fundamental concept of the international legal order, holding that a legal right or entitlement cannot arise from an unlawful act or omission. A state which obtains land by non-defensive war or other aggressive action cannot claim any legal rights to the territory unlawfully obtained, nor can it generate, through its illegal occupation, derivative legal claims to the structures, settlements, or monuments it erects on that territory.

Applied to Karabagh, the principle is decisive and applies with equal force to every permanent structure built in the region during the occupation period — churches, cathedrals, civic monuments, statues, administrative buildings, and any other installation erected without the consent of the sovereign state. Each of these structures was raised in direct consequence of an unlawful military occupation condemned by four binding UN Security Council resolutions. No legal right — including any right of preservation, protection, or cultural heritage status — can flow from that unlawful foundation. The Armenian occupation did not produce legally recognisable facts. The structures it spawned are not legal facts. They are consequences of internationally wrongful acts and fall outside the protective scope of international cultural heritage law as a matter of first principle.

International cultural heritage law, including the 1954 Hague Convention, was designed to protect existing and lawfully constituted cultural property, particularly from damage inflicted by occupying powers. It was not intended to shield structures erected by those powers in violation of international law. To interpret it otherwise would invert its purpose, allowing unlawful acts to generate legal protections simply by attaching a cultural or religious label.

Nor does the religious character of a building alter this legal reality. Freedom of religion is a protected right, but it does not extend to constructing places of worship in violation of property rights or sovereignty. European human rights jurisprudence has made clear that religious function does not retroactively legalize unlawful construction.

The law of state responsibility further clarifies the consequences. Where an internationally wrongful act has occurred, the responsible state is obliged to remedy the situation, including through restitution – restoring conditions to what they were before the violation. In cases of occupation, this principle supports the removal of structures unlawfully established during that period once sovereignty is restored. Seen in this light, the demolition of such structures is not an act of cultural destruction but a legal consequence of ending an unlawful situation.

This legal perspective stands in contrast to the narrative of deliberate cultural erasure. Azerbaijan’s broader record debunks such claims. An Armenian church in central Baku has been preserved as a protected cultural monument for decades. Following the 2020 war, Azerbaijani authorities undertook the restoration of the Ghazanchetsots Cathedral in Shusha using state funds. Across the country, sites belonging to different religious communities, including Christian and Jewish heritage, continue to be maintained. These examples do not support the portrayal of a state pursuing a policy of religious or cultural targeting.

What the current controversy ultimately reveals is not only a legal dispute but also an asymmetry in how cultural heritage issues are framed and received internationally. The destruction of Azerbaijani cultural and religious sites during the decades of occupation received limited global attention. By contrast, the removal of recently constructed structures built under conditions of occupation has generated widespread discussions.

According to Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Culture, more than 400 cultural and religious monuments, including 65 of the 67 mosques, were destroyed in the occupied territories during the years of Armenian occupation. The pattern was not confined to the Karabagh region. It extended into the territory of present-day Armenia itself — where Azerbaijanis constituted a major component of the population of cities like Yerevan for centuries, and from which about 300,000 Azerbaijanis had to leave in the late 1980s. Many of the cultural heritage, cemeteries, mosques, and other monuments belonged to these people have been destroyed or reattributed.

Set against this thirty-year record, the current accusations against Azerbaijan acquire a particular character. The distinction at the heart of this issue is neither obscure nor controversial in legal terms.

Cultural heritage that is historically rooted and lawfully established merits protection, regardless of its origin.

Structures built in violation of international law do not acquire legitimacy simply because they serve a religious function. The principle ex injuria jus non oritur captures this logic in its simplest form: unlawful acts cannot produce lawful rights.

Understanding the current situation in Karabagh requires moving beyond rhetoric and examining the legal framework that governs it. When that framework is applied consistently, the events in Khankendi appear not as acts of cultural erasure, but as part of the legal and material consequences of bringing an unlawful occupation to an end.

source: This op-ed was prepared for commonspace.eu by Dr Vasif Huseynov, a Senior Advisor at the Center of Analysis of International Relations (AIR Center) and Adjunct Lecturer at Khazar University in Baku, Azerbaijan. 

photo: Karabakh – Cathedral in Karabakh before its recent destruction

The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners