The apartment building at the center of the Israeli attack near Bourdj Hammoud

In the early hours of Friday Israel bombed an apartment building on the border between the Nappa-Mirna Shaluhi districts. These districts are also very close to the Armenian-populated Bourdj Hammoud neighborhood, which fortunately suffered no material or human losses. Some of the residents there heard the explosions from the bombing attack.

Shahan Kandaharian, editor-in-chief of our sister publication the Aztag newspaper, reported on the incident, noting that it is very worrying that the area near Bourdj Hammoud has been targeted.

According to reports, the target of the Israeli side was the apartment where a member of Hezbollah allegedly lived.

Kandaharian assured that there is no panic, but there is uncertainty that causes great concern to the residents.

The Armenian National Committee of America on Thursday called on the Trump/Vance Administration to condemn and hold Israel accountable for drone striking a residential apartment building in Beirut’s Armenian Bourdj Hammoud district – “a neighborhood populated by descendants of Armenian Genocide survivors.”

The attacks unleashed by Israel against Lebanon are gradually revealing Israel’s true goals in the region and against Lebanon, starting from the southern suburbs of Beirut to the border towns of southern Lebanon and the Bekaa and Baalbek areas.

Lebanon had initiated direct negotiations with Israel, in an attempt to prevent new attacks against Lebanon. Reports indicate that Lebanon has formed its own committee called to participate in the negotiations planned in Cyprus.

For his part, French President Emmanuel Macron has been in close contact with Lebanese and Israeli officials, urging them to stop the military operations.

However, it seems that Israel only wants to impose its point of view. Israeli forces have already penetrated the southern borders and are positioned in 18 centers, expanding the scope of their aggression.

Israeli sources have revealed that Israel is planning to launch a large-scale offensive within a week and penetrate deep into southern Lebanon.

On Thursday evening, the Israeli Air Force directly targeted Hezbollah facilities in the southern suburbs of Beirut with drones, causing material damage. It is worth noting that Israel is gradually penetrating the borders of the capital Beirut, where one of the latest targets was the building called “Ahmad Abbas” in the Bashura neighborhood near the Sodeco district of Beirut, where, according to the Israeli “justification,” Hezbollah has stored millions of dollars. Later, Israel also struck the branch of Hezbollah’s “Kart Hassan” credit institution in Zoqak Plat.

Before that, on the night between Wednesday and Thursday, Israel had also struck a building in Ramlet Bayda, near Raouche, on the Beirut coast, where, according to Israel, an Iranian Revolutionary Guard official was sheltering.

—

Vice President JD Vance with AGMI Director Dr. Edita Gzoyan at Dzidzernagapert on Feb. 10

We, the undersigned, express deep concern over the recent and troubling developments at the Armenian Genocide Museum‑Institute in Yerevan. On March 11, Dr. Edita Gzoyan, one of the most outstanding and dedicated directors in the history of the Institute, submitted her resignation — reportedly under pressure from the government rather than by free choice. 

Dr. Gzoyan has elevated the AGMI to international academic prominence. Under her leadership, the Institute expanded its archival collections, organized key symposia and conferences, and produced scholarly works that have significantly advanced genocide studies worldwide. She has been a tireless advocate for rigorous historical research on the Armenian Genocide and related atrocities against Armenians — work that has strengthened global understanding of past injustices and supported the cause of historical truth. 

What makes her forced departure particularly alarming is its timing and context. Just weeks earlier, Dr. Gzoyan had personally guided U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance during his visit to the Tsitsernakaberd Memorial Complex. She highlighted not only the genocide of 1915 but also later massacres of Armenians in Sumgait, Kirovabad, and Baku, underscoring the historical continuity of anti‑Armenian violence in the region. She also presented Vice President Vance with scholarly works on the Armenian Genocide and the Nagorno‑Karabakh conflict — essential context for understanding Armenia’s history and contemporary challenges.  On March 12, in response to a journalist’s question regarding the forced resignation of Dr. Edita Gzoyan, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan stated:

“I was the one who asked the director of the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute to submit a resignation letter; it was done on my instruction. I considered giving a book about Artsakh to Vance to be a provocative act that goes against the Government’s policy.”

The sequence of events indicates a broader and deeply troubling pattern: the silencing of independent academic voices in favor of political convenience. There is every reason to believe that this is less about museum administration and more about repositioning the AGMI to align its work with geopolitical priorities — especially a desire to avoid honest discussion of atrocities related to Azerbaijan amid ongoing normalization efforts. 

The Armenian Genocide Museum‑Institute is not merely a tourist site. It is a center of historical memory and scholarship — a bulwark against denial and distortion. Its leadership should be protected from political interference, not subjected to it. Dr. Gzoyan’s forced exit sends a chilling message to academics and historians everywhere: that rigorous inquiry and truthful remembrance can be displaced for diplomatic comfort.

All of us have been actively engaged with AGMI in numerous meaningful capacities—participating in its conferences, serving on the editorial board of the “International Journal of Armenian Genocide Studies” and on the academic board, collaborating with AGMI and its staff on joint scholarly initiatives, and contributing to the field through the publication of academic articles and books. Gzoyan has played a key role in involving us in AGMI’s activities through her creative vision and outstanding scholarship, helping shape the Institute’s future.

We believe that any attempt to remove Dr. Gzoyan from the directorship of the AGMI would seriously jeopardize the Institute’s future and undermine its standing within the international scholarly community. Such a decision would not only disrupt the Institute’s ongoing work but would also send a deeply troubling signal to leading scholars of genocide studies worldwide, discouraging them from collaborating with AGMI and weakening the global academic partnerships that are essential to its mission.

For these reasons, we strongly urge the Armenian government to refrain from interfering in the leadership of the Institute. We call on the authorities to respect the independence of AGMI and to ensure that Dr. Gzoyan is allowed to continue her work without political pressure or intervention. Protecting the Institute’s autonomy and leadership is critical for preserving its credibility, safeguarding its scholarly mission, and maintaining the trust of the international academic community. We believe that directorship of the AGMI should be based on the qualities of the individual as a scholar and administrator and not the political expediencies of any particular administration.

The AGMI staff and members of the Board have expressed their full confidence in Dr. Gzoyan’s exceptional leadership. We firmly demand that Dr. Gzoyan be reinstated immediately and allowed to continue the outstanding work she has been leading.

Prof. Bedross Der Matossian, Professor of History, Hymen Rosenberg Professor in Judaic Studies, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Prof. Elyse Semerdjian Robert Aram and Marianne Kaloosdian and Stephen and Marian Mugar Chair of Armenian Genocide Studies at the Strassler Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Clark University
Prof. Armen Marsoobian, Professor of Philosophy, Southern Connecticut State University
Prof. Keith Watenpaugh, Professor of Human Rights Studies, University of California, Davis
Prof. Melanie Schulze Tanielian, Associate Professor of History, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Dr. Simon Maghakyan, Associate Member of the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, University of Oxford
Dr. Boris Adjemian, Director of Bibliothèque Nubar de l’UGAB
Mr. Marc Mamigonian, Director of Academic Affairs, National Association for Armenian Genocide and Research
Prof. Vahé Tachjian, Houshamadyan, Berlin / Ara Hrechdakian Chair of Armenian Studies at Saint Joseph University of Beirut
Prof. Houri Berberian Professor of History, Meghrouni Family Presidential Chair in Armenian Studies University of California, Irvine
Prof. Henry Theriault, Ph.D., Vice-Chair, Board of Directors, National Association for Armenian Studies and Research, and Co-Editor, “Genocide Studies International”
Prof. Ronald Grigor Suny, William H. Sewell Jr. Distinguished University Professor of History Emeritus, The University of Michigan; Professor of Political Science and History Emeritus, The University of Chicago
Prof. Barlow Der Mugrdechian, Haig and Isabel Berberian Coordinator of Armenian Studies, California State University, Fresno
Prof. Lori Khatchadourian, Associate Professor, Departments of Near Eastern Studies & Anthropology, Cornell University
Dr. Hilmar Kaiser, Universität Bern
Mr. Michael Bobelian, Adjunct Professor at Columbia University and Baruch College
Prof. A. Dirk Moses, Anne and Bernard Spitzer Professor of International Relations at the City College of New York
Prof. Hervè Georgelin, Assistant Professor, National University of Athens, Greece
Mr. Gregory Aftandilian, Senior Professorial Lecture, American University, Washington, DC
Prof. Julien Zarifian, Professor of U.S. History, University of Poitiers, France
Prof. Fatma Müge Göçek, Professor of Sociology, University of Michigan
Prof. David Gaunt, Emeritus Professor of History, Södertörn University, Stockholm, Sweden
Prof. Tessa Hofmann, formerly Freie Universität Berlin, Germany, Institute for Eastern European Studies
Dr. Talar Chahinian, Continuing Lecturer in Armenian Studies, University of California, Irvine
Prof. Samuel Totten, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville

—

Catholicos Karekin II with the Supreme Spiritual Council of Etchmiadzin on Feb. 13

YEREVAN (Azatutyun.am)—The Armenian Apostolic Church on Friday rejected Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s new accusations voiced in the European Parliament amid his continuing attempts to depose its supreme head, Catholicos Karekin II.

Addressing the European Union’s legislative body on Wednesday, Pashinyan claimed that the church’s top clergy is leading a “party of war” that comprises Armenia’s main opposition groups and is keen to reignite the conflict with Azerbaijan. He accused it of collaborating with “foreign special services” not named by him.

The church’s Supreme Spiritual Council dismissed the allegations as “fabricated” and “unacceptable” at the end of a four-day session held in Etchmiadzin. In a statement, it said they are aimed justifying the Armenian authorities’ “illegal actions against the Church” and “further repressions” planned by them.

Pashinyan began pressuring Karekin II to resign last June shortly after the Catholicos accused Azerbaijan of committing ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh and illegally occupying Armenian border areas during an international conference in Switzerland. Three archbishops and one bishop were arrested in the following months on different charges strongly denied by them. Three of them have been moved to house arrest in recent weeks.

Earlier this year, law-enforcement authorities also indicted Karekin II himself as well as six other clergymen. They were banned from leaving the country to attend an emergency episcopal conference held in Austria last month.

Pashinyan defended the crackdown in his speech at the European Parliament. His domestic critics say it violates Armenia’s constitution and laws guaranteeing the ancient church’s separation from the state.

Pashinyan has used different lines of attack on the church during his nearly yearlong campaign. He said until December that Karekin II and other top clerics at odds with him must go because they had secret sex affairs in breach of their vows of celibacy. He then began accusing them of spying for a foreign country, presumably Russia.

Last month, Pashinyan turned on eight prominent members of the Armenian communities in the United States and Europe who condemned his “attacks” on the church. He claimed that they want to remove the seat of the Catholicos from Armenia and seize church treasures kept in Etchmiadzin.

—

The panelists at the ARF “Diaspora” Conference

A Debate That Asked the Right Questions

On the evening of Thursday, March 12 the Krikor and Mariam Karamanoukian Glendale Youth Center became something rare in diaspora public life: a room where difficult, necessary questions were asked without the comfort of easy answers.

Organized by the ARF-WR’s “Diaspora” Conference Committee as a precursor to the upcoming Diaspora Conference, the Public Debate-Discussion on “Armenian Diaspora’s Nation-Building Opportunities in the 21st Century” drew a full house of community members, scholars, activists, and civic leaders united by a single conviction, that understanding must precede action.

Beneath the evening’s wide-ranging discussion lay a deeper question: before the Armenian diaspora can assume a decisive role in nation-building, it must first understand and define its own strategic capacity. The evening was not designed to produce immediate answers, but rather to map the conditions that would allow the diaspora to become a credible and equal partner in shaping the Armenian future. This is because the stakes could not be higher: today, more Armenians live outside Armenia than within its borders, a reality that places the diaspora not at the margins of the Armenian story, but at its very heart.

In addition, the evening was deliberately framed not around crisis or lament, but around opportunity. Five distinguished panelists — diaspora studies scholar Dr. Khatchig Tölölyan, international relations professor Dr. Khatchig Der Ghougassian, community and spiritual leader Rev. Fr. Karekin Bedourian, ARF Bureau member Khajag Mgrdichian, and prominent civic attorney and community advocate Lara Yeretsian — brought to the stage a rare breadth of expertise: from the theoretical to the pastoral, from geopolitical strategy to courtroom advocacy. brought to the stage a rare breadth of expertise: from the theoretical to the pastoral, from geopolitical strategy to courtroom advocacy. The debate was moderated by Dr. Kevork Hagopjian, Esq., minority rights expert, and an active voice in Armenian diasporic communal life for over two decades.

Starting From Strength
The debate opened with a question that set its tone from the first moment: what is the single greatest asset the Armenian diaspora brings to nation-building in 2026 that no previous generation possessed? The responses revealed a community that is, in many ways, more richly positioned than it has ever been, globally networked, institutionally experienced, economically established, and increasingly embedded in the civic and political structures of its host countries. Participants pointed to the diaspora’s unprecedented capacity for transnational coordination in light of advanced technologies and AI and drew attention to a generation of young Armenians whose hunger for evolving identity and meaning represents a profound, if still largely untapped, opportunity.

No Diaspora Without a Homeland
One of the evening’s most clarifying moments was a reflection on the very nature of diaspora itself. The panelists emphasized that there is no diaspora without a Homeland — Hayrenik. To be diasporic is not simply to live abroad; it is to carry within oneself a connection to a homeland, a consciousness of displacement, and a living desire to return or contribute. This is not sentiment — it is the defining condition that separates a diaspora from a mere immigrant community.

Complementarity, Not Competition
From this foundation emerged one of the evening’s most candid conversations: the relationship between the diaspora and Yerevan is not without tension. The concern raised was not one of rivalry, but of autonomy, mutual respect and strategic partnership. The panelists were clear: the diaspora’s nation-building role is only meaningful if it is treated as a genuine strategic partner, with its own voice, its own organizational logic, and its own contribution to defining the shared future. Complementarity, in this sense, is not a given. It must be built deliberately, on the basis of mutual recognition and equal partnership.

Re-Defining the Diaspora’s Strategic Value
The evening’s most intellectually charged exchange centered on a fundamental question of identity and purpose: should the diaspora develop its own distinct agenda — investing in itself, its communities, and its institutions on its own terms — or is its greatest contribution found in serving as a strategic force that amplifies Armenia’s power and presence in the world? The debate made clear that this is not an either/or choice, nor an abstract one. How the diaspora answers it shapes everything — from how it allocates resources, to how it organizes politically, to how it defines success across generations.

What emerged from the discussion was a more demanding proposition: that to become a truly effective partner to Armenia, the diaspora must first do the harder work of reassessing itself honestly — mapping its real assets, evaluating its organizational capacity, and clearly articulating its strategic value. Not as an article of faith, but as a credible, evidence-based case. Only then can it claim — and expect to be treated as — an equal partner by Yerevan.

Building Outward, Not Only Inward
The conversation highlighted that today’s youth possess professional, intellectual and entrepreneurial capacities that can be redirected toward a common national purpose. Yet the panel also recognized a tension: alongside an engaged and highly networked generation, there is another that is drifting, more individualistic, assimilated or disconnected. The challenge, then, is not merely to “save” youth, but to invest in their real potential, respect their individual paths to success and connect those successes to a larger Armenian collective project.

The discussion suggested that traditional Armenian institutions remain valuable, but cannot simply rely on inherited legitimacy. If they are to remain relevant, they must modernize their methods, language, leadership cultures and forms of outreach. Inclusivity was also highlighted as essential: the future cannot be built by narrower circles speaking only to themselves. A stronger Diaspora will require broader participation, greater openness and a clearer understanding of diversity as an asset rather than a weakness.

An equally important insight emerged around the diaspora’s presence within the mainstream institutions of its host countries. Nation-building, it was argued, is not only what happens inside Armenian community spaces — schools, churches, political organizations — but also what Armenians do within the broader civic, legal, and political structures that shape public life and foreign policy. For a diaspora that has historically built inward, strategically embedding Armenian voices and interests into the institutions of one of the world’s most influential democracies represents a largely underexplored dimension of nation-building — and a concrete demonstration of the strategic value the diaspora can bring to the partnership.

Among the threads running through the evening was also the question of language — the most intimate dimension of Armenian identity. The concern was clear: institutional strength, political networks, and financial support can all be rebuilt. A language lost to a generation is far harder to recover. In this sense, preserving and transmitting Armenian is not a cultural nicety, it is a nation-building imperative.

Understanding Before Action
What distinguished this evening from many community gatherings was its philosophical premise: that clarity of understanding is itself an achievement — and a prerequisite for any meaningful action. The debate was not designed to produce a roadmap. It was designed to ensure that when the Diaspora Conference convenes in couple of days, the conversations that follow are grounded in honest self-knowledge rather than inherited assumptions. In that sense, the most important question of the night was also its last: having now mapped where we are and what this moment holds, do each of these panelists still hold the same view of the diaspora’s greatest asset that they articulated at the start of the evening?

The answers varied — some reinforced, some subtly shifted. Which is precisely the point. A community willing to think out loud, in public, with rigor and without pretense, is a community that still believes in its own future. On the evidence of Thursday evening in Glendale, the Armenian diaspora is exactly that.

—