What Israel Can Learn from Armenia

The opening of the Turkish-Armenian border this week is something of a historical landmark. Israel would be wise to follow learn from this case of diplomatic reconciliation, as the cultural and historical similarities between Armenia and Israel are strikingly similar.

Armenia, like Israel, is supported by a large diaspora whose politics were shaped by the wars of the early 20^th century. Armenia once had hostile relations on every front with their Islamic neighbors. Like Israel, Armenia holds claim to a so-called occupied territory Nagorno-Karabagh, which it won through warfare, and claims as a part of historic Armenia. Unlike Israel, however, the majority of the Nagorno-Karabagh is, in fact, ethnically Armenian.

Armenia’s 20^th century national identity was shaped in the wake of genocide. During the First World War, the ultranationalist triumvirate of Talaat, Djemal, and Enver Pasha slaughtered more than one million Armenians. The Armenians posed no threat to the Turkish State, yet were forced out of their homes, marched out into the desert and slaughtered systematically by Turkish soldiers. Those who survived the first few waves of attacks were left out to die in the middle of the desert.

The Armenia Diaspora has been hostile to the resumption of any relations with Turkey. Turkey still officially denies the genocide, and this point will presumably block any legitimate attempt by Turkey at joining the European Union. The Armenian Diaspora is rightfully irritated by this fact, and funds a number of publicity campaigns to get the genocide recognized on a global scale.

Israel, like Armenia, faces a major point of contention with the genocide denial by its neighbors. Following the Second World War, extensive rhetorical de-Nazification campaigns occurred across Europe. However, these efforts were expanded to include Hitler’s allies in the Middle East and waves of virulent anti-Semitism continued, following the war. Massive forced migrations and evictions of Jews across the Middle East ensued and the Jewish communities of Iran, Iraq, and Yemen became targets. But Iranians, Yemenis and Iraqis are not anti-Semitic by nature. The people of these regimes were coerced into the national policy of anti-Semitism.

No power took the time to reverse this course of lies, and these states continued this pattern because it made political sense. Because of continued warfare with Israel and its neighbors, there was never a reason for their leadership to pursue a path of truth, when it was in their best interest to direct the frustrations of the masses at a foreign, intangible concept.

In Iran, Ahminejad, is a well-educated man, however he is a staunch holocaust denier because it is politically pragmatic. Hamas is incensed that their textbooks must now make mention of the Holocaust, because it would create an avenue for sympathy to their sworn enemy. Neither of these regimes will have a reason to propagate truth and tolerance unless peace were to occur first.

This idea of peace before historical truth is what Israel should learn from this watershed date in Turco-Armenian relations. I do not, by any means advocate genocide denial, it is an insulting and absolutely abhorrent policy.  But a resumption of peaceful relations is a necessary precondition before the issue of genocide denial is resolved.

On a much grander scale, we can learn that normative diplomacy cannot be used in lieu of positive diplomacy when dealing with heavily indoctrinated or fundamentalist parties. By engaging Turkey through the recent round of soccer diplomacy and reopening the border without resolving the issue of the unrecognized genocide, Yerevan bolstered its chances of having the genocide recognized in the long run. As relations continue to warm between the states, antipathy will be replaced by truth.

Hopefully the more hawkish Israeli politicians notice these similarities from the case of Armenia. By momentarily swallowing their pride, Armenia and Turkey have both triumphed. There is a lesson to be learned here for all the squabbling states of the world.

Israel should learn from this watershed event, and engage its neighbors through positive diplomacy based on the facts on the ground. The hawkish elements of the Knesset are acting on how it thinks its neighbors should act, and where it thinks its borders should end, which can only hasten the prospects of a fair resolution. Israel’s neighbors are equally incensed and indoctrinated, so an attempt at promoting peace must come before any attempt at promoting historical truth. Israel must stick to positive, rather than normative political thinking, if it wants to do its part in ending the cycle of violence that has endured far too long.

Comments

Leave a Comment

In order to post a comment, you must first log in.
Are you looking for user registration? Or have you forgotten your password?