Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has broken his silence on Israel’s landmark decision to recognise the Armenian genocide, suggesting that Yerevan’s conspicuous lack of celebration is a deliberate strategic choice to avoid weaponising the historical tragedy.
A calculated silence from Yerevan
The Armenian premier offered a terse explanation for his government’s muted response to the Israeli Knesset’s resolution, telling journalists that engaging in a war of words over the issue did not serve the national interest.
“We see no need for a reaction, because we believe that not entering into the topic of militarising the question of the recognition of the Armenian Genocide stems from Armenia’s interests,” Pashinyan stated following a board meeting of the ruling Civil Contract party. “In short, there is no need for a reaction.”
The Israeli vote and a historic wound
The comments, delivered on the margins of a party gathering, came just days after the Israeli government officially approved a resolution on June 28 acknowledging the systematic massacre of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire.
The genocide, carried out during the First World War, saw the mass deportation and killing of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians. The first international outcry against the atrocities dates back to May 1915, when Russia, France, and the United Kingdom issued a joint declaration branding the violence a “crime against humanity and civilisation.”
A delicate geopolitical tightrope
While the events have since been formally recognised as genocide by numerous states and international bodies, modern Turkey staunchly rejects the term. Ankara acknowledges the mass death of Armenians during the wartime period but disputes the characterisation of the events and the estimated death toll insisted upon by Yerevan.
Pashinyan’s refusal to engage in a diplomatic victory lap suggests a calculated effort by Armenia to de-escalate rhetoric in a volatile region. By describing the discourse as a potential “militarisation” of the matter, the prime minister signalled a preference for preserving delicate geopolitical balances rather than issuing a strong public commendation of Israel’s move.
