The processes taking place in the Middle East have long since moved beyond the framework of a local conflict and have become a factor influencing the global security architecture. The ongoing military-political escalation in the Gaza Strip has created new risks in the system of international relations. Against the backdrop of these processes, the positions of various states are being re-evaluated.
Azerbaijan's approach to the Palestinian issue also comes into focus in this context. This is because Azerbaijan is now a victorious state that has ensured its territorial integrity. Therefore, its position generates significant interest. It appears that forces often opposed to Azerbaijan, particularly in Turkey, seek to create problems from this issue. They even attempt to sow discord, in their own world, between fraternal Turkey and Azerbaijan.
In general, official Baku has demonstrated a principled and consistent line for many years. This line is based on the fundamental principles of international law.
Azerbaijan has consistently supported the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. This position has been openly expressed on both bilateral and multilateral platforms. Within the framework of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Baku has voted in favor of resolutions concerning Palestine. Azerbaijan has not deviated from this position in the Non-Aligned Movement either. This approach is a legal and political one.
One of the practical indicators of official Baku's position on Palestine is the embassy issue. The Embassy of the State of Palestine operates with the financial support of Azerbaijan. This fact speaks for itself. The existence of a diplomatic mission signifies the recognition of political legitimacy. Moreover, the mission operating with Azerbaijan's support means full support. This is an example of Azerbaijan's commitment to international law.
The chronology of events suggests that Azerbaijan has not been a passive actor in Middle East diplomacy. Its participation in the Middle East Peace Summit held in Sharm El Sheikh is an indicator of this. The summit was considered one of the important platforms on the regional security agenda.
The main topic of discussion here was the settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Azerbaijan's participation was an integral part of a balanced and measured diplomacy. However, the reality is that the resolution of the Palestinian issue does not depend solely on international organizations. The main stakeholders are the leading Arab states in the region. The United Arab Emirates plays a special role in this context. Saudi Arabia maintains its claim to regional leadership. Egypt is a state directly connected to Gaza in terms of security. Jordan, on the other hand, bears historical and religious responsibility in the issue of Jerusalem. A real peace mechanism cannot be formed without considering the positions of these countries. Azerbaijan clearly understands this as well.
At the current stage, Azerbaijan's participation in a peacekeeping mission in Gaza is not on the agenda. This decision is the result of a correct assessment of strategic risks. The military balance in the region is extremely sensitive. Direct military involvement could increase geopolitical risks. However, this does not mean that Azerbaijan remains outside the processes. The issue of humanitarian aid is on the agenda. Opportunities for technical equipment and civilian infrastructure support also exist. This is a classic example of a soft power strategy. Of course, Azerbaijan can demonstrate activity in these aspects.
There is an important, but often overlooked, historical point here. The relations of Palestinian political movements with Armenia have been far from neutral. Ideological and political support has been provided to Armenian terrorist organizations at various times. This fact has been documented in archival materials and media. Symbolic gestures have also not gone unnoticed. Images of Yasser Arafat embracing Armenian priests have been discussed for a long time. Undoubtedly, these images were not a random protocol episode. This was a political message.
The fact that one of Palestine's foreign ministers was of ethnic Armenian origin is also a separate topic of discussion. This fact indicates the balance of influence in the formation of diplomatic elites.
A more noteworthy point is the stamp issued concerning the so-called “Armenian genocide.” This step contradicts Azerbaijan's national interests and international law. This is a historical as well as a political issue.
The event that occurred on January 18, 2000, should be noted separately. Robert Kocharyan, the then President of Armenia, paid an unofficial visit to Israel. A meeting took place in Bethlehem within the framework of the visit. The other party to the meeting was Yasser Arafat. There, Kocharyan wished peace and prosperity to the Palestinian people. Arafat, in turn, stated that Armenia did not exploit regional contradictions.
And Arafat's statements regarding Armenians were consistent. A noteworthy position emerged during the Camp David talks in 2000. The issue of the Armenian Quarter in Jerusalem's Old City was discussed during the negotiations. Arafat openly opposed Israel's proposal for control. The phrase “The Armenian Quarter belongs to us” was the culmination of political rhetoric. The statement “We and the Armenians are one people” was a clear message. And the sentence “I will not betray the Armenians” has remained in historical memory.
Following this, an interview he gave to “Al Hayat” newspaper in 2002 reaffirmed this position. Arafat once again stated that he would not betray the Armenians. Naturally, these statements raised serious questions in Azerbaijani public opinion.
Despite all this, Azerbaijan has always maintained its principled stance on the Palestinian issue. This position of Azerbaijan is a state policy based on international law. Although official Baku attaches importance to historical episodes, it acts in accordance with current realities. National interests are fundamental in diplomacy. For Azerbaijan, the main priority is the protection of legal precedents. Otherwise, double standards in the international system would deepen further.
And consequently, we can say that the Palestine-Gaza issue has long transcended the status of a simple conflict, such as a mere humanitarian crisis, becoming a major catastrophe involving the clash of power balances, ideological blockades, and historical memory in the region. Azerbaijan, in turn, strives to remain a balanced actor in this complex landscape. Official Baku's diplomatic moves are far from emotional populism. This very approach is the main advantage of Baku's foreign policy line.
Modern Analytical Analysis and Research Group
