Summary. Jewish organizations and the public, academic, informational, or cultural institutions they support occasionally find themselves involved in aspects of conflicts that, at first glance, do not directly concern Jewish interests. However, is this involvement beneficial to the Jewish community? A recent debate on this issue was sparked by a statement regarding the Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict from the Illinois Holocaust Museum and Education Center. In this statement, its leadership effectively endorsed the Armenian description of Baku's actions in Karabakh as a "second genocide" (following the ethnic cleansing of World War I), prompting a swift response from prominent representatives of the Russian-speaking Jewish community in the United States.

No consensus regarding such situations has been reached by either Jewish umbrella organizations or public opinion. Nevertheless, there can be little doubt that before taking any action or issuing binding statements, individuals and organizations speaking on behalf of the Jewish people must, in all cases, conduct a thorough verification of the facts. The catastrophe of the Jewish people should not be instrumentalized to recruit supporters for external causes. Such actions diminish the historical significance of the Holocaust and reinforce anti-Semitic stereotypes suggesting that nothing is sacred to Jews and that everything has its price.

Every war is not only a matter of armed clashes on the battlefield, but also a complex diplomatic game played in the interests of the parties involved, directly or indirectly, accompanied by large-scale propaganda. In some cases, this propaganda includes visible Jewish aspects. The recent conflicts in the post-Soviet space—namely, the new escalation of the Azerbaijani-Armenian confrontation and the Russo-Ukrainian war—are no exception. Some of these aspects, such as traditional and "instrumental" anti-Semitism and the struggle over historical memory in the context of these conflicts, which were discussed in an article published in EAJ Policy Papers in December 2022, have expectedly drawn the attention and involvement of umbrella Jewish organizations and communal institutions.

However, there are also situations where Jewish organizations and the public, academic, informational, or cultural institutions they support become involved in aspects of conflicts that do not directly affect Jews. It is logical to ask the fundamental question: is this beneficial to the Jewish community?

This very question was raised by a group of prominent representatives of the Russian-speaking Jewish community in the United States. Their desire to revisit this issue, which remains highly relevant for Jews in Israel and the Diaspora, was prompted by a specific event: a statement by the Illinois Holocaust Museum & Education Center (IHM&EC) regarding the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh (referred to as Artsakh in official Yerevan terminology). In this statement, published on the museum's official website, its leadership essentially supported the Armenian side's characterization of Baku's actions in the region as a "second genocide" (analogous to the extermination and deportation of the Armenian population by the Ottoman Empire during World War I—"Armenians are now referring to this moment as a 'second Genocide', echoing the atrocities against them by the Ottoman Empire during the First World War") and called for sanctions against Azerbaijan. In other words, a major Jewish institution effectively chose sides in this military conflict.

It is this fact that presumably raised concerns among New York State Assemblyman Alec Brook-Krasny, Director of Russian and Eurasian Affairs at the American Jewish Committee Dr. Sam Kliger, President of the Caucasus Jewish Cultural Center in the US Yakov Abramov, Founder and Co-Chairman of the Assembly of the World Diasporas (Chicago) Leonid Bard, President of the Brooklyn Baku Friendship Association (New York) Marietta Rosenthal, and Editor-in-Chief of the Bukharian Times (New York) Rafael Nektalov. In a letter addressed to IHM&EC CEO Bernard Cherkasov and Board Chairman Jordan Lamm, they criticized what they deemed an unfounded call for sanctions against Azerbaijan.

Is this indeed the case? The authors of the letter urge attention to the biases and factual errors they noted in the opening lines of the Illinois Museum's statement. The disputed region, which declared independence following the first wave of the Armenian-Azerbaijani war in 1994 and constitutes approximately 15% of the internationally recognized sovereign territory of Azerbaijan, is referred to as "Artsakh, formerly known as Nagorno-Karabakh." However, "Artsakh" and "Nagorno-Karabakh" are two names for the same territory, of Armenian and Soviet origin respectively. The current name used in official international discourse is "Karabakh" (meaning "black garden" in Azerbaijani); the term "Nagorno-Karabakh" carries no equivalent weight in other languages.

The second point of concern for critics of the Museum administration's political stance is the manipulation of facts. Specifically, the IHM&EC statement mistakenly asserts that Azerbaijan "surrounded" the region after the 2020 war, whereas Azerbaijan had controlled this territory from the formation of the republic following the collapse of the Soviet Union until 1994, when the region was occupied by Armenian forces (supported by Russian units). This occupation forced the vast majority of the resident Azerbaijani population to flee. In 2020, border conflicts between Azerbaijan and the self-proclaimed Republic of Artsakh, backed by Armenia, escalated into a full-scale war won by Azerbaijan, which reclaimed most of its occupied territory, except for the aforementioned enclave. However, as the signatories noted in their letter, the museum's leadership did not dedicate a single word to the history of the region or its internationally recognized status as part of Azerbaijan prior to the 2020 war.

Had the matter been limited to these errors and biased points, American Russian-speaking thought leaders might have refrained from publicly disputing the Museum's statement. However, there are several other problematic claims that, according to the signatories, demanded a significantly firmer response. One such claim is the characterization of the Azerbaijani leadership's actions as "comparable to genocide," alleging that Baku blocked the enclave, "cutting off electricity and halting almost all movement of people and goods both to and from Artsakh," as well as "shutting off the supply of natural gas to the region, further undermining the population's ability to survive in the dead of winter." In contrast, according to a ruling by the International Court of Justice on February 22, 2023, "Armenia did not present sufficient evidence that Azerbaijan is disrupting the supply of natural gas and other essential goods." Furthermore, even if these claims were accurate, equating the blockade of a region to the methodical, industrially organized mass murder of an ethnic group is entirely illogical and morally unsound.

But the primary and broader issue that outraged many in the US Russian-Jewish community is the very fact that an authoritative Jewish organization, serving as a center for Holocaust study and education, took a partisan political stance and called for political action. An institution like a Holocaust museum naturally attracts many visitors seeking to learn about one of the most horrific atrocities in human history. When such an institution uses its platform to disseminate disinformation and call for political action on an issue entirely unrelated to the Holocaust, it creates false equivalencies in the minds of the public, according to those who share the critics' perspective.

In particular, such parallels are almost immediately drawn by the photos used to illustrate the museum's statement, showing Armenian women protesting with signs in front of checkpoints in the Lachin Corridor—an image reminiscent of 1940s photographs, closely resembling depictions of Nazi soldiers standing guard with barbed wire between themselves and Jewish women. This is presented without explaining that these positions are not manned by the Azerbaijani military, who by the 2020 agreements are effectively restricted from the transit points supplying the enclave from Armenia, but rather by soldiers of the Russian peacekeeping contingent. It is this contingent that serves as the sole force controlling everything entering and leaving the enclave. Even putting this omission aside, it is difficult to accept such attempts to manipulate public opinion by invoking one of the most tragic events in Jewish history.

***

Let us draw some conclusions from the cases described above. The readiness of Jewish organizations, activists, and institutions to adopt a particular stance in the domestic political discourse of their respective countries, as well as regarding foreign policy in matters affecting the Jewish Diaspora or the State of Israel, is understandable and natural. A far more controversial situation arises when these Jewish entities intervene in conflicts that are entirely external to them, lending their authority and status to one side, and in doing so, instrumentalizing and trivializing the unique historical experience of the Jewish people.

Opinions within Jewish circles on this matter diverge. As observed, the Illinois Holocaust Museum and Education Center on one side, and a group of prominent figures from the Russian-speaking Jewish diaspora in the US on the other, have presented radically opposing views in this debate. The Museum’s stance aligns closely with perspectives popular in progressive and post-Zionist circles, which stem from a willingness to place the Holocaust on the same level as, or at least compare it to, the declared tragedies of other nations—whether historical realities (such as the Armenian genocide during World War I or the Ukrainian Holodomor) or politically manipulated narratives (such as the official Palestinian doctrine that frames the creation of the State of Israel as the "Holocaust of the Palestinian people"). A natural consequence of this approach is the readiness demonstrated by the IHM&EC leadership to take sides in an external conflict, based on a highly subjective interpretation of morality and justice, regardless of the implications such steps may have for Jewish communities and Israel.

Their opponents, conversely, argue with good reason that the overt politicization of Jewish educational, cultural, and communal structures leads these institutions to broadcast specific biases that serve external agendas unrelated to Holocaust education or Jewish history. This is particularly troubling when such ideological flexibility is applied selectively. As an illustration of this selective approach, Leonid Bard, co-chairman of the Assembly of the World Diasporas, noted the reaction of the Illinois HM&EC when he approached them in early 2022 to request promotional support for a memorial project honoring the Israeli athletes murdered by Palestinian terrorists during the 1972 Munich Olympics. The museum's leadership declined, stating that such projects commemorating murdered Israelis (unlike their readiness to support the pro-Armenian narrative) fell outside the organization's mission.

Such actions appear even more problematic when this endorsement is expressed in favor of a nation that is currently a strategic ally of Iran—a state whose official policy is the destruction of Israel and whose state-sponsored propaganda floods the information space of its allies with the most offensive anti-Semitic tropes. Consequently, this stance opposes Azerbaijan, a country where such propaganda has virtually no impact, and which stands as one of Israel's key allies in its direct confrontation with the Iranian regime.

To conclude: no consensus has yet been reached by Jewish leaders or public opinion on whether Jewish organizations should intervene in external conflicts. However, regardless of the final conclusion, there can be little doubt that before taking any action or issuing formal statements, individuals and organizations representing the Jewish community must conduct a thorough verification of facts in all instances.

One further point seems clear: Jewish institutions dedicated to Holocaust research and remembrance should not serve as platforms for political debates, whether Jewish or non-Jewish. The catastrophe of the Jewish people must never be utilized to rally supporters for unrelated political causes. To do so diminishes the historical weight of the Holocaust and reinforces anti-Semitic stereotypes suggesting that nothing is sacred to Jews and that everything can be compromised for a price.