Consider two exact sequences of chain complexes (of abelian groups) with morphisms of chain complexes $f, g, h$ between them:$\require{AMScd}$ $$ \begin{CD} 0 @>>> A_\bullet @>\alpha>> B_\bullet @>\beta>> C_\bullet @>>> 0\\ & @VfVV @VgVV @VhVV \\ 0 @>>> X_\bullet @>\xi>> Y_\bullet @>\nu>> Z_\bullet @>>> 0 \label{d1} \tag{1} \end{CD} $$ If both squares in the diagram are commutative, the naturality of the zig-zag lemma gives us a morphism between the two long exact sequences, i. e. the diagram $$ \begin{CD} @>>> H_n(A_\bullet) @>>> H_n(B_\bullet) @>>> H_n(C_\bullet) @>\delta>> H_{n-1}(A_\bullet) @>>> \\ &@Vf_*VV @Vg_*VV @Vh_*VV @Vf_*VV \\ @>>> H_n(X_\bullet) @>>> H_n(Y_\bullet) @>>> H_n(Z_\bullet) @>\delta>> H_{n-1}(X_\bullet) @>>> \end{CD} $$ is commutative. Actually, the only nontrivial part of this is the commutativity of the the right square with the connecting morphisms $\delta$.
Question: What happens if the squares in diagram (\ref{d1}) are only commutative up to homotopy? My intuition told me that the zig-zag lemma should still be true, but I can't manage to prove it and I am actually starting to doubt whether this could really work. Again, the only nontrivial part is the commutativity of the squares with the $\delta$s.
Edit: I guess that this is equivalent to asking whether the zig-zag lemma is still valid in the homotopy category of chain complexes