Kurds Should Not Have Independent State And Here’s Why

Op-Ed by Brandon Turbeville

As the Islamic State breathes its last breath in Syria and Iraq and the Syrian government gradually regains control over its own territory from Western-backed terrorists, the question of Kurdistan has now become a topic of intense debate both in the mainstream and alternative media. Unfortunately, however, many in the alternative media are now repeating the same propaganda as that of the mainstream media as well as promoting Zionist and Western imperialist agendas, wittingly or not, in the process.

Clearly, the MSM is not confused when it comes to the propaganda it pushes. However, confusion and the need for simplicity often tend to get the better of individuals less versed in certain topics. Unfortunately, that need for simplicity often is a perfect match for simplistic propaganda and thus that need for simplicity tends to become an echo of it.

The question of Kurdistan is just the type of issue that, at face value, seems easy enough to understand but, in reality, has many more facets than simply a group of oppressed people who desire independence. This is, after all, the siren song of the Kurdish question, i.e. the idea that the Kurds are oppressed people, a monolithic nationality, and underdogs who deserve and should receive their own state.

For two reasons, i.e. Western obsession with what they see as the underdog (which is virtually never the actual underdog) and certain branches of the alternative media’s penchant for anarchy in combination with simplistic analysis and observation may lead one to believe that the Kurds deserve an independent state. It is not the ideology of anarchy itself that is the problem here but the lack of proper insight into geopolitics that causes such an analytical handicap. Thus, we now have many alt media readers confused as to the legitimacy of a “Kurdistan” and the implications it would have for the region and the world.

I highly encourage my readers to access my article, “The Kurdish Question: Why Federalization In Syria And The Creation Of A Kurdistan Is A Very Bad Idea,” and Maram Susli’s Why A Kurdish Enclave In Syria Is A Very Bad Idea.” I also encourage accessing Sarah Abed’s articles regarding the Kurdish issue which can be found at her website, SarahAbed.com.

Because so much misinformation about the issue of Kurdistan has circulated through mainstream outlets and has now bled into the alternative media, there is now a need to address a number of claims being made in this regard.

“Territorial Integrity”

One of the claims made by those attempting to promote the creation of Kurdistan is that concerns over the “territorial integrity” of Iraq and Syria are illegitimate. The argument generally surrounds the question of Sykes-Picot and the creation of admittedly artificial borders at that time to the benefit of the British and French empires. The suggestion is that the borders were and still are illegitimate and, because of this, Kurdistan is somehow made legitimate by default. This argument is an echo of many mainstream outlets who have suggested in the past that the artificial drawing up of borders in the Middle East by Britain and France has been the source of all the tensions in the Middle East ever since. This, of course, is an incredibly simplistic and condescending portrayal of the Middle East, the Syrian crisis, and the geopolitical situation of the region.

While Sykes-Picot did have major reverberations in the Middle East at the time that are still being felt today, the underlying assumption by pro-Kurdistan promoters and Sykes-Picot fetishists is that Middle Eastern peoples are obsessed with race, religion, and ethnicity and thus cannot function in the same way as normal societies in the West. The claim also suggests that Middle Eastern States are inherently ineffectual for the same reason. This argument runs dangerously parallel to the ignorant “they have been fighting over there for a thousand years” argument used to insinuate that Middle Eastern peoples are mired in centuries-old religious war and that they simply can’t live together without eventually killing one another. However, while building states based on race, religion, and ethnicity are apparently acceptable models to impose on Middle Eastern countries, ethno-centric Westerners never seem to accept the same for their own nations. Such arguments expose the ingrained sense of cultural superiority that has been entrenched in Western countries that have themselves literally been fighting for thousands of years as well.

While Sykes-Picot no doubt separated people who were not separate before and brought together people who were previously more segregated, it did not prevent the existence of functioning states, civil progression, and secularism from growing. In Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, intellectual, physical, and societal progression were being made manifest. However, the West routinely cut the legs out from under these nations with color revolutions, assassinations, campaigns of destabilization and fracturing, and outright invasion. Religion, ethnicity, and general backwardness of a people were blamed for the results of Western treachery and American bombs and Western machinations of funding, supporting, and disseminating extremism in the region.

More significant than the implementation of Sykes-Picot, however, was the formation of a settler colony under the guise of a state directly in Palestine. The constant aggression of Israel against its neighbors since the day of its creation, the gradual genocide of Palestinians, the attempts to break up its “enemies” into smaller weaker states if not annihilate them altogether, all done with the backing of the United States at every turn stands as the greatest force for division and destabilization in the Middle East. The Sykes-Picot borders may have been artificial but the nations were able to acclimate. Israel, however, is a metastasizing cancer that prevents the entire region from maintaining any sense of real balance and keeps the Middle East in a constant state of war. History exists but so does the present. The borders to which these states have acclimated and have survived despite never-ending Western and Israeli meddling are where we find ourselves today. The answer to imperialism is not more imperialism, i.e. carving up countries yet again to fit race-based or Western interests.

The other argument given for Kurdistan is simply one of anarchistic fetishism; i.e. that states and borders should not exist in the first place; therefore, the carving up of Iraq and Syria does not matter since the entire state apparatus is illegitimate. It is thus highly ironic that individuals who consider themselves anarchists or at least anti-state would be so heavily supporting the Kurds in their attempt to create a state. Nevertheless, this claim is just a matter of ideology. Since certain individuals would like to see the collapse or organized civilization, then everyone else must suffer the consequences as organized groups of religious, ethnic, and racial minorities all form their own “states” and oppress or eject others from their homes and perhaps even launch campaigns of extermination against them. Again, such segregation tactics are considered fine for Syria and Iraq but, for America and most of Western Europe, the concept of forming states based on religion, race, or ethnicity is considered racist.

Regardless, a Westerner who simply hates “the state” is not reason enough to break up a nation for the benefit of imperialism and Zionism. Such an idea is not only simplistic, it is intellectually infantile. Just because a group of people are angry or have formed an ideology of their own – real or imagined – and have managed to arm themselves in preparation for combat does not equal the necessity to support them in their aims to overthrow a functioning state or ethnic cleansing of the “other” whether that “other” be a minority or a majority.

Historical Kurdistan

Many pro-Kurdish destabilization researchers may argue a historical element to their cause, attempting to make a case for the existence of a historical “modern” Kurdistan. Due to lack of evidence, these individuals tend to argue that pointing out that modern historical Kurdistan has never existed as an independent state before is essentially the same as arguing Palestinians are an “invented people.” The attempt to compare a radical minority of a yet another minority of people supported by the West for geopolitical purposes who have never had a modern historical state to a people who have and who are being ethnically cleansed from their homeland by invaders and settlers who generally have no connection to the Middle East at all is intellectually dishonest to say the least.

The best case for a Kurdistan in Ancient History is a debatable case for the Empire of Corduene having been an ancient Kurdish kingdom. This kingdom only existed independently from 189 – 90 BC. The question of whether or not this empire is “Kurdish,” however, is widely debated.[1] This, perhaps, is the best case for the existence of a “Kurdistan” or at least the existence of a Kurdish state since both the Jews and Muslims have used this empire as an explanation of the origin of the Kurds and there are many links between Kurdish culture and that of Corduene.

The earliest historical mention of a Kurdistan is an obscure reference to a region of land that is populated by Kurdish people. This area was a small administrative area by the Roman Empire, delineated by the fact that the area was populated by Kurdish people. In no way was this mention an independent state or a separate country, however.

The next mention of a Kurdistan comes from the British empire. It is thus ironic that critics will argue the borders of Syria and Iraq are illegitimate because they were drawn up by foreign empires but, in the same sentence, will argue that the borders of the fictional modern Kurdistan are legitimate because they were drawn up by the same powers.

Regardless, even at the hands of foreign empires, Kurdistan was never a reality. The Treaty of Sevres, which would have granted Kurdish independence presumably as a separate state from the brutal Ottoman Empire, was never ratified. Instead, the Treaty of Lausanne was implemented and the Kurdish areas were split among four different countries. In keeping with the tradition of Kurdish groups being supported by the West and abandoned at critical junctures, the British supported several Kurdish groups in the lead up the treaty negotiations, no doubt in an effort to increase their own leverage at the negotiating table. Upon the betrayal, they left four manageable populations always able to be stirred up to control the vassal states they created or act as guerrillas against their enemies if the previously conquered countries ever became a problem for Western imperialism again. At the end of the day, however, the concept of Kurdistan is a predominantly British creation.

Thus, the best case for the existence of a Kurdistan can only be traced back to a debated kingdom a hundred years BC. There is no modern equivalent of Kurdistan. With this being the case, should we infer that every kingdom that ever existed in ancient times should then have its own state today? And what of the ever smaller minorities who lived in those kingdoms? Should they have their own state based on their ethnicity or religion? And who determines what time period we should select these states from? Does this strategy only apply to states in existence in 180 BC? 1500? 1911? Clearly, this entire concept is completely subjective and changes wildly depending on the person or groups who are advocating for it.

Do The U.S. and Israel Support Kurdistan?

Israel has stood out as the most vocal backer of Kurdistan both in Iraq and Syria out of all the Western orbit countries. Even as the U.S. was telling the Iraqi Kurds not to go ahead with the failed referendum, Israel urged Barzani on and, ultimately, that recklessness led to a crackdown by the Iraqi government. The connection between Israel and Kurdistan are not debatable. Israel has been known for years to have close connections to the Barzani Kurdish factions in Iraq and, throughout the entire referendum, Kurdish separatists waved Israeli flags alongside Kurdish ones. As Sarah Abed writes,

Israel was the only vocal supporter of the referendum, which many analysts believe was more to bolster the opportunistic Barzani’s legitimacy than it was about independence for Iraqi Kurds. Both Israeli and Kurdish flags were waved in demonstrations around the world, promoting and raising awareness for the Kurdish referendum. The Israelis and Kurds have mutually benefited from a long-standing relationship, which at times was concealed or downplayed in order to not draw attention and critical speculation.

As I mentioned in a previous article, in 1966, Iraqi defense minister Abd al-Aziz al-Uqayli blamed the Kurds of Iraq for seeking to establish “a second Israel” in the Middle East. He also claimed that “the West and the East are supporting the rebels to create [khalq] a new Israeli state in the north of the homeland as they had done in 1948 when they created Israel.” Interestingly enough, history is repeating itself with their present-day relationship, but most recently we are seeing that relationship brought out in broad daylight without either side shying away from it as they have in the past.

In the past, Israel has obtained intelligence, as well as support for a few thousand Jews fleeing Ba’athist Iraq. The Kurds have received security and humanitarian aid, as well as links to the outside world, especially the United States. The first official acknowledgment that Jerusalem had provided aid to the Kurds dates back to Sept. 29, 1980, when Prime Minister Menachem Begin disclosed that Israel had supported the Kurds “during their uprising against the Iraqis in 1965 to 1975” and that the United States was aware of this fact. Begin added that Israel had sent instructors and arms, but not military units.

. . . . .

In 2015, the Financial Times reported that Israel had imported as much as 77 percent of its oil supply from Kurdistan in recent months, bringing in some 19 million barrels between the beginning of May and August 11. During that period, more than a third of all northern Iraqi exports, shipped through Turkey’s Ceyhan port, went to Israel, with transactions amounting to almost $1 billion, the report said, citing “shipping data, trading sources, and satellite tanker tracking.”

Many pro-Kurdistan commentators, glossing over the Israeli connections to the Iraqi Kurds and the significance of the Yinon Plan (written by an advisor to the Prime Minister of Israel) suggest that the United States does not want a Kurdistan because its public statements are against the creation of the separate entity and because it vocally opposed the Iraqi Kurdish referendum. The United States, as every government in history, routinely issues public statements that do not coincide with reality. Virtually every commentator should know this since even a somnambulant Western public is able to grasp the fact that governments do not always tell the truth and that their public statements do not equal the reality of the situation. Just because the United States government gives lip service to territorial integrity does not mean that it does not actively undermine that principle.

There is another problem in the “America doesn’t want Kurdistan” narrative; namely, that the United States is arming the Kurds, assisting them in battle, and even attacking the Syrian military and threatening World War Three over the precious collection of fanatical Kurds and Arab terrorists known as the SDF. In addition, the United States has been providing arms and assistance to the YPG Kurds in the North in Syria. Any way you slice it, the United States is acting in contradiction to its stated claims regarding the Kurds in Syria.

That the United States is funding and supporting Kurdish fanatics – be they Muslim fanatics or Marxist fanatics – is well-known and publicly admitted by the White House. The Trump administration, for instance, publicly admitted that it was sending heavier equipment and heavier arms to the SDF in early 2017. However, few Americans understand the repercussions of arming the Kurdish fighters or the effect it has had on the battlefield as well as the Syrian people. Sarah Abed writes,

The U.S.-led coalition has on numerous occasions stated that it is working with the SDF to try to defeat Daesh in Syria. However, there have been numerous reports of U.S.-led airstrikes targeting Syrian civilians, military, and infrastructure. These deadly and avoidable mistakes clearly illustrate how the US-led coalition’s presence in Syria has had a harmful impact on civilians. On June 26, the SDF cut off water supplies to 1 million civilians in Aleppo. Some sources stated that this was out of spite, whereas others stated they were unaware of the reason(s) behind such a destructive and deliberate against innocent civilians.

. . . . .

The U.S. has armed the Kurds and supported their efforts since helping them establish the Syrian Democratic Forces on Oct. 10, 2015. The U.S. needed to fund a group within Syria that was fighting against Daesh, but that was not as extremist as the Free Syrian Army, which was outed as being affiliated with al-Qaeda. The U.S. has stated that its main reason for being in Syria is to fight Daesh, but its actions have proved otherwise. Its true mission is to destabilize the country by assisting the Kurds through the SDF and other armed opposition forces in liberating land that can be used as a bargaining tool in future negotiations.

The SDF is nothing more than a loose grouping of Kurdish YPG fighters with an “Arab” contingent thrown in for good measure and the ability to tout a “multi-ethnic” demographic for American audiences slightly versed in the Syrian crisis. Of course, this Arab contingent is actually a gaggle of terrorists and “rebels” funded and organized by the West. In other words, they are jihadists teamed up with the YPG.

In June 2017, Sputnik offered a short report and interview with a Syrian expert regarding the nature of the SDF. The report read,

Sputnik Arabic was able to talk to a Syrian expert on the armed groups in Syria, Husma Shaib, who explained why the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) operating in Syria are comparable to the al-Nusra Front and what the actual aim of their operations in Syria is.

“In Syria, we regard these forces as unlawful military formations which operate outside of the legal environment. They are the same as terrorist units like al-Nusra Front and Daesh. The Syrian Democratic Forces do not coordinate their activities with the Syrian Army. We regard them as terrorists,” Husma Shaib told Sputnik.

“According to the plot of the US, these forces should assist in the implementation of their plan on the setup of the so-called safe of buffer territories, which should cut Syria off from its neighbors,” he elaborated.

The expert, however, said that he hopes that with the help of Russia and Iran, the Syrian Army will be able to block these efforts.

Meanwhile, he said, the SDF have been coordinating their assault on the Syrian city of Raqqa with both the US and Daesh.

The SDF is mostly comprised of the Kurdish YPG militia which unanimously declared the “federalization” of what they call “Rojava”, or so-called Western Kurdistan, back in March 2016.

The leaders of the SDF announced that they’ll try to annex the majority-Arab city of Raqqa if they manage to liberate it.

In all fairness, the question of whether or not the U.S. actually wants an established Kurdistan in Syria and Iraq is up in the air. On one hand, establishing a state would weaken the Syrian and Iraqi governments but it would also have both strategic and economic reverberations for Syria as well as for Hezbollah and Iran whose land supply lines would be effectively cut, a massive strategic victory for Israel and thus for the “deep state” apparatus of the U.S. government who wish to see the destruction of all governments who do not bend to its will. In terms of geopolitics, it should also be noted that the Kurdish regions in Iraq as well as those being claimed in Syria, are both oil rich regions. With its Kurdish tentacles in control of this specific territory, both the United States and Israel not only have eyes and ears on the ground in Syria and Iraq but also have a stake in the oil that comes out of these regions.

On the other hand, simply keeping the dream of Kurdistan alive amongst the heavily armed separatists could keep both Iraq and Syria in perpetual conflict within their borders and thus facing a constant civil war with radical Marxist terrorists. This would have the effect of weakening both central governments to the benefit of the United States and Israel.

Why Does It Matter If Israel/West Wants Kurdistan?

One attempt of Kurdistan promoters to dismiss the relevance of Israeli and Western involvement in the creation of Kurdistan is to claim that the foreign desires to see the creation of a Kurdish entity simply don’t matter. For them, a group of people seem rebellious and “anti-state” (despite attempting to create a state) and that is enough to justify support. While it is true that, if a group of people are making legitimate demands which happen to coincide with the wishes of the Western financier establishment, that coincidence does not lessen their moral imperative, it is important to determine first if the demands being made are actually legitimate. In other words, is there a moral imperative at all and, if so, what are the demands? Second, it is important to determine whether these demands are organic to the group making them or entirely concocted by powers that have vested interests in seeing them distributed and fostered amongst target populations.

The fact that Israel and the U.S. want Kurdistan does not, by itself, negate Kurdistan as a legitimate entity. However, one would be foolish to ignore the fact that Kurdistan would provide both Israel and the United States with a leg up in Syria and the Middle East. Second, no one has made the simplistic argument that “Kurdistan shouldn’t exist because Israel or the U.S. want it to.” This argument is nothing more than a strawman created by commentators bent on reducing question of Kurdistan down to its lowest intellectual common denominator. The argument against Kurdistan has been made repeatedly in detail which has nothing to do with whether or not Israel and the U.S. want it, but does focus on whether or not Israel and the U.S. have created, manipulated, and/or actively fanned the flames of it inside sovereign nations. There is, after all, a difference between desire and manipulation.

Federalization Is An Old Israeli Plan

Written in 1982, Israel’s famous “Yinon Plan” also called for the fractionalization of Syria, revealing that what possibly a “Plan B” today was once a “Plan A.” The plan advocated for the federalization of Syria as strategic destruction on the Syrian state by the Israelis and their allies. As Khalil Nakleh wrote in the opening to Oded Yinon’s “A Strategy For Israel In The Nineteen Eighties,”

The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation.

In making her case against a Kurdish state inside Syria, Maram Susli also referenced the philosophy of the Yinon Plan. She wrote,

Israel wants to establish a Kurdistan, as a Sunni-Iranian rival to Shi’ite Iran. They hope such a Sunni state will block Iran’s access to Syria and will also prevent Lebanese resistance against Israeli invasion. This was all outlined in Israel’s Yinon Plan published in 1982. Israel is an extension of US influence and hegemony in the region, the Israeli lobby holds much sway over US politics. Strengthening Israel in the region will strengthen US influence over the region, once again shrinking Russian influence and pushing the nuclear power into a corner. Journalists who show a sense of confusion about the reason the West is supportive of Kurdish expansionism should consider this point.

Finally, a designated ‘Kurdish area’ in Syria is deeply rooted in ethnocentric chauvinism. A US state strictly designated for Hispanic, White or Black ethnicity would be outrageous to suggest and would be considered racist. But the use of ethnicity as a means to divide and conquer is the oldest and most cynical form of imperialism. Syria must remain for all Syrians, not just for one minority. Voices who oppose this should be discouraged. The Syrian Constitution should continue to resist all ethnocentric religious-based parties. If there is a change to the Syrian constitution, it should be the removal of the word Arab from Syrian Arab Republic. In spite of the fact that the vast majority Syrians speak the Arabic language, the majority of Syrian are historically not ethnically Arab. All sections of Syrian society should be treated equally under the Syrian flag.

For an in-depth discussion of the concept of Federalizing Syria, I suggest reading my article, “U.S. Increasing Involvement In Syria Yet Again As Regional, World Tensions Flare – Are We Edging Toward Federalization, World War Three In Syria?

It should also be noted that Federalization would have both strategic and economic reverberations for Syria as well as for Hezbollah and Iran whose land supply lines would be effectively cut, a massive strategic victory for Israel and thus for the “deep state” apparatus of the U.S. government who wish to see the destruction of all governments who do not bend to its will.

In terms of geopolitics, it should also be noted that the Kurdish regions in Iraq as well as those being claimed in Syria, are both oil-rich regions. With its Kurdish tentacles in control of this specific territory, both the United States and Israel not only have eyes and ears on the ground in Syria and Iraq but also have a stake in the oil that comes out of these regions.

While pro-Kurdistan commentators may try to dismiss the importance of the Yinon Plan, it is important to remember that the plan was written by Oded Yinon, an advisor to Ariel Sharon. These commentators will point out that the plan was never publicly accepted by the Israeli government just as they point out that the United States has publicly opposed the Iraqi Kurdish referendum. However, as pointed out early, when has it ever been necessary for a government to publicly endorse a plan for it to be implemented? When has a publicly stated policy ever necessarily been the actual policy enacted by governments? “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” written by the Project for the New American Century was also never publicly endorsed by the United States government. Nevertheless, it was implemented just the same.

In order to determine just what plans have been accepted and which ones have not, it is important not to read State Department handouts as fact but to analyze whether or not the plans themselves have been actualized or set in motion in the real world. In the case of the PNAC and Yinon plans, the answer is clearly that they have been.

States Based On Ethnicity – Brzezinski, Identity Politics

It is obvious not only from events on the ground but also from declarations made early on by U.S. government officials and by published writings of corporate-financier think tanks and Neo-Con organizations that the “Plan A” of the Western coalition was the total destruction of the Syrian government in the same manner as what happened in Libya in 2011. However, six years on, due to the assistance provided by Russia, the Syrian government has held itself together and has even reversed many of the gains made by Western-backed terrorists. Therefore, a “Plan B” has been openly discussed in the same circles as the ones which openly called for the complete destruction of Syria years earlier.

That discussion has been uttered by the former Secretary of State but has also been widely disseminated in the halls of corporate/financier “think tanks.” Consider the op-ed published by Reuters and written by Michael O’Hanlon, entitled “Syria’s One Hope May Be As Dim As Bosnia’s Once Was.” The article argues essentially that the only way Russia and the United States will ever be able to peacefully settle the Syrian crisis is if the two agree to a weakened and divided Syria, broken up into separate pieces.

O’Hanlon wrote,

To find common purpose with Russia, Washington should keep in mind the Bosnia model, devised to end the fierce Balkan conflicts in the 1990s. In that 1995 agreement, a weak central government was set up to oversee three largely autonomous zones.

In similar fashion, a future Syria could be a confederation of several sectors: one largely Alawite (Assad’s own sect), spread along the Mediterranean coast; another Kurdish, along the north and northeast corridors near the Turkish border; a third primarily Druse, in the southwest; a fourth largely made up of Sunni Muslims; and then a central zone of intermixed groups in the country’s main population belt from Damascus to Aleppo. The last zone would likely be difficult to stabilize, but the others might not be so tough.

Under such an arrangement, Assad would ultimately have to step down from power in Damascus. As a compromise, however, he could perhaps remain leader of the Alawite sector. A weak central government would replace him. But most of the power, as well as most of the armed forces. would reside within the individual autonomous sectors — and belong to the various regional governments. In this way, ISIL could be targeted collectively by all the sectors.

Once this sort of deal is reached, international peacekeepers would likely be needed to hold it together — as in Bosnia. Russian troops could help with this mission, stationed, for example, along the Alawite region’s borders.

This deal is not, of course, ripe for negotiation. To make it plausible, moderate forces must first be strengthened. The West also needs to greatly expand its training and arming of various opposition forces that do not include ISIL or al-Nusra. Vetting standards might also have to be relaxed in various ways. American and other foreign trainers would need to deploy inside Syria, where the would-be recruits actually live — and must stay, if they are to protect their families.

Meanwhile, regions now accessible to international forces, starting perhaps with the Kurdish and Druse sectors, could begin receiving humanitarian relief on a much expanded scale. Over time, the number of accessible regions would grow, as moderate opposition forces are strengthened.

Though it could take many months, or even years, to achieve the outcome Washington wants, setting out the goals and the strategy now is crucial. Doing so could provide a basis for the West’s working together with — or at least not working against — other key outside players in the conflict, including Russia, as well as Turkey, the Gulf states and Iraq.

O’Hanlon is no stranger to the Partition Plan for Syria. After all, he was the author the infamous Brookings Institution report “Deconstructing Syria: A New Strategy For America’s Most Hopeless War,” in June, 2015 where he argued essentially the same thing.

In this article for Brookings, a corporate-financier funded “think tank” that has been instrumental in the promotion of the war against Syria since very early on, O’Hanlon argued for the “relaxation” of vetting processes for “rebels” being funded by the U.S. government, the direct invasion of Syria by NATO military forces, and the complete destruction of the Syrian government. O’Hanlon argued for the creation of “safe zones” as a prelude to these goals.

Yet, notably, O’Hanlon also mentioned the creation of a “confederal” Syria as well. In other words, the breakup of the solidified nation as it currently exists. He wrote,

The end-game for these zones would not have to be determined in advance. The interim goal might be a confederal Syria, with several highly autonomous zones and a modest (eventual) national government. The confederation would likely require support from an international peacekeeping force, if this arrangement could ever be formalized by accord. But in the short term, the ambitions would be lower—to make these zones defensible and governable, to help provide relief for populations within them, and to train and equip more recruits so that the zones could be stabilized and then gradually expanded.

Such a plan is reminiscent of the Zbigniew Brzezinski method of microstates and ministates. In other words, the construction of a weak, impotent state based upon ethnicity, religion, and other identity politics but without the ability to resist the will of larger nations, coalitions, and banking/industrial corporations.[1] It is the extension of identity politics to the national stage, using such groups to destroy cultural unity, national identity, and thus to create the impotent, quabbling states that are so small they are incapable of functioning independently or with their “other” neighbors in a civilized manner.

It is also no coincidence that the land which the Kurds are attempting to steal is set directly upon land that produces 34% of Syria’s wheat and a great portion of Syria’s oil. This wealth is currently shared, as it should be, by all of Syria’s population. If the West and the YPG fanatics have their way, however, Syria will be deprived of much of its natural resources and both important agriculture and oil based resources will be in the hands of a fledgling ethno-state that is tied at the hip with Israel.

Kurdish Fighting Groups Do Not Equal Kurds

The first mistake made by many commentators when it comes to the Kurdish issue is the assumption that the term “Kurds” is a monolithic one and that all Kurds want “independence,” or a Kurdish state. There is a difference between Syrian Kurds and Kurds in Syria, for instance. There is also a difference between the Kurdish people and the Kurdish militias and fighting groups that occupy Syrian territory. The majority of Kurds in Syria are thoroughly part of Syrian society and culture. While they may retain Kurdish traditions, language, etc. they are Syrian through and through. There are others, however, that have flooded into Syria from Turkey and the legitimate oppression taking place there as illegal immigrants. These Kurds are being counted by propagandists as native to the land they are residing in, despite not being citizens of Syria.

The fighting groups who are so adamant about “independence” and a “Kurdish state,” however, do not represent the Kurdish people as these groups are radical Marxists and bizarre cultural Marxists who are intent on establishing a state based on ethnicity. To say that the YPG, PKK, or even the Peshmerga represent the views or ideology of the Kurdish people in their respective countries is simply false and is overly simplistic at best.

As Maram Susli (aka Syrian Girl) wrote in her article, “Why A Kurdish Enclave In Syria Is A Very Bad Idea,

The Kurdish population of Al Hasakah has also been heavily inflitrated by illegal Kurdish immigration from Turkey. Kurdish immigration to Syria began in the 1920’s and occurred in several waves after multiple failed Kurdish uprisings against Turkey. It continued throughout the century. In 2011 the Kurdish population in Syria reached between 1.6 to 2.3 million, but 420,000 of these left Syria for Iraqand Turkey as a result of the current conflict. Some Syrian Kurds have lived in Homs and Damascus for hundreds of years and are heavily assimilated into the Syrian society. However, Kurdish illegal immigrants who mostly reside in north Syria, and who could not prove their residence in Syria before 1945, complain of oppression when they were not granted the rights of Syrian citizens. Syrian law dictates that only a blood born Syrian whose paternal lineage is Syrian has a right to Syrian citizenship. No refugee whether Somali, Iraqi or Palestinian has been granted Syrian citizenship no matter how long their stay. In spite of this, in 2011 the Syrian President granted Syrian citizenship to 150,000 Kurds. This has not stopped the YPG from using illegal Kurdish immigrants who were not granted citizenship as a rationale for annexing Syrian land. Those who promote Federalism are imposing the will of a small minority – that is not of Syrian origin – on the whole of Al Hasakah’s population and the whole of Syria.

Kurds Are Not Oppressed In Syria

One argument pro-destabilization propagandists tend to use regarding the creation of Kurdistan is that the Kurds are systematically oppressed as a people. This can be argued in Turkey where cultural expression has been hindered and discrimination does exist on an institutional level. Iraq is a more nuanced case that has seen oppression and uprising existing side by side. However, in Syria the Kurds are not oppressed. Cultural expression is not prohibited and Kurds (Syrian citizens) enjoy the same benefits as any Syrian citizen. Real oppression in some areas (i.e. in Turkey) has been translated to mean oppression of all Kurds everywhere. The discrimination and oppression in Turkey regarding Kurdish culture has been lumped in with Kurdish fanaticism, hatred of “the state” in Iraq and Syria, and the inability to have a fully separate entity complete with its enforced brainwashing of bizarre feminism, cultural Marxism, and totalitarianism.

Kurds Are Not The Majority In “Kurdish” Areas In Syria

Maram Susli, from the aforementioned article also outlined five major reasons why the idea of creating a “Kurdish state” or “Kurdish autonomy” in Syria is entirely counterproductive. In this article, she addressed the issue of real population numbers. She wrote,

1. Kurds are not a majority in the Area PYD/YPG are attempting to annex
The region of Al Hasakah, which the Kurdish Nationalist Party (PYD) and its military wing YPG have declared a federal Kurdish state, does not have a Kurdish majority. Al Hasakah Governorate is a mosaic of Assyrian Christians, Armenians, Turkmen, Kurds and Bedouin Arabs. Of the 1.5 millionpopulation of Al Hasakah, only 40% are ethnically Kurdish. Moreover, parts of Al Hasakah Governorate, such as Al Hasakah district, is less than 15% Kurdish (!). In the other large minorities in the area the Arabs and Assyrian Christians form a majority. Declaring a small area with a wide array of ethnic groups as belonging to a specific ethnic minority is a recipe for oppression.

The Kurdish population of Al Hasakah has also been heavily inflitrated by illegal Kurdish immigration from Turkey. Kurdish immigration to Syria began in the 1920’s and occurred in several waves after multiple failed Kurdish uprisings against Turkey. It continued throughout the century. In 2011 the Kurdish population in Syria reached between 1.6 to 2.3 million, but 420,000 of these left Syria for Iraqand Turkey as a result of the current conflict. Some Syrian Kurds have lived in Homs and Damascus for hundreds of years and are heavily assimilated into the Syrian society. However, Kurdish illegal immigrants who mostly reside in north Syria, and who could not prove their residence in Syria before 1945, complain of oppression when they were not granted the rights of Syrian citizens. Syrian law dictates that only a blood born Syrian whose paternal lineage is Syrian has a right to Syrian citizenship. No refugee whether Somali, Iraqi or Palestinian has been granted Syrian citizenship no matter how long their stay. In spite of this, in 2011 the Syrian President granted Syrian citizenship to 150,000 Kurds. This has not stopped the YPG from using illegal Kurdish immigrants who were not granted citizenship as a rationale for annexing Syrian land. Those who promote Federalism are imposing the will of a small minority – that is not of Syrian origin – on the whole of Al Hasakah’s population and the whole of Syria.

Therefore, the establishment of a Kurdistan from these areas in Syria is an attempt to force the majority to bend to the totalitarian and racist will of a fanatical minority. Pro-Kurdistan commentators have never been able to explain how this is a viable or justifiable option.

Susli continues,

PYD did not bother to consult with other factions of Syrian society before its unilateral declaration of Federalism. The other ethnicities that reside in Al Hasake governate, which PYD claims is now an autonomous Kurdish state, have clearly rejected federalism. An assembly of Syrian clans and Arab tribes in Al Hasaka and the Assyrian Democratic Organization (ADO) rejected PYD’s federalism declaration. In Geneva, both the Syrian government and the opposition rejected PYD’s federalism declaration. Furthermore, PYD does not represent all of Syria’s Kurdish population. The Kurdish faction of Syrian national coalition condemned PYD’s federalism declaration. Most of Syria’s Kurds do not live in Al Hasakah and many that do work outside it. Thousands of Kurds have joined ISIS and are fighting for an Islamic State not a Kurdish one.

Unilateral declaration of federalism carries no legitimacy since federalism can only exist with a constitutional change and a Referendum. Federalism is unlikely to garner much support from the bulk of Syria’s population, 90-93% of whom is not Kurdish. Knowing this, PYD have banned residents of Al Hasakah from voting in the upcoming Parliamentary elections to be held across the nation. This shows the will of the people in Al Hasakah is already being crushed by PYD. It is undemocratic to continue to discuss federalism as a possibility when it has been rejected by so many segments of Syrian society. Ironically we are told the purpose of the US’ Regime change adventure in Syria is to bring democracy to the middle east.

Likewise, in Iraq, most Iraqis living the area being called “Iraqi Kurdistan” do not want separatism. In fact, Assyrians, who have been the biggest victim of Kurdish racism, have repeatedly demonstrated in opposition to separatism and have cheered at the arrival of Iraqi troops.

Kurdish Attempts At Ethnic Cleansing, Harassment, Displacement Of Non-Kurds

Much like in the Iraqi Kurdish areas where non-Kurdish people were harassed and intimidated not to vote and Kurdish residents vote multiple times, even bragging about doing so on social media, fanatical Kurds are not interested in democracy, human rights, or the rights of minorities. Indeed, Kurdish extremists have already launched a campaign of displacement and ethnic cleansing against Assyrians, Christians, and Arabs. As Maram Susli writes,

Since the Kurdish population are not a majority in the areas PYD are trying to annex, the past few years have revealed that PYD/YPG are not beyond carrying out ethnic cleansing of non-Kurdish minorities in an attempt to achieve a demographic shift. The main threat to Kurdish ethnocentric territorial claims over the area are the other large minorities, the Arabs and the Assyrian Christians.

Salih Muslim, the leader of PYD, openly declared his intention to conduct an ethnic cleansing campaign against Syrian Arabs who live in what he now calls Rojava. “One day those Arabs who have been brought to the Kurdish areas will have to be expelled,” said Muslim in an interview with Serek TV. Over two years since that interview he has fulfilled his word, as YPG begun burning Arab villages around Al Hasakah Province hoping to create a demographic shift. It is estimated that ten thousands Arab villagers have been ethnically cleansed from Al Hasake province so far. The villages around Tal Abayad have suffered the most as Kurdish expansionists seek to connect the discontiguous population centres of Al Hasakah and Al Raqqa. “The YPG burnt our village and looted our houses,” said Mohammed Salih al-Katee, who left Tel Thiab Sharki, near the city of Ras al-Ayn, in December.

YPG have also begun a campaign of intimidation, murder and property confiscation against the Assyrian Christian minority. The YPG and PYD made it a formal policy to loot and confiscate the property of those who had escaped their villages after an ISIS attack, in the hope of repopulating Assyrian villages with Kurds. The Assyrians residents of the Khabur area in Al Hasaka province formed a militia called the Khabour Guard in the hope of defending their villages against ISIS attacks. The Khabur Guard council leaders protested the practice of looting by Kurdish YPG militia members who looted Assyrian villages that were evacuated after ISIS attacked them. Subsequently, the YPG assassinated the leader of the Khabur Guard David Jindo and attempted to Assassinate Elyas Nasser. At first the YPG blamed the assassination on ISIS but Elyas Nasser, who survived, was able to exposethe YPG’s involvement from his hospital bed. Since the assassination YPG has forced the Khabour Guard to disarm and to accept YPG ‘protection.’ Subsequently most Assyrian residents of the Khabour who had fled to Syrian Army controlled areas of Qamishli City could not return to their villages.

The Assyrian Christian community in Qamishli has also been harassed by YPG Kurdish militia. YPG attacked an Assyrian checkpoint killing one fighter of the Assyrian militia Sootoro and wounding three others. The checkpoint was set up after three Assyrian restaurants were bombed on December 20, 2016 in an attack that killed 14 Assyrian civilians. Assyrians suspected that YPG was behind these bombings in an attempt to assassinate Assyrian leaders and prevent any future claims of control over Qamishli.

It would be foolish to ignore the signs that more widely spread ethnic cleansing campaigns may occur if Kurdish expansionists are supported, especially since other ethnic groups are not on board with their federalism plans. It has only been 90 years since the Assyrian genocide which was conducted by Turks and Kurds. This history should not be allowed to be repeated. Assyrians have enjoyed safety and stability in the Syrian state since this time. Forcing the Assyrians to accept federalism is not going to ensure their safety. Establishment of a federal Kurdish state in Iraq has not protected Assyrian villages from attacks by Kurdish armed groups either. The campaign of ethnic cleansing against both Assyrians and Arabs in Al Hasakah has already begun and may now only escalate.

Kurdish militants are also well known for conscripting child soldiers into their ranks, an act that is normally criticized by Western countries. However, when it comes to the Kurdish communists, it appears child soldiers are “inspiring.”

In Iraq also, Kurdish terrorists have launched an assault on non-Kurdish people, destroying and evicting Arabs from their own homes. Even during the much-lauded Iraqi Kurd “referendum” that was supported by the mainstream media and a portion of the alternative media, pictures and videos surfaced of Kurds admitting and even bragging about how they had voted multiple times. This vote was undertaken amidst severe harassment and intimidation of the non-Kurdish population who remained in the area.

For more information on the war crimes of the PKK and YPG, I encourage the reader to access Sarah Abed’s article “Kurdish PKK, YPG’s Notorious Crimes: Kidnapping, Murder, And Narcotics Trafficking.

Kurdish separatists, like all fanatics, are not above killing their own people to achieve their goals either. Particularly in Turkey, Kurdish Communists have killed scores of children and other innocent Kurdish civilians in their ideological war against the Turkish government and any unarmed person who does not want to be enslaved to the economic and cultural adaptation of Karl Marx.

Conclusion

At the end of the day, the creation of Kurdistan and the support of Kurdish fanaticism not only stands as a danger to the state of Iraq and Syria, it stands as a danger to the entire region. There is no doubt whatsoever that both Israel and the United States have intentionally fanned the flames of separatism in order to advance their own geopolitical agenda in Syria. This is precisely the reason the MSM has consistently praised and promoted Kurdish extremists over the course of the last several years. Alternative media outlets who also promote Kurdish separatism may often mean well but, unfortunately, a lack of understanding and an ideological predisposition to supporting such movements has crippled the ability to analyze what many of these movements are about and whose interests they serve.

Notes:

[1] T. A. Sinclair, “Eastern Turkey, an Architectural and Archaeological Survey”, 1989, volume 3, page 360.

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President, and Resisting The Empire: The Plan To Destroy Syria And How The Future Of The World Depends On The Outcome. Turbeville has published over 1000 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

This article may be freely shared in part or in full with author attribution and source link.


Activist Post Daily Newsletter

Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription