Questions Kurds Ask Most Frequently

Has the United States Betrayed the Kurds? Will Israel Help the Kurds Establish an Independent State?

No foreign power will establish an independent Kurdish state on behalf of the Kurdish people. The Kurds must make their own decisions, develop their own political strategies, and determine their own future.

Politics in the Middle East is extremely complicated, and international powers make decisions primarily according to their national interests. For example, the United States initially opposed the dissolution of the Soviet Union and sought to prevent its fragmentation into 15 independent states.

The lesson is clear: independence requires sacrifice, determination, political unity, and, above all, belief in one's own national cause.

Despite disagreements and disappointments, I believe the United States government and the American people remain important friends and allies of the Kurdish people.

Why Hasn't Israel Supported Western Kurdistan (Rojava)?

In my assessment, Israel views the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and its affiliated groups, including the People's Protection Units (YPG), through the lens of regional political alliances and rivalries involving Iran, Turkey, and Syria.

During the 1980s, the PKK fought against Israel in Lebanon's Beqaa Valley alongside Palestinian armed groups and forces aligned with the Syrian state. This historical relationship has influenced perceptions of the PKK and its political orientation.

I would argue that Israel's position toward Kurdish statehood differs fundamentally from the political vision promoted by the PKK.

While Israel has expressed support for Kurdish national aspirations and the possibility of an independent Kurdish state, the PKK has promoted a political model that does not prioritize the establishment of a conventional Kurdish nation-state.

These ideological differences are important when examining Israel's approach to Kurdish political movements.

Why Did America Abandon the Kurds of Rojava?

The United States and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) were essential allies in the military campaign against ISIS. Their cooperation played a major role in defeating the organization's territorial control in Syria.

Following Ahmed al-Sharaa's rise to power in Syria, the United States made several attempts to facilitate a meaningful agreement between the new Syrian leadership and SDF commander Mazloum Abdi.

The March agreement represented an important opportunity to secure Kurdish rights, political participation, and a degree of administrative authority within Syria.

In my assessment, the agreement offered the Kurds one of the strongest political opportunities available under the circumstances at that time.

However, I believe that pressure from the PKK leadership in Qandil contributed to the SDF's failure to fully implement the agreement.

This raises an important question about the extent to which Kurdish political decisions in Rojava should be determined by the interests and circumstances of the Kurdish population living there.

Why Didn't America Support the 2017 Kurdistan Independence Referendum?

Since 2009, American policy has increasingly focused on reducing its military commitments in the Middle East and avoiding new regional conflicts.

Washington viewed the 2017 Kurdistan independence referendum as a potential source of instability that could intensify tensions between the Kurdistan Region, Iraq, and neighboring countries.

American policymakers feared that an escalation of the Kurdish question could create additional security challenges and potentially require further American military involvement.

However, external opposition was not the only factor that undermined the referendum's outcome.

In my view, internal Kurdish political divisions played a decisive role, particularly in the events surrounding Kirkuk.

Kirkuk represented one of the strongest political and strategic bargaining positions available to the Kurdish leadership. Its loss to Iraqi federal forces, including elements of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), severely weakened the Kurdish negotiating position.

The events following the referendum demonstrated that national aspirations cannot succeed without political unity, strategic planning, and coordinated leadership.

Should the Kurds Side With Turkey or Israel? Which Is Better?

The Kurds should not allow themselves to become instruments in the rivalry between regional powers.

The Kurdish people have their own national cause, political interests, and legitimate aspirations. These interests must remain at the center of Kurdish political decision-making.

Each part of Kurdistan faces different political, geographical, and security circumstances. Therefore, Kurdish political movements must develop strategies that reflect the realities of the countries in which they operate.

At the same time, Kurds across all parts of Kurdistan should respect the political decisions and circumstances of Kurdish parties and communities in other regions, even when disagreements exist.

The Kurdish national cause should not be reduced to choosing between Turkey and Israel, or between any other competing regional powers.

Instead, Kurdish political leadership should pursue balanced relationships, protect Kurdish national interests, and avoid becoming unnecessarily involved in conflicts that do not serve the Kurdish people.