Nemat Sharif | Exclusive to iKurd.net

History is the systematic study and understanding of the past of peoples, relying on analysis and documentation from available sources to provide a deep understanding of continuity across ages and times. In other words, it is the study of change along the timeline of any people through documentation and understanding what it covers is crucial.

There is no nation without a history, however, mostly written by the victors to diminish others. The best history is that which is written with complete objectivity, whether by the people themselves or by others. Generally speaking, there are oppressed peoples and oppressing nations.

Briefly, there are two opposing factors: firstly, the oppressed peoples have their own view of the world and of their oppressors, and there is that of the oppressors with the constant fear of what will happen to them if the oppressed peoples prevail with their relentless struggle for equality to achieve their legitimate rights from their perspective.

For example, the Kurdish nation has a rich history whose roots extend back to before the Common Era and many researchers today believe that their history is connected to the ancient Sumerian civilization in terms of language and ethnicity.

In comparison to the Arab and Western civilizations, which are primarily rooted in the Abrahamic religions. The Kurds have contributed strongly and clearly to both. Throughout the ages, they have had various empires, states, and principalities, and we are not going into details here so as not to stray from the topic.

As the Ottomans dismantled the last Kurdish principality, the province of Kurdistan was created within the Ottoman administration. When World War I broke out (1914-1918), the Ottoman war fronts were teeming with Kurdish fighters. Earlier the Kurds had played a significant role in consolidating Ottoman rule, as the Ottoman records attest.

The victors then divided Kurdistan for the second time (1), without any regard for the will of the people, and placed the territories of the “sick man of Europe, (the Ottoman Empire), under their influence, many under mandates, such as Iraq. The armistice and the end of WWI took place south of Mosul, and since then, the so-called Mosul problem (2) began, which the Turks still claim whenever the opportunity arises.

After lengthy negotiations between the Ottomans and Britain and at the League of Nations at the time, they failed to reach a mutually satisfactory solution; the borders of Iraq and Turkey were drawn. By then, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk had abolished the Ottoman Kalifate and convened a conference to present what was called the National Pact, after reneging on his promises regarding founding a Turkish-Kurdish republic.

The story of Hassan Khairi (3) is a case in point. Atatürk used him to demonstrate to the Allies that the Kurds desire to join the modern Turkish state. Since then, Kurdish uprisings began in all four parts of Kurdistan, all of which were met with repression and persecution in attempt to erase the Kurdish nation from existence.

The 1937 Treaty of Saadabad stipulated cooperation between Iraq, Turkey, and Iran to suppress any movement in the border regions, and this continues to this day. In Iraq, it began with the revolt of Sheikh Mahmoud al-Hafid and his declaration as the King of Kurdistan, followed by Barzani’s uprisings in the 1930s, and then the September and May revolutions, culminating in what we see today as the Kurdistan Region.

In Iran, uprising lead to the Republic of Mahabad, which lasted less than a year before being crushed by the Iranian army with the support of world powers. In Turkey, from the revolts of Nehri, Ararat, Sheikh Said, and Bedir Khan, to the ongoing conflict led by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), the struggle continues.

In Syria, fear has been a constant presence, and Hilal Talab’s book (4) provided a comprehensive plan for the Ba’ath Party on how to eradicate the Kurds once and for all. Following that infamous book, the implementation of the racist Arab Belt project began, and the author was promoted to minister for his racist plan.

The Kurdish nation is a nation with a strong heritage, resistant to dissolution and assimilation into other nations, a fact that countries partitioning Kurdistan know, but the West, still doesn’t understand. Even the fifth part, known as the Red Republic, was abolished by Stalin, and the Kurdish refugees there were dispersed to areas far from their original homeland.

Let us delve a little deeper into history, when Zoroastrianism was the first monotheistic religion in history, originating and flourishing in the mountains of Kurdistan. Its teachings spread to vast territories extending from the borders of China to the fringes of Europe, where Nietzsche wrote his famous book, “Thus Spoke Zarathustra.”

Judaism grew and flourished in the embrace of Zoroastrianism and Mithraism after the Babylonian captivity, where the Prophet Daniel spread and defended his religion in the Babylonian court and then the Medo-Achaemenid court, until their return to their lands (5).

This was achieved through various means, from the Median Empire to the Achaemenid state, in which the Medes played a significant role even after the Achaemenids rose to power. The Kurds possess this immense historical legacy and their contributions to human civilization, yet today they are persecuted and suppressed by various brutal means in their historical homeland.

Undoubtedly, the Kurdish collective consciousness retains both their negative and positive experiences. Thus, their resistance to assimilation into neighboring societies that employ the harshest methods to suppress them nationally and to suppress their heritage, language, and culture. The occupiers know that the Kurds will endure despite the persecution and despite their domestic problems.

These accumulations in their collective mind have become an integral part of the Kurdish identity. Thus, the more Kurdish awareness rises, the more intense the struggle for survival becomes, despite the immense sacrifices. There is no need to elaborate further here, as Modern Kurdish history is clear to anyone who follows or wishes to learn more about the Kurds and their history.

After the advent of Islam, many scholars and leaders emerged among them, whose contributions no one can deny, from Ibn Taymiyyah to Saladin. Many others contributed to building Islamic civilization. We regret to say that the twentieth century, the era of culture and scientific progress was the harshest century for the Kurdish nation, and its repercussions continue into the twenty-first century, in the age of globalization and superpowers.

We believe that recognizing the Kurds and rectifying the historical injustices against them is long overdue. Haven’t the tragedies of the twentieth century and the tragedies of the different parts of the Kurdish nation, and the division of their historical homeland for purely self-serving interests, are enough?

Therefore, it is essential for major countries especially democracies, to establish a dedicated structure within their ministries to address the Kurdish issue across all parts of Kurdistan. This would allow them to view the Kurdish cause as a single issue and their struggle as a unified struggle, rather than perceiving the Kurds as a fragmented and scattered nation, each part with its own characteristics.

On the contrary, the 1937 Sa’dabad Pact is a stark example of how the states that divide Kurdistan viewed the Kurds as a single nation whose struggle concerned them all, and therefore they cooperated in suppressing any Kurdish movement wherever it arose.

Unifying this perspective through a single structure to monitor Kurdish events and formulate a unified policy towards this oppressed nation of 40 million, and extending a helping hand to them, is crucial to ascend the moral high grounds.

Kurdistan is rich in natural resources, and the Kurds are skilled in defending themselves and will utilize all necessary means to do so. For them, it is a matter of life or death, and their freedom is their most precious possession. Although Muslims constitute the majority among the Kurds, with their various sects, when Muslims failed to accept them as partners, the Kurds turned to their literary, artistic, and spiritual heritage to preserve their historical legacy and their existence as a single nation.

In the new global order whose signs are emerging on the horizon, the Kurdish issue will emerge as a single issue that will be at the forefront of global issues that must be addressed. Instead of being a destabilizing factor, they have chosen to be a factor of stability in any country where they reside. In Iraq, there is the Kurdistan Region, which represents the most prominent factor of stability in Iraq and the region since the 1990s.

Abdullah Öcalan’s call from his prison in Imralı is a step in this direction, as the Turkish state still insists that the PKK are terrorists, however, Turkey yet to take a single step to build trust and achieve lasting peace. And as for Syria, the situation is beyond description. The president was a terrorist wanted by most countries, especially Western ones, and today he is welcomed and supported by both Arab and Western countries. It’s truly astonishing to see how things changed.

Sources and Notes
1) The first division was between the Ottoman and Safavid empires in 1514.
2) For more on the Mosul Problem, see the book “The Mosul Problem” by Dr. Fadhel Hussein, Baghdad, 1967.
3) Hassan Khairi was the Kurd whom Atatürk recruited to appear before the Allies in Kurdish attire and testify to them that the Kurds desired Turkish-Kurdish brotherhood by joining the new republic. He later regretted what he had done, and Atatürk executed him. This is the fate of traitors.
4) Hilal, Muhammad Talab commissioned a study on Al-Jazira Governorate from national, social, and political perspectives. The study was distributed as an internal bulletin of the Ba’ath Party until it was discovered by Dr. Ismet Sherif Vanly in 1968.
5) Grosson, Christopher, Children of the Magi, the Sacred History of the Kurds and the Persians

Nemat Sharif, a political analyst, a senior contributing writer and columnist for iKurd.net.

The opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of iKurd.net or its editors.

Copyright © 2026 iKurd.net. All rights reserved

The post The Kurds and Historical Injustice appeared first on iKurd News.

Comments On Chiman Zebari’s Article “When Gold Becomes the Headline and Love Is Forgotten“

Nemat Sharif | Exclusive to iKurd.net

There is no doubt that prevailing social values ​​in any society constitute the backbone of that society and determine its path towards future progress. As for the Kurdish society discussed in Zebari’s article, it undoubtedly shares many values ​​with other Middle Eastern societies, while differing from them in others, especially in terms of materialistic values ​​versus the idealistic values ​​we cherish.

Here, we specifically mention money and jewelry versus love and affection in the formation of the Kurdish family in contemporary Kurdish society. Values ​​do not arise in a vacuum; each value certainly has its social roots, which may extend back for decades, if not centuries. It is undeniable that Kurdish society suffers from excessive tribalism, which sometimes conflicts with the demands of the modernity, generation after generation.

This is also observed in a number of Middle Eastern countries, such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and even in rural Egypt. Some have even dedicated studies to highlighting its advantages and glorifying the tribes that still cling to their outdated customs and traditions.

Writers and travelers who have visited Kurdistan have observed the role of Kurdish women in society, both in their enjoyment of their rights and in their performance of various roles in the fields of work, leadership, and defense, not only of their own rights but also of society as a whole, working hand in hand with their brothers, fathers, or husbands.

Many examples illustrate this, but throughout history, tribal customs have stood against their aspirations in many areas, including their choice of a life partner. Therefore, Kurdish culture and literature, especially the oral tradition passed down through generations, are replete with tragic stories of unrequited love and other similar narratives. These stories are often recounted in folk literature, songs, and other forms of expression.

Thus, we see that the values ​​inherited by the tribes often constitute an obstacle to the progress of society, not only socially but also politically and economically. As in other tribal societies, the Kurdish family still takes pride in or boasts about what the groom offers to win his bride, especially if she is from the family of the tribal chief or his relatives. Undoubtedly, this boasting prioritizes material value over the ideals of love, affection, and mutual respect.

Tribal customs and values ​​are rooted in centuries-old traditions and are therefore deeply ingrained in the hearts and minds of individuals. They can only be changed through education and persistent efforts to instill modern values ​​and human connections. Honor killings and revenge killings between families, even within the same tribe, still persist.

Tribal affiliation constitutes a fundamental problem in Kurdish society, to the point that tribal solidarity challenges the authority of the government, as seen with the Herki tribe. Tribal conflicts are also rampant. This leads us to the concentric circles of social loyalty, which begin with the immediate family, then the extended family, followed by the clan (the sub-tribe to which one belongs as part of the larger tribe), then the tribe itself, and finally the broadest circle: the nation or national homeland.

Thus, we see that the clan and the tribe are the broadest circles of loyalty before nationalism that Kurdish society continues to pass down from generation to generation. Perhaps the tribe played an important role in bygone eras as a form of collective defense, not only against enemies but also against the harsh environment of mountains, rugged terrain, and harsh winters, where communication was often cut off.

In comparison to developed societies in the West where we see that the basic unit of society is the individual, and perhaps sometimes the family. For example, when a family member is killed, the law takes its course instead of resorting to revenge.

Furthermore, there are no tribal, religious, or sectarian restrictions on choosing a partner. Therefore, we do not see the phenomenon of honor killings. When a woman is free to choose her partner, just as a man is, it is undeniable that love, harmony, and family formation become free from the aforementioned social constraints. Perhaps we will discuss ways to deal with rapid social change and the undesirable social phenomena it brings.

Nemat Sharif, a political analyst, a senior contributing writer and columnist for iKurd.net.

The opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of iKurd.net or its editors.

Copyright © 2025 iKurd.net. All rights reserved

When Gold Becomes the Headline and Love Is Forgotten

The post Kurdish Women, Marriage, and Tribal Constraints appeared first on iKurd News.

Nemat Sharif | Exclusive to iKurd.net

Reviewed by: Nemat Sharif
Author: Sabri Silaivanayi
Book: 496 pages
Language: Kurdish Kurmanji
First Edition, Duhok, Kurdistan Region, 2016

“The Kurdish Mind” is a truly unique book, if not the first of its kind in the contemporary Kurdish library, especially in the Northern Kurmanji dialect. Two characteristics distinguish this book: the first is its subject (philosophy), which is rarely addressed by writers and readers alike, and is almost exclusively confined to academic circles. This in itself limits the number of readers and those interested in it, despite the fact that it is a vital subject that comes at the forefront of topics that push not only thought but also the language that expresses it forward.

For this reason, the philosopher needs a language with a degree of development, different from the language of narrative and poetic literature, to be able to communicate his ideas to his readers. This is also what another Kurdish thinker, Mohsen Osman, points out in his introduction to this valuable book.

The second is to gradually move from the generalities of philosophy and its European roots, deriving what is compatible with Kurdish thought and comparing them in a way that clarifies the position of the Kurdish mind and reveals the weak points and their causes through adequate comparison and explanation in a smooth and engaging manner for the academic and non-academic alike.

Perhaps this review and others will encourage others, especially non-academics, to read and contemplate its profound ideas, and how much it is need today in the circumstances that bring us to the threshold of great changes if we make good use of it to catch up with other nations.

The book is divided into 18 chapters with a valuable introduction. A review like this cannot fully encompass all its content. These are quick notes to highlight some important ideas. We encourage reading the entire book to appreciate its contents as a shining beacon of Kurdish thought and culture at this juncture in the history of the Kurdish people. Unfortunately, there is no English or Arabic translations of this book.

In the first chapter, the author traces the roots of Western philosophies and their main schools, as if he were writing the first chapter for philosophy students, ‘Philosophy 101’, written to familiarize readers in general with what is to come.

In the second chapter, he moves to the intellectual background of the Middle East through the religious and philosophical heritage. Then, he deduces some important concepts used to clarify the nature of Middle Eastern regimes. He also addresses some of the features of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), including the concept of criticism and its absence.

He says, “The absence of criticism does not create dialogue and discussion, and the absence of dialogue leads to the emergence of some violent means and consequently the emergence of violence. The emergence of a character who sees only two colors, black and white, and among people sees only himself and those who oppose him, and does not see a friend. And this represents the spirit of the Middle Eastern identity that becomes a prisoner of rigid beliefs under the influence and pressure of religion and culture, and this in turn forms a basis for creating A fundamentalist and extremist personality.” (p. 87)

From there, he touches on the concept of psychological complexes, defining them as a psychological state whose source is unknown, but which is built on ideas, positions, and previous events, all of which constitute a driving force for a person to take some strange or contradictory positions.

Among its characteristics is that it does not depend on facts, but rather on names and people, and its belief in them more than its belief in principles, such as believing in a party leader more than its principles. It transfers its problems to the outside by projecting them onto others. He believes that psychologists can treat it, but he overlooks the fact that those in positions of power do not undergo psychological treatment and do not accept it at all because it is considered part of the inferiority complex that Easterners feel regarding mental health and psychological treatment, which, unlike their great interest in physical health, Easterners consider it a personality defect.

On page 93, he applies these two ideas to Kurdish society, saying, “Criticism as a philosophical concept, and as a language and performance can serve society, but Kurdish society, with its morals and upbringing, can manage, perhaps in disguise, these concepts. It is not strange to say that it did not “A concept or component remains unless it falls under the control of authority.” Here, it seems as if the author is excluding Kurdish society from the rule he set for himself (criticism and its function in society), perhaps to avoid other issues.

Here he falls in the ‘management’ of criticism, or what may be called ‘the polite society.’ Alienation (as a result of psychological complexes) comes into play and he attributes this to the fact that a personal, incorrect experience with truth and its essence drives one to estrangement from reality. Thus, the error begins with the misreading and mismanagement of events. As a consequence, and in the absence of scholars and intellectuals in Kurdish society (perhaps he means the greater Kurdish society, not just in Iraq), people turn to clerics.

Therefore, we see the common refrain being, “The imam said,” or “Ask the sheikh or mullah.” He undoubtedly compares the current state of Kurdish society to the pre-Renaissance period in Europe and the conflict between religion and reason (or science). (p. 108) He concludes by saying, “Behavior and events lead religion to a historical and materialistic concept, and then the function of religion becomes questionable. The wrong analysis of religious texts has become a means for the ignorant to believe that one religion is better than another. This is a wrong assessment and a danger to tolerance… Perhaps the problem is not with religion, but some clerics are unable to discover the meanings and viewpoints in religious texts, to ultimately arrive at the true meaning of the text.”

Softening the tone is perhaps to avoid exclusion and clash with clerics as well as society, which still clings to the reins of religion. This compromise is not only to avoid clashing, perhaps it is the nature of reformers. This is at odds with many Western philosophers who have declared their bias towards reason and science over religion and its mystical aspects. Some indeed sacrificed their lives for the sake of change.

This is not a call for such strict behavior, but only to highlight the choices every person and society make at any time. In his analysis, he concludes that “linking the problems of authority to heaven is not in the interest of the people, but in the interest of the authority itself. Truth and accountability in this world are different in the afterlife. Thus, reason refers to the afterlife for the authority, saying, why does it not say… And I ask: Which is in the interest of the people, for the authority to go to hell or to court?” (page 115).

In the chapter on Reason and Identity, the author traces Kurdish identity from the time of the Sumerians and the spread of the Kurds from the Zagros Mountains to the present day, including the genocidal wars they have been subjected to. He concludes by saying, “Despite the [dividing] countries’ use of all means and methods, political and military, against the Kurds, to the point of Anfal (1) and genocide, now they have nothing left but politics and engagement.

Therefore, it is logical that they will not rule out at any time requesting negotiations with the Kurds, and it is best for the Kurds to prepare for that.” Isn’t this happening in northern Kurdistan now! (pp. 150-160). On page 181, he says, “As long as we have not been able to liberate ourselves over the years, we must have a serious reading of our struggle, our means, and our methods, otherwise we will remain backward forever.”

He explains, “For us, the state is a historical process, and it is a right, and a right needs an owner just as much as the owner of the right needs his right. A state built on the law of reason is best, but rational law is also only administered by philosophers and scientists, as Plato and Socrates say.” (p. 226) From this we understand that the state must be built on the basis of the law established by scholars and thinkers, and the authorities must govern in accordance with it.

Once again, the author pauses before reaching a judgment on the KRG. However, we can infer his opinion to some extent when he speaks about Qazi Mohammad’s reliance on tribal leaders and clerics and his failure to enact necessary laws. Does this apply to the current situation, in addition to the corruption and reliance on tribal leaders, some of whom cooperated with the former regime of Iraq?

Among the effects of occupation, the author points to the cultural, intellectual and linguistic effects that left their mark on the Kurdish personality, as happened with the Algerian people under the French occupation, despite its limitations compared to the occupation of Kurdistan, especially in northern Kurdistan.

He says: “The influence of the occupiers of Kurdistan on us reached such an extent that even if we were liberated from them and established our own state, we would not be able to detach from them because of their presence within us through their language and thought. Their thought and language represent two pillars in building the Kurdish personality, and if there is no national strategy, it is not unlikely that they will remain for a long time.” (p. 239) From this standpoint, perhaps the Kurdish person does not feel completely free like other peoples of the world for reasons that control his self and his subconscious mind, and among these reasons: the division of Kurdistan and the long period of occupation until the trait of ‘surrender’ became entrenched in us, or what is called learned helplessness (2) (i.e., a lack of self-efficacy) in clinical psychology.

The tribal social system, which imposed obedience to the tribal leader, as well as the religious ideology used by clerics to enforce their obedience by linking it to heaven (3). Among the manifestations associated with acquired helplessness are pathological manifestations such as depression and domestic violence.

Despite the Kurdish people’s reputation for their harsh mountainous nature and their love of freedom and independence, despite the social and political constraints that bind them, some say about each other that the Kurd fights his neighbor but helps a stranger, a metaphor for tribal conflicts and, in the present era, for party conflicts.

The author devotes two chapters to reason and religion, discussing at length the ideas of renewal and reform in the Middle East and the influence of Europe on Middle Eastern societies, emphasizing religious institutions such as Al-Azhar. He then concludes that “no part of Kurdish society can develop a distinct and independent mind and philosophy because it leaves its fate to the traditional mind” (p. 308).

He continues his research by saying, “Dealing with dialectics is sufficient to ensure that everyone gets what they deserve, but in return, the individual does not reach complete conviction… Before the Renaissance in Europe, religion was related to politics, and the Church had become a source of political will, but now in the Middle East, religion is not only related to politics, but religion has become politics” (p. 310).

We deduce from this that the author, despite his inclination toward materialistic philosophies, is not completely convinced by them, just as is the case with his lack of belief in radical change. He takes the path of reform to achieve his goal of bringing about social change.

This perhaps explains his statement on page 333, “Society does not allow the individual to use his individual mind, but dictates that he uses the traditional mind. Therefore, the individual tries to harmonize with it because he believes that harmony is better than alienation, especially intellectual alienation, and this in itself is a disease from which a large part of Kurdish society groans.”

In the next two chapters, the author discusses in some detail the concepts of nature and matter and stimulating the mind to understand them, saying, “For example, only after the congregational prayer ends at that time, and each worshiper goes his own way, and this is natural, but it is unnatural for each element (spirit, mind, thought, soul) to detach to go its own way and for each worshiper to go his own way (disconnection of selves equals disconnection of elements).

The inner unity of the Kurdish individual has not yet been achieved for him to be able to believe in it objectively. Presence or non-presence in a time, place, and occasion (prayer, meeting, or appointment, etc.) is only the meeting of the body (matter). When two meet, they are physically close, but in thought, each one is in another place.” (p. 346)

On page 357, the author discusses the concepts of divine command and divine will and links them, similar to what Dr. Sadiq Jalal al-Azm did in his book, Critique of Religious Thought (4), in the chapter on the tragedy of Lucifer, and he expands the concept of Lucifer to include, for example, a dictator or someone similar to him in inhuman behavior.

For example: Dictators use religion as a pretext for domination, as ISIS did, and they use clerics for this, as was the case in Europe before the Renaissance and is still prevalent in the Middle East. If we say that it is God’s will, this exonerates the dictator from his crimes on the Day of Judgment, and his defense is that he was performing a divine mission.

In this case, it is similar to the case of Lucifer, according to Dr. Sadiq Al-Azm, who points out that all verses of the Quran that curse Satan are limited to, for example, “until the Day of Judgment, or to the Day of Judgment…” In other words, his divine mission ends with the coming of the Day of Judgment, and he returns to God’s mercy, innocent because he was acting according to His will and desire.

His refusal to prostrate to Adam was nothing but disobedience to a divine command, not a departure from God’s will. This is impossible because it goes against God’s beautiful attributes, including the attributes of justice and power (meaning strength and dominance) over the universe. God Almighty cannot be unjust, and there are no limits to His power and might. But if neither the devil nor the dictator is performing a divine mission, then the entire pretext falls apart.

The last two chapters on culture, writing, reason, and politics are the important chapters, and anyone interested in culture and politics and their role in Kurdish society should read them carefully, although I recommend reading the entire book. On page 371, the author says, “The loss of privacy and the lack of identity are the reasons why the Kurdish writers have not yet made a healthy presence in institutional structures (perhaps referring to professional organizations or government forums),”since writing has a vital and direct relationship with society.

He continues on page 373, “We need readers because we see ourselves in them. But if he also needed us and our writings, and saw himself in them, he would not have withdrawn so easily from the world of reading as a reaction or self-defense, nor would he have been defeated by writing.” Here we cannot but agree with the author about the role of Kurdish intellectuals and writers after the 1991 uprising.

After more than thirty years, the Kurdish intellectuals and writers have not only been unable to assume a leading role in educating the masses and mobilizing them for the requirements of this phase, but their role has noticeably diminished in terms of interacting with society, educating and mobilizing it for the next phase.

Without mentioning names, there are those who neigh with their poems, reap the profits of their writings, but ignore the suffering of their people. They are, as the Arab proverb says, ‘As deaf in a rowdy procession’. They condemn themselves to death while still alive. “…the responsible elite, the one with principles and morals, can, with their strength (science and knowledge), determine some directions for their people and draw a road-map for them.” (p. 390).

On pages 407 and 410 he says, “The individual is not free to resort to supernatural forces or culture. In most cases, he resorts to active forces, and so far, supernatural forces are the active forces in the East. Therefore, culture has not become an independent force and is perhaps in the beginning of its formation… In the past twenty-five years, in my opinion, culture has been dead asleep, unaware of what the winds of time will bring, and in conjunction with the political and social changes that have taken place in the Middle East, we have not heard the voice of our culture to know that it is ready.”

The author begins the chapter on reason and politics with a frankness not seen in other chapters. He declares that as a people we have not read our history enough because any people who understand their history must learn from their mistakes, or at least not repeat them.

He continues, “…It is regrettable that our politicians have not been able to keep up with the politics of the contemporary international community. They practice politics with the mentality of power and not with the power of reason, which has no relation to thought, philosophy, or science… If we had a correct political thought, we would be able to understand politics correctly. Politics as thought, philosophy, and science has not yet been consolidated. This does not diminish our value as human beings, but it affects our relations as a region and a people with politics and political players. History proves that we have not become a political player at a political level. We are still a political card.” (Page 416)

The author continues to list the schools of thought, including the Islamic one, on managing the reins of government and its goals, and then compares them to the practices of Kurdish politicians, both inside and outside the Region.

To conclude this quick review is best with the author’s own words: “…the goal of politics is stability, growth, development, and serving the people. But in our world, people are always wary and fearful that a politician will come along and cause them problems because the goal is different… Politics is not the same as party affiliation. A person can belong to a party, but that doesn’t mean he is a politician. This has confounded the practical Kurdish mind. This is also the case with the issue of culture, as if every intellectual is a writer or journalist! It is clear that knowledge is one thing and pretending to know it is another. It is time to move away from pretending to know all fields, especially politics, and to learn diligently so that we don’t get behind any further as we are already behind.”

Before concluding, I must make a few quick technical observations: The author skillfully organizes his main ideas by numbering the main paragraphs of each idea, and then uses footnotes to identify the philosophers and thinkers whose ideas he drew upon in his research.

This contributes to the organization of the content for easy reading and . As for the rest, I think it’s up to the publishing house, including editors, technicians, artists, and others. What particularly caught my attention was the book’s lack of indexes, as they are important, especially for readers, researchers, and others, to help them refer to names, ideas they wish to review, especially in a book of this length, including tables of contents, media, and others.

We hope that we shed some light on this valuable effort in serving the Kurdish library and the Kurdish people, and in encouraging more conscious young people to read this valuable book.

Notes:

(1) Anfal operations: Iraqi military campaign led by Saddam Hussein’s cousin against Kurdish civilians to depopulated major strategic areas of Kurdistan. It lasted from February to September of 1988. The Ba’athist regime committed atrocities killing an estimated 180 thousand Kurdish civilians. The campaign’s name was taken from the title of the eighth chapter of the Qur’an (al-anfal).

(2) Learned helplessness is related to the concept of self-efficacy, the individual’s belief in their innate ability to achieve goals. Learned helplessness theory is the view that clinical depression and related mental illnesses may result from a real or perceived lack of control over the outcome of a situation.

(3) In psychoanalysis (Freudian), the flow of self-energy, driving liberation and perhaps even anarchy, is domesticated, as society requires, by a component called the “ego.” In Islamic terminology, this corresponds to the spirit, which defines what the human soul considers to be evil.

(4) Azm, Sadiq Jalal Al-, Dr, Criticism of Religious Thought, Second Edition 1970, Al-Tali’ah House, Beirut, Lebanon. Dr. Al-Azm, (1934 – 2016), a Syrian professor, was tried in Lebanon where he taught at the time because of his writings.

Nemat Sharif, a political analyst, a contributing writer and columnist for iKurd.net.

The opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of iKurd.net or its editors.

Copyright © 2025 iKurd.net. All rights reserved

The post The Kurdish Mind – Critique of Practical Reason – Book review appeared first on iKurd News.

Nemat Sharif | Exclusive to iKurd.net

Author: Saber Mamaseini, Attorney at Law and legal advisor
Review and Commentary by: Nemat Sharif
Language: Kurdish; 670 pages

In this valuable book, the writer provides several different definitions for diplomacy based on opinions of authors as dictated by their circumstances and events. Here is a more comprehensive definition is summed up. Diplomacy is the study and practice of a set of formally organized relations between countries or entities that are linked in peace or in war.

A diplomat is then responsible for clarifying and explaining these relations and policies that link his country to the host nation, as well as theirs to his own. He must certainly be a well-informed, well-cultured person who is familiar with political, economic and government affairs of his country and the host nation. Therefore, a successful diplomat is the one who reflects the position of his country to the host country and reflects theirs to his country so that officials can manage changes and improve their ties.

He must deal with developments in light of his country’s policy and come up with solutions that satisfy both nations in the event of problems arise between them. Neither party should feel wronged in order to reach a sustainable solution between them.

When speaking of diplomacy, the ambassador is the first one to come to mind for he is the first person responsible for a team of specialists and experts in international relations, in addition to his other administrative responsibilities. He is not as erroneously thought of as a postman who conveys messages between two nations.

For example, diplomacy at the advent of Islam was nothing but the call to Islam, otherwise they would face war or pay tribute in submission. Diplomacy plays a role when two or more parties are at equal rights, responsibilities, politics and sovereignty regardless of disparity in military power and will to use it.

Unfortunately modern diplomacy uses power to support diplomacy to submit one party to the conditions of the stronger. But as early as the Kurdish Dostaki (AKA: Marwanids 982-1086) state used in its diplomatic relations gifts and financial offerings, perhaps the first of its kind, with the Byzantine Empire. The Dostaki Prince sent gifts and large sums with the goal to support his diplomatic work to consolidate the relationship between his country and the Byzantine Empire (page 83).

We believe this is better in supporting diplomatic action than military force, although financial backing and offerings still have a role in modern diplomacy. Since WWI occupation diplomacy has appeared; that is occupier’s will and terms are imposed through negotiations. Sadly, humanity still pays for the its aggressive instinct to subjugate others and to seize what rightfully belongs to others.

The author concluded that Baathist regime’s diplomacy was lagging behind for using diplomatic channels and pouches for operational purposes against the opposition. This is illegal, but it is common among other diplomatic missions. Iraq had a hyper-active diplomacy in Europe and America in defending Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship and war efforts against Iran, the Kurds and Kuwait.

This was clear under Tariq Aziz as the foreign minister and when Nizar Hamdoun was Iraq’s Ambassador in Washington. For example Saddam Hussein’s meeting with April Glaspy, the American ambassador to Iraq, before invading Kuwait.

The author also censures Jalal Talabani for using his diplomatic skills for the benefit of Iraq but not the Kurds. It is believed that perhaps was done not to benefit his rival Kurds. Another reason was perhaps that Talabani, despite his claim to democracy, wanted to memorialize his name in history as the first Kurdish president of Iraq (PP. 48–56).

The Hittite Empire

The empire was far-flung and ruled for more than 1000 years. Due to the vastness of their empire, they had three official languages and several local ones, Indo-European, Akkadian (Semitic), and Hamitic languages. They enjoyed religious freedom and became known as “the land of the thousand gods”. They had a legal system that remained the best until the time of the Romans.

Their penal code was no different from the Jewish penal code except that it was more tolerant. Judaism brought along the principle of revenge, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”, which was in contrast to the tolerance of the Hittites. They gained their historical greatness by using their army. They were compared to the Pharaonic Egypt, as they applied universal military training to all their armies. They discovered iron and used it in the manufacturing of weapons 300 years before the spread of the Iron Age in the world. Their cities were fortified and their castles were famous.

Their capital was in Hattusa (near modern day Bogazkale, Turkey) for more than 600 years and then moved to southern Kurdistan, especially in the Bahdinan region, and their name survived in a village named ‘Hititi’ near Duhok. Their civilization continued after the fall of the empire for more than 100 years in seven independent city-states. Contemporary biblical studies indicate that the Prophet Abraham (pbuh), lived in peace and security among the Hittites and many followed him.

During the era of the Prophet David (pbuh) there were units of the Hittites in his army and two great generals who served with devotion and loyalty. Biblical historians believe that the Hittite Empire was most similar in ancient history to the United States in its laws and personal freedoms and its liberal system that is most similar to the constitutional monarchy.

Researchers confirm that the empire was an Indo-European state and its people in general were Indo-European. Despite that, Kurdish historians still avoid accepting them as one of the ancient roots of the Kurds, and they were the ones who destroyed the Mitanni state and absorbed its entire population into their own.

The role of intellectuals and politicians

In democracy, major political mistakes must be identified and made public to be discussed, reconciled and avoid their dire results. This is what living peoples who practice democracy correctly do. In the absence of democratic practices, we see revolts of peoples against their rulers, most of which are violent.

Only few may bring about change peacefully or with few losses. In the case of the Kurds, they’ve been distinguished by their legitimate cause for more than a century. They are undoubtedly very active who often offer sacrifices for their freedom.

Kurdistan’s important strategic location and abundant resources that attracts neighbors and world powers to find a foothold. Kurdistan, with its picturesque beauty and peaceful people, often targeted for its natural resources and strategic importance.

Why are the Kurds still without a country of their own, as our intellectuals, academics and politicians tell us? We are divided among four countries, and scattered minorities from central Asia to the caucuses, and several western countries. Cooperating with countries occupying Kurdistan must be identified as treason. As the author says “Turkish officials occupy Kurdistan and execute its leaders whenever they have the opportunity.

Therefore we see that this old trait is rooted in the Turks. Hence, our current leaders must understand this fact that Turkish officials one after another are the real enemies of the Kurds and supporting the Turks is a great historical betrayal.” (Page 109) For comparison, the author cites some examples Mustafa Barzani’s assistance to the Armenians and unlike them when Sheikh Ahmed Barzani took refuge in Turkey, they were transferred to Ankara and less than a year later handed over to Iraq to be exiled to southern Iraq until 1943.

It seems that we are not good at practicing constructive criticism, especially our intellectuals and politicians. We practice praise and flattery, and those who do not praise us, we tend to throw them in prison or in the category of enemies. We create reasons and justifications for our infallibility and innocence.

There is no need for another definitions of culture, as thinkers know it when they see it. But in a broad sense it is a systematic set of beliefs, actions and behaviors that are formed within a human group. The culture of the individual has a strong and direct impact on his behavior.

Therefore, culture is a set of features that distinguish societies from each other, and its components include language, arts, religion, customs, traditions and prevailing values. They are cumulative and continue dynamically. (See: Reham Abu Warda, Culture of Peoples, June 9, 2020, mawdoo3.com). From this point of view, we see that the bloody history of the Kurdish people constitutes an important part of their general culture and necessarily plays an important role in the behavior of individuals.

This fact in itself determines the extent of the individual’s feeling of freedom and exercise of public expression, as one of the important duties of the individual is self-preservation, and avoiding risks and problems. This is clearly evident in “semi-democratic” societies. Intellectuals and writers in particular are characterized by caution about the consequences of their thought processes and expression, verbal or written.

This is evident in their work and they know the risks of disclosing their ideas freely if they anger politicians. This is one side of the equation; the other side is the politicians in power who, like the rest of us, can make mistakes. Hence the fear of intellectuals leads to reluctance to tell the truth.

Many turn to praise the politicians, so they become a part of their mistakes. It is no secret that politicians and those in power in any society understand this fact. Thus, we see them in particular inclined to dictatorial behavior not only to instill fear, but also through rewards such as handouts and privileges to those who praise and flatter, or at least justify their undemocratic practices.

Fear begins when the intellectual or writer hesitates to say or write and then think about what will happen to him and his privileges if he writes, even in the choice of words if he decides to speak or write. He ascertains that he would not be misunderstood. The heroes are those who say and write with the understanding that their thought processes would be scrutinized. They are prepared to bear the consequences for the stance in their words and writings.

“As long as the three tents are here, this revolution will not succeed” Saleh Al-Yousifi

It seems that the discussion of Yousifi’s leftist thought during the days of the September Revolution (1961-1970) and in isolation of the Cold War atmosphere in the sixties of the last century (pp. 141-143) was short and incomplete. The Soviet Union (USSR) was not the best application of Marxism after Lenin died. But it was the other pole opposed to the capitalist camp. They claimed supporting self-determination for the oppressed people, which earned them legitimacy in the eyes of oppressed peoples.

Marxism does not claim validity for all societies and all classes at all times and places. It is an ideology specific to the working class in industrialized societies, toilers and farmers in agrarian societies. Thus, it emphasizes the unity of the working class and the unity of its struggle to achieve the desired goal of freedom and happiness of peoples. Marxism politically offers ‘solutions’ that provide developing societies with a roadmap for progress to achieve their goals to bring the proletariat to power. Along these political lines are:

1. Pursued a policy of world peace and preventing a third world war during the cold war. On this intellectual basis, Salih al-Yousifi opposed the existence of the three tents as a symbol of the West, and at the same time, he was a sincere nationalist in his belief in the legitimate rights of the Kurdish people.
2. Pursuing the policy of the right of peoples to self-determination through Marxism will eventually lead to remove the bourgeoisie. In other words a recipe for civil war. Most nationalist movements were interested in liberation thought, rather than Marxism including Yousifi. Here is the break in his thought. His interest lied in the Kurdish liberation movement. In the Cold War atmosphere, it was imperative for some to take a stand at times, as in Yousifi quote above.

In democracies, the advantage for the Kurds and other oppressed peoples is the convergence of interests and concepts of democracy and human rights accorded by the west, in contrast to the dictatorship of the proletariat. The west dealt with governments and not peoples (as the Eastern bloc claimed) and the United Nations is a group of governments. Today’s Russia is not the USSR, as Russia has become a capitalist country, although democracy is lagging behind. The USA and Russia can become friendlier for the sake of world peace, democracy and economic benefits for both.

Ramzi Nafie and Diplomacy:

The story of Ramz Nafi’ is a sad adventure of a young man who was passionate about the cause of his people but not diplomacy. Unfortunately he was caught in the maze of international intelligence during World War II. He lost his young life in his adventure.

How did he give himself the right to single-handedly trust the Germans? He did not inform his family, the leaders of the Kurdish parties or the professional organizations at the time? How only four people could control the oil fields in Kirkuk! This is closer to fiction than reality; more so, passing through the Shabak area and notables of Bazwaya to help them.

Their guide left them halfway out of fear for his life. Obviously, no ill intention as in contrast to the smugglers who turned them in. As for their passage through “Wadi Shur”, it is called “Darah Shur”, which means “salty valley”, and it did not need an Arabic translation because the book is in Kurdish. (pp. 184-195).

Fear and democracy:

There is no doubt that fear is a basic factor in the formation of the human psyche. This is clearly reflected in democratic regimes and dictatorships; perhaps the extent it runs in any regime that claims it. It is often said that democracy in the Middle East, especially in Iraq, is different from democracy elsewhere. Then, Iraq was still under one of the most notorious dictators in the world, of Saddam Hussein, who ruled Iraq with fire and chemical weapons for three decades.

Baath Party ideologues at the time spoke of ‘guided democracy’. This in itself denotes a dichotomy. How do you direct a people who are supposed to govern themselves? It is assumed that democracy in the middle east will cause chaos as people have no experience with democracy; and other peoples (i.e. the West) have been practicing it for hundreds of years? This rationalization is cause for fear as it might justify and pave the way for undemocratic governing.

Why do leaders impose their views on the people when they know the truth about democracy? Jawaharlal Nehru once said: “The problems of democracy could only be solved by more democracy, rather than through more institutionalization and laws”

Guided democracy is nothing but taming the people to accept a certain style of leadership and teaching them that leadership over time becomes limited to ‘one leader who knows best of their interests’. Hence, people must obey him. This is usually accompanied by instilling fear in people. Individuals become disengaged from the process of democracy and unwilling to express their opinions lest this be consistent with the official path.

The motto becomes ‘let others speak or oppose, so I do not need headaches’. In fact, on the timeline of dictatorship, it does not take long for this to become the position of many, and hence opposition begins to form in small numbers easy to punish at first as compared to the society.

Punishment is justified by ‘standing against the interests of the people’. In fact, the opposition is a few bold citizens who ‘see’ the government behavior and link it to those who represent the regime. When the opposition begins to act collectively it becomes a struggle for reform as in demonstrations and other means of peaceful expression or even resort to violence such as coups.

Jalal Talabani and diplomacy

Obviously, there is more than one way to write diplomatic history. There are those who want to focus on an issue(s) and track their progress in a certain period of time. And there are those who wish to focus on the timeline, and discuss issues of the time. Hence, the effectiveness of diplomacy for that period. Or choose to track the people who play a diplomatic role. Dr. Mamaseni chose this to accomplish his valuable book under review here.

His book includes many leaders and officials in the Kurdistan region, including President Massoud Barzani, Nechirvan Barzani, Adnan Al-Mufti, President Jalal Talabani, among others. For the purpose of this review, we chose Talabani, first because he played an important role in Kurdish diplomacy and leadership in the Kurdish liberation movement, and second, for some difficult situations that shed light on his diplomatic skills, successes and failures. A diplomat swims a rough sea, sometimes riding the wave and sometimes drifting with the current.

Talabani was an active diplomat, an intellectual, a tactful human rights defender. Although he descended from a prominent religious family, he chose the risky path of politics to go down in history as the first Kurdish president of Iraq. Diplomacy is part of the great political game between nations as well as aspiring peoples for a place among nations such as the Kurds.

Like other professions, diplomacy also has its successes and failures, and does not necessarily reflect on the diplomat’s skills or personality. Writing about them is also risky and takes audacity to dive in. This review and remarks are not meant to reflect on the author. This huge undertaking is a testimony to his great effort and service to this and generations to come to benefit from the lessons contained therein, as well as a testimony to what diplomats can do for their country.

Perhaps the circumstances of the Kurdish movements may not favor much criticism of Kurdish diplomacy, if it is mentioned, it is for the sake of historical honesty, expect the criticism to be clear and constructive. Any diplomat of Talabani’s stature, energy and activity must have faced difficulties at times, but a successful diplomat does not back down, but learns the lesson and moves on as he did. Let us consider the following paragraph translated from the Kurdish text:

“Before the 1991 uprising and at the end of the Gulf War, when a group of senior Iraqi Kurdish diplomats were waiting in the reception hall of the U.S. State Department on the Second Street in Washington, D.C., they were not received by a high-ranking diplomat. They were scheduled to be received by Richard Jeffrey, assistant secretary of state for humanitarian affairs, and now at the National Security Council, but he backed down for some reason in the last hour.

A secretarial [employee] of the Department was appointed to receive the Kurdish delegation. He told them that he would like to have a cup of coffee with them outside the State Department. But then, when Talabani visited America, all the staff of President Clinton’s administration at the State Department stood in due respect to welcome him and rolled out the red carpet for him.” (PP 232-233)

In both cases, we believe that the delegation was headed by Mr. Talabani. The reluctance to receive him in the first does not reflect on the delegation, but rather on the political atmosphere at the time and America’s policy of not receiving any of the Iraqi opposition at that time.

The warm reception and appreciation of the Kurdish delegation the second time was a reflection of the change in US policy at that time and an appreciation of Talabani’s status. His frequent meetings with the United Nations certainly reflect Talabani’s competence.

Certainly, the Kurdish people lost with his death a seasoned diplomat and a prominent leader who left his mark on the Kurdish movement not only in Iraq but in other parts of Kurdistan as well. Diplomatic relations reflect by and large the political atmosphere between any two sides.

Communities, Parties and Institutional Thought:

On pages (487-489), the author discusses, albeit briefly, three important topics at the heart of the KRG’s diplomacy: He appreciates the role of Kurdish communities abroad and benefiting from their experiences in representing successive Kurdish revolutions, and their relations in the countries in which they live.

The representatives of Kurdish revolutions all along were neither trained professionally, nor holders of degrees in diplomacy or political science. They believed in the just cause of their people, were led by circumstances to the countries in which they worked and learned by experience over time. They were linked to the Public Relations offices of their parties, exchanged information and received guidance to perform their tasks in their respective positions.

Contemporary diplomacy requires the move from individual representation of parties to institutional diplomatic decision-making, behind which stands an ‘army’ of trained diplomats familiar with politics and international relations, especially as Kurdish universities have begun to train and graduate a new generation of diplomatic enthusiasts who are dedicated to serving their country.

With the emergence of the KRG, Kurdish diplomacy evolved from representatives linked to parties to representation offices of the KRG, most of which performs diplomatic functions as well as some consular services. They are centrally overseen by the Office of Relations and are managed by a KRG minister-level official. We believe that there is a period of several months to prepare new diplomats before they are appointed to their posts.

However, despite the teaching of political sciences and diplomacy, the Kurds collectively are still at the beginning of the road. Diplomatic successes mostly lie in the legitimacy of the Kurdish cause, as it is the cause of the largest stateless people, and the third largest nationality in the Middle East.

It seems that Kurdish diplomacy is in transformation, rather than institutional. In other words, it depends on a limited number of experienced people by virtue of their positions and truly, they are the driving force behind the Kurdish diplomacy.

Institutional thought has two main pillars, the first is full democracy, and the second is the enactment of laws under which institutions operate. Both rely on the people and following the democratic decision-making. Thus, we find that institutional thought necessarily requires faith in democracy and commitment to legislated laws.

Otherwise institutions will turn into institutions that rely on dictatorial thought and style. The difference between democratic institutions and dictatorships is that the first is dynamic and effective, and the second serves a specific person or group, and the examples are many around the world.

The fault is not the existence of two or more competing parties, but the absence of democracy and non-compliance with existing laws. Doesn’t democracy necessarily mean that there are two (or more) groups competing and correcting each other so that the majority opinion prevails? A joint goal does not necessarily mean the absence of democratic competition, and reaching it does not necessarily mean that it is accomplished by one team.

Often resolving conflicts through war can create a dominant single party, while small parties only get dragged along the winning party. So the presence of a large party may not contradict the multi-party system because there are other parties on the scene, but it weakens democracy to a large extent.

Concern for democracy, consolidating the foundations of its institutions, adhering to laws and serving the common goal should not incite the hegemony of one over other groups, even if the goal is the same.

Institutional thought precedes its application. The Kurdistan Region is not independent, and the KRG has limited practice of institutional diplomacy for a long time. This has resulted in depending mainly on individuals, their ideas and vitality.

Therefore, Kurdish diplomacy suffers from ebbs and flows depending on the constantly changing regional and international politics. The importance of institutionalism lies in the process of collective decision making; that is the main flow of discussions, meetings, conferences, and sometimes through communication in writing by preparing studies, directives and correspondence.

Hence, everyone moves within this main flow of the process, from the minister to the ambassador. From within this process comes the role of the active diplomat such as the minister, ambassador or any other position to move to achieve the desired goal.

Not ‘separating party and state’: Party politics set and run elections, however, once elections are over and a new government is in place, all government decisions including diplomacy should be made by government officials, i.e. the parliament, the ministers etc.

As the case in most Middle East democracies, the lines between the state and party are often blurred, and perhaps there are also blocs within the parties that influence the decision making. Thus, state and party legitimize each other, especially in light of a turbulent opposition that blurs coalition and opposition.

As the comparison goes, Kurdish diplomatic decisions are often more transparent and clear than other governments in the Middle East as evidenced by statements and positions of Kurdish officials.

The author follows the biographies of individuals and their roles in Kurdish diplomacy. This approach exists and is followed, but sometimes falls into the boring narrative as if it reproduces the agenda of these people. This allows the chronological tracking of their activities and their achievements.

What is missing is the tracking and development of an issue over a time period, regardless of the politician or diplomat. That is, the writer provides diplomacy through individuals as opposed to an institutional view of it, i.e. tracking and presenting the subject and its developments in periods of time that may be prolonged to cover the periods of work of a number of diplomats who took office and worked on that issue and what has been achieved.

This approach allows first to understand the subject in its historical path on the one hand and draw lessons, including the behavior of the other party and projecting them onto the present and the future. In other words institutional memory v. individual one, second this scientific method of research and investigation instead of biography.

Concluding Remarks:

As mentioned earlier, this book is of importance, moral value and information richness as it establishes the history of Kurdish diplomacy. It merits translation into other languages to be accessible to researchers, and those interested in the Kurdish issue. The following notes may proof useful for the new editions. With the progress of printing technologies and the book industry, publishing and printing houses often assume responsibility for editing, indexing and other technical aspects.

1) There are more than twenty important documents that can be numbered and included in an appendices section to allow the reader to focus on the body of the text and its analyses while providing appendices for those who are interested in more information.

2) It is important to include some historical maps in a special appendix if it is translated into other languages, although it is useful even in the current Kurdish edition, although it is not informationally necessary for the Kurdish reader who is supposed to be familiar with Kurdish history.

Nemat Sharif, a political analyst, a contributing writer and columnist for iKurd.net.

The opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of iKurd.net or its editors.

Copyright © 2025 iKurd.net. All rights reserved

The post The Kurdish Diplomacy: Historical, Political, and Legal Explanation – Book Review appeared first on iKurd News.

Nemat Sharif | Exclusive to iKurd.net

Diplomacy

It is the study and practice of a set of formally organized relations between countries or entities that are linked in peace or in war. A diplomat is then responsible for clarifying and explaining these relations and policies that link his country to the host nation, as well as theirs to his own.

He must certainly be a well-informed, well-cultured person who is familiar with political, economic and government affairs of his country as well as the host nation.

Therefore, a successful diplomat is the one who reflects the position of his country to the host country and reflects the position of the host nation to his country so that officials in his country can manage developments in the host country. He must deal with developments in light of his country’s policy and come up with solutions that satisfy both nations in the event of problems arise between them.

Neither party should feel wronged in order to reach a sustainable solution between them. Speaking of diplomacy, the ambassador is the first one to come to mind for he is the first person responsible for a team of specialists and experts in international relations, in addition to his other administrative responsibilities. He is not as erroneously thought of as a postman who conveys messages between two nations.

Beginnings of diplomacy

Before we talk about Barzani’s role in Kurdish diplomacy, I would like to point out that the beginning of diplomacy in history began in Kurdistan in the era of the Hittite Empire, which lasted for more than a thousand years. It included northern and southern Kurdistan, and extended its power to include Syria, Lebanon and parts of Palestine.

The Hittite capital was in northern Kurdistan, in Hattusa (near modern day Bogazkale, Turkey. Then, in about their last 350 years, it moved to the Bahdinan region in southern Kurdistan. Most likely, the name Hittite survived in a village name near Dohuk. According to newer research, they were an Indio-European people who spoke an Indo-European language.

Kurdish historians still shy away in accepting the Hittites as one of the important roots of the Kurdish people, simply because others claim them as Anatolian! Biblical studies indicate that at least two great generals in the army of the Prophet David (pbuh), were Hittites.

The beautiful Egyptian queen, Nefertiti, and wife of a Pharaoh was the daughter of one of the Hittite kings. The marriage was the result of an excellent diplomatic relationship between the king of Hittites, her father, and the Pharaoh of Egypt.

Barzani’s Diplomacy:

Here are brief examples of Barzani’s diplomatic behavior, which may have impacted the behavior of others, perhaps more so their diplomatic lives and work forever.

1. Meeting the Shah of Iran: after the collapse of the Mahabad Republic, Barzani Peshmerga and their families wanted to return to Iraq, but were unable because of heavy snow and severe winter conditions. It would take two or three months for the road to clear in spring. Iranian official denied them stay. Barzani decided to travel to Tehran to negotiate with the prime minister or the Shah himself to request permission to remain on Iranian territory until spring.

After all failed, he requested to meet the Shah. Despite much psychological pressure and waiting, he met with the Shah who gave him the choice either to move to south-central Iran, and the government would facilitate this process, with transportation, aid, etc., or to leave Iranian territory immediately, and demanded an immediate answer, at least before leaving Tehran.

Otherwise his military would launch a sweeping attack on them. Barzani told him that the decision was not his. War and peace decision is his elder brother’s, the Sheikh. The Shah was surprised. Barzani added, I am only an envoy. The Shah said, “How is that?” Barzani told him, you are the king, but you send someone you trust to negotiate, so do we. If the decision was in my hands I would not have come here myself, and if I do not return then there are others who will assume my role.

What I am saying here is that I will return to him and give him the options that you suggested and if he decides to accept moving to the south then we will certainly come back and request your help. As you know we have families of women, elderly and children with us and the snow has blocked the roads, and we cannot leave at this time. His goal at this point was to leave Tehran as soon as possible because he felt the Shah’s bad intention towards him. The Shah agreed.

2. Meeting Khrushchev: after three days of his sit-in in front of the Kremlin, he was allowed to meet Khrushchev with two others from the Political Bureau of the Soviet Communist Party. As he entered the room Khrushchev told him that he had violated the law by coming to Moscow without permission and therefore he will have to face the consequences.

Barzani told him that he considered himself victorious from this moment on because he had come to the USSR in order to convey the wish of the Kurdish people to the highest body in the East, which is this body. He came to explain the cause of the oppressed Kurdish people who were divided into four parts by colonialists.

My people entrusted me with this responsibility. You are a great country and you say that you help all oppressed peoples and for this reason I came here knocking on the door of the Kremlin.

Only then Khrushchev invited him to take a seat. Barzani explained the suffering of the refugees and talked about Baghirov, the head of the Azerbaijani Communist Party, and how he plotted against them in cooperation with Beria, another member of the Azerbaijani Party.

They asked him how he knew that Baghirov and his gang betrayed the Soviet people, and that they had found 74 letters from Barzani written between 1948 and 1952 addressed to the Kremlin. Barzani replied when a guest comes to your home you respect him; and you express friendship with all peoples and support for the oppressed but Baghirov and Beria did not do this.

It is clear betrayal of the ideology and the Soviet people. Khrushchev immediately promised to improve the conditions of the Kurdish refugees and ordered a house and a car for him to stay in Moscow, and allowed him to receive visitors and visit the refugees.

3. Meeting with his Representatives: This is a summary of how Mr. Mohsen Dizayi, a form minister and a companion of Barzani, summed up the discussion. In Barzani’s meeting with his representatives in foreign countries, Barzani asked about what they have done. They presented their reports as he listened to them intently.

After everyone finished, he told them, well done, you all did great in conveying the voice of our oppressed people and our revolution to the world. But one question remains: what these governments think of us, what are their positions regarding our revolution? Everyone was silent. Barzani continued that it is their duty from now on to care about the opinions and positions of you host nations, just as you care about conveying our voice to them.

These were few examples of Barzani’s skillful diplomacy in action under very difficult circumstances. Let me add that despite the teaching of political science, especially diplomacy as a science in Kurdistan, there is still a long road ahead of us. I believe that diplomatic Kurdish successes lie in the legitimacy of the Kurdish cause, as it is the cause of the largest people in the world without a state and the third largest nationality in the Middle East.

Most of our diplomacy is improvised rather than institutional. A limited number of experienced people by virtue of their positions, they play a very important role in pushing the cause forward.

Contemporary relations and diplomacy require that we move from spontaneous unilateral representation of parties to institutional diplomatic decision-making, behind which stands an ‘army’ of trained diplomats familiar with politics and international relations, especially as Kurdish universities have begun to train and graduate batches of diplomatic enthusiasts who are dedicated to serving their country and people.

From a historical point of view, most of the Kurdish leaders, not only Barzani, but also Qazi Muhammad and Prince Badrkhan and many others, have not received due credit for their roles in Kurdish diplomacy.

Before I conclude here I must mention the words of the American journalist who visited Barzani in the mid-sixties of the last century, Dana Adam Schmidt, in his book Journey to Brave Men in Kurdistan “He (meaning Barzani) has a very sophisticated political mind that helps him penetrate deep until he reaches the final result or to the heart of the matter, while we find others still immersed in the details.”

Sources:

• ‘Captivating History’, Hittites, Middletown, DE, USA, 2023(English)
• Bullock John and Morris, Harvey, No Friends but the Mountains, the Tragic History of the Kurds, Oxford University Press, New York, 1992. (English)
• Botani, Abd al-Fattah Ali, Dr. Basic Leadership and Humanistic Features of Mostafa Barzani’s Personality, Khabat Press, Dohuk, 1996 (Arabic)
• Kurdistan Democratic Party, Media Department, the Historic Journey to the Soviet Union (1945-1958), 1982 (Arabic)
• Mamaseini, Saber, Dr. Kurdish Diplomacy, Tafseer Press, Erbil, Kurdistan, Iraq, 2022 (Kurdish)
• Schmidt, Dana Adams, Journey among Brave Men, Atlantic Monthly Press, Boston, 1964 (English)

Nemat Sharif, a political analyst, a senior contributing writer and columnist for iKurd.net.

The opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of iKurd.net or its editors.

Copyright © 2025 iKurd.net. All rights reserved

The post Mustafa Barzani’s Role in Kurdish Diplomacy appeared first on iKurd News.

Nemat Sharif | Exclusive to iKurd.net

At a time as the Arab conscience is witnessing the beginning of a reawakening, it is worthy of attention, observance and candor. I say this not to criticize or praise, but rather as an observer of the Arab cultural and political reality. A few pan-Arab press play an important role in cultivating and highlighting this renaissance.

Often it has been said that “Intellectuals are the conscience of the nation.” Bold free thinkers prove that the revolution is one of conscience first. We must begin with ourselves in order to match our political positions with our ideas and avoid falling into the political and cultural errors for which we often criticize others for.

I followed with interest the articles of Professor Edward Saeed about the Arabs reviewing their view of the Holocaust and committing to a humanist position towards their tragedies and the psychological complex it impressed on the collective psyche of the Jews. Consequently it imposes a moral position not only on the Jews but on a global scale. This is what will allow the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular to take the reins of the moral initiative and present their tragic history to the world which perhaps is no less than that of the Jews despite the historical and social differences.

We may disagree with Dr. Saeed in the details and particulars, but we must appreciate his courage in presenting a new position worthy of the attention of Arab public opinion. The importance of positions increases when they are taken at a crossroads, just as the writings of Dr. Sadiq Jalal Al-Azm more than four decades ago did. His books (‘Criticism of Religious Thought’ and ‘Self-Criticism after the Defeat’) were serious and bold contributions at a juncture pushed the Arab conscience to change. I find that Dr. Saeed’s writings did a similar mission to push the process of Arab renaissance forward.

Perhaps any human group exaggerates in presenting its tragedies and appearing as the biggest victim in the hope of winning public opinion and trying to minimize the tragedy of its enemies to avoid accusations and appear moderate. In both cases, the occurrence of tragic events cannot be denied despite the difference in size. The Jews were not the only victims, but they continue to inflict much tragedy on the Palestinians. The history of the Arabs and their present is not free from inflicting tragedies on others.

Doesn’t the martyrdom of Al-Hussein b. Ali (pbuh), and his followers in Karbala impressed the Shiite psyche and distinguish them from the Sunnis! They commemorate it every year on Ashura to this day. We mention this example as a comparison with the Catholics killing a number of Protestants 400 years ago.

Can the Arabs acknowledge what they did in their history against others? It is very important and takes a great deal of courage and maturity for a nation to be able to review its history and compare to others so that it can elevate its moral position at the present and future among nations. (This applies to Iran and Turkey as well) It is imperative for the nation’s intellectuals and leaders to have the courage and maturity to face its past and present as they stand witness to see what they have done to others.

Is there better time to reviewing history at a time when we are making in our present a history that is no better than the past? Can the Arab conscience acknowledge what happened to the Kurds and Shiites in Iraq of massacres under Saddam Hussein? Perhaps the Holocaust of the Kurds was not as large as the Jewish Holocaust (6 million), but it is certainly no less barbaric.

For example, the number of victims of the Baathist Anfal operations in 1987 and 1988 was no less than 180,000 Kurdish civilians, men, women and children.

Or the loading of 8,000 Kurds from the Baharka and Qushtapa camps near Erbil into military vehicles and sending them to the southern deserts of Iraq to bury them in mass graves or the gassing of Halabja are no less hideous than the massacres of Sabra and Shatila, With the exception of a few writers and intellectuals, the Arab conscience was not moved at that time to denounce it until after the invasion of Kuwait. In the face of the Arab silence and duplicity, the Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani said bitterly to a British journalist “The world does not care if we die, but [cares] how we die.”

The time has come to ask the rising Arab conscience to take a clear and explicit position on the gassing of Halabja, Balisan and Badinan? Where is the Arab position on the Anfal operations? Despite the passage of nearly four decades and the demise of Saddam’s regime, the Arab conscience is still in conflict and may not yet be able to confront contemporary history. It is ironic that a nation cries out for what is happening to it and condones what it does to others. Arabs are crying out for what is happening in Palestine and reconsidering the Holocaust but ignoring the tragedies of the Kurds.

It is unfortunate that many Arabs still write from a traditional nationalist perspective of rulers that oppress others and unable to feel for the oppressed. Giving priority to immediate over long-term considerations is a disaster. The division of Kurdistan is only one fault of colonialists. Several million Palestinians have been suffering for 70 years despite the presence of 22 Arab countries supporting their cause.

The division of Kurdistan, left more than 40 million Kurds suffering for 100 years. Kurdistan was divided and the states of Iraq and Syria were born. Many Israeli Jews from came from Arab countries. Kurds are Muslims and original inhabitants of the region for more than 6,000 years. They have contributed substantially to world civilizations including the Islamic.

If any of the states colonizing Kurdistan have the right to independence, then a fair thinker must give others the same right. Thus, he must give the right to the emergence of a Kurdish state. Dr. Ismail Beşikci (Turkey) in his book “Kurdistan is an International Colony”, defended this right and served many years in prison. Mr. Sayid Al-Qimni (Egypt) said in an interview on YouTube, “We demand Arab unity and we refuse that the Kurds demand a Kurdish state.

See this is our problem (Arameans?) Our problem is as follows: We are with Chechnya in its separation from Russia, we are with the independence of Kashmir from India, and we are with the independence of Bosnia from the former Yugoslavia. We are with all the separatists in the world because they are Muslims, as if they are from our tribe, except here (the Kurds) they are not from our tribe. How do they break up? Anyone who splits we cut off his tongue and cut his neck. If we don’t get rid of this fanaticism, this is unreal, imaginary thing, it is destructive to the homeland”.(YouTube, audio and video, reviewed on 7-2-2025).

It is truly destructive to the homeland! The Iraqi thinker Hassan Al-Alawi, who says, “The Kurds existed 6,000 years before the Arabs, their presence preceded the presence of the Arabs in Kurdistan, they are the ones who have the right to expel the Arabs and not for the Arabs to expel them, and do not forget that because they are Kurds they have remained without rights, and even the rights that were assigned to them, for some reason, have not been implemented.” (YouTube, audio and video, reviewed on 7-2-2025). There are others such as Dr. Tariq Sweidan, Youssef Zeidan and others.

However, recently, a different opinion has emerged that does not rise to the level of belief or expressing the rights of others as he believes in for himself. Dr. Wadah Khanfar says (YouTube, audio and video,) “Our Kurdish brothers are the biggest victim in this region, the Sykes-Pico region, because they came and divided the region and left the Kurds distributed in this region.

If the East, I mean the entire East region, if they agree among themselves on a joint economic and political administration, like Europe did, the Kurds would not have a problem. The Kurds would become an important part of this space, in deed they would be a part in the heart of it, and there would be no Iraqi Kurd, Syrian Kurd, Iranian Kurd, or Turkish. Why? Because you live in a space, as the dream of establishing a European space was impossible before 1945 or 1946. It has now become beautiful for everyone to love, and the German or French travel without borders, just as if I were a Kurd living in Syria or Iraq, I would be able to roam this region and live in it. I would have no problem.” (YouTube, audio and video, reviewed on 7-5-2025).

Individuals and nations go through stages in their history that require them to improve and do their best to contribute to civilization. However, they cannot do this unless they live and grow in freedom without obstacles from others in order to work for and reach what psychology and sociology call ‘self-actualization’. (Self-actualization is the complete realization of one’s potential, and the full development of one’s abilities and appreciation for life, See: Maslow.)

The impulse to improve one’s self is the cause of progress and achievement among individuals and nations alike. Had it not been for this energy inherent in humans, we may have still lived in our forefathers’ caves. Individuals (as well as nations), need respect and confidence in order to work towards achieving his full potential, when accorded an environment free of hindrance and oppression (See Rogers on and the hierarchy of needs).

Europe went through dark periods in its history from fighting, collision and disintegration of empires until it settled on independent nation-states, which from there spread to the world. Later, the European renaissance began. Historically, for Europe, this was the stage of self -actualization. After nearly two centuries, and after the changes in the economy and politics, Europe began to lose its grip on world power.

The era of colonialism and controlling the world began to fade away and Europe began to search for a new European identity and a new grip on power. In short, European nations went through the stages of self-actualization (individuals and nations), as independent nation states provided them with a space of ​​freedom to accomplish what they aspired to. Through its repeated uprisings in the various parts of Kurdistan, the Kurdish nation has gained confidence and respect among the nations, but it remains to have the right circumstances for independence. Only then, truly Kurds can move up toward self-actualization.

Finding or creating a Kurdish or Kurdistan space similar to the European space will resolve the Kurdish issue in all parts of Kurdistan, as this space will allow them to roam and move in Kurdistan east, west, north and south. In Dr. Khanfar’s opinion, this will solve the Kurdish problem. I am not sure how Dr. Khanfar thinks that all four (Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria) countries partitioning Kurdistan can come together to form a Europe-like space for the Kurds? Is it only to avoid ‘independent Kurdistan’? It is absolutely wrong to believe that the Kurdish goal is roaming as nomads in their own land.

Although lacking political entity, the Kurds have all the characteristics of a nation, no less than any other. To explain, we have to compare for example to Arabic nation on two levels. First is that despite the presence of 22 independent Arab countries, parts of the Arab nation lag behind or under occupation. Some rulers do not differ from occupation much.

As for the Kurdish nation, it is still weak and does not enjoy complete independence anywhere. In all parts of Kurdistan (except Iraq), the status of the Kurds is at best comparable to 1948 Arab Israelis. Could the Palestinians accept to join their brothers in Israel? As for the Kurdistan region of Iraq, their situation does not differ much from the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. The difference is that Palestine has 22 independent countries that support it, and Kurdistan has none.

From a Kurdish perspective, the concept of ‘Kurdistan space’ is wrong for the Kurds. If it is not nationalist interest and feelings, then it must be the fear of confronting the future Kurdistan. From the beginning, perhaps rejecting the two-state solution, harmed the Palestinian cause. By comparison, what would have happened to the South Kurdistan (Iraq) if the Kurds would have refused the federal system after the fall of Saddam Hussein, despite the fact that federation is much less than the two-state solution!

In light of the above, we see that the Palestinian political leaders were oscillating between support and silence for years. Thanks to those who cooperated with the Kurds, especially in Syria, when away from the spotlight. Others remained silent in line with their interests with the Arab regimes, especially the Baath regimes in Syria and Iraq.

We understood that. As a liberation movement we were plagued by harsh totalitarian regimes and we went through unenviable situations, as well as the Palestinians. However, In recent years, Khaled Meshal, a prominent politician and former Hamas leader spoke openly about his opinion on the Kurds. Very briefly, he recognizes the grievances of the Kurds and calls on the countries dividing Kurdistan to find appropriate solutions for the Kurds.

He also talked of the ‘right to self-determination’ for the Kurds with conditions. That is, resolving the issue peacefully within those states. This may be an interim solution, but any conditions imposed on self-determination by the countries dividing Kurdistan is not really self-determination. Although this is less than Dr. Khanfar’s opinion, we believe it is more realistic than him. It is clear that the Kurdish space is impossible to exist except in two cases, the first of which is the independent and unified Kurdistan. Or the ‘unification’ of the four Middle Eastern countries that divide Kurdistan.

Is it just as important, as Dr. Saeed said, for the rising Arab conscience to take a clear and frank position on the Holocaust, it is just as important to take a clear and explicit position on the Anfal operations, Halabja, and other massacres? And the right to self-determination of the Kurds. Despite the passage of more than four decades, the Arab conscience, again with the exception of a few free thinkers, is still in conflict and not yet able to confront its contemporary history. It is an irony that a nation cries out for what is happening to it and ignores what it does to others.

Here is an example of a free conscientious thinker. In an interview with former US President Jimmy Carter on YouTube, (Accessed on 9/2/2025), he expressed his views clearly and concisely including his own bias regarding Palestine.

“Q: Why don’t Americans know what you saw?

Jimmy Carter: Americans don’t want to know and many Israelis don’t want to know what is happening inside Israel. It is a terrible human rights persecution that is far transcends what anyone from the outside could imagine. There are powerful political forces in America that prevent any objective analysis of the problem in the Holy Land. I think it is accurate to say that there is not a single member of Congress, I am familiar with, who can talk publicly speak out and call on Israel to withdraw to its legal boundaries or publicize the tragedy of the Palestinians or even call publicly for good faith peace talks. For seven years, we have not seen a single day of peace talks. This is a taboo subject and if any member of Congress speaks about what I just mentioned he will most likely not return to Congress in the next election.

Q: Who are these forces you are talking about?

Well there is a genuine commitment in America which I share as a Christian, and a deep commitment to make sure Israel is safe. Added to that is the powerful influence of a group called American-Israeli lobby called (AIPAC) which performs a completely legal and legitimate task of persuading Americans to support the policies of the government of Israeli. The goal of this group is not to establish peace but to mobilize maximum possible support in America, the White House, and Congress and in the media to support any policies of the Israeli government at any particular time and it is extremely effective.”

All Arabs, without exception, support the Palestinian cause in one way or another. But when faced with the Kurdish issue in any of the countries that divide Kurdistan, they find it difficult to recognize the legitimacy of Kurdish rights, despite that most acknowledge the grievances of the Kurdish people. Few Arab rulers expressed the legitimacy of the Kurdish cause, such as President Abdel Nasser of Egypt and others. We believe that the time has come to call on the free will of people to raise their voices in support of just causes.

Undoubtedly, dictatorships have deepened tribal and sectarian gaps between neighboring peoples over the decades of Iraq and Syria’s history. No one advocates for division or the dismemberment of states. Can you imagine how would it feel to live as a second or third degree citizen under a totalitarian regime?

Why don’t we think about building an entity in which the people choose their rulers and the system of government they desire? Why don’t we think about building relations with neighboring peoples on the basis of equality, mutual respect and common interests in Kurdistan, and its neighbors? Kurdish neighbors especially in Iraq and Syria, like most people, aspire to freedom and to live in peace with their neighbors, Kurds and others.

Nemat Sharif, a political analyst, a contributing writer and columnist for iKurd.net.

The opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of iKurd.net or its editors.

Copyright © 2025 iKurd.net. All rights reserved

The post The Kurds Between the Holocaust and the Arab Conscience appeared first on iKurd News.

Nemat Sharif | Exclusive to iKurd.net

Many expected that President Biden would not run or he would be advised as such earlier, perhaps in the primaries. This would have reflected better on the President, his party, allowed them time to run an effective campaign, and perhaps would not have cost them the White House. This would have allowed time to select a suitable Democrat to run against Mr. Trump.

Whether VP Harris would have been chosen or someone else is now only a hypothetical question. Suddenly dropping the issue on her lap that late in the game was a heavy burden for any one to handle successfully. Barely 90 days left in the race, it was almost impossible to catch up in selecting a running mate, putting together an election platform, and travel the country up and down, east and west to win the hearts and mind of voters.

American election politics is complex, only with planned collective effort of the team and party in a timely manner, a candidate can win the race. Despite her energy and sense of urgency, time was critical not only for her but also for the voters who also need time to publicly discuss, think over the agenda, and reach a voting decision especially in swing states. In these states, there is no dominant party that decides the outcome regardless of minority votes.

The 93 electoral votes across the seven swing states were pivotal in the race between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. A swing state, is a state deemed to have a critical role in presidential elections and major candidates enjoy similar levels of support. In the 2024 elections, seven were identified as swing states, Arizona (11 electoral votes), Georgia (16), Michigan (15), Nevada (6), North Carolina (16), Pennsylvania (19), and Wisconsin (10).

The Supreme Court, for the first time in US history, with two conservatives appointed by Trump in his first term, voted to expand presidential powers, and to put on hold his court cases. The 3 Justices, Neil Gorsuch (4/2017-?), Brett Kavanaugh (10, 2018), Amy C. Barrett (10, 2020), obviously applied their ideological standing, combined with other conservatives on the bench to clear the way for the former president to put all his court trials aside in favor of his race for the White House, his presidential duties if he wins, and further expand presidential powers while he is in office.

This stands in stark contradiction to his court trials (34 cases) and the expectation of possible banning his nomination. A number of legal scholars “argued that the former president was ineligible to serve again under a clause that disqualifies anyone who took an oath defending the Constitution and then subsequently participated in a rebellion or an insurrection…”

“They said that Trump’s attempt to steal the 2020 election and his incitement of the January 6, 2021 riot meet the criteria.… If the failure to swiftly prosecute Trump enabled his election, then his election seems to guarantee that he will never face accountability for the acts he committed, including those for which he has already been convicted of 34 felonies.” (David. A. Graham, theatlantic.com). The former president is the first convicted felon to be re-elected as president.

As I watched the presidential debates, I was surprised to see that Mr. Trump had no agenda to speak of what will he do to ‘make America great again’. He hammered in fear-inducing phrases used over and over to whip voters with if he did not win.

“If we don’t win on November 5th, I think our country is going to cease to exist…This could be the last election we ever have. I actually mean that. That’s where our country is going.” (Donald Trump, campaign rally, Grand Rapids, MI), Bloodbath, no more elections, the country will cease to exist were used describe Democrats and President Biden.

Scenes of street violence, the attack on the Capitol, police killing etc.. are still fresh in the minds of people. While fear-mongering is not new, Mr. Trump pushed it up to an unprecedented level; even a website, (BidenBloodBath.com) was created by the Republican National Committee, and controlled by the Trump campaign.

Discussions among people on and off record indicated that Americans were deeply concerned that what would happen to our democracy in the case of Trump losing instead of thinking what would happen if he wins! Violence and perhaps ‘civil war’ at whatever scale it may be will be devastating to American democracy and way of life.

Socio-political researchers called it “Terror Management Theory”. The fear tactics worked for him in his first term elections, why would not work again! Furthermore, he pressed Republicans to show loyalty and stand with him, instead of Republican leaders demanding that of him to keep ranks and stay within the vision of the Party. “..drove several who bucked him from office, notably Senators Bob Corker and Jeff Flake” (Tackett &Haberan,

While Ms. Harris happily and eloquently presented her agenda, it was a ready-made democratic platform that was also drummed up by president Biden, instead of having her own agenda that is responsive to current needs of the people and election atmosphere. Democratic leaders were busy with settling the candidacy issue with President Biden. Primaries were over with no viable candidate challenged the president. They picked the next in line as if the president was incapacitated.

It seems that Democratic leaders did not do as well as Republicans financially. Democrats relied more on their legacy with the middle and lower classes, the democratic power base, for support. By definition, their power base is of lower income.

By comparison, the Republican party revolves around the wealthy and big companies. This is clearer than ever before. The rapprochement between Trump and Musk stands as testimony at the top of the Republican hierarchy. Despite the energy Ms. Harris pumped into the campaign, it seems that it was doomed from the beginning. Uncertainty about whether the American people is ready for a female president, is uncalled for.

Tackett and Haberman summarized his weaknesses well “Mr. Trump has found that his lack of experience in politics and diplomacy, which require policy knowledge, team building and nuanced negotiating ability, has left him at a decided disadvantage despite his boasts about his deal-making prowess.” (Tackett & Haberan).

Apparently, Democratic strategists did not focus on his shortcomings, and his reliance on instilling fear and anxiety in his first and second term elections to attract voters’ attention. Running a traditional positive campaign for the incumbent, and later for the VP Harris was certainly shortsighted.

While president-elect’s campaign was and is a socio-political phenomenon, the voter landscape is changing too. Voters, especially in the swing states, demonstrated sensitivity to campaign pressures, psychological and otherwise without addressing underlying social issues such as race, immigration or economy. For example, existential fear tactics is not comparable to reducing Social Security benefits for the elderly; invasion vs. character flaw as lying.

The Trump phenomenon is not going away by the end of his second term, just as his legal problems should not go away. Mr. Trump will play his role further in US politics. For example, he might push for a constitutional convention to leave his mark on history. He did once when he appointed ideologically hardened justices to the supreme court.

The congressional and Supreme Court (6 to 3) conservative majority might be of help once again if he picks up the issue. Several issues are awaiting such a convention including the possibility of extending presidential term to 3 or more, or even expand it beyond the 4 year term.

The U.S. constitution’s adaptability as a living document while preserving core principles is its greatest strength to ensure that liberty, equality and justice continue to guide the nation. Therefore, a convention becomes a viable option for the President-elect to keep his popularity and the constitution living in time with a lasting power.

Nemat Sharif, a political analyst, a contributing writer and columnist for iKurd.net.

The opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of iKurd.net or its editors.

Copyright © 2025 iKurd.net. All rights reserved

The post Why Did the Democrats Lose the 2024 U.S. Election? appeared first on iKurd News.

Nemat Sharif | Exclusive to iKurd.net

Author: Lieutenant Muhammad Talab Hilal
Head of the Political Division in Hasaka
Review and commentary: Nemat Sharif

Some may wonder why review an old book that was written decades ago. This book was the cornerstone of the Baath Party’s ideology vis-a-vie the Kurds and their liberation movement in both Iraq and Syria. The Kurds continue to suffer even today from its sway on Arab mentality. The Assad regime denied any right for the Kurds in Syria whatsoever to the minute it toppled.

The Baath Party, in power or out, continues to dream of ruling the Kurds and other minorities with an iron fist. To this day, there is no published edition of this book available to the readers to learn the Baath Party’s policy regarding Kurds and other minorities.

What is available are scattered copies of the limited Baathist edition for Baath Party members only. Limited references are made to this book are made by a few Kurdish writers. Limited German translation was made available several years ago. This quick review, includes a 12 point program erase Kurdish national identity in Syria.

Muhammad Talab Hilal admits in his introduction to the book that “the few sources he obtained, despite their scarcity, are reports rather than studies” and that his book is [the study] “more of personal impression than an objective and focused study.

However, the motive that prompted rushing it is the special circumstances that Al-Jazeera Province is going through today and the serious impact of the events taking place in the north of our beloved Iraq, and their impact on this Province.” In this paragraph Hilal admits, that his study “Lacks the characteristics of an objective scientific study”, one can rely on.

He acknowledged his bias, as he is a Baathist who poured out his wrath on the Kurdish people to satisfy his racist tendency, and to flatter his masters with the aim of promotion (1), as his book has despicable political goals. It maliciously spread division, discord and hatred between the Kurds and Arabs first, urges his fascist Bath masters to exterminate the peaceful Kurds in Syria and elsewhere.

Second, the book is a complete program to exterminate the Kurdish people in Syria. Third, this review includes the 12 point program verbatim from the book, to show the reader the chauvinism of Hilal and the party he represented. It is important to mention that this program was unprovoked, and the Kurdish population lived peacefully on their own land.

The writer’s view of the Kurds and Kurdistan:

On the origin of the Kurds and their homeland, he ignored history facts, their culture, and contributions to human civilizations, especially to the Islamic (2). On pages 4 and 5 he stated”…that there is no people in the sense of a Kurdish people, nor a whole nation in the sense of a Kurdish nation…because they lack all characteristics of a nation. Thus, there is no national homeland for the Kurds either.

There are mountain dwellers whom nature has given special characteristic like any inhabitants of any region that impresses its inhabitants…the Kurds are no more than this. They have no history, no civilization, no language, and no race, except for traits of strength, brutality, and harshness. These are the traits of mountain dwellers. If we follow this logic, then we must apply it to other nations. As narrow as this view is, there will be many more nations.…”

In this brief presentation, we will not attempt to respond to his nonsense because the facts are too obvious to obscure with his demagoguery. His thoughts throughout the book suggest that Kurdistan is Arab land. He begins on the first page by saying “This piece of our dear homeland – meaning Kurdistan is Arab land- …” and concludes by again saying that Kurdistan is part of the Arab homeland and that the Kurds are “homeless people” whom no one knows of their origin. He did not attribute them to any neighboring ethnic group, as Turks do, because that would lead him to acknowledge that the parts of Kurdistan in Iraq and Syria are Turkish or Iranian if he attributes them to either one.

Therefore, he suggests that the Kurds are “mountain Arabs” (4), and mountains have distorted their Arab character (page 5). He reasons that “successive conquests of their region” (p.3) have made them lose their language. Because of his arrogance and racism he withholds the name “mountain Arabs”; first to satisfy his national vanity and then to justify his call to exterminate the Kurds. He defines the Kurds as “mountain dwellers” who have nothing “but the traits of strength, brutality and harshness.”

The writer’s racism and limited knowledge are clear in the vagueness with which he spoke about the origin of the Kurds and their history. On page 38, the writer acknowledges that “the Kurds as a race are completely different from the Arabs. There is no psychological, physiological, or anthropological similarity.” This was not spontaneous or a finding of his study.

His acknowledgment came to justify accusing the Kurdish liberation movement of ‘populism’ (4), as he says on page 38, “Where religion (meaning Islam) cannot be called a religion in the correct sense among the Kurds, mostly Sufi orders that are widespread…we know that populism itself is the one that created those orders that are foreign to Islam or used them as cover to attack Arab nationalism.”

Not only the Kurds, but even some Arab figures did not escape the charge of populism. For example, the same writer accused the then Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser (P. 22) of “populism, opportunism and egoism” for no reason other than his support for the Kurds’ right to life. He said the same thing about the then Iraqi president Abdul Karim Qasim for allowing Barzani to return to Iraq in 1959.

The writer must have suffered from fear and inferiority complex (P.39). He feels that every word spoken by the Kurds is a stab in the back, even if the word is a call for friendship and brotherhood. He cites Article 5 of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) charter, which stated: “Strive to strengthen the relations of brotherhood and friendship among all ethnicities that make up the Iraqi people, e.g. Arabs, Kurds, Turkmen, Assyrians, Armenians, and all other minorities in Iraq…” He explained: “It is very clear from the text of that article the populist and communist tendencies of the KDP.

This party, in addition to working for Kurdish nationalism, is also working to destroy Arab nationalism by reviving a new nationalism, based on the same communist logic.” The question here is: What does the writer want the KDP to say? Does he want the KDP to be chauvinistic and deny the right to life for others, like the writer himself? And why does he see the revival of other nationalities as destruction of Arab nationalism? This is the fear of the racist in its most obvious form. He also confuses populism with communism.

He considers the communist parties in the region then to be populist movements directed against Arab nationalism. Despite Baath party’s confession of socialism, his fear of communism is two-fold: 1) the call for self-determination for all stabs his racist pride in the core. He fails to see that nationalist movements are not communists. 2) Solidarity of the working class is another stab for he knows for certain that the solidarity of the worker regardless of ethnicity is a threat to his racist Baath pan-Arabism.

Hilal takes his Baathist position entirely because he is keenly aware of the justifications for his existence. He continues to justify his fear of and hostility towards the Kurdish liberation movement where he says on page (40): “…they – the Kurds – are trying with all their energy and possessions to establish their imaginary homeland. This view results in them being enemies and there is no difference between them and Israel despite the religious bond. Judaism and Kurdistan are two sides of a coin.

Add to that all the colonial considerations and the intense work against Arab nationalism… If, God forbid, their dream comes true [the Kurds’ dream of establishing their state] they will immediately reveal their true face and become a communist state affiliated with the Soviet Union in the future.” The writer reaches his “prophecy!” again on page 88 after an extensive study of KDP’s program and charter.

The Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP)

One of the ironies of this “study” is that the author accuses the Kurds of agents of the west once and of communism another time (p.14) for no reason other than their resistance to genocidal campaigns against them. On page (9) he cites non-sequential paragraphs from “Brief History of the Kurds and Kurdistan” (pp 274 – 276), exploiting the honesty and truthfulness of the late scholar Muhammad Amin Zaki in his description of what the Kurds suffer as a result of their deprivation of the two ‘treasures’, “knowledge and money.”

The author ignores that their deprivation of both is a direct result of Baathist colonialism. Following a policy of ignorance is a primary means that facilitates the usurpers’ theft of the wealth of Kurdistan, thus, the second deprivation of money is achieved.

The writer’s proposals regarding the Kurds

The following are Hilal’s the proposals to end the Kurdish problem, included in his alleged “study” (pp 46-48), His proposal are translated verbatim as a living example of racism against the Kurds in Syria and elsewhere:

“In light of all that was mentioned, we must, in the midst of the turmoil, deal with the issues with a cool mind and the flame of faith, not to become the echo of or reaction to daily events, get side-tracked or trapped in plans drawn up by others. We must first avoid the slippery slopes in order to establish the foundations of plans on science and a comprehensive study at this this historical juncture.

It is clear and obvious to us today that we are waging a war of dogmas and weapons in the north of our Arab Iraqi state. We must immediately begin to match plans with the operations carried out in northern Iraq at this phase in particular. What is the benefit of ending [the Kurd] there and remaining here pampered or close to that in the name of citizenship?

Everything is clear and all card are exposed here and there [Syria and Iraq] and in Turkey and Iran as well regarding the Kurds. Therefore, we suggest that a comprehensive and radical plan be implemented in al-Jazeera Province. So that the problem does not occur again after a period of time.

The entire region, as we learned in Turkey, Iraq, Syria and even Iran, is connected along the borders. We must exploit Turkey’s policy now because it may change in the future according to the whims of colonial policy. They are now moving the dangerous elements to the interior parts of their country. Therefore, we suggest that the state should:

(1) Adopt internal relocation operations with geographical distribution inside the country considering the dangerous elements first. There is no problem if the plan extends over two or three years, starting with the dangerous elements moved first to the less dangerous elements and so on.

(2) Adopt a policy of keeping them in ignorance; that is not establishing schools or science institutes in the region because education has proven the opposite of what is needed in a blatant and bold way.

(3) The overwhelming majority of Kurds residing in al-Jazeera province enjoy Turkish citizenship. Civil records must be corrected, and this is happening now. We request that this results in clearing all whose citizenship has not been proven, and transferring them to their original countries. Furthermore, all those whose nationality has been proven must be reviewed reasonably and how they acquired them.

Citizenship is acquired by a presidential decree only. Any certificate that is not issued by a decree must be discussed. Those remaining, i.e. the least dangerous, are stripped of their citizenship and then returned to their countries. Then there is citizenship conflict, as you find some holding citizenship from two or three countries at the same time. In this case, such a person must be returned to his original country. In any case, what is important is to begin to reach the desired outcome of this census and review, Evacuation operations should begin immediately.

(4) Close employment opportunities: As a contribution to the success of the plan, no employment opportunities should be made available to the Kurds so that we put them in an unstable situation, ready to leave at any moment. The agrarian reform in al-Jazeera must consider this first, so that Kurds can’t rent or own. Arab elements are abundantly available, thank God.

(5) Launch a propaganda campaign among the Arab elements to prepare them for a cause and focusing on the Kurds to destabilize them so that they are anxious and unstable.

(6) Strip their clerics of their religious role and replace them with pure Arab sheikhs based on a plan. Or transfer them early on instead of others. Their gatherings are not religious at all, indeed, they Kurdish gatherings. In their statements, when they call on us, not against Barzani, rather they call against shedding Muslim blood. What a ridiculous statement!

(7) Instigate the Kurds against each other. This is easy, and likely by inciting those who claim Arab descent against the dangerous elements. This also will reveal the truth of those who claim to be Arabs.
(8) Settle Arab and nationalist elements in the Kurdish areas on the borders.

They are the future fort, and watchdogs until all Kurds are removed. We suggest that Arab elements of Shammar tribe. First they are the poorest tribe on earth and second they are guaranteed nationally one hundred percent.

(9) Make the northern strip of al-Jazeerah a military zone just as a war front. Military units are stationed in the zone. Their mission is to settle Arabs and evacuate the Kurds according to the State plan.

(10) Establish Arab communal farms for those resettled by the state in the northern strip, provided that they are trained and armed, just like the Jewish colonies on the borders.

(11) Don’t allow non-Arabic speakers to vote or run for office in the aforementioned areas.

(12) Absolutely ban granting Syrian citizenship to anyone who wants to reside in that area, regardless of his original citizenship (except Arab, etc.).

These proposals are not enough, as they are meant to alert officials, based on our experience, so that they would be the start of a comprehensive radical plan to be taken, a lesson never to be forgotten.”

Most of these proposals were implemented, while the Baath Party was in power in Syria, and continued to uphold this racist policy against the Kurdish rights until the Baath party was removed from power.

There are many examples of this, including, but not limited to: the abhorrent Arab belt project for the Syrian Al-Jazeera Province, and the revocation of Syrian citizenship of more than a hundred thousand Kurds, in addition to restricting the Kurdish language, literature and heritage.

It is our duty to expose this book continuously, and it was best said by the late Ismat Sharif Wanli in the introduction he added to this book “in order to combat its poisons and correct this distortion of Arab and Kurdish nationalism and humanity.”

Notes:
(1) Ismat Sharif Wanli stated in his added brief introduction to this book “The Baath regime did not dare to publish and distribute it to libraries and bookstores, contenting itself with trying to implement it…to erase the Kurds of Syria from existence. The author of this book was rewarded for his ‘creativity’ by promoting him to be the governor of Hama, and then a minister.”

(2) The limited scope of this article does not allow more details.

(3) To this extent, the readers can easily see the writer’s viewpoint matches that of Turkish racists against the Kurds. Turkey called the Kurds there “Mountain Turks” and the words Kurds and Kurdistan were banned in Turkey until the 1990’s.

(4) Populism: A political and literary movement with roots extending to the early days of Islam. Like our modern day political opposition, those subject to Arab rule of non-Arab, Muslim and non-Muslim origins, aimed to oppose the Arab rule and the benchmarks of authority, and its rulers because of the injustice and oppression they were suffering,

Nemat Sharif, a political analyst, a contributing writer and columnist for iKurd.net.

The opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of iKurd.net or its editors.

Copyright © 2024 iKurd.net. All rights reserved

The post The Syrian Al-Jazeera Province: An Ethnic, Social and Political Study – Book appeared first on iKurd News.

Nemat Sharif | Exclusive to iKurd.net

Four years ago, on such days, when the outgoing US President Joseph Biden won the White House, we cheered and applauded as he ascended to the top of the super power. We applauded him because he presented himself as a friend of the Kurdish people.

He received President Massoud Barzani with enthusiasm to exchange views on the future of the Kurds in the Middle East in general and in Iraq in particular at a breakfast that America prepares for kings. We cheered his victory because he, who was the US Vice President then, told Massoud Barzani “You and I will see an independent Kurdistan in our lifetimes”.

After four years, what happened? President Biden prepares to leave the White House at the age of 78 to spend the rest of his life away from the spotlight?

Some believed that this statement from America to the Kurds was equivalent to the British Balfour Declaration for the Jews. Both are still alive. Will the Biden Promise be fulfilled by his rival, Trump? Let us look at what happened, and how analysts see the dramatic events in the Middle East over the past year.

Before the Al-Aqsa Flood, (October 7, 2023) The the Middle East seemed calm on the surface, moving towards normalizing relations between Israel and the Arab countries under American sponsorship. However, the volcano in international relations between the East and West axes was boiling. China was making strides to establish a foothold in West Asia and Africa economically, to the point that some thought it was working to replace the United States and its Western allies.

Between Russia and Europe, the situation was tense due to NATO’s involvement in Ukraine, which many consider Russia’s backyard. Compared to the crisis when the Soviet Union tried to transfer nuclear weapons to Cuba in 1962. In response the US President John F. Kennedy put his forces on high alert in case the Soviets refused to retreat.

The United States, in its military doctrine, considers Cuba part of its backyard. Russia also considers Ukraine a breach of its national security if Ukraine joins NATO. In Southeast Asia, there is another alliance like NATO although undeclared, The axis includes Japan, South Korea, Australia, and the United States. On the other side stands China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran.

In the recent South Korean elections, the Democrats won overwhelming majority in the parliament, which stood against the wishes of the pro-Western president and his support for Ukraine. The president was forced to suspend parliament by declaring martial law, which lasted only six hours, as the parliament forced him to lift the martial law on December 3.

The conflict between the Eastern and Western blocs is raging. There is no signs of calm on the horizon, as the outgoing American administration wants to score more successes before leaving the White House. A boiling world is awaiting the new president while he says that he wants to go down in history as a man who ended raging wars, of course as he scores other gains in an atmosphere of calm or at least gradually calming the boil to reach his strategic goals.

The painful blows that Israel has dealt to Iran and its arms in the region from military operations and assassinations of the axis leaders of resistance have put the region on the brink of profound changes that include the internal changes of countries as well as changing international borders.

The Israeli Prime Minister said that he will change the face of the Middle East. This is seen in his expansionist project that has become within reach, as there are no options left but normalization or fragmentation. The rise of military operations by the Syrian opposition to threaten Damascus, which some call the flood of the Levant, after which Iraq and perhaps Egypt would follow, before things calm down in the Middle East. This has caused Israeli military operations to slowdown to ’let’s wait and see what happens.‘

Between Turkey and Israel, Syria and Iraq constitute a competition, each to gain more of its interests. Perhaps the fall of Damascus will determine the next stage in the ongoing transformations in the Middle East.

Will the Israeli-Turkish competition turn into a conflict between the two largest powers in the Middle East? or will it be more cooperation to manage their conflict to better serve their countries according to their priorities? The speed and intensity of the conflict brought Damascus to its knees in only ten days. This reminds us of the rapid emergence of ISIS in 2014 in Iraq. Fighting and land control imposes a new reality. Tactics do not create a solid foundation for sustainable stability and sustainable certainty, only strategies do. It is a foregone conclusion that the rebel groups need to clarify their strategies for the foreseeable future of Syria.

Perhaps the existential threat to Israel is coming to an end, but the existence itself is still unstable and unsustainable. Thus, the trend must be towards expansion and/or normalization. This is what appears from the Israeli moves supported by the United States to achieve this goal. The US support is not a matter of dispute or controversy between the American Democratic and Republican parties.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s statements are interpreted to include parts of southern Turkey in the future Jewish homeland. This angered the Turkish President Erdogan and raised his anxiety as this inches toward the existential threat he feels from the Kurdish issue in general and from Rojava (Syrian Kurdistan) administration in particular.

Syria embodies the conflict of axes in an unmistakable way. Turkey, the Syrian opposition, including Abu Muhammad al-Golani, who until recently was a terrorist working with ISIS, and Israel are in one axis under the Western umbrella. Turkey provides military and Israel intelligence backing (source: Arab media channels).

The opposing axis is Iran, Russia and their allies in the region. The question that arises here is where do the Kurds stand in general and the Kurds in Syria in particular? This is a regional-international conflict in which several groups come together by their opposition to the Asad Regime. Non-state players, such as Kurds, refugees, and other groups are perhaps the most legitimate groups and most impacted. They need international support to survive on their own lands.

Devlet Baghjali’s, chairman of the Turkish National Movement, statements and the Turkish invitation to Mr. Ocalan, the imprisoned leader of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), to deliver a speech before the Turkish parliament announcing in effect the surrender of PKK under any pretext, comes against the backdrop of Turkey’s concern about Israel’s threat to its national security. When Netanyahu spoke about the New Middle East project, he said, “We will change the face of the Middle East.” Will the Kurds be drawn in by Erdogan’s statements, as they did after World War I, when Kemal Ataturk founded the Turkish Republic?

In the axis, there is an important contradiction that we must not ignore. That is Turkey vs. Kurds, and Israel vs. an Islamic state which will in effect be an arm of Turkey (instead of Asaad, an arm of Iran). Therefore, thus, the American umbrella for the axis is more important to the Kurds than others. If it were not for that, Turkey might have crushed the autonomous administration in northern and eastern Syria and perhaps the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, despite its legal legitimacy in Iraq.

Turkey also continues to fight the PKK on Iraqi soil, even during the days of ISIS, when it cooperated with the Iraqi army, and to this day. “The number of Turkish military bases in northern Iraq is about 80 bases, which vary between large and small camps, and are distributed between Erbil, Dohuk and Nineveh, along the Iraqi-Turkish border” within the territory of the [Kurdish] region.

Turkey and Iran are two national states par excellence despite their religious and sectarian appearance. The only policy that brings them together is their anti-Kurdish policy. This is historically obvious since the Saadabad Agreement in 1937. Furthermore, both countries desire, in one way or another, to restore their glories in the Ottoman and Persian empires.

Hence, the seeds of conflict. In Iraq, the regime changed in 2003, and the new regime took the big step to recognize the Kurds. In Syria, the Assad regime rejected the legitimate rights of the Kurdish people, until its fall. Will things change with the coming of a new government to Damascus? or will the new regime deny the legitimate rights of the Kurdish people?

The rapid developments in Syria produced more questions than answers. Let’s add Israel to complete the Middle Eastern trilogy and the Kurdish relations that extend their roots to the sixties of the last century, given the presence of a Kurdish community in Israel. The Jewish Kurds and other Iraqi Jews still acknowledge the Kurds’ role in saving many of them during the ‘Farhud’ (An Iraqi Arabic word meaning the looting and plundering of Jewish property before they left Iraq to Israel between 1948-1952).

The Kurds certainly could cultivate these historical relations, despite religious differences. On the other hand, Israel was and still is looking for a friend in the region, but never made an investment in better relations with the Kurds. Israeli empty statements here and there do not help. Israel is not an enemy of the Kurds, but it is not a friend either. Let alone to be an ally.

Fifty years ago, after the end of the Kurdish revolution in 1975, a small number of Kurdish refugees in Iran at that time headed to Europe and America. Years later, we would search book indices to find out if the writer had mentioned anything about the Kurds. Often when we said we are Kurds or from Kurdistan, many did not know these two words. Today, when you enter any bookstore, you find dozens, if not hundreds, of books that talk about all parts of Kurdistan.

The collective American awareness of the Kurds has developed, along with American diplomacy in its relations with the Kurds in Iraq and now the Kurds in Syria. There is no doubt that they realize the importance of their relations with the Kurds in Turkey and Iran, but for geo-political reasons and their relations with these two countries or lack thereof, they undoubtedly avoid engaging in open talks with them. The Kurds and American diplomats have suffered from the Kissinger’s diplomacy for more than a quarter of a century. (For more on American-Kurdish relations, see “The Kurds and US Foreign Policy-International Relations in the Middle East since 1945” by Marianna Charoutaki.)

By comparison, we find that Kurdish-Israeli relations are still weak and timid despite the geopolitical apprehension in the Middle East. Why not now as normalization is underway with most Arab countries. In deed, the October 7 war was designed to strike the normalization processes between Israel and the Arab countries.

Years ago, President Massoud Barzani was asked about Kurdish-Israeli relations, his response was frank and decisive: “Is it permissible for you, but forbidden for us!” At that time, he meant the Egypt-Israel peace treaty. Since then not much has changed. In America, voices have risen in the press calling on Israel to support the Kurds or remain silent because the Kurds no longer can be a pressure card used whenever regional circumstances require it. One of these voices is an out spoken Israeli supporter. (see: Micheal Rubin in ikurd.net “It’s ‘put up or shut up’ time for Israel on Kurdistan”.)

There is no doubt that Israel wanted to overthrow Assad and replace him with a moderate government that they can coexist, and represent a security zone to some extent. Israel does not want to repeat the Hamas experience in Syria. A hard line Islamist government (i.e. Muslim Brotherhood, which brings Erdogan and Hamas together, or Al-Qaeda and ISIS, to which Abu Muhammad al-Golani and his followers belonged.)

From the Turkish point of view, it is much deeper from a nationalist perspective. The Turkish national thought has been clear in Turkish policies for more than 50 years. Some call it the new Ottoman and others the Turani thought, which includes all the Turkish elements in Central Asia, the Uighur, Turkmenistan, Kazakhs and others, and then Azerbaijan and the Turkmen in Iraq and Syria and the Turks in Northern Cyprus. Therefore, the Turks are looking for new trends in Syria. If it moves towards a democratic coalition government, they will work to keep the Kurds in check.

The Kurds are expected to control nearly 40% of the area of ​​Syria and they will have a strong role in Damascus. If it is a trend towards federalism, confederation or even division into three or four mini-states, Turkey sees it as its duty to create a special entity for the Turkmen, on its borders and under its auspices, as in Cyprus. Hence, all extremist Turkish elements from Central Asia, Azerbaijan, the Turkmen and even the Turkish Cypriots are under the umbrella of ‘Dawn of Freedom’ movement, which some call ‘the Levant Flood’ similar to the ‘Al-Aqsa Flood (Th Arab name for October 7, 2023’.)

From the Iranian perspective, they tried to keep the Assad regime, then they want to cooperate to keep Syria united. But if it is an Islamic government, they will try to coexist with it as in Iran’s foreign policy, Syria a central to their Middle East policy Syria is part of the Shiite crescent from Lebanon to Tehran. If none works, Tehran does not want, the division of Syria. Therefore, we see that the only goal that unites Iran and Turkey is to prevent the rise of a Kurdish state.

Turkey and Iran have been competitors if not enemies since the dawn of history, and there is no doubt that both of them have competing regional ambitions. Israel and the West likely will support the division into Shiite, Sunni, Kurdish states, and perhaps Turkey will push for a Turkman entity.

In the face of Turkish and Iranian meddling in Syria, Israel and the West should support a Kurdish State, the resettlement of refugees, pardoning everyone and following a policy of democratization based on equal citizenship in all entities at least for the foreseeable future. It does not seem that the Syrian people will have a say in their future at least initially, hoping to lead to a better future for all. Until social peace and reconciliation with the neighbors are achieved it does not matter whether al-Golani is in power or not. It is unclear if Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham and other opposition factions truly represent the Syrian people until elections are held.

Where are the Kurds in all these plans and active political forces in Syria and the neighboring countries? It is clear that the pressure is mounting on the Syrian Kurdistan and they certainly need the support of the Kurds before anyone else. If not with forces and weapons, then with kind words of solidarity.

Certainly, the geopolitics of the region impact all the parts of Kurdistan. The Kurds must be aware, peoples and leaders, that they should never be a stumbling block in the way of their brothers achieving their goals. RozAva victory is for everyone, and their loss will bring calamities upon all. No one needs media drum up of what they do or how they support Rojava.

Perhaps the best support at this time is to provide advice or a word of support from representatives of the Kurdish parties, especially in Europe and the USA. The Kurds in Syria today are taking bold steps and draw their borders with blood. As President Massoud Barzani once said, borders are drawn with blood, and here they are once again forced to draw their borders with blood today in Syria. It is not unlikely that Iraqi Kurds might be forced to To draw their borders with blood again. Observers expect that this ‘flood’ will begin in Iraq as soon as it subsides in Syria. Let us remember that a nation is like a solid structure that supports and strengthens each other.

Nemat Sharif, a political analyst, a contributing writer and columnist for iKurd.net.

The opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of iKurd.net or its editors.

Copyright © 2024 iKurd.net. All rights reserved

The post The Kurdish Dream: Where to? appeared first on iKurd News.

Nemat Sharif | Exclusive to iKurd.net

American Elections 2024

The American presidential election is an important event here and abroad. The US impact in the world is great, not only at the level of governments, but it goes much deeper to impact the lives of peoples, especially in third world countries.

Mrs. Harris differs from her rival, Donald Trump, in her entire approach to governing and agenda. She is a democrat, and a minority woman with life experience that stands in direct contrast to Mr. Trump. The United States of America is a state of law and established institutions. All stand equal before the law.

In their debate, and despite that they had not met, Kamala Harris took the initiative to greet Donald Trump with confidence and shook his hand as his equal. This move took him by surprise. Consciously or unconsciously.

He did not fully recover from his shock to the end. Perhaps he followed what his advisors had told him aggressiveness or excitement would not help. Annoyed, but he stayed calm as he is described as misogynous and racist. His opponent was the epitome of both, a woman of color.

As for the Democrats, they nominated Geraldine Ferraro (August 8, 1935 – March 26, 2011) in 1984 to run for vice president; the first attempt by the Democratic Party to break through the glass ceiling as the first woman to run for the VP position.

Years passed, they did not abandon their goal of pushing women and minorities into government ranks. Despite successes in other areas, the positions of president and vice president remained out of reach. By comparison, Europeans have been more successful in this area.

Many believe that the American people still do not accept a woman for the highest offices. Democrats, such as the late Edward Kennedy (February 22, 1932 – August 25, 2009), turned to nominating a black man, with good reputation, a brilliant politician who began his career as a lawyer, Barak Obama.

Despite the Republicans’ attempt, including President-elect Donald Trump, Barack Obama (August 4, 1961-?) won two consecutive terms, and supported the first woman to run for the presidency of the United States, Hillary Clinton (October 26, 1947-?), his competitor in the Democratic Party. She did not win, but Democrats continued their efforts.

The surprise came with the nomination of a black woman in the midst of fierce competition and accusations of being extreme left-wing liberals. Let’s see what Ms. Clinton said in her last speech when she congratulated Trump on his winning that race: “Our campaign was never for one person or even one election campaign, it was for the country we love and to build an America that is hopeful, inclusive and big-hearted.”

If her goal was just to reach the White House, she lost, but as Democrats’ goals are much bigger and go beyond one election campaign or winning for only four years. Here it is worth noting some important differences between the candidates and their parties to understand the circumstances of this race.

Unlike last election (Trump v. Clinton, a white woman), this race is between Trump and a minority woman. With the support of the party leadership, she was decisively nominated for the presidency, while the Republicans struggled to nominate Mr. Trump for another term.

Experienced in difficult positions as Attorney General and Vice President, Harris, shook her head as Trump attacked immigrants by saying that they were criminals and dangerous and that they eat pets in their owners’ homes, such as cats and dogs.

She sarcastically smiled as he uttered baseless accusations, telling him that these were just lies. The moderator added that there is no evidence of the truth of what Mr. Trump said. In another response, she met him with a broad smile when he commented on her achievements as VP lies again because the documents and facts prove the truth of her words, not his.

Again when Trump attacked the Democratic Party, Mrs. Harris was agitated as she shook her head and responded with a stern and strict tone. She summarized her agenda: First, help and encourage small business owners. Second, help working families through direct support for raising and educating children.

Third, help first time home buyers with $25K down payment, who are mostly young and ready to start their families.

The competition between the Democratic and Republican parties, is historic and the pace is escalating whenever there is a change in their positions. When one of the parties adopts a position the other competes to gain the support of the American people.

A look back at history reveals that American society usually consists of three main classes: the rich, the middle class, and the poor, to whom most social, health, educational, and other assistance programs are directed. There is usually a narrow segment in between that is not covered by much assistance.

They are those above the poverty line, but their incomes are not stable to ascend to the middle class. These people cannot always provide for all their needs, and not eligible for much government assistance. On the other hand, we see that the difference in annual income for members of the Democratic and Republican parties on the average does not exceed ten thousand dollars annually.

Democrats see themselves closer to the lower classes in society. The Republican Party is more aligned to the wealthy. Thus, programs adopted by each are completely different. The democratic orientation is to provide more services to the poor and middle classes to ease the economic burden on families with limited income.

This is not geared to achieving socioeconomic justice in society as socialist ideas never took root in America from the beginning. Election campaign accusations of being socialist, far left, or extreme liberal often make headlines.

Republican programs are more often directed at the wealthy in general, diplomacy supported by the use of force if necessary and reducing taxes on the wealthy and corporations to enable them to achieve more growth, scientific and technological successes.

More than 65% of Republicans do not believe in welfare and social programs such as food, housing, education, health, etc. that Democrats promote. The remaining 35% of Republicans believe in the importance of these programs and most of them are from the lower and middle classes, most of them have humanitarian and religious motives and to keep social peace and order.

Obviously, democratic thinkers and decision-makers are leaving their mark on the political history of the United States. They want to stand on the right side of history.

Their moral high grounds is dealing with poverty in society and equality between the different sectors and races of the people on the basis of non-discrimination on the bases of race, skin color, gender, religion and age in law enforcement, social services and programs related to receiving aid from the US federal government.

On this legal basis, democratic decision-makers work to involve all religions, sects, races and ethnicity in the political process, starting from the party base to higher echelons of the party and governments.

In 2020 elections, President Biden chose a woman of Indian and African origins to be his running mate and eventually his VP while in the previous elections, the white Hillary Clinton lost to President Trump. Trump is trying once again to ride the wave of the historic divide between whites and people of color inside and outside the Republican Party in the 2024 elections.

With Trump’s nomination again Republicans have slipped further and further towards the far right or what is known as radical right. To this Democrats responded by nominating the vice president, a minority woman of mixed African and Indian origins. If anything, this indicates the widening gap between the two parties and the polarization of society, which they call a ‘divided society.’

Regardless of the many details, including Trump’s failed coup attempt on January 6, 2021 against the American democratic system, it must be said that the democratic institutions withstood the coup plotters proving that US democracy remains strong.

The weak position of the Republicans in the face of the extremists led by Trump is accelerating their march toward failure while accelerating the democratic march to achieve more gains for the benefit of the American people in general, as well as limiting the radical right.

If the Republicans continue to accommodate the radical right, we believe that this will lead them to a clash between radicals and moderates, who have led their Party for nearly 200 years. We believe that the radical right is a minority, but active and powerful.

They have money and arms. However, they have limitations as well as the Republican Party power base is in the cities and remains as such for the foreseeable future.

Nemat Sharif, a political analyst, a contributing writer and columnist for iKurd.net.

The opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of iKurd.net or its editors.

Copyright © 2024 iKurd.net. All rights reserved

The post Trump vs. Harris: The 2024 Battle for America appeared first on iKurd News.