Nowadays, almost everyone agrees that the Palestinian people deserve a state and that they should not live under Israeli rule. Most Israelis share this view, including even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has reluctantly stated his own commitment to a two-state solution. In many Western democracies, a strong left-wing constituency regularly organizes demonstrations in favor of Palestinian independence.
The argument for Palestinian statehood is anchored in a fundamentally moral claim for national self-determination. Yet, when it comes to securing the same right for the Kurdish people, the West has been shamefully and strangely silent.
Western democracies offered no support for the Kurdistan Regional Government’s (KRG) independence referendum in late September, and they have not spoken out against the Iraqi and Turkish governments’ threats to crush the KRG’s bid for statehood by force.
When officials in the EU or the US give a reason for opposing Kurdish independence, it always comes down to realpolitik.
Iraq’s territorial integrity must be preserved, they say, and independence for the KRG could destabilize Turkey and Iran, owing to those countries’ sizeable Kurdish minorities.
However, these arguments merely underscore a double standard. Moral claims for self-determination are justly raised in the case of the Palestinians, but they are entirely absent from the international discourse about Kurdistan. Worse still, the brutal oppression of the Kurds over many generations has been totally overlooked.
In Iraq under then-president Saddam Hussein, the Kurds were subjected to genocidal chemical weapons attacks. In Turkey, the military has razed hundreds of Kurdish villages.
Among the arguments used to deny the Kurds their right to self-determination, the defense of Iraq’s territorial integrity is the most spurious and hypocritical of all.
When British statesmen established Iraq as a distinct political entity after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, they did so in accordance with their own imperialist interests. Accordingly, they disregarded the territory’s history, geography, demography, and ethnic and religious diversity.
The residents of this newly conjured state were never actually asked if they wanted to live in a country with an overwhelming Shiite majority and large Kurdish and Christian minorities. They certainly were never asked if they wanted to be ruled by a Sunni dynasty that the British had implanted from the Hejaz, now a part of Saudi Arabia.
Initially, under the Treaty of Sevres, which the defeated Ottoman Empire signed in August 1920, the Kurds, like the Armenians, were promised an independent state.
However, the victorious Allied powers later abandoned this promise and the Kurdish people have lived under constant oppression ever since.
In what became northern Iraq, the Kurds, like the country’s Assyrian Christians, were for decades denied recognition of their distinct language and culture by hegemonic Arab rulers in Baghdad. In this context, “territorial integrity” is nothing more than an alibi for ethnic or religious oppression.
Similarly, the tens of millions of Kurds living in Turkey and Iran have also long been denied basic human and cultural rights. It is thus understandable that the Turkish and Iranian governments would object to the KRG’s independence bid: They fear the emergence, if it succeeds, of similar movements among their own oppressed Kurdish populations.
However, the prospect of an independent Palestine destabilizing Jordan is never offered as an argument against Palestinian statehood, nor should such an argument be used against Iraq’s Kurds. Moreover, the KRG has already established a relatively open and pluralistic society.
As a semi-autonomous region, Iraqi Kurdistan operates under a multiparty system the likes of which one will not find in neighboring Arab countries, let alone in Iran or Turkey, which is increasingly turning toward authoritarianism.
National self-determination is a universal right that should not be denied to populations suffering under oppressive nondemocratic regimes. The same arguments that rightly apply to the Palestinians should apply equally to the Kurds.
Human rights activists who demonstrate for Palestinian statehood should be no less vocal on behalf of Kurdish statehood. Human rights claims — unless they are applied selectively as part of a hypocritical sham — should always trump realpolitik.
Throughout their long, tragic history, the Kurds have repeatedly been abandoned by the West, to its great shame. This must not happen again.
Kurdish Peshmerga have been Western democracies’ staunchest allies in the fight against the Islamic State group. It would be a bitter travesty to abandon the Kurds to the mercy of the Iraqi or Turkish governments in their time of need.
Shlomo Avineri is a professor of political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a member of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. He served as director-general of Israel’s foreign ministry under former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party? While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold
RSS