Articles

Kurdistan and Israel in the New Middle East

August 30, 2025

Author: Ashtyako Poorkarim (“Jamal”)

Translation from Kurdish to English: Strategic Research Center of the Kurdistan Independence Movement

Design: Kurdnasion Media Center

Publisher: Kurdnasion

“Through Amazon, you can order the book in printed form.”

Preface

Writing this book was not merely an academic endeavor for me; it is the continuation of a life filled with resistance and struggle. I come from a land whose name the world knows, yet it has no state; I belong to a people with a history of several millennia, yet in the past century their share from colonial partitions has been nothing but exile, massacres, and denial.

I have witnessed the wounds of my nation: Anfal, Halabja, forced migrations, and the systematic suppression of language and culture. These pains compelled me to stand before the world and cry out: “Kurdistan must be free.”

On this path, I have always looked to the Jewish people — a nation that, like us, lived for centuries in exile, wandered as refugees, endured genocide, yet ultimately, through willpower and unity, succeeded in establishing their own state. The bond between us and the Jewish people is not merely a matter of shared suffering, but of a shared destiny. If today Israel has managed to withstand the storms of its enemies, then tomorrow Kurdistan too can, by relying on this same unity and experience, achieve its independence.

This book is written not only to record the past, but also to build the future — a future in which Kurds and Jews stand side by side in a new Middle East founded upon freedom, democracy, and the right of self-determination.

I dedicate this preface to all the martyrs of Kurdistan’s struggle for freedom, to the victims of the Holocaust and the Anfal, and to the young generation who no longer wish to carry the chains of history upon their shoulders.

May this book serve as a bridge between the memory of suffering and the vision of liberation.

Ashtyako Poorkarim
Leader of the Kurdistan Independence Movement

Introduction

Background and Necessity of This Work

The twentieth and twenty-first centuries have been centuries of suffering, exile, and genocide for both the Kurdish and Jewish peoples. The Jews, in the Holocaust, were the victims of the most industrialized project of human annihilation in history, while the Kurds, in the Anfal and other campaigns of ethnic cleansing, were subjected to similar but less-recognized forms of destruction. At the same time, both nations managed — through historical memory, cultural resistance, and political organization — to preserve their survival and identity.

While the Jewish people, through the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, reached a historic point of realizing their right to self-determination, the Kurdish nation still remains without a state of its own, divided geographically among four states (Iran, Turkey, Iraq, and Syria). This condition has not only deprived the Kurds of their fundamental rights, but has also exposed them repeatedly to cycles of genocide.

Thus, the fundamental question of this work is:

Why can a strategic Kurdish–Jewish alliance pave the way for Kurdistan’s independence and the redefinition of the Kurdish nation’s place in the international system?

Objectives of This Book

This work has been written with the following aims:

To provide a historical analysis of the shared sufferings of Kurds and Jews, highlighting the link between the memory of the Holocaust and the Anfal.
To examine the role of Islamic fundamentalism and extremist nationalism in constructing enmity against both nations.
To analyze the geopolitics of the Middle East and the positions of Kurdistan and Israel as key actors.
To propose practical models for Kurdistan’s independence and strategic cooperation with Israel.
To explain the capacities of the Kurdish and Jewish diasporas in building a joint international lobby.

Theoretical Framework

This work proceeds within the framework of major theories of international relations:

Realism: to analyze threats, survival, and the necessity of military alliances.
Liberalism: to emphasize international institutions, human rights, and the legal legitimacy of independence.
Constructivism: to show the role of identities, historical narratives, and the diplomacy of memory in international politics.

The innovation of this research lies in the combination of these three approaches to explain a new strategic alliance.

Structure of the Book

This book is organized into ten chapters:

Chapter One: A historical review of the shared oppressions of Kurds and Jews
Chapter Two: The study of national narratives and collective memory
Chapter Three: The Holocaust and Anfal as parallel genocides
Chapter Four: The role of colonial powers and international treaties in division and denial
Chapter Five: Islamic fundamentalism and extremist nationalism as two mutually reinforcing ideologies
Chapter Six: Contemporary Middle Eastern geopolitics and the place of the Kurdish–Jewish alliance
Chapter Seven: The international dimensions of the Kurdish–Jewish alliance and the capacities of lobbying
Chapter Eight: Models of Kurdish independence and practical cooperation with Israel
Chapter Nine: The new Middle East, corridors, and the prospect of a Kurdish state
Chapter Ten: General conclusion and theoretical–political implications

Importance and Innovation of This Research

The significance of this research lies in several axes:

Linking the historical experiences of both nations into a shared narrative.
Redefining the Kurdish–Jewish alliance not merely as a political tactic but as a geopolitical and existential necessity.
Offering practical strategies for Kurdistan’s independence based on the Jewish people’s successful experience in establishing Israel.

In other words, this book does not merely address a historical issue; it also speaks to the future of the Middle East and the possibility of redefining the regional order.

The present introduction outlines the path of this study:

This dissertation argues that the strategic Kurdish–Jewish alliance is not simply a temporary political partnership, but a solution to end a century-long cycle of oppression. Such an alliance, like the experience of Israel’s founding, can lay the groundwork for the historical realization of the Kurdish people’s right to self-determination

Chapter One

Theoretical Framework – Enemy Construction and Occupied Nations

One of the fundamental debates in political science and international relations concerns how political identities are shaped and how nations are positioned within the global order. Theoretically, the nation-state is recognized as the primary unit of the modern international system. However, this conceptual framework has rendered the position of nations without an independent state ambiguous and often invisible.

The term “stateless nations” is widely used in the literature of international relations and political sociology. Yet this concept carries problematic assumptions, as it implies that such nations are inherently incapable of state-building or have been marginalized due to structural weakness.

Within this context, the cases of the Kurds and the Jews hold a special place. Both nations possess a historical record of statehood and independent sovereignty, and both were deprived of their historic lands and right to self-determination through colonial processes and imperial policies. For this reason, the concept of “occupied nations” is introduced as a theoretical alternative to “stateless nations”—a concept that provides a more realistic analytical framework for understanding the conditions of the Kurds and the Jews.

Review of Theoretical Literature

The literature in international relations on nations without states can be divided into three main approaches:

Realist Approach:
Realists consider the state as the primary unit of analysis, regarding stateless nations as secondary or ineffective actors (Morgenthau, 1948; Waltz, 1979). This state-centric perspective essentially denies the agency of nations lacking recognized states.
Liberal Approach:
Liberals place greater importance on human rights and international institutions, and in theory pay attention to the “right of nations to self-determination” (Keohane & Nye, 1977). However, in practice, liberalism focuses on cooperation between existing states, and occupied nations are often marginalized.
Constructivist Approach:
Constructivists (Wendt, 1999) emphasize identity, historical memory, and discourse, interpreting stateless nations as products of identity structures. While this perspective offers more capacity to understand the condition of the Kurds and Jews, it still remains trapped in the problematic presumption embedded in the word “stateless.”

None of these three approaches fully explains the historical reality of nations such as the Kurds and Jews—both of which have experienced statehood in their history. Their exclusion is a product of occupation and partition, not a lack of capacity.

The Concept of “Occupied Nations” versus “Stateless Nations”

The concept of “stateless nations” has frequently been applied to the Kurds, Ahwazis, Caspians, Baloch, and some other nations. Yet the term suffers from serious theoretical flaws:

First Problem: Passive Connotation
The term “stateless” suggests that these nations lacked something others possessed. Yet the Kurds and Jews both have a history of political sovereignty and statehood.
Second Problem: Neglect of Colonialism and Occupation
The term obscures the role of colonial powers (such as Britain and France) and treaties like Sykes–Picot (1916) and Lausanne (1923) in partitioning their homelands.
Third Problem: Ignoring Historical Memory of Nations
Nations like the Kurds and Jews not only preserve the memory of statehood, but have repeatedly struggled to re-establish their independence in modern times (examples: Semko’s independent Kurdish authority, the Republic of Kurdistan in Mahabad, 1946, and the State of Israel, 1948).

For this reason, the term “occupied nations” is both more scientific and more precise. It highlights that the lack of a state is the result of external occupation and colonial partitioning, not some intrinsic weakness of these nations.

Enemy Construction and the Politics of “Othering”

Within the theoretical framework of ontological security (Giddens, 1991; Mitzen, 2006), states seek to stabilize their identity by defining a threatening “Other.” In this process:

Jews in Europe were portrayed as “Christ-killers” or agents of “global Zionism.”
Kurds in the Middle East were depicted as “separatists” or agents of “colonial powers.”

This policy of Othering not only produced oppression, but also served to secure the survival and legitimacy of authoritarian states. For this reason, both antisemitism and anti-Kurdish hostility are not merely cultural prejudices, but deliberate components of political–ideological projects by ruling powers.

Conclusion of the Chapter

This chapter demonstrated that:

The concept of “stateless nations” is inadequate and misleading in analyzing the situations of Kurds and Jews.
The concept of “occupied nations” provides a more accurate theoretical framework, highlighting the roles of colonialism and occupation.
The politics of enemy construction and Othering have been central to the persistence of antisemitism and anti-Kurdish sentiment in political structures.

From this perspective, just as the State of Israel was the historical response to the condition of the Jewish people, so too the independence of Kurdistan is the only historical and existential response to the ongoing oppression of the Kurdish nation.

Chapter Two

Antisemitism – From the Roman Empire to the Holocaust

Antisemitism is one of the most persistent and deeply rooted forms of “othering” in the political and social history of the world. Contrary to the assumption that it is merely a form of religious or ethnic hatred, antisemitism is a complex structure that, over the course of centuries, has been reproduced through religious, cultural, economic, and ultimately racial frameworks. This phenomenon has played a crucial role not only in the social life of Jews but also in shaping the identity and legitimacy of states and churches.

Therefore, the study of antisemitism is not merely a historical review; it is a re-reading of one of the classical examples of “enemy-making” used by states and political systems to reinforce internal identity and cohesion. This chapter attempts to trace the historical path of antisemitism from antiquity to the Holocaust, showing how the denial of Jewish identity ultimately culminated in an organized project of their annihilation.

1. The Conceptual Definition of Antisemitism

The term “antisemitism” first became common in 19th-century Europe, yet hatred and discrimination against Jews dates back more than two thousand years.

Stage One – Religious Antisemitism: In antiquity and the Middle Ages, Jews, due to their strict monotheism and refusal to worship the gods of the empires, were treated as “outsiders.” In medieval Christianity, they were branded as the “murderers of Christ.”
Stage Two – Socio-Economic Antisemitism: In the Middle Ages and Renaissance, Jews, active in trade and moneylending, were stigmatized as “usurers” and “the economic enemy of the nation.”
Stage Three – Racial Antisemitism: In the 19th century, with the rise of scientific racism, Jews were portrayed as an “inferior race” and a “threat to European purity.” This ideology paved the way for the Holocaust.

Over time, antisemitism transformed from a religious accusation into a political and racial ideology.

2. Antisemitism in Antiquity

In the Roman Empire, Jews were persecuted for refusing to worship the emperor, and were treated as a “separate nation.” The Jewish revolts in Jerusalem (66–70 CE) led to the destruction of the Second Temple and the mass exile of Jews (the Diaspora). From that point onward, Jews were regarded across the Mediterranean as “the other” and as an “incompatible people.”

At this stage, antisemitism was an imperial tool for consolidating political unity; the elimination of rebellious Jews was equivalent to reinforcing Roman authority.

3. Christian Antisemitism in the Middle Ages

With Christianity established as Europe’s official faith, Jews were accused of being “Christ-killers.” This charge not only fuelled popular hatred but also justified organized violence, such as:

The expulsion of Jews from England (1290).
The expulsion from France (1306 and 1394).
The expulsion from Spain (1492), under the framework of the
Numerous massacres during the Crusades.

In this period, antisemitism became part of the church’s political legitimacy; the “Christian nation” defined itself in opposition to “the treacherous Jews.”

4. Modern Antisemitism – From Economy to Racism

In the 19th century, with the expansion of capitalism, Jews were portrayed as the “symbol of global capitalism” and as “usurers.” At the same time, pseudo-scientific racial ideologies depicted Jews as a threat to the “Aryan race.”

Anti-Semitic works such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (1903) falsely attributed a worldwide conspiracy to Jews.
In European empires, Jews were simultaneously branded as “revolutionary communists” and “global capitalists”—a contradiction that reveals the instrumental nature of antisemitism.

In this phase, antisemitism became a tool of European nationalism; emerging nations consolidated themselves through the creation of a Jewish “enemy.”

5. The Holocaust – The Peak of Structural Antisemitism

In the 20th century, Nazism in Germany brought antisemitism to an unprecedented level.

The Nuremberg Laws (1935) stripped Jews of their citizenship rights.
The “Final Solution” led to the murder of over six million Jews in death camps such as Auschwitz.
Jews were depicted not only as an internal enemy but also as an existential threat to the “survival of the Aryan race.”

The Holocaust demonstrated that antisemitism was not simply social hatred, but could be transformed into a state-driven, industrial project for the total extermination of a people.

6. Historical Lessons from Antisemitism

This historical overview reveals that:

Antisemitism, throughout history, evolved from a religious phenomenon into a social and ultimately racial one.
Antisemitism was always a part of political legitimacy-building: from ancient Rome to the medieval church, from European nationalism to Nazism.
The Holocaust was the turning point that proved that without an independent state, the Jewish people were condemned to destruction.

From this perspective, the establishment of Israel in 1948 must be understood as an existential response to the persistence of antisemitism—just as, as we shall see in later chapters, the independence of Kurdistan is the only existential response to the continuity of anti-Kurdish oppression.

Chapter Three

Anti-Kurdism – From Sykes–Picot to Anfal

Anti-Kurdism is a relatively new concept in the literature of political science, yet in practice it has deep roots in the power structures of the Middle East. Unlike antisemitism, which emerged within Europe, Anti-Kurdism is a direct product of the colonial order of the twentieth century and the geopolitical partitions following World War I.

The Sykes–Picot Agreement (1916) and the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) divided the historic land of Kurdistan among four newly established states: Iran, Turkey, Iraq, and Syria. This division was not only a violation of the Kurdish right to self-determination, but also transformed Anti-Kurdism into one of the founding principles of these states. From then on, Kurds in all four countries were subjected to systematic policies of repression, denial of identity, and even genocide.

Conceptual Definition of Anti-Kurdism

Anti-Kurdism can be defined as:

“A set of state and non-state policies, discourses, and ideologies aimed at erasing, denying, or destroying the national identity of the Kurds as an independent nation.”

Key Characteristics of Anti-Kurdism:

State-Centered Nature: Unlike many forms of discrimination, Anti-Kurdism is not merely social hatred but rather official state policy.
Multi-Layered Dimensions: Includes prohibition of language and culture, demographic cleansing, political repression, and direct genocide.
Colonial Roots: It originates from the artificial borders and colonial treaties of the twentieth century.

The main difference from antisemitism is that antisemitism was rooted in European culture and religion, while Anti-Kurdism largely stems from geopolitical agreements and authoritarian nation-building projects.

Anti-Kurdism in Iran

Qajar Era: The Ardalan Emirate retained autonomy until the late nineteenth century, but this independence was crushed by Qajar military campaigns.
Pahlavi Era: The idea of a “unified Iranian nation” was built upon erasing national and ethnic diversity. The uprisings of Bibi Maryam Bakhtiari, Maryam Qalavand of Lorestan, Simko Shikak, and the Kurdistan Republic (briefly supported by the Soviets but crushed by the Tehran–Moscow alliance) illustrate this.
Islamic Republic: After 1979, Kurds were branded as “separatists” and “anti-Islam.” Military-security policies—including prisons, fatwas of jihad against Kurds, executions, suppression of cities, and bombings of villages—continued.

In Iran, Anti-Kurdism forms part of the regime’s ideological legitimacy: the “unified Shi’a–Islamic nation” against the “ethnic other.”

Anti-Kurdism in Turkey

Kemalist Republic (1923–1950): The policy of “one nation, one flag, one language” denied Kurdish identity. The Sheikh Said uprising (1925) and the Dersim rebellion (1937–38) were brutally crushed with massacres. The Kurdish language was formally banned, and the term “Kurdistan” was erased from official geography.
Contemporary Era: Since the 1980s, with the rise of the PKK, the Turkish state has labeled the entire Kurdish population as “terrorists.” Turkey has also carried out extensive military operations in Syria and Iraq to prevent the emergence of Kurdish self-rule.

In Turkey, Anti-Kurdism has been the central instrument of Turkish nation-building and radical nationalist cohesion.

Anti-Kurdism in Iraq

British Mandate Era: Kurdish regions were annexed to Iraq without the consent of the people. The uprisings of Sheikh Mahmud Barzanji in the 1920s reflected Kurdish opposition.
Ba’ath Party Rule:
- Arabization policies and forced resettlement.
- Anfal Genocide (1988): The massacre of 180,000 Kurds and the destruction of 4,000 villages.
- Chemical Bombing of Halabja (1988): More than 5,000 killed in a single day.

Iraq represents the classic case of “state-driven ethnic cleansing” against the Kurds.

Anti-Kurdism in Syria

Rule of Hafez and Bashar al-Assad:
- The “Arab Belt” project of the 1970s: resettlement of Arabs in Kurdish areas to alter the demographic balance.
- Stripping of citizenship from about 120,000 Kurds in 1962.
- Ban on Kurdish language and culture in schools and media.
Syrian Civil War: Kurds of Rojava faced attacks by ISIS (Islamic fundamentalism) and military invasions by Turkey.

In Syria, Anti-Kurdism has been part of a broader project of “Arabization” and denial of non-Arab identities.

Anti-Kurdism as a Structural Ideology

A review of the four main countries shows that:

Anti-Kurdism in all of them has been an official state policy, not just social prejudice.
These policies originated from colonial treaties and were reinforced by authoritarian nation-building.
Similar to antisemitism in Europe, Anti-Kurdism has reduced the Kurdish nation to an “internal enemy” and an “existential threat to the state.”

Anfal as the “Kurdish Holocaust”

The Anfal Genocide (1988) represents the turning point of modern Anti-Kurdism:

Orchestrated by the Iraqi state.
Mass killings, destruction of villages, forced displacement.
Use of chemical weapons in Halabja.

Parallel with the Holocaust: Both were state-led, systematic projects to annihilate a nation. The difference is that the Holocaust led to the founding of Israel, while Anfal has not yet resulted in the establishment of Kurdistan.

Historical Lessons from Anti-Kurdism

Anti-Kurdism is the direct product of colonial divisions and authoritarian nation-building.
In Iran, Turkey, Iraq, and Syria, Anti-Kurdism has been a permanent, structural policy rather than an exception.
Anfal marks the apex of these policies and stands as the Kurdish equivalent of the Holocaust.

Just as Jews without Israel were condemned to the continuation of the Holocaust, Kurds without independence remain condemned to the continuation of Anfal and genocide.

Chapter Four

Authoritarian Regimes and the Reproduction of Enmity

One of the essential features of authoritarian regimes is their constant need to “manufacture enemies.” To consolidate internal cohesion, justify repression, and block the emergence of democratic forces, these regimes portray certain “others” as a permanent threat. In the contemporary Middle East, Kurds and Jews have been two prominent examples of such structural othering.
The Islamic Republic of Iran, Kemalist and contemporary Islamist Turkey, Ba’athist Iraq, and the Assad governments in Syria have each, in systematic ways, reproduced anti-Kurdish and antisemitic policies.

Enemy-Making as a Tool of Survival

According to the theory of “ontological security” (Mitzen, 2006), states, in order to stabilize their identity, need to define a “threatening other.” In this framework:

Jews in Europe and the Middle East were turned into the “treacherous element” or the “fifth column of Zionism.”
Kurds in Iran, Turkey, Iraq, and Syria were reduced to “separatists,” “terrorists,” or “tools of colonialism.”

Thus, antisemitism and anti-Kurdishness were not merely public sentiments; they were deliberate policies for reproducing political power and creating artificial cohesion.

The Islamic Republic of Iran — An Anti-Jewish and Anti-Kurdish Ideology

Before the 1979 Revolution (Qajar and Pahlavi eras)

Under the Pahlavis, the idea of a “unitary Iranian nation” led to the denial of the languages and identities of non-Persian peoples. Kurdish uprisings were suppressed, and the Kurdish language was removed from schools.
Although Jews enjoyed relative social freedoms, they still faced institutional discrimination.

After the 1979 Revolution

Kurds:
- The demand for autonomy after the revolution was met with military force. Cities such as Sanandaj, Mahabad, and others were bombarded.
- Thousands of Kurdish activists were executed or imprisoned.
- Kurdish remained banned in the educational system.
Jews:
- The Jewish population in Iran fell from around 80,000 in 1979 to fewer than 10,000.
- The 1979 execution of Habib Elghanian (a Jewish industrialist) symbolized structural antisemitism.

Exporting enmity:
- By supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, the Islamic Republic turned antisemitism into a regional instrument.
- At the same time, Kurdish groups in Bashur (Iraqi Kurdistan) and Rojava (Syrian Kurdistan) came under direct pressure from forces aligned with Iran.

The Islamic Republic has made antisemitism and anti-Kurdishness two identity pillars for reproducing power at home and projecting influence across the region.

Turkey — The Fusion of Turkish Nationalism and Islamism

The Kemalist Republic (1923–1950)

The Treaty of Sèvres (1920) promised Kurdish independence, but the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) nullified it.
The policy of “one nation, one flag, one language” denied Kurdish identity.
The Sheikh Said uprising (1925) and the Dersim uprising (1937–38) were crushed with mass killings.

Contemporary Turkey (from the 1980s to the present)

With the emergence of the PKK, the state labeled the entire Kurdish society “terrorist.”
The Turkish army repeatedly carried out operations in Syria and Iraq (e.g., Afrin, 2018).
The forced settlement of Arabs in Kurdish regions formed part of a broader project of demographic engineering.

Antisemitism in Turkey

Under the Ottomans, Jews, as dhimmis, lived under a regime of discrimination.
Under Erdoğan, antisemitism has intensified in official discourse and media; Israel is repeatedly branded a “child-killing state” and a “terrorist” entity.

By combining Turkish nationalism with Islamism, Turkey has fashioned two permanent others: Kurds domestically, and Israel and Jews externally.

Iraq — From Colonial Rule to Ba’athist Genocide

Colonial and Monarchical Period

Britain constructed Iraq’s borders and annexed Kurdistan to Baghdad without the consent of its people.
The uprisings of Sheikh Mahmoud Hafid (1920–24) showed that Kurds did not accept this annexation.

The Ba’ath Era (1968–2003)

The Ba’ath Party portrayed Kurds as an “obstacle to national unity.”
Arabization policies were implemented in Kirkuk and Mosul.
Anfal (1988): the massacre of 180,000 Kurds and the destruction of thousands of villages.
The chemical bombing of Halabja: more than 5,000 killed in a single day.
Iraqi Jews, too, were forced into mass emigration under pressure during the 1950s and 1960s.

Iraq stands as a classic case of state-driven ethnic cleansing against Kurds and Jews.

Syria — Arabization and the Denial of Identity

Kurds

1962: Citizenship was stripped from 120,000 Kurds.
1970s: The “Arab Belt” project aimed to alter the demographic makeup of Syrian Kurdistan.
Kurdish language education and cultural activity were banned.
During the civil war, Kurds in Rojava were targeted by ISIS and subjected to Turkish incursions.

Jews

After 1948, Syria’s Jewish community came under intense security control.
Most emigrated to Israel or the United States.

Through policies of Arabization, Syria effectively eliminated non-Arab identities; Kurds and Jews were principal victims.

Global Powers — Silence and Bargains

The Soviet Union: Initially supported the Republic of Mahabad but quickly abandoned it to secure relations with Tehran.
The United States and Europe: Remained silent in the face of Anfal and the chemical bombing of Halabja, as Iraq was a strategic ally against Iran.
The United Nations: To this day has not recognized Kurdish independence, despite documentary evidence of genocide.

By remaining silent or striking bargains, global powers have effectively contributed to the continuation of anti-Kurdish and antisemitic projects.

Conclusions

Iran, Turkey, Iraq, and Syria have each, in structural ways, reproduced enmity toward Kurds and Jews.
This enmity forms part of their authoritarian identity and functions as an instrument of political survival.
Through silence or accommodation, global powers have been complicit in this project.
Just as Jews were able to break the historical cycle of antisemitism only through the establishment of Israel, Kurds can overcome the cycle of anti-Kurdish persecution only through independence.

Chapter Five

Islamic Fundamentalism and Extreme Nationalism

In the Middle East of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, two ideological currents—Islamic fundamentalism and extreme nationalism—have contributed more than any other factors to the reproduction of hostility toward Jews and Kurds.

Islamic fundamentalism, from the Muslim Brotherhood to the Islamic Republic of Iran, has portrayed Jews as the “religious enemy” and Kurds as “separatists and agents of the West.”
Extreme nationalism, whether in the form of Turkish, Arab, or Iranian nationalism, has regarded the existence of Kurds and Jews as a threat to the idea of a “single nation” and has pushed them outside the circle of the so-called “legitimate nation.”

The important point is that these two ideologies, despite their apparent contradictions, have worked in synergy when it comes to creating enmity toward Kurds and Jews.

Islamic Fundamentalism – Religious and Transnational Hostility

The Islamic Republic of Iran

In Iran’s constitution, Israel is described as a “cancerous tumor” and an “enemy of Islam.”
Hamas and Hezbollah are supported as regional arms of anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli struggle.
Kurds in Eastern Kurdistan are labeled as “separatists” and “anti-Islam”; Kurdish activists have repeatedly been executed under charges of moharebeh (“enmity against God”).

Salafism and Jihadism

Al-Qaeda and ISIS referred to Jews as the “first enemy” and Kurds as “apostates” and “tools of the West.”
In 2014, ISIS attacked Sinjar and targeted the Yazidis (as part of the Kurdish community) with genocide.
In the discourse of ISIS and al-Qaeda, Jews were not only seen as religious enemies but also as symbols of the “West” and “corrupt modernity.”

Islamic fundamentalism has made hostility toward Jews and Kurds part of religious faith, turning it into an instrument of mass mobilization.

Extreme Nationalism – Ethnic and Territorial Hostility

Turkish Nationalism

The slogan “One nation, one flag, one language” forms the basis of Turkish policy.
Kurds were labeled “mountain Turks” to deny their independent identity.
In official discourse, any Kurdish activity is defined as “terrorism.”

Arab Nationalism (Ba’athist Iraq and Syria)

The Ba’ath Party portrayed Kurds as an “obstacle to Arab unity.”
Arabization policies in Kirkuk, Mosul, and Hasakah targeted Kurdish identity.
Jews, too, were reduced to the label of “agents of global Zionism.”

Iranian Nationalism

The idea of a “unified Aryan–Iranian nation” relied on the elimination of non-Persian languages and identities.
Kurds were depicted as a “peripheral ethnic group.”
While Jews enjoyed relatively better conditions under the Pahlavi monarchy, in the discourse of Iranian nationalism they were still treated as “outsiders.”

Extreme nationalism thus presented Kurds and Jews as threats to “national purity” and targeted them with assimilationist policies.

Overlap of Islamic Fundamentalism and Extreme Nationalism

Despite ideological contradictions, the two currents converge significantly in their enmity toward Kurds and Jews:

Defining a common enemy: Both movements consider Kurds “separatists” and Jews “a historical enemy.”
Mass mobilization: Hostility toward Kurds and Jews is used as a tool to create social cohesion and political legitimacy.
Project of elimination: Both have resorted to various forms of cultural cleansing, political repression, and genocide (the Holocaust, Anfal, Sinjar).

Islamic fundamentalism and extreme nationalism can thus be seen as “two sides of the same coin,” both serving the reproduction of authoritarianism.

The Role of Global Powers

The United States and Europe have at times supported Kurds in the fight against terrorism (such as the war against ISIS), but they have remained silent in the face of Turkish attacks or Iranian repression.
The silence of the West during the Anfal campaign or the chemical bombardment of Halabja stands as a stark example of prioritizing geopolitical interests over human rights.
This very silence has paved the way for the continuation of both ideologies—fundamentalism and extreme nationalism.

Key Conclusions

Islamic fundamentalism and extreme nationalism, despite their apparent differences, have acted synergistically in their hostility toward Jews and Kurds.
Both ideologies have turned the “Other” into an existential threat and used this to create internal cohesion and political legitimacy.
The continuation of this cycle demonstrates that without an independent state, the Kurdish nation will always remain at risk of annihilation—just as the Jewish people were exposed to the Holocaust until the establishment of Israel.

The strategic Kurdish–Jewish alliance is therefore not a tactical option, but a historical necessity to break the cycle of enmity.

Chapter Six

The Contemporary Geopolitics of the Middle East and the Possibility of a Strategic Kurdish–Jewish Alliance

The Middle East in the twenty-first century is not only the centre of regional conflicts but also the arena of competition among global powers. Energy resources, geography, ethnic–religious diversity, and the presence of radical ideologies have made this region one of the most complex stages in international relations.
Within this context, the Kurdish and Jewish peoples occupy a unique place: both are ancient nations, both have suffered from policies of suppression and genocide, and yet both are potential actors in shaping a new regional order.

A strategic alliance between Kurds and Jews could alter the geopolitical balance of the Middle East and offer a new model for stability, democracy, and the right to self-determination.

The Geopolitical Position of the Middle East

From the perspective of international relations, the Middle East has several key features:

Geo-strategic location: The junction of three continents (Asia, Europe, and Africa), with access to the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf.
Energy resources: The world’s largest oil and gas reserves.
Artificial borders: Products of colonial treaties, which created ethnic diversity and perpetual crises.
Global power competition: The United States, Russia, China, and the European Union all play direct roles in the region’s equations.
Ideological fault lines: Political Islam, extreme nationalism, and sectarian conflict (Shi‘a–Sunni).

In such a setting, a Kurdish–Jewish alliance could serve as a “new geopolitical weight.”

The Role of Kurdistan in Regional Equations

Geographic–strategic position

Located between Iran, Turkey, Iraq, and Syria.
Home to vital oil reserves in Kirkuk, Mosul, and Rmelan.
Potential control over crucial energy corridors from the Gulf to the Mediterranean.

Political and military capacity

Historical experience of governance: Simko’s rule, Sheikh Mahmud’s kingdom, the Republic of Kurdistan (1946), the Kurdistan Region (after 1991), and Rojava (after 2011).
A decisive role in defeating ISIS (2014–2017), which increased Kurdish international legitimacy.

Structural challenges

Partition of the land among four hostile states.
Absence of a unified national political leadership.
Military and diplomatic pressure from Iran and Turkey.

Despite these challenges, Kurdistan has the potential to become the “second Israel” of the region—provided there is internal unity and external support.

The Role of Israel in Regional Equations

Security and survival

Since its founding in 1948, Israel has faced continuous wars.
It is under constant threat from Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas.

Economy and technology

Known as the “Start-up Nation,” Israel has world-leading innovations in cybersecurity, agriculture, and medicine.
A knowledge-based economy has freed Israel from dependence on energy.

International relations

The Abraham Accords (2020) initiated a wave of normalization with Arab states.
Nevertheless, hostility from Iran and Turkey remains a primary challenge.

For its long-term survival, Israel requires stable allies with geopolitical capacity—and the Kurds occupy precisely that position.

Shared Threats Against Kurds and Jews

The Islamic Republic of Iran: Exporting Shi‘a fundamentalist ideology, openly hostile toward Israel, and suppressing Kurds.
Erdogan’s Turkey: Neo-Ottoman policies, occupation of Rojava (Syrian Kurdistan) and parts of the Kurdistan Region in Iraq, political hostility toward Israel.
Islamic fundamentalism (ISIS, al-Qaeda, Hamas): Genocide of Yazidis, calls for Israel’s annihilation, and labeling Kurds as “agents of Zionism.”

These shared threats create a natural ground for a strategic Kurdish–Jewish alliance.

Dimensions of a Strategic Kurdish–Jewish Alliance

Security and military dimension

Intelligence cooperation to contain Iran and Turkey.
Training and equipping Peshmerga forces by the Israeli military.
Establishing listening and intelligence bases in Kurdistan’s mountains.

Economic and energy dimension

Export of Kurdish oil and gas to Israel via the Mediterranean.
Israeli investment in agriculture and water technology in Kurdistan.
Joint renewable energy projects.

Cultural and civilizational dimension

Linking the historical memories of the Holocaust and Anfal as a foundation for identity diplomacy.
Establishing joint museums to memorialize historical suffering.
Diaspora cooperation in Europe and the United States.

Thus, the Kurdish–Jewish alliance can transcend the security level and evolve into a civilizational project.

The Role of Global Powers

United States

Israel’s strategic ally.
Experience of cooperation with Peshmerga in the war against ISIS.
Potential to recognize Kurdish independence if aligned with Israeli interests.

European Union

Strong sensitivity to human rights and minority rights.
Powerful Kurdish and Jewish lobbying capacity in Germany, France, the UK, and elsewhere.

Russia and China

Traditional opposition to Kurdish independence due to ties with Iran and Turkey.
Nevertheless, neutrality is possible if their economic interests are guaranteed.

A Kurdish–Jewish alliance could thus influence the global balance of power.

Consequences of a Strategic Alliance

Regional level:

Weakening the Iran–Turkey–Hamas–Hezbollah axis.
Creating a new bloc based on democracy and the right to self-determination.

International level:

A model for other stateless nations (Baluch, Armenians, Caspians, Azeri Turks, Turkmens, and Ahwazi Arabs).
Redefining the Middle East’s place in the global order.

Civilizational level:

Transforming shared memories of suffering (Holocaust–Anfal) into the foundation of political unity.
Reviving historic Kurdish–Jewish ties in a modern framework.

Conclusion

A Kurdish–Jewish strategic alliance is not merely a tactical coalition but a geopolitical and historical necessity.
This alliance could simultaneously achieve three goals:
- End the cycles of anti-Semitism and anti-Kurdish persecution.
- Weaken Islamic fundamentalism and extremist nationalism.
- Create a new Middle Eastern order based on freedom and the right to self-determination.

Just as Israel was the existential answer to the Holocaust, a strategic alliance with Israel can shorten and strengthen the path toward Kurdish independence.

Chapter Seven

The International Dimensions of the Kurdish–Jewish Alliance

The strategic alliance between Kurds and Jews is not only significant on a regional level but can also have profound effects within the international system. With the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, the Jewish people demonstrated how a suppressed nation can, through historical memory, the mobilization of its diaspora, and the use of international law, secure its place in the global order. Similarly, the Kurds—numbering more than 70 million and possessing a long history of statehood—hold comparable potential.

The Kurdish–Jewish alliance, by combining the power of the Jewish diaspora (especially in the United States and Europe) with the geopolitical weight of Kurdistan, can create a new international bloc equipped with both legal legitimacy and wide-reaching lobbying capacity.

International Relations

Three classical approaches in international relations provide a framework for analyzing the Kurdish–Jewish alliance:

Realism
- Focuses on survival and military power.
- The Kurdish–Jewish alliance would serve as a coalition against common enemies (Iran, Turkey, and Islamic fundamentalism).
Liberalism
- Emphasizes international institutions and cooperation.
- This alliance can gain legitimacy through the United Nations, the European Union, and human rights organizations.
Constructivism
- Focuses on identities, narratives, and historical memory.
- Linking the memory of the Holocaust with that of Anfal could provide the foundation for a powerful identity-based diplomacy.

Thus, the Kurdish–Jewish alliance aligns not only with the logic of power (realism) but also with the logic of cooperation (liberalism) and identity (constructivism).

The Position of Israel and Kurdistan in the International System

Israel

Maintains official relations with over 160 countries.
Wields considerable influence in the United States and Europe through powerful lobbies such as AIPAC (U.S.) and EJC/WJC (Europe).
Plays an active role in the United Nations and international treaties.

Kurdistan

Lacks an independent state, yet possesses semi-state institutions such as the Kurdistan Regional Government (Iraq) and the Autonomous Administration of Rojava (Syria).
Holds international legitimacy due to its central role in defeating ISIS.
Kurdish lobbying in Europe and the U.S. remains dispersed but is steadily growing (e.g., the “Kurdish Friendship Group” in the European Parliament).

The Kurdish–Jewish alliance can help compensate for the weakness of Kurdish lobbying by leveraging the strength of Jewish lobbying, thereby amplifying global influence.

Lobbies and Public Diplomacy

The Jewish Lobby

The strongest and most organized lobby in the United States.
Capable of shaping U.S. foreign policy (example: the relocation of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem in 2018).

The Kurdish Lobby

Emerging and strengthening, especially in Washington, Brussels, France, Britain, and Berlin.
A successful example: the Kurdish lobby’s role in the European Parliament’s recognition of the Anfal genocide.

Joint Diplomacy

The narratives of Anfal and the Holocaust could merge into a shared “diplomacy of memory.”
The establishment of joint institutions (such as a “Kurdish–Jewish Studies Centre”) would serve as effective tools for discourse production and legitimacy-building.

By combining the Jewish lobby with the Kurdish diaspora, a new bloc with significant international leverage can be forged.

International Law and the Right to Self-Determination

Legal Foundations

UN Charter (Articles 1 and 55): affirms the right of peoples to self-determination.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966): affirms the right of peoples to determine their political system.

Historical Precedents

Independence of the Baltic states (1991) after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Independence of South Sudan (2011) following a UN-supervised referendum.
Establishment of Israel (1948) as a classic example of the realization of the right to self-determination.

Kurdistan

Population of more than 70 million.
History of statehood (e.g., Republic of Mahabad in Eastern Kurdistan, 1946; Kurdistan Regional Government).
Victim of genocide (Anfal, Halabja, and Khomeini’s jihad fatwa).

By international legal standards, Kurdistan is one of the clearest cases for the right to self-determination. The Kurdish–Jewish alliance can strengthen this claim.

The Role of International Organizations

United Nations: A platform for raising the Kurdish issue.
International Criminal Court (ICC): Venue for prosecuting Anfal as genocide.
European Union: Highly sensitive to human rights and capable of supporting Kurdish independence.
NATO: Israel and Kurdistan can find a role in security cooperation against shared threats.

Through international organizations, the Kurdish–Jewish alliance can secure both legal legitimacy and institutional support.

International Challenges and Obstacles

Opposition from occupying states (Iran, Turkey, Iraq, Syria).
Conflicting interests of global powers (especially Russia and China).
Internal divisions within the Kurdish movement.
Anti-Jewish and anti-Kurdish propaganda in Arab and Islamist media.

Overcoming these obstacles requires smart diplomacy and stronger global lobbying.

Recommended Strategies

Establish a Kurdish–Jewish Cooperation Council for international diplomacy and lobbying.
Focus on the genocide dossiers (Holocaust–Anfal) to mobilize global support.
Strengthen the joint diaspora in the U.S. and Europe.
Build shared media networks to counter Iranian and Turkish propaganda.

Conclusion

The Kurdish–Jewish alliance has the potential to evolve from a regional coalition into a global bloc.
This alliance can legitimize the Kurdish demand for independence under international law.
The combined force of the Jewish and Kurdish diasporas offers a powerful tool to influence Western policy.
Just as Israel, in the aftermath of the Holocaust, secured recognition through international law and global lobbying, Kurdistan too can, through a strategic alliance with Israel, advance toward independence.

The Kurdish–Jewish alliance is not only a response to regional threats but also a model for redefining the place of occupied nations within the global order.

Chapter Eight

Models of Kurdish Independence and Practical Cooperation with Israel

After the historical and theoretical review, the key question is: How can the independence of Kurdistan become an actual, practical project?
Past experiences (the Republic of Kurdistan in 1946, the Kurdistan Region after 1991, and Rojava after 2011) have shown that Kurds have the capacity to establish political institutions. However, the lack of international recognition and the pressure of occupying states have been the main obstacles. In this context, a strategic alliance with Israel can serve as an accelerator for the state-building process.

The Historical and Strategic Necessity of Independence

The colonial treaties of Sykes–Picot (1916) and Lausanne (1923) divided Kurdistan among four countries.
Over the past century, anti-Kurdish policies have led to genocide, forced displacement, and cultural cleansing.
The historical example of Israel shows that without an independent state, nations are condemned to continued genocide and annihilation.

Kurdish independence is not a “political choice”; it is an existential necessity for the survival of the Kurdish nation.

Theoretical Models of Kurdish Independence

Independent Nation-State Model

Establishment of the Republic of Kurdistan as a nation-state within recognized borders.
Comparable examples: Israel (1948), the Baltic states (1991).
Advantages: International legitimacy, membership in the UN.
Challenges: Opposition from Iran, Turkey, Iraq, and Syria; need for the backing of global powers.

Kurdish Confederation Model

A federative union among the four parts of Kurdistan (Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Syria).
Comparable example: Swiss Confederation.
Advantages: Flexibility, possibility of coexistence within the regional order.
Challenges: Requires the collapse of the current Middle Eastern order or a major regional settlement.

Transitional Government-in-Exile Model

Formation of a “Provisional or Transitional Government of Kurdistan” in Europe (Brussels, Berlin, or Paris).
Functions: Legitimacy-building, official diplomacy, creating a legal basis for demanding independence.
Comparable example: Baltic governments-in-exile during the Soviet era.

In the short term, the government-in-exile model is the most likely scenario; in the medium term, it can lead to formal independence.

Security and Military Cooperation with Israel

Training of Peshmerga forces by the Israeli army.
Intelligence sharing on Iran, Turkey, and fundamentalist groups.
Establishment of joint listening stations and cyber-security bases in Kurdistan’s mountains.
Transfer of defense technologies to Kurdish forces.

This cooperation could turn Kurdistan into “Israel’s defensive wall in the heart of the Middle East.”

Economic and Energy Cooperation

Export of Kurdistan’s oil and gas to Israel through the Mediterranean.
Israeli investment in smart agriculture, water technology, and solar energy.
Creation of new transit routes bypassing Iran and Turkey.
Joint projects in renewable energy (solar and wind).

Such cooperation could make Kurdistan a stable economic partner of Israel in the region.

Scientific and Technological Cooperation

Establishment of joint Kurdish–Israeli universities in technology and medicine.
Transfer of advanced technologies in cyber, agriculture, and healthcare.
Scholarships for Kurdish students in Israeli universities.
Creation of joint research centers in Erbil, Sulaymaniyah, and the diaspora.

This scientific collaboration could transform Kurdistan into a “regional knowledge hub.”

Cultural Cooperation and Public Diplomacy

Founding of a “Museum of Anfal and the Holocaust” as a symbol of shared suffering.
Production of joint films and documentaries to raise global awareness.
Strengthening of the Kurdish–Jewish diaspora networks in Europe and America.
Use of shared historical narratives to build global solidarity.

Cultural diplomacy can reinforce the legitimacy of Kurdish independence in global public opinion.

The Role of International Actors

United States: Israel’s main ally; its support can accelerate recognition of Kurdish independence.
European Union: Especially Germany and France, which can support through human rights mechanisms and European institutions.
Russia and China: Likely to oppose, but if their economic interests in Kurdistan are guaranteed, they may adopt a neutral stance.

A joint Kurdish–Jewish lobbying strategy in the U.S. and Europe is the key to this equation.

Challenges and Obstacles

Internal divisions among Kurdish parties.
Resistance of the occupying states (Iran, Turkey, Iraq, Syria).
Anti-Kurdish and anti-Jewish media propaganda.
Global powers’ concerns about regional stability.

Solutions:

Creation of a “National Unity Council of Kurdistan.”
Use of Jewish diplomacy to counter negative propaganda.
Emphasizing the Anfal–Holocaust parallel for global legitimacy.

Future Scenarios

Scenario One: Formal independence within 10–15 years with U.S. and Israeli support.
Scenario Two: Expanded federalism in Iraq and Syria, but insufficient for true self-determination.
Scenario Three: Continuation of the current situation; risk of new genocides.

The only sustainable scenario is full independence of Kurdistan with the support of Israel and the West.

Key Points

Kurdish independence is a historical and existential necessity, not an optional demand.
Among different state-building models, the formation of a transitional Kurdish government with Israeli support is the most realistic first step.
A strategic partnership with Israel in security, economic, scientific, and cultural domains can transform Kurdish independence from a dream into a practical project.

Just as Israel, after the Holocaust, succeeded in establishing its state, Kurdistan too—through a strategic alliance with Israel—can achieve independence.

Chapter Nine

The New Middle East and the Prospect of a Kurdish State

After the Cold War—and especially after September 11 and the wars in the Middle East—the term “New Middle East” entered the political and geopolitical vocabulary. This concept refers to the redrawing of borders, corridors, and regional political systems. Although the term is sometimes used in a clichéd and vague manner by the media, in reality it reflects the efforts of major powers (the United States, the European Union, Russia, and China) as well as regional powers (Iran, Turkey, Israel, and Saudi Arabia) to re-engineer regional order.

In this chapter, we will show that within the framework of a New Middle East order, no stable architecture is possible without the active and official presence of the Kurdish people. Particularly since Kurdistan lies at the crossroads of strategic corridors; without Kurdish independence, it is reduced merely to a passageway for domination.

The Concept of the New Middle East

The “New Middle East” is a concept introduced by the United States and its allies beginning in the 1990s. Its goals include:

Establishing a political order based on “more democratic” states aligned with the West.
Redesigning global energy and transit corridors.
Containing fundamentalism and weakening anti-Western axes (Iran, al-Qaeda, later ISIS).

Despite many setbacks, the idea of a “New Middle East” still remains on the agenda of many players.
But what is the place of Kurdistan in this redefinition?

Corridors and the Geopolitics of Connectivity

The Middle East today is not only a battlefield—it is a battlefield of corridors.

The David Corridor

A strategic project ensuring Israel’s linkage to regional and global allies through land and sea routes.
Kurdistan (especially in the Iraq and Syria sections) could be a vital link in this corridor, a route that bypasses Iran and Turkey.

The Zangezur Corridor

Connecting Turkey to Azerbaijan, and from there to Central Asia and China.
Excluding or ignoring Kurdistan in this corridor strengthens pan-Turkism and imposes geopolitical encirclement on the Kurdish nation.

The North–South Corridor

Connecting Russia to India through Iran.
This project reinforces Iran’s position, while pushing Kurdistan even further to the margins.

Energy Corridors

Kurdistan’s oil and gas are key elements in global energy calculations.
Without a Kurdish state, these resources are simply smuggled or expropriated by others.

Kurdistan can either become a legitimate bridge of connectivity or remain a landlocked and colonized territory.

Kurdistan: A Geopolitical Crossroads

To the north it borders Turkey and the Caucasus; to the east, Iran; to the south, Iraq and the Persian Gulf; and to the west, Syria and the Mediterranean.
It sits at the center of vast energy and water resources.
It is the most strategic route linking East and West, North and South.

Thus, Kurdish independence is not merely a national demand—it is a geopolitical necessity for the stability of the New Middle East.

Implications for Kurdish Independence

Without a Kurdish state, Kurdistan will remain merely a “transit land” in the new order, without benefiting from the corridors.
With the establishment of a Kurdish state, the land can:
- Become a hub of legal and economic transit.
- Act as a defensive wall against fundamentalism and authoritarianism.
- Emerge as a strategic partner of Israel and the West.

Kurdish–Jewish Alliance in the New Middle East

Israel needs secure land and energy routes to the East and North.
Kurdistan could be the connecting link for Israel to the Mediterranean, the Caucasus, and the Persian Gulf.
A Kurdish–Jewish alliance in this new order is not merely a choice—it is a shared necessity for survival and stability.

The New Middle East without an independent Kurdistan would be incomplete and unstable. Corridors without Kurdish sovereignty mean the continuation of the geopolitical colonization of this nation. Independence for Kurdistan can transform it from a mere “passage land” into a key geopolitical actor in the global order.

And:
Without Kurdish independence, the New Middle East will be nothing but a reproduction of domination and colonial division. With Kurdish independence, a new order based on freedom, democracy, and the right to self-determination becomes possible.

Chapter Ten

General Conclusion and Theoretical–Political Implications

Throughout this dissertation, we have shown that the modern history of the Middle East is filled with repression, genocide, and the denial of identity for two peoples: the Jews and the Kurds. From the Holocaust to the Anfal, both nations were victims of authoritarian politics and extremist ideologies. Yet at the same time, both peoples were able—through reliance on historical memory, cultural resistance, and political organization—to preserve their survival and identity.

Can a strategic Kurdish–Jewish alliance pave the way for a shift in Middle Eastern geopolitics and the realization of Kurdish independence?

Key Findings

From a Historical Perspective

Both Jews and Kurds have for centuries been victims of discrimination, genocide, and exile.
The Holocaust for the Jews and Anfal for the Kurds are parallel experiences that reinforce the legitimacy of statehood.

From an Ideological Perspective

Two currents—Islamic fundamentalism and extreme nationalism—despite their apparent contradiction, acted synergistically in their hostility toward Kurds and Jews.
“Anti-Semitism” and “anti-Kurdism” have been the primary tools for legitimizing authoritarian regimes in Iran, Turkey, Iraq, and Syria.

From a Geopolitical Perspective

Kurdistan is strategically located among Iran, Turkey, Iraq, and Syria, with rich energy resources.
Israel is an established regional power that requires stable allies against common enemies.
A Kurdish–Jewish alliance could form a new geopolitical bloc in the heart of the Middle East.

From an International Perspective

International law (the UN Charter and the 1966 Covenants) legitimizes Kurdish independence.
The Jewish diaspora is one of the most powerful lobbying networks in the world; the Kurdish diaspora, through alliance with it, could multiply its influence.
Israel’s experience shows that the combination of historical memory and international lobbying can turn independence into reality.

Theoretical Implications

International Relations and Stateless Nations: The case of Kurdistan demonstrates that classical theories must redefine the position of nations without states.
Diplomacy of Memory: The Holocaust and the Anfal can serve as foundations for identity-based diplomacy, generating international legitimacy.
Diaspora Synergy: The alliance of Jewish and Kurdish diasporas can provide a new model of informal diplomacy and global lobbying.

Political Implications

For the Kurds:
- Independence is only possible through internal unity and cooperation with strategic allies (especially Israel).
- The formation of a Kurdish transitional government in exile could be the first step.
For Israel:
- Supporting Kurdish independence means establishing a stable ally in the heart of the Middle East.
- Kurdistan could become Israel’s “strategic depth” against Iran and Turkey.
For the West (United States and Europe):
- Supporting Kurdish independence, in alliance with Israel, would strengthen democracy and regional stability.
- The Kurdish–Jewish alliance could become a model for resolving ethnic–national crises in the Middle East.

In Conclusion

The Kurdish–Jewish strategic alliance is not a tactical choice, but a historical and geopolitical necessity.
Just as the State of Israel was the response to the Holocaust, the State of Kurdistan will be the response to the Anfal and to a century of repression.
This alliance could redefine the structure of the Middle East and pave the way for a new order based on self-determination, freedom, and democracy.

And:
Without independence, the Kurdish people are condemned to repeat their historical suffering; and without alliance with Israel, the path to independence will be longer and more costly. The Kurdish–Jewish alliance is a strategic necessity to end the cycle of oppression in the Middle East.

Summary of Chapters

Part I: Historical Roots and Collective Memory

Chapter One: A historical review of shared oppression against Kurds and Jews.
Chapter Two: National narratives and collective memory—identity in exile.
Chapter Three: Holocaust and Anfal as parallel genocides.

Part II: Colonial Politics and Repressive Ideologies

Chapter Four: Colonial powers and international treaties in division and denial.
Chapter Five: Islamic fundamentalism and extreme nationalism as reinforcing ideologies.

Part III: Contemporary Geopolitics and Strategic Alliance

Chapter Six: Contemporary geopolitics of the Middle East and the role of a Kurdish–Jewish alliance.
Chapter Seven: International dimensions and lobbying capacity of diasporas.
Chapter Eight: Models of Kurdish independence and practical cooperation with Israel.

Part IV: The New Middle East and Future Prospects

Chapter Nine: The New Middle East, corridors, and the prospect of a Kurdish state.
Chapter Ten: General conclusion and theoretical–political implications.

References

Historical and Legal Sources

Treaty of Sèvres (1920).
Treaty of Lausanne (1923).
Sykes–Picot Agreement (1916).
United Nations Charter (1945).
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007).
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).

Jewish and Holocaust Sources

Bauer, Y. (2001). Rethinking the Holocaust. Yale University Press.
Friedländer, S. (2007). The Years of Extermination: Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939–1945.
Hilberg, R. (1985). The Destruction of the European Jews. Holmes & Meier.
Wiesel, E. (1960). Hill and Wang.
Laqueur, W. (2001). A History of Zionism. Schocken Books.

Kurdish and Anfal Sources

McDowall, D. (2004). A Modern History of the Kurds.B. Tauris.
Natali, D. (2005). The Kurds and the State: Evolving National Identity in Iraq, Turkey, and Iran. Syracuse University Press.
Gunter, M. M. (2016). The Kurds: A Modern History. Markus Wiener Publishers.
Human Rights Watch. (1993). Genocide in Iraq: The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds. HRW Report.
Yildiz, K. (2004). The Kurds in Iraq: The Past, Present and Future. Pluto Press.

Geopolitics and the New Middle East

Friedman, G. (2010). The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century.
Brzezinski, Z. (1997). The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books.
Cordesman, A. H. (2004). The Military Balance in the Middle East.
Katz, M. N. (2018). Russia and the Middle East: Viewpoints, Policies, and Prospects.
Bengio, O. (2012). The Kurds of Iraq: Building a State within a State. Lynne Rienner.

Kurdish–Jewish Alliance and Diaspora Sources

Bengio, O. (2014). Kurds and Jews: A Shared History and Prospects for Alliance.
Marcus, A. (2007). Blood and Belief: The PKK and the Kurdish Fight for Independence. NYU Press.
Wurmser, D. (1997). The Middle East: A Strategic Survey. Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Rubin, M. (2017). Kurdistan Rising: Considerations for Kurds, Their Neighbors, and the Region. AEI Report.

Supplementary Sources (Interviews and Articles by Ashtyako Poorkarim)

Wegner, T. (2025). Interview with Ashtyako Poorkarim. Israel Hayom.
Poorkarim, A. (2023–2025). Collection of articles published on com and other media.
Statements and documents of the Kurdistan Independence Movement.