An Israeli in Kurd Country
Rubin: You spoke to the head of the Turkish Kurdish PKK group, which historically was allied with Syria and Iran. What is the current status of those links?
Spyer: Syria was once the PKK’s key state ally, providing bases and safe haven for its leader, Abdullah Ocalan. This changed with Syria’s reorientation toward alliance with Turkey after the near-war between them in 1997. Ocalan was captured after Syria made him leave. Thus, Syria-PKK links appear broken.
As for Iran, the PKK’s sister organization among the Iranian Kurds, PJAK, maintains a presence alongside the PKK in the Qandil mountains area where Iraqi, Iranian and Turkish borders meet. As a result, that stronghold is subject not only to Turkish aerial attack, but also to Iranian bombardment. The PKK is thus diplomatically isolated, having lost its links to Syria and Iran without finding alternative alliances. Nevertheless, the PKK has a powerful infrastructure and guerrilla force on the Qandil mountains and shows no indications of facing crisis.
Rubin: How does the PKK assess current politics in Turkey and set its strategy?
Spyer: The PKK considers that the early hopes that Prime Minister Erdogan’s regime would make reforms benefiting Turkish Kurds has proven empty. It hopes to capitalize on their disappointment and anger. The PKK asked Kurds to boycott the recent referendum on constitutional reform in Turkey, arguing the changes brought Kurds no benefit. This succeeded, with large numbers of Turkish Kurds boycotting the referendum, reaching over 90% in some areas of southeast Turkey.
I interviewed PKK leader Murat Karayilan, and he stressed the growing strategic alliance between Iran and Turkey, which he says is also directed against the Kurds. Karayilan considers that Turkey has plans for a major all-out, “Sri Lanka” style operation into the Qandil mountains and is trying to create a diplomatic situation to make this possible.
The PKK seems aware that it has nothing to gain from all-out, open confrontation with the Turks, but wants enough fighting to keep the Kurdish issue alive in Turkey. Thus, it is alternating unilateral ceasefires with attacks on infrastructure such as the recent mining of the Kirkuk-Ceyhan oil pipeline. The goal is to pressure Ankara to grant greater autonomy to Turkish Kurds.
Rubin: What was it like as an Israeli to be in northern Iraq, and how did people there react to you?
In the Kurdish zone the atmosphere and prevailing attitudes are very different from the rest of Iraq. In meetings, the general sense was one of obvious core sympathy with Israel, combined with a desire for caution in expressing opinions on Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians and with the broader Arab world.
Yet there is a sense of normality in the attitude toward Israel. Israel is seen as simply another player in the region. That’s to say that the shrillness, paranoia, and strangeness so obviously and depressingly present in so much Arab (and pro-Arab) discussion of Israel is simply, and very refreshingly, absent.
Rubin: In your new book about your personal experiences and fighting in the 2006 war, you focus on the transformation of the conflict into one of revolutionary Islamism versus Israel. Please explain about that.
Spyer: The book, The Transforming Fire: The Rise of the Israel-Islamist Conflict, focuses on the development of an Iran-led alliance, including Hamas and Hizballah, seeking to destroy Israel. This has transformed the challenges facing Israel in a way that hasn’t received sufficient attention. So the “international community” busies itself with reviving the 1990s “peace process” and so on, remaining unaware that the region’s transformed strategic situation renders all such attempts worthless.
The Iran-led bloc will prevent progress towards peace. The Palestinian national movement is not ready for historical compromise with the Jewish national project. It is also split, with the more powerful element aligned with Iran. The book discusses these issues, but also contains accounts of my own experiences, including participation in the 2006 Lebanon war, subsequent travels to Lebanon, and Israel at the time of the Second Intifada.
All of these things interweave to affect not only the political situation in the region but also the lives of those who live here.
If Prof. Rubin would be so kind, could he explain briefly why Israeli foreign policy does not advocate an independant Kurdish state comprising all areas with a Kurdish majority population?
It has always been a blight on Israeli leadership’s heads that they have sided with Turkey against the Kurds-our natural ally.
The Turks are occupiers of the first order,(anti-semites too) and genocidal killers to boot. Just ask the Armenians and the rest of their victims.
While IDF planners had an interest in doing certain ‘business’ with the Turks, any person with a sense of history and morality would have made sure to protect the Kurds too.
I surely hope they do so now, especially after the blatant exposure of the Islamist Turkish regime’s aligning with Iranian interests.
May the Kurds be successful in their nation building AND in destroying their enemies.
firstly, weather yer in eilat or televive, or even more relivant (AMERICA) every jew everywhere around the world is totally dedicated to israel first , regardless of the land in which he resides ! gods gift of stolen / occupied land to jews is as genuens as gods choice of jews as his choosen people ! the one and a half BILLION muslims around this world are considered arch enemies of jews for centuries, the only post holocaust gift to jews was that of being allowed to infilgrate into the boels of american society, where they presently have established a “command and control” empire dedicated to israel’s increased sttlements for retireing american jews with money from american exploytation !
I’ve been hoping for a Kurdish state for all 20 years that I’ve been aware of their existence. The more I know about the Kurds the more I admire their grit. I was hoping for much more out of Bush during the Iraq war, but the false realism of the diplomatic community had its way with him. It’s the one area where I agree with Biden of all people; Iraq is a fake country, and three states would be better. And we shouldn’t have done a thing to build Iraq back into a nation. Once Saddam fell, we should’ve gathered our forces in the Kurdish area and struck immediately into Iran and Syria. Of course, this presumes that we actually wanted to defeat the terrorists, which obviously we don’t. Syria would’ve fallen in about a week. Iran would be nasty, but we’d have the Kurdish region on our side instantly. Then we could’ve traded Syria to the Turks for their section of Kurdistan and finally the Kurds would have their own nation–and it wouldn’t just be an ally, it would be a powerful and loyal ally. Change the whole balance of power in the middle east in one fell swoop. Iran could change it’s name from “Aryan Land” back to Fars and leave all the Nazi garbage behind.
Oh well. I can dream, can’t I?
It’s a good dream, though. And I agree increasingly on Iran. The mix of Persian regal memories and Islam creates a different scenario for its future than Dr. Ledeen and others envision.
I have pulled for the Kurds for a long time, but it seems the only sane area is to still be ignored in favor of the various msulim arabs and iranians, none with even a thread of common sense or an interest in peace.
I would prefer we not go to war as we are not in a war like mentality, we are in a PC state and we would not take the tough steps that should be taken in waging war. When we actually reach the point where the msm and the libs no longer dictate our conduct, then I would be all so willing to turn the lot into sand or glass, their pick.
I served in Vietnam, pretends wars have been the order of the day since Korea, it corrects nothing and creates a long term mess that has no end.
Theorists believe that Russia wants to take over Turkey because that would give them direct access to the Mediterranian, which makes sense. So we support Turkey, even if we don’t want to, because if they aligned with Russia, the Russian Navy would have unhindered access through the Dardanelles. Armenia is our friend because they were amongst the persecuted Christians during the Ottoman days and the Russians who supported them are not our friends because of their imperial ambitions. Georgia is our friend because we want an oil pipeline through their country even though, culturally, we’re more like their enemies, the Russians. The Kurds, who are hated in Turkey and Armenia have nothing to offer us so they sit outside our diplomatic bubble game. During the middle of the 20th century, Jews fleeing from Russian pograms, escaped through Constantinople(Istanbul) so Israel remembers Turkey for the role they played. Bottom line, the west sees Turkey as the lesser evil compared to Russia.
Michael, you are not correct saying that the Kurds are hated in Armenia, or more correctly I would say the Kurds are no longer hated in Armenia. During the Genocide of the Armenians in 1915 the Turks enlisted the Kurds in the killing. By (around) the 1960′s the Armenians and Kurds had a big meeting in Santa Barbara, California, to reconcile. Kurdish representatives admitted what their people had done and asked to be forgiven. Armenians have accepted their apology. We do not hate the Kurds and consider them our allies.
Did Dr. Spyer make any inquiries about the rampant corruption in the Kurdistan regional government? Or the killing of Sardasht Osman? (He was a journalism student who embarrassed Kurdish regional president Mahmoud Barzani by publishing a poem about wanting to marry Barzani’s daughter, so his family could share in the sudden wealth of the Barzani clan – described in detail.)
Barzani is neither better nor worse than any other Middle Eastern warlord. Spyer (and Rubin) are fooling themselves if they think that the Barzani regime has any respect for law or or human rights, or any real friendship for the U.S. or Israel. If and when the U.S. withdraws, Barzani will ally with the strongest remaining force – probably Iran.
I’m thinking that Israelis dealing with Kurds can reasonably, and rationally, conclude that they will be more productive than dealing with South Syrian Arabs. The first demand, which is seemingly as old as the hills, is that the South Syrian Arabs have a beef with settlements. Well, because they don’t want to hold the effendis accountable for taking the money, and fleeing, the descendents of the fellahin go after those who bought the land. So, unless that is dealt with, according the South Syrian Arabs, then there is no sense dealing with the rest.
Where is the source of the legitimacy for this, because the South Syrian Arabs certainly did not earn it.
The Kurds are smart enough to know that Israel could be a natural ally under the present circumstances. I believe this is a very good test of the waters in that neck of the woods, since Ankara has shifted its alliance towards Iran and it already trow Israel under the proverbial bus.