The Kurds have a historical connection to Palestine that dates back to the time of Salah ad-Din, the great Muslim Kurdish leader revered for his role in defeating the Crusaders in the Holy Land. To expand and protect the vast Ayyubid sultanate which he founded, Salah ad-Din placed many Kurdish settlers in Palestine, Egypt and Syria. The descendants of those Kurdish settlers continue to live in Palestine today, but they have largely assimilated into Arab culture, abandoning their Kurdish roots and language.

Similarly, Jews have lived in Kurdistan for centuries, dating back to the 12th century by some accounts. However, most migrated to Israel with the establishment of the Jewish state and the Right of Return law, which gave all Jews the legal right to immigrate to Israel. Today, there are between 200,000 to 300,000 Kurdish Jews in Israel who continue to celebrate their Kurdish roots but have adopted the Hebrew language.

Religious identity and Kurdish supporters of Hamas

While the Kurds have a historical connection with the two nations, they are not monolithic in their views on the Israel–Palestine conflict. This has become more evident since the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel and the subsequent Israeli invasion of Gaza.

Recently, pictures of assassinated Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh have circulated in Kurdish social media. This attention to Haniyeh has alarmed many Kurds, including myself, about the growing number of Kurds who seem to support Hamas. They are expressing solidarity with Hamas due largely to the fact that Kurds and Palestinians share a common Muslim identity. Furthermore, Kurds see their own struggle mirrored in the Palestinian experience.

Yet the Kurdish and Palestinian situation is different. Kurds are a diverse people. Not all Kurds are Muslim. Some belong to ancient religious communities like the Yezidi and the Yarsani, who have faced persecution by Muslims seeking religious homogenization.

Islamist Kurdish factions that support Hamas, including some political groups in the autonomous Kurdistan Region of Iraq, add another layer of complexity to the matter. Many of these groups have praised Haniyeh as a martyr and resistance fighter despite Hamas’s use of terrorist tactics like suicide bombings and its support for leaders like Saddam Hussein, who murdered countless Kurds or their alliance with the Islamic Republic of Iran that continues to imprison and execute Kurdish teachers and activists; and assassinate Kurdish leaders. Furthermore, I have searched both in English and Kurdish and found no evidence that these Islamist Kurds expressed any sorrow over the unjust killings of Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023. These Islamists do not care about the fact that Human Rights Watch termed Hamas’s actions war crimes because to them Jewish lives do not matter. 

Support for Hamas among these more religiously radical Kurds reveals a key tension in Kurdish society. Despite a century of Kurdish nationalism, many Kurds still seem to prioritize their religious identity over their ethnic one. The Kurdish political class has yet to win the hearts and minds of more religious Kurds. For instance, Ali Bapir, the current leader of the Islamic Justice Group, and members of his party were reported to have refused to stand up for the Kurdish national anthem due mainly to a line in the anthem that reads, “Our faith and religion are our homeland.”

These Islamists often align with regional powers like Iran or Turkey despite both countries engaging in a silent cultural genocide against Kurds that is decades long. Clearly, they still put their religious identity first. This prioritization of religion over ethnic or national identity informs their support for Islamic powers like Iran and Turkey or organizations like Hamas.

Being muslim does not mean that one has to sacrifice his own nation like many of these islamists do. Many prominent historical Kurdish leaders like Sheikh Ubeidullah of Nehri, Sheikh Mehmoud Barzanji, Sheik Said of Piran and Qazi Muhammad were quite religious yet struggled and even gave their lives for the Kurdish nation’s struggle for liberation. 

The Islamist Kurdish agenda and its implications 

These Islamist Kurds are not merely supporting Hamas because they feel for the oppressed Palestinians. They seek what all Islamist groups seek: a strict Islamic state. This is clear if one examines the history of these groups in Kurdish regions. In Turkish-occupied Kurdistan, a radical armed Kurdish Islamist group known as the Kurdish Hezbollah emerged around the same time as the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in the 1980s.

This Islamist organization launched a conflict against the PKK and anyone who disagreed with their extremist views. They carried out kidnappings, assassinations and mass murders. There are now concerns that this terror group has reformed into the Islamist party known as the Huda-Par, which won 4 seats in the Turkish parliament in the 2023 election.

Similarly, in the Kurdistan region in Iraq, long before the Islamic State, secular Kurdish parties like the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) faced severe security challenges in dealing with radical Islamist groups like the Islamic Movement of Kurdistan (IMK). The IMK later morphed into Ansar al-Islam and many other Islamist groups. These groups sought to establish a strict Wahhabist Islamic state. Before PUK forces drove them out, they even imposed sharia law in some villages. These were similar to the laws favored by al-Qaeda and Taliban, who incidentally trained many of the founders of Ansar al-Islam. They fought in Afghanistan alongside both these organizations.

So, support for Hamas by Islamist groups is not just mere support of fellow oppressed people or co-religionists. This support is part of a broader Islamist agenda that spans the Middle East region and poses a serious threat to local, regional and international security.

Kurdish neutrality and geopolitical realities

It is important to note that Islamists do not represent all Kurds. The Kurdish position on the Israel-Palestine conflict is quite varied. Major political parties across greater Kurdistan take a neutral position on the Israel-Palestine conflict. They are not completely immune to the strong anti-Israel sentiment in the region. Yet Kurds can sympathize with embattled Israel’s geopolitical position. They recognize that their primary adversaries are Muslim-majority states like Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq. These states, not Israel, have historically and continue to oppress Kurds and occupy Kurdish lands.

It was Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, not an Israeli leader, who used Islamic scripture to justify the Anfal Genocide, which killed some 50,000 to 100,000 Kurds. He killed 5,000 more using chemical weapons in the city of Halabja. It is Turkey that has jailed, killed and tried to erase Kurdish culture and identity for a century. The mere utterance of the words “Kurd” or “Kurdistan” can land you in Turkish jail for a long time, if not forever. Turkey, not Israel, massacres Kurds and calls them “mountain Turks.”

Muslim states like Iran have been handing heavy prison and even death sentences to teachers, activists and protesters advocating Kurdish rights. This bloody crackdown on Kurdish civil society in Iran has been unceasing since the establishment of The Islamic Republic of Iran’s founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, issued a fatwa to kill Kurds advocating for their rights. Recently, Kurdish girls like Jina Amini were murdered or  imprisoned for how they dressed, what they thought or who they were. Thousands were seized during the Jin, Jiyan, Azadi movement that spread all over Iran and capitals across the world. Even now, teachers are tortured or executed in Evin Prison for teaching the Kurdish language.

It was Syria, not Israel, that stripped 120,000 Kurds of their citizenship and made them foreigners in their own land. These Kurds are now stateless. However, since the Syrian civil war, the Kurds under the PYD and its military forces like the YPG have established their own regional self-administration with the cooperation of local tribes and dealt a major defeat of ISIS. Despite the countless lives given in the war against ISIS, the Turkish government has decided to carry out operations that are ongoing against the Kurds in Syria to ethnically cleanse them out of their regions and settle Turkish-backed Islamists and Syrian refugees currently residing in Turkish camps. The gruesome videos and reports of war crimes and human rights abuses carried out by Turkish forces and Turkish backed Islamist forces reveal that Turkey’s efforts to create a safe zone in North Syria are motivated largely by its animosity towards the Kurds inhabiting the region. 

It is quite shocking then that these very states that committed and continue to commit crimes against Kurds tell them that “we are brothers in Islam.” These states that occupy Kurdish lands are carrying out a genocide or erasure of Kurdish identity and culture that is killing thousands of people gradually and silently without any real opposition by regional and international powers. 

The double standard: Kurdish cause vs. Palestinian cause

Why is it then that these states speak out so vocally against oppression or aggression against Palestinians yet continue to occupy and oppress Kurds in their own backyard? If Palestinians have the right to statehood, so too do Kurds. Yet, the blatant hypocrisy and double standard of these states shows the insincerity of their policy and stance on Palestine. 

These states are not interested at all in what is just but what will further their national and ideological interests only. It is not being Muslim that these states care about; if they did, then surely they would not occupy and oppress Kurds who are vastly Muslim. It is not standing against occupation and oppression that they care about, as they claim in the case of Palestine, for if they did care about such matters, they would not inflict the same injustices on the Kurdish people. 

There is thus a clear double standard, particularly if one examines how Kurdish self-determination is treated relative to how Palestinian self-determination is treated. Look at the regional reactions to the 2017 Kurdistan Referendum held in Iraqi Kurdistan. Some 139 out of 193 UN member states have recognized Palestinian statehood since the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) declared the nationhood of Palestine in 1988. The Kurds received vocal support for their 2017 referendum from Israel alone. Even UN Secretary-General António Guterres called Kurdistan’s move for independence “destabilizing.”

The majority of Muslim states, including the State of Palestine, objected to Kurdish independence. Yet these same states vocally support Palestinian statehood. PLO Secretary General Saeb Erekat called Kurdish independence “a poisoned sword against the Arabs.” Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei called the vote an act of betrayal and accused the US of seeking to create a new Israel in the region by supporting Kurdish independence — even though the US had opposed the referendum.

Many Kurds are tired of being victims of the geopolitics of the region. Countries like Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria typically view both Zionism and Kurdish nationalism as projects of Western imperialism. This is despite the fact that it was the European imperialist Sykes-Picot Plan that unjustly partitioned Kurdistan and allocated it to these states. These states often label Kurdistan a second Israel, illustrating that an extreme anti-Kurdism, similar to their anti-Jewish/Israeli sentiments, animates their outlook.

Kurds, perhaps more than most, empathize with the struggles of Palestinians and Jews. However, their own history has shown them how superficial much of the support from Muslim states for Palestine can be. This awareness allows Kurds to see through hollow and hypocritical rhetoric, making them less inclined to instinctively side with Palestine or Israel. As a result, many Kurds hold more nuanced and balanced views on the issue.

All in all, the Kurdish experience provides a unique lens through which to view the Israel-Palestine conflict. The Kurdish struggle for identity, national sovereignty and justice mirrors that of both Jews and Palestinians. Yet they understand that an international community that applies its moral principles selectively will never end the cycle of violence and oppression in the Middle East.

[Tara Yarwais edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post An Insider View on How Kurds See Israel and Palestine appeared first on Fair Observer.

When these non-Persian Iranians speak of the need for the entrenchment and recognition of inclusivity in the linguistic, economic, and political spheres of life in Iran as a necessary condition for democratization, they are often accused of being separatists. They are told that Iran is one nation and that its territorial integrity is a red line that is not up for discussion.

Persian identity, Iranian identity

This notion in the debate about Iran’s identity is championed by Reza Pahlavi but is also echoed in statements made by other Iranian figures like Nazanin Boniadi, Golshifteh Farahani, Shirin Ebadi, and activists Masih Alinejad and Hamed Esmaeilion.

The assertion and emphasis on territorial integrity as a response to demands for inclusivity as a precursor for democratization is a political tactic that is not only anti-democratic but also undermines the very democratic principles that many of these figures claim to be supporting. It is designed to reinforce the Iranian state’s forced assimilation  policy against the Kurds, Baloch, Ahwaz, and Azeri people. 

For over a hundred years, the Iranian state has attempted to assimilate non-Persian nations into a national Iranian identity that is purely Persian. The state has used repressive tactics, from poisoning, imprisonment, extrajudicial killings, capital punishment, and threatening families to militarization, linguicide, and economic impoverishment, as part of its forced assimilation policy. These efforts have been partially successful given the decline in the use of non-Farsi languages in Iran. However, a sense of distinctiveness, and the political manifestation of this distinctiveness, has only grown stronger among non-Persian peoples, as evidenced by the protests ignited by the death of Jina Amini in September 2022 at the hands of the morality police and past political agitations for change in areas inhabited by non-Persian people.

These demands for inclusivity and autonomy existed under the Pahlavi dynasty and have persisted for decades under the Islamic Republic. This is despite claims by Khomeini and his successors that the Shia government does not discriminate against any ethnicity or religious group. Scholar Sabah Mofidi analyzed numerous speeches, interviews and written texts of Persian and Kurdish nationalists and found that the “Persian nationalists use Islamic brotherhood and unity to reinforce Islamic identity over Kurdish identity in order to marginalize the Kurdish nationalist movement, as well as to mobilize ordinary people against the Kurdish forces.” Similarly, secular Persian nationalists use this rhetoric of Iranian brotherhood to delegitimize or negate Kurdish nationalist demands.

“Conversely,” continues Mofidi, “the Kurdish nationalists resist, and demand equality.” For instance, in a recent BBC Persian interview, journalist Ranya Rahamnpour asked the Secretary General of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, Mustafa Hijri, whether Kurdish political parties are separatists—an accusation that the Islamic Republic often cites to justify its attacks against Kurds in Iran and members of Kurdish political parties. In response to this question, Hijri stated that repeatedly asking this question is an insult to all Kurds and to his party, which has been advocating for “democracy for Iran and autonomy for Kurdistan.” He goes on to say that “the separatists are not Kurds or Baloch, but those who have violated the rights of all of the Iranian nationalities, created a difference between the periphery and the center, and used their power to bring nothing but misfortune to these national groups.”

Kurdish Autonomy Can Boost Peace in the Middle East

These skirmishes are part of a deliberation inside and outside Iran on how to achieve a democratic opposition that can help topple the Islamist regime and bring about a democratic Iran. Many of these forces have failed to unite mainly because of the refusal of some parties to acknowledge Iran’s multinational character. 

What has become increasingly clear since the death of Jina Amini and subsequent events is that Iran is a deeply divided society. The failure to find working solutions for managing such diversity and division has allowed the Islamic Republic to rule with impunity and repress dissenting voices, especially among the Kurdish population and other non-Persian populations, such as the Baloch, Ahwaz and Azeris.

Two theories for managing ethnic divides

For many, the number of political forces at play and the diversity of demands and peoples in Iran, as well as in the diaspora, has made it quite difficult to understand what the debate is about in Iran and where the country might or should be headed. There are two theories on how to manage divided societies like Iran and institutionally design an inclusive democratic system given the many social and political cleavages along ethnic, linguistic, and religious lines. These two theories are centripetalism and consociationalism.

Centripetalism and consociationalism are two theories of political engineering for managing social cleavage in ethnically diverse societies. Centripetalism is a theory developed from the ideas of US scholar Donald L. Horowitz, who specializes in the study of ethnic conflict and has worked to help divided societies reduce ethnic conflict through democratic means. According to Benjamin Reilly, centripetalism aims to promote cooperation, accommodation and integration across ethnic divides, seeking to depoliticize ethnicity and minimize the role of ethnic identities. It emphasizes the importance of institutions that encourage intercommunal moderation, such as multi-ethnic political parties, cross-cutting electoral incentives, and intergroup accommodation.

Consociationalism, however, relies on elite cooperation between leaders of different communities. It recognizes ethnicity as primordially rooted and seeks to protect and maximize the rights of ethnonational groups. Consociationalism promotes mechanisms that maintain interethnic harmony, such as grand coalition cabinets, proportional representation, minority veto powers, and communal autonomy. It aims to achieve a significant degree of autonomy for each ethnic polity and ensure fair representation in governance.

Which of the two theories provides the best prescriptions for democratically governing divided societies is a subject of great debate among scholars. Nevertheless, they all agree that the two theories are crucial in designing a working democracy in ethnically polarized polities.

Embracing pluralism is a prerequisite for democracy

While democracy in Iran has had periods of temporary existence, democratic movements have yet to establish a working democracy in Iran. Given the multinational character and diversity of the Iranian populace, the establishment and future of democracy in Iran require serious discussion, debate, and planning based on centripetalist and consociationalist theories, institutions, and practices.

The arguments of Iranian political parties and personalities that often take the side of the Iranian state in response to demands for inclusive government can be conceived of as a sort of centripetalist prescription of governance. In theory, centripetalism advocates for institutions and governing arrangements that seek to depoliticize ethnicity or ethnic demands and identities. This theory and arrangement of governance may be viewed as preferable or even ideal, given that it seeks to enhance cooperation between groups despite their ethnic, linguistic, or religious differences. However, many of the Iranian political forces as well as the Iranian state, both currently and historically, use centripetalist notions not to depoliticize ethnicity and create a more level playing field between ethnic groups but to deny non-Persian nations in Iran their linguistic, political, economic, and cultural rights.

While centripetalism may seek to depoliticize ethnicity, what has happened in the last hundred years of Iran’s history has been a further politicization of ethnicity and criminalization of ethnicity, particularly for non-ethnically Persian people in Iran. This is clearly illustrated in the inestimable number of Kurdish teachers and activists who are either languishing away in Avin prison or who have been executed over the years, both under the Pahlavi regime and under the Islamic Republic. The treatment of other non-ethnically-Persian people like the Baloch, Ahwaz, and Azeri has been similarly harsh.

Indigenous People in Bangladesh Suffer as Government Drags Feet

The demise of the Islamic Republic does not begin with some outside power but with the unity of effort and goals among Iran’s ethnonational groups. Iranians need to recognize their diversity not as a threat but as a necessary ingredient for creating a pluralistic and tolerant democratic system that can provide representation and self-governance to each national group.

The lack of vision and clarity for a democratically inclusive governance system for Iran has led to a lack of unity of purpose, both in Iran and among Iranian opposition groups in the diaspora. For democratic forces inside and outside Iran to inflict significant damage on the clerical grip on power, there must be agreement, organization, and coordination among opposition groups, both internal and external. This can only happen when we find a clearly laid-out system of governance that can bring us all together as equals with an equal say and an equal share of power in the system, regardless of our identity, religion, native language, or gender. I believe that consociationalist theory, or a mix of consociationalism and centripetalist prescriptions and institutional arrangements of governance, can provide the necessary vision and model of governance that can allow us to flourish in our distinct communities as well as a part of a broader community that is Iran.

[Anton Schauble edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Pluralism Is the Only Way Forward for Iranian Democracy appeared first on Fair Observer.

The Kurds, the largest nation without a state, have been struggling for self-rule and decentralized governance for decades in the Middle East. The Kurds and the countries that occupy Kurdistan are ideal case studies to examine when seeking ways to establish lasting peace and sustainable democracy in the Middle East.

The past as a guide to the future

An examination of the history of the Middle East reveals that even during imperial times, power was shared despite strong central authority. The Ottomans under the vilayet system never practiced complete central authority over Kurdish principalities and other Vilayets in the empire the way the Turkish Republic does today. The many revolts by Kurdish princes and governors like the Shaykh Ubayd Allah of Nihri and the Badir Khan Beg of Botan demonstrate the ability of the Kurds in Ottoman Kurdistan and Persia to govern autonomously. The principalities of Ardalan, Guran, Mukri, Baban, Buhtan and so forth are notable examples of Kurdish autonomy and self-administration before the establishment of the current boundaries of the Middle East under the Sykes-Picot Agreement.

Despite being labeled as separatists and terrorists by some, the Kurds have been one of, if not the only, actors furthering democratic development and resistance in Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. They have served as crucial resisters of oppressors and autocrats in the region for over a century. The blood they have given in the struggle for their national democratic rights has been a significant force in preventing the further spread and entrenchment of tyranny in the Middle East. Building lasting democracy in any of these countries starts with settling the Kurdish question.

Furthermore, The Kurds have historical connections and ongoing relationships with the states that occupy their land. Despite the antagonistic nature of this relationship, they are ideal candidates for mediating a measure of peace and stability because their demands have always been democratic, making them natural allies of every democracy seeking Persian, Turk and Arab.

The next steps

Contrary to what many may claim, a peaceful resolution of the Kurdish question is very much possible and it begins with the inevitable process of federalizing governance in Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq.

Today we witness a federal Iraq with a Kurdish regional government (KRG). While The KRG is not without its problems, most scholars acknowledge that it is slowly becoming a serious model of a working democracy in the region with a growing civil society that is making significant social, economic and political strides. A similar phenomenon is likely to take place in Rojava (the Kurdish region of Syria) with the recent establishment of several autonomous cantons. The Kurds of Turkey have made similar demands with Ocalan’s theory of democratic federalism, and the continued efforts by Iran’s Kurds along with its other nationalities, for a federal democratic Iran, prove federalism and decentralization to be the most viable way forward for Middle East peace and stability.

In international politics, realists often emphasize the balance of power and how it is usually responsible for peace. If one applies this logic to the Kurds and the states they are resisting then it is quite clear that supporting the decentralization of the governments of Turkey, Syria and Iran into federal systems would serve to create some measure of peace and stability by creating a balance of power between the Kurdish regional governments and the central governments. Such a balance and decentralization of power would make it very difficult but not impossible for strong dictatorial regimes to re-emerge and entrench themselves in these societies, as we have witnessed in the past and are witnessing today in Iran and Syria. Such an arrangement would undoubtedly force all powers to the negotiating table when disagreements arise since no power would be strong enough to defeat the other. The best course of action would thus be for all parties to sit down and work out their problems peacefully.

In a region as chaotic as the Middle East, a strong and autocratic central government will not work. History shows us that the monopoly of power by one nation or group over others will not lead to stability and peace in the Middle East, but rather harness the foundation for its end. For instance, Saddam Hussein and the Sunni monopoly of power in Iraq demonstrate what can happen when one group monopolizes power and deprives other groups. A lesson Iran, Turkey, Syria and even the Shia-dominated government of Iraq fails to comprehend at times. The only way to foster tolerance, democracy and a truly representative and inclusive system in such a multicultural and multinational region is by the promotion and advancement of a decentralized federal system. Federalism would localize governance making governance more effective and representative. This would create a sense of common interest between the various groups in the region given that each group is granted a share in power.

The path to a more peaceful and democratic Middle East is thus clear, and it starts with finding a just and peaceful resolution to the Kurdish question. For peace and democracy to make major headway in the Middle East it is essential that the international community and major international powers back the resolution of the Kurdish question and treat it as a priority in their respective Middle East policy.  The freedom of the Kurdish nation would result in the furthering of peace and democracy in the Middle East and the birth of multinational federalism in a region where power is unchecked and constantly contested by various groups and states.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Kurdish Autonomy Can Boost Peace in the Middle East appeared first on Fair Observer.

The campaign grabbed the attention and endorsement of some Iranian celebrities and athletes like Ali Karimi but drew silence from well-known anti-regime Iranian diaspora activists Nazanin Boniadi, journalist and activist Masih Alinejad, actress Golshifteh Farahani and activist Hamed Esmaeilion.

However, many ethnic peoples and political representatives with other democratic forces in the opposition were alarmed by this unilateral and unseemly campaign. Many took to social media to reject Reza Pahlavi, and his supporter’s attempt to hijack the revolution and assume leadership. 

Revolution Erupted in Iran Because of Mohammad Reza Shah

In Balochistan, many protesters held signs stating, “No to Mullah and Shah, no IRGC terrorists, Yes to freedom.” Another well-known revolutionary slogan chanted on city streets across Iran is “Death to the oppressor, whether he is the shah or the supreme leader.” If Reza Pahlavi and his supporters truly cared about democracy and human rights, they surely could not have missed the voices of the people facing guns and bullets on the streets in Iran. 

Videos show protesters chanting other common slogans that reject the objectives of the Pahlavi campaign like “no monarchy, no leader (supreme leader), democracy and equality.” Even more direct was a placard held up by protesters in Zahedan, Balochistan that reads, “Reza Pahlavi is not our representative, understand that we have our representatives.” 

It would be incorrect to say that Reza Pahlavi does not have supporters. Nevertheless, most Iranians do not want to sacrifice their lives in a revolution to overthrow the theocratic state of the ayatollahs only to have it replaced by the son of a previous dictator overthrown by a revolution in 1979. The Ayatollahs and Pahlavi have had decades to govern Iran but both have been impediments to democratic movements throughout Iran’s history. This among many other factors demonstrates the absurdity of the Pahlavi campaign.

Why the campaign does more harm than good

Anyone advocating for Reza Pahlavi’s leadership through this campaign is truly not in touch with reality and knows little about the law or how political processes work. The petition titled, “Prince Reza Pahlavi is my representative,” states, “Considering the revolution that is going on in Iran and considering that Reza Pahlavi asked the people of Iran to give him power of attorney to lead this movement.” There is no legal basis under domestic or international law to give someone such power. The entire premise of the campaign has no grounds in democratic processes or legal code. The campaign illustrates that Reza Pahlavi and his supporters are zealous to monopolize the revolution and secure power for themselves. 

The Dirty Secrets About How Reza Shah Destroyed Iran

Having the Shah’s son serve as interim leader in a transitional government if the revolution successfully overthrows the Islamic Republic sends the wrong signal to people inside and outside of Iran because the people do not want to go back to the days of the monarchy. They are also firmly against the theocratic system of the Ayatollahs. The people in Iran have learned from the last revolution that getting behind a self-declared messiah (Khomeini) may lead to another authoritarian system.

If Reza Pahlavi supports women’s rights then he should step aside and let a woman lead. If monarchists want to establish the monarchy on the backs of the women and men who have died or are being tortured and imprisoned in this globally recognized women’s revolution, then I propose that one of Pahlavi’s sisters campaign for leadership. It would be quite progressive but the Pahlavi monarchy is gender biased.   

Having a campaign for leadership at a time when the revolution has not succeeded in overthrowing the theocracy illustrates the immaturity of the prince and his supporters. They claim to be for democracy yet attempt to arbitrarily impose upon the people an exiled Pahlavi seeking to continue a family legacy of assimilation, forced homogenization, and authoritarianism under the guise of freedom and modernity. 

Reza Pahlavi is not a unifier but a divider

In a recent interview with Manoto TV, Reza Pahlavi makes it clear that he has no democratic solution for Iran’s multitude of problems nor does he propose any governing structure that can guarantee the rights of Kurds, Baloch, Azeri and Ahwazi Arabs. 

Why Do You Need to Know About Mohammad Mosaddegh?

The journalist asks Pahlavi about how he views the demand by ethnic groups in Iran who say that they are ready to be a part of the coalition and an exile government if Pahlavi and others recognize them as distinct nations in a multinational Iran. His response, applauded by his supporters, shocked many others.

Pahlavi responds, “Any democratic force that believes in democratic institutions and political transparency can be a part of the political coalition that we are demanding but they must believe that the territorial integrity of Iran is a red line. Anyone who does not believe in the unity of Iran’s territory cannot be a part of the political coalition and this is our clear message for all parties.”

His dismissal of the rights of such nations as mere demands of separatism and a threat to Iran’s territorial integrity indicates that he does not believe in democracy. He seeks to hijack the Jina Revolution like Khomeini did with the 1979 Revolution and impose homogenization and assimilation much like the Islamic republic has been doing and his father before them. 

Despite living in the West and having connections with many western governments, he has done little to investigate the power-sharing institutions and principles that maintain social and political cohesion in democratic countries that could serve as plausible solutions to the demands of the different nations in Iran. He resorts to the Khomenian tactics of appealing to fears and accusations instead of diplomacy and cooperation.

Is the separatist label fact or fiction? 

In his recent Manoto TV Interview Pahlavi goes on to say, “Tell me what Iranian would want his country to be divided into pieces? Those who talk about separatism need to know that the chants inside Iran are nationalistic and not local or specific to any ethnic or religious group. The people want one Iran.”

None of what Reza Pahlavi says is true or helps to unite the diverse peoples who inhabit Iran. When Jina Amini died, the revolution for women, life, and freedom began in Kurdistan in her hometown and spread all over Iran. The Islamic Republic of Iran blamed the Kurds, bombed Kurdish opposition parties across the border in the KRG and even came out with statements accusing the Kurds of orchestrating the revolution with the help of Israel. This is because the revolution sparked by the death of a Kurdish girl in a Kurdish town and by a Kurdish slogan started in Kurdistan before spreading to the rest of Iran. 

What the people want in Iran is freedom but that means different things to different people. This is a fact that Pahlavi and other Iranian leaders have not thought about or perhaps have chosen to ignore in favor of a more absolutist governing structure that fundamentally changes little for non-Persian nations or the establishment of a working democracy in Iran.

In the 1940s, Qazi Muhammad, president of the Kurdistan Republic, made efforts to peacefully resolve the Kurdish question through the establishment of pluralistic and democratic Iran. With the help of the Brits and Americans, the last Shah of Iran hanged Qazi for establishing an autonomous Kurdistan government and advocating for democracy in Iran. 

In the 1980s, the Kurdish leader Abdul Rehman Qhassemmlou, who once said that “we will not allow anyone to claim that they are more Iranian than us Kurds,” and who made famous the slogan: Democracy for Iran, Autonomy for Kurdistan, was assassinated in Vienna by regime agents while negotiating with the Iranian state. 

Similarly, his successor Dr. Sadiq Sharafkandi was assassinated in Mykonos while meeting with Iranian opposition leaders to unify opposition against the Islamic Republic. The Islamic Republic of Iran justifies the murder of the Kurdish leaders with the same argument that Reza Pahlavi makes, that they were separatists or a threat to the territorial integrity of Iran. 

In addition, The Congress of Nationalities for a Federal Iran have articulated similar demands. The Congress of Nationalities for a Federal Iran which is an alliance of political parties and advocacy groups campaigning to replace the current Islamist government system in Iran with a secular, democratic, federal government has also rejected these allegations of separatism. 

None of these nations demand independence or separation from Iran, yet, monarchists like Pahlavi and the Islamic Republic both continue this rhetoric of separatism and territorial integrity because they do not want to share power and build a tolerant and pluralistic democracy in Iran that recognizes the fundamental rights of all nations in Iran. 

It has been 72 years since the establishment of the Iranian nation-state. The Kurds and others continue to struggle for their rights as nations yet Iranian leaders like Reza Pahlavi and the Ayatollahs continue to label them as threats to territorial integrity. 

The separatism accusation illustrates that Iranian leaders in the monarchist and Islamist camps continue to hold outdated views about demands for self-determination and democracy that make them unfit to lead Iran.

If Iran fragments into separate states like the former Yugoslavia did in the 1990s, It will not be because the non-Persian nations did not try to resolve their issues peacefully and democratically. It will be because the Iranian state forced upon the various peoples a policy of assimilation and homogenization to erase the identity of marginalized nations in Iran.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Iran: Theocracy Must Make Way for Democracy, Not Dynasty appeared first on Fair Observer.

This phrasing may seem normal for most, but it can be a tool of oppression. When used in political discourse or a legal framework, the label “minority” can worsen marginalized people’s social, economic, and political persecution by implying their rights are less significant or deserving of recognition.

The term also leads to a lack of media coverage and priority in policy when people labeled minorities are attacked, arrested, imprisoned, or killed by states. Even when they get media attention, governments fail to address the gross human rights violations committed against them.

The term minorities, defined by the UN Special Rapporteur on minority issues, refers to groups “which constitute less than half of the population in the entire territory of a state whose members share common characteristics of culture, religion or language, or a combination of any of these.”

The words we use can weaken or reinforce oppressive systems. In George Orwell’s essay, “Politics and the English Language,” he stated, “if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better.” Thus, a legal system or polity’s language can be problematic if it heavily emphasizes the rights of either the majority or the minority.

How The Term Leads to Oppression

The term “minority” downplays human rights abuse and the psychological trauma experienced by entire populations. As a minority, you constantly fear being imprisoned, killed, bombed, or forced to leave your home country. Even when living peacefully, the worry about who you are and where you come from renders you prone to victimhood and permeates your entire life.

This fear and victimhood is the life of most persecuted people labeled minorities. “Minority” is a word that quantifies human rights and suffering and results in treating such people as lesser than those with membership in the dominant group in society. Using the term “minority”, further marginalizes the rights of ethnic, cultural, and religious groups.

In all instances of its use, “minority” emphasizes insignificance even when that is not a person’s intention. Furthermore, to minimize the severity and injustice of their persecution of these people, states that violate human rights against ethnic, religious, and cultural minorities within their borders employ this same language of insignificance that highlights the problematic term or concept of minorityhood.

Minority-hood is the condition of being treated and made to feel insignificant because you are different from the majority.   

The minority-majority dichotomy serves oppression in every facet of society: political, social, or economic. Thus, to eradicate violence and discrimination against nationalities, ethnicities, and cultural groups, the term, minority, must be removed from international law.

Why The Term should Be Eliminated

Many states are dominated by one ethnic group or another. The concept of minorities contributes to the inequality between groups in diverse polities. It often works to marginalize those distinguishable from the majority while favoring the group in power.

It is more feasible to recognize the rights of all people and the rights of ethnonational, linguistic, religious and cultural groups in international law without referring to them as minorities. Classifying oppressed peoples as minorities frequently results in the assumption — conscious or subconscious — that since a group is a minority the lives of its members are less valuable. 

In no way is this advocating for the policing of language. Freedom of speech is integral in dismantling oppressive rhetoric and structures in society. However, dropping the concept of minorities can help us move away from quantifiable notions of rights to more egalitarian concepts of rights that are not discriminatory.

To protect all life, we must respond with the same shock and effort to the taking of one life as we do to that of many lives. Human lives are not measurable statistics or numbers; they are immeasurably valuable. Eliminating the concept of minorities also eliminates the unspoken notion that human life and rights are only significant based on population size.

[Tasheanna Williams edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post The Many Negative Effects of the “Minority” Label appeared first on Fair Observer.

 Floyd’s death sparked a movement across the US to protest police brutality against black lives. That breath of life taken from Floyd by the knees of oppression is the same breath that people in Iran are fighting for. It is that lethal and discriminate application of force that Kurds have stood against for more than 40 years. It is that same sort of injustice that the Kurds and Baloch have been protesting against for more than two months despite a violent crackdown by the Islamic Republic of Iran. 

I make this comparison between the George Floyd incident and the Iran protests ignited by the death of Kurdish girl Jina Mahsa Amini to highlight a phenomenon. I have noticed that leaders of the Islamic Republic, some Iranian activists and figures have been using the Black Civil Rights movement and notable leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK) or Rosa Parks to argue that they stand for justice and democratic values.

During MLK Day in 2015, The current supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, tweeted, “Many years have passed since equality of blacks & whites was first declared on paper in US, but discrimination still prevails. #MLKDay.” This is but one of his many tweets over the years that is part of a regime propaganda campaign that seeks to portray the U.S. and other powers calling Iran out for its lack of accountability on human rights violations as hypocritical. 

Many years have passed since equality of blacks & whites was first declared on paper in US, but discrimination still prevails. #MLKDay

— Khamenei.ir (@khamenei_ir) January 19, 2015

The exiled Reza Pahlavi, whose father was overthrown by a revolution in 1979, made similar tweets. The difference between the tweets is that Pahlavi was quoting MLK to garner international support for the cause of the Iranian people against the Islamic Republic. 

Dr. Martin Luther King is one of my personal heroes. As I work to build international support for the Iranian people’s struggle, I often recall his famous covenant that “we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”

— Reza Pahlavi (@PahlaviReza) December 14, 2018

For many in Iran, particularly the Kurds, both Khamenei and Pahlavi’s comments are not only hypocritical but laughable. Although the Ayatollah and Pahlavi represent two clashing forces that define much of the modern history of Iran, they both have in common a fervent belief in Persian nationalism. Persian nationalism holds and enforces the view that Persian history, art, culture and language are superior to those of others. This nationalism has led Iran to ceaselessly try to erase the language, identity and history of the Kurdish, Baloch and other peoples of Iran that Tehran deems as inferior and a threat to its monopolization of power. 

The Pahlavi dynasty disregarded the rights of non-Persian nations like the Kurds and Balochs. Their linguistic rights were specially targeted. In an interview, this so-called prince even mocks the right to mother tongue education and says that he finds this concept difficult to grasp. Such ignorance and dismissal of the rights of marginalized peoples like the Kurds, Baloch and others would make MLK and many other US civil rights activists turn in their graves. 

As for Khamenei’s gross exploitation of the plight of African Americans, one would only need to look at Iran’s gross violations of human rights documentation compiled by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and other organizations to realize the hypocrisy of the mullah’s words. The Islamic Republic of Iran has carried out mass executions of Kurds, and thousands of other political dissidents and civil rights activists since its inception. 

Revolution Erupted in Iran Because of Mohammad Reza Shah

READ MORE

In the current protests following Jina Amini’s death, forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran have killed 475 individuals, 65 of which have been children, and arrested 18,242 individuals, according to the latest figures by the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA).

The Jina Amini uprising and the targeting of ethnic nations

Hengaw, a Kurdish human rights organization, reports that protests have erupted in 47 Kurdish cities. Of the total deaths, 122 are Kurdish, and 16 of these are children. The authorities have injured  more than 8,000 individuals and arrested 6,500 in the Kurdish region. 

The crackdown in Balochistan has been equally bloody. Amnesty International reports the death of at least 100 protesters, bystanders and worshippers, including 16 children, killed by security forces since September 30. The disproportionate death toll in ethnic enclaves suggests a deliberate targeting of non-Persian nations by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Currently, Kurdish and Baluch cities are under heavy militarization and surveillance. There are reports and videos of military-grade weapons, vehicles and helicopters in operation on city streets. Regime forces have even stopped blood donations from reaching the injured in places like Javanrud. The situation in Kurdistan is best summarized by the murdered Kurdish protestor Ghafour Mewludi’s son, who during his father’s burial said, “In Tehran the Islamic regime is fascist but in Kurdistan, it is a military occupier.” 

The Dirty Secrets About How Reza Shah Destroyed Iran

READ MORE

For Kurds and other non-Persian ethnic nations, the Islamic Republic of Iran is an existential threat. However, at the root of this threat is a Persian ethnonationalism whose founders thought to assimilate other non-Persian peoples and languages in Iran. This began long ago when the Qajar Empire fell due to a military coup by Reza Khan Pahlavi, the grandfather of the current Pahlavi living in the US. Ahmad Hashemi, a Research Fellow at the Hudson Institute, calls it the Pahlavi era doctrine of “One Nation, One Language, One Supreme Leader, One God.”

What can white supremacy teach us about nationalism in Iran?

While the oppression of African Americans by the state during slavery, Jim crow and segregation is history, the threat against black lives persists because the systemic ideas and manifestations of white supremacy ideology uphold an exclusionary notion of America as a white Christian state. A similar reality for non-Persian ethnicities is true in modern Iran under the guise of Persian ethnonationalism. The modern history of Iran has been shaped by a toxic ethnonationalism that is grounded in notions of Persian superiority and exceptionalism known as Iranshahr. 

White superiority works to oppress and marginalize African Americans. Writer and African American intellectual Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote: “All politics are identity politics—except the politics of white people, the politics of the blood heirloom.” Likewise, any political agitation by Kurds, Baloch, Azeri, Ahwazi and other persecuted peoples in Iran is considered a separatist or a security threat. In contrast, the demands made by Persians are seen as valid concerns and shape all narratives about rights. The plight of Persians frames the main narrative of being Iranian and shapes the dominant discourse while disregarding or minimizing the plight and rights of marginalized peoples like the Kurds and the Baloch. 

Why Does the Islamic Republic of Iran Fear its Kurdish Population?

READ MORE

Because the discourse of Iranianism is grounded in a Persian-centric nationalism, some Kurds do not regard themselves as Iranian. As Dr. Ahmad Mohammadpour points out, this nationalism seeks to co-opt Kurdish narratives of struggle and liberation, especially that of Kurdish women into the struggle of the dominant Persian ethnicity. In this way, the death and name of Jina Amini are co-opted into a Persian-centric Iranian discourse while the imprisonment of Kurdish teacher Zara Mohammadi is completely ignored because it does not fit into the discourse of the dominant ethnicity. In this manner, the Persian ethnicity is privileged while the Kurdish, Baloch and others are deprived and disadvantaged.

The Iranshahr nationalists see Iran as a civilizational state, much like China, and are willing to resort to any means to preserve the empire. The philosophical foundation of Persian nationalism denies the fundamental rights of other ethnonational communities like Kurds and Baluch, reinforcing notions of Persian superiority. Such a vision and conception of Iran is not only dismissive of the reality of Iran as a multinational country but also further exacerbates ethnic grievances and inequalities. 

Thus, a change of government is unlikely to end discrimination against Kurds or other ethnic communities so long as Persian nationalism and its notions of Persian superiority continue to hold the minds of many influential Persian figures and leaders. Some may view my perspective with disgust and disdain but history has shown that a change of government has not changed the reality of cultural genocide for Kurds and other ethnic communities. 

What can safeguard the rights of these ethnic nations in a post-Islamic Republic of Iran? 

Persian nationalists come in different colors. Some are Shia fundamentalists like Khomeini and some are primordial nationalists like the Pahlavis. So long as figures and ideologues like this lead Iran, the future of democracy and human rights will remain bleak.

Derecognize Mullahs, Forge New Government in Exile for Iran

READ MORE

An Iran governed covertly or overtly by notions of Persian nationalism and superiority will never be a safe country for Kurds, Baloch and other ethnic nations. The onus is on Persian figures and activists who truly value human rights and democracy to oppose the extreme and unjust ambitions of Persian nationalists. They must stand united with Kurds, Baloch, Azeri and Ahwaz in opposing this force that is at the root of marginalization of ethnic and religious communities. 

Furthermore, there is often a lot of talk about Kurdish national ambitions in the media as a threat to stability and territorial integrity. Consequently, Kurds are frequently labelled insurgents, militants, or even worse, terrorists. Additionally, the Kurdish question is framed as a thorn to be dealt with through security measures rather than dialogue and state policy. 

However, the fear of Kurdish nationalism is completely unfounded. The Kurds have never threatened or attacked anyone. They have always fought to preserve and protect their identity and lands from state aggression. 

It is quite shocking that the dominant discourse has not put Persian, Arab or Turkish nationalism under the microscope. Yet it has focused so much on Kurdish nationalist ambitions as if to subliminally endorse the notion that Kurdish nationalism is the big threat to peace and stability. An impartial examination of Persian nationalism and state policy under the Pahlavi dynasty and the Islamic regime, makes it clear that Persian nationalism is at the root of disunity and discrimination in Iran. The Kurds and Baloch can not accept being victims of this fascist nationalism any longer. They deserve respect, support and, above all, justice.
[Conner Tighe edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post The Exploitation of the African American Struggle and Iranian Nationalism appeared first on Fair Observer.

In a widely shared video of Jina’s funeral, her father cries out, “This is the daughter of Kurdistan, the child of those who demand freedom. She is the symbol of resistance. Today, the women of Kurdistan are a symbol of resistance for the whole world.”

Her death and the words of her grieving father ignited a women and youth-led protest movement in Kurdistan that swept all of Iran and initiated a global solidarity movement for women, life and freedom. The violent response of Iran to the protests has resulted in the death of over 248 protesters and the arrest of more than 12,575 others, reported HRANA human rights group on October 23.

Iran Attacks Kurds Yet Again

A few days after the protests began, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) took military action across the border by launching missiles and drone attacks against Kurdish opposition camps. The strikes wounded 58 people and killed 13 others, including children, an infant, and a pregnant mother.

Derecognize Mullahs, Forge New Government in Exile for Iran

READ MORE

According to Reuters, Iranian officials and state media have justified the brazen attack on the grounds that Kurdish opposition groups are using Amini’s case as an excuse to separate Kurdistan from Iran.

The continued militarization and economic impoverishment of Kurdish cities by Iran and its imprisonment and execution of Kurds are rationalized based on this accusation of separatism.

Many analysts were surprised that Iran was blaming the Kurds and resorting to unjustified military force against them. However, to Kurds, this attack was expected, as it has been their ill-fate to be the target and scapegoat of the Iranian state: a state that continues its onslaught on Kurdish lives through unjustified imprisonment, execution and assassination.

The story of the Kurds in Iran is similar to that of their brethren in Iraq, Turkey, and Syria. Being Kurdish in Iran is tantamount to being a criminal. Standing for your identity and advocating for your linguistic, political or economic rights can get you imprisoned and often executed. With few rights and little economic opportunity, the Kurds have few options but to stand defiant against the regime at the risk of death.

A Brave Story of Resistance

The crimes of the Islamic Republic of Iran against the Kurds in Iran are extensive because the Kurds have always been the most outspoken critics of the establishment in Tehran. They have paid heavily with their lives for their stance against the tyrannical rulers in Tehran. They even engaged in a full-scale rebellion against the Khomeini regime after his fatwa against the Kurds in 1979.

Revolution Erupted in Iran Because of Mohammad Reza Shah

READ MORE

The Kurds defied the regime and stood against Khomeini’s government from the inception of the Republic. In 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini feared the Kurds so much that in his first week as supreme leader of Iran he offered them over $75 million in oil revenue to buy their loyalty and ward off a Kurdish rebellion. When the Kurds refused to join his so-called Islamic Republic, he declared a fatwa against them and went to war with Kurdistan.

The shocking part of this tragedy is that this phobia of Kurds that informed Khomeini’s fatwa and war against Kurdistan is a significant part of the Persian psyche today.

Outside of Iran, Persian media outlets and even many protesters who struggle for human rights and an end to the regime, share this fear of the Kurds. They often attempt to intimidate and strong-arm Kurds into taking down their Kurdish flags, and when Kurds insist on talking about their rights, they are told not to speak of this and to stand in unity. This attempt to silence Kurds even in the diaspora, where freedom of expression and other democratic rights are guaranteed and protected by law, illustrates how irrational but deeply rooted this phobia is in the Persian psyche.

This irrational phobia of Kurds and Kurdistan is very much what governs the Persian perspective on the Kurds in Iran. It is a phobia that oppressors across the Middle East share and use as justification for denying Kurdish rights and identity. This phobia informs the forced assimilation, extrajudicial killings, unlawful detention and increased securitization of Kurdistan.

It is thus, fundamentally important to deconstruct and debunk this phenomenon in order to end the intentional, irrational and unjustified persecution of the Kurdish people. It is only through overcoming this phobia and ending the negative connotations of the label of separatism that Iran’s Persian population can build lasting unity and understanding with Kurds, Baloch and other ethnic communities in Iran. This unity is essential in overthrowing the theocratic state of the ayatollahs and establishing an inclusive and truly democratic Iran.

[The Washington Times published a version of this piece earlier.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Why Does the Islamic Republic of Iran Fear its Kurdish Population? appeared first on Fair Observer.