Nobody seems to be able to define precisely what a "Palestinian" is.
There is no Palestinian language. There is no distinct Palestinian ethnicity. The term didn't exist before the Roman Empire invented it to tweak rebellious Jews, leveraging the traditional Jewish foes, the Philistines. And yet the international community, especially the left, keeps joining the "Palestinian" activists in calling for a Palestinian homeland, to be carved out of the tiny state of Israel. Most of the Arab-Muslim nations in that part of the world don't recognize Israel, calling it by the Roman name "Palestine," even though before the Romans changed the name, it was called "Judea" — the homeland of the Jews, an appellation that goes back for thousands of years.
To the east of Judea/Palestine/Israel, there are a people who, unlike Palestinians, are ethnically distinct, linguistically distinct, a people who have been recognized as such for thousands of years — Kurdish warriors may have been among the forces that harried the Greek Xenophon during the March of the Ten Thousand in 401 BC, as documented in the Anabasis. The Kurds are like the Palestinians in one primary way: They do not have a homeland. There is no internationally recognized nation of Kurdistan.
So why does the left continually call for a homeland for the Palestinians and not for the Kurds?
Since the fall of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, Kurds are now trying to form a unified front to represent them in the new Syrian government. But they have one problem in the region: Turkey.
Despite longstanding divisions, Kurdish political leaders and analysts say Syrian Kurdish groups are seeking a unified delegation to represent their interests in Damascus in negotiations with Syria’s new authorities.
Since 2012, northeast Syria’s Kurdish region has been under the control of forces affiliated with the Syrian Democratic Forces, or SDF, a key U.S. partner in the fight against the Islamic State terror group. The region is predominantly governed by the Democratic Union Party, or PYD, whose military arm forms the backbone of the SDF.
For its part, Turkey views all these groups as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, which is designated as a terrorist organization by Turkey, the United States and the European Union. Turkey, a major actor in post-Assad Syria, has pledged to eliminate these Kurdish groups if they refuse to disarm.
These issues arise because the Kurds now occupy parts of Iran, Iraq, and Turkey; a distinct people with their own language and their own culture (unlike the Palestinians) has to deal with at least three different national governments, one of which (Turkey) is and will continue to be openly hostile.
This state of affairs originated with two treaties that were intended by the victorious Great War Allies to break up the Ottoman Empire.
The Treaty of Sèvres was the first of these treaties, and while it recognized the Kurds and proposed an autonomous Kurdistan, for reasons unrelated, it was never ratified. It was replaced by the Treaty of Trianon, which largely established the present borders in what was once the Ottoman Empire — and which did not include a Kurdish homeland. This resulted in the status quo that exists today: a definable population scattered across several nations.
Part of the issue may be the social organization of most of the Kurdish people. The primary political allegiance isn't to a Kurdish nation but to a regional or tribal chief, a sheik. This can only result in disunity or, at best, loose cohesion over what would normally form a national government. But the Kurds are in some ways more advanced than their neighbors, at least on social issues. While most Kurds are Sunni Muslims, the state of women in Kurdish societies, while not up to the standards of most of the Western nations, is still significantly better than in most of the Muslim world.
Shouldn't that appeal to the left, who are constantly campaigning for women's rights? Are they not concerned about Kurdish women, or for that matter, women anywhere in the Muslim world?
See Related: Turkey, a Turkey of a US Ally: Part I
Turkey, the Turkey of a U.S. Ally: Part II
There is, sadly, little chance of the Kurds achieving a nation of their own. There will not be a Kurdistan. The best these people can hope for is a lessening of Turkish hostility and some increased autonomy for Kurdish people in Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Iraq. This is a legacy of the Great War, the treaties that carved up the Ottoman Empire, and the rather arbitrary creation of borders by the victorious Allies. Fortunes of war and all that.
But the hypocrisy remains, and it is galling. It's also revealing. The American left, in particular, loves to shout about the need for a Palestinian homeland. Never mind that what passes for Palestinian leadership has turned down offers for a two-state solution many times. The American left, meanwhile, ignores the Kurds, who, again, unlike the Palestinians, are ethnically and linguistically distinct, and have been for thousands of years.
Why? I can only think of one reason. The Kurds, to achieve independence, would have to have territory carved out from majority-Muslim nations: Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Iraq. The Palestinians want Israel. All of it. From the river to the sea. Kurdish independence would result in a Kurdish nation. Palestinian independence would result in the destruction (or, at least, the attempted destruction) of Israel.
Once you realize that, the left's hypocrisy starts to make sense.
