By: Dr. Adnan Bozan

Introduction:

In the realm of politics, it is not interests alone that dictate international relations, but also symbolic hegemony and the monopolization of "legitimacy" in defining friend and foe. Hence, a striking paradox emerges: why are Arab rulers and Islamic states allowed to sign agreements and normalize relations with the "Hebrew State" (Israel)—often justified under the labels of "political tactics" or "strategic realism"—while a Kurdish politician taking the same path is accused of "high treason," socially ostracized, and stripped of his national and ethnic identity?

Why is such a relationship deemed "political wisdom" in Cairo but "national betrayal" in Erbil or Qamishli? Isn't this evaluative double standard a sign of short-sightedness among some Kurdish elites and their emotional subordination to ethnic and religious categories imposed by surrounding hegemonic regimes?

In a world torn apart by interests and reassembled by opportunistic alliances rather than principles, international politics resembles a grand theatrical stage where roles change according to the spotlight, not according to justice. In the Middle East, it goes beyond mere pragmatism or temporary interests—it becomes the fabrication of coercive narratives that reproduce betrayal and heroism based on regime agendas, not the substance of actions.

This reveals one of the most blatant contradictions in regional politics: Arab rulers and Islamic regimes engage in multi-faceted relations with Israel—security cooperation, covert alliances, economic normalization, even intelligence collaboration—and yet no one dares to question them on "the Palestinian cause" or label them as traitors. Their actions are portrayed in state media and elite discourse as "sovereign decisions," "regional necessities," and "strategic realism" dictated by the balance of power.

However, when a single Kurdish politician—an individual, not a regime—opens dialogue with the same party, all hell breaks loose: accusations of treason dominate headlines, hate campaigns erupt, and he is cast out by his community. His political existence, and even his life, may be threatened. He is hanged on a moral gallows in the name of "the Palestinian cause," of religion, and of national betrayal—while everyone else sells that same cause on the international auction block.

Why are state-level betrayals justified, while Kurdish outreach efforts are criminalized? Why is a relationship with Israel a "strategic partnership" from an Arab capital but a "historic treason" when it comes from Kurdistan?

Is it because the Kurd is denied the right to shape his own narrative? Because he lacks the media machinery to frame his choices? Or simply because the Kurd has been cast permanently as a victim—expected to demonstrate moral purity in a corrupt world, and prove political innocence in a court he was never invited to?

Who decided the Kurd cannot seek negotiating leverage or international alliances for survival? Why is he forbidden what others are allowed? Isn’t this societal and political prohibition a form of symbolic colonialism, where the Kurd is not permitted to err or succeed, but merely to remain a subject of scrutiny and betrayal?

The most dangerous part of this paradox is not just the political injustice, but the depth of mental domination exerted by surrounding regimes—and even some nationalist forces—on the Kurdish collective mind. The Kurd, in his political unconscious, remains bound to Arab, Turkish, or Islamic centrism, which defines for him who is friend, who is foe, when his struggle is legitimate, and when it is treason. This is the heart of the matter.

This double standard not only reflects a lack of political foresight among certain Kurdish elites, but worse: a case of strategic suicide, where potential tools for survival and progress are rejected in the name of ethical standards no one else follows. This is not virtue; it is fatal naivety.

It is time to dismantle this psychological and political constraint, and to grant the Kurd—like any other people—the right to act as an agent, not just a victim; to err and correct; to test political options as he has tested revolutionary paths, without being stabbed in the back by tongues that never fought but only spoke.

1. Arab Politics and Normalization: Tactic or Deferred Treason?

Since the signing of the Camp David Accords in 1978, official Arab policies toward Israel have gradually shifted from confrontation to negotiation, and from negotiation to open cooperation. This trajectory continued with the Oslo Accords, the Wadi Araba Treaty, the "Deal of the Century," and culminated in the wave of "Abraham Accords" during the Trump era, which included the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan, and most recently Syria, under the de facto control of the so-called "accidental leader," jihadist figure Abu Muhammad al-Julani.

None of these leaders were labeled traitors. Their moves were shielded by discourses of national interest and framed as attempts to open windows for peace or create a counterbalance to the Iranian threat.

Arab official positions are often built on justifying regime interests, even if those interests trample over historic slogans. Meanwhile, the Kurd—who has no sovereign state or full autonomy—is burdened with upholding values abandoned by the very regimes that trumpet them. What could be more cruelly paradoxical than this?

2. The Kurd Between Emotional Hammer and Geopolitical Anvil

Throughout modern history, the Kurds have remained outside the "decision-making platform" of the Middle East, yet always inside its war zones. They lack a state, a centralized army, or unified political representation. Thus, any diplomatic step or political opening made by a Kurd is judged through a double lens:

• From Arab regimes: which question him on "Palestine" while selling it through backdoor deals.
• From Ankara and Tehran: which see any independent Kurdish move as a threat to their national security.
• And from segments of Kurdish society itself: driven by ethnic or religious sentiment, viewing any contact with Israel as absolute betrayal, even if purely diplomatic and non-binding.

The result? A Kurd who doesn’t even have a seaport is branded an "international traitor" for merely meeting an Israeli official—while others maintain fully open diplomatic, commercial, and military ties with Tel Aviv!

What logic is this? What justice prosecutes the victim for intentions while pardoning the executioner for crimes?

3. Kurds and Israel: Understanding, Not Justifying

The relationship between certain Kurdish forces and Israel is not new. It dates back to the 1960s and 70s, when Israel supported Mullah Mustafa Barzani's revolution in Iraq—not out of love for Kurdish rights, but to weaken Baghdad.

Today, is it inherently wrong for Kurds to establish a channel of dialogue with Israel? Isn’t Israel a recognized actor in the international system, regardless of our ethical or political stance? Why is the Kurd forbidden from opening doors that others freely walk through? Why is he criminalized for considering external alliances, while others are praised for doing the same?

Politics is the art of managing interests. Surrounded by four hostile states, the Kurd cannot afford to ignore international realities. He needs every possible outlet—even symbolic ones—to ensure survival and defend his cause.

4. The "Kurdish Agent" Myth: A Projection of Collapsing Regimes

Labeling a Kurd as a "Zionist agent" is often a projection of the accuser’s internal crisis. Arab and Islamic regimes themselves have engaged with Mossad, hosted foreign military bases, and remained silent on occupations. Yet, they whitewash their national betrayals by projecting accusations onto the weakest link: the Kurd.

The bitter irony is that even Palestinians—who sometimes criticize Kurds for any Israeli contact—know that most Arab regimes have abandoned them, and that some Palestinian factions negotiate more frequently with Israel than Kurds ever have.

Why then are Kurdish attempts at international outreach criminalized? Is the Palestinian cause the exclusive domain of a single ethnicity? Isn’t it a universal cause of justice for the oppressed? And if so, don’t the Kurds deserve the same understanding in light of their historical oppression?

5. From Victimhood to Political Realism

The Kurdish question cannot be resolved through slogans or sacred enmities. Kurds need a rational political discourse and a balanced network of international relations, instead of dependency on regimes that suppress and demonize them.

A Kurdish politician who opens channels with all states—including Israel—is not a traitor by default. What condemns a person is espionage, not dialogue; betrayal, not engagement. Dialogue is not submission.

If Arab capitals welcome Israeli officials and sign security and trade agreements, why is the Kurd denied the same right? Isn’t this blatant injustice and contradiction?

Conclusion: Redefining Treason and Wisdom

To move beyond the rhetoric of accusation, we must redefine the concepts of "treason" and "wisdom." We cannot demand moral perfection from the Kurds while forgiving open betrayal by regimes. The Kurd lacks neither awareness nor will; he is simply encircled by walls of hatred and political one-upmanship.

Supporting a Kurdish politician who opens dialogue with Israel does not equate to endorsing Zionism. It means challenging the regional political monopoly that insists the Kurd must remain a perpetual victim.

If "political realism" is considered a virtue for others, why is it "treason" for the Kurd?

It is time to leave behind the psychology of eternal victimhood and embrace conscious political action—capable of leveraging opportunities and building a future not constrained by manufactured taboos, but informed by a deep understanding of reality and global transformation.

Add comment