Since Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) came to power in Damascus, growing political indicators have suggested that the adopted approach is not directed toward building a new Syrian state based on national partnership and equal citizenship. Instead, it appears inclined to reproduce the same centralized policies against which Syrians revolted in 2011. It is as though the revolution was never intended to transform the structure of the authoritarian state, but merely served as a path through which a new authority reached power while preserving the same mentality and methods, even if the names and slogans have changed.
At the beginning of this new phase, slogans of national unity and reconciliation were widely promoted. However, political practice has moved in a different direction. Every internal issue is presented to public opinion as a battle to defend the unity of the country, while the constitutional and cultural rights of Syria's diverse communities are increasingly portrayed as acts of separatism or threats to the state's unity.
We witnessed this in the Syrian coastal region under the banner of pursuing remnants of the former regime, then in Suwayda through accusations that its people sought to divide Syria or rejected the identity of the state. The same pattern has now been repeated in the Kurdish regions east of the Euphrates, where the traditional narrative portraying the Kurds as a separatist project has once again been revived. This is despite the political reality that Kurdish political forces have repeatedly expressed their willingness to engage in dialogue and have demonstrated considerable flexibility in participating in a Syrian political process based on partnership, one that preserves the country's unity while safeguarding the rights of all its components.
What is most alarming today, however, goes beyond political disagreements. It extends to targeting the cultural identity and historical symbols of Syria's peoples. After the exclusion of the Kurdish language from some official signs and public institutions in al-Hasakah—including limiting court signs to Arabic and English—the decision was made to reintroduce the name Ayn al-Arab in place of Kobani, a move that has sparked widespread concern and popular rejection among the city's residents.
The name Kobani is not a recent invention, nor a partisan slogan, nor a designation associated with a temporary political period that can simply be replaced by an administrative decision. It is a historic name that has accompanied the city since its establishment and has become an integral part of its collective memory and cultural identity. For this reason, any attempt to impose another name is understood by the people of the city as an attempt to undermine one of the most significant symbols of their historical and cultural existence.
Respecting the historical names of cities is not a privilege granted by a government to its people. It is a fundamental cultural and moral right and an essential element of respecting the national and cultural diversity upon which modern states are built. Democratic states do not preserve their unity by denying identities; they strengthen it by recognizing and protecting them within the framework of equal citizenship.
The people of Kobani have clearly expressed their position through peaceful demonstrations rejecting the renaming of their city. They have affirmed that Kobani is not merely a geographical location or an administrative district, but a historical, cultural, and human symbol deeply connected to the memory of successive generations. Their voice deserves to be respected because it reflects the genuine will of the city's inhabitants rather than a temporary political position.
At the same time, no political party or organization, regardless of its size or influence, possesses either the moral or political mandate to relinquish the national and cultural symbols of the Kurdish people or negotiate them under any circumstances. Identity is not a clause in a political agreement, nor is it a bargaining chip on the negotiating table. It is a historical and cultural right that neither expires with time nor is subject to political calculations or shifting balances of power.
Accordingly, I state my position with complete clarity. I stand alongside the people of Kobani who have taken to the streets in defense of their city's name, history, and identity. I categorically reject any decision aimed at changing the name Kobani or undermining its historical and cultural significance. Respect for the identity of peoples constitutes the true foundation of Syria's unity and stability. Imposing names and denying cultural particularities will only deepen divisions and reproduce the very policies whose failure has already been demonstrated by history.
A new Syria cannot be built by repeating the mistakes of the past or by reviving policies of denial and exclusion. Rather, it must be founded upon mutual recognition among all its communities and upon respect for their history, languages, cultures, and symbols. National unity cannot be imposed through the erasure of identities; it can only be preserved through justice, partnership, and mutual recognition.
For this reason, Kobani will remain Kobani—in the hearts of its people, in their collective memory, and in their history—regardless of how governments change, authorities succeed one another, or official decisions are issued.
11 July 2026
Dr. Adnan Bouzan