In the early days of Zionist colonisation of Palestine, one of the preferred methods of settlement was the Kibbutz. Kibbutzim (plural) were self-sustaining agricultural communes set up by European Zionists in Palestine which were to form the core of so-called “Jewish settlements” on Palestinian land. The Kibbutzim served the practical goal of annexing agriculturally rich Palestinian land so that the Zionist community could flourish and expand. Perhaps more importantly, Kibbutzim had the soft-power effect of painting a picture of self-sustained, permanent Zionist settlement on Palestinian land that would create the illusion of an immovable colonial presence in Palestine in spite of the often makeshift nature of the colonial experiments.
It is for these reasons that the creation of Kibbutzim increased exponentially during the British Imperial Mandate period of rule over formerly Ottoman ruled Palestine. Even more crucially, during the late 1940s as the newly formed UN began discussing proposals for a partition of Palestine, the presence of Kibbutzim rapidly increased as Zionists agreed that the establishment of self-sustained communes was a preferable way to extract concessions from the so-called international community, vis-a-vis more standard urban and rural living agreements.
Crucially, the Kibbutzim were overwhelmingly secular. The goal was not religious autonomy but political and territorial annexation. The structures of the Kibbutzim became the building blocks of “Israel” and their locations were strategically designed to bifurcate and Balkanise once indivisible Arab land, thus effectively blackmailing the UN into recognising the presence of colonial settlements due to their effective encirclement of Palestinian territory.
Today, in northern Syria, the majority Arab population, as well as minorities including Armenians, Assyrians and Circassians are faced with a similar crisis as the Palestinians faced between 1917 and 1948. Beginning in 2013, radical Kurds led by the terrorist PKK aligned PYD illegally inaugurated a pseudo-state with its own self-contained regime in northern Syria which is typically called “Rojava”. In this sense, “Rojava” ought to be referred to as “the occupied territories”.
The self-contained “Rojava” promotes itself as a left-leaning secular democratic federation in a clear soft-power strategy which seeks to woo the so-called progressive liberal left of Europe and North America. In reality, “Rojava” is an ethno-nationalist supremacist regime built on depriving Arabs and non-Kurdish minorities of their basic rights, liberties and even rights to exist in their own homes, all while using “Rojava” as a base to launch PKK attacks on Turkish civilians, just as “Israel” has become a launching pad for aggressive wars against neighbouring Arab states.
It has been well documented that in the illegal Kurdish regime of “Rojava”, Arabs are particularly discriminated against. Arabs are often forced to pay extremely high prices for basic goods which are sold cheaply to local Kurds. Likewise, the Kurdish regime has illegally changed the names of Arab towns, villages and cities in an attempt to acculturate Arab culture from locations in an internationally recognised Arab state. The most infamous instance of this acculturation is the unilateral refusal of Kurdish extremists to use the name Ayn al-Arab for the city they have tried to get the world to call “Kobani”.
Elsewhere, schools set up by Kurdish extremists deprive children of their legal right to be taught in Arabic, all the while anti-Syrian propaganda is shoved down the throats of the young. Most worryingly, in areas where Arabs and non-Kurdish minorities fled from Daesh, “Rojava” supporters have seized Arab private and public property and turned it into their own. Entire families have been prohibited from returning to their homes, not because of the largely vanquished Daesh, but because of “Rojava” and its heavily armed YPG terrorist militia. Likewise, just as Kibbutzim were built in strategically prominent and agriculturally rich locations in Palestine, so too was “Rojava” designed to encompass some of Syria’s most oil rich land.
And these are just the logistical similarities between “Rojava” and the Kibbutzim. The leaders of the Kibbutzim justified their annexation of Palestine due to the horrors which befell European Jewry during the 1930s and 1940s. However, not a single Arab bore any responsibility for the events in Europe during that period. Likewise, the Syrian Arab Republic had given local Kurds full citizenship with all the rights of Arabs, Armenians, Druze, Assyrians and others who are loyal Syrian patriots.
Instead of repaying Syria with loyalty in her hour of need, Kurdish extremists declined to fight against Takfiri terrorism as part of the Syrian Arab Army and instead exploited Syria’s vulnerability to declare the world’s largest Kurdish Kibbutzim and call it “Rojava”. This of course happened in 2013, when many thought that the Syrian Arab Republic would suffer the same debilitating defeat as occupied Palestine.
Given the fact that both Zionists and Kurdish extremists used similar methods to ethnically cleanse Arab land and implement soft-power strategies to fool western liberals about their true intentions, it is no wonder that Kurdish groups throughout the Middle East have traditionally found a sympathetic ear in Tel Aviv.
While many western progressives have come to understand that “Israel” is at best an Apartheid regime and at worst, a project in long term ethnic cleansing, these same western so-called progressives often side with the “Rojava” regime against the equally secular and anti-racist Syrian Arab Republic. Anyone who thinks that Turkish involvement in Syria, which is heavily scrutinised by Syria’s traditional Russian ally, is less preferable to a “Kurdish Israel” on occupied Syrian territory, ought to think again.
The only conclusion one must reach is that you can fool some of the people some of the time and you can fool the intrinsically gullible all of the time.