Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

CONFIRMED: Israel supports the creation of a Kurdish state

Here are the 3 possible outcomes of the public announcement by Israel’s leader.

Published

on

942 Views

For decades, Israel has had significant links to Kurdish groups throughout the Middle East. Long before President Erdogan led what in many ways amounts to a counter-revolution in Turkish politics, Israel’s support of Kurdish separatist movements throughout the region, was often a sore point between Ankara and Tel Aviv, who apart from this issue, tended to have relations which ranged from good to very good.

Israel however, has now come out overtly supporting the creation of a Kurdish state, although it is not clear where Israeli leaders think such a state should be. Ostensibly however, Israel is speaking about a would-be Kurdish entity in the legitimate territory of the Syrian Arab Republic. This would make the most sense given the context of the statement as well as Israel’s known frustration at the fact that Syria and her allies have all but won the war against Salafist terrorists.

Speaking to reporters, Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu stated that Israel “supports the legitimate efforts of the Kurdish people to achieve their own state”.

During the same speech, Netanyahu also said that he still considers the PKK (Kurdish Workers Party) which operates in Turkey, to be a terrorist group. The motivation behind such a statement is clear enough, Turkey is the only country with a significant Kurdish population with which Israel has formal relations.

The timing of Netanyahu’s announcement, something he has hinted at in private and semi-private meetings in the past, is in many ways, more significant than the statement itself, which simply affirms a widely known fact of Tel Aviv’s geo-strategic goals.

Here are the possible implications starting with the most likely:

1. Preempting/testing US policy  

As America’s most significant and most militarily powerful regional ally, the Israeli statement could be a way for America to put out its feelers and test the wider regional reaction to such remarks. Syria, Iraq and Iran will certainly condemn the statement, but it will be instructive to see how vocal the condemnation will be.

In respect of Turkey, things are far more significant. Under President Erdogan, Turkey’s relationship with Tel Aviv has been very touch and go. While Erdogan’s Kemalist predecessors tended to have neutral positions on Arab affairs and had decent to very good economic and political relations with Israel, Erdogan occasionally likes to position himself as a defender of oppressed Muslims which naturally includes an emphasis on defending Palestinians.

Turkey and the US have had a rapidly deteriorating relationship with the US over many issues, but the precipice has been America’s unwavering arming and backing of nationalist Kurdish militias in Syria.

Erdogan’s response to Israel’s overt backing of a Kurdish will certainly be studied by the US, even if the US plans to re-position itself away from Turkey, in spite of Ankara’s continued, however uneasy NATO membership.

2. A new long-term anti-Damascus alliance 

Israel invested a great deal of political capital, intelligence work and covert aiding of anti-government forces in Syria in the hopes of ousting the Ba’athist government in Syria which has been under attack from Tel Aviv since 1963. Ever since 1967, Israel has illegally occupied part of Syria, the Golan Heights. While even Israel’s allies like the US do not recognise the illegal occupation and annexation of Syrian territory, many hoped that a weaker, Wahhabi style regime in Damascus would more or less de-facto accept Israel’s annexation of Syrian land.

Instead, President Bashar al-Assad, along with his commitments to resisting Israel on all fronts, including in the Golan Heights, is in many respects, stronger and more popular than ever.

In this sense, Israel may well share a common ‘plan B’ with the US. Put simply, if one cannot install a weak and/or friendly regime in Syria, the best thing to do is chip away at Syrian territory using friendly proxies: the Kurds.

In this sense, Israel and the US could gain a foothold in Syria via a would-be Kurdish ‘state’.

The only problem is that such a state would be sandwiched between a Syria and Turkey who while not friends with each other, certainly would be equally opposed to such a Kurdish entity. Can Israel afford any more enemies? For that matter, can the United States?

3.  Preparing a ‘war for Kurdistan’

Israel has been conducting its largest military drills in 20 years. Conventional wisdom as well as statements from the Israeli media would indicate that such moves are designed to intimidate an increasingly powerful and popular Hezbollah movement in Lebanon. Others yet say that this could be preparation for a new war on Gaza which may also include an illegal invasion of Egypt under the guise of ‘fighting ISIS’ in the Sinai peninsula.

However, there is also the possibility that Israeli forces are planning to illegally enter Syria in order to bolster America’s Kurdish proxies in what might become a Kurdish secessionist war against Syria, once the war against Salafist groups is completed.

While few have considered this option, it could well develop as Israel would doubtlessly seeks to ingratiate itself to a new potential ally, along with the United States that would almost certainly embrace such an Israeli position.

Luckily for the peace of the region, we are a long way off from being able to confirm such a strategy, but such a matter is far from inconceivable, not least because Israel has been threatening to attack Syria with increasing vigour, this time under the guise of the presence of Syria’s Iranian allies on Syrian soil.

CONCLUSION:

While option three is certainly the worst possible option as well as the most patently illegal according to international law, it cannot be discounted. Such a plan could be in the pipeline, unless Russia can reach a compromise deal between the US, Syria, Iran, Turkey, Israel and Kurdish militants.

READ MORE: Syria, Turkey and the Kurds–A Devil’s Triangle that only Russia can navigate

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
JNDillard
Guest
JNDillard

Israel continues to dig its own grave and then climb down in it. Supporting a Kurdish state is a no-win for Israel as it is for the US. Russia has declared its unconditional support for the inviolable rights of Syria to its territory. It has the same stance toward the borders of Turkey, Iran and Iraq. Russia understands that a Kurdistan would be a client state of the US and Israel, meaning it would be a safe haven for the fomenting of terrorism and revolution throughout the region. But perhaps I am mistaken. Perhaps what Netanyahu means by his statement… Read more »

Terry Ross
Guest
Terry Ross

Israel should be aware that in calling for a legitimate Kurdish state they draw attention to their own failure to allow Palestinians the same, and arguably more justifiable, right.

JNDillard
Guest
JNDillard

Agreed, Terry, Israelis SHOULD be aware, just as Jews in general SHOULD be aware of their hypocrisy when they are PEP Jews: Progressive except Palestine. However, the twin scourges of denial and exceptionalism do not respect intelligence, educational level or any universal code of conduct.

Kaput
Member
Kaput

the zionists code of conduct, can be compared to Mazzinis.

Kaput
Member
Kaput

so here is the deal There is a proper Kurdistan nation, but Israel will cease to exist because they are gmos, planted in Palestine………… only Palestinians can live in Palestine. , BECAUSE THEY ARE ITS ADN INHABITANTS.

mikhas
Guest
mikhas

Great article Garrie, any chance of a new episode of “ask Adam” with our voluptuous heroine Nedka Babliku anytime soon?

Shahna
Guest

Now we KNOW it’s a bad idea with LOTS of shenanigans in store.
If the Kurds want their own country they get to negotiate land for deals with the countries concerned.
No agreement = no land.

Karen Nicholas
Guest
Karen Nicholas

Here’s a novel idea..guaranteed to achieve GLOBAL peace; DISMANTLE ISRAEL!! They have their slimy, greedy, war mongering, instigating fingers in virtually any/all “pies” of unrest across the globe! They attack, undermine and/or sabotage their “allies” just as easily as they do their enemies (enemies THEY create, btw). Israel is a plague upon the world, created illegally, supported illegally it’s entire existence is illegal.

Voltaire
Guest
Voltaire

Of course the racist, apartheid ethnic-cleansing Jewish State of Israel will do anything to sabotage its neighbours and cause death and destruction in the MIddle East as it has done since 1947…

Israel is a criminal State….

permopin
Guest
permopin

The Kurdish leaders in the Middle East have been the puppets of the West for decades and have been betraying the Kurd for even longer with the promise of a Kurdish state, whatever that may be. The truth of the matter is that, what Kurdish community really need is a political insight that is not forthcoming.

Abi Shah
Guest
Abi Shah

President Tayyib Erdogan i have never trusted and I do believe him to be a crypto-jew along with his wife posing as a muslim. I have copied and pasted this for all to read.: Author Ergun Poyraz, a Turkish wrote a bestselling book, The Children of Moses which is why he was 08/05/2013 sentenced to 29 years in prison for espionage against the Turkish government and he was later murdered 22 April, 2016. Ergun Poyraz reveals in his book The Children of Moses, that the current Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is a crypto jew. – Poyraz tells how President… Read more »

Ithamer
Guest
Ithamer

“Israel” is a primary cancer in the Middle East.
They care only about the Jews and their ability to control the Middle East.
Their barbaric treatment of the Palestinians make them unfit for any kindd of interaction,

jokkker
Guest
jokkker

Exactly the same
schispoprenic policy of the pentagon in Iraq, where ISIS was a terrorist
entity, but in SYRIA they were freedom fighters. EVERYTHING is clarified. U.S. policy simply it was, is and will be (apparently) the policy dictating by tel avid.

Latest

New York Times hit piece on Trump and NATO exposes alliance as outdated and obsolete (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 61.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

RT CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle and The Duran’s Alex Christoforou take a quick look at the New York Times hit piece citing anonymous sources, with information that the U.S. President dared to question NATO’s viability.

Propaganda rag, the NYT, launched its latest presidential smear aimed at discrediting Trump and provoking the establishment, warmonger left into more impeachment – Twenty-fifth Amendment talking points.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via The American Conservative


The New York Times scored a serious scoop when it revealed on Monday that President Trump had questioned in governmental conversations—on more than one occasion, apparently—America’s membership in NATO. Unfortunately the paper then slipped into its typical mode of nostrum journalism. My Webster’s New World Dictionary defines “nostrum” as “quack medicine” entailing “exaggerated claims.” Here we had quack journalism executed in behalf of quack diplomacy.

The central exaggerated claim is contained in the first sentence, in which it is averred that NATO had “deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” This is wrong, as can be seen through just a spare amount of history.

True, NATO saved Europe from the menace of Russian Bolshevism. But it did so not over 70 years but over 40 years—from 1949 to 1989. That’s when the Soviet Union had 1.3 million Soviet and client-state troops poised on Western Europe’s doorstep, positioned for an invasion of Europe through the lowlands of Germany’s Fulda Gap.

How was this possible? It was possible because Joseph Stalin had pushed his armies farther and farther into the West as the German Wehrmacht collapsed at the end of World War II. In doing so, and in the process capturing nearly all of Eastern Europe, he ensured that the Soviets had no Western enemies within a thousand miles of Leningrad or within 1,200 miles of Moscow. This vast territory represented not only security for the Russian motherland (which enjoys no natural geographical barriers to deter invasion from the West) but also a potent staging area for an invasion of Western Europe.

The first deterrent against such an invasion, which Stalin would have promulgated had he thought he could get away with it, was America’s nuclear monopoly. By the time that was lost, NATO had emerged as a powerful and very necessary deterrent. The Soviets, concluding that the cost of an invasion was too high, defaulted to a strategy of undermining Western interests anywhere around the world where that was possible. The result was global tensions stirred up at various global trouble spots, most notably Korea and Vietnam.

But Europe was saved, and NATO was the key. It deserves our respect and even reverence for its profound success as a military alliance during a time of serious threat to the West.

But then the threat went away. Gone were the 1.3 million Soviet and client-state troops. Gone was Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. Indeed, gone, by 1991, was the Soviet Union itself, an artificial regime of brutal ideology superimposed upon the cultural entity of Mother Russia. It was a time for celebration.

But it was also a time to contemplate the precise nature of the change that had washed over the world and to ponder what that might mean for old institutions—including NATO, a defensive military alliance created to deter aggression from a menacing enemy to the east. Here’s where Western thinking went awry. Rather than accepting as a great benefit the favorable developments enhancing Western security—the Soviet military retreat, the territorial reversal, the Soviet demise—the West turned NATO into a territorial aggressor of its own, absorbing nations that had been part of the Soviet sphere of control and pushing right up to the Russian border. Now Leningrad (renamed St. Petersburg after the obliteration of the menace of Soviet communism) resides within a hundred miles of NATO military forces, while Moscow is merely 200 miles from Western troops.

Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has absorbed 13 nations, some on the Russian border, others bordering lands that had been part of Russia’s sphere of interest for centuries. This constitutes a policy of encirclement, which no nation can accept without protest or pushback. And if NATO were to absorb those lands of traditional Russian influence—particularly Ukraine and Georgia—that would constitute a major threat to Russian security, as Russian President Vladimir Putin has sought to emphasize to Western leaders for years.

So, no, NATO has not deterred Russian aggression for 70 years. It did so for 40 and has maintained a destabilizing posture toward Russia ever since. The problem here is the West’s inability to perceive how changed geopolitical circumstances might require a changed geopolitical strategy. The encirclement strategy has had plenty of critics—George Kennan before he died; academics John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, and Robert David English; former diplomat Jack Matlock; the editors of The Nation. But their voices have tended to get drowned out by the nostrum diplomacy and the nostrum journalism that supports it at every turn.

You can’t drown out Donald Trump because he’s president of the United States. And so he has to be traduced, ridiculed, dismissed, and marginalized. That’s what the Times story, by Julian Barnes and Helene Cooper, sought to do. Consider the lead, designed to emphasize just how outlandish Trump’s musings are before the reader even has a chance to absorb what he may have been thinking: “There are few things that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia desires more than the weakening of NATO, the military alliance among the United States, Europe and Canada that has deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” Translation: “Take that, Mr. President! You’re an idiot.”

Henry Kissinger had something interesting to say about Trump in a recent interview with the Financial Times. “I think Trump may be one of those figures in history,” said the former secretary of state, “who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretenses.” One Western pretense about Russia, so ardently enforced by the likes of Julian Barnes and Helene Cooper (who, it may be safe to say, know less about world affairs and their history than Henry Kissinger), is that nothing really changed with the Soviet collapse and NATO had to turn aggressive in order to keep that menacing nation in its place.

Trump clearly doesn’t buy that pretense. He said during the campaign that NATO was obsolete. Then he backtracked, saying he only wanted other NATO members to pay their fair share of the cost of deterrence. He even confessed, after Hillary Clinton identified NATO as “the strongest military alliance in the history of the world,” that he only said NATO was obsolete because he didn’t know much about it. But he was learning—enough, it appears, to support as president Montenegro’s entry into NATO in 2017. Is Montenegro, with 5,332 square miles and some 620,000 citizens, really a crucial element in Europe’s desperate project to protect itself against Putin’s Russia?

We all know that Trump is a crude figure—not just in his disgusting discourse but in his fumbling efforts to execute political decisions. As a politician, he often seems like a doctor attempting to perform open-heart surgery while wearing mittens. His idle musings about leaving NATO are a case in point—an example of a politician who lacks the skill and finesse to nudge the country in necessary new directions.

But Kissinger has a point about the man. America and the world have changed, while the old ways of thinking have not kept pace. The pretenses of the old have blinded the status quo defenders into thinking nothing has changed. Trump, almost alone among contemporary American politicians, is asking questions to which the world needs new answers. NATO, in its current configuration and outlook, is a danger to peace, not a guarantor of it.


Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington journalist and publishing executive, is the author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Nigel Farage To Back Another “Vote Leave” Campaign If UK Holds Second Brexit Referendum

Nigel Farage said Friday that he would be willing to wage another “Vote Leave” campaign, even if he needed to use another party as the “vehicle” for his opposition.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


Pro-European MPs from various political parties are pushing back against claims made by Prime Minister Theresa May’s government that a second Brexit referendum – which supporters have branded as a “People’s Vote” on May’s deal – would take roughly 14 months to organize, according to RT.

But while support for a second vote grows, one of the most notorious proponents of the original “Vote Leave” campaign is hinting at a possible return to politics to try and fight the effort.

After abandoning UKIP, the party he helped create, late last year, Nigel Farage said Friday that he would be willing to wage another “Vote Leave” campaign, even if he needed to use another party as the “vehicle” for his opposition. Farage also pointed out that a delay of Brexit Day would likely put it after the European Parliament elections in May.

“I think, I fear that the House of Commons is going to effectively overturn that Brexit. To me, the most likely outcome of all of this is an extension of Article 50. There could be another referendum,” he told Sky News.

According to official government guidance shown to lawmakers on Wednesday, which was subsequently leaked to the Telegraph, as May tries to head off a push by ministers who see a second referendum as the best viable alternative to May’s deal – a position that’s becoming increasingly popular with Labour Party MPs.

“In order to inform the discussions, a very short paper set out in factual detail the number of months that would be required, this was illustrative only and our position of course is that there will be no second referendum,,” May said. The statement comes as May has been meeting with ministers and leaders from all parties to try to find a consensus deal that could potentially pass in the House of Commons.

The 14 month estimate is how long May and her government expect it would take to pass the primary legislation calling for the referendum (seven months), conduct the question testing with the election committee (12 weeks), pass secondary legislation (six weeks) and conduct the campaigns (16 weeks).

May has repeatedly insisted that a second referendum wouldn’t be feasible because it would require a lengthy delay of Brexit Day, and because it would set a dangerous precedent that wouldn’t offer any more clarity (if some MPs are unhappy with the outcome, couldn’t they just push for a third referendum?). A spokesperson for No. 10 Downing Street said the guidance was produced purely for the purpose of “illustrative discussion” and that the government continued to oppose another vote.

Meanwhile, a vote on May’s “Plan B”, expected to include a few minor alterations from the deal’s previous iteration, has been called for Jan. 29, prompting some MPs to accuse May of trying to run out the clock. May is expected to present the new deal on Monday.

Former Tory Attorney General and pro-remainer MP Dominic Grieve blasted May’s timetable as wrong and said that the government “must be aware of it themselves,” while former Justice Minister Dr Phillip Lee, who resigned his cabinet seat in June over May’s Brexit policy, denounced her warning as “nonsense.”

As May pieces together her revised deal, more MPs are urging her to drop her infamous “red lines” (Labour in particular would like to see the UK remain part of the Customs Union), but with no clear alternative to May’s plan emerging, a delay of Brexit Day is looking like a virtual certainty.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

The National Security Agency Is A Criminal Organization

The National Security Agency values being able to blackmail citizens and members of government at home and abroad more than preventing terrorist attacks.

Paul Craig Roberts

Published

on

Via Paul Craig Roberts…


Years before Edward Snowden provided documented proof that the National Security Agency was really a national insecurity agency as it was violating law and the US Constitution and spying indiscriminately on American citizens, William Binney, who designed and developed the NSA spy program revealed the illegal and unconstitutional spying. Binney turned whistleblower, because NSA was using the program to spy on Americans. As Binney was well known to the US Congress, he did not think he needed any NSA document to make his case. But what he found out was “Congress would never hear me because then they’d lose plausible deniability. That was really their key. They needed to have plausible deniability so they can continue this massive spying program because it gave them power over everybody in the world. Even the members of Congress had power against others [in Congress]; they had power on judges on the Supreme Court, the federal judges, all of them. That’s why they’re so afraid. Everybody’s afraid because all this data that’s about them, the central agencies — the intelligence agencies — they have it. And that’s why Senator Schumer warned President Trump earlier, a few months ago, that he shouldn’t attack the intelligence community because they’ve got six ways to Sunday to come at you. That’s because it’s like J. Edgar Hoover on super steroids. . . . it’s leverage against every member of parliament and every government in the world.”

To prevent whistle-blowing, NSA has “a program now called ‘see something, say something’ about your fellow workers. That’s what the Stasi did. That’s why I call [NSA] the new New Stasi Agency. They’re picking up all the techniques from the Stasi and the KGB and the Gestapo and the SS. They just aren’t getting violent yet that we know of — internally in the US, outside is another story.”

As Binney had no documents to give to the media, blowing the whistle had no consequence for NSA. This is the reason that Snowden released the documents that proved NSA to be violating both law and the Constitution, but the corrupt US media focused blame on Snowden as a “traitor” and not on NSA for its violations.

Whistleblowers are protected by federal law. Regardless, the corrupt US government tried to prosecute Binney for speaking out, but as he had taken no classified document, a case could not be fabricated against him.

Binney blames the NSA’s law-breaking on Dick “Darth” Cheney. He says NSA’s violations of law and Constitution are so extreme that they would have to have been cleared at the top of the government.

Binney describes the spy network, explains that it was supposed to operate only against foreign enemies, and that using it for universal spying so overloads the system with data that the system fails to discover many terrorist activities. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50932.htm

Apparently, the National Security Agency values being able to blackmail citizens and members of government at home and abroad more than preventing terrorist attacks.

Unfortunately for Americans, there are many Americans who blindly trust the government and provide the means, the misuse of which is used to enslave us. A large percentage of the work in science and technology serves not to free people but to enslave them. By now there is no excuse for scientists and engineers not to know this. Yet they persist in their construction of the means to destroy liberty.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending