Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

Israel could regret its support for Kurds

Could a Kurdistan replace Israel as America’s de-facto ally/client in the Middle East?

Published

on

3,200 Views

Conventional wisdom dictates that Israel and Kurdish insurgents throughout the Middle East are close allies and there is plenty of evidence to confirm that historically, Israel has always militarily and otherwise aided Kurds in Iraq, Syria, Iran and even Turkey. Long before the rise of Erdogan in Turkey, Israel’s good relations with the Kurds was one of the only major points of disagreements in what was generally a healthy relationship between Ankara and Tel Aviv.

Should a Kurdish state form in Syria and/or Iraq, Israel and the US would essentially have a friendly proxy state near two historic rivals.

Although at a level of intelligence and military aid, Israel and the US always maintain a close relationship, various US Presidents have at times been frustrated both at a personal and political level with Israeli leaders

Could it be then that if a Kurdistan is America’s ‘second Israel’ in the region, it could at times flip-flop in respect of being America’s number one client state in the Middle East?

This is a reality that the overzealous, blindly anti-Arab Israeli leaders ought to consider.

There is a distinct possibility that if a Kurdish state is established either in Iraq or in Syria, that it would only take one spat between a hot-headed Israeli leader and a US President to make a so-called Kurdistan into America’s number one ally/client in the Middle East.

In this sense, Israel’s position in the Middle East could actually be challenged, not by an Israeli enemy but by a strongly allied US entity.

Stranger things have indeed happened. Turkey which for its entire modern existence has resisted Kurdish nationalism, has now done more to allow for the real possibility of a Kurdish state in Iraq and Syria than almost any other regional player, most of whom oppose Kurdish nationalism, with the exception of Israel and now possibly the additional exception of Saudi Arabia.

By destabilising Syria and to a lesser extent Iraq, Turkish President Erdogan’s policies which have destabilised the region as a whole, have emboldened Kurdish calls for nationalism on Turkey’s borders in the biggest way since at least the 1940s.

But just as Turkey has been on the receiving end of a possible unpleasant regional surprise partly of its own making, so too could Israel find itself in the same position.

In the short and medium term future, a would-be Kurdish state would be poorer and even more dependant on America than Israel, therefore there is even less of chance that a Kurdish leadership would ‘step out of line’ vis-a-vis Israeli leadership who often act with total impunity, in spite of whatever is said in Washington.

Israel has literally gotten away with murder because the US feels it has no choice but to side with Israel, no matter how many UN resolutions it breaks and no matter how aggressive its increasingly right-wing leadership becomes.

A Kurdistan could shift this balance in ways that Israel could not have anticipated.

Poetic justice? Perhaps, but at what cost to the Arab world? Too high a cost if you ask me.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
12 Comments

12
Leave a Reply

avatar
6 Comment threads
6 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
hestroybsamsinSuzanne GiraudtjoesGuy Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Suzanne Giraud
Guest
Suzanne Giraud

Adam, from my research I have found that the Kurds are kin of the same ‘tribe’ as the khazars, i.e., Israelis. The Kurds, like their brethren, the khazars, are islamic + ‘jews’. Remember that banner on your very own article “Confirmed: Kurdish forces are now the enemy of Syria”: plainly confirms what I had learnt that there are ‘jew’ Kurds who moved to Israel when zion took possession of Palestine. Only ‘difference’ being they followed the Torah, although since joining the zion mobsters, they have included the Talmud. I did understand that they are not well treated in Israel –… Read more »

Guy
Member
Guy

This explains a lot Suzanne .

bsamsin
Guest
bsamsin

Interesting connection I was unaware of. Even so, I still believe that (for now) Israel is still intent on playing the Kurdish card (if possible) in exactly the way that Yinon layed out in his 1982 “Greater Israel” plan, (#23) where he directly discusses the destruction of Iraq and Syria through dissolution into denominations, specifically mentioning the Kurds.

Suzanne Giraud
Guest
Suzanne Giraud

Consider letting go of their widely ‘distributed’ psy-op Yinon carve up for WE are co-creators.
Remember always, the energy goes to wherever we focus / give attention – hence their control of all MSM + Hollywood + Geo-engineering + eduction/academia, etc.- to reap the focus of our attention/emotional reactions and direct it to whatever they want to engineer.

bsamsin
Guest
bsamsin

anything is possible, but Yinon was simply re-stating the 1907 Greater Israel concept of Herzl, and adding flesh to the bones.

John Mason
Guest
John Mason

Cynicism has set in, Kurds now being allies to the US could also at some time harbour ISIS or similar to harrass Assad? Considering that the US is behind ISIS and that the Kurds and SDF have made arrangements for ISIS to leave unhindered Raqqa, collusion is apparent and a possible alliance is evident.

JNDillard
Guest
JNDillard

I find this article as unusually naive. There are far too many people in the US deep state who are more devoted to Israel than they are to the US Constitution for them ever to forsake Israel for the Kurds. Why? Christian mythology with Old Testament mythology, partially, and partially because of fear of being labeled “anti-Semitic, and partially because of the number of zionists in the US. It will take far, far more than a few spats to break up that incestuous marriage.

bsamsin
Guest
bsamsin

I agree … members of Congress don’t swear their fealty to the Kurds, do they? As Cynthia McKinney found out, it’s gotta be the Chosenites or leave the boat. (I do hope that relationship of servitude changes. Actually, I’d love to see Alan Sobrosky’s statement come to fruition.)

hestroy
Guest
hestroy

Exactly.

ghartwell
Guest

We have no idea that, at the level of advanced scalar weapons, it is Israel who has had the technology to stop the hidden destruction of America by forces hostile to the USA who have obtained these advanced weapons. What we do not know is that there would be no America as we know it without important interventions by Israel.

I have been reading Thomas Bearden who is an American scientist who understands this technology, who has warned US leadership about the danger that is so close and who has been ignored.

Books to read: http://www.cheniere.org/books/ferdelance/index.html, http://www.cheniere.org/books/ferdelance/tocfdl2.htm

Guy
Member
Guy

The tail has been wagging the dog in the US for a long time now .The US , until the next civil war , will always be with the chosen ones.

tjoes
Guest
tjoes

I would support Kurds over the Christian hating apartheid Israel any day.

Latest

Clinton-Yeltsin docs shine a light on why Deep State hates Putin (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 114.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

Bill Clinton and America ruled over Russia and Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. Yeltsin showed little love for Russia and more interest in keeping power, and pleasing the oligarchs around him.

Then came Vladimir Putin, and everything changed.

Nearly 600 pages of memos and transcripts, documenting personal exchanges and telephone conversations between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, were made public by the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Dating from January 1993 to December 1999, the documents provide a historical account of a time when US relations with Russia were at their best, as Russia was at its weakest.

On September 8, 1999, weeks after promoting the head of the Russia’s top intelligence agency to the post of prime minister, Russian President Boris Yeltsin took a phone call from U.S. President Bill Clinton.

The new prime minister was unknown, rising to the top of the Federal Security Service only a year earlier.

Yeltsin wanted to reassure Clinton that Vladimir Putin was a “solid man.”

Yeltsin told Clinton….

“I would like to tell you about him so you will know what kind of man he is.”

“I found out he is a solid man who is kept well abreast of various subjects under his purview. At the same time, he is thorough and strong, very sociable. And he can easily have good relations and contact with people who are his partners. I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the nearly 600 pages of transcripts documenting the calls and personal conversations between then U.S. President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin, released last month. A strong Clinton and a very weak Yeltsin underscore a warm and friendly relationship between the U.S. and Russia.

Then Vladimir Putin came along and decided to lift Russia out of the abyss, and things changed.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel

Here are five must-read Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges from with the 600 pages released by the Clinton Library.

Via RT

Clinton sends ‘his people’ to get Yeltsin elected

Amid unceasing allegations of nefarious Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election, the Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges reveal how the US government threw its full weight behind Boris – in Russian parliamentary elections as well as for the 1996 reelection campaign, which he approached with 1-digit ratings.

For example, a transcript from 1993 details how Clinton offered to help Yeltsin in upcoming parliamentary elections by selectively using US foreign aid to shore up support for the Russian leader’s political allies.

“What is the prevailing attitude among the regional leaders? Can we do something through our aid package to send support out to the regions?” a concerned Clinton asked.

Yeltsin liked the idea, replying that “this kind of regional support would be very useful.” Clinton then promised to have “his people” follow up on the plan.

In another exchange, Yeltsin asks his US counterpart for a bit of financial help ahead of the 1996 presidential election: “Bill, for my election campaign, I urgently need for Russia a loan of $2.5 billion,” he said. Yeltsin added that he needed the money in order to pay pensions and government wages – obligations which, if left unfulfilled, would have likely led to his political ruin. Yeltsin also asks Clinton if he could “use his influence” to increase the size of an IMF loan to assist him during his re-election campaign.

Yeltsin questions NATO expansion

The future of NATO was still an open question in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and conversations between Clinton and Yeltsin provide an illuminating backdrop to the current state of the curiously offensive ‘defensive alliance’ (spoiler alert: it expanded right up to Russia’s border).

In 1995, Yeltsin told Clinton that NATO expansion would lead to “humiliation” for Russia, noting that many Russians were fearful of the possibility that the alliance could encircle their country.

“It’s a new form of encirclement if the one surviving Cold War bloc expands right up to the borders of Russia. Many Russians have a sense of fear. What do you want to achieve with this if Russia is your partner? They ask. I ask it too: Why do you want to do this?” Yeltsin asked Clinton.

As the documents show, Yeltsin insisted that Russia had “no claims on other countries,” adding that it was “unacceptable” that the US was conducting naval drills near Crimea.

“It is as if we were training people in Cuba. How would you feel?” Yeltsin asked. The Russian leader then proposed a “gentleman’s agreement” that no former Soviet republics would join NATO.

Clinton refused the offer, saying: “I can’t make the specific commitment you are asking for. It would violate the whole spirit of NATO. I’ve always tried to build you up and never undermine you.”

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia turns Russia against the West

Although Clinton and Yeltsin enjoyed friendly relations, NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia tempered Moscow’s enthusiastic partnership with the West.

“Our people will certainly from now have a bad attitude with regard to America and with NATO,” the Russian president told Clinton in March 1999. “I remember how difficult it was for me to try and turn the heads of our people, the heads of the politicians towards the West, towards the United States, but I succeeded in doing that, and now to lose all that.”

Yeltsin urged Clinton to renounce the strikes, for the sake of “our relationship” and “peace in Europe.”

“It is not known who will come after us and it is not known what will be the road of future developments in strategic nuclear weapons,” Yeltsin reminded his US counterpart.

But Clinton wouldn’t cede ground.

“Milosevic is still a communist dictator and he would like to destroy the alliance that Russia has built up with the US and Europe and essentially destroy the whole movement of your region toward democracy and go back to ethnic alliances. We cannot allow him to dictate our future,” Clinton told Yeltsin.

Yeltsin asks US to ‘give Europe to Russia’

One exchange that has been making the rounds on Twitter appears to show Yeltsin requesting that Europe be “given” to Russia during a meeting in Istanbul in 1999. However, it’s not quite what it seems.

“I ask you one thing,” Yeltsin says, addressing Clinton. “Just give Europe to Russia. The US is not in Europe. Europe should be in the business of Europeans.”

However, the request is slightly less sinister than it sounds when put into context: The two leaders were discussing missile defense, and Yeltsin was arguing that Russia – not the US – would be a more suitable guarantor of Europe’s security.

“We have the power in Russia to protect all of Europe, including those with missiles,” Yeltsin told Clinton.

Clinton on Putin: ‘He’s very smart’

Perhaps one of the most interesting exchanges takes place when Yeltsin announces to Clinton his successor, Vladimir Putin.

In a conversation with Clinton from September 1999, Yeltsin describes Putin as “a solid man,” adding: “I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

A month later, Clinton asks Yeltsin who will win the Russian presidential election.

“Putin, of course. He will be the successor to Boris Yeltsin. He’s a democrat, and he knows the West.”

“He’s very smart,” Clinton remarks.

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

Latest

New Satellite Images Reveal Aftermath Of Israeli Strikes On Syria; Putin Accepts Offer to Probe Downed Jet

The images reveal the extent of destruction in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


An Israeli satellite imaging company has released satellite photographs that reveal the extent of Monday night’s attack on multiple locations inside Syria.

ImageSat International released them as part of an intelligence report on a series of Israeli air strikes which lasted for over an hour and resulted in Syrian missile defense accidentally downing a Russian surveillance plane that had 15 personnel on board.

The images reveal the extent of destruction on one location struck early in attack in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport. On Tuesday Israel owned up to carrying out the attack in a rare admission.

Syrian official SANA news agency reported ten people injured in the attacks carried out of military targets near three major cities in Syria’s north.

The Times of Israel, which first reported the release of the new satellite images, underscores the rarity of Israeli strikes happening that far north and along the coast, dangerously near Russian positions:

The attack near Latakia was especially unusual because the port city is located near a Russian military base, the Khmeimim Air Force base. The base is home to Russian jet planes and an S-400 aerial defense system. According to Arab media reports, Israel has rarely struck that area since the Russians arrived there.

The Russian S-400 system was reportedly active during the attack, but it’s difficult to confirm or assess the extent to which Russian missiles responded during the strikes.

Three of the released satellite images show what’s described as an “ammunition warehouse” that appears to have been completely destroyed.

The IDF has stated their airstrikes targeted a Syrian army facility “from which weapons-manufacturing systems were supposed to be transferred to Iran and Hezbollah.” This statement came after the IDF expressed “sorrow” for the deaths of Russian airmen, but also said responsibility lies with the “Assad regime.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also phoned Russian President Vladimir Putin to express regret over the incident while offering to send his air force chief to Russia with a detailed report — something which Putin agreed to.

According to Russia’s RT News, “Major-General Amikam Norkin will arrive in Moscow on Thursday, and will present the situation report on the incident, including the findings of the IDF inquiry regarding the event and the pre-mission information the Israeli military was so reluctant to share in advance.”

Russia’s Defense Ministry condemned the “provocative actions by Israel as hostile” and said Russia reserves “the right to an adequate response” while Putin has described the downing of the Il-20 recon plane as likely the result of a “chain of tragic accidental circumstances” and downplayed the idea of a deliberate provocation, in contradiction of the initial statement issued by his own defense ministry.

Pro-government Syrians have reportedly expressed frustration this week that Russia hasn’t done more to respond militarily to Israeli aggression; however, it appears Putin may be sidestepping yet another trap as it’s looking increasingly likely that Israel’s aims are precisely geared toward provoking a response in order to allow its western allies to join a broader attack on Damascus that could result in regime change.

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

Latest

“Transphobic” Swedish Professor May Lose Job After Noting Biological Differences Between Sexes

A university professor in Sweden is under investigation after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded”

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


A university professor in Sweden is under investigation for “anti-feminism” and “transphobia” after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded” and that genders cannot be regarded as “social constructs alone,” reports Academic Rights Watch.

For his transgression, Germund Hesslow – a professor of neuroscience at Lund University – who holds dual PhDs in philosophy and neurophysiology, may lose his job – telling RT that a “full investigation” has been ordered, and that there “have been discussions about trying to stop the lecture or get rid of me, or have someone else give the lecture or not give the lecture at all.”

“If you answer such a question you are under severe time pressure, you have to be extremely brief — and I used wording which I think was completely innocuous, and that apparently the student didn’t,” Hesslow said.

Hesslow was ordered to attend a meeting by Christer Larsson, chairman of the program board for medical education, after a female student complained that Hesslow had a “personal anti-feminist agenda.” He was asked to distance himself from two specific comments; that gay women have a “male sexual orientation” and that the sexual orientation of transsexuals is “a matter of definition.”

The student’s complaint reads in part (translated):

I have also heard from senior lecturers that Germund Hesslow at the last lecture expressed himself transfobically. In response to a question of transexuallism, he said something like “sex change is a fly”. Secondly, it is outrageous because there may be students during the lecture who are themselves exposed to transfobin, but also because it may affect how later students in their professional lives meet transgender people. Transpersonals already have a high level of overrepresentation in suicide statistics and there are already major shortcomings in the treatment of transgender in care, should not it be countered? How does this kind of statement coincide with the university’s equal treatment plan? What has this statement given for consequences? What has been done for this to not be repeated? –Academic Rights Watch

After being admonished, Hesslow refused to distance himself from his comments, saying that he had “done enough” already and didn’t have to explain and defend his choice of words.

At some point, one must ask for a sense of proportion among those involved. If it were to become acceptable for students to record lectures in order to find compromising formulations and then involve faculty staff with meetings and long letters, we should let go of the medical education altogether,” Hesslow said in a written reply to Larsson.

He also rejected the accusation that he had a political agenda – stating that his only agenda was to let scientific factnot new social conventions, dictate how he teaches his courses.

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