This headline alludes to works of literature to illustrate political realities, beginning with Ernest Hemingway's “A Farewell to Arms” and up to the Kurdish author Ronak Murad's famous novel about the history of the Kurdish struggle “The Granddaughter of Ishtar.” The two novels' plots tie the themes of love, war, and their aftermath together- stretching from the Italian frontlines and the horrors of World War I to Rojava, the Qandil Mountains, Kunduz, and the vast Kurdish territories that have witnessed many setbacks and few moments of joy, as well as a struggle for lofty aspirations that inevitably collide with stronger geopolitical realities.
Abdullah Ocalan is the last of the great Kurdish dreamers. He has shown extraordinary courage in his long struggle, which he began as a guerrilla fighter operating in the mountains and trying to obtain everything for his people through armed resistance. Now Türkiye's most famous political prisoner, his time in jail has left a mark on his views, leading him to make pragmatic reassessments that eventually compelled him to call for ending the armed struggle, and ultimately, to advocate reconciliation. Instead, he is now urging the Kurds to come to terms with the geography they inhabit, as he now believes that this is a more viable means to survive and safeguard their identity.
The leader of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) is replicating in Türkiye what Jalal Talabani and Masoud Barzani had done in Iraq, insisting on integration despite his community's bitter history with the central government or the repercussions of the independence referendum. Indeed, they nonetheless succeeded in realizing some of the Kurdish peoples' aspirations, cooperating with the Iraqi state on a national framework that allows for partnership and equal rights and responsibilities. This is what Ocalan wants to do in Türkiye- a pursuit that Abdul Rahman Ghassemlou had paid with his life in Iran.
From Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocalan to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and before them, the pair who broke the taboo, the late Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and the late Turkish President Turgut Ozal, the Kurdish question in Türkiye, Iraq, and Syria has been reassessed. It is now being seen through a different, more pragmatic lens.
This shift was not precipitated by the weakening or confusion of the central authorities in Ankara, Baghdad, or Damascus, nor was it the result of the unbearable costs of conflict for the Kurdish people. Rather, political consciousness has matured, albeit gradually or belatedly. The Kurds now recognize that waging a political struggle, preserving their identity and heritage, and imposition of recognition are just as vital as armed resistance, which has become increasingly ineffective. Maintaining arms for their own sake brings nothing but bloodshed, and it is neither valuable nor tenable to equate the Kurdish cause with armed struggle.
Political taboos are broken in watershed moments. The first was on Friday, June 14, 1991, when Turkish Ozal welcomed an armed Kurdish leader into the presidential palace for the first time in his country's history. The journalist and renowned Turkish writer Cengiz Candar, who organized the meeting, shares an anecdote of a conservation he had had with Ozal at the time, in his Mesopotamian Express. “It will change. The situation of the Kurds in Türkiye will not be the same. It will change. But they must be realistic. This shift will take time. It will be achieved step by step, but it is worth it. They must see it as a matter of time; it will be resolved gradually.”
The second defining moment came on February 27 of this year, when Ocalan called on Kurdish militants in Türkiye to lay down their arms, dissolve the party, and pursue their objectives through political means. His stance was solidified by a historic agreement between Damascus and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) on March 10. The SDF will integrate into Syria's military and security institutions, while the Kurdish community has been recognized as an integral component of Syria.
Kurdish leaders managed to break the link between their cause and armed struggle, leveraging their history of resistance to secure their rights and defend their identity. They have demonstrated a determination to end their captivity to arms and their consequences, refusing to let their arsenal become a source of internal or regional conflict.
This approach is a lesson that other groups in the region must learn. They all need to disentangle arms from ideology, relinquish the monopoly of arms, and stop prioritizing it over all other forms of resistance- from the mountains of Kurdistan to Jabal Amel, passing through occupied Palestine.
