The Kurds in Syria: The Dialectic of Identity and Power in the Maze of History

In the Middle East, where waves of history and political interests collide, the Kurdish issue in Syria stands as a recurring tragedy—yet at the same time, it serves as a gateway to a deeper understanding of identity and power. It is not merely a passing political dilemma but an existential predicament entangled with questions of belonging, citizenship, and the will to coexist. For decades, the Kurds in Syria have found themselves caught between the hammer of marginalization and the anvil of geopolitical shifts, searching for a foothold in an entity that has never truly acknowledged its diversity.

The Syrian state has long viewed the Kurds with suspicion, considering them an alien body within its rigid nationalist framework. From the era of separation to the Ba’athist rule, there was never room for a genuine recognition of Kurdish existence-;- rather, it was either met with repression´-or-soft exclusion through policies of identity dissolution. Even when a Kurdish military officer like Husni al-Za’im assumed power, it was not seen as a Kurdish breakthrough into authority but rather as part of a broader power struggle devoid of ethnic´-or-nationalist considerations.

When the Syrian regime collapsed in December, the moment seemed like a rebirth of a pluralistic Syria, where all components could secure their place. However, history does not change its course so easily. The vacuum left by the regime was not filled with an inclusive national project but rather opened the door to new conflicts, recycling old fears under different guises. Amid the chaos, the Kurds once again found themselves accused of separatism, as if history had decided to repeat itself without even altering the -script-.

In this turbulent environment, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) emerged as a key player, backed by international support yet advancing a political agenda that remains highly controversial. The SDF adopted the concept of “democratic nationhood,” a vision that transcends narrow nationalism toward a participatory model that integrates diverse components into building a new political entity. However, this idea continues to face fierce opposition from traditional forces—whether from the Syrian regime, which clings to absolute centralization,´-or-from the opposition, which has inherited much of the state’s monolithic mindset.

The greatest challenge facing the Kurds today is not merely securing legal recognition but proving that they are an integral part of the new Syria—not just a perpetual victim´-or-a marginal player. But how can this be achieved in a political equation that is still being rewritten based on regional and international interests? The Kurdish experience in Iraq demonstrates that building a political entity cannot rely solely on international support-;- it requires internal unity and a clear vision—something still absent from the Syrian Kurdish scene, where loyalties are divided between Erbil and Qandil, and global powers continue to manipulate the fate of this fragile region.

When we turn to the tragedy of Afrin, one of the most striking examples of the challenges facing the Kurds in Syria, we find a chapter of systematic demographic displacement under Turkish occupation. It stands as yet another episode in the long history of injustices against the Kurds—only this time, amid general Syrian indifference and even divisions within the Kurdish house itself. The forced displacement and demographic engineering that took place in the city are no less severe than the past tragedies that have plagued the region. Yet the true shock lies in the silence—whether from the international community´-or-even from certain Syrian factions that saw it as a mere footnote in a larger struggle.

However, the Kurdish issue is not merely a battle of arms-;- it is a battle of awareness and political legitimacy. The problem is not only about recognizing the Kurds’ existence but also about acknowledging that Syria, as a political concept, cannot survive as a nationalist monolith. Can Syrian identity be redefined to become more inclusive? Can the traditional nation-state model, which has proven incapable of managing diversity, be transcended?

Answering these questions is no easy task because solutions are not merely political decisions-;- they require a profound shift in the way national identity is understood. Simply removing the word “Arab” from the name of the Syrian state may seem symbolic, but it reflects a fundamental transformation in how Syria is envisioned as a multiethnic country. History teaches us that states that fail to recognize their diversity often end up in disintegration´-or-perpetual conflict.

Amid these challenges, the future of the Kurds in Syria remains open to multiple possibilities. Can they overcome internal divisions and build a unified political project? Can they translate their military presence into sustainable political legitimacy? More importantly, can Syria itself redefine its identity to become a state for all its components rather than a mere extension of past exclusionary systems?
This vision may seem idealistic in such a complex reality, but experience has shown that exclusion only leads to further fragmentation. Syria, exhausted by decades of dictatorship and years of war, now needs a new vision—one that is not merely about power-sharing but about rethinking the very concept of citizenship. If Kurdish oppression does not become a broader Syrian cause, the bleeding will continue—not only in Afrin but in the conscience of Syria as a whole.

In the end, history is not written by weapons alone but also shaped by awareness and the ability to move beyond the past toward a more just and stable future. The solution may seem distant today, but it is not impossible. As history has taught us, nothing lasts forever—not oppression, not exclusion, and not even the political maps we assume to be permanent.

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 1