It was recently reported in the Kurdish media that Turkey's Prime Minister was visiting with Iran to suggest a regional alliance between the Syrians and themselves to prevent the emergence of an independent state in Iraqi Kurdistan.



Picture this, for one moment. Imagine that millions of Arabs were stateless, having not one instead of the almost two dozen states they actually possess. Now assume that there were fifty, not five, million Israeli Jews who had far more political clout on the world scene than they actually have. Take this a step further, and imagine that Israel then demanded that if nations wished to have relations with itself, they would have to forever deny Arabs any hope of statehood and national dignity.



Sounds unreasonable, unjust and nasty, no?



Yet that is precisely what the Turks expect of nations -- including Israel -- who wish to have relations with Ankara.



Indeed, while joining the rest of the world in insisting that Arabs have their 22nd or 23rd state (one dedicated, by the way, to the destruction of the sole, miniscule nation the Jews have), the Turks view as an outright enemy any who support the rights of some thirty million stateless and often oppressed and abused Kurds to a small share of national dignity in the region.



Recently, there has been a resurrection of active debate among the Kurds regarding the relationship between themselves and the Jews. Widely published stories about an alleged Israeli presence in Iraqi Kurdistan have added fuel to the fire. Israel supported the Kurds from time to time over the past decades, and the Kurds had good relations with their Jewish neighbors in Iraq and elsewhere. But, valuing an on-again, off-again pseudo-strategic alliance of sorts with Ankara (especially when the latter's relationship with Syrian Arabs turns sour from time to time), Israel has largely succumbed to the Turks' demands regarding the Kurds. Nothing to be proud of, folks.



As two peoples whose origins are in the Middle East, Jews and Kurds ("Hurrians," etc.) have had contact, literally, from Biblical times. While the analogy is not a perfect one (i.e., while tragic enough, the Kurds' own Diaspora was far more contained, and not as widespread and as devastating as that of the Jews' in the aftermath of the latter's two major revolts for independence against the Roman Empire), there are many similarities between the struggle for national dignity by stateless Kurds facing murderous, rejectionist and oppressive enemies and that of Israel's formerly stateless Jews -- half of whom were refugees themselves from what Arabs like to call "purely Arab patrimony," otherwise known as the Middle East and North Africa.



Both Kurds and Jews have been subjected to widespread hypocrisy and double standards on the world scene.



For Kurds -- as well as others -- to better understand where they might fit into this discussion and the overall debate regarding justice in the region in general, it might be useful to see what one of the foremost scholars of all time anywhere, Ibn Khaldun, had to say about such things centuries ago. His teachings about 'asabiyah -- group (ethnic, tribal, etc.) consciousness -- and power are as relevant to Kurds as they are to the Jews, whom this essay is mostly about.



Before we tackle Ibn Khaldun, it's necessary, given the current debate among Kurds themselves over this matter, to review a bit what the national liberation movement of the Jews -- i.e., Zionism -- is really all about. Living largely among Arabs, Iranians and others who have vilified and demonized this movement (and think about how these folks have also treated a similar quest for such dignity among the Kurds, Black African Sudanese, Berbers and numerous others), it's more than likely that many, if not most, Kurds have not been exposed to a fair and balanced exchange of ideas on this subject. Since Kurds, as well as other non-Jews, will read this article, I ask those experts on Zionism to bear with me a bit for the moment. Let's begin with some background information -- a refresher for the initiated, and a primer for those new to the subject.



Zionism has meant different things to different people over the millennia. The connecting thread woven throughout all variations, however, has always involved Jews being in their land and at least somewhat in control of their own destinies. Whether they were Biblical tears shed "by the rivers of Babylon" some two thousand years before, or writings such as those of the medieval poet Yehuda HaLevi, proclaiming a desire to be a pauper in Zion rather than a prince in Muslim Spain (where Jews had it relatively good), these ancient ties have bound Jews to Israel for most of man's recorded history. The animosity that often greeted Jews in the Diaspora helped to assure that those ties would not be forgotten.



For religious Zionists of all degrees and persuasions, the Hand of G-d was at work in all of these events throughout the ages, leading up to the rebirth of Israel in 1948. It took, after all, the rejection by the non-Jewish world of even the most assimilated of Jews -- men like Alfred Dreyfus -- before the rebirth of political Zionism could become a reality in the late 19th century. But not all were religious Zionists.



Many Jews had indeed tried just about everything to gain acceptance in the non-Jewish world, but the Dreyfus Affair, pogroms and numerous other problems culminating in the Holocaust kept on occurring in the "enlightened " and "modern" age anyway. It was as if G-d was sending a message: "You have no alternative. Israel must be reborn whether you Jews like it or not!"



So, Zionism came to have another meaning. It represented, for many, a chance for Jews to simply bring a semblance of normalcy into their lives. Since the fall of Judea to Rome, too often bloodbaths, forced conversions, expulsions, inquisitions, blood libels, demonization (even Michelangelo's Moses was sculpted with horns, however one chooses to interpret them), ghettoization, and every other imaginable humiliation was the plight of the Jew in the Diaspora.



There are churches to this very day which have stained glass windows or murals depicting Jews stabbing the Host of the Christian Communion in order to supposedly kill Jesus yet again. And the Arab world provides widespread anti-Semitism to its people as well. They were god-killers in the West and/or kilab yahud -- "Jew dogs" -- killers of prophets in the East.



So not all who dreamt of a return to Zion did so out of a spiritual urge to become "a nation of priests" or a "light unto the nations."



While the high ideals of religious Zionism still remained in many a Jewish heart and soul (even among the agnostics), the chance to change their age-old tenuous existence in both the Christian and Muslim halves of the Diaspora was also a major motivating factor. Besides wanting to escape forever the mandatory ghetto (and subconsciously, the evolved ghetto mentality) of the former and the mellah of the latter -- and the negative effects and consequences such existence both produced in and brought out of themselves over the centuries -- Jews just wanted to have a nation like all others.



Over three thousand years earlier, when most other folks were still worshipping stone idols and practicing fertility rites, the Bible records the Jews' ancestors pleading with the Prophet Samuel to intercede with G-d to allow them to have a worldly king -- for some different, but also some similar reasons.



Jews wanted to be farmers (they had largely not been allowed to own land), barbers, street cleaners, policemen, doctors, scholars, soldiers, statesmen, whatever -- but masters of their own fate, not the perpetual stranger in someone else's land, or a pawn being played in someone else's games (with deadly consequences to themselves).



Masters of their own fate... pawns being played in someone else's deadly games. These are situations Kurds can also certainly relate to. They've had their language and culture periodically outlawed by Turks and Arabs and have been slaughtered by them and by the Iranians, as well.



Suffering numerous expulsions in the Diaspora, Jews had often been allowed to settle in a land only after agreeing to take on unpopular tasks and jobs for the ruler.



Some, like Karl Marx, would seek solutions to these problems in a broader context, via political and socioeconomic reform. Ironically, while Marx despised his Jewish roots, he sounded like a Hebrew Prophet in his demand for justice for the poor and the oppressed. Isaiah and others would have understood his passion well. Indeed, they were his teachers.



Zionism meshed together all of these diverse fears, hopes, and dreams. And the key to its future had everything to do with transforming the powerless state of the Jews as a people.



Here, we turn back to Abd-Ar-Rahman Abu Zayd ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Khaldun.



Ibn Khaldun was born in the early 14th century CE. He was one of the most important philosophers, jurists and scholars Islamic -- or any -- civilization would ever produce. His name surfaces even in the contemporary West every once in a while. On March 19, 2003, for example, an AP story mentioned the release of an Egyptian-American human rights activist, Saad Eddin Ibrahim, from a seven-year sentence in prison. He had founded the independent think tank, the Ibn Khaldun Center, and proved to be too independent for the Egyptian government's wishes.(1) Ibn Khaldun had spent much of his later life in Cairo.



Graduate students in Middle Eastern Affairs usually come to know Ibn Khaldun through his work, The Muqaddimah. It is actually the introduction to and Book I of his Kitab Al-'Ibar, "the History of the World">. Besides simply giving an account of events, he offers a rational explanation of the "hows" and "whys" they occurred. He uses frequent historical illustrations to make his points. It is here that this great Muslim scholar, who died almost six hundred years ago, has some very important things to say about Jews and Israel.



Among other things, Ibn Khaldun detailed the prolonged forced Arabization process of Berber North Africa.(2) Centuries later, the Kurds would have to confront this issue themselves in both Syria and Iraq, as well as in similar predicaments in Turkey and elsewhere.



While Ibn Khaldun offers good critique and discussion about Biblical and other accounts regarding Jews in general (i.e., he relates the Roman conquest of Jewish Jerusalem -- something Arafat & Co. deny ever even existed), it is his perspective on issues we have already covered above that is now of special concern.(3)



Before The Muqaddimah was introduced into this discussion, we had reviewed the powerlessness of the stateless Jewish experience and the negative consequences which had derived from this. Ibn Khaldun spoke to this matter as well. Let's listen:



"Students, slaves, and servants brought up with injustice and tyrannical force are overcome by it... it makes them feel oppressed... induces them to lie, be insincere... their outward behavior differs from what they are thinking. Thus they are taught deceit and trickery... they become dependent on others... their souls become too indolent to acquire... good character qualities. Thus they fall short of their potentialities and do not reach the limit of their humanity. That is what happened to every nation which fell under the yoke of tyranny and learned the meaning of injustice.



"One may check this out by observing any person who is not in control of his own affairs and has no authority on his side to guarantee safety. One may look at the Jews (as an example)... The reason is what we have said."(4)



However one chooses to respond to his assessment, Zionism's non-religious raison d'etre would have been obvious to Ibn Khaldun, one of the world's most important thinkers six centuries ago. He devoted much time and effort to recounting the evolution and development of the Jewish nation, its early struggles with its adversaries, and its later fight for freedom with the mighty Roman Empire and its consequences. He then followed this with an analysis of the Jews' tragic condition of powerlessness throughout subsequent generations.(5)



While, unlike the Jews, the Kurds have largely been able to remain in the vicinity of their own mountainous, rugged home turf over the millennia, the issue of relative powerlessness amid oppressive enemies is still one Kurds can also relate to.



Ibn Khaldun would have well understood the rebirth of Israel and the 'asabiyah -- group consciousness (emphasized throughout his writings) -- which made it possible, even if it was a consciousness born not only out of a "noble house", but also from the desperation of the Jews' perpetual victim, scapegoat and whipping-post status. While he commented that the Jews, who had one of the most "noble houses" in the world, had subsequently lost their 'asabiyah and for centuries suffered constant humiliations, he would have applauded and understood their desire to end this unfortunate turn of events.(6) The Kurds, perhaps, have something to learn from this lesson as well.



The Muqaddimah emphasizes that the Jews were forced to wander in the desert for forty years due to their "meekness." Ibn Khaldun stressed that this was necessary so that a new generation would arise with a new, more powerful 'asabiyah.(7)



At a time when Arabs are demanding a 22nd or 23rd state (most having been created by the conquest of non-Arab peoples and their lands) on the ashes of microscopic Israel, not alongside of it, while denying all others the right to even think in such terms, chances are more than good that this great Muslim scholar would have approved and viewed the resurrection of Israel as an answer to the unique plight of stateless Jews; the end of an even more tragic and extensive wandering and period of meekness and powerlessness in the desert.



Likewise, Ibn Khaldun would have given his blessing to the struggles of the Kurds.



Footnotes:



1. Nadia Abou El-Magd, "Egyptian Court Frees Rights Activist," Daytona Beach News-Journal, 3/19/2003.



2. Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah -- An Introduction To History, Ed. by N.J.Dawood (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967), p.30.



3. Ibid., pp. 184-185.



4. Ibid., p. 425.



5. Ibid., pp. 184-185.



6. Ibid., pp. 94, 102-103, 135.



7. Ibid., p.110.