Rojava failed, but Kurdish pragmatism may succeed where utopia did not - opinion

The project was an audacious and unprecedented endeavor in the contemporary Middle East that ultimately failed in its original form on January 6, 2026.

Since the anti-Kurdish atrocities of January 6 and the subsequent loss of territory east of the Euphrates, along with essential military and civic infrastructure, the project has entered a new phase. Under pressure from Damascus and Ankara, and reportedly encouraged by the administration of US President Donald Trump, the Kurdish leadership signed an 18-point agreement with the Syrian regime on January 29.

The deal envisions the incorporation of Kurdish forces and the de facto autonomous region into emerging state structures. Kurds, who have long been denied citizenship since 1962, are set to receive recognition and limited cultural rights, along with an undefined model of local self-governance and the preservation of four Kurdish battalions.

The details of the agreement remain under negotiation. However, it is clear that Rojava is shifting from revolutionary autonomy toward conditional integration. This shift signifies not only the end of a utopian experiment but also the commencement of a pragmatic Kurdish survival project aimed at influencing Syria’s future from within.

Following tremendous sacrifices, armed Kurdish troops have proven indispensable in the struggle against Sunni Islamist militancy. They established their military legitimacy by playing a key part in the defeat of ISIS and the confrontation with groups affiliated with al-Qaeda. They were, however, unable to transform the deeply ingrained anti-Kurdish prejudice that exists among many Syrian Arabs.

Cultural and social influence has proven to be far more challenging than achieving success on the battlefield. In a society marked by decades of nationalist indoctrination and sectarian polarization, mistrust runs deep. Nevertheless, the Kurdish impact may be strongest at this new beginning.

The Kurdish model – which is premised on local self-governance in cultural, municipal, and internal security matters, in conjunction with representation in national decision-making structures in Damascus – has the potential to serve as a model for Syria’s diverse communities, including Sunni Arabs, Druze, Alawites, and other ethnic and religious components that aim to preserve their security and identity without escalating hostilities.

A decentralized yet unified Syria could be the most likely response to the resurgence of Islamist extremism, sectarian violence, and hostilities. Power-sharing and local self-governance could help minimize zero-sum conflicts for control of state structures and resources.

Accordingly, Kurdish pragmatism has the potential to be more transformative than Kurdish utopianism. Its implications touch upon Israel’s regional position and extend beyond Syria’s internal configuration.

The eventual inclusion of Syria in these arrangements would mark a significant historical shift. For Israel, a Syria with empowered Kurdish, Druze, and other minority voices would be more pragmatic and less ideologically hostile. Secular and pluralistic Kurdish objectives have frequently prioritized cooperation and mutual engagement above strict antagonism.

The implementation of this vision has the potential to empower all Syrian communities involved and lead to peace with Israel. Consequently, Syrian citizens from Kurdish, Druze, Alawite, and Sunni Arab background, for example, could be permitted to travel to Tel Aviv, a renowned hub for its leadership in high technology and artificial intelligence, to collaborate on various innovation and infrastructure projects.

Academic exchanges with institutions in Jerusalem could promote research partnerships and facilitate cultural dialogue. These interactions would help establish sustainable peace, not only through diplomatic efforts but also via shared interests and joint projects.

Furthermore, Israeli investors and engineers could play a crucial role in reconstruction initiatives throughout Syria. The reconstruction of cities, water systems, agricultural networks, and digital infrastructure would necessitate the specific expertise that Israel has developed over the years. The vision of the Abraham Accords frames peace as a mutually beneficial outcome.

Moreover, the radical Islamist factions in Damascus remain hostile to various ethnic and religious components of Syria. The recent agreement with Damascus may secure Kurds some limited civic and cultural rights, but it poses a risk of undermining these accomplishments. There is widespread concern among Kurds, Druze and Alawites that the consolidation of the regime in Damascus may undermine its commitments to their security and cultural recognition.

Nevertheless, history frequently advances as a result of imperfect compromises. Although the Rojava project’s revolutionary ambitions have diminished, its legacy of pluralism, gender inclusion, local governance, and resistance to extremism has the potential to impact Syria’s future.

This moment offers Israel the opportunity to strategically support these ambitions centered on local self-governance and incorporation of minoritized communities in Damascus, which are consistent with the Abraham Accords and Israel’s long-term security interests.

To achieve sustainable progress, it is imperative for Kurdish, Druze, and Jewish scholars, investors, and civil society actors in the region and abroad to increase their efforts to develop dialogue and collaboration channels through conferences, policy forums, and joint research initiatives. By advocating for regional cooperation, these communities might dominate the future of Syria, aspiring to shared prosperity, stability, and peace.

Rojava’s pivotal moment may present opportunities for Kurdish integration within Syria and a redefined Syrian relationship with Israel that is based on economic interdependence, cooperation, and common interests within the framework of the Abraham Accords.