Nechirvan Barzani says, “The guerrilla should leave Shengal.” Then we hear others in Iraq make similar statements. Do those who say the Guerrilla should leave have a plan, a suggestion for Shengal or the Êzidxan? What kind of a Shengal do they envision, so the Êzidîs are never subjected to a genocide again? Telling the already decreased number of guerrillas to leave, without saying anything on this matter, is to create an uncertain and insecure future for the Êzidîs again. Does anybody have the right to do that to Êzidîs? Of course not.

Shengal’s conditions are not like anywhere else. One can’t look at Shengal as if at a different situation. It’s not just the KDP, nobody in the world can look at Êzidîs as just another people. The future of Êzidîsm, which is one of the oldest faiths in the world, must be secured. Humanity can’t accept a situation like before August 3, 2014 anymore. Anybody with a concept of rights, justice and conscience should want the Êzidîs to have a status that will guarantee their future. Êzidîs should be able to have trust in their future. That can happen first and foremost when they take their fate into their own hands. Shengal, the Êzidxan, should be governed by Êzidîs. The Shegal Assembly should be in charge. The Êzidî Assembly should make the decisions pertaining to Shengal. Then the superior body can be discussed. They don’t want a state like the KDP does, they just want autonomy. If an authentic people with the oldest faith in the world who have survived 74 attempts at their annihilation don’t have this right, then who does?

KDP wants a state, but thinks self-government is too much for the Êzidîs. How remorseless! The Êzidîs only want democracy. Isn’t democracy the people governing themselves? Let’s let the Êzidîs govern themselves, then we can discuss a superior body, and how they will be related. If the Êzidîs say they don’t want a state, then what is this fuss about?

Bashurê (Southern) Kurdistan isn’t a state right now. Currently, if there is one structure with even more freedom than states with a high capability for maneuvering, it is the Bashur. If it was a state, it wouldn’t have a tenth of the independence it enjoys today. KDP thinks if they have a state, they will be more independent and more free than today. Right now, they don’t answer to anybody. Of course there are countries they rely on, but when you declare a state, the situation will be ten times more dependent, with a very limited space for maneuvering. In actuality, KDP is experiencing an arbitrary government that nobody else in the world has. They won’t have such opportunities if they become a state. The only possible gain could be that the authoritarian structure of today will become even more authoritarian, and they will try to crush any political groups outside theirs. KDP constantly talking about a state is to cover up the issues in Bashurê Kurdistan. Instead of becoming a force for the solution to problems, when the going gets tough, they start saying “We will declare a state” and try to silence everybody or accuse everybody of trying to prevent the declaration of a state. Nobody is keeping the KDP from declaring a state. By all means, the parliament in Bashurê Kurdistan can gather and make such a decision. Nobody will object to that. But KDP often talking about a state and never taking a step towards it has a different purpose behind it, and that is what we want to point out.

KDP wants a state to be more oppressive. The Êzidîs want autonomy to make Shengal more democratic. All Êzidîs want this, but the KDP says no.

PKK officials say Nechirvan Barzani’s comments at a time when talks with KDP continue are putting the talks in a difficult situation. There are talks over Shengal, but then again there is such an imposition! That means they are not serious about the talks. As far as we’ve heard, PKK proposed an assembly under KDP and YNK that includes all Êzidîs and that Êzidîs should act united, without divisions. That is a very reasonable proposition for a solution. They say, whatever their political tendency may be, the common assembly of Êzidîs should govern Shengal. They also propose the armed Êzidî forces to be united. Because many groups formed separate armed units in Shengal. KDP armed some Êzidîs. Then there is also the YBŞ. They proposed all these to be united into a single Êzidî force. These are acceptable propositions. Why is there such an imposition of stay-or-leave, instead of solving the issue through compromise like so? The guerrilla already say their presence is for the self government and self defense of the Êzidîs, they repeated this several times.

The guerrillas are not there to take Shengal from anybody. They are there out of historic and humanitarian duty. It’s not just the guerrilla, all Kurds have a responsibility towards the Êzidîs, the Peshmerga even more. They should fulfill this duty to ensure self government and self defense for the Êzidîs. If KDP and the peshmerga don’t accept this, they will be held responsible in the face of history ,conscience and justice.

Instead of telling the PKK to leave, the KDP should propose to prepare a future for the Êzidîs together, build the confidence of this people, let them see they are protected. Otherwise, saying “This is Bashurê Kurdistan territory, they must leave”, without seeing the uniqueness of Shengal and the Êzidîs, would be a very narrow approach. That would be thinking of Shengal like any other place. Before asking who it will belong to, one should answer this question: What will the status of Êzidîs in Shengal be? The Êzidîs can no longer be without self government or self defense. In any case, the Êzidîs who don’t want or can’t see this have not understood why they experienced the previous firmans. That would be failing to understand the meaning of the painful screams of the martyrs of the 74th firman. The Êzidîs should be more courageous, and voice their demand for self government and self defense, namely autonomy. They should shout out loud. The Kurds under KDP influence should also say this. The Êzidî who doesn’t say this is in treason to their own people.

It’s not clear whether the U.S. said the guerrilla should leave or not. If they did, then they should be asked: What do you say on the Êzidîs never experiencing another firman? Doesn’t this society with a different identity and a uniqueness have a right to self government? Supporting KDP’s centralist hegemonic approach is approving another firman for the Êzidîs. How will the Êzidîs be safe without self government and self defense? Those who say the guerrilla should leave should answer these questions first.