Aramean Unification

Jerusalem and Damascus need to work closely together in ensuring political reconciliation and partnership between the Aramean movement and the neo-Assyrian movement. The path towards three Aramaic states of Alawistan, Aram and Ezidxan as leading towards a unified linguistic state of greater Aram without religious imperialism is one of mutual partnership and profound respect for the best interests of every people in the region.


The modern history of the Aramean people is one of being used by others for purposes of others. The neo-Assyrian movement is the best organized movement within the Aramean people and was essentially set up as a modern mass movement by Syrian intelligence for which it has always been a mere political tool. Syrian intelligence practicing divide and rule within the Aramean people has ensured that the Aramean people has remained divided and so has the neo-Assyrian movement remained a tool for Syrian interests as opposed to promoting the interests of the Aramean people itself.

As the alliance between Jerusalem and Damascus is deepening with remaining anti-Israel elements within the Syrian administration becoming fewer and increasingly marginal is it precisely essential that Damascus too (as already Israel) works to promote the best interests of every people in the region as this is no doubt the best model for regional cooperation in the broader Middle East.

There is much need for conceptual transition in Damascus from the former ideological framework of “Greater Syria” where the neo-Assyrian movement was just another geopolitical tool and instead moving towards the creation of three Aramaic states (Judeo-Christian Aram, greater Alawistan and Yezidi greater Ezidxan) as based on local communal reversions to Alawite Judaism and Yezidi Judaism respectively as well as importantly revival and reinvigoration of the Aramaic language as based on the extremely successful model of Modern Hebrew in Israel.

The idea is that the three secular states as based on titual identities  will once open society and liberal democracy is attained in all three states choose to democratically integrate and so increasingly become one unified Aramaic linguistic state. Although it could be argued that this in geostrategic terms is not that much different from the former concept of “Greater Syria” is it very extremely conceptually different in terms of political approach, actual implementation and general value system.

Damascus therefore needs to articulate its regional interests both in terms of Alawite interests (including importantly local communal reversions to Alawism, i.e. Alawite Judaism) and Aramaic/Aramean interests. And so Damascus needs to start thinking of the neo-Assyrian movement as no longer a mere tool for its geopolitical periphery but instead precisely central to the cause of ultimately attaining a greater Aram as stretching from Baghdad to Beirut and indeed from Damascus to Adana. Once therefore the neo-Assyrian movement is no longer conceived of as a mere political tool can Aramean interests instead be reconceptualized as precisely central to the interests of Damascus.

However, an increasingly integrated greater Aram vill only come about through complete and transparent consent between three Aramaic states of Aram, Alawistan and Ezidxan as already based on open society and liberal democracy. These are therefore three separate state building projects which when reversion to the Aramaic language and to Median Judaism has been achieved would be fully free to move towards an ever-closer union between themselves, a united Aramaic linguistic state indeed. Seeking domination failed with regard to creating Greater Syria and it would fail too with respect to creating greater Aram. While ethnocracy remains the norm in much of the Middle East is this ultimately not the way to go. Greater Aram will not and cannot come about through coercion and domination. And so it is essential for policy makers in Damascus to precisely understand both the differences and the similarities between the former political project of Greater Syria and the triple endeavor leading towards a united Aramaic linguistic state of greater Aram.

Therefore is it essential that Damascus does not prevent the neo-Assyrian movement from constructively cooperating with others whether this is Free Kurdistan or the Aramean movement. Indeed, it is essential that Jerusalem and Damascus work increasingly closer together to diplomatically bring the Assyrian movement and the Aramean movement into a close alliance. Although it is true that the Assyrian movement will politically realize itself in Aramaic Ezidxan (East Aram) and the Aramean movement will realize itself in Aramaic Aram (West Aram) is a politically and diplomatically constructive role of Alawistan (Central Aram) absolutely essential on the path towards a unified Aramaic linguistic state of greater Aram as founded on open society, liberal democracy and denominational diversity without ethnocracy.

Politics in liberal-democratic open society is full of challenges and so greater Aram will not be dominated by any particular ethno-religious group but will rather be a pluralist and increasingly diverse place for all without the menace of religious imperialism. Indeed, religious imperialism is that which has necessitated establishing ethnocracies in many Middle Eastern polities.

Israel itself used to be an Ashkenazi ethnocracy and before 1977 were all cabinet ministers of Israeli governments ethnically Ashkenazi. Israel has since become much more diverse in its governance and there is also a tremendous challenge ahead in welcoming Palestinian clans in their respective local communal reversions to Alawite Judaism, Druze Judaism, Rabbinic Judaism and Samaritan Judaism. Israel as a former ethnocracy is thus an example of how distrust can be supplanted by increasingly successful coexistence. Of course religious imperialism does not coexist but rather imposes itself and so doing away with the scourge of religious imperialism by means of local communal reversions to Median Judaism is precisely essential to attain successful coexistence on the basis of equality and reciprocity.

Damascus therefore needs to make the conceptual leap from ethnic domination to eventually making ethnocracy redundant and that is done precisely by phasing out religious imperialism and reverting to indigenous heritage. This in turn paves the way for incrementally establishing a prosperous and open society of liberal democracy which as the example of Israel shows is indeed ultimately possible indeed even in the Middle East.

It is not that ethnocracy should be instantly dismantled but it is rather that phasing out ethnocracy will be achieved by means of integration in free choice of liberal democracy between the three Aramaic states into an ever closer union leading towards the establishment of a unified Aramaic linguistic state of greater Aram.

Let’s be very clear therefore about the difference between domination and anti-domination. While Middle Eastern ethnocracy has often had the character of resistance to cultural and political aspects of underlying religious imperialism is it essential however to understand that religious imperialism is the foundational problem to the many severe issues specific to the Middle East. The mindset of domination is however ultimately an obstacle on the path to a union leading towards a unified Aramaic linguistic state of greater Aram. Just as the unification of the three polities of the future unified Kurdistan is necessarily based on reciprocal respect so must the unification of the future unified Aram be no less based on reciprocal respect as well.

Alawites, Arameans and Yezidis are surviving inheritors of both Aramaic civilization and Median Judaism and so the path to successful coexistence of liberal-democratic open society goes through partnership and mutual respect of non-domination without the presence of religious imperialism. Israel continues to play an essential diplomatic role in the triple political project leading towards an officially bilingual Kurdish/Zazaki linguistic state of unified Kurdistan just as Israel will necessarily have an essential diplomatic role in the triple political project leading towards a unified linguistic state of greater Aram. There are many challenges ahead and working together in mutual respect for the best interests of every people in the region and beyond is clearly the appropriate and indeed the only working path ahead.