This paper suggests that the mobilisation of the Kurdish diaspora in support of the Kurdish political entities in Syria and Iraq during the battle against Islamic State paved the way for a type of Kurdish diaspora identity, which is best described as alter-territorial. This notion epitomises a certain diaspora inclination towards the homeland that arises from diaspora members’ loyalty and political relation to another part of the homeland than the one from which they descend. Thus, Kurds originating from various parts of the Kurdish homeland celebrated the victories of “our” people in Rojava or hailed the demand for independence put forward by “our” leaders in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. The phenomenon of identifying with another part of the homeland than the place of origin is not new, as a number of previous mobilising events tells. These include the transnational mobilisation vis-à-vis the defeat of Saddam Hussein forces in the Kurdistan region of Iraq in 1991 and the capture of Öcalan in 1999. However, the formation of the two rivalling autonomous Kurdish regions, in Syria and in Iraq, which both claim to be the leading Kurdish political entity, calls for an adequate examination of the phenomenon. The paper argues that alter-territorial identification encompasses both de-territorial and re-territorial diaspora identification: a de-territorial identification with the transnational Kurdish community and a re-orientation towards the Kurdish homeland through political mobilisation and identification with the struggle of fellow Kurds within the transnational community. The analysis is based on ethnographic fieldwork among various diaspora groups in Denmark conducted as part of the author’s PhD research. The examination covers the Kurdish mobilisation from the attack on mount Sinjar and the siege of Kobane by Islamic State in 2014 to the independence referendum in the Kurdistan region of Iraq in 2017 and the attack on Afrin by Turkey and Turkish backed rebels in 2018. The research draws on social movement theories, in particular on strategic interactionism, which allows the analysis to delve into the complexity of interaction between various players within the diaspora as well as between diaspora groups and players in the host- and homeland.