This paper investigates the character of the separatist Kurdish nationalism as reflected in the Jin Journal published during and right after the CUP (Committee of Union and Progress) administration, 1918-1919, specifically focusing on its convergence and divergence with the ethnic Turkish nationalism of the time. CUP, with its nationalist members, approved the principle of centralization in administration, a main reason of Kurdish unrest and reaction, and it promoted the elevation of Turkish people from the status of unsur-i asli (main ethnic group) to that of millet-i hakime (ruling/dominant nation). Ironically enough, writers Jin writers, among whom the Kurdish elite living in Istanbul, used a similar ethno-nationalist tone with Turkish nationalists, which they formulated their nationalism against. The writers of Jin and Turkish nationalists were influenced by the ideological and political trends of their time. They used the exact same terms to raise nationalistic consciousness: Muasirlasmak, compliance with the contemporary age’s necessities, terakki, improvement, necip Kurt milleti, noble Kurdish nation, jon Kurtler, young Kurds, etc. Kurdish nationalists aimed to improve the situation of Kurds as similar to that of contemporary civilization, namely the Western, the same discourse used by the Turkish nationalists. In order to prove the Europeans their legitimacy as a nation and get their support, Kurdish nationalists emphasized that their approach to women, religion; their history, culture and language make them capable of adjusting to the necessities of a civilized nation. Jin writers Lav Resid and Siverekli Hilmi, endeavored to create a repertoire for Kurdish proverbs, tales and folklore to comply with the definitions of ‘a nation’ at that time. The hard-core Turkish and Kurdish nationalists were similarly careful not to use an exclusivist nationalist language as well, but emphasized the role of Islam in uniting their nations to get the support of the masses. Investigating similarities and differences between these nationalisms, this paper argues how each appropriated their discourses to get recognition from the world powers and the support of the masses.