The Persian Cat has a mile wide smile!

Intelligence sources suggest Ms. Pelosi and entourage were given a four-point plan by Assad which sets forth what the Bush administration has been trying, but unable to achieve, because of Syrian, Iranian and other internal/external opposition and meddling. I have no doubt the Bush administration would love to walk away from Iraq knowing Iraq was secure from external threat by its neighbors, was sufficiently stable internally and sectarianwise constitutionally protective of all the various factions.

One below could be the beginning of a plan on the part of Iran, operating through Syria, to impact the outcome of our '08 election, it could be the beginning sign that Iran is feeling isolated or it could be, as has often been the case, a desert mirage.

It is often important to repeat and recite what has gone before and been documented accordingly so that current diplomatic sleight of hand is seen for just that which it is. As the Saudi Plan becomes the new end all what U.N. Resolution 242 has always meant becomes increasingly relevant. And this, notwithstanding, even Jimmy Carter's purposeful twisting of the facts. (See 2 below.)

My Israeli-Arab friend, reporter Toameh, writes Gaza may have become so lawless even the U.N. is worried about remaining. Is this the consequence of allowing Arabs to self-govern and is this a window into what Iraq will look like and become when we leave? Must Arabs and Muslims always live under the heel of a dictator in order to live in calm and forever without freedom?( See 3 below.)

Keep your eye on Turkey. (See 4 below.)

This past week was a victory by default for Iran. Ahmadinejad created an episode, proved his Royal Guards could carry it out, left no viable option for Britain, proved its own European allies would not come to its aid and then either relented or was forced to by Mullahs in a gracious bow to Christianity's Easter season.

Last seen the Persian cat had a mile wide smile.

Dick



1)Assad handed US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a four-point plan for Syria and Iran to help solve the Iraq crisis.


The plan was presented to Nancy Pelosi when she met president Bashar Assad in Damascus Wednesday, April 4. Sources report Ms Pelosi and members of her delegation were given to understand – although this was not spelled out by Assad – that Tehran was willing to be part of the first stages of the plan’s implementation, but might have reservations at later stages

The four points, according to sources, cover Iraq’s military situation (terror), political situation and the roles played by Iraq’s neighbors in the conflict.

The Syrian ruler rounded off his conversation with the US House Speaker, the highest American official to talk to him in two years, with this comment:

“If the United States decides to reject my plan, then Condoleezza Rice’s talks with Arab intelligence chiefs in Amman and Cairo in the last two months will become ducks’ quacks [in Arabic “geagea” – roughly, ‘meaningless chitchat’].”

This was taken to mean that Rice will fail in her goal of establishing an anti-Syrian, anti-Iranian Arab bloc while also stabilizing Iraq.

The sense of the four-point blueprint, which Assad read out to his American visitors from a piece of paper appears to be:

1. The US must recognize the situation in Iraq has no military solution, only a political one. No indigenous Iraqi group or faction may be shut out of the political process. This point is a demand to reinstate Saddam Hussein’s Baath party in Iraq’s political life as an integral part of the political solution.

2. No religious or ethnic community must be given a sense of victory over the others, and no group feel itself defeated. In other words, neither Shiite nor Sunni Muslims may be allowed triumph over the other.

3. Following point 2., the US must cease its practice of categorizing the various groups in Iraq and treat them all as equals. This means that America will no longer be allowed to regard the Sunni Arabs as enemies.

4. The US must generate circumstances in Iraq that provide its neighbors – Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey – with an interest in achieving an accommodation that guarantees Iraq’s unity, security and stability.

The members of the US congressional delegation, headed by Pelosi, gave the impression that at this stage Tehran concurred with the Syrian president’s plan. They were not clear whether Iran would go along, once implementation began, or even discussion of the practical details. The delegates surmised Tehran might possibly demur once the blueprint entered its operational stages.

2) Buried to this day on the website of the Israel Foreign Ministry is an
excellent presentation of statements made by officials from various nations
that UN Security Council Resolution does not, as the Arabs and their allies
claim, require a total Israeli withdrawal.

It is noteworthy that these remarks all pre-date the Israeli withdrawal from
Sinai - a withdrawal that ceded to the Arabs the overwhelming majority of
the land covered by Resolution 242.

The Sinai, thanks to its great size and specific topography lends itself to
the establishment of security arrangements based on a series of zones with
force restrictions, thus making it possible to maintain that withdrawal from
Sinai could possibly entail a withdrawal to a secure border.

After the Yom Kippur War Israel also carried out a withdrawal in the Golan
from the area of Kuneitra, a move that was defended at the time to be a
redeployment to a secure line, with additional withdrawals not feasible on
security grounds (talk of "technological substitutes" that hinge on the
assumption that the Arabs will never acquire technology to overcome these
substitutes is more window dressing than anything).

With regard to the West Bank, a secure border and a Palestinian state is a
contradiction in terms.

The presentation is repeated below in full as a proper understanding of 242
is an essential building block that, unfortunately, has been lacking in most
public discourse.

How did the Arabs succeed in convincing so many people to accept their
distorted interpretation of 242?

They didn't do it alone.

Israeli officials, for the most part, have shied away from talking about 242
over the years, leaving the field open for the false claims of the Arabs
regarding 242 to be repeated again and again essentially unchallenged.

And when a lie is repeated enough times.


Statements Clarifying the Meaning of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242

www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Statements%20Clarifying%20the%20Meaning%20of%20UN%20Security%20C

Even before the beginning of the Jarring Mission (the Special Representative
as mentioned in the Resolution), the Arab States insisted that Security
Council Resolution 242 called for a total withdrawal of Israeli forces from
territories occupied in the Six-Day War. Israel held that the withdrawal
phrase in the Resolution was not meant to refer to a total withdrawal.
Following are statements including the interpretations of various
delegations to Resolution 242:

A. United Kingdom

Lord Caradon, sponsor of the draft that was about to be adopted, stated,
before the vote in the Security Council on Resolution 242:

"... the draft Resolution is a balanced whole. To add to it or to detract
from it would destroy the balance and also destroy the wide measure of
agreement we have achieved together. It must be considered as a whole as it
stands. I suggest that we have reached the stage when most, if not all, of
us want the draft Resolution, the whole draft Resolution and nothing but the
draft Resolution." (S/PV 1382, p. 31, of 22.11.67)

Lord Caradon, interviewed on Kol Israel in February 1973:

Question: "This matter of the (definite) article which is there in French
and is missing in English, is that really significant?"

Answer: "The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the
preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section.
And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that
withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these
words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be
recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is
why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend
absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the
border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory
border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to
be that night, that is not a permanent boundary... "

Mr. Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
Affairs, in reply to a question in Parliament, 17 November 1969:

Question: "What is the British interpretation of the wording of the 1967
Resolution? Does the Right Honourable Gentleman understand it to mean that
the Israelis should withdraw from all territories taken in the late war?"

Mr. Stewart: "No, Sir. That is not the phrase used in the Resolution. The
Resolution speaks of secure and recognized boundaries. These words must be
read concurrently with the statement on withdrawal."

Mr. Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
Affairs, in a reply to a question in Parliament, 9 December 1969:

"As I have explained before, there is reference, in the vital United Nations
Security Council Resolution, both to withdrawal from territories and to
secure and recognized boundaries. As I have told the House previously, we
believe that these two things should be read concurrently and that the
omission of the word 'all' before the word 'territories' is deliberate."

Mr. George Brown, British Foreign Secretary in 1967, on 19 January 1970:

"I have been asked over and over again to clarify, modify or improve the
wording, but I do not intend to do that. The phrasing of the Resolution was
very carefully worked out, and it was a difficult and complicated exercise
to get it accepted by the UN Security Council. "I formulated the Security
Council Resolution. Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to
Arab leaders. The proposal said 'Israel will withdraw from territories that
were occupied', and not from 'the' territories, which means that Israel will
not withdraw from all the territories." (The Jerusalem Post, 23.1.70)

B. United States of America

Mr. Arthur Goldberg, US representative, in the Security Council in the
course of the discussions which preceded the adoption of Resolution 242:

"To seek withdrawal without secure and recognized boundaries ... would be
just as fruitless as to seek secure and recognized boundaries without
withdrawal. Historically, there have never been secure or recognized
boundaries in the area. Neither the armistice lines of 1949 nor the
cease-fire lines of 1967 have answered that description... such boundaries
have yet to be agreed upon. An agreement on that point is an absolute
essential to a just and lasting peace just as withdrawal is... " (S/PV.
1377, p. 37, of 15. 11.67)

President Lyndon Johnson, 10 September 1968:

"We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between
them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that
a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be
secure and there must be recognized borders. Some such lines must be agreed
to by the neighbours involved."

Mr. Joseph Sisco, Assistant Secretary of State, 12 July 1970 (NBC "Meet the
Press"):

"That Resolution did not say 'withdrawal to the pre-June 5 lines'. The
Resolution said that the parties must negotiate to achieve agreement on the
so-called final secure and recognized borders. In other words, the question
of the final borders is a matter of negotiations between the parties."

Eugene V. Rostow, Professor of Law and Public Affairs, Yale University, who,
in 1967, was US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs:

a) "... Paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of
Israeli armed forces 'from territories occupied in the recent conflict', and
not 'from the territories occupied in the recent conflict'. Repeated
attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word 'the' failed in the
Security Council. It is, therefore, not legally possible to assert that the
provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied
under the cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines."
(American Journal of International Law, Volume 64, September 1970, p. 69)

b) "The agreement required by paragraph 3. of the Resolution, the Security
Council said, should establish 'secure and recognized boundaries' between
Israel and its neighbours 'free from threats or acts of force', to replace
the Armistice Demarcation lines established in 1949, and the cease-fire
lines of June 1967. The Israeli armed forces should withdraw to such lines
as part of a comprehensive agreement, settling all the issues mentioned in
the Resolution, and in a condition of peace." (American Journal of
International Law, Volume 64, September 1970, p. 68)

C. USSR

Mr. Vasily Kuznetsov said in discussions that preceded the adoption of
Resolution 242:

"... Phrases such as 'secure and recognized boundaries'. What does that
mean? What boundaries are these? Secure, recognized - by whom, for what? Who
is going to judge how secure they are? Who must recognize them? ... There is
certainly much leeway for different interpretations which retain for Israel
the right to establish new boundaries and to withdraw its troops only as far
as the lines which it judges convenient." (S/PV. 1373, p. 112, of 9.11.67)

D. Brazil

Mr. Geraldo de Carvalho Silos, Brazilian representative, speaking in the
Security Council after the adoption of Resolution 242:

"We keep constantly in mind that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East
has necessarily to be based on secure, permanent boundaries freely agreed
upon and negotiated by the neighbouring States." (S/PV. 1382, p. 66,
22.11.67)

3)PA fears UN may order all aid workers out of lawless Gaza
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH
[Print this Article] [EMail this Article] [Subscribe] [JPost Toolbar] [Download article to your iPod/mp3 player] [JPost ePaper]

Talkbacks for this article: 10

Palestinian Authority officials on Thursday expressed fear that the United Nations may formally declare the Gaza Strip a dangerous zone - a move that would result in the evacuation of the remaining foreign nationals from the area and drastically hamper international humanitarian aid to the Palestinians.

PA security sources told The Jerusalem Post that 25 Palestinians were killed in the Gaza Strip last month in internal fighting. Another four were killed in the West Bank, the sources added.

"We're moving very quickly toward such a scenario," said Yasser Abed Rabbo, member of the PLO executive committee and a close aide to PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. "The Gaza Strip is full of thugs and gangsters who are responsible for the ongoing anarchy. Soon the Gaza Strip may be declared a dangerous zone, which means that all international organizations would have to leave."

The UN has yet to issue any formal statement to such effect.

Chief PA negotiator Saeb Erekat warned that a "dangerous zone" declaration would increase the suffering of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and called on the PA security forces to start working to end the state of lawlessness and anarchy.

"The Gaza Strip has become worse than Somalia," a prominent human rights activist in Gaza City told the Post. "Thousands of gunmen continue to roam the streets and the new government hasn't done anything to restore law and order. Every day you hear horror stories about people who are killed and wounded. The situation is really intolerable."

Muhammad Dahlan, who was recently appointed PA National Security Adviser, said it was time to admit that a "curse has hit" the Gaza Strip. "Anyone who does not admit that there's a curse in the Gaza Strip does not know what he's talking about," he said.

Dahlan expressed concern over the wave of kidnappings in Gaza, noting that a local engineer who was abducted several months ago was still being held by his captors. He said that the National Security Council was now preparing a security plan that would end the state of anarchy in the PA-controlled areas.

"The Palestinian security establishment needs to undergo major surgery," he added. "The situation is catastrophic and many young men prefer to work for clans and not the security forces."

Dahlan met earlier with the British consul-general in Jerusalem, Richard Makepeace, and briefed him on the PA's efforts to release kidnapped BBC correspondent Alan Johnston, who was snatched by masked gunmen in Gaza City three weeks ago.

Hassan Khraisheh, deputy speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, said that the commanders of the PA security forces knew where Johnston was being held, but were doing nothing to release him. "What's the point in having 85,000 security officers if they can't free a foreign journalist who has been held in the Gaza Strip for three weeks?" he asked.

Dozens of Palestinian journalists demonstrated outside Abbas's office in Gaza City on Thursday to protest against the abduction of Johnston. Addressing the journalists, Abbas said he was doing his utmost to secure the release of the BBC corespondent.

"This case will be resolved very soon," he said without elaborating. "We will not allow such things to recur." Abbas's bodyguards fired into the air to prevent the protesters from approaching his office. No one was hurt.

Abbas and PA Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh agreed to form a joint "operations command" to follow up on the case of Johnston.

The new PA government is expected to hold an emergency meeting in Gaza City on Saturday to discuss ways of restoring law and order. But many Palestinians in the Gaza Strip expressed pessimism, saying it was too late to talk about ending the state of chaos.

"There are too many gangs and weapons out there," said the human rights activist. "No government will be able to create a new situation."

He pointed out that at least 46 civilians had been kidnapped in the Gaza Strip in the past four weeks. The latest kidnappings took place on Thursday, when unidentified gunmen abducted three people, including one woman, in separate incidents.

Most of the kidnappings were related to family feuds and rivalries between political groups, particularly Fatah and Hamas.

Also Thursday, the bullet-riddled body of a Hamas security official, Muhammad Abu Hajileh, was discovered east of Gaza City. Abu Hajileh was a member of Hamas's "Executive Force" in the Gaza Strip.

4) Tensions Rise in Turkey in Advance of Presidential Election
By: R. Krespin

As the countdown proceeds towards the May 16 presidential election in Turkey, a sense of panic pervades Turkey's secular circles, which fear for the secular and democratic nature of the Turkish republic. The possibility that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan will bid for and win the presidency heads the national agenda, with daily polls, wagers, and guessing games.

According to the Turkish constitution, the president is elected by parliament; at present, the AKP party, whose roots are Islamist, holds the majority in parliament.

To date, Erdogan has been secretive about his candidacy, saying that the AKP will disclose its presidential candidate on April 16, a month before the election.

The thought of an Islamist occupying the highest position in the land has thrown the country into turmoil, and has deepened the rift between Islamists and secularists - and this is reflected in Turkey's divided media.

Business circles, NGOs, and the general public have been expressing their wish for nominating a candidate by national consensus, so as to prevent chaos and instability.

Many of the AKP government's Islamization attempts during the past four years have met with rejection and vetoes by the current president, the staunchly secular Ahmet Necdet Sezer, who has acted as a force for checks and balances. This will be lost if he is replaced by Erdogan.

It is thought that if the AKP adds the presidency to its monopoly on the executive and legislative bodies, it will constitute a serious threat to the core principles upon which the modern Republic of Turkey is built. Such absolute, unchecked rule will even give the AKP the power, in the period between the presidential and general elections, to change the constitution and make Turkey into a religious state.

While some secularists are looking to Turkey's strong military, as the custodian of the republic and of the constitution, to intervene as a last resort, the senior commanders are remaining silent on the matter of the presidential election and on internal politics, with reference to the democratic process and in line with demands by the E.U. to lessen the military's influence. [1]

The following are excerpts from Turkish media reports on the upcoming presidential election.

Secular Turkish Daily Cumhuriyet: "Are You Aware of the Danger?"

Two 20-second television ads [2] by the secular Turkish daily Cumhuriyet ("Republic") angered the AKP and led to discussion in AKP group meetings and the parliament floor about suing the paper. [3]

In the first ad, a ticking clock with its hands moving backwards is shown, and a voice-over says: "On May 16, the clocks are being set back 100 years. Are you aware of the danger? [Defend] your republic!"

The second ad opens with the sound of sirens; then the caption "1881-2007" appears [4] and a voice-over says, "In May 2007 the presidential election will be held. Are you aware of the danger? Defend your republic!" (To view the clips, see http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ClipMediaID=746296&ak=null ; http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ClipMediaID=746291&ak=null ).
Turkish Columnist: Erdogan Will Be President, But Will Act as Prime Minister

Turkish columnist Can Atakli, of the centrist, secular daily Vatan wrote: [5] "With Mr. Tayyip [Erdogan] in his office at AKP headquarters sit four of his cabinet ministers, and they discuss the presidential election. The ministers are certain that Erdogan will be the presidential candidate, and they are also absolutely certain that he will be elected. One of the ministers says, 'Tayyip Bey, there are media speculations that if you become president you will lose your power over the government, if it is a coalition government [after the general elections].' [6]

"Erdogan dismisses the argument with a wave of his hand and says, 'Don't worry, we will again be the only party to form the government' [...] and then continues, 'and how could there be any problem with the government - if I am the president? I will use all my powers [as president]. The constitution gives the president the authority to preside over the cabinet when he deems it necessary. This means that the president can act as the prime minister whenever he deems it necessary [...] Therefore, I can attend and preside over every cabinet meeting, if I want to. And I will definitely do that.'

"One of the ministers says happily: 'This is exactly what everyone [in the AKP] wants. This way you will become president, and act as prime minister too, when necessary.'

"Some of the ministers who attended that meeting shared this conversation with their friends. That is how I learned about it. Even if not every word is exact, the essence of the conversation is true."

Turkish Columnist: "What if Erdogan Acts Like Putin?"

In a column titled "What if Erdogan Acts Like Putin?" columnist Mehmet Tezkan, also of Vatan, described a very different scenario: [7] "If Erdogan becomes the presidential candidate, there will be a crisis... If he gives up [the presidency] and gets to be [prime minister] of a single-party [AKP] government [after the November general elections], he will be another [Russian President Vladimir] Putin...

"Putin designed Russia according to his wishes... With the capital... the businessmen... bureaucrats... [and] media... he built the Russia that he wanted.

"Erdogan will do the same. He will become more firm. He won't tolerate loud speech, let alone criticism. In the last year or year and a half, he has been showing signs of this. In 2003, Erdogan was rather timid and hesitant [...] He didn't know power and was unfamiliar with [affairs of] state... Now he has tasted power... He has begun to attack the president of the Higher Education Board... to reprimand university presidents... to accuse media organs of treason... to completely ignore the opposition...He has begun overreacting to the slightest of protests [...]

"So what will he do if [the AKP] comes to power once again? [The answer] is clear... Currently, 670 critical public positions have [only] acting heads. Why is this? Because the government is unable to override President Sezer's vetoes of its appointments. Erdogan will deal with that first. He will appoint [his men], and [the president] will readily sign... He will then pass the legislation he wants... and the president will readily sign... Then he will assign [his men] to the position of president of the Higher Education Board... [and to positions] of ambassadors... governors... security heads... and even members of the judiciary. All institutions will be manned by the AKP...

"Businessmen will get their share too... Those who support the government will get their business done... Those who don't will be [thrown out], and be run over by the wheels of bureaucracy... Then it will be the turn of the media... The [AKP] newspapers and television channels will grow, while others will be lost.

"Foreign capital loves countries where all authority is held by one man. Didn't they love Putin too? [When this is the case,] all doors open and things are easier for them [...]

"That's why I think Erdogan will not become president, and will send to the presidential residence a man who is pallid and humble, who does not like being at center stage... He [Erdogan] will wait for the November elections in order to be like Putin. A powerful prime minister, who does whatever he wants [...]"

Turkish Columnist: The Presidential Suit "Won't Fit" Erdogan

Columnist Hassan Pulur of the secular, mainstream Milliyet wrote: [8] "Not every garment fits everyone; [people] are short, tall, slim, fat... If you insist on dressing everyone in [a particular garment], it will either be loose and unflattering, or too tight, and will rip.

"The presidency is like a suit, and it must fit the wearer. For example, it will not fit someone who says [as PM Erdogan has said]: 'democracy is a tool, not a goal!.' It doesn't fit someone who yells at simple citizens, and reprimands them and sends them away. It doesn't fit someone who says 'Hitler too was secular' [...] or '[secularism] will obviously go away if our people wish it to.'

"This suit doesn't fit someone who has said [as PM Erdogan has said], 'These people [i.e. former Turkish governments] are racing to join the European Union, while the Europeans are making every effort not to accept us. We [i.e. the AKP] do not want to join. The E.U.'s real name is the Union of Catholic Christian States.'

"[This suit] doesn't fit someone [...] who says [as PM Erdogan has said] of the president of the Higher Education Board, Professor Tezic, that 'his head does not work [...], or someone who says there are 27 ethnic groups in Turkey [...], contemplating an Ottoman-style division [...]

"However, there are those who are trying to dress this person [i.e. PM Erdogan] in this suit [...] and who are trying to make us believe that he can be a centrist president who wants to embrace everyone [...] and protects us all [...]

"It won't be long now. Soon you will see how the suit fits when he wears it. It will either be too big and will fall off, or it will be so tight that it rips open [...]"

Former Chief of Staff: If Erdogan Becomes President "There Will Be Chaos"

The secular, large circulation Turkish daily Hurriyet reported: [9] "Answering journalists' questions on a program on Haberturk [TV], [...] former Chief of General Staff General (ret.) Dogan Gures said: 'The face of Turkey is changing; I look at people in Ankara [and see] more and more in Saudi garb. The moustaches are changing; the clothing is changing; the [verbal] expressions are changing [to Arabic expressions]. There is nervousness [in the air] [...]' He added that secularism was in danger.

"Gen. Gures said that the situation was like the period prior to February 28 [1997, the ousting of former Islamist PM Necmettin Erbakan by military intervention], and added: 'I am telling the present [AKP government] to wise up and shape up.'

"Gures told the journalists that if Erdogan became president, there would be tension in Turkey, [since] the post [of president] acts as a valve to prevent social tension. He said that President Ahmet Necdet Sezer had been very successful, and that by vetoing some of the AKP government's policies he had prevented public reaction. He stated that in the event that Erdogan became president, there would be no such mechanism [of checks and balances]. [...] [He said,] 'The Turkish people is very concerned. Erdogan does not have what it takes to fulfill the duties of the presidency - that is, to ensure that the national institutions and bodies work together in harmony. If he becomes president, there will be chaos.'"

Demonstrations Against an Erdogan Presidency; One Million Expected to March on Ankara

Anti-AKP demonstrations have been held across Turkey, with the largest one on March 31, 2007 in Antalya. Recently, the Association of Ataturkist Thought (ADD) issued a statement calling on its members and concerned citizens everywhere to join forces to protest against the AKP government. In its statement, the ADD committed all its resources to the national goal of bringing down the AKP prior to the elections, and invited all followers of Ataturk and of his principles to participate in a massive demonstration scheduled for April 14, 2007 in Ankara. According to the Turkish media, the Ankara demonstrations are expected to draw one million participants, and are to be followed by other demonstrations across the country.

Actors and artists also organized a demonstration in Istanbul, just prior to World Theater Day on March 27, 2007. What started as a protest against the AKP government's decision to destroy Istanbul's Ataturk Culture Center (AKM) quickly turned into a "Don't Destroy the AKM, Destroy the AKP" demonstration. Some 1,000 actors, singers, dancers, and artists from all the state theaters, operas, and ballet companies met in front of the AKM, gave a performance of "No One is Sleeping" from the Verdi opera Nabucco, read poems, and sang a piece composed for the new Turkish film The Republic. In a statement, which was also signed by the members of 14 private theatre companies, they vowed to fight back against the AKP government, which, they said, was at war with the theater. [10]

*R. Krespin is the director of the Turkish Media Project.

[1] Turkey is a candidate for E.U. membership, and is in the process of implementing E.U. criteria, one of which is to lessen the power and political influence of the Turkish military. However, Turkey's constitution gives the responsibility and duty of guarding the Turkish republic's secular regime to the military.

[2] Broadcast through February 2007 in major Turkish TV channels such as Haberturk, Kanalturk, CNN Turk, StarTV, KanalD. They were stopped by a complaint sent to RTUK [Turkish Radio-TV Supreme Council] by AKP that the ads were discriminatory [against AKP] and an incitement to hatred. However after a short break, Cumhuriyet ads were broadcast for a few more weeks.

[3] During 2006, Cumhuriyet was the target of multiple bomb attacks by Islamists.

[4] "1881" is the year of the birth of modern Turkey's founding father and first president Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. "2007" presumably marks the death of Ataturk’s reforms and principles.

[5] Vatan (Turkey), March 12, 2007.

[6] Media organs have been reporting that some in the AKP circles are concerned that if Erdogan wins the presidency, the AKP will lose his charismatic leadership, and thus lose some power in the November 2007 parliamentary elections campaign.

[7] Vatan (Turkey), March 7, 2007.

[8] Milliyet (Turkey), Marc 31, 2007.

[9] Hurriyet (Turkey), March 5, 2007.

[10] Radikal (Turkey), March 27, 2007.