On November 10th Hurriyet Daily News published an article by Mustafa Akyol headlined 'Dismantling Kemalism: One more step.' The article follows the announcement by Bekir Bozdağ, the deputy prime minister of Turkey, who said that four of the eight 'revolutionary laws' that Atatürk, Turkey’s founder, imposed in the early 1920s will be abandoned. These laws concern traditional Turkish religious symbols, such as fez, tekkes, türbes, zaviyes and use of traditional titles such as efendi, bey, paşa and others that were banned after the Kemalist Revoilution.
"I, of course, agree with Bozdağ and Çelik and welcome this new step by the AKP government to dismantle yet another authoritarian decree of Kemalism, Turkey’s longtime official ideology. I even hope the rest of the “revolutionary laws” will go into the dustbin of history as well," Akyol says. "The reason is simple: all these “revolutionary” laws are both anti-democratic and illiberal. In other words, they were imposed without any popular support and they curbed individual freedom."
"Finally, what should replace Kemalism for Turkey is of course not another authoritarian official ideology, such as Islamism. Kemalists often claim that this is their only alternative and hence their hegemony must be kept intact. Rather, what we will have, I guess, is a more pluralist Turkey in which more colors exist and none are suppressed by law," he says.
On November 11th The Jerusalem Post published an article devoted to Barack Obama's recent victory and its effect on the Middle East.
"The 2012 US presidential elections were particularly combative. One of the most divisive issues was President Barack Obama’s Middle East policies. Obama was assailed for purportedly being too weak on Iran; he was criticized for pushing Israel too hard vis-à-vis the Palestinians; he was taken to task for failing to confront the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and radical Islam elsewhere," the article begins.
"Regarding Iran, Obama might ultimately be more disposed than Romney to use military means if necessary," the author says. "Romney, who would likely be perceived by the American Left as continuing George W. Bush’s “regime change” policies in the Middle East, might face a massive anti-war campaign if he launched a military attack on Iran."
"In contrast, Obama could be more successful at building a broad consensus – both at home and abroad – for using force to stop Iran’s nuclear program. Unlike Romney, who would take precious time putting together his own foreign policy team as Iran continues its stubborn march toward nuclear weapon capability, Obama has already articulated his stance on Iran – including going on record numerous times as saying that it is an American interest to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weapon capability. And he has made a point of not ruling out military action," the article reads.
