The results of the Turkish elections and Bush's call for an ME peace conference kept the printed media guessing, writes Doaa El-Bey The sweeping victory of Turkey's Justice and Development Party (JDP) in general elections prompted Tareq Al-Hemeid to ask if the JDP could be the first Islamic party that behaves rationally. Al-Hemeid wrote in the London-based daily Asharq Al-Awsat that if the party tried to make drastic changes to the concept of Turkish states, the army would stand up to it. Thus its sweeping victory would be the start of its downfall. In that case, there would be no difference between the party and any other Islamic party which gave up its election slogans and adopted more hardline policies once it came to power. "The victory of the JDP put it in the eye of the storm. It is a historic moment for all Islamic parties. Will it prove that it is capable of practising politics and rule the state away from Islamic slogans, or will it contribute to the picture of Islamic parties as immature and incapable of ruling?" Hemeid summed up that if the JDP works for the welfare of its people and respects the constitution, it would be a declaration of success for the JDP and democracy in the region and a turning point of political Islam in the West. Abdullah Iskandar hailed the sweeping victory of the JDP as clear proof of its popularity in Turkey. He did not rule out that the Arab Islamic parties could achieve the same victory. Hemeid praised Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan who demonstrated his rejection of political Islam. As a result, during his first term in office, Erdogan avoided any confrontation with the military institution of the secularist parties and abided by the laws and constitution. On the external level, he declared his rejection of the war in Iraq without severing his ties with the US. He also established good relations with Syria in spite of his ties with Israel and he worked hard to join the EU. "In spite of his sweeping victory, Erdogan reiterated his respect for the secularist Turkish republic and vowed to maintain political stability and development. His stand is completely the opposite of that of the Islamic party in Algeria which governed for a short period, and that in Sudan which incited internal fighting, and finally that of Hamas in Gaza," Hemeid wrote in the London-based daily Al-Hayat . Radwan Al-Sayed regarded the JDP victory as the first challenge awaiting Erdogan. After his victory, he will face short-, medium- and long-term challenges. The short-term challenges include electing a new Turkish president and holding a referendum to amend the constitution. Other challenges include resolving the Kurdish issue, trying to discover Turkey's identity and establishing a balanced relationship with the Middle East and Europe. Given that the Middle East's so-called secularist government provided a successful model for neither an extremist or non- extremist Islamic government, the present Turkish experience gains its importance. "The Turkish experience with democracy carries the prospects for success. It may or may not succeed, but the election shows they are at least on the road to success," Hemeid added in Al-Hayat. Meanwhile, the call by US President George Bush to hold an international peace conference was met by resentment and rejection. Bilal Al-Hassan questioned whether the conference could be a step forward. He wrote that Bush has two aims -- to politically and geographically divide the Palestinians into a moderate side in the West Bank headed by the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and an extremist group in Gaza, and wished to clearly confirm that he supports the first group. Second, he wants to divide the Arab states into moderate and non-moderate camps. Thus, the US would ask the moderate Arabs to recognise Israel, and establish economic relations ahead of peace. The Arab states which welcomed the idea of holding a peace conference, reconfirmed their stand: peace ahead of normalisation or recognition and establishing relations with Israel. Al-Hassan concluded that differences between the US-Israeli stand on the one hand and the Arab stand on the other would come to the surface as soon as the conference started and would lead to its failure. "The conference would show Bush as a successful president and provide [Israeli Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert with a political achievement on the eve of the final Winograd report," he wrote in Asharq Al-Awsat. Adel Malek wrote that Bush was trying to use the Palestinian card to introduce some balance in his policies after getting bogged down in the Iraqi crisis. Bush regarded the conference as a chance to call on all Arab states to recognise Israel and open a dialogue with Tel Aviv. "It is widely believed that Bush's quest for peace is the outcome of his failure and not of his conviction of the value of peace," he wrote in Al-Hayat. Ghassan Al-Imam described Bush's suggestion to hold an international conference as a joke at a serious time. He expressed his resentment that Bush expects the Arab states to believe that he will be able to establish a Palestinian state in the short time he has left in office. In Asharq Al-Awsat, Al-Imam asked why a state like Saudi Arabia would jeopardise its credibility by attending a conference that does not commit Israel to accept its peace initiative. "How can the Arab states believe Bush who promised Israel that it would not return to pre- 1967 borders and that there would be no right of return of Palestinian refugees?
