What direction is the Turkish regime heading?
A pessimistic view goes like this: The ruling AK party is pushing toward an Islamist agenda both at home and abroad. It is moving closer to Iran, Syria and Hamas. In some ways, Turkey might become part of the Iran-led 
The key factor is Turkey's people, but will they speak out - and do so effectively?
alignment in the region. Anti-American, anti-Western and anti-Israel feeling is growing. The government is making a sharp break with the past, based on structural changes in the country. It is gradually capturing institutions: buying up or intimidating the media; allied with a rising, more traditionally oriented new business class and village migrants to the city; naming judges; and neutralizing the army.
The hopeful view sounds like this: The Turkish people haven't changed. A lot of this is temporary, problems stemming from friction with the previous US government over Iraq as well anger at Israel's military operation in the Gaza Strip. National interests - hope of getting into the European Union; need for US backing; high levels of trade, tourism, and military cooperation with Israel - will pull the government and country back onto its usual course.
Both courses are still open to Ankara's rulers. But at the moment, the more pessimistic analysis seems the likelier outcome. It is true that the key factor is Turkey's people, but will they speak out - and do so effectively?
Before considering this, it should be understood that the policy changes in Turkey do not just include criticism of Israel or some highly publicized events. Rather, there is a systematic shift going on. Internationally, the developments include closer relations between Turkey and such countries as Iran, Syria and Sudan. Internally, the focal point is the AK's introduction of more Islamic or Islamist norms, the placing of its people in key positions in the civil service and social institutions, rising pressure in daily life for conformity with Islamist-dictated behavior, and so on.
The intensity of such changes can be seen also in rarely reported details. Take, for example, the behavior of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in attacking Israeli President Shimon Peres in an insulting fashion, then walking out of their session at the Davos conference. Erdogan used, in Turkish, a derogatory form of address toward Peres and then referred to the one-sided confrontation as a new Gallipoli.
Gallipoli was the World War I battle in which the Ottoman Empire defeated a British invasion attempt. To equate this verbal exchange with a bloody battle in which Turks defended their country from invasion was about the most inflammatory patriotic language the prime minister could use to stir Turk 
Those who know Turkish or who are in the country are getting a different picture.
passions.
While Turkish officials issue some soothing public statements, emphasizing their opposition to anti-Semitism, those who know Turkish or who are in the country are getting a different picture. Turkish officials are investigating the possibility of initiating war crimes charges against Israeli leaders, as they welcome top Sudanese officials who are engaged in mass murder in their own country.
Educated, modernist, moderate Turks have not wanted to face what is happening in their country and, until recently, have been able to believe the AK is a moderate center-right reformist party with a slight pious tinge. This is becoming more difficult to sustain.
Some months ago, I sat around a table with a dozen Turkish professors near Istanbul, people who fit the profile of what would be expected to be strongly anti-AK types. Unanimously, they agreed the party was no threat.
One of them, added, however that his sister-in-law told him he was crazy and that the government was leading the country into a disastrous transformation. He then told me that their young nanny had to wear a headscarf and "Islamic-style" clothing - not because she wanted to, but because otherwise she might be harassed or even attacked in her neighborhood. But this was all anecdotal information that could be disregarded in favor of heeding what top AK leaders promised.
For me, the most dangerous sign was that while the AK promised before the election not to pick the hard-line Abdullah Gul as president, a post once held by Kemal Ataturk, the moment it won by a big margin, it did so any way. Gul made an extremely arrogant speech, saying, in essence: we won and we can do whatever we want.
Now we are seeing the result of that confidence. Believing it can win any election, knowing that there will not be
The next local elections will tell the tale.strong international condemnation or pressure, aware that the political opposition is divided and poorly led, and not too worried about an army intervention, the AK is marching faster and more visibly down the road a more Islamicized Turkey at home and abroad.
The next local elections will tell the tale. If the AK loses in Istanbul and Izmir then it might become more cautious. If not, things are going to get worse - much worse.
Right now, the situation of Turkey's Jews is perilous. There has been no violence and the government might well prevent that from happening. But the signs are dangerous. The Ankara branch of the AK party put up a terribly anti-Semitic item as an apparent official statement. It said that Hitler was Jewish and the Holocaust was a plot to force Jews to emigrate to Palestine. It came down only after the newspaper Radikal protested. The branch's leader denied all knowledge of the article.