Erdogan, pro-Kurdish MPs meet in 'new phase' of rapprochement
DEM, Turkey's third-biggest party, has played a key role in facilitating an emerging peace deal between the government and jailed PKK founder Abdullah Ocalan, whose Kurdish militant group is expected to begin laying down its weapons later this week.
The meeting, which lasted just over an hour, brought together Erdogan, Efkan Ala, a senior figure in his ruling AKP, and spy chief Ibrahim Kalin with DEM lawmakers Pervin Buldan and Mithat Sancar.
"Our delegation conveyed their views and suggestions on the new stage the process has reached and what to do next," the DEM lawmakers said in a brief statement after the talks.
DEM lawmaker Buldan called the meeting "historic".
"The process is now entering a new phase in which consultations are needed," she told reporters before the meeting.
"It is important to consult to take the necessary steps," she added, saying the sides would "exchange views".
Fellow DEM lawmaker Mithat Sancar said the new phase was "very important" and that they would use the meeting to "share our views" and to "listen to them".
"We will consult with the president and his delegation about the characteristics of this new phase and the upcoming requirements."
On Sunday, the pair held a "very productive" meeting with Ocalan on Imrali prison island. The jailed 76-year-old PKK founder also characterised the upcoming talks with Erdogan as "historic".
He told them a parliamentary commission being set up would "play a major role" in directing the peace process.
The meeting came as the PKK was to hold a ceremony in Iraqi Kurdistan to start destroying a first tranche of weapons -- which will likely take place on or around July 10-12.
Erdogan said the move would give momentum to peace efforts with the Kurds.
The disarmament process is expected to unfold over the coming months.
bur-hmw/jhb
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
32 minutes ago
- The Hill
Morning Joe baffled that AOC, Mamdani, Sanders are Dems only hope! Robby Soave
Morning Joe baffled that AOC, Mamdani, Sanders are Dems only hope! Robby Soave | RISING Robby Soave delivers radar on MSNBC's Joe Scarborough questioning why the three most compelling figures in the Democratic Party currently are NYC mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), as opposed to more moderate figures. Piers Morgan, Owen Jones clash over Israel's response to Oct. 7 | RISING Robby Soave and Niall Stanage discuss British journalist Owen Jones and Piers Morgan arguing over the Hamas attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Meanwhile, President Trump hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House. Trump faces backlash over using term viewed as antisemitic; POTUS denies ill intent | RISING Robby Soave and Niall Stanage discuss President Trump using an antisemitic slur during remarks promoting his, 'big, beautiful bill.' Dem voters tell lawmakers they must be willing to 'get shot' for Trump resistance: Report | RISING Robby Soave and Niall Stanage discuss Democratic voters saying party lawmakers needs to be willing to, 'get shot,' to fight President Trump's agenda. Epstein client list does not exist, disgraced financier killed himself: FBI, DOJ memo | RISING Robby Soave and Niall Stanage discuss a new Axios report on bombshell conclusions that the DOJ and FBI reached about Jeffrey Epstein's 'client list' and cause of death. Tucker Carlson asks Iranian president if they've backed assassination attempt on Trump | RISING Robby Soave and Niall Stanage weigh in on Tucker Carlson's interview with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. Mark Ruffalo blasts Joe Rogan over being late to Trump deportation criticism | RISING Robby Soave and Niall Stanage react to actor Mark Ruffalo calling out Joe Rogan for not speaking out against ICE sooner. Joy Reid suggests 2026 elections may not be 'free and fair' | RISING Robby Soave and Niall Stanage react to two former cable news stars, Joy Reid and Jim Acosta, floating conspiracy theories about President Trump and the 2026 midterms.
New York Post
4 hours ago
- New York Post
Mamdani visited controversial Brooklyn mosque on campaign trail — just months after the imam called for the annihilation of Israel
Socialist New York City mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani visited a controversial Brooklyn mosque to pray while on the campaign trail — just months after the imam had called for the destruction of Israel. Mamdani posted a picture of himself speaking at the Islamic Society of Bay Ridge, alongside firebrand cleric Sheikh Muhammad Al-Barr, on his social media in January. 'It was a privilege to join Jummah prayers at the Islamic Society of Bay Ridge today,' the socialist nominee said in the post on X dated January 17. Advertisement 3 Zohran Mamdani visited a controversial Brooklyn mosque on the mayoral campaign trail. X / @ZohranKMamdani 3 Imam Muhammad Al-Barr gave a controversial sermon at his Bay Ridge mosque months before Mamdani's visit. 3 Pro-Palestine supporters rally outside of the Islamic Society of Bay Ridge in Brooklyn on February 26, 2025. NEW YORK POST Advertisement Mamdani's visit came just five months after Al-Barr called on Allah in a fiery sermon at his Bay Ridge mosque to 'liberate Palestine from the occupiers and the plunderers.' 'Oh Allah, annihilate those who occupied their lands, and those who betrayed and deserted them, and those who spilled their blood,' the cleric said in Arabic in an August service at the Islamic Society of Bay Ridge's Masjid ibn Umair. Al-Barr, whose last name is also spelled 'Elbar,' also said that 'the mujahideen [Hamas fighters] in Gaza are achieving more than our Arab armies could in 1967 and 1973,' a reference to the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War, respectively.
USA Today
6 hours ago
- USA Today
Trial starts over Trump's efforts to deport foreign-born student protesters: What to know
The two-week, non-jury trial over President Donald Trump's attempt to deport foreign-born individuals based on their pro-Palestinian activism kicked off in a Boston courtroom on July 7. The trial comes weeks after Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil was released from the Louisiana detention facility where he'd been held for more than three months. The Trump administration has maintained it has a right to arrest and deport individuals whom they believe undermine the country's foreign policy interests. But others have said the administration's actions are a clear violation of the First Amendment and could have significant implications for the future of free speech in the U.S. Here's what to know as the trial for American Association of University Professors v. Rubio unfolds: Who's involved in the lawsuit? The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed the lawsuit on March 25 on behalf of the American Association of University Professors, the association's campus chapters at Harvard University, New York University and Rutgers University, and the Middle East Studies Association. Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Todd Lyons, acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, are listed as defendants in their official capacities. What happened on day one? Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that efforts to detain and deport noncitizens based on their political beliefs violate the First Amendment's right to free speech, the Washington Post reported. Ramya Krishnan, a senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute who gave an opening statement on behalf of the plaintiffs on July 7, told USA TODAY the administration is unconstitutionally "using immigration law as a cudgel against speech that it doesn't like" and that the case therefore has implications for "everyone." She told USA TODAY the administration's actions are akin to those associated with authoritarian regimes and have "no place in a democracy." She referenced a moment in which, according to Politico, Justice Department attorney Victoria Santora said the First Amendment applies to both citizens and noncitizens but later backtracked to say 'there are nuances to the First Amendment." The judge "wasn't really given a straight answer" when he asked for further detail about that nuance and indicated it would be a topic they would revisit during the trial, Krishnan said. The plaintiffs hosted a news conference and rally on July 7 after the court adjourned for the day. What do the plaintiffs want? The plaintiffs have requested, among other actions, that the judge declare the administration's "ideological deportation policy' and 'threats to arrest, detain and deport noncitizen students and faculty' as unconstitutional. They asked for the policy to be set aside and for the judge to bar the administration from making such threats moving forward. How does the administration justify the deportations? The Trump administration has cited a provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act that gives the secretary of state the right to remove a person from the country if they undermine its foreign policy interests. "The Trump administration reserves the right to ensure that foreign nationals do not pose a threat to the foreign policy or national security interests of the United States," White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told USA TODAY on July 7. Trump has referred to student protesters as 'terrorist sympathizers' and accused them, along with an array of colleges and universities, of antisemitism. The Department of Homeland Security has denied that the administration's actions are unconstitutional. 'Sec. Noem has made it clear that anyone who thinks they can come to America and hide behind the First Amendment to advocate for antisemitic violence and terrorism – think again,' spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in an April news release announcing that the department would be 'considering aliens' antisemitic activity' online in determining an applicant's eligibility for immigration benefits. 'You are not welcome here.' The State Department told USA TODAY it doesn't comment on ongoing litigation. Why is it a First Amendment issue? The complaint accused the administration of fostering a 'climate of repression and fear on university campuses.' It said the administration's actions have had a chilling effect on noncitizen students and faculty. Some have stopped going to protests, for example, while others have started avoiding posting their political opinions on social media, the complaint said. 'The agencies' policy, in other words, is accomplishing its purpose: it is terrorizing students and faculty for their exercise of First Amendment rights in the past, intimidating them from exercising those rights now, and silencing political viewpoints that the government disfavors,' the complaint said. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Freedom (FIRE) is not involved in the case, but it is monitoring the proceedings and the 'dangerous precedent' it says the administration is seeking to establish. 'When noncitizens are punished for engaging in peaceful, protected expression simply because the administration doesn't like their views, the threat to the rest of us should be immediately apparent,' said FIRE's legal director Will Creeley. 'An administration that cracks down on peaceful expression isn't likely to stop with noncitizens.' Who's the judge? U.S. District Judge William Young marked his 40th anniversary on the federal bench this year. One of his former clerks described him as a 'model for lawyers everywhere' at an event celebrating the milestone, according to Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. This isn't the first time he's overseen a case involving the Trump administration. In June, he blocked the administration's termination of National Institutes of Health grants that slashed funding for research pertaining to minority communities. 'I am hesitant to draw this conclusion, but I have an unflinching obligation to draw it: that this represents racial discrimination,' Young said, according to the New York Times. Young graduated from Harvard Law School in 1967, according to the district court's website. BrieAnna Frank is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at USA TODAY. Reach her at bjfrank@ USA TODAY's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
