İYİ Party Leader Dervişoğlu's striking comment on the rug gift: 'It was shared a month later'

Dervişoğlu made striking comments in his statements regarding the agenda. Here are the highlights from the statements made by İYİ Party Leader Müsavat Dervişoğlu, who answered questions on the 'Leaders Special' program on Sözcü TV:

"Regarding the problems Turkey is facing, we generally find common ground in some areas with the esteemed Chairman of the Republican People's Party.

But we see that the İYİ Party differs from other parties due to its non-participation in the commission established in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey regarding this process. When viewed from the outside, this perhaps leads to the impression that there is a political disagreement.

We do not evaluate everything by looking through the same window as the Republican People's Party. I say this at every opportunity. I express that our sensitivities should be taken into account, and I voice these sensitivities in a way that is open to the public.

How was this process initiated? What happened in the calendar of this process until it reached the commission stage? What happened after the commission was established? What wrong steps were taken that could contribute to equating a terrorist organization leader with the state? I am expressing all of these in a way that is open to the public.

“I do not look at it from the perspective of 'this party is responsible for this, that party is not.' But I am saying that a stance should have been taken from the very beginning, and I express this with all my sincerity. You also know that I do not have an effort to take advantage of some issues politically in this process. I am speaking for Turkey."

"THE PROCESS WAS INITIATED BEFORE THE COMMISSION"

"I have shared the reason for our non-participation in that commission with the public many times. I know that some political maneuvers are being made to equate all political parties with a commission established in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey and to serve the ambitions of the terrorist organization.

Therefore, even if we had participated in the commission, I had observed that they were looking for a ground to legitimize their own decisions with our 'no' votes. I shared this with the public as well.

A process was initiated before this commission was established. We, as a society, need to seek an answer to the question, 'What distance have we covered?' I said it at the very beginning: These steps taken will put Turkey's indisputable issues on the discussion table and will be a trouble for Turkey in the long run.

Our national existence will be discussed, our national identity will be discussed, the unitary structure will be discussed. I have always shared my concerns that it would lead to a bandit leader being mentioned as a representative of a segment of society, depending on him being equated with the state.

Today, I see that we were right, that we were proven right. But I cannot say that I feel any satisfaction because we were proven right. I wish these had never happened; I wish they had not been put on the discussion table; I wish steps that could weaken our national identity through the definition of citizenship had not been taken, and I wish I had been proven wrong.

At the point reached today, we see that some evaluations are occurring in a way that will cause trouble again in the coming periods. Accordingly, I continue my warnings."

"IMPORTANT DISCUSSIONS ARE TAKING PLACE OVER THE IMRALI MINUTES"

"It should be related to where you look at the issue from. If we are facing a problem stemming from our identity, it is not possible to find a solution by separating. But I am not of the opinion that there is a problem stemming from identity in Turkey.

Which problem is being discussed today as stemming from our identity? Therefore, there is a terrorist organization. I am not trying to create a direct denial of this issue from the very beginning. Of course, if this country has problems, they should be discussed; but they should be discussed on the right ground.

It is not possible to say that a process arranged and built under the guidance of a terrorist organization leader can produce beneficial results. In that respect, I do not agree with the idea that we cannot achieve a healthy result by keeping this out of it.

A right start needs to be made. What needed to be discussed in Turkey, or what has Turkey been talking about since this process started? Today, extremely important discussions are taking place even over the minutes of the meetings held in İmralı.

The people sent there by the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, those involved in the commission, held meetings as a sub-commission. But we cannot even make a healthy evaluation regarding the validity of these minutes. In other words, there is nothing clear that has been discussed.

If you call this a 'solution process,' results regarding the solution should emerge. I define this as 'pounding water in a mortar.' I do not hold the opinion that any distance has been gained.

(The situation reached in Syria) Such events should be evaluated where they occur. The ability of the terrorist organization to commit terrorism in Turkey had already been limited by the Turkish Armed Forces and our security forces.

In my opinion, this process meant nothing more than giving a lifeline to the political existence of the organization. Wasn't it said before that 'there are about 80 terrorists left in Turkey, we even know their shoe sizes'? Similar things were experienced in the first opening process, and in the end, we faced the trench terrorism disaster.

'PKK CONTINUES ITS EXISTENCE IN SYRIA'

"It is not appropriate to act as if there is a great victory achieved by looking at the developments in Syria. Israel's expectations are different, and there are areas where the US differs. While Israel aims for control with divided structures, the US adopts a monist but controllable state understanding.

Turkey has to look at this picture from the window of its own security. If SDG elements are deployed in the east of the Euphrates in a way that will pose a threat in the long term, a victory cannot be mentioned here.

The PKK is not just limited to the structure in Turkey. There is an umbrella organization: KCK. It continues its existence under different names in Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. As long as all of these do not lay down their arms, our security problem cannot be considered resolved.

It cannot be assumed that the villain called Abdullah Öcalan has absolute dominance over all these structures. Turkey must correctly understand what it is facing and must take precautions regarding its future.

It is already impossible. It is known to everyone by whom they are trained and equipped, and by whom they are armed. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said that the United States provided 60 thousand truckloads of arms aid.

To think that a structure trained, equipped, and militarized by the US will lay down its arms at the word of a murderer in İmralı is a situation devoid of reason."

HE SPOKE ABOUT ÖCALAN'S RUG GIFT

(Öcalan's gift of a "Peace and Democracy Rug" to Bahçeli) Mr. Bahçeli gave that name to the rug. Mr. Bahçeli is skilled at naming processes, rugs, and memories. Therefore, the purpose for which the sender of the rug sent that rug must be correctly understood. That evaluation needs to be made.

The rug was brought, but photos showing that the rug had arrived were shared almost a month later. It means that a timing was required, and that timing was implemented by the architects of the game. I look at the issue this way.

While this commission was being established in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey —you remember very well— I had expressed my criticisms not about the purpose of the commission's establishment, but about the way it was established. A commission was established; it was structured to take its decisions by a simple majority. It was shaped by those who established the commission. Members were distributed to parties in accordance with the decision quorum.

Political parties other than the government and the DEM Party were actually turned into extras during the establishment phase of the commission. The opposition did not have the numerical majority to change anything due to the way the commission was established. If this had been the case, we could have talked about these issues differently today.

If all political parties had been represented with an equal number of members, as in the reconciliation commissions established before, we would of course have had the opportunity to express our ideas in a different way. However, while the Speaker of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey was determining how many commission members each party would have, a commission structure was created where the qualified majority was almost calculatedly given to the government group and DEM Party partnership. Therefore, what you say there cannot go beyond the status of being an extra. Just like today.

Now, what happened to the İmralı report, which you mentioned was first announced as 4 pages, that it has now become 16 pages? Also, it is said that it is over 60 pages. It is stated that the commission minutes were edited by some units outside the Grand National Assembly of Turkey.

I told this to the Speaker of the Assembly in many of my speeches: You send a commission, but you are not even capable of keeping the minutes of that commission. Members selected from the parties, acting as a sub-commission, went to İmralı; someone else kept the minutes, someone else did the editing. First, 4 pages were published, then 12 more pages were published.

The Turkish politics or the Grand National Assembly of Turkey needs to find an answer to the question, "What is going on?"

You also see that the DEM Party objects to the minutes published in connection with this visit made by the commission and acts extremely reactively. I wish you could go there and broadcast live if there was an opportunity for Abdullah Öcalan to do so... I wish everyone could see what he is.

They can send a television organization. Let them send TRT, let them send TRT Kürdi. Let them interview Abdullah Öcalan there for three hours. Let this nation also see who Abdullah Öcalan is.

Has Turkey run out of sociologists, geopolitical experts, strategists, or historians that we have become dependent on such a man? Let this nation see who we are hoping for help from as a state.

'I DO NOT SEE KURDS AS A VOTE BANK'

I made my first visit outside the province, outside Ankara, in Diyarbakır from the moment I reacted to the process I defined as a betrayal process, or this commission process; the process of equating the state with the İmralı villain. There, I explained these views of mine to the officials of the Diyarbakır Bar Association, journalists, and non-governmental organizations.

Look, I do not see Kurds as a vote bank. I see Kurds as equal and honorable citizens of this country. Therefore, I do not seek the answer to the question of which political parties should be allied with within political balances in ethnic origin. While saying all this, I express that what I am doing actually means creating a defense line for Kurds as well. I say this everywhere.

Now there is something that is not understood. What are we discussing? We need to evaluate this carefully.

There were Kurds in Syria; they were interned in a certain region and Syria was not making them citizens. There were Kurds in Iraq; they were again interned in a certain region and Iraq was not making them voters. There were Kurds in Iran; they were again confined to a region and Iran was not making them civil servants.

More than 60 percent of Kurds in Turkey live west of Ankara. Therefore, if you put all Kurds into an equation like 'PKK equals Kurds,' this would be the greatest betrayal done to Kurds. This would lead to you drawing a barrier between us and our brothers.

For this reason, when the concept of equal citizenship comes to the agenda, I am forced to explain how the Republic built citizenship so that the concepts do not get mixed up. Republic citizenship makes statuses equal. Turkishness, according to the definition of the Republic, is not an ethnic marking, but a political definition. All elements that make up the Turkish nation are included under Turkishness. In the words of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, 'The people who founded the Republic of Turkey are called the Turkish nation.'

This identity equalization separates us from the countries in our region that are experiencing trouble and brings us together with the reality that we can survive with our national identity.

If I had seen some circles as a vote bank, I could have created areas in politics that I could take advantage of against them. I am especially avoiding doing this. I am speaking based on facts, and I want to see that my nation believes in my sincerity. So far, I have not observed any indication that my sincerity has been doubted.

I claim this in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey: I believe that they trust me more than those they have formed a partnership with. I am saying it clearly and plainly. Today, I think that a DEM believes in my sincerity more than the circles it has formed a partnership with. Because I express what is on my mind without passing it through a political filter.

While someone in my position could politically agitate the process and feed off it, I am building a defense line for them as well. Who can say this in Turkey? I am saying it, and I am saying it with pride. There are right things that need to be done to keep the thousand-year brotherhood alive."

TUNCER BAKIRHAN'S SPEECH IN KURDISH

"What would he have said if you had answered him in Circassian? Or if you had answered in Abkhazian, Georgian, or Arabic?

Actually, this is a confession. It should be evaluated as proof of why we need a common identity and why we need the Turkish national identity to preserve the indivisible integrity.

We say we are equal and honorable citizens. However, it is necessary to look at how the concept of 'equal citizenship' was discussed after the 90s when the liberal wave blew hard, and what it caused in Yugoslavia.

Are we looking for equal citizenship in an individual sense, or is it meant to be said, 'We are two different nations and we must be equal as founding elements'? If the latter is meant, it is not possible for the philosophy of the Republic of Turkey to accept this.

This means: I am sovereign in the geography I live in, and we are partners in other places. The Republic of Turkey cannot see such an approach towards its sovereign rights as innocent.”

'WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO GET RID OF THE SYSTEM'

"There is no such thing as a single-party government. The President is the single-party government. We are having difficulty adapting to the new system. We need to look for ways to get rid of this system on our own. This system is heavy for Turkey. Politics could not get used to the system. My desire is a parliamentary system."