Should Turkey have just one voice in foreign policy?

Why are we suddenly supposed to be united as soon as the subject is foreign policy? 

Are we going to give in unconditionally to steps taken by whoever rules the country? Are we going to salute whatever decisions they make? If we criticize them, are we going to be declared "children of Moscow"? 

If so, why did we once upon a time struggle against the government's stance in many previous foreign policy cases? 

Why did we criticize the Imia/Kardak crisis in 1996 over two deserted islands in the Aegean. When we disapproved of the "extreme heroism" on display, why did we question making such pandemonium over two rocks in the sea?

Why did we, once upon a time, describe the Customs Union agreement with the EU as a "submission"? 

Thus spoke the ministry?

The Justice Ministry has issued a statement refuting claims that Can Dündar and Erdem Gül, the imprisoned journalists from daily Cumhuriyet, are being held in jail in isolation.

Its answer amounts to this: Dündar and Gül have spoken with their lawyers for a certain number of hours, with parliamentary deputies for a certain number of hours, and with friends and family for a certain number of hours. So there is no isolation. 

Hey, Justice Ministry! If you hold any arrested person in a cell alone, where they cannot see any other human being - however much you let them see their lawyers, family and friends - that amounts to isolation.
 
Dündar and Gül have been under arrest for 15 days, by the way.

'Dancing with the bear' is not a Russian proverb 

I recently wrote that if you dance with a bear, the dance ends not when you decide to end it, but when the bear decides to give up. 

This is not a Russian proverb or saying. Those...