Cyprus-Forum.com

[garbitsch]

Yeah, whatever, but not Muslim Cypriots

[insan]

Insan- everytime there is a debate why does ENOSIS come back into it? ENOSIS is dead and the statement are a knee jerk smoke screen to detract from the realities of today. For someone who seems to believe conspiracy theories, you somewhat look over the most glaringly obvious one. The event's that led to 1974 did not benefit anyone but Turkey.

Enosis partly achieved in 1963-74 period. Had Turkey not intervened it would have been completed. The GC ruling elite has always been in full copperation with Greek ruling elite. The interests of Hellenism have always been paramount for them. now they struggle in full coeperation to seize the power of Hellenism on whole Cyprus.

Now count me some benefits that Turkey got afterwards the events of 1974.

To add, the Turkish control of Cyprus has always been on the agenda since independance from Britain. This is well documented in many statements made by past Turkish foreign ministers. Turkey has always seen the island as a key part of it's national security. Muslim Cypriots are the unfortunatly the aliby that the country used to implement it's national objectives.

Turks don't want to control Cyprus, Turks want an alliance with Hellenes on 50/50 power sharing concerning the legislative matters in order to protect the interests of TCs and Turkey. It is Hellenes that want full control of Cyprus for the interests of Hellenism. The only way for Hellenes to strengthen their positions and political status in alliance and international organizations is to take full control of Cyprus. Turkey does not need to take full control of cyprus. A politically equal TC community is sufficient for TC community and Turkey to preserve their interests in cyprus and in the East Mediterennean region.

Now if you choose to overlook all the above then which conspiracy are you a part of?

I can comfortably tell you that you are not aware of what the Cyprus problem is about.

[Kifeas]

Yeah, whatever, but not Muslim Cypriots

In Cyprus there is only one nationality, the Cypriots. Cyprus belongs only to the Cypriots. Those who do not consider themselves Cypriots and only Cypriots irrespective of their maternal language, have no place and rights in Cyprus affairs.

[insan]

Yeah, whatever, but not Muslim Cypriots

In Cyprus there is only one nationality, the Cypriots. Cyprus belongs only to the Cypriots. Those who do not consider themselves Cypriots and only Cypriots irrespective of their maternal language, have no place and rights in Cyprus affairs.

Ok then. you should first shout this loudly, towards the Gc right wing who has always been in full cooperation with Greece for the interests of Hellenism. Do you deny that the interests of Hellenes have always been paramount for right wing, Hellenocentric ruling elite of Hellenes. This is a fact. And there's no need to deny this. A mutually acceptable solution formula should be found to staisfy the interests of the concerned parties of the region. All concerned parties shoul respect each others existence and interests. There's no need to hide behind the historical facts, democrasy, human rights, faked Cypriotism and arts and wiles of politics in order to dellude each other towards achieving our self-interested, bi-lateral goals.

[michalis5354]

ok Insan I think that post of mine made the climate worst! ok I did not follow the conversation carefully ! I apologise to gabaston for jumping in.

[Othellos]

Erolz,

The GC side made mistakes. Can you not bring yourself to say they played a negative role in the events in CYprus since 1960? Can you not accept the pain and suffering of TC in Cyprus at the hands of GC? Can you not appologise for this?

What you are systematically doing in this forum is blaming the GC side for 80 or 90% of the Cyprus problem. The Turkish side is to be blamed for the ethnic cleansing of GCs as early as 1958, for undermining the RoC, for keeping thousands of TCs away from their homes after 1964 in order to exploit them as a "strategic minority" and for the invasion in 1974 with all its known results. Don't you think that in your case, your apology for that little 10 or 20% u think the Turkish side is responsible is insulting our intelligence?

An apology from me you say? Since I am the same age as you are and since I could have never been involved in anything even if I wanted to, and since I am also a refugee and therefore a victim of Turkey's actions in Cyprus, perhaps someone should be apologizing to me, don't you think?

Personally I feel truly sorry for the suffering of innocent people from BOTH sides and I can condemn the cruelty experienced by thousands innocent Cypriots from BOTH communities in 1958, in 1963-1964 or in 1974. As a citizen of this country I can do nothing to change the past, but I am prepared in doing my share or part in any effort to restore past and present injustices on BOTH sides and which imho is a lot more useful / constructive than just "condemning" or "apologizing" which never goes beyond words. Are you prepared to do the same? From your absolute and near racist views with respect to a future solution in Cyprus that we discussed not so long ago, I don't think you are, but I will be pleasantly surprised if you can ever prove me wrong on this one.

Now if a personal apology from me will make any difference to anyone including you, then I say why not? I am not sure what good will the personal apology of someone you don't even know do to you, but still. If however you expect or demand an apology from me just because I am a GC, then I find this approache almost racist and thus in accord with other stuff you have posted in this forum with respect to a future solution.

There is no point discussing (with me or anyone else that I have seen) the GC communites culpability and level of culpabilityfor the mess Cyprus is in today? Are you sure the reason for this is that I am admant in my version of the story and not somehting a lot more 'obvious'?

Read what I wrote above. Again, when you and others are as absolute in your views which are nothing less than hardcore Turkish propaganda then I see no reason in discussing any past mistakes of the GC side because this will simply lead us nowhere but blaming every GC that ever existed or that will ever exist for just about everything that went wrong in Cyprus.

This thesis does not stand plain common sense in my view. The 1960 agrements were a victory for TC community and Turkey. They granted TC community what they wanted - protection from GC dominace, protection from forced ENOSIS, and acceptance of some degree of equality of the TC community with the GC community. The TC side did not from day one talk about the 'reluctance' of signing them, and how they were unfairly forced upon TC, of how the agreements secure bastions from which the TC side could go on to gain it's true objectives, of how the agreements were not an end of the tc national struggle but merely a step on that path. The TC community liked the 1960 consitution and the GC side did not. Yet I am to believe that it was the TC side that carry the main blame for the subversion of these agreements and the subsequent events that followed this subversion? That thesis just does not add up to me.

Erolz, the Greek-Turkish conflict over Cyprus did not start around December1963 as you may claim or even think. I remember pointing out myself the fact that many GCs were not happy with the 1960 agreements, but this does not mean that the GC side did nothing at all to implement them. I am also aware that parts of speeches delivered by Makarios in front of GC audiences were notparticularly welcomed by the TCs, but then again there were similar speeches delivered on the other side which raised similar GC concerns. Other than that I am also aware of a number of Turkish actions that went beyond words in order to hurt the other side. Who was importing weapons for the TMT, AFTER the London Zurich agreements were signed? Who maintained aeparatist enclaves throughout Cyprus AFTER the agreements and after Independnce was declared? Who restricted GC refugees from returning to their homes AFTER the agreements were signed? Who was responsible for a series of brutal murders that were carried out BEFORE 1963 against progressive, moderate TCs who advocated cooperation with the GCs?

TC and Turkey, in my view, planned alternative senarios, as far as such is true, in the face of the growing reality that GC, despite having singed the 60's agreements, where not and would not honour them, would not abandon Greek nationalist desires, would not accept and treat the TC community as equals in a partnership state, would not abide by supreme court rulings that blocked their (Greek) nationalist desires and the imposition of such on all Cypriots. As far as the TC community planned and sought alternatives to the 1960 consitution it was as a reaction to GC irredisim and not a pre planned startegy to divide Cyprus as you would have us believe.

For the reasons that I have already outlined above as well as many other, these were a lot more than just "alternative scenarios". Most of what you write above comes accross as another attempt to "justify" the gradual ethnic cleansing and partitioning of Cyprus by Turkey.

I do nto leave it aside or play it down. I accept the reality that there were and still are many thousands of GC victims of TC and T actions in Cyprus. Is it not true that there were and still are many thousands of TC victims of GC actions in Cyprus? Have you not also 'left aside' this in your atament here?

I never denied that in the last 42+ years there were / are TC as well as GC victims in Cyprus. But again erolz, the question is IF one is prepared to work and try to correct past and present injustices. Are you prepared to do so? Considering that only one week ago you were trying to "justify" all the ongoing construction on stolen GC properties, I don't think so.

The below is not an 'answer' to the above - it is an avoidance of answering the above.

All I did was to reverse your own words. The fact that you do not seem to appreciate them as much once they were reversed, proves to me how one sided you remain in your views. Other than that you insist on building all your arguments on the erroneous "fact" that by 1963 the Turkish side had little to be blamed for. While I understand the convenience behind this approach, this is not what really happened.

I have never said it does change that reality. I do not deny it (the above) or seek to marginalise it, just place it in the apporiate context, so that we can move forward. However this can not be done from one side alone.

Yes, let us blame the GCs for 80% or 90% of the problem and then "move forward" to "justify" the 1974 "peace operation" (read butchering) as well as why any solution in Cyprus should violate eternally the basic freedoms and human rights of thousands of Cypriots just because they are of Greek descent.

A balanced account is one sought by and written by someone not G or GC or T or TC. Most certainly it can not and should not be written by those that lived through certain events and consider they do not need someone else's balanced account to form a balanced view, but instead assume and insist their view must be balanced because they lived through certain events. Makarios (to pick just one example) lived through certain events but I do not think he had a balanced view. I think he had a totaly one sided and partisan view.

And on whose accounts will this "someone" write this new, balanced account?

The Cyprus conflict is as you say a collection of articles written from various angles but it is a serious attempt at a balanced collections of such articles and analysis. I suspect it is very different from both my personal library and yours in this regard. It is not a single balanced account of the events, but it is the closest thing we curently have in my opinion, in the absense of any attempt by Cypriots to have produced such themselves.

Fair enough, but why does one have to rely on the content of one web site? The only reason I say this is because some people in here have come to treat the Cy-conflict.net site as the Cyprus Problem "bible" online (this is my impression anyway).

I have sought books and articles from Turkish sources that go beyond the general stuff and get into more details and these are not easy to find in English. Some stuff that I cam across and I was able to read was certainly very interesting. There is also a lot of detailed information published in Greek that remains unavailable in English. And finally I can tell you that in the few cases where I had the opportunity to talk to people who took part in real events, the things they told me were sometimes considerably different from what is written in books and articles (this is also something to think about).

O.

[gabaston]

michalis.

no apology needed, evry one has the right to counter any view

[MicAtCyp]

To be perfectly honest, I find this witch-hunt of yours (searching for reasons why you shouldn't want reunification) very annoying, when you present ridiculously unfounded arguments.

What I actually find interesting and maybe funny about Viewpoint is that what he does is not un-common in Cyprus, is NOT a characteristic of a single person, is NOT even a characteristic of the TCs!!! I know a huge number of GCs who do the same.
They first form a preliminary "theory" in their minds, and then they start looking ONLY for the facts that subtantiate this theory ignoring completely all other facts. In the end they come to beleive their own theory as the absolute truth!! When they themselves know very well how many parts of the equation they excluded to come up with it.
And they do present their theory with such a nerve braking faith...

[MicAtCyp]

The Cyprus conflict site is just a collection of articles that were written from various angles. In my opinion, this web site is not any different from the "library" of anyone who is genuinely interested in studying seriously contemporary Cypriot history. This web site by itself is certainly not a single, balanced account of the events, although it does try to provide one in its introduction.

From a quick look at the updates of Cyprus conflict site I noticed that it even extends upto the Anan Plan. What I read however about the plan is far-far away from reality, and it misses so many important aspects that I really doubt it can even be used as a future reference.
Some time ago I thought the Cyprus Conflict site could be a balanced site.Judging from parts of the history that I personally experienced (from 1974 to date) and what it says in there I started having serious doubts. Perhaps it is more towards what Othellos says. It provides some angles of views, but unfortunately more often than not misses the important ones.

Regarding the 60s it is more than obvious that we (the GCs) lost the ordinary and moderate TCs that could help evolve the state into something functional.How could we earn their trust anyway when all the power was in the hands of our extremists? The equal citizens rights that we advocate today could NOT even apply for the TCs back then. Because those who were always behind overthrowing the state, would not allow it. So the game continued in favor of the TC partitionists who in addition won the ordinary TC masses. What else could those masses do other than seek protection near their own people, whatever the agenta of those might be?
The same happens until today.

The problem TODAY is that there is absolutely no way to earn the trust of the TC masses unless we also satisfy the demands of those ruling them as well as their agenta. It's a dead end and I don't know how we can overcome it. I am not even sure in case a miracle happens and the tables turn in our favor that we the GCs and our leaders will have the maturity to earn the trust of the TC masses.

[gabaston]

Othellos

58 was before my time, I think what you are referring to are the turkish police who replaced greek police by the british, to combat eoka…………

But the constitution was founded in 60, all past aggressions should then have been dead and buried. They weren’t instead they became the cornerstone of Cypriot internal policy.


So does this now mean that any new agreement gc enters into will allow past grievances guide their actions?