Cyprus-Forum.com

[Oracle]

.... what on earth does your signature convey !!

Oh that!

That is just one of the lines from the poem those Turks ( and TCs ) all applaud for bringing the peace-mission to our Island.

You love the Turks don't you Miltiades?

[Magnus]

My dear Friend , agapite mou file , den ine anaggi na apologithis .
No need to apologise , you merely expressed your feelings , I respect that and hope sincerely that we are still compatriots and friends .

Yes of course, I'm sure we will get along just famously on many issues. I look forward to lots of fun debates where we will both agree or argue but I hope never take any of it too personally.

In many ways it is a good thing that we all disagree sometimes as we get to cover all the issues from all perspectives

[humanist]

You support the "RoC", therefore you are nothing of the sort.

I support the legitimate world recognised entity that represents all Cypriots. At this stage the RoC is it. Far more than any illegal state that exists by military action. nice one though Zan

[miltiades]

.... what on earth does your signature convey !!

Oh that!

That is just one of the lines from the poem those Turks ( and TCs ) all applaud for bringing the peace-mission to our Island.

You love the Turks don't you Miltiades?

Which ones , the T/Cs or the Turks of Turkey . Strangely enough O , I do not hate either the Turks or the T/C I just hate fanatics irrespective of ethnicity .
I have no time for ultra patriots or ultra religious zealots , be it G/Cs or T/Cs.
You of all people should know that blank hatred of a nation is counterproductive.

You are asking me if I love the Turks. Well I do love Birkibrisli and Kikapu and admire their devotion to Cyprus , I consider both to be admirable Cypriots and my Cypriot brothers. There are many many more out there.

[halil]

below writing by AHMET AN might be interesting


FORMS OF CYPRIOTISM IN THE TURKISH CYPRIOT COMMUNITY: OBSTACLES AND NECESSARY CONDITIONS
I would like first to give you some examples and to explain what I mean with the word “Cypriotism”. It was at the beginning of the year 1927 when Ronald Storrs, the British colonial governor of Cyprus, wanted to use for the first time officially this term in the government offices instead of the term “native” which he thought could be degrading. He mentioned this decision in his report, dated 9 June 1932. Mr. Amery, the Minister of Colonies also wanted the subject of “Cypriot patriotism” to be taught at the Greek Cypriot schools in order to stop the dissemination of nationalism among the pupils. Mr. Amery also put the idea forward that the Cypriots should have a flag of their own and this new flag be introduced together with the liberal constitutional amendments in 1925. But the authorities at the Ministry of Colonies did not approve the idea of banning the use of the Greek flag in Cyprus.

The growing resentment of the Greek Cypriot masses against the British colonial regime which culminated in the formation of the Communist Party of Cyprus in 1926 also caused the reaction of the Greek Cypriot nationalists, who were alarmed by the policy of the Communist Party, which was against the policy of the nationalists. The British colonial administration was also alarmed that the communists could have wider support from the people and they could raise a struggle for the independence of the island. Although the Communist Party did not have a following among the Turkish Cypriot community, there were some contacts, for example the correspondence between the communist newspaper Neos Antropos and the Turkish Cypriot Birlik newspaper in 1925 or the organisation of the Turkish Cypriot workers in the common Labour Centre in Limassol in 1924.1 The colonialists were quick enough to turn their strategy of supporting Cypriotism into tolerating the nationalist propaganda, aimed at both communities.

The Turkish Cypriots had always been against the union of the island with Greece (ENOSIS) and since the beginning of the British administration in Cyprus, they raised their voice every year at the opening ceremony of the Legislative Council, where the Greek Cypriot representatives spoke about their demand for Enosis. But the nationalist attitude of the Greek Cypriot members of the parliament did not stop the Turkish Cypriot members from cooperating with their compatriots in economical matters. For example, Hafiz Ziyai Efendi and Dervish Pasha voted in June 1902 together with the Greek Cypriot members for the termination of the Tribute paid to the Ottoman Empire by the Cypriots, which should be paid only by the British. A government official went to the mosque and provoked the Turkish Cypriots to protest against this cooperation with the Greek Cypriots. Irfan Efendi and the deputy Mufti also spoke at the mosque and provoked the community against the Moslem members of the Legislative Council. The two Turkish Cypriot members of the Legislative Council were forced after this event to change their policy of cooperation with the Greek Cypriots at the parliament in order not to be accused of being pro Greek Cypriot. It is interesting to note that Irfan Efendi was appointed in February 1904 as the Turkish Cypriot delegate of Evkaf by the British colonial government.2

Sir Harry Luke wrote that when Britain declared the annexation of the island by the British Empire, it was his duty to bring the news to the Turkish Cypriot notables who were attending an engagement ceremony of Mehmet Munir’s daughter on 5 November 1914 at the house of Mufti Ziyai. They heard the news with “dignified resignation”.3

The Turkish Cypriot leaders visited the British High Commissioner and told him that they accepted the change of status of the island and that they would be loyal to the British administration. At the same time the chief kadi, Mufti, Irfan Bey and Sevket Bey sent a letter to the British authorities that they were against the demand of the Greek Cypriots for Enosis and instead of this, the island should permanently be a part of the British Empire. If enosis would be realized, it would be a disaster for the 60 thousand Muslims of Cyprus.4

As the Greek Cypriot nationalists raised their nationalist campaign for Enosis and disseminated the feelings of mainland Greek nationalism in Cyprus, a section of the Turkish Cypriot elite also started to import mainland Turkish nationalism into Cyprus. The deputy of the British High Commissioner in Cyprus, Mr. Stevenson, sent a secret report to Vicont Milner, dated 26 April 1919, that Young Turks were active in Cyprus and that Mehmet Esat, Dr. Huseyin Behic and Hasan Karabardak were the leaders of a party called “Union with Turkey”.5 They disseminated a rumour that the Greeks would attack the Turks during the Easter week, causing enmity between the Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots. The Turkish Cypriot members of the Parliament, Mr. Irfan and Mr. Hami were not involved in these activities. The main instigators of these events, those who provoked the Turkish Cypriots to make a rebellion, were arrested and imprisoned by the British.

According to the minutes of the Legislative Council, the Turkish Cypriot members of the parliament started to demand “the return of the island to the Ottoman Empire” more often during the period between March 1911 and June 1917.6

Because of the difficult years of the First World War, there was no publication of any Turkish Cypriot newspapers between 1915 and 1919, therefore two weekly newspapers, “Dogru Yol” (8 September 1919) and “Soz” (15 February 1921) started their publication in order to inform the Turkish Cypriots about the developments in the world, in Turkey and on the island. In 1922, there were twenty three newspapers published in Cyprus, six of them being in the Turkish language. The top-selling newspaper was the Greek Cypriot owned “Eleftheria” (1700-1800 copies) and the second in the row was the Turkish Cypriot owned “Soz” newspaper (1200 copies).7


Mrs. Beria Remzi Ozoran, the daughter of the owner of the newspaper “Soz”, gave the following information about the subjects dealt with in the Turkish Cypriot press of those years:


“In these newspapers and journals, there were articles dealing with what the Turkish Cypriots should do, in order to continue the existence of the Turkish presence on this green island and in order to live on these territories with dignity. Struggle against illeteracy, organisation of the Turkish Cypriot community, economic development, the establishment of a national bank were necessities. The majority of the intellectuals who were civil servants and the teachers were under difficult conditions, because of the high cost of living and the Turkish Cypriot farmers were in crisis because of their debts. The Turkish monuments in Cyprus should be preserved. The Turkish Cypriots should come together and form companies so that they could have a strong economy in order to survive under a foreign administration.


The Turkish Cypriot press followed the liberation struggle in Anatolia step by step and collected money for the victims of the disaster in Anatolia through solidarity campaigns. The Turkish Cypriot newspapers did not hesitate also to defend the rights of the Turkish Cypriots against the Greek Cypriots’ demands for Enosis.” 8


The publication of the “Soz” newspaper was followed in Ankara with great interest and it received many years financial support from the Turkish government. “Soz” was the main organ which helped the dissemination of the Kemalist ideas among the Turkish Cypriots. For the internal affairs, the editor and the owner of “Soz”, Mehmet Remzi, wrote on 7 March 1921 the following under the title “Our Parliament”:


“Today our Parliament is going to be opened. It is the duty of the government to tell the Greek Cypriots that the Enosis issue which terrorized the people of the island is closed once and for all. This dangerous game is being played so many times that our security-loving people cannot bear it anymore. If this thorny issue which damaged the relations between the two communities of the island will be removed, the parliamentarians of both sides will have enough time to investigate the real needs of the country and they will negotiate the mutual draft laws in an atmosphere of trust... If the Christian members think that they have more rights than their compatriot Turkish Cypriots on this island, then they have to accept that the Turkish Cypriot members do not tolerate the discussion of Cyprus-Greek issue at the Legislative Assembly.”


We read in the “Alithia” newspaper of 30 April 1921 a letter of a Turkish Cypriot ex-member of the parliament. He supported the cooperation of the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot members and he pointed to the fact that it was only in the last ten to fifteen years that the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot members made it a habit to complain about each other in the Parliament. Whereas in the early days of the British Administration, they cooperated in local matters.9


We can find other articles published in the Greek Cypriot press. For example, Mr. Ioannis Clerides, was writing in “Eleftheria” of 2 April 1926 under the title “If the Turkish Cypriots would cooperate with the Greek Cypriots” the following:


“Our Muslim brothers have to understand that they have common interests with us and the progress and the prosperity of both the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots depend on the cooperation of the two communities.10


Similar views were expressed by Mr. Yorgo Hadjipavlou in an article published in the “Nea Laiki” newspaper of 23 September 1927: “We could go forward only if we cooperate with the Turkish Cypriots.” He wrote three months later again in the same newspaper on 23 December 1927 that there was no chance of cooperation in the Legislative Council, since the Turkish members were under the influence of the British colonial government through Evkaf. Therefore, the Greek Cypriots should support the populist Turkish Cypriots so that they can enter the parliament and get rid of the pro-Evkaf leaders. Only these progressive Turkish Cypriots could resist being the secret keys of the government. Mr. Hadjipavlou went further and recommended that leaflets in Turkish should be printed and the deficiency of the Turkish Cypriot members in defending the local interests should be exposed to the Turkish Cypriot community.11


It is important to note that since the beginning of the British administration in Cyprus, the number of the Turkish Cypriots together with British members of the Legislative Council were designed to be equal to the number of the Greek Cypriot members. The representation of the both communities was reflected in the parliament, not according to the ratio of the population. The Turkish Cypriot minority was seen politically as a guarantee against the Enosis demands of the Greek Cypriot majority. There were separate electoral lists and separate mainland-nationalist-oriented educational programmes for the Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots, which prevented the development of a common Cypriot policy against the British colonial administration.


This was already stressed by Dr. Eyyub, a Turkish Cypriot member of the parliament in his speech at the parliament’s opening ceremony on 11 November 1925. He said that the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots were not ready for full cooperation on political matters. So they had to put aside the political questions and cooperate in other issues which would bring prosperity to the whole island. We see that this was realized later through the common activities of the MPs in the struggle against trachoma, tuberculosis, venereal diseases, for the abolition of the tax of tithes, for a forest policy and for the financial support of the farmers.


We observe again during the elections of 1930 that Mr. Yorgo Hadjipavlou supported the election campaign of Nedjati Bey, who was the Kemalist candidate against Mr. Munir, the Turkish delegate of Evkaf. He was supported by Asaf Bey, the Turkish consul in Cyprus. While the populist Mr. Nedjati spoke at the Parliament that Cyprus was a part of Anatolia, the pro-British Dr. Eyyub, also an MP, criticized in his articles published in the pro-Evkaf “Hakikat” newspaper, that the nationalists wanted to copy everything done in Turkey, even if the two countries had different administrative and social structures.12


Mr. Nedjati was named by the British governor Ronald Storrs in his memoirs as “that little Turk, the 13th Greek Cypriot member of the Legislative Council”13 When Mr. Nedjati voted on 28 April 1931 together with the Greek Cypriot members against the draft Law of Customs Tariff and Revenue, the automatic support of the Turkish Cypriot members failed, since the other two Turkish Cypriot MPs were absent during the voting. This was the second case of cooperation between Greek and Turkish Cypriot MPs. A few years earlier Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot members voted together against the Draft Budget of 1927 in the Legislative Council.


When the British colonial government tried to impose the aborted draft law, this triggered the pro-Enosis nationalist demonstrations of October 1931 started by the Greek Cypriots. The British administration took this opportunity to abolish the Legislative Council and suspend the constitutional order. There followed a period of oppression until 1941.


During the oppressive period of the new British colonial governor Mr. Palmer, the Greek and Turkish nationalisms were put under pressure for a while. On the other hand the movement of the working people was getting strong after 1942. The British used both Greek and Turkish nationalism to check leftisideology. Nationalism was seen less harmful than a common front of the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot working class against British Administration.


In the 1930’s the nightmare of the British colonialists was that the concept of Cypriotism would be gaining ground leaving Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot nationalisms behind. Mr. Palmer, the British Governor, was of the opinion that after the idea of “Enosis” was forgotten, “Cypriot nationalism” would replace it. According to Mr. Palmer, the only way to stop or postpone this development was to establish a new administrational structure which would provoke inter-regional difference of identity. Governor Palmer, in a secret report sent to London on 23 October 1936, was saying the following:


“In order to have ease in the future on the island, we have to continue the administration on the basis of exceptis excipiendis (opening the way to exceptions), on the basis of districts. Thus the concept of Cypriot nationalism which will be emerging as a new concept after Enosis becomes an eroded value should be pushed away as much as possible and left in the dark. Now it is almost not living. Cypriots are either their district’s “nationalists”, or they are Greek or Turks.” 14


During the oppressive period which started with Governor Palmer, we observe the cooperation of the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots for the autonomy of the island, a common political aim. The Turkish Cypriot “Ses” newspaper in 1937 under the title “Political Association” reproduced a news item from the Greek Cypriot “Eleftheria” newspaper that a joint political association by the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots was established for the support of the autonomy of the island, with branches established in every town, besides Nicosia. The well-known Nicosia advocate Mr. Yiannis Clerides was the leader of this Political Association. Ex-member of the Legislative Council M.Hami, member of the Larnaca Town Council advocate Mr. Celal Shefik, member of the Limassol Town Council dentist Mr. Nazif were among the Turkish Cypriot notables who participated at the formation of this Association in their respective towns.15


The political cooperation of some Turkish Cypriots with their compatriots was attacked immediately in the Turkish Cypriot press. To this effect, an article under the title “Is the political and cultural unity of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots going to start instead of a Turkish-British cooperation?” was published in “Ses” newspaper of 25 June 1937 (No.99) where the participation of Mr. Mustafa Hami, one of the ex-Turkish Cypriot members of the Legislative Council which was closed, was being criticised and the following was written:


“If this situation continues, the government will soon see the unity of policy and culture of Turkish and Greek Cypriots rather than the traditional cooperation between the Turks and the British in Cyprus. Today’s policy is the shortest way for appreciation of this aim by the government. Otherwise Turkish Cypriots’ complaints should be heard and satisfied. It is certain that the central government will think likewise.”


This main article which was published in the “Ses” newspaper, one of the Turkish Cypriot press organs defending Turkish nationalism and Kemalism, gives us a good idea of the dominant Turkish Cypriot way of thinking.


As we have already pointed out in the previous chapter, right after these developments, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots fought and served together during the Second World War on the side of the British on various fronts. At home they organised themselves in the same trade unions against difficult economic conditions. As also mentioned, Enosis policy of the Progressive Party of the Working people of Cyprus (AKEL), became an obstacle to Greek and Turkish Cypriots political cooperation.


British colonial administrations use of the Turkish Cypriot police and commandos against EOKA during 1955-9 created greater animosity between the communities and strengthened Turkish Cypriot leadership resolve for “Taksim” (partition).


The Turkish Cypriot underground organisation TMT forced the Turkish Cypriot trade unions not to cooperate with the Greek Cypriot trade unions, thus destroying the foundations of the common economical and political struggle. At the end of the day, neither the Greek Cypriots’ aim for enosis, nor the Turkish Cypriots’ aim for taksim was materialised, but rather a limited independence.


On the day of independence, 16 August 1960, we see the first issue of the Turkish Cypriot newspaper “Cumhuriyet” (Republic) which was published by the two Turkish Cypriot advocates, Ahmet Muzaffer Gurkan and Ayhan Hikmet. For the first time, the idea of Cypriotism was being propagated among the Turkish Cypriots, through an oppositional newspaper and later by the organisation of a political party. The “Cumhuriyet” writers were supporting the news that the independence of Cyprus meant, not to union the island with one nation or state, but to govern Cyprus by the Cypriots. Unfortunately these staunch supporters of the Republic of Cyprus were killed by the Turkish Cypriot underground organization TMT on 23 April 1962, on the pretext that “they served the interests of the Greek Cypriots”. They were warned before they were murdered that “if they did not believe in the existence of the national struggle of the Turkish Cypriots, they should be silenced.”


Dervish Ali Kavazoglou, who was a Turkish Cypriot member of Central Committee of the AKEL was also murdered together with his Greek Cypriot trade-unionist friend on 11 April 1965. He was against the partitionist policies of the Turkish Cypriot leadership and for the friendship and cooperation of the two communities in Cyprus.


Western powers objected to the emergence of an independent non-aligned Republic of Cyprus. The guarantors of the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Cyprus were members of NATO, i.e. Britain, Greece and Turkey and did not want to see a Cypriot state, free of their influences for reasons of their own.


The anti-Cypriotist feelings expressed in the Turkish Cypriot community were echoed at the highest levels in the Greek Cypriot community. Archbishop Makarios, the President of the Republic did not believe in the idea of creating a new Cypriot nation. He told to an Italian newspaper that the London Agreements created a new state, but not a new nation.16


In those times, contrary to the processes in Europe, many African and Asian states were formed before the consolidation of a nation. In the case of Cyprus, the partnership lasted only three years, because the Turkish Cypriot leadership withdrew from the state apparatus. The intercommunal clashes between the pro-enosis Greek Cypriots and the pro-partition Turkish Cypriots complicated the solution of the ethnic-national question in Cyprus.


The separatist policy of the Turkish Cypriot leadership since 1958 was one of the reasons that Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots could not have a common political aim during the period until 1974. In the summer of 1974, the coup d’Etat was staged in Cyprus by the Greek Junta of Athens against President Makarios and this was followed by the Turkish invasion and the occupation of the island’s 37% territory. The Greek Cypriots were forced to leave the occupied areas and the Turkish Cypriots living in south of the cease-fire line were transported to the northern part. The new state of affairs forced the Turkish Cypriots to have closer relationship with Turkey. The Turkish Cypriots, therefore, came under the direct influence of the mainland Turkish economy, politics and culture.


The “Soz” newspaper which started its publication in 1978 turned to be the main critic of the intervention of the Turkish politicians into the Turkish Cypriot internal affairs. The influx of mainland Turkish settlers in the occupied areas threatened the existence of the Turkish Cypriots. This led them to re-identify their communal characteristics as a Turkish Cypriot community. A series of panels on Turkish Cypriot identity, folkloric exhibitions and historical research were done in the 1980’s.17


The Turkish Cypriot intellectuals started to ask themselves the question “who are we?” as they looked into the history of their cultural heritage. As it is well-known, the cultural, the scientific and the literary heritage are the three important components of the national consciousness. The responsibility of the researchers, and of the intellectuals, for the development of a common Cypriot consciousness. The responsibility for the development of common Cypriot consciousness rests with researchers and other intellectuals. What is needed is more research on the common cultural heritage of the two communities and use these common elements for a common political aim. The cooperation between the two communities in the commercial, social life and in trade union movement in the past are good examples of their co-existence.


The state has a big role to play in the formation of the Cypriot consciousness. There has to be a clearly designed state policy for the support of a Cypriot identity. The organs of the mass media should also play a constructive role in this respect since they can easily reach almost all citizens.


We see that especially after 1974, two different identities emerged: One in the north of the divide, focusing on the separatist TRNC as an expression of a Turkish Cypriot’ nationalist identity, and another one in the south of the divide of the Cypriot state asserting its ownership of the Cypriot State and having a distinctively Greek Cypriot character. This is close to the prediction of the British Governor Palmer in 1937 who said: “The concept of Cypriot nationalism -which will be emerging as a new concept after Enosis becomes an eroded value- should be pushed away as much as possible and left in the dark. Now it is almost not living. Cypriots are either their district’s “nationalists”, or they are Greek or Turks.”


Even more recent attempts to foster a cohesive Cypriot identity have not been very successful. The activities of the New Cyprus Association which was formed in March 1975 are an example. The Association aimed to preserve the existence of the state of Cyprus and to avert the danger of partition by behaving first as Cypriots and then as a member of the respective community. Unfortunately in the past thirty years, this movement of intellectuals has been unable to turn itself into a political movement that could mobilise great masses of Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots under a common Cypriot identity.


Both the development and the expression of a common Cypriot national consciousness will require among other things the development of common political parties of Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots, seeking common political goals. The full equality of all the communities living on the island in the fields of politics, economy and culture could only be achieved through common political parties which will fight for a democratic federal state and against all kinds of separatism and discrimination. A correct policy for the solution of the problem of nationalities is crucial and this is the responsibility of the progressive political forces on both sides of the ethnic divide.

[CBBB]

Halil,

Thank you very much for posting that, I found it very interesting.

I am being sincere here.

[halil]

Halil,

Thank you very much for posting that, I found it very interesting.

I am being sincere here.

by the way i didn't vote . I am neutral .... on this vote .

another interesting article

Cypriot London
Find out about the capital's Cypriot community and how Green Lanes is a little bit of Cyprus in North London. A perfect example of how both sides of the Cypriot community live and work together.

In our Turkish and Greek sections, we are talking more of Turkish or Greek speaking people than of Turks or Greeks. There is a good reason for this, as unlike most other communities, the Turkish and Greek residents in London don’t always come from their respective mainland.

Some of the Turkish community and most of the Greek actually came to our shores from the sunny island of Cyprus; some for purely economical reasons, because the standard of living in England was better than it was there and some for more political reasons. During the 1920s and 1930s Greek Cypriots migrated to Britain, where some found jobs in the catering industry in Soho.

To this day, Cyprus is still divided into a Greek side to the south and the self-proclaimed "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", a state only recognised by Turkey. Between the two zones is "The Green Line", a silent scar running across the sun-kissed island. This is a no man’s land 4 miles wide that physically separates the two communities.

People from both sides agree that a solution must be found to reunify the island, but unfortunately they can’t agree on which one. No wonder Cyprus is said to be "The Rubik’s Cube of diplomacy"!

In London, where many Cypriots have settled, the situation in their home country appears not to have any dividing effect. A walk along Green Lanes in North London reveals many Turkish-Cypriot shops sitting next to Greek-Cypriot ones. Greek-Cypriot community centres welcome their Turkish counterparts and vice-versa.

A documentary made for BBC Radio 4, "Green Line, Green Lanes", noted that if differences of opinion exist, both sides have learnt to live together regardless. "We live in the good old days of Cyprus here in London." says Mr Stylianou, a Greek-Cypriot. Whether they speak Greek or Turkish, whether they go to a Greek Orthodox church or to a mosque, they are Cypriots first. Whatever their differences, both sides come from the same place, and both sides want to see the island of their origins reunified.
Nevertheless, if you scratch the surface, you will see that divisions and resentment are still present. Cypriots who are old enough remember, sometimes too clearly, the tensions and troubles that caused them to flee from their beloved Mediterranean paradise. Memories of the atrocities committed by one side or the other are still present in their minds. Those who didn’t live through these dark times, the British Born Cypriots, or BBCs, as they like to call themselves, know that there are things they cannot do because of this antagonism. Marrying someone from "the other side" would be more than frowned upon, for example.

It’s a miracle that Turkish and Greek Cypriot people in London can get along at all. Well if there is a miracle, it’s the result of a conscious effort from each and everyone in the community not to pour oil on the fire. Or, as Cypriots put it, not to mention "The Rhino on the table". It’s big, it’s there, and it tore their home country apart. There’s no reason why they should let it take over their life here in London.

Green Lanes is a little bit of Cyprus in North London and a perfect example of how both sides of the Cypriot community live and work together. The people there, the vibrant colours, rich smells and delicious food will, at least for a while, take you away to a sunnier place, whatever the London weather. Sit down and enjoy a nice cup of Cypriot coffee while browsing through Parikiaki, the Greek Cypriot weekly, or Toplum Postasi, its Turkish equivalent. Incidentally, both papers are printed in the same place, another example of Greek-Turkish co-operation in London.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/art ... ture.shtml

[Magnus]

Thanks Halil for the article about Green Lanes. On the whole it is correct but Green Lanes isn't quite as much a Cypriot area as it used to be. A few years back it was practically all Cypriot (both Greek and Turkish).

In recent years there has been an influx of other shops, mainly Kurdish while a lot of the Cypriot businesses have moved on or unfortunately closed down. There are still a few but not as many as there used to be.

Anyone taking a trip down there should definitely pay a visit to my favourite shop, Trehantiri. They're the best Greek music shop I have found in the UK and also sell world music so there should be lots of Turkish language stuff for those that are interested.

You could also go down to Yassar Halim and get some yummy pastries. I don't know if he's Cypriot, I think he might be Kurdish, but shamishi are shamishi

[DT.]

Thanks Halil for the article about Green Lanes. On the whole it is correct but Green Lanes isn't quite as much a Cypriot area as it used to be. A few years back it was practically all Cypriot (both Greek and Turkish).

In recent years there has been an influx of other shops, mainly Kurdish while a lot of the Cypriot businesses have moved on or unfortunately closed down. There are still a few but not as many as there used to be.

Anyone taking a trip down there should definitely pay a visit to my favourite shop, Trehantiri. They're the best Greek music shop I have found in the UK and also sell world music so there should be lots of Turkish language stuff for those that are interested.

You could also go down to Yassar Halim and get some yummy pastries. I don't know if he's Cypriot, I think he might be Kurdish, but shamishi are shamishi

DOn't forget Kikis the butcher oppossite demos the supermarket.

Fantastic bastourmades.

[Nikitas]

Bananiot said:

"I cannot understand your territory shouts. Perhaps I did not read your earlier posts on this. Are you saying that even partition can be an option if the division of territory is fair?"

Territory is the defining factor in any solution or final settlement. Not only the proportions, but also the demarcation lines, the shape of the areas, their geographic relationship to the British bases and the apportionment of the coast line.

We must press the Turkish side to declare in all venues and all manners that it has no further claims to any part of Cyprus other than the part allocated under the agreement. It is obvious that they also relinquish any future claim to any part of the island, and or, the Republic which is not allocated to them under the agreement. The British bases revert to the GC side if the British ever decide to leave and naturally the British must agree that they will not sell, convey or assign their bases to anyone other than the GC side if they ever leave.

The 1974 war was not about people and rights etc. It was about territory. Solving the problems it has caused without focusing on territory is a non starter. The intercommunal problems are a different matter, and a secondary one to the territorial issue. Failing on the territory details will simply lay the foundation of future conflicts. Managing the issue wisely strengthens other subsequent chapters.

Dealing wisely with the territorial issue solves the settler problem to a large extent.