Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kikapu]

Bananiot,

To get back to your original topic, just who from the Cyprus Forum do you see as the Rejectionist.??

Just to make us understand better, just what does being a rejectionist constitute of.

Is it that they do not want any kind of a peaceful solution, or only want a solution on their terms.?

As far as I can tell, many GC members are happy to settle for a True Democracy and True Federation kind of a settlement, despite preferring a unitary state instead, no matter how hard core nationalist you may think they are. I wish you can point out to me, which GC's you know on the forum, who does not support Fair and Just settlement with True Democracy and True Federation.!

On the other hand, you will not find any of the TC NeoPartitionist and some of their supporters even wanting a True Democracy and True Federation for a settlement, despite their support for the so called BBF. As soon as you mention True Democracy and True Federation to them and they are not interested in a settlement at all, but mention elements of the Annan Plan, a Confederacy with undemocratic and Human Rights violation that came with the AP, then they are ready to have a "settlement".!

Can you please shed some light on your own question about the "THE REJECTIONISTS ARE WORRIED STIFF" comment, and tell us who these rejectionist forum members are.!

Thanks.

[miltiades]

Our difference is that Bananiot likes to walk "naked in the thorns" (Xipoytos sta angkathia) whereas I like to have a few safeguards in place in case Turkey goes back on its word and defaults on the agreement.

Perhaps Bananiot is too "relaxed" regarding the concessions the Greek Cypriots will have to make, but Papadopoulos and his supporters are the exact opposite. DT seems to be one of the very few Cypriots that are in the middle of the two extremes, and that's the kind of people Cyprus needs right now imo

Thanks Alexi, I shall do my best to multiply.

Just don't mate with any Chirokitians, they are quite primitive

Primitive they may have been , but they are nevertheless the ancestors of the Cypriots , ( MIGHT ALSO BE THE ANCESTORS TO THE MAINLAND GREEKS!!), my advice to DT is go forth and multiply bearing in mind an old CYPRIOT proverb , PAPOUTSI POU TON TOPON SOU CHIAS INE ...TRIPIMENO

[Bananiot]

Kikapu, your questions are well founded and I am glad you asked them. I will try to answer to the best of my ability.

Basically a rejectionist is a person who rejects a compromise solution to the Cyprus issue. There are rejectionists on both sides of the divide and I am only qualified to talk about the rejectionists in the Greek Cypriot community.

A compromise solution is one that can be accepted by both communities and hence, unitary Cyprus as it was pre 1974 is not an option as well as any form of partition or double union. This compromise solution needs to take into account a number of parameters that apply to the part of the world we live in so that we pursue only whatever is feasible and not the desirable.

A Greek Cypriot rejectionist is interested only for a clean solution, at worse as we were pre 1974 or even "better" by taking away from the Turkish Cypriots what were legally theirs according to the 1959 constitution (ie veto of Vice President). Such Greek Cypriots belong to the extreme right wing (some found in DISI, many in DIKO and mostly in EUROKO) and surprisingly within the socialist party of EDEK. Papadopoulos has always been a rejectionist and this is plain to see since he rejected every single plan that was put in front of us since early 1960. Being a notorius liar he has never come clean as to what he wants, but his writings before he became president really portray well the kind of man he is and what really lies at the back of his mind. His supporters (within or outside the forum) are also rejectionists, it follows.

Kikapu, you talk about true democracy and true federation. It is very easy to say yes to the above. Pre 2003 presidential elections, Papadopoulos was promising to work hard in order to solve the Cyprus issue on the basis of the Annan Plan. Once he became President he worked hard to make the Annan Plan as distasteful as possible to the Greek Cypriots so that he could get a resounding "no" in the federation. Papadopoulos, despite his rhetoric, never stomached any solution that would make Cyprus a federal country. He wrote many pages in his daily newspaper "Kyrikas" against federation. Thus, one needs to be able to distinguish truth from deception and those of us that have lived in Cyprus for a while know who the genuine people are. One can pretend to be in favour of true federation as you put it but he only appears to be so in order to deal fatal blows to federation.

What about true democracy I hear you add. Put in such general terms you will find it extremely difficult to find anyone to say he is against true democracy. I am not going to ask you to define true democracy or indeed true federation for I think I know what you mean. You of course know that democracy (and federation) comes in many shapes and tastes. The sensible thing to do is to choose those elements of democracy and federation that suit Cyprus and can bring the much desired solution. When we start debating and dwelling on these issues, we will be making a huge mistake if we did not take into account the circumstances that brought us to this point. We cannot simply close our eyes and pretend that nothing happened in 1963 or 1974 and just brush the events that shaped our history aside. Inevidably, these events will shape our future. These events and many more will play an important role in the kind of democracy and federation we will be going after.

Those people in the forum that ignore these principles that I outlined above are practically playing the game of the rejectionists. When a forumer (no need to mention names) says that a unitary Cyprus should be our aim, this person is a rejectionist because he is calling for a solution that cannot be achieved.

That is why agreeing the basis on which the solution will rest is such a good thing and it appears that Christofias and Talat have done so and in doing so, the got the rejectionists worrying stiff.

[Oracle]

This is the problem with the close-to-retirement generation presenting their views.

They are too impatient to wait for the right solution for the next generation, and desire only what suits them.

There is no earthly reason in this day and age not to desire what is fair just and right for a country to establish truly democratic self-determination even if it has been denied it previously, due to archaic invader and ruler mentalities.

[pantheman]

Banaiot, you are more sick than I first took you for, because what you have just said is that we should just accept a solution, any solution just to keep idiots like you happy.

You keep going on about TPap, he rejected everything that was placed in front of him because it was unfair and un workable. But, hey ho, not for Bananiot, just do it and worry about the consequences later. Have you learnt anything about history re? We accepted the 1960 constitution forced on us (to keep the likes of you happy) and look where that got us. The Anan plan, my god, people who voted for that need shooting and I would be more than happy to do it!

Was the Ankara Plan fair, ask 76% of the GC and lets get an idea. Its OK to listen to the poll in the north where 1000 nobodies voted, but when 76% of the GC nation votes a big Fuck Off to the Ankara Plan you have the audacity to call them rejectionists.

You mate, are blinded by your bitterness (whatever has caused it, you still haven't answered me) and you want to shaft the GC once and for all in favour of the Tr/TC. Well, you know what Fuck you buddy. I am happy to be labled a rejectionist until some agreement is reached that is FAIR to both sides. You on the otherhand know what you are.

Hade s'tanathema!

[Bananiot]

Some forty five years later, Papadopoulos admitted that he was wrong about the London-Zurich agreements and that in fact they were a blessing in desguise. Likewise, a number of plans were exeptionally good for us but we rejected them because we went full out for the desirable and you all know what that was.

Oracle, I'd rather be close to retirement than a misanthropist, anorgasmic so called woman.

[Oracle]

Some forty five years later, Papadopoulos admitted that he was wrong about the London-Zurich agreements and that in fact they were a blessing in desguise. Likewise, a number of plans were exeptionally good for us but we rejected them because we went full out for the desirable and you all know what that was.

Oracle, I'd rather be close to retirement than a misanthropist, anorgasmic so called woman.

Now why would we believe anything you write, ever again Bananiot ....

[Nikitas]

Bananiot your position reminds me of Bush when he said you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists. Thre was no other alternative that could fit in his small mind. Remember Nelson Mandela who said Bush could not think properly? Well it seems you are going that way too.

Some people here reject an UNFAIR solution and one that contains the seeds of clash which will be worse than 1963.

Fair means giving to each community its due in terms of territory and resources. A 70 30 split is not fair, it was not fair in 1963 and that is how we got to the problem we have today. The Guardian has also underlined the unfairness of the 70-30 division, is the editor of the Guardian a rejectionist too?

The solution should also take into account the sensitivites of both major communities of Cyprus. It should take into account the smaller communities but we decided to ignore them so I will not belabor that point. Accepting bizonality and demilitarisation is a major concession by the Gc side, to add a permanent military presence and guarantees by either "motehrland" makes a mockery of demilitarisation.

Being a realist, taking today's realities into account means accepting that, one way or another, we are heading for partition. The interpetation of bizonality that Talat and his aides have in mind points that way. Talat also said that the legal order of the EU favors the GC side therefore a solution must be sought outside legal parameters. Hearing this view expressed by the TC side what do you suggest should be our approach? Accept partition as per the TC side'sinterpretation, and all other demands like Turkish troops and the rotating presidency and not say a word?

[Bananiot]

Nikitas, let us be honest for a change. The reason the 1959 agreements did not work out was the fact that we had a different agenda at the time. The Turkish Cypriot nationalists wanted partitioning and our side, on an official level, wanted to use the agreements as a stepping stone to achieve enosis.

These agreements, which Papadopoulos called a blessing in 2005 at the Intercollege in Nicosia, had no chance. Their fatal enemy was our side, unfortunately, for had we whole heartedly supported them, the Turkish nationalists wouldn't stand a chance of inflicting any sort of damage.

The federation we are after is not an easy solution. In fact it will take much more good will to come to terms with it than the London-Zurich agreements. Even inside the EU there are now voices telling that the dream may prove impossible to materialise when 1% of the people (see Ireland) can apply the brakes to the enlargement of EU and to the creation of a federal Europe.

These people who are in a haste to come to catastrophic conclusions do not understand that the process of unification can be a tedious one. The federation in the USA was cemented after a bloody civil war and there they did not have to deal with tens of different ethnicities and languages.

In our case, we need to try hard to come to an agreement. It is all very easy to give up and move towards partition or double union which in my opinion is much worse than partition. On September 3 we shall start the ball rolling. This time round there can be a positive outcome. Both sides seem to have the will for solution and this can take care of the sensitivities of each community in the best possible manner. Talat has already hinted that he will not insist on virgin birth and this is a good thing. Erdogan and Gul have publically said they will support the new process. The question of Turkish guarantees seems a thorny issue but this can also be taken care of with good will.

I am telling you Nikitas, those people who have rejected solution are really frightened this time round. You can site many reasons for this. First there are the thick headed who will accept nothing less than total dominance of the majority and then of course at the back of their mind there is something else. These are the ideologues, which have made a mess of things since the early 60's. Then, there are those groups who will be made redundant if solution is achieved. The army people will lose their easy and cushy jobs, press people, lawyers, politicians who cannot do anything else to live if the Cyprus problem is solved.

[Nikitas]

Bananiot,

The LAST thing that frightens me is a true federation.

My nightmare is a divided island, on the pretext of bizonality, with contingents from the motherlands in each section preparing contingency plans which have a habit of becoming realities.

It was also disappointing to hear TC politicians on Kostas Gennaris programme two weeks ago. There is no cohesion, each party, even each person, has totally differing views going from total partitionists to restorers of the Zurich agreement. The only constant is Turkey.