Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

Takis Konis, a sociologist, tries to paint the portrait of the persons that in one way or another see partition as the only solution to the Cyprus problem or at best the second best solution. He has called for researching the matter so that the results can be a tool in the hands of Christofias who is currently engaged in negotiations with Mehmet Ali Talat. Konis claims that those calling for velvet divorce fall into one of the following three categories.

1. The desperate ones

They reckon that they do want solution as sought by our leaders but since they cannot see an agreement materializing in the near future and partition is practically consolidated with every day that passes, we should, they argue, compromise with the realities and try to make the most of our lives.

2. The traditional nationalists

They say that new structures (BBF) which are discussed are looking to make us co govern the island with the Turks. This, they claim will undermine the Greek character of Cyprus. If it is not feasible at present to have the Greek state we aspire, it is better for things to remain as they are: The Turks on one side, us on the other.

3. The meta modern nationalists

This is what they more or less say: The Turkish Cypriots led the mutiny of 1963-64 and basically dealt a mortal blow at the Republic. We the Greek Cypriots did not actually fall in love with RoC in 1960, but after the Turks left it, we the Greek Cypriots took completely over and made huge strides of progress culminating in the accession of Cyprus to the European Union. This is now our country, even if it is only 63% of the total, because of the barbaric Turkish invasion of 1974. We object, they say, to the abolishment of the RoC and its replacement with a new country which will not be under our complete control.

These are the three categories of rejectionists, according to Takis Konis and it would be an interestin exercise in my opinion if we were to try to classify the forum rejectionists according to these three categories. I will make a beginning and name two forumers for each category.

1. Humanist, Paphitis

2. Pantheman, EPSILON

3. Kifeas, GR

Just wish to go on record and say that I do not accept the consolidation of the present status quo and hence permanent partition. I would never never be content with the present situation and just accept things as they are and proceed with making the "most of my life". I think this would be a more accurate description of Bananiot. He is the expert on selecting viable options and concede, whilst I will not concede anything less than basic human rights and the rule of law founded on True Democracy and the EU Acquis.

My only crime is to expect proper human rights in Cyprus as what I have for so long taken for granted in Australia, and a True Democracy and Federation if need be. Nothing more and nothing less.

If that was on offer, then I would not be a rejectionist.

[Kifeas]

Here are the categories of the acceptionists who accept partition:

1) The desperate ones

They reckon that there can be no solution because Cyprus is small and powerless and therefore we should just accept the partition that the Turks and the AngloAmericans want so we can close the problem.

No Piratis, the first category is not the desparates, but the submissive or the defeatists –those being demoralised, willing and ready to submit, without a struggle; just where Bananiot falls into!

[Get Real!]

I demand to be placed in a special category called the…

“Choirokitian rejectionists of all foreigners and their Cyprus-history manipulating theories”!

[EPSILON]

Takis Konis, a sociologist, tries to paint the portrait of the persons that in one way or another see partition as the only solution to the Cyprus problem or at best the second best solution. He has called for researching the matter so that the results can be a tool in the hands of Christofias who is currently engaged in negotiations with Mehmet Ali Talat. Konis claims that those calling for velvet divorce fall into one of the following three categories.

1. The desperate ones

They reckon that they do want solution as sought by our leaders but since they cannot see an agreement materializing in the near future and partition is practically consolidated with every day that passes, we should, they argue, compromise with the realities and try to make the most of our lives.

2. The traditional nationalists

They say that new structures (BBF) which are discussed are looking to make us co govern the island with the Turks. This, they claim will undermine the Greek character of Cyprus. If it is not feasible at present to have the Greek state we aspire, it is better for things to remain as they are: The Turks on one side, us on the other.

3. The meta modern nationalists

This is what they more or less say: The Turkish Cypriots led the mutiny of 1963-64 and basically dealt a mortal blow at the Republic. We the Greek Cypriots did not actually fall in love with RoC in 1960, but after the Turks left it, we the Greek Cypriots took completely over and made huge strides of progress culminating in the accession of Cyprus to the European Union. This is now our country, even if it is only 63% of the total, because of the barbaric Turkish invasion of 1974. We object, they say, to the abolishment of the RoC and its replacement with a new country which will not be under our complete control.

These are the three categories of rejectionists, according to Takis Konis and it would be an interestin exercise in my opinion if we were to try to classify the forum rejectionists according to these three categories. I will make a beginning and name two forumers for each category.

1. Humanist, Paphitis

2. Pantheman, EPSILON

3. Kifeas, GR

Just wish to go on record and say that I do not accept the consolidation of the present status quo and hence permanent partition. I would never never be content with the present situation and just accept things as they are and proceed with making the "most of my life". I think this would be a more accurate description of Bananiot. He is the expert on selecting viable options and concede, whilst I will not concede anything less than basic human rights and the rule of law founded on True Democracy and the EU Acquis.

My only crime is to expect proper human rights in Cyprus as what I have for so long taken for granted in Australia, and a True Democracy and Federation if need be. Nothing more and nothing less.

If that was on offer, then I would not be a rejectionist.

No Sir, personally i am in category 4- I do not want any Turk in Cyprus (either in North or South). I am always speaking about old and new shelters. No difference to me at all.

[Nikitas]

What a load of crap! Konis is supposed to be brilliant because he managed to categorise GCs into some arbitrary groupings! On what evidence?

How about those that foresee a repeat of 1963 but on a much larger scale, in a clash engineered by Turkey so it can move in and put in action the second phase of its plans? The demands and nature of BBF put on the table so far point that way. If you want to avoid that possibility what category do you fall into?

[EPSILON]

What a load of crap! Konis is supposed to be brilliant because he managed to categorise GCs into some arbitrary groupings! On what evidence?

How about those that foresee a repeat of 1963 but on a much larger scale, in a clash engineered by Turkey so it can move in and put in action the second phase of its plans? The demands and nature of BBF put on the table so far point that way. If you want to avoid that possibility what category do you fall into?

But then, Konis, will stop them!!!You never know what a "scientist" can do!!!

[Nikitas]

Can he do what magicians do? Pull his foreskin over his head and vanish down his penis?

[EPSILON]

Can he do what magicians do? Pull his foreskin over his head and vanish down his penis?

Even this can he does. Turks.. be aware of Konis!!!!

[Bananiot]

Kifeas

First of all, if you were to "classify" me in anyone of the 3 so-called categories, the nearest you may possibly have come to is the 1st one, and not the 3rd. That tells a lot about your IQ, because it was only a few days ago that I explained my approach.

Nevertheless, since "sociologist" Takis Konis has named all of them as rejectionists, what makes those described in the first category as "rejectionists" and "desperates?" Why wouldn't that make them realists or pragmatists instead?

Is it a secret that a BBF solution, one that we may possibly tolerate and realistically accept, is no where near the horizon given the Turkish illegitimate positions? Is it a secret that such a solution is rather unfeasible, unless someone or something is able or willing to twist Turkey's arm? Is it a secret that as the years pass, the prospects of re-unification are evaporating, and thee only outcome is the danger of partition on the basis of the current occupational territory, and the only sensible thing to do is to become pro-active and think in a lateral way, by making a case in the international forums on the basis of partition, in exchange of substantial territorial adjustments that should represent the fair share of each community?

You and your "sociologist" may wish to brand the above as "rejectionism" and "desperation.” I call it logic and reason!

You did explain your position Kifeas but as you know I do not have to take for granted what you "explained". I will judge you and of course others will judge me. This is how it goes.

The three categories are Konis's idea. I did not make them up. If I were asked I would probably include other categories too. For example, those that do not want solution for the fear that their properties will be devalued. Many Paphians fall into this category and since they do not want to admit it they dress their rejectionism in a cover of patriotism. Of course, here is where immortal Samuel Johnson’s aphorism comes into play "Patriotism is the last resort of scoundrels". Then there are those who are simply scared of the unknown.

Your clever lateral thinking however is a gem. After 34 years you have come to the conclusion that Rauf Denktash was right all along and that we are legitimised to see things the way he does, as long as we are clever enough to get back territory that amounts to 82% of the total area of Cyprus. No kifeas, even if you do fall in the first group, there is no excuse for you to propose such a path. Still, people that belong to group 1 can only be grouped with the rest of the rejectionists because what they propose is not a solution but partition which would be fatal for Cyprus in the not so long run.

[Nikitas]

Bananiot,

Can you explaing why partition on the 82-18 lines would be fatal in the long run, when partition along the 63-37 lines has not been fatal in the last 34 years? I am really curious to know what dangers you perceive.

In the end, if the other side does not interpret BBF the way you do, partition becomes sort of inevitable, in which case not trying for a fair territorial arrangement would be dangerous.