If you seriously believe that Akritas plan is only about changing the 1960 constitution than you are more naive then I thought. Why would a plan about changing constitution be secret and be denied by many GCs anyway. There is nothing wrong in wanting to change constitution, as long as it is done in a legal way.
To the best of my knowledge the existence of this plan was never denied by the GC side once it was revealed in 1966 after being published in a daily newspaper (Grivas sent them a copy of it). When it comes to plans that outline a specific course of any kind of action (political, legal, economic, military etc), their authors may have every reason to keep them secret in order to minimize interference by others. So there is nothing peculiar about the secrecy of the Akritas plan.
Akritas plan was a plan deisgned to achieve Enosis not change in constitution. Desire to change the constitution under the argument of “this system is not workable” was just pretext for Enosis.
While the plan referred to "self determination of the Cypriot people" (read Enosis) as a long term desirable goal, the fact is that only the extend of the constitutional changes that were to happen legally and with international support would determine whether this could ever be achieved or not. After all, it was you who wrote above that changing the constitution is OK as long as this is done in a legal way.
If you ask me, the fact that the Akritas plan aimed to change the constitution legally and with international support shows that as a plan it was doomed to failure from the start. My purpose in writing all these is not to try and convince you (or even argue) that the TCs should have felt comfortable with the existence of this plan, regardless of its seriousness or not. After all, its main (?) author Polykarpos Yiorkjadjis was the minister of interior of the R of Cy and considering that the TCs were part of this Republic at the time he should be functioning otherwise. But at the same time I am trying to see the events in the light of the time they happened and there were many reasons beyond any GC desire for Enosis that led to the draft of such a plan. One such reason was the Turkish counter-aspiration for Taksim, which Ankara and some TCs never abandoned even after 1960.
But there is also another parameter to consider and this is the time context in which the Akritas plan emerged which was just after the end the GC failed struggle for Union with Greece and the 1960 agreements which in the eyes of many GCs were a defeat.
Furthermore, one must remember that in the mid 1960's even Turkey came to the point to discuss with Greece through the Americans the possibility of Enosis in exchange for a military base in Karpasia and enhanced rights for the TCs. If they never agreed on it this was because some of the demands put on the table (e.g. the size and legal status of this base) were rejected by either or both sides - not because the principal was wrong, evil or unacceptable at that particular moment.
You have right to believe in whatever you want, and I have right to believe whatever I want. This whole back and forth debate with you started because I have said that even Sener Levent does not support GC point of view. Meaning he does not believe in what you do. There is nothing wrong/right in that. It is what it is.
Personally and for a number of reasons I do not give always the same importance to what Mr Levent says or writes. But perhaps you are correct in saying that other GCs do that.
May be I have missed something. And may be you can enlighten me about TC’s Acritas Plan by showing me a link to that discussion. Are you talking about TCs desire for Taksim. I have already acknowledged that, or do you mean something else.
I am not sure about what it was called, but you can find a copy of its text in "My Deposition", Vol.1 by Glafkos Clerides. The original copy that was found in Fazil Plumer's office was signed by both Denktash and Dr. Kucuk. The current whereabouts of the above document remain unknown, despite the attempts made by some researchers to find it. Yet it would be foolish to believe that actions suc as the TC withdrawal from the R of Cy and the mass movement of TCs into the enclaves happened was unplanned.
Do not twist my words.
I have said Taksim seems more civilized than Enosis. I have never said the way partition performed was civilized.
No twisting from my part. But I am afraid that your choice of the word "civilized" to refer to what happened was unfortunate (to put it mildly) in the first place.
There are very different ways of achieving Taksim and/or Enosis. We both choose the worst ways. GCs choose armed fight first against Brits than against TCs to achieve Enosis. And TCs choose to expel many innocent GCs out of their homes in order to achieve Taksim. Both of them were not civilized in the manner it has been achieved.
Maybe we all chose the wrong goals.
What I said was Taksim as and end result is more civilized than Enosis as an end result. I have not said that the way we (GCs/TCs) tried to achieve either of tehm was civilized.
Again, I see no room for the use of the word "civilized" when the murder and ethnic cleansing of thousands is involved. I still cannot understand why you insist on using it.
Why are you keep on mixing the concepts. Who and when said that being equal has got anything to do with occupying somebody’s property. All I have said was if we can not live together as equal communities then we should better sit down and start talking about terms of divorce.
And this is why I asked you what does "being equal" mean in your mind? As for the second part of my question, I am curious to know if this "equality" calls for the violation of someone else's legal / property rights or not? After all, until now the Turkish side seemed to be adamant in not allowing a substantial number of GCs to ever return to their homes even after a solution. So I ask again if any of this is somehow related to your idea about equality?
Please note that I am not asking the question to score a point against you, but I am genuinely trying to understand what exactly "equality" means to the average TC and how this may affect the average GC. I am sure that every GC would be interested to know the answer to this.
Of course I am blaming ordinary people for the events of 1974. IF you live in a society, and there are a violent minority in your society, then you as a silent majority is responsible for their actions.
Depends how you look at it. If you live in the ideal society where everyone is the same (same education, same income, same concerns, same priorities) then perhaps you have a point. But in the real world you know just as well as I do that this is not the case. Time and place define how easy it is for an individual citizen in a particular society to question a government policy. While on principal I can agree with what you say about being an informed citizen, at the same time I disagree in using the above as an excuse to "justify" the total disrespect of the human freedoms and rights of thousands of GCs in Cyprus by Turkey.
You guys in this forum are becoming so defensive that you are even missing the simple points I am trying to make.
Defensive? Not at all. I am only trying to make some sense out of your posts.
O.
