Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

How about the people deprived of their land for 30 or 40 years? If someone moves in on someone else's land they know the score. They are lucky to get anything at all.

The proper place to complain is to those that decided to use these people as pawns in a corrupt game. We do not hear anything about them though. Have you forgiven them to the extent you can now placve the responsibility on the victims?

What was the number of people in the "RoC" in its conception in 1964 Nikitas??? Did you stand still in time and wait for a solution....? I think we can safely say that your population has risen, can we not? Perhaps we should expell all those that came onto the island from that point on but wait...Your population growth has got nothing to do with politics has it....You could have gotten on just fine without them....Are any more coming??? Natural migration you say...ell I say...If you are going to pick a point in time then apply it to both sides....What a nightmare scenario that would be...Would you say that it is impossible??? What you are doing is applying a strategy to apply to only one side and that is not fair. I bet a whole lot of GCs would shit their pants if they were under scrutiny as to whether they are full blown Cypriots or not....A few on this Forum for a start....

Zan, it is extremely insincere to equate small, steady, natural migration into the RoC from all areas of the world, which is consistent with what occurs in any democracy in the world, and the mass migration of Turkish settlers that have taken up stolen land. Turkish settlers outnumber TCs for god's sake! Turkey ensured that it took far more land than was needed (37%) so that it could change the demographics of the island. Turkey knew very well the problem it was creating when carrying out this scheme; they knew very well that GCs would want these settlers removed, but they did it anyway, in order to secure their illegal gains at GCs expense, claiming it is necessary for the settlers to remain on humanitarian grounds. Yet Turkey, by causing this problem, didn't care less about their humanitarian rights, so why should the GCs pay for a problem Turkey created? Let Turkey repatriate and compensate these settlers. They were very easily brought to Cyprus in vast numbers, so they can just as easily be shown the exit.

"Vast" Numbers were needed Simon...Simple as that.....You see it as just a land grabbing issue and whilst I agree that there is room or that theory in the grand scheme of things, it was a battle for survival....Can I ask you what the TC economy and survival chances would have been without this mass migration as opposed to your gradual one? You live by your needs Simon...It helped the "settlers" and it helped the TCs.

Zan, this is just an expedient excuse to mitigate the illegalities of Turkey. Vast numbers were needed to execute Turkey's plan Zan, it's as simple as that. The rest is pie in the sky. Why did Turkey occupy 37% of Cyprus for a population only consisting of 18%? If Turkey had occupied 18%, vast numbers would not have been needed. You may say 18% is not economically viable, but this is nonsense. What is economically viable depends not on size but productivity. The "TRNC" economy is not economically viable as it is anyway, it relies on Turkey, so the 18% could have relied on Turkey until a solution is found, in just the same way. In fact, the 18% would probably have been more economically viable, because it is much more likely that GCs would not have made your isolation so intense if you only occupied the land proportionate to your population size. These are just excuses Zan that you throw in the way to try and convince people to turn away from the reality, but you can't deny what is staring you in the face.

Simon, u forget that in the begining of the British Rule, TCs constituted 1/3 of total population of Cyprus and misapropriated all the lands and properties belonged to Venetians not GCs.

When the emigration of TCs began because of the British rule(1878) and uneasiness of inter communal strife(40s and onward), those TCs who emigrated until 1946 redintegrated the properties/lands they possesed back to evkaf. Until 1946, all properties of TCs had been managed and owned by Evkaf.

http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-3549.html

Let's say after 1946 TCs who emigrated sold some percentage of their land to GCs, the private and state land share of TCs can't be less than 30%.

What has any of this got to do with Turkey breaching the Geneva Convention and committing a war crime by bringing illegal settlers to Cyprus on stolen land? You think the above justifies this!?

So you're saying that because the Ottoman Empire brought colonial settlers up to a number consisting of 1/3 of Cyprus in the distant past, Turkey had the right to also act like an imperial power and attempt to repeat the crime?

If TCs left and sold their land, that was their choice. Many GCs did the same thing. This does not give you the right to bring settlers here, place them on stolen land, just to re-boost your population to pre-independence levels! What a joke!!

Any Venetian or Turkish property was only theirs because it had been originally usurped from the Cypriots. If you want to go back to British rule, why stop there, let's go back to before Ottoman rule when you were 0%. Don't play games insan, the population of the respective communities was well known when the RoC became independent in 1960. Turkey committed a war crime in 1974 by trying to alter the demographics and change the dynamics of the problem, pure and simple.

Figures posted on this forum before show that the TCs owned about 16% of the land when the invasion took place. Look back at some of the old threads.

I was just trying to tell u legal TC land share in Cyprus can't be less than 30% and I explained u why it can't be less than 30%.

Your post is full of assumptions. Unless you have documentary evidence and title deeds to prove that TCs own 30% of the land, please allow me to treat your claim with scepticism, especially when the official figures state otherwise.

The "official" figures regarding land ownership, published by the so-called RoC r illogical. However u r right abt TCs should have documentary evidence and title deeds to prove that TCs own 30% of the land.

http://www.prio.no/upload/Cyprus%20Property%20Report%202%20Trimmed%20(corrected).pdf

There u can find the official arguments regarding the land ownership of 2 communities.

insan, firstly, the TCs do not say they own 30%, but 26.7%. Like I said, without clear evidence, I find this very hard to believe. However, if we talk about the illegalities in the north of Cyprus, this part is quite relevant:

"What is more important is the percentage of Greek Cypriot private property in the north. The Turkish Cypriot side estimates this at 1,228,838 donums, which is equivalent to 63.8% of all privately owned land in the north. Although significantly lower than the corresponding Greek Cypriot estimate (1,463,382 donums or 78.5%), this is still a remarkably high percentage."

So if the TCs are right, and you agree they should have documentary evidence, where is it?

The documentary evidences must be in the archives of the relevant TRNC government ministries.

Where is GCs documentary evidence that proves GCs own the land how much they claim?

[Simon]

How about the people deprived of their land for 30 or 40 years? If someone moves in on someone else's land they know the score. They are lucky to get anything at all.

The proper place to complain is to those that decided to use these people as pawns in a corrupt game. We do not hear anything about them though. Have you forgiven them to the extent you can now placve the responsibility on the victims?

What was the number of people in the "RoC" in its conception in 1964 Nikitas??? Did you stand still in time and wait for a solution....? I think we can safely say that your population has risen, can we not? Perhaps we should expell all those that came onto the island from that point on but wait...Your population growth has got nothing to do with politics has it....You could have gotten on just fine without them....Are any more coming??? Natural migration you say...ell I say...If you are going to pick a point in time then apply it to both sides....What a nightmare scenario that would be...Would you say that it is impossible??? What you are doing is applying a strategy to apply to only one side and that is not fair. I bet a whole lot of GCs would shit their pants if they were under scrutiny as to whether they are full blown Cypriots or not....A few on this Forum for a start....

Zan, it is extremely insincere to equate small, steady, natural migration into the RoC from all areas of the world, which is consistent with what occurs in any democracy in the world, and the mass migration of Turkish settlers that have taken up stolen land. Turkish settlers outnumber TCs for god's sake! Turkey ensured that it took far more land than was needed (37%) so that it could change the demographics of the island. Turkey knew very well the problem it was creating when carrying out this scheme; they knew very well that GCs would want these settlers removed, but they did it anyway, in order to secure their illegal gains at GCs expense, claiming it is necessary for the settlers to remain on humanitarian grounds. Yet Turkey, by causing this problem, didn't care less about their humanitarian rights, so why should the GCs pay for a problem Turkey created? Let Turkey repatriate and compensate these settlers. They were very easily brought to Cyprus in vast numbers, so they can just as easily be shown the exit.

"Vast" Numbers were needed Simon...Simple as that.....You see it as just a land grabbing issue and whilst I agree that there is room or that theory in the grand scheme of things, it was a battle for survival....Can I ask you what the TC economy and survival chances would have been without this mass migration as opposed to your gradual one? You live by your needs Simon...It helped the "settlers" and it helped the TCs.

Zan, this is just an expedient excuse to mitigate the illegalities of Turkey. Vast numbers were needed to execute Turkey's plan Zan, it's as simple as that. The rest is pie in the sky. Why did Turkey occupy 37% of Cyprus for a population only consisting of 18%? If Turkey had occupied 18%, vast numbers would not have been needed. You may say 18% is not economically viable, but this is nonsense. What is economically viable depends not on size but productivity. The "TRNC" economy is not economically viable as it is anyway, it relies on Turkey, so the 18% could have relied on Turkey until a solution is found, in just the same way. In fact, the 18% would probably have been more economically viable, because it is much more likely that GCs would not have made your isolation so intense if you only occupied the land proportionate to your population size. These are just excuses Zan that you throw in the way to try and convince people to turn away from the reality, but you can't deny what is staring you in the face.

Simon, u forget that in the begining of the British Rule, TCs constituted 1/3 of total population of Cyprus and misapropriated all the lands and properties belonged to Venetians not GCs.

When the emigration of TCs began because of the British rule(1878) and uneasiness of inter communal strife(40s and onward), those TCs who emigrated until 1946 redintegrated the properties/lands they possesed back to evkaf. Until 1946, all properties of TCs had been managed and owned by Evkaf.

http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-3549.html

Let's say after 1946 TCs who emigrated sold some percentage of their land to GCs, the private and state land share of TCs can't be less than 30%.

What has any of this got to do with Turkey breaching the Geneva Convention and committing a war crime by bringing illegal settlers to Cyprus on stolen land? You think the above justifies this!?

So you're saying that because the Ottoman Empire brought colonial settlers up to a number consisting of 1/3 of Cyprus in the distant past, Turkey had the right to also act like an imperial power and attempt to repeat the crime?

If TCs left and sold their land, that was their choice. Many GCs did the same thing. This does not give you the right to bring settlers here, place them on stolen land, just to re-boost your population to pre-independence levels! What a joke!!

Any Venetian or Turkish property was only theirs because it had been originally usurped from the Cypriots. If you want to go back to British rule, why stop there, let's go back to before Ottoman rule when you were 0%. Don't play games insan, the population of the respective communities was well known when the RoC became independent in 1960. Turkey committed a war crime in 1974 by trying to alter the demographics and change the dynamics of the problem, pure and simple.

Figures posted on this forum before show that the TCs owned about 16% of the land when the invasion took place. Look back at some of the old threads.

I was just trying to tell u legal TC land share in Cyprus can't be less than 30% and I explained u why it can't be less than 30%.

Your post is full of assumptions. Unless you have documentary evidence and title deeds to prove that TCs own 30% of the land, please allow me to treat your claim with scepticism, especially when the official figures state otherwise.

The "official" figures regarding land ownership, published by the so-called RoC r illogical. However u r right abt TCs should have documentary evidence and title deeds to prove that TCs own 30% of the land.

http://www.prio.no/upload/Cyprus%20Property%20Report%202%20Trimmed%20(corrected).pdf

There u can find the official arguments regarding the land ownership of 2 communities.

insan, firstly, the TCs do not say they own 30%, but 26.7%. Like I said, without clear evidence, I find this very hard to believe. However, if we talk about the illegalities in the north of Cyprus, this part is quite relevant:

"What is more important is the percentage of Greek Cypriot private property in the north. The Turkish Cypriot side estimates this at 1,228,838 donums, which is equivalent to 63.8% of all privately owned land in the north. Although significantly lower than the corresponding Greek Cypriot estimate (1,463,382 donums or 78.5%), this is still a remarkably high percentage."

So if the TCs are right, and you agree they should have documentary evidence, where is it?

The documentary evidences must be in the archives of the relevant TRNC government ministries.

Where is GCs documentary evidence that proves GCs own the land how much they claim?

Why haven't they released this info to prove their claims?

GCs have their title deeds. If you want to call into question any GC's property claims, you can do so through the various legal bodies.

[denizaksulu]

In the meantime the Antifonitis Monastery is still closed because the northern administration couldnt be bothered.

I went up to St. Hilarion castle with GR and it was closed well before closing time. I could provide photographic evidence if GR allowed. They have a laid back attitude which they somehow are manage to justify.....

[Nikitas]

Talat himself said that the TC land ownership in the north is less than 16 per cent of the land area. There is no more official source than Talat.

The immigration issue is being deliberately distorted by Zan who is pretending not to understand. He is putting the Sri Lankans and others in the south at par with citizens of Cyprus who were violently expelled from the north and he is excusing this on grounds of economic viability. Fucking hell!!!

Thankfully there are people in the north who are not brainwashed and can still see reality for what it is and they are accusing Turkey of attempting to engulf and erase TC culture and consciousness. The late Ozgur, Akinci, the teachers unions, half of the press in the north, they live there and know more than Zan about settlers.

As for the alleged importation of people into Cyprus and some on this forum not being Cypriots, go on Zan, name names. Show us one family of mainland Greeks who were resettled in Cyprus at any time. One will do to convince us.

What is true is that 35000 GCs were forced to move to Greece after the invasion and many more to the UK and Australia. The same happened with TCs. Neither Zan nor any other neo partitionist gives a crap about the rights of these people to return to Cyprus, yet they are almost tearful when talking of the "plight" of settlers.

But the fun part will start when after a settlement the big paying jobs in the the state and federal government will be up for grabs. IT is then that we are going to see a full expression of brotherly love between the TCs and the settlers. Only then the TC community will realise the headache they are creating for themselves.

[Simon]

Nikitas wrote:

Talat himself said that the TC land ownership in the north is less than 16 per cent of the land area. There is no more official source than Talat.

I must have missed this Nikitas. Do you have a link?

I suppose that kind of kills insan's argument then.

[insan]

Nikitas wrote:

Talat himself said that the TC land ownership in the north is less than 16 per cent of the land area. There is no more official source than Talat.

I must have missed this Nikitas. Do you have a link?

I suppose that kind of kills insan's argument then.

Funny Simon, eh? 16% of what? What abt TC land ownership in the South?

[Nikitas]

Insan wrote:

"On some points I agree with u, Nikitas. Instead of settlers, TCs who emigrated from Cyprus due to uneasiness of inter-communal strife from 40s to 70s should have been encouraged to return.

What would have changed had majority of TCs who emigrated, returned to Cyprus?

Nothing in general..."

At last a voice of sanity.

Plenty would change. Any small perceived unfairness in the eventual settlement can be overlooked among Cypriots. To put it in concrete terms, if the territory issue was more generous to the TC side, or if the cabinet seats not strictly shared, etc, such minor deviations are tolerable among Cypriots.

To put it in personal terms- if my house in the north is not returned to my family, because it is needed by a TC family I can say halali. If it is a settler family I will say harami. Overlooking this part is not understanding Cypriots. At the moment we have good relations with the TC families living in our houses in the Morphou area. An elderly lady from Polis who lives in one of the family homes has become something of an adopted aunt to my cousins. All this is possible because these people are CYPRIOTS.

It is also interesting that my grandfather's house was bulldozed by the TCs from Polis who live in the adjoining houses to prevent settlers being moved in amongst them.

Any advantage gained by a community of settlers will create a grudge and an inner conviction that next round things will be settled once and for all. There can be no genuine peace with settlers involved. It is funny that so many people in this forum are concerned about past GC atrocities but do not see how they are building a web of grudges via the settlers and these might lead to a new round. And these grudges are not borne exclusively by GCs either.

Maybe I am the only one in this forum, but my preoccupation is to create conditions which cannot lead to a repeat of 1963. It is wiser and more secure to prevent grievances than to imagine that you can contain them. At some point they will come to the surface.

[Simon]

Nikitas wrote:

Talat himself said that the TC land ownership in the north is less than 16 per cent of the land area. There is no more official source than Talat.

I must have missed this Nikitas. Do you have a link?

I suppose that kind of kills insan's argument then.

Funny Simon, eh? 16% of what? What abt TC land ownership in the South?

In the south you own even less.

[Nikitas]

"I must have missed this Nikitas. Do you have a link? "

Simon, it was during the days leading up to the start of the current talks. So it must have been last year this time, in the daily digest of the TC press posted at the PIO website. I can try to retrieve it if you want.

It was during interviews with foreign and local press that Talat had said this and it was part of his take on the territorial issue and why it cannot be settled along strict ownership.

[Nikitas]

The land question is going to be a tough one. TCs own land in cities, in fact in terms of population ratios a higher percentage of TCs own urban properties than GCs. And this inevitably leads to the question- will TCs who see their land in Paphos, Limassol and Larnaca skyrocket in value want to relinquish it in exchange for a plot in the outback of Ayios Andronikos? I know what I would want if it was my choice. I would rent my land in Limassol and live off the rents.

So the obstacle to the TC scheme of things is not only GC owners but also TCs who do not want to let go of valuable land in the south.

There is also the question of post solution population movement. As much as Talat or anyone else wants a homogenous solid ethnic chunk of Cyprus, people will not accomodate those plans. People move to where business and employment are. And this means Nicosia, Limassol, Famagusta and Larnaca. People are not dumb, they can see developments coming and they will want to be close to the action.