Cyprus-Forum.com

[Bananiot]

Piratis, your fanaticism will not let you see clearly. You are dead sure that all TC's got more than they left behind (I can live with this) but the issue here lies in the heart, not the brain. The sintiment! It has nothing to do with material gains but with the trauma of violent uprooting that applies to all refugees and the burning desire to return to the place of birth. This cannot be bought off for any amount of money, for us true Cypriots. In our case, TC's and GC's are together on this, sharing common dreams and aspirations. For you, there are thieves and victims but conveniently you tend to forget that we were the thieves pre 1974. When I say "we" I mean of course the nationalist breed - your kind I am afraid.

There is no magic Tim. Everything can be explained in a very easy and logical way.

Those TCs you are talking about did not support a real unification. They supported the Annan partition plan.

If in 2003 or 2004 those same TCs were asked to vote for a plan that would truly unify Cyprus, without any divisions between "Turkish Cyprus" and "Greek Cyprus", and where all Cypriot people would be equal citizens, again without any racist divisions, how many of those people do you think would vote in favor of such plan in 2004?

Bloody hell, Piratis. At the time there was only a plan in the making. These people had just about enough with Denktash and some even branded flags of the RoC, despite the threats of the Gray Wolves. You so easily dismiss these people who put their lives on the line. It is a pityful analysis you have made.

[Mikiko]

People vote not only for the cyprus probem in mind but other factors like jobs etc . So the results are natural as its difficult for any president to be re elected for another time . people want always something to change .

Here you assume that the Cyprus problem was the only issue in their mind.

[Piratis]

Piratis, your fanaticism will not let you see clearly. You are dead sure that all TC's got more than they left behind (I can live with this) but the issue here lies in the heart, not the brain. The sintiment! It has nothing to do with material gains but with the trauma of violent uprooting that applies to all refugees and the burning desire to return to the place of birth. This cannot be bought off for any amount of money, for us true Cypriots. In our case, TC's and GC's are together on this, sharing common dreams and aspirations. For you, there are thieves and victims but conveniently you tend to forget that we were the thieves pre 1974. When I say "we" I mean of course the nationalist breed - your kind I am afraid.

I didn't say that all TCs got more than what they left behind, I said most, and this is in fact the truth.

Apparently those TCs who now live Morfou have no "burning desire to return to the place of birth" since in fact partition was their aim since the 50s and not a result of "violent uprooting" as it was the case for our refugees.

You are obviously blind and you can not see what TCs want for the last 60 years, even though they couldn't make it more clear to you. What they want is nothing else than partition and if they could legalize the de-facto partition we have today there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they would.

If I am "nationalist" because I want the freedom of my country, democracy and human rights, then so be it. On the other hand you support the national interests of Turkey. So if I am a nationalist, then you are a traitor.

[Piratis]

There is no magic Tim. Everything can be explained in a very easy and logical way.

Those TCs you are talking about did not support a real unification. They supported the Annan partition plan.

If in 2003 or 2004 those same TCs were asked to vote for a plan that would truly unify Cyprus, without any divisions between "Turkish Cyprus" and "Greek Cyprus", and where all Cypriot people would be equal citizens, again without any racist divisions, how many of those people do you think would vote in favor of such plan in 2004?

Bloody hell, Piratis. At the time there was only a plan in the making. These people had just about enough with Denktash and some even branded flags of the RoC, despite the threats of the Gray Wolves. You so easily dismiss these people who put their lives on the line. It is a pityful analysis you have made.

So you believe that in 2004 TCs would vote for a true unification as I describe it above? If that is the case and we could have a solution plan for a true unification that would be supported by both TCs and GCs, then why was such plan not placed in a referendum? Who prevented such plan from being created? Whose demands didn't allow for such plan to exist?

[Nikitas]

It is interesting to note that the TCs do not have the equivalent of the GC national council in which all political forces are obliged to participate and endorse the handling of the negotiations. Eroglu announced the intention to create a national council yesterday! Apparently it was thought unnecessary to obtain a broad consensus on a negotiating approach before yesterday. It was deemed unnecessary to examine the attitudes of the TCs (as they are formed by different parties), towards a solution, perhaps because the dominant view was that 1974 was a solution.

Tim has mentioned the brief outburst of a pro solution movement. That was in response to EU membership and nothing more. Once that dream of easy EU accession vanished it is back to the old approach that the 1974 events brougth about a solution which needs nothing more than a GC signature to make it legal. That approach is obviously not going to fly. By contrast the GC side has advanced from the days of "Enosis or nothing" and has accepted compromises that would have been unthinkable in the 60s.

I do not discount the genuine preoccupation of TCs with security. But at the same time there is an element of arrogance that emerged after 1974 and is based on the presence of the Turkish army. You cannot base your future on the permanent presence of a foreign army to keep you safe. The social and political cost of that army is apparent to outsiders and to some TCs but the majority is still captive to the ideas cultivated in the TC community since 1878. In short nothing much has changed, and unless there is a willingness to accept some compromise in the position that everything was solved in 1974, there will be no change.

[Nikitas]

"Here you assume that the Cyprus problem was the only issue in their mind."

Very true and a good reminder that "domestic" issues might have toppled Talat.

[Jerry]

It is interesting to note that the TCs do not have the equivalent of the GC national council in which all political forces are obliged to participate and endorse the handling of the negotiations. Eroglu announced the intention to create a national council yesterday! Apparently it was thought unnecessary to obtain a broad consensus on a negotiating approach before yesterday. It was deemed unnecessary to examine the attitudes of the TCs (as they are formed by different parties), towards a solution, perhaps because the dominant view was that 1974 was a solution.

Tim has mentioned the brief outburst of a pro solution movement. That was in response to EU membership and nothing more. Once that dream of easy EU accession vanished it is back to the old approach that the 1974 events brougth about a solution which needs nothing more than a GC signature to make it legal. That approach is obviously not going to fly. By contrast the GC side has advanced from the days of "Enosis or nothing" and has accepted compromises that would have been unthinkable in the 60s.

I do not discount the genuine preoccupation of TCs with security. But at the same time there is an element of arrogance that emerged after 1974 and is based on the presence of the Turkish army. You cannot base your future on the permanent presence of a foreign army to keep you safe. The social and political cost of that army is apparent to outsiders and to some TCs but the majority is still captive to the ideas cultivated in the TC community since 1878. In short nothing much has changed, and unless there is a willingness to accept some compromise in the position that everything was solved in 1974, there will be no change.

Bir, that is probably the best analysis of the situation you will get, especially the last two sentences. I don't think TCs realise how much the GCs resent them having disproportionate power. The TCs see it as a safeguard, I see it as a reminder of Ottoman dominance. Before anyone says I'm digging up the past let me remind you that my grandfather was born under the Ottomans, and legally my father, born in 1913 was born a Turkish subject.

[YFred]

It is interesting to note that the TCs do not have the equivalent of the GC national council in which all political forces are obliged to participate and endorse the handling of the negotiations. Eroglu announced the intention to create a national council yesterday! Apparently it was thought unnecessary to obtain a broad consensus on a negotiating approach before yesterday. It was deemed unnecessary to examine the attitudes of the TCs (as they are formed by different parties), towards a solution, perhaps because the dominant view was that 1974 was a solution.

Tim has mentioned the brief outburst of a pro solution movement. That was in response to EU membership and nothing more. Once that dream of easy EU accession vanished it is back to the old approach that the 1974 events brougth about a solution which needs nothing more than a GC signature to make it legal. That approach is obviously not going to fly. By contrast the GC side has advanced from the days of "Enosis or nothing" and has accepted compromises that would have been unthinkable in the 60s.

I do not discount the genuine preoccupation of TCs with security. But at the same time there is an element of arrogance that emerged after 1974 and is based on the presence of the Turkish army. You cannot base your future on the permanent presence of a foreign army to keep you safe. The social and political cost of that army is apparent to outsiders and to some TCs but the majority is still captive to the ideas cultivated in the TC community since 1878. In short nothing much has changed, and unless there is a willingness to accept some compromise in the position that everything was solved in 1974, there will be no change.

Bir, that is probably the best analysis of the situation you will get, especially the last two sentences. I don't think TCs realise how much the GCs resent them having disproportionate power. The TCs see it as a safeguard, I see it as a reminder of Ottoman dominance. Before anyone says I'm digging up the past let me remind you that my grandfather was born under the Ottomans, and legally my father, born in 1913 was born a Turkish subject.

Now I know why you are so decent.

[Oracle]

In 2004 Turkish Cypriots voted by an overwhelming majority of 65% FOR a solution to reunite Cyprus...In 2010 they voted,albeit by a slim majority,FOR a President who is well known for his wish for a 2 state solution...So,what happened,or what did not happen,during the ensuing 6 years to bring about such a different result??? Please spend at least a couple of minutes seriously pondering this issue before putting fingers to keyboard...Thanks...

There is no contradiction in the outcomes of the referendum and the recent pseudo-election. It is your inference that the 65% voted for a 'reunited Cyprus' which is wrong.

So nothing has changed. The majority of TCs have always wanted partition, at least since Cyprus gained independence!

[SKI-preo]

I would like feedback from a turkish cypriot who voted for Dervis Eroglou but believes they were formerly "pro-unification". ( a term which means all things to all people)