You don't see it as a compromise, because you continue to think the GCs and TCs as single bodies, and not each one as a individual. For the particular people concerned, it's a compromise to accept getting out of their home for the third time, for others to come back who only needed to get out once.
It doesn't matter how they see it, but how it is. It is not "their home". If it was "their home" then they wouldn't have to move out. Those who will have to move out are those who occupy properties that do not belong to them.
Not exactly. Through a solution many TCs will lose what is legally theirs in the South Cyprus.
But I repeat, the legality isn't the important point here.
They are going to lose what is legally theirs in the south in order to gain twice as much in the north. We are not the ones who asked for such thing. They asked for this because it suits them.
The important is to find a solution that will make lifes better for as much Cypriots as possible.
Really? Then why don't we have a referendum with all solutions as options and let the Cypriots, one person one vote, decide what is best for them?
Unfortunately the Turks are occupying our lands keeping them as hostage trying in this way to blackmail us and force us to accept a "solution" that will be better for their small minority and the foreign imperialists that support them, and NOT for as many Cypriots as possible.
Almost all political parties and all elected presidents of RoC accepted BBF as a solution. Even most of the ones who rejected Annan-Plan accept BBF in principle. And BBF means that a big part of North Cyprus will be under TC and not GC administration.
You're very correct on your second point, but this means that getting back Kyrenia is at least not in their priorities, if they think that having good chances for rousfeti is more important.
No president or party can liberate Cyprus and get back Kyrenia under the current balance of power which is why people vote for them based on things they can actually do.
For example DISY asked from its supporters to vote "yes" in the referendum on Annan plan. Just 1/3rd of them followed the direction of their party in what is the most important issue, but in the next elections almost all of them voted for DISY again.
Again, you see GCs and TCs as single bodies. I understand I'm not going to convince you that this way of thinking is wrong, in fact one of the reasons Cyprus ended up today as it is.
Bonds between normal average GCs and TCs always existed and still exist today, but if the status quo continues, there is a great risk that they will get weaker and weaker as time goes by.
As for the bonds of GCs with North, well, if you really think they don't get weaker through status quo, then what can I say.
Bonds between individuals will always exist. I have friends from all over the world and we live in totally separate countries. A divisive and racist "solution" not only will not help the bonds with TCs to increase, but on the contrary it will cause more problems, just like it happened in the 60s.
There is no contradiction and no double standards.
Turkey was able to invade Cyprus and carry out ethnic cleansing because the balance of power allowed it. But it is generally seen by the global public opinion as that, as an invading and occupying power. If a GC government does the same thing after 2000 years, because the balance of power will allow it, it will also be seen as a conqueror.
But here you are today suggesting that we should accept a "solution" that will legalize the Turkification of the north part of Cyprus. If we do that then Turks will get to keep north Cyprus without being seen as "an invading and occupying power".
So even if you are right, and we are also seen as a conquerors when we take our lands back (something which I disagree), then you think that after waiting for 2000 years we would have a problem to wait for a few more decades in order for our actions to become acceptable?
But you are wrong, and we are not going to be seen as conquerors but as liberators. The Jews are only seen as conquerors of the additional territory they took with the war of 1967, not the Israel state established in 1948.
And the "2000 years" is just an extreme example to show that time really doesn't matter as much as you believe. The balance of power can change in 20 or 50 or 100 years. And if we are not stupid to sign away our rights, then north Cyprus will legally remain as territory of Republic of Cyprus and we will have every right to liberate our own territory from foreign occupation.
But the most important mistake of this mentality, is that is still based on the logic of confrontation. Using your logic, the TCs should only wait for the next chance that the balance of power changes, so that they can take their revenge. And it goes on like that.
With my logic, we should take the situation as it is today and try to make the best out of it, even the solution is not perfectly fair to some individuals (for whom the status quo is unfair anyway). The most important thing is to overcome this logic of confrontation, so that in the future they'll will be no basis for similar events to occur.
So you suggest to end the confrontation by accepting that the Turks will have a final victory over us? No thanks. It is the Turks who started it by invading our island and it is them who should accept that Cyprus should be allowed to be ruled democratically by the Cypriot people. If they choose confrontation in their effort to take our lands then they should know that we will fight back for as long as it takes.
I think you see this very one-dimensionally. Some of these aspects are relevant (e.g. the thing with the civil service - although you also have to think that we speak about a time in which GCs dominated the private sector), but other aspects like security or propaganda played important role too.
I never said that there are no other factors. But the most important factor is the gains that TCs are promised on our expense. This is what remains unchanged from the 50s until today.
If the foreign imperialists didn't want to divide Cyprus, and they didn't use the TCs as their pawns by promising to them gains on our expense, then none of the other things would make a difference. Take Rhodes for example which united with the rest of Greece in 1948 and which also has a Turkish minority. Not a single nose broke over this.
It is, because the logic that the system works doesn't allow solutions that are fair to everybody. This applies to every capitalist country, in different ways. You can just take e.g. today's situation in Greece as an example.
So, we have to accept this as a fact, and, for the short-term, seek not a solution that is going be perfectly just to everybody, but one which will make the situation as better as possible for as much people as possible. In the long-term, we can make thoughts on how we can gradually improve the unfair sides of it.
The capitalism system is not an obstacle for a just coexistence of different ethnic groups. The Cyprus Problem is not about injustices between different classes, but one of foreign invasion and conflict between ethnic groups.
The kind of solution you suggest doesn't make life better for most of us, it makes it worst (which is why we rejected it). Not only that, but such racist and divisive "solutions" can only lead to more problems in the long term, and not anything better.
