The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Comparing Cyprus and Israel

How can we solve it? (keep it civilized)

Postby Piratis » Wed Aug 24, 2005 11:47 pm

You have quite conveniently forgotten that it was our side that abolished legality in 1963 and drew plans to annihilate the TC community if it objected to the changes to the constitution that had our signature underneath.

Our side simply made proposals for the change of constitution. No legality was abolished from our side in 1963. Proposing something is one thing, abolishing is another. Don't confuse things. The conflict was not the fault of only our side. The Turkish side also declared war on us and there were many victims from both sides.

The war we declared against our TC compatriots from 1963 to 1974 gave Turkey the pretext to invade Cyprus, but, since you are so interested in legality, please show me one UN resolution that calls Turkey the “invader”. All international institutions accept that Turkey should leave Cyprus only when the problem is solved. Thus, those that decide what is legal and what is not legal accept (to our dismay) that the problem is not between us and Turkey but between the GC community and the TC community.


The resolutions call for the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from Cyprus and the respect of the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus. This is what we are asking also. All international institutions and all countries apart from Turkey recognize Republic of Cyprus which has no borders within Cyprus. There are resolutions that declare "TRNC" as illegal.

The only thing that is legal in Cyprus is Republic of Cyprus with sovereignty over the whole island. If you disagree then tell me what is legal for Cyprus?

I just wonder, taking the side of Ecevit makes you a moderate? Sounds very funny, really. The truth is that you are on the extreme. Only extremists support the violation of human rights.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby Othellos » Thu Aug 25, 2005 9:12 am

Bananiot wrote:The war we declared against our TC compatriots from 1963 to 1974 gave Turkey the pretext to invade Cyprus, but, since you are so interested in legality, please show me one UN resolution that calls Turkey the “invader”.


When you are forced to abandon your town or your village by a foreign, invading army at gunpoint and when others from far away are brought in to live in your house, then you do not need the UN or anyone else to tell you if such action (=plain robbery) is legal or not. It is as simple as that, Bananiot.

As for the 1963-1974 war that we "declared against our TC compatriots", I am afraid that your above statement is extremely superficial and oversimplified, for it attempts to adress only half of the story.

O.
Othellos
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 291
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 6:52 pm

Postby Bananiot » Thu Aug 25, 2005 3:44 pm

Are you saying that Turkey would have invaded anyway, Othellos? If this is what you mean then we might as well believe in fate (kismet).

My idea is that we played into the hands of the partition forces of the TC community (Denktash and Co) by our short sighted policies of the 1963-1974 era. Of course it took two to tango but we were the dominant force at the time. We should have known better. Instead we pushed even the most moderate forces in the TC community into the arms of the partitionists by our stupid actions. This can only be explained if we consider the enosis factor which at the time was the national inspiration for all GC's and anyone that said differently was immediateley branded a traitor. This burning ambition that was imprinted into our genes by preachers and teachers, clearly played havoc with our senses and prevented us from seeing the dangers.

In short, we took a path to disaster because we never abandoned our vision, of unifying Cyprus with Greece. Even when, late on, some people began to see the dangers and started looking for more pragmatic solutions, the idea of buring the dream for ever was too much to bear.

The question we should try to answer in all honesty is: were the Turkish Cypriots justified to react to our efforts to achieve enosis (short term or long term)? Should they have said: the GC's are the majority, they have the right to do as they pleased?

Piratis is funny! They were just proposals he said. Take them or leave them. He thinks this is just a game, you play or you quit! He also thinks that I am taking the side of Ecevit. I am sorry to inform him that he took the side of Ecevit (and Denktash) in the referendum. They all voted the same!
User avatar
Bananiot
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 6397
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 10:51 pm
Location: Nicosia

Postby Main_Source » Thu Aug 25, 2005 3:47 pm

so Bananiot, answer this question alone...

do you think 200,000 people deserved to be made refugees in Cyprus?
Main_Source
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2009
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:11 pm

Postby Bananiot » Thu Aug 25, 2005 4:20 pm

Nobody deserves to be a refugee, but this is besides the point.
User avatar
Bananiot
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 6397
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 10:51 pm
Location: Nicosia

Postby Main_Source » Thu Aug 25, 2005 8:07 pm

No its not besides the point. Everything you say seems to be for the Turkish occupation in the north.
Main_Source
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2009
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:11 pm

Postby Othellos » Fri Aug 26, 2005 7:33 am

Are you saying that Turkey would have invaded anyway, Othellos? If this is what you mean then we might as well believe in fate (kismet).


My previous post did not address Turkey's pre 1974 intentions to invade and partition Cyprus. But since you ask me, I believe that ever since 1955 the Turkish policy in Cyprus remained consistent with respect to the goal of partition. The events that followed (persecutions of GCs by the TMT in 1958, the enclaves, the TC withdrawal from the R of Cy, the 1974 invasion, the import of the settlers, the unilateral decleration of an illegal "state" in the occupied areas etc) are only proof of this.

My idea is that we played into the hands of the partition forces of the TC community (Denktash and Co) by our short sighted policies of the 1963-1974 era. Of course it took two to tango but we were the dominant force at the time. We should have known better. Instead we pushed even the most moderate forces in the TC community into the arms of the partitionists by our stupid actions. This can only be explained if we consider the enosis factor which at the time was the national inspiration for all GC's and anyone that said differently was immediateley branded a traitor. This burning ambition that was imprinted into our genes by preachers and teachers, clearly played havoc with our senses and prevented us from seeing the dangers.


You say that we played in the hands of the partition forces and I can agree with this. Had it been otherwise the 1963 crisis would have been averted. Makarios' proposal for the 13 Constitutional amendments was out of place and time as it reinforced further the mistrust between the 2 sides. And had Makarios been more far sighted and less arrogant he would have realized the need and find the ways to isolate all those who were preparing for trouble on both sides. But unfortunately for us, neither he nor Vice Presdent Kucuk for that matter had the honesty, vision or courage to even discuss what was going on.

In short, we took a path to disaster because we never abandoned our vision, of unifying Cyprus with Greece. Even when, late on, some people began to see the dangers and started looking for more pragmatic solutions, the idea of buring the dream for ever was too much to bear.


What you describe as the vision for Enosis is only half the story, Bananiot. In 1955 Enosis was regarded as the only way to Freedom. After 1960 and for a number of reasons the idea of Enosis started fading away. This did not happen in a day as the Greek community in Cyprus had just come out of an armed struggle for Enosis. Yet it is a fact that in the 1970 elections, the Enosis supporters failed to capture a single seat in the Cypriot Parliament.

The other half of the story which you fail to describe in your posts is Turkey's Taksim aspirations which appeared as early as 1955 to counter the GC aspirations for Enosis. As early as 1957 Turkey started setting military governed enclaves in strategic locations throughout Cyprus and this was neither a random decision nor a response to any GC "declared" war. The withdrawal of the TCs from the Republic of Cyprus did not come out of the blue either – it was inspired by Turkey's partition policy and planned well in advance. The invasion and the ethnic cleansing of 1974 were the final step to turkey's partition policy in Cyprus. To this day, Turkey remains attached to this same policy whereas any idea of union with Greece has been abandoned long ago.

The question we should try to answer in all honesty is: were the Turkish Cypriots justified to react to our efforts to achieve enosis (short term or long term)? Should they have said: the GC's are the majority, they have the right to do as they pleased?


I can see how the TCs were justified to be concerned with the idea of Enosis back in 1955. Had we been in their shoes we would be even more concerned, especially if we consider what happened to the Greek community in Turkey. The thing however is that 50 years later, there is still talk about "GC Enosis ambitions" as if we are still in 1955. To me this discussion in year 2005 is nothing more than another excuse to prevent thousands of ordinary people from returning back to their ancestral homelands in an otherwise "unified" Cyprus and all this on the grounds of their ethnic background or religion. But if the GCs are expected to leave behind their past suffering for the sake of a solution and a peaceful future then shouldn't everyone else be prepared to do the same?

Those who want a truly unified state should be searching for a solution that will be fair to ALL Cypriots regardless of their background. It is reasonable to have certain safeguards that will prevent us from going back to the darker days of our past, but these should not violate anyone's freedoms and rights in any way. Otherwise you end up with new problems without solving the ones that already exist.

You often criticize Tassos Papadopoulos for showing little ability or will in working for a solution and I agree. Since he became President with the help of AKEL, everything with respect to a solution has come at a stalemate, the country has leaped 20 years backwards and in short he has become a total liability for the GCs (unfortunately many among us do not see Tassos P. for what he really is). But I am afraid that the other side has not been very genuine in its desire for "reunification" either (a desire that became apparent only after Cyprus secured full EU membersip), despite their 65% yes vote in the referendum. Yes, Tassos P. never bothered to try for a better UN plan even though he had a whole year to do this. Instead he invited Denktash Jr. for drinks to his house and to discuss ways to postpone the whole effort ("brilliant" move). But what did the Turkish side do? First they had Denktash wasting everyone's time in the negotiations with his "vision" on Cyprus (the same old record playing again and again). Then Talat came in and the Turkish side started pressing for a solution where less and less GC refugees would be allowed to return (from 30% to 21% and then to 18%), and where unrealistic time schedules would be imposed for the return of a few elderly GCs under TC administration. To me, this kind of behavior was greedy and not exactly in accord with a vision for a truly unified Cyprus where all its citizens will be equal and free. When Talat (who claims to be pro-solution, despite what Papadopoulos and his clique say about him) opposes the return of a place like Famagusta (or rather what is left of this once great town) to its legitimate citizens because such a "concession" may be seen as a Papadopoulos "victory", he is only hurting ordinary (Greek) Cypriots and not Tassos P or anyone within his elitist circle. In short, what both sides need in Cyprus are honest, decent, open minded and constructive leaders – we do not have them.

Piratis is funny! They were just proposals he said. Take them or leave them. He thinks this is just a game, you play or you quit! He also thinks that I am taking the side of Ecevit. I am sorry to inform him that he took the side of Ecevit (and Denktash) in the referendum. They all voted the same!


I do not think that you are taking deliberately the side of Denktash or Ecevit, Bananiot, but I suspect that in your effort to remain balanced, respectful and fair the views and sensitivities of one side (which is a good thing to do), you unintentionally neglect the story and sensitivities of the other side which has suffered at least just as much if not more. I also think that accusing Piratis for "taking the side of Ecevit" because he voted "no" in the referendum is just as absolute and unfair as describing you or any other "yes" voter as a "traitor", like Tassos P. did.

Nobody deserves to be a refugee, but this is besides the point.

If we are genuinely interested in a unifying solution then it is not besides the point at all.

O.
Othellos
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 291
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 6:52 pm

Postby -mikkie2- » Fri Aug 26, 2005 2:20 pm

Othellos

I would agree with much of what you say. I would not entirely agree with your views on Papadopoulos. He knew we had EU membership in the bag. He was not going to forgo EU entry for the sake of a botched solution, even if he had the will to negotiate.

Unfortunately, in the main, our politicians do have a certain 'backward' perspective. What is even more unfortunate, is that the powers that be are simply playing and exploiting these deficiancies at our expense rather than actually helping us.
-mikkie2-
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1298
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:11 am

Postby Bananiot » Fri Aug 26, 2005 4:35 pm

Othellos, thanks for taking the time to air your views on the subject. There is one small but important thing I should like to point out. You have criticised many of my ideas, basically in an elegant and dignified manner but you have kept your views mostly out of context and as a result we have slided to our usual bickerings over the Cyprus issue.

I remind you that we were trying to draw some parallels (if they exist) between the Cyprob and the removal of the Israeli settlers from Gaza and the West Bank. The obvious parallel that was made (quite naturally by many people) is that if the Israeli settlers could have been moved after so many years, the Turkish settlers could eventually be moved fron Cyprus too. In fact, people claimed that eventually legality will prevail. I took a different view and pinpointed the different circumstances, historical and others. I said that legality is not solely on our side and stressed a powerful legal argument, that is, the fact that it was our side that overturned legality in 1963. This is how all independent institutions view the begining of the Cyprob and despite the fact that it hurts to admit it, it is a fact and the GC community deserves to learn the facts that were so "cleverly" conceiled from it by successive governments.

If it seems that I largely lay the blame for our misfortunes on the GC extremists, it is because I am a member of the GC community. I could go on a verbal stint and start accusing Denktash and others of his kind in the TC community but this is the easy thing to do and it would lead us nowhere. This was done much better than I could ever have done it myself by the TC Bananiots who ousted Denktash as a result of their magnificent struggle in 2003.

I think we differ in some of our historical approaches and prospectives. In 1955 the the whole of the GC community believed in enosis. Very few, enlighted people, from the right (Spyridakis) and the left (Ziartides), saw the dangers but EOKA soon silenced them because they were "traitors". Today, the vast majority of the GC's would vote for enosis, if it was possible and nobody objected to it. The reason that many would say no to enosis as things stand today, is because we are more mature and realise that its not possible and that it is dangerous to pursue this dream. The situation was no different in 1955, yet we jumped onto the enosis bandwagon like lambs going to the slaughter house.

Regarding Famagusta, I believe Talat has no problem in handing the town back to its rightful owners. I also believe that Papadopoulos and the rejections/divisionists in our community would be dealt a huge blow if Talat made the move (probably the turkish army would strongly object) and despite Tzionis's refusals, my sources have told me that Talat did offer the return of Famagusta during the recent secret talks but Papadopoulos did not want to hear.

My respond to Piratis regarding Ecevit was a caustic one, I thought this was plain obvious, on account of his constant yelling that I more or less represent the interests of Turkey.

Lastly, when I said that nobody deserves to be a refugee and this is besides the point, I was trying to keep the discussion within the context of the topic. After all, are we debating whether it is a good thing or not to be a refugee?
User avatar
Bananiot
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 6397
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 10:51 pm
Location: Nicosia

Postby Othellos » Sat Aug 27, 2005 9:13 am

I would agree with much of what you say. I would not entirely agree with your views on Papadopoulos. He knew we had EU membership in the bag. He was not going to forgo EU entry for the sake of a botched solution, even if he had the will to negotiate.


There are many who do not agree with my views on Papadopoulos, mikkie2. Personally I see him as a 3rd rate politician who has nothing to offer and whose only worry is how to stay in power. As far as the Cyprus problem goes, he has no policy for it at all. In the 2 1/2 years that he is the President he has only been successful in getting Turkey of the hook with respect to Cyprus and in bringing any solution efforts to a halt. None of this is good for us. Other than that, his political judgment is poor just as it always was. Yet he is so arrogant to the point that he still thinks that he can outsmart the entire world. And finally, he treats ordinary people with no respect (he always did that), either by misinforming them on issues or by referring to them as "traitors" only because they disagree with him. In his last trip to Athens he didn't even "find the time" to visit the site where 121 of our compatriots lost their lives so unexpectedly - I think that this was a disgrace! Sorry my friend but being a real President takes a lot more than just getting elected. We deserve better than that – anyone does!

Othellos, thanks for taking the time to air your views on the subject. There is one small but important thing I should like to point out. You have criticised many of my ideas, basically in an elegant and dignified manner but you have kept your views mostly out of context and as a result we have slided to our usual bickerings over the Cyprus issue.


What I posted earlier Bananiot was my own reaction to your previous post. If there is something else that is important and that in your opinion I have not addressed, please ask and I will do my best to provide you with an answer.

I remind you that we were trying to draw some parallels (if they exist) between the Cyprob and the removal of the Israeli settlers from Gaza and the West Bank.


If we want to draw parallels between the 2 problems I think that we need go back in the 19th century when the Jews started purchasing land in Palestine so that they could return there. The present removal of 8000 settlers from Gaza is just one isolated event.

The obvious parallel that was made (quite naturally by many people) is that if the Israeli settlers could have been moved after so many years, the Turkish settlers could eventually be moved fron Cyprus too. In fact, people claimed that eventually legality will prevail. I took a different view and pinpointed the different circumstances, historical and others.


If one looks at what happened with the Russian settlers in the Baltic States after the Soviet Union was dissolved and after these countries joined the EU then I am not sure that legality will ever prevail in Cyprus.

I said that legality is not solely on our side and stressed a powerful legal argument, that is, the fact that it was our side that overturned legality in 1963. This is how all independent institutions view the begining of the Cyprob and despite the fact that it hurts to admit it, it is a fact and the GC community deserves to learn the facts that were so "cleverly" conceiled from it by successive governments.


How did our side overturn legality in 1963 Bananiot and to what extend? Was it the GCs who established a separatist administration within the borders of the Republic of Cyprus? But before answering that, can you please explain who do you mean when you refer to "our side"? As far as I know the GCs were always divided among themselves before 1974, while some of them did things that were certainly against our side's best interests.

Also can you please name specifically these independent institutions that you are referring at? As for "concealing the truth", I believe that these days there are plenty of ways to educate / keep ourselves informed. So it is up to eac and everyone of us to do that.

If it seems that I largely lay the blame for our misfortunes on the GC extremists, it is because I am a member of the GC community.


There is nothing wrong with doing that, as long as you are being fair in your criticism.

I could go on a verbal stint and start accusing Denktash and others of his kind in the TC community but this is the easy thing to do and it would lead us nowhere. This was done much better than I could ever have done it myself by the TC Bananiots who ousted Denktash as a result of their magnificent struggle in 2003.


When in your opinion did this struggle to get rid of Denktash start, who started it, how and why?

I think we differ in some of our historical approaches and prospectives. In 1955 the the whole of the GC community believed in enosis. Very few, enlighted people, from the right (Spyridakis) and the left (Ziartides), saw the dangers but EOKA soon silenced them because they were "traitors".


Was Spiridakis the former minister of Education? Wasn't he the one who objected in founding a university in Cyprus because this would mean that less Greek Cypriots would go to Greece for their studies? I this is true then this was hardly an "enlightened" perspective imho. As for Ziartides, I am not sure when he criticized the EOKA struggle back in 1955 – 1959 and how. But I do know that he remained a loyal AKEL member even after the self critique that his party made at the end of the struggle and even after AKEL turned "pro-enosis" for a while. That of course does not mean that Ziartides didn't have his own views on the issues. But it seems that he never had the will to go against Makarios in public and talk about them. Clerides didn't have the courage either back in 1972 and many years later he admitted this to be one of the biggest mistakes he ever made.

Other than that you are correct that before 1955 only few could see the possible problems with the idea of Enosis. After the struggle started these dangers became more clear but unfortunately for us, our leaders were not in the position to see where things were heading at. Had it been otherwise then neither of us would be in this forum here today.

Today, the vast majority of the GC's would vote for enosis, if it was possible and nobody objected to it. The reason that many would say no to enosis as things stand today, is because we are more mature and realise that its not possible and that it is dangerous to pursue this dream. The situation was no different in 1955, yet we jumped onto the enosis bandwagon like lambs going to the slaughter house.


My impression is that people do not care much about Enosis today because even if it happened, this wouldn't change their lives to the better. I still think that your "lamb" analogy is unfair as it does not take fully into account the time and context when these events took place. One can also say the same thing about my own above criticism on GC leadership back in 1955.

Regarding Famagusta, I believe Talat has no problem in handing the town back to its rightful owners. I also believe that Papadopoulos and the rejections/divisionists in our community would be dealt a huge blow if Talat made the move (probably the turkish army would strongly object) and despite Tzionis's refusals, my sources have told me that Talat did offer the return of Famagusta during the recent secret talks but Papadopoulos did not want to hear.


Papadopoulos and Tzionis do not give a damn about any part of occupied Cyprus including Famagusta. One can scroll back in time and see what Papadopoulos' "5-neighborhood" comments were with respect to a possible return of the town to its people as part of a set of Confidence building measures that were proposed by the UN and rejected by Denktash.

Other than that it was Talat himself who told to Dionisis Dionysiou of "Politis" about a month ago (?) that a possible return of Famagusta to the GCs would be regarded as a Tassos victory. If Talat thinks otherwise then perhaps he should be more clear and more consistent in the way he expresses such crude views, especially when his audience consists of people who have been denied their homes for 31 years now and who have been looking at their decaying town from a distance.

My respond to Piratis regarding Ecevit was a caustic one, I thought this was plain obvious, on account of his constant yelling that I more or less represent the interests of Turkey.


No problem with me. I am sure that you and Piratis are more than capable to sort it out together.

O.
Othellos
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 291
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 6:52 pm

Previous

Return to Cyprus Problem

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests