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.