Cyprus-Forum.com

[BigDutch]

Does anyone have any thoughts on the withdrawal of Israel from the occupied territories and how this may show Turkey how to "do it" in Cyprus ?

I beleive the Israel occuption was in place prior to the Turkish intervention turned invasion.

[Main_Source]

Turkey wouldnt do it because they do not have to worry about people blowing themselves up in parts of the occupied territories. I also think that with the recent bombings in London, Madrid, etc...they were leaned on by some of their allies to withdraw from the West Bank.

[Pan]

wern't plans to withdraw in place ages ago?

[Piratis]

What this proves is that it is very possible to move settlers out from occupied areas. Those that say that it is impossible to do so are wrong. It might not be possible now, but this doesn't mean it will not be possible in the future.

Turkey of course will not do such thing now. She will only do it if she is forced to do it.

[insan]

When GCs withdraw from the occupied "RoC", Turkey will withdraw from the "occupied" North.

[Pan]

When GCs withdraw from the occupied "RoC", Turkey will withdraw from the "occupied" North.

What a stupid thing to say. One is illegal and one isn't, if your not sure send a letter to every country in the world and ask them.

[sadik]

BigDutch, I also had similar thoughts when I heard the news of the Israeli withdrawal. There actually are some simliarities. Israelis started settling in Gazza in 1972, Turkish settles in 1975. Both after an occupation. However, I think the situation in Cyprus is more complicated than that in Gazza. First of all there already were Turkish Cypriots when the settlers arrived. Some of them started living with Turkish Cypriots , so unlike Israelis who move as whole settlements, if they are withdrawn they will have no community to go to. Some of them are married to TCs. So someone might be forced to leave, but some of his/her family members might stay due to marriage. In Gazza, you can take a settlement, put it somewhere else and that will be it. In Cyprus it will be much more complex, but the possiblity exists.

Since their number in Cyprus is around 40000 (those who currently have been granted trnc citizenship), I think it's possible to find a mutually acceptable solution to the issue by granting some of them citizenships and giving the rest the option of return with compensation or residency permits with no voting rights.

[Bananiot]

I have given my view on this subject in another thread. I think one needs to remember that according to conventional (Arab) wisdom, the whole of Israel was an occupied area. In fact, many Arabs still thing so but today, entertaining such thoughts is considered to be extremism.

From the creation of Israel on Palestinian land in 1948 until the middle of the 70's probably all Arab States did not recognise Israel and this was reflected even in their constitutions. Egypt was the first major Arab country to change all these and Sadat paid with his life the normalisation of relations with the Jewish state.

If we need to draw some parallels to our problem, the thing that stands out is the fact that any progress was only made possible when moderate forces of both camps took over and started talking. Complicated issues can only be solved through negotiations between parts that respect each other! In Israel such forces existed in the shape of the late Prime Minister (can someone fill in his name, I can't remember it at the moment) who was also brutally murdered, this time by Israeli fanatics. The new palestinian President also seems to be a moderate politician. If he manages to contain his fanatics he will do a great service to the long suffering Palestinian people.

As a result of the moderates in both camps finding their voice, and with the help of the UN and some countries, such as the USA and even Norway, an agreement was made to give Palestine (Gaza and West Bank) some form of autonomy that would lead, no doubt, to a recognised Palestinian State. Within this framework, the Israelis started tearing down the settlements in Gaza and the West Bank so that these places would soon be handed over to the Palestinian authorities.

Can anyone seriously argue that this important development could have arisen in any other way? For this reason, I say: Get read of the fanatics that have plagued our country for decades. They have done enough damage. Let the forces of moderation chart a new course; for unification, permanent peace, friendship and understanding. We all know who the fanatics are. They can be identified through our troubled history since 1955. These people have rejected every peace offer; every plan that was offered to us. They are the modern vampires, who lust for blood and thrive on confrontation and violence.

[Piratis]

I think one needs to remember that according to conventional (Arab) wisdom, the whole of Israel was an occupied area.

Bananiot, Israel is a recognized country member of the UN, just like Turkey is. Just like Israel has to remove its troops and settlers from the areas that they illegally occupy, Turkey also has to remove her troops and settlers from the areas that they illegally occupy.

The moderates are the ones who accept what is legal and they accept that they should not try to gain anything beyond what legally belongs to them.

The people in Israel/Palestine should accept that what is legal for their area is the existence of both Israel and Palestine. The people of Cyprus should accept that what is legal for Cyprus is one independent state (the one recognized by all except the invader), and that they should forget about their maximalistic demands. The maximalistic demand for Greek Cypriots is union with Greece. The maximalistic demand for TCs is partition. The compromise and the only thing legal is one independent state as agreed in 1960.

Who is "moderate" is the one who is not on the extremes. Those that support union with Greece etc are extremists, but those that support the illegal Turkish demands like you do are also extremists. The moderates are the ones who are between these two extremes and they demand nothing more than what is legal and according to the universal human rights.

[Bananiot]

Good effort Piratis, but as always you forget some basic facts when you create a utopia in your mind. 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.

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. Hence, when you declare that things are really very simple, just follow the legal path and the solution will be forthcoming automatically, perhaps you are doing your country a very bad service according to what you think is the correct solution because in essence you are now siding strongly with my ideas for the solution. Care to think about it?

P.S. If the UN thought that returning to the 1960 agreements was the way forward then I would agree with you. Those that opposed this would be termed as extremists, no doubt, but these people think that BBF is the only legal thing that can be accepted and guess what? Even the vast majority of the GC political parties accept this … and you have a fixation with majorities!