when i say "best for everyone" i mean finding a middle ground with compromise
You said 3 things, which can mean totally different things.
"Best for everyone" probably does not exist, as if it did we would have probably found it long time ago (why would anybody reject what is best for him?)
"middle ground" is also something very vague. The middle of what? The middle of two extremes? Which directly means that the more extreme and aggressive you are the more you get?
Compromise by both sides? Sure. Thats a valid way. But these compromises have to be of equal magnitude with an end result something that will not be better or worst for any side than what has been agreed in 1960 and which constitutes the only legal thing that exists in Cyprus.
For example asking from GCs to compromise their human rights while in return you "compromise" to give back part of what does not belong to you in the first place, is not an equal compromise, and would result in you gaining on our loss, something which can not be accepted.
I know that the "jungle rules" still apply in many cases. But if thats how we are going to "solve" the Cyprus problem then whats the point of discussing anything? Lets just leave the "jungle rules" work. However you have to remember that choosing that way, because it suits you now, might not bring the desired result to you and in the end you might get a taste of those rules in the reversed way.
This is why I insist that following universal principles and the examples of other successful democracies would be the best. Those principles are always the same. They do not change based on the balance of power, neither can be affected by unfair outrageous demands in the way that "middle ground" does. Therefore they provide a solid base for a
true solution that will last for a long long time.
If we base the "solution" on things that can fluctuate like the balance of power and the "middle ground", then a permanent stable solution will never be found and peace will never come.