Kibkom North Cyprus Forum

http://cyprus-mail.com/2015/08/24/turki ... -yialousa/

well who was it that said they are seeing more and more greeks in the north are absolutly right.....the greedy pigs have started,
didnt i warn you about them?

This smacks of an underhand campaign to push TC's into a no vote in any unification referendum - thus achieving the GC's goal of gaining a ground swell for non-recognition of the north - the TC's should not be fooled/tricked into choosing an option the rest of the world can use to continue their isolation and lack of recognition....

They are trying unsettling tactics to undermine TC's confidence in the strengths of their position - when they themselves are running scared - economic ruin and failure of their propaganda campaign which has sought to demonise the TC's and Turkey - no small feat of smoke and mirrors for 40 plus years....

My first trip to Cyprus was to Akrotiri in '69 and I lived for three years in Limassol in Mesayitonia.
I quickly realised that Turks were seen as second class citizens and "patronised' by the few greeks I knew who had Turkish "friends".
I have seen nothing in the intervening years to prove that anything has changed apart from the killing of Turks and forty years of embargos and negative propaganda by the greeks.
Denktas knew what they were like and refused to do business but unfortunately people have short memories and now the Turks seem keen to do a deal with the greeks and become one again as was proposed in the Annan agreement.
They are clearly living in some sort of "dream world" as this utopian state will never exist as the greeks have only ever had one aim and that is to rid Cyprus of all Turks!!!
Anyone who suffers harrassment from greeks should note their vehicle details, report them to the police and lobby their representatives to have access denied to these people!!
Or am I also living in "cloud cuckoo land " ????

Sandman wrote:My first trip to Cyprus was to Akrotiri in '69 and I lived for three years in Limassol in Mesayitonia.
I quickly realised that Turks were seen as second class citizens and "patronised' by the few greeks I knew who had Turkish "friends".
I have seen nothing in the intervening years to prove that anything has changed apart from the killing of Turks and forty years of embargos and negative propaganda by the greeks.
Denktas knew what they were like and refused to do business but unfortunately people have short memories and now the Turks seem keen to do a deal with the greeks and become one again as was proposed in the Annan agreement.
They are clearly living in some sort of "dream world" as this utopian state will never exist as the greeks have only ever had one aim and that is to rid Cyprus of all Turks!!!
Anyone who suffers harrassment from greeks should note their vehicle details, report them to the police and lobby their representatives to have access denied to these people!!
Or am I also living in "cloud cuckoo land " ????

I do not think you are living in cloud cuckoo land but I do think there are some inaccuracies and misconceptions in what you write above. Firstly it is not true to say Denktash refused to do business [with GC]. Post 74 that may well be a fair characterisation but pre 74 and particularly in the period 68-74 it is just not the case. If you want links to the evidence that it was not the case pre 74 I would happily supply them.

Secondly this idea that the reason the TRNC is not recognised internationally is because of 'GC propaganda' is not a view I share. Yes such propaganda is real and plays a part but the main reason in my opinion why the TRNC has failed to gain international recognition is first and foremost down to the fact that it was created by force of arms and did involve the enforced movement of 100's of thousand of people from their homes. I do think we have to accept the part that reality has played and continues to play in the failure of the TRNC to gain international recognition. It is not just down to 'GC propaganda' alone imo.

Finally we have this issue of 'who are we' again. You refer to Greeks and Turks. Well there were even in the 50's and 60's Cypriots who placed being Cypriot despite their ethnic backgrounds ahead of being 'Greek' or 'Turk', although the truth is back then expressing such ideals could and in some cases did get you murdered, by your own side and on both sides. Today there are Cypriots, on both sides, who really do place being Cypriot despite ethnic background ahead of and above being 'Greek' or 'Turk'. For me the hope for being able to create a better Cyprus than that which which we have now lies with such Cypriots.

How refreshing and accurate it is to read the reply by Erol. He speaks so much sense. My family is Turkish Cypriot and we have Greek Cypriot friends. There is so much common ground between the two communities and I hope and pray for a lasting and peaceful agreement.

Erol,

I do understand your hopes for a better Cyprus...

I'm interested to know what you think would have transpired if Turkey had not intervened in 74? And do you think any Turkish Cypriots who fought to survive the onslaught from EOKA B etc. would share the view that Turkey's part was anything other than a life saving one? I'm thinking of people like Kutlay Keço. Or have subsequent generations simply drawn a veil over the need for that intervention as an inconvenient truth? Given the abject failure of Britain and Greece as guarantor nations to act in defence of those communities threatened with extinction - I'm taking it as read that you accept this was the situation... or maybe you don't accept this view?

To understand where Cyprus is and how it got here - one must, after all, know what led to it being so.... The force of arms required to achieve the partition could, in my opinion, be seen by many as a necessary evil - given the wholesale slaughter of TC's that was gathering momentum and the increasing threat of Enosis under which the plight of TC's would have been sealed.

Here's a quote from Cyprus, As I Saw It In 1879 (Sir Samuel White Baker)

"The Greek element is generally combustible, and before the first year of our occupation had expired various causes of discontent awakened Philhellenic aspirations; a society was organised under the name of the "Cypriote Fraternity," as a political centre from which emissaries would be employed for the formation of clubs in various districts with the object of inspiring the population with the noble desire of adding Cyprus to the future Greek kingdom. Corfu had been restored to Greece; why should not Cyprus be added to her crown? There would be sympathisers in the British Parliament, some of whom had already taken up the cause of the Greek clergy in their disputes with the local authorities, and the Greeks of the island had discovered that no matter what the merits of their case might be, they could always depend upon some members of the House of Commons as their advocates, against the existing government and their own countrymen. Under these favourable conditions for political agitation the "Cypriote Fraternity" has commenced its existence. I do not attach much importance to this early conceived movement, as Greeks, although patriotic, have too much shrewdness to sacrifice an immediate profit for a prospective shadow. The island belongs at this moment to the Sultan, and the English are simply tenants under stipulated conditions. Before Cyprus could belong to Greece it must be severed from the Ottoman Empire, and should England be sufficiently wayward to again present herself to the world as the spoiled child of fortune, and deliver over her new acquisition according to the well-remembered precedent of Corfu, the monetary value of all property in Cyprus would descend to zero,

Before the British occupation, land was of little value, and an extreme looseness existed in the description of boundaries and landmarks. In the absence of fences the Cypriote can generally encroach upon any land adjoining his limit, should it belong to the state. Every season he can drive his plough a few paces further into his neighbour's holding, unless prevented, until by degrees he succeeds in acquiring a considerable accession. The state is the sufferer to an enormous extent by many years of systematic invasion. Forest land has been felled and cleared by burning, and the original site is now occupied by vineyards. The bribery and corruption that pervaded all classes of officials prior to the British occupation enabled an individual to silence the local authority, while he in many instances more than doubled his legal holding. The absence of defined boundaries has facilitated these encroachments. According to an official report this difficulty is dwelt upon most forcibly as requiring immediate investigation. The vague definition in title-deeds, which simply mentions the number of donums, affords no means of proving an unjust extension; such terms are used as "the woods bounded by a hill," or "the woods bounded by uncultivated land," and this indefinite form of expression leaves a margin of frontier that is practically without limit, unless the invader may be stopped by arriving within a yard of his nearest neighbour. My informant, Colonel Warren, R. A., chief commissioner of Limasol, assured me that some holders of land in his district, whose titles show an amount of ninety donums, lay claim to ten times the area. There is hardly a proprietor who does not occupy a ridiculous surplus when compared with his title-deeds, and the encroachments are even now proceeding."

Groucho wrote:Erol,

I do understand your hopes for a better Cyprus...

I'm interested to know what you think would have transpired if Turkey had not intervened in 74? And do you think any Turkish Cypriots who fought to survive the onslaught from EOKA B etc. would share the view that Turkey's part was anything other than a life saving one? I'm thinking of people like Kutlay Keço. Or have subsequent generations simply drawn a veil over the need for that intervention as an inconvenient truth? Given the abject failure of Britain and Greece as guarantor nations to act in defence of those communities threatened with extinction - I'm taking it as read that you accept this was the situation... or maybe you don't accept this view?

To understand where Cyprus is and how it got here - one must, after all, know what led to it being so.... The force of arms required to achieve the partition could, in my opinion, be seen by many as a necessary evil - given the wholesale slaughter of TC's that was gathering momentum and the increasing threat of Enosis under which the plight of TC's would have been sealed.

That Turkey had a legal right and indeed a moral duty to intervene in Cyprus in 74 is not in doubt. However that legal right is absolutely specific

In so far as common or concerted action may not prove possible, each of the three guaranteeing Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by the present Treaty

It is just a fact that Turkey did not intervene with the "sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by" the 60's agreements as was their legal right. You say the enforced partition of Cyprus could be seen by many as a "necessary evil" and indeed it could and can be seen as such and to some degree I also see it as such. However I also accept the principle that it is not legally justified to solve a prior on going harm to one group of people by imposing a new harm on another group. This is the very principal that the ECHR has expressed in their most recent rulings with regards to disputed property in Cyprus and the status of 'current users' vs 'pre 74 owners'. As a realist and believer in this principal, not just when it 'suits' me to believe in it, I accept that it is this reality first and foremost that has resulted in the failure of the TRNC to gain international recognition and it remains an obstacle for such recognition in the future outside of any agreement.

erol i think you have something against turkey....
just remember all your words that you have written here and elsewhere in case there is a solution and you see things you do nto want to see!

johnny1 wrote:erol i think you have something against turkey....

Absolutely not true.

Print and put on your front door or gate

erol wrote:

Groucho wrote:Erol,

I do understand your hopes for a better Cyprus...

I'm interested to know what you think would have transpired if Turkey had not intervened in 74? And do you think any Turkish Cypriots who fought to survive the onslaught from EOKA B etc. would share the view that Turkey's part was anything other than a life saving one? I'm thinking of people like Kutlay Keço. Or have subsequent generations simply drawn a veil over the need for that intervention as an inconvenient truth? Given the abject failure of Britain and Greece as guarantor nations to act in defence of those communities threatened with extinction - I'm taking it as read that you accept this was the situation... or maybe you don't accept this view?

To understand where Cyprus is and how it got here - one must, after all, know what led to it being so.... The force of arms required to achieve the partition could, in my opinion, be seen by many as a necessary evil - given the wholesale slaughter of TC's that was gathering momentum and the increasing threat of Enosis under which the plight of TC's would have been sealed.

That Turkey had a legal right and indeed a moral duty to intervene in Cyprus in 74 is not in doubt. However that legal right is absolutely specific

In so far as common or concerted action may not prove possible, each of the three guaranteeing Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by the present Treaty

It is just a fact that Turkey did not intervene with the "sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by" the 60's agreements as was their legal right. You say the enforced partition of Cyprus could be seen by many as a "necessary evil" and indeed it could and can be seen as such and to some degree I also see it as such. However I also accept the principle that it is not legally justified to solve a prior on going harm to one group of people by imposing a new harm on another group. This is the very principal that the ECHR has expressed in their most recent rulings with regards to disputed property in Cyprus and the status of 'current users' vs 'pre 74 owners'. As a realist and believer in this principal, not just when it 'suits' me to believe in it, I accept that it is this reality first and foremost that has resulted in the failure of the TRNC to gain international recognition and it remains an obstacle for such recognition in the future outside of any agreement.

I understand that you feel Turkey could be accused of overstepping the remit of their guarantor rights - but how do you imagine putting things back how they were in 1960 and then withdrawing would improve the future lot of the TC's? Surely you can't imagine that having been spanked by the Turks the GC's would say 'oh we were wrong -let's just leave the Turkish Cypriots alone!'

Do you not think it would have been far more likely that they would have gone all-out to slaughter them and settle the matter once and for all? Because that's what the Akritas plan envisaged....

Turkey could not take that risk.... The UK has been guilty of foolish similar assumptions all over the world.....

I must say I'm finding your faith in the good nature of those who had erstwhile shown distinctly wolf-pack mentality fuelled by religious hatred and a superiority complex somewhat baffling.... There are times when the appeasement of aggressors becomes Stockholm syndrome

Groucho wrote: I understand that you feel Turkey could be accused of overstepping the remit of their guarantor rights - but how do you imagine putting things back how they were in 1960 and then withdrawing would improve the future lot of the TC's?

To be clear I do not 'accuse' Turkey and I accept the reality that there was at that time limited options and only difficult choices available to them having intervened under the terms of the treaty of guarantee. I also however accept the reality that the choice to take that opportunity to impose by force of arms a 'final solution' that involved the forced movement of 100's of thousands of Cypriots (TC and GC) from their homes was and still is the biggest single obstacle for obtaining recognition of the TRNC from other existing states.

Groucho wrote:Surely you can't imagine that having been spanked by the Turks the GC's would say 'oh we were wrong -let's just leave the Turkish Cypriots alone!'

I do think it is within the realms of possible that an agreement could have been brokered following intervention in 74 that was vastly more favourable to the TC community that that which had already been negotiated and agreed between Denktash and Clerides but turned down by Makarios but was short of accepting the permanent division of Cyprus requiring mass forced eviction of large numbers of people from their homes. Yes any such deal would be fraught with potential pit falls and of those agreeing such 'reneging' on their signatures after the fact, I accept that. However it is just as possible that having been 'spanked' by Turkey the GC would have realised that they could not just treat the TC community with contempt and go back on their agreements without consequence. None of this was certain but it is to me within the realms of possibility. Yes any such agreement would have had a real possibility of future suffering for TC but then the solution that was chosen did have an absolute certainty of suffering for vast numbers of Cypriots.

Groucho wrote:Do you not think it would have been far more likely that they would have gone all-out to slaughter them and settle the matter once and for all? Because that's what the Akritas plan envisaged....

I am sorry but I just do not accept that the Akritas plan was a plan that 'envisaged' the 'all-out slaughter' of the TC community in Cyprus. I do not accept that because it just is not such a plan, you only have to read it to know it was not. Nor to I believe that the effective way to counter propaganda is with your own propaganda. I believe the effective means to counter propaganda is with the truth.

Groucho wrote:I must say I'm finding your faith in the good nature of those who had erstwhile shown distinctly wolf-pack mentality fuelled by religious hatred and a superiority complex somewhat baffling.... There are times when the appeasement of aggressors becomes Stockholm syndrome

I do not accept that GC are a 'monolithic block' (or wolf pack if you prefer though the expression is not perhaps the best one given the existence of the 'Grey Wolf' movement) fuelled by religious hatred and with some kind of genetically or culturally programmed 'superiority complex'. Nor do I accept that wanting and striving for a better future for all Cypriots than that which we have achieved to date is 'appeasement'. I believe the vast majority of Cypriots from either community are in fact ordinary every day people little different from each other or people anywhere else in the world. That they want to live their lives in peace and security free from persecution and discrimination and to steal a phrase they all 'cherish their children's futures'. It is true that both communities 'allowed' their respective demagogues and extremists to drive and shape their futures and too many on both sides remain locked into their own one sided narratives, unable to see beyond such. I do not believe that GC are inherently more 'evil' or 'greedy' than TC. I believe it is actually a moral imperative to do what I can within myself to 'break out' of my 'sides' standard narratives and dogmas that have played such a large role in getting us to where are now and that perpetuate our (all of us - GC and TC) mistakes of the past.

erol lets change places...u come live in south...ill come to north!

erol wrote:I do not accept that GC are a 'monolithic block' (or wolf pack if you prefer though the expression is not perhaps the best one given the existence of the 'Grey Wolf' movement) fuelled by religious hatred and with some kind of genetically or culturally programmed 'superiority complex'. Nor do I accept that wanting and striving for a better future for all Cypriots than that which we have achieved to date is 'appeasement'. I believe the vast majority of Cypriots from either community are in fact ordinary every day people little different from each other or people anywhere else in the world. That they want to live their lives in peace and security free from persecution and discrimination and to steal a phrase they all 'cherish their children's futures'. It is true that both communities 'allowed' their respective demagogues and extremists to drive and shape their futures and too many on both sides remain locked into their own one sided narratives, unable to see beyond such. I do not believe that GC are inherently more 'evil' or 'greedy' than TC. I believe it is actually a moral imperative to do what I can within myself to 'break out' of my 'sides' standard narratives and dogmas that have played such a large role in getting us to where are now and that perpetuate our (all of us - GC and TC) mistakes of the past.

Erol,

I did not mean to infer that all GC's were one big wolf pack - as you know wolves live in groupings not as a whole monolithic block.... What does history teach us about such behaviours? For one it teaches us that as the ground swell grows more and more seemingly unwilling participants get drawn into the polarised situation where they find it virtually impossible not to take sides against their better judgement for fear that they will suffer reprisals from their own community - "if you are not with us - you are against us!"

However I'm interested to know which historical example of two communities at loggerheads leading to the sort of violence visited upon each other here demonstrates that the two can live peacefully together when re-mixed after geographical separation....

In South Africa they have come to some sort of imperfect accommodation (notably without having gone through geographical separation first) but in my opinion, that was only possible after the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission where both sides had to come clean about the atrocities they had committed... Do you think that is possible here? Can you see any of the power brokers who are still alive doing that?

Don't get me wrong I wish nothing less than that the two communities can put all the previous enmity aside and agree a joint future but I can see no good coming of a 'false start' with no admission that those that were/are culpable have played a part in the tragic events leading up to the 74 intervention..... No parole without contrition.

I know you have a view of the Akritas plan... but the truth lies somewhere in here

"Greek Cypriot sources have accepted the authenticity of the Akritas plan, but controversy regarding its significance and implications persists.
It is a subject of debate whether the plan was actually implemented by President Makarios. Frank Hoffmeister wrote that the similarity of the military and political actions foreseen in the plan and undertaken in reality were "striking".
According to Paul Sant-Cassia, the plan "purported to project a plan at ethnic cleansing", which was in parallel to the Turkish Cypriot perception that the events of 1963-64 were part of a policy of extermination.
Turkish Cypriot nationalistic narratives have presented the plan as a "blueprint for genocide" and it is widely perceived as a plan for extermination in the Turkish Cypriot community.
Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs calls the plan a "conspiracy to dissolve the Republic of Cyprus, in pre-determined stages and methods, and to bring about the union of Cyprus with Greece".
According to scholar Niyazi Kızılyürek, however, the meaning later given to this plan was disproportionate and the plan was a "stupid" and impractical plan that got more attention than it deserved due to propaganda.
He claimed that, in accordance to the plan, ELDYK troops should have taken action, which was not the case and led to Georgadjis shouting "traitors!" in front of their camp.
Calling the plan "infamous", scholar Evanthis Hatzivassiliou wrote that the aim of quick victory indicated the "confusion and wishful thinking of the Greek Cypriot side at that crucial moment". "

What we have to understand is (and what history demonstrates all too often) - these things gain their own momentum - once the slaughter starts events nearly always go from bad to worse as Man's baser instincts take over and group dynamics play their part -when people we thought incapable of such acts start putting their humanitarian beliefs aside in the name of perceived personal gain.... Of course when they do this they have to understand that they risk everything including their own lives....

Groucho wrote:For one it teaches us that as the ground swell grows more and more seemingly unwilling participants get drawn into the polarised situation where they find it virtually impossible not to take sides against their better judgement for fear that they will suffer reprisals from their own community - "if you are not with us - you are against us!"

Which is exactly why I do my best not to let my self be manipulated into being 'polarised' between 'them' and 'us'. Them are Cypriots. Us are Cypriots. We have more in common than that which differentiates us, we just have to choose to see it.

Groucho wrote:However I'm interested to know which historical example of two communities at loggerheads leading to the sort of violence visited upon each other here demonstrates that the two can live peacefully together when re-mixed after geographical separation....

Did the English not fight a civil war ? The Americans ? Is North Ireland today, though far from ideal, not in a better place than it was in the 70's and 80's ? There was a time in the UK when it was not unusual to see signs on rental property saying 'no irish, no blacks, no dogs' - today such would rightly be seen as 'extreme'. Times change. Attitudes change. Nations who 60 or 70 years ago were mass bombing each others civilian population centres are today joined in economic and political unions. The future only has to be defined solely by the past if we CHOSE it to be.

Groucho wrote:In South Africa they have come to some sort of imperfect accommodation (notably without having gone through geographical separation first) but in my opinion, that was only possible after the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission where both sides had to come clean about the atrocities they had committed... Do you think that is possible here? Can you see any of the power brokers who are still alive doing that?

I would support and favour a formal truth and reconciliation process in Cyprus. However even without such a formal process such IS going on already. There are GC that publicly acknowledge what was done to TC in their communities name in the past. I will give on example, a very personal one. Below is a link to a Cyprus mail story. You do need to be registered on their site to view. It recounts the story of GC visiting their pre 74 property in the North that is now 'used' by a Yuksel Veli - my Aunt (my father's Sister).

http://archives.cyprus-mail.com/2003/05 ... -the-past/

Dr Andreas Demetriou, formerly Director of Research and Publications at the House of Representatives in Nicosia.
“I remember, the murder was condemned by all the people in Famagusta at the time,” Demetriou told the Sunday Mail. “And we couldn’t go out and speak against it because we were truly afraid for our lives.”

“But no more,” he said. “Now, we have to speak out.”

I (Dr Andreas Demetriou) said ‘I apologise on behalf of our people, I apologise for what they did to you’

As Dr Andreas Demetriou said in the article above 'No more !'. No more letting the demagogues drive us, ordinary Cypriots, with fear into polarising ourselves into 'them' and 'us'.

It is not just GC that are saying 'No more, now we have to speak out'. Not long ago TRNC MP Dogus Derya stood up in the TRNC parliament and said " "many Greek Cypriot women were raped by the Turkish army during the war" and "we should understand each other’s pain".

The point is there ARE Cypriots on both sides who are in their own ways saying 'no more' and progressing 'Truth and Reconcilliation'. I stand as a Cypriot with these fellow Cypriots and against the demagogues and extremists who wish to perpetuate the polarisation and fear and hatred. These people HAD their chance and look where it has left us and what it cost ordinary Cypriots to get there. For me I say 'no more'.

Groucho wrote:I know you have a view of the Akritas plan... but the truth lies somewhere in here

The truth of what the Akritas plan was and was not lies in the text of the Akritas plan. I do not need experts like Paul Sant-Cassia to tell me what the Akitas plan puports to be (purport = appear to be or do something, especially falsely). I know that the standard TC narrative claims it is a 'genocide plan'. However if you READ it, and are free from the demands of your sides narrative, it is clear that it is NOT a 'genocide plan'

From the Akritas plan wrote:Since we do not intend, without provocation, to attack or kill Turks, the possibility remains that the Turkish Cypriots, as soon as we proceed to the unilateral amendment of any article of the constitution,

The Akritas plan is an 'ugly' document. It clearly seeks to unilaterally and illegally remove rights granted to the TC community under the 60's agreements, using deception and where necessary violence. What it is NOT is a genocide plan.

The 'restraints' of each side respective narrative are exactly what we have to break free of if we are to not allow, once again, the demagogues and extremists to polarise and define us as 'us' and 'them'. I want and expect right minded Cypriots who happen to speak Greek as their first language to break out of the constraints of THEIR narrative and thus I have to be prepared and willing to do likewise myself.

Groucho wrote:What we have to understand is (and what history demonstrates all too often) - these things gain their own momentum - once the slaughter starts events nearly always go from bad to worse as Man's baser instincts take over and group dynamics play their part -when people we thought incapable of such acts start putting their humanitarian beliefs aside in the name of perceived personal gain.... Of course when they do this they have to understand that they risk everything including their own lives....

There can be no settlement without some degree of risk. If there is a settlement based on BBF, then the first time a group of TC beats up a GC or visa versa, there will indeed be real risks that things will escalate and we will head back into the 'dark times'. People feared and expressed that this would happen when the borders opened but actually on the whole it has not. If such an event does happen post a settlement that will be the time for Cypriots to stand up together in solidarity as Cypriots regardless of ethnic background and go onto the streets and proclaim 'no more, we will not stay silent this time, we will not allow the demagogues and extremists to define the agenda, we will not live in fear any more'.

erol wrote:Did the English not fight a civil war ? The Americans ? Is North Ireland today, though far from ideal, not in a better place than it was in the 70's and 80's ? There was a time in the UK when it was not unusual to see signs on rental property saying 'no irish, no blacks, no dogs' - today such would rightly be seen as 'extreme'. Times change. Attitudes change. Nations who 60 or 70 years ago were mass bombing each others civilian population centres are today joined in economic and political unions. The future only has to be defined solely by the past if we CHOSE it to be.

They did - but forgive me if you did not grasp this aspect of my question - I asked where did a settlement following "geographical separation" (as has happened in Cyprus) and then re-mixing work ever?..... i.e where two opposing communities who had lived side by side have gone to war and had to be moved part to prevent further bloodshed - when have the two come back together successfully? I'm struggling to think of an example - all over Europe we have very different examples... former Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia.... et al. nobody is suggesting that it's a good idea for these once larger nations to get back together as most political pundits see it as a recipe for disaster....

Groucho wrote: i.e where two opposing communities who had lived side by side have gone to war and had to be moved part to prevent further bloodshed

Your question is 'loaded'. It is loaded with the assumption that the only way bloodshed between the communities in Cyprus could be ended was by forced physical separation. That bloodshed WAS (by and large) ended by such forced physical separation is not proof that such was the ONLY possible way it could be ended. I can imagine any number of ways bloodshed between the communities in Cyprus could have ended short of the wiping out of every TC in Cyprus or enforced physical separation in perpetuity. You can stop a child picking their nose by cutting off their fingers but that does not mean such is the ONLY way to stop a child picking their nose.

It is part of the standard TC narrative that the period 63-74 was the 'dark years' for the TC community, equally 'bad' across those years. Yet this is as ever with such one sided narratives only partially true or only one truth amongst many. The truth (or another truth if you prefer) is there was a real material difference to life in Cyprus for TC between 63-67 and 68-74. From 68 up till the Greek inspired coup, that was itself resisted by many and probably most GC, bloodshed between the communities had, by in large, ceased, restrictions on the 'enclaved' TC were removed and some semblance of 'normality' was returning.

I will agree with erol about the years 68 - 74. I was here from 70 - 73 and whilst only a teenager I did not pick up on persecution of the TC community, but thats from the perspective of a teenager who knew some GCs including our landlord plus also spent many nights eating out in restaurants which were mainly turkish.

However; I still believe that back in the early 70s the old Enosis fanatics were still around and waiting their time. Unfortuntely Greece made the error in backing the coup and despite the GC procrastinations that it was purely a greek matter when Sampson was appointed the fear for the TCs came to the surface. Turkey did the right thing when they intervened ....better safe than sorry. History at that time shouted out loud that things were not going to be good for the TC community.

Many pros and cons for a solution....it must be on a fair equal basis. Sadly there still seems to be some on the GC side intent on stirring things up.


Interesting few months ahead.

erol wrote:

Groucho wrote: i.e where two opposing communities who had lived side by side have gone to war and had to be moved part to prevent further bloodshed

Your question is 'loaded'. It is loaded with the assumption that the only way bloodshed between the communities in Cyprus could be ended was by forced physical separation. That bloodshed WAS (by and large) ended by such forced physical separation is not proof that such was the ONLY possible way it could be ended. I can imagine any number of ways bloodshed between the communities in Cyprus could have ended short of the wiping out of every TC in Cyprus or enforced physical separation in perpetuity. You can stop a child picking their nose by cutting off their fingers but that does not mean such is the ONLY way to stop a child picking their nose.

It is part of the standard TC narrative that the period 63-74 was the 'dark years' for the TC community, equally 'bad' across those years. Yet this is as ever with such one sided narratives only partially true or only one truth amongst many. The truth (or another truth if you prefer) is there was a real material difference to life in Cyprus for TC between 63-67 and 68-74. From 68 up till the Greek inspired coup, that was itself resisted by many and probably most GC, bloodshed between the communities had, by in large, ceased, restrictions on the 'enclaved' TC were removed and some semblance of 'normality' was returning.

Hmm - now I think you are avoiding the question....

What has happened is a fact that you can't change - what I'm asking is for an example where communities who for whatever reason were forced apart to avoid bloodshed and where re-joining such communities can be seen to be a peaceful success.-

If the answer is that you can't think of one - then that's the answer - not the politician's tactic of 'I don't like the question - so I'll answer a different one'

I'm only trying to understand where you are coming from and why it differs from the very different views of some TC's who I know that were very personally involved in the troubles and who hold an alternative view of the period leading up to '74 and the Turkish presence here since and the need for it to be respected for what it was.... Their views and yours are poles apart and so I'm trying to get a handle on the sort of support your position has and how that may affect any future decisions.

slightly off topic you two.

Looking at the British civil war it was Catholics protestant still lived out in NI and Scotland
No mixed education hence the "Proclaimers " line about school hold true today
I've been in work places where people would not have a "Penguin" in a green or a blue wrapper based on religion
Ni is still going on and P & C's West coast of Scotland still discriminate the only chance is amalgamated eduction North & South
Please discuss chances of that getting off the ground in Cyprus


http://www.britpolitics.co.uk/causes-of-the-civil-war

Deniz1 wrote:slightly off topic you two.

I think it's very much on topic because the GC's intimidation of those living in the north is an indication to some that it won't go as well as Erol is hoping. I applaud his hopes but fear he may not find it as plain sailing as he envisages.

This is a debating forum and threads are bound to transform...

I think its an interesting debate and is almost as complicated as the Cyprus problem

Yes the topic started as Turkish Cypriots complaining of harassment and has naturally progressed as to the attitides of the two sides and how the situation of today evolved.

At the moment there are primarily just a couple of members contributing, it would be good if others contributed - as long as it was adding to sensible debate.

I applaud Erol's optimism, but feel he is in the minority. I still feel that the GC's want it all and will not be satisfied with anything less. Even if it means taking it piece by piece and that any agreement will be with this in mind.

In reference to Northern Ireland. A few years ago when the IRA went quiet, Gerry Adams said 'they haven't gone away you know'. I think the same applies to the GC's ambitions.

Groucho wrote:Hmm - now I think you are avoiding the question....

What has happened is a fact that you can't change - what I'm asking is for an example where communities who for whatever reason were forced apart to avoid bloodshed and where re-joining such communities can be seen to be a peaceful success.-

If the answer is that you can't think of one - then that's the answer - not the politician's tactic of 'I don't like the question - so I'll answer a different one'

Your question was loaded, maybe unintentionally and maybe I have gone off at a tangent as a result. No I can not think of an example that fits your specific and narrow criteria but I personally also do not think there is much relevancy in your question either. The history of the modern world is one of both 'unification' and 're unification' as well as secession and division.

Groucho wrote:I'm only trying to understand where you are coming from and why it differs from the very different views of some TC's who I know that were very personally involved in the troubles and who hold an alternative view of the period leading up to '74 and the Turkish presence here since and the need for it to be respected for what it was.... Their views and yours are poles apart and so I'm trying to get a handle on the sort of support your position has and how that may affect any future decisions.

I do not present my views as anything other than my views nor do I make any claims that such views are 'dominant' ones within the TC community. I do know that there are others TC and GC who share similar perspectives to mine but as to how much 'support' such views have in the wider community, TC and / or GC I do not know and at one level I do not really care. I do not hold these views because they are 'popular' (or unpopular), I hold them because I believe they are 'right' and that those that hold them are the hope, the only real hope, for a better future for Cyprus and Cypriots than that which we have managed to achieve to date since the end of British rule in Cyprus. I believe I am coming from a position that chooses to place being Cypriot ahead of being TC or GC or Turk or Greek, despite our recent past and refuses to be bound and controlled by collective past failures and the language of hatred an enmity that were at the root of those past failures.

silverfir wrote:In reference to Northern Ireland. A few years ago when the IRA went quiet, Gerry Adams said 'they haven't gone away you know'. I think the same applies to the GC's ambitions.

I do not think that if there is a settlement that the 'spoilers', will simply disappear. I do hope that if there is a settlement and they do not 'stay quiet' enough Cypriots will stand up against them we a clearer and louder voice, as we failed to do in the past. I do believe that the only chance enough Cypriots would do so should it need to be done is if we can as Cypriots freely choose to break free of the 'shackles of our past' in the pursuit of a better future, for ourselves and Cypriots yet to come.

Groucho wrote:.... is an indication to some that it won't go as well as Erol is hoping. I applaud his hopes but fear he may not find it as plain sailing as he envisages.

I do not think negotiating a settlement, securing the consent of both communities and then seeing that achieve the goal of a 'better Cyprus for all Cypriots' will be plain sailing, quite the opposite. I am tempted to go all 'Kennedy' again and say "we do not chose to do this thing because it is easy, we chose to do it because it is hard". Even getting to a point where there is an agreement that can be put to the respective communities, let alone securing yes votes from both will be a herculean task and the 'spoilers' will be out in force and already plainly are out in force seeking to perpetuate the language of hatred and fear to choke and thwart such efforts as quickly and efficiently as they can. Which is exactly WHY I feel compelled to add my 'voice' as a Cypriot where I can. If I truly thought the whole things will be 'plain sailing' I would kick back, push off my shoes and simply enjoy the ride.

I do also feel a need to apologise for the 'preachy' nature of some of my posts on this topic. I do not mean to come across in such a manner and I try to mitigate the tendency as best I can but for me trying to condense what is in my head and my heart into forum suitable 'sound bites' whilst not coming over as 'preachy' is clearly something I am not suited too. So sorry if it is getting on anyone's ti., er nerves.

PS I have tried asking 'paddy power' to give me odds that there will be a settlement in Cyprus within 3 years - but so far have had no response from them.

erol wrote: ......PS I have tried asking 'paddy power' to give me odds that there will be a settlement in Cyprus within 3 years - but so far have had no response from them.

They're too busy arranging a merger/takeover of their own (with BetFair).......
...Back to theme - the strong polarisation of opinions and antipathies between TC and GC populations - is this/could this be a generational thing? The older folk remember from their experiences, but perhaps (hopefully) the majority of under-40's (lacking the real experiences) might be more amenable/acceptable to some form of acceptance and/or reconciliation?
Just as an example (not from experience) - from the news reports that vaguely registerered with me in the 60's, EOKA, Makarios and the GC's were the villains - because of how it affected the British soldiers - TC's? Never really registered.... 1974? Newly married, so nothing about Cyprus registered at all.....
But even now (perhaps because I have TC friends and have visited Northern Cyprus), I lean toward TC, and wonder about GC motives....
Older people, longer-held opinions (biases?) - perhaps the main hope is in the younger people - but especially excluding politicians, who only ever seek to further their own ends...

jofra wrote:...Back to theme - the strong polarisation of opinions and antipathies between TC and GC populations - is this/could this be a generational thing?

Personally I am not convinced of the 'generational' theory myself, but it just my own gut feeling. It seems to me that some of the strongest supports of rapprochement, of breaking free of the failures and shackles of the past, are older Cypriots who directly and personally suffered and witnessed some of the worst atrocities of the past and some of the most vociferous 'spoilers' and 'perpetuators (is that a word?) of hatred and fear' are younger Cypriots with no direct personal experience of such things and only with their sides dominant narratives to go on. Like I say just a feeling and maybe I am totally wrong.

If it is the younger Cypriots who are the spoilers, then one has to ask where are they getting their ideas from? Is it some sort of bias history taught in school, is it handed down from parents, is it some underground movement grooming them for the future?

I would have hoped that as time moved on, the older generation with a minority of hard core old school fanatics would slowly dissapear, leaving a younger more open minded population. If these younger Cypriots are the spoilers then its going to take a long time for this predjudice to dissapear.

I can also understand how many of those around in the late 50s and early 60s who experienced all of the bad things that went on would also want to move forward and not return to those dark days.

If there is to be an agreement I sadly think that some form of guarantee by the military will be required to protect the TCs. This could of course reduce down over time but I cannot see any other way......its done the job for 41 years and as much as the GCs and the rest of the world may not want it, it is probably still very necessary.

It seems that every GC you meet "has land/property" in the North. GC's like nothing more than money and the present generation are bitter that "their property", and the money that it represents, is out of their grasp. Offering them 10 cents in the $ as the IPC may do, only pours salt on the wound.
Tough - get used to it.

my neice some years back came home one day from kindergarden school singing what she and the rest of the kids were being taught .....translated in english to ''get out turkish from cyprus'' and she was less than 5 years old!

This debate ignores the meddling and ambitions of the "mother" countries. Their influence on the fanatics on both sides and the dirty tricks they inspired, and to some extent still inspire, have had a great part to play in the inter-communal strife. The Greek/Turkish conflict that has gone on for centuries in other parts of the Mediterranean has also affected the attitudes of Cypriot communities to each other, Crete, Izmir, Imvros to name just a few. Both "mothers" had their own agendas for Cyprus. Currently the Turkish one prevails

Whilst I do not wish to play down the suffering of the Cypriots in the early 1960s, casualties on both sides were counted in their hundreds whereas the "solution" (if that is what it was) imposed by armed force in 1974 resulted in thousands of deaths.

There will only be a solution if and when both sides recognise the injustices they have inflicted on the other and neither side feels that the other has "got one over on them"

PoshinDevon wrote:? If it is the younger Cypriots who are the spoilers, then one has to ask where are they getting their ideas from some sort of bias history taught in school, is it handed down from parents, is it some underground movement grooming them for the future?

I would have hoped that as time moved on, the older generation with a minority of hard core old school fanatics would slowly dissapear, leaving a younger more open minded population. If these younger Cypriots are the spoilers then its going to take a long time for this predjudice to dissapear.

I can also understand how many of those around in the late 50s and early 60s who experienced all of the bad things that went on would also want to move forward and not return to those dark days.

If there is to be an agreement I sadly think that some form of guarantee by the military will be required to protect the TCs. This could of course reduce down over time but I cannot see any other way......its done the job for 41 years and as much as the GCs and the rest of the world may not want it, it is probably still very necessary.

That is a key question. The effect educational practices have on both sides on opinions for settlement in Cyprus.

Unfortunately 1974 had been coming for some time. Turkey had already prior to this time almost sent its forces across to stop the persecution of the TC community, only to back off at the last minute. 1974 it should not be forgotten was a coup masterminded by Greece, causing initially fighting amongst the greek Cypriots who were pro/anti Makarios. Makarios at that time, despite always having Enosis with Greece in his blood had in recent years drifted away from that scenario in order to ensure he remained the No 1 head/leader in Cyprus. Greece made the fatal move and the prime reason was to overthrow Makarios and achieve Enosis by force. This was of no doubt a great worry to the turkish cypriots whose memories of the early 60s were still fresh. The appointment of Sampson only served to increase these concerns. Turkey was not going to stand by for a second time and hence intervened. Who knows what would have happened if they had not.

If the youngsters of today are still being taught hate propaganda at school then it really is worrying and does not bode well.

It took only 3 years (1960-63) for the status quo to be trashed by the GC's....just wait til next time if there is an agreement?
TC's be warned ?

turtle wrote:It took only 3 years (1960-63) for the status quo to be trashed by the GC's....just wait til next time if there is an agreement?
TC's be warned ?

I don't believe the GC's ever were satisfied with the formation of what was then the Constitution of The Republic of Cyprus and I'm not sure it ever achieved what could be called a status quo - too much went wrong too quickly.. This was mostly the UK's fault for signing them up to a pact creating inequalities that would never sit well with a majority. Over the years we've (the UK has) done this over and over again - creating havoc out of order by leaving political vacuums and misaligned factions....

My worry this time is that their is too much rhetoric and not enough heart searching... Not enough compromise and too much digging in of heels... but it's difficult to see how they could do otherwise when they insist on their version of the events leading up to '74 shows they are without blame...

First must come the truth - so that their younger generations can understand why it is they must compromise and why it is they've lied to subsequent generations and must make amends. A union based on a foundations of lies will not go well I fear.

As it is the church that educates the people with there own version of history, unless you can get them to admit they fabricated a pack of lies then it will simply continue and nothing will change. You have to hit people between the eyes with a truth that they do not want to believe because if you don't then "history" and how it is written will always sway the majority!

waddo wrote:As it is the church that educates the people with there own version of history, unless you can get them to admit they fabricated a pack of lies then it will simply continue and nothing will change. You have to hit people between the eyes with a truth that they do not want to believe because if you don't then "history" and how it is written will always sway the majority!

The accepted norm is that 'the victors write the history' but in this case the GC's have managed to pull the wool over the collective eyes of the rest of the world and to a large extent their own community.... mostly because they are reluctant to admit their own culpability to their younger generations....

This ability to gloss-over their part in this sorry state of affairs is not that surprising when you understand that in that period of history 1950 - 1980 the likes of the UK and the rest of the western world did not take sides with a Moslem nation over a Christian one no matter what the rights and wrongs of it were.... Unfortunately the current unpopularity of radical Islam has not done any favours to the TRNC of late - even if there is no suggestion that it has anything to do with the kind of radicalism causing major safety concerns elsewhere it does not help.

Politics - not as simple a game as you would think....

Groucho wrote: The accepted norm is that 'the victors write the history' .....

Could it not be said to be the case that in Cyprus to date, there have been no victors, only loosers ? That 100's of thousands of GC lost their land and property and 1/3rd of the island AND 10,000's of TC lost likewise and lost their 'legitimacy' and lost 2/3rds of Cyprus ?

Groucho wrote:mostly because they are reluctant to admit their own culpability to their younger generations....

Do the TC have NO culpability in this mess we are in today? Do we have a reluctance to admit our culpability to our younger generations ? Do we have any right to expect or demand it of 'them' if we do not address it ourselves ?

erol wrote:

Groucho wrote: The accepted norm is that 'the victors write the history' .....

Could it not be said to be the case that in Cyprus to date, there have been no victors, only loosers ? That 100's of thousands of GC lost their land and property and 1/3rd of the island AND 10,000's of TC lost likewise and lost their 'legitimacy' and lost 2/3rds of Cyprus ?

The point I was making is that the period 1963 - 1974 is glossed over in the south with only the Turkish Intervention being taught as a significant historical event for Cyprus and Greek Cypriots and no mention made of the sectarian killings perpetrated on mostly defenceless TC's by EOKA terrorists. Terrorists whose existence and achievements are still officially celebrated as EOKA day in the south I might add.

I'm not suggesting there was no retaliation by TC's or that there is no culpability only that the south has managed to portray themselves very successfully to the rest of the world as total victims for over 40 years... and still won't admit that they have, by and large, been the authors of their own misfortune. Their version of events has prevailed over the true nature of the events in the minds of those who have had it drummed into them.

As I have said before on many occasions - this is not surprising as the West did not want to take sides with Moslems over 'Christians' - it was unfortunately the way of the world in those days - no matter who was morally at fault.

You pick a fight - one where you are prepared to take lives of innocent folk and then expect that post-events you can have back all that you risked and lost because some bit of paper says you own it.... I don't think so. There have always been 'spoils of war' - if you pick a fight you'd damn well better be prepared to lose ground as well as possibly gain it. Something the instigators did not make clear to those they encouraged to go for it....

Not quite sure of the south losing 2/3rds - or the north gaining 2/3rds -

Groucho wrote:The point I was making is that the period 1963 - 1974 is glossed over in the south with only the Turkish Intervention being taught as a significant historical event for Cyprus and Greek Cypriots and no mention made of the sectarian killings perpetrated on mostly defenceless TC's by EOKA terrorists. Terrorists whose existence and achievements are still officially celebrated as EOKA day in the south I might add.

The question I am asking is, do we not do the same on our 'side'? Do we not gloss over those things that do not suit our narrative merely as 'innocent victims' of GC violence ? If we do then surely before we can bemoan 'them' doing, do we not first have to stop doing it ourselves ?

Groucho wrote:Not quite sure of the south losing 2/3rds - or the north gaining 2/3rds -

What I was saying (obviously not very clearly) was that whilst GC may be said to have lost 1/3rd of Cyprus as a result of the events of 74, TC can be said to have lost 2/3rds of Cyprus as a result. In one sense we ALL lost. In the Cyprus my father grew up in and his parents and grand parents for generations before, the Troodos and Larnaca and Limasol and Paphos etc were part of their Cyprus, their homeland, their history as much as the village he grew up in (temblos / zeytinlik) and Girne etc.

Erol, the world over changes all the time, my home land in GB has changed, why do you think Cyprus should be any different? my childhood area has vitally disapeared, its called evolution even if its caused by wars or any movement with people. Migrants, immigrants etc have seen all countries change, just wish Cypriots would face facts that nothing stays the same, any where .

This is a repetition of when the border was first opened in 2003. At that time many Greeks visited previously-owned Greek properties in the North and aggressively informed the occupants to pack their bags as they would be returning. Unfortunately, when the Turkish Cypriot President tells people with
exchange deeds that they are living on someonelse's land, this reinforces the Greek Cypriots' beliefs that they will be able to return. What was the President thinking of to say this. What about "exchange" land in the South. We hear precious little about this and the value of it.

I think Akinci is maybe looking for a nobel peace price or some worldwide recognition ?
I can also see him coming to earth with a bit of a bump ?

My father lost his house, and it was a sizable property in the Czech Republic. his family had lived there for more than 200 years. When the Czech Republic joined the EU and had to sign the Lisbon treaty, President Václav Klaus of the Czech Republic asked for an amendment, requesting that the Constitution requires a constitutional amendment ..... to stop property claims by Germans expelled from Czechoslovakia after World War Two.
I am in full agreement with this and not just because Germany was the aggressor. We have to move on!!!!!!!!!!
The Republic of Cyprus should have been made aware of this and also should have signed such an amendment - or should still!!

The thing that angers me is that Greek Cypriots see themselves as the only victims in the world!!!

WotNoDeeds wrote: What about "exchange" land in the South. We hear precious little about this and the value of it.

http://cyprus-mail.com/2015/08/27/presi ... -the-past/

For instance he [Anastasiades, current president of the RoC] took the issue of property and answered all those Greek Cypriots who had been expressing outrage because it was agreed a user’s rights would also be recognised. Should the rights of 160,000 Greek Cypriots that were users of Turkish Cypriot properties in the free areas be written off, he asked. It was a valid point that has never been acknowledged by our politicians who only speak about Greek Cypriot properties in the north.

Things do indeed change.

He also brought up the sacred cow of the Cyprus Republic, pointing out that “the time had come for us to realise that the old times when we thought the Cyprus Republic was a Greek Cypriot Republic have no validity.” He also highlighted the contradiction in the argument of those who want to maintain the Cyprus Republic while doing away with the treaties that set it up in the 1960s. The Republic will evolve into something new, he said and stated he would not allow “populism to lead to denials”.

My opinion of the ROC president has increased by leaps and bounds - at last someone dealing with realities and understanding that a solution is a two-way street. It may not sit well with some in the south but he is a very brave man.