The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


new bit of information

How can we solve it? (keep it civilized)

Re: new bit of information

Postby erolz66 » Mon Aug 31, 2015 5:50 pm

Jerry wrote: The Turkish Cypriots themselves may have felt they had the right to resist the imposition of enosis but the overwhelming majority did not. Consideration of the minority's communal wishes would involve, amongst other things, separate municipalities I believe, and that was no doubt perceived as the start of partition by stealth - something which 80% of the population had the democratic right to resist.
The Turkish Cypriots exploited their links and proximity to the mainland to the detriment of the other communities on the island. They must have been aware of the possibility of enosis since it had previously been on offer, they had the opportunity to leave the island when it became a Crown Colony but chose to stay on what was a predominantly "Greek" island. So, in answer to your question, no, they did not have the right to resist the imposition of enosis. Frankly what the Turkish Cypriots wanted became irrelevant once the British had introduced Turkey into the equation.


Well at least you had the guts to say 'no they did not have such a right' unlike some so far.

So from you assertion that they did not have such a right would it be fair to surmise that you consider what Plato said over 2 thousand years ago is incorrect ? What he said was

Plato in the laws of plato (715b) wrote: Such polities (group within which one person one vote is carried out) we, of course, deny to be polities, just as we deny that laws are true laws unless they are enacted in the interest of the common weal of the whole State. But where the laws are enacted in the interest of a section, we call them feudalities rather than polities; and the “justice” they ascribe to such laws is, we say, an empty name.


The problem for me with your insistence (that your are entitled to hold) that GC acting purely in their own ethnic group interest in Cyprus AS GREEK Cypriots and BECAUSE of their difference as Cypriots to TC and not regardless of it, have the right to impose anything THEY want on ALL Cypriots withou having to pay any regard for Cypriots who are not Greek, up to and including deciding that Cyprus will cease to even exist as a nation and state, is that it really leaves me as a Cypriot who is not Greek no where to go in terms of trying to find a negotiated settlement in Cyprus. Very much as it left the TC community no where to go in the 50's and 60's other than partition, despite all the obvious problems with that then. If you really believe this then there can now today be no negotiated settlement as far as I can see other than agreed partition. I want a settlement that re-unifies Cyprus and that could in time lead to a Cyprus where it truly does not matter if you are GC or TC or any other kind of Cypriot but your instance on this point makes such impossible to achieve. The only other option is to remain as we are until the 'next round' of violence and war and see who wins that, which is to me a notion that is madness.

I do not believe that democracy requires and demands that GC acting purely in their own ethnic group interest in Cyprus AS GREEK Cypriots and BECAUSE of their difference as Cypriots to TC and not regardless of it, have the right to impose anything THEY want on ALL Cypriots without any regard for the wishes of Cypriots who are not Greek, up to and including deciding that Cyprus will cease to even exist as a nation and state. I actually believe that such a 'democracy' is an 'empty name' and what is more I think Plato would also consider it such. I think your insistence that democracy demands and requires the things you claim it does are in fact nothing to do with the 'ideals' of democracy and everything to do with getting what you want without having to consider any other groups who share Cyprus as a homeland.
erolz66
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2013 8:31 pm

Re: new bit of information

Postby Lordo » Mon Aug 31, 2015 5:57 pm

when you give power to people of low intelligence invariable it is abused. beyond belief what is coming out of the mouth of a person who lives in uk. so much democracy.
User avatar
Lordo
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 11518
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:13 pm
Location: softalar, banana republic

Re: new bit of information

Postby kurupetos » Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:37 pm

Lordo wrote:when you give power to people of low intelligence invariable it is abused. beyond belief what is coming out of the mouth of a person who lives in uk. so much democracy.

OK, we should make sure that you don't get any power then. :mrgreen:
User avatar
kurupetos
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 17892
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 7:46 pm
Location: Cyprus

Re: new bit of information

Postby Jerry » Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:16 pm

erolz66 wrote:
Jerry wrote: The Turkish Cypriots themselves may have felt they had the right to resist the imposition of enosis but the overwhelming majority did not. Consideration of the minority's communal wishes would involve, amongst other things, separate municipalities I believe, and that was no doubt perceived as the start of partition by stealth - something which 80% of the population had the democratic right to resist.
The Turkish Cypriots exploited their links and proximity to the mainland to the detriment of the other communities on the island. They must have been aware of the possibility of enosis since it had previously been on offer, they had the opportunity to leave the island when it became a Crown Colony but chose to stay on what was a predominantly "Greek" island. So, in answer to your question, no, they did not have the right to resist the imposition of enosis. Frankly what the Turkish Cypriots wanted became irrelevant once the British had introduced Turkey into the equation.


Well at least you had the guts to say 'no they did not have such a right' unlike some so far.

So from you assertion that they did not have such a right would it be fair to surmise that you consider what Plato said over 2 thousand years ago is incorrect ? What he said was

Plato in the laws of plato (715b) wrote: Such polities (group within which one person one vote is carried out) we, of course, deny to be polities, just as we deny that laws are true laws unless they are enacted in the interest of the common weal of the whole State. But where the laws are enacted in the interest of a section, we call them feudalities rather than polities; and the “justice” they ascribe to such laws is, we say, an empty name.


The problem for me with your insistence (that your are entitled to hold) that GC acting purely in their own ethnic group interest in Cyprus AS GREEK Cypriots and BECAUSE of their difference as Cypriots to TC and not regardless of it, have the right to impose anything THEY want on ALL Cypriots withou having to pay any regard for Cypriots who are not Greek, up to and including deciding that Cyprus will cease to even exist as a nation and state, is that it really leaves me as a Cypriot who is not Greek no where to go in terms of trying to find a negotiated settlement in Cyprus. Very much as it left the TC community no where to go in the 50's and 60's other than partition, despite all the obvious problems with that then. If you really believe this then there can now today be no negotiated settlement as far as I can see other than agreed partition. I want a settlement that re-unifies Cyprus and that could in time lead to a Cyprus where it truly does not matter if you are GC or TC or any other kind of Cypriot but your instance on this point makes such impossible to achieve. The only other option is to remain as we are until the 'next round' of violence and war and see who wins that, which is to me a notion that is madness.

I do not believe that democracy requires and demands that GC acting purely in their own ethnic group interest in Cyprus AS GREEK Cypriots and BECAUSE of their difference as Cypriots to TC and not regardless of it, have the right to impose anything THEY want on ALL Cypriots without any regard for the wishes of Cypriots who are not Greek, up to and including deciding that Cyprus will cease to even exist as a nation and state. I actually believe that such a 'democracy' is an 'empty name' and what is more I think Plato would also consider it such. I think your insistence that democracy demands and requires the things you claim it does are in fact nothing to do with the 'ideals' of democracy and everything to do with getting what you want without having to consider any other groups who share Cyprus as a homeland.


Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what "TC communal wishes" would have been.

I don't consider the size of the Turkish Cypriot minority to be sufficient to deny the majority their wishes. The differences are diluted by the fact that many from both communities share the same DNA. The other minorities in Cyprus did not, as far as I know, ask for or expect special "communal wishes" to be taken into account neither did the ethnic Turks on Rhodes and Kos. The latter having "survived" living under Greek administration for more than half a century despite what happened to the Greeks on Imvros and Tenedos, http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4d70e4562.pdf.

Rather than take Turkish Cypriot wishes into account the majority Greek Cypriots would have been well advised to be wary of the noises coming from the mainland. I believe that even if the TCs had been 5% of the population they would have wanted communal wishes that dragged Turkey into the equation. Turkey's military might emboldened the minority into wanting more of Cyprus (in every sense of the word) than it deserves or is entitled to.
Jerry
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4638
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 12:29 pm
Location: UK

Re: new bit of information

Postby Lordo » Tue Sep 01, 2015 12:20 am

Jerry my boy the majority could do as they wish. but to expect the tcs to join them. really are you that stupid.
User avatar
Lordo
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 11518
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:13 pm
Location: softalar, banana republic

Re: new bit of information

Postby erolz66 » Tue Sep 01, 2015 12:38 am

Jerry wrote:Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what "TC communal wishes" would have been.


Not really because such is just not what I am talking about or why I am talking about it.

Jerry wrote:I don't consider the size of the Turkish Cypriot minority to be sufficient to deny the majority their wishes.


No what you deny is that for a majority wish to be valid, for it to be more than just an 'empty name' is has to the majority OF something larger. That is what you deny. The 'commonality' that could have bound us together, despite our differences, such that a majority will could be valid, you chose to seek to not exist - namely that of all of us being Cypriots, by citizenship and nationality, despite our differences. That is WHY enosis rather than independence changed everything, another thing you deny. I know you will claim that the 'commonality' that bound us all together was we all physically lived on the island of Cyprus, for after the choice to pursue enosis and not independence, that was all that remained. However just all being people who live on a single 'land mass' is so obviously not sufficient to be the means by which a 'group' within which a valid majority can be said to exist. If it were then according to this an 'Iberian majority' of Spaniards alone could simply 'majority vote' that Portugal should no longer exist as a nation state but should be part of Iberia (Greater Spain). Clearly this notion is absurd, yet it is the conclusion to the argument that TC and GC all lived on the land mass called Cyprus and that alone is sufficient to justify the 'commonality' necessary for a majority accross all those who live on the land mass Cyprus to be valid. The reason why Portugal exists as a separate nation state as Spain is BECAUSE there is a commonality across the Portuguese that is separate and different from that commonality that exits across the Spanish.

THIS is what you deny. Not only do you deny that there has to be some greater commonality that would bind TC and GC together, such that a will that is purely GC could be validly said to be the 'majority will' of that larger group, you act and behave as if the very concept is absurd and unheard of. Yet the reality is this very concept has been has been acknowledged and discussed and understood by a succession of the worlds greatest thinkers on such matters from Plato through to John Adams (tyranny of the majority) via countless others besides before John Adams and since.

The concept can be shown plainly and clearly by a simple example. Now I know you will no doubt scream and shout and find one thousands reason why this example is not the same as Cyprus but the point of it is not that it is identical to Cyprus, the point of it is that it highlights and exposes the core principal that I am taking about, that Plato talk about, that John Adams talk about and countless others have.

10 friends who enjoy reading books decide to form a book club where each week or month they choose a single book, all read it and then meet up discuss the book. They decide to democratically vote on what the book will be, one person one vote. However after the first few weeks or months or year it actually becomes clear that the female members of the group always want to choose a certain type of book and the males members a different type, BECAUSE of their gender differences and not despite and regardless of them. It turns out that 6 of the book club members are women and 4 are men. So after months of being forced to read books that they did not have an interest in , the men suggest that actually given the reality that how books are selected is because of the members gender and not despite it , that a fairer method would be for the women to choose a book one month and the men the next, or they suggest that at least that out of 10 such choices the women should choose 6 times and the men 4 times. To which a shrill woman stands up and proclaims that is undemocratic and that democracy demands that choice has to be and can only be one member one vote and that the attempt by men to try and thwart the majority democratic will of the group is just a continuation of the age old oppression of women by men that has been going on for time in memorial. At which point the book club disbands forever.

As I say the point of the above is not that it is an exact comparison with Cyprus. The point is that it highlights that 'one person one vote' is NOT only not the SOLE possible means of achieving democracy, it can actually be under certain conditions the opposite of the principles and objective of democracy. As I say this is something that has been understood and highlighted by some of the worlds greatest thinkers on such matters from Plato onwards. THIS then IS what you deny, what you have always denied and I sincerely believe that the REASON you deny it (and even make out the very concept is absurd) is not because you are intellectually unable to understand the concept but SOLELY because doing so gives you what you wanted without having to worry about those 'annoying turks'.

For me this is core. This has always been core. This is what is left when you strip away all the hatred, all the blame game, all the history, all the demands. If you REALLY believe this then indeed there can be no solution based on compromise and mutual concession between GC and TC as CYPRIOTS together, not one that has a realistic chance of lasting, that will not be at risk of being reneged against in the future on the basis it was an is 'unjust' and unfairly forced on the GC community. If you really believe this then the ONLY realistic options are , total capitulation of the TC community entirely - something that I even as the most 'progressive' TC (willing to give up everything else for acceptance of this one thing - bi zonality, bi communality, any special privileges or representation etc etc) can not and will not accept. So then all we are left with is either agreed partition or continuation of the current de facto partition until such time as you come and take what you want by force, or think you can. THIS denial literally leaves me no where else to go , just as it did in effect for the TC community in the 50s and 60's. This to me is a most depressing conclusion but it is the one that logic and reason drives me too all the same.

Jerry wrote:The differences are diluted by the fact that many from both communities share the same DNA.


DNA is irrelevant. It is what we CHOOSE to be and do not what our DNA makes us. DNA did not make GC choose to want enosis or TC to not want it. DNA did not make and drive Cypriot to kill Cypriot. Nor does DNA define a 'commonality' from within which a purely GC 'majority' will can be said to have been a valid democratic choice of that larger whole rather than an 'empty name'.

Jerry wrote:The other minorities in Cyprus did not, as far as I know, ask for or expect special "communal wishes" to be taken into account ...


Even if you ignore the size of those other communities in Cyprus in absolute terms, which I have already said is material in practical terms and even if you ignore the reality that what enosis meant to them as communities in Cyprus just was not the same as what it meant to the TC community (for if it had of been they would almost certainlyhave sided with the TC community), even then you still have the reality that with those communities there WAS still a 'commonality' between them and the GC community that was not destroyed totally by the desire for Cyprus to not exist as a nation and a state. Commonalities of language. Commonalties of religion. Commonalties that did not exist in the case of the TC community.

Jerry wrote:neither did the ethnic Turks on Rhodes and Kos. The latter having "survived" living under Greek administration for more than half a century ...


Firstly I am not saying and have never claimed that if enosis had of been achieved in Cyprus at the end of British rule without any regard being given for the TC communities wishes, then the TC community would have ceased to exist within a half century. I actually have more faith and belief in the strength and resilience of the TC community and their culture and I think the assertion that they would have been 'wiped out' or subject to 'genocide' is part of OUR narrative, and as someone who wants you to strive to break out of YOUR narrative, so we can build a better future, I try my best to practice what I preach. What I DO say about 'if enosis had of been achieved' then is that you would not be able to sensible claim it resulted in a 'free and democratic Cyprus'. Not for any Cypriots who would be (willingly or not) subject to rule from and by people who were NOT Cypriot and especially not for TC who almost certainly would not have even been allowed UNDER LAW to call themselves Turkish Cypriots.
I do not know the history of Rhodes or Kos as well as I know that of Cyprus but we have already discussed that there is having the rights 'in theory' and having the ability to defend and protect those rights in practice. I do not know but I strongly suspect that in the case of Rhodes and Kos and the difference between what happened there and Cyprus is down to this.

Jerry wrote:Turkey's military might emboldened the minority into wanting more of Cyprus (in every sense of the word) than it deserves or is entitled to.


I do not want more of Cyprus than I deserve and (should be) entitled too. I want ALL of Cyprus because as a CYPRIOT, that is what I deserve and am entitled too, just as you are as a CYPRIOT. For you division of Cyprus may represent a loss of one third of Cyprus but for me it represents a loss of TWO thirds of it. Wanting ALL of Cyprus as a GREEK (and FOR Greece) however was and remains for me a problem.
erolz66
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2013 8:31 pm

Re: new bit of information

Postby Sotos » Tue Sep 01, 2015 12:56 am

Erolz, nowhere in the report of Galo Plaza or at any other point in history did the TC/Turks accepted to even discuss enosis. The TCs/Turks didn't even accept to discuss to have a normal democratic country like most other. They have ALWAYS insisted on discrimination and separation. Therefore your question is totally theoretical.

Did / would / does the TC community have the right to resist the imposition of enosis on them IF such imposition was attempted without any consideration for their wishes.


The TCs had a right to have their wishes considered (but not necessarily adopted). Armed resistance however could only be justified if what was refused to be considered was something directly related to TCs safety and existence. If, for example, the TCs said "We accept the choice of the majority for enosis but before enosis is implemented you need to consider x,y,z issues which are paramount for our safe existence as a community within Greece" and our response was "Fuck off, we can't bother our minds considering your concerns", only then I would say that an armed resistance would be justified.
User avatar
Sotos
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 10642
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 2:50 am

Re: new bit of information

Postby erolz66 » Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:39 am

Sotos wrote:Erolz, nowhere in the report of Galo Plaza or at any other point in history did the TC/Turks accepted to even discuss enosis. The TCs/Turks didn't even accept to discuss to have a normal democratic country like most other. They have ALWAYS insisted on discrimination and separation. Therefore your question is totally theoretical.


No it was the UN mediators who went to the GC and said ok lets talk about trying to find a form of enosis such that we could realistically take such ideas to the TC leadership, for that is what the job of mediators is. That THEY did so was not 'theoretical' it is just a fact. The response from Makarios is clear and documented, which is why I choose this particular example. Finding such a documented easily available to all source from an independent party like the UN to illustrate such a point is difficult. Just as it would be difficult for you to provide a source to me that showed that actually the GC leadership had made serious attempts to try and discuss with the TC community what form or kind of enosis there could be that would allay their fears and concerns with it such that they would consent to it and the TC leadership responded with 'fuck off, partition or nothing, come and have a go if you think you are hard enough'. What the Galo Plaza report clearly shows is that Makarios saw no need or reason to have to discuss what form enosis could take at all and if enosis should happen was entirely a decision for a Cypriot majority to make (meaning a Greek Cypriot feudalism) and the FORM of it actually down to not even what Cypriots wanted but down to what Greece wanted. No need or reason to discuss and consider such things with UN mediators and certainly not with the TC leadership.

Sotos wrote:The TCs had a right to have their wishes considered (but not necessarily adopted). Armed resistance however could only be justified if what was refused to be considered was something directly related to TCs safety and existence. If, for example, the TCs said "We accept the choice of the majority for enosis but before enosis is implemented you need to consider x,y,z issues which are paramount for our safe existence as a community within Greece" and our response was "Fuck off, we can't bother our minds considering your concerns", only then I would say that an armed resistance would be justified.


Well if what you say above is true we are in agreement at least as far as 'would the TC community have a right to resist imposition of enosis if'. Sure we still differ on if that actually happened or not historically but for me that is a minor disagreement over all. I would point out that when Jerry says no TC did not and would not and DO not have such a right (even under the 'condition' that no consideration is given etc) - that is in effect the same as saying "Fuck off, we can't bother our minds considering your concerns" or maybe more accurately " Fuck off we have no obligation to have to bother our minds considering your concerns at all for we are majority and that is our right and if we were to bother ourselves about them at all, such would be only as a 'gift' for you have no RIGHT that obligates us to have to do so at all".

But like I say this is for me a minor point, compared to you accepting that TC had a right to resist the imposition of enosis under the 'terms' you describe above, which you consider to be 'hypothetical' and I have a slightly different opinion. As a minor point I am happy to 'let that difference go', it is all in the past, lets talk about the future. As I said originally if you DO believe what you have written above, then we 'are done'. It has been tortuous and painful getting there but would seem to have been worth it. What is more I say to you that if you do believe in what you have written above I will give in return (personally, speaking only for myself for that is all I can speak for) in the search for a solution - everything you want in terms of the form of that solution. No zonality, no bi communality, no special privileges, no special representation, not even a codification in law of the specific example above of when the TC community would have a 'just right' to oppose a GC majority - that you just say you accept the principal is enough for me. Yes we still have some tough negotiations on practicalities like land - owners vs users and issues like 'settlers' but as far as the form the settlement would look like, I sincerely give everything you want for that one thing alone that you have 'conceded'.

PS thank you for proving me wrong (that you were not able to accept that TC had a right to resist enosis even under the 'theoretical' conditions that such a right only exits if the attempt to impose it on them was with no consideration being given for their communal wishes at all). Where as my discussion with Jerry to date had left me depressed this last response from you has given me hope and for that I sincerely thank you.
erolz66
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2013 8:31 pm

Re: new bit of information

Postby Sotos » Tue Sep 01, 2015 2:40 am

Erolz, I re-read the whole Galo Plaza report and I do not agree with your assessment about that report. Anyway, lets not go into more details about that. In any case to me you "resisting enosis" is something I can understand why you did it and I do not blame you for it, even though I do not agree with you that the actual historical circumstances were such that made an armed resistance against the wishes of the majority a right for you. I do not think that Jerry disagrees with what we agreed here... Regarding the future it really doesn't matter what we agree here on personal level. The only solution being discussed today seems to be by 90% what your side demanded since the 60s (reading the Galo Plaza report reminded me of this)... and even worst in some respects. The issues of owners vs users and the Settlers are difficult issues but if an acceptable solution is found and implemented then those issues will cease to exist at some point in the near future. The problem is that the racist division and separation will continue and sooner or later we will be back at square one. Personally I'd rather stay with our current problem instead of exchanging it for a different problem which nobody knows how it will develop... better the devil you know as they say.
User avatar
Sotos
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 10642
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 2:50 am

Re: new bit of information

Postby erolz66 » Tue Sep 01, 2015 4:22 am

Sotos wrote:Erolz, I re-read the whole Galo Plaza report and I do not agree with your assessment about that report. Anyway, lets not go into more details about that.


Agreed. I do not in fact 'dredge up' (selective parts) of the past, as a means to try and 'legitimise' what happened in 74 or diminish the pain and suffering that so many innocent GC have suffered in our recent past. I do so when I believe that understanding the past is a crucial pre requisite to achieving a better future. So indeed let us leave this 'difference of opinion' on this point in the past where it belongs.

Sotos wrote: In any case to me you "resisting enosis" is something I can understand why you did it and I do not blame you for it, even though I do not agree with you that the actual historical circumstances were such that made an armed resistance against the wishes of the majority a right for you.


That you CAN accept that there are at least 'theoretical' conditions under which the TC community could have (and could ) legitimately resist the imposition of something like enosis on them, despite a numerically larger GC community wanting it, that is based in them having a right to do so, is 'enough' for me. We are done.

Sotos wrote: I do not think that Jerry disagrees with what we agreed here...


Here I disagree again I am afraid. It seems to me that Jerry is saying that fundamentally a TC community of the 'size' (ratio) that existed in Cyprus could never be said to be able to legitimately resist enosis based on them having a right to do so, in the face of a much larger number of GC who wanted such - even under the 'theoretical' conditions that you accept they would have such. Then again I might be wrong and Jerry himself can and no doubt will clarify that for us all.

Sotos wrote:Regarding the future it really doesn't matter what we agree here on personal level.


No not in the sense that what we agree here will impact what is brokered by Akinci and Anastasiades. However for me at least I would not say it has not 'mattered' at all, at a personal level and in a wider sense.

Sotos wrote:The only solution being discussed today seems to be by 90% what your side demanded since the 60s (reading the Galo Plaza report reminded me of this)... and even worst in some respects. The issues of owners vs users and the Settlers are difficult issues but if an acceptable solution is found and implemented then those issues will cease to exist at some point in the near future.


For me the reason why the 'single issue' we have been discussing here is so important, so core, is that your acceptance, as a GC, that there is 'in theory' and only under 'specific conditions' at least a basis on which a TC numerical minority could legitimately resist the will of a GC majority in Cyprus that was not just a denial and refusals of the principals and ideals of democracy but actually an embodiment of them, means that there is at least a basis on which we can try and broker a settlement. Now if you say to me that the specific details of what is being proposed at the moment is totally wrong in degree and proportion to that 'theoretical right' of my community, then I can hear that and I can appreciate you saying it and why you say it and I can even agree with it as far as this or that specific point goes, but there remains at least a basis in principal for such discussions, a kernel. On the other hand in the face of assertions that the TC community a a numerical minority can never be said to have a legitimate right to resist the will of a GC majority, under any circumstance or conditions - then for me, there is just no basis what so ever on which a settlement could be founded. Then the only options are, we (TC community) accept that under no conditions or circumstances could the TC community as a numerical minority ever be said to have a legitimate right to resist the will of a numerically larger GC community - something I just can not do, or continued partition is the only option, either 'agreed' or as a continuation of the current status quo, awaiting a new round of war and conflict and all the inevitable pain and suffering that such would bring once more to so many innocent Cypriots.

I have said that I would personally be willing to agree a form of settlement that 'gives' you everything you want and I am sincere when I say that. I do however not expect or demand that a Cypriot like my Aunt, who, unlike myself, lived through the worst of times in Cyprus and suffered so much personally and who quite literally lived in persistent fear for so many years, flinching at every noise in the night and knock at the door, and who lost a succession of homes as well as her husband must do likewise. I accept that for her as a Cypriot any future settlement needs to have some 'protections' for her to be able to embrace it over the current status quo.

Sotos wrote: The problem is that the racist division and separation will continue and sooner or later we will be back at square one.


Well that will be down to us I think, all of us as Cypriots, whatever the actual form of a settlement turns out to be. It will be down to all of us to choose and decide if we want a future where we choose to define ourselves (and what we want) by our differences or by our commonalities. I think that has actually always been down to us.

Sotos wrote: Personally I'd rather stay with our current problem instead of exchanging it for a different problem which nobody knows how it will develop... better the devil you know as they say.


Here I again disagree. For me, I KNOW the devil I know is a devil. Absolutely without any doubt. Where as I do not know that about the devil I do not know. The devil I do not know may end up being a devil no different to the one I know or it might be even worse that the one I know, but there is also a CHANCE that it will not be as bad a devil as the one I know or even not a devil at all. I personally will always lean towards choosing a chance of 'better' over a certainty of 'continuing bad'.
erolz66
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2013 8:31 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus Problem

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests