Cyprus-Forum.com

[-mikkie2-]

Actually, Agios Amvrosios hits the nail on the head! The TC's completely underestimate the need for people to have their basic human right of unhindered return to the palce of origin.

The rights of refugees are paramount to any solution. Erol seems to think that the GC refugees should sacrifice their homes and land handed down by genereations in order to get rich on their ill gotten gains.

In one breath they say that they don't want to comprmise the rights of GC's and in the same breath they want to do just that. Their idea of a bicommunal bizonal federation is one of ethnic division, its one of two states, living side by side, with the GC one giving handouts to the TC one. That is why the Annan plan was so good for them. That is why they hide behind it and refuse to budge an inch.

The question should not be what it is we the GC's want. It is more what do the TC's really want.

[magikthrill]

The rights of refugees are paramount to any solution. Erol seems to think that the GC refugees should sacrifice their homes and land handed down by genereations in order to get rich on their ill gotten gains.

mikkie, yes i couldnt agree with you more on the issue of refugees. but its not only erolz that thinks this way. alexandro also believes that a solution will never be achieved where all GCs get their homes back and he is the one with all the statistics

[erolz]

Actually, Agios Amvrosios hits the nail on the head! The TC's completely underestimate the need for people to have their basic human right of unhindered return to the palce of origin.

If I do underestimate the need for GC to have their total and absolute human rights then I do not do it any more so than GC underestimte the need for TC to have their basic human rights as a people

The rights of refugees are paramount to any solution. Erol seems to think that the GC refugees should sacrifice their homes and land handed down by genereations in order to get rich on their ill gotten gains.

I think that GC should be prepeared to accept that they can not have total and absoulte exercise of their human rights just as we TC have to accept the same - if we truely want peace.

If you live in a house on your own you can do as you like, walk around naked, leave any mess anywhere you like, pee all over the floor and anything else besides. If you share the house with another you can not expect to do this without any let or hinderance if you want to live in peace in this house. Ypou need to compromise your 'total freedom', just as the other person in the house must also do - if you want peace in the house.

In one breath they say that they don't want to comprmise the rights of GC's and in the same breath they want to do just that.

I have never said that at all. What I have said is that I want and expect GC to AGREE to some limits on their total and absolute rights - just as I expect the same from TC in order to gain peace in Cyprus. If you continue to put words into my mouth that I have never in fact uttered it makes debate very difficult.

Their idea of a bicommunal bizonal federation is one of ethnic division, its one of two states, living side by side, with the GC one giving handouts to the TC one. That is why the Annan plan was so good for them. That is why they hide behind it and refuse to budge an inch.

'Our' idea of a bicommunal federation is one where both parties living in the same house agree to live with each other in a spirit of mutual respect. We can agree that in some rooms you will be totaly free to do as you like (walk around naked etc etc) and in others we will be simlarly free - but that to insist that one side can do as they like in any part of the house regardless of how much this is unacceptable to the other party does not seem a basis for a harmonious house to me.

The question should not be what it is we the GC's want. It is more what do the TC's really want.

What we want is to not be under the political control (in our own homeland) of a group of people who in the past have attacked and killed us and refused our human rights called us dogs and driven us from out homes. Is that really so hard to understand?

[-mikkie2-]

Magicthrill,

I know what Alexes study is about, but I also know that the biggest obstacle to more refugees being able to return is the number of settlers that will remain. The Annan plan is so loose in this aspect that most of these people will remain. The plan also puts the refugees at the bottom of the ladder regarding property restitution. What I am saying is that refugees MUST be given the right to return IF THEY SO WISH. That does not mean that all GC or TC refugees will rush to move north or south.

Erol,

You talk about your own homeland. What is the point of having a 'United Cyprus Republic' when what you really want is an ethnically pure state? Ask for what it is you really want - a two state solution. Don't pussyfoot around and try to skirt the issue. Say that you are prepred to give this much land back to us to achieve this goal, get Turkey to pay compensation to all refugees that can't return and you can go and live in your own little state away from GC's under Turkish domination.

[magikthrill]

mikkie,

you're preaching to the choir! i agree 100% with what you say as can be seen from most of my posts.

as for you my dear friend erolz,

i liked very much your analogy with the flatmates. only in this situation what has happened is one flatmate has taken over the other flatmate's side. and i ask you this:
how would this flatmates right to get his side back conflict with the other's flatmate to enjoy his side of the flat?

[erolz]

Erol,

You talk about your own homeland. What is the point of having a 'United Cyprus Republic' when what you really want is an ethnically pure state? Ask for what it is you really want - a two state solution. Don't pussyfoot around and try to skirt the issue. Say that you are prepred to give this much land back to us to achieve this goal, get Turkey to pay compensation to all refugees that can't return and you can go and live in your own little state away from GC's under Turkish domination.

I accpet that if we can not live togeather then we should agree to live apart (though this 'living apart' has always been refused by GC at every stage of Cyprus' existance as an independent state). However I prefer the option of finding a way that we can live togeather if it is possible.

In a way it feels like a variant of the old saying re women. (and this is intended more in jest so please don't get to upset or irrate about it)

"GC can't live with em and cant live without em - because they wont let us."

[magikthrill]

hehe good one erolz. only you make it seem like the GCs have so much power that they decide what goes. and we both know that is not the case.

however, on an unrelated topic i still havent udnerstood how allowing people to return to their homes conflicts with the TCs human rights?

[erolz]

however, on an unrelated topic i still havent udnerstood how allowing people to return to their homes conflicts with the TCs human rights?

Well ignoring the effects on the rights of those that will forced from their current homes to allow the return - the issue is one of if GC have no restrictions on where they live and no restrictions on their political representation in the sate where they live then we have the potential for effective political control of both component states in Cyprus and this is what would removal any degree of the TC peoples right to self determination. Either you have to restrict the numbers allowed to live in the TC component sdtate OR you have to restrict their right to political represntation in that state (OR you ignore TC rights all togeather which would seem to be the prefered solution of some).

[cannedmoose]

Idiot or not, he's got a debate going folks...

[erolz]

i liked very much your analogy with the flatmates. only in this situation what has happened is one flatmate has taken over the other flatmate's side. and i ask you this:
how would this flatmates right to get his side back conflict with the other's flatmate to enjoy his side of the flat?

The analogy was to do with how we move forward not the past but if you want to cast it into the past I would say it went something like this.

We agreed in 1960 to share a house. We agreed the terms of this sharing. 3 years later you decided that the agreement was not fair and that you should have the sole right to decide what is fair re the sharing of the house and we should put up with it. You used intimidation and force to this end for 11 years - driving me into a tiny little actic space at thge top of the house cut off from electricity and other ammeaites of the house. At which point my dad to came in and kicked you out of parts of the house - pending a resolution to how we shall share the house in the future. You now insist that the problem is my dad and that he should just go away without any talk of how we shall share the house in the future and insisting that there can be no restrictions at all on how you chose to use the house.