Cyprus-Forum.com

[Jerry]

Can you not just admit that the TC community had a right to resist the imposition of enosis on them without any consideration being given at all for their communal wishes, and we are done.

At what stage would they not have had the "right" to resist the imposition of enosis, 5%, 10% or 15% of the population? Would they have attempted to exercise that "right" if Cyprus was at the other end of the Mediterranean? Did the Turkish Cypriots use the mainland's desire to re-occupy Cyprus to their advantage? Did the overwhelming majority of Cypriots not have the right to seek the security of union with Greece from their historic oppressors?

[Sotos]

Can you not just admit that the TC community had a right to resist the imposition of enosis on them without any consideration being given at all for their communal wishes, and we are done.

Are you going to admit that there shouldn't be a single Turkish state covering all the territories that the Turks are the majority but instead an independent Constantinople, an independent Smyrna, an Independent Kurdistan etc etc? The same principles that apply to your minority should apply to the Greek, Armenian, Kurdish etc minorities in Turkey.

[Sotos]

The Greek population of Turkey declined from 119,822 persons in 1927,[6] to about 7,000 in 1978.

The Greek minority in Turkey went from 119,822 persons in 1927 to 7,000 in 1978, while the Turkish minority in Cyprus went from 64,238 in 1931 to about 116.000 in 1974.

[erolz66]

Can you not just admit that the TC community had a right to resist the imposition of enosis on them without any consideration being given at all for their communal wishes, and we are done.

At what stage would they not have had the "right" to resist the imposition of enosis, 5%, 10% or 15% of the population? Would they have attempted to exercise that "right" if Cyprus was at the other end of the Mediterranean? Did the Turkish Cypriots use the mainland's desire to re-occupy Cyprus to their advantage? Did the overwhelming majority of Cypriots not have the right to seek the security of union with Greece from their historic oppressors?

Good questions Jerry. Relevant questions. I would have preferred an answer to my question but relevant questions are certainly preferable to avoidance and endless 'straw men' responses.

As to at what %of the Cypriot polity a subgroup would have to be before it could be reasonably said to have such a right, my personal view is that arguably at 10% of the population. By 15% I would say almost certainly yes. I do think that in purely practical terms for a 'people' to be able to realistically exercise a 'right to self determination' there has to be 'population size' lower limit. A group of a hundred people can not practically have such rights. I do accept that the TC community is close to this threshold but I do also think it is over it.

As to "Would they have attempted to exercise that "right" if Cyprus was at the other end of the Mediterranean?" I do think the right would have still existed in theoretical terms but I do also accept (and have said here previously) that if Cyprus had of been 50km of the coast of mainland Greece rather than Turkey, then in practical terms it is unlikely that we would have been able to resist the imposition of enosis without any consideration for our communal wishes having to be given. SUch would not have been 'right' but then the world often is not. Just as I have said if Cyprus was where it is today (50km off coast of mainland Turkey) but the population ratios have been reversed between GC and TC, GC would indeed in my opinion, have had a right to resist any attempted imposition of union with Turkey, without any regard being given for their communal wishes but in reality they probably would not have been able to do so.

As to "Did the Turkish Cypriots use the mainland's desire to re-occupy Cyprus to their advantage ?". I think we used whatever means we had to resist the imposition of enosis without any regard being given for our wishes as best we could, including illegal use of violence against innocents. What is more I think there were elements in our community that used 'enosis' as an 'excuse' to pursue division of Cyprus that they would have wanted even without enosis but I do NOT think this is true of the bulk of ordinary TC, nor do I think such elements had a hope in hell of achieving such desires and bringing along the bulk of ordinary TC with them in the absence of enosis.

As to "Did the overwhelming majority of Cypriots not have the right to seek the security of union with Greece from their historic oppressors?" I think the GC community had every right to want and to pursue enosis for themselves and as the GC community, and I understand why such could have been seen as a way of 'securing themselves from Turkey'. What I do not accept and what is the whol point of my argument here, is that such a pursuit can have been legitimately described as the valid democratic will of a Cypriot 'polity'.

So I have done my best to answer your questions as honestly and frankly as I can. Would you care to answer my prior question now ?

[erolz66]

Can you not just admit that the TC community had a right to resist the imposition of enosis on them without any consideration being given at all for their communal wishes, and we are done.

Are you going to admit that there shouldn't be a single Turkish state covering all the territories that the Turks are the majority but instead an independent Constantinople, an independent Smyrna, an Independent Kurdistan etc etc? The same principles that apply to your minority should apply to the Greek, Armenian, Kurdish etc minorities in Turkey.

Well I guess the above and you other 'response' pretty much answer my previous questions to you

So can we stop yet Sotos with the incessant knocking down of the straw men you keep raising up, as a means to avoid addressing the issues I HAVE raised ? Will you EVER address these issues ? Or is ALL you can do seek to avoid them ?

It is clear that we can not yet stop with the incessant straw men arguments. You clearly will not (or can not) address the issue I AM raising. Clearly ALL you can do is seek to avoid them. Sigh.

[Sotos]

My answer to your question is directly linked to your answer to this question: Are you going to admit that there shouldn't be a single Turkish state covering all the territories that the Turks are the majority but instead an independent Constantinople, an independent Smyrna, an Independent Kurdistan etc etc? The same principles that apply to your minority should apply to the Greek, Armenian, Kurdish etc minorities in Turkey.

The Armenian and Greek people are both more native to what is now Turkey than the Turks. They also suffered majorly from Turkish oppression. Would you AT LEAST recognize the rights of the Kurds, who are not only a minority but also have their own separate territory called Kurdistan. Do the Kurds and the PKK have the right to resist by all means available to them the incorporation of Kurdistan into Turkey?

[erolz66]

My answer to your question is directly link to your answer to this question: Are you going to admit that there shouldn't be a single Turkish state covering all the territories that the Turks are the majority but instead an independent Constantinople, an independent Smyrna, an Independent Kurdistan etc etc? The same principles that apply to your minority should apply to the Greek, Armenian, Kurdish etc minorities in Turkey.

The Armenian and Greek people are both more native to what is now Turkey than the Turks. They also suffered majorly from Turkish oppression. Would you AT LEAST recognize the rights of the Kurds, who are not only a minority but also have their own separate territory called Kurdistan. Do the Kurds and the PKK have the right to resist by all means available them the incorporation of Kurdistan into Turkey?

This is BS Sotos. You are just avoiding the issue I raise. Why is that Sotos ?

I have made my position absolutely clear. That Kurdish Turks , like everyone else including TC Cypriots, have a right to self determination is undeniable. The only issue is how do and can they express those rights. As far as and exactly to the same degree to which, an ethnic Turkish majority within the wider Turkish polity seek to make decisions BECAUSE of their differences to Kurdish Turks and not REGARDLESS of them, with no consideration being given to the Kurdish Turks communal wishes, is exactly the degree to which I accept and support that the Kurdish Turks need a form of separate and equal representation as 'ethnic Turks' to protect their rights. Such a right is NOT a right to a separate sovereign state, as I have repeatedly said is also the case for TC in Cyprus. This is exactly the same position I take in regards to Cyprus, based on the same universal PRINCIPALS. I have explained this over and over and over as a result of your efforts to avoid the points and questions I have raised here that are about CYPRUS, because you know CYPRUS is where we all live and this forum is CYPRUS-forum. Why then to you refuse to address the issue and questions I have raised and instead continue to talk about 'other places' ? The more you continue to do this, the more obvious it becomes WHY you do it, to me at least.

[Sotos]

So wait a second. After all is said and done, all territories that the Turks are the majority and even territories where the Turks aren't the majority (Kurdistan) end up being part of a single country called Turkey? So not only you do NOT accept that places that have Turkish majority but also Greek, Armenian etc minorities should NOT be part of Turkey, you do not accept this even for Kurdistan?? Kurdistan should be part of Turkey but Cyprus can't be part of Greece? Did I get this right? It is a violation of the rights of the Turkish minority in Cyprus if Cyprus is part of Greece, but somehow it is not a violation of the rights of the Kurdish majority if Kurdistan is part of Turkey?????

[erolz66]

This is BS Sotos. You are just avoiding the issue I raise. Why is that Sotos ?

So wait a second.

Why stop at a second? You have been doing everything you can do avoid addressing the issue I AM taking about and the very simple question I have asked pages ago. Why is that Sotos ?

After all is said and done, all territories that the Turks are the majority and even territories where the Turks aren't the majority (Kurdistan) end up being part of a single country called Turkey? So not only you do NOT accept that places that have Turkish majority but also Greek, Armenian etc minorities should NOT be part of Turkey, you do not accept this even for Kurdistan??

NONE of this discussion to date been about how the boundaries of nation states get drawn or how the should get drawn. That you are now trying to make out this is what the discussion is about just shows again how determined or inable you are to address the issues I HAVE raised about Cyprus, by trying to talk about ones I have NOT about other places.

Turkey as a nation state EXISTS. As to if those Turks who are of Kurdish descent can or can not validly exercise their right to self determination through that state or if they need and should have a some form of separate and equal voice within or outside it to that of the numerically dominant voice of 'ethnic Turks' they share their homeland with - I have already answered that. The answer is ENTIRELY consistent with what I am saying about Cyprus.

Kurdistan should be part of Turkey but Cyprus can't be part of Greece? Did I get this right? It is a violation of the rights of the Turkish minority in Cyprus if Cyprus is part of Greece, but somehow it is not a violation of the rights of the Kurdish majority if Kurdistan is part of Turkey?????

No where do I say 'Kurdistan' , some parts of which are currently within Turkey and some parts of which are not, should or should not be part of the nation state of Turkey. No where. No where have I said Cyprus 'can not be part of Greece' either. No where have I said that just Cyprus being a part of Greece (or parts of Kurdistan a part of Turkey) is in and off itself a violation of the rights of the TC community in Cyprus (or Kurdish Turks in Turkey). In fact I have already previously LITERALLY said the opposite in this VERY thread when I said "Yes the TC communities rights, as CYPRIOTS who were NOT Greek could potentially have been respected under enosis...". A clearer example then of a 'straw man' argument would be hard to find. You CONTINUE with your (increasingly desperate and pathetic) straw man diversions.

What I HAVE said over and over and over again, is that the decision by the GC community to choose to pursue enosis rather than independence in Cyprus following the end of British rule can not be claimed to have been the legitimate democratic will of a Cypriot polity, It can only be said to have been in the words of Plato the will of a 'feudalism' because such a pursuit was not (again in the literal words of Plato, writing over 2 thousand years ago) "in the interest of the common weal of the whole State" but was in fact in the "in the interest of a section" of the Cypriot polity.

The reason I have had to drag poor old Plato into this madness is YOUR insistence that 'democracy' can only mean that GC acting purely in their own interests as GREEK Cypriots and not in the wider interests of the "common weal of the whole of Cyprus [and ALL those in it] had a right to impose enosis on the TC community without any regard for the wishes of the TC community. I do not accept this is what democracy demands and requires. I say that such definition of democracy is an 'empty name' and what is more Platos said it over 2000 thousand years ago.

So I ask you AGAIN Sotos

Can we stop yet Sotos with the incessant knocking down of the straw men you keep raising up, as a means to avoid addressing the issues I HAVE raised ? Will you EVER address these issues ? Or is ALL you can do seek to avoid them ?

I ask you AGAIN Sotos

Can you admit that the TC community had a right to resist the imposition of enosis on them without any consideration being given at all for their communal wishes, and we are done. Just that, just that single right, nothing else, not a right to partition, not a right to 'ethnic cleansing', not a right to separate or equal representation within a unitary Cyprus. JUST that they had the right to resist the imposition of enosis on them without any consideration being given at all for their communal wishes. Can you do that Sotos ? Some how I fear you are not capable of doing that but who knows maybe you can prove me wrong ?

With every post you just show and prove that my 'fears' that you are not capable of doing so are made stronger and stronger. If you can not admit this thing above then at least have the courage of your convictions to SAY SO.

[Sotos]

No where have I said Cyprus 'can not be part of Greece' either.

Doesn't what you say IMPLY that?

Can you admit that the TC community had a right to resist the imposition of enosis on them without any consideration being given at all for their communal wishes

But their only "communal wish" was "no enosis - partition". They didn't say: "We will accept enosis but first we ask for x y z things that are necessary for our security and well being". So can you please be specific about which communal wishes of TCs we refused to consider?