Israel Should Recognize the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus by Rachel Salomon

Israelis don’t have many allies in the Middle East. Essentially, Israel’s only reliable friend in the region is Turkey. Given that, it makes a lot of sense for Israel to seek out other friends that are not too far away geographically. If Israel recognizes the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, not only will Israeli-Turkish relations be strengthened-----Israelis will have another reliable friend not too far away from home.

Israel has always had an interest in Cyprus since the founding of Israel in 1948. However, Israel only got its embassy in Cyprus in 1961 upon the insistence of the Turks and the Turkish Cypriots that there be an Israeli diplomatic presence on the island. This was, of course, before the Turkish Cypriots were ousted from the government in 1963. If the Greek Cypriots did not hijack the Cypriot constitution, there would have been a Cypriot embassy in Israel way before 1994, when the Greek Cypriots decided to finally open up their embassy in Tel Aviv, in accordance with a general shift in Greek policy that supported increasing its ties with Israel to try to minimize the Turkish-Israeli alliance.

For the first 45-years of Israel’s existence, the Greeks and Greek Cypriots seldom had any interaction with Israel, choosing instead to side with Israel’s adversaries in the region. These sentiments were vividly expressed by the Greek Cypriot support for Dr. Vassos Lyssarides, who had served as an advisor to Palestinian, Syrian, Libyan, and other internationally known terrorist organizations.

To the contrary, as early as 1959, Dr. Fazil Kutchuk, former leader of the Turkish Cypriots, told Peretz Leshem, Israel's consul in Nicosia, that “the Turks of Cyprus sought warm relations and close economic ties with Israel.” Unfortunately, the Israelis decided against this out of the vain hope that this would cause them to strengthen their diplomatic ties with the Greeks and Greek Cypriots. Nevertheless, Israel did firmly reject the idea of Enosis (Cyprus unifying with Greece) and generally did support Turkey overall on the Cyprus issue.

Right now, Turkish-Israeli relations are very close. Israel has multiple military agreements with Turkey and free trade agreements. Many Israelis choose Turkey as their number one tourism destination. Turkey was the first Muslim country to recognize Israel in 1949 and has continuously backed Israel on issues of crucial importance. If Israel recognizes the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, definitely the Turkish Cypriots and probably the Turks as well will agree to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish people.

Israelis and Turkish Cypriots have fundamental similarities in their way of thinking. Both countries are democracies and have faced immense persecution, thus forcing both peoples to want to create their own state. The Turkish Cypriots and Israelis both understand what it is like to live in a state of constant warfare and are against terrorism. And both peoples yearn for a better future than what currently exists. Given this, Israeli recognition of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus only seems natural.

Justice Denied by Rachel Salomon

It is an interesting fact that people living in dictator ships have more rights than people living in a democratic country like the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Indeed, Cuba receives millions of tourists every year because many countries do have direct flights to their country. However, a democratic TRNC does not have such a privilege because of the unjust isolation imposed on them; Turkish Cypriots can not fly to any country directly other than Turkey and no other country has direct flights to the TRNC. A Cuban can accept mail directly and can receive telephone calls. But a Turkish Cypriot can only make telephone calls and receive mail via Turkey. Dictatorships like Cuba do not have fair elections and have been internationally condemned for their human rights record. Yet what has the democratic TRNC been condemned for? They have been and still are punished because Turkey intervened to preserve their existence in 1974.

Starting in 1963 up until 1974, the Greek Cypriots orchestrated a campaign in favor of the unification with Greece in violation of the Treaty of Guarantee and other international agreements. During this same period of time, thousands of Turkish Cypriots were massacred by their Greek Cypriot neighbors. Nevertheless, it was the Turkish Cypriots who voted in favor of the Annan Peace Plan---the most elaborate plan on the Cyprus issue which was supported by the entire international community.

With the Annan Plan, the European Union was supposed to have all of Cyprus enter into the European Union as a united island. Unfortunately, because the Greek Cypriots voted against the Annan Peace plan, this did not happen. Nevertheless, it was the Greek Cypriot side that was rewarded with European Union membership, while the side that actually cooperated with the international community by voting in favor of the Annan Plan, the Turkish Cypriots, continued to suffer under unjust isolation.

It is a sad but ironic anomaly that a democracy which has voted in favor of peace continues to be treated worse than dictatorships, rogue states, and people who have voted against peace. The fact that the international community, especially the European Union, have not kept their promises to change this injustice is a travesty. Nevertheless, despite the feelings of hurt, pain, disappointment, and betrayal that most Turkish Cypriots feel by being left in limbo, they are yearning the day when justice will awaken from its slumber and become a reality.

Orphic Hymn just does not get it! By Rachel Salomon

A) Have you not accused the H/C of teaching to their youth hatred? You did, so where is my requested quote or name of a poem? All you have provided is some ill comparison to the Lydra Street grafitti that is a condemned event.

I shall once again reprint this quote from the Greek Cypriot author, Antonis Angastiniyotis, who wrote:“The majority of the Greek Cypriot youth know very little about the events that led to the island's division. The tragic events of 1974 have been used as a huge curtain to cover up the real events that led to the division of the two people. In our schools it has always surprised me that while talking about the heroism of EOKA, they skip 15-years and continue with 1974. Either nothing happened between 1960 and 1974, or no one wants to discuss this. While researching the events during this period (1960-74), I realized that the second choice was right. When I started to write this research, my cousin from Greece and her two daughters came to visit me and we started to discuss the events of 1963-74. The daughters knew nothing and what their mother knew was very confusing. At one stage of the discussion I mentioned some of the Greek Cypriot leadership's mistakes and all of a sudden this brought out the nationalist monster in my cousin who said: "Makarios' biggest mistake was not to have killed all the Turkish Cypriots in order for us to be comfortable". This sweet and pretty woman, who couldn't even kill an ant, had suddenly turned into a killer who could carry out mass murders. She wanted a whole race to be wiped out. This is what I said to her: "In other words, do you mean taking out all the children from school, all mothers with their babies and all the men from their work places and taking them to a big hole in Messaria and murder them…Do you want to be one of the murders or the one of the persons using the bulldozer to cover the mass graves…" There was silence. The example I gave helped her to understand the meaning of what she said. Then I started to speak again. "We tried this before in Ayvasil, Murataga, Atlilar, Taskent, but the only thing we succeeded in was soughing the fruits of our efforts". During our childhood we were taught that the Turks were barbaric dogs. My aunt used to say to me that they smelled because they weren't baptized. Whereas according to the Bible, we are modern Christians who love their environment. Then, why did our religious leader Makarios in 1964 say that 'If Turkey comes to intervene to protect the Turkish Cypriots, she will not find a single Turkish Cypriot to save…' The answer is clear. In Cyprus there is a saying, 'another priest's sermon'. In certain situations this enables us to hate. This book will deal with some of these special situations.”

Also, according to the US government’s 2005 Country Report on Human Rights practices in Cyprus, “The government continued to use textbooks at the primary and secondary school level that included inflammatory language derogatory of Turkish Cypriots and Turks. This was a particularly serious concern with history textbooks.”

b) Have you or have you not directly attacked the Hellenic people by titling them xenophobic and racist in a topic that is totally unrelated. And since you DID, do explain for what reason exactly did you resort to this totally unrelated to the topic, slander???

First of all, I quoted from a credible source, the Jerusalem Center for Strategic Studies. I did not just make these accusations up out of this air. Here is the report:

http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=381&PID=470&IID=640

It is in this report that I get the findings of the 2000 Eurobarometer survey, which found that 38 percent of Greeks were troubled by the presence of non-Greeks living in their country. According to the Jerusalem Center for Strategic Studies, this makes Greece the most xenophobic country in the European Union. This is not an attack. It is just a mere fact that I just backed up with this academic source citation. The only reason why I even brought up this fact is because Argyrou said the following: “When Salomon refers to the Ottomans giving the expelled Jews of Spain a home in the Ottoman empire she neglects to mention that this was at the expense of the Greeks of Thessalonica who were deported by the Turks so that the Jews could take their homes.” I have never heard this in my entire life. As a child, I was taught that the Jews of Spain moved to Salonika because they were welcome with open arms by Sultan Bayezid II. Argyrou sounded to me like he was mocking the home that this Turkish Sultan gave to the Jews, namely my ancestors. I got offended. Naturally, I responded, for I found this comment to be very anti-Semitic.

c) You claim to have not manipulated the Guardian quote, when not once but twice you attempted to relate it to T/C deaths. I want to see a specific Stephen's article that does relate it to T/C and not to the coup.

Michael Stephens report called “The Cyprus Question,” published by the British Northern Cyprus Parliamentary Group, quoted the Guardian, which reported on December 31, 1963, that “it is nonsense to claim, as the Greek Cypriots do, that all causalities were caused by fighting between armed men of both sides. On Christmas Eve many Turkish Cypriot people were brutally attacked and murdered in their suburban homes, including the wife and children of the Turkish Cypriot head of army medical services----allegedly by a group of forty men, many in army boots and greatcoats.” This is a direct quote. It can be found on page 15 of the report. This was the quote that I published in Israel Insider in my second article. It has absolutely nothing to do with the coup. As you can tell by the date, it was a good eleven years before the coup.

e) You totally manipulated the events of Aug. 95' and 96'. WHY distort the second that has been officially condemned by the UN and there are literally hundreds of links that could provide you with accurate info, so WHY the distortion especially when a H/C was killed??

To my knowledge, what I said about August 1995 and August 1996 is the truth. Here is what Michael Stephen had to say about the whole event, pages 38-40.

On 7th October 1995 a Turkish Cypriot farmer, Erkan Egmez, was snatched from his fields, and tortured by Greek Cypriot police. On 5 March 1996 the US State Depart report on human rights in Cyprus said: Egmez, appears to have been severely beaten in the period during and immediately after his arrest and eventually required ten days of hospitalization. According to some eye-witnesses hooded police officials continued beating him even as he was being admitted to hospital.

On 8th November 1995 hundreds of schoolchildren were given permission by Greek Cypriot officials to be absent from school. They participated in a violent riot under the guidance of teachers, in which Greek Cypriots seized a UN observation post and hoisted a Greek flag in the buffer zone. It is worth noting that it is almost always the Greek flag, not the Greek Cypriot flag, which is used on these occasions.

On 3rd June 1996 at 6:30am a Greek Cypriot National Guardsman in uniform was shot when he violated the buffer zone and refused to stop when challenged by Turkish Cypriot sentries. On 6th August 1996 armed Greek Cypriots tried to abduct a Turkish Cypriot shepherd from the buffer zone.

On 11th August 1996 several thousand young people, many on motorcycles who were organized to ride from Berlin, were encouraged to break into the UN buffer zone and confront the Turkish Cypriots on their border. They rampaged in the buffer zone, in defiance of the UN forces, setting fire to vegetation, brandishing knives, and throwing stones and Molotov cocktails. They tore down the UN barb-wire fence near Dherynia, and one was beaten to death in a violent struggle with Turkish Cypriots. Another was shot when he broke through the Turkish Cypriot line and tried to desecrate their flag. Instead of regretting these incidents and apologizing to the UN and to the Turkish Cypriots, the Greek Cypriots have treated the two hooligans as national heroes.

Neither of these men should have been killed, and the Turkish Cypriots must exercise greater restraint in future, whatever the provocation, for there are those on the Greek Cypriot side who are deliberately putting the lives of their young people at risk for political purposes. The Greek Cypriot motorcyclist leader Hadjicostas was asked by Selides magazine whether he had not thought that there might be victims. “Of course I did,” he said, “approximately 40 bikers die on the roads each year. Let some of them die for the country.”

The Greek Cypriot leadership must take ultimate responsibility for the death of the two men. They should have called off the incursion before it was too late, and should not have allowed them to cross into the UN Zone. Interviewed by the press immediately afterwards UN envoy Gustav Feissel said, “It was the responsibility of the Greek Cypriot government to ensure that the cease-fire line was not violated.”

Nor should the Greek Cypriot leadership have encouraged the organizers in the first place. The Greek Orthodox Church made a large financial contribution and Archbishop Chyrisostomos declared in September on Greek Star TV “The time has come to launch a full-scale struggle against the Turks-----it does not matter how much bloodshed there is or how many victims there are.” Many people may be surprised by such remarks from a senior clergyman. Also, the leader of the Greek Cypriot motorcyclists told Periodiko on 21st August 1996, “We were promised that the Greeks would provide transfer back to Germany in a Hercules transport plane of the Greek Air Force.”

Immediately after the riot, President Denkas called upon President Clerides to meet him. He said, “there is more need than ever for talks. I am ready to meet immediately, but Clerides may use the incident as an excuse not to meet.” He did refuse to meet. In a letter to Clerides on 22nd September 1996 Denkas said, “It is upon us, the leaders, to tell our peoples that there is no other way in Cyprus except coexistence as good neighbors under separate roofs, or as co-founders partners under one mutually agreed bizonal, bicommunal roof. Rushing our borders claiming the right to come and sweep off our properties and demanding submission by brute force, waving Greek flags and telling us that Hellenism will be victorious in Cyprus is surely not the way to a negotiated settlement.”

On 13th August 1996, the Greek Cypriot Cyprus Mail wrote that “The government’s handling of the whole matter has been naïve, indecisive, and irresponsible,” and quoting Clerides as saying that the bloody clashes had “given the message abroad that the two communities can not live together, and that the presence of Turkish troops in Cyprus was necessary.”

Orphic, I recognize that some Greek Cypriots died. But you have to ask yourself, what did they do to get themselves in that situation? Not that I am condoning that they were killed. I am just pointing out that they were encouraged by their leadership to harass Turkish Cypriots and violate a UN buffer zone.

Orphic Hymn, just another propagandist! By Rachel Salomon

According to Mr. Hymn, “But the point here is not some medieval rule but that the population despite being ruled by Byzantines, Arabs, Venetians, Ottomans, British, was always predominantly Hellenic since the Bronze age.”

No one denies that there have been Greeks in Cyprus for quite some time. Nevertheless, the fact remains, as Mr. Hymn even admitted, that the island has never been owned by Greeks and others, namely Turkish Cypriots, also have a right to the island as well.

According to Mr. Hymn, “The problem is well known and that is not the 500 year old population of the North, but the illegally imported Turks from the mainland that are the reason the Cypriot Turks fear total alienation from their own identity.”

Turks only started to be imported to Northern Cyprus after 1974. The roots of the problem can be traced back to 1963, when the campaign of genocide against Turkish Cypriots began. The only reason Turks have been imported from the mainland is to ease the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots. I understand that many Turkish Cypriots fear that they are being overtaken by these people, because many of their own have moved to London due to the economic isolation of the country. Nevertheless, I don’t blame this on Turkey. I blame this more on the embargo. If there was no embargo, perhaps these people would not be needed and you would see more Turkish Cypriots staying in their own country.

According to Mr. Hymn, “Taking a single condemned event which the pseudo-state is exploiting in an attempt to distort history. Of course while making the comparison between the alleged school texts and graffiti made by a small group of hoodlums; she avoids presenting any true comparison, a scanned page, a quote from a poem.”

There are lots of examples. Allow me to display a report given by the British Parliament:

“On 8 November 1995 hundreds of schoolchildren were given permission by Greek Cypriot officials to be absent from school. They participated in a violent riot under the guidance of teachers, in which Greek Cypriots seized a UN observation post and hoisted a Greek flag in the buffer zone. It is worth noting that it is almost always the Greek flag, not the Greek Cyprus flag, which is used on these occasions.”

“On 11 August 1996, several thousand young people […] were encouraged to break into the UN buffer zone and confront the Turkish Cypriots on their border. They rampaged in the buffer zone, in defiance of the UN forces, setting fire to vegetation, brandishing knives, and throwing stones and Molotov cocktails.”

According to Greek Star TV, Archbishop Chyrisostomos said on July 28, 1996, “The time has come to launch a full-scale struggle against the Turks----it does not matter how much bloodshed there is or how many victims there are.”

According to Mr. Hymn, “By reading basic articles of the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", we see that according to Art. 1 and 7 the basic rights that the 70/30 percentage proposed in the constitution, proved to be discriminatory against the Hellenic Cypriots.”

As I have proven in my bellow article, this same document can also be applied to the Turkish Cypriots as well. This document applies to all people all over the world. To say that these rights only apply to Greek Cypriots but not the Turkish Cypriots is absurd. The Greek Cypriots, as I have proven, are no angels. They can just as easily be accused of violations of this document, actually to a far greater extent, as I have demonstrated in my last article, “Greek Cypriot leadership violates the rights of Turkish Cypriots as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

According to Mr Hymn, “WITHDRAWAL dear R. Salomon, NOT expulsion. As previously mentioned the abandonment of the government and public service positions through Turkish and TMT instigation is evident.”

I know that there is a difference between withdrawal and expulsion. However, the Turkish Cypriots did not withdraw. Despite what Mr. Hymn says, the truth is that they were expelled. Again, this goes contrary to reports from the British government that say quite the contrary.

“Greek Cypriots often claim that the Turkish Cypriots withdrew voluntarily from their positions in the state, but this is not correct. They were excluded by threats to their personal safety.”

According to the UK Commons Select Committee, “When in July 1965 the Turkish Cypriot members of the House of Representatives had sought to resume their seats they were told that they could do so only if they accepted the legislative changes due to the operation of the Constitution enacted in their absence.” Note that no Turkish Cypriot leader could accept these changes.”

The UK Commons Selection Committee continued: “In February 1966 Makarios declared that the 1960 agreements had been abrogated and buried.” Thus, the basis for any kind of joint government between Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots was eliminated.

Mr. Hymn proudly quotes the Galo Plaza report as if it is G-d. Nevertheless, even the author of the Galo Plaza report, stated On 29 March 1965, “It is obvious that the Cyprus problem cannot any longer be solved by trying to implement fully the Nicosia treaties and the constitution by the treaties. The events since December 1963 have created a situation which makes it psychologically and politically impossible to return to the previous situation.” Thus, under such a situation, Dr. Plaza recognizes why the Turkish Cypriot side felt the need for partition. The very same report that Mr. Hymn uses also states:

84. My predecessor observed--and from my own knowledge I can confirm--that there could be no concealing the fact that the formal "prohibition" of the Enosis idea did not suppress it in Cyprus. It continued to be discussed and advocated (as well as opposed), in and out of the institutions of government, long after the date of independence. It was and remains impossible to escape the impression that for a large body of the Greek-Cypriot leaders' following, and for many of the leaders themselves, the official demand for "full independence and self-determination" had no other meaning than this: that Cyprus should be released from the treaty and constitution obligations which limited her freedom of choice, whereupon she would opt by some acceptable democratic procedure for union with Greece, this union to take place by agreement exclusively between Cyprus and Greece.

85. The records of the previous Mediator show that the possibility of majority support for Enosis--together with the need to find a way of avoiding a situation in which it might have to be imposed on an unwilling Turkish-Cypriot minority--led to a search among a number of the parties concerned in the Cyprus problem for a formula of union between Cyprus and Greece which might prove acceptable to them all. My predecessor observed that such a formula would clearly need the agreement of all of them, for juridical as well as political reasons. In principle, it would need not only to satisfy the aspirations of a numerical majority of the population of Cyprus but also to avoid provoking the active resistance en bloc, or nearly so, of the Turkish-Cypriot community and assure them of the reasonable protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms; and it would need in addition to satisfy the legitimate interests of the other parties to the problem, namely the Governments of Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom.

137. I am certain in my own mind that the question of Enosis is the most divisive and potentially the most explosive aspect of the Cyprus problem. I have been assured by the Turkish-Cypriot leadership and by the successive Governments of Turkey that any attempt to bring it about against their will would provoke active and vigorous resistance. And I judge this to be true, short of a change in attitudes which only a long passage of time could bring about. I feel bound, therefore, to examine this question with the greatest care.

142. I have stated the foregoing as matters of fact and of impression. I do not wish it to appear that I have any opinion on the merits or otherwise of Enosis. Moreover, I must also make it clear that neither the President nor the Government of Cyprus, in their discussions with me as the Mediator, actually advocated Enosis as the final solution of the Cyprus problem. Archbishop Makarios and members of the Government acknowledged that Enosis had been the original aim of the uprising against British rule and that it remained a strong aspiration among the Greek-Cypriot community. They went so far as to express the opinion that if the choice between independence and Enosis were to be put to the people there would probably be a majority in favour of the latter. Some of the Ministers and other high officials of the Government have openly advocated it in public statements.

146. I must state here in all frankness how I myself see the Enosis question in the light of the above considerations. My observations of the situation in Cyprus over a period of many months, my discussions with many of its citizens, and my consultations with representatives of all the parties concerned have made it difficult for me to see how any proposed settlement which leaves open the possibility of Enosis being brought about against the will of the Turkish-Cypriot minority can secure agreement at present or in the foreseeable future. Serious warnings have been given that an attempt to impose such a solution would be likely to precipitate not only a new out- break of violence on Cyprus itself but also a grave deterioration in relations between Turkey on the one hand and Cyprus and Greece on the other, possibly provoking actual hostilities and in any case jeopardizing the peace of the eastern Mediterranean region. The question can be raised, consequently, whether it would not be an act of enlightened statesmanship -- as well as a sovereign act of self-determination in the highest sense -- if the Government of Cyprus were in the superior interests of the security of the State and the peace of the region to undertake to maintain the independence of the Republic.

151. The reason why the Turkish-Cypriot leadership seeks a geographical separation, which does not now exist, of the two communities should, also be understood. If the fear of Enosis being imposed upon them is the major obstacle to a settlement as seen from the Turkish-Cypriot side, one reason for it is their purported dread of Greek rule. Their leaders claim also, however, that even within the context of an independent Cypriot State, events have proved that the two communities, intermingled as they are now, cannot live peacefully together. They would meet this problem by the drastic means of shifting parts of both communities in order to create two distinct geographical regions, one predominantly of Turkish-Cypriot inhabitants and the other of Greek-Cypriots. They claim that this would now be merely an extension of the process that has been forced on them by events: the greater concentration than usual of their people in certain parts of the island, notably around Nicosia and in the north-west.

156. It is essential, I think, to reconsider the objective intended to be served by the geographical separation of the two communities and to look for other ways to achieve that objective. I am inclined to regard separation not as, in itself, a basic principle in the proposals of the Turkish Government and the Turkish-Cypriot leadership, but rather as the only means which they consider workable of ensuring respect for the real principle at stake: namely, that the Turkish-Cypriot community must be protected and protected adequately. I fully support that principle. I feel strongly that the protection of the Turkish-Cypriot community is one of the most important aspects of the Cyprus problem and that everything possible must be done to ensure it, including safeguards of an exceptional kind.

159. From the moment a settlement is in sight, the Charter's insistence on respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion, will assume a capital importance in Cyprus. It will be an indispensable condition for the progressive re birth of confidence and the re-establishment of social peace. The obstacle against the full application of the principle cannot be over-estimated; an they are no less psychological than political. The violent sharpening of "national" sentiments over the months of crisis will for some time make it extremely difficult for officials at all levels to impose or even exercise strict impartiality towards all the citizens of the country, and without that impartiality and understanding there will be a constant risk acts of discrimination, even if laws are respected in the formal sense.

161. It is hardly necessary for me to say that while the safeguards would apply to all the people of both communities, in practice it is the Turkish-Cypriot minority which will stand most in need to them. The safeguards are justified not only by the need to re-establish a durable peace in the life of the island, nor only by the need to ensure that the settlement accords with the Charter of the United Nations. Simple equity also demands that these safe-guards should be provided. It will need not to be forgotten that the Turkish- Cypriot community obtained from the Zurich and London Agreements a series of rights greatly superior to those which can realistically be contemplated for it in the future. In addition, it would be just and fair to recognize that however effective the safeguards that can be devised any Turkish-Cypriot who fails to find in them a basis for reasonable confidence in the new order of things, would have the right to resettle in Turkey, and should be assisted to do so, with adequate compensation and help in starting a new life. Appropriate assistance should also be provided, without discrimination, to rehabilitate all those whose property has been destroyed or seriously damaged as a result of the disorders. This will be a task of reconstruction for which, I am confident, external assistance, including that of the United Nations family of organizations, would be forthcoming at the Government's request.

Given that the Galo Plaza report also stated the understanding for the Turkish Cypriot need for partition after every thing that had happened to them, I don’t see how Mr. Hymn can continue to use this document to criticize the Turkish Cypriots for wanting partition. After all, they only sought independence AFTER they realized that the Greek Cypriots were NOT WILLING TO WORK WITH THEM UNDER THE CONSTITUTION IN A JOINT-PARTNERSHIP. ENOSIS IS WHAT KILLED THE CONSTITUTION, NOT TURKISH CYPRIOTS WANTING PARTITION AFTER THEY WERE ALREADY KICKED OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT!

Mr. Hymn really needs to re-examine his facts. As proven by his statements above and his blindness to my very good source citations, he has proven himself to be nothing more than a propagandist.

Greek Cypriot leadership violates the rights of Turkish Cypriots as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

In other words, under the Republic of Cyprus, both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots needed to have equality. Neither should be treated as a minority. To try and impose minority status on the Turkish Cypriots goes contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

In other words, despite the fact that the TRNC is not recognized by any other country other than Turkey, is no excuse for trying to reduce the Turkish Cypriots to minority status.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Committing mass murder and imposing inhumane isolations because the Turkish Cypriots refuse to have their rights reduced to being a minority, when this declaration clearly states that they should be given equality, qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment that goes contrary to the principles set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

Given this, no one has a right to deny the rights of the Turkish Cypriots, for to do such is violating their right to have a nationality.

Article 28.

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

In other words, international recognition of the Greek Cypriots without recognition of the Turkish Cypriots in every aspect of life goes contrary to the rights and freedoms mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Universal Rights, as proven above.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Given this, it is us supporters of the Turkish Cypriots who should be quoting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, not the Greek Cypriot side. As the saying goes, those in glass houses can not throw stones. As long as the Greek Cypriot side is violating the rights of the Turkish Cypriots, they have no right to manipulate this document in their favor.

Orphic Hymn, wake up to reality! By Rachel Salomon

According to Mr. Hymn, “Seems like some pawns on the pseudo-state's payroll can't even enjoy the festive season without spilling their venom and hatred through blunt propaganda.”

First of all, I would like to verify that I am an unpaid intern who is also a full-time student at the University of Maryland at College Park, where I am majoring in Jewish Studies and Government and Politics, with minors in French and Middle Eastern Studies. I pay $25 per week in metro expenses just so that I can aid the Turkish Cypriot cause. I receive absolutely no income outside the $50 per week in allowance that my parents give me. My main incentive for doing all of this work on behalf of the TRNC is a love for the Turkish Cypriot people and exposing what I consider to be the truth. Spreading hatred and venom was never one of my intentions nor is not part of my work with the TRNC Representative Office.

According to Mr. Hymn, “The Cyprus issue goes as far back as 1570, specifically the 9th of September 1570 which is when Nicosia fell to the invading Ottomans. But the siege itself and the occupation are not so much of an issue, especially when we look upon how they chose to celebrate their victory and send a message to the rest of the island’s population. The message was sent by slaughtering some 20,000 Nicosians, burning churches, public buildings, and then looting any thing that had remained standing. But if we look into later events, we’d see that Turkey through the activities of TMT clearly advocated the partition and THAT is the beginning.”

I would be very interested to learn where Mr. Hymn heard such myths. It would have been nice if he actually gave some sources to back up his grave accusations. Unfortunately for him, I am a woman who BACKS UP WHAT I HAVE TO SAY. I shall now reveal the truth through source citations.

According to Harry Scott Gibbon’s “The Genocide Files,” “The first definite evidence of human habitation was about 7,000 BC, when settlers arrived from southern Turkey, Syria, and Palestine.”

“The island split up into several kingdoms which paid tribute to the Assyrians, the Egyptians, and then the Persians. Alexander the Great’s defeat of the Persians in 333 BC freed Cyprus, but on his death ten years later the island was fought over by his generals Ptolemy and Antigonus and finally became part of the Egyptian Ptolemy kingdom for 250 years. The Roman Empire took over from 58 BC to 395 AD, then followed Byzantine Cyprus from 395 to 1191.”

In other words, thus far, we have Assyrian, Egyptian, Persian, Macedonian, and Romans ruling Cyprus. No Greeks. Contrary to what the Greeks claim, the Byzantines were a Roman people, not Greek. They were known in history as the Eastern Roman Empire. Ptolemy was Egyptian, not Greek. And Alexander the Great was Macedonian, not Greek.

Richard the Lionheart of England took conquered Cyprus from the Byzantines in 1191. He would quickly hand over control to the Templars. But when ruling the island become too much for them to handle, Richard the Lionheart handed control of the island over to his friend Guy de Lusignan.

“The Venetians then took over the island from 1489 to 1571 when the Ottoman Turks conquered it and held it until 1878. Greek Orthodoxy was encouraged by the Ottomans, who banned the Latin Church. In 1878, the Ottomans leased Cyprus to Britain in return for supporting Turkey against Russia. When Turkey chose to fight on the side of Germany in WWI, Britain annexed the island.”

Thus, looking at this history, it is impossible to conclude, as Mr. Hymn does, that the Cyprus conflict began in 1570 with the arrival of the Ottoman Turks. It is also impossible to not recognize the existence of the Turkish Cypriots, whose roots can be traced back to 7,000 BC.

I would also like to inquire from Mr. Hymn, in what period in history did the Turks slaughter 20,000 Greek Cypriots from Nicosia alone and deliberately burn churches? From what sources did you hear this from? What documentation do you have to support this accusation?

I would also like to clarify why the TMT was formed and provide documentation to back this up. According to the non-biased website http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/narrative-main-%203.htm, the TMT was founded as a direct result of Greek violence. “Although the TMT organized the defence of the Turkish minority and there were a number of acts of retaliation directed at the Greek Cypriots, there is no doubt that the main victims of the numerous incidents that took place during the next few months were Turks. 700 Turkish Cypriot hostages, including women and children, were seized in the northern suburbs of Nicosia. The mixed suburb of Omorphita suffered the most from an independent gang of Greek Cypriot irregulars led by Nicos Sampson who, claiming to be rescuing a Greek section surrounded by Turks, in fact made a full-dress assault on the Turkish Cypriot population.” Thus, the Turkish Cypriot TMT was doing nothing more than defending their little enclaves from EOKA attacks, just as the Jewish Warsaw Ghetto Fighters defended themselves against the Nazi aggression. And given all of the atrocities that the Turkish Cypriots faced from EOKA, can any one blame them for wanting their own state separate from the Greek Cypriots? How can any one trust a neighbour who is slaughtering their family members? Try to tell a Turkish Cypriot child whose parents were murdered by Greek Cypriots that they should be able to live peacefully with their Greek Cypriot neighbours.

According to Mr. Hymn, “What R. Salomon fails to understand is the people’s desire for liberation and self-determination. But one must wonder why the attempt to imply that the British ‘allowed the Greeks to settle on the island’….is this a probable attempt to present the aboriginals as the invaders, the newcomers that disrupted the islands peace while we disclose the fact that it’s actually the other way around?”

My only point in bringing this up was to demonstrate that under British rule, the number of Greeks on the island increased and that is all. The Greeks are not the aboriginals on the island. Greeks have lived on the island for some time, but through out history the island has never been owned by Greeks before the Greek Cypriots high jacked the title of the “Republic of Cyprus.” I am not trying to deny Greek Cypriots rights to live on Cyprus. My only intention is to show that Turkish Cypriots have just as much of a right to live there as Greek Cypriots. And I understand “a people’s desire for liberation and self-determination” very well. I am a Zionist. I have supported Israel’s right for self-determination through out my life. I also strongly support the Turkish Cypriot right to self-determination and liberation. That is another reason why I was against the War in Iraq, because I support people’s right to self-determination. I have also supported the Sudanese, Rwandans, and Bosnians in their struggles to liberate themselves from genocide. If any one has an issue recognizing “a people’s right for liberation and self-determination,” it is you, for you support that for the Greek Cypriot people but want to deny that same right to the Turkish Cypriot people. No one is saying that Greek Cypriot’s don’t have a right to exist. All we pro-Turkish people are arguing is that the same rights should be given to Turkish Cypriots.

According to Mr. Hymn, “Singing in favour of slaughter is one thing and singing songs that speak of liberty from oppression, songs celebrating the strive for freedom from foreign yoke are a totally different issue which the author unfortunately seems unable to understand.”

I agree that singing songs in favour of liberation and singing songs of slaughter are two different things. I understand the difference. However, the reality is that the Turkish Cypriots sing songs of liberation, while the Greek Cypriots sing songs of slaughter. Allow me to give some examples to prove this.

This Turkish Cypriot song was taken from http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/renewal_of_violence%20-%20'57-58.htm:

Oh Turkish Youth!
The day is near when you will be called upon to sacrifice your life and blood in the 'PARTITION' struggle -- to the struggle for freedom. . . .
You are a brave Turk. You are faithful to your country and nation and are entrusted with the task of demonstrating Turkish might. Be ready to break the chains of slavery with your determination and willpower and with your love of freedom. All Turkdom, right and justice and God are with you.

To the contrary, Greek Cypriot youth are trained in their schools to chant and sing slogans calling for the “Death of the Turkish Dogs.”

According to Mr. Hymn, “Seems like R. Salomon despite her visit to Turkey and open support of the pseudo-state, she hasn’t actually learnt or neglected to tell us about how the Turkish and Turkish Cypriot youth are raised and educated.”

I would first like to state that all of the quotes provided by Mr. Hymn in this field are fabricated lies. It is the Greek Cypriot youth, not the Turkish Cypriot youth, who are taught to hate. The Greek Cypriot author, Antonis Angastiniyotis, writes:

“The majority of the Greek Cypriot youth know very little about the events that led to the island's division. The tragic events of 1974 have been used as a huge curtain to cover up the real events that led to the division of the two people. In our schools it has always surprised me that while talking about the heroism of EOKA, they skip 15-years and continue with 1974. Either nothing happened between 1960 and 1974, or no one wants to discuss this. While researching the events during this period (1960-74), I realized that the second choice was right. When I started to write this research, my cousin from Greece and her two daughters came to visit me and we started to discuss the events of 1963-74. The daughters knew nothing and what their mother knew was very confusing. At one stage of the discussion I mentioned some of the Greek Cypriot leadership's mistakes and all of a sudden this brought out the nationalist monster in my cousin who said: "Makarios' biggest mistake was not to have killed all the Turkish Cypriots in order for us to be comfortable". This sweet and pretty woman, who couldn't even kill an ant, had suddenly turned into a killer who could carry out mass murders. She wanted a whole race to be wiped out. This is what I said to her: "In other words, do you mean taking out all the children from school, all mothers with their babies and all the men from their work places and taking them to a big hole in Messaria and murder them…Do you want to be one of the murders or the one of the persons using the bulldozer to cover the mass graves…" There was silence. The example I gave helped her to understand the meaning of what she said. Then I started to speak again. "We tried this before in Ayvasil, Murataga, Atlilar, Taskent, but the only thing we succeeded in was soughing the fruits of our efforts". Since our childhood we were taught that the Turks were barbaric dogs. My aunt used to say to me that they smelled because they weren't baptized. Whereas according to the Bible, we are modern Christians who love their environment. Then, why did our religious leader Makarios in 1964 say that 'If Turkey comes to intervene to protect the Turkish Cypriots, she will not find a single Turkish Cypriot to save…' The answer is clear. In Cyprus there is a saying, 'another priest's sermon'. In certain situations this enables us to hate. This book will deal with some of these special situations.”

This, my friend, is the truth about what is really going on in the field of Greek Cypriot education.

According to Mr. Hymn, “It’s quite interesting to note that while R. Salomon mentions the Hellenic-Cypriots not wanting the constitution to work and thus opposed the idea of coexistence. She neglects to mention that ALL Turkish Cypriots in favor of coexistence were KILLED by the Turkish TMT. While we could continue with endless examples of TMT instigation and promotion of partition, but as a note, let’s just say that it’s at least sad to see allegedly impartial writers promoting such blind propaganda. Finally, it’s highly interesting to note that although according to R. Salomon the Hellenic Cypriots had no interest in coexistence. According to the Gallo Plaza report, we find the exact opposite.”

First of all, the TMT did not kill ALL of the Turkish Cypriots in favor of coexistence. That is a flat out lie. Like many revolutionary organizations, they were not perfect. Nevertheless, their crimes don’t even approach the number that EOKA committed. And keep in mind that the TMT was founded as a response to EOKA, not the other way around.

According to the Washington Star, “Bodies littered the streets and there were mass burials. People who were told by Makarios to lay down their guns were shot by the National Guard.”
The EOKA terrorists began to murder the Makarios supporters because they were not slaughtering the Turkish Cypriots quickly enough.

According to the memoirs of the Greek Cypriot MP Rina Katsellis, “The Makarios supporters arrested, the EOKA-B supporters freed……I did not shed a tear. Why should I? Did the stupidity and fanaticism deserve a tear? There are some who beg Turkey to intervene. They prefer the intervention of Turkey. […] Every one is frozen with fear….the old man who asked for the body of his son was shot on the spot. The tortures and executions at the central prison….every one is frozen with horror. Nothing is sacred to these people, and they call themselves Greeks!”

Some Greek Cypriots preferred Turkish Intervention to Greek terror from EOKA. I don’t blame them for feeling this way. According to the British Parliament, “In the four days that followed the coup, an estimated 2,000 people known to be ardent supporters of Makarios were killed. Their names were later added to those killed during the subsequent Turkish invasion.” Thus, this further proves my point that a great number of the Greek Cypriot civilian deaths were the result of the junta, not the Turkish intervention.

According to Professor Alexis Heraklides, “Some of the Greek Cypriot missing persons were killed by their very compatriots. [….] In an attempt to re-write a different version of history based on certain selected memories, this inevitably leads to a picture which is detached from the realities of the past.”

On March 3, 1996, Cyprus Mail published, “Subsequent Greek Cypriot governments have found it convenient to conceal the scale of atrocities during the coup in an attempt to downplay its contribution to the tragedy of the summer of 1974 and instead blame the Turkish invasion for all causalities. There can be no justification for any government that failed to investigate this sensitive humanitarian issue. The shocking admission by the Clerides government that there are people buried in Nicosia cemetery who are still included in the list of the missing is the last episode of a human drama which has been turned into a propaganda tool.”

On October 19, 1996, Mr. George Lanitis wrote, “I was serving with the Foreign Information Service of the Republic of Cyprus in London. I deeply apologize to all those I told that there are 1,619 missing persons. I misled them. I was made a liar, deliberately, by the Government of Cyprus. Now it seems that the credibility of Cyprus is nil.”

I could go on and on about how the EOKA terrorists persecuted both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. I believe the list would be much longer than the list that Mr. Hymn provided for the TMT.

As for the TRNC seeking partition, who can blame them, when they have been denied equal rights under the federal system that they were promised under the Treaty of Guarantee and were forced into enclaves by armed EOKA gunmen? People resort to such measures when they feel that there is NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE. They were being attacked constantly by the Greek Cypriots. The Turkish Cypriots needed to take such measures in order to save Turkish Cypriot lives. Apparently, Mr. Hymn does not comprehend the need for self-defense and methods for surviving constant ambushes and genocidal attacks.

According to Mr. Hymn, “The Akritas Plan had NOTHING to do with the use of force and anyone that has actually read the plan knows this as a fact.”

I have read the plan several times and I beg to disagree with Mr. Hymns strongly on this matter. Many highly respectable sources would also disagree with him on these facts.
As Rauf Denkash said, “The Akritas Plan destroyed the only compromise ever reached between Greece and Turkey and between Greek and Turkish Cypriots about Cyprus. It revived bloodshed and hatred. It thrust Cyprus and its peoples back into the extremes of Enosis and partition.”

According to Rauf Denkash, “The Akritas Organization started planning a different future for Cyprus. Apart from military plans, a general plan for the extermination of Turkish Cypriots was prepared.”

According to Alekos Constantinides, writing in the Greek Cypriot daily Alithia, December 14, 1985, “We have to accept that the Akritas Plan not only did open the way to partition of the island but it also caused the collapse of the Republic of Cyprus.”

This article from Turkish Daily News tells it all:
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/editorial.php?ed=ali_kulebi
This article on the history of Cyprus also confirms this fact:
http://www.cypnet.co.uk/ncyprus/history/republic/akritas.html
Harry Scott Gibbons also speaks of this same topic in the Journal of International Affairs:
http://www.sam.gov.tr/perceptions/Volume6/September-November2001/HARRY_SCOTT_GIBBONS_6.PDF

According to Mr. Hymn, “It is a well proven fact that immediately after Turkey received Makarios’ letter informing them of the alterations of the Constitution he was about to propose, the Turkish Cypriot representatives received orders from the newly appointed Turkish Ambassador Mazar Ozgol to abandon all public service and governmental positions.”

THIS IS A BLATANT LIE.

According to Michael Stephen of the British Parliament, “Greek Cypriots often claim that the Turkish Cypriots withdrew voluntarily from their positions in the State, but this is not correct. They were excluded by threats to their personal safety.”

The UK Commons Select Committee concluded that “When in July 1965 the Turkish Cypriot members of the House of Representatives had sought to resume their seats they were told that they could do so only if they accepted the legislative changes to the operation of the Constitution enacted in their absence.”

Since these constitutional changes would have given the Turkish Cypriots the status of being minorities, instead of equal citizens, no Turkish Cypriot leader could accept the 13 Points made in their absence. They were unacceptable.

According to Mr. Hymn, “It was then the Hellenic Cypriots first presented the Iphestos Plan toward the US by stating that they should allow Turkey to invade, the very second they enter the country’s waters it would leave them approximately 75 minutes to exterminate the Turkish Cypriot population in order to protect themselves.”

THIS JUST PROVES RIGHT HERE THAT MR. HYMN IS PROMOTING THE IDEA OF COMMITING GENOCIDE AGAINST THE TURKISH CYPRIOTS IN ORDER TO PROMOTE ENOSIS AND DISTORT HISTORY IN FAVOR OF THE GREEK CYPRIOTS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AKRITAS PLAN!

The whole purpose of the plan, according to the unbiased British journalist Harry Scott Gibbons, was “to attack the Turkish Cypriots suddenly, every where in the island, and to eliminate them one and all.” This the Greek Cypriot administration planned on doing, regardless. It had nothing to do with preventing a Turkish reaction.

Indeed, it was Makarios himself, who declared in 1964, while the Greek Cypriots were brutally attacking Erenkoy that “he would order an attack on every Turkish village and Turkey would find no Turkish Cypriots left alive if they landed.” In other words, the goal was to kill as many Turkish Cypriots as possible before any outside force could intervene to save the Turkish Cypriots.

As American Under-Secretary of State, George Ball said, “Makarios’ central interest was to block off Turkish intervention so that he and his Greek Cypriots could go on happily massacring Turkish Cypriots.”

According to Mr. Hymn, “The ridiculous comparison of Cypriots to Nazis is at least described as pathetic and actually indicates that the pseudo-state has managed to infest her with.”

First of all, I was comparing the Greek Cypriot leadership to the Nazis, not the Greek and Turkish Cypriot peoples. This is not a ridiculous and pathetic comparison, as Mr. Hymn would like people to believe, for as I demonstrated above, the Greek Cypriot leadership sought to exterminate the entire Turkish population on Cyprus. Allow me to show some quotes made by the Greek Cypriots that demonstrate such vile hatred and compare them with quotes made by the Nazis.

According to Nicos Sampson, “Had Turkey not intervened, I would not only have proclaimed Enosis-----I would have annihilated the Turks in Cyprus.” (Greek Cypriot)

According to Adolph Hitler, “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” (Nazi)

According to Makarios, "Until this Turkish community forming part of the Turkish race which has been the terrible enemy of Hellenism is expelled, the duty of the heroes of EOKA can never be considered as terminated." (Greek Cypriot)

According to Julius Streicher, “If the danger of the reproduction of that curse of God in the Jewish blood is finally to come to an end, then there is only one way - the extermination of that people whose father is the Devil.” (Nazi)

According to the Greek Cypriot newspaper, Simerini, 17 August 1996, “We will drink Turkish blood. Death to the Turks.” (Greek Cypriot)

According to Joseph Gobbels, “A Jew is for me an object of disgust. I feel like vomiting when I see one. Christ could not possibly have been a Jew. It is not necessary to prove that scientifically - it is a fact.” (Nazi)

Looking at these quotes, one can not help but see the resemblance between the two.

According to Mr. Hymn, “Let’s just end this by stating that it’s beyond pathetic to exploit the memories and sorrow of an entire people to promote some sick propaganda. But as we’ve proven, the pseudo-state’s propagandist places their payroll above humanity and the truth.”

First of all, I am not on payroll. Second of all, I had family that died in the Holocaust. I have family friends who have personally survived the Holocaust. As a Jew, I would have never made the comparison if I did not find it valid. Unfortunately for you, Mr. Hymn, my comparison is very valid, despite your denial of this.

According to Hellenic Pride’s comment on Mr. Hymn’s article, “Great post Orphic, what else would you expect from Turkey’s allies the Jews?”

This proves the Greek Lobby’s anti-Semitism beyond a reasonable doubt. As long as Greece is ranked the most xenophobic and anti-Semitic country in all of Europe, expect the Jewish people to side with the Turks on all issues of importance to you guys.

Just Facts, Not Myths by Rachel Salomon

The article “Not a word of truth from Salomon” by Mr. Argyrou is very misinformed about what really is happening in Cyprus. For starter’s, Mr. Argyrou’s accusations against Harry Scott Gibbons are completely inaccurate. Harry Scott Gibbons earned his reputation as a journalist in Lebanon, where he would become one of London’s more prestigious Middle Eastern correspondents. It is true that he does have a military past. However, Harry Scott Gibbons’ military history is with the British Army, not the Turkish Army. He is not a paid propagandist. Harry Scott Gibbons is a highly professional journalist with a superb reputation. His book, “The Genocide Files,” received excellent reviews from Anne Robinson, a leading columnist from The Express, and Professor Norman Stone of Oxford University. As Anne Robinson wrote, “I urge you to read this book. It needed to be written. A compelling and entirely different account of the so-called Cyprus problem. The finely tuned skills of a distinguished foreign correspondent shine through in Harry Scott Gibbons reporting.” If his book was not historically accurate, I seriously doubt that he would have gotten these reviews.

It is very interesting that Mr. Argyrou neglects to address any of my news sources, choosing instead to call the Washington Post and other news publications, including Greek news sources, liars. As one commentator from the Guardian reported on December 18, 2006, “If you don’t believe me, take a look at the international press at the time.” As I proved in my last article, the genocide is historic fact. I gave countless credible sources to back this claim up.

One can not help but be fascinated by how Mr. Argyrou twists the event where the Greek Cypriots slaughtered two Turks, which was the first major event in the genocide period, into “a Turkish Cypriot who was stopped for driving suspiciously by a Greek Cypriot policeman pulled out a gun and shot the police man and was then shot himself.” I would be very interested to learn where Mr. Argyrou heard these myths from or whether he created them with his own imagination. As Harry Scott Gibbons recorded in the “Genocide Files,” “Zeki Halil Karabuluk, happy husband and father, and Jemaliye Emir, happy, good-looking divorcee with few cares, were standing together when the first burst came. They were only a few hundred yards from home. The bullets cut them nearly in two, flinging them into the road in a jumbled heap. Three onlookers rolled over on the pavement, wounded by a second hysterical outburst. The crowd, screaming, fled. The uniformed police, joined by the civilian gunmen, leapt into their cars and drove off.” The historical fact is that the victims of this incident were Turkish Cypriot civilians shot at by Greek Cypriots in cold blood, not the other way around, as Mr. Argyrou claims.

The Akritas Plan was any thing but an attempt to “peacefully reform the racist and unworkable constitution and to deal with Turkish state sponsored terrorism,” as Mr. Argyrou claims. According to the Greek Cypriot journalist Loucas Charalambous, “The Cyprus problem was brought into being by this idiotic and nationally catastrophic plan. A plan, which, in Demetris Christofias phraseology, would have been described as treasonous. It is a glowing monument of political stupidity and irresponsibility.” Mr. Charalambous describes the Akritas Plan really well when he states that its five main objectives were to convince the world that the Cyprus problem had not been solved and condemn the Treaty of Guarantee, seek amendment of the agreements by all means, make the Treaty of Guarantee unenforceable, Enosis, and lawful confrontation by the forces of the state against any kind of intervention. In other words, the Greek Cypriots wanted to create problems that would not have existed otherwise and get the world to falsely believe that they are just in doing so through deception and propaganda, deprive the Turks of all of their legal rights, prevent Turkey from intervening on behalf of the Turkish minority, violate the independence of the country by making Cyprus part of Greece, and have Cyprus be above the rules of international law, by not having to abide by the very agreements that made Cyprus a state to begin with.

Let me note that all of the amendments that the Greek Cypriots sought to make to the constitution were related to protecting the equal rights of the Turkish Cypriots. This is illustrated very clear in the Thirteen Points of Makarios. It is also important to take notice of the fact that the Akritas Plan states in part A section on Greek Cypriot external tactics, section E, “when this is achieved, no power, legal or moral can stop us.” If they were just pursuing national liberation, then why would they feel the need to hide stuff from the world and make it a priority to prevent external intervention at a time when none was being planned? In this same section, the Akritas Plan states, “it is judged that we have greater possibilities of succeeding in our efforts to influence international public opinion in our favor if we present our demand, as we did during the struggle, as a demand for exercising the right of self-determination, rather than as a demand for Enosis.” Again, the Greek Cypriot leadership is deceiving the world by making a war of genocide against the Turkish Cypriot people into a struggle for self-determination in the eyes of international world opinion. This is proven by what Makarios said in the Greek newspaper Bunte Illustrierte in 1972, “The union of Cyprus with Greece (Enosis) required the extermination of the Turkish Cypriot community.” Reading this, I don’t know how any one except a very ignorant person can interpret the Akritas Plan as any thing but a plan on how to deceive the world as the Greek Cypriots committed a genocide against the Turkish Cypriots. Any plan whose objective is to wipe out an entire group of people can easily be compared to Mein Kampt.

It is very insulting to the Jewish people that Mr. Argyrou was resentful of the home that Sultan Bayazid II provided to the Jewish people. Yet it should come as no surprise that someone who had his upbringing has such prejudices. According to the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs Report on “Anti-Semitism in Greece: Embedded in Society,” “Anti-Semitism occurs in Greece not only among extreme rightists and leftists, but is embedded in Greek mainstream society. It manifests itself in many ways: in a religious context, in education, in the application of the law, in the media, and through politically-motivated anti-Semitism in the major parties, as well.” According to Greek-born Moses Altsech of Edgewood College, “In view of the way most Greeks perceive their identity; they have difficulty understanding how someone who is not Christian can be truly Greek.” A 2000 Eurobarometer survey found that 38 percent of Greeks had issues with people from other nationalities living in their country. This is the highest in the entire European Union and thus, makes Greece the most xenophobic country in all of Europe.

Proof of such xenophobia was demonstrated on December 11, 2006, where it was reported that four Greek high school students raped a sixteen year old Bulgarian girl. During this incident, local community leaders decided to expel not only the boys who committed the crime but also the victim as well. Independent Media inquired, “One could think, would it be the same if the girl was Greek? Actually not, as a similar case involving a Greek girl proves. The people of the village were annoyed that the young Bulgarian accused the boys of such a crime. Thus, they forced the girl and her mother away from the village.” Evidently, according to these Greek villagers, foreign girls who are raped by Greeks should not be able to seek justice, for that is a privilege reserved only for Greek girls.

These xenophobic attitudes are also displayed in Greek Cypriot attitudes towards the Turkish Cypriots. As the 2004 referendum on the Annan Plan shows, 75.8 percent of Greek Cypriots opposed the Annan Plan, while 64.9 percent of Turkish Cypriots supported the Annan Plan, according to BBC World News. The Report of the UN Secretary General, dated May 28, 2004, stated that “the rejection of such a plan by the Greek Cypriot electorate is a major setback. What was rejected was the solution itself rather than a mere blueprint.” BBC reported that former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan stated that “A unique opportunity to bring about a solution to the long-lasting Cyprus issue has been missed” and called for the world to “seriously consider […] finding a way to end the economic isolation of the Turkish Cypriots.” Unfortunately, at the moment, the international community is not doing enough to ease the suffering of the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriot community is not showing any willingness change their minds regarding reconciliation. On September 20, 1992, Mr. Clerides summed up the Greek Cypriot position very well in the Greek Cypriot daily Fileleftheros when he stated, “The best solution is no solution. […] We, the Greek Cypriots, today have the government completely under our control. We do not have the Vice-president with his veto or the three Turkish ministers in it. All the ministers are Greeks. Our government is the only one internationally recognised. Why should we bring back the Turks?”

Given these facts, a continual policy of isolating the Turkish Cypriots is nothing short of a human rights abuse. Can readers imagine what it would be like to live on an island where there are no direct flights off the island and where you can not receive direct mail from the outside world? Do readers understand how a Turkish Cypriot businessman must feel to have his goods boycotted just because of his place of birth and ethnicity? Can readers comprehend the rage and humiliation felt by a Turkish Cypriot who is greatly disturbed by the fact that the only government that he or she had democratically elected is not represented at any international forum with the exception of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and is not recognized by any other state other than Turkey, for committing no other crime than existing? The TRNC is not being internationally recognized at the current moment, but that does not mean that this is not a grave mistake and that the world should at the very least re-evaluate their positions on the TRNC.

It is evident that as long as historical facts and present-day realities are denied by the Greek Cypriot side in favour of myths that there will never be peace. As British Parliamentarian Michael Stephen said, “Until influential Greek Cypriots come to terms with the appalling behaviour of their community toward the smaller Turkish Cypriot community and stop trying to persuade themselves and the world that each side was as much to blame as the other, there will be no reconciliation in Cyprus.” Instead of trying to change history and deny the persecution that the Turkish Cypriots suffered, Mr. Argyrou should come to terms with reality and accept what the world will eventually and is beginning to discover to be the truth regarding what happened and is happening in Cyprus. The days where the Greek and Greek Cypriot lobbyists could tell the world myths without a Turkish response are over.

The Truth About Cyprus by Rachel Salomon

In the article "What the world can learn from Cyprus," published on December 19, 2006 in the Israel Insider, Joel Bainerman did an extreme disservice to the Israeli people by only portraying one side of the Cyprus conflict. Israelis are intelligent people. They deserve to hear the whole truth, not one-sided partial truths. Therefore, I feel that it is my duty to share with Israelis the other side of the story. The conflict in Cyprus did not begin in the 1950's with the British Colonial Office favoring Turks. The conflict in Cyprus began with an idea called Enosis, which is the unification of Cyprus with Greece. This idea was beginning to take root as early as 1879, when the British allowed Greeks to settle on the island in "patriotic communities." As early as 1895, Greek Cypriots were organizing their children to march through the Turkish Quarter of Nicosia, singing songs about the slaughter of their Turkish Muslim neighbors. These kinds of songs are taught to Greek Cypriot children to this day and they have a profound negative effect upon Greek Cypriot youth of today, as demonstrated by a recent violent attack upon Turkish Cypriot students in the English School in South Nicosia. Thus, the root of Cyprus's problems are not colonial favoritism of Turks nor a Turkish "invasion" in 1974, as Bainerman would have Israelis believe, but rather a lack of tolerance by Greek Cypriots for the very existence of Turkish Cypriots living on the island and a disdain for granting them any kind of fundamental human rights. From the very beginning, the Greeks were opposed to the idea of coexistence. The British provided Cyprus with a constitution that was not only agreed upon by both parties, but also provided for the existence of a Republic where each community would have equal rights and a say over their own population. The President would be Greek Cypriot; the Vice President would be Turkish Cypriot. Agreement must exist for decisions to be made. The Turkish Cypriots did not have total sovereignty over part of the island under the constitution, as Bainerman would have the Israeli people falsely think. Bainerman goes on and on about Greek Cypriot suffering as a result of the coup that overthrew Makarios and from Turkey's intervention, but he fails to mention that whatever suffering the Greek Cypriots went through pails in comparison to what Turkish Cypriots went through. It totally neglects to show that prior to the 1974 intervention the Greek Cypriots were orchestrating genocidal policies against Turkish Cypriots over a period of eleven years.103 Turkish Cypriot villages were completely destroyed and hundreds of Turkish Cypriots massacred and buried in mass graves by the Greek Cypriots. Under the Akritas Plan, the Greek Cypriots sought to annihilate the entire Turkish Cypriot population on Cyprus. Greek Cypriots started this campaign of annihilation of the Turkish Cypriot people on December 20, 1963. This atrocious night is known as Bloody Christmas. Bloody Christmas is to Turkish Cypriots what Kristallnacht is to the Jewish people. On Bloody Christmas, over 600 innocent Turkish Cypriot men, women, and children were ruthlessly slaughtered in one night. Journalists Rene MacColl and Daniel McGeachie described Bloody Christmas and the events that followed it as "too frightful to be described" and referred to the suffering of the Turkish Cypriots as "horrors so extreme that the people seemed stunned beyond tears." The Washington Post reported on February 17, 1964, that the "Greek Cypriot fanatics appear bent on a policy of genocide." As a result of such grave human rights abuses, the Turkish Cypriots were forced to withdraw into small enclaves, where their fundamental human rights were severely restricted and they lived out their lives as refugees within their own country. They did not have access to most of life's basic necessities, had no political representation, and were exposed to constant violence and harassment orchestrated by the Greek Cypriot leadership. The goal of the Greek Cypriot leadership under Makarios was to force all Turkish Cypriots off of the island. However, the pace at which Makarios was going to rid Cyprus of Turkish Cypriots was not fast enough for some. This led to the Greek Cypriot National Guard overthrowing Makarios in a coup d'יtat on July 15, 1974. From this point on, things would go from bad to worse. Under the leadership of Nicos Sampson, the speed of the genocide would get accelerated. By the end of the month, the Wash Star was reporting that "bodies littered the streets and that there were mass burials." In the early 1970's, the Greek Cypriot leadership produced the Iphestos Files, which outlines the elaborate details on how the Greek Cypriots planned to annihilate the Turkish Cypriots and put the Akritas Plan into concrete premeditated action, step by step. The Akritas Plan had an uncanny resemblance to Mein Kampf for Turkish Cypriots, while the Iphestos Files were like the blueprints for the Nazi Final Solution that the Greek Cypriots would almost succeed in implementing against the Turkish Cypriots. It is a historic fact that the only thing that prevented the full implementation of the Iphestos Plan was the arrival of Turkish peace-keeping troops on the island. Instead of relying on Brian O'Malley and Ian Craig for information, Bainerman should have read "The Genocide Files" by Harry Scott Gibbons or read "The Cyprus Question" by Michael Stephen, who wrote for the British Northern Cyprus Parliamentary Group. These two authors give a far more accurate account of what happened than O'Malley and Craig, both of whom were accused by Daniel Pipes of giving journalists a bad name in the Middle East Quarterly in March 2000. It was also incorrect of Bainerman to state that 650,000 Greek Cypriots were displaced as a direct result of the Turkish intervention, when in reality there are only 650,000 people in all of South Cyprus. Not all Greek Cypriots were displaced during this time period and it is not like many Turkish Cypriots weren't displaced as well. According to a report from the United States Senate, 20,000 Greek Cypriots were forced to move from Northern to Southern Cyprus, while 34,000 Turkish Cypriots were forced to move from Southern Cyprus to Northern Cyprus. Although it is true that there were 194,400 Greek Cypriot refugees in Southern Cyprus, this was the result of the Greek coup d'יtat and not the Turkish intervention. As ancestors of people who survived the Holocaust, the Israeli people should stand by the Turkish Cypriots, not the Greek Cypriots. Like the Israeli people, Turkish Cypriots have been struggling to live in peace but instead have been forced by their adversaries to rely on the armed forces. Like the Israeli people, Turkish Cypriots understand suffering and pain. Indeed, it is true that Israeli people share a lot of similarities with the Turkish Cypriots. However, this bond really does not extend to the Greek Cypriots, who like the Palestinians, have been known for sponsoring terrorist organizations, violating peace agreement after peace agreement, teaching their children how to hate, and deceiving the world with their fanciful historical myths.