The way Niyazi Kizilyurek was treated demonstrated just how immature the public discourse is. And to ensure that the long-standing narrative isn’t undermined, not only is a cost-free collective responsibility being imposed, but we’re also ready to crush the voices that support our struggle.
Last week, a post by Niyazi Kizilyurek caused a stir in Cypriot society, both for its content and for its implications. He revealed that he felt ashamed of the heinous murders of Isaac and Solomos. He also publicly apologized to Tassos Isaac’s daughter, Anastasia, and even urged all Turkish Cypriots to do the same.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
Obviously, he could not mete out justice himself through this post. His statements alone would not automatically send the guilty to prison. He spoke, however, with empathy, highlighting the need to foster a culture of accountability and opening up a new discussion about the maturity of public discourse. With this stance, however, he also underscored something very important: that not everyone can be lumped together. Just as not all Greek Cypriots are responsible for isolated incidents of extremism committed by nationalists, nor are all Turkish Cypriots responsible for or complicit in the atrocities committed from the Turkish invasion of 1974 through the tragic summer of 1996.
Anastasia Isaac essentially rejected Mr. Kizilyurek’s apology. And, holding him and all Turkish Cypriots accountable for Denktash’s policies, she stated that it is their duty to take responsibility so that the murderers are punished. These murderers, as she noted, were appointed as ministers and members of parliament.
It is clearly no one’s place to lecture Anastasia Isaac on how she should grieve. Whom she should forgive and whom she should not. Whether she should feel anger and where she should direct it. To distinguish between “you” and “them” and speak with diplomatic precision. At times like these, understanding, empathy, and respect are required.
But it is one thing for a person who never knew his father due to Turkish nationalism and bigotry to choose how to position himself. A person who lives with this loss every day. It is another matter, however, when this tragic story is periodically exploited by political figures. Using the victims as weapons in a narrative aimed at their own political survival.
And while Niyazi Kizilyurek’s statement provoked the anger of nationalists in the Turkish Cypriot community, what caused a stir was how this post was interpreted on our side. It wasn’t just the way it was presented by the media. Some told him he had spoken out too late, apparently ignoring the fact that he had not only condemned that specific incident from the very beginning but had also revealed historical facts about how we arrived at the murder of Isaac- Solomos. It highlighted the responsibility not only of the Turkish Cypriot leadership at the time but also of the Turkish state. Others spoke of hypocrisy, accusing him of not saying anything about Turkey and of not calling for their punishment while he was a Member of the European Parliament. They overlooked the fact that he had spoken courageously about the Turkish invasion, about Turkey, and about the murders of Greek Cypriots.
The point is not to attempt to canonize Mr. Kizilyurek. One may disagree with him politically and with the positions he expresses. Many of his positions may be subject to judgment or controversy. The problem is that an attempt is being made to distort the situation, ignoring the positive aspects, such as his stance on this issue. It is the sweeping generalization that is troubling, as well as the hypocrisy. Because when you present yourself as someone who goes to sleep and wakes up demanding justice and liberation, then you also have a duty to recognize who stands by your side and who stands against you. Anything else is merely a tool for political survival.
A survival whose goal is not the vindication of the victims, the resolution of the Cyprus issue, or the pursuit of coexistence and reconciliation. The goal is for nothing to change, for the wounds not to heal. The goal is to maintain the status quo, the slogans, and unbridled emotionalism—a simplistic form of populism that divides people into “us” and “them,” seeing only black and white. An attempt is being made to impose collective responsibility, which is particularly dangerous. What is most serious is how the quality of public discourse is deteriorating. By demonstrating that if a potential ally of ours does not fit into the mold of the narrative we have constructed—driven by the fear that acknowledging them might shatter long-held stereotypes, and driven by the insecurity that one of their arguments might potentially challenge the hate industry we’ve built, we don’t hesitate to easily classify them as part of the “others’” camp.
