This is related to events from about a year ago, where the UN tried to broker a deal between the Turkish and Greek Cypriots. This is very relevant to the whole disengagement debate.
The UN and EU decided that there is no right of return for refugees and that the "new situation that has been created" must be considered. Why is what's good for Cyprus not good for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
A little background: Since Cyprus became independent in 1960, there has been tension between the Greek majority (80%) who are Orthodox Christians and the Muslim, Turkish minority that lives in the northern part of the island. In 1974, the Turkish army invaded the island to aid its Turkish "brothers". In 1983, the Turkish-Cypriots declared an independent state in the northern part of the island.
During negotiations for reunification, the Greeks demanded that all of the refugees and their descendents return to the Turkish section. Obviously, the Turks were opposed. When preparing their plan, the United Nations and European Union did not accept the Greeks’ demand to allow the refugees to return!
The second provision related to Turkish “settlers” and “settlements”. After the invasion, the Turks brought farmers from Turkey and settled them in northern Cyprus. They settled there, built settlements, increased the number of Turks on the island and contributed to the agricultural economy of Turkish Cyprus. During the negotiations, the Greeks demanded that the Turkish “settlers” return to Turkey. The Turks were opposed. The United Nations and European Union supported the Turkish position and left the “settlers” and “settlements” in place, despite the Greek demand.
The result is quite embarrassing. As of this week, the Turkish army occupies a significant portion of an EU’s member state’s territory. In recent years, it seems that European leaders cannot sleep well at night because of the "Israeli occupation". Does the "Turkish occupation" of one of their member countries also disturb their slumber?"