A barrage of patriotic (read: nationalist) hysteria on the one hand. Sobriety, composure and prudence on the other. We are referring to the letters we have been receiving so far from friends and visitors, prompted by our two most recent posts on Greek–Turkish relations.
We will, of course, refrain from making the slightest comment on the insults hurled at us by the hot-headed zealots who denounce us as unpatriotic, using the… patriotic argument that “once again, in time, they will be ours.”
Fine then — and may they enjoy to the full the… apples of the “Red Apple Tree.”
As for the others — those who, even with a grain of sense, see clearly, as we do here, the path toward the International Court of Justice in The Hague as the only road leading to definitive solutions to Greek–Turkish disputes, so that the two peoples may finally be granted the “calm waters” of the Aegean, without storms and shipwrecks of every kind — these, and only these, we recognize, with full awareness of historical reasoning, as patriots and philhellenes. And we thank them for their support and good wishes.
The former, on the other hand, we describe as reckless pseudo-patriots. Many of them — and they are many — should the fatal moment of armed conflict between the two countries ever come to pass, will not know where to hide or where to flee in order to escape the wrath of those — and they will be many — who will be receiving their children back, not alive, but in coffins wrapped in Greek flags.
And if they have the slightest doubt, let them ask Russian and Ukrainian parents who have lived through and continue to live the tragedy of a war launched by yet another deranged hyper-patriot, the new Hitler of Europe.
We did, however, single out one letter sent to us by a member of the Greek diaspora in the United States, raised there, as he writes (and in excellent Greek, we might add). This reader asks our own Diotima to define, even approximately, what the decision of the International Court of Justice in The Hague might be, should the two countries ever agree to submit their differences to its judgment and to comply with it.
Who, in Diotima’s view, would be the “loser”?
Who has reasons not to desire a judicial settlement of the disputes?
And in what way would the Court resolve some of the major differences mentioned in yesterday’s text?
The floor is given to Diotima — the “unpatriotic one,” as we once described her.
Diotima:
I take the floor as it has been handed to me — without flags draped over my shoulders, without the drums of war, but with historical memory, international law and composure. If this is branded “unpatriotic,” I accept the label without hesitation.
The Hague does not produce winners and losers
Let us begin with the essential point: the International Court of Justice in The Hague does not operate on the logic of “who won and who lost.” It is not a battlefield, nor an arena of national prestige. It is a mechanism for the final settlement of disputes, based on rules, precedents and legal reasoning.
Anyone who enters The Hague asking “who will be defeated” has already lost the meaning of the process.
What the Court would realistically do
Based on international practice — not national myths:
It would recognize that islands generate maritime rights, but
not always full effect, especially when they face extensive continental coastlines of another state.
It would proceed with a median line adjusted for equity, applying criteria of proportionality and fairness.
It would neither “gift” the Aegean to anyone nor turn it into a Turkish lake or a Greek national preserve.
The outcome would be a complex, balanced decision — one that no Ministry of Foreign Affairs could celebrate triumphantly, yet none could credibly dispute.
Who does not want The Hague — and why
Here things become clear:
Those who politically invest in permanent tension do not want it.
Endless crisis is a form of power.
Those who live off national myths do not want it.
International law does not recognize “Red Apple Trees,” eternal rights or historical fantasies.
Those who know reality does not justify slogans do not want it.
Because The Hague forces everyone down from the pedestal and onto solid ground.
This applies to both sides of the Aegean. Let us not deceive ourselves.
The real “loser”
If there is a loser, it is not a state.
It is:
the soldier who will be sent,
the parent who will receive a coffin,
the society that will pay decades of tension,
and History itself, rewritten in blood instead of signatures.
Patriotism without reason is merely noise
Patriotism that fears the courtroom,
that trembles before sobriety,
that rages against peace,
is not patriotism.
It is political immaturity wrapped in national colors.
Epilogue of the “unpatriotic one”
If the two countries were to turn to The Hague and comply with its ruling:
the Aegean would cease to be an antechamber of war,
societies would breathe again,
and future generations would inherit calm waters, not liquid graves.
If this makes me “unpatriotic,” I accept it.
Because a homeland is not slogans — it is its people alive.