Opinion
By Michalis Persianis
Any Jew who set foot in Cyprus was subject to immediate execution. No questions asked. The law was clear and absolute, and it included stranded sailors and shipwreck survivors, cast ashore by "the wind of the sea."
The Jewish population of Cyprus probably started expanding after Augustus granted Herod rights to the copper mines, roughly a century before the revolt against the Romans in AD 116. But, when Trajan campaigned in the East against the Parthians, the Jews rose in revolt under a certain Artemion.
With the usual degree of exaggeration, the sources speak of massacres; bizarre accounts involving the skins of the dead, boiled corpses, macabre scenes with dismembered limbs and the razing of Salamis (which archaeologists do not corroborate). The death toll was reported to be as high as 240,000.
In any event, Lusius Quietus suppressed the revolt and gave his name, to what became known as the War of Quitos.
Much later, Jews arrived in Cyprus en masse as detainees from 1946 until early 1949. They were en route to Palestine, having survived places such as Treblinka and Dachau. As many as 53,000 were held in 12 camps at Dhekelia, Xylotymbou and outside Famagusta - areas close to places now favoured by Israeli land buyers. Sources report as many as 2,000 births during the period, although those children presumably did not receive citizenship or stay permits. Despite the warm reception they received from Cypriots, including clandestine help at times, they endured appalling conditions: flies, and filth, and the stench, and bad sanitation and unbearable heat.
Today we are witnessing a third influx of Israelis (not exclusively Jews), again centered not far from Dhekelia. This time, however, we know less than we did in 1949.
The government is a mere observer, continuing the misguided laissez-faire approach that began in 2013 while celebrating the phenomenon as a successful policy. The problem is that inaction is neither “policy”, nor is it "governing." What is more, while the government may justifiably claim diplomatic success in its relationship with Israel, the picture is very different when it comes to the economic relationship with Israel. In economic and social terms, it had no hand in the success, yet it bears responsibility for the negative spillovers of an unmanaged influx. The worst possible combination.
The reason is that the current policy is entirely passive - not only towards Israelis specifically, but towards foreign direct investment (FDI) as a whole.
Any attempt to produce a comprehensive, evidence-based analysis quickly reveals what we do not know: Who are they? How many are there? Which businesses are involved? In which sectors, and to what extent? What do they need as residents, executives and investors? How can they be connected more organically to the wider economy? How can their know-how and technology spill over into local businesses? What appetite exists for investment in strategically important sectors that Cyprus could encourage? Can we steer them towards parts of the economy where we want investment and technology to expand? Are any of them undesirable? (There always are.) Is organised crime taking shape? Beyond schools, what do families need? How do we keep them here? What are their demographic characteristics?
At present, these questions are answered with broad assumptions, anecdotal examples and broad estimates. There is no precise, measured and analyzed tracking of facts, needs or data. ‘Invest Cyprus’ maintains records within its own scope, as it should. The Central Bank also monitors developments closely, using its own standards and definitions. The Ministry of Commerce knows a great deal about Headquartering, while the Ministry of Finance has information in certain areas. The Ministry of Education has an approximate picture; the migration authorities almost have one; the Registrar of Companies has little more than whiff. The Statistical Service does what it can. Even at the level of UBOs, comprehensive company data is absent – even though it should exist.
Yet all these institutions have never sat around the same table to compare, correct and assemble data into a clear, actionable, picture. That fact alone demonstrates, at the very least, inertia.
For example, official FDI stands at EUR 920 million, but it excludes (SPVs). The 200 "active" companies and the "more than 1,000" registered legal structures need to be reconciled through clear definitions and UBO records. The roughly 4,000 property purchases do not include many of the acquisitions made through companies. Residence permits, semi-permanent residents and tourists are conflated, yielding estimates that range from 5,000 to 20,000.
There is no comprehensive, clear and coherent picture from which the state could draw conclusions, develop policy and structure its strategy. As a result, not only is there no policy but even the basics are still missing, with the rather risible excuse that an office now exists to "approve" investments, as though that constitutes policy.
The relationship with Israel, however, is exceptionally important. Not only for geopolitical reasons, but also for economic, technological, educational, commercial and - yes - cultural and social ones. Outside diplomacy, however, this relationship continues to run on autopilot.
Do we have disagreements? Yes. Are we uncomfortable with the use of force that has crossed the line? Very. Are there behaviours that make us uneasy? Of course. Do settlement patterns lead us to troubling trains of thought? Certainly. Is the wider conduct of some investors also becoming a recurring issue? Increasingly so.
Good friends, however, must have open and honest conversations - certainly more honest than today's conversation between Israel and Cyprus, both on the societal level and within the political sphere.
This aside, what must not be allowed to happen, is for the current, political passivity to continue. Naturally, issues arise- and they fuel reactions that do not yet approach the limits of antisemitism, but could conceivably fester in that direction. And such feelings would emanate from both sides of the political spectrum: The right, as well as the left, albeit under different articulations. In any event, the reactions have already begun, and they are not always without reason.
The problem is not that there is a major Israeli influx into Cyprus, but that we have left this influx to be managed by mere chance, and chance is not sound policy. We surely want relations to continue and to deepen. We certainly want our links to gain additional dimensions - cultural, for example, but also in technology, start-ups, venture capital, the environment and even water management, where Israel has much to teach us.
But today's approach, built exclusively on the superfluous and unsustainable rationale that shekels are hardly unwelcome, is neither policy nor strategy. Yet this is an ever-closer, ever-friendlier and exceptionally important relationship - far too important to be left to chance. It must be protected from the greatest danger it faces: political inaction.
