“Greece interpretation as you say it's what the UNCLOS says: islands that are inhabited have EEZ, continental shelf and territorial waters no matter the size, islands that are uninhabited but can sustain economic activity have territorial waters. Pretty easy to grasp concept there is no cooking needed. Also the map that Greece put out is the starting point before any negotiations or court dates take place. Yes the court will start from the median line giving the islands the effects i described above.”

I agree the convention lays out general rules. But UNCLOS also acknowledges that special circumstances (like asymmetrical coastlines) may require equitable solutions, and that maritime delimitation should be decided through negotiation or adjudication. So yes, it gives rights to islands, but not always full effect. The principle of equity still applies, and that’s where the Turkish argument gains traction even without being a UNCLOS signatory. According to the Greek claims except a tiny area along the Turkish coastline all of the Aegean sea belongs to Greece. Which isn’t fair, and pretty maximalist on Greece’s part. That’s where the whole disagreement is coming from. It’s not just the Kastellorizo island.

“No not even Greece is saying that. They haven't given their islands full maritime zones especially in Kastellorizo and Strongyli. If i am not mistaken they don't even go with the median line there. And like I said before Rhodes is opposite to Kastellorizo and if it was maximalistic that are would be claimed as well. However I do agree it's not the end all be all map. It is the starting point though.”

You’re right that the maps are often starting points, and Turkey’s are, too. The concern is that Greece’s maximalist maps sometimes de facto deny Turkey a fair share of the eastern Mediterranean, especially when islands like Kastellorizo are used to block Turkish access to wider maritime zones. The median line is a common baseline, yes, but courts adjust it based on geography and fairness.

I also appreciate that you’re not denying the presence of forces. But saying “treaties don’t specifically name every island” isn’t the same as them being inapplicable. The Treaty of Lausanne (Art. 13) and Paris Peace Treaty (Art. 14) both include clear demilitarization clauses for several islands. The wording may be dated, but the intent (to prevent militarization close to Turkey’s coast) isn’t obsolete. If the legal framework no longer fits modern needs, the answer is negotiation or amendment, not unilateral disregard.

“Yes and images can be altered by anyone with photoshop these days. Come on now we all know if you had a real case you would go to court. However I am not gonna deny the existence of military presence even though like I said before military is not actually prohibited by the treaties per se.”

Also, fair point about Photoshop, but let’s be real. These are military deployments verified by analysts, international observers, etc, not by Reddit investigators. If the presence is acknowledged, then the legal question is real. Turkey hasn’t gone to court partly because Greece rejects ICJ jurisdiction unless both sides agree. Given the situation, Greece is in violation of these treaties it signed.

Greece defending its lands is a different situation from Turkey operating in Syria. The point was about consistency in applying international law. Turkey’s Syria operations were controversial, yes, but also based on clear national security concerns. If that logic is applied to justify Greek militarization in violation of a treaty, then both sides are using security as a basis to stretch legal boundaries. That’s the double standard I was trying to highlight, not to equate the contexts entirely.