By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Indeed. I am pro Zionist, anti Hamas, anti Netanyahu, pro Palestine, pro 2 state solution.
This appears to be very complicated for some people.
[Post edited 14 May 14:16]
Pro 2 State Solution implies the others, I think.
As neither Hamas nor Netanyahu want a peaceful, co-existing, two State Solution, both making it quite clear either in explicit doctrine (in Hamas' case) or horrific action (both Hamas and Netanyahu) that they only wish death on the citizens of the other side, consider nobody "innocent civilians" on the other side, and care not how many permanent hatreds they may stoke in the other side, it doesn't matter what anyone else says or thinks.
Right now, were there the will from every member of the UN security council to impose it, the best possible solution I could propose might be to move all the Israeli settlers from the West Bank, move all the Gazans to the West Bank, and permanently station 100,000 UN troops along the border between the two.
But the last thing the Middle East needs is a Brit with a plan to draw a line on a map...
The US and, to an extent Germany could pull rank on Israel but cutting off supplies of weapons. Iran could do the same with Hamas. If they work together (US, Germany, Iran), they could end this tomorrow and force a ceasefire simply through lack of supplies.
Another difference to the Troubles is this is a proxy war, being fought between the West and Iran. There is vested interest whereas there wasn't the same desperation to "not lose" when it came to Northern Ireland. Other than perhaps the US, who treaded carefully, there wasn't the same level of interest or investment from the international community towards either side.
Unfortunately, some countries thrive on other countries conflicts. War by proxy? Good for their arms trade too.