I don't see us disagreeing too much about Northern Ireland, Dino. I was merely giving an example of where heavy use of force didn't work. As I asked already, could it be that this is how European leaders see Israel's situation (ie. not winnable by force)?
Reading the statements kindly provided by Roland, it seems quite silly to argue that the EU is against Israel's right to self-defence. The text is all about the methods and their consequences, and the affirmation of the right of self-defence is quite explicit.
Remember that going into the territories with tanks isn't the only way Israel can defend itself.
So, if these statements don't mean what they say, then what is the correct way to interpret them?
Reading the statements kindly provided by Roland, it seems quite silly to argue that the EU is against Israel's right to self-defence. The text is all about the methods and their consequences, and the affirmation of the right of self-defence is quite explicit.
Remember that going into the territories with tanks isn't the only way Israel can defend itself.
So, if these statements don't mean what they say, then what is the correct way to interpret them?
Comment