My recommendation is that Sweden should recognise IS and that the EU should insist that Damascus be the shared capital of Syria and IS. After all, like Palestine, IS was born out of horrendous terrorism, they have a de facto state, they are physically present in the territory of their choice, they have announced plans for a new currency, the Dinar, they have a foreign policy (albeit one consisting solely of killing non-Muslims, but a foreign policy nonetheless). Now, how is this substantially different from Palestine? And if the EU can demand that Jerusalem be the shared capital between Israel and this Palestine, why does the same EU not insist that Damascus be the shared capital between Syria and IS? And if Sweden can provide billions in aid to Palestine, and also see its citizens fighting in the nation-state of IS, why should it not also provide equal funding to IS? What is the difference? ynetnews/articles/0,7340,L-4594779,00.html
Posted on: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 16:05:10 +0000