I'll give you the terse version (a more involved one would require a good-faith interlocutor).
It's horrible, it's complicated, it's highly charged, and there is blame (to greater or lesser extents) on both sides.
However, until I am a thoroughgoing expert on the subject (I make no such pretensions), I have no wish to join the legions of armchair foreign policy experts who seek to do little more than demonize the objects of their a priori bias (by, say, carelessly fishing out fake pictures that make the target look bad, with no consideration given to their veracity).
You would be well-advised to adopt a similarly cautious way of thinking, but that is not the way of today's younger generation.
and that is not to say anything of real content? you and i are virtually from the same generation btw. however, i suppose it should be accounted that ideas among generations vary from culture to culture. not every country's generation thinks like, say, the americans think so i don't think there is much of a point in considering that younger generations accross different nations must have similar culutural traits.
as for the conflict, believe me, i've heard and read stories from both sides. in that regard, without claiming to be an expert or much less than that, i've been reading about this for this for a few years now. but that does matter? you have made up your mind already. your idea that my conceptions are based on bias merely because the focus of my protest is primarely on one side only is by itself a biased way of looking at things. judging that someone's opinion is wrong purely because it is expressed with aggressive words is akin to judging a book's worth purely by it's front cover.
last but not least, i was somewhat ashamed over that picture
in the second page. ergo, it was the first time i've given any type of apologies on these boards.