Counsel of despair

Is it possible to avoid taking sides? Simon Jenkins in The Guardian thinks so (here):

"War begins because by definition the will to compromise has evaporated and ends when one side has had enough. To "demand" a ceasefire - usually a biased call at a particular stage in any war - may make the caller feel better, but so what? The only practical way for outsiders to stop the fighting is to starve the soldiers of weapons. This would mean Iran and Syria denying Hizbullah guns and rockets, and America denying Israel planes and bombs. Both would be admirable contributions to peace, but both are politically inconceivable.
I could analyse, champion and condemn events and players in the Middle East to my heart's content. The form in which Israel was created and has been sustained was always going to ensure half a century of bloodshed, but nothing is going to change history. I could say much the same of conflicts in Congo, Kashmir, Sri Lanka, Eritrea, even Ireland. The fact is that territory has long been contested and bloodily so.
If outsiders had a solution to the argument between Israel and its neighbours, it would surely have been found by now. The world's mightiest powers and the most brilliant statesmen (not to mention the rest) have devoted themselves to the case. Both sides can draw just enough moral rectitude from the past for compromise to be too much to bear. In this part of the world, immovable object contends with irresistible force and will do so for many decades to come. The only generalisation that seems to apply is that periodic outbreaks of war are followed by a relapse into exhausted peace. Outside intervention only enables the participants to avoid the burden of responsibility for upholding that peace...
Border wars can continue for decades without destabilising their regions. Even as this one engages powerful allies on both sides - from Iran to America - it need not embroil the wider world. Some conflicts are best left to their participants to resolve, however brutally. This is no abrogation of humanitarian responsibility. The Middle East has long claimed the west's charity. But the unthinkable must sometimes be thought. Somewhere on Earth there is a conflict that might resolve itself sooner if outsiders both say and do nothing about it."

Is this possible in circumstances where to call - or not to call - for an immediate ceasefire is instantly seen as identifying the caller (or non-caller) as a sympathiser of one or other of the camps? And the history of previous (and perhaps continuing) attitudes and interventions (supplying arms for example or acting as guarantor for this or that) casts a significant shadow on any assumption of neutrality. In practical terms, it is therefore impossible for some outsiders to "say and do nothing about it".

And is it just or moral to stand aside, when the killing begins? I know that we cannot intervene in all conflicts, but it is surely a counsel of despair to suggest that we abstain from seeking influence where there is a possibility of that influence leading to a beneficial outcome.