Two Wars with No Way Out 

By Mel Gurtov
People involved in conflict resolution often say that every war must end. Most wars do end in some fashion, but plenty of wars—and the wars in Ukraine and Israel appear to be among them—drag on indefinitely, with no prospect for a cease-fire much less a peace settlement. These intractable conflicts most often are civil wars in which the losing side never accepts defeat even if it agrees to put down its arms and enters into a power-sharing arrangement. In the Ukraine-Russia and Israel-Hamas wars, none of the parties is anywhere near accepting either defeat or a stalemate. All of them prefer fighting to bargaining.
False Prophets
Governments that try, or pretend, to be peacemakers mouth right-sounding words but act with opposite intent. Such is the case in the war in Ukraine. As one recent example, consider what India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi had to say at the conclusion of a two-day meeting with Vladimir Putin in Moscow. Modi appealed for peace in the Ukraine war, saying: “India has always called for respecting the UN Charter, including territorial integrity and sovereignty. There is no solution on the battlefield. Dialogue and diplomacy is the way forward.” Yet India is a major buyer of Russian oil, has never accused Russia of aggression in Ukraine, and does not honor the International Criminal Court’s indictments of Putin and other senior Russian officials for war crimes. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, noting the bear hug when Modi and Putin greeted one another, said: “It is a huge disappointment and a devastating blow to peace efforts to see the leader of the world’s largest democracy hug the world’s most bloody criminal in Moscow on such a day.”
Then there’s Hungary and China. On his latest visit to China, Viktor Orbán and Xi Jinping patted each other’s back for promoting peace in the war in Ukraine. Orbán, like Xi, has toed the Russian line, urging Ukraine to stop fighting, accept a cease-fire, and start talking with Moscow—all while blocking arms and financial assistance to Ukraine. (Of relevance is that Hungary took out a 1-billion euro loan from China last spring, Hungarian sources now admit.) The Chinese readout of the meeting says that “Xi expressed appreciation for Orbán’s efforts in promoting the political settlement of the Ukraine crisis . . .” Such efforts have in fact gone nowhere. Xi then called for “an early ceasefire,” which is nowhere in sight, and said “the priority is to cool down the situation by observing the three principles of no expansion of the battlefield, no escalation of fighting, and no fanning by any party over the flames.” Russia has violated all three of those principles, yet that went unmentioned.
Hungary was supposed to chair the European Union Council, and Orbán throughout his trip acted as though he spoke for the Council. That drew rebukes from over 60 European Parliament members, mainly on the left. They urged that Hungary be denied voting rights in the EU since Orbán “has already caused significant damage by exploiting and abusing the role of the Council Presidency.” The EU decided to remove Hungary from the chair’s position.
No Winners
A huge obstacle to peace in Ukraine is the day-after problem: What will the country look like after years of intense Russian bombing and town-by-town fighting? Who will pay for Ukraine’s physical rehabilitation, estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars? Those who call for a Ukrainian victory never answer questions about the human and material costs. And what if Russia wins? Karl Bildt, Sweden’s former prime minister and foreign minister, wrote in answer to that last question:
“If Ukraine and its Western supporters lose resolve, Europe may face a scenario where Russia subjugates the rest of Ukraine, installs a puppet regime, and gradually integrates most or all of the country into a new Russian empire. In the long term, it would be a Pyrrhic victory for Moscow. The repressive empire would struggle to digest its occupied lands, subdue a restive population, and bear the burden of very high military expenditures in a new era of confrontation.”
In the meantime, Bildt writes, tens of millions of Ukrainians will have fled westward, and NATO and Russia will be facing off in a battle that could escalate to the nuclear level.
No End in Sight
You would think that the future looks so dire for both sides, with horrific human and material losses, that incentives to come to an agreement would be increasingly attractive. But both Ukraine and Russia have no interest in anything other than victory. Neither will accept that there can be no real victory, since any kind of agreement is likely to be unsatisfying, merely providing a temporary respite before the resumption of fighting.
You would also think that public opinion in either Ukraine or Russia might shift against further fighting. But there is no evidence that that is happening. Ukraine is drafting men of all ages, perhaps a sign that it is running low on new recruits and those in the army are having to serve multiple tours of duty. Yet we see few reports of public disaffection. In Russia, reliable opinion polls show increasing support for the war: 77 percent, compared with 7 percent who are opposed. Pride in Russia is rising even as fear about a bigger war is also prominent. What all this information tells us is that both governments are controlling the narrative of a glorious and necessary war with no end in sight.
In Israel: The Two-State Solution May be Dead
If Israel and a new Palestinian state could exist side by side in security and peace, it just might be possible finally to bring closure to an endless war and create a major basis for stability in the Middle East. Yet about a week before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s arrival in the US, the Israeli Knesset passed a resolution opposing the two-state solution. Some 68 members of the Knesset, led by Netanyahu’s coalition and the far right, voted in favor. Benny Gantz and his party, supposedly the opposition, also voted in favor. Only nine members of the Knesset, all on the left, voted against. This is the first time in history that the Knesset passed a resolution that unequivocally denies the possibility of two states regardless of negotiations on the future of the Occupied Territories.
The resolution says in part:
“The establishment of a Palestinian state in the heart of the Land of Israel will pose an existential danger to the State of Israel and its citizens, perpetuate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and destabilize the region. It will only be a matter of time until Hamas takes over the Palestinian state and turns it into a radical Islamic terror base, working in coordination with the Iranian-led axis to eliminate the State of Israel.”
To Palestinians, the vote only confirms what they have long believed and what recent Israeli actions in the West Bank have confirmed: that Israel will never permit establishment of a Palestinian state or elections to determine one, and that Hamas is legitimized and strengthened every time Israel demonstrates its opposition to an independent Palestinian state. As one Palestinian writes:
“I always tell diplomats & policymakers: if you don’t like Hamas’ rising popularity, then prove them wrong. Show us that diplomacy works; that international law matters, that the ICC [International Criminal Court] and the ICJ [International Court of Justice] can hold Israel to account; that you can pressure Israel to end the occupation and accept peace; that our non-violent resistance will be supported and amplified by your governments. . . Only then would you see a decrease in the support for armed resistance when there’s a genuine way towards progress.”
The ICJ weighed in July 19, saying Israel should end the occupation of Palestinian territory, cease establishing new settlements and evacuate existing ones, and pay reparations to Palestinians who have been deprived of their property. The Court advised that governments refuse to recognize Israel’s occupation. Israel refused to take part in the proceedings, saying they are “an abuse of international law and the judicial process.”
“The Jewish people are not conquerors in their own land,” said Netanyahu. The legality of the settlements, he said, “cannot be contested.” The ICJ’s decision is advisory, but it adds to the pressure on Israel to reach a settlement with Hamas that not only creates a permanent cease-fire but also stops Israel’s absorption of the West Bank. Netanyahu, however, isn’t interested in anything except “total victory,” as he told Congress in his July 24 address. Like Vladimir Putin, he wants a victor’s peace and nothing less.
A cease-fire, therefore, may never yield a true settlement wherein Israel and a Palestinian state coexist. As the Israeli historian Tom Segev writes in Foreign Affairs, all previous efforts to bring about a two-state solution have failed because the two peoples have irreconcilable claims to the same land. On Israel’s part, Benjamin Netanyahu is just the latest Israeli prime minister to regard the two-states solution with disdain. The only “solution” is to grab as much territory for the State of Israel as is possible, and that is what Israel has been thinking about and doing ever since the Zionist movement’s earliest days.
The Logic of Endless War
Negotiations aimed at ending these two conflicts seem remote at the moment. Posturing, by both the warring parties and outsiders, is the name of the game. Yet only through talks and verifiable agreements, including mutual concessions, can the fighting finally stop and steps taken to prevent its renewal. There is no lack of ideas for how conflict management can take place, but leaders on all sides first need to decide that endless war is not in their personal or strategic interest. Up to now, they all seem to think that time is on their side, and that their war will indeed end favorably.
Mel Gurtov, syndicated by PeaceVoice, is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Portland State University and blogs at In the Human Interest.