Lessons from Israel–Gaza and Russia–Ukraine Conflicts

The writings of Bertrand Russell have spanned over a century and profoundly impacted the world. He viewed war as an evil that should be abolished, advocating for international governance and diplomacy as the ideal path to peace. Who is encouraging war? Is it the war of domination or enmity? Is it simply the ideological war? People become witnesses of horrors and terrors of war. History books abound with many such wars in its history of literature.

The world today is precariously balanced on the edge of nuclear catastrophe. The on-going conflicts in Israel–Gaza and Russia–Ukraine have once again highlighted the urgency of addressing the threat of nuclear weapons. While these wars are fought with conventional arms, the looming presence of nuclear stockpiles remains a silent shadow, reminding us that escalation could quickly spiral into a disaster of global proportions.

Nuclear weapons were originally justified as tools of deterrence, yet history has shown that deterrence is not fool proof. Miscommunication, miscalculation, or desperation in war can trigger their use. With nearly 12,500 nuclear warheads still existing worldwide, humanity cannot afford to treat this danger as an abstract possibility. Each warhead carries the power to annihilate entire cities, erase decades of human progress, and plunge the planet into a nuclear winter.

The Russia–Ukraine war has already witnessed the reckless invocation of nuclear threats. Such rhetoric destabilizes global security and normalizes the idea of nuclear blackmail. On the other hand, the persistent turbulence in West Asia, epitomized by the Israel–Gaza conflict, shows how regional disputes can escalate rapidly and drags major powers into confrontation. If nuclear weapons are ever factored into such volatile situations, the consequences would be unimaginable.

In times of war, when bloodshed, destruction, and displacement dominate daily life, the world often asks a difficult but urgent question: how do warring nations find the will and the way to sit across the same table for dialogue? This question has become increasingly relevant in light of the on-going conflicts between Israel and Gaza, and between Russia and Ukraine.

History has shown that wars rarely end through military means alone. They conclude when diplomacy takes the front seat, when combatants recognize that the human, political, and economic costs of war outweigh the perceived benefits of victory. Yet bringing adversaries to dialogue requires more than goodwill—it calls for a convergence of pressures, mediators, and circumstances that open the space for peace.

The Role of Humanitarian Crisis

One of the strongest triggers for dialogue is humanitarian catastrophe. As civilian casualties rise, infrastructure collapses, and international outrage intensifies, governments and leaders are forced to reckon with the toll of their military strategies. In Gaza, widespread destruction and the humanitarian blockade have drawn sharp criticism globally, pressuring both Israel and Palestinian representatives to consider ceasefire negotiations. Similarly, in Ukraine, the displacement of millions and the devastating impact on food and energy supplies worldwide have compelled even reluctant parties to acknowledge the need for at least limited talks.

Dialogue is rarely spontaneous. Neutral mediators—whether nations, regional blocs, or international organizations—create the initial bridge. In the case of Israel and Gaza, countries like Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey have historically stepped in to mediate short-term truces. For Russia and Ukraine, institutions such as the United Nations and countries like Turkey and China have intermittently offered their services as peace brokers. These mediators provide not only channels of communication but also guarantee that dialogue will be structured and relatively secure.

Economic and Strategic Pressures

Wars strain economies, drain military resources, and isolate nations diplomatically. Sanctions on Russia have tightened its financial space, while Ukraine’s dependence on Western aid raises questions about the sustainability of prolonged war. In Israel and Gaza, military campaigns weaken domestic stability and strain alliances. Economic survival often becomes a bargaining chip that pushes combatants toward the negotiating table. The crude oil prices have gone up considerably in international markets forcing people with additional burden on their packets.

Neither Israel nor Gaza, neither Russia nor Ukraine, exists in isolation from their people. Families torn apart, soldiers lost in battle, and economies shaken stir public demands for resolution. As protests rise, governments—though often reluctant—face domestic pressure to seek alternatives to endless war. Dialogue often begins not in palaces or parliaments, but in the hearts and voices of ordinary citizens demanding peace.

Dialogue cannot succeed without small but meaningful steps to reduce hostility. Temporary ceasefires, prisoner exchanges, humanitarian corridors, and respect for international law are often precursors to larger negotiations. These measures do not end wars, but they prepare the ground for real conversations.

Neither the Israel–Gaza conflict nor the Russia–Ukraine war offers an easy blueprint for peace. Deep mistrust, territorial disputes, and competing political narratives make dialogue fragile and uncertain. Yet history—from the Vietnam War to the Good Friday Agreement—demonstrates that even the most entrenched conflicts can bend toward negotiation when the pain of war outweighs the stubbornness of pride.

 For the world to see peace in Gaza or Ukraine, the first step is clear: the warring nations must be compelled, by crisis, by mediators, by their people, and by the weight of history, to come to the dialogue table. Peace may seem distant, but dialogue remains the only door through which it can enter.  According to Bertrand Russell, “Wars will cease when, and only when, it becomes evident beyond reasonable doubt that in any war the aggressor will be defeated”.