The cost of the conflict between Israel and Hamas has been monstrous and tragic. As we hope that this phase of it will start to come to an end on Sunday, we have tried to sum up the price in lives lost, the suffering of hostages, civilian victims and their families – and the destruction of property, livelihoods and hope.
Our aim is nothing sophisticated. It is not news that war is terrible, but it is worth remembering that wars always bring more death and destruction in their wake than intended – and that they nearly always last longer than expected.
The Independent has, since its founding, been resolute in its support of human rights, self-determination and national security. It has always argued that democracies must be prepared to take military action as a last resort in defence of those principles. We supported – with reservations – the aerial campaign against Slobodan Milosevic’s forces to protect the people of Kosovo from “ethnic cleansing”. And we opposed the US-British invasion of Iraq because we thought the cost would be too high for any good that removing Saddam Hussein would do.
Today, we stand with the Ukrainian people in their brave resistance against Vladimir Putin’s aggression, and we welcome Sir Keir Starmer’s visit to Kyiv to express that solidarity in person. But there are limits to that support: we are not prepared to commit British troops to the defence of Ukraine and, while we believe that the Ukrainians should be supplied with long-range missiles, we are wary of anything that looks as if Nato members are being drawn into direct conflict with Russian forces.
The reckoning in the Middle East underscores the balance that Sir Keir needs to strike in his dealings with Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president. Britain and the other Nato members support the Ukrainian people wholeheartedly, but not at any cost. The horrors of war are such that Ukraine will have to consider some unpalatable concessions for the sake of peace. While we believe that the Ukrainians have a rightful claim to all of their territory, including Crimea, it is not worth prolonging the war indefinitely to assert it.
In this we find ourselves in unexpected agreement with President-elect Donald Trump, who is trying in his awkward and blustery fashion to project American strength – at the same time as trying to bring peace to both Ukraine and the Middle East. We do not need to take sides in the unseemly squabble that has broken out between the outgoing and incoming US presidents, over which of them should take credit for the Israel-Hamas ceasefire, to observe that its timing – the day before Mr Trump’s inauguration – is hardly a coincidence.
It may be that Mr Trump has finally done what The Independent has wanted successive US administrations to do – namely, put real and uncomfortable pressure on the Israeli government to do the right thing.
Let us hope that the leaders on all sides work through the last-minute political posturing and keep their eyes on the prize of peace – and on the hugely ambitious task of rebuilding. But let us also hope that some of the same logic is followed in pursuing a deal to end the conflict in Ukraine.
The cost of war is so great that compromise should not be a dirty word. If there is to be another ceasefire, this time in Ukraine, it is vitally important that Mr Zelensky should negotiate from a position of strength. But the cost of war means that compromise is not weakness.
