Countries Settling Scores Without Bloodshed: Is it a Possibility?

There’s a pause in the fighting…

Troops are sprawled on the sunny side of their camp. These are the boys who had been pulled out of schools; given doses of patriotism and conscripted to fight for the country. Ill-clothed and ill-equipped, sometimes, they wait anxiously for a dying brother-in-arms to breathe his last to stake a claim to his boots and other accoutrements. They are disgusted as they had just had an hour of saluting practice because one of them had greeted an officer sloppily.

“Watch out, lads! We’ll lose the war because we are too good at saluting,” says Kat. The frustration is evident in the senseless talk.

Kropp says philosophically, “All declarations of war ought to be made into a kind of festival, with entrance tickets and music, like they have at bullfights. Then the ministers and generals of the two countries would have to come into the ring, wearing boxing shorts, and armed with rubber truncheons, and have a go at each other. Whoever is left on his feet, his country is declared the winner. That would be simpler and fairer than things are out here, where the wrong people are fighting each other.”

The above is an excerpt (abridged and reworded for flow) from All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque. The novel is set in the Europe of the First World War. It exposes the brutal realities of war and traces the disillusionment of soldiers. It underscores the lasting impact of war on their minds and emotions. Remarque’s literary masterpiece is a powerful reminder of the human cost of conflict.

Wars are fought for one or more of the following reasons: territory, resources, or ideological differences. They follow an almost set pattern or cycle—differences arise; discussions take place; diplomacy fails; military action follows; the two sides fight to exhaustion, or until one side—or both—recognises the futility of seeking a military solution. Finally, the warring sides return to dialogue. Interestingly, wars end where they begin—at the negotiating table. But, in the process thousands (sometimes millions) of lives are lost; economies are shattered. At times, the living envy the dead.

Kropp sound ‘NUTS’ when he suggests that disputes between countries be settled between leaders wearing boxing shorts using truncheons. But an equally nuttier solution was tried at least once to resolve a territorial dispute between states. And, it really succeeded in arriving at a permanent solution.

The story goes like this. When the colonies declared their independence from Britain, New York State and New Jersey both claimed Staten Island. It was decided to settle the matter with a sailboat race around the Island. The two states sent their best sailor. One Captain Billopp won the race for New York and the island became a part of New York State. Simple!

Can leaders settle scores in the ring?

Fast forward to today, to the wars in Ukraine, Iran, Gaza, Israel and Lebanon.

Imagining peace descending upon today’s world through physical scuffles involving the likes of Donald Trump, Mojtaba Khamenei, Benjamin Netanyahu, Mahmoud Abbas, Vladimir Putin, and Volodymyr Zelenskyy sounds absurd. Yet the idea of these same leaders returning to negotiating tables after millions of lives have been lost is equally absurd.

Does it mean that thousands of lives would have to be lost every time before sense dawns on the leaders?

Sacking of several general officers by the Pentagon and the many desertions in the Russian Army is a clear indication of the fact that the days of the Charge of the Light Brigade are over. Political leaders and diplomats will have to find ways to break the cycle—negotiation, war, negotiation again—with thousands of lives lost in between. The question remains: must we always bleed before we negotiate?

Gaza: The Hostage Issue

O Gaza!

The events of October 7 served as the immediate trigger, but the roots of the Gaza conflict extend far deeper. The underlying causes are complex and subject to debate, with little likelihood of consensus. For this reason, reducing the war to a binary of good versus evil oversimplifies the situation. Meanwhile, the human toll continues to rise, with thousands killed by bombardment and many more affected by hunger and displacement.

Recent decision by France, Australia, and the United Kingdom, to recognise Palestine, though politically significant, is unlikely to resolve the immediate challenges. Rather, it highlights the difficulty the international community has faced in addressing the conflict.

Israel’s Objectives

Israel’s stated aims can be broadly identified as:

•           Destruction of Hamas,

•           Release of the hostages,

•           Ensuring Gaza no longer poses a threat to Israel, and

•           Return of displaced residents of northern Israel.

The feasibility of achieving all four goals simultaneously remains uncertain.

Prospects of Eliminating Hamas

Military operations may succeed in neutralising most Hamas operatives within Gaza. However, complete elimination appears unlikely. Those who escape are likely to regroup elsewhere. Also, displaced Palestinians will carry their wounds and scars to other parts of the world. No border control can prevent the smuggling of hatred and anger. It would be naïve to imagine that some of them would not be behind a “9/11 (Version 2.0),” if and when such an attack happens anywhere in the world. One does not need Nostradamus to foresee this.

The Hostage Question

Israel does not follow a rigid hostage policy and has, in the past, agreed to prisoner swaps. During the Entebbe Raid (July 1976), the hijackers’ demand for the release of Palestinians in Israeli prisons was actively considered, even as preparations for Operation Thunderbolt (later renamed Operation Jonathan) went ahead. The mission was deliberate and well planned. Jonathan Netanyahu (Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s brother) sacrificed his life to rescue 104 Israeli hostages. One hostage, hospitalised in Uganda, later died under unclear circumstances.

In another instance, Kozo Okamoto of the Japanese Red Army—who, along with two comrades, killed 32 people and injured 72 at Lod Airport (now Ben Gurion Airport) on May 30, 1972—was captured alive. Israel, which has no death penalty, imprisoned him. Yet on May 20, 1985, nearly 13 years later, Okamoto was released as part of a prisoner swap. On that occasion, 4,600 Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners were freed in exchange for three Israeli soldiers.

Why then, despite immense pressure from the families of hostages and international opinion, has Israel been unwilling to proceed with more prisoner swaps? Here one tends to agree with Prime Minister Netanyahu and others: conceding to Hamas’s demands would amount to “rewarding” them for the October 7 attacks.

Other Goals

The other two aims—ensuring Gaza no longer poses a threat and facilitating the return of displaced residents of northern Israel—are relatively less difficult to address once the hostage issue is resolved.

At present, the deadlock lies with Hamas. They know well that releasing the remaining Israeli hostages (and the bodies of the dead) would spell their end. They would be hunted down and eliminated. That fate seems inevitable anyway.

If only one of these sufferings could offset the other…

A Possible Way Out?

What could break the impasse?

One possible—though imperfect—approach could involve offering safe passage for Hamas operatives out of Gaza in exchange for the release of hostages. Such an arrangement might drastically reduce civilian casualties, but it would raise questions about long-term security and the precedent it sets. Whether Israel, and Hamas, would accept such a suggestion remains uncertain.

In the fog of war, it is unclear whether both sides are already working toward a face-saving exit. Meanwhile, frustration and anger are mounting across a world that feels trapped in a seemingly hopeless situation. In the absence of a negotiated settlement, the conflict is likely to continue at great humanitarian cost.

A Warning for India

The dilemma is not unique to Israel. Sooner or later, India too may face a similar horrific choice: how should it deal with terrorists who, after striking a target, hide behind civilian population in India or, still worse, across the border in Pakistan?