The cost of war is so great that compromise should not be a dirty word
Share:
Editorial: The ceasefire between Israel and Hamas – just like the possibility of peace in Ukraine – requires unpalatable choices, but the prize is great. 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.
