Similarities

1. The Major External Influence

Most conflicts are influenced by a significant external presence that casts a long shadow over the situation. This external force may take on a passive role or become actively involved, either promoting peace among the conflicting parties or exacerbating tensions for its own benefit.

In both the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, the United States—and to a lesser extent, several European nations—acts as this major external influence. Substantial arms have been dispatched to both Israel and Ukraine, with the sophistication and volume of military support provided to Ukraine increasing over time.

Thus, it's evident that this external influence has been markedly active in both scenarios.

The question arises: has the US-led coalition contributed to peace and reconciliation, or has it fostered prolonged conflict?

Two key observations emerge:

• The US and its allies have shown reluctance to advocate for negotiation and dialogue, whether with Russia or with Hamas and Palestinian representatives.
• Given Russia's considerable military strength and its perception of the conflict as both defensive and existential, the likelihood of Ukraine achieving victory appears almost nonexistent.

Moreover, Israel's attempts to eradicate a well-established militant organization from a large civilian population through prolonged bombing are unlikely to succeed for several reasons:

1. Historical precedents indicate that such strategies have failed.
2. The civilian death toll is alarmingly high.
3. The ranks of Hamas are likely to swell as casualties mount.

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the strategies employed by the US and its allies are more likely to extend both conflicts rather than lead to a peaceful resolution.

2. Potential for Escalation

The scale and intensity of both conflicts present a high risk of significant escalation. The longer either conflict persists, the greater the chance that a critical threshold will be crossed, resulting in irrevocable consequences.

Little more needs to be said beyond the fact that Western powers are fully committed to a singular approach—funneling ever-increasing amounts of arms to Ukraine and Israel—which only prolongs the wars while discounting dialogue and compromise. This suggests that ideology has taken precedence over reason and pragmatism.

3. Preventability

The tragedy of the Russia-Ukraine war lies in its preventability. Numerous actions could have been taken—or avoided—that might have mitigated the likelihood of large-scale conflict. Many experts warned against NATO expansion and its potential repercussions.

George Kennan, a noted diplomat and historian, cautioned as early as 1998 about the inevitable backlash from Russia:

> “Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are—but this is just wrong.” (George Kennan, 1998)

Several measures could have significantly reduced the chances of confrontation:

• Disbanding NATO after the Soviet Union's collapse and establishing a new global security framework, as Gorbachev and Yakovlev envisioned.
• Inviting both Russia and Ukraine to join NATO, recognizing Russia's transition from communism as an equal partner.
• Avoiding NATO's expansion, particularly the inclusion of 13 states between 1999 and 2017, which encroached upon Russia's borders. The security of one nation must not come at the expense of another; mutual security is paramount.
• Refraining from constructing missile defense systems throughout the continent.
• Seeking compromises regarding Georgia and especially Ukraine that respect Russia's core concerns.
• Abstaining from meddling in Ukraine's internal affairs, inciting unrest, and supporting one faction over another.

This summary highlights a range of actions that could have curbed, if not eliminated, the potential for conflict.

We are all familiar with the struggles of the Palestinian people. Many recall the founding of Israel and the first Nakba, along with the subsequent loss of Palestinian land, as apartheid became entrenched and Palestinians were relegated to second-class status in their homeland.

The establishment of a homeland for one resulted in the dispossession of another.

Countless actions have compounded their suffering and humiliation. When a population is forced to exist as prisoners within their own territory, the emergence of conflict and violent resistance becomes inevitable.

The international community has largely failed to restore even a fraction of land to the Palestinians, sowing the seeds for ongoing violence and terror in the region.

4. Redrawing Borders

In light of the atrocities committed against Gazans by Israel, the brutality of these actions, and the deep-seated animosity on both sides, a crucial question arises: what will a Palestinian state look like, and what borders will be established? Will the world allow millions to be forcibly displaced from their homeland?

Numerous nations already recognize the State of Palestine, with more pursuing formal recognition. The establishment of this state and its borders seems increasingly plausible.

It is tragic that the quest for statehood often exacts a heavy toll in blood; few would contest that Palestine has sacrificed enough for its cause.

For Ukraine, it is evident that significant territorial losses are on the horizon. Selling the concept of land loss to a populace is a formidable challenge, yet it is a necessary sacrifice for peace.

Differences

1. The Power Dynamics

In the conflict involving Israel, Hamas, and the Palestinian people, Palestine emerges as the smallest and most vulnerable actor. In stark contrast, Israel wields significantly greater power, bolstered by the support of the United States, the most formidable nation in history, as well as certain European allies.

This dynamic can be summarized as: the larger power oppressing the smaller one, supported by an even greater force.

Conversely, the Russia-Ukraine situation presents a different picture. Here, a major power is confronting a smaller adversary, yet the same larger power (the US) is doing everything possible—short of direct intervention—to assist the smaller nation in achieving victory.

This scenario can be summarized as: a massive power attacking a smaller nation, while an even larger power backs the latter.

The role of the external power diverges in each conflict, yet it perpetuates both wars.

2. The Smaller Actor

Another distinction lies in the dynamics of the involved parties. Palestine is the most marginalized actor in its conflict, while Ukraine, although facing its own challenges, is not devoid of internal complexities.

Ukraine has its own marginalized group—the Donbass region—engaged in conflict during the initial phase of its struggle against Russia, alongside Crimea, which has its unique challenges.

While Ukraine possesses the right to self-determine, it cannot do so at the expense of significant segments of its population. Some argue for a monolithic Ukrainian identity, while others advocate for a pluralistic approach.

Examining the diverse regions of the country reveals its heterogeneity and the differing ethnic and linguistic perspectives present.

Many in Western nations champion Ukraine's right to defend itself and self-determine. I wholeheartedly agree. However, the same voices often remain silent regarding the Donbass and Crimea, where local populations may not align with the singular identity promoted by the ruling authorities.

The desire for self-determination is a fundamental aspiration for every nation. Yet, this drive can lead to self-destruction if it excludes certain groups from its vision. This is a reality that Ukraine faces.

3. Casualty Rates

Determining the casualty figures in Gaza is fraught with difficulty, particularly when it comes to assessing the number of civilians, women, and children affected.

As of now, the UN estimates that 35,303 individuals have perished in Gaza, relying on figures from the Gazan Ministry of Health and Israeli authorities.

Around 14,500 children are reported to have died, with daily fatalities potentially reaching as high as 500, although the average may hover around 250—or possibly even lower, at approximately 85.

These figures have been contested; some question the accuracy of the higher statistics, while others assert that they are roughly accurate.

On May 8, the UN revised its casualty estimates for women and children among the total count, reducing the number of child fatalities from 14,500 to 7,797 and women from 9,500 to 4,959.

This discrepancy has sparked debate, with some attributing it to unidentified bodies and others pointing to the chaos of war as distorting casualty figures.

Ultimately, the conversation revolves around whether the overall death toll and the specific figures for women and children are astronomically high or merely very high.

At a minimum, 25,000 individuals have died, with 14,000 of these being women, children, or the elderly.

In comparison, the UN reports approximately 600 children killed in Ukraine, though this number is likely higher.

The impact of war and human intervention on statistics is evident; however, the stark difference in starting figures is undeniable. The daily death toll in Gaza is the highest of any conflict in the 21st century, with the total number of casualties approximately six times greater than in Ukraine.

The sheer scale and brutality of the conflict in Gaza, particularly its toll on women and children, overshadow what is occurring in Ukraine. This distinction is logical.

The Russo-Ukrainian War represents a conventional conflict between two states, while the Israeli-Gazan War resembles a genocidal campaign against a civilian population, aimed at dismantling a minor terrorist faction.

4. Action Versus Reaction

I encourage you to revisit the extensive list of actions taken by the US-led West from the fall of the Soviet Union up to Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which can be found in section 3 regarding the preventability of these wars.

While I have omitted many details, it is challenging for any rational individual to assert that these actions have not influenced Russia's sense of security, identity, and responsibility towards ethnic Russians and Ukrainians with close ties to Russia.

Numerous thought experiments can be conducted with comparisons to other nations, such as the US and Mexico, India and Pakistan, and India and China, to explore how powerful states respond under prolonged pressure when their interests are consistently overlooked.

The conflict in Gaza symbolizes the culmination of an evil that has persisted for 75 years. It represents the final act of a perpetrator intent on concluding a long history of violence with one ultimate, bloody climax.

In contrast, Russia's actions can be viewed as a response to the various actions of the US, NATO, and Europe concerning Ukraine. This does not justify its war; it is not justified.

The conflict is a reprehensible act, resulting in immense loss of life and is a horrific offense against a neighboring country. However, it is a reaction, a predictable response to decades of grievances.

Israel's actions, on the other hand, are not reactions; they are deliberate actions. The war in Gaza epitomizes an evil that has been ongoing for 75 years, representing the concluding chapter of a violent history.

Hamas' existence stems from the apartheid and oppression faced by the Palestinian people. Their shocking actions on October 7, while horrific, were a reaction to an unyielding cycle of horror that has worsened over decades, with support from the US, Britain, and others.

Russia reacts; Israel acts. This marks the final critical divergence between the two conflicts.

I hope this analysis proves insightful, and I welcome your thoughts.

Have an opinion? Share it with Open Microphone. We would love to hear from you. Submissions below: