We are here once again. I can only hope that by the time these lines reach you, a ceasefire to end the latest Israeli excursion into Gaza would have been brokered, thus putting an end to the endless misery and saving many lives in the process. However, if we must learn from history, we would be well advised to keep our optimism guarded. Where temporary ceasefires would raise hopes for the end of the conflict in other regions of the world, the piece of land sacred to three religions, and multiple other traditions, seems to defy that logic. Any lull in the conflict has the aura of the calm before the storm. In this latest military exercise, almost 1,000 Palestinians and 29 Israelis have been killed, and the threat of even more human loss looms large. An even harsher reality is that civilians and innocent children form a large portion of the casualties. As astute observers know, such violence is not new. In fact, it seems that every couple of years, Gaza is engulfed by the flames of aggression to remind the world of the ugly issue that it would rather not think about. It is the same narrative every time really: Israel decries Hamas’ rockets that fall on Israeli settlements and, in retaliating, takes aim at the inhabitants of Gaza (the ones that have not left and/or are still alive). Troublesome as these developments might be, an even more problematic aspect is the manner of response generated in different countries. Particularly in Pakistan, where there has been a lot of hue and cry over the humanitarian aspect of the conflict (whilst ignoring the humanitarian crises within our bounds), a much more precarious reaction can be seen on social media, manifestations of which include the promises of vendetta and the glorification of violence and mass murderers. There are two very important questions that must be raised at this point. The first concerns tracing the origin of violence. One can argue that such an exercise is futile and ill-fated since it can never be traced all the way back to the original cause. Whereas it might be easier to see a correlation between action and the causes that might have elicited the same action in cases of conflict between individuals, the conflicts at the level of the nation state present a much more daunting challenge. In our individual lives, we can find reprieve through systems of justice functioning within our territories but what about international conflicts? This is a situation we have seen played out multiple times. Behind this notion is the fundamental question: how do you equate one human life with another? Are some lives intrinsically more valuable? Do the systematic killings of one nation give it carte blanche to do the same to another? Also, how many lives have to be lost before the feelings of recompense kick in? What can safely be said — and the list of things in this regard is not terribly long I am afraid — is that violence begets more violence. As the age-old saying goes, only the dead have seen the end of war. The loss of human life is intrinsically tragic and we cannot allow ourselves to be numb to this aspect anymore. Extending our first inquiry to the next logical step, we must think about the idea of proportionality in international conflicts as well. If one party incites violence on another, can it then make an argument to receive a somewhat ‘proportional’ response in return? This is not merely a theoretical inquiry: in recent times, arguments have been made to show how a strict ratio of 1:1 must be maintained while retaliating during wars and conflicts. However, as we have seen throughout history, times of conflict make the notion of proportionality obsolete rather quickly. We may have treaties and conventions regulating wartime conduct but what is ‘proportional’ to one might be completely out of proportion for another. More importantly, who will be in charge of judging proportionality in this case? In the absence of common binding principles, the other party is the sole judge of what such a ‘proportional’ response would be. Thomas Hobbes wrote that where there is no law, there is no injustice, and even with conventions and treaties regulating wartime conduct, the maxim holds true for us centuries later. It is heart wrenching to think that in a time of inter-planetary exploration, we still have not been able to reach amicable solutions to our conflicts on this earth. In an ever-changing international scenario with shifting centres of power, the question of Palestine has to be resolved to transition smoothly into a new world order. In the long run, however, the possibility of a free Palestinian state remains bleak. Keeping aside the issues of political will and material resources, there simply is not enough land left to build such an entity on. Maybe an enclave for the displaced Palestinians within the Israeli state, where protection against persecutions of all kinds is guaranteed, would be a more viable solution. So much blood has been spilled, so much misery inflicted and so much damage done in the century or so since the times of Lord Balfour that merely negotiations, peace accords and land deals will not cut it anymore. We need a more vigourous solution, one that can have an undying impact. For this, we can draw inspiration from these hauntingly powerful lines, immortalised in the UNESCO charter: “Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that we must erect the ramparts of peace.” I truly hope that such a day comes when we have reached this objective. Until then, the dreams of achieving “lasting peace” remain just that. The writer is a freelance columnist with degrees in political science and international relations