Your logic. Inversed.
— “If Egypt and Israel had refused each other’s terms in 1979, they could have preserved the purity of their positions.” Instead, they signed a peace treaty, Israel withdrew from Sinai, Egypt recognized Israel — and the interstate war between them ended.
— “If Jordan had refused to recognize Israel in 1994, it wouldn’t have had to compromise.” Instead, both sides settled borders, water and security issues — and the peace treaty has survived for more than 30 years.
— “If Finland had refused Soviet terms in 1944, it could have kept fighting for every inch.” Instead, Finland accepted territorial losses and reparations, preserved its independence and democracy — and avoided becoming another Soviet satellite.
— “If Austria had refused neutrality in 1955, it could have insisted on complete strategic freedom.” Instead, Austria accepted permanent neutrality, the occupying powers withdrew, and Austria regained full sovereignty.
— “If Egypt had refused to give up its claim to the entire Sinai settlement on its own terms, peace would have been impossible.” Instead, Sadat and Begin compromised at Camp David — and a conflict that had produced repeated major wars stopped producing Egyptian-Israeli wars.
— “If South Africa and Namibia’s independence movement had refused a negotiated regional settlement in 1988, everyone could have continued fighting until somebody achieved total victory.” Instead, the accords produced Cuban withdrawal from Angola, South African withdrawal from Namibia and Namibian independence.
— “If the Salvadoran government and the FMLN had refused to negotiate with people they considered enemies, the civil war could have continued until justice was perfect.” Instead, the 1992 Chapultepec Accords involved disarmament, political integration and institutional reforms — and ended a 12-year civil war.
— “If the Colombian government had refused to negotiate with FARC because terrorists shouldn’t be rewarded, the morally uncomplicated option would have been another few decades of war.” Instead, the 2016 agreement demobilized most of FARC and ended the main government–FARC conflict.
— “If Britain and Irish republicans had insisted that negotiating meant surrender, Northern Ireland could have continued settling the constitutional question with bombs and bullets.” Instead, the 1998 Good Friday Agreement required painful compromises from virtually everyone — and dramatically reduced political violence.
— “If Indonesia and the Free Aceh Movement had refused to compromise in 2005, each could have maintained that only complete victory was morally acceptable.” Instead, GAM abandoned its demand for independence, Jakarta granted extensive autonomy, rebels disarmed — and a three-decade insurgency largely ended.
Turns out the historical record contains another revolutionary idea: peace agreements generally happen precisely because neither side gets everything it wants. Accepting an adversary’s terms — or some negotiated version of them is not proof that the adversary was right. Sometimes it is simply the mechanism by which wars end.
