In relation to the two tragic ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Palestine, there is a constant call for a JUST PEACE. In fact, it is often said that a true peace can only be a just one—otherwise, it is not peace at all, but merely a truce awaiting the next war.

This may seem entirely self-evident, an immediate certainty—almost a tautology: if war stems from injustice, then it can only end once justice is restored.

However, on closer examination, the matter is far more complex. In reality, demanding a just peace in Ukraine or Gaza (or anywhere) means continuing the war until justice is restored—which no one really knows when or how might happen. Thus, in effect, it means continuing the war.

But what is justice?

In logic, we distinguish between factual judgments (e.g., "X steals") and value judgments ("stealing is wrong"). In the first case, it’s about checking whether a statement corresponds to reality. In the second, it involves the values we uphold and our interpretation of the fact. Indeed, the belief that stealing is wrong is a value derived, generally, from the culture we live in.

Moreover, we must consider whether a certain action can even be considered theft: for instance, Robin Hood, who steals from the rich to give to the poor, is not regarded as a thief but as an avenger, a hero.

Therefore, the key point to reflect upon is that the concept of a “just peace” is not an objective fact—it depends on the values we hold and our interpretation of events. And generally, each side in a conflict has different values and different interpretations.

If one party seeks to impose its own idea of justice, believing it to be the “true” one, then the only path left is to continue the war until the enemy is annihilated.

In World War II, Nazism was considered the evil that justice had to destroy: indeed, after 60 million deaths, it was eradicated, and the leaders were tried and executed in Nuremberg. That, however, was merely a symbolic act.

To punish all Nazis would have meant punishing the overwhelming majority of Germans who had believed in Nazism—something both impossible and inhumane. Thus, in Germany (as in Italy and Japan, etc.), except for a few high-ranking officials, everyone else—political leaders and ordinary citizens alike—remained in place and were not punished.

Let’s apply the same judgment criteria to the two current wars.

In the case of Ukraine, the West believes that Russia violated justice by invading a sovereign nation. Furthermore, it is feared that if Russia is not stopped and punished, such aggression will repeat itself in the future against other states (which is why Europe is rearming).

But that is justice seen from the Western perspective. What about Russia’s view, which is shared by other cultural contexts (China, India, and many other countries that actually make up the majority of the world)?

For the West, the fundamental value is non-invasion of other states. But for Russia, Ukraine joining NATO is perceived as a threat to its very existence.

The USA, too, has militarily invaded Afghanistan and Iraq—not to mention interventions during the Cold War, which also caused millions of deaths.

So, on one side we invoke the principle of non-aggression; on the other, the principle of security, with the war in Ukraine being framed as defensive, not aggressive (as was also claimed in the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq).

The point is not to determine who is right or wrong—such a determination may not even make sense—but to understand how to realistically stop this disastrous war. The aim is to find a possible compromise between the two parties.

To me, the only viable option seems to be freezing the situation as it currently stands on the ground.

Russia cannot control all of Ukraine, as it had naively hoped three years ago with a swift military operation, and Ukraine cannot recover the territories already occupied—certainly not Crimea.

Talking about Ukraine’s territorial integrity, or conversely about controlling all of Ukraine, means prolonging the war indefinitely, waiting for one side to collapse entirely—which, unlike in World War II, is unlikely to happen, since both parties (especially Ukraine) are supported by other countries.

A similar argument applies to Palestine.

People want a just peace, but there are three different concepts of justice on the ground:

• For Orthodox Jews, Palestine was given by God personally to the Jews forever;

• For Islamists, it was given by God to Muslims “until the Day of Judgment”;

• For secular individuals on both sides and for Westerners, the land should be divided into two autonomous states.

Which is the true justice? It depends on one’s worldview and on differing interpretations of the facts.

The assault on Gaza is undoubtedly a tragedy for its people—no one denies this. But who is to blame?

For Hamas and for much of the Western world, all the blame lies with Israel, which is committing genocide.

For Israelis, the blame lies entirely with Hamas—not only because it started the war on October 7, but mainly because it refuses to withdraw from Gaza.

Peace could be achieved simply by handing control of Gaza to the PLO under Abu Mazen, who has repeatedly and unsuccessfully asked for it.

Who is right, who is on the side of justice? It depends on values and interpretations.

But what we can say is that peace will only be reached through the usual compromise, first outlined by the UN in 1948: the creation of two independent states, with one side giving up its desire to destroy Israel, and the other its claim to all of Palestine.

Not because it’s just, but because it seems to be the only possible compromise.