Meaning: The quote by Daniel Pipes delves into the nature of diplomacy and conflict resolution, suggesting that wars do not end because of peace processes, but rather due to one side giving up. This thought-provoking statement challenges the commonly held belief that diplomacy and peace negotiations are the primary drivers of conflict resolution.

Diplomacy is the practice of managing international relations and negotiations between states. It is often seen as a crucial tool in averting conflicts and resolving disputes through peaceful means. However, Pipes' assertion that diplomacy does not resolve conflicts raises questions about the effectiveness of traditional diplomatic approaches in bringing about lasting peace.

At the heart of Pipes' quote is the notion that conflicts ultimately come to an end when one party involved in the conflict gives up. This perspective highlights the role of power dynamics and the willingness of one side to concede or capitulate as a decisive factor in ending wars. It suggests that the resolution of conflicts is not solely dependent on diplomatic negotiations, but rather on the shifting balance of power and the strategic calculations of the parties involved.

Historical examples can be cited to support Pipes' assertion. In many conflicts throughout history, wars have ended not necessarily through formal peace processes, but rather when one side was unable or unwilling to continue fighting. This could be due to a variety of factors such as military defeat, economic exhaustion, or internal political dynamics. The outcome of conflicts is often determined by the relative strength and resilience of the opposing parties, rather than the success of diplomatic efforts alone.

Moreover, the quote challenges the idealistic view of diplomacy as a panacea for resolving conflicts. While diplomacy plays a crucial role in facilitating dialogue and negotiation, its limitations become apparent in situations where one party is unwilling to engage in meaningful dialogue or compromise. In such cases, the quote suggests that the resolution of conflicts may require more than just diplomatic efforts, and may ultimately hinge on the willingness of the parties to make concessions or seek alternative paths to resolution.

Pipes' perspective also raises important questions about the role of power and coercion in international relations. It underscores the reality that conflicts are often influenced by power imbalances, and that the resolution of conflicts may be shaped by the ability of one side to exert pressure or compel the other to abandon its objectives. This highlights the complex interplay between diplomacy, power, and coercion in shaping the outcomes of conflicts.

In conclusion, Daniel Pipes' quote challenges conventional notions about the role of diplomacy in resolving conflicts. It emphasizes the significance of power dynamics and the willingness of parties to make concessions as crucial factors in bringing about an end to wars. While diplomacy remains an important tool in managing international relations, the quote prompts a critical examination of the limitations of traditional diplomatic approaches in addressing protracted conflicts. It invites further reflection on the complex interplay between diplomacy, power, and the dynamics of conflict resolution in the international arena.