Regardless of who's side you are on, that "conflict" was never going to be resolved by force by any side.
I've always had a problem with the definition of "winning" or "losing" or even "drawing" in any conflict. You could say that the Allies "won" WW2, but 70 years later we are starting to doubt it - the Axis powers were not eradicated, they still exist, they could strike again (unlikely at this present time), both sides suffered huge losses and the 'losing' nations have had very strong economies in post-war. Yes, we forced their surrender but they cannot be held down by the conquering powers forever - we learnt that from oir own Empire. So what is the alternative to force a true "win"? Well the only way to force a true win that will last is to eradicate your foe - completely and utterly (men, women and children). However, that would never be acceptable today and unlikely in the near future.
If you look at 'peace', 'war' and 'victory/loss' as a loop that is ever changing for each conflict then you won't be far off. This loop is revolving quickly in the Middle East at present and more slowly in Europe, but how will we feel in 100-200 years time? Divisions in Europe are already opening and what is to stop a Ukraine-type scenario flaring elsehwere where there are historic divisions?
So, to say 'Regardless of who's side you are on, that "conflict" was never going to be resolved by force by any side' is quite naive in my opinion - I would rephrase it to say "conflict will only be resolved militarily with the total eradication of the other side, everything else is just a reconciliatory 'pause' (some long, some short)".
Looking at my loop model of 'peace', 'war' and 'victory/loss', then I would suggest that 'reconciliation' is the shortcut to 'peace' before the loop starts again.
And on that depressing thought, I'm off for a beer...
LJ