I think most conflicts do end with negotiated settlements; some don't, but most do.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
If you want to bring an end to long-standing conflict, you have to be prepared to compromise.
A peace deal requires agreements, and you don't make agreements with your friends, you make agreements with your enemies.
Middle Eastern wars rarely end with outright victory and permanent stability, so the word 'settlement' may promise too much. At best, for many years, it may simply mean stable ceasefire lines, reduced bloodshed, fewer refugees, and less terrorism.
Any negotiation on the basis of land for peace is a fatal mistake.
Unless both sides win, no agreement can be permanent.
There can be no settlement of a great cause without discussion, and people will not discuss a cause until their attention is drawn to it.
Diplomacy in general does not resolve conflicts. Wars end not due to peace processes, but due to one side giving up.
You can only end a negotiation for peace if you begin it.
You can't end negotiations unless you begin them. And you can't begin them if you continually negotiate about the terms to begin negotiations.
It's the perfect definition of a settlement. Both parties didn't get what they wanted.