Catégorie : In English

The current stalemate in Ukraine bears similarities to the war waged by the Egyptians and Israelis in the 1970s. In response to the Arab attacks, Israel had invaded the Sinai, Egyptian territory, and occupied it heavily armed in order to prevent any surprising attack by Arab fighter planes.

As long as discussions remained on who was going to occupy the Sinai, talks ended in stalemate: neither party would accept to lose! Egypt demanded a complete Israeli withdrawal so as to recover its full sovereignty over the Sinai.

For Egypt, it was a non-negotiable precondition. But security is just as important for Israel!

The stalemate resides in the ‘either… or…’: EITHER Israel continues to occupy Sinai, OR Egypt recovers it. The solution is in an ‘AS WELL AS’: how to ensure that the national integrity of Egypt is restored AS WELL AS Israeli security guaranteed.

In 1978, Jimmy Carter invited the Egyptians and the Israelis to Camp David, where they spent several days. The mediators worked separately with each delegation, focusing on clarifying each side’s interests. As a result, they were able to negotiate legitimate interests and not irreconcilable positions in figuring out how to restore Egyptian national integrity whilst guaranteeing Israeli security. This approach enforced a negotiation process without a loser. 

The Camp David accords returned the entirety of the Sinai to Egypt and Israel’s security was ensured by a wide demilitarized zone positioned along the border. In addition, security was supported by warning systems making use of sophisticated radars deployed by the UN forces. This is an extract from my book The C-R-I-T-E-R-E method for improved conflict management, Presses universitaires de Louvain, 2009, p. 275.

The more the war will kill people and destroy at all levels, the more the belligerents will calculate their progress not according to their gains but according to the losses inflicted on the enemy, the more they will move away from this Win-Win process and the more it will take time and energy to return to this inescapable process of honoring the deep and legitimate needs of both parties.

This week, a woman from Kiev had a vision in a dream: in a war-torn city, she is looking for her family. Jesus comes closer to her and she asks him to give her a hand. Jesus, from the cross, replies: “You cannot do both things together; you cannot crucify me and at the same time ask for my help. You have to choose one or the other.”
When this person woke up from the vision, she told everyone around her that she had decided to choose what is essential. The Apostolic Nuncio in Kiev shared this witness on March 11, 2022.

Choose what is essential: “You won’t kill,” even if others do.

Non-violence chooses what is essential: if all the inhabitants of a country decide to hold hands in order not to cooperate with the invader, the latter will not be able to subdue them and profit from their violent assaults, all the more so if billions of humans on the planet also hold hands with them, from where they are. Weapons do not make the greatness and heroism of a person, of a nation, but here is what does: 1) their courageous determination not to cooperate with the injustices of which it is aware (and war is one of them), 2) their ability to understand and recognize the profound truth of each party, 3) the art of creating an agreement that takes it into account: a framework of law, authentic communication and effective negotiation, for a just peace. Stay on course.

The Chinese word CRISIS combines the words « wei » (DANGER) and « ji » (OPPORTUNITY FOR CHANGE), to signify a tipping point, a decisive moment: the role of the crisis is to make even more obvious the necessity to make the right changes, which require courage since it means giving up things that we have got used to. The alarm bells of the conflict stop ringing once we have invested in peace opportunities to the point that the danger has passed, without making us fall into the violence of war. It is then (and only then) that we can be proud of having managed the crisis well, of having escaped a conflict that degenerates into war.

Cf. Étienne Chomé, The C-R-I-T-E-R-E method for improved conflict management, Presses Universitaires of Louvain, 2009, p. 39.