If writing, the central theme of the lessons given by Wajdi Mouawad, is seen as a space for expressing paradoxes and trials, a mirror of our existences, how can a writer persevere in the face of the failures of writing itself and its inability to live up to the initial ambitions ? In this sense, how can we stand up to the failures and apparent powerlessness of diplomacy in the face of the increasingly brutal antagonisms of our times ? How can diplomacy still be useful, and how is its language adapted to the lies of our times, which have become a declared weapon of many of our leaders ? What value can be placed on nuance and the place of the enemy if, in order to achieve the appeasement of conflicts, we must first agree to sit down with that enemy ?
To discuss these questions, Wajdi Mouawad has invited NasserAl-Kidwa and Ehud Olmert, as wellas Anne-Claire Legendre. Based on the attempts at diplomatic agreements in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the aim was to understand how, in situations where nothing seems possible any more, it is obligatory to return to the text, since there is no other alternative. How words become spaces for negotiation, power relations and encounters. How writing is condemned to conciliation despite all impossibility.
Redrawing the contours of the space in which the language of diplomacy evolves, insisting on the need to always hold on to the thread of trust and truth in the labyrinth of trauma and violence, Anne-Claire Legendre traced the panorama of diplomatic efforts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the need today more than ever to give renewed relevance to thetwo-statesolution , the only solution likely to meet the aspirations of two peoples and the region to peace and security.
Nasser Al-Kidwa and Ehud Olmert then spoke of the virtues of a joint proposal for a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, focusing on atwo-statesolution , with a special status for the city of Jerusalem. They recalled the importance for peace negotiators of having to set aside their own convictions (some in the past have paid with their lives for the defense of peace solutions, even beyond their convictions) and try to put the past behind them, thinking only of future generations.
If the question of regular failure is implicitly recognized, it has also been expressed that the path of diplomacy consists in coming back and repeating the same thing over and over again, in a stubborn relationship, until, by war weary, those who have the power to sign the cessation of hostilities understand and hear that there can be no other solutions.
