For example, in the office where I work, there is a lady that told me right after I came on board that she wanted me to bring her the mail because I am the receptionist. My boss, however, thought that my delivering her mail was asking too much, and they butted heads for quite some time. Eventually this lady stopped checking her mail altogether! Perhaps once every two weeks she would pull out what she needed, but leave the rest. I realized that this was an ego battle, that she was attempting to “win” a situation.

It would have been quite easy to give into the temptation to battle back. I could have gotten my feelings hurt that she was turning me into her servant, that she wanted me to bring her the mail. Finally, I decided I would start taking her mail to her when neither she nor my boss was around. Their absence occurs quite frequently because they’re always in meetings, so I have plenty of opportunity. In other words, I had to decide what battles were worth fighting and which ones to let go. I feel this particular lady will actually be kinder to me in the future because I was willing to oblige her on her simple request rather than letting my ego get in the way.

But you were going to read an article on peace in the Middle East, and you’re probably wondering what an office politics story has to do with that. In understanding that everyone wants to win in any situation, which is something that Napoleon Hill touches on quite a bit in his book Think and Grow Rich, it is easy to see that if we can produce a situation where everyone wins and no one feels threatened, then there is no need for war and violence.

Our own George W. Bush refuses to meet with what he calls the “Axis of Evil,” countries like North Korea, Syria, and Iran; but I question why not? Is it because there is absolutely nothing to be gained from meeting with these world leaders, or is it a matter of ego?

Yes, Bush says that they are evil, that they want to destroy us. And indeed, they might. But do we not also want to destroy them? Are we not at least equally at fault for the problems we have in the Middle East? We accuse them of denying rights to women, of torturing prisoners. Are we not guilty of such as well? And we argue that we want to spread Democracy throughout the world. We say this is good, that this is for the benefit of the world. But is it? If we truly look at the way Democracy works in the United States, I think any semi-objective person would see that we have our own problems. We torture people too. We deny rights to the poor and despised just like non-Democratic societies do. But we don’t take care of our people. For example, if you want to go to the doctor, better have a lot of money or health insurance. Not so in places like China, whom we criticize for being Communists.

Yes, Bush says that these people – the Syrians, Iranians, and North Koreans – are evil, and simply dismisses them. As far as our President is concerned, these three nations have no legitimate interests, no legitimate grievances against the United States, and that they are just naturally and illogically evil. End of discussion, thank you very much.

But how logical is it that an entire nation is just purely evil? Is that true? Can a nation be purely evil? Or is it possible that a nation is just afraid? I think we know fear in this country after the 9/11 attacks on our own World Trade Center. We certainly know what it’s like to live in fear. And because we live in fear and act out of that fear rather than on logic and reason and, heaven forbid, listening to others, many nations also consider our country evil. It’s hard to truly wrap our minds around who is really right? We may never know, but I bet there is no right and wrong here. I would argue there is just one side against another.

So how do we achieve peace in the Middle East? We start by listening. We start by trying to understand a culture that is so vastly different than our own that it’s just too easy to dismiss them as crazy. We must visit the Syrians just as Nancy Pelosi did several months ago. We must try to understand where our “enemies” are coming from. Then we can try to be understood. We can engage in a dialogue that is mutually beneficial instead of flexing our military muscle and brandishing our mighty swords in the faces of the other nations of the world. Although this approach might seem overly simplistic, we must understand that dialogue precedes positive action, that in order to get to positive action and positive relations, we must first engage in positive, constructive, and mutually respectful dialogue.

I am not arguing that our Middle Eastern brothers are or are not evil – they might be totally unreasonable. My point is that we will never know unless we engage them in diplomatic dialogue and seek first to understand before demanding that they understand us. After all, they view us with as much fear and hate as we view them.