SUPPORT ETHIOPIA INSIGHT
A dangerous slogan is disarming Tigrayans in the face of renewed threats.
In the political theatre of post-war Ethiopia, where slogans often replace substance, one particular mantra has gained traction with unnerving speed: “Us for Peace vs You for War.” At face value, it might seem like a noble call for reconciliation. But beneath its pacifist veneer lies a calculated campaign to disarm, demoralize, and ultimately dismantle Tigray’s capacity for self-defense and survival.
Tigrayans who echo this slogan are in effect acting against the interests of their own people by aligning themselves with Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s singular goal: Subjugating Tigray.
Far from a genuine pursuit of peace, this narrative functions as a political cudgel—used to shame dissenters, delegitimize resistance, and suppress any organized pushback against Abiy’s authoritarian ambitions. Worse still, it positions those who demand accountability and justice as warmongers, while granting moral high ground to those calling for surrender.
Authoritarian Playbook
Abiy has shown his hand. The war on Tigray was never a misstep or an overreaction; it was an orchestrated attempt to annihilate Tigray as a political and cultural entity. His refusal to implement core provisions of the Pretoria Agreement—chief among them, the return of displaced persons, withdrawal of occupying non-ENDF forces, restoration of constitutionally recognized territories and the prosecution of war crimes—makes his intentions unmistakable.
This is not a man atoning for past atrocities. It is a ruler preparing for the next phase of repression.
Millions remain in limbo—displaced, sick, and traumatized. Occupiers entrench themselves in Tigray’s constitutionally recognized territories, publicly announcing their annexation on state media with the silent consent of the federal government. The perpetrators of mass atrocities roam free. And Abiy continues to flaunt military power, gloating as institutions in Tigray falter under siege.
He publicly threatens even greater destruction and massacre in the next war, presenting submission as the only alternative. Every indication, from troop movements to inflammatory rhetoric, points toward renewed war. To call this peace is to call silence freedom.
Tigray has waited. It has shown patience, restraint, and a willingness to engage. That patience has been repaid with betrayal. The so-called peace dividends have come not in the form of medicine, aid, or reconstruction—but in continued blockades, punitive neglect, and a regime actively plotting Tigray’s internal disintegration.
When Ethiopia’s military chief, Field Marshal Berhanu Jula, publicly encouraged Tigray to secede, it was not a gesture of tolerance. It was a sneer—a calculated insult delivered with the confidence of a man who knows the system will back him. In that statement, the regime’s true position became impossible to ignore: Ethiopia wants the land, not the people.
Strategic Realism
In such a landscape, Tigray must abandon naïve hopes of salvation from the same state apparatus that orchestrated its devastation. If survival is the goal, then strategic partnerships—not slogans—must guide the way forward.
Efforts to re-establish ties with Eritrea, while controversial, reflect this realism. The enemy of one’s enemy may not be a friend, but in a world where existential threats loom, pragmatism must trump emotionalism. Eritrea’s silence toward Tigray, in contrast to Ethiopia’s continued hostilities, signals a possible—if cautious—reorientation. The temperature of past enmity appears to be cooling.
Critics argue that aligning with a former adversary is a betrayal of justice. But that logic collapses under scrutiny. Eritrea was brought into the war by Abiy; the atrocities committed occurred under a joint offensive. If Tigray is to reject dialogue with Eritrea on that basis, then what explains the willingness of some Tigrayans to work with, or echo, the very government that masterminded the assault?
The greatest danger posed by the “Us for Peace vs You for War” slogan is not merely rhetorical—it’s psychological. It breeds division, weakens resolve, and shames Tigrayans into passivity. It equates self-defense with aggression and submission with wisdom. Those who accept it do so at the cost of preparedness, unity, and strategic clarity.
This false dichotomy serves only one side: Abiy’s. His regime continues to militarize, to block aid, to infiltrate Tigray’s politics, and to spread propaganda with chilling efficiency. In the meantime, the slogan sedates public discourse, numbs outrage, and keeps the people unarmed in every sense of the word—mentally, logistically, and politically.
Clarity Required
The choice facing Tigray is brutally simple. On one path lies surrender: relinquishing self-rule, abandoning occupied territories, and leaving millions in permanent displacement. On the other lies resistance—not blind militancy, but strategic, multidimensional resistance encompassing diplomacy, logistics, media, and, if necessary, military defense.
Real peace cannot be decreed by those who violate every principle of justice. It must be built on strength, accountability, and mutual recognition. And in today’s Ethiopia, none of those conditions are being met. Abiy’s regime offers only impunity for the powerful and suffocation for the weak.
Until justice is restored, until the displaced return home, and until Tigray’s rights are respected, the pursuit of peace must be matched by the preparation for survival.
The people of Tigray must reject slogans designed to shame them into submission. The moral high ground does not lie with those calling for surrender in the face of annihilation. It lies with those willing to secure their future through clear-eyed realism, unity, and strategic action.
There is no peace to be made with a regime preparing for war. And there is no dignity in disarming while the enemy reloads.
Only then can we raise a flag not just as a symbol, but as a promise: that this time, independence will mean freedom—not from others, but for ourselves.
Query or correction? Email us
While this commentary contains the author’s opinions, Ethiopia Insight will correct factual errors.
Main photo: Tigrayan IDPs staging a protest in their fifth year of displacement, still living in makeshift camps, Mekelle. January 2025. Source: Laza Tigrigna
Published under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence. You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
Pretoria agreement stopped the shooting (silencing the guns, they called it). However, it is obvious that Abiy shows no inclination to implement the political agreements. Abiy’s and the Amharas war on Tigray was driven by their obsession against TPLF. The Amharas planned and carried out ethnic cleansing of Tigray people, with no intention, no hope, to return the displaced people back to their homes in western and south Tigray.
Returning displaced Tigray people to their homes would require using federal forces to implement. Abiy is Amhara on one side of his lineage, and for that reason it is doubtful that Abiy would use military force against the Amharas, his wartime allies, to benefit Tigray people. For many that is unthinkable.
The political situation feels like there is Ethiopia, and then there is Tigray. At the moment Tigray is like a captive region, still under siege in many ways, dependent on whatever little relief Abiy wishes to dispense to the region. Abiy’s aim is a subjugated and obedient Tigray. I wonder if Getachew Reda can find other wiser people in Addis to persuade Abiy to overcome his vindictiveness towards Tigray.
Powerful and truthful analysis by Gidey Amare. This “peace” they preach is nothing but surrender in disguise, while Tigray bleeds and its promises remain broken. The occupation, displacement, and injustice continue because the Pretoria Agreement is treated like empty paper. We will not bow to propaganda meant to weaken our spirit. As the author rightly says, survival demands unity, resilience, and defiance. Tigray will never accept a hollow peace.
“The enemy of one’s enemy may not be a friend, but in a world where existential threats loom, pragmatism must trump emotionalism.”
In the last 5+ years, Tigray has faced unprecedented threat to its survival. Any choice taken hereafter is not a matter of luxury or choice but a forced last resort necessary for its survival. Those who played various roles on the destruction of property and genocide on Tigray have no moral ground to speak on the type of choices Tigrayans make.
As Dr Gidey clearly articulated, Tigrayans have no interest in war, but when it is forced on them, it’s their natural right to defend for the sake of their survival.
Eritrea was not invited to the Tigray genocidal war but it was the main actor behind the Tigray war.The Eritrean regime had to revenge the 1998-2000 losses which he believes were perpetrated on the Eritrean by the then Ethiopian leadership lead by pm Meles Zenawi.
Dr. Gidey, I couldn’t have written an article as insightful and clear in its vision for Tigray. For those who truly want the best for Tigray, now is the time to stand together. Thank you for speaking on behalf of all Tigaru who are silently dying.
To me, this kind of Tigray exceptionalism is the reason why Tigray is now in a difficult situation. First, TPLF took the land from Amhara in Raya and Wolkaite after it took power in 1991. When Amhara restored its land TPLF should have negotiated with Amhara rather than demand restoration through the Federal Government. This Fed is the creation of TPLF divide and rule strategy so it is naive to expect land restoration while Abiye is in power. The only smart way to do is to return the displaced people back to their home and work for peace and development with the neighborly Amhara people. Don’t keep the people hostage for TPLF’s loot.