The Evolution of Mediation: From Ancient Times to Present Day Israel and Palestine
Ancient Roots of a Modern Method
With the news of a potential new ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war mediation, I decided to examine the history of mediation, its intricacies, and science with the current Israel-Hamas war as a backdrop. Albeit longer than usual, this article explores the contingency model of mediation, the reasons parties’ resort to mediation from fighting, and why mediation succeeds or fails.
From the ancient courts of China to the assemblies of Greece and Rome, mediation has been a cornerstone of conflict resolution for centuries, proving its enduring value in promoting peace and social harmony. In seeking to establish the best methods for maintaining social harmony, these ancient peoples eventually developed mediation as one of their preferred approaches to managing conflicts.
A Brief History
As early as 4,000 BC, the historical record contains signs of mediation being practiced in Ancient China, reflecting the society’s commitment to harmony and peaceful coexistence. In ancient Greece, early third-party intervention known as a “proxenetas” facilitated negotiations and helped parties reach mutually acceptable agreements. The Roman civilization also acknowledged the utility of mediation, with Roman law recognizing the role of mediators in promoting reconciliation between conflicting parties. These historical instances illustrate the deep-rooted tradition and universal value of mediation for fostering peace and understanding across diverse civilizations.
The Contingency Model
Today, mediation is used as a step forward in resolving conflicts, particularly armed conflicts, where the stakes are high and tensions deep. Scholars often employ a framework known as the contingency model to understand mediation within armed conflicts, which provides a comprehensive lens for analyzing the structural factors and dynamics that shape the mediation process. Developed by Bercovitch and Jackson in 2000, this model delineates three key conditioning levels: initial conditions (context), current conditions (process), and consequent conditions (outcomes), each of which plays a significant role in shaping the trajectory and outcomes of mediation efforts.
1. Context:
At the initial conditions level, the conflict context includes various factors, such as the nature of the dispute, the identities and interests of the conflicting parties, and the role of the mediator. Understanding the underlying causes and dynamics of the conflict helps mediators devise effective strategies and interventions. The mediator's role greatly influences the mediation process, as their fairness, trustworthiness, and diplomatic skills significantly affect the parties’ willingness to discuss and compromise.
2. Process:
The progression of mediation involves analyzing the ongoing dynamics of the negotiation process, including the strategies used by both the mediator and the conflicting parties, the evolution of negotiation topics, and the level of cooperation or resistance encountered. Flexibility and adaptability are cornerstones of mutual agreement, as mediators may need to adjust their approach based on changing circumstances and emerging opportunities for dialogue and consensus-building.
3. Outcomes:
Ultimately, the success of mediation is measured by the durability of agreements, the satisfaction of involved parties, and the long-term implications for peace and stability. While reaching a formal agreement may represent a significant milestone, achieving sustained peace and reconciliation requires ongoing support and follow-up measures. These efforts help address underlying grievances and prevent a return to violence.
The contingency model further highlights the complex and multifaceted nature of mediation within armed conflicts, driving the need for mediators to adopt a holistic and nuanced approach to conflict resolution. By considering the interplay of structural factors and contextual dynamics, mediators can better navigate the complexities of the mediation process and encourage opportunities for constructive engagement and dialogue. In pursuit of this connection, the model emphasizes continuous assessment and adaptation as mediation efforts evolve in response to changing conditions and dynamics. Therefore, flexibility, creativity, and perseverance are essential qualities for mediators seeking to facilitate sustainable peace and reconciliation in conflict-affected contexts.
Implications for Mediation Practice:
In armed conflicts, mediation serves as one of several tools for peaceful conflict resolution. Unlike arbitration or military intervention, it is a voluntary, non-violent, and non-binding process facilitated by an external entity, be it a state, organization, or individual. This approach allows the involved parties to maintain control over both the process and its outcomes, distinguishing it from more coercive methods. Successful mediation also involves the intervention of an external actor, such as a mediator or a mediation team, who facilitates negotiations and assists parties in reaching mutually acceptable solutions. The mediator’s impartiality, communication skills, and ability to build trust are essential for creating an environment conducive to constructive dialogue and consensus-building.
Furthermore, mediation is tailored to the specific needs and dynamics of the conflict at hand, emphasizing flexibility and adaptability in addressing complex issues. Parties involved in mediation retain autonomy and are free to accept or reject proposals, guaranteeing that agreements are based on mutual consent and respect for each other’s interests.
As is to be expected, given the process's flexibility, mediation's success is not guaranteed. Lack of commitment from one or more parties, entrenched positions, or a fundamental power imbalance can impede progress and undermine the effectiveness of mediation efforts. Moreover, external factors like geopolitical rivalries, interference from third parties, or a lack of genuine willingness to compromise can further complicate the mediation process. The decision to engage in mediation arises when parties perceive the benefits outweigh the costs of continuing the conflict. Factors such as a mutually hurting stalemate, financial constraints, and civilian losses can compel parties to seek mediation to resolve the conflict. This can also be described as the moment of "Ripeness."
Ripeness and the Decision for Mediation
Ripeness, as argued by Bill Zartman, refers to the point at which parties perceive the costs of continued conflict to exceed the benefits, prompting them to seek alternative solutions. Adversaries may opt for mediation when they assess the chances of achieving a military victory as low and the costs of prolonged conflict, whether human or economic, as increasingly burdensome.
Mutually Hurting Stalemate (MHS) is a significant aspect of ripeness in conflict resolution. When both parties find themselves in a situation where neither can achieve a decisive victory without suffering substantial losses, they reach an MHS. This situation intensifies the perception of the costs of continued conflict, making mediation a more appealing option. The realization that the conflict has reached an MHS underscores the urgency for finding a resolution, as neither side can afford to continue the confrontation without incurring unacceptable damage.
The concept of ripeness, coupled with the recognition of Mutually Hurting Stalemate, highlights the circumstances in which adversaries will likely turn to mediation to resolve their conflicts. As the costs of ongoing confrontation rise and the chances of victory decrease, parties are more likely to seek negotiated settlements, making mediation an increasingly appealing option for achieving peace.
Mediation and the Israel-Hamas War
In the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict, Qatar, along with Egypt and the U.S., have attempted to secure a ceasefire and the release of hostages. Despite the challenges and complexities involved, Qatar’s links with all sides, including its hosting of Hamas’ political office, have been instrumental in mediation efforts thus far.
Since the mid-2000s, Qatar has emerged as a significant mediator in regional and intra-national conflicts across the Middle East and parts of Africa. Its reputation as an impartial mediator stems from successful conflict resolution efforts in Lebanon, Sudan, Yemen, and other regions. Motivated by a desire for prestige, regional stability, and strategic positioning, Qatar’s mediation efforts have garnered attention and praise on the international stage. In the current Israel-Hamas war, Qatar has acted as a central party to the mediation process, a relationship facilitated and made necessary by its status as hosting the Hamas political office since 2012, a request made by the United States and Israel.
Mediation proved to be a success in November 2023 when it secured a “humanitarian pause” permitting the release of dozens of hostages held in Gaza in exchange for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners and the flow of humanitarian aid into the shattered coastal strip. Another deal was brokered in January of the same year by Qatar and France to deliver urgent medication to forty-five Israeli hostages held by Hamas in Gaza in return for humanitarian and medical aid for the most vulnerable civilians. However, since then, further hostage-release deals have appeared to stagnate.
Despite international efforts to encourage dialogue and negotiation, both parties seem to believe they can achieve their goals through military force or other unilateral action, rendering the conflict “unripe” for resolution. Hamas benefits from perpetuating the conflict, as they see no point in achieving a ceasefire in a no longer governable Gaza, and leaders would rather push forward, secure in the knowledge they have nothing left to lose.
For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, achieving a “victory” through rescuing the hostages is paramount to his tenure as Prime Minister, especially after the massive security and intelligence failure that allowed Hamas to commit the October 7 attack. However, the relentless bombardment of Gaza effectively places the hostages at increased risk, not to mention the Palestinian citizens, and risks backfiring on the Israeli Premier.
The concept of a “mutual hurting stalemate” (MHS), in which both sides suffer but neither can achieve a decisive victory, is perhaps an understatement in the context of this conflict. However, the parties involved either deny this reality or are unwilling to yield to it, undermining the potential for negotiated solutions. The principle of ripeness suggests that parties are only willing to negotiate when they perceive a way out of the conflict. Unfortunately, in the Israel-Hamas context, the absence of a viable alternative to military action or unilateral measures seems to prevent the conflict from ripening to the point of mediatory breakthrough.
Efforts to promote ripeness in the conflict require creating a tangible path toward a resolution that addresses the core grievances of both sides. This may involve challenging Hamas’ current state of having nothing left to lose and Netanyahu’s fragile tenure as Prime Minister given the gravity of the security and intelligence failure of Oct. 7, altering the perception of both parties’ Best Alternatives to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) by demonstrating the benefits of negotiation over continued conflict.
Overall, the Israel-Hamas conflict presents significant challenges to achieving ripeness and resolving the conflict peacefully, highlighting the need for innovative approaches and sustained international engagement.
Fostering Hope through Continued Engagement
As global conflicts persist and evolve, mediation remains a potent conflict resolution mechanism for fostering peace and reconciliation in our increasingly interconnected and technologically advanced world. From its ancient origins to its contemporary use in resolving armed conflicts, mediation has consistently proven its relevance and effectiveness. Yet, in the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict, the absence of ripe conditions coupled with inflexible viewpoints create formidable barriers to negotiated resolutions. Overcoming these challenges demands innovative strategies and sustained international involvement to address the underlying grievances of both parties and pave a clear path toward coexistence and peace. Despite these hurdles, mediation offers hope in easing tensions, empowering conflicting parties, and ultimately finding mutually beneficial solutions to some of our most devastating global conflicts.