Scope For Mediation In Hamas-Israel Conflict

The basic qualification of a mediator is that he or she should be independent and free of any tilts to one or the other side of the conflict. Mediators are expected to maintain impartiality towards the parties and the issues in dispute. Where the mediator’s impartiality is in question, the mediator is expected to decline to serve or withdraw from the case. Impartiality is, therefore, central to mediation as it directly affects the mediator’s ability to function as a mediator. Mediators should not display favoritism or bias towards any party or position taken by a party. Mediators should be committed to aid all parties involved in dispute in exploring possibilities and generating options for conflict resolution. 

These competencies like impartiality are important not for an individual mediator but apply to the legal state willing to offer good office of mediation to help resolve inter-state or international conflicts. The neutral and independent image of the state is essential for securing an acceptance and trust of the parties to conflict to execute the role of a mediator to assist in the settlement of the conflicts.  In the past, cities such as Geneva, Vienna, the Hague and Oslo basically in Europe had been chosen as the venues for negotiated settlement of the international conflicts or intra – state conflicts because of the neutral image of the respective states like Switzerland, Austria, and Norway in which these cities are located. 

New Shift

But today, situation has taken a new shift as the countries in the East have started to offer their good offices to assist in the negotiated settlement of the conflicts. Not very long back, China had performed the key role in brokering agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia and Iran reestablished diplomatic relations based on the talks held in Beijing. China has portrayed itself as the broker of the agreement and congratulated the two countries on their wisdom. Beijing is thus trying to maintain a delicate balance to position itself as a mediator and exert its influence in the Middle East. The continued U.S. support for Israel has given China an opportunity to expand its relationships with the dissatisfied Arab countries. As reported, China is also willing to help resolve the Hamas-Israel crisis in the Middle East to protect its economic interests.

Of late, Turkey has stepped forward as a potential mediator to end Hamas-Israel hostility. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan seems keen to promote Turkey as a global player and replicate its well acknowledged success in mediating between Ukraine and Russia to strike a deal for Ukraine to export grain. Turkey's President Tayyip Erdogan reached out to U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, among others, with renewed offer to mediate and soothe tensions between Israel and the Palestinians.  Erdogan claimed that Turkey's possible mediation efforts would help prevent increasing tensions in the conflict. Undoubtedly, Turkey has some credentials to claim it as it has been a reliable ally of Hamas. Not only this, it has normalised ties with Israel, more or less recognising the inviolability and existence of Israel.

Hamas attack on Israel and Israel’s retaliatory air raids on Gaza came on first week of October this year as Israel and Turkey were warming up ties after more than a decade of differences. Turkey has relations with Hamas, making it one of the few countries having influence with the group that has ruled Gaza since 2007.Turkey has not declared Hamas a terrorist organisation, though it has not been all supportive of its extremist acts. Turkish officials have acted on this advantage, seeing a central role for Turkey in resolving the latest Gaza conflict. Their immediate focus has been on getting humanitarian aid to civilians in Gaza and seeking the release of some 200 hostages taken by Hamas.

Turkey had relations with Israel for much of Israel’s history, until things hit a rough patch in 2010.That year, Israel killed nine Turks who were on board a Freedom Flotilla trying to deliver humanitarian aid to a besieged Gaza Strip. However, the soured relations were restored in 2016. Meanwhile, Israel passed a law declaring itself the nation-state of the Jewish people, which drew criticism from Erdogan. This has resulted in Erdogan being held in high regard by Palestinians. Nevertheless, Turkey started a regional rapprochement drive that saw it rebuilding bridges with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel.

Two-state solution

High level Turkish officials have been engaged with leaders across the region, and held phone calls with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh to soothe the ongoing war. Turkey is thus seeking to open the door for a permanent and comprehensive peace based on a two-state solution. Many Middle East analysts believe that Turkey is best placed to put forward a political framework that enables discussions on the future of Palestinians. What Turkey has advocated from the very beginning is that many problems, especially frozen conflicts, can be resolved peacefully and, therefore, a sustainable peace can be established.

The statements coming from the ministers of the Israel’s war cabinet indicate that the current conflict is fundamentally different than previous rounds of fighting between Israel and Hamas. Their rhetoric, including the use of never again in reference to the attack, the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust, indicates that the war is not likely to end soon. Israel government believes that Hamas represents an unbearable threat to the people of Israel. When hostility persists and the parties are bent on liquidating the enemy, there is limited scope for confrontation to settle through mediation efforts. Though it is positive that the countries such as Turkey and China offer their good offices to settle the conflicts, there is little scope for such efforts to bear fruits soon. 

(The author is presently associated with Policy Research Institute (PRI) as a senior research fellow.  rijalmukti@gmail.com)