Peace talks are an intricate dance of steps often choreographed by third-party mediators among conflicting parties who gradually exchange war for peace. But despite their best efforts to alleviate information asymmetry and commitment problems, it is rarely possible for adversaries to reach an agreement that would satisfy both sides (Fetscher 2010; Darby 2001).
In the case of Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, US presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton and Israeli prime ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert had tried to craft a tenable solution that would satisfy both sides’ demands, including the creation of an independent Palestinian state, but the effort failed. This failure underscored the fundamental premise that peacemaking requires concessions on both sides, something that both leaders did not feel willing to do.
More recently, foreign ministers of the EU 27, Israel and the Palestinian Authority met in January 2019 at the UN to discuss the future of a two-state solution, but it remains unclear whether this process will succeed. The fact that many conflicts are fought under the banner of identity means that positions at the negotiation table may be irreconcilable.
Consequently, there is increased interest in how to expand the space for dialogue and collaboration around these issues, with greater emphasis on inclusiveness. However, who is included, how and when is important, because it affects the power dynamics at play in a negotiation. Moreover, how these power dynamics are understood determines whether a mediation effort will succeed.
About the Author
