Israel-Hamas War: A Lesson in the Complexities of Negotiation
The one-year mark since the start of the Israel-Hamas war on October 7th is fast approaching. The war has captivated global attention for many reasons, including the terrible destruction it has already caused, and the potential disastrous repercussions it could have on the region and international community. As the conflict continuesly unfolds, negotiations to end it showcase some important complexities and nuances of negotiation, especially when multiple stakeholders with diverse interests are involved.
Who is really sitting at the table?
The obvious players at the cease-fire negotiation table might seem like Israel and Hamas, but the reality is far more intricate. Each side is supported by greater powers- namely the United States and Iran, each with their own agendas in the region- and the war is only one piece in a wider struggle over world order that includes Russia and China. Prominent mediators in the negotiation- such as Qatar and Egypt, each bring their own set of interests into the mix. Though mediators are often assumed to be impartial, the source of authority of these two players actually stems from a deep involvement in the conflict, including actions that directly contributed to the buildup of tensions that led to its eruption on October 7th.
Aside from Hamas, Iran’s proxies in the region- namely Hezbollah in Lebanon and The Houthis in Yemen, have also tied their fate and actions with the Gaza war, adding to the exchange of hostilities and further complicating the map of interests. And we have not even begun to discuss the role of countries such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia - the latter having come remarkably close to sealing a historical trilateral deal with Israel and the US, which arguably served as the “Franz Ferdinand” moment that sparked the outbreak of current hostilities.
An additional layer of complexity can be found within the negotiating parties - for example, the interests and positions of Hamas’ political wing outside of Gaza, who is the supposed representative of the organisation in official talks, have not always overlapped with those of its military leadership, which is predominantly assumed to remain hiding in Gaza’s underground tunnels and with whom communication is complicated and patchy. Yet it is the military leadership that is often considered to hold true authority on decision-making, moreso now than ever before following the assassination of Ismail Hanyeh. And we have not even begun to discuss the tension between the interests of the Palestinian Authority headed by Mahmoud Abbas and those of Hamas.
Moreover, individual leaders, such as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, navigate personal and political pressures that significantly shape the negotiation process. Though Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, the most right-wing members of Netanyahu’s coalition, are not physically present at the negotiation table, and have even been excluded from Israel’s senior War Cabinet, it often seems like their threats to disband Netanyahu’s coalition carry very heavy weight in decisions made within negotiations.
This serves as a reminder that those physically sitting at the negotiation table do not necessarily represent the full spectrum of those effectively pulling the strings and calling the shots.
Those who call the shots are not the ones who pay the price
Decisions made in the negotiation between Israel and Hamas have critical implications for the lives of millions of men, women, and children in the region. The first to be impacted are of course Israeli and Palestinian civilians, but the outcomes of the war have had ripple effects not only in neighbouring countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Syria, but on diaspora communities in Europe and the United States.
It is an interesting hypothesis to pursue, that the stronger the democratic constraints on leadership, the better the interests of its constituents are represented. But whether that is true or not, both leaderships have come under sharp criticism for misrepresenting the interests of their public and pursuing personal interests or megalomeniac plans to the detriment of the broader population's welfare. What has become very clear in this conflict is that the prices for words spoken in a conference room in Doha are often paid with a heavy premium in the streets of Gaza and the towns of Israel. Indeed it is even paid in changing voting patterns worldwide, and in antisemitic and anti-Palestinian attacks on uninvolved civilians thousands of miles away from the conflict.
Did they say “Yes”? Did they say “No”?
Whether a person said “yes” or “no” should be an easy enough question. But in the Israel-Hamas case, both sides have accused each other of spoiling agreements, and rejecting proposed drafts that the other side claims to have accepted. A high level of mistrust, fragmented multi-party communications, and potentially a deliberate intent on both sides to take advantage of the Fog of War to shirk responsibility, have led to repeated wrangling around whether each party has accepted or rejected proposed solutions.
To complicate matters further, views have not only differed around whether sides have said “yes” or “no”, but on what the proposal being discussed actually is, and what the correct interpretation of that proposal should be.
A good example of this happened in May, when Hamas claimed to have agreed to a cease-fire draft presented to them, only to be accused by Israel of foul play, as the proposal they agreed to was different to that put forward by Israel. Egypt was accused of secretly altering the terms of the ceasefire and hostage-release agreement, claims it vehemently denied.
The Missing Voices of Women
A striking aspect of this conflict is the glaring absence of women in decision-making roles. The absence of female perspectives in negotiations and peace talks has been proven to lead to narrow, militaristic approaches that overlook broader societal impacts. The prolonged nature of the conflict and its potential to escalate into a regional crisis are clear indicators of the urgency of diverse voices around the negotiation table, including the voice of women,in hopes of finding new pathways to peace and stability. It has long been established that active participation of women in conflict resolution leads to agreements that address a wider spectrum of perspectives and community needs, thus contributing to more successful and sustainable conflict resolution. And yet, on both sides there are no women included in the high-profile negotiations around a cease-fire and hostage release. There are also little to no women in key leadership positions on both sides.
To conclude, the title “Israel-Hamas war” hides behind it multiple layers of conflicted interests and offers a sobering reminder of the complexities of negotiation. It demonstrates the need to understand the interests and positions of multiple players - some less visible than others, and the grave prices to be paid by millions of people who enjoy little to no representation in current negotiations. Most urgently - it is a harsh reminder of the dire need of more women around decision-making tables, and the devastating price of their absence.
See you next post!
Yasmine Guerin
Founder of Negotiatress
Kommentare