A Crisis Management Approach to the Conflict in the Middle East

In 2023, I gave an interview to Cinco Radio Puebla, Mexico, on ways we could try to find innovative solutions to the Israeli and Palestinian conflict. The following is a summary of my analysis to move the peace agenda forward.

First, as a journalist and later in my field of crisis management, I have followed closely for many years this conflict that has brought so much suffering and pain to people in the Middle East. As a journalist for five years, I held public radio debates on 3ZZZ Community Radio between representatives of the PLO in Australia and former spokespeople for the Israeli military. As a Crisis Management practitioner, I have analysed different scenarios that could be implemented to move the peace agenda forward.

I am persuaded that the Middle East crisis could be faced using crisis management principles.

1.    Legitimate mediators: This principle requires maintaining a healthy distance from people who are politically invested in the crisis and who have high personal stakes in maintaining the status quo. All negotiators must be driven, as a prerequisite, by public good rather than personal motives. The negotiators must be part of the solution, not the problem. From this perspective, we can clearly assess that most of the current actors—whether from Israel, the Gaza Strip, or the West Bank and elsewhere—are part of the problem, not the solution. They have turned the conflict into a source of political capital, where the state of crisis keeps them in positions of power and authority. So, if they won’t help resolve the problem, who can? We must identify other mediators: credible, legitimate, and lawful interlocutors. To achieve this goal, we may need to create a legitimacy framework to identify and elect mediators via plebiscites or referendums. Their sole purpose would be to find medium- and long-term solutions to the conflict, and they would be invested with the legal authority to implement the agreements reached in the negotiating process.

2.     Halo Effect: It would be preferable to have mediators who enyoyed already a wide recognition in the middle east and who may not encounter strong resistance from people involved in the negotiating process. It could include people with credibility credentials like those gained by former negotiators such as: Uri Savir, Tzipi Livni, Ahmed Qurei (Abu Ala), the late Saeb Erekat, Aaron David Miller, and Hanan Ashrawi. These mediators must, obviously, remain above their own countries' political factions that may not have an interest in implementing the solutions they propose.

3.     Building Trust: These new mediators must identify steps to build trust between both sides—a process that must be handled carefully and sensitively, given the deeply damaged foundation. The mediators must have an intrinsic respect for each other, gained through an understanding of their intentions beyond short-term political gains.

4.     Public Hearings on the Suffering Inflicted: There will be no long-term solution without understanding the human pain this conflict is inflicting on both sides. Initially, no negotiations on substantive issues or disarmament can occur until this bridge of trust is built and an understanding of the human impact of this conflict is publicly shared. It must be a solid bridge, with a clear understanding on both sides of how to reduce people's suffering and the fear coming from a state of constant insecurity. There are strong ties between communities in both societies—within the conflict zones—that can serve as a foundation for progress.

The above principles will take time to implement, but so much time has already been wasted. Once again, we must break the cycle of violence. There must be a halt to this cycle of violence and hatred. And this can only happen if we start with different mediators. Let’s give this proposal a go.

---