Qatar has served as a mediator throughout the Israel-Hamas hostage situation.

In the past, Qatar has doen the same tied to regional conflicts involving Yemen in 2007, Lebanon in 2008, the U.S. and Taliban in Afghanistan, and even for some limited exchanges between Ukraine and Russia. Qatar is following the tradition of small states, which have acted as neutral intermediaries and mediators. For example, Small Singapore served as venue for talks between China and Taiwan in 2015 and between the U.S. and North Korea in 2018. Similarly, Norway has acted as a mediator for decades.

Some scholars have argued the small states actually have an advantage to act as mediators. Their neutrality makes them non-threatening and they are better suited to build networks. And, it can be argued their neutrality provides a unique type of power far greater than their size would suggest.

But to be effective they must maintain the perception of neutrality. Recently some U.S. Congress members have raised objections to Qatar allowing Hamas to have their current headquarters in Qatar, though Qatar was originally arranged at the request of the Obama administration. In fact, Qatar provided cash payments to Hamas for the administration of Gaza with Israel’s blessing.

The fundamental question is whether a party can give sanctuary or support to one side or does losing the perception of being neutral disqualify one as being impartial. Strictly speaking, the answer is Qatar cannot be an effective mediator, but Qatar has been the only party able to bring the hostages home.

Do we need to reconsider the strict definition of neutrality?

I’ve been asked several times why politicians don’t use mediation as a way to resolve different points of view.

To address this, I remind people the words we choose provides insight into thought and values. I then ask them to avoid thinking about the content of political speech, but instead of the words themselves, and for a moment think of politicians as a species for study.

The result? Politicians start their careers by “winning” a competitive “race.” During their campaign their progress is gauged by “how many points” they are “ahead” of their “opponent.” Politicians say they are going “to fight” for us. A good politician is a strong “fighter.” In fact, some mght even remind us we’re going to become tired of “winning.”

Their language tells us that today successful politicians view themselves as competitors in a series of win-lose combats. Politcal adversaries with this perspective don’t engage in mediation because they see compromise as a weakness and a good politician never admits defeat.

So this raises the question whether or not we want our politicians to compromise or hold firm. Some psychologists argue we perceive consistency as a core trait of leadership—that a politician who “waivers” is soft and uncommited.

Perhaps we should consider the reason politicians don’t compromise is because to be elected they must position themselves as contenders who won’t reliquent their positions and that we play a part in projecting such expectations to influence these hardline stances on both sides of the political spectrum.