The academic study of conflict dates back to the German philosopher Georg Simmel. Among his contributions was to assert for the first time that both harmony and conflict are natural and occur in groups and unable to change as a result. Years later the American Lewis Coser developed Simmel’s ideas into a series of propositions.

Among Coser’s observations suggests the absence of conflict is not an index of the strength of a relationship and that disagreements involving close relationships was likely to be more intense. After all, we only engage in passionate points of views with those we care about.

On a societal level, Coser observed that conflict defines the boundaries of groups and that clashes with outsiders energerizes members. Think of organizations that conduct “competitions” with other departments to motivate colleagues to work harder.

Coser also observes how conflict between groups can lead to intolerance within, as in “you’re either with us or against us.” Coser says leaders may engage in what he called “a search for enemies’ to bring a group together, solidify their identity, and motivate them to be intolerant of outsiders.” There have been too many examples of leaders who engaged in a search for enemies to build a solid group of loyal followers.

Are the destructive consequences of leaders who search for enemies unavoidable? One participant remarked it may require a World War or alien invasion to unite a society torn apart by such ideology.

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?